The 18 October saw the start of the Home Office’s independent review into the application of shari’a law in the UK.
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali sharply criticised the review, warning that any recognition of shari’a in British law would embed a principle of contradiction, given the inequality that lies at the heart of shari’a. He questioned how helpful the review in itself will be, noting that no non-Muslim Islamic expert or human rights expert will be on the review panel.
Wrong starting point
In his written submission, he notes that because the review is only concerned with the application of shari’a law, the question then is whether the application of shari’a is incompatible with English law, not whether shari’a is itself incompatible with English law. He states that the review asks for examples of best practice rather than asking whether such councils should exist at all. The review essentially starts from the wrong point and asks the wrong questions.
He cited many problems between shari’a and British law in the treatment of women and children. The age of consent differs, where many see it as starting at puberty; polygamy is legal; and rulings have already taken place where human rights law has had to intervene to keep women and their children together where deportation would have resulted in the removal of children from a mother upon arrival in the country where shari’a operates.
Western law embraces the fundamental principle of equality of all people before the law. This highlights an immediate incompatibility with shari’a law. Muslims should be free to practice shari’a in their private lives, but the practice of shari’a should not be recognised in public law in the UK.
