Sharia courts, which are wrongly perceived to be part of a Muslim’s ‘right to religion’, are in actual fact part of the political battle and fight for power by Islamists.
Nahla Mahmoud is an environmentalist and human rights activist
Personally, I wasn’t surprised watching the Panorama on ‘Secrets of Sharia Councils in the UK’ broadcast on the BBC last week. I am aware of these dangerous practices by similar courts adopting the same Islamic constitution elsewhere outside the UK.
However, the main issues to be addressed here aren’t only the discriminatory nature and inequality of these councils, but also the broader context of the failed integration polices of the current government. The failure to integrate migrants and refugees and the government’s pro-faith agenda has resulted in the demand and justification for such parallel systems to fulfil the needs of those who feel they are ‘different’.
There is a common argument that a right to Sharia councils are part of an individual’s rights to their own religion and beliefs. It is important here to link the establishment of Sharia councils in the UK with the rise of Islamism internationally. Muslims have lived in the UK and Europe for centuries and didn’t need an Islamic court to provide them permission to adopt, worship or practice their religion.
The rise of political Islam
However since the early eighties, political Islam rose following the Iranian Revolution and the spread of Wahhabism sponsored by millions of dollars of Saudi oil money. Political Islam then spread to take on state power in a number of east Asian, Middle-Eastern and some African countries.
As a result, a demand for Islam in power has grown in the UK and Sharia tribunals have been established. Sharia courts, which are wrongly perceived to be part of a Muslim’s ‘right to religion’, are in actual fact part of the political battle and fight for power by Islamists.
A major concern here is the government’s role in ensuring accessibility of public service to everyone. It is highly questionable that these bodies should be responsible for providing mediation services while the legislation they rely on (Sharia law), is fundamentally gender biased.
In the Panorama programme, Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the Northwest, emphasised that “most of the [courts] are absolutely fine but there are some clearly, like this one, who are putting women at risk”.
This, however, is a simplification, as the main Islamic constitutional principles are irredeemably biased against women. They place greater weight on men’s evidence than that of women. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worthy half a man’s, she gets half the inheritance of her male siblings, and an Islamic marriage contract is between a women’s male guardian and her husband.
It is even worse in divorce cases, as a man can divorce his wife by simple repudiation using the word “Talig”. often without stating a reason and will then easily obtain a certificate from a Sharia court.
By contrast, women are blamed for the breakdown of the family and for not properly obeying their husband’s needs. Women pay higher fees and must give specific reasons to be permitted a divorce. Some of which are extremely difficult to prove.
Another privilege automatically conferred on the father is that of child custody which reverts to him at a pre-set age regardless of the circumstances, even if the father was abusive as seen in the case of Sonia in the BBC programme.
One law for all
All this clearly violates the equality laws which the arbitration service providers should strictly consider. The government should clarify why such a code is allowed to act as a reference of legislation and not only question the practices of the operating bodies implementing it.
I believe this goes along with the government’s integration policy published last year. The government is pushing a pro-faith agenda to promote integration between ‘different’ communities. Its emphasis on “the valuable role of religion in public life” serves to privilege religious bodies over others.
This approach discriminates against immigrants and minorities from different backgrounds by subjecting them to different treatment through separate divisive systems, such as Sharia courts and other religious tribunals. Muslim women and children of Muslim parents are especially likely to suffer the most from this approach.
The question which should be asked here isn’t whether these councils discriminate against minorities and citizens from ‘different’ backgrounds or not, because they clearly do. The actual question is whether the government actually cares about what is happening.
It is high time that the government asserted one law for all.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Sharia councils: unjust, unequal and consequence of failed integration policies”
Safwaan
Disgusting, biased, vile piece. You talk about immigration and the ‘integration’ of minority groups, yet you only refer specifically to Islamic courts.
Secondly, get your terminology right, the word is not ‘talig’ its ‘Talaq’.
and if youre going to attack Sharia courts, why not talk of jewish courts and what goes in there; talk about some of the rulings in that religion. Till then, i will not take you seriously.
Greg
My main concern with these tribunals is that a woman might feel pressure from her community or family to go to and accept the rulings of these tribunals, and not seek to uphold her rights or those of her children under UK law.
But it’s not a simple answer to just ban these tribunals. That could leave women in a dire situation who genuinely believe that to remarry they need a sharia divorce. 95% of these tribunals’ work comes from women applicants concerning family matters, probably a considerable proportion to do with divorce. It’s illegal for these courts to rule on child custody issues. If they are illegally doing so, tighter enforcement is needed. But for the sake of women trapped in miserable marriages, an obstructive divorce process is better than no divorce if it is their beliefs in the need for sharia that cause them to be otherwise trapped. Again, better regulation, oversight and enforcement might be the best solution.
Maik Finch
agreed
Maik Finch
I am not Muslim nor of Middle East descent _ but i’m surprised that
anyone anywhere _ regardless of their religion _ would support anything
made by BBC Panorama producers on the Middle East_ who for years have
consistently demonstrated a chronic anti-Islamic bias and therefore
completely discredited themselves in this area of investigation _ I
consider your support even more bizarre as you call yourself a human
rights activist!
As to your own arguments_ i hope you will agree that
nothing is ALL bad and it is therefore a pity you have not written at
least a paragraph that would give your piece some academic balance
(pointing out some of the good elements of Sharia Law) _ I do understand
that as this is largely a gender-related article I must necessarily
limit my criticism_ nevertheless I do genuinely think that you would
have done better and very possibly convinced further _ by displaying a
little more balance in this matter rather than emulating the insidious bigotry
incessantly produced by the aforementioned BBC producers _
Pete Hodge
For eight years I lived in Albania. A country with a troubled past, but with an increasingly hopeful future. When I went I expected to come under Albanian law. I never for one moment expected the government of Albania to allow me and other Brits living there, to form our own law system similar to the one we have in Britain. Likewise, those who come to this country should be obliged to live under British law. If they don’t want to, then they have an obvious option.