Disturbing submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) to a national parliamentary committee.
THE nation’s peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government’s re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more moderate variety of Islamic law that fits with Australian values.
This is bad news for Muslims in Australia.
This obviates the religious-socio-economic-military history of Islam. It is a return to Mohammad’s founding of the Islamic nation. Theocracy trumps democracy.
Muslims who feel alienated in Australia will feel increasingly so if they seek a separate legal apparatus, initially limited, to settle their affairs.
But as Tom of Melbourne (1:13 pm today) comments Sharia Law poses many questions and challenges that go to the very basis of Australian society:
Such a system is flawed, as there is no means by which to determine whether or not a person is ‘muslim’ and in turn whether or not they are subject to sharia law. If a person moves away from Islam, do they have to register that they are no longer a muslim. Whats to stop someone claiming that they are not a muslim to escape sharia law? What about moderate muslims who do not embrace all the particular doctrines of Islam? Far too many ‘what ifs’. Such systems have proven problematic in plural nations such as Malaysia. Australian law is the only law for Australians.
Article, Muslims to push for sharia.
I believe all Australians must be subject to the same legislative, legal and judicial system.
This topic is treated on depth in Parts 2 and 4 of Islam: Human Rights and Public Policy, David Claydon (Editor), Acorn Press, Brunswick 2009 This website also includes a review by Moyra Dale which says in part,
In particular it(the book) explores the compatibility of Sharia law with western systems of law, and why Sharia is given priority over western systems or universal declarations when the inevitable clashes happen. …
While the range of issues and perspectives is varied, the overall effect is to give a richness of contribution to a complex area of public discussion and policy. Islam does not separate between religion and government, and is vindicated by being in power. This brings critical questions about its interface with non-Muslim citizens and governments. I recommend the book for people wanting to understand and engage in the debate.
A lengthier review by Richard Shumack, Islam and Western Politics: A Delicate Dance, comments,
First are the political implications of the explicit rejection by traditional Islam of Secularism—and indeed any notion of a separation of religion and politics. The essays on this by Kit Wiley (Human Rights, Sharia Law and the Western Concept of Democracy) and John Azumah (The Sharia – Islamic Law) argue that Islam cannot be engaged with simply as a religion: the Sharia speaks individually and socially without distinction. They recognize that Islam maintains provisions for Muslims living as a minority faith in a non-Muslim country to abide by the laws of their context, however they point out this is not the Islamic ideal. Islamist agendas are clearly to, in time, replace secular states with Sharia ruled theocracies. It is recognized that there are different legal schools within Islam, but what is emphasized is the clear incompatibility of conservative schools of Sharia with Western democracy. These essays alone are worth the read.
A key theme for Australia: What is multicultural and multifaith Australia?
Having just posted this, I note that the Attorney General Mr McClelland said is no place for Sharia Law in Australian society and the Government strongly rejects any proposal for its introduction.
“As our citizenship pledge makes clear, coming to Australia means obeying Australian laws and upholding Australian values,” he said.
“Australia’s brand of multiculturalism promotes integration. If there is any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law then Australian law wins out.”
See, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/muslims-use-multiculturalism-to-push-for-sharia/story-fn59niix-1226057476571
Mark Durie has details of the AFIC submission, Attorney General’s rsponse and Mark’s commentary all with helpful links. Australia Gets It Right on Sharia Implementation,
http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2011/05/australia-gets-it-right-on-sharia.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MarkduriecomBlog+%28markdurie.com+blog%29
Keysar Trad is a very accomplished spokesperson for Islam in Sydney and in this article he presents the case for Sharia Law in Australia. His article has received 347 comments many of which are over the top but some intersting comment from Muslims.
He leads with the chin in opening paragraph and then understates’Sharia’ in the second.
Rather than tackle the issue I am sad to say that the comments are terribly anti – Muslim in the main. A helpful comment, however, from ‘Frustrated Muslim’ is at 19 May 7.04.30 pm.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2718918.html
Two professors of law argue that sharia law would see the end of parliamentary democracy and and the rule of law.
“But even if Australia’s imams design a moderate form of sharia, one that is perfectly attuned with Australian values, the entire concept is still riddled with problems.
“The reason this proposal has united Zifcak and Flint is because the application of sharia would mean winding back the rule of law.
“At its core, this principle means that the normal law, applied in the normal courts, should apply to everyone equally. And the normal law is made by parliament and the judiciary, not priests or imams.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/goodbye-to-rights-under-sharia/story-e6frg6z6-1226057780469
Attorney-General McClelland has it right, as a citizen of Australia we are either born into or agree to uphold the law of Australia even if we disagree with any part of it. The concept of differing laws for different groups in our community has been raised at other times and the conclusion has always been that such an arrangement would inevitably result in a break down in national unity.
Australia is a secular country with a secular law making body. This allows for groups within it to have their own rules provided they do not clash with the law.
Allowing any group to establish and enforce its own laws is tantamount to dividing the state and that would be disastrous for all of us.
Here is an excerpt from an interview with Attorney General McClelland today on this subjext. The interviewers are well known journalists who write regularly for the Australian.
PAUL KELLY: We heard a submission this week from the Islamic Councils to introduce Sharia law into Australia. What’s your response to this as a matter of principle?
McCLELLAND: Look, as a matter of principle the reason people come to Australia is because of our vibrant democracy underpinned by the rule of law – and in terms of multiculturalism, when it comes to the legal system we have one culture and that’s the Australian legal system.
So there is no way there will be any change to our legal system. It’s based on eight hundred years of heritage and indeed it’s why our country is so desirable for others seeking to come here.
PAUL KELLY: So there will be no compromise on this?
McCLELLAND: There will be no compromise on that. That rule of law is so fundamental to our democracy, to our tolerant society, to our engagement and communication and regulation. It is absolutely fundamental.
CHRIS MERRITT: Is it just a separate body of Sharia law that you’re against or are you against Sharia principles totally being incorporated in any manner under the Australian legal system?
McCLELLAND: The Sharia principles will not be incorporated into the Australian legal system. There are some groups who have their own informal dispute resolution bodies that are based around their churches in Australia. None of these can surpass or supplant Australian law.
They can’t, through those bodies, contract out of Australian law. Now they can have some informal dispute resolution techniques regarding commercial law matter, business law matters and so forth to try and accommodate each other but at the end of the day if there is any conflict at all the Australian law and the Australian legal system prevails.
CHRIS MERRITT: Are you worried that this submission doesn’t accept or doesn’t appear to understand fundamental basic civics?
McCLELLAND: I think more could be done in the area of civics education generally and I certainly think more could be done in terms of those who are new arrivals to Australia to inform them of our heritage and of the value of the rule of law, the fundamental importance of the rule of law and our legal system, how it operates.
I think there is a case for more resource and more effort to be put in that area but it really – before people comment on these issues they really should do it from a position of information.
PAUL KELLY: But Attorney, there’s a deep problem, isn’t there, because all this goes to multiculturalism? I mean the submission here is about multiculturalism. There’s confusion in the community about what multiculturalism means and the argument here is that because we subscribe to multiculturalism therefore we should be prepared to accept elements of Sharia law. Isn’t that the real problem?
McCLELLAND: We have a vibrant multicultural community. When it comes to our legal system however we have only one culture and that’s what people need to accept and that culture is at the heart of the operation of our democracy, our thoughts and so forth.
PAUL KELLY: Well does that mean that multiculturalism doesn’t apply in the legal system?
McCLELLAND: Yes, it certainly means multiculturalism does not apply in the legal system. We have one legal system, it’s based on the heritage we have going back to the period…
PAUL KELLY: Well this is a new doctrine. This is an important new doctrine surely.
McCLELLAND: Our legal system is the legal system we’ve inherited. We have applied it in the broad through our constitutional principles that go back to the Westminster system. A bit from the United States, a bit from Switzerland, modified and adopted and brought up to date over the past 110 years through our courts.
VAN ONSELEN: What about for indigenous Australians, is the Government more tolerant of Aboriginals having elements of their own sentencing and circle law and so forth than perhaps people coming from abroad that might want to institute something like Sharia law?
McCLELLAND: Again if there is any conflict between customs, even Aboriginal customs and the Australian legal system, the Australian legal system will prevail. Now there…
VAN ONSELEN: But is there a yardstick here where there’s more tolerance perhaps because they’re indigenous Australians than from people coming from overseas.
McCLELLAND: Cultural – background issues of cultural heritage are specifically recognised in legislation, very relevant of course to the whole native title framework. Not so much relevance in the criminal justice system but in those broader issues of heritage and native title and so forth then the legal system does recognise that.
I thought that might be of interest to your readers.
Many thanks, Philip.