Sharia Law In Britain: Hey, Whatever

While a debate over gay marriage rages in the U.S. and Canada grapples, very publicly, with the implications of introducing aspects of Islamic Sharia law into civil cases (the thin end of a head-hacking wedge, if you ask us), in Britain the definition of marriage is about to change without any public consultation whatsoever:

'THE Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine "family friendly" representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran.'

At the moment, having more than one wife (or husband, though this isn't a problem for Muslim men, for whom polygamy only cuts one way) is regarded as bigamy. Muslims already avoid prosecution for this offence, with their extra 'wives' being downgraded to the status of mistresses.

If the Inland Revenue get their way, however, this will no longer be true. Muslims and other groups will have leeway to ask why, if they are already getting tax breaks on polygamous marriages, these marriages cannot be recognised in law. And indeed, they would have a point. It makes no sense to recognise a person as a spouse for tax purposes, while arguing they are not one in reality. Any such change in tax laws needs to be worded with great care to avoid this trap.

But there is another, more serious, consequence to this change in policy, and no amount of shrewd legalise will be able to deflect the damage it causes. If there are changes to taxation based on Islamic belief, Britain has, by definition, accepted that Sharia law and English law should be merged. This point is welcomed by Muslims:

'Sadiq Khan, a leading Muslim politician, said: "I am pleased to see the Inland Revenue applying common sense to the application of Islamic law on uncontroversial matters such as inheritance.

"There are some other uncontroversial areas of Islam law which could easily be applied to the legal system we have in the UK."

He insisted there was no question of pressing for the introduction of sharia’s criminal code "where people are flogged or have their hands chopped off". He said: "This is not the thin edge of the wedge."

Of course it isn't. The thin end was when the Inland Revenue chose to look at *any* aspect of Sharia law with something other than the contempt it deserves. Now that we're at the stage of seriously contemplating a merger between our legal system and Sharia, the wedge we worry about (but Sadiq and the Inland Revenue clearly don't) has thickened quite considerably.

Because this isn't some sort of legal buffet, where we wander around picking up the morsels that look the tastiest to us at the time.

Some people actually put some thought into this stuff, you know.

English law, for instance, is secular. It stands to one side of religion and treats all citizens as equals.

Sharia, on the other hand, is nothing more than religious dogma; a set of arbitrary rules devised by an Arab who heard the voice of an angel while sitting in a cave. What's more, Sharia doesn't treat people equally -- It is deeply partisan, skewed heavily in favour of Muslims.

English law is, by definition, subject to change. *People* decide what they want, and give governments a mandate to make those changes. It is designed to respond to social progress and find solutions to the problems we face as human beings living at the start of the 21st century.

Sharia law, on the other hand, is fixed, immutable. It locks its adherents into small, mean circles of behaviour that have not changed since the 6th century. Rather than responding to human need, Sharia *dictates* what those needs will be, for now, and, presumably, forevermore.

To suggest that these two legal systems have any common ground at all is, frankly, ridiculous. To do so on the grounds that oversexed Muslim men would like a few tax breaks is just sad.