Will no-one rid me….

The India quote seems to have been put in circulation also by the Times, Matthew Parris.

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.

Oh, what a pity — I really, really like Matthew Parris. I think I shall choose to pretend he didn’t write that article.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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 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.

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. )

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.

vivian:

Three words: Burden of proof.

Since when did the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” equal surrendering Basic Citizenship Rights?

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?

‘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.

haven’t made that choice freely…

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 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:

There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice.

Okay, which legal system in the world does not recognise family ties? Who is advocating that they don’t? How influential is this view?

And another essay in the same collection, Anthony Bradney’s ‘Faced by Faith’ (89-105) offers some examples of legal rulings which have disregarded the account offered by religious believers of the motives for their own decisions, on the grounds that the court alone is competent to assess the coherence or even sincerity of their claims.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.

But positing that it’s a legitimate function of government to help confine people to the religious (or “cultural”) boxes into which they happen to have been born? Why, that’s not patronising at all. Of course 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…)

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.

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”)

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.

‘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”).

“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?

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!)

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!)

“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.

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.

Which of course raises the question of why anybody’s bothering to defend the Archbishop for bringing up such an obvious nonstarter. There’s an air of having it both ways about some of this discussion.

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

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.

Well, Daniel, that paper among other things contains the following passage:

Observation, case-file analysis and interviews revealed a troubling development for Muslim women using this space to obtain a Muslim divorce. For example, observing reconciliation sessions I became aware that several women had reluctantly agreed to attend the meetings and felt that they had little choice but to do so if they were to be issued with a divorce certificate. Of the ten women I observed in these sessions a staggering four had informed the religious scholar that they were party to civil injuctions issued against their husbands on the grounds of violence and threatening behaviour. In this way these privatised legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women in question. Furthermore the interviews and observation data revealed that husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation financial settlements for divorce and in many cases access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law.
Quite clearly these women were in a weak bargaining position and their autonomy and choice was to some extent being limited if they were to be granted a Muslim divorce. In their study of mediation and divorce Greatbach and Dingwall found that often the weaker party is encouraged to accept a settlement considerably less than if they had gone through adversarial process.25 They also found that mediators are not neutral and enter the mediation process guiding the participants to particular outcomes. This was clearly observable in this space of dispute resolution. Thus in operation, there are subliminal and covert forms of power and coercion the rendering the parties unequal and the process unfair. There is a strong imbalance of power; in this process of dispute resolution the women were encourage to reconcile and to conform to cultural dictates and acceptable patterns of behaviour if they were to be issued with a divorce certificate.

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.

“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.

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!]

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

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.

I rather think the question is actually why the gibbering hell you and the Archbishop imagine that it’s “completely separate and outside the law” now. It isn’t, just so long as all parties involved validly consent to its arbitration.

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.

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/strands-of-sharia/

A shorter version of the article will be available on Open Democracy’s “Our Kingdom” section.

About the egyptian question above, I think the commentators are forgetting something important. In Muslim states, Sharia can be updated via legislation. Like Tunisia abolishing polygamy or Pakistan allowing DNA evidence in rape cases. The same cannot happen in non-Muslim countries. There is no standardization, and there is no legislation.

Unless of course we want Parliament to be legislating Islamic law.

I make this point in the Strands of Sharia article I’ve linked.

This entire episode suggests that its time for the UK to disestablish the church.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581

“In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims.”

He was looking into the limits of law in a religiously plural society. Ok… what does that mean?

“Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences.”

Told you so. What’s really behind this is an effort at policing a social norm that gives religion a special place in society. When this comes from an archbishop, it is called rent seeking. He is attempting to create and/or protect a privileged position for religion in society, in this case, a legally privileged position.

And unless my understanding of doctor’s duties and obligations is incredibly off, the line about doctors of any religious affiliation or non affiliation being compelled to perform abortions is a dishonest, red herring attempt at poisoning the well.

Patrick – I think what he’s saying there is that Christian doctors can and do refuse to perform abortions, and because of this they have at the very least an intellectual duty to take seriously other religions’ claims for exceptions from other institutions.

So again, what legal changes, exactly, are the Archbishop and his supporters advocating? Amid all the verbiage I haven’t seen even the beginning of an answer to this question.

A wise man’s book is like a mirror; when a monkey looks in, no genius looks out.

The Archbish, quite clearly (although you didn’t understand it and immediately assumed this was his fault) isn’t necessarily advocating any legal changes at all. He was suggesting that it would be a better state of affairs if there were sharia courts in the UK on roughly the same footing as the Beth Din. That might be facilitated with legislation to the effect that only a single version of sharia law would be recognised as valid for the basis of arbitral tribunals (a large part of the problem here is that unlike “halachah” for Orthodox Jews “sharia law” does not name a coherent entity, so contracts which say “disputes under this contract shall be arbitrated by the Leyton Sharia Council under sharia law” are already in trouble), or it might not.

dsquared- I know exactly what he’s saying. Yes, Christian doctors can and do refuse to perform abortions. But, unless I don’t understand the English medical system, he’s eliding. There’s no secular legal regime that forces doctors to perform abortions UNLESS they are Christian. Nobody at all is forced to perform abortions, anymore than they’re forced to perform foot surgery. The mechanism through which a Christian doctor refuses to perform abortions is through career choice. No governmental acknowledgment of religion is necessary- the issue doesn’t even come up. His [office’s, speechwriter’s] use of this comparison is a mendacious attempt at using Christian opposition to abortion to garner support for an unrelated point.

That’s one way of understanding the phrase “a secular unitary system”, but there are others, and if you persist in only ever taking the interpretation which makes everyone else look totally unreasonable, then people are going to suspect that you are doing so because your points don’t stand up without this sort of cheap support.

I think Patrick @ #96 has already dealt with this nonsense quite effectively.

because, drum roll, the organisation of collective projects which are difficult to get off the ground without central organisation, is more or less the definition of what the government’s for.

Shouldn’t one first try to determine whether the “beneficaries” actually WANT the government’s “help”? Talk about “patronizing”….

you can guess what I invite you to do, and how popular you are.

A more abject declaration of intellectual bankruptcy I could not hope to see. Bye.

Regarding what the archbishop is or is not advocating, here is his own office’s clarification, found at my previous provided link.

“The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that “as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law” . When the question was put to him that: “the application of sharia in certain circumstances – if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion – seems unavoidable?”, he indicated his assent.”

Shouldn’t one first try to determine whether the “beneficaries” actually WANT the government’s “help”? Talk about “patronizing”….

before what? before putting in place an entire state bureaucracy? probably yes. Before making a short speech? Not so obviously.

A more abject declaration of intellectual bankruptcy I could not hope to see be.

I just looked at the Applebaum piece. It is moderately amusing. For some reason she seems to have it in for Islamic finance; I’m not entirely sure why.

“Yes, Christian doctors can and do refuse to perform abortions. But, unless I don’t understand the English medical system, he’s eliding… The mechanism through which a Christian doctor refuses to perform abortions is through career choice.”

He is eliding, but not is the way you think.

He’s using ‘perform’ in a broader sense than ‘carry out the operation’. GPs are contracted to perform general medical services. The conscientious objection allows GPs who refuse to play a part in an abortion, by doing things like refering women for abortions, to be treated exactly the same as those who don’t. Think of an abortion as a wider process than just sticking something up someone. We don’t prefer pro-choice applicants in jobs on the basis that they can perform a wider range of tasks, we don’t give pro-choice GPs more money to reflect the extra value we get from their services, and so on. The same goes for other hospital based positions.

The religious have to use ‘perform’ in that very broad and obfuscatory sense because if they didn’t everyone would cotton on that they’re taking the piss. The Archbishop does have a point, but can’t make it directly.

a little bit of gloss on John’s comments (I don’t live in THEKAZBAHHH! like John but I’ve been there and stuff).

1. Honour killings – basically no. You will get one or two Saudi-financed nutters who will shout the odds for stoning adulterers to death, or distributing pamphlets calling for the execution of apostates, but they are usually doing so in the context of a general call for Britain to become a part of the caliphate (good luck guys) and next to none of them would endorse actual murders. Notoriously, the terrorists don’t really pray in the mosques, big or small – they have their own little religious groups that meet in private houses.

2. The picture here is a little worse maybe than John indicates, as there are quite a few imams who follow the Yusuf al-Qaradawi line, which is that clitoridectomy is definitely not mentioned in the Koran, but nevertheless it is part of Islamic tradition in some cultures and that therefore it’s understandable, a valid practice, etc etc etc. So the specific answer to your question about whether any sharia code prescribes or endorses clitoridectomy the answer is no, but there’s a hell of a lot of yesbuttery going on.

3. This is purely and simply “Muslim” as a code for “non-white”, which makes it doubly silly that Michael Nazir-Ali was the latest to raise this spectre. There are some places (not very many at all) in the UK where white people would stand out a mile and might be at risk of violence if the wrong gang of local youths happened by, simply for being so obviously out of place. But non-white non-Muslims would be just fine. On any other interpretation than the racist one, this idea is simply laughably false.

4. Oddly enough I am increasingly beginning to think that Christopher Hitchens is a delusion. Whenever I read Hitchens’ writing, I am always reminded of the New Testament, simply because it’s the only other book that has a central character so convinced of his own infallibility and omniscience. And at least with Jesus there are only four mutually contradictory versions of his life and beliefs.

A followup for dsquared on clitoridectomy then: Have the British medical societies, or whoever polices the doctors, taken a position on whether it is ethical to perform this procedure? If they say it isn’t, do they or would they act against a doctor who did one? Presumably it would be quite hard to cover this up if done in a hospital . . .

And anyway, it’s OT.

Bravo Daniel, for hijacking Harry’s thread, and assuming that anyone who thinks Williams’ suggestion is a bad idea must somehow be an anti-Muslim rabid dog demanding the Archbishop be fired or worse. Most people here were saying (to Williams) “sure, let’s talk about it, here’s why it’s wrong.” A lot of us are longtime CT readers and commenters, we like and respect each other, and you. Next time, save the abuse and derision for, you know, trolls and people who like the wrong beer. This is beneath you.

I think Dsquared’s 65 is quite the improvement on the ACB’s actual speech, but I have two quibbles:

1. “If Muslim men are intimidating their wives into accepting the juridisction of sharia courts then that’s terrible but … 1. That’s already illegal [and] 2. It would remain illegal [and] “3. …any such tribunal would have to respect the ECHR with respect to equal treatment.”

Even if there were injustices involved in the determination of venue, what about in the pattern of outcomes? Could/should sharia courts be allowed that ran on principles that systematically gave women poorer outcomes than regular courts? Is this a worry?

“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.”

This is a clever point – and two 100% true consciousnesses choosing the sharia court must be win-win. But there could still be winners and losers from society’s point of view.

‘Men’s groups’ in Australia are found of criticizing the adversary and legalistic structures of family law in favour of more informal and ‘consensual’ dispute resolution structures.
People can opt out of a legal system: Alternative Dispute Resolution, arbitrators in contractual disputes, ‘Judge Judy’ or the ‘Peoples’ Court’, but this had to be voluntary and to conform with natural justice. None of these conditions are met for religious courts.

Bravo Daniel, for hijacking Harry’s thread, and assuming that anyone who thinks Williams’ suggestion is a bad idea must somehow be an anti-Muslim rabid dog demanding the Archbishop be fired or worse

I did not do this and rather resent the slur that I did. If you can’t put up any evidence to back this drive-by accusation, it’s clear that you’re the troll yourself.

A wise man’s book is like a mirror; when a monkey looks in, no genius looks out.

We are talking about a speech written by a guy who thinks that the Great Terror of the French Revolution and 1970s China shows the dangers of a “focus on equal levels of accountability for all and equal levels of access for all to legal process”. In this context quotes about wise men hardly seem applicable.

People who defend Archbishop Williams keep saying he’s intelligent, but they don’t supply any evidence to support their views.

Re #122, yes SG I have met Muslim men and women. Unlike you, apparently, I don’t treat “them” as a homogenous group. There are liberal Muslims with whom I suspect I have more in common than you, and then there are some others. The ones who might quite like the idea of [a particular form of] Sharia in the UK. The ones who like what they see in Saudi Arabia.

And why put “oppressed” in inverted commas? Do you deny that there are oppressed women?

127 Unlike you, apparently, I don’t treat “them” as a homogenous group.

This is ridiculous, Katherine, you’re accusing SG of exactly the opposite of what he is saying in 122.

He’s warning against stereotyping. You then accuse him of stereotyping and then you suggest your own slightly more gradual way of stereotyping – separating all Muslims into ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’. Think about it.

“The protection against being sacked in the Abortion Act is one of “conscientious objection”, which has to be bona fide. ”

Well quite. You know this and yet you continue to represent the exemption as if it is for ‘Christians’, that is why you appear, to me, to be dishonest in theis respect (because you are evidently not ignorant of the facts). It is no easier for a Christian to demonstrate that they have a bona fide conscientious objection than it is for anyone else. Some Catholic doctors, after all, do in fact perform abortions. Your insistence on this point undermines your position rather than supporting it.

then you suggest your own slightly more gradual way of stereotyping – separating all Muslims into ‘moderate’ and ‘conservative’.

Oh for goodness sake, where did I do that? I mentioned some moderates that I know and opined that I was rather worried about fundamentalists (rather than conservatives). Unless I’m mistaken I didn’t exactly say that was the lot.

But okay, I misread SG’s post a bit re accusing him of stereotyping. Sorry about that.

My main point still stands though – there are Muslim women (as there are non-Muslim women) who are oppressed, in the really, truly, no doubt about it sense of the word and it can’t have missed people’s notice that there are some Muslim men out there who rather like using a particular form or Sharia Law to oppress those women. Not controversial, right?

Since all the British Muslims that I’ve heard expressing strong opinions in favour of having Sharia in Britain are of the fundamentalist flavour, I say let’s not.

I put “oppressed” in inverted commas because many women choose to follow these customs. I don’t believe they think they are being oppressed, and if they do they think it is just. Believe it or not, though I am male, I have actually spoken to muslim women about these things and I don’t get the impression that they were being forced into anything. Particularly in western multicultural societies where they have exit rights, one needs to be careful about the claims one makes.

As for muslim men liking to use a particular form of sharia to oppress women – if we accept that sometimes cultural ties are stronger than contract law, the sooner we codify a type of sharia law consistent with our human rights obligations, the sooner these men lose the power to do this to women who wish to maintain cultural ties without suffering oppression.

Of course, SG, if you have spoken to these Muslim women, they probably not of the especially oppressed persuasion, since those particular women won’t be allowed to speak to men.

I do think it is quite sweet though that you seem to think that because you ask someone if they are oppressed and they say “no”, that definitely means they aren’t. Does it occur to you that they may be saying what their oppressors want them to say?

john m, you might be surprised what things I have asked the muslim women alongside whom I have lived and studied. And you might be surprised at the answers I have received.

Katherine, I think it’s clear I wasn’t talking about women who can’t talk to me. I was talking, in fact, about those women who represent the majority of the muslim world – ordinary women going about their ordinary lives. I’m not sure how we have gone from talking about women in ordinary muslim communities in the west, who might want to retain some customary ties under common law, to talking about those women who are locked at home away from prying eyes. I think there is a middle ground here you don’t want to occupy, and I think its the bit where most muslims are living their ordinary lives.

“And you might be surprised at the answers I have received.”

I would certaionly be surprised if any of your women friends think it is right and just that a woman, simply by dint of being a woman, should only be entitled to half as much in inheritance as a man. Go on, surprise me, how many of your women friends really believe that?

well john m, they would say that at the time it was written it was an admonishment to improve the lot of women. One Omani chap I spent a lot of time with memorably declared to me in disgust “where does it say in the Quran that a woman cannot drive!?” They aren’t all unreconstructed bastards, you know.

The Sudanese woman who lived downstairs from me made it very clear to me that she thought there was no injustice in her being disallowed from being alone with a man, even though it was affecting her study. The Malaysian woman we invited to our students’ dinner snorted in derision at the idea she could go without telling her husband – even though he was out of contact in another country at the time, and no-one would ever know. “I will know,” she said.

The Yemeni/Indonesian woman who turned up to class in her headscarf for the first time just said to me “I decided it was time”. Wasn’t a big deal to her, dunno why it should be to me.

So yeah, it could be they’re telling me these things out of some false consciousness or something. Seems simpler just to accept that it’s their belief, and leave it at that. If you have any doubt about that, try travelling with any muslim person – male or female – who observes halal practices. They all know the Quran gives an exemption for travellers and they will quote you the part, but they never take the exemption. Why not?

Sg, of course people observe all sorts of strange social practices, they wear funny hats and have silly rules about food (I know people who won’t eat meat under any circumstances and one of my brothers wears a woolly hat over his ears in all weathers!). But we were dicussing something else: institutionalised legal, anti-woman discrimination. Do your muslim women friends really consider it just that sharia would bar them from inheriting as much as a man? I am sure there will be the odd one who will defend ny amount of abuse but I bet not many. Ask them and see.

Abb1, I really don’t think it is possible to make sharia law out to be worse than it is, at least, I don’t have a lurid enough imagination.

Shouldn’t it be a question not of Islamic religious law but rather about religious law in general?

Since all the British Muslims that I’ve heard expressing strong opinions in favour of having Sharia in Britain are of the fundamentalist flavour, I say let’s not.

Oh, don’t worry, Daniel has assured us that Parliament will simply erect as “official” some imaginary version of sharia consonant with European human rights standards. And (despite the fact that this would be abhorrent to at least 80% of those Muslims who actually care about having sharia in Britain) all will be well. And a pony!

Yes, based on the empirical evidence, Christianity does its job well too, as do Hinduism and Buddhism; a lot of satisfied customers there. Judaism sucks, though.

How many Catholics would welcome having an overwhelmingly non-catholic legislature decree an “officially recognized” version of canon law with many differences from the Church’s version? Use common sense, man. People of any religion are not going to welcome having politicians who don’t even belong to their religion telling them what their own religious law should be. (And I don’t blame them one bit.)

Sg, all right, you don’t want to answer the question, but please spare us the ‘muslim people don’t care about airy fairy things like justice’ line, it turns my stomach.

And in what sense are Halal rules not silly if you don’t believe god made them up (and isn’t it anyway a bit funny to think the creator of the universe takes a position on whether or not it is OK to eat prawns?)? Why is it OK to eat lamb but not pork? Why should the belief that it is silly not to be allowed to eat pork if you eat other meat disqualify you from any sort of discussion? Notice I am leaving aside the idea that equality before the law is a ‘fine point of jurisprudence’ (inconsequential technical details! Hardly worth bothering about! Nit picking!).

sure steve, if you can dispense with the bullshit of smearing all muslims and all supporters of sharia law as a bunch of woman-hating bastards.

Now you’re just lying.

I remember CS Lewis advocating two forms of marriage – secular marriage which could be dissolved, and Christian marriage, which would be literally ’til death us do part’. Ghastly idea.

I think that the Archbishop would like this type of parallelism to be enforced in the UK, and thought the pretext of ‘reaching out to the Moslem community’ would give him a precedent for introducing the concept. (Or perhaps boosting it, if you consider some examples of religious parallelism may already be in place)

If those of us who were born into the Christian community don’t wish such an imposition on ourselves, or on people who call themselves Christian, then I don’t see how we can consider it would be acceptable to impose it on people born into (or belonging to) any other religious community.

steve, how is saying that 80% of supporters of sharia law would reject anything consistent with European human rights standards not a case of smearing muslims who want sharia law?

Did you read my #152? CAN you read?

And I continue to be amused at how people who imagine they’re “defending” Muslims, patronize them by offering to “codify” their own law for them. And then try to smear those who point out the bizarre impracticality of this project.

Also amusing is the fact that these contortions arise from the ill-conceived project of trying to construe the Archbishop’s inscrutable remarks as meaning something specific.

I’m not arguing any of that. I just thought that your claim that a woman’s “opinion is not worthy of consideration” simply because she wears a veil was quite astounding. I didn’t know that people still held such attitudes in this post-Enlightenment era.

steve, your 152 is not the same language as your 80% comment. As for your 162, I think I mentioned I don’t agree with the idea of separate systems for different religions. I’m not particularly in favour of the codification the archbishop mentioned (or any other). But I fail to see how a decision to do such a thing with “their” law could possibly be patronising. Codifying laws for people is the responsibility of government.

Dave, the underlying message of needing to hide your hair is this thing called modesty. Different people have different norms of modesty, and they differ culturally too. How this is a problem is beyond me, and how women choosing to follow a religious form of modesty, rather than what you undoubtedly assume are the “natural” rules of white England (hmm, buttcrack!) makes those women “uncle Toms” is completely beyond me as well.

Also how women’s dress sense has anything to do with codifying marriage laws is beyond me… but this seems to be the thing here, doesn’t it? We seem to always diverge from talking about codifying marriage laws to how suddenly british muslim women won’t be able to talk to men, leave the house, survive their husband, inherit money or shock, horror! show their hair. Why does this insistence on raising irrelevant bogeymen strike me as a little suspicious…?

so john, is your point that because I didn’t ask my muslim friends every possible question about sharia law, I must therefore lack sufficient proof that muslim women have chosen to follow these customs? That was the original starting point of your questions, though you are sliding admirably into your discussion of liberalism. I think I have shown quite clearly that my female friends did, in fact, choose to follow practices you consider silly (and steve considers “abhorrent”, and dave considers worthy of discounting those women’s opinions altogether).

And so we come back to discussing the more substantive point, which is the conflict between special civil codes and liberalism. Fair enough, but if it seems like a good practical method for ensuring that women have a framework for conservative marriage which gives them better protection than the informal framework they would otherwise fall into, wouldn’t that be a good thing? Any society which wants to accept large numbers of new migrants from culturally disparate nations has to accept these kinds of problems exist and find practical solutions. I don’t see how this practical solution is immediately beyond the pale, though I would prefer others. I certainly don’t see how obscuring the true nature of this problem with references to women not being able to leave the house, sharia law being inevitably in conflict with all forms of decency, no woman could possibly choose a conservative social life, etc. is possibly helping.

oh please steve, can you not see how your frothing response to a few simple proposals sounds more like a “muslims are coming!” rant than a defense of secularism?

(And it’s not my silly established church, btw, I’m an atheist).

oh please steve, can you not see how your frothing response to a few simple proposals sounds more like a “muslims are coming!” rant than a defense of secularism?

Indeed I can’t, since a) that’s a load of crap which has nothing to do with anything I’ve actually written, and b) I fortunately don’t suffer from whatever form of brain damage is causing your inability to read accurately.

And I stand my my comments absolutely, on the grounds of universal entitlements to equality and respect; entitlements which must preclude the ability to “voluntarily” deny oneself equality through misguided assumptions about anything, including “modesty”.

I, for one, welcome our new Nudist overlords…

I, for one, welcome our new Nudist overlords…

Oh crap, I’m going to have to start spending some time at the gym…

2no woman could possibly choose a conservative social life”

It’s this sort of comment, sg, that people find so maddening. The complacent elision from ‘unjust’ to ‘conservative’. Nobody objects to women of any stripe living as conservatively as they like. What we don’t want is institutionalised injustice against women such as would be introduced by sharia law. Let’s call things by their name, eh? And it really doesn’t matter if any particular woman likes or doesn’t mind an injustice, everyone should be equal before the law. You might long to be a slave but you simply cannot contract away your statutory rights. The same is now and should always be true of muslim women.

john m, how can you say “no-one objects to women of any stripe living as conservatively as they like” when a) dave clearly does, b) at some point living conservatively does become “unjust”. And how can you then go on to pretend it is the same as “longing to be a slave”? There are very few parts of the muslim world where women are equivalent to slaves, and there are very many muslim women who routinely accept ideas that we clearly consider unjust, even while they live in western societies. You want to pretend that the line between conservative and unjust is clear cut, but it’s not. Maybe codifying sharia law would help to make that clear for a particular community… if it could, I really don’t have a problem with that.

Codifying RELIGIOUS laws- and not just for your silly Established Church but for religious minorities barely even represented among those supposed to do the codifying

we have Muslims in the government over here, there’s even one or two in the House of Lords.

I think you need to Google “first rule of holes”…

tu quoque, mate. You did say, on the basis of no evidence at all, that eighty per cent of British Muslims would reject any system of religious law which was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. So you can, as far as I’m concerned, either climb down and admit that was a silly and bigoted remark, or wear the cap that you have so carefully stitched for yourself.

As I said in response to Bloix above, this is a very misleading way of looking at the issue, since Williams was not obviously not making an argument from individual freedom of contract, but for the record this

You cannot give up your statutory rights.

is complete BS.

“is complete BS.”

All right Engels, how about this: there are statutory rights that you may not surrender. I know you are just trolling but I thought it o
worth one last effort. Yopu may not surrender your human rights. That is not controversial and you know very well that it is true.

John – No, I’m not trolling, I’m just stating the obvious viz. that you don’t know the first thing about the English legal system and that you are an annoying twat.

Do you think I care what convinces you? (Anybody who wants to see exactly where I’m coming from can simply read #175). Here’s the state of play: you came up with an idiotic, arrogant proposal off the top of your head, in a misguided attempt to help out the Archbishop by making his wooly-headed remarks mean something. You (and your lone supporter) have been able to provide precisely zero evidence that there is ANY actual or potential support among British Muslims for your scheme of having parliament tell them what their religious law should consist of. You have tried to cover for this using two disreputable debating tactics: attempting to shift the burden of proof to those sceptical of your idea, and labeling them as bigots.

Daniel, you’re obviously a bright guy and I have found many of your contributions here both informative and pleasurable. As noted in #117, this stuff really ought to be beneath you.

SG, not you. I agree with what you say about both your and Williams’s positions. I just think he should not have waded into these waters at all without having clearer ideas, and of course on general principles I have in any case a very un-British distaste for established churches and their leaders and in general for any type of government entanglement with religion.

On the other hand, there are European states like France which have had thoroughly secular, and often explicitly anti-religious, governments for much of the time over the last couple of centuries, and have emerged just as post-Christian as Britain. So I’ve never felt that proposed historical correlation between the existence of neglected state churches and the decline in religious observance to be very strong at all. I think a historian would have to look at many other factors in any attempt to explain the almost unique religiosity of the US among other comparable countries.

(By the way the French have some ideas about secularism that I do not admire, since they involve things like headscarf bans that I regard as unacceptable infringements of individual liberty.)

God how I hate pontificating liberals

“How many Catholics would welcome having an overwhelmingly non-catholic legislature decree an “officially recognized” version of canon law with many differences from the Church’s version?”

“Surely a woman who accepts the idea that she is inferior to a man/needs his permission to go out/has to hide her hair in public to save men from temptation/etc/etc thereby demonstrates that her opinion is not worthy of consideration?”

“Oh, don’t worry, Daniel has assured us that Parliament will simply erect as “official” some imaginary version of sharia consonant with European human rights standards.”

“You do not understand my point. It doesn’t matter what ideas individuals ‘accept’ the law is designed to protect them from certain kinds of injustice whether they like it or not: this applies to everybody equally.”

I’ve always said that anyone who refuses out of some twisted sense of principle ever to have sex with another consenting adult should be banned outright from the care of children. I think the state should have something to say about that. I’m sure that the data will show an increased evidence of pedophilia among such people. But regardless of the facts, we still have catholic schools. Odd. But then again as a feminist I think nunneries should be banned. And I’m amazed that Susan B Anthony is still considered feminist, in 2008! have you ever seen a photograph!??

“History is like foreign travel. It broadens the mind, but it does not deepen it.” Except that of course, it does both. Many feminists in Islamic countries wear the hijab, and do it proudly. I have no patience for western feminists who defend or celebrate the the moral indignation of aristocratic expats with nostalgia for the Shah’s Iran. I have great respect for the women of Meydaan. Do you understand the difference? Anyone here pay attention to the ambiguities of Persepolis? hm?

Too many assholes here assume the big shot priest of canterbury must be saying that as nicewellmeaninglibruls we should let the barbarians live just like they want to, But what he is saying and what others are trying to point out is that Islamic organizations should be welcome to try to organize administrative and juridical assemblies provided that they not conflict with the rights and obligations of those under British and European law. Simple.
Perhaps some of you think there is a problem with allowing extra-judicial arbitration of any sort, whether religious or secular. That’s an interesting thought. Many of you, as I do, are annoyed that a supposedly modern country has a monarch (even a frumpy housewife of a figurehead) and an established church. That’s looney! But people are weird, what can I say? Some people think economics is a formal science. It takes all kinds.

You want false consciousness? How about Chris Bertram on Israel and Henry Farrell on libertarianism or John Holbo on and on and on and on. All consciousness is false consciousness. That’s why you can help people but can’t live their lives for them. I’m sure in the years to come there will be women in England who feel trapped by their surroundings. Some of them may even be Muslim. I’m sure a few will be Hasids. And some of them may just be married to closet-case conservatives. Lives of quiet desperation all. Life can be tough.
Islam is modernizing. We as outsides can’t modernize it, we can offer it room to do so.

Christ I hate the code on this site.
4 indented paragraphs and “I’ve always said” is where I come in.

“in political terms I regard religion as a purely private affair which should not be helped, hindered, or “codified” by governments.”

In the olden days, when religion meant something more than new age mumblings and narcissistic self-absorption, religion was the foundation of community. To some people it still is.
How do you assimilate one community into another? How do you assimilate a collective into a society such as it is of self-described individualists?
Of course you don’t understand the complexity of this question because you don’t recognize that your collective even exists, even as others who live along side you see your collective as overwhelming theirs. You’re predictable Steve because you’re just like so many others. You think you’re talking about rights but what you’re talking about is your own fears.
How do we deal with the backwards peasantry? Begin by making sure you’re not one yourself. Most never get that far.

Daniel@123 asks for evidence: try comment 65 points 5-7, which sure looks like an accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is relying on anecdotes about unnamed random immigrants to create a discriminatory fuss. Try comment 68 where you accuse Steve of reminding you of “xenophobic bullshit” you hear, somewhere.

General dismissivenes of both me and Katherine for noting that it’s actually pretty common for nominally free choices to be forced choices when made in structurally unfair situations. And harder to avoid when they are legitimised – not merely tolerated – by the state. Funny, you kind of like that argument in other contexts.

I genuinely like your insights, and your conscience, and your style often makes me laugh out loud. Your Friday-evening rants are usually a pleasure. But here, in this thread, you have been, too often, out of line to people who don’t deserve it. Maybe you’re having a rough week, maybe you’re just so used to casual racists that you’re just on a hair-trigger. Heck, maybe you’re just an asshole who plays at being charming – but I don’t think so. You are better than this.

Also Steve, I am an Australian, and I really am no longer amused when Americans tell me about how their society has “one system of law for everyone”. Maybe it works like that in your country, maybe it doesn’t, but the unseemly haste with which your country was willing to drop that idea for my countrymen – just before they were raped with truncheons by your soldiers – doesn’t give me cause to think the idea has much force culturally on that side of the pacific. When you are willing to stop imprisoning foreigners who have committed no crime, and torturing and raping them for years at a time, then I will listen. Until then, I recommend you keep your moral high horse in your basement.

Historically the ‘modernization’ of religion has always and everywhere required a reduction in the power of priests

Making them subject to the European Convention on Human Rights would certainly appear to reduce their power.

“They are alrady subject to the ECHR. How many times does this have to be spelled out?”

It’s basic psychology you jackass. Offering a community the opportunity to codify a public response to the ECHR so that they construct their own cultural life within it. You butterfliesandfuckingwheels types make the secular technocrats at this site seem like hippies.

“What on earth…”
Amazing. The problem with “xtreme” rationalists is not that they defend the notion of disembodied rational awareness, it’s that they imagine they embody[?] it.
How do you explain incompetence to the incompetent? How explain to individualists that that they’re the product of history and community? It’s the Strong Anthropic Principle of neoliberalism: “We’re rational because we say we are.”

No dear, you’re happy in your little home because you were raised in it. Every little nook and cranny brings forth memories of childhood, the motherland of geeks. The thought that someone else could not see your home as theirs is simply illogical. Not only the exactitude of your reason but the color scheme as well are perfect: the sky is the perfect shade of grey. The little shop around the corner and the leaves on the trees are in the Platonists’ ideal form. Everyone else can lump it.

I’m annoyed by faith because faith is no more or less than assumption. And to assume “makes an ass of u and me.” I know you assume that psychology plays no part in your rational imagination [an oxymoron since computers don’t imagine] but that itself is evidence enough for me to mock you as a pedant and a purblind fuck. Tell me who is the better representative of modernity in Turkey, Erdogan or the Army? Don’t assume, think!
And since we’ve reached this point of absurdity:
along with the rise of a secularizing Islam, India and China, we’re seeing a rise, a return, of the modernity of books, against the authority of the “supercrunchers” and the modernity of number. And before Misha Berube comes at me with another parody I’ll remind him that all that means is Richard Rorty with balls, two things Berube lost when he forgot to wear a cup in a peewee hockey league game when he was six.

I don’t doubt for a second that all this tolerance for the reduced status of women (“there are very few parts of the muslim world where women are equivalent to slaves”…indeed, only “a few”, I guess there’s no problem here, is there?) in the name of multiculturalism would evaporate if the distinguishing factor was ethnicity and not sex.

And it’s more often than not the men arguing—as they are here—that “it’s no big deal”. It makes me sick to my stomach.

“Once one accepts the government shilling, however … one is subject to the government’s law. ”

This confusion just won’t go away, will it? You are subject to the government’s, or state’s law whether you are paid by them or not. If the ECHR applies, it applies to all, not just government agencies or employees. If the socially coercive acts of imams are not now subject to stricture under the provisons of the ECHR, they will not be in future. There is just one law for all of us. Long may that continue.

And the idea that psychologically priests of any stripe become more compliant when they are given greater power or prestige is frankly ludicrous. But that may not be what Seth was claiming in that stream of Rowan-Williams-class gibberish. It’s hard to tell.

“I don’t doubt for a second that all this tolerance for the reduced status of women…”
Then by by all means let’s just ban the Catholic fucking Church.

“You are subject to the government’s, or state’s law whether you are paid by them or not.”

So excommunication for breaking some Papist bullshit law is somehow a violation of the ECHR?

One of the PR points of the Soviets in Afghanistan was the improvement of the lives of women. True enough, but it doesn’t justify an invasion. It also doesn’t justify US support for Gulbadin Hekmatyar, known for throwing acid in women’s faces. And it doesn’t justify the British fucking empire. As my daddy used to say “For every complex problem there’s a simple solution: The wrong one.” This is more about your moralizing sense of superiority that women’s rights. Why don’t you go rescue Hasidic women from their hellish life. A little deprograming would do a world of good. And no way in hell should there be any sort of government outreach to those foul smelling heathen. Why don’t we just move them into their own part of the city, so they can keep to themselves, which they want to do anyway. Let see what should be the name for their new home…?

Oh jesus christ, before someone gets all smart on me:
There’s no “right” answer to every problem on the road to the goals upon which we all agree, or some shit. Onward to civil society!!
One way or another.