Let us adopt Islamic family law to curb extremists, Muslims tell Kelly

milmor_1 · 08-15-2006, 15:40

Let us adopt Islamic family law to curb extremists, Muslims tell Kelly
By Colin Brown
Published: 15 August 2006

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle1219289.ece

Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists.

Following three hours of meeting with Muslim groups in Whitehall, Ms Kelly said: "There is a battle of hearts and minds to be won within the Muslim community, working with the Muslim community to take on the terrorist and extremist elements that are sometimes found within it, not just in the Muslim community, but elsewhere as well."

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was also at the meeting, is today expected to meet Muslim Labour MPs who have demanded a change in Government foreign policy on the Middle East.

Mr Prescott and Ms Kelly made it clear that the threat of terrorism could not be used to force a change of policy abroad. Ms Kelly said she did not accept that British foreign policy should be dictated by a small group of people.

"What I do accept is that there is a lot of anger and frustration out there in the community that needs to be properly expressed and vented through the democratic process," she said.

Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said he had asked for holidays to mark Muslim festivals and Islamic laws to cover family affairs which would apply only to Muslims.

Dr Pasha said he was not seeking sharia law for criminal offences but he said Muslim communities in Britain should be able to operate Islamic codes for marriage and family life. "In Scotland, they have a separate law. It doesn't mean they are not part of the UK. We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life. We are willing to co-operate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."

He said that Ms Kelly had said she would "look sympathetically at all the suggestions" that had been made. He added: "She agreed with my suggestion [that] it should be a partnership approach."

The meeting was the latest in a series aimed at showing the Government is listening to the Muslim community. The role of co-ordinating the meetings was switched from the Home Office to the Communities department to move the focus from law and order to a wider agenda.

Yousif al-Khoei, of the Al-Khoei Foundation, said they had discussed with the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board "how we could channel some of the frustrations of the youth into peaceful channels". He said: "It's a question of working at local level as well as national solutions.

"The main message for me is that nobody is taking the problems lightly and the time for talking is over. We need to have a co-ordinated attempt to tackle the problems. If we don't, we may regret this for generations to come."

Labour MPs with large Muslim communities in their constituencies have expressed concern about the pressure for sharia in Britain.

Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists.

Following three hours of meeting with Muslim groups in Whitehall, Ms Kelly said: "There is a battle of hearts and minds to be won within the Muslim community, working with the Muslim community to take on the terrorist and extremist elements that are sometimes found within it, not just in the Muslim community, but elsewhere as well."

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was also at the meeting, is today expected to meet Muslim Labour MPs who have demanded a change in Government foreign policy on the Middle East.

Mr Prescott and Ms Kelly made it clear that the threat of terrorism could not be used to force a change of policy abroad. Ms Kelly said she did not accept that British foreign policy should be dictated by a small group of people.

"What I do accept is that there is a lot of anger and frustration out there in the community that needs to be properly expressed and vented through the democratic process," she said.

Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said he had asked for holidays to mark Muslim festivals and Islamic laws to cover family affairs which would apply only to Muslims.

Dr Pasha said he was not seeking sharia law for criminal offences but he said Muslim communities in Britain should be able to operate Islamic codes for marriage and family life. "In Scotland, they have a separate law. It doesn't mean they are not part of the UK. We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life. We are willing to co-operate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."
He said that Ms Kelly had said she would "look sympathetically at all the suggestions" that had been made. He added: "She agreed with my suggestion [that] it should be a partnership approach."

The meeting was the latest in a series aimed at showing the Government is listening to the Muslim community. The role of co-ordinating the meetings was switched from the Home Office to the Communities department to move the focus from law and order to a wider agenda.

Yousif al-Khoei, of the Al-Khoei Foundation, said they had discussed with the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board "how we could channel some of the frustrations of the youth into peaceful channels". He said: "It's a question of working at local level as well as national solutions.

"The main message for me is that nobody is taking the problems lightly and the time for talking is over. We need to have a co-ordinated attempt to tackle the problems. If we don't, we may regret this for generations to come."

Labour MPs with large Muslim communities in their constituencies have expressed concern about the pressure for sharia in Britain.

Woodmonkey · 08-15-2006, 17:54

Bad idea to have two completely different systems in a free country. They cite Scotland, but Scotland has the same culture and values.

Women in particular will be denied the rights and freedoms that women under the UK system enjoy and that alone should be reason to shoot that idea down.

milmor_1 · 08-17-2006, 16:51

What amazes me about the suggestion of this concept is this.

When a westerner goes to an arabic (Muslim) country they are required to obey the laws of that country without question or suffer the consequences.

When an Arab or Muslim comes to the west the rules are different, we obey or own laws religious or otherwise, and to expect us (the muslims)to do otherwise is racist.

They want the best of both worlds.

Snowden · 08-17-2006, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by milmor_1

What amazes me about the suggestion of this concept is this.

When a westerner goes to an arabic (Muslim) country they are required to obey the laws of that country without question or suffer the consequences.

When an Arab or Muslim comes to the west the rules are different, we obey or own laws religious or otherwise, and to expect us (the muslims)to do otherwise is racist.

They want the best of both worlds.

And they usually manage to get it. That's the part I will never understand. I'll never bless such actions either - not that it will help anything that I don't. But to let them have all the privileges of a citizen here and in Britain while they do as they please, is just wrong, stupid and dangerous. Other than that, it's okay.

Woodmonkey · 08-17-2006, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by milmor_1

What amazes me about the suggestion of this concept is this.

When a westerner goes to an arabic (Muslim) country they are required to obey the laws of that country without question or suffer the consequences.

When an Arab or Muslim comes to the west the rules are different, we obey or own laws religious or otherwise, and to expect us (the muslims)to do otherwise is racist.

They want the best of both worlds.

True. The free countries have to insist that immigrants are subject to their law, not the one they brought with them.

Quote:

Life under sharia, in Canada?
By Margaret Wente
Saturday, May 29, 2004

Homa Arjomand knows what it's like to live under sharia law. In Iran, she endured it until someone tipped her off that she was about to be arrested and imprisoned. Many of her activist friends had already been tried and executed. She, her husband and two small children (the youngest was barely one) escaped on a gruelling trip by horseback through the mountains. That was in 1989.

Today, she lives in a suburb northeast of Toronto. Her job is helping immigrant Muslim women in distress. And now she is battling the arrival of sharia law in Canada.

"We must separate religion from the state," she says emotionally. "We're living in Canada. We want Canadian secular law."

Sharia law in Canada? Yes. The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. The arbitrations will deal with such matters as property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.

Ms. Arjomand's cellphone is constantly ringing — with calls of support, or calls for help, or updates on various crises. A client of hers has just that day died of cancer, leaving behind a nine-year-old daughter. The husband was brutally abusive, and now the dead woman's family is terrified that he's going to take the daughter, who was born in Canada, and go back to Iran. Ms. Arjomand has been trying to get Children's Aid to intervene.

In the burgeoning Muslim communities around Toronto, it's customary to settle family disputes internally, by appealing to an imam or an older person in the family. "I have a client from Pakistan who works for a bank," Ms. Arjomand tells me. "She's educated. She used to give all her money to her husband. She had to beg him for money to buy a cup of coffee. Then she decided to keep $50 a month for herself, but he said no."

They took the matter to an uncle, who decreed that because the wife had not been obedient, her husband could stop sleeping with her. (This is a traditional penalty for disobedient wives.) He could also acquire a temporary wife to take care of his sexual needs, which he proceeded to do. Now the woman wants a separation. She's fighting for custody of the children, which, according to sharia, belong to the father.

The law permitting a sharia court was passed in 1991, when Ontario sought to streamline the overloaded court system (and save money) by diverting certain civil cases to arbitration, including arbitration conducted on religious principles. Jewish courts have operated in the province this way for many years. "People can agree to resolve disputes in any way acceptable," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney-general. "If they decide to resolve disputes using principles of sharia and using an imam as an arbitrator, that is perfectly acceptable under the arbitration act."

Promoters of Islamic law in Canada have been working toward this goal for years. Last fall, they created the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, which has already chosen arbitrators who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian civil law. The driving force behind the court is a lawyer and scholar named Syed Mumtaz Ali, who was quoted last week saying "to be a good Muslim," all Muslims must use these sharia courts.

Many Muslims, including many women, are enthusiastic about giving Islamic law an official place in Canada, and they emphatically deny that it will harm women's interests. On the contrary. They insist that under Islam, a woman's rights are protected. "We follow the Islamic law, secure with a perfect sense of equality between the sexes," wrote Khansa Muhaseen and Nabila Haque in a letter to the Toronto Star, where the sharia debate has been raging fiercely.

Opponents of the new tribunals argue that the government's imprimatur will give sharia law even greater legitimacy. Sharia law is based on the Koran, which, according to Muslim belief, provides the divine rules for behaviour. What is called sharia varies widely (in Nigeria, for example, it has been invoked to justify death by stoning). The one common denominator is that it is strongly patriarchal.

Alia Hogben is president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, a pro-faith group with members from every Muslim culture. But the council was never consulted about the new sharia courts, and it strongly opposes them.

"This is a very difficult position for us to be in because we are believing women," says Ms. Hogben. "But to apply Muslim family law in Canada is not appropriate." In Britain, she adds, the government has flatly rejected councils for sharia law.

Both Ms. Hogben and Ms. Arjomand — the former an observant Muslim, the latter not — are lobbying hard for Ontario to change the arbitration law.

(Ms. Arjomand has launched a petition, which you can find through a web search for "International Campaign Against Sharia Courts in Canada.")

When Ms. Hogben's family came to Canada 50 years ago, the Muslim population was tiny. In the 1970s, she and her husband started a tiny mosque in Toronto that they shared with Albanians and Bosnians. Today, Canada's Muslim population numbers more than 600,000, and many Muslims live in self-contained enclaves where there is little interaction with the outside world. Ms. Hogben welcomes the stronger sense of identity among Muslims now. But she warns that many of the new arrivals have brought with them a far more rigid version of Islam. "A lot of money is being poured into North America from very traditional groups from Saudi Arabia and Libya," she points out. These groups are not known for their tolerance of other versions of Islam, or for their progressive attitudes toward women.

Immigrant women are among the most vulnerable people in Canada. Many don't speak English, are poorly educated, and are isolated from the broader culture. They may live here for decades without learning the language, and stay utterly dependent on their families. They have no idea of their rights under Canadian law.

Both Ms. Hogben and Ms. Arjomand say that we are sacrificing these women on the altar of multiculturalism.

"This is an abuse of multiculturalism, says Ms. Hogben. "There is a lack of courage [on the part of governments], and also a fear of offending Muslim sensitivities."

"I chose to come to Canada because of multiculturalism," says Ms. Arjomand, who gave up a career in medical science to work with women who are victims of abuse. "But when I came here, I realized how much damage multiculturalism is doing to women. I'm against it strongly now. It has become a barrier to women's rights."

The Source

Angelus · 08-17-2006, 19:05

I fully agree with Katie Family values in Scotland, and the UK, are compatible with Islam, they are all inclusive. We do not need new family laws in Scotland, or the UK. If Muslim families need specialist laws, then this country is obviously not for them, and they should consider going back to the ancestral homeland, where they preferred their religious dominance.

You get freedom, or, you get Islamic laws that restrict those freedoms.

I do agree that our foreign policy, is seen to be compatible with the US position, and supportive of the Israeli position (in Lebanon), and has the potential to inflame young idealogical islamic minds. However, as citizens of a democracy called the UK, they have no right to impose their minority viewpoints on us by force or intimidation.

There are political and democratic/polical processes here in the UK that can allow them to air their concerns. They do not need to bomb innocent civilians. If they have broad support within the UK, their opinions will be heard. Their bombing campaign is an endorsement that (like the middle east) that the majorities only chance to defeat a minority is by terrorist tactics. Minorities like, Royal families, Military dictatorships, can dictate policy to the majority, e.g., Saddam, whom the US and UK has recently freed them from.

And where is the thanks?

However, the UK is inclusive, and is not racist. These Islamisc extremists are giving credence and support to our white extremists, British National Party (BNP). These Brit Islamic extremists are not serving their religion or cause very well, they are only fueling racism and giving the BNP amunition, converting ordinary, formerly non-racists into people with racist views.

I will respect all differnces of opinion, including religious differences, but I will will not have a minority viewpoint imposed on me by force and intimidation.

Islamic terrorists are creating a new dilema for their families and friends, when their dead, the UK becomes less tollerant.