Three years ago in the Canadian province of Ontario, a fierce debate erupted around the possible integration into state law aspects of sharia, the body of Islamic legal principles governing everything from halal food to marriage and business. Though the proposal was intended for family disputes only, visions of hand chopping and stoning (very real practices elsewhere, albeit rare) were thrown about. Ontario's premier eventually rejected the proposal, citing incompatibilities with the Canadian legal system.

Even in an age of terrorism, the mention of sharia law provokes like no other. But codified or not, Muslim communities have been resorting to some implementation of sharia for years, informally and quietly. In a legal sense, the proponents of sharia in these matters (usually marriage, divorce, and business transactions) operate as a form of Islamic mediation, not judge, jury and (as the tabloids would have it) executioner. The parties engage in this arbitration in order to resolve differences in a way that suits Islamic requirements agreed between them. It is the same system employed by Jews and other cultural minorities with little controversy.

That ended when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, acknowledged the Islamic practice in an interview with the BBC last week. "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law," he said. "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences." Reasonable and considered sentiments, until Williams added that some aspect of sharia in Britain "seems unavoidable." For the tabloids and the Anglican church, those were fighting words. Calls have been made for the Archbishop to resign from within and outside the Church (he has refused) and the story has remained front page news ever since. Considering the latent (and occasionally explicit) hostility, it is ironic that British Muslims didn't bring this subject up in the first place.

Though sizable minorities of Muslims have said they'd like some aspect of sharia to apply to them, without the Archbishop's assessment, it would have ended there - with the majority opposing it. As in Canada, the few proponents (serious ones, not the placard wavers) have never argued that sharia arbitration replace the laws of the state, but merely supplement them in ways that prevent applicable issues from becoming "legal" ones, in a manner similar to court sponsored arbitration. It's also important to note that the vast majority of cases now heard by sharia councils relate to divorce, particularly allowing women to leave bad or forced marriages. Law or no law, this is a worthwhile aim.

For now, in nearly all Western countries, there is a clean break between the two. In Britain, for example, Muslim wedding ceremonies (nikahs) are not recognised by the state, only civil ceremonies at a government registry office. Likewise, divorces are often carried out twice, once for the state and once before a sharia council. An example of the integrating the two would be for the nikah to be automatically recognised by the state (as it is for Christian weddings). But factor in issues like polygamy or marriages conducted abroad to a non-citizen (or even a Muslim from a different school of thought) and the complications become more clear. Even in Muslim states where sharia law is implemented, there is widespread dissent (Pakistan) on the issue or suppression of it (Saudi Arabia). Why would the path would any smoother in Britain?

To the extent that the current system of sharia mediation results in injustices, the thought of increasing the reach of sharia law is cause for concern. Besides being voluntary and often stretched for resources, the councils may suffer from cultural, patriarchal, or sectarian bias in the rulings (granting custody of children to fathers, for example). Also, while there is emphasis placed on the consent of the parties, there are many question whether the consent of women involved is genuine. In the Canadian case, many Muslim women voiced their opposition to the sharia status on these grounds.

And who's sharia is it anyway? Without a clear consensus on what sharia law actually entails - particularly within a Western Muslim context - debate on the subject will be based on the most gratuitous interpretations. Tariq Ramadan, the influential Muslim scholar now at Oxford University, famously called for a moratorium on hudood punishments - part of the penal code of sharia law - to the consternation of many of his Middle Eastern peers. On this particular issue, Ramadan has gone further, stating that "the British legal system is our sharia." Many ordinary British Muslims have agreed, even while shocked by intensity of the reaction.

Now that the debate has become public, all concerned parties need to seek some clarity. What can be done through the courts that cannot today be done simply by mutual agreement? Proponents of sharia arbitration have not been detailed enough in their proposals to provide a suitable answer to this. If two parties want to agree to an Islamic solution that does not conflict with state law, then that is already happening in the form of arbitration. If the issue is enforcement, however, then by definition it is not mutually agreeable and the issue is about imposing a sharia interpretation that at least one party does not accept. It is this point that scares many non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

For now, the Archbishop has defended his comments, save for their "clumsiness," to an assembly of the Church of England. But the debate remains a watermark on the issue of sharia, one that Muslims are not likely to cross. It should not be alarming that Muslims want some sort of religious sanction to the events in their daily lives. When the debate shifts from enforcement under common law to strengthening a structured, accessible, and voluntary system that has sectarian breadth, that sanction may still be available - whatever those involved choose to call it.

"For now, in nearly all Western countries, there is a clean break between the two. In Britain, for example, Muslim wedding ceremonies (nikahs) are not recognised by the state, only civil ceremonies at a government registry office."
Incorrecrt A marriage at a CofE/Catholic church is in fact automatically recognised and there is no need for a civil ceremony. The vicar/padre himself is in effect a registrar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/11/sharia.religion

You really need to read this thread! Holy Cow! Muslims have to be the biggest bumbling idiots on this planet. Here is a couple of real gems.

MAIN ARTICLE =============

........I spent several months at one such Islamic court - the same east London sharia council that Dr Rowan Williams cited in his speech - making a documentary film, Divorce: Sharia Style, about the people who use the court and the sheiks who preside over it. It was immediately plain who is most directly affected by sharia law: more than 90% of the cases involved women seeking divorce.

It seemed clear to me that most of these Muslim women were committed to using the sharia system, whether or not it had any recognition in national law. Many of us may feel distinctly uncomfortable supporting a system that has no grounding in modern civil rights, but whatever one's stance on sharia in Britain, it is surely crucial to ask what sharia means for the people upon whom it has the greatest practical impact.

The process of female divorce (khula) women go through can seem unfair, given that a man may divorce his wife without providing a reason, so long as witnesses are present to observe his decree. A woman, on the other hand, must apply to the council and defend the application in front of the sheikhs, as well as her husband if he chooses to oppose the divorce.

But a woman need offer no more elaborate reason than her dislike for her husband, and if she remains steadfast she will eventually be granted the divorce, even if the process can sometimes take years.

Women do not have the same rights afforded to them under sharia law as they do under the British legal system. Their testimony still carries only half the weight of a man's. And an all-male, overworked, underfunded sharia council does not make a welcoming place for many of the women who approach it. ..............

Here's the usual response =========================

"...she will eventually be granted the divorce, even if the process can sometimes take years."

Oh that's ok then. A sharia divorce can therefore leave Muslim Woman in limbo, uncertain and most probably distressed at her situation for "years"; prohibiting her to move on and start a new life. Whilst Muslim Man just gets on marrying to fill up his quota of 4 wives. Now that's what I call justice baby!!

And I love this gem from a self-righteous Muslim ================

" There are some facts which have to be known when considering islamic divorce:

1) Only the man gives a dowry /gift, this is fixed and cannot be touched during the marriage.

2) If a man divorces his wife, she retains the dowry / gift. This mitigates against fickle marriages, and protects the woman.

3) Every effort is taken to save the marriage, including a cooling off period of seperation.

4) A woman needs no other reason than she dislikes the guy to have grounds for divorce.

5) Islamically the financial burden lies on the man, to provide housing / pay mortgage / rent, and for her material needs.

6) Islamically a husband is not entitled to a single penny of his wifes earning, and cannot even ask - the wife is does not have a responsibility to contribute anything towards rent / maintainance etc.

7) Unlike under Civil law where the financial contributions of each partner are taken into consideration before a settlement - the islamically women walks away with all her saved earnings, despite the fact that the guy paid the rent, bills, and for all her material needs. She also keeps the dowry / gift if he initiated Divorce.

It's not suprising that many muslim women prefer a Shariah Law settlement, especially where the practice is to give land, or in some cases the house as dowry.

The only instances where a woman would benifit more under civil law is when the man has substantial earned wealth - Paul MaCartney, and she has only been married for a couple of years. Under those circumstances, a woman under civil law can rip off quite a sizeable chunk of his wealth.

Out of the two, I'd have to say both favour the woman, but the Shariah law is more fair and equitable, provides mitigation against abuse, and gives both a clean break to get on with their lives."

Incorrecrt A marriage at a CofE/Catholic church is in fact automatically recognised and there is no need for a civil ceremony. The vicar/padre himself is in effect a registrar.

You are correct. But I was referring only to Muslim weddings, not Christian ones: "An example of the integrating the two would be for the nikah to be automatically recognised by the state (as it is for Christian weddings)."

Here's the usual response =========================

"...she will eventually be granted the divorce, even if the process can sometimes take years."

Oh that's ok then. A sharia divorce can therefore leave Muslim Woman in limbo, uncertain and most probably distressed at her situation for "years"; prohibiting her to move on and start a new life. Whilst Muslim Man just gets on marrying to fill up his quota of 4 wives. Now that's what I call justice baby!!

And I love this gem from a self-righteous Muslim ================

" There are some facts which have to be known when considering islamic divorce:

1) Only the man gives a dowry /gift, this is fixed and cannot be touched during the marriage.

2) If a man divorces his wife, she retains the dowry / gift. This mitigates against fickle marriages, and protects the woman.

3) Every effort is taken to save the marriage, including a cooling off period of seperation.

4) A woman needs no other reason than she dislikes the guy to have grounds for divorce.

5) Islamically the financial burden lies on the man, to provide housing / pay mortgage / rent, and for her material needs.

6) Islamically a husband is not entitled to a single penny of his wifes earning, and cannot even ask - the wife is does not have a responsibility to contribute anything towards rent / maintainance etc.

7) Unlike under Civil law where the financial contributions of each partner are taken into consideration before a settlement - the islamically women walks away with all her saved earnings, despite the fact that the guy paid the rent, bills, and for all her material needs. She also keeps the dowry / gift if he initiated Divorce

Unfortunately, even when the divorce is done Islamically few woman receive the above entitlements. Many men do everything they can to leave the woman destitute.

>>> Out of the two, I'd have to say both favour the woman, but the Shariah law is more fair and equitable, provides mitigation against abuse, and gives both a clean break to get on with their lives."

Not in a society of equal rights/ equal status for men and women. The reality is the implementation of Talaq is a matter of conscience and morality for women, but a matter similar to property rights for men. Of course I don't expect you to see the distinction. Just as the reality of your views are only subjective opinions with an aim to insult and perpertrate hatred. Consider how different your points are from the rights of a slave. The problem with you is that the moral burden is someone else's to implement.

Eyes closed shut, and heart open wide. Why be truthful, when you can be faithful. And we are in jahilliyah all over again. Thanks to the solid theological grounding of the hajibabas .. TV, heresay and websites.

This site needs a good rating scale, if it wants to encourage the discussion that the likes of the Hajibabas so eagerly piss on.