The idea that Sharia should be incorporated into family law has become commonplace in several European countries, where leaders seem to think it is a moderate concession that might appease Muslim immigrants. As far as they’re concerned, imposing Sharia is like a choice of law provision in a contract.
Of course this fails to recognize judges have traditionally invalidated such provisions when at odds with public policy. And such concerns are on full display when European judges have applied Sharia. Consider a German case last year in which a judge denied a divorce to a battered woman, because the Koran sanctioned such abuse. Or in France, where a judge recently granted an annulment, because the bride wasn’t a virgin. These judges gave Sharia preference over their society’s interest in preventing violence against women and encouraging marriage. Although Lord Phillips rules out the application of Sharia in criminal cases, some of his colleagues in the British law enforcement community appear less certain that even this modest limitation is justified. Imagine for a moment the implications of their proposal: Homicide within the Muslim community might be excused when an honor killing is at issue. Ditto for domestic abuse. Maybe British judges will exempt girls of all ages from public education requirements; after all, the education of women is suspect to some Muslims. The real solution is to let Muslims know they will be treated like full and equal citizens. That means enforcing general laws phrased in neutral terms, because Muslims are more likely to assimilate if they are treated the same way than if countries just carve out exceptions for them under the ridiculous pretext that refusing to do so constitutes discrimination. So long as liberals privilege multiculturalism over a commitment to human rights, this cannot happen. Things don’t look good either. Rarely a week goes by without reports of school boys being disciplined for not praying to Allah. We don’t make neighbors of Muslim immigrants with such policies–we give them the upper-hand.
