Dear M P,

                      I have been aware for some time of pressure from
Muslim 'leaders' to institute shariah law for Muslims in the UK. Today
there is a report on the website "Dhimmi Watch" that, in the wake of the
plot to bring down aircraft, Muslim leaders have made a request to Ruth
Kelly - Minister for Communities (!) - that shariah law should be
introduced for Muslims in the area of family law, and I suspect civil
law. They argue that this would prevent Muslims from becoming
terrorists.

This must be resolutely opposed. Shariah law derives from the Koran and
the traditions of the Prophet originating in seventh century Arabia, and
is consequently very primitive and quite unacceptable according to our
juridical concepts. It is particularly oppressive of women:

1) Under shariah law the husband may divorce his wife without giving a
reason and without process of law.
2) The wife has no right to initiate a divorce and may do so only with
the permission of the husband. There is an exception in the case of
certain specific circumstances, eg impotence and failure to have
intercourse for a certain period. The wife may be made to pay the
husband for permission to divorce.
3) On divorce there is no division of the 'property of the marriage':
what the man owns is his; what the woman owns (usually very little) is
hers.
4) The man has legal custody of the children, but they may stay with the
mother until they are old enough to leave her.
5) All this means that in Muslim marriage the husband is in an extremely
powerful position over the wife: she is likely to be ruined by a
divorce.
6) A wife has a duty of obedience to the husband and may not leave the
house without his permission.
7) The husband has a right to intercourse whenever he wishes, but the
wife has no rights over her husband's body - just a general right to
intercourse within a certain period.
8) Rape in marriage is permitted.
9) In a shariah court a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man:
thus legally, in a dispute, the husband has the advantage. The testimony
of a non-Muslim is not accepted.
10) In the division of an estate there is no equality as between the
sexes.
11) It is not possible for a woman to be a judge under shariah law.

The Muslims will ask only for the option of shariah law; English law
being an option for those who want it. This is deceptive: shariah law is
the HOLY LAW, and central to Islam. Anyone who rejects it is therefore
an apostate and will be rejected by their family and community, as
happens to anyone who converts to Christianity. The pressure for shariah
law is a means of establishing control by the religious leadership and
men.

Another inducement to opt for shariah law is that English law is very
expensive, shariah law would be  cheap.

Has there been a specific suggestion for how "shariah" law might be
implemented? If so where can it be examined?

"Robert" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote :-

Comment:-
Dear MP,

(1) The Shariah Law does not depend on the misinterpretation of Robert
Houghton, but on the interpretation of Muslim scholars who practice Islam,
have greater knowledge of it as well as of the conditions and circumstances
to which the Shariah applies.
(2) The Shariah law applies to Muslims only, not to others.
(3) The Sharia law certainly does not apply to Robert Houghton and his
opinions about it are irrelevant.

Apparently only a third of UK Muslims are in favour of this sort of
two-tier judicial system at the moment. Ultimately I can understand the
wish of Muslims to live under what they see as a divinely-appointed
system of government. But at the moment it will only cause problems.

Attempts to have dual-code judicial systems don't work outside of
Muslim-majority states. Just look at Nigeria. The northern states have
pretty much insisted on having Shariah applied, and now we get reports
of all sorts of tensions arising where the Shariah court delivers
verdicts which contravene the (secular) laws of Nigeria as a whole. It
is also by no means certain that all Muslims in the north are all that
keen on the Shariah courts either, be they "law-abiding" or not. The
problem is not necessarily the concept of Shariah, but rather the
implementation of it, and the complications it causes for people who
are on the fringes of Islamic society.

Your three observations are truisms and not worth making.

I do not offer "interpretations" of shariah law; I simply poduce a
number of its provisions. I am confident of their truth, because they
are abundantly confirmed in readily available sources, and because no
one has offered to correct or refute them.

"Robert" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote

Comment:-
It was not worth responding to because you have taken a particular law out
of its context.
Islam is a unified self-consistent way of life designed for spiritual
development
and one would have to explain the whole of Islam to you
and that, given your prejudices and selectivity, would be outside your
capacity for comprehension.

Comment:-
Shariah Law applies only to Muslims.
Your confidence or otherwise is irrelevant.
Those who shout the loudest or canvas for themselves are excluded from
determining Sharia Law.
And even if it is true, it does not differ from the present conditions in
the West.

Comment:-
How did you come this figure? And who are you including under the term
Muslim? Does it include those who do not know or practice Islam but only
have Muslim sounding names?

Attempts to have dual-code judicial systems don't work outside of
Muslim-majority states. Just look at Nigeria. The northern states have
pretty much insisted on having Shariah applied, and now we get reports
of all sorts of tensions arising where the Shariah court delivers
verdicts which contravene the (secular) laws of Nigeria as a whole.

Comment:-
Why is there a clash between Sharia Law with Nigerian Secular Law? Are there
attempts to impose either of these on the others?

Comment:-
Wrong. Repeat, the Shariah Law applies only to Muslims. As far as Robert or
you are concerned they are still under the one set of laws.

But apart from this the Law has many features and it constantly being
changed. Only some parts apply to a person and not others according to their
actions and circumstances. The parts that affect others do not affect Robert
or you.

I see real Democracy as meaning that people can control their own affairs
without interference from others, to fulfil themselves and this requires
real objective knowledge. I do not want any sects but only people who are
willing to seek the truth, adopt the techniques to achieve this, and live by
it. Others can do as they like. This is real tolerance and real Freedom and
also real civilised behaviour.

Within a nation there should be treaties and agreements between the various
communities which will define:- (a) That which is common to all members e.g.
criminal laws. (b) That which applies only to each community. (c)  That
which relates to the interaction between members of different communities.

The Shariah should ideally be defined by persons who have studied and
applied the Quran and Sunna in their lives, have a wide knowledge and
experience of conditions and affairs. They are not ordinary scholars in the
purely academic sense. They are independent and impartial, not being
controlled by any interest or power groups. In any Islamic nation those who
are qualified will have consult with each other and come to a consensus. The
Judges should be selected by the community through its assemblies out of
this group. Though each case is decided by the individual judge, the case
should be referred back to the organisation of such Judges for the final
judgement.

Let's see one example to illustrate.

Some scholars, such as al-Tabari, and probably al-Shaybani, were of the
opinion that women could be judges (under shariah law) for any possible
legal case.

This has been posted in SRI before - see here for references (section
5):

From: "GF Haddad" <Qasy...@cyberia.net.lb>
Subject: Women issues
Date: 2000/10/25
Message-ID: <8t6hnd$b8k$1@samba.rahul.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Read this post here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/e3c60aaad3cd3983

So here, Robert's post is stating things in a way that is obviously
misleading.

If people were asking for implementation of Islamic family law
following the largest Islamic school of thought, which is the Hanafi
school, then there would be no problem with having women as judges.

You could make similar statements about Robert's various other points
too, which are often at best half-truths. I think all these various
"issues" have been discussed in SRI many times before.

If we suppose that (2) is correct and Shariah law applies to Muslims
only, then what law governs a dispute between Muslims and non-Mulsims?
Historically, in Muslim countries, the Shariah applied if any of the
parties in the dispute were Muslim.

But if the Shariah applies to disputes where any of the parties are
non-Muslim then that non-Muslim is being subjected to Shariah law in
contradiction to (2).

For example, suppose a Muslim man should convert to Christianity. As a
Christian he would not be subject to the Shariah and therfore would not
be liable to the penalty for apostacy. In fact, the law that apostates
must die becomes a dead letter. I don't think this is the traditional
Islamic view of this issue.

I cannot see how the Shariah could be embedded into a western lawcode
and somehow applied to Muslims alone. If the Muslims are in a minority
position virtually everything they do involves non-Muslims and
therefore is not covered by the Shariah. Vice versa, a nation governed
by a Shariah that only applies to Muslims cannot escape the duty of
governing its non-Muslims and therefore must be secular.

It is my understanding that the proposal in Canada was not actual
Shariah law but rather to provide a level of Shariah-based mediation in
family disputes. To actually allow Shariah law would require an act of
Parliment at least.

The rights of women in particular cannot be just waved away. If a
Muslim wife does not believe that she has the right to object to
spousal rape then all she has to do is not press charges. But if she
decides to press charges then obviously charges will pressed regardless
of what the Shariah might say.

In the United States, as I understand it and I am not a lawyer, the
children of a divorced couple are wards of the court. I feel sure that
this right of the children would not be casually brushed away even if
the parents were Muslims

And, of course, a Muslim husband might feel himself divorced after
three pronouncements but, of course, he would not be divorced under the
law. And so on.

Introducing Shariah law would be an immense undertaking. I believe you
will have trouble getting a rational response from the Muslim community
about this because the community doesn't really know what Shariah law
means any more than you or I do.

The correct response to a proposal for Shariah law is to ask the
advocate of the Shariah exactly what law code they have in mind and
insist on an accurate reference. It is a great conversation stopper.

If they actually name one ask them what it says about something modern.
Like speed limits. And if they can answer that ask them how this answer
came about. I think you can get the idea. Be polite but curious. Don't
worry about offending against Islam. Islam does not depend on the old
Shariah. A new Shariah that handles modern issues is possible. But so
far no such animal seems to exist.

I suggest that you seek more reliable information on just about
everything you read in the papers--especially news about controversial
matters.

There has not been any request in Canada for an enactment of shari'ah.

In Canada, we have a single criminal code that applies to all people.
However, we have 10 civil law jurisdictions and each of the 10 provinces
have their on civil statutes, courts and judicial procedures. Québec is
very different in this respect since it's civil law (unlike that of the
other provinces) is not based on English Common Law but on French Civil
Law.

Last year, in the province of Ontario, a group of Muslims asked that
judicicial recognition be given to VOLUNTEER arbitration decisions
rendered on the basis of shari'ah "principles". There is NO single
shari'ah code and the implementation of shari'ah principles varies
depending on the jurisitic school (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi'i)
followed in a particular place as well as on other particularities.

It must be understood that Ontario has an arbitration statute whose
purpose is to allow certain matters of personal or business interest to
be settled by binding private arbitration, thus relieving the pressure
on the courts and reducing the delays and costs to litigants. Basically,
the province gives recognition to certain arbitration bodies. If two
litigants agree voluntarily to take their matter to such a body, their
dispute is heard by an arbitrator that they have a say in choosing. Once
the litigants have agreed to the arbitration procedure and an acceptable
arbitrator has been chosen, the process and the ultimate decision of the
arbitrator is binding on the litigants.

If, after a decision is rendered, a litigant refuses to abide by the
arbitrator's decision, the other litigant can take the matter before an
ordinary court of civil jurisdiction. Since the arbitration process is
recognized and given a quasi-judicial status, the judge will,
immediately issue an enforcement order that will make it possible to
satisfy the arbitration order by court-ordered seizures of property or
other judicial coercion. However, the judge can refuse to issue an
enforcement order if the arbitration decision is contrary to public law
or public morals.

Such binding arbitration is commonplace in commercial affairs. In
Ontario (as in several U.S. jurisdictions) binding arbitration based on
religious principles was allowed too. For many years, in Ontario, there
has been binding arbitration of commercial and some family matters by
both a Jewish arbitration body (Beth Din) and a Roman Catholic Chancery
Court. Ontario Muslims simply asked that access to enforcement orders
for shari'ah based arbitration be given them in the same way that
similar access had already been given to Jews and Catholics.

Initially the matter was not very controversial and the premier of
Ontario asked a former justice minister to study the request. Her report
recommended that Muslims be accorded arbitration rights similar to those
already held by Jews and Catholics.

Unfortunately, the timing of the request was not good and it became a
political hot potato. The discussion was highjacked by people who knew
nothing about either shari'ah principles or civil arbitration. Soon
people were talking about cutting the hands off thieves and stoning
adulterers. This was a red herring since only CIVIL matters were subject
to arbitration.

Eventually, the premier, apparently for base political motives,
disavowed the report he had commissioned and said that there would not
be any recognition of shari'ah based arbitration. However, in order to
avoid a direct conflict with the non-discrimination provisions of the
Canadian Constitution, he then declared his intention to introduce
legislation that would eliminate recognition of long-existing Jewish and
Catholic arbitration bodies.

It must be noted that arbitration based on religious principles (or any
other basis) is still allowed but that it is no longer possible for Jews
or Catholics to obtain an enforcement order if a litigant renegs on his
voluntary acceptance of binding and it will not, in future, be possible
for Muslims to have access to enforcement orders.

I don't know exactly what has been proposed (or requested) in the U.K.,
but I doubt that it goes much further than the Ontario request.

As far as I know, there is only ONE country in the whole world that has
a justice system for Muslims and another system for the majority
population. That country is India. Several Muslim countries, however, do
have within their unitary justice systems a status of exception for
"People of the Book", that allows matters of person status (family law
matters, inheritance, etc.) to be decided on the basis of specific laws
applying only to particular faith groups.

By the way, your description of shari'ah (in your original question) is
a caricature of the what shari'ah is. The system is no more primitive
than English Common Law.

Frankly as long as any implementation shari'ah principles for settling
civil disputes on a voluntary basis is subject to compliance with the
existing principles of public order, public morals and fairness, I can
see no good reason to deny Muslims the possibility of having
shari'ah-based decisions subject to regular civil-court enforcement
procedures.

--
Peace to all who seek God's face.

<kleine...@astound.net> wrote
Re: >> (3) The Sharia law certainly does not apply to Robert Houghton and
his

Comment:-
The same misunderstanding was expressed by someone else and I explained it:-
Roberts opinion about Islam and Shariah are irrelevant to Muslim
understanding of Islam and Shariah.

It may be relevant to politics  but that is not what I meant. We were
discussing Shariah law itself.

You say that my comments are "often  half-truths" and sometimes
"outright falsehoods". Since you do not quote these comments of mine
and demonstrate their falsity, you merely smear me and leave me unable
to defend myself against your accusation. If you were to make good your
claims you would do me and the followers of this forum a service. As it
is yo just blacken my name. Do the honourable thing and make a case.

You yourself can be accused of half-truths on the evidence of the link
that you produce. Anyone who accesses it will read that indeed the
Hanafi school admits that a woman may be a judge, if the case admits of
the testimony of a woman. However, Mohammed Fadel, whose article "Two
women, one man" is quoted (what authority does it have? who is Fadel?)
is quoted, states "However, it is true, as a matter of history, that no
Muslim woman in the pre-Modern era was ever appointed a qadi as far as
I know."

The Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis prohibit women from acting as
judges.

"MarcBlanc" <mynamehere_mynameh...@yahoo.com> wrote

Comment:-
Muslims are required to abide by the law of the people among whom they live
and by far most of them do.

But the law of Western "Democracies" allows freedom of thought and speech
and choice and election of
candidates and policies and it requires or allows participation in the
political process.
Are you saying that Muslims are to be denied this?
On what gounds, seeing that the secular system does not recognise religion
as a criterion?

As usual double standards.