Archives

Sharia law in Britain: Some of my questions for its arch-cheerleader

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Feb 07, 2008

Leaders are often mis-leaders. Robed in the vestiges of authority, they can mislead us into believing half-truths and outright lies.

So it is with Rowan Williams, head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury and arch-cheerleader for Islamic law in the UK. Relying heavily on the words of Tariq Ramadan, the Right Reverend has claimed that partial adoption of Sharia law is not just “unavoidable” in Britain; it’s also desirable for the sake of “social cohesion.”

An incredibly misleading statement. It plants words in the mouths of British Muslims. It suggests that they, themselves, are demanding Sharia law. Not true.

As Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for the Times of London, writes on her blog: “Who exactly is asking for this [Sharia law]? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it.”

Well, let’s not go that far. The Ramadhan Foundation, for one, applauds Williams. No doubt, a minority does want Sharia. But — and these are questions for the archbishop — why should that minority’s interpretation of Islam be any reason to balkanize legal systems further? What gives their sensitivities the weight to become public policy?

The archbishop would retort that he’s proposing nothing more than choice: those who want Sharia law can have it; those who don’t, won’t.

Get real, Rev. When it comes to contemporary Sharia, choice is theory; intimidation is the reality.

Ask Muslim women in my home country of Canada. Two years ago, when news broke that the government of Ontario was considering how to introduce voluntary Sharia law, the very first people to hit the streets in protest were Muslim women. Some wore hijabs; some didn’t. Some defined themselves as religious; others called themselves secular.

What united them was the understanding that in practice, Sharia would be imposed on Muslim Canadian women, most of whom are newly arrived immigrants. They can’t speak English or French, don’t know about Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and won’t be told about it.

They will be told that Allah insists they stand before a religious judge who, in turn, will present Sharia law through the cultural filter of honor — the pre-Islamic tribal tradition that turns women into property of their communities. Thanks to the tribal mindsets of Muslim today, contemporary Sharia ain’t so contemporary. That’s why it can’t be trusted as a source of justice in a pluralistic society.

Let me emphasize that these points came from devout Muslim women, many of whom led (and not just joined) anti-Sharia demonstrations in Ontario. To quote the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, “We are believing women who are committed to our faith and our members are very concerned that the use of Muslim family law will erode the equality rights of Muslim women that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter…”

Evidently, they have sisters in Britain. Ruth Gledhill tells this story, which I’m highlighting for emphasis:

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that… she described as a ‘no-go area’ for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS [National Health Service].

This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: “The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn’t want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes. There can be many reasons.

The women are sent for assessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye?

The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don’t you people write about this?”

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry… “You must write about this,” she begged.

“I can’t,” I said. “Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.”

She went white. “I can’t be identified,” she said. “I would be killed. And so would the women.”

A final question: Under such circumstances, how in God’s name can any immigrant Muslim woman be expected to know that it’s her “choice” to settle disputes with her husband in a civil court?

Over to you, Right Reverend Rowan.