Britain, Sharia and Gutter Journalism

Farah

Recently the British have been all up in arms about the takeover of their just and equitable legal system with the oppressive and discriminatory behemoth of sharia law. Initially I wanted to focus on one article I found at the Guardian website but soon found multiple examples of the same gutter journalism. You can read more here and here, and here. And here’s another example of exemplary reporting. There’s nothing sensationalist or bigoted in them at all. Instead of addressing the articles separately, in this post I want to address some of the common arguments against the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) and suggest that they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Tribunal itself, and the role of sharia within Islamic countries.

The first MAT in England was established in December 2007 and has since expanded to a number of other locations across the UK. MAT is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Instead of going to court Muslims who accept the jurisdiction of MAT can use it to resolve a number of civil disputes. There are two arbitrators present at all disputes: one Islamic scholar and the other a qualified solicitor or barrister. They will determine the dispute with a mix of English law and Sharia law. The tribunal operates within the UK’s existing legal system. This allows any determination of proceedings by MAT to be enforced through higher courts, and also preserves the right of parties to appeal to the High Court for review of an order. From their website the founders say that “MAT will therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community a real and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that the outcome as determined by MAT will be binding and enforceable.”

Unfortunately for the campaigners against Sharia legal pluralism isn’t a brave new world. In the USA Native American tribes exercise exclusive criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed in tribal territory by tribal members (see here). Similar courts institutionalising indigenous justice operate in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Appearance before an indigenous court applies in strict circumstances and only to indigenous offenders. For England their experience with legal pluralism comes not with sharia but with Jewish Beth Din courts. The Jewish courts have been operating for close to 100 years and resolve a wide variety of civil disputes, including divorces. This prior experience however hasn’t restrained the sensationalism in the debate on the role of sharia within British law. Most notable of the backlash is the “One Law for All” campaign. You can read their petition here. (All I have to say is if Ayaan Hirsi Ali supports the cause then you should definitely get behind it).

Assumption 1: Discrimination (aka BUT THE WOMEN! THE WOMEN! THINK OF THE MUSLIM WOMEN WHO WILL SUFFER!)
The first reaction people typically have to sharia is that it discriminates against women. Such a system should not be established in the UK because it ‘clashes’ with women’s fundamental human rights. In her reaction to sharia in Britain Anjum Ahmed-Mouj states “Religious law, used without due regard to the relative powerlessness of women and children in society and without proper and transparent monitoring can be and is used to strengthen and extend the control and abuse perpetrated by individuals.” The problem is that this position presents sharia as a monolithic, static entity. However the development of sharia and women’s experience under it are more complex than that. Sharia differs greatly from country to country, interacting with influences like culture, globalisation and Westernisation which transform its practice and codification in different countries. This isn’t to deny that disempowered women suffer under sharia law; but solely blaming the religion undermines the fact that discrimination in the application of sharia is sourced from other areas which influence and drive the development of sharia in a certain direction. Within the context of MAT it is important to note the tribunal operates within English law. Parties have right of review and the decisions will be made with a mix of Islamic and English law.

With that in mind it becomes difficult to maintain that it is solely sharia, and MAT by extension, that presents the biggest hurdle to the empowerment of British Muslim women. Additionally, jumping to the worst case discrimination scenario denies the empowerment that MAT provides to all Muslims by providing avenues of cultural and social development. Such a move increases social cohesion by acknowledging the Muslim community and the role that such a large minority plays within the UK.

Assumption 2: The extremes of punishment under Sharia (aka LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO OVER IN [INSERT MUSLIM COUNTRY HERE] TO THEIR CRIMINALS! IT’S SO BARBARIC! WE’RE BRITISH! WE DON’T TORTURE!)
The second assumption a number of the articles make is in relation to how wrongs are punished under sharia law. One article above states that “In some Muslim countries punishments handed out under the legal system have included beheadings, public floggings and thieves’ hands being chopped off.” Well if they do that in some Muslim countries then you certainly can’t allow sharia in Britain! While the author doesn’t attempt to define the ‘some’, the point is that sharia is brutal and unjust in the punishment meted out to Muslim offenders. It is worth repeating here that such representations of punishment under sharia law again present it as a static construction, and a particularly violent one as well.

Within the context of MAT, such representations distort the power of the tribunal over what it can and cannot do. The tribunal cannot hear criminal law matters, nor can it impose any form of corporal punishment. It states this quite clearly on their website. Its power is limited to hearing civil disputes only, and issuing orders for compensation. The tribunal can adjudicate on cases of domestic violence within the context of family disputes. However, it is required to pass all details to the police who will then decide whether to take the matter further. Such a blatant oversight on the part of the journalists can only be deemed intentional, in order to further sensationalise the matter and present sharia law (and Islam and all Muslims by extension) as diametrically opposed to British mores.

Assumption 3: The growing influence of Islam on society (aka THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG! THE MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER ENGLAND ONE TRIBUNAL AT A TIME!)
Though this assumption is less overt than the others, it does underlie a number of the articles above. In particular one writer goes so far to state “there are several radical Islamist movements that are working hard to spread Islamic supremacy through the use of terrorism, intimidation, litigation and disinformation campaigns… A parallel legal system utilizing Sharia courts is likely to constitute one step toward expanding political Islam, rather than serving as the final request for a religious accommodation.”

Firstly, MAT is not a “parallel” legal system but rather could at best be described as a subordinate one. Secondly, its not even a “legal system” but rather an alternative dispute resolution tribunal which utilises sharia law and English law to determine disputes. Additionally, considering it can only determine civil disputes and also operates within the ambit of English law it is difficult to see how it is the so-called first step in expanding political Islam. The writers’ position is also at odds with official statistics of the Muslim population in Britain. 2001 data suggests Muslims make up 2.8% of the population in the UK. Unless the Muslim community has seen exponential growth in the past 8 years to figures that overtake the Anglo population it is difficult to see how exactly the Muslims will take over and where the support for a religious theocracy in Britain will come from. At another point in the article the same writer states that the ultimate goal of sharia law is “to replace democracies with Islamic theocracies”. Last time I checked sharia was a system of law, not a coup de tat.

Such representations like this of British Muslims and Islam perpetuate the discourse of the Other. They present Islam and Muslims as a threat to British society which cannot be contained. Similarly, the journalists suggest Muslims are a foreign element to Britain because they want an entirely separate legal structure to the “rest” of society. This distinction infers that Muslims must give up all traces of their religion and culture to assimilate into British society and be accepted by the public.

So does this sound the end of one law for all? It probably does, but “one law” isn’t a term that could be used to describe any legal system for a while. There is ample evidence to suggest that in post-colonial times the colonial powers allowed multiple legal systems based on local custom and religion to operate. In countries like the UK Muslim minorities have had a problematic existence and establishing and retaining a ‘Muslim’ identity has been particularly contentious. Ultimately what the journalists fail to acknowledge is that MAT allows for the recognition of minority groups and operates as a powerful inclusion tool. Recognition of an individual’s personal culture or in this case religion is extremely important. Denying all or part of a minority culture has drastic negative effects for identity and feelings of belonging.

For more information on MAT, see here for an interview with Maryam Namazie from the One Law For All campaign and Aina Khan, a lawyer who argues for Sharia Law. And also here for a 30 min video Judge Qureshi of the MAT giving a speech in Manchester about forced marriages and the role of the MAT.