Religious Law ‘Subservient’ to Family Courts, Says Minister
THE TELEGRAPH: But the Government fails to persuade non-Muslims that sharia is no threat to English common law.

Like most people, I am concerned about the spread of Islamic law in Britain. I thought it important to report last week that the law lords had condemned sharia law in Lebanon as “arbitrary and discriminatory” because it would have prevented a mother from bringing up her own child.

But before condemning the Justice Minister, Bridget Prentice, for her written answer in Parliament on Thursday, I think it is important to consider exactly what she said.

The minister was asked what guidance had been issued on the validity of fatwas and of other rulings issued by religious authorities to decide matrimonial disputes.

“We do not issue any guidance on the validity of fatwas or other rulings by a religious authority,” she replied, “because there is no need for such guidance. Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales and there is no intention to change this position.

“Similarly, we do not accommodate any other religious legal system in this country's laws. Any order in a family case is made or approved by a family judge applying English family law.”

A pretty robust reply, then. Why all the fuss?

Because the minister went on to point out that, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgment in a sharia council might wish to have this recognised by English authorities. In that case, she explained, they were at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.

That draft would not be binding on the judiciary, she stressed. But the process “allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets”.

Now I am perfectly prepared to accept that judicial scrutiny may, in practice, be quite perfunctory. If that is so, we should not tolerate it: English judges must consider sharia-based consent orders with great care.

This is particularly important where children are involved. As the law lords told us last week, there is a “rule of sharia law dictating that at the age of seven a child’s physical custody automatically passes from the mother to the father or another male member of his family”.

I cannot imagine that anybody would seek approval of such an arrangement from an English court. It would be rejected immediately and could be set aside if approved in error.

And sharia-inspired financial settlements on divorce or separation may be rather less obvious. Under sharia, a woman is not regarded as equal to a man. There must be a grave risk that women will be treated less favourably by a sharia council than those claiming maintenance through a secular court. >>> By Joshua Rozenberg | October 27, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Dust Jacket Hardcover, direct from the publishers (UK) >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback, direct from the publishers (UK) >>>

The Utterly, Extremely, Astoundingly STUPID Lord Phillips! The Sharia Debate: We Can’t All Be Equal under Different Laws
TIMESONLINE: Allowing British Muslims recourse to Islamic law would be a charter for male dominance and peer-group bullying

Sneakily, Britain's first Muslim Minister, Shahid Malik, has ducked the critics that he will enrage in an interview to be broadcast on Channel 4's Dispatches programme on Monday.

Knowing that the phrase he uses to describe the situation of British Muslims - “the Jews of Europe” - will make the headlines, he has put it in the mouths of others. “If you ask Muslims today what do they feel like,” he says, “they feel like the Jews of Europe.” He does not say if he thinks that they are right.

I'll respond in the Malik method. If you asked most non-Muslims what they feel about the suggestion, they would say that it was disgraceful, outrageous and insulting.

Mr Malik's assessment of how some British Muslims feel may be accurate; but they are wrong. Race is not the issue. Unless we face up honestly to the incompatibilities between aspects of the ways of life of some (not all) Muslim groups in Britain, and the British mainstream culture, we shall find ourselves babbling about racism when the issue has less to do with race than with culture.

That is why I thought the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in a careful speech at the East London Muslim Centre on Thursday, slid too quickly over the trickiest parts of his argument. He was discussing the application of Sharia in England and Wales.

The speech has been variously reported as anything from a gentle warning to cultural separatists within Islam, to a craven endorsement of the compromising speech about Sharia made by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year. Lord Phillips took as his theme and title Equality Before the Law. This was shrewder than it was brave.

“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law. An under-age teenager and an adult, a British citizen and an illegal immigrant, are not equal. An in-catchment-area and out-of-catchment-area parent are not (in their children's access to a local school) equal. It's all a question of category; the categories of citizen that our laws create do and must create differences - inequalities - in the rights of individuals. We Can’t All Be Equal under Different Laws >>> By Matthew Parris | July 5. 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Dust Jacket Hardcover, direct from the publishers (US) >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback, direct from the publishers (US) >>>

A Schism over Shari'a in the Church of England
MIDDLE EAST FORUM: The debate over the trajectory of the Western sociopolitical system and its strained relations with Islam is the most pivotal of our time, as approaches decided upon today will impact billions not yet born. Two prelates in the ever more fractious Church of England provide a microcosm of this discourse.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali have emerged as central combatants in the dispute between two fundamentally opposed models of social organization: multiculturalism and universalism. The former bestows equal standing upon different cultures in the public square. The latter bestows equal standing upon individuals who wield a common set of rights and responsibilities. Which system prevails will ultimately determine the level of danger that homegrown Islamists pose to Britain, Europe, and the broader West.

Nazir-Ali believes that Britain's campaign to reconstitute itself as a multicultural society has failed, and he explained why in a January 6 op-ed. By emphasizing differences over common values, his country has promoted alienation among Muslims, many of whom are "living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages, and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority." Since segregation breeds extremism, Islamist-dominated "no-go areas" now dot the map. A Schism over Shari'a in the Church of England >>> By David J Rusin, American Thinker | May 11, 2008

Hat tip: Always On Watch

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback – USA)
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Hardcover – USA)