A fundamentalist agenda that seeks to communalise law and social policy
Pragna Patel and Gita Sahgal explain the concerns behind the open letter to Teresa May on the Sharia inquiry.
In 2015, the UK government announced that it would hold an independent inquiry into the operation of Sharia Councils in the UK. Predictably, some dismissed the move as yet another example of ‘Muslim bashing’ and ‘Islamophobia’ because it was located within the State’s counter- extremism strategy.
But some of us welcomed the inquiry precisely because it provided a vital and rare opportunity for the state to examine the resurgence of religious fundamentalism and extremism within black and minority communities in the UK, and its impact on gender equality and justice.
For years, many of us have been in the forefront of challenging minority religious fundamentalist and conservative forces, particularly Islamists, who want to legitimate the role of religion in the legal system. We have opposed the slow but insidious drip-drip effect of a fundamentalist agenda that seeks to communalise law and social policy in relation to women and family matters, bearing fruit in developments such as gender segregated seating in universities and the Law Society’s promulgation of ‘Sharia’ compliant legal guidance on inheritance. We have warned against those who tout Sharia or religious personal laws as alternative and ‘authentic’ forms of community mediation and governance: a profoundly regressive idea that has increasingly gained traction in this age of austerity and the state’s retreat from its promise to look after its citizens from the cradle to the grave.
We had hoped and understood that the inquiry into these alarming developments – that are conveniently ignored by some civil rights campaigners who decry state but not fundamentalist abuse of power – would be truly independent. However, we are now dismayed to learn that far from examining the key connections between religious fundamentalism and women’s rights, the narrow remit of the inquiry will render it a whitewash; and instead of human rights experts and campaigners, it is to be chaired and advised by theologians. The danger is that the inquiry is setting out with a pre-determined objective that will approve the expansion of the role of Sharia and religious arbitration forums and their jurisdiction over family matters in minority communities, albeit with a little tweaking to make it more palatable to the state.
Theology and human rights are fundamentally opposed. Human rights are human, secular, this world; they’re not about gods or “God.” The problems with religious laws and tribunals are human rights problems, so bringing in theologians to consult on them is quite the wrong way to go about it.
Those of us who work with abused and vulnerable women, largely from Muslim and other religious backgrounds, are alarmed by the prospect of a further slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK. We know that in such systems vulnerable women and children will be even more removed from the protection of the rule of law and governance based on secular citizenship and human rights norms. These are norms that we, along with others worldwide, have struggled to establish within formal domestic and international legal systems.
At a time when we are threatened with the loss of the Human Rights Act, our concerns about the make up and terms of reference of the inquiry raise profound issues of constitutionality, legality and democratic accountability. It is for this reason, that an unprecedented number of women and human rights campaigners from across the world have come together to endorse the following open letter to Theresa May, the UK’s Home Secretary.
Then follows the open letter, which you’ve already seen.
“Theology and human rights are fundamentally opposed.”
I know what you’re saying, but I think maybe that way of putting it causes confusion. They’re not *opposed* in the same sense as light and dark, when you have one the other is necessarily excluded.
They’re not in the same frame of reference.
One is public, the frame of how people treat each other. The other private, something to do with how they live their own lives, such as for instance sex.
How people treat each other, human rights, have to take precedence over private activities. Otherwise my religion can be to kill your religion and the result is there can be no religion at all. But to the extent that private matters don’t harm other humans — which includes women fercryinoutloud — people’s private rules are outside the frame of public laws. They’re not opposed.
It’s the same thinking that applies to governments not legislating against consensual adult sex.
Sex isn’t opposed to human rights (although it can be twisted into that). Religion (in the sense of communing with god(s)) isn’t opposed to human rights, even though it’s mostly used for that so far.
Theology isn’t about how people live their own lives though – it’s about gods or a god. It’s not about morality or ethics as such, although it can be about gods or a god in relation to morality.
My claim that they’re opposed is based on the fact that theology is god-centered and human rights are human-centered. I do think that’s an opposition, in the sense that the two fight with each other.
In other words I wasn’t using “theology” as a synonym for religion, but as The Study of God.
Islamic theology doesn’t distinguish between private and public. It’s not as though most practicing Muslims can park their beliefs just inside the front door before going to work in the morning. Islam is a WHOLE way of life, and so therefore it defines just what ‘human rights’ are.
There are no private/public or State/church dichotomies. Islam has the last say in every last aspect of an individual’s life.