Ali Eterez on Archbishop’s Statements re: Sharia in the UK
Thank you, Ali. I have been waiting for a response like this. Via Drima.
Since our apostate friend was welcomed to America by his resettlement agency with the comment: “Brother, with more like you we can make America an Islamic nation under Sharia”, I have been following this topic a little more closely.
February 11, 2008 at 10:08 am
what what?
February 11, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jad, you can read all of the furor over at the BBC.
February 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
kinzi that reminded me of the jesus camp post cause i asked about that subject there …. where is it ??
my take on it is that u are either secular or ur not… and england isn’t as secular as it should be. if you accommodate the views of christians and jews in legal matters then you have to bow down and accommodate the muslim law to some extent. Or preferably you would simplify things and format a one law fit all … which will no wonder piss off everybody equally
what apostate ?? huh u lost me there
February 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hi Bam, I still have two more articles to write before I am free to really blog again. I really did it this month in the over-commitment department. It’s percolating, tho. Especially since our church in Amman is experiencing revival, which is putting a different light on some of the charismatic practices I was going to cover in answer to your question.
Well, in the real world of government, it is rarely that cut and dried. There is a balance, especially in terms of women’s rights. The thing that scares me, is to what extent? In a couple place in Africa, accomodation has become domination. My brother lives in the UK, it is becoming an issue there. I prefer to ‘piss off everybody equally’.
A friend here was convicted of apostasy a couple years ago.
February 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I am undecided on this Sharia laws in the UK idea. IF as Bambam noted the UK indeed enforces parts of Christian and Jewish laws, then it certainly should accommodate its Muslim population as well.
Unfortunately, Kinzi, for now you “can’t piss off everybody equally” because we have not yet heard anything against the accommodation of C and J laws in the UK. It kinda makes you wonder how come people are objecting to the Muslim laws whereas the other two are accepted.
February 11, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Tololy, do read some of the links within Ali’s, and the original BBC article. Do skip some of the hysterical back-lash, which I am not sure helps anyone.
I agree in theory that the UK should repeal any accommodation of Jewish family law (as did Canada), but I need to read more as to what it looks like there. There isn’t such thing as Christian family law, it is all civil, so it isn’t a matter of acceptance. It’s that Christianity learned the hard way that a secular state is the only way to go to protect all inhabitants equally.
The objection comes when Muslim laws do not line up with accepted human rights issues in the country. If you want to read a feminist “Muslim” perspective, google Yasim Alibhai-Brown’s response. She’s a firecracker.
When in England, do as the English do. One law for all.
February 11, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I’m all for it, because I think the implementation of some parts of Sharia law under the watchful eyes of the British government could yield model examples for us Muslims in the Middle East to follow.
The problem with Islamic courts is that they only exist in 3rd world communities plagued with backward thinking and close mindedness.
What Sharia law needs is the open mindedness of the West.
The fact of the matter is that Islamic law is the most flexible in the world. It’s not true that a woman can never receive an equal share of the inheritance, or that she can never get equitable division of the assets, or that she can’t get custody of children after divorce. There is always room for special case considerations, and this is what is sadly missing in our societies. Western societies will not have this problem, and this is why I think this is very much worth trying.
I don’t think a secular country can call itself secular when its laws force someone to do something not inline with their religious beliefs. The inescapable question then becomes which religions to support, and this is a question that’s been comfortably accommodated and answered in the past. Only now, when Islam comes to the picture, along with it comes the hysteria and paranoia of the West towards it. I think it’s counterproductive, and instead the West should seize the opportunity to show the Muslim world how they’re religion is supposed to be done.
February 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Hamzeh, now that is an interesting perspective indeed: “the West should seize the opportunity to show the Muslim world how they’re religion is supposed to be done.” :0
Are you SURE? It seems the West has failed at anything they have done to show the Muslim world anything, much less how to implement their own religion. I would think that would go over like a lead balloon!
If there is one think I have learned from you all, is that Islam is not a monolithic entity practiced the same through out the ummah. I dare say some Arab Muslims would not appreciate they way Persian or Pakistani Muslims would interpret Sharia.
I think if Eastern Muslim nations could implement sharia in a way that doesn’t scare the pants off the West, there would be less hysteria. Which religion to support, is an important question, as some seem more valid than others. There are ‘religions’ in America which claim to require certain illegal drugs in order to worship freely. Jehovahs Witnesses routinely refuse transfusions and some let their children die.
So what did you think of Ali’s synopsis? In reading his original post previous to this, it almost seemed he started thinking like you did, then changed his mind. I wonder if there could be volunteer sharia groups who give the guidance and oversight w/o making it civil law. I know among Christians, we have mediators to keep us from divorce and frivolous lawsuits so that things don’t have to go to court.
Anyway, thanks for a very interesting way of looking at this!
February 12, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This problem exists with every set of beliefs and ideals that are used as a basis for laws. Democracy, secularism, human rights, none of these are “practiced the same” even throughout what is widely accepted as the democratic secular developed world. Some countries’ secularism is too radical like France or Turkey, others’ is more moderate (like the US). Regarding Muslims in the UK, they already have an established hierarchy and I’m pretty sure they can come up with a standard for rules that will only matter in the UK, not in Pakistan, nor in Saudi.
That is true, but it cannot happen. You live in an Eastern Muslim nation and you know what how dysfunctional these societies are.
Regarding what the post you linked to said, I read it all, and it raises very valid points, but it’s full of points that need to be brushed aside, like the comments about apostacy and homosexuality invalidating marriage. He worries about “how easy it is for Muslims to accuse each other of apostacy,” ok, but how easy is it to prove such a thing?
He talks about the law responding to “social realities,” when it is obvious that he himself is disassociated from the realities of Muslim societies. In Muslim societies (and even here in the US with almost every married couple I know), the man is the main source of income in the family, so why should he settle for half in case a divorce happened? Same with inhreitence, in Muslim societies there are more financial burdons on the male than the female. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that’s the beauty of Islam, it is open for exceptions. The only problem, the judges or arbitrators in this case. And that’s where I said such individuals in the West are more likely to be fair than in our Eastern societies.
Finally, and not to make this very long, his conclusion shows how gravely he misses the whole point. He is telling Muslims that if they want this, they should move to a Muslim country. And that’s the whole point of what the archbishop said, that a British citizen should not have to choose between his country and his religion. But that Muslim you’re talking to is British, they don’t want to “move to the Gulf,” they’re British. They were born British, raised British, and wanna remain British and live in Britain and be religious at the same time.
February 13, 2008 at 8:42 am
Well, Hamzeh, you have given me food for a 3,000 word response!
As a woman, I find your opinion hard to swallow (although it is welcome). Did you see Bakkouz’ post about women’s rights? There were several responses there which might help you see it from our side. In what I have read and seen, Sharia sentences women to a life of unquestioning subjugation.
Part of what made democracy work was that men and women were equal as humans, no matter who is the major wage-earner. Take out that component, and what made it a free place it is gone.
As a Christian, I cannot so easily brush aside the apostasy issue. Democracy is founded on the belief that everyone is free to choose what to believe in. As with women’s rights, remove that aspect and there ceases to be freedom that the openness sprang from.
February 14, 2008 at 11:35 pm
So if two people marry, and one earns all the money, buys the house, the food and the cars, and the other doesn’t earn any assets, or works a minor job that doesn’t really pay anything, then they should still divide all assets that were earned after their marriage equally between them in case of a divorce? Don’t you think that that’s not fair?
And regarding the comment about men and women being equal as humans no matter who is the major wage-earner, then why do you consider them to suddenly not be equal when someone suggests that major wage-earner receives a major share of what was earned?
If not dividing earned assets equally means men and women are not equally human, then how do you still view them as equally human when they don’t earn the assets equally?
Clearly, the concepts of equality and asset earning/division are not so tightly coupled as you make them seem to be. It’s not a question about equality as much as it is a question about fairness and giving each side what they earned and should be entitled to.
Regarding apostasy, I think a secular government can argue on reasonable grounds that it can’t accommodate rules that relate to it in arbitration courts, and I don’t think people of this religion or that can do anything about it. This is not about creating a separate set of laws that apply to only part of the citizens of a country. It’s about finding ways to better accommodate certain aspects of those people’s religions. This is why the original story was about “certain aspects of Sharia law,” not about implementing all of Sharia law.
February 15, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Hamzeh, thanks for coming back! I am sick as a dog right now, under the influence of serious decongestants, but I will try a coherent response.
What I probably need to do is research the history of community property laws in the US to find out just why the US decided that a non-working spouse has rights to 50% of the familial assets. But for now, you are stuck with my foggy take on the topic.
I believe that a woman brings something just as important as wages to a family. She is the mistress of his assets, the raiser of his children, the encourager he comes home to and inspirer of his business ideas. There is no material value that can be placed upon it. The relationship is a union, where each brings something valuable.
Even with community property laws, most women in a divorce take a 75% cut in lifestyle, and divorced men increase.
I feel like these laws make it tougher for a husband to cut and run, leaving a poverty stricken family in his wake. I’ve watched that happen several times here in Jordan (and, it happened to me in the US). A man can gets divorce very easily, keeps most assets the wife and kids have to move back in with her family and she will most likely never marry again due to the stigma. The man just starts over with a new wife.
I’m not sure about that last paragraph, as it does seem a separate set of civil laws, although the West has no laws about practice of faith.
February 15, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Salamtek kinzi. I will make this short and only respond to one part then
I don’t think this is a good way of looking at the subject. Because are you saying that, money aside, men don’t contribute to marriage as much as women do? I think some men will find this notion “difficult to swallow” and even outright offending.
February 16, 2008 at 9:51 am
Allah yaselmak, ya Hamzeh
Thanks for the mercy.
Of course men contribute to a marriage, by virtue of their role as head of home and majority breadwinner! I can’t seem to function w/o my hubby, and he claims the same of me. It is a partnership. I wonder Hamzeh, where some of your emotion is coming from? If I were you, it might come from the ridiculous amount of money a man has to spend in Jordan to marry a girl he may not know all that well. But let me not speak for you.
I believe it is more offensive for a man to say a woman’s involvement in marriage has no material value. It makes me wonder how much you really value women. (now, I am not trying to stir you up, Hamzeh, I’m hoping this is a dialogue where we are communicating, not intentionally poking for reaction :))
I don’t intend to offend you, and I am not a feminist…I am perfectly suited for my primary role as help-mate and mother, but I also see it’s value in creating an atmosphere where my husband can succeed. We married later in life, and he credits my influence to his current success. And vice-versa.
Anyway, you made me curious to look up some origins of American community property laws. I wanted to see if they were backlash from the early feminist movement, but they were not. It was men writing laws to protect woman and the union of marriage. Here are a couple examples:
The California Constitution of 1849, Article XI: Promiscuous Provisions. 215. section 14 states:
“All Property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by her before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property, as to that held in common with her husband.”24
Also interesting is a mention of a treatise entitled Civil Laws of Spain and Mexico, a translation of the civil law of Spain published in 1851, in the discussion of McDonald v. Senn. Chapter 4 of the treatise, Rights and duties of Husband and Wife in relation to the property acquired during marriage, Section 1, Community of Goods, states:
“Art. 43. The law recognizes a partnership between the husband and wife as to the property acquired during marriage, and which exists until expressly renounced, in the manner prescribed in Section 3.”25
So the law sees marriage as a business partnership as well as a civil union. All the more reason to be careful when choosing.
Blessings, Hamzeh!
February 16, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I agree..
But anyway, I’m interested in what can be quanitified because when it comes down to it, this whole discussion started with the issue of dividing assets upon divorce 50:50.
You said that there’s no value that can be placed upon some of the things that a woman might bring to a marriage. I accept that and I take it further and say it could apply to both man and woman, just as earning income could be done by both man and woman.
So what we end up with is the idea that you can divide what each partner brings into marriage into two categories: the material stuff (which can be quanitified), and everything else that no material value can be placed upon.
Enter divorce. Just the fact that we’re talking about a divorce, means that there’s something wrong in the picture. What one partner or the other, or both, brought to the marriage, didn’t really contribute to a marriage that you can call successful. Whatever money, love or support that was shared between the two didn’t really do it for them. Now, each side wants out.
Fine, lets look at those two categories again. Anything that was put into the marraige by either side and can be quantified can be restored to them. Actually, not necessarily, because this partnership could have resulted in a net material loss. This is why the issue is not of quantities, but ratios. In other words, you should enter marriage accepting the possibility of incurring a loss. If kids are involved that someone is expected to take care of, their expenses can still be shared after the marriage. It’s a right for the children on their parents, not a right of one of the parents onto the other.
But what do you do with the other category? Whatever forms it might come in, we arleady said that there is no value that can be placed on it. The simple answer is that divorce is a loss and is a sign of a failed marriage. Whatever love, support, care or whatever it is that one can’t put a value on in a successful marriage, didn’t work for this failed marriage. All that effort is lost. And I think that’s why divorce is the most hated halal thing for God. Because you must hate to see someone’s efforts all go to waste.
Bottom line, if it can be quanitified, it should be and then should be used in any calculation. You can’t assume that both sides will always contribute equally in any partnership, marriage or not, be they man or woman. I think this is necessary to guarantee fairness and whoever wants to assume the duty of judging fairly between people (not an easy task) should be ready for it. And I don’t think any of this contradicts Islam’s laws and principles.
February 16, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Hamzeh, you are a great thinker. And I am still under the influence of decongestants.
You’ve made a great case, which I understand, but still very much disagree with and do not want as a precedence for Muslim women living in the West.
Even if the ‘intangibles’ of one or both person’s efforts failed to make a marriage work, the efforts were still made and promise to stay together for life were still made. I don’t agree that one should enter marriage accepting the possibility of loss. Stuff happens, but I think that idea contributes to the cut and run mentality. I also think, for women in Jordan who have virtually no chance of marrying well a second time, who are relegated to a life of shame in their parent’s home, should not accept this view either.
In a business partnership, if the business fails, the assets are divided 50/50, whether it was more the accountants fault or the marketing directors fault. Maybe there will be no assets, but theoretically, it would have been a fair division. That was how it was with me, division of liabilities, not assets. Did you get burned this way too? :S
Maybe you should post our conversation in your blog and see if anyone else comes up different variations of what we have discussed? dont’ know if you saw my comment, but you made me curious so I looked through your last postings. Time for you to share more of your stuff with the on-line world!