Shari’ah is a word that can single-handedly create a media storm. It is one of a set of terms (also including fatwa, burka, …) that have made their way into mainstream discourse in the English language without a proper understanding of their meanings.

The term “sharia courts” conjures quite a terrifying image in many people’s minds, combining all the “barbarity” that is assumed of Islamic law with the notion of a “separate law” for Muslims operating in secret enclaves, allowing Muslims to circumvent British law and eventually impose their own way across the British isles!

The simple point that is often missed is that, rather than being a specific legislative code that takes one form only, Shari’ah is understood by Muslims as the law based upon divine revelation, and aspects of this legislation will vary according to place and time, due to the inherent flexibility of Islam. So Muslim scholars obviously have ways of reconciling their place within a society like the UK that is majority non-Muslim and has a basically secular legal system.

While the focus may be on matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance, let’s not forget that Muslims also eat, pray and sleep according to the Shari’ah, which is the path through which we seek God’s pleasure in obedience to His guidance, which in turn is for our own benefit.

My concern is with analysis that conflates different things, such as “courts” versus opinions issued by scholars as to what is allowed or prohibited according to Islamic law. When a Muslim is concerned about doing the right thing, he – like people from other religious communities – may approach a person of learning and consult his/her opinion about what to do. The answer is called a fatwa and is not technically binding, but should be considered seriously.

I will take as an example one broadsheet paper, lest I hurt my head trying to take apart a tabloid treatment of the issue. The Independent ran a piece which stated: “some rulings recorded on fatwa sites clearly conflict with British law – for instance, that a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts…” What they haven’t explained is that this is a consideration of what is acceptable in the sight of God, and that is an understanding shared between the questioner and the scholar. This is not a matter of conflict in the manner implied, because the point is that if she goes ahead and does it, she would be sinful for that. I think it is the duty of a scholar to be clear on such a matter, whether or not the questioner chooses to heed the advice. Furthermore, it may be important to underline that such a marriage would not be considered as such in religious terms.

Many religious people would make a not dissimilar point about ‘gay marriage’: people might go ahead and contract such a thing if their legal system permits it, but that does not entail an acceptance in religious consideration, just because the same word ‘marriage’ is used.

True conflict between laws would be if one insisted on something while the other forbade it. For example, if British law stated that every Muslim woman must marry a non-Muslim man, we would have a serious conflict – but that is obviously not the case in this instance.

So why is it in the papers this time? Yet another shoddy piece of ‘research’ from what I call the stinktanks who have taken bashing Muslims as one of their key preoccupations. This one is by Denis MacEoin, whose previous report on hate literature at mosques was well rebuffed by a much abler researcher, and subsequently was withdrawn from the Policy Exchange website after numerous challenges including a Newsnight exposé alleging receipt forgeries.

I’m sure this will not be my last word on Shari’ah, much less on stinktanks.

—
Update: Gabriele Marranci has written a welcome perspective on this specific issue:  Between naiveté and intellectual dishonesty: debating Shari‘a in the UK. Also reported recently were cases of non-Muslims availing themselves of Islamic arbitration services. From The Times:

In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”