Sharia Law Or 'One Law For All'? - Civitas
Sharia Law or‘One Law For All’?
Sharia Law or‘One Law For All?’Denis MacEoinDavid G. Green (Editor)Foreword byNeil AddisonCivitas: Institute for the Study of Civil SocietyLondon
First Published June 2009 Neil Addison:Sharia Tribunals in Britain—Mediators or Arbitrators?All other material Civitas 200977 Great Peter StreetLondon SW1P 2EZCivitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494)and a company limited by guarantee, registered inEngland and Wales (no. 04023541)email: books@civitas.org.ukAll rights reservedISBN 978‐1‐906837‐08‐2Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of CivilSociety is a registered educational charity (No.1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No.04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of privatesources to avoid over‐reliance on any single or smallgroup of donors.All publications are independently refereed. All theInstitute’s publications seek to further its objective ofpromoting the advancement of learning. The viewsexpressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute.Typeset byCivitasPrinted in Great Britain byThe Cromwell Press GroupTrowbridge, Wiltshire
ContentsPageviAuthorsForeword:Sharia Tribunals in Britain—Mediators or Arbitrators?A Reflection by Neil AddisonviiiEditor’s Introduction1Sharia Law or ‘One Law For All’?9Appendix: Summary of Online Fatwasv74
AuthorsNeil Addison is a practising barrister and the authorof Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law, TaylorFrancis Publishers, 2006.He runs the website www.ReligionLaw.co.uk, andthe Blog http://religionlaw.blogspot.comDavid G. Green is the Director of Civitas. His booksinclude The New Right: The Counter Revolution inPolitical, Economic and Social Thought, Wheatsheaf, 1987;Reinventing Civil Society, IEA, 1993; Community WithoutPolitics: A Market Approach to Welfare Reform, IEA, 1996;We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now, Civitas, 2006 andIndividualists Who Co‐operate, Civitas, 2009.He writes occasionally for newspapers, including inrecent years pieces in The Times, The Sunday Times, theSunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph.Dr Denis MacEoin holds degrees from Trinity College,Dublin, Edinburgh University and Cambridge (King’sCollege). From 1979‐80, he taught at Mohammed VUniversity in Fez, Morocco, before taking up a post aslecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle. In1986, he was made Honorary Fellow in the Centre forIslamic and Middle East Studies at Durham University.He has published extensively on Islamic topics,contributing to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the OxfordEncyclopaedia of Islam in the Modern World, theEncyclopaedia Iranica, the Penguin Handbook of LivingReligions, journals, festschrifts and books, and hasvi
AUTHORShimself written a number of books including TheSources for Babi History and Doctrine, Rituals in Babismand Baha’ism, and The Messiah of Shiraz: Studies in Earlyand Middle Babism; he has also edited Islam in theModern World with Ahmad al‐Shahi. In 2007 hepublished The Hijacking of British Islam, a study of hateliterature found in UK mosques, and his report Music,Chess and Other Sins was published online by Civitas in2009. In 1992 HarperCollins published a volume of hisjournalism under the title New Jerusalems: Islam,Religious Fundamentalism, and the Rushdie Affair. He haswritten 25 novels and is translated into some 15languages.vii
ForewordSharia Tribunals in Britain—Mediators or Arbitrators?Both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord ChiefJustice ran into controversy in 2008 by appearing tosuggest that sharia courts or tribunals should be givena role in the settlement of disputes. Part of thecontroversy, of course, arises from the fact that ‘sharialaw’ in its fullness covers both criminal as well as civillaw though, in fairness, both speakers were directingtheir remarks at the possible role of sharia tribunals asa mechanism of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR),especially in the settlement of matrimonial and familydisputes. A similar suggestion was reportedly made,though to less publicity, by the former Chairman of theBar Mr Stephen Hockman QC. 1The Archbishop in his speech said:there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example,which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as weunderstand them. In some cultural and religious settingsthey would seem more appropriate. k/2008/feb/07/religion.world3viii
NEIL ADDISONWhilst the LCJ said:There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any otherreligious code, should not be the basis for mediation or otherforms of alternative dispute resolution. 3This was then followed by press reports that sharia‘courts’ were already operating in Britain, in particularin the form of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal(MAT). 4 The ‘revelation’ that these ‘courts’ werehaving their arbitration decisions (fatwas 5 ) enforced bythe state courts, in accordance with the Arbitration Act1996 has led to campaigns to ban all religious tribunalsfrom operating under the Arbitration Act. 6What I would suggest as also part of the reason forthis public controversy is that both the Archbishop andthe LCJ, together with the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal(MAT), have confused and merged together twoseparate and distinct ADR concepts, namely mediationand CJ speech.pdf4www.matribunal.com5A ‘Fatwa’ is the traditional title for a Sharia legal judgementor legal opinion. Sadly since the Ayatollah Khomeini issuedhis infamous ‘Fatwa’ calling for the death of Salman Rushdiethis respectable legal term has acquired an entirely negativeconnotation in the West and the mass media6www.onelawforall.org, nelawforallcampaignlauncheswith.htmlix
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?Mediation is the classic ADR procedure and itspurpose is to see if a legal dispute can be resolved bynegotiation between the parties. The crucial pointabout mediation is that, even though most mediatorsare trained lawyers, mediation does not rely upon theapplication of legal rules or the determination of legalrights or wrongs it aims instead at finding commonground between parties and a solution they can bothlive with. (See www.civilmediation.org for furtheranalysis.)Arbitration by contrast is merely another form oftrial before a ‘judge’ who is not appointed by the statebut is instead agreed to by the parties. Arbitration isespecially used in business disputes usually in order toensure that the ‘judge’ has specialist knowledge of thearea of business in question ( in building contracts forexample there is invariably an arbitration clauseproviding for the appointment of an arbitrator who iseither a qualified surveyor or architect), or arbitrationis chosen in order to maintain business confidentialitysince arbitration hearings are not open to the public.It is important to note that mediation and arbi‐tration are not merely different in their philosophicalbasis but also different in their legal operation.Mediation may result in an agreement which can besubsequently presented to a court and registered as alegal decision but a mediator cannot impose a media‐tion decision and should not give directions or expressopinions on legal issues or likelihoods of success.Mediation therefore leads to an agreement rather thana judgement and it is not, as such, regulated by statute.x
NEIL ADDISONMore pertinently, a mediation agreement only has legaleffect if it is ratified by a court which has to be satisfiedthat it is indeed an agreement between two parties whounderstand the legal consequences of what they haveagreed to.Arbitration, by contrast, is regulated by statute andinvolves the parties signing an arbitration agreementbefore the ‘trial’ begins. The arbitrator can act inaccordance with the rules of any legal system specifiedin the arbitration agreement including, of course,sharia law and the ultimate ‘judgement’ of thearbitrator can be registered with the civil courts andenforced in the same way as if it were a judgement ofthe ordinary civil courts. It is this aspect of civil courtsenforcing arbitration judgements based on shariaprinciples which has led to suggestions that sharia lawhas been given ‘official’ recognition.However it is important to understand that theArbitration Act does not extend to all areas of law: itdoes not cover criminal disputes and it does not extendto divorce or childcare cases, which is where theproblems arise with the views of the LCJ: ‘there is noreason why principles of sharia law, or any otherreligious code, should not be the basis for mediation’.There is, in fact, every reason why the principles ofsharia law should not be used as the basis formediation and that is because mediation does notinvolve the application of legal rules, whether religiousor otherwise, it involves a search for a mutuallyacceptable compromise. If MAT, or any other organ‐isation, is applying shariah principles to a dispute, thenxi
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?it is engaged in arbitration not mediation and the twoare not the same and should not be treated as if theywere the same.The MAT website in part seems to be holding itselfout as a mediation organisation:A trial in a court necessarily involves a winner and a loser This can be a disadvantage where there are reasons tomaintain a good relationship after the verdict. An obviousexample may include divorce and child custody cases Court hearings impose a solution on the parties without theiragreement and which may need to be enforced. If the partiesare able to negotiate a resolution between them, to whichthey both agree, this should be less of a predicament. 7But a separate section of the website says:MAT will therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslimcommunity a real and true opportunity to settle disputes inaccordance with Islamic Sacred Law. 8Judging from its rules of procedure as set out on itswebsite, MAT does not appear to distinguish betweenoffering an arbitration service and offering mediation. 9The practical effects of this confusion could be veryimportant in the area of family and childcare caseswhich is the area where both the Archbishop and theLCJ saw sharia as having a role to play. In the case ofdivorce, one of the main decisions a Family Court has7http://www.matribunal.com/alt dispute ://www.matribunal.com/procedure rules.htmlxii
NEIL ADDISONto decide is the custody and care of any children, andsuch decisions have to be made by the court on thebasis of an assessment of what is the ‘interests of thechild’. Since children share their parents and, since it isusually in a child’s interests to keep in contact withboth parents, mediation fills an important and valuablerole in helping divorcees to reach custody and contactarrangements which they can both accept. In reachingsuch a mediated agreement there is no doubt thatreligious principles can be important in appealing tothe parents’ better nature and leading them to look attheir responsibilities as parents rather than concen‐trating on their own negative feelings towards theirformer partner; however that is not the same asapplying sharia law rules relating to child custodyeven if those sharia rules are regarded as ‘sacred’.Sharia law rules on child custody can be quite cutand dried and were indeed described by judges in theHouse of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’ in thecase of M (Lebanon) v Home Secretary ([2008] UKHL64). In general, under sharia law custody of a childover seven years of age is given to the father, so what isa Family Court judge to do if presented with a‘mediation agreement’ brokered by the MAT whichgives custody of the children to the father? If it truly isa mediated agreement between the two partiesdeciding what is in the best interests of the child thenin normal circumstances the court would register it andenforce it. However, the question is whether it really isa ‘mediated’ agreement or does it involve acquiescencexiii
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?by the woman in a sharia law rule which does notexplicitly consider the interests of the child.If it is acquiescence in a sharia law rule as opposedto a properly mediated settlement, then the FamilyCourt cannot accept the ‘mediation’ agreement becauseit is not truly a mediation agreement and becauseenforcement of such a sharia judgement would becontrary to s6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Unders6(1) ‘It is unlawful for a public authority [whichincludes a Court] to act in a way which is incompatiblewith a Convention right’, i.e. a right under theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, and in thecase of Refah Partisi v Turkey BAILII ([2003] ECHR 87)the European Court of Human Rights stated:Sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine ruleslaid down by religion, is stable and invariable It is difficultto declare one’s respect for democracy and human rightswhile at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia,which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularlywith regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, itsrules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenesin all spheres of private and public life in accordance withreligious precepts.Similarly in M (Lebanon) the House of Lordsdecided that shariah law rules on child custody wereincompatible with the human rights protected by theConvention.While freely chosen arbitration between equalparties in limited areas of law is long established inBritain, the attempt to extend sharia arbitration tofamily disputes under the misleading title ofxiv
NEIL ADDISON‘mediation’ is a potential misuse of both arbitrationand family law. In fairness to both MAT and thetabloid press, if the Lord Chief Justice can get the twoconcepts of mediation and arbitration horriblyconfused in his speech, then a lawyer, such as myself,can hardly blame the Archbishop of Canterbury, MATor the press for being equally confused.Neil Addisonxv
Editor’s IntroductionShould we allow sharia law to exist alongside Britishlaw? Most British people would answer this questionwith a resounding ‘no’. It’s not just that many require‐ments of sharia law are incompatible with our ownlaws. That would be bad enough. The reason for thejustified and spontaneous outrage that followed theArchbishop of Canterbury’s call for the recognition ofsharia law in 2008 was that many people intuitively feltthat equality under the law is the bedrock of Westerncivilisation. Take it away and you disrupt the wholeedifice.The ideal of ‘one law for all’ is the basic allegianceon which liberal‐democratic nations rely. We can bestunderstand our situation by comparison with earlierforms of loyalty. During most of human history peoplehave tended to live in groups whose cohesivenessrested on conformity to established custom andpractice. Individuals who did not conform could beexiled or killed. Liberalism is very different. It is notbased on the conformity of every individual to theestablished social conventions of the day, but rather onrespect for the unique personal qualities of eachindividual and the potential for advance that lieswithin each of us. But liberalism is not anarchism. It isa system of fixed rules laying down when compulsionwill be applied and otherwise leaving people free to actaccording to their conscience. It aims to create a sphereof freedom for each person to develop personally andadd their own contribution to the improvement of1
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?human societies. It does not naively assume thatnothing but good will follow. On the contrary, afeature of any liberal society is that laws need to beconstantly refined to reduce the harm caused bywrongful conduct. But the aim of law is always to setpeople free. In non‐liberal systems such as sharia law,the aim is to control behaviour and to securecompliance.Liberalism makes possible, not only personaldevelopment of skills, talents or moral and intellectualqualities, but also creates the space in which indivi‐duals can join groups and lead very different lives,including lives guided by religious faith. Modernliberalism emerged as a result of religious conflict andwas intended as a solution to it. Loyalty to law allowsus to respect each other despite differences. Above all,it makes it possible for strangers to get along with eachother because, despite our natural tendency to fear orsuspect the unknown, law creates certainties we cancount on. Anything that undermines our faith in thelaw threatens the vital spirit that prevents liberal‐democracy from disintegrating into a feud betweenfactions.Sharia law has already become quite entrenched inBritain. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal 1 claims todeal with family, inheritance, mosque and commercialdisputes and has courts in London, ews/uk/crime/article4749183.ece2
DAVID G. GREENBradford, Nuneaton and Manchester. In truth there aremany more courts.The home page of the website of the MuslimArbitration Tribunal (MAT) goes out of its way to lookofficial. It has a photograph of Lord Phillips of WorthMatravers when he was Lord Chief Justice (from 2005to 2008) in his wig and finery. A bold heading declares‘Lord Chief Justice endorses ADR [alternative disputeresolution] under Shariah Law’. 2 Underneath it has apicture of Lord Hunt, a Government minister, who hadannounced his support for the MAT initiative onforced marriages. The website emphasises that MATrulings are binding under English law:MAT will operate within the legal framework of Englandand Wales thereby ensuring that any determination reachedby MAT can be enforced through existing means ofenforcement open to normal litigants. Although MAT mustoperate within the legal framework of England and Wales,this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that alldeterminations reached by it are in accordance with one ofthe recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law. MAT willtherefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community areal and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordancewith Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that theoutcome as determined by MAT will be binding andenforceable.In October 2008 a Government minister in a writtenParliamentary answer gave sharia courts a es/lcj equality before the law 030708.pdf3
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?Government seal of approval than ever before. BridgetPrentice, Parliamentary Under‐Secretary of State in theMinistry of Justice, was careful to say that theGovernment does not ‘accommodate’ any religiouslegal systems, but she confirmed two developments.First that sharia courts are operating under the 1996Arbitration Act, which allows private disputes to besettled by an independent arbitrator. And second thatsharia rulings on family matters (that are not coveredby arbitration) could be given the authority of a Britishcourt by seeking ‘a consent order embodying theterms’ of the sharia court ruling.There are three concerns about sharia courts thatpurport to be systems of arbitration. First, voluntaryarbitration is only acceptable if both parties genuinelyconsent. There is a good deal of intimidation of womenin Muslim communities and the genuine consent ofwomen could not be accepted as a reality. Second,women are not equal in sharia law. The Koran calls forwitnesses in legal cases and says that if a male witnesscannot be found two women will do. Effectively thevoice of a woman is half that of a man. Third, religiousguidance is effective because individuals fear God orwish to remain in good standing with fellow believers.In our legal system no punishments can be applied toindividuals who fail to live up to religious require‐ments other than the social pressure of disapproval.The pressure we exert when we express ourdisapproval of other members of a church or anyvoluntary association is unavoidable and an acceptedpart of life within a liberal society so long as we are4
DAVID G. GREENfree to leave any association that goes too far. Undermost interpretations of Islam a person who leaves thefaith is an apostate who can be put to death. While thisthreat remains, it cannot be accepted that shariacouncils are nothing more than independent arbitratorsguided by faith. The reality is that for many Muslims,sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalisedatmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimatesanction of a death threat.The underlying problem is that sharia law reflectsmale‐dominated Asian and Arabic cultures. It cannottherefore be accepted as a legally valid basis even forsettling private disagreements in a country like ours,where our law embodies the equal legal status ofeveryone, regardless of race, gender or religion. Oursystem is based on moral and legal equality or it isnothing. Moreover, further encouragement of sharialaw, far from helping integration, will undermine theefforts of British Muslims struggling to evolve aversion of Islam consistent with a tolerant andpluralistic society.A great battle is being fought between rival groupsfor the support of fellow Muslims. We have becomefamiliar with the groups who direct their hatredagainst Western civilisation, but the most numerousare fundamentalist rather than violent. Their aim is toprevent Muslims who live in the West from fallingunder the influence of Christianity or secularliberalism. The leaders of fundamentalist factions wantMuslims to owe their allegiance to their particularinterpretation of Islam, whether it be Wahhabi, Salafi,5
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?or any of the countless other doctrines whoseadherents are convinced of their own righteousness.For them, loyalty to any national system of liberal‐democratic government is no more than a rival for theaffections of followers. Freedom of conscience is not intheir vocabulary. Such leaders are accustomed to livingin Muslim countries where the powers of governmentcan be used to enforce compliance and they plan to useBritish law to coerce Muslims into leading livesseparate from the British liberal mainstream. If wepermit the growing intrusion of sharia courts tocontinue, British Muslims will in effect be subject to thesame coercive pressures to conform as they would inan Asian village. Liberalism has always been tolerantof a plurality of lifestyles, but only if they are freelychosen.A similar controversy came to a head in theCanadian province of Ontario in 2005. The provincehad passed an Arbitration Act in 1991 to allow disputesto be settled by legally binding arbitration, includingdisputes based on religious principles. The systeminitially became controversial in 2003 when theformation of the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice wasfounded to offer arbitration in family and otherdisputes in accordance with sharia law. In December2004 a former Canadian attorney general, MarionBoyd, produced an official report for the OntarioGovernment and recommended in favour of arbi‐tration according to Islamic law. A furious debatefollowed led by Muslim women who argued that theyhad gone to Canada to get away from sharia law and6
DAVID G. GREENthe coercion that it embodied. In September 2005 thepremier of Ontario announced that the Arbitration Actwould be amended to ensure ‘one law for all’. Theamendment was passed in February 2006, effectivelyending religious‐based arbitration.There is another dimension to the controversy thathas so far received scant attention, as the distinguishedbarrister Neil Addison points out in his Foreword—namely the tendency to confuse mediation andarbitration. Mediation under religious supervision,when both parties genuinely seek moral guidance fromtheir faith, will often be an admirable process that willhelp disputing individuals to overcome their selfishinstincts. And given that mediation is not enforceable,it is less open to abuse by elements who seek tointimidate weaker parties. However, no religionshould have the power to use force against itsadherents. Arbitration entails legal compulsion andconsequently nothing less will suffice than theexclusion of sharia courts from recognition underBritain’s Arbitration Act of 1996. The approach taken inOntario is one possibility. In that state, familyarbitrations were required to be conducted exclusivelyunder Canadian law. Ontario’s 2006 amendment hadthe effect of barring enforcement of family arbitrationsunder both religious laws and the laws of othercountries. Family dispute resolution processes carriedout under rules other than Canadian law were notprohibited, but they had no legal effect from 2006.‘One law for all’ is the principle that should guideour lawmakers, but as in so many other respects in7
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?recent years Parliament has lost its way. DenisMacEoin’s study is an excellent introduction to theissues at stake and his revelations about some of the‘case law’ are alarming.David G. Green8
Sharia Law or ‘One Law For All’?Denis MacEoinIslam, like Judaism, is a religion of the law. Sharia law,honed over many centuries, is a distillation of rulingsthat purport to represent the divine diktat in all worldlyaffairs. There is little in personal or public life that itdoes not touch. In this respect, it differs from the Jewishhalakha in one major way: it provides injunctions for theconduct of criminal, public and even international law.It is best known in the West for the more barbaric ofthese rulings, from the stoning of adulterers and theamputation of the hands of thieves to the proclamationof holy war and the declaration of truces.Outside the Muslim world, where sharia often stillholds sway, even in countries with codified secularlegislation, it is restricted to ritual, personal and familymatters. Rulings on prayer, fasting, the payment ofalms to the poor and related religious duties are, bytheir very nature, uncontroversial: they seldom if evercome within the purview of the non‐Muslim state.(One of the few instances in recent times was theoccupation of the road outside the East Londonmosque by radical preacher Abu Hamza and hisfollowers, where the thoroughfare was devotedexclusively to Friday prayers.) But family law threatensto cross or actually does cross the threshold betweenthe personal and public realms. Laws concerningmarriage and divorce, the custody of children, the9
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?payment of alimony, the treatment of sexual impro‐priety and much else all bring with them greatpotential for controversy or the commission of acts thatmay run counter to UK legal norms or human rightslegislation. In some cases they have been and are usedas an excuse for bigotry towards homosexuals,Muslims who have abandoned their faith, non‐Muslims in general or members of the public who havebeen deemed to criticise or mock Islam. In theNetherlands, film director Theo van Gogh was killedby a young fanatic who believed he was actingaccording to sharia principles. 1In recent years, there have been several calls forparliament to acknowledge a limited code of sharia lawas a parallel system within the UK, allowing Muslimsto manage their personal and family affairs accordingto the demands of the Qur’an, its ancillary texts, andthe body of jurisprudence that has been built up byMuslim scholars down many generations. In August1At his trial in June 2005, Van Gogh’s killer, MohammedBouyeri, declared ‘I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. Iwant you to know that I acted out of conviction and not thatI took his life because he was Dutch or because I wasMoroccan and felt insulted.’ He had previously started tolive by strict Islamic rules, and may have been inspired bythe Imam Fawaz of the al‐Sunnah Mosque in The Hague,who declared in a sermon that Van Gogh was a criminal. SeeAnthony Browne, ‘Muslim radical confesses to Van Goghkilling in court tirade’, The Times, 12 June 2005, available icle543212.ece10
DENIS MACEOIN2006, the head of the Union of Muslim Organisations ofthe UK and Ireland, Dr Sayed Pasha, called on RuthKelly, then Secretary of State for Communities, toinstitute public holidays to mark Muslim festivals(something that has never been done for any otherreligious group) and to introduce elements of sharialaw to cover family matters. 2 These calls have generallybeen made by Muslim groups and individuals, but, asis well known, it was only in February 2008 that theArchbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, joined hisvoice to theirs in a plea for the limited application ofIslamic law within the United Kingdom. 3The present report seeks to present the case for adenial of the broadened use of sharia, arguing that it isinappropriate to this country for reasons that are notprejudicial of Islam per se or critical of Muslims assuch, but are, rather, linked to elements in Islamic lawthat are seriously out of step with trends in Westernlegislation that derive from the values of the Enlighten‐ment and are inherent in modern codes of humanrights that are in force throughout Europe and indemocratic countries elsewhere. Further objectionsderive from a majority of Muslims in the UK (and very2Colin Brown, Independent, 15 August 2006, available html3For the full text of Williams’s speech, go to:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/157511
SHARIA LAW OR ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?likely elsewhere too), who reject the introduction ofsharia in general or for specific matters.In 2007, the think tank Policy Exchange published adetailed poll of Muslim opinion that covered mostissues relevant to the position of the community inmodern Britain. Examining cultural attitudes, theresearchers asked the question: ‘If I could choose,
law' in its fullness covers both criminal as well as civil law though, in fairness, both speakers were directing their remarks at the possible role of sharia tribunals as a mechanism of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), especially in the settlement of matrimonial and family disputes.
Introduction to Sharia law 7 Primary sources of Sharia law: The Quran and sunnah (hadith) 8 Secondary sources of Sharia law 8 The schools of Sharia law 9 Islam and the fundamental right to life 10 2. Crime and justice: application of the death penalty under Sharia law 11 Categories of penalties in Sharia law 11 Qisas crimes: Murder 11
common understanding of Corporate Governance in most member states of the European Union, especially in Germany or the UK. In a last step, the paper concentrates on the integration of internal Sharia Compliance into the context of European Corporate Governance. II. Definition and Function of Sharia Boards 1. Overview
Sharia Law - sharia law is Islamic religious law based on the Koran. For practicing Muslims the sharia governs every aspect of life. It is more pervasive than just a legal system. Given the diversity in customs, history and na-tionality among Muslims, it is not surprising that there is no one set of interpretations applying to all. Similarly var-
Revised-2006 Islaamic Sharia Law for the New Global World Those Rulers, Politicians or other persons having Authority, who don't take any interest on establishing Islaamic Sharia Law, based on Quraan and Authentic Sunnah may actually not be Believers in the view of Allah :
The easiest way to learn about Islam is through Sharia law. Through learning about Sharia you are introduced to the Koran and Mohammed in a practical manner. When you know Sharia, Islam makes sense. Most people believe that Islam is complicated or even impossible to understand, but when you un-derstand its principles, Islam is very, very logical.
Perbankan Syariah di Indonesia dan Implikasinya bagi Praktik Perbankan Nasional Oleh: Abdul Ghofur Anshori*1 Abstract Act Number 21/2008 about Sharia Banking is an act that introduce some legal institution to increase sharia banking growth with more sharia comply. For example,
Sunni Islam with regard to the succession of the Prophet but also in respect of matters of meth-odology.12 The core of sharia law is family law. Family law is at the heart of Islamic law because, within the sharia, it is the branch of the law with the greatest density of regulation emanating from the highest-ranking sources.
Overall plan delivery to date: 56% (against target 90%) Since the last sitting of the Committee two reports have been finalised and four reviews are awaiting final management sign off. Follow Up reports that have been finalised since the last Committee sitting are reported in Appendix 4. All ‘limited’ assurance reviews go before CMT for full consideration. 3.6 2020/21 AUDITS ONGOING AS AT .
