Sharia Law in the UK

The establishment love-in with Sharia Law continued apace. Following from the Archbishop of Canterbury in February we have had two more examples in the last week. First Lord Chief Justice - Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation and then Stephen Hockman QC the former chairman of the Bar Council said that

"legal reforms to incorporate Islamic principles are inevitable. He warned that 'otherwise we will find there is a very significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results. '"

The key word in Stephen Hockman's speech is "inevitable", it is the same word that Rowan Williams used in his February speech. Why is it seen as inevitable by certain sections of this Country's establishment? Do these "experts" not realise that Sharia law is the only system of law that many Muslims want to live under. Sharia law is not an add-on to an existing legal system, it is a complete set of laws for living one's life. Sharia law admits to no higher law, for religious Muslims it is THE LAW.

Lord Chief Justice Phillips seems confused, he seems to suggest that Sharia Law could be used for dispute resolution within communities, indeed it could. Any community can use any forum for informal dispute resolution if it wishes, this is nothing to do with the law of the land. The point is that if one party wants recourse to "the law" then it is national law that is used.

Many Muslims have rather disingenuously compared their demands for Sharia law to that of Jews in England who have Beth Din courts. The comparison is largely spurious; Beth Din courts bow to the law of the land, no Beth Din court can make a decision that is at variance with UK law. Muslims see Sharia Law as superior to man-made law and the aim of many is to replace Britsih law with Sharia law. As Mohammed Abdul Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, has said:

"I believe I speak for a vast majority of Muslims when I say that we do not want separate Courts or parallel legal system. What we do want is a judiciary that is sensitive to our divine laws on personal relationships and family matters. Judges involved in family matters need to have knowledge of our rights and obligations as Muslims in Sharia law."

I am not happy that any community in the UK can govern itself separately from the rest and have a "legal system" that institutionalises inequality. I believe it is the case that Sharia Law requires, before a punishment can be administered, that a crime be witnessed either by two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. I also believe that Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her.

It confuses me that many establishment figures in this country seems so eager to incorporate a legal system when the European Court for Human Rights have argued "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" and that

"The Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.""

Many ask why our "establishment" seems so keen to cosy up to Islam, this is a question that I shall return to.