The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently delivered an interesting lecture on the subject of shariah law in the United Kingdom; and naturally, it has been followed by the usual outrage, condemnation, and exaggerated claims of ‘tattered authority’ and African-led Anglican self-destruction as a result.
In essence, the Archbishop was simply suggesting that Muslims, like other groups in society, should be free to apply shariah law judgements to certain elements of their life. For example, in matters of divorce, inheritance and personal relations. He was not suggesting that Muslims be free to practice the hudud such as capital punishment for murder in their local communities; or that Islamic law should be given precedence over the law of the land.
Despite that, Brendan Nelson, leader of the Australia’s opposition Liberal Party, offers a sadly typical response to the issue:
The idea that in some way you would change your basic values, culture and law to accommodate some people who feel that they don’t want to see themselves as Australians first, above all else – under no circumstances would I support that.
But can we support the idea that the government has the right to interfere in how citizens might decide, by mutual consent, to peacefully settle their private disputes and disagreements?
Indeed, the issue of ‘shariah courts’ is really just an issue of freedom of contract: the idea that people entering freely into a contract — whether that be a marriage contract or a commercial contract — have the right to agree as to how they settle any disagreements (subject naturally to the law). In the case of a marriage contract, this might be agreeing that a local committee of religious leaders would rule on the division of property following a divorce; or, in the case of a business transaction, it might be deciding that a private arbitration organisation or industry association rules on any disagreements.
The point is that the arbitration body — regardless of whether it is a Rabbinical court, a Shariah court or a secular body — derives its authority not from statute but from the consent of the parties requesting arbitration. The fact that the parties are choosing to settle their commercial or social disagreements by reference to the Qu’ran is therefore of no more consequence to society than if they decided to settle the same dispute by tossing a coin, asking a neighbour to decide, or any of the other myriad of ways in which human beings settle disagreements peacefully.
7 comments ↓
I believe that in Canada it was Muslim women themselves who helped scuttled an attempt to introduce sharia. And then of course there are people like this learned gentleman, who inspire great confidence in Western populations about the intentions of Muslim immigrants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....&eurl=
Amir,
Provided that the method of arbitration or system of contractual law is agreed to between he parties to the contract and does not contradict the established law of the land, then I have no problems with the use of Sharia, Rabbinical Law, Church Courts or any other system of resolving disputes.
The Common Law courts should remain the default but provided the system is “opt-in” then there should not be any problem agreeing to go outside that system.
All very well, but the British Government is already granting faith-based indulgences by allowing immigrants with more than one wife to ship their entire polygamist family set-up to the UK and claim benefits for the lot. This generous offer is not available to homegrown bigamists, who can expect seven years jail instead of benefits. That hardly inspires confidence that creeping sharia will not “contradict the established law of the land”. Quite the opposite.
G-man, do you have a link?
Yes Sara, news stories and blog discussions/flaming wars about it are pretty easy to find. This one at the British Tele is a relatively neutral report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....fit103.xml
Thanks, GMan. Sounds pretty horrible.
you know, one of the least of the conditions of polygamy (marriage at all, actually) in Islam is that you are able to provide for your wife, and grant her her comforts and desires, to the social condition to which her parents accustomed her. So that anyone taking welfare for their polygamous marriages… well, why are they marrying more than one in the first place?
On the other hand, why are only muslims being condemned for this – there are lots of men who have abandoned women as ‘baby mamas’ or who have adulterous relationships and leave the second woman to take care of their children, leaving her minimal support or forcing her to take welfare… and muslims are not the trend-setters in that department.
That being said, muslims should respect both British common law and recognize that the demands made by most British people (and common sense human rights legislation) are reasonable and coherent with the aims of Shar’iah, which are the preservation of life, reason, faith, prosperity and well-being.
Leave a Comment