Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia Law

Pompey Magnus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

I had to double check its not April 1st today, a leading member of the British religious community claiming that religious people should not have to follow the laws of the land is incredible. He mentions Muslims but of course should the precedent be set the floodgates will open and Christians will be getting in on the act too. To me his comments seem entirely inappropriate and poorly judged, as well as a threat to secular society. Is there any wonder why English people see Christianity as being increasingly irrelevant when you have comments like this coming from their leaders?

KIVES

If the comments had been attributed to Rowan Atkinson, well I'd understand...maybe put it down to the promotion of some new show or other..but the Leader of the Church of England..And the worse part about it was that I wasn't terribly surprised - It's just another example of the political correctness avalanche sweeping all in it's path...it'd be comic if it weren't so serious a subject

eoin5

Maybe hes encouraging people to try to absorb each others understanding of the world? Probably not

EamonnKeane

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion

:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the UK allows parties to settle disputes using any agreed legal system.

If one party does not consider the suggested legal system acceptable, then both parties must use common law.

All criminal matters are prosecuted by the Crown, so only common law can be used in criminal cases.

It's a perfectly sensible suggestion that would allow two consenting parties to use Sharia law for disputes between them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

Scofflaw wrote: »

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the UK allows parties to settle disputes using any agreed legal system.

If one party does not consider the suggested legal system acceptable, then both parties must use common law.

All criminal matters are prosecuted by the Crown, so only common law can be used in criminal cases.

It's a perfectly sensible suggestion that would allow two consenting parties to use Sharia law for disputes between them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you would be happy enough to allow the custody of children following a divorce case or a woman's inheritance following the death of a parent be decided by a Sharia Court (which the European Commission for Human Rights described as being incompatable with the "fundamental principles of democracy"), a court made up entirely of men, men who are prominent members of a faith which is unquestionably male biased and prides itself in keeping its women virtuous by hiding them behind veils?

The law is there to protect everybody, men, women and children. Once both parties agree to use a Sharia court the decision of the court will be binding by English Law, even if the decision is contrary to the law. I don't believe that the weaker members of the Muslim community, primarily women, will have much say in whether or not they go down the Sharia route or the traditional route and will be denied the protection afforded to them by the State because of this. This is why certain Islamic womens groups like "Women Living under Islamic Laws" have denounced the proposal.

We have already seen one English bishop describe no-go areas for non Muslims in the country, to decide that appeasement is the best option to go down and let them have their own legal system in these enclaves will not aid social cohesion at all, it will further fragment the population.

Zillah

I would like to know which aspects he is referring to. I don't remember the specifics but I remember Sharia divorce law being amazingly progressive compared to the rest.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

I disagree. One should integrate with the nation one lives in or find another. Its ridiculous to demand the rights provided by a state while not respecting the laws that provide those rights.

Dades

Archbishop wrote:

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

It sounds to me like they already can't control what goes within those communities - so that makes it right to allow a seperate legal system for that community? Legalise kangaroo courts as they'll be used anyway?

Zillah wrote: »

Its ridiculous to demand the rights provided by a state while not respecting the laws that provide those rights.

Absolutely right.

The idea a "cultural" group should be allowed a different legal system in a democracy is a farce as far as I'm concerned. A step backwards.

pH

I don't really see what's wrong with this.

If two people have a civil dispute and they both agree in the choice of a third party to resolve that dispute or make a judgement then why not? Whether the third party is a muslin court or a Jedi council what's the harm as long as both parties agree to be bound by the judgement?

Given that both parties are in dispute it's less likely that one could be compelled to go to a particular court - and if both parties do not agree then there is always the existing civil disputes system.

So I wouldn't really call it Shariah Law, more like Shariah dispute resolution, and as long as any 2 parties had the option to choose an independent body or person to make a judgement then I think it's fine.

This is why certain Islamic womens groups like "Women Living under Islamic Laws" have denounced the proposal.

They haven't thought this through ... they should offer their services as a 'shariah court', giving Muslim women who want an Islamic decision the option of them forming a court and making the judgement. So you could have a very "woman-friendly" "islamic court" sitting. The man would prefer the group of bearded Imams? I bet be would, the woman prefers the Islamic woman's court for the judgement - remember they have to agree or the default is the current civil system.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they have rabbinical councils in america don't they? Makes me a tad uncomfortable, but if it doesn't destroy the very fabric of western society.. then go for it.

Pompey Magnus

pH wrote: »

I don't really see what's wrong with this.

If two people have a civil dispute and they both agree in the choice of a third party to resolve that dispute or make a judgement then why not? Whether the third party is a muslin court or a Jedi council what's the harm as long as both parties agree to be bound by the judgement?

Given that both parties are in dispute it's less likely that one could be compelled to go to a particular court - and if both parties do not agree then there is always the existing civil disputes system.

I guess you have more faith in the freedom of women in an Islamic fundamentalist family to make decisions such as this than I do. I can easily envisage a woman who has been taught to be submissive since childhood being coerced into following the Sharia route by a dominant male figure who can assume an advantage in this court.

As it stands today any UK citizen can settle out of court, including Muslims using Sharia, and if one party is unhappy with the judgement then the law offers them the protection of being able to take their case to a real court. This protection will be lost should Williams get his way because under UK law the case will already have been judged on by a "real" court, even if the decision is completely contrary to UK law.

They haven't thought this through ... they should offer their services as a 'shariah court', giving Muslim women who want an Islamic decision the option of them forming a court and making the judgement. So you could have a very "woman-friendly" "islamic court" sitting. The man would prefer the group of bearded Imams? I bet be would, the woman prefers the Islamic woman's court for the judgement - remember they have to agree or the default is the current civil system.

I'm no expert on this but I was under the impression that a Sharia court was precisely a group of bearded imams. I may be wrong but I have never heard of women making judgements in a Sharia Court.

pH

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I guess you have more faith in the freedom of women in an Islamic fundamentalist family to make decisions such as this than I do. I can easily envisage a woman who has been taught to be submissive since childhood being coerced into following the Sharia route by a dominant male figure who can assume an advantage in this court.

In this instance both parties are in dispute, they hate each other they're going legal. If one of the parties is so submissive then the other party would just get their way in any case.

I'm no expert on this but I was under the impression that a Sharia court was precisely a group of bearded imams. I may be wrong but I have never heard of women making judgements in a Sharia Court.

But you're missing the point. If any 2 parties are free to allow an agreed on third party adjudicate on their dispute then there would be absolutely nothing stopping a group of female Muslims setting up their own Shariah court and making judgements based on their interpretations of the Koran.

The point here is that Shariah law is no more special than Jedi law or any other law. And within 'sharia law' there would be no special rights for any certain group of 'judges', anyone would be allowed volunteer as an arbiter, and as long as both parties agreed in the choice then that person/group or system would be free to make legally binding decisions - within the context of civil dispute resolution.

Pompey Magnus

pH wrote: »

But you're missing the point. If any 2 parties are free to allow an agreed on third party adjudicate on their dispute then there would be absolutely nothing stopping a group of female Muslims setting up their own Shariah court and making judgements based on their interpretations of the Koran.

The point here is that Shariah law is no more special than Jedi law or any other law. And within 'sharia law' there would be no special rights for any certain group of 'judges', anyone would be allowed volunteer as an arbiter, and as long as both parties agreed in the choice then that person/group or system would be free to make legally binding decisions - within the context of civil dispute resolution.

They certainly could set up their own Women's Sharia Court but I would assume that these women's court would not have the same legal status that the traditional Sharia Courts would have if they official UK courts, they would have the status that Sharia courts have today and would be able to make "Out of Court" judgements but should Williams get his way the traditional male biased Sharia courts would be a superior court system to this and would be able to deal out enforceable law. As well as that I doubt they would get anywhere near enough support from the Islamic community to be a viable option.

PDN

pH wrote: »

In this instance both parties are in dispute, they hate each other they're going legal. If one of the parties is so submissive then the other party would just get their way in any case.



But you're missing the point. If any 2 parties are free to allow an agreed on third party adjudicate on their dispute then there would be absolutely nothing stopping a group of female Muslims setting up their own Shariah court and making judgements based on their interpretations of the Koran.

The point here is that Shariah law is no more special than Jedi law or any other law. And within 'sharia law' there would be no special rights for any certain group of 'judges', anyone would be allowed volunteer as an arbiter, and as long as both parties agreed in the choice then that person/group or system would be free to make legally binding decisions - within the context of civil dispute resolution.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that providing 2 people voluntarily submit to the court in question (and providing there is no contravention of existing civil law and that the rights of the vulnerable or children are protected) that this should work OK. So what the Archbishop is proposing is essentially no different to people agreeing to appear on Judge Judy and to be bound by her somewhat idiosyncratic style of justice?

Rev Hellfire

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

should Williams get his way the traditional male biased Sharia courts would be a superior court system to this and would be able to deal out enforceable law.

Perhaps you'd care to show us where he has actually called for Sharia courts?
What he has said is that certain aspects of Sharia law may be introduced.
This seems perfectly reasonable since our laws are a reflection of society and the values that we hold. With number of Muslims (and people from Islamic territories) on the rise it makes sense that they will shape society as a whole and the laws it imposes to provide order onto itself.

niceonetom

pH wrote: »

In this instance both parties are in dispute, they hate each other they're going legal. If one of the parties is so submissive then the other party would just get their way in any case.

but in a civil court a submissive acquiescent person at least has the opportunity to have their interests represented by a solicitor, who won't be under the same 'cultural' pressure.

pH wrote: »

But you're missing the point. If any 2 parties are free to allow an agreed on third party adjudicate on their dispute then there would be absolutely nothing stopping a group of female Muslims setting up their own Shariah court and making judgements based on their interpretations of the Koran.

possible? sure. likely? not even slightly. what kind of pressures do you imagine are exerted upon young girls in hardline muslim groups? i could call you naive, but maybe you're just very idealistic. we're talking about areas of the uk where forced marriage to 1st cousins is very common, beatings and even rape are seen by many as a suitable punishment for wayward daughters, and honour killing are not rare. this is not a 'culture' that should be tolerated, yet alone allowed to legitimate itself within the legal system.

the laws we live under define the rights we have.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that providing 2 people voluntarily submit to the court in question (and providing there is no contravention of existing civil law and that the rights of the vulnerable or children are protected) that this should work OK. So what the Archbishop is proposing is essentially no different to people agreeing to appear on Judge Judy and to be bound by her somewhat idiosyncratic style of justice?

What he's saying is this,naturally though from a Islamic perspective.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to show us where he has actually called for Sharia courts?
What he has said is that certain aspects of Sharia law may be introduced.

While I thought the thread title was somewhat tabloid, on reading the article is seems he is in fact in favour of the idea of certain aspects of Sharia law being used.

PDN

Rowan Williams is a really intellectual guy, but just like the Pope, he seems incredibly naive when it comes to making public pronouncements. This suggestion, irrespective of whether it actually has merit or not, was always going to be misrepresented by the tabloids, Sky News, the Conservatives, and by a crowd pleasing Prime Minister.

I recently was asked to serve on a trial board in the UK for a minister in my denomination who had (allegedly) been misusing funds. In the event it was all cancelled because he wanted to go through the civil courts and a trial board is, quite rightly, trumped by civil law. However, if the minister concerned had agreed to be bound by the decision of the trial board, then presumably that is a situation, already permitted by British law, that would not appear to be much different to what Rowan Williams was suggesting. Doesn't the Church of England already have ecclesiastical courts?

Dades

How do you enforce a decision from a different court system? It seems odd to have the police of the state enforcing decisions made outside the laws of it.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I guess you have more faith in the freedom of women in an Islamic fundamentalist family to make decisions such as this than I do. I can easily envisage a woman who has been taught to be submissive since childhood being coerced into following the Sharia route by a dominant male figure who can assume an advantage in this court.

I accept that as a fair point, but it would have to be the woman's own family that are applying the pressure. Otherwise, if the woman in a divorce can be bullied by her husband into accepting Sharia law for the arbitration, she will bullied in whatever system of arbitration is used (indeed, it would be rather surprising that she would be seeking a divorce).

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As it stands today any UK citizen can settle out of court, including Muslims using Sharia, and if one party is unhappy with the judgement then the law offers them the protection of being able to take their case to a real court. This protection will be lost should Williams get his way because under UK law the case will already have been judged on by a "real" court, even if the decision is completely contrary to UK law.

Er, so? If you agree to be bound by Sharia law, then you're agreeing to use that system of law in the arbitration - and the other way round, if you agree to use Sharia law as the system of arbitration, you agree to be bound by the results. The Sharia court, if agreed by both parties, is the real court.

Your comment there prejudges Sharia law courts as not "real" courts. You're welcome to back up that assumption, but if you can't show why Sharia law is not "real law", you shouldn't make that assumption.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm no expert on this but I was under the impression that a Sharia court was precisely a group of bearded imams. I may be wrong but I have never heard of women making judgements in a Sharia Court.

And until recently in what you are pleased to call the "real" courts, it was always a bloke in a wig. There are still relatively few female judges. Unless it is the beards that are the difficulty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

in relation to marital disputes I see no issue in having these religious courts, and indeed some are already operational in the UK in Jewish and Islamic communities. I don't see how if the Church is able to add people to the marital register they should not be able to make rulings on divorce if both parties agree to be binded by the agreement.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

And until recently in what you are pleased to call the "real" courts, it was always a bloke in a wig. There are still relatively few female judges. Unless it is the beards that are the difficulty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hmmm...the 'bloke in the wig' as fallacious as he may be from time to time is least derived from a process set up specifically to deal with legal issues based on their own individual merit. One might have to swear on the bible but one is not subject to it's teachings. I can see some merit in the idea that consenting parties use Sharia courts to settle differneces but I would feel it was a move in the wrong direction.

Pompey Magnus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, so? If you agree to be bound by Sharia law, then you're agreeing to use that system of law in the arbitration - and the other way round, if you agree to use Sharia law as the system of arbitration, you agree to be bound by the results. The Sharia court, if agreed by both parties, is the real court.

Lets not forget children will have to accept the consequences of these courts also. The Sharia courts will have juristiction over child custody cases. Should the father die and the family agree to go down the route of Sharia the Islamic clerics will make a legally binding decision, based primarily on writings in the Quran and the sunna. According to Sharia law should the father die the paternal grandfather is the next legal guardian after the father. Should the mother be granted custody of the children she is not allowed remarry to a non-relative of the children's father. If she does then the paternal family can apply to take custody of the children. Would you accept a system such as this for your own children or the secular system which keeps the children's, not the paternal family's, interests first. I wouldn't accept a system such like Sharia and I also wouldn't promote it for anyone elses children either.

The secular State law, imperfect as it may be, is there to prevent f*cked up religious pratices such as this getting in the way of justice and harming the weakest members of society, in this case women and children. To have it promoted seems to me highly irresponsible. The UK has one of the best justice systems on the planet, Sharia is no substitute for it. There should be one law for everyone, a Muslim woman or child should be absolutely guaranteed by the State the exact same rights that a Christian woman or child, irregardless of whether they want it or not.

Should this be introduced I can't see any reason why all religions couldn't opt out of state law, the precedent will have been set. Would you be happy to allow Jehova's Witnesses get the same rights as Muslims, and potentially allow JW clerics decide on whether a child in need of a blood transfusion should be allow recieve the treatment?

Your comment there prejudges Sharia law courts as not "real" courts. You're welcome to back up that assumption, but if you can't show why Sharia law is not "real law", you shouldn't make that assumption.

I apologise, of course they are real courts, my limitations in vocabulary caused me to blank when I tried to think up a more appropriate term to distinguish between state courts and Islamic courts. I thought it was obvious what I meant.

And until recently in what you are pleased to call the "real" courts, it was always a bloke in a wig. There are still relatively few female judges. Unless it is the beards that are the difficulty?

I reckon that secular state law a little bit more maleable and open to change than Islamic and Quranic law.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Lets not forget children will have to accept the consequences of these courts also. The Sharia courts will have juristiction over child custody cases. Should the father die and the family agree to go down the route of Sharia the Islamic clerics will make a legally binding decision, based primarily on writings in the Quran and the sunna. According to Sharia law should the father die the paternal grandfather is the next legal guardian after the father. Should the mother be granted custody of the children she is not allowed remarry to a non-relative of the children's father. If she does then the paternal family can apply to take custody of the children. Would you accept a system such as this for your own children or the secular system which keeps the children's, not the paternal family's, interests first. I wouldn't accept a system such like Sharia and I also wouldn't promote it for anyone elses children either.

Again, I think you're missing the essentially contractual nature of what is being suggested. In the custody example you give, there is no way that the proposed implementation of Sharia law could be used to take the children away without the agreement of the woman. She cannot be forced to accept Sharia judgment at law.

And again, if the woman can be browbeaten into accepting a Sharia judgment in law, she can be already be browbeaten into conforming with Sharia law "voluntarily".

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The secular State law, imperfect as it may be, is there to prevent f*cked up religious pratices such as this getting in the way of justice and harming the weakest members of society, in this case women and children. To have it promoted seems to me highly irresponsible. The UK has one of the best justice systems on the planet, Sharia is no substitute for it. There should be one law for everyone, a Muslim woman or child should be absolutely guaranteed by the State the exact same rights that a Christian woman or child, irregardless of whether they want it or not.

They would retain exactly the same rights as before. Sharia law, under British law, can only be used contractually.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Should this be introduced I can't see any reason why all religions couldn't opt out of state law, the precedent will have been set. Would you be happy to allow Jehova's Witnesses get the same rights as Muslims, and potentially allow JW clerics decide on whether a child in need of a blood transfusion should be allow recieve the treatment?

That is not possible, because the clerics in question would be abrogating the child's basic rights under law - indeed, they would be criminally responsible if the child was harmed. It is not a contractual situation - and contractual situations by mutual agreement are the only situations that Sharia law could possibly be applied under British law.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I apologise, of course they are real courts, my limitations in vocabulary caused me to blank when I tried to think up a more appropriate term to distinguish between state courts and Islamic courts. I thought it was obvious what I meant.

It looked awful, but I know what you mean (now)!

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I reckon that secular state law a little bit more maleable and open to change than Islamic and Quranic law.

Hmm. It's not really very different from the prescriptive/inquisitorial law as practiced in most of the continental EU. It is actually constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted.

(Did I emphasise the contractual aspects of this enough times?)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pompey Magnus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, I think you're missing the essentially contractual nature of what is being suggested.

I fully understand the contractual nature of the proposal, and I agree that in theory the choice which is there for women to go to a state court if they so wish should make everything alright, what my objection to the whole thing is that in practice I can envisage situations where, through cultural and personal circumstances, some women will choose to go down the Sharia route where other, more liberated and educated Muslim women would chose the state rote, and may not get a fair deal (and I am not at all ashamed to say that I don't trust Sharia courts to make decisions which treat women as the equal of men). For this to happen and to then say its their tough luck for choosing Sharia Law is, to my mind, wrong.

Scofflaw

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I fully understand the contractual nature of the proposal, and I agree that in theory the choice which is there for women to go to a state court if they so wish should make everything alright, what my objection to the whole thing is that in practice I can envisage situations where, through cultural and personal circumstances, some women will choose to go down the Sharia route where other, more liberated and educated Muslim women would chose the state rote, and may not get a fair deal (and I am not at all ashamed to say that I don't trust Sharia courts to make decisions which treat women as the equal of men). For this to happen and to then say its their tough luck for choosing Sharia Law is, to my mind, wrong.

I can envisage exactly the same thing. However, someone who can be bullied into agreeing to use Sharia law against their best interests can equally well be bullied into acting according to the perceived dictates of Sharia law without any recourse to the courts.

Indeed, it is possible to suggest that the existence of Sharia law courts may be an improvement in certain circumstances, where currently women may be forced into accepting the dictates of custom in order not to appear un-Islamic - surely it's better that they can have recourse to a court of law that cannot be decried as ungodly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Loxosceles

The archbishop is trolling all of the UK to elicit a cultural conversation on the subject, because it is a sore undercurrent.

Fact is, the law of a nation is the law of a nation. If Islamic nations keep Westerners within walled housing estates where Western permissiveness (alcohol, female equality, etc) is allowed, then the Islamic community will have to separate itself into walled estates in the UK where sharia law is practiced. You simply cannot practice sharia in a normal neighborhood in Britain, just the same way you can't drink a beer in a cafe in Saudi Arabia. The second your normal UK citizen sees a man slapping his daughter for not wearing a headscarf, or caning some poor sod for eating a bacon butty when he thought nobody was watching, they will get ostracised and drummed out of the community. Allowing Sharia law will segregate muslims, not integrate them. The modern laws of Britain make certain that freedom of movement, expression and religion are permitted; but the very nature of sharia is to limit same.

Muslims who wisely desire integration have chosen to shift cultural practices and follow a more moderate lifestyle. Conversely, westerners who are sober and western women who cover their heads are easily integrated into the business of muslim nations without having to be segregated. Those who wish to follow their own cultural laws at odds with the surrounding culture, will have to segregate themselves. But there will be no compromise to modern freedoms in a western nation with laws based on western values and thought. It is those very values which have fostered tolerance.

On a similar scale, the integration of Jewish society into Europe before the holocaust was what originally separated the diaspora into reform, conservative, and Chassidic practices. Reforms and conservatives typically integrated into surrounding cultures, whereas Chassidim kept themselves separate in following strict Torah law. This will happen in the UK sociologically. The Islamic communities will separate into liberal and conservative with liberals being English and conservatives on estates. It may be the only practical sociological solution.

lox.

Zillah

^This is a good post.

philologos

I don't think the Archbishop was suggesting that it should be fully applied. He said that certain elements of Shariah which could be compatible with British law should be perhaps fused into it some way. Like in relation to divorce and the Shariah courts and stuff like that.

pretty*monster

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I fully understand the contractual nature of the proposal, and I agree that in theory the choice which is there for women to go to a state court if they so wish should make everything alright, what my objection to the whole thing is that in practice I can envisage situations where, through cultural and personal circumstances, some women will choose to go down the Sharia route where other, more liberated and educated Muslim women would chose the state rote, and may not get a fair deal (and I am not at all ashamed to say that I don't trust Sharia courts to make decisions which treat women as the equal of men). For this to happen and to then say its their tough luck for choosing Sharia Law is, to my mind, wrong

But that's a different problem, a problem which exists whether or not Sharia courts are given recognition. The opression of Muslim women is, quite frankly, a matter that only Muslim women can sort out.

Loxosceles wrote:

The second your normal UK citizen sees a man slapping his daughter for not wearing a headscarf, or caning some poor sod for eating a bacon butty when he thought nobody was watching, they will get ostracised and drummed out of the community.

Slapping one's daughter and caning a man are not civil matters which are dealt with my the police and by the courts, arbitration is only for dealing with civil cases.