John R. Houk
© February 9, 2018
An email sent by Maryam Namazie via the organization One Law for All
addresses how the British government is handling the existence of Sharia courts
in the United Kingdom (UK). As of this writing I’m have difficulty connecting
with the website. Either http://onelawforall.org.uk/
is having server problems or there might be some kind of IP blocking involved.
But the organization’s Facebook page is still up and here is some info from
their Facebook About Page:
No Religious Laws
One Secular Law for All
Rights are for People not Beliefs
One Law for All was launched in 2008 to campaign against Sharia and religious laws in Britain and around the world. Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and works against equality, citizenship and secularism.
Under its family code, Sharia law treats the testimony of women as being worth half of that of a man, child custody is decided in favour of fathers regardless of the circumstances, women do not have the unilateral right to divorce as men do and violence against women is endorsed. Under its criminal code, there are over 100 offences punishable by death, including apostasy, homosexuality and adultery. Sharia courts in Britain decide on both civil and criminal matters.
Proponents argue Sharia law is a matter of choice; however, many women are pressured into using these courts. Moreover, violence and discrimination are not legitimate choices.
Whilst the far-Right blames ‘Muslim immigration’ for the implementation of Sharia law, it is … READ THE REST
One Secular Law for All
Rights are for People not Beliefs
One Law for All was launched in 2008 to campaign against Sharia and religious laws in Britain and around the world. Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and works against equality, citizenship and secularism.
Under its family code, Sharia law treats the testimony of women as being worth half of that of a man, child custody is decided in favour of fathers regardless of the circumstances, women do not have the unilateral right to divorce as men do and violence against women is endorsed. Under its criminal code, there are over 100 offences punishable by death, including apostasy, homosexuality and adultery. Sharia courts in Britain decide on both civil and criminal matters.
Proponents argue Sharia law is a matter of choice; however, many women are pressured into using these courts. Moreover, violence and discrimination are not legitimate choices.
Whilst the far-Right blames ‘Muslim immigration’ for the implementation of Sharia law, it is … READ THE REST
One Law for All’s apparent primary purpose is
fighting the legitimization of Sharia Law in the UK as a tacit coexistent rule
of law. In reality though the organization is Left Wing and is not friendly to
any religious faith. This means they would not promote a Christian heritage in
the UK.
Namazie politically is a Communist. As to religion she
is an ex-Muslim atheist from Iran living in the
UK. Since I am Christian, I don’t have a problem with Namazie’s virulent
anti-Islam stand, BUT she is a militant atheist in which Christianity is on her hate-list too.
Nonetheless, Namazie and I are on the same page when it
comes to Islam.
Namazie is concerned that the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has not gone far enough pertaining to rejecting Sharia courts as equal to the
British rule of law. As an American, accepting anti-Western (and
in the case of the USA – anti-Constitution) Sharia is in my belief must be
anathema in our society and rule of law.
Here is the Executive Summary Home Secretary Rudd presented
to Parliament (the whole pdf is 48 pages):
The independent review into the
application of sharia law in England and Wales
Presented to Parliament by the
Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty
Executive summary
In May 2016 the independent review
into the application of sharia law in England and Wales was tasked with
understanding whether, and the extent to which, sharia law is being misused or
applied in a way that is incompatible with the law within sharia councils.
Sharia is an all encompassing term
which includes not only law in the western sense of the word but religious
observances such as fasting and prayer, ritual practices such as halal slaughter,
and worship in general. Sharia is written jurisprudence and law developed on
the basis of a diversity of opinions among jurists in the classical period of
Islam. While many aspects of sharia have been modified or modernised in most
Muslim countries, in the area of personal law, especially marriage and divorce,
many Muslim societies still observe rulings of classical jurisprudence. The
word sharia is used in diverse ways by Muslims and this leads to varying
degrees of understanding and application.
This review was set up to focus
exclusively on the work of sharia councils in England and Wales and not to look
at sharia practices in general. These councils call themselves sharia councils because
they deal with aspects of Islamic law. The review has collected written and
oral evidence from a wide range of sources. These include a public call for evidence
issued by the review Chair Professor Mona Siddiqui, and oral evidence sessions
with users of sharia councils, women’s rights groups, academics and lawyers, as
well as other key stakeholders.
There is no clear definition of
what constitutes a sharia council. Sharia councils vary in size and make up.
There is also no accurate statistic on the number of sharia councils, with
estimates in England and Wales varying from 30 to 85. To the best of our
knowledge, there are no sharia councils in Scotland. For the purposes of this
review we are defining sharia councils as a voluntary local association of
scholars who see themselves or are seen by their communities as authorised to
offer advice to Muslims principally in the field of religious marriage and
divorce.
Sharia councils have no legal
status and no legal binding authority under civil law. Whilst sharia is a
source of guidance for many Muslims, sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction
in England and Wales. Thus if any decisions or recommendations are made by a
sharia council that are inconsistent with domestic law (including equality
policies such as the Equality Act 2010) domestic law will prevail. Sharia
councils will be acting illegally should they seek to exclude domestic law.
Although they claim no binding legal authority, they do in fact act in a
decision-making capacity when dealing with Islamic divorce.
Common misconceptions around sharia
councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring
to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’.
These terms are used both in media
articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves. It is
important to note that sharia councils are not courts and they should not refer
to their members as judges. It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as
courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over
domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system. The recommendations
included in this report, such as changes to marriage law, are designed to
promote equality between religions in ways that should challenge misconceptions
of a parallel legal system and encourage integration.
In collecting its evidence the
review looked to examine why sharia councils exist, who uses them and for what
reasons. The evidence heard by this review indicates that the vast majority, in
fact nearly all people using sharia councils, are women. In most of these cases
(our evidence indicates over 90%) the women are visiting the council seeking an
Islamic divorce. In attempting to understand what motivates women to use sharia
councils the review found that there are many reasons why Muslim women seek an
Islamic divorce. A key finding was that a significant number of Muslim couples
fail to civilly register their religious marriages and therefore some Muslim
women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce.
The review sought to understand
what occurs at the sharia council and whether and to what extent the practices
are discriminatory. The evidence collected by the review indicated a range of
practices occurring in the sharia councils. The review found evidence of good
practice but also clear evidence of bad practice. Furthermore, there is
unanimous agreement among the sharia councils themselves that discriminatory
practices do occur in some instances within the councils in England and Wales.
From the very beginning, the review
panel established the principle that recommendations would be based
collectively on the evidence it received rather than the personal opinions of
the panel members. While there was broad and respectful consensus on most
issues, this report also reflects the particular area where there was a level
of disagreement.
It should also be noted at the
outset that those proposing a ban on sharia councils provide no counter
proposal or any solution for anyone seeking a religious divorce. It is clear
from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim
communities. There is a demand for religious divorce and this is currently
being answered by the sharia councils.
This demand will not end if the
sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going
‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect
of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder
to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain
divorces, putting themselves at further risk.
We consider the closure of sharia
councils is not a viable option. However, given the recommendations also
proposed in this report include the registration of all Islamic marriages as
well as awareness campaigns it is hoped that the demand for religious divorces from
sharia councils will gradually reduce over time. These key recommendations
address the issue of current discriminatory practices identified within the
sharia councils.
Here is One Law for All’s response.
JRH 2/9/18
*********************
The Independent Review on Sharia
Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a
solution
Sent from Maryam Namazie
Sent 2/7/18 5:35 PM
Via http://onelawforall.org.uk/
[My browser timed out connection]
Read this email online. [My
browser timed out connection]
Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
6th February 2018
Dear Right Hon Amber Rudd, MP,
The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of
the extremist threat and not a solution
As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we
voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws
commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected
formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the
Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to
produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative
dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed
their existence.
At the outset, we feared a whitewash
but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and
secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office
appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd
that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with
considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat
women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only
qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?
Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and
a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott
from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by
religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of
Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and
ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law
and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence
that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and
discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to
extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals
such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes,
homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim
dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.
Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and
‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel
law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are
‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.
In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers
conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined
their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to
undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence
submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our
coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence
which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that
exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and
discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been
exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in
conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its
imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further
influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our
submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it
themselves. Why did they not do so?
The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many
women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who
had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried
to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience
and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published
and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating
letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all
religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious
laws.
Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim
women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the
highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review
is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the
grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’
which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic
divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in
spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why
use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select
Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot
be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a
Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased
religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply
their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel
have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in
Muslim majority countries.
Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage
with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their
divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other
areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than
divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and
interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic
violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.
The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating
observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some
communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with
religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even
their basic rights as British residents.”
A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain
lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they
think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes
and human rights violations.
The review is a botched attempt at consultation established
with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender
discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most
affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.
We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile,
we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations
contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those
advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism
and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an
equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of
evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect,
protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no
change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of
a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for
Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
For more information, please contact Gita Sahgal at 07972
715090 or email onelawforall@gmail.com.
____________________
Sharia CANNOT Coexist in Western Law
John R. Houk
© February 9, 2018
____________________
The Independent Review on Sharia
One Law for All No Sharia Campaign
(pdf manifesto)
No comments:
Post a Comment