by Denis MacEoin, editor of Middle East Quarterly, for The Guardian ,
Original title: No to Sharia law in Britain
Translation: Goal-info
Sharia has no place in civilized society. We must ban the Islamic courts and ensure that in this country everyone is subjected to the same legal system.
There are many reasons to disagree with Sharia. In its finished version, it contains many provisions barbarians, irreconcilable with an advanced society: stoning of married persons who have committed adultery, flogging for a relationship between unmarried homosexuals precipitation from roofs or steep hills, amputation of limbs for theft and worse.
But Sharia covers a much wider field. It happens quite naturally from public to private domain, and in this field that are recorded claims to introduce a degree of Sharia law in this country. These demands emanate not only Muslims but also an extraordinarily naive, Archbishop of Canterbury. Sharia deals only marginally with the way a believer prays, fasts, pays the tax of the charity or the pilgrimage practice. For the individual, it lays down obligations and sanctions that affect the depth of life. Here is a simple example. If in a fit of anger a Muslim three times pronounced the formula of divorce, even in the absence of his wife, Islamic law considers that the couple divorced. If he comes to his senses, the Muslim in question can not simply resume his relationship with his wife. For there to remarry, it must wait three months to ensure she is not pregnant. From what she must marry another man and have sex with him. This man must then divorce her (if he decides not to keep). She must then wait another three months here, after which she may marry a second time by her former husband. This revolting practice, known as halal, is a humiliation for the woman. British law would consider it a form of coercion leading to unwanted sex. Is this what the Archbishop calls?
But sharia has already entered the UK by the back door. In October 2008, Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Justice, said that the government "does not fit" to a religious legal system, and he confirmed two new features. First, that the sharia courts would operate under the Arbitration Act 1996, which stipulates that private disputes can be settled by independent arbitration. And secondly that the decisions of Sharia on family issues (which are not covered by arbitration) will have the authority to those of a British court that would "made a public order" expressed in "vocabulary" of a decision of Islamic court. There is now a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal requesting the President of the High Court of Justice to approve a parallel processing of disputes according to Sharia.
The idea that Muslim courts could be empowered to decide questions under the Family Code, unless you find yourself in conflict with British law, is not relevant, mainly because of severe discrimination affecting Muslim women. We have already seen how the Sharia proceeds with women married in some divorce cases. By giving courts operating according to Sharia a semi-official status, we will introduce this type of denaturation.
I could not get information about the actual decisions of these courts, but there are many websites that enact fatwas in response to questions from the faithful. They are probably the kind of significant provisions that courts will adopt in Britain.
If couples do not marry within the British civil law (and I saw a fatwa saying it is not necessary to register the marriage with the authorities UK here), they face serious consequences in case of divorce. Custody of children (which is still imposed on the woman here) for support (the man is not obliged to pay anything except for children here) and this respect the rights of the family home (the wife did not here). During the marriage, a man can force his wife to sex (while the wives do not have a similar right here), a husband may keep his wife at home, if one or other of the two partners here abandons Islam, marriage is null and void. It is considered that it would be a mistake to reject polygamy here. If a woman wants to divorce her husband, she must obtain his permission and approval of a sharia court. A Muslim may not marry non-Muslim here while a Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim if she is Jewish or Christian here. Legal adoption is prohibited, but if a child was adopted, he can not inherit from his adoptive parents here. One of the commands issued by the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton prohibits a woman from marrying, regardless of age, if not a "guardian" male here by another command, the intention to divorce must come from the man that the divorce is valid here, and another command insists that polygamous marriage should be maintained even in the United Kingdom here, and another provides a man to pay alimony after divorce here .
If the Islamic Courts base their arbitrations on legal provisions as outdated and discriminatory, they condemn British Muslim women to a life of second-class citizens with only a few rights. And if they claim to be confined to giving advice under British law, what law will they actually the priority? The only solution to this situation scandalous is to ban such courts and compel Muslims to observe a single legal code, like everyone in this country. The Sharia courts should be excluded from the Arbitration Act of 1996 that the slogan of justice for all does not turn into a farce.
The report by Denis MacEoin on Sharia in the UK has been published by Civitas June 29, 2009
Denis MacEoin is the new editor of Middle East Quarterly, an international journal dedicated to the study of political of religion and society in modern times in this region
http://www.objectif-info.com/index.php?id=1205
0 comments:
Post a Comment