Sharia Law in the UK

[Nehustan]

(Continued from previous post.)

The archbishop’s call for an integration of such courts, is to ensure accountability to the state, presumably (sorry it only appears as subtext) a degree of professionalism in Fiqh and statutory law, i.e. a qualification. This would thus operate as a two way street, with statutory law and subsequent rights becoming more available to marginalised women rather than less than.

There are many schools of thought and each have their own sharia laws. At the moment, in the UK, what is increasingly prevailing is saudi wahabism.

I’m more than aware of the influence Wahhabism added to petrodollars has had on the whole Ummah, in the last hundred years or so. I’d say that the Asharite hegemony prevalent in Islam in toto. It has effects far beyond concepts such things as Tawheed, it could be argued to be at the root of closed Ijtihad. What was it I was reading last week...

‘logically their attitude of bila kayf, or refusal to examine the mode of these descriptions, resulted in an intellectual cul-de-sac in which acceptance triumphed over analysis and incomprehension over reason’

Given that the Quran states its uses metaphor, and is itself called ‘The book of signs’ such rigidity in all branches of the Islamic sciences is not the inheritance of the Muslims. Any linguist or semiotician can tell you all words are metaphors, thus all books, and especially books that state that is their reality.

​

Haven't you noticed the difference? Muslims are becoming more and more ghettoized. Is this the Britain you want?

It’s been here a good while, perhaps you didn’t notice it before? What the Archbishop et al. are suggesting is a framework to advance a solution to the problem, even if it’s not to your taste.

With all due respect I think I’ll go with the people whose job is governance, the upholding of the rule of law, ‘pastoral’ care, over people who are projecting their own issues onto the situation.

Muslims should abide by British laws not have their own version, regardless of whether they are in line with the statutory laws, if muslims live here then they follow the law of the land.

I'll refer you back to the pervasiveness of law, merely saying the law 'should be obeyed’, is certainly not the same as saying it will be, and ‘there's the rub’.

It was irresponsible of the Archbishop to even bring up such a suggestion. It makes the situation worse not better; in fact encouraging arguments between muslims from different schools of thought.

Which is exactly what is required. I said I’d focus on one of your points later, and this is it. Islam needs to be moot, opening of discussion, the existence of such pluralism of thought in Islam is exactly what the Wahhabism you brought up previously has eradicated. Intellectual dispute is the inheritance of the Ummah, it’s the lifeblood that has made it such a vigorous religion, socially, economically, theologically. It’s something that is sorely missing today, if such debates are hatched in the UK, with the relative safety the law provides for thought, then so be it.

Why call for something that is not required to live as practicing muslims in the UK?

Not for you perhaps, but you do not speak for all Muslims; for some it may be a very real requirement of living anywhere.

The UK is culturally and religiously diverse but we should be united to live within the boundaries of our already existing statutory laws.

Which is exactly what is being proposed. I understand you don’t get it, but many others do, and their voice is as valid as yours.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I've heard, the UK already has enough problems assimilating people. Do you think setting up Sharia law for some people and British law for others is going to further or hinder assimilation?

By the way, the US courts discovered sometime ago that you cannot make classes of people "separate but equal". If you want folks to be equal, you have to assimilate them into your society. On the other hand, if you want an underclass and an overclass, simply make the classes "separate but equal".

 

[Nehustan]

So far as I've heard, the UK already has enough problems assimilating people. Do you think setting up Sharia law for some people and British law for others is going to further or hinder assimilation?

By the way, the US courts discovered sometime ago that you cannot make classes of people "separate but equal". If you want folks to be equal, you have to assimilate them into your society. On the other hand, if you want an underclass and an overclass, simply make the classes "separate but equal".

The thing is Sunstone, it already is, i.e. Shariah. I'm sure, to be honest, many in the UK would rather that muslims dropped the whole faith thing and assimilate joining the whole post-modern throng; they'd probably be first in line to buy them a pint. The thing is, it's not going to happen en masse any time soon, tho' admittedly I know quite a few Muslims that were probably out on the town last night.

 

[Laila]

Rift and segregation? You mean we don’t have these? I recently had a neighbour telling me he’d voted BNP, and that if we weren’t careful Islam would find its way into every house, I told him it was already in ours as we are Muslim. I had someone tell me outside a pub that all Muslims should go home, I stood and laughed at him as my family (I’m of mixed European ancestry, English, Irish, German, and French, i.e. ‘white’) have been here in one form or another for centuries, and he’s still annoyed by the fact much to my glee. That said they only probably say this to me as I’m white with no noticeable signs of my faith, other than perhaps the detail that I wear silver jewellery.

What muslims who choose to live in this society need to do is integrate, having separate laws is not going to aid integration. As for the BNP that is just another extremist party. Yes, we have parallel lives I put blame on both parties not just the muslims: but some of the muslims, living in the UK, haven't helped the situation either.

You say Muslim woman are ‘currently protected’ by statutory law, I’d argue that in many many cases they are not. A law need not only exist for it to be enacted, it needs to be pervasive, enacted by agents, be they state agents, or solely members within a community. Let me try and make a practical example. Murder is against the law, but what protection does a victim have at the moment of the offence? Sure, if there’re agents, be they police, neighbours, etcetera the law can be a preventive measure if enacted, with agents coinciding with law to prevent the crime. However most of the time, it is a crime that requires justice rather than being able to protect solely by its existence.

Are you saying that there is no justice for murder?

Many of the women, as I have pointed out, are beyond the remit of the law. While it, i.e. the law, obviously applies to them, they may value other things above it; their family, their culture, their tradition, of course the religion they have learnt, even if those teaching it may have been from what may be considered a narrow understanding of it. To seek recourse from outside of the community, while their right under statutory law, could seem a very bleak option resulting in ostracization.

And you believe that women will not be put under extreme pressure while under sharia law?
Ostracization would have a double impact not be reduced.

As to the need for the reopening of Ijtihad only being relevant in countries where shariah is applied, you miss the fact that it is in one way or another applied wherever Islam is. As it is now in the UK the challenge to Islamic thinkers, as all Muslims should be to one extent or another, is here and now. Their challenge is to mediate tradition, religion and modernity in a synthesis that does not conflict; to run away from the challenge will not make it disappear. I’ll come back to this in light of one of your later points.

Ijtihad should be applied continuously but it does not require the imposition of sharia law within the UK.

It’s here, just because you don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit with your experiential perception of Islam isn’t going to make it go away. Rather than being naive I think you’ll find that people (i.e. Archbishop, Judiciary, agents of the crown in toto) are finding a way, and they WILL find that way, to help all of the Muslims, not just those who have already made their place here, to find an acceptable synthesis that remains true to their principles.

It's much more simple than that. Live according to the laws of the society because it does not affect muslims being true to their principles. State me clear examples where muslims have to compromise on their principles.

 

[Laila]

So far as I've heard, the UK already has enough problems assimilating people. Do you think setting up Sharia law for some people and British law for others is going to further or hinder assimilation?

By the way, the US courts discovered sometime ago that you cannot make classes of people "separate but equal". If you want folks to be equal, you have to assimilate them into your society. On the other hand, if you want an underclass and an overclass, simply make the classes "separate but equal".

Good point.
Clearly it will hinder assimilation and by the way assimilation doesn't been going pubbing and clubbing!

 

[Sunstone]

The thing is Sunstone, it already is, i.e. Shariah. I'm sure, to be honest, many in the UK would rather that muslims dropped the whole faith thing and assimilate joining the whole post-modern throng; they'd probably be first in line to buy them a pint. The thing is, it's not going to happen en masse any time soon, tho' admittedly I know quite a few Muslims that were probably out on the town last night.

I don't know about the UK, but it seems that in the US, assimilation has not required Muslims to "drop the whole faith thing" and accept pints bought for them by "the post modernist throng." It does, however, require them to accept that everyone -- very much including both men and women -- are equal before the law. Is that a point of contention?

 

[Laila]

I'll refer you back to the pervasiveness of law, merely saying the law 'should be obeyed’, is certainly not the same as saying it will be, and ‘there's the rub’.
Intellectual dispute is the inheritance of the Ummah, it’s the lifeblood that has made it such a vigorous religion, socially, economically, theologically. It’s something that is sorely missing today, if such debates are hatched in the UK, with the relative safety the law provides for thought, then so be it.

The debates can be and should be hatched however there is no need for a sharia court; which will take away that power and relative safety.
Many muslim women are banned from entering mosques, to pray, in the North of England. On approaching the MCB (muslim council of Britain) for a reform they kindly responded with "make friends with the Iman's wifes and maybe things will change". Muslim women, still, have no authority to enter these mosques. Do you think under UK sharia that will change? According to sharia women should stay at home.

Unless you provide me with clear examples as to why muslims may need separate laws I have to disagree with you.

 

[Nehustan]

To be honest I have a detailed reply, I have taken to writing it in MS Word to avoid the page 'time outing', and it again did a point to point thing. However when I copy and paste it adds formatting and looks messy. I've pretty much made the points I have to.

Ultimately, what we say here doesn't really matter. What is enacted by the executive, carried through the legislative, and exercised by the juduciary is what ultimately matters.

Given there are now two voices from Westminster, The Archbishop and the Lord Chief Justice, it appears obvious which way forward is being negotiated.

 

[Laila]

To be honest I have a detailed reply, I have taken to writing it in MS Word to avoid the page 'time outing', and it again did a point to point thing. However when I copy and paste it adds formatting and looks messy. I've pretty much made the points I have to.

Ultimately, what we say here doesn't really matter. What is enacted by the executive, carried through the legislative, and exercised by the juduciary is what ultimately matters.

Given there are now two voices from Westminster, The Archbishop and the Lord Chief Justice, it appears obvious which way forward is being negotiated.

Thank you for your views. However the whole thing is shameful and British muslims will suffer the impact if the sharia becomes part of the UK laws for muslims.

 

[TashaN]

I think there is no point in debating here whether Shariah law should be applied or not, because i noticed that Laila have alot of misconceptions about Shariah law, and it appeared to me that she mixed it up with with some cultural issues, or some exterme views by some scholars. I see there is no point in this discussion between both of you because of you appear to talk two different languages. Thus, I highly recommend that we discuss first what is Shariah law to decide whether it's worthy to fight for it to be applied or not from a legal point of view.

 

[Laila]

I think there is no point in debating here whether Shariah law should be applied or not, because i noticed that Laila have alot of misconceptions about Shariah law, and it appeared to me that she mixed it up with with some cultural issues, or some exterme views by some scholars. I see there is no point in this discussion between both of you because of you appear to talk two different languages. Thus, I highly recommend that we discuss first what is Shariah law to decide whether it's worthy to fight for it to be applied or not from a legal point of view.

Thanks for sharing but this is not the point of this thread. Majority of British muslims do not want sharia laws in the UK; we don't need separate laws when we have existing laws in our country. We want equality and integration.

 

[TashaN]

Thanks for sharing but this is not the point of this thread. Majority of British muslims do not want sharia laws in the UK; we don't need separate laws when we have existing laws in our country. We want equality and integration.

That is indeed interesting. Can you please provide us with any information or statistics regarding the "Majority of Muslims in the UK" you mentioned when it comes to their opinion of Shariah Law?

By the way, i have started another thread to know the issues people have with Shariah Law. Feel free to state your opinion there if you have the time, i really would apperciate that as it would help me to understand where you are coming from, because i don't want to go off-topic in this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/67628-whats-wrong-sharia-law.html#post1207426

 

[Sahar]

Could you enlarge on your thinking here a bit Not4me? I am quite curious, actually.

"No religion in politics and no politics in religion" is the slogan of most of the governments in the Muslim region especially the Arabic region. These governments repress the political life, the political opposition, the democratic process and restrict multiplicity of political parties. Absolutely this political secularism affects the other legal, social, economic and educational systems but this effect differs from country to another. The banks in the Muslim countries deal with riba, no zakah is collected, the huddood are not implemented, alcohol shops are every where....banning hijab in Tunisia and Turkey....Muslim scholars are banned....if we looked at the Personal Status Laws in Morocco for instance, we could easily know how they violate the Islamic Shari'a and contradict it...etc. One of the strongest (if not the most strongest) oppositions to these secular political systems is the Islamist opposition. The Islamic political movements enjoy a wide puplic support through the Muslim region although they don't occupy positions in the current regimes and they even don't enjoy legal networks to work through. Islamists believe that Islam is a political system or (better) Islam includes all the different systems in the Muslim society; political, social, economic...etc. and thus this ideology completely contradicts that of the ruling regimes that says Islam should stay at mosques only. It should be clear that the different political Islamic movements varies from each other; in many of their approaches.

P.S. Ha, we are going to see if the Turkish Justice and Development Party is going to be banned or not.

 

[Laila]

....banning hijab in Tunisia and Turkey....

I disagree with the banning of the headscarf; even though I have my personal opinions regarding the obligation of them in Islam. Women should have the right to choice whether they want or do not want to wear them and they certainly should not be excluded if they do the former.

 

[Sahar]

Well, I don't disagree..