A little long winded but if you have 5 mins have a read. Easily the most provocative and powerful essay I have read for a long time. Hits the nail on the head. Excellent.
------------
In February 2008 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, gave a speech on Islamic law. During the ensuing fallout, and while conceding that he was “no expert” on Sharia, he said: “An approach to law which simply said, ‘There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts’. . . is a bit of a danger.”
This quotation, combined with the Archbishop’s assertion that “the application of Sharia in certain circumstances” in the UK was “unavoidable”, caused widespread concern.
In July 2008 the retiring Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, described Sharia as suffering from “widespread misunderstanding”. While admitting that stoning, the chopping-off of hands and flogging would be unacceptable, he backed Sharia principles being applied to marriage arrangements in the UK and was supportive of the Sharia finance initiatives that the Treasury had observed since 2002.
And so the most senior judge in England followed the most senior member of the national Church in backing the integration of elements of Sharia into British life.
The fierce debate which has ensued goes right to the heart not just of contemporary Britain, but also to whether the country remains capable of defending its traditions, and is capable of drawing lines in the sand.
It is also about something more: about whether rights which British people have fought for, and attained, after generations will genuinely be extended to all — or whether the process of multicultural fragmentation will extend to allowing people born into certain communities to live parallel lives, judged by parallel laws.
It is the “soft Sharia” of Sharia finance which has provided what Islamists believe to be the first acceptance, and its critics the thin end of the wedge, of Sharia in the UK.
Even though the first generation of Muslim immigrants into postwar Britain would have had no idea what such a thing was, the British Government has in recent years chosen to accept it without criticism or even question.
In 2000 the Bank of England and the Treasury formed a working group to look at how to enable the development of Islamic finance within the UK. Since 2003 the Financial Services Authority, Treasury, and Revenue & Customs have been introducing changes which allowed UK companies to offer Islamic financial products.
The Islamic finance industry is now growing at 15 per cent a year worldwide. The Islamic Bank of Britain is the UK’s first Sharia-compliant high street bank. In the past decade the market measured by Sharia-compliant assets has grown from $150 billion in the mid-1990s to $700 billion in 2007.
Why is this a problem? First, an acceptance of Islamic finance accepts the moral stances of Sharia. Islamic banks will not deal in any activities deemed to be haram (forbidden). Above all there is the serious problem of who is to decide what is acceptable investment and what is haram. A December 2008 Treasury document says: “It is the role of Sharia scholars to determine whether a financial product or service is compliant with the Sharia principles.”
Such authorities currently include the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by the extremist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. What would the UK Government do if scholars decide that products from allied countries cannot be traded? Would Israeli products develop a haram label? Or, some time in the future, goods from America or Britain herself?
The Government’s stance is now pushing the financial arrangements of a whole swath of the UK population into the hands of clerical reactionaries. It has done so not just by propagating, but by actively proselytising the idea that Sharia finance is the norm for Muslims.
Sharia finance is only one way in which the concept of Sharia values are gaining ground. Last year The Sunday Times revealed that “Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with Sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases”.
The courts, known as the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), step far beyond their arbitrational remit. They themselves have boasted of having overseen six cases of domestic violence, working in tandem with police investigations. In each case the women who had been the subjects of abuse withdrew their complaints from the police while the MAT judges had suggested that the husbands take anger-management classes and advice from Muslim elders.
In so doing such Sharia courts are treading into ground that is actively illegal. They are also drawing a generation of British Muslim women into a system of law which is deeply backward in its treatment of women.
Because the legal system associated with Sharia is now holding itself out not simply as parallel to British law, but as a replacement of British law, a generation of Muslim women born in Britain are growing up unaware of their basic rights, including their marriage rights, as British citizens. As one British Muslim woman I spoke to put it: “Our rights have been frozen for 1,400 years. To give mullahs power over the community is a step backward.”
Many of those who have argued for the incorporation of elements of Sharia into British law focus on the voluntary side of it. But it is almost impossible for any such person to know if a Muslim woman in the ghettos of Sparkhill in Birmingham, or parts of Luton or Bradford, has actually volunteered.
Today the Sharia snowball is gathering speed, with Sharia pensions and Sharia car insurance.
In the eyes of the British State, Sharia must be seen for what it is: a legal system based on the writings and declarations of a 7th-century tradesman. The British State cannot accept Islamic texts and must not defer to its rules.
This country has fought for many centuries to base law on reason. The adoption of Sharia presents us with a counter to an Enlightenment that we have so long taken for granted that we have forgotten how to defend it.
It also presents us with a new challenge. By allowing different laws to be applied to people of different ethnic origins, based on the notion that there are laws which would are good enough for you but not good enough for me. If Sharia’s future in Britain is indeed inevitable, then our collective future as a cohesive and tolerant society cannot be.
Douglas Murray is this year’s winner of the annual Charles Douglas-Home Memorial Trust Award, established in 1986 in honour of the former Editor of The Times (1982-85). This is an edited version of his essay. Previous winners include V. S. Naipaul, Michael Gove, Matthew d’Ancona, Anne Applebaum and Anthony Daniels