I was recently interviewed by Charlotte Glennie of the ABC, for a program on Sharia finance in Australia. I was approached, apparently, as result of some commentary that I’d posted on the issue. The show is about to air soon, or may already have done so. See correspondence below with Charlotte.
Also, below all this, is email to the Deputy Treasurer of Australia, Nick Sherry, who has been promoting Sharia finance. In that I summarise my views against it.
Hi Peter
Just a quick note to say that the sharia financing story is scheduled to run very soon on the ABC’s new 24 hour news channel, on the show The World which screens nightly between 9 and 10pm.
I don’t have an exact screening date – anytime between now and early next week they’re saying – but I’m on leave after today for a week so won’t be able to keep track.
It’s come up well but unfortunately I don’t think it’s possible to watch News 24 in HK. It is streamed online – but only within Australia.
Thanks again for your contribution to it.
Cheers
Charlotte
Just a quick note to say that the sharia financing story is scheduled to run very soon on the ABC’s new 24 hour news channel, on the show The World which screens nightly between 9 and 10pm.
I don’t have an exact screening date – anytime between now and early next week they’re saying – but I’m on leave after today for a week so won’t be able to keep track.
It’s come up well but unfortunately I don’t think it’s possible to watch News 24 in HK. It is streamed online – but only within Australia.
Thanks again for your contribution to it.
Cheers
Charlotte
Thanks Charlotte,
Just to show that it’s not only COWGs — cranky old white guys — concerned with Shariah influence in western countries, I’ve copied below a few quotes from a variety of spokespeople on the issue of Shariah Courts and Tribunals in the UK (“Courts” for short). They are in the latest report by the One Law for All coalition in the UK, headed up by Maryam Namazie, also quoted below.
The sum of the comments is: (a) the Shariah Courts have emerged from fundamentalist politics (as has Shariah finance), (b) many Muslim British women are effectively forced to use the Shariah Courts, instead of existing common-law British courts and (c); the Courts are discriminatory to women and children.
The quotes are from a variety of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims, mostly women. But you’ll note that even the quotes from supporters of Shariah Courts, such as that by Suhaib Hasan, are pretty scary (at least, they’re scary to me, pantywaist that I am....).
The “One Law for All” report on Shariah courts and tribunals in the UK, which came out just a few weeks ago, is well worth reading. It’s a separate, but clearly analogous issue to the Shariah finance one.
You asked “why is Shariah finance becoming so popular amongst Muslims”, and I think the answer is in part because of the increasing Islamic consciousness over recent decades and in part because of the promotion of Shariah finance by those in the industry who have a commercial interest, and who promote it — disingenuously — as a “religious requirement”— eg Mazdian Hussain, the author of the Zaid Ibrahim & Co booklet on Shariah finance quoted by Nick Sherry, says “... Muslims consider and subscribe to Islamic finance as ordained by their faith” (p.3 of Demystifying Islamic finance, May 10)). In fact there is no such “ordaining” by the faith — the very fact that Shariah finance has only existed for 60 years or so attests to that, since Muslims had quite happily used conventional finance for centuries to that time.
Cheers,
Peter
Quotes from One Law for All report “Sharia Law in Britain” June 2010
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/
(numbers at end of each para are footnote numbers in the Report)
In a Channel 4 documentary, Suhaib Hasan, Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Spokesperson of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) at the time, says that if Sharia law was implemented in Britain: “then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal. Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to
commit this crime at all. We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”27
Yassi Atasheen, One Law for All’s Legal Coordinator, says: “This is clearly not mediation; instead, it is taking advantage of a vulnerable woman who has been pressured into attending these courts.”54
Mumtaz Ali who unsuccessfully attempted to establish a Sharia court in Canada’s Province of Ontario a decade ago, says it all: “Once the parties have agreed …they will be committed to it by their prior consent. As a consequence, on religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience, would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract--and this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy.”65
In similar vein, the Islamic Sharia Council of Britain has said of those who criticise Sharia law: “As a Muslim we should know that our religion is perfect without any imperfection as Allah says: ‘this day, I have perfected your religion for you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.’ Therefore, belittling [Sharia laws] or calling them as out-of-date constitutes disbelief…”66
Fariborz Pooya, Chair of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, says: “Sharia law is not voluntary, but rather compulsory by its very nature. To deceptively talk of the voluntary nature of these courts is a means by which Islamic groups give legal cover and pretence to their discrimination. For the government to accept this argument is akin to outsourcing the legal system to Islamic groups. This is
detrimental to, and a betrayal of, the rights of our most vulnerable citizens to being equal before the law.”78
Journalist Rahila Gupta says: “accommodating alternative systems of justice is not about choice or tolerance in a pluralistic society; it is not about Muslim women’s autonomy. These demands emerge from fundamentalist politics - however they are dressed up.” 79
Pragna Patel, a founding member of Southall Black Sisters and Women Against Fundamentalism, says: “Religious personal laws are highly discriminatory and violate women’s fundamental freedoms and rights. They reinforce women’s subjugation within the family and society. Personal religious laws have no place in any society aspiring to be democratic, equal and just. They are antithetical to women’s human rights.”82
Sharia courts are often promoted as an example of “social cohesion.”89 In fact, they are just the opposite. Maryam Namazie says: “Sharia law promotes fragmentation and social conflict. It imposes different standards and norms and a parallel legal system for people deemed “different.” Rather than an expression of social cohesion, Sharia law in Britain is a capitulation to, and an attempt to placate and appease, the Islamists.”90
The philosopher AC Grayling says: “The principle of one law for all, with everyone equal before the law, is a vital one for a genuine democracy. The One Law for All Campaign is doing an urgently needed job of protecting those who, hidden behind the veil of Sharia or other religious ‘courts,’ risk injustice, abuse, and deprivation of rights.”92
Just to show that it’s not only COWGs — cranky old white guys — concerned with Shariah influence in western countries, I’ve copied below a few quotes from a variety of spokespeople on the issue of Shariah Courts and Tribunals in the UK (“Courts” for short). They are in the latest report by the One Law for All coalition in the UK, headed up by Maryam Namazie, also quoted below.
The sum of the comments is: (a) the Shariah Courts have emerged from fundamentalist politics (as has Shariah finance), (b) many Muslim British women are effectively forced to use the Shariah Courts, instead of existing common-law British courts and (c); the Courts are discriminatory to women and children.
The quotes are from a variety of Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims, mostly women. But you’ll note that even the quotes from supporters of Shariah Courts, such as that by Suhaib Hasan, are pretty scary (at least, they’re scary to me, pantywaist that I am....).
The “One Law for All” report on Shariah courts and tribunals in the UK, which came out just a few weeks ago, is well worth reading. It’s a separate, but clearly analogous issue to the Shariah finance one.
You asked “why is Shariah finance becoming so popular amongst Muslims”, and I think the answer is in part because of the increasing Islamic consciousness over recent decades and in part because of the promotion of Shariah finance by those in the industry who have a commercial interest, and who promote it — disingenuously — as a “religious requirement”— eg Mazdian Hussain, the author of the Zaid Ibrahim & Co booklet on Shariah finance quoted by Nick Sherry, says “... Muslims consider and subscribe to Islamic finance as ordained by their faith” (p.3 of Demystifying Islamic finance, May 10)). In fact there is no such “ordaining” by the faith — the very fact that Shariah finance has only existed for 60 years or so attests to that, since Muslims had quite happily used conventional finance for centuries to that time.
Cheers,
Peter
Quotes from One Law for All report “Sharia Law in Britain” June 2010
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/
(numbers at end of each para are footnote numbers in the Report)
In a Channel 4 documentary, Suhaib Hasan, Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Spokesperson of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) at the time, says that if Sharia law was implemented in Britain: “then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal. Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to
commit this crime at all. We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”27
Yassi Atasheen, One Law for All’s Legal Coordinator, says: “This is clearly not mediation; instead, it is taking advantage of a vulnerable woman who has been pressured into attending these courts.”54
Mumtaz Ali who unsuccessfully attempted to establish a Sharia court in Canada’s Province of Ontario a decade ago, says it all: “Once the parties have agreed …they will be committed to it by their prior consent. As a consequence, on religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out at this stage, for reasons of convenience, would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract--and this could be tantamount to blasphemy-apostasy.”65
In similar vein, the Islamic Sharia Council of Britain has said of those who criticise Sharia law: “As a Muslim we should know that our religion is perfect without any imperfection as Allah says: ‘this day, I have perfected your religion for you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.’ Therefore, belittling [Sharia laws] or calling them as out-of-date constitutes disbelief…”66
Fariborz Pooya, Chair of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, says: “Sharia law is not voluntary, but rather compulsory by its very nature. To deceptively talk of the voluntary nature of these courts is a means by which Islamic groups give legal cover and pretence to their discrimination. For the government to accept this argument is akin to outsourcing the legal system to Islamic groups. This is
detrimental to, and a betrayal of, the rights of our most vulnerable citizens to being equal before the law.”78
Journalist Rahila Gupta says: “accommodating alternative systems of justice is not about choice or tolerance in a pluralistic society; it is not about Muslim women’s autonomy. These demands emerge from fundamentalist politics - however they are dressed up.” 79
Pragna Patel, a founding member of Southall Black Sisters and Women Against Fundamentalism, says: “Religious personal laws are highly discriminatory and violate women’s fundamental freedoms and rights. They reinforce women’s subjugation within the family and society. Personal religious laws have no place in any society aspiring to be democratic, equal and just. They are antithetical to women’s human rights.”82
Sharia courts are often promoted as an example of “social cohesion.”89 In fact, they are just the opposite. Maryam Namazie says: “Sharia law promotes fragmentation and social conflict. It imposes different standards and norms and a parallel legal system for people deemed “different.” Rather than an expression of social cohesion, Sharia law in Britain is a capitulation to, and an attempt to placate and appease, the Islamists.”90
The philosopher AC Grayling says: “The principle of one law for all, with everyone equal before the law, is a vital one for a genuine democracy. The One Law for All Campaign is doing an urgently needed job of protecting those who, hidden behind the veil of Sharia or other religious ‘courts,’ risk injustice, abuse, and deprivation of rights.”92
Hi Peter
Thanks for the interview you spoke very well and clearly!
It’s a shame the ABC’s budget doesn’t extend to sending a proper cameraman out to interview you as skype is of course not the best quality, but being free it does have its advantages.
I’ll be in touch with anymore questions and I’ll let you know closer to the time when the story is going to air as well.
Best
Charlotte
Email to Stephen Smith, Assistant Treasurer, Australia
7th July 2010
Dear Mr Smith,
I understand you may possibly be interviewed soon on the subject of Sharia or Islamic finance in Australia. Sharia finance was promoted by your colleague Simon Crean at the publication of the Austrade pamphlet “Islamic Finance” in January this year, and in several recent speeches by Senator Nick Sherry. My comments on these are in the attached pdf’s.
I urge you to slow down or stop the government’s promotion of Sharia finance in Australia.
In sum, my arguments against Shariah finance are:
I understand you may possibly be interviewed soon on the subject of Sharia or Islamic finance in Australia. Sharia finance was promoted by your colleague Simon Crean at the publication of the Austrade pamphlet “Islamic Finance” in January this year, and in several recent speeches by Senator Nick Sherry. My comments on these are in the attached pdf’s.
I urge you to slow down or stop the government’s promotion of Sharia finance in Australia.
In sum, my arguments against Shariah finance are:
1. Separation of religion and state: Australia as a secular democracy should not be in the business of promoting any religiously-based finance system. In the UK, the Financial Services Administration has said that: “The FSA’s attitude towards Shariah finance is that they will not provide any hindrances for it, nor will they provide any encouragement. This is because the FSA is secular in nature and not a religious regulator.”
The Australian government would be wise to take a similar stance, in my view.
2. Costs: if we are to promote Sharia finance, not only do our tax laws have to change, but also our our property laws, our insolvency laws and our security laws all have to change. These major changes are outlined in the booklet “Demystifying Islamic Finance” [1], by proponents of Sharia finance, Zaid Ibrahim & Co, referred to by Senator Sherry in his May 2010 speech. The booklet says this will be “the first step in what should be a long journey”, and further, that “in countries where a comprehensive review and reform of the whole legal and regulatory framework is not undertaken, they will find their Islamic finance industry to remain surrounded by legal landmines” [p21]. In other words, if a top-to-bottom review and reform is not undertaken, expect a bonanza for lawyers in litigation.
Why should the Australian public purse bear the costs of this top-to-bottom review and reform? At at time when the public service should be focussing its energies on simplification of the tax system?
Indeed, this one factor — costs of change to the legal & regulatory framework, even as outlined by a proponent of Sharia finance -- should wave very large red flags to us, surely.
3. The alleged benefits are bogus: “ethical”, “socially inclusive”, “interest-free”, all evanesce on closer inspection.
4. Links to terrorist finance: There are clear and substantial links between Muslim charities and finance of terrorist organisations. Sharia finance is implicated because it must donate to Muslim charity (aka Zakat). Nick Sherry dismisses this link, but the link is proven.
5. The thin end of the wedge argument: it’s almost certain that if we go along with Sharia finance, there will be calls for Sharia courts and tribunals as they already have in the UK. For the downsides of these, see a recent report of Maryam Namazie’s One Law for All. [2]. Ms Namazie and human rights campaigner Gita Sahgal point out what is wrong with “just a little bit of Sharia”, in a recent Guardian article [3].
The Australian government would be wise to take a similar stance, in my view.
2. Costs: if we are to promote Sharia finance, not only do our tax laws have to change, but also our our property laws, our insolvency laws and our security laws all have to change. These major changes are outlined in the booklet “Demystifying Islamic Finance” [1], by proponents of Sharia finance, Zaid Ibrahim & Co, referred to by Senator Sherry in his May 2010 speech. The booklet says this will be “the first step in what should be a long journey”, and further, that “in countries where a comprehensive review and reform of the whole legal and regulatory framework is not undertaken, they will find their Islamic finance industry to remain surrounded by legal landmines” [p21]. In other words, if a top-to-bottom review and reform is not undertaken, expect a bonanza for lawyers in litigation.
Why should the Australian public purse bear the costs of this top-to-bottom review and reform? At at time when the public service should be focussing its energies on simplification of the tax system?
Indeed, this one factor — costs of change to the legal & regulatory framework, even as outlined by a proponent of Sharia finance -- should wave very large red flags to us, surely.
3. The alleged benefits are bogus: “ethical”, “socially inclusive”, “interest-free”, all evanesce on closer inspection.
4. Links to terrorist finance: There are clear and substantial links between Muslim charities and finance of terrorist organisations. Sharia finance is implicated because it must donate to Muslim charity (aka Zakat). Nick Sherry dismisses this link, but the link is proven.
5. The thin end of the wedge argument: it’s almost certain that if we go along with Sharia finance, there will be calls for Sharia courts and tribunals as they already have in the UK. For the downsides of these, see a recent report of Maryam Namazie’s One Law for All. [2]. Ms Namazie and human rights campaigner Gita Sahgal point out what is wrong with “just a little bit of Sharia”, in a recent Guardian article [3].
Yours Sincerely
Peter f,
Peter f,
