Rowan Williams doesn’t need me to defend him, having, preumably, better placed and more powerful friends (one in partiuclar). But here goes anyway. One of my several Anglophile (and this one a rare Episcopalian) in-laws just sent me (approvingly) this piece from the Sunday Times, and added the following, rather lovely if a little unlikely, quote, recommending a different version of multiculturalism from that to which he takes the Archbishop to be committed (which, I gather from googling, comes from Mark Steyn):
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee”—the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
‘’You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
Let us take the Archbishop’s supposed treason first. The Archbishop’s actual speech, has been available for days. And the World at One transcript is here. So it is surprising that journalists like Ms. Marrin have been able to get away with what seem like wilful mireadings and mishearings.
Here is Ms. Marrin exaggerating the number of times (or at least the care with which) she has read the speech:
The archbishop and his few supporters insist that the media have misrepresented him and not many people have actually read the learned speech that he gave to a learned audience after his inflammatory radio interview. They are wrong. I haven’t seen any serious misrepresentation in the media, and reading his speech several times doesn’t exonerate him. Nor does it increase respect for his judgment, his command of English or his powers of ratiocination; he is woolly of face and woolly of mind.
(The comment about wooliness of mind is, presumably, a charge that anyone who recognises complexity is stupid, or something like that). But there is nothing treacherous about the Archbishop’s comments. He is appealing to the long-established British tradition of muddling through, tinkering with institutions as is needed to achieve goals of stability and rough fairness (he’s the one who is “holding fast to that which is good”). The revolutionaries—or to put it far more harshly than I ever would, the traitors—here are, in fact, the Archbishop’s critics. Ms Marrin is presumably now organising a campaign to disestablish the Church of England, close down the Jewish courts, and sever the connection between the Monarch and a sectarian Church. (I’m too lazy to google this, and I may be wrong, but isn’t it still true that C of E vicars can choose to be tried by Church courts if they want, even on quite serious matters? A centuries-old English tradition that Ms Marrin wants to abolish tomorrow, I presume).
Now, none of this is to say that I welcome sharia law in England, even in the mild form that the Archbishop, without endorsing it, suggests with good reason might be unavoidable. My own multiculturalism is probably rather unEnglish, and I’m thus inclined to Sir Charles Napier’s purported version. But fans of that version might note that the actual British tolerated suttee well into the 19th Century. And they might also wonder if there is a relevant difference between a sovereign country allowing immigrants some latitude over minor matters of the civil code, and the immigrants themselves enforcing their own law on everyone else by force of arms.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 217 comments }
The India quote seems to have been put in circulation also by the Times, Matthew Parris.
I’ve only heard about this second hand, but my immediate impression is that this controversy rests on the unshakeable media rule, laid down at some point in the 70s, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is always a well-meaning but muddle-headed fool with a guitar and an anthology of three-chord folk songs. It really doesn’t matter to reporters what he actually says, given this prior belief.
Having grown up reading the Sunday Times, I’ve come to the conclusion that engaging in anything approaching intellectual debate with Minette Marrin is slightly unsporting. At least she’s returned to railing at that imaginary multiculturalist in her head, she’s recently taken to talking about her own life.
Williams is the leader of a state church. He is a symbol to the people, the majority of English who however vestigally find comfort in the rites and rituals of the established church—the national Church. He deems it proper to go on national radio and tell the English they must bend their established laws and customs before a religion which is expanding demographically, is quite enthusiastic in its proselytization, which has ambivalent attitudes to living under the rule of non-believers, and some of whose adherents have within a kindergardener’s memory have blown up a tube station in the heart of London. The man is not so much a traitor as a fool, but having a fool in a leadership position can demoralize a population. He should go.
Oh, what a pity—I really, really like Matthew Parris. I think I shall choose to pretend he didn’t write that article.
It’s true that this is rather a case of killing the messenger.
But it bears repeating that it should be the case that an individual cannot relinquish certain rights otherwise her arm can be twisted into choosing to relinquish them.
And that there seems to be a difference between meddling in Sati away and forbidding shari’a courts at home, the latter being a rather scaled down version of the former on both fronts.
FWIW they should not allow jewish family courts either. At least in Israel they are horribly skewed towards the male side of the equation.
Reading Williams’ speech without the “benefit” of knowing what in specific the fuss was about, I could not imagine what people would object to—it seemed pretty innocuous and common-sensical. Not indisputable, etc., but still—not something where you go screaming for the guy’s resignation by any means.
Sorry guys. To women and children, “rulings on marital issues” are not “minor matters of civil law”. Neither can it be assumed that women’s consent is always freely given, where they live in a patriarchal community.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has a different perspective on this from academics who “cannot imagine what people would object to”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
I first read that Napier quote in Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966?). So it’s been around for a long time. (Moore quoted it with approval, I should add.)
I have that quote in a book from the 1985 – Byron Farwell’s Queen Victoria’s Little Wars, which is a rather good read on the whole topic of British colonial wars.
Neither can it be assumed that women’s consent is always freely given, where they live in a patriarchal community.
If you’re going to start making this sort of patronising assumption, you’ll be needing a fairly objective criterion of how you’re going to decide whose stated preferences you’re going to take seriously and whose you won’t, because otherwise a lot of people are going to suggest you’re drawing the line pretty randomly for your own convenience.
Very true – I think the reaction can be neatly divided between those (the right-wing English blogger Iain Dale springs to mind) who heard the radio interview first and those like, er, me, who read the speech first, perhaps naively assuming that, since it was written by an intelligent man in a position of power for an intelligent audience in positions of power (including the Lord Chief Justice, as it happens), it was the important bit. On subsequently reading the radio transcript the first (and correct) reaction was ‘he’s not putting himself across very well, is he?’.
The first lesson from this hoo-hah is that it’s not the most learned, best researched piece that wins out in the battle for influence, but the one that gets farthest first. This, I suggest, isn’t great for the future of intelligent policy-making. The second lesson is that, surprisingly, political correctness exists, it just operates backwards from the way it’s commonly presented. Neither of these conclusions is inherently surprising given the political history of the last ten years on both sides of the Atlantic.
If you’re going to start making this sort of patronising assumption
Come on, now—it may not be practical to do anything about the problem Anne identifies, but are we going to pretend there’s NOT a problem?
(And “patronising” is a telling word in itself.)
So Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, too, didn’t bother to check what he actually said. Oh well. There is, I agree, a tremendous problem with figuring out when consent is genuine, and when not, and another tremendous problem with figuring out how much to intervene in matters concerning parents and children. Those problems plague legal systems of all kinds, exactly for the reason dsquared identifies. If Archbishop’s critics were willing to have an intellectually honest and serious debate about them I bet that he’d be up for it. (The Children’s Society (affiliated with the C of E, and patronised by the Archbishop) has been a major player in raising these issues with policymakers, by the way)
I think this posting (from a liberal Muslim) warrants quotation in full:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/opposing-sharia-arbitration-courts-in-uk/:
I promised earlier that I’d discuss why I oppose Sharia arbitration courts in the UK. Here are some reasons in no particular order. I hope Asim Siddiqui and Yahya Birt, who are both supporting the courts (in theory), are listening.
1 – Its not fair to other citizens to have their taxes be used to fund the religious practice of a few select people.
What about the Jewish Beth-Din courts — where three men (and never women) pass judgments — you reply? I didn’t know they existed. Now that I know, they should go too.
When in 2004 Canada refused to allow Islamic family law, it realized that it needed to repeal the Arbitration Act of 1991 that had allowed Jewish and other religious family law to be applied. Canada did so. Same thing should happen in the UK. (For more on the Sharia courts in Ontario go here).
Separation of church and state should be absolute.
2 – Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.
Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).
Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).
Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).
Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).
Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.
In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.
A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.
This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.
The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that.
It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.
3 – Whose Sharia? (Rather, whose Fiqh).
I’m thinking that Shias are automatically out of the Sharia arbitration option since the normative version that will be approved will be Sunni.
Then you’ve got the issue of the fights between Sunni schools of law. Correct me if I’m wrong but under Hanafi law a girl doesn’t need a wali to get married but she does under Maliki law. Under Hanafi law a divorcing woman doesn’t need to show cause to get a khul‘ but under Maliki law she does. People don’t really check what fiqh their prospective spouse is. All this is going to create a huge headache for the arbitrator who, poor guy, is not likely going to be schooled in various kinds of Islamic law. This is going to increase the expense and delay for all parties.
4 – Coercion
I hear a lot that the arbitration courts don’t apply unless both parties consent.
I guess people forget that for Muslims, marriage is an all-family business. Heck, its in the Quran that in cases of marital-conflict you appoint two negotiators. You think these negotiators — whose primary motivation, due to social stigma, is going to be to keep the couple from divorcing — is not going to try and talk them towards the Sharia court?
Coercion won’t be by people putting a gun to the heads of women. Instead, women will be gently “reminded” (with a nice hard grasp on their arm) that if they don’t go to Sharia judge they will be seen as impious and not-devout. You have no idea of the power of social death.
We have enough issues of piety-pressure in our communities already. Half the girls I know that wear hijab do it because of piety-pressure. This pressure gets out of hand in cases of marriage, divorce and custody. Think about it. These days, even the most liberal and secular Muslims, when they get married, go through the entire nikah procedure/ceremony. This isn’t because they are religious (there is a nice open bar at the wedding hall). Its because of piety-pressure. It is an impeccably strong force. Muslims in the US are polled to be more socially conservative than Evangelical Christians (and Muslims in the UK are more conservative than American ones).
Then, there is the beating issue. Let’s say that a woman consents to going to the arbitration court, but once there, she wants to bring up domestic violence. What’s the Sharia judge going to say? “Was it with a stick the width of my thumb?” Give me a break. Also, the question arises, is the judge, in such a situation, going to be able to kick the matter up to a secular court in the form of an interlocutory appeal (an appeal that takes place during the case)? I suspect most people will say that the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, and we have to call a bunch of expert witnesses to the secular court, then why are we in the Sharia court in the first place? What about women beating men? It happens about 15% of the time. I don’t think Islamic family law even recognizes this.
5 – There is no standardized version of Islamic law
Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?
And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)
6 – Misogyny in Muftis
Will there be female arbitrators? Conservatives are going to scream that the arbitrator plays the role of a Mufti and under Islamic law a woman cannot be a Mufti (just a jurist or muhaddith). Do we wait for the male arbitrator? What if only a female one is available and the party that refuses to be adjudged by a woman, after previously consenting to the Sharia court, now wants to go to the secular court. Is this allowable?
7 – Muslims are already engaged in Islamic courts so why not just have the government regulate it?
See number one.
Also, having government recognized courts makes them authoritative, and with social pressure it becomes hard to resist them.
8 – This is not going to lead to Islamic reform
Some reformers are arguing that if you initiate this program, as the kinks get worked out, it’ll essentially be a form of Islamic reform.
Uh, no. If you really want to be reformist, the thing to do is to convince Muslims that when they participate in the secular system, simply make a niyah (intention) in your head that you are trying to fulfill your Islamic protocols as well. For example, I have never understood why we do a wedding at city hall and a wedding at the hotel. The city hall wedding fulfills all the formal requirements of a nikah — contract, consent and witnesses. If the couple would just think “Ya Allah I do this to satisfy you!” then that’s a wedding recognized by Islam. I don’t see why this is so difficult. Same thing with divorce. When you file with the court, use intention to render it Islamic. We do this kind of mental Islam a lot. Think about it.
9 – Ghettoization
Muslims talk a lot about parts of the world where there is one law for Muslims and one law for Jews — ahem, Israel-Palestine — but when they themselves initiate distinctions between themselves and other people, its all gravy.
Fact is, I’d think its a perfectly Islamic idea that when your neighbors would get quite antagonized with you if you behaved a certain way, you should relent. Try gentle persuasion. If it doesn’t work, move (like Muhammad to Medina).
10 – Millet system is dead
Yes, I know, the Ottoman Empire recognized everyone according to their religion and gave each religious community the power to tax and adjudicate their matters.
First of all, we don’t live in a millet world. In fact, with the Tanzimat reforms, even the Ottomans did away with it. Do you know what was happening? Foreign powers were coming into the Ottoman Empire and saying that they were “protecting” the various religious enclaves. Let’s think about this. Let’s say the UK allows a Sharia arbitration system and doesn’t provide enough money in the budget to pay enough staff. Are Muslims going to ask Dubai for a check? Right, that won’t make your neighbors think you’re a fifth column.
Also, please show some historicist sophistication about the Ottoman Empire. They organized people according to religion because the clerics of various Christian groups were less prone to upsetting the status-quo and leading rebellions.
11 – Don’t stoke the hate
The roots of Christian anti-semitism lie in the Christian view that “spirit” trumps “law.” Christian fathers long considered law — specifically Jewish law — to be shifty and conniving. Then the Christians slaughtered six million Jews. {being a bit facetious}.
12 – This is not like halal meat
Getting halal meat standardization is not the same thing as Sharia arbitration because the issue here is of equality before the law and duties of citizenship, not digestion.
13 – Witness issues
You better believe that when it comes to resolution of these cases there is going to be witnesses that are going to have to be brought in. But under classical fiqh, the testimony of women is half that of men. Are we going to change that rule before the Sharia-arbitration goes into effect? If so, see number five above. Even if you try a reformist argument and say that the Quranic verses only apply the half the witness of a man rule to financial situations (and not personal ones), the fact is that there are plenty of financial issues in divorce, custody and inheritance.
14 – Liberal democracy, as is, is perfectly compatible with Islam
You aren’t making your country more Islamic or even earning more reward by going to Sharia arbitration courts. The Mufti of Egypt thinks liberal democracy is compatible with Islam. A traditionalist jurist, quoting a lot Ghazali, thinks that there is no incompatibility between being an orthodox Muslim and living in a liberal democracy.
Conclusion
There is absolutely no reason for a Muslim to support Sharia arbitration. If you’d like to live in a state where you can resolve your marital, custodial, and divorce disputes under the aegis of classical Islamic law, might I recommend the Gulf? It looks like America and tastes like the 7th century, perfect for a retrogressive Muslim. Cheaper gas for your very Islamic gas guzzler, too.
Williams may have been innocuous or common-sensical and he may not have been. I personally think that, if he meant what he appears to have said, then what he said was shocking. And I cannot tell if he failed to say it clearly because he is incapable of speaking clearly, or because he is too cunning to be straightforward.
He repeatedly compares his views on sharia law to his views on Orthodox Jewish law. In Britain and in the US, Orthodox Jewish courts are viewed by the civil legal system as private arbitration mechanisms – a person can agree to be bound, or can agree to opt out. Opting out may lead to the person’s exclusion from the religious community, and that is the person’s choice. Catholicism is similar – a person is free to get a civil divorce, and the church is free to deny that person participation in the religious community.
This seems simple enough, but in practice it is difficult. Suppose a couple marry in a religious ceremony. Is that voluntary marriage a consent to abide by the decision of an “arbitration panel” of religious judges in case of a divorce? Is it an agreement to relinquish rights of custody, of alimony, even of a right to divorce? If it is, is the agreement enforceable? Under current law, the answer to those questions is no, a marriage is not an enforceable agreement to relinquish your rights. For example, a Catholic is not barred from obtaining a civil divorce.
What does Williams think? He seems to think that you should be permitted to relinquish your civil rights simply by getting married in your religion. He favors a
“scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters..”
Any lawyer will tell you that you “choose the jurisdiction” when you make a contract, not when you seek to break it. And so, if you marry in your faith, aren’t you “choosing the jurisdiction” that will resolve your domestic disputes?
But does he truly believe that people should be permitted to opt out of their civil rights simply by getting married in a religious ceremony? That’s what he seems to say. If that’s what he means, people have every reason to be shocked and angered. If that’s not what he means, he should have said so clearly.
And it gets worse. Jews and Catholics generally accept that if a person leaves the faith, he or she is beyond the reach of the ecclesiastical courts. But Islam is different, because – as Williams says, without grappling seriously with the issue – Islam does not permit a person to leave the faith. Williams admits this aspect of Sharia law and then says, as if wishful thinking would make it so:
“In a society where freedom of religion is secured by law, it is obviously impossible for any group to claim that conversion to another faith is simply disallowed…”
But this is precisely what Islam does claim, and it makes that claim in England. There is nothing impossible about it.
Suppose a woman and her husband separate. Under English law, a civil proceeding will decide custody of the child. Under Islamic law, a religious court will enforce the law that the husband has custody.
Suppose the woman is willing to separate herself from the religious community in order to retain custody. Under Islamic law, she is not permitted to do that. The community will not let her separate. And it will not recognize a decision of the civil authority that the woman has custody.
What should the civil authority do? Under Williams’ interpretation of “transformative accomodation,” it appears, the state should enforce the custody decision of the religious court.
If Williams did not mean to imply these results, he had an obligation to say so clearly. He is not a professor at a university. He is the head of the established church and a powerful member of government (he sits in the House of Lords, where he leads the 26 “Lords Spiritual”). His implication that the civil law should stand by while women “voluntarily” surrender their civil rights by getting married should not have been said unless it was meant, and if meant it should have been said forthrightly, and not buried under a load of theological rubbish.
I too remember that quote from Barrington Moore’s 1966 book. That thing is full of footnotes, so it’s probably sourced there. I have it on my shelf at work; I’ll try to find it tomorrow.
The quote is on page 351 of the Moore book which cites page 327 of the book WOODRUFF, PHILIP The Men Who Ruled India: The Founders (Volume I).
“The revolutionaries—or to put it far more harshly than I ever would, the traitors—here are, in fact, the Archbishop’s critics. Ms Marrin is presumably now organising a campaign to disestablish the Church of England…”
No, the Archbishop is the revolutionary. You have remember that the current constitutional settlement is that the CoE should fucking well do what parliament tells it to do. Not start going around saying that it’s be a good idea if God writes some of the laws. The state puppets the church, not the other way around. That’s why people are pissed at him.
What is extraordinary about the episode is the vox populi on the radio: that this country is a Christian country and that even the arbitration thing is “the thin end of the wedge”. Or that if they want to live under Shari’a they should leave Britain.
And none could answer the question, “but what about Bet Din [the Jewish equivalent]?”
And all this in the same week that the Times has some sort of headline about “inbred” Muslims (something having to do with cousin-marriages being genetically bad).
I suppose what is also extraordinary to me is that right-thinking (or “decent”) people just don’t see the similarities with various European anti-Semitic race-baiting of days gone by.
Shorter Bloix: I am determined to attribute to Williams a whole bunch of views that he does not hold and did not express. The fact that he didn’t say the things which I am determined to maintain that he believes I shall interpret as evidence of his dishonesty.
(This answer of Williams’ in the linked interview goes some way to refuting Bloix’s bizarre, paranoid misreadings of parts of his lecture:
CL So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?
ABC It’s very important hat you mention there the word ‘choice’; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don’t know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I’m simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate. )
leederick—The settlement requires that the Archbishop of Canterbury suppress any independent thought? In an academic lecture, and a radio interview? If people are pissed off with him for what he (actually) said in that context they’re bloody fools. I don’t agree by the way. I think there’s a campaign against him that has nothing to do with what he said last week.
bloix—I’m inclined to take the Archbishop for what he is—a religious leader who speaks his mind, which is a thoughtful and subtle one. Anyone who does that gets some things wrong, and it is usually worth pursuing the disagreement, because they are actually capable of thinking about what is at issue between you. But its only worth doing it if you bother to figure out what, exactly, they are saying, and interpret them with the charity recommended by ordinary conversational norms. The latter seems to be something none of the critics I have read are willing to do (including, to my despair, the usually lovely Matthew Parris).
Personally, I am all for putting a stamp of governmental approval on a particular interpretation of the sharia, or more specifically, giving unelected religious leaders the power to choose which interpretation of the sharia will be stamped with governmental approval. I can see absolutely no downside to this.
re 12: “If you’re going to start making this sort of patronising assumption…” We’re talking about (opponents claim) whether to allow someone to voluntarily give up basic citizenship rights to do with family, children, income and in the worst case, basic safety in the home. Why is it more patronizing than, say, workplace safety laws, or the right to join a union? Come visit the US if you want to see the thin edge of the wedge of voluntarily suspending inalienable rights.
vivian:
Three words: Burden of proof.
Since when did the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” equal surrendering Basic Citizenship Rights?
Engels-
Williams speaks of choice. The whole point of making a choice in law is that you make the choice before you know the result. You can’t select a forum and then say, after the ruling goes against you, “Hey! that forum was no good!” Once the law accepts that the forum is legitimate, it says, you made your contract, now you must abide by it.
But decent societies have laws that say that there are certain choices you are not allowed to make,and certain contracts that will not be enforced. You are not allowed to sell yourself or your children into slavery. You are not allowed to agree to work 100 hours a week for 3 dollars an hour. You are not allowed to contract to be a man’s second wife.
Some people, myself included, believe that you should not be allowed to contract that you will be bound by the decisions of a fundamentally flawed tribunal. Regardless of what you agreed, regardless of the voluntary nature of your agreement, you have a right to a fair trial that cannot be taken away. That is the meaning of – in Jefferson’s phrase – inalienable rights.
Here are the questions for Archbishop Williams: Should the civil law permit a woman to choose to make a marriage that can be dissolved only by a religious court? Should the civil courts agree to enforce judgments of religious courts that weigh evidence according to a rule of decision that says, when there are two witnesses to an event, the man’s version will be taken as true? Should the civil courts agree to uphold custody decisions that are based on a rule that says, all other things being equal, the father gets custody?
Williams appears to say, if the woman agrees to the forum, no matter how seemingly unfair, she should be bound by the result. After all, she made a choice.
Most civil libertarians would say, there are certain contracts that a decent society will not enforce, and this is one of them. This is a real disagreement, and if Williams wants to debate it, he should make himself clear.
Harry b- “ordinary conversational norms” don’t apply here. That was the excuse given by the apologists for Larry Summers, who conveniently ignored the fact that he happened to be president of Harvard. Now Summers is a professor again, and can say whatever he wants. Williams cannot speak conversationally as Dr Williams; he can speak only as the Archbishop of Canterbury. If he wants ordinary conversational norms to apply to what he says, he should resign and become a professor.
Aw c’mon, the Archbishop is a jackass. Comments above explain in excruciating detail the consequences of legitimizing “voluntary” Islamic courts for Muslim women. In Canada when a similar proposal was flown it was women, in particular Muslim women, who objected.
This isn’t a conflict between a disadvantaged minority group and their post-colonialist oppressors. It’s a dispute between ordinary integrated Muslims and cultural-preservationist stake-holders supported by well-meaning bien pensants like the Archbishop. The most disturbing thing is that the Archbish never ASKED Muslims whether they wanted Islamic family courts or made any attempt to canvass Muslim popular opinion on this matter—but then not only argued for the institution of these courts but declared that their establishment was “inevitable.”
Who does this guy think he is? What makes him think British Muslims want his “help” in this matter or that they want what he imagines they want?
So that girl who likes to be treated like a pet, and her boyfriend walks around with her on a leash. She was kicked off a bus last week and somehow got an apology for it. When do we send around the SWAT team to forcibly remove her leash?
‘Separation of church and state should be absolute.’
(from the ‘liberal muslim’).
You see this is of the school of thought (much mocked in a previous, recent, thread) that is of the strange opinion that ‘we’ actually live in the United States.
In fact, as Dr Williams recognises, Christianity is completely interwoven into the fabric of British life, from the House of Lords to the Royal Family (we should remember that, constitutionally, the ‘purpose’ of the Queen is to lead the Church of England), to Catholic schools, to mandatory religious programming from the state broadcasting organisation to the situation in Northern Ireland to….I could go on.
There has NEVER been any separation between church and state in Britain, no one serious (i.e. with a hope of reaching power) has ever suggested any such a thing, and it is not going to happen in my lifetime. Allegedly contrasting ‘Muslim’ law with British ‘secular’ law is simply wrong: there is no such thing as British ‘secular’ law. In fact, in theory, Britain is a kind of theocracy with supreme power lying with the head of the Church, although in reality it is very far from that.
And as an atheist I’m quite happy with all this. As has been pointed out many times, the alleged ‘separation’ of Church and State in the US (which has never really been much of a separation, let’s face it) was a purely practical decision: there were too many protestant sects vying for ‘state religion’ and no one could decide which one would get the prize. Despite the rewriting of history by Decents, it was not done for reasons of secularism (none of the Founding Fathers were atheists). In fact, one of the explicit reasons given for this separation, was that given a ‘free market’ of religion, this would greatly strengthen religious life in the US, and this has turned out to be a correct prediction. The simple fact is that religion is important in American political life (no less an ‘authority’ than Christopher Hitchens, for example, has pointed out that there is a de facto ban on atheists becoming supreme court judges, and de facto bans are in actuality much stronger, because much harder to fight, than de jure bans). It is much more important in the US than in the UK. As other people have pointed out, the milk and water c of e functions as a kind of ‘homeopathic remedy’: people get a tiny taste of religion early in life, which gives them immunity for the rest of their lives.
So I don’t actually think, to repeat, as an atheist and secularist, that the ‘separation of church and state’ is a good idea, even in principle. Not while an extremist Christian fundamentalist holds power in the White House, and everyone seems to think that this is perfectly acceptable.
Geez Daniel, it’s not patronising to posit that since women live in a patriarchal society that therefore “choice” may not be freely made. For goodness sake, I’d argue that many western women who’ve had breast implants having made that choice freely, given our society’s over-emphasis on mammaries and women’s appearance.
haven’t made that choice freely…
We’re talking about (opponents claim) whether to allow someone to voluntarily give up basic citizenship rights to do with family, children, income and in the worst case, basic safety in the home
no, I’m talking about a free choice of arbitration tribunals, the Archbishop of Canterbury is talking about that plus state recognition of religious traditions and you’re talking a whole load of Chicken Little bollocks because you don’t understand the issue.
Geez Daniel, it’s not patronising to posit that since women live in a patriarchal society that therefore “choice” may not be freely made. For goodness sake, I’d argue that many western women who’ve had breast implants having made that choice freely, given our society’s over-emphasis on mammaries and women’s appearance
Geez Katherine, it is patronising. In the most literal sense of the term. You’re presuming to make a choice on someone else’s behalf. For goodness’s sake, if you’re going to take “not freely chosen” as meaning something so weak that it can apply to the fact that some women have breast implants because they want their breasts to appeal to men, it’s absolutely clear that this is a sense of “Not freely chosen” which can’t have any political importance at all and certainly one which it’s hard to argue could form a basis for not letting the Muslims have their courts.
Harry is right that the traditional approach in Britain has, up to now, been to muddle through and make compromises wherever possible. So there is no real seperation betwen chruch and state in the UK, but neither did church or religion have a disproportionate influence over public life. People of different faiths good get on and live in peaceful coexistence, a much better arrangement than that existing in several Western countries where these issues were unresolved.
But that time seems to be over. Many individuals are now of no faith, so having a Archbishop speak on matters of national importance is, rightly, regarded as insulting and patronising. Far more importantly, in place of the fairly easy going mix of Anglicanism, Methodism and Catholicism that previously existed, the approach of compromising and muddling through is under assault from bigotted, creationist Evangelical groups and the more conservative strains of Islam.
I don’t think the compromise can hold when a plurality of the population are without faith at the same time as evangelicals gaining control over ‘city academies’ and conservative Muslims are calling for sharia civil courts. At this stage, French-style secularism seems preferable to the Ottoman millet system.
It’s notable that the best, most learned, most detailed arguments on this entire thread have come from Aaron Baker- and everyone is busy ignoring him. What- a Muslim who disagrees with Williams? The poor, misguided fool. Don’t talk to him and maybe he’ll go away.
Harry, you’re normally a terribly fair-minded person. Why won’t you respond to Aaron’s many points- based as they are on an impressive grasp of Islamic law and of the realities of being a Muslim in a Western society- rather than taking easy shots at softer targets?
It’s hard to feel that much sympathy for Archbishop Williams. Anyone who writes as badly as he does deserves to be pilloried by the press. Shame it’s not for his writing.
But, reading his speech, I agree that it was complex and nuanced, but in the sense that a stream of random numbers maximises the information content of a speech. Either that or it was deep and intelligent, but uses English in an intensively-jargonny way, so that someone brought up on standard English completely misunderstands it.
Quotes taken from http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
He appears to be arguing against equality before the law, but then his arguments as to what should replace it strike me as being ones that are in favour of equality before the law, and a limited law that allows for a wide range of views.
He never addresses the question that, if a matter is so important that it is approriate for Parliament to pass a law banning it and to use the force of the police to enforce it, why should people be given an exemption on religious grounds? If it’s that important, surely it applies to religious people as well? For example, surely Rowan Williams would not advocate giving exemptions to the laws against murder to commited Aztecs? If it is so important to pass finanical regulations to protect unsophisticated investors, or to stop money-laundering why give an exemption to it based on religion? If the purpose of the law is so unimportant that it’s worthwhile giving exemptions based on religion, why pass it in the first place?
He also uses some bizarre historical comparisons, for example he says the French Revolution and 1970s China are examples of things that go wrong then “equal access and equal accountability” are enforced. Okay, how exactly was Mao Zedong held accountable in 1970s China? Robespierre was indeed executed in the end, but the French Revolution’s terror strikes me as a problem caused by lack of legal protection, not equality per se. And there have been plenty of cases of bloodshed where there was not equal access and equal accountability – the persecution of the Jews in medieval Europe for example happened despite their very limited legal and civil rights. Indeed, in France there were far more people killed in the revolutions and reactions after the Terror than during it.
Some of his proposed changes can be achieved within strict equality. For example, as far as I know, as long as both I and the person I am dealing with agree, we can use all sorts of mediation and conflict resolution methods to settle debates, from submitting our problem to a newspaper ethics columnist to coin-flipping. Some forms of conflict resolution, such as duelling are out, obviously, but I don’t see that allowing Sharia or Jewish courts as a voluntary resolution method requires ending equality before the law.
Many countries have far more neutral requirements about marriage ceremonies than UK law does. I have not seen this causing any problems in NZ - a loosening of the law in a way religiously-neutral strikes me as making sense.
He also seems to have some confusion about existing law. For example:
Okay, which legal system in the world does not recognise family ties? Who is advocating that they don’t? How influential is this view?
Well, isn’t this what we call on the court to do, in all cases, not just religious ones? Eg if a woman kills her husband and says she was doing it in self-defence, the court has to make up its own mind.
A really unconvincing speech on the whole. And really hard to figure out what he is meaning.
Correction: the best, most detailed, most learned arguments on this thread come from Ali Eteraz, quoted by Aaron Baker. So I say again: why can’t someone address these arguments? Or even acknowledge that they’ve been made?
But fans of that version might note that the actual British tolerated suttee well into the 19th Century.
Probably because the British didn’t actually rule most of India until well into the 19th century. This stuff isn’t a secret; it’s in books and everything.
Some commentators here seem to take the proposal to accept Sharia family courts (arbitration) to be similar to allowing some kind of club. This makes little sense. What is being proposed in that the state should 1) give political legitimacy to a certain form of religious arbitration and 2) that the authority of the state should underwrite the forums and outcomes of a certain form of religious arbitration. This shifts the debate far from questions about what kinds of voluntary clubs should and should not be permitted.
If you’re going to start making this sort of patronising assumption, you’ll be needing a fairly objective criterion of how you’re going to decide whose stated preferences you’re going to take seriously and whose you won’t, because otherwise a lot of people are going to suggest you’re drawing the line pretty randomly for your own convenience.
I’m not presuming to make a choice on behalf of any individual woman. I’m suggesting that there’s a possibility that some patriarchal communities put intolerable pressure on women. Do you think that is untrue? Or do you think if true, it should be ignored, because one can’t determine what goes on behind closed doors (especially if it’s in another language)? I don’t think you can generalise about members of a community without paying attention to gender.
Susan Moller Okin – Is multiculturalism bad for women?: http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html
Dr Williams acknowledged in his speech certain “neuralgic” elements of shariah, but nevertheless wishes to explore the possibility of “transformative accommodation” (whatever that may mean).
Are young Muslim mothers agitating for this? And which principles of shariah do they feel English law doesn’t take account of? Or has Dr Williams been listening only to men?
You’re presuming to make a choice on someone else’s behalf.
Erm, no I’m not. Where did I say that again? I agree with Anne that it could be extremely dangerous to put women in a vulnerable position under circumstances where “choice” could mean no such thing.
See other comments drawing analogies with workplace health and safety law. I can’t see you lining up with the libertarians to say that construction workers should be allowed to “choose” to work without hard hats. To suggest that the power imbalance between employers and workers is such that a “choice” not to wear a hard hat would be no choice at all would be horribly patronising to the poor luvs after all.
Look, it’s simple: Brown was in trouble (again) and so the good archbishop came to his rescue. It’s a distraction and it worked.
Apart from that Williams’ argueing is of a piece with New Labour’s: try a blatant powergrab under cover of some wet liberalism, then whine that everybody has misunderstood you when people disagree. The man is an arrogant jackass.
It’s just an example of the way even good brains tend to go all soft when religion is involved. Richard Dawkins could explain to them the damage done by giving unearned respect to religious nonsense, but sadly I doubt they’d listen. We’ll have to settle for them serving as object lessons, instead.
As has been mentioned, going to Sharia court or Beth Din cannot be a matter of choice for women who will be pressured to use them. They are inherently inegalitarian. Also, the Monarch should be separated from the church, and also removed as head of state.
Fortunately I live in a country, France, where only one law, that of the state, is recognized. Only marriages performed by a representative of the state, the mayor of the town, are recognized and divorces have to go to the state judges. Of course there are radical islamists who are lobbying to change that, but I know many women of muslim background and all are staunchly opposed.
There is an article in the Independent about the error of multiculturalism. “Johann Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us one thing – why multiculturalism must be abandoned”
http://tinyurl.com/2mmzkn
“If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of “cultures” that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools.
We don’t need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.
If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, “I divorce you” three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved “unreasonably” – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.” . . .
“There is a better way for the state to understand and regulate human differences, beyond the old oppositions of Tebbittry and multiculturalism. It is called liberalism. A liberal society allows an individual to do whatever he or she wants, provided it doesn’t harm other people. You can choose to wear PVC hotpants or a veil. You can choose to spend all day praying, or all day mocking people who pray.
Where a multiculturalist prizes the rights of religious groups, a liberal favours the rights of the individual. So if you want to preach that the Archangel Gabriel revealed the word of God to an illiterate nomad two millennia ago, you can do it as much as you like. You can write books and hold rallies and make your case. What you cannot do is argue that since this angel supposedly said women are worth half of a man when it comes to inheritance, and that gay people should be killed, you can ditch the rules of liberalism and act on it.”
“But fans of that version might note that the actual British tolerated suttee well into the 19th Century.”
True, and the British started to control the legal system of India well into the 19 th century. From Clive to the Mutiny (yes, this is a very rough thumbnail, very rough indeed) there wasn’t much local control beyond an insistence upon trade rights etc.
Of course English Christians were happily burning women alive for centuries (for killing their husbands, and for counterfeiting, both of which were classed as “treason”) until the secular humanist pressures of the Enlightenment put a stop to it, less than two generations before Napier, so it’s important to avoid extremes of tribal hubris in the face of historical realities. (Yes, I know this is Mark Steyn, so that’s whistling down the wind, since he gets paid for the opposite, but others at least do not.)
No, wait, actually they only stopped burning women in Britain at government expense, AFTER Napier was born, it wasn’t even two generations earlier. (Partly it was the hangmens’ own protests that helped end the practice, as I understand from my readings on the subject – the nice citizens of London were more opposed to the mess on their doorsteps, as urban expansion meant that it was no longer taking place on the edge of town…)
“It’s notable that the best, most learned, most detailed arguments on this entire thread have come from Aaron Baker”
If by “best, most learned and most detailed” you mean “most convoluted and least relevant” then I agree. However, if you accept those criteria, then you’re pretty much compelled to agree with the Archbishop’s original speech as well.
It’s not bloody complicated. Either we abolish all arbitration schemes that could lead to a different result from the relevant law (including not only the Beth Din but Acas, ombudsmen, etc), or we accept that non-legal bodies can make binding decisions. Sky-falling pin-dancing hypotheticals help nobody.
One thing I’m having trouble dealing with: if a Muslim woman wants a divorce, but feels unable to go to a civil court to demand a settlement under English law because of the stigma among her community to doing so, then why the gibbering hell does anyone think that that woman will happily resort to English civil law just because we’ve banned the legal enforcement of the sharia court’s decision? Clearly, she’ll either stay with her husband or divorce in sharia terms without her status being recognised under English law, neither of which seem like a better outcome than a mediated sharia divorce…
Somebody so confused that he pretends to think that giving official recognition to religious “law” is merely the equivalent of a seller and buyer submitting their dispute to arbitration, has the nerve to dismiss Ali Eteraz’s detailed, well-informed comments as “convoluted and irrelevant?” Amazing.
Indeed, bellatrys- one of the problems people evidently have in comprehending what’s wrong with the Archbishop’s proposal (if it’s coherent enough to be called that) is that they’ve experienced only a thoroughly defanged version of institutional Christianity and too easily forget the things that happened when it had real power. Religions are very dangerous when they enjoy the backing of state power, and trying to reverse the Enlightenment, even incrementally, is a really bad idea regardless of which religion is the beneficiary.
And we currently incarcenate women for murdering their husbands (I say “murder”, not “kill”) and for counterfeiting.
This doesn’t mean we need to support incarcenating any widow just because she has survived her husband.
We can distinguish between acts that deserve punishment, and acts, or, in the case of widowhood, events, that don’t deserve punishment. In my opinion, a murderer, regardless of gender, deserves punishment, but someone who just criticises the government does not. And indeed I’ve written letters for Amnesty International calling for various prisoners of conscience to be released, without calling for the release of murderers or counterfeiters.
As it happens, I am opposed to capital punishment, even for murder, so I am opposed to burning people alive as punishment for a crime. But I don’t think a supporter of capital punishment for serious crimes is being internally-inconsistent if they do not think it should be applied to an event like surviving your husband.
An interesting essay by Williams, which sheds some light on the political philosophy underlying his recent speech (which, whether right or wrong philosophically, certainly was wildly misrepresented and undeserving of the abuse heaped upon it) can be found at:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/959
‘It’s notable that the best, most learned, most detailed arguments on this entire thread have come from Aaron Baker- and everyone is busy ignoring him.’
Er no actually I did deal with one of his points and everyone is busy ignoring me. I blame the Islamo-fascists for failing to recognise my genius.
In any case, all these arguments ignore the really salient point which is (given the hysteria engendered by the idea that the Mussies might come over here and not obey the White Man’s law) there is absolutely and precisely zero chance that Sharia law is going to be made part of British law : either now or in the foreseeable future: and that really is the end of the argument.
“Somebody so confused that he pretends to think that giving official recognition to religious “law” is merely the equivalent of a seller and buyer submitting their dispute to arbitration”
I believe CT has a policy against being verbally abusive even to people who richly deserve it, so I’ll restrain myself.
Employment law is just as important a sphere as family law, as is arbitration over something like pensions misselling. You might disagree, at least until you get thrown out of work at 55 and have your pension taken away. So your ‘merely’ is out-of-place for a start.
In the employment sphere, we’re happy to allow people to delegate to non-governmental organisations and codes of rules that they trust. So the burden of proof is very much on someone who thinks that religion is Teh Evilz to say why people shouldn’t be allowed to dedicate to non-governmental organisations and codes of rules that they trust just because they happen to be religiously inspired.
And so far, the only answers from the antis have been metaphysical sillyness (“separation of church and state should be absolute“. Fancy proving that from first principles?) or question-begging prejudice (“Muslim women are too oppressed to dare to turn to secular law, so we should ban them from using any other sort”).
On burning women: if you actually read that weblink properly, it’s quite clear that in C18 England, the women were dead before they were burned, except in one case, where the omission of strangulation was unintentional. So comparing it to sati is bullshit, even without the obvious point that the Englishwomen were convicted criminals, who in any country in the world at that time would have been executed one way or another.
Apart from that, I’m with 51.
Meanwhile re. 53, I do actually think the more important point is that Sharia, as it seems to be routinely applied, is a violation of sundry provisions regarding equal rights and equal treatment that are not “White Man’s law”, but internationally-acknowledged norms. The fact that such acknowledgement comes all too often in the breach is irrelevant. Or, indeed, perhaps it isn’t:
If people “out there” want the West to stop pay even lip-service to universal rights, they should be careful what they wish for. I should have thought that five years in Iraq would have shown where that gets you. Heartily disapproving of neocon aggression though I do, I am quite sure that the majority of the European population would share a preference for seeing the Islamic world blown to smithereens rather than face the idea of forced ‘reversion’ to medieval norms of social relations. I don’t want the public argument to be about that. I’m sure Rowan Williams doesn’t either; but if there are people that do – and let’s face it we all know there are, on both sides of the coin – and if they force a choice, I’m not choosing Sharia.
“So the burden of proof is very much on someone who thinks that religion is Teh Evilz to say why people shouldn’t be allowed to dedicate to non-governmental organisations and codes of rules that they trust just because they happen to be religiously inspired.”
This is nonsense. People can already submit to religious-based arbitration if they choose, whether that be Christian, Muslim or Jedi. Whatever the ABC’s point (and the one thing we all agree on, it seems, is that he makes it really, really difficult to be sure what he is trying to say)it must nebe something more than that, therefore. What most people seem to think he is saying (and this is what I think he is saying too) is that it should be possible for Muslims to surrender some of their statutory rights in certain areas of their lives in order to satisfy community religious authorities. That is why people are upset. if he dosn’t mean this he should say so clearly and unambiguously. But then all he could claim to be saying is: ‘I don’t object to the situation as it currently pertains in the UK with regard to Sharia law’. But that’s not very intersting, is it?
John B., I’m afraid your analogy does not really help your case as you try to elaborate it. For several reasons.
1) I don ‘t know about the UK, but in the US binding arbitration of employment disputed has a distinctly shady history and reputation. In many cases it arguably involves exactly the kind of thing that Anne et al. worry about with regard to women and Islamic family law: an employer using its economic power to force workers to sign away their legal rights.
2) Not all arbitration organizations are created equal, by any means. In the US, for example, the one that consistently adheres to high standards (with reference to such potential problems as conflicts of interest) and produces fair results is the AAA. Not surprisingly, many employers in the US who insist on employment contracts that force disputes to be arbitrated also insist on the use of arbitrators who have no such reputation.
So safeguards for the genuine neutrality of arbitrators are of the highest importance in making arbitration work as it should. Can the religious courts of a patriarchal religion fairly decide domestic disputes? Some think it’s “patronizing” to ask this question. I think it’s highly patronizing to women, on the part of a bunch of male commenters, not to be willing to ask it.
And what, in a secular society, is the justification for giving religious groups this kind of special recognition anyway? The people mocking “separation of church and state” evidently have no idea that there’s even a question to be asked there- I suppose that comes of growing up in a society with an established religion. But I wonder if they’d be so sanguine if that religion still had the power it once wielded, and used that power to restrict their lives. Because something si innocuous in pratice now, that does not establish that it is innocuous in principle.
3) Again speaking of the US (since I have no knowledge of UK employment law), there are many circumstances under which the courts can review and possibly overturn an arbitrator’s decision. Thus an employee’s legal rights are not necessarily trumped by the arbitration requirement. (I note with pleasure, since I otherwise disagree with him, that the Archbishop, to his credit, does recognize the importance of this principle in the context of his proposal as well, as noted by engels @ #22).
Steve—just to dispute 2) (in #58)—the people who resist disestablishment of the C of E (as I do, rather reluctantly) know full well that there is a question to be asked, because there is an ongoing serious debate on the left in the UK about establishment. Most of us on the antidisestablishment side (hidari is very clearly on this side upthread) see a strong case for disestablishment, but think it is outwieghed by the case against, at least in the current conjuncture. Certainly, this judgment is conjunctural and conjectural, and open to dispute. And, to assure you, I would never propose establishment in the US (not even if it were the Unitarians who were proposed!)
I’m curious as to what the arguments against disestablishment are, but I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic. Perhaps a good subject for a post on another day?
Yes—I’ll work up a post. I don’t in general mind going off-topic, but not today (snowstorm, heavy work day, etc, so I’m offline for the rest of the day starting….now!)
Williams appears to say, if the woman agrees to the forum, no matter how seemingly unfair, she should be bound by the result. After all, she made a choice.
No, he doesn’t say that. (And you should try not to project onto him this strange ‘libertarian’ absolutist freedom-of-contract principle when it has afaics has nothing to do with any of the ideas in his lecture.)
“If you’re going to start making this sort of patronising assumption, you’ll be needing a fairly objective criterion of how you’re going to decide whose stated preferences you’re going to take seriously and whose you won’t, because otherwise a lot of people are going to suggest you’re drawing the line pretty randomly for your own convenience.”
Right. It’s not as if patriarchal societies are coercive by definition. To assume that in any particular case women in a patriarchy are coerced to make decisions against their interests is to make an assumption that says more about a person’s hidden agenda than it is a reasonable inference.
And I, for one, am sick and tired of all these people making such patronizing assumptions about women. Is there any evidence that women are coerced into polygamy in southern Utah? That women are coerced into FGM in Africa? For that matter, women happily bound their feet in China until some patronizing foreign meddlers complained about the practice.
It’s well known that rarely are people—all people, in any situation—coerced by peers, family, religious authorities, anyone—into choices that are against their own self-interest. It just doesn’t happen. If someone argues that it does, demand proof. And be sure to vote Libertarian.
I’m starting to warm up to this Davies guy. He seems like my sort of fellow.
Correction: the best, most detailed, most learned arguments on this thread come from Ali Eteraz, quoted by Aaron Baker. So I say again: why can’t someone address these arguments? Or even acknowledge that they’ve been made?
There are some quite good points in there but speaking personally they’re a) too long, b) very mixed up between general points about sharia and Muslim culture vs. things actually relevant to the Williams speech and c) starting from an initial point of “absolute separation between church and state” which is more or less equivalent to assuming the conclusion. So it would actually be very difficult to address them without writing something even longer.
I must confess to sharing a degree of John’s exasperation. If Muslim men are intimidating their wives into accepting the juridisction of sharia courts then that’s terrible but (in numerical order, and this is going to be a long list…)
1. That’s already illegal
2. It would remain illegal under any possible system of state-recognised sharia tribunals (or at least so long as the UK remained part of the Council of Europe, although recent experience of the Guardian blog has rather soured me on making jokey references to the possibility of the UK becoming a totalitarian majority-Muslim state)
3. Because any such tribunal would have to respect the ECHR with respect to equal treatment (settled law, by the way, a number of Strasbourg decisions from 2003 and 2004 refer), it would be unlikely to appeal to these hypothetical Muslim patriarchs.
3a. And therefore, as John says, I can’t understand why someone who is currently being intimidated out of exercising their legal rights by a family member would be further disadvantaged by the creation of a sharia tribunal which respected the ECHR.
4. Nevertheless, any such tribunal would be highly likely to take massive market share in Sharia arbitration from any other form of sharia council, because its recognised status and greater legal certainty would give it a massive advantage for any commercial transaction (we are actually incorporating a load of sharia into the statue book at present via the 2007 Finance Bill, because, since it’s actually not possible to get an acceptable degree of legal certainty via an ad hoc “agreement to arbitration”, this is the only way to get an Islamic finance industry off the ground in London). Therefore Dr Williams’ suggestion looks to me like it would have the effect of institutionalising the very mildest form of sharia (one consistent with the ECHR), which looks like rather a benefit to me.
5. I would actually like to see the non-anecdotal evidence that such intimidation is actally prevalent in the Muslim community in a systematic manner (as opposed to normal domestic violence) before I started thinking that was anything other than a normal police matter, rather than an input into other policy debates.
6. I’d also think that a substantial prudential benefit of anyone coming up with evidence as suggested in (5) would be that it would look a lot less like they were just randomly having a go at a minority immigrant community.
7. And in as much as this alleged intimidation takes the form of “social pressure”, or telling people that they’re being “impious” (or indeed more or less anything which is not otherwise illegal), don’t make me laugh – the concept of “false consciousness” seems to have more lives than a zombie cat.
And where may we find documentation about just what this ECHR-compatible version of Islamic law is, and who professes it? A thing has to actually exist before it can be “institutionalized”. (And this also seems rather incompatible with your point 3 which I quoted above.)
Also, isn’t it rather, er, patronizing for a non-Muslim to be plumping for his preferred version (one intended to be institutionalized by a non-Muslim government, no less) of Islamic law? Do you think any Islamic jurists anywhere would welcome your input on such matters?
A religious leader is speaking out in favor of maintaining a special, governmentally recognized, power-holding role for religion in society?
What a freaking shock.
He isn’t philosophizing, he’s rent seeking. Its the same reason that religious leaders get all nervous when people want to repeal blasphemy laws, even though those laws aren’t enforced. And the same reason that so many religious leaders like hate speech laws that apply to criticizing religions. The societal norm that religion is somehow special, separate, exempt from normal rules and above normal criticism, is a HUGE power source for religious faith as a whole. He’s just trying to maintain that norm.
Rent seeking.
such an obvious nonstarter
Not a nonstarter at all; if the Beth Din can be recognised as a tribunal of arbitration (and they are) then it is hardly beyond the wit of man for sharia councils to achieve something similar. There’s actually been a load of debate among British muslim scholars about how to achieve this goal (and indeed whether it was worth achieving, given the amount of ideological and religious baggage that would have to be dropped)
And where may we find documentation about just what this ECHR-compatible version of Islamic law is, and who professes it? A thing has to actually exist before it can be “institutionalized”.
you could find it on the internet, before this storm blew up and rendered the search term “sharia” useless. I confess to having no idea what it might be to “profess” any form of sharia, since sharia is not a religion.
And this also seems rather incompatible with your point 3 which I quoted above
all sorts of things always “seem” to you Steve, and the explanation always ends up being that you’ve misunderstood.
Also, isn’t it rather, er, patronizing for a non-Muslim to be plumping for his preferred version (one intended to be institutionalized by a non-Muslim government, no less) of Islamic law? Do you think any Islamic jurists anywhere would welcome your input on such matters?
Is this Kentucky Fried Chicken, because I think someone just served me up a Zinger. I have no “preferred” version of sharia law. I don’t actually have an opinion on the subject, although I do have a rather strong opinion on the vast volume of xenophobic bullshit that’s being talked about it (cf, the Incitement to Religious Hatred Act of a few years back, which was also a lightning rod for people who’d rather shoot their mouths off than do research). I am simply saying what is and is not possible in the UK, what the Archbishop did and did not say, and whether or not that is obviously a bad thing (or if it is, whether it’s bad in the way that so many people seem to think it is).
If you want to have an argument with someone who thinks that any random interpretation of sharia which can get popular support among British muslims ought to be given the force of statute or common law in the UK, then why don’t you go and find someone who thinks that, possibly leaving the Crooked Timber website to do so if necessary.
Steve, if I go to the effort of finding a discussion paper on Sharia Councils’ moves toward legal recognition in the UK, will you promise to fuck off and stop bothering me?
If replies to your comments are such a bother to you, I don’t know why you trouble yourself with commenting. But yes, I would appreciate a link to such a document.
Whatever your ‘preferred’ version of sharia might or might not be it will certainly have to maintain the fundamental principle that a woman’s testimony in any tribunal hearing is worth half that of any man (even, perhaps espcially, if that man is her abuser). I am astonished that any self-styled liberal might think it a good idea to institutionalise that principle in UK law in any manner whatsoever and I think it is telling that none of the people advocating it seem to be muslim women. Scratch a liberal, as they used to say, and find a policeman (maybe ‘Imam’ fits the bill better these days).
well, read this then and bother no more.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/2007_1/bano/bano.pdf
Whatever your ‘preferred’ version of sharia might or might not be it will certainly have to maintain the fundamental principle that a woman’s testimony in any tribunal hearing is worth half that of any man (even, perhaps espcially, if that man is her abuser).
Not even nearly true.
(and of course the phrase “her abuser” implies a situation in which a common law offence had been committed, and nobody at all is suggesting that the sharia councils be given the power to try criminal cases. Do try to bloody think will you).
Whatever your ‘preferred’ version of sharia might or might not be it will certainly have to maintain the fundamental principle that a woman’s testimony in any tribunal hearing is worth half that of any man (even, perhaps espcially, if that man is her abuser).
No, it wouldn’t.
“Not even nearly true.”
You mean there is a version of sharia law where women’s testimony is of equal staus to a man’s? Can you point to an example?
And there are non-criminal kinds of abuse (blimey, it is staggering to have to explain this to a grown up. A woman may wish to divorce her husband (for example) because he is abusive to her, but not in a criminal sense. I am sure you could have thought that all by yourself given time and your prediliction to be abusive, but I am pleased to help you nonetheless.
Well, Daniel, that paper among other things contains the following passage:
Rather seems to support my reservations @ #59, doesn’t it.
Beyond that I see nothing in it about the sharia councils (which, as it points out, are a far from monolithic group) working to somehow develop a version of sharia compatible with European family law, so this paper is not responsive to my query about the empirical basis for the way things “look to you”.
In addition the paper rightly describes what is going on in these proceedings as arbitration. If both parties consent, UK law already recognizes their decisions in the framework of the Arbitration Act, which I’m pretty sure is also the legal basis for recognition of the Jewish courts. Which again raises the question of why Rowan Williams thinks something in the way of official recognition over and above that is needed and appropriate, and just what that something would be.
You mean there is a version of sharia law where women’s testimony is of equal staus to a man’s? Can you point to an example?
Egypt.
“Egypt”
Eh? Insofar as Sharia law operates in Egypt women’s testimony is valued at half that of men. In disputes over inheritance, for example. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be Sharia. But you know this really.
Rather seems to support my reservations @ #59, doesn’t it.
No, it supports John B’s original expression of confusion about why the gibbering hell you think this situation would be made better by keeping the sharia council system completely separate and outside the law.
In addition the paper rightly describes what is going on in these proceedings as arbitration. If both parties consent, UK law already recognizes their decisions in the framework of the Arbitration Act
Suddenly an expert on English law, Steve? Not necessarily it doesn’t, no. The decisions of these courts can be (and regularly are) challenged in the courts and overturned. This occurs because there’s no standardised, recognised version of a sharia tribunal, so unless every single aspect of the tribunal is set out in a pre-existing document, it’s always open for one party or another to go for judicial review claiming that they didn’t get the tribunal they thought they were going to get (for example, if they got a more hardline imam than they thought they were going to get, they might appeal that this was unreasonable and win). This doesn’t happen at the Beth Din, because everyone knows what the Beth Din is and the courts presume that anyone who’s agreed to arbitration at the Beth Din can be reliably assumed to have agreed to the whole apparatus.
Which again raises the question of why Rowan Williams thinks something in the way of official recognition over and above that is needed and appropriate, and just what that something would be.
No, it raises the question of why you can be bothered to write great big replies to me, but not to read a comparatively short essay by Rowan WIlliams.
Separation of church and state should be absolute.
Well, but you have to expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to adhere to antidisestablishmentarianism, don’t you?
[OMG, I’ve been waiting all my life for an opportunity to use that word in a sentence!]
Is Egypt a matter of a special version of sharia jurisprudence which does not contain this feature, or is it merely a matter of Egypt (like most Muslim-majority countries!) simply not recognizing the jurisdiction of sharia in criminal law? (Which indeed is one of the grievances of Islamist extremists in those countries.)
The whole discusssion of course starting with John M.s comment is irrelevant given that Williams was talking exclusively about civil law.
Insofar as Sharia law operates in Egypt women’s testimony is valued at half that of men. In disputes over inheritance, for example.
Computer says no.
Under the 1963 inheritance law, female heirs recieve half of what male heirs do, but that’s got nothing to do with “testimony”.
If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be Sharia.
Computer says no
Computer says no
Computer says ‘yes’. Read your own sources. It is true that there is some scholarly literature from the 12th century which debates exactly when a womans’s testimony is worth half a mans’s, when it is worthless and when the question does not arise, but in all extant versions of sharia, a woman’s testimony remains worth half a man’s. This is true also in Egypt in those cases where sharia applies (not in the criminal court).
Dear Mr. Brighouse:
I hope you’re well.
I saw your article on the subject. I know you said you opposed Sharia measures in UK, but I hope you’ll check out my longer article “Strands of Sharia” to see what exactly it is that we’re opposing. There are at least three different arguments being proferred by supporters.