Report comment

Shari’a Councils act both as mediators and as arbitrators on behalf of the Muslim communities of which they are an integral part. Since Shari’a Councils have no power to enforce their decisions – which are based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the way of life of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as recorded in the Hadith) and the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) derived from these two primary sources – it is accordingly a fundamental misnomer to describe Shari’a Councils as courts.

(See: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/reviews/book-review-islam-sharia-and-alternative-dispute-resolution/5038269.article )

Those Muslims who approach Shari’a Councils to resolve disputes concerning personal law matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance) do so voluntarily – and, as I have already pointed out, if Shari'a Councils are banned, which body would then have the capacity to grant a valid khul' divorce to a Muslim wife whose husband refuses to give her a talaq divorce?

By providing this remedy, Shari’a Councils discriminate positively in favour of those Muslim women who are in need of it.

To deny Muslim women this remedy in the name of ‘equality’ would in reality promote inequality and be truly discriminatory.

As regards the “inequality” arguments used by secular fundamentalists to oppose Shari’a Councils, as far as I can see, the vast majority of objections to this centuries old form of ADR come from non-Muslims or non-practising ‘Muslims’ who will never in fact need to bring any matter before any Shari’a Council. These critics simply have what they regard as a rationally justified antipathy towards any practising Muslim who is perfectly happy with the guidance which Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, have provided – and they express this antipathy in terms of what they perceive as “inequalities” when applying human rights law criteria theoretically and out of context.

If Muslims are happy with what Allah has prescribed for them, then why should they be ‘saved’ from this by non-Muslims who are simply seeking to deny Muslims their ECHR Article 9 rights in a roundabout way, while nevertheless hanging firmly on to their own ECHR Article 9 rights?

In reality, it is the “one law for all” brigade who seek to impose their particular secular religious beliefs on everyone else!

It is significant that those who are most vociferous in their opposition to Shari’a Councils remain strangely silent concerning the Battei Din, whose interpretation of the earlier form of the Prophetic Shari'a of Moses, peace be on him, inter alia forbids a woman either to be a member of a Beth Din tribunal, or to act as a witness altogether, and does not permit a woman to inherit from her father if she has a brother (please correct me if I am mistaken!) – whereas in accordance with the later form of the Prophetic Shari’a of Muhammad, a woman may be a member of a Shari’a Council, may act as a witness and is automatically entitled to a Qur'anic prescribed share from a deceased close relative’s estate.

If such apparently double standards critics are of the opinion that the Jewish community should be free to deal with their Judaic personal law matters in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs, why is there such a fuss about the Muslim community dealing with their Islamic personal law matters in accordance with their sincerely held beliefs?

And before anyone seeks to utilise the gross distortion of Islamic teachings by Daesh as a justification to oppose Shari’a Councils, let it be noted that such distortions are so extreme that (as with their historical predecessors, the Khawarij) the injustices which they perpetrate take them far out of the fold of Islam – which is above all a middle way. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96hAkq9Y1LM )