It's just another day in the Muslim political narrative. As the latest chapter unravels one feels that unmistakable sense of déjà vu. More sensationalising headlines from the comic strips that to our collective shame still carry the respectable title newspaper. More hysteria whipped up by our politicians, who have pioneered the art conniving phraseology and propelled it to untold feats. Their carefully chosen language set has proven more divisive and done more damage to religio-racial relations than any woman wearing a face veil, or beard-wearing terrorist could ever do. And so once more Muslims feel hard done by and misunderstood. It is sad that most of the debate and discussion surrounding shariah courts has been so ill informed and severely tainted with prejudice. Let us consider the notion of legal pluralism in a fairer way.

Firstly, it is a fact that alternative dispute resolution processes already exist in the UK and are recognised and accepted by the law. For instance, in Finchley, London, resides one of the Jewish Beth din courts, which is a rabbinical court of Judaism. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din. People that seek justice through these courts are legally bound to their conclusions by the secular law of the land under the arbitration act. Such courts deal with a whole range of civil litigation ranging from divorce cases to family disputes over inheritance distribution, from Landlord and tenant actions to business partnerships gone sour.

Such courts deal with a whole range of civil litigation ranging from divorce cases to family disputes over inheritance distribution, from Landlord and tenant actions to business partnerships gone sour.

Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain and have been for centuries resolving civil disputes. As made clear by the Finchley court registrar "We can't drag people in off the street"¹. They provide a much needed service to their community that is usually quicker and much less costly than going through the civil courts.

Currently Muslim courts do exist in a more primitive form, but have no legal recognition. Thus very often people are forced to go through the ordeal of legal process twice i.e. both with a shariah court and a secular court. This can be very burdensome, particularly when it comes to issues relating to family breakdown. This brings the alarming contradiction that shariah court decisions within Malaysia are accepted as a result of symbiotic international relations, but shariah courts within the UK are not.

The stigma surrounding aspects of the penal code of the shariah are not relevant since the remit of the proposed shariah courts would only lend itself to personal law and not criminal law. Furthermore one only need look at the old testament to realise Jewish law to be similar in that it has rulings pertaining to capital punishment. Murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19); adultery (Leviticus 20:10); homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution (Leviticus 21:9) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24-25), and several other crimes². One is forced to ask why Jewish Beth din courts are not subject to the same media frenzy and why MP's are not up in arms that they have been given legal recognition. Moreover the UK currently has a lopsided extradition treaty with the United States, which carries out capital punishment in many of its states. If the political parties in Westminster are so keen to disassociate British Society from a ‘Medieval’ rule of law why did they vote in favour of allowing British citizens to be handed over to a country that may carry out capital punishment upon them? Why is America still considered our greatest ally if we are so vehemently opposed to their barbaric conduct of killing convicted murderers and the like?

Some confused Muslim leaders and spokespeople have felt the need to clearly distance themselves from believing in the shariah penal code. Vague statements that usually begin “it depends on” followed somewhere by the words context and interpretation. Stemming from an inferiority complex their crisis of sophistication has led them to utter words that clearly deny texts from revelation. If the Tory MP William Hague can be unequivocal about a belief in capital punishment, all be it only in the severest of cases, why should orthodox Muslims be hushed up by the thought Police and the relative societal values of today?

If the Tory MP William Hague can be unequivocal about a belief in capital punishment, all be it only in the severest of cases, why should orthodox Muslims be hushed up by the thought Police and the relative societal values of today?

Alternative dispute resolution systems exist not only because of cultural and religious sensitivities, schools often try to sort out minor criminal incidents ‘in house’ without involving the Police, the military have their own courts with a modified form of law, even MP's have what is called the electoral commission which meters out punishments to misbehaving MP's. Take the recent incident involving Derek Conway, wherein he admitted misusing his expenditure allowance in the direction of his son. These are instances where criminal law appears to have been usurped and the police not involved, and yet with the exception of the last example have been without the public furore we currently have. Since the proposal is for shariah courts to only deal with personal law, the Derek Conway example cannot be used as a counter argument to the establishment of shariah courts. If two Muslims are happy to accept the arbitration of a third party resolution system pertaining to some personal situation, why is it that a tolerant multicultural Britain can't accept that? Dr Prakesh Shah who is a senior law lecturer at Queen Mary University and author of "legal pluralism in conflict" believes that such systems should be seen as integrated and complimentary rather than a parallel legal system.

In conclusion, we see that such systems already exist in the UK and are working hand in hand with the civil system and not in opposition or usurping it. Other countries such as Malaysia have both civil courts and shariah courts that work harmoniously and whose legal verdicts are recognised within the UK. We also acknowledge that a multicultural society will have varying social requirements and thus we should see alternative dispute resolution processes in this context, and that includes the proposal for shariah courts.

^{___________________________________________________________
Notes:}

^{source: www.islam21c.com}

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
2. The new international version of the bible