Time for the sharia courts to open up

The Guardian's unprecedented filming of sharia court proceedings shows that more transparency would benefit everyone

What does it actually look like inside a sharia court? You would think, given the frequency of alarming headlines about the spread of Islamic tribunals in the UK, that journalists had long been sitting in and watching proceedings. But that's far from the case.

In fact sharia courts – now operating in cities around England and Scotland – have remained remarkably closed. In the meantime they have enjoyed an almost universally bad press. Ever since Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William's 2008 comment that "the application of sharia in certain circumstances…seems unavoidable", the red-tops frequently sound warnings about Islamic law "taking over".

In 2009 think-tank Civitas published a report claiming that sharia courts had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce and there have been regular controversies ever since.

In the US things are even worse. Passing laws that ban sharia law from being recognised in legal decisions has become the latest American trend. Last year Oklahoma became the first state to try introducing a new law banning its courts from considering sharia rules and principles.

There are no actual examples of sharia law actually being used in Oklahoma's courts, but that did not stop the state legislature voting in favour "State Question 755" or "Save Our State", as it was affectionately known. The law has been put on hold with a permanent injunction after a federal judge (applying that most American of laws, the first amendment guarantee of religious freedom) declared it unconstitutional.

Nor did that stop other states from trying to follow suit. Missouri is considering a law that would "maintain that US law shall take precedence in US courts", and Tennessee is considering a similar measure.

In fact Tennessee's bill warrants a special mention. Defining a "sharia organisation" as one which "knowingly adheres to sharia" and "engages in.. an act of terrorism" it captures nicely what is so wrong with much of the public debate about Islam. Sharia and terrorism, according to the Tennessee school of thought, go hand in hand. And there is no place for either in American courts.

That's not so far from the view of some Brits, either. See for example the Sun's headline after Rowan William's speech: A Victory for Terrorism. The reason why the emergence of sharia courts has prompted so much more hysteria than the Jewish Beth Din – which have long been operating under the same legal provision for arbitral tribunals – is presumably the inflammatory combination of fear and ignorance that uniquely surrounds the perception of Islam.

As far as sharia courts are concerned, this perception can only be based on the flimsiest of foundations, since few non-Muslims and even fewer journalists have ever stepped foot inside these much-feared sharia courts. This is in large part their own fault for remaining so closed to outsiders. But the Guardian has now spent two days filming inside one in Leyton, focusing on two divorce cases in an attempt to shed some light on what really goes on.

The result is not exactly a PR dream, as far as busting myths about Islamic law are concerned. Dr Suhaib Hasan, who is seen presiding over one woman's request for a divorce, asks her whether her husband has ever subjected her to violence.

"He has hit me in the past, yes," she replies. "He hit me once."

"Once only," Hasan replies. "So it's not a very serious matter."

This is exactly the kind of thing that prompts alarm about giving religious tribunals authority in some sensitive areas as marriage and divorce – it's hard to think of a clearer example of how sharia can diverge from English law, which now requires much less than hitting a woman once to constitute domestic violence.

On the other hand, there are ways in which the English courts are playing catch-up with what these tribunals have been doing for years. "Our role is not like an English court where if [a couple] are asking for divorce, we proceed at once, we try to find any possibilities for a reconciliation," says Hasan, displaying the mediatory approach towards divorce that the English family courts are now desperately trying to adopt.

There is no excuse for ignorant prejudice against sharia law, but this film shows that there are valid concerns about the way sharia tribunals operate. And if they really want to demonstrate their compatibility with a modern, secular society, then greater openness – of the kind this film demonstrates – must be the way forward.

VIDEO http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2011/mar/09/sharia-courts-transparency

Voice of the Gospel Christian Radio - Radio Stimme des Evangeliums

Samstag, 19. Mai 2012

Inside a sharia divorce court - video Sheikh Haithem Al-Haddad and Dr Suhaib Hasan of Britain's Sharia Council allow us rare and exclusive VIDEO

Time for the sharia courts to open up

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen