The thing about beth din is that it is based entirely on concent. So if it decided (for example) that a couple could not divorce - it would be entirely up to the couple to agree with that decision or not. If either did not then that party could go to English Law and be legally divorced.

And the same is true of catholics. Catholics can divorce under English Law while remaining married under the eyes of god and the roman catholic church. But because it is then up to the individuals involved as to whether they remain married and abide by that view of god’s law, there need be no enforcement.

So of course there is nothing stopping islamic groups (or hindu groups, or pagan groups for that matter) setting up their equivelent. And English Law need change nothing for that to happen and would overide it just as it does with beth din and the catholic church where neeeded.

–

As for private coersion - this is effectively illegal and any wronged party can seek the protection of the english courts from any form of it.

We should also remember that islam is efectively protestant rather than catholic in nature - as it has no formal organised institution. So a person who disagrees with a cleric can simply practice islam under a different cleric.

With that in mind the institution would have little capacity to excomunicate or take equivelent measures. And again, even were it able to, this would carry weight only where the individual chose to give such a ruling legitimacy.

no, you’re right, it’s not really a situation per se, i’m just saying that there is an accommodation, albeit a rather small and specific one, namely that judges will now take into account whether the beth din process has been completed before granting decree absolute where advised that this could be an issue. the situation that people are trying to avoid is where people are divorced according to the civil law (and can resolve financial and custodial situations) but not according to religious law, which can lead to the wife becoming vulnerable to extortion from the husband.

like you say, jewish law cannot “override english law” in any formal sense. however, in matters where the english law is unqualified to rule (such as questions of religious status, e.g. whether you’re still married or free to remarry) there is no way to avoid it if either party feels bound to abide by the rulings of the beth din. the same must necessarily obtain in the case of shariah courts, albeit the chance of a problem is orders of magnitude greater due to the lack of quality control.

you say that “only the state has the power of formal coercion” and this is true to a degree. informal coercion, unfortunately, is very much a fact of life in both cases, i wouldn’t want to speculate if it is similar, but would suggest not as the beth din is very sensible of its responsibilities to women these days and goes out of its way to ensure compliance from the man, which is very far from the case in shariah courts. i can’t imagine a religious court system which doesn’t have the power to at least exert pressure, if only by the denial of communal services, sanction or, in extreme cases, excommunication. the problems have arisen where one party decides they don’t give a flying feck what the BD thinks and withdraws cooperation. this is where the civil courts must become necessary, which is why the decree absolute loophole needed closing to prevent inequitable treatment. but, like you say, i wouldn’t suggest it was anything but a small tweak. i think we’re all agreed that vexatious appeal to subjective religious scruple is a far larger issue.

i personally would see it as extremely positive if the sharia courts could be prevailed upon to get organised, consistent and comply with the law of the land, as the batei din did over a century ago. the trouble is, as ABC in fact correctly points out, that shariah is not nearly as well integrated and codified as the jewish equivalent, halakhah.

b’shalom

bananabrain

I think that what we have seen over the last six years or so has indeed been increased alienation, which probably cuts both ways. The Muslims most adversely effected by that were the obvious police target group of young(ish) and male. I am still hopeful that we can get beyond this period in our history without us all going to hell on a handcart.

Murray is seen interrupting other participants rudely and repeatedly especially on the BBC where he is too often a frequent guest. Is it to hide the fact that he has little exposure to Muslim societies and even lesser knowledge of Arabic? Murray repeatedly referred to verse 2:282 in the Qur’an claiming that it equates the testimony of two women to that of one man (which is the so-called verse of debt).

Even a modest exposure to the history of the Arabs will suggest that this verse contains a significant amount of material that later jurists categorized variously as recommended or merely instructional (irshad) and without legal import. However, a very few jurists opined that the recording of debts, witnessing, and all other matters dealt with in the verse may be categorized as obligatory.

You’re lucky not to be both!

I agree that they should be offered more support. This is what the ABC is saying too. He wants to bring them under more scrutiny (which is the logical conclusion of what he says) by exploring situations when civil law contradicts these legal arbitrations. Isn’t this what we want? How exactly would anyone offer more protection without a more detailed examination of how the courts work and how they can be brought in line with our laws?

http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/02/archbishop-of-canterburys-call-for.html

I’m not avoiding the issue.

So if you think that increasingly radicalised religious belief within parts of the current generation is worrying, it should also be recognised as a reaction against and to compensate for earlier failures.
Still, faith in liberty and history should enable us to show some restraint that there will in turn be a reaction against any radicalisation in a continuing self-moderating cycle as (and provided that) personal experience and engagement increases and the realisation grows that failure cannot be compensated for, only prevented in the future.

The “jewish situation” doesn’t exist.

People are lying and pretending that Jews are getting special treatment that muslims don’t get.

There is no Jewish institution in this country that, if a Jew seeks the protection of English Law, can overide English Law. It just doesn’t exist. Its a lie.

Only the state has the power of physical coersion.

As such only english Law (in England) has the power to enforce any Law. This remains true even under the EU which can only punish a country for failing to enforce its laws. It can’t punish citizens for not abiding by its laws.

—

So its like a couple who split up and need to work out what to do with the kids.

Contact and residence can be decided by a court. But it can also be decided by a conversation between the parents. And because it can be decided that way, it is fair that both take whatever advice they wish. And if they are muslim or Jewish then an Iman or a Rabi is a reasonable source of advice.

Muslims can even agree to arrange their businesses with eachother on the basis of sharia law. As individuals they have that right. And if when a disagreement comes up they decide to abide by that arbitration by a cleric - then that is up to them.

—

The law only exists to act where coersion is needed. if an amiable agreement can be reached without it then it is not needed. And in that light it allows us to reach amiable agreements all the time, and protects us from people who try to illegitimately force their rules upon us.

this is a thoughtful and considered response and, like you, having actually read what he said in both places, i have come to the conclusion that he isn’t actually asking for anything particularly controversial. however, he has been immeasurably stupid not to take better care to state more explicitly what he’s *not* saying, considering what the likely response would have been and indeed turned out to be. i mean, shouldn’t he be a bit more media-savvy than this?

the jewish situation is indeed a) uncontroversial and b) well-established. i don’t see how asking for similar recognition for muslim procedures wouldn’t be in order. the question, i feel, is largely around the poor consistency and quality control with regard to sharia courts in the UK. i think it’s for the muslim communities (note the plural) to put their own house in order and then lobby for any required changes (i just don’t see what further ones they might need) rather than for the ABC to stick his oar in, which just comes across as a bit of a failure of nerve. i’d have a lot more respect if he tried to do something for his own constituency, because it just comes across as if this is really about trying to bolster an unpopular cause (e.g. sunday trading, christian adoption agencies) by trying to co-opt the popular muslim lobby. it’s backfired spectacularly if it is.

b’shalom

bananabrain

it isn’t hard to live a sharia compliant life in the UK. Islamic bank accounts have become increasingly normal with no intervention of the law. People can choose not to drink. Women can wear what they want. And so on.

Sunny

There is a bit of a lie about Jewish law being addopted within English law. There is Jewish arbitration for things like divorce. And Jewish couples can seek divorce through their religious institutions. BUT this carries no weight and they remain married in English Law.

They still have to undergo legal divorce the same as anyone else.

Thanks for the reply. I have a real difficulty in discussing this topic as I am neither a Muslim or a woman. It does, however seem to me that graduate educated Muslim women, are unlikely to accept a frankly subordinate role much longer. So far, most of the voices we have heard from the Muslim community have been male. And the few female voices have either played the patriarchal party line or have been ridiculed. I think that that will crack. Quite soon.

It is all a little reminiscent of the days before ‘The Female Eunoch’ was published. Lots of outrage, no focus.

On a separate note, cross religious marriages are becoming a bit more prevelant than they used to be. It isn’t all doom and gloom.

Optimism is all very well, but you cannot [or should not] disregard the evidence or dismiss it all as media hype. If you read not only the MSM but the blogs, there is copious evidence that a real problem exists in many parts of the country, and that it is not lessening as new generations grow up.

To be honest, I am fearful for the future unless more realistic policies towards positive integration are adopted..

You and I have been around the houses on this topic before. I still do not think there is anything ’special’ about Muslims. I think they will blend in to our society, sooner or later, just as every other ’special’ group has in the past. You draw a line in the sand, I do not.

Sunny Hundal @ 42 seems to sum up a genuinely liberal perspective on the arguement. Although I’d still rather see these ‘courts’ as arbtration rather than having the slightest legal authority.

I totally agree that compatibility is at the heart of the matter. I did not say that Muslims are oil and non-Muslims are water. I know so me very nice human beings who are Muslims, and do not feel in the least antagonistic to them as people. What I said was that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Read the Koran and convince me otherwise, if you can.

Most non-religious, or conventionally religious, people seem to have little insight into religious conviction. It is to the credit of Muslims that they take their religion seriously, or they would not be Muslims. That is why the notion of them ever blending happily into a tolerant [or, as they would put it, decadent] society where everyone is free to believe what they like and do as they like is pie on the sky. That, in my opinion, is the dilemma which we liberals face in regard to Islam, and so far too few of us are addressing it with the seriousness it deserves.

So maybe the Archbishop performed an involuntary service in sparking off a national debate which has been simmering under the surface for some time.

“You want to undermine Islam in the UK? Interesting.”

The ECHR has declared that shariah is not consistent with human rights.
I am very happy to undermine an inhumane system of “justice”.

“I would not consider them ‘my’ girls or ‘my’ women, but free agents.”

Sorry to repeat myself - and sorry to requote Yasmin.
But if you believe that the girls and women who “submit” to shariah courts are “free agents” then you are, as she says, naive to the point of folly.

“That is guilt by association; a logical fallacy.”

I wasn’t saying that he was or wasn’t a “Radical Orthodoxist” (would that be the right term?) - just pointing to some interesting comments which suggested that he wasn’t approaching this topic from the “liberal” point of view at all.
And even if he was - which is open to debate - the consequences are (to repeat) just the opposite.

I tend to agree. My disagreement with Richard Dawkins is not on substance but on tactics. If you attack someone because of their membership of a group, it tends to reinforce their membership of that group.

Sunny @ 20 -

One of the distinctly worrying tendencies in the debate on this issue has been the abhorrence of people living a ’sharia-compliant’ lifestyle. The fact that people are operating within English law but packaging their form of doing so as ‘Islamic’ seems to be a real problem for some people.

…

Cjcjc @ 21

That is an assertion, not an argument.

Publicansdecoy @ 22

I’m glad you enjoyed it; I hope that the length didn’t get in the way of the enjoyment!

If I understand you correctly, your objection is not the principle but ‘the nature of Islam in Britain at the moment’. This contrasts interestingly with Sunny’s objections to groups like the MCB in that they are self-selecting. The same could happen. It is entirely possible that many British Muslims would take one look at the courts and ignore them. However, I think that this requires a particular bent to the operation of those courts that the message sent out – that English law has no objection to Islam or sharia per se, but that it will object (very strongly) to those areas that it finds objectionable – might actually be quite useful. It does a good deal to remove the chant that living an Islamic lifestyle is incompatible with living in contemporary Britain.

Cjcjc @ 23

Actually, you did at comment 3 (twice), comment 7 and comment 17. As to the nature of the arbitration, I will come back to that lower down.

Matt @ 26

As I have said, I don’t think it’s a backpedal. One point is accepting that the Islamic version of the Battei Din exist. As you have said and I accept, the greater numbers of Muslims than Jews in the UK makes any potential problem greater. That, I would counter, means a greater need for oversight and regulation. The next part of it is accepting ideas like the mutah form of marriage. You have repeated your ‘Beth Din Backpedal’ point ad nauseam without addressing that there are positive changes that have been proposed and that I, for one, continue to propose.

No, I would say that we don’t see any necessary conflict between sharia and English law and that we are happy to take sharia ideas and let people who want to avail themselves of those ideas do so. However, we’re not going to do things that are considered ‘wrong’. We will, though, be slightly less Islamophobic (in the sense of fearing anything to do with Islam).

My counterpoint is the one about republicanism. It’s a real shame that no-one has addressed that, instead of focussing on the minutiae of the debate.

You must see the irony, Matt, in complaining about ‘embedding a legal system based on revealed wisdom in English law’ when the original, controversial speech was made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who sits in the House of Lords by right, in Temple Church. I would contend that there is no problem for a polity to have multiple sources of law. International law has the customary and the declaratory; UK law has the English/Welsh tradition and the Scottish tradition; English law has statute and precedent; the EU has, broadly, common law, civil law and Roman law; every legal system has a tension between legal positivism and natural law.

Douglas Clark @ 29 -

Thankyou very much!

Anticant @ 30 -

If you knew what the Test Acts were before I was born, why did you consider their reintroduction, given that they were horribly discriminatory, at 15. In that same reply, you said ‘no special privileges for any religion’ despite the fact that the Test Acts effectively gave special privileges to the C of E.

This compatibility issue is the one at the heart of the matter than no-one seems to me to be engaging. I don’t accept that my argument is ‘codswallop’ but, even if it is, the principle of a liberal state – one that broadly lets people do what they want – shouldn’t have any objection to adjustments within existing moral norms that allow a given subset of people to live in a given way if they so choose.

I reject wholeheartedly the suggestion that Muslims are oil and non-Muslims are water if for no other reason than it fails to capture the variety within each of those groups.

Cjcjc @ 31 -

I accept the mistake about civil cases that you mention. Yes, I believe that there are Muslims who, their religious faith notwithstanding or even as a cause, are liberals. I also believe that there are Christians who frankly are not liberals. I mean liberal here in the European rather than American sense.

I have to pick you up on the word devout. Devout means that you really believe it, not that you believe something extreme.

Margin4 Error @ 32 -

That is within the existing arbitration framework. What I am proposing is to formalise that arrangement and (Matt Sinclair, read this bit before you say anything about backpedalling) to make changes that use sharia as a source of law or ideas for changing the law, such as the mutah marriage.

Margin4 Error @ 33 -

The point is that the existing set-up makes it quite hard to live a sharia-compliant life. A good example is the Islamic prohibition on interest. Making it easier from a regulatory point of view to buy a house in a sharia-compliant way is a good thing in and of itself and it reduces the ability of people to say that you cannot be a good Muslim in Britain and must therefore attack Britain.

Margin4 Error @ 37 -

No.

Philip Hunt @ 40 -

Your argument – that we should treat all belief systems on their merits with no special privileges – is sound. Let us say that a large group of people – let’s call them ‘Atheists for Temporary Marriage’ wanted something like the mutah (I know I keep mentioning it, but it’s a good example). Would that be acceptable? I suspect the answer would be yes; it is a contract that they want to be able to sign. The fact that the desire for it comes from a religion shouldn’t make any difference. So, no special privileges, but no demerits ‘just for being religious’ either. I tend to be a bit utilitarian, so the source of an idea I find somewhat irrelevant. Moreover, there’s good evidence that attacking someone because of their group identity is a good way to strengthen that group identity.

Sunny @ 42 -

Thankyou!

Anticant @ 43 -

I refer you to the above points! For the record, I opposed giving Roman Catholic organisations exemptions on homosexual adoption. I would have no objection to the base principle of using Roman Catholic ideas (how about ‘no death penalty’?).

Cjcjc @ 45 -

If my argument is so obviously incoherent and I am tied in knots, it would seem that the thesis is holed below the waterline and there is no need to debate it any more. You have clearly stated your position on a couple of the issues I raised; how about some of the others?

“bringing all Muslims into the normal UK legal system”

They already are. Everyone in the UK is. Unless you’re saying that the UK is a failed state or doesn’t have a monopoly on legitimate violence.

“If “legitimising” them undermined them, well all well and good.”

You want to undermine Islam in the UK? Interesting.

The key here is in the quote from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

“He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to “choose” to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses“

Perhaps not. There are many things I would not recommend people to do; that doesn’t mean that they should be banned from doing it. I would not consider them ‘my’ girls or ‘my’ women, but free agents.

Cjcjc @ 46 -

That is guilt by association; a logical fallacy.