Under the Arbitration Act of 1996, Muslims in the UK were empowered to resolve certain legal matters within their faith in a similar way to that already granted to Jewish Beth Din courts. These allow adherents of (mostly orthodox) Judaism to settle matters according to their religious faith without the matter entering civil law.
The initial "tribunals" were set up by lawyer Shiekh Faiz-ul-Aqtab and still operate in London, Bradford, Manchester, Birmingham and Nuneaton. Since then it is believed the number has grown to 85. Rulings can be enforced in both the County Courts and the separate courts! Initial hearings dealt with inheritance and nuisance neighbours but it is apparent the scope and influence of the courts has broadened considerably.
Caroline Cox aka Baroness Cox, a Thatcher appointee in the parliamentary upper house; has introduced a private members bill to curb the courts, which have now gone as far as backing polygamy and discriminating against women. Cox was ostracized from the Conservative Party in 2004 for supporting a Eurosceptic position, her bill is being supported by UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall.
The BBC sent an undercover reporter to the Leyton Sharia Council in East London with a complaint about an abusive husband. An Islamic scholar at the Council, Dr Suhaib Hasan said the reporter should only go to the Police as a “very very last resort”. The programme showing this (a part of the Panorama show) is due for future broadcast having been delayed by the death of Margaret Thatcher.
According to ‘The Independent’ - On International Women's Day, in March, a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – marched under a banner saying: "No Sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all." They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that Sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.
Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: "Women are not equal in Sharia law, and Sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under Sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances." The Muslim Council of Britain responds to this by saying that this kind of talk is "scaremongering".
Everyone, including devout Muslims, should have the right to settle personal disputes in front of the tribunal of their choice and it is not unreasonable to see that many Muslim women feel the need for a cleric's reassurance that they can break a forced marriage. However Sharia law does not recognise women's equality, or gay rights, or religious freedom; and though participation is supposed to be voluntary, women in particular are likely to be pressured into accepting a verdict of an arbitration they have been forced into.
Sharia courts unnecessarily exacerbate the divisions between Muslim and western societies. It is one thing for an individual or couple to mutually agree to undergo religiously led counseling and arbitration. It is something else for decisions made in these forums to be legally binding. The state courts need to be the place that validate any judgment and order any kind of enforcement.
Muslim advocates like to point to the Jewish courts as validation of the Sharia ones. Although a plausible-sounding defense, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out, “Jewish courts do not rule on the basis of a law that Jews are laboring to impose upon the whole of British society. Sharia courts are.” Therein lies a crucial distinction, and one that Sharia advocates conveniently fail to mention.
It’s time that these courts were put in their place. First the concept of them having the standing of a court needs to be removed. Second, it needs to be understood that they do not have authority above that of any other religious body. Third, to act contrary to the 1st and 2nd points needs to be a point of caution to the body.
It is a difficult act juggling religious freedom versus law enforcement, but ultimately certain standards of the state must be upheld regardless. Ultimately Britain must choose that it is a Judeo-Christian nation that is tolerant of other faiths provided they remain within the general concepts of the nation’s legal structure. To fail to do so will lead to the subjection of its culture by the more aggressive and self-serving strains of Islam.
