Proudman was instrumental in the criminalisation of forced marriage and advised Number 10 Downing Street’s Policy Unit on drafting an offence. She was also featured as a commentator in the BBC documentary Secrets Of Britain's Sharia Councils.
Since the Charlotte Proudman interview came about after having watched the BBC documentary on Sharia Councils, I think the inclusion of my response to a related article feels appropriate.
My edited and eloborate response to Ben Six: 'Why we should oppose Islamic Sharia courts in Britain.'
"Are you implying your opposition of 'Sharia Courts 'to lead to a complete ban on such courts? I don't think you are.
These courts are dominated by bearded men with a degree in 'religious conservatism'. They are self-styled leaders of their community. Community leadership is never democratic and such leadership tends to voice the mainstream sentiment prevailing within that group. The problem here is that despite the 'muazzin' and 'imam' calling for a unified 'umma' or muslim world, beyond lining up in rows in answering the call for prayer, there is great cultural diversity within Islam. UK Muslim population in itself comprises of a major Pakistani and Bangladeshi contingent. Traditionally, the minority had been made up of Somali, Yemeni, Kurdish, Nigerian and various Arabic speaking groups. However, over the last twenty years, there has been a great swelling in mainstream middle-eastern Muslims alongside an even stronger representation from the African diaspora. This is a vast and complicated pool of people who are united together by the notion of religion and religious custom alone. To highlight the difference, it is interesting to note that issues such as female circumcision is more specific to the African communities whereas issues such as forced marriages appears to be more prevalent within the South Asian Muslims. This issue of diversity is largely swept under the carpet for the sake of Muslim unity.
Essentially, the Sharia Council is dealing with cases, issues and cultures that are distinct in their own right but the politics of unity makes it well nigh impossible to deliberate on by a small group of individuals representing a small interest group. Sadly, the imposition of Sharia is here to stay. I don't personally envisage any political party wanting to abolish such a body. Politically, it would be seen as insensitive and a potantial election suicide.
Perhaps we ought to think about the following -
1. A regulatory body who would oversee judgements where there is a clear difference in opinion.
2. More women need to be involved with the Council with an absolutely minimum of 50% representation.
3. Cases involving abuse and marital issues including forced marriage need to be deliberated over by a panel rather than individuals.
4. Minutes and deliberations of all cases need to be published and available for scrutiny.
There is a moderate amount of scepticism towards the notion of Sharia legal code amongst secular Muslims. This is because Sharia itself is seen as something of a syncretic creation. It is primarily based on the interpreted teachings of the Islamic holy book, the Quran as well as the examples set by the Prophet during his lifetime. However, the 21st century reality maybe a little more challenging for legal codifications that were being conceived and formulated during the Ummayad and Abbasid Khalifat in 7th and 8th century CE.
It would be fair to say that Sharia is a codified set of interpretations that relies entirely upon tradition and precedence. There are four schools or codified 'madhabs' of Sharia. The schools themselves are systems of thought that reached their final form towards the end of the 9th century. Traditionally, these madhabs have had specific geographical follwing perhaps as a result of the migratory route a particular group of Muslims had chosen in the early middle ages. Hence, the Hanafi school which is popular in South Asia and the Indian Subcontinent is not widely followed in Saudi Arabia. So the question arises, when it comes to regulating the UK Muslims who want to be regulated by Sharia, which school should take precedence? However, this is more of a theological discussion and my intention is to highlight the vast cultural and geographical difference in UK Muslims based on where their family originated form. These differences exist eventhough the basic central tenet of Islam, that of a belief in one God and idolatory being strictly forbidden, is followed uniformly by most Muslims without any need for applied legal codifications. The civil law seem to be perfectly adequate for the most.
In theory, if the secular Muslims could be motivated to be involved with Sharia Councils and be formally involved in the court deliberations, I think we could see a real improvement in operation for such a body.
The Panorama programme that was referred to in Ben Six's article was an eye opener. One of the problems of talking about Sharia courts is that it is frequently used by the political right and far right as a further justification of prejudice, racism and Islamophonia. The allusion to severe punishment that is implied in the very first paragraph of the article when talking about the triumvirate who rule the Council, takes any potential discussion to the inevitable conclusions of existence and relevance. The discussion should actually be about how comforting such councils could be for the vulnerable women and families if they were operated by sensitive and moderate individuals focused on the idea of justice and fairness.
Vulnerable women often find the mainstream UK Justice System to be baffling and perhaps, culturally alien; the language barrier can be hard to overcome. I realize that the second part of my previous sentence leads to a different discussion altogether, but let us not get into a debate on multi-culturalism here. If those women who are presently being served by the Sharia Courts could be encouraged to seek justice and advice through the traditional means we would effectively abolish the scope of Sharia in UK. This is not an overnight solution. The monetary implication is that we do need more funding for the bodies that encourage English language learning amongst women from ethnic minorities. We also need a more culturally sensitive legal system, judiciary as well as the most important of all, a political will for cohesion to fully address the issue."
The week's Twitter highlights had included wonderful interaction with the following from the legal community:
0 comments:
Post a Comment