Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

[Capitalism Forever]

From The Sunday Times

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

[Zip]

A step closer to "Peoples States" status for the UK.

It's a shame.

[LiberTodd]

Hey guys, look how "progressive" we're being! Now we have special courts for Muslims so they can beat their wives and get away with it, just like in backwards third-world countries!

[DavidOdden]

This all seems quite dramatic, however it also appears that this only holds for civil matters and not crimes such as assault, theft and murder. It required an arbitration agreement, so e.g. a person cannot be forced to apply to the Sharia court on the grounds that the parties are both Muslim. So what's the big deal?

First deal: somehow, "domestic violence" is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It would not be difficult to make assault in general a civil matter. Second deal: this will create all sorts of conceptual chaos with the higher courts, who will be technically incapable of applying legal principles to Sharia court decisions to determine if there is reversible error. If the consequence of that is that no Sharia case can be appealed, then that might not be so bad for the big picture (too bad for contract enforcement victims), but if the regular courts have to integrate Real Law and Sharia judgments, some evil precedents will inevitably be created and enforced against all Brits. Third deal: the wording of the act doesn't leave me with a strong feeling of confidence that an ostensive "arbitration agreement" actually has to exist and be understood. The bottom line warning here, folks, is that it is dangerous to have any dealings with a Muslim in the UK, since it cannot be guaranteed that you have not thereby agreed to submit to punishment by a Sharia tribunal.

[Tenure]

England giveth Common Law and she taketh away.

David has said anything intelligent I could think to say on this matter. Do you mind if I use your ideas in an LTE?

Edited September 15, 2008 by Tenure

[K-Mac]

Now we have special courts for Muslims so they can beat their wives and get away with it...

The wives will be lucky if their male relatives just beat them and get away with it. Honor killings are now legal, I suppose?

[DavidOdden]

Honor killings are now legal, I suppose?

That hasn't been decided AFAIK. The only restrictions against murder (as of when I checked last) are Common Law, so it depends on how the courts understand "the general law". If Sharia courts do so interpret killing (as excusable when done so in defense of honor, as opposed to in defense of one's own life), then mebbe. Such an argument was put forth in a case in Vancouver BC, that a woman "outraged" her husband by I dunno and I don't care what, maybe being in the same room with another man, anyhow, he murdered her and his defense was that that was an outrageously provocative act for her to be in the presence of another man. The trial court at least said that was crap, but who knows what happened on appeal. It is not at all inconceivable that the courts could extend the notion of justified homicide to "provocation" arising from cultural offenses, such as insult of honor.

[TheEgoist]

I don't see something wrong with this per se, but it just can't be leading to anything good. Private arbitration is one thing, but where is it going to end?

[Capitalism Forever]

Private arbitration is one thing, but where is it going to end?

Private arbitration is fine for civil cases (where both parties consent to it), but having two parallel systems of criminal courts is an example of "competing protection agencies." And it's not too difficult to guess which side is eventually going to win this particular competition...

[Tenure]

I'm gonna tell my anarcho-capitalist friend about this. He'll be thrilled! The beginning of a competitive justice system! Hurrah!

[eriatarka]

Second deal: this will create all sorts of conceptual chaos with the higher courts, who will be technically incapable of applying legal principles to Sharia court decisions to determine if there is reversible error.

The UK has had Jewish courts for quite some time without the tabloids pasting scare-mongering headlines all over their front pages, so why do you think Sharia courts would cause any more legal difficulties than they did? The outrage over Sharia courts seems to be based on anti-Islamic sentiment since noone in the UK has batted an eyelid over the existence of Beth Din for the past few decades (if they even knew it existed).

I agree that domestic violence should be a criminal matter though. And even for civil matters, I dont really like the idea of Muslim/Jewish courts because I suspect that people inside these communities will under a lot of social pressure to use them over secular courts, and this is likely to result in certain parties (ie women) being discriminated against. 'Consent' becomes a pretty dubious concept when your whole family and community is pushing you to do something, but I suppose these courts have to be grudgingly accepted under some basic right of free association even though theyre likely to have negative consequences for some groups.

The bottom line warning here, folks, is that it is dangerous to have any dealings with a Muslim in the UK, since it cannot be guaranteed that you have not thereby agreed to submit to punishment by a Sharia tribunal.

Both parties have to consent to accept the ruling of the court so this seems like ludicious scare-mongering. Edited September 17, 2008 by eriatarka

[softwareNerd]

From that article, it sounds like these Sharia "courts" apply if both (or all) parties agree to use them. For example, did that inheritance case have to go to the Sharia court, or did all the parties agree to take it there? Also, in the instance of assault, it mentions that the women withdrew their police complaints. This makes it sound like the cops would have pursued it, regardless of the Sharia fellow's ruling, but the women obeyed the Sharia court. Does anyone know if these courts apply only to those who opt to use them?

When the British were in India, they faced a situation where Hindus and Muslims wanted different laws to government marriage, inheritance, etc. By the time they left, they had evolved a system that independent India adopted and has to this day. The system works as follows: instead of using sharia law, there is a "Muslim Marriage Act" that has been based on Sharia law. People can choose to be married under this act, or under the "Hindu Marriage Act" or under a "civil" marriage act. The rules (e.g. divorce) that apply subsequently, depend on how they were married. There is no separate court system. The regular judges apply these acts. As far as I know, there is also a presumed choice: if one gets married in a Mosque, and does not register the marriage separately as being under the civil law, then one is presumed to be marrying under the "Muslim Marriage Act".

While the system that the British left behind in India has its negatives, the system they have instituted for themselves seems worse.

[eriatarka]

Does anyone know if these courts apply only to those who opt to use them?

Yes this is the case

[DavidOdden]

The UK has had Jewish courts for quite some time without the tabloids pasting scare-mongering headlines all over their front pages, so why do you think Sharia courts would cause any more legal difficulties than they did?

That would because of the presumption that being Muslim is a hereditary and involuntary thing, and the wildly different philosophical underpinnings. That combines with the observed atrocities commited in the name of Sharia law, not found with Jewish law. Examples would be the absurdity of Islamic rape law (it is a crime to be raped, a charge of rape against a man requires 4 witnesses), flogging or execution by stoning for adultery or sexually inappropriate conduct (e.g. being in the company of an adult male other than a close family member).

[softwareNerd]

The UK has had Jewish courts for quite some time without the tabloids pasting scare-mongering headlines all over their front pages, ...

Rather than extending such a system, the government should be working to roll Jewish courts into a unified civil code.

.The outrage over Sharia courts seems to be based on anti-Islamic sentiment...

You say that as if there is no Objective reason to be against Islamic law, as it is actually practiced!

[Marc K.]

What I'd like to know is if such a system could ever be implemented in the US.

In a country that, at least ostensibly, respects individual rights could one ever legally agree to enslave oneself? I understand that one could privately agree to such an arrangement, but could such an arrangement ever enjoy the force of law?

So, even if one initially agreed to be married under Islamic law, if anything ever occurred that violated one's rights, they could not be held to that agreement, right?

Parenthetically, I suppose there are many instances when one could say "this is the beginning of the end" but this certainly seems like one to me.

[eriatarka]

That would because of the presumption that being Muslim is a hereditary and involuntary thing

Why is that relevant?

Although the way rape laws have been interpreted in some radical Islamic countries is obviously deplorable, this is only one aspect of Sharia - its a very large body of law which covers many aspects of civil life. And blaming the rape/adultery thing on Islam is pretty simplistic anyway - most poor and undeveloped countries tend to be highly patriarchal and view women as possessions, regardless of what religion the culture has. Islam may be the overt justification used to oppress women in modern Islamic countries, but if you look at pretty much any poor country at any point in history youll find similar female subjugation (look at Europe 200-300 years ago for instance). The barbaric acts associated with Islam are caused just as much by poor economic conditions as they are by religious belief, and its naive to think that the same acts would be supported by Muslims in the UK.

There are legitimate reasons for objecting to these courts, and I think this sort of tabloid hysteria detracts from them. Noone is going to drag you into a Sharia court against your will for looking at a Muslim the wrong way, nor are any edicts to stone people for adultery going to be issued. The largely urbanised Muslim community in the UK is hardly comparable to the extremists you find in isolated Pakistani villages, in the same way that Christians in the UK arent comparable to Christians 500 years ago in terms of their social views. If you took a poll of UK Muslims to find out how many supported the criminalization of rape victims youre going to get very different results than you would if you took the same poll in the Pakistani wilderness. Religions are not static entities.

In any case, I'm prepared to assume that most Muslims in the UK want Sharia for purposes relating to family law rather than because they want to stone rape victims, which they wouldnt be able to do under the current proposal anyway. Traditional Jewish law has just as many horrible things in it, but very few Jews today would support the more barbaric decrees.

Edited September 17, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

Although the way rape laws have been interpreted in some radical Islamic countries is obviously deplorable, this is only one aspect of Sharia - its a very large body of law which covers many aspects of civil life.

It is a sufficient aspect to be a reason for concern, especially when dealing with the basic subjectivity of Islamic law. Of course such subjectivity is the norm, given the dominance of Common Law practices in England, but that does not justify any expansion of subjectivity in law. What ameloriates the situation with English Common Law is that it expresses the proper moral discoveries of a basically civilized and rational country, which cannot be said about Sharia law. It is true that many primitive countries have appalling legal principles, but I was operating under the assumption that England gave up primitive barbarism quite a while ago.

It is, of course, possible that the attempt to integrate barbaric law with civilized law will result in a big enough conflict and that the courts will retain enough connection to the purpose of law that this will precipate significant changes in application of Common Law concepts, to legally insulate English society from any precedent-setting effects of the Islamics, to encourage a greater embrace of statutory law, and to make more stark the legal separation of Islamic arbitrators versus actual judges in a real legal system who make enforceable rulings. We will only know after this dual legal system persists for some time and there are sufficient numbers of challenges getting into the real legal system, whether this is just a form of mind-numbing primitivism, or an actual threat to civilization. Since you cannot know in advance how subjective law will be interpreted and enforced, caution is the rational course of action when dealing with an unknown but potentially quite dangerous quantity.

[Capitalism Forever]

In a country that, at least ostensibly, respects individual rights could one ever legally agree to enslave oneself?

No: individual rights are rooted in man's nature and are therefore inalienable. Any agreement declaring away a man's inalienable rights should be dismissed as meaningless and therefore void.

[Capitalism Forever]

Noone is going to drag you into a Sharia court against your will for looking at a Muslim the wrong way, nor are any edicts to stone people for adultery going to be issued.

Not yet. But this is just the first step down a steep and slippery slope. Soon, we'll start hearing complaints about how unfair it is that Islamic courts only have jurisdiction if both parties opt for them, where it's enough for just one party to want a "Christian" court and you'll get a "Christian" court. And those "enlightened," non-"chauvinistic" British intellectuals will be unable to give an answer to why the "oppressing" court system enjoys this "preferential treatment" and the minority is "discriminated" against.

[01503]

Noone is going to drag you into a Sharia court against your will

Not today. But then again, it's all small steps towards oblivion. People will look into the past and say "Oh God! How did we get here?" without realizing that it was all small steps. Legislature is not destroying individual rights in one year, are they?