Amazon.com
Amazon.co.ukWhy Sharia should never be a part of British law
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has once again proven how distant he is from reality by suggesting that UK law might incorporate some elements of Sharia. His statements have been widely condemned, but they are not entirely surprising. It is another example of how those infected with religion consider that faith always takes precedence over society in general.
Religion has no place in shaping law. Faith is a personal matter. The law is the framework that holds all of society together, not just those members who relinquish responsibility or decision-making to a supernatural authority. Therefore, the law must always rise above, and be untainted, by religion. While aspects of faith may be a factor in some legal cases, it is the law that governs religion, not the other way around.
As it stands now, UK law allows parties in a civil dispute to agree to a process outside the courts – to seek remedies that might be less stressful and expensive. These might include arbitration services, for example.
Jews already have a parallel legal system in the UK – the Beth Din courts. These operate under the legal framework we’ve just mentioned. A significant point here is that all parties in the dispute must agree to use the Beth Din court, otherwise it has no jurisdiction at all. Where Beth Din courts go beyond that simple allowance made by UK law is that there is an additional ruling in the British legal system whereby, once you have agreed to use a Beth Din court, you are legally bound by its decision – under British, not just Jewish, law.
Sharia courts would function in a similar manner. Indeed, they could do so to some extent right now, except that their rulings would not be enforceable under UK law – it would need an additional Act of Parliament to implement that. Similarly, Somalis in the UK already have their own ‘courts’, but their decisions are unenforceable.
The Beth Din courts may deal only with civil cases – they can never be used for any infraction of criminal law. Those seeking Sharia courts would have to accept the same limitation.
Is there a problem with having Sharia courts, especially if one has to agree to use them?
The answer, clearly, is yes.
There is a general matter of principle here. It’s arguable that British pluralism is a failed experiment that, rather than accommodating many cultures and faiths, simply leads to division, mutual distrust and ghettos.
A key concept of a legal system is that everyone is treated equally. If you introduce different rules for different people, the whole framework breaks down. And where do you draw the line? What other groups might start agitating to police themselves, to consider themselves apart from UK society and the laws that govern it? Hindus? Atheists? Jedi knights?
One has to consider those who might be affected by a Sharia court’s decisions even though they are not direct parties to the dispute and have no representation in court. I’m thinking particularly of children. If a Sharia court can decide in cases of divorce and child custody, how would we ensure that such decisions conform with the requirements of UK law governing child support, for instance? Given the archaic, even medieval nature of the principles underlying religious courts, would society in general feel confident that wives and children could escape abusive husbands and fathers?
Given the close-knit nature of many immigrant societies in the UK, there would be enormous pressure, particularly on women, to opt for the Sharia court, regardless of the importance of faith to them. It is hard to believe that any such decision would be truly free and unfettered. Thus, people might be forced to accept decisions guided by the arbitrary and anachronistic requirements of religion rather than the more rational precepts of secular law.
And one could feel genuine concern that the courts would exceed their boundaries. The more pious Muslims might easily reason that if Sharia law is available for less important civil matters it should be available for more critical cases – criminal cases involving theft or violence – that are most in need of the moral guidance of the faith. For example, the BBC has reported that Somali courts in the UK consider themselves entitled to ‘try’ criminal cases, even though this is not allowed or recognised by UK laws.
Warranting the use of Sharia courts would just accentuate the divisions in society and increase the isolationism of certain Muslim communities. We should be encouraging integration, not providing mechanisms for groups to consider themselves a separate society.
So rather than enfranchise Sharia, perhaps it is time to take another look at Beth Din courts and ask whether they are actually an anachronism in a modern, enlightened country.
RSS feed
(1) 14 February 2008 at 12:22 pm
Baht At
Oh dear another commentator who soils himself everytime he sees a beardie in a dress.
The recognition of the Beth Din was a double edged sword while it ensures that their decisions are legally enforcable where they comply with english law it makes perfectly clear that they are subservient to english law which is precisely what we should be doing with Sharia courts – bringing them inside the tent where we can control them rather than the current situation where any primitive from Kashmir can wonder round chopping off hands and granting divorces and pretending they have authority.
Trouble is people like you are so frightened of people with beards that you won’t stand up to them and demand that Sharia courts be part of the English system and thus subject to our control not that of some nutjob imam.
Incidently no-one is contemplating any religious involvement in criminal law – look at your history we abolished Canon Law for criminal matters some very considerable time ago.
(2) 14 February 2008 at 1:45 pm
Steve
It’s a shame how some people, when they’re spouting nonsense, feel to need to bolster it with arrogance and insult. So, ‘Baht At’, while you’re welcome to comment here, in future you’ll need to show a little more civility, and intelligence, if your comments are not to be rejected as spam.
No, I’m not afraid of “a beardie in a dress”, though I have been known to pity them.
You have, of course, missed the point entirely – which is that, far from being accommodated, religion (of any sort) should play no part in law whatsoever. What you suggest – to control Sharia courts by making them part of the system – would likely be an entirely worthless process. It’s unlikely that any such accommodation could be properly achieved without (in the eyes of at least some part of the Islamic community) compromising the stricter requirements of the faith. Therefore, ‘illegal’ Sharia courts would most likely continue.
And as for “no-one is contemplating any religious involvement in criminal law”, I said that in the post. Do try to pay attention.
(3) 14 February 2008 at 5:13 pm
Baht At
If no provision is made for a persons religion in the civil court system while it is for christians (canon law) and jews (the Beth Din) is it not obvious that they will set up a parallel system.
If instead of being confrontational you bring them within the system you give yourself a reason to crack down of those outside the system and to control those inside.
Your way leads to needless confrontation and chaos, mine leads to bringing muslims under the clear control of english courts – which is more sensible?
Now if you are like me and couldn’t care what nutjob members of abrahamic sects get upto between themselves then you will say better in that out. If on the other hand you are determined to have a confrontation because you oppose one particular abrahamic sect then you’ll exclude one while allowing the other two inside the tent to piss out on the unfavoured one.
(4) 14 February 2008 at 5:47 pm
Steve
>> mine leads to bringing muslims under the clear control of english courts
Muslims are already under the control of English courts, without pandering to religion. You are grossly overestimating the effect that such accommodation would have. For some elements in the Islamic community, nothing but out-and-out Sharia will be good enough. Illegal Sharia courts will continue because English law will never bend over far enough for this group. In other words, you are flat wrong that some measure of accommodation will make the problem go away and avoid confrontation. It won’t.
You also make a number of false assumptions. It is not the least bit necessary to allow Sharia courts into the system (to whatever limited degree) in order to clamp down on illegal or extra-legal courts. The law as it stands provides the power to do that right now.
>> Your way leads to needless confrontation and chaos
Nonsense. There may be confrontation, but not needless. Such confrontation has always existed and will continue to exist. That’s the nature of law. Witness the confrontation with Hindus in … what was it? … Wales? … over a cow that was suspected of having TB or some such. Would you have accommodated them? Made allowances for their beliefs? Lines always have to be drawn, and it’s far clearer if you say that laws are formulated for the benefit of all and that any particular sect’s belief in supernatural forces, the ravings of medieval schizophrenics, leprechauns or the Loch Ness Monster is no good reason to change our mind on what is considered, from a rational, secular perspective, the right or wrong path.
>> you oppose one particular abrahamic sect
No. Read what I’ve written again. I suggested that it might be time to look again at the Beth Din courts. I’d be happy to extend that to a review of the law that eliminated any accommodation of religion.