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.
32 Responses to “Sharia councils: unjust, unequal and consequence of failed integration policies”
Sam Malone
Don’t you get it? It’s only Muslims and Islam that is the problem. That is why most of us are bothered by halal slaughter methods but not kosher slaughter, even though it’s exactly the same. It’s our right to be biased – we’re weekend feminists and animal rights activists…
Sam Malone
Thank you for being a source of logic in this discussion.
Sam Malone
Ridiculous customs? All credibility = out the window…
LB
Exactly, part of it is because people are anti muslim, because they see large numbers of migrants taking advantage. People who are taking out more money than they have paid in, and people know that is coming out of their pocket.
Likewise they have been been asked by politicians, politicians have dictated.
Then you have monopoly legal system, that works for those in the legal system in the form of high costs and high incomes against the interests of the public. Now here with Jewish, Muslim, and arbitration, people have taken matters into their own hands and cut the state out.
That’s going to happen more and more.
Greece is a good example. Politicians love to tell you that Greece is in a mess because Greeks aren’t paying their taxes. It’s a blame the victim game. In reality its the other way round. Because Greeks politicians and the EU politicians stiched them up (false accounts to get into the Euro), there is a mess. Hence why would a sane Greek pay taxes to a bunch of fraudsters only to see the money going on paying debts not on services?
Philip
Hah! Good one. The BBC leans whatever way the wind is blowing. Being British that makes it a centre right organisation for the most part, centrist and maybe marginally left-leaning on some social issues and securely right wing on economics. If by ‘anti-Israel’ you mean ‘giving some limited credence to pro-Palestinian viewpoints while nevertheless giving greater credence to pro-Israeli viewpoints’ then, yes, they’re clearly anti-Israeli. I mean, what kind of public service broadcaster endeavours to present some degree of balance on a complex geopolitical issue? Disgraceful!