What’s the matter with our media? There’s a bigger picture here. Who will join these dots?
Alex Salmond ... Osama Saeed ... Scottish-Islamic Foundation ... Muslim Association of Britain ... Muslim Brotherhood ... Mohammed Sawalha ... Azzam Tamimi ... Hamas ... London IslamExpo ... Glasgow IslamFest ... Al-Jazeera ... Qatar ... Scottish Futures Trust ... Sharia courts in Scotland.
Podcast: The 7 Days Show Episode 16
34 minutes ago
The Sharia courts are, at least, something the Scottish Executive is singing from the same hymn sheet as down south.
Give social control to the men over women. Muslims, after all, are resolutely pious and say inshallah a lot.
SU - its been a while since I commented on here ... hope all is well...
Firstly let me frame what I'm about to say in that I have deep reservations about Sharia law as a concept full stop....
However, I am sure you are aware that:
1. There has been a lot of misrepresentation about what is being proposed by some "communities" - that is that Sharia courts would act as arbitration bodies in minor civil matters. Arbitration has been promoted in the civil courts as a method of reducing court costs for litigants, reducing time spent/delays, finding mutually acceptable outcomes without resorting to court and disuading vexatious litigation etc. Courts and judges are valuable and restricted commodities - and should be used for complex cases - bringing welcome efficiencies to the judicial system. In fact if a litigant unreasonably refuses to use arbitration and insists on his/her day in court then there is every chance that the judge will take this into account when awarding costs... Hence why direct negotiation between solicitors or use of bodies such as ACAS is now common.
2. The proposal would simply be that a Sharia "court" would act as the arbitration service if both parties accepted - decisions would still be ultimately subject to English or Scottish law depending on jurisdiction - in other words if a party believes the arbitration to be manifestly unjust or illegal then they can still have their day in a real court.
3. Just as bodies such as ACAS have been recognised as competent arbitrators for years, so have the Jewish "courts" - the Beth Dins. It has been going on for years, no noticeable complains, no screaming tabloid headlines and no silly conspiracy whispers.You could argue that Sharia arbitration would be no different.
Of course the argument is clouded by concerns - some legitimate and some just hopelessly ill-informed. I would expect and understand that some elements of our society would prefer that courts remain strictly secular. I would also suspect that some people would have concerns about women's rights and family law in areas such as forced marriages - I would challenge people holding those legitimate concerns to be liberal enough to allow the Muslim community to prove them wrong.
What I simply can't accept is the ill-informed screaming tabloid approach which tries to conjure images of criminal punishments such as beheadings on the streets of Britain: It is being used by some people as a thin smokescreen for prejudicial comments. In any case, criminal jurisdiction isn't being proposed and just isn't going to happen.
Against this background I think we all need to be careful - and therefore I do think that a "join the dots" link between Salmond and Sharia without any context or intelligent comment is at best unfortunate and at worst opportunistically tapping into ill-informed prejudice. Hope you understand...
All the best,
Chris
Chris
Thanks for your comment, and for the record I agree either wholeheartedly or on the basis of pragmatism with the points which you made - up to, but not including, your final paragraph.
I accept your criticism that were my post, devoid of context or commentary, to appear in the tabloid press, it could be seen in the manner you describe.
But this blog has a small readership (a few hundred daily) with a disproportionate number of politicians, hacks, activists etc, and anyway the context for most of this was provided in an earlier post.
So the nature of my concerns should be clear. As Prof Tom Gallagher has ably illustrated, Salmond is hitching his wagon to a religio-political agenda which cares little for him, or us. It a dangerous symbiosis, and some of the repercussions are now starting to become known.
There was a big debate about this sharia courts palaver on the Scotsman yesterday which joined up all the dots you would like us to join up - and which completely ignored the fact that the SIF spokesperson said that "Currently, Scottish Muslims resolve civil matters through the courts or voluntary third-party arbitration with Islamic scholars and imams," he said. "This has worked well for many years and we are not aware of any unhappiness with these arrangements or calls for change."
It’s a classic conspiracy theory mentality. You start with the theory that the SIF support sharia courts and you can then ignore what the spokesperson actually says!
The reason no SNP activist has ‘bitten’ at this story is because it’s quite ridiculous and also nasty.
I don’t know Tom Gallagher but I do know Osama Saeed and I also know his campaign team for Glasgow Central. If he was a mad religious fundamentalist who believed in stoning women I would not cross the road to support him - and he would not be an SNP candidate. But if he was a mad fundamentalist I don’t think his campaign team would include a gay man and a campaign manager who is American, Jewish and a woman. Doesn't really fit the stereotype does it?
Your whole view of this is based on the fact that you are prejudiced and you do not know anything for real, only what you read on the internet. A lot of which is rubbish.
I don’t believe prejudice should be encouraged so will say no more on this subject except that at a time when a lot of our fellow Scots are feeling like they are under the cosh for no good reason as they have done nothing wrong, it’s a time to stand by our neighbours and friends not try and ghettoise them as dangerous aliens simply because of their religion or ethnicity.
You might also care to reflect on the fact that if Scotland did not have a separate legal system we would probably have sharia courts now, just like England. So if you are against that you should acknowledge that separatism isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?
LotL, neither the Scotsman article (the comments-box is separate) nor, as far as I could see, SU suggested it were to implement penal law. There will, of course, be those who push this line (the Scotsman comments-boxes, for instance), and whilst this should be countered I see no reason for this to compel us to tap-dance around this issue. In fact, this is pretty much the fear and playing of race card that Salmond or Aamer Anwar (shot your mouth off outside a court recently?) or Osama "they're martyrdom operations when abroad" Saeed are playing on.
Talk of a "Muslim community" suggests that disparate ethnic groups, speaking different languages with different histories are bound together by a religion which, guess what, self-appointed gatekeepers define the parameters of. Them and the white-men bearing the burden of caring for these exotic natives: rather strange for self-defined anti-racists to judge others on race or religion. Compare (justified) criticism of conservative and/or reactionary Catholicism slipping into the Labour campaign for Glasgow East to positively welcoming Muslim Association of Britain bods into the SNP. At best, this is a dopey orientalism. At worst, and sadly more likely I think, reckless irresponsibility.
Dynamics exist within this "Muslim world". There was little fraternity in evidence during the 1971 East Pakistan war. Being Muslim is not helping the Darfuris, whose killers the Arab League is rallying in defence of. But Western attacks on individual Muslim countries are judged in terms of race, and British Asians or Magrebis or West Africans are thought bound to a religion in way Irish are not thought bound to Catholicism. Maybe they observe Lent and still eat fish on a Friday just as a Muslim may eschew pork and follow Ramadan, but a few rituals does not a religion make.
So we're to be relieved that this is for only civil law, like marriage and finance issues? You mean just the cases where women are disadvantaged! We are to be mollified that we won't be subject to this? There was me thinking that the duty of any Leftist was to speak in defence of marginalised and voice-less groups, e.g. Muslim women, and not just speak for pre-selected groups.
I would be puzzled if a Muslim thought it their pious duty to do this, but would live with it. What I am alarmed about, and even discussion of which is to be silenced by reference to head-cases in the Scotsman comments-boxes, if the thought of the voice-less being abandoned to self-aggrandizing and patriarchal gatekeepers. Are you suggesting Shakti Women's Aid should watch what it says lest it be accused of being anti-Muslim?
I don't know if I should be suspicious that your comparison of choice was to Beth Din courts. Most Jews don't submit themselves to these, which are over a hundred years old. As with the asinine argument that Scotland should "give independence a try" because somewhere else does it, this is no reason to implement Sharia courts. It's tu quoque, nothing else.
More importantly, they (and arbitration in general) are voluntary-based and can be appealed against in law. These Sharia courts have been described as being bound into the civil and criminal courts. I would like to know what this means before I approve of allowing more control being pass to [male-dominate] religious and moral conservatives.
So should you. It was funny, was it not, that a middle-aged, middle-class bloke (i.e. Rowan Williams, got a real Christian in the job yet?) called for more power to be passed to middle-aged, middle-class blokes.
Erm, Indy... my post actually links to your “big debate” on the Scotsman!
The thread is an unwholesome mishmash of Islamophobia and Salmond-worship with little in between. I note that most of the regular Scotsman posters, nationalist and unionist alike, gave the entire thread a bodyswerve.
Anyway, unless I missed something, it certainly doesn’t establish the links between the organisations and issues which I listed.
As for “the theory that the SIF support sharia courts”, I haven’t posited such a theory. Nor am I “prejudiced”, lacking in real life knowledge, or “ghettoising” anyone for any reason. You can reach any conclusion if your underlying assumptions are dishonest. Yours were, and you did.
FYI: additional info/links at The Daily Rabble.
SU, what I see in Indy is fascistic thought. S/he sees no merit whatsoever in the Union and believes Salmond is leading us to a new Camelot. The corollary is that anyone in disagreement is out to wholly demolish and run their opponents into the ground.
You might also care to reflect on the fact that if Scotland did not have a separate legal system we would probably have sharia courts now, just like England. So if you are against that you should acknowledge that separatism isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?
You can sit there constructing an elaborate figure of hate which is "Unionism" and ascribing viewspoints and prejudices to it, but the rest of us take a poly-chromatic view. Still, the one about Unionists opposing the 1707 Act takes it to a whole new level!
g-simonardottir - I'm not sure why you are taking a stance against what I am saying? You seem to be in violent agreement in some areas, going off on a tangent in others and being plain irrelevant in some ways. Go back and read my post: I am not backing the concept of Sharia courts but pointing out that what is being proposed is not what some prejudiced people would like us to believe. I also share concerns about the principles but strongly believe that the argument must be rational and informed.
SU - it looks like (for a change!) we have the basis for some agreement - would like to understand your "dangerous symbiosis" fears... I also still think that we need to be careful how we frame the argument even on blogs such as this with the readership that you would normally expect. For instance you have to agree that "Give social control to the men over women. Muslims, after all, are resolutely pious and say inshallah a lot" reveals some petty ignorance which I am sure you wouldn't welcome or expect on this blog...
I am also concerned that SNP -Islam "link" that is being promoted in the papers and blogosphere is legitimising some fairly distateful views. No, we shouldn't dance around the issues - be we shouldn't exploit other people's prejudices for poltical reasons.
Chris
I hesitated before approving the "resolutely pious" post but on second reading saw that it was sarcasm. G-S was, I think, expressing concern about less pious men possibly being in such a position.
Elements of the "dangerous symbiosis" have been covered in detail by Prof Gallagher:
• Open Democracy: “Scotland’s nationalist-Muslim embrace”
• Spectator: “The SNP and the Islamist Threat”
• Herald: “English policies will cause a schism in Scotland”
• Prospect Magazine: “Scotland’s Radicals”
I agree with your last paragraph.
I also share concerns about the principles but strongly believe that the argument must be rational and informed.
I'm sorry, Chris, you are not getting away with this anodyne non-statement! If you believe SU or I have pandered to irrationality or prejudice, please indicate where. We are no more responsible for the loonie-tunes who posted on the Scotsman comments-box or the (unspecified, unfalsifiable) 'tabloid hysteria' you spoke of than thoughtful opponents of the invasion of Iraq are for A-Q in Iraq.
Your whole view of this is based on the fact that you are prejudiced
Whichever way we look at this, Indy, you loose. Given that what I've seen thus far of your opinions points to creating sectarian rivalry, the brass-neck required to come out with this is astounding. Oh, I'm sure you're about to say the normal rules don't apply to yourself, or that you like the English and cannot be held responsible for some scapegoat you offer, but you've misunderstood the point, okay? Even if you weren't holding me and SU culpable for the most outrageous anti-Muslim bigot you can find, you will have missed the point.
and you do not know anything for real, only what you read on the internet.
Hey, everyone, here's someone who's met Osama Saeed! Gosh, you're so worldly!
A lot of which is rubbish.
Well, thank goodness we have your superior intellect to call upon! You don't need citations or consistent argument, you just need to say turn, and the world turns around you!
Did I say that? Sorry, I meant, aye right, pal.
You might also care to reflect on the fact that if Scotland did not have a separate legal system we would probably have sharia courts now, just like England. So if you are against that you should acknowledge that separatism isn't such a bad thing after all, is it?
Sorry to come back to this, but this is either an exceptionally stupid or exceptionally sinister remark. Or a bit of both.
Is Indy saying that Scottish Muslims are in a more advantageous position than English Muslims who are currently exposed to the potentially negative influences of Sharia courts? That this has *not*, in fact, happened [yet] in England, inclines me towards the stupid option.
However, note the lack of stated concern for English Muslims and aforementioned scorn for any expressed concern of the instigation of Sharia in Scotland. This lends itself to the sinister option, in which Scottish Muslims, or any other faith and ethnic group, are subservient to getting one over on Labour and/or Westminster. The SNP is Muslim-friendly, and they're much safer here than amongst the racist English: unless they're Bosniak or Kosovar (or Afghan), of course.
What were you saying about playing with race for political gain, Chris?
12/10/08 update: Scotland on Sunday, the Sunday Times and the Press Association are now running with this story. More here.
g-simonardottir
The reason why I said those who oppose sharia courts should appreciate that separatism is not a bad thing is because Scotland is not subject to the Arbitration Act under which sharia courts have been established in England. So the suggestion that sharia courts are to be established in Scotland on the same legal basis that they are established in England is rubbish.
There is no such thing as 'British' law you see.
Scotland has a separate legal system and a separate arbitration system and any decision to establish sharia courts would have to be taken separately as well.
But since there is no demand for sharia courts here and no plans to introduce them it’s a bit of a non-story, just another excuse to chuck a bit of mud at an SNP candidate for those who are acting out of sectarian interests (like Scottish Unionist and McAveety) or just plain loopy Islamaphobia for others.
Erm. Sectarian interests, Indy?!
Please do elaborate...
OK.
Frank McAveety. Anas Sarwar. Osama Saeed. Nicola Sturgeon. Irfan Rabbani?
Those are the dots I am joining up.
If you haven't already joined them up yourself someone has done it for you.
That's not an answer to the question.
It's not an answer to any question, come to think of it...
No, Indy, the reason you said was that your name derives from an Ancient Sanskrit word for "I have my head up my rear end and am looking for my spectacles".
Gee, whizz, thank you for reminding me that Scots Law is distinct, but a few questions:
[*] In what way in the Act of Union inseparable from the Arbitration Act 1996? Absolutely none;
[*] Who here is supporting a dissolution of Scots Law? Absolutely no-one;
[*] What are you? Absolutely hilarious.
Unfortunately, you have to go and spoil it by saying:
But since there is no demand for sharia courts here and no plans to introduce them it’s a bit of a non-story,
Just how thick are you? I have said from the start that over 90% Scottish Muslims consider the MAB to represent their wishes, or are even Arab. Above you quote an SIF spokesman,"currently, Scottish Muslims resolve civil matters through the courts or voluntary third-party arbitration with Islamic scholars and imams". This is absolutely meaningless. Of course they do, but mostly the former with a very small number opting for the latter.
Not the impression the statement creates, which adds weight to the proposals outlined in the article. By warbling up there, you dispute the statement you claim to endorse.
Arbitration exists in Scotland. Been in this country long? Yet you state it is only English Muslims who'll be subject to this, and expect us to be reassured that Scottish Muslims will be exempt. D'you have any idea how screwed-up that sounds?
just another excuse to chuck a bit of mud at an SNP candidate,
Who? The former regional rep for the Muslim Association of Britain, allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, who introduces a man named as a former Hamas commander to Holyrood?
for those who are acting out of sectarian interests (like Scottish Unionist and McAveety) or just plain loopy Islamaphobia for others.
You can stop right there. As soon as someone uses accuses others of this strained neologism, they become a browbeating loonie themselves. Islam, as a set of ideas, cannot be threatening. Both SU and I are speaking up for *Muslims*, continuing to practice their faith unobtrusively, from being pressured into submitting to an alien interpretation of Islam.
Yet more amoral mitigation is that Saeed does not support stonings. I *know* he doesn't support Sharia penal law being introduced to Scotland. I am expressing opposition to the civil law, which would give male children a greater inheritance or bias child custody towards the men.
Would such disadvantaged women be Islamophobes? Or, are you in contempt and fear of Muslims? And express no sorrow if English Muslims fall foul, but insist (wrongly) that Scottish Muslims would not suffer the same indignity? As long as they're not being stoned, what's the worry?
If you're not actually a racist, you stand in the way of anti-racism.
Bloomin' 'eck, over 90% do *not* consider the MAB to represent their wishes. Not, not, not!
http://www.scottish-arbitrators.org/arbitration/arbitration.html
'Scotland is not subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom.'
You're so dim I could almost fancy you! I said arbitration, not the Arbitration Act 1996. But, even then, this applies to Scotland in *parts*.
How long have you been in this country?