Sharia Family Law

[Roadkill]

I believe laws based on rational, secular principles are superior in every way to religious laws. Simple as that.

We've spent the best part of two centuries replacing religious law with a modern, secular judicial code, and we're all the better for it. Introducing a new element of religious law would be a massive step in the wrong direction. As well as being wrong (both practically and morally, IMO) in itself, it would also give encouragement to other religious groups who want special legal provision made for them. If you can introduce special provision for Muslims in UK law, then how can you argue against doing the same for other faiths if that's what they want?

I'm all for a multiethnic society, but I also believe that the ground rules - the law - must be the same for everyone, and that religion should be a matter for the individual alone. You [joepolitix] say people should be equal members of a multicultural democracy: I think that can only happen if the law applies the same to everybody. Besides, the problem at the m oment is that different ethnic and faith communities are living parallel lives without interacting and without enough common ground: introducing different laws for each could only make that worse.

As a bloke said last night on Newsnight, the only encouragement the state should give religion is that it should leave people alone to practice it.

I don't see what is bigoted about that.

 

[poster342002]

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

Religion would still be a hold-over from the capitalist era, and therefore legal systems based on it would be against the interests of socialism and against the interests of the workers.

 

[JoePolitix]

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.

True, most don't but a third is still a third is rather a large percentage for such a controversial idea is it not? I'm not advocating the introduction of Sharia to Britain, I'm pointing out that there is a material base for the reason why high numbers of muslims in the UK support it (i.e poverty, marginalisation, the war on terror, Islamophobia etc) and this must be the starting approach of how to deal with the such attitudes.

 

[JoePolitix]

Poster,

Could you please point me to some socialist legal systems, past, present or future, that you approve of and demonstrate their approach to religion and capitalism?

Or are your remarks just abstract and ahistorical rhetoric?

 

[Dissident Junk]

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.

Errr . . . just to make a slightly weird point that no one else seems to have made . . . I don't know if the percentage of Muslims who want to live under Sharia would actually be able to move to Saudi.

After all, just to work there, you need princely sponsorship for a visa. And it seems to me, after the regular 'oh shit, another 400 people have died whilst on Hajj' phenomenon that the House of Saud doesn't really care that much about non-Gulfie Muslims whatsoever. And they treat SubContinent Muslims that go to work in Saudi worse than goats.

And Iran's not really an option. I doubt they'd let a British citizen, Muslim or otherwise, move there without imprisoning them to 'make sure they are not a spy'. Neither is Sudan. I can't see Asian Muslim integration going doing well there.

In fact, the only place I reckon would be viable is Pakistan, where the legal system is a mess because they have both Sharia and Secular law systems running side by side.

 

[dylanredefined]

But its a minority of a minority no reason for it too be taken seriously.Certainly take the discontent of young muslims seriously ,but,society is not going down that route anytime soon.

 

[JoePolitix]

I believe laws based on rational, secular principles are superior in every way to religious laws. Simple as that.

We've spent the best part of two centuries replacing religious law with a modern, secular judicial code, and we're all the better for it. Introducing a new element of religious law would be a massive step in the wrong direction. As well as being wrong (both practically and morally, IMO) in itself, it would also give encouragement to other religious groups who want special legal provision made for them. If you can introduce special provision for Muslims in UK law, then how can you argue against doing the same for other faiths if that's what they want?

I'm all for a multiethnic society, but I also believe that the ground rules - the law - must be the same for everyone, and that religion should be a matter for the individual alone. You [joepolitix] say people should be equal members of a multicultural democracy: I think that can only happen if the law applies the same to everybody. Besides, the problem at the m oment is that different ethnic and faith communities are living parallel lives without interacting and without enough common ground: introducing different laws for each could only make that worse.

As a bloke said last night on Newsnight, the only encouragement the state should give religion is that it should leave people alone to practice it.

I don't see what is bigoted about that.

What I'm suggesting is bigoted is telling people, who are advocating minor changes to the law (i.e the introduction of faith based arbitration in mutually agreed family settlements in civil law) to go and live in Saudi Arabia (implying they would like to see stonings and amputations aswell).

 

[poster342002]

Poster,

Could you please point me to some socialist legal systems, past, present or future, that you approve of and demonstrate their approach to religion and capitalism?

Or are your remarks just abstract and ahistorical rhetoric?

There has yet to be any socialist legal system implemented on Earth.

I could write at length about what my idea of a socialist legal system would be, but it would take all week. It's approach to religion and capitalism would be, however, that both are intertwined and worthy of the historical dustbin. The slogan would be: "Socialism: No exceptions, No exemptions".

Religious laws, like the rest of capitalism's legal setup, favours the powerful over the rest. It is incompatible with any sort of egalitarianism. It would also be impossible to decide if those entering into it were truley doing so willingly and not as a resultof pressure to do so.

 

[JoePolitix]

There has yet to be any socialist legal system implemented on Earth.

I could write at length about what my idea of a socialist legal system would be, but it would take all week. It's approach to religion and capitalism would be, however, that both are intertwined and worthy of the historical dustbin. The slogan would be: "Socialism: No exceptions, No exemptions".

I can hardly contain my excitement!

btw have any socialist legal frameworks existed elsewhere in the solar system?

 

[poster342002]

btw have any socialist legal frameworks existed elsewhere in the solar system?

I don't know - ask Doctor Who.

 

[JoePolitix]

I could write at length about what my idea of a socialist legal system would be, but it would take all week. It's approach to religion and capitalism would be, however, that both are intertwined and worthy of the historical dustbin.

I believe the legal system in Enver Hoxa's Albanian socialist heaven on earth was based on similar principles.

 

[poster342002]

Oh, here we go - when all else fails, reach for good old fashioned false-dichotomies and strawmen: anyone who doesn't want religious law must be a Stalinist.

 

[Roadkill]

What I'm suggesting is bigoted is telling people, who are advocating minor changes to the law (i.e the introduction of faith based arbitration in mutually agreed family settlements in civil law) to go and live in Saudi Arabia (implying they would like to see stonings and amputations aswell).

Faith-based arbitration is a huge change in principle, even if in practice it doesn't mean a lot.

 

[Belushi]

Oh, here we go - when all else fails, reach for good old fashioned false-dichotomies and strawmen: anyone who doesn't want religious law must be a Stalinist.

I dont want religious law and I am a Stalinist

 

[JoePolitix]

Oh, here we go - when all else fails, reach for good old fashioned false-dichotomies and strawmen: anyone who doesn't want religious law must be a Stalinist.

The principle of a "socialist" legal system that suppresses religion is a Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxite one im afraid.

 

[Roadkill]

The principle of a "socialist" legal system that suppresses religion is a Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxite one im afraid.

No legal system should actively suppress religion. Equally, no legal system should give any encouragement or protection to religious belief, criminalise criticism of religion or make different rules for faith groups.

IMO.

 

[poster342002]

The principle of a "socialist" legal system that suppresses religion is a Stalinist/Maoist/Hoxite one im afraid.

And a legal system that gives religion even more influence than it had under capitalism is a theocratic one, I'm afraid.

For crying out loud - the idea should be to try and win working-class muslims to socialism, not try and win socialists to islamism.

This cannot be done by making concession after concession to very noisy and vocal self-elected "community spokespeople/leaders" - who many progressive muslims actually may feel oppressed by.

 

[zoltan]

No legal system should actively suppress religion. Equally, no legal system should give any encouragement or protection to religious belief, criminalise criticism or religion or make different rules for faith groups.

IMO.

yup

 

[JoePolitix]

And a legal system that gives religion even more influence than it had under capitalism is a theocratic one, I'm afraid.

For crying out loud - the idea should be to try and win working-class muslims to socialism, not try and win socialists to islamism.

This cannot be done by making concession after concession to very noisy and vocal self-elected "community spokespeople/leaders" - who many progressive muslims actually may feel oppressed by.

But most community leaders are not even arguing for Sharia law, that's the point. At the meeting this thread is about only one community leader made very limited proposals towards this direction. He was criticised by Inayat bunglawala, the leader of the largest umbrellor group of muslim organisations in the UK for doing so. The media and certain labour MPs are responsible for the outcry about this due to the sensationalist way they covered the meeting.

I'm also trying to broaden this debate beyond one of a clash of abstract ideas (religious obscurantism vs secular enlightenment) and trying to look at why calls for sharia are popular among the muslim communities rather than its 'leaders'. Garry Younge is worth a read:

"Identities do not exist in a vacuum but are rooted in material conditions that confer power and privilege in relation to one another. They are not static and fixed but dynamic and fluid, constantly shifting according to time and place....

"In this respect, Islam is no different from any other identity. Although the extent of the rise in Islamic fundamentalism in Britain has been exaggerated, it certainly exists. A Pew Research Centre poll in June revealed that 15% of British Muslims believe that "violence against civilian targets can be justified often or sometimes" - that was marginally higher than the figure in Pakistan. The same poll showed that 81% of British Muslims said they thought of themselves as Muslims first and citizens of their native country second - a higher figure than in Egypt and Jordan.

"There is no point being in denial about the obvious reasons for this. Muslims will be more likely to organise around and identify with their religious identity, both at home and abroad, so long as they feel attacked as a result of their religious identity. There is no sensible conversation you can have about Islamic identity that does not address what is happening to Muslims locally and globally.

"For the past five years they have been fed on a nightly diet of bombings and occupation in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon; imprisonment and torture in Guantánamo Bay, Belmarsh, Basra and Abu Ghraib; and tales of alleged wanton murder and rape in Hamdania, Haditha, Balad and Mahmudiya.

"This excuses nothing but explains a lot. The war on terror did not create Islamic fundamentalism but it has exacerbated it. The government should not change its foreign policy because it makes Muslims angry (it should change it because it is immoral, ineffective and makes virtually the entire world angry). But nor should it treat this anger as though it were the unpredictable response of fanatics who don't watch the news and operate in isolation to world events. At present the government's only response to these trends is greater surveillance of Muslim communities and holding bantustan-style meetings with "community leaders" whose credibility decreases every time they show up at Downing Street. The government's strategy at the moment is to first pathologise and then patronise them.

"This won't work. Not for reasons of cultural sensitivity particular to Muslims but political common sense applicable to anyone. Those who refuse to address the issue of poor housing, job prospects and public services in white working-class areas will never address the rise in the racial fundamentalism that has found voice in the British National party. To acknowledge this is not to pander to racism but to display an understanding of its root causes.

"Fundamentalists only thrive at times of crisis. At certain moments for certain identities they offer not just the easy way out but what can seem like the only way out. To be serious about combating them one must first be serious about tackling the crisis that gives them leverage. Only when you offer an alternative and more attractive route out of that crisis can you isolate the leaders and win over the followers. To do so is not indulgent but intelligent."

 

[Fullyplumped]

Sorry I missed the white heat of the discussion about law and socialism, because this is actually something I know a tiny bit about. The technical term is "socialist legality" - you don't hear about it much these days, but it is a realhistorical phenomenon and in principle, still alive wherever the People's Jackboot stamps. A quick Wikpedia search isn't much help - all it says is that Socialist Legality postulates that in a socialist society, the law should serve as a tool to promote the development of socialism.

Google throws up some references to Socialist Legality in the constitution of Vietnam, and in a speech by Kruschev, but the best exposition of what Socialist Legality means in practice comes from a dissertation I found.

Under socialist legality, law is a political tool that serves the interests of the state. Socialist legality is fundamentally about compliance, about "strict observance of the law combined with Party spirit". It is "a principle which facilitates an effective enforcement of Party policy through the implementation of law as an instrument of social engineering". Under socialist legality, the interests of lawyers and their clients are subordinated to state interests.​

For lawyers in the People's Republic of China, it meant in practice

After the first Strike Hard campaign was launched in August and September, 1983, the BBJ (possibly the Beijing Bar Association?) issued a circular entitled Notice Regarding Strengthening the Work of Lawyers During Activities to Strike Hard Against Criminals that instructed its lawyers to cooperate with the goals and methods of the strike hard campaign:

"As a People's Lawyer, it is mandatory, under the unified leadership of the Party, to cooperate closely with the public security, procuracy, and courts, to cooperate in the fight against criminal elements, and to strike hard with strength and swiftness."

"Lawyers must educate defendants on confessing to their crimes, showing repentance, and informing on their accomplices and other criminal elements."​

Most of us probably take a different view of what a socialist legal system would be like. But that's what it meant for most of the last century, and it's still in a number of constitutions.

 

[Fullyplumped]

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.

It's advice. I give professional advice all the time. I usually phrase it thus - "If you want to achieve such an objective, you should do these things." I don't give orders and the people and firms I advise don't think I'm giving them orders.

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.

By these people I meant the people who are campaigning to set up sharia in the UK. By our countries I meant the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, including the different legal jurisdictions.

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...

Maybe, but I don't think he was.

One things for sure, he wasn’t proposing that aspects of sharia that were incompatible with UK law should be introduced.

I think he is after exactly that, and the risk is that some useful idiots might think "well what's so bad about that?"

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.

And it was thrown out.

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.

To do so in such terms would be very bad manners, but to make it clear at the political level that their position will be vigorously opposed is good manners, and certainly not bigotry. What's wrong about disagreeing with people, even if they are motivated by strong religious belief?

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.

The poll of Young British Muslims can say what it wants - they shouldn't get what they want just because they feel a sense of grievance any more than Young British Presbyterians who think that all shops and swingparks should be closed on a Sunday should get what they want - even if there's a poll.

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.

You can't please all of the people all of the time, especially when they're wrong!

Serious point - I'm old enough to remember a left in this country that despised religion as superstition, devised by the ruling class to keep the workers in their place. Within living memory Tom Nairn wrote "Scotland will not be free until the last minister of the Kirk has been strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post."

JoePolitix, you seem to be a Scot and a socialist (my apologies if I've misapprehended your nationality or your politics), which used to be a predictor of being if not a militant atheist, then at least a secularist. So where does all this advocacy for Islamists come from?

Let's keep religion in its place. Out of the law, out of the legal system and ideally, out of sight and mind.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Errr . . . just to make a slightly weird point that no one else seems to have made . . . I don't know if the percentage of Muslims who want to live under Sharia would actually be able to move to Saudi.

After all, just to work there, you need princely sponsorship for a visa. And it seems to me, after the regular 'oh shit, another 400 people have died whilst on Hajj' phenomenon that the House of Saud doesn't really care that much about non-Gulfie Muslims whatsoever. And they treat SubContinent Muslims that go to work in Saudi worse than goats.

And Iran's not really an option. I doubt they'd let a British citizen, Muslim or otherwise, move there without imprisoning them to 'make sure they are not a spy'. Neither is Sudan. I can't see Asian Muslim integration going doing well there.

In fact, the only place I reckon would be viable is Pakistan, where the legal system is a mess because they have both Sharia and Secular law systems running side by side.

See you and your inconvenient facts!

 

[JoePolitix]

You can't please all of the people all of the time, especially when they're wrong!

Actually that little quip sums up the attitude of you New labouroids to a tee: dissolve the people and elect another.

I wonder how long it's going to be untill you Blairiods are going to accept the truth that is so painfully obvious to everybody else: that your policies in the middle east like drenching Iraq in blood and backing Israel's slaughter in Lebanon have exacerbated the terrorist threat, the rise of Islamic fundementalism and the break down of community cohesion.

Other people might be hoxed into getting into a frenzy about "sharia law" but for me the primary blame for all this mess lies in your camp.

Serious point - I'm old enough to remember a left in this country that despised religion as superstition, devised by the ruling class to keep the workers in their place. Within living memory Tom Nairn wrote "Scotland will not be free until the last minister of the Kirk has been strangled with the last copy of the Sunday Post."

But then you also have the likes of James Connolly who's Catholicism inspired his revolutionary politics or the non-conformist Protestism that ran the ILP etc. I've always thought a more nuanced response to religion is preferable to Nairn's militant atheism.

JoePolitix, you seem to be a Scot and a socialist (my apologies if I've misapprehended your nationality or your politics), which used to be a predictor of being if not a militant atheist, then at least a secularist. So where does all this advocacy for Islamists come from?

I live in Bristol, I don't think I'm Scottish athough I do sometimes have adverse cravings for shortbread, offal and heroin (http://www.theshed.co.uk/eveningpress13.html)

Let's keep religion in its place. Out of the law, out of the legal system and ideally, out of sight and mind.

I tend to feel the same way about New Labour.

 

[warren]

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.

Mate. If you really are posting from Egypt, I strongly advise you to use a proxy server or if you dont know what that is use an anonymous IP address.

http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html.

If you dont know how to use this PM me. This is for your own personal safety.

Edit: Unless your sort of diplomat attached to the Embassy.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I live in Bristol, I don't think I'm Scottish.

Oh listen, I'm really sorry... I genuinely didn't know.

 

[JoePolitix]

Some interesting analysis of this question on Osama Saeed's blog:

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/multiculturalis.html

The call for Shariah in Britain

...(Rod) Liddle also spoke of shariah. The call for this has been a godsend for those who love bashing Muslims, even if it was only one "Muslim leader" that did so last week. On this, Shahid Malik has received a kicking from a rabbi for his aping of Trevor Phillips in telling Muslims to "go and live in Saudi" if they want shariah:

SHAHID MALIK MP has given an energetic response to Lord Ahmed’s charge that he — Malik — is doing the BNP’s work for them by telling Muslims who want to live under sharia law to “go and live somewhere where they have it” (News Review, last week).

Other minorities — including many Jews — would feel uncomfortable at Malik’s suggestion. Britain is our home. Why leave it? All legal systems evolve. If sharia or halacha (Jewish law) have something to contribute to British law then let the debate begin. That, surely, is what civilised societies do.

Rabbi Brian Fox
Menorah Synagogue
South Manchester

This call for shariah needs to be framed in terms of what exactly Muslims are asking for. The Guardian found even more Muslims than the Telegraph wanting it - 61%. However, Liddle and others wouldn't care to quote it because that poll actually defined what the respondents meant by shariah - civil matters like divorce, inheritance and custody. No one is calling for beheadings or stonings. Shariah already exists in many forms in this country. I am married under shariah, there are halal bank accounts, and meat is slaughtered according to Islamic law. It's nothing to panic about.

I would though strongly urge the calls for shariah enshrined in legislation to stop. They are only damaging the community and providing ammunition against us. The priority surely has to be making friends of the 53% of Britons who see Islam as a "threat". These calls for shariah do not help. If you want want your inheritance to be divided according to Islam, get a Will. If you want to safeguard yourself in event of a divorce, get a prenup. None of this will be enshrined in legislation any time soon, and it doesn't need to be. If some other area of legislation will benefit from change, then join with similar thinking non-Muslims in arguing its merits on a policy-by-policy basis.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Some interesting analysis of this question on Osama Saeed's blog: http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/multiculturalis.html

Nothing wrong with debating Rabbi Fox so long as he and others taking the same view are told in the firmest terms "no chance."

Osama Saeed, who seems to be about to jump ship from the SNP (for which he was a candidate in the 2005 UK general election) to Tommy Sheridan's MacRespect party, talks sense when he says that Muslims can live in line with sharia principles by means of contractual arrangements - we don't need separate institutional legal systems and it's a tactical mistake for Muslims to campaign for them. He does mention divorce, though, and you can't contract divorce outside the legal system. I don't trust Osama Saeed - he's a sleekit MAB spokesperson and is openly after a caliphate in which most of us who reject islam as a violent superstition would live on sufferance - but he deserves listening to and engaging with.

 

[SuburbanCasual]

Sharia law must never be allowed a foothold in Britain, it would be a disaster, especially for moderate secular muslims and those from a muslim background moving away from the religion altogether.

Once it is allowed for mutually agreed cases in a limited fashion - the principle of faith based law would become acceptable. Secularism is not far enough advanced in this country that we can afford to relax our guard even for a minute.

 

[zoltan]

I think interest groups can do whatever they like and adopt their own self imposed laws, as long as they do not impose or contrafict the UKs own legal outlook/ systsm - fine, if youw ant to live your life by some piss stained archaic interpretation of a a 2 millenia old novella, but as I would be very very unhappy about this type of outlook superceding UK law- which is think is the knee jerk reaction , but outlandishly unlikely to ever happen.

the laws in the country need serious revision IMO, but adopting a religious aspect to them would be a massive leap backwards for the vast majority of people

Unfort. we are being very sensitive / over sensitive to the various religious groups/ cults/ followers / deluded at the minute and maybe giving them more creedence than they would normally get .

 

[JoePolitix]

Nothing wrong with debating Rabbi Fox so long as he and others taking the same view are told in the firmest terms "no chance."

Osama Saeed, who seems to be about to jump ship from the SNP (for which he was a candidate in the 2005 UK general election) to Tommy Sheridan's MacRespect party, talks sense when he says that Muslims can live in line with sharia principles by means of contractual arrangements - we don't need separate institutional legal systems and it's a tactical mistake for Muslims to campaign for them. He does mention divorce, though, and you can't contract divorce outside the legal system. I don't trust Osama Saeed - he's a sleekit MAB spokesperson and is openly after a caliphate in which most of us who reject islam as a violent superstition would live on sufferance - but he deserves listening to and engaging with.

Yes, Saeed, like many Muslims politicised by the “war on terror” has moved further to the left in recent years, as anybody who has followed his blog would know, and I welcome that. His proposal for a modernised caliphate in the middle-east to deal with the unresolved question of colonialism is similar to many reform Islamists.

I think such calls are utopian and ultimately reactionary but like you I think they should be engaged with. The people I definitely think should not be engaged with are the war criminals that run your party and their apologists, the latter day Sykes’ and Picot’s who are imposing their imperial interests on the middle-east at bayonet point. The only approach to such people is one of hostility and opposition.