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) >>>
