Sharia Family Law

[Fullyplumped]

That doesn't necessarly mean that he can't be co-opted into a the government machine and become seperate from the communities he claims to represent.

....I doubt Malik is highly regarded by many muslims.

He claims to represent his Parliamentary constituency, which includes a diversity of identities. I hear he's doing quite well.

I'm sorry you don't like the Labour Party. We will no doubt get over it in time.

How would you know how many Muslims regard him highly, and why should it matter to him? Or to you or me? He is speaking honestly to whoever will publish him.

 

[JoePolitix]

He's not saying "stop whining and be grateful" - he said very clearly "if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority." Why make up a quote when his own words are there for you to read?

That's completely true. What Shahid Malik MP is saying is that many of those who purport to speak on behalf of Muslims are not up to the job and are out of touch.

I would add that they often fail to represent the diversity of Muslims, and many aren't honest about their agenda.

What's wrong with the political mainstream? Why shouldn't Muslims be involved in Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP, or even the Tories? This isn't the place to debate how useless and harmful the Respect project in England is but it is very unpleasant to hear it suggested that only minority politics are of use to people from minorities.

Muslims shouldn't join the lib dems and the tories for the same reasons that other ordinary people shouldn't join these reactionary plutocratic parties (maybe they could join the labour party and fight for leftwing politics - that's a whole other debate).

I agree that self styled community leaders are often far removed from the people they are supposed to represent but they're usually nearer the mark than a Blairite lacky like Malik, the article above makes the case well.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Try this for starters:http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/188

I did - what's your point? A blogger agrees with you, so what? I liked this comment in the blog -
Indeed. They are elected representatives, if you don’t like their policies don’t vote them in. They should be doing what they believe is right to do, not conforming to the typical view ‘of their kind’.

This is exactly how the BNP propogandise against current politicians, saying that they don’t care about white people, they sell themselves out to the minorities etc. As Jay mentions the slur is race traitor.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Here's another

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/toff01.htm

Again, what's your point. Too many words in some form of Trot dialect but he or she thinks Shahid Malik MP (got elected by real voters in a real constituency, unlike the Trot) is an Uncle Tom. So what.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Muslims shouldn't join the lib dems and the tories for the same reasons that other ordinary people shouldn't join these reactionary plutocratic parties (maybe they could join the labour party and fight for leftwing politics - that's a whole other debate).

I agree that self styled community leaders are often far removed from the people they are supposed to represent but they're usually nearer the mark than a Blairite lacky like Malik, the article above makes the case well.

It's none of your business what party Muslims or anyone else should join. I agree with you that they shold join the Labour Party, though.

 

[JoePolitix]

How would you know how many Muslims regard him highly, and why should it matter to him? Or to you or me? He is speaking honestly to whoever will publish him.

It matters because what is being discussed here is Maliks appeals to the Muslim community to 'intigrate' etc (ie support Blair). I'm suggesting that polling evidence which shows lack of support for government policies like the "anti-terror" legislation and so on within the muslim communties, it is unlikely that Malik's appeals will be recieved well within these communities given that he stands full square behind the government on these issues.

The Daily Mail as an outlet for honesty? At least you've got a sense of humour. Sleep tight.

 

[JoePolitix]

Again, what's your point. Too many words in some form of Trot dialect but he or she thinks Shahid Malik MP (got elected by real voters in a real constituency, unlike the Trot) is an Uncle Tom. So what.

I'll remind you that Tommy Sheriden "got elected by real voters in a real constituency" and won a real court case and convinced a real jury of his case. That didn't stop you using all sorts of insults about him and his character.

Presumably it's fine to attack elected socialists but not elected Blairoids eh?

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'll remind you that Tommy Sheriden "got elected by real voters in a real constituency" and won a real court case and convinced a real jury of his case.

No he didn't. He got in to the Scottish Parliament on the list with his party only getting 20% of the vote in 2003, up from 12% of the vote in 1999. In the real election for the constituency he was beaten solidly by a Labour candidate.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Presumably it's fine to attack elected socialists but not elected Blairoids eh?

No, it''s very naughty.

 

[likesfish]

i TS A BELIEF - ITS NOT LIKE ITS FUCKIN REAL OR ANYHING
should be flashed up everytime a religous person appears on tv

 

[zoltan]

Might be worth noting that parts of the tax system and financial regulations have already been amended to allow for Shariah compliant financial products. This has made the UK one of the leading non-Muslim countries in this area.

Is this concession also out of order?

Personally I think that on balance it's OK - if Muslims were excluded from doing things that other people could do, then changing the law accordingly was right. Much less sure about changing family law though, as I'm afraid my perception is that this would in fact be against the interests of Muslim women.

Its more a case of the financial institutions working to expand their market & profits, rather than any process to make financial aspects of relgious law mainstream. and whatever the product is, you can rest assured its Profitable for the Banks, otherwise they wouldnt get off their spotty pinstriped arses to market it - the vast majority of Muslims in the UK use normal bankining and loan facilities - its a minority that have adopted the more hard line traditional approach and need these specially tailored financial products.

There cannot be ANY benefit financially to adopt one religious viewpoint over another from a taxation perspective - that wouldnt be cricket!

 

[Jonti]

Oddly enough, this can come down to the way the products are described (including in the legalese) -- the practical difference is often negligible.

And don't forget that there is no Pope in Islam. Experts in Sharia law can and do disagree over what is allowed and what is not.

 

[Dissident Junk]

Treelover - People are not executed for personal status violation – such as converting away from Islam, a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman, etc. a) Because these things simply do not happen – people are too afraid to try. And b) because the state / community acts in practice in a different way. If you try to transgress the laws, you will find yourself either abused by the state until you recant / your marriage is annulled. Or else you would be killed by your own family members or the wider community, much as in honour killings.

But as I say, these things rarely happen because people simply do not dare transgress the law. No Christian man tries to marry a Muslim woman. And no Muslim publicly disavows Islam. Neither act is legally possible. Illegally attempting either would expose you to various forms and extremities of violence.

My broader point, really, was that Personal Status Laws are not personal. They are communal and communalistic and divisive.

Hence the situation of Metwallif Ibrahim Saleh, imprisoned in Egypt because he wrote a series of papers claiming that it was not against sharia for a christian man to marry a muslim woman.

While many liberals in Egypt argue that it should be allowed, the problem with Saleh is more complicated.

Saleh has two degrees from al-azar and he's a Salafi.

 

[JoePolitix]

The Government, via Maggy II (Beckett), have recently been meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss how to combat "extremism" amongst young muslims. One individual, Dr Syed Aziz Pasha of the Union of Muslim Organisations proposed that securing muslims more religious rights would help quell extremism and he argued for a limited form of Sharia in the field of family affairs (dowery payments for marriage, the distribution of deceased members assets among family members etc).

Dr Pasha's ideas were rejected by every other Muslim leader most notably the MCB's Inayat Bunglawala who argued that such proposals would play into the hands of those who accuse muslims of failing to integrate. He concluded "There is no room for a dual legal system in the UK."

So basically there has been alot of hysteria about nothing, the sort of "journalism" you tend to expect these days about events involving muslims.

A bit of follow up:

The Mail went with “Muslims call for special bank holidays” The mirror went with “WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL” (the BNP copied them with a statement entitled "Labour ministers threatened with Islamic blackmail") and the Daily Star announced “British Muslims have demanded special bank holidays for religious festivals.... They also called for the UK to have Sharia law, which in the Middle East includes penalties such as stonings and amputations"

Labour MP Shahid Malik added to this islamophobic hysteria in a piece in the Sunday Times yesterday with an article entitled “If you want sharia law, you should go and live in Saudi”. The strap line read “Shahid Malik, the Labour MP, explains why he told fellow Muslims that if they don’t like Britain they should pack their bags”

In this article he attacked the statements of Dr Pasha who at the meeting with the government proposed Islamic family courts and Muslim bank holidays. Malik also choose to ignore the comments of the other muslim community leaders who spoke out against his proposals such as the MCB’s Inayat Bunglawala. Even though only one individual actually made these controversial proposals, Malik has joined the media spin that this was demanded by a "muslim leaders".

Classic Uncle Tom behavour in other words.

 

[JHE]

In this article he attacked the statements of Dr Pasha who at the meeting with the government proposed Islamic family courts and Muslim bank holidays. Malik also choose to ignore the comments of the other muslim community leaders who spoke out against his proposals such as the MCB’s Inayat Bunglawala. Even though only one individual actually made these controversial proposals, Malik has joined the media spin that this was demanded by a "muslim leaders".

It's not just Dr Pasha and his organisation. Like you, I've seen a report saying that Mr Bungle of the MCB distanced himself from the idea (and I was pleasantly surprised). However, I saw Mr Bungle's then boss Iqbal Sacranie (now Sir Iqbal) making exactly the same proposal, i.e., sharia in matters of marriage and family law, on the TV a couple of years ago. He explained there was nothing wrong with having different rules for different 'communities' and gave two historical examples - the British Raj and the Ottoman Empire!

More importantly, the recent poll for C4's Dispatches found a third of Muslims in Britain wanted to live under sharia law (a wish that, on the face of it, is even more extreme than the Pasha-Sacranie proposal).

By the way, Joe, are you for or against having different laws - let's say just in matters of marriage and the family, to begin with - for different 'communities'?

 

[JoePolitix]

It's not just Dr Pasha and his organisation. Like you, I've seen a report saying that Mr Bungle of the MCB distanced himself from the idea (and I was pleasantly surprised). However, I saw Mr Bungle's then boss Iqbal Sacranie (now Sir Iqbal) making exactly the same proposal, i.e., sharia in matters of marriage and family law, on the TV a couple of years ago. He explained there was nothing wrong with having different rules for different 'communities' and gave two historical examples - the British Raj and the Ottoman Empire!

More importantly, the recent poll for C4's Dispatches found a third of Muslims in Britain wanted to live under sharia law (a wish that, on the face of it, is even more extreme than the Pasha-Sacranie proposal).

By the way, Joe, are you for or against having different laws - let's say just in matters of marriage and the family, to begin with - for different 'communities'?

But the fact remains that the media has spun the recent meeting and behaved irresponsibly in the way it has presented the meeting. I don't know about Sacranie's position on Sharia law but clearly the one you ascribe to him is not the current position of the MCB.

On the question of the attitudes of young muslims in Britain there was an excellent article by Garry Younge in the Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1854659,00.html

I concure with his analysis.

Do I support faith based arbitration on family matters? No not especially given that I'm an atheist and a secularist but if such a venture could be entered into on a voluntary basis by individuals then I wouldn't necessarily oppose it. I'm fairly neutral on the question to be honest.

 

[poster342002]

Do I support faith based arbitration on family matters? No not especially given that I'm an atheist and a secularist but if such a venture could be entered into on a voluntary basis by individuals then I wouldn't necessarily oppose it. I'm fairly neutral on the question to be honest.

How would you know it's being entered into "voluntarily" by both sides and not through some form of peer or "community" coercion?

 

[Roadkill]

Do I support faith based arbitration on family matters? No not especially given that I'm an atheist and a secularist but if such a venture could be entered into on a voluntary basis by individuals then I wouldn't necessarily oppose it. I'm fairly neutral on the question to be honest.

Tbh, and also as an atheist/secularist, I don't think law should make any concessions to religious groups.

People are - and should be - free to believe any old crap they like, but this is a secular society and no-one should expect its laws to be based on religious principles. Don't like that? Well, tough shit frankly. And that applies to Muslims, Christians and every other religion.

 

[JoePolitix]

How would you know it's being entered into "voluntarily" by both sides and not through some form of peer or "community" coercion?

That is ofcourse one of te major arguments against it, however on the other hand there will be people, both men and women, who want such law adn should they be denied the right to seek it because other may be coerced?

Like I said I'm neutral on the question. I think some research into popularity and feasablity would have to be considered.

 

[Blackmushroom]

My understanding of this story is that the government, in their futile attempt to consult with the "muslim community" were talking to just about any group that claimed to represent Muslims. One of the groups consulted were a bunch of fringe traditionalists who started banging on about Sharia Law.

Sharia law may appeal to the HT's but to 99% of the muslims that I know, and I know a lot from all backgrounds, its about as welcome as a bout of the clap. Its nice in theory for them but in reality they'd prefer the nice secular legal system we have.

I wish the government would actually try to make an attempt to understand Muslims in Britain before they invite any old looney who calls himself a community leader to Downing street for consultations. Its like the the UK being represented for consultations in the the EU by David Icke.

 

[Fullyplumped]

That is ofcourse one of te major arguments against it, however on the other hand there will be people, both men and women, who want such law adn should they be denied the right to seek it because other may be coerced?

Yes, in the UK anyway. If they really need Sharia law, or one of the many flavours thereof, they are free to domicile themselves in one of the countries that can cater to their juridical needs.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I wish the government would actually try to make an attempt to understand Muslims in Britain before they invite any old looney who calls himself a community leader to Downing street for consultations. Its like the the UK being represented for consultations in the the EU by David Icke.

The thing is, of course, that the government have no interest in understanding Muslims in Britain anyway - they'd like them to shut up and stop complaining, like they'd like all of us to shut up and stop complaining, but that's it. So it doesn't really matter to them whether they acknowledge some nutcase or not - in fact, it's to their benefit if they only acknowledge nutcases, because then they have a valid excuse for not doing anything about it.

They don't give a monkey's what Muslims think, because they don't give a monkey's what any of us think.

 

[JoePolitix]

Yes, in the UK anyway. If they really need Sharia law, or one of the many flavours thereof, they are free to domicile themselves in one of the countries that can cater to their juridical needs.

Why should people who campiagn peacefully and democratically for changes to the law be told to go and live elsewhere?

Bit bigoted isn't it?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Why should people who campiagn peacefully and democratically for changes to the law be told to go and live elsewhere? Bit bigoted isn't it?

Nobody's telling anyone to do anything. These people aren't campaigning for changes in the law - they are striving for a separate legal system running alongside the existing legal system in our countries, one derived not from acts passed by democratic legislatures, but from ancient divinely inspired texts interpreted by scholars from a hugely different culture. The countries in the UK have went through that phase over the past few hundred years - the experience was not great.

I think that it would be wrong to give "juridical separatists" false hope that they stand a chance of success. The rest of us have a stake in defending and securing a single legal system for all in order to defend and protect community cohesion. There are states in parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and several others) where sharia law applies and people who really want to live under that system can, if they feel that strongly about it, domicile themselves there. I'm guessing, though, that few really will want the benefits that sharia gives them so much that they would do it. For those who do it's a better option.

 

[Fullyplumped]

There are states in parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and several others) where sharia law applies and people who really want to live under that system can, if they feel that strongly about it, domicile themselves there.

And Iran.

 

[poster342002]

Why should people who campiagn peacefully and democratically for changes to the law be told to go and live elsewhere?

Bit bigoted isn't it?

So, if we were to acheive socialism, would you suppor the right of people to opt out of the socialist law-system and insist on disputes being resolved under the old captialist laws if they so chose? I wouldn't.

 

[JoePolitix]

Nobody's telling anyone to do anything. These people aren't campaigning for changes in the law - they are striving for a separate legal system running alongside the existing legal system in our countries, one derived not from acts passed by democratic legislatures, but from ancient divinely inspired texts interpreted by scholars from a hugely different culture. The countries in the UK have went through that phase over the past few hundred years - the experience was not great.

I think that it would be wrong to give "juridical separatists" false hope that they stand a chance of success. The rest of us have a stake in defending and securing a single legal system for all in order to defend and protect community cohesion. There are states in parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and several others) where sharia law applies and people who really want to live under that system can, if they feel that strongly about it, domicile themselves there. I'm guessing, though, that few really will want the benefits that sharia gives them so much that they would do it. For those who do it's a better option.

Nobodies telling anybody to do anything? Shahid Malik’s recent article in the Times was entitled "If you want sharia law, you should go and live in Saudi”. That’s an imperative, not a declarative. This is the article you praised and concurred with on this thread.

I’d like to know what you mean by “these people” and “our countries”, I thought all citizens of this countrie(s) were supposed to be equal members of a multicultural democracy, perhaps I’m just a naïve liberal.

As for claiming individuals are “striving for a separate legal system running alongside the existing legal system”, what do you base that assertion on? Dr Pasha may have been proposing to give domestic UK courts jurisdiction to rule on decisions about sharia law in family disputes between muslims in the same way a voluntary organisation can appeal to the civil courts for
interpretation of questions of law relating to the rule book of their club. One things for sure, he wasn’t proposing that aspects of sharia that were incompatible with UK law should be introduced.

This was what was proposed in Canada a couple of years ago and already exists for Jews and Christians for family matters in that country. After considerable debate the proposals were rejected and that’s fine but telling people who propose it essentially to fuck off is just authoritarian bigotry. Particularly given that a recent poll revealed that a large proportion of young British Muslims would rather live under sharia law and a higher percentage identify with their religions above their citizenship than the populations of Egypt and Jordan. This just underscores the failure of the Government’s policies: the wars, the lies, the attacking of immigrant communities. Only addressing these social and political concerns can promote “cohesion”, which will never exist when pockets of society feel excluded and marginalised.

 

[JoePolitix]

So, if we were to acheive socialism, would you suppor the right of people to opt out of the socialist law-system and insist on disputes being resolved under the old captialist laws if they so chose? I wouldn't.

The comparison doesn't hold because capitalists and workers have counterposing interests, whereas workers with different relgious beliefs do not necessarily.

Sharia courts opporated parrell to soviet courts in the early USSR with the full backing of the revolutionary government btw.

 

[poster342002]

a recent poll revealed that a large proportion of young British Muslims would rather live under sharia law

Er, if I remember correcly, it was ONE THIRD who'd rather live under sharia - which means that TWO THIRDS don't. Ergo, the vast majority of UK muslims do not want to live under sharia law.

 

[poster342002]

.

Sharia courts opporated parrell to soviet courts in the early USSR with the full backing of the revolutionary government btw.

Which only goes to show what a load of hypocritical, un-socialist bollox the leninist regime was.