Those outside Muslim or political circles can be forgiven for knowing very little about Sharia councils in Britain. I mean why would they. Common reactions from ordinary people I speak to include ‘shouldn’t we all just follow British law?’ and ‘ban them’. My answers are yes and surprisingly no, with caveats regarding the latter point.

There are currently two sharia council inquiries in the United Kingdom. One led by the government, the other by the home affairs select committee. Both have broadly similar concerns, including discussions around gender inequality, sharia’s compatibility with English law and if they are aiding social cohesion. Sharia is a code of conduct adhered to by many Muslims. It is not a fixed legal system but is facilitated and encouraged to be seen in a quasi-legal light under Islamic jurisprudence. It is subject to context and interpretation and comes with its own controversies.

Both inquiries face serious challenges, not least because there is not one definite practice of sharia, ‘one’ Islam or one universal standard of relevance. Like Christianity, there are multiple interpretations of Islam, ranging from the purist Salafi/Wahhabi tradition (that is increasingly propagated by an Arabfication of political Islam), right through to the spiritual tradition of the Sufis (with its own limitations). This is without going in to any depths about sectarian differences between Sunni, Shia, Ismaili and Ahmadi Muslims, the latter often persecuted by the larger groupings.

Before you turn around and say well this is not an issue for ‘us’, be careful. The role of faith v state is increasingly a concern within the European context as well as on a transnational basis. Many religious followers are vocal, practise versions of faith that can and do challenge hard won equalities as well as our cultural and social values. The ‘it’s nothing to do with us’ attitude is no longer sufficient in a pluralistic society when our core British values are being reconstructed.

There are some fundamentals that politicians, governments and jurists need to consider before coming to any conclusions, recommendations or issuing any edicts. There is no priesthood in Islam however knowledge is generally passed through imams, shaykhs or alimas. Increasingly, this is often coupled with problematic interpretations via Sheikh Google. There is also no compulsion in Islam. This is undisputed and stated in the Quran. One of the beauties of Islam is that one’s faith remains between the creator and the individual. Stripped down to its core, this simplicity is the essence of Islam. Muslims have the option of following various doctrines but the relationship remains between you and Allah. Not something the loud fundamentalist, often patriarchal and well-organised Muslim lobby want you to know.

I reluctantly hold the view that banning these councils is not the answer. Just yet. I have huge reservations and we need to tread with caution. Government needs to commission research to assess the depth, type and reach of them as current estimations range from thirty to over a hundred. Government is shooting in the dark if they don’t even know what the baseline is.

I want to flush them out, make them transparent and accountable rather then drive them further underground. At the Henna Foundation, a charity campaigning against honour-related abuse, where I am a trustee, we are advocating for a full independent umbrella organisation that regulates all faith councils, has a universal set of quality standards, insists on registration of marriage and ensures that English law is supreme.

There are accusations of bias by some defending the sharia system. These have included cries of ‘Islamaphobia’, ‘outside influencers’, ‘hidden agendas’, right through to ‘vested interests’, and, of course, the ultimate, ‘this is only an issue for Muslims’.

Let me share, an example. I was one of three women who removed our names from a letter signed by 100 Muslim women. Coordinated by a Muslim women’s group, the letter called for both inquiries to be inclusive of women’s voices. All of us, associated with the Henna Foundation, signed in good faith from a woman’s rights perspective. Subsequent to the publication of the letter, we observed a virtual war of words between some women, including Shaista Gohir from Muslim Women’s Network UK who helped to organise the letter. This included attacks on secular feminists suggesting they could not be part of the debate. We could not put our names to a campaign shrouded in hypocrisy and toxicity.

In mainstream interviews Gohir said one thing, ‘Muslims and non-Muslims can contribute to the debate and we welcome suggestions and ideas on addressing the discrimination that Muslim women face from sharia councils’.

While on social media, her views seemed to contradict this. Many things were stated including, ‘What do some secular feminists have in common with Muslim men? They think they know what is best for us! How patronising!’ and ‘Oh dear some unhappy anti-faith, anti-Islam feminists this morning’.

Another woman made a similar comment ‘Personally I do not think secular feminists have anything to offer this debate whereas our men do.”

Shahien Taj, director of the Henna Foundation, is one of the three who removed their name from the letter. She said:

My world of work involves assisting vulnerable Muslim women and kids. In order to ensure they have a whole package of support it involves working with a cross-section of professionals from support workers, lawyers, health visitors, social workers, teachers, police officers and may more. In the main, these professionals do not come from the UK’s three million British Muslim population rather they come from the 63 million non-Muslims. Amongst those I work with are secular feminists who bend over backwards supporting Muslim clients. In some cases where Muslim kids have been fostered they are the ones that have ensured the kids have regular Quran lessons. In some instances it’s the secular support workers who look at the Sharia councils or help source funding to pay for it.

I have more examples but one can read the runes. The language of equality is being used in public while privately individuals may hold abhorrent, discriminatory views. It is important to note the contradictions between social media usage versus mainstream media activity by some prominent activists. Often there is no naming of specifics, just an undercurrent of accusations and vilification, mostly targeting other women. This is dangerous territory, as well as an old tactic used to discredit those on the margins. Many ‘secular feminists’ have been at the forefront of the fight for gender, race and faith inclusion.

There is a concerted effort to create a climate of fear and shut down debate for anyone who dares question the status quo. I know of another woman receiving death threats for taking a particular stance. Ultimately, we must not lose sight of the end goal; it is irrelevant what one group thinks over another. The priority has to be to provide protection, justice and fairness for those using the sharia council services. And those who dare to question powerful lobbies. Equally, nobody should be threatened or be censored for their views. Freedom of speech must not be compromised.

It is incumbent on government, politicians and others that they avoid hearing from a narrow agenda-loaded faith lobby. So far the oral evidence given to the home affairs select committee leans towards those whose interests lie in sharia courts continuation. There is already misinformation been given in those sessions. When the member of parliament Nusrat Ghani asked if under sharia a woman could have more than one husband, an advisor who sits on the sharia panel for Birmingham Central Mosque told her, that it was totally up to the woman.

This is categorically untrue; there is no provision for Muslim women to have more then one husband. This is because the issue of the protection of lineage would be compromised with multiple husbands. In an increasingly post-factual world, surely we can expect parliament to hold the line?

It is no coincidence that women who put their head above the parapet are targeted, delegitimised by ‘proper Muslims’ for not being ‘real Muslims’, often propped up by liberals and the far-right alike for differing reasons. There is a global rise in the politicisation of Islam, with the ultimate desire to control and institute an ‘official Muslim’ status. Including issues relating to gender.

Up and down the country, ordinary Muslims are being fought over in a tug of war that is not of their making. On the one hand, government activity is often flawed, poorly argued and resourced and, on the other hand, fundamentalists tell us we ‘ain’t no Muslim, bruv’ while shoving their literal version of Islam down our throats. The failure of the left to deal with historic cultural issues that needed challenging has allowed the far-right to occupy this space. The chirping sounds of hate cannot continue to be ignored. Either we are part of the solution or by our silent acquiescence we endorse the bigots on all sides.

———————————

Amina Lone is co-director of Social Action and Research Foundation. She tweets at @amina_lone

———————————

Photo