We have spent considerable time on this blog discussing the dangers of Sharia system in various Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, particularly in the treatment of women and girls. However, in any free nation, citizens should be allowed to resolve their own disputes through private mediation or religious adjudications. This is what is happening increasingly in England where Muslims are circumventing the court system in favor of Islamic courts and Sharia law. The growing influence of Sharia courts has raised concerns among women’s groups and such reliance should come with added vigilance to ensure that all of the parties are truly consenting to such faith-based adjudications.
The article below describes these proceedings before a sheikh who warns witnesses “You must speak the truth, sister. Because Allah is listening to your every word, you can lie to us but not to Him.”
There are an estimated 85 Sharia councils in Britain. What is fascinating is that the English Muslim lawyers are now actively seeking clients to represent in the burgeoning legal system.
While I support the right to these people in seeking justice from Sharia courts as a private matter, I will not hide my concern. It represents a further separation from society for Muslim families and a further compartmentation of parts of society into insular communities. Civil courts should represent part of our collective covenant to live in a unified legal system. Another concern is that it can reinforce those who oppose separation of church or mosque and state. With quasi-courts meting out faith-based justice, many are likely to seek other expression of religious doctrine in laws and policies.
These concerns should not trump the right of citizens to resolve their disputes in such private disputes. For that reason, there are times when Sharia law may become relevant to contractual and other disputes. Indeed, in New York there were dozens of Jewish courts used by immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some such courts continue to operate in this country as do informal Sharia courts.
Source: BBC
http://btownerrant.com/2012/01/17/you-say-sharia-i-say-shulchan-aruch-and-ave-maria/
While I agree with Turley that a primary concern must be what seems a rather ruthless continuation of abject treatment of women in many religions, I am not so sure that I can easily find fault with a community of freely assembled people to agree to legal prescripts that conform with their other “life beliefs.” I in no way believe any mistreatment of women and girls under very repressive religious law is just. But I am saying that we are far afield from any true notion of justice in the US. And in many ways we are as draconian in the application of penalties for other minorities if not women generally. Nary a stoning here, but we can arrange a gang rape in prison if you like. Perhaps we can agree that our courts abuse our black men the way that Sharia Law abuses women. Is there an equivalency here?
@ Commentator:
Yes parts of the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish communities in the US do “prefer” to go to their own religious courts, as do some other strict religious communities (Mormons come to mind). But every single one of those communities has long, well documented histories of spousal/child/domestic abuse. This isn’t a mere correlation. Acolyte raping Catholic Priests have avoided criminal prosecution for decades because the church “punishes” them by moving them to a parish on the other side of the country.
Courts and legal systems are government functions. If England allows such courts then they are also allowing a secondary theocratic government to operate in England. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion, it is about having one government in England. If English Muslims want to live in a theocracy, they should be perfectly free to move to Saudi Arabia. But if they want to live in England, then they should accept the laws, standards and customs of England.
In Afghanistan, people turn to the Taliban courts because of the corruption in Karzai’s government. We may call them terrorists, but they are apparently very honest, and justice is available and it’s quick.
Oh, to have some justice here. Send some torturers and some bank fraudsters to the big house. We can only wish.
This is not unique to Muslims and Shari’ah. Please see, for example, the latest news about trends among Catholics in the United States resorting eschewing the legal system. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215180/More-US-Catholics-take-complaints-to-church-court.html
Members of the Jewish faith, particularly the “orthodox” do the same regularly in the United States and elsewhere (and within and outside of Israel). And ethnic immigrant communities resort to community dispute resolution rather than resorting to the legal system. Professor Turley should know better, even if some of the commentators here do not. Please also do not assume that Shari’ah is inherently dangerous for women, girls, others, as a matter of indisputable substance. The comment by Mohammad Shouman 1, January 16, 2012 at 10:38 am illustrates the rush to conclusions –“A typical scenario would involve a Muslim woman moving to Britain following a traditional, arranged marriage with a British Muslim man. With the expectation of being a subservient housewife”– shows the preconceptions that cloud the discussion. Let’s discuss these issues openly, absolutely. But let’s do so fairly and armed with knowledge and in context.
Thank you Bonnie.
Most American Indian tribes have their own Tribal Courts to deal with a variety of issues. The primary need for the existence of these tribal courts was to work to keep Indian children from being placed in non-Indian homes by the dominating white officials. Our history shows that American Indians seldom faired well in the non-Indian judicial system. Not to mention, the treaties that were never adhered to. It seems to me that when I hear scare-mongering going on about Sharia Law, it is usually coming from a man. It is amazing how many American men forget just how strong the American woman is, especially after all our battles for equality. As an American-Indian woman, I, for one, will not stand for any more degradation than my ancestors have already endured.
@Mohammed,
Those are two interesting points, thank you.
Often, we are given a choice: either we are told we need to believe Sharia courts mean Muslims are taking over and if we disagree we are foolish multi-cultis, or we are told we need to believe Sharia courts are little different than a Jewish Bet Din and if we disagree we are foolish Islamophobes.
Professor Turley, I am not certain this statement is the total truth: “The growing influence of Sharia courts has raised concerns among women’s groups ”
Modern feminists do complain about sharia law in Muslim countries for its misogyny, but they are so happy to also complain about complaints about sharia law in Western country because those complaints come from bigoted Islamophobic rape supporters. They get to complain we are not fighting for women’s rights in Muslim countries, and they get to complain that we are not recognizing how liberating the burka is in Western countries and how so many women wear burkas over their own free will and to express themselves.
So a statement like “X has raised concerns among women’s groups” maybe a true statement, but the reality is it holds true for all X, and for any X, so it’s a bit of a weak statement.
We have a system which has been in force in America parallel to the Sharia deal here. Catholic Canon Law. Priest porks the kid (Islam wouldnt like that phrase), mom and dad move the church to get the perp out of the pews and viola they are in a church ecclesiastical court (pardon my spelling). Contradiction in terms really but so is the Sharia Court. A “court” in America should be defined by one standard and that is the fair trial principle and the due process clause of the 14th Amdt. Sufficiency of the evidence is a good start for you Muslims thinking of going into a Sharia Court. See our U.S. Supreme Court cases of Jackson v. Virginia and U.S. v. Timoty Leary. Googel it. Look at the concurring opinion in Leary by Justice Hugo Black. He be the Man! Those two cases were pointed out in a blog on here by some kids. I am just an oldfart in a joint with some good research skills for the inmates who had bad lawyers –which is common.
That was supposed to have been
wink, wink…, AY
Thanks, AY… 😉 , 🙂
Must get to work!
raff,
I think you have a good point…
AN,
My take would be that they may exercise the freedom of religion so long as the basic principals are not repugnant to the state….Once a Death happens…it could be classified as murder….and then the appropriate sentence under the law of the land would reign supreme….Just like here…Nod, Nod, wink, wonk….
rafflaw,
What would then happen when, under the Saria system, the sentence (for lack of a better word) is “death?”
I have a novel suggestion. If you are in England and you have a civil matter to litigate, stick with the English courts. If you have a religious matter, stick with the Sharia system.
Oh I see,in my state of all places:=)
“Bachmann was responding to a question from a caller who asked the GOP hopeful’s opinion on judges “sneaking sharia law into courts.”
After a New Jersey judge cited the Muslim religious law in a 2010 decision, some conservative activists and politicians have taken a hard line against the idea of recognizing the practice in American courts and warned that the practice growing.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/bachmann-opposed-to-sharia-law-says-it-usurps-constitution
I guess I’d better watch my step,or where I step.
One of my concerns with Sharia courts that citizens can enter into voluntarily is the social pressure facing those in the Muslim community who would openly prefer resorting to the English courts. Rejecting sharia is tantamount to apostasy to some; under sharia law, this certainly means death for male adults. Another issue of concern is Muslim immigrants’ awareness of their rights in English vis-à-vis Sharia law.
A typical scenario would involve a Muslim woman moving to Britain following a traditional, arranged marriage with a British Muslim man. With the expectation of being a subservient housewife, such a woman would typically not be well informed about their rights under English law. So although she would have the “choice” of resorting to English courts, that choice stems from a lack of knowledge of what advantages the English courts offer to women in terms of equality of rights.
The only concern I have is that such courts should not get the force of our laws behind them. If one party is still aggrieved and does not accept the verdict of such a court, then they should have the right to go to civil courts and have their day in secular court.