Concluding Remarks

The debate around “sharia courts” - including the criticism of their actions by the media and the discussions held in the House of Lords - tends not to differentiate between the various institutions involved and the wide range of cases, procedures and situations of the clients that the institutions work with.

In fact the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal - just like shari^ta councils - facili­tates Islamic divorces or marriage dissolutions. Questions that arise around family and matrimonial issues really constitute most of mat's daily tasks.

Religious marriages are not recognised by the English state, unless they are performed at registered places in the UK,^[181] in which case they are equally regarded as civil marriages. Any couple without a civil marriage counts as co­habitees and thus Islamic divorces or the dissolution of Islamic marriages have no legal impact from the point of view of English law. Muslim wives often wish to end their religious marriage according to their religious beliefs, however, which enables them to gain the acceptance of their family and community. Facilitating Islamic divorces and marriage dissolutions does hence constitute a valuable service for Muslim wives who have no other authority in the UK to turn to in these matters but shari^ta councils or mat.

Domestic violence often plays a role in marital disputes brought before such institutions and is one main reason given by clients wanting mat to dissolve their Islamic marriage. Alongside shari^ta councils, mat is accused of taking these cases on at all - which it does, as Siddiqi freely admits and explains. Arbitration is not used in these cases, he says. But according to English legal principles any form of alternative dispute resolution may be inappropriate, as immediate access to court shall be facilitated. mat says that it does not handle “extreme” cases and leaves these to the police and English courts.

Another accusation against “sharia courts” by the media and some politi­cians is that they were giving victims the impression as though prosecution of domestic violence was not an option or not likely to be successful and that these institutions were thus frustrating criminal prosecution. The fact that mat has erased the offer to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to drop charges after having managed to reconcile a couple, when domestic violence was an issue in the relationship, from its website appears in keeping with the values and principles publicly promoted by mat.

As shown above, “falsely claiming legal jurisdiction” is an aspect that could be relevant if mat did not clarify the nature of procedures to its clients. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is the only Muslim institution in the UK that claims to perform arbitrations in accordance with both Islamic principles and the requirements of the Arbitration Act 1996. The institution acts under the name Muslim “Arbitration” Tribunal in all its cases although only about 10% of those are actually determined by arbitration, the rest being mediation, mat­rimonial issues and Islamic divorce and marriage dissolution. Siddiqi and his colleague were not able to give exact numbers of how many cases have in fact been arbitrated or mediated there or how many divorces they facilitate.

mat strives to present itself as an institution working with young experts of English and Islamic law alike. It says it endures being criticised by the commu­nity’s own elders for advocating women’s rights,^[182] which mainly relates to di­vorce and marriage dissolution procedures. The institution makes an effort of showing that it respects and applies English law. Its website gives the full text of the Arbitration Act 1996 as well as mat’s own procedure rules, so that clients can inform themselves in advance about what they are going to agree to. Most of the procedure rules and standards that Siddiqi and his staff elaborated on during the interviews meet the provisions and requirements of English legis­lature on alternative dispute resolution. But there are also some aspects which seem problematic and have been subject to heavy criticism.

One of these issues usually criticised about mat's arbitration cases con­cerns the rules of evidence which mat only specifies as being those of Islamic law. While according to the Arbitration Act 1996, any decision concerning evidential matters lies with the tribunal, mat introduces by using evidence rules of Islamic law a provision that actually holds male and female testimony unequal - which is clearly discriminatory against women. mat argues that using their services is voluntary, so that no woman has to submit to its arbitral jurisdiction. In my opinion, however, denying women the capability of being accurate in their testimony, likewise if they are not personally affected by the results of a decision when acting as a witness and only being third party to a dispute, generally contradicts mat's attempts at being a modern and edu­cated institution established in the UK, accrediting English law, and want­ing to be an integral part of the country's infrastructure: how can mat - as it proudly does - employ women as scholars, lawyers or mediators, deciding on arbitration cases or helping clients mediate their disputes alongside their male colleagues, when at the same time their own testimony would not be deemed sufficient in financial and business disputes? While provisions against any discrimination on grounds of sex are well positioned in the Equality Act 2010, it does not list arbitration tribunals or mediators amongst the authorities to which it applies.^{[183] [184] [185] [186] The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill could, by introducing the prohibition of such discrimination in the context of arbitration and mediation procedures into the Equality Act 2010 as well as the Arbitration Act 1996 make a statement to underline its importance.}

On the whole, mat's procedure rules seem somewhat abstract to me - which could result from the fact that observation was denied by mat and the actual course of procedures and hearings is hardly exemplified by real cases. The institution lets researchers come in for interviews, and interview time was generously given. However, they did not facilitate for me (and other research­ers) to witness any hearings or see any case files, as these were said to be con­fidential and clients usually not prepared to have any third persons attend.^⁷ The restrained reaction of Siddiqi's assistant to my request on seeing some case files lets me share Bowen's view that for many cases, there simply are no regular case files. Especially if cases come in as mere consultations and then turn out to need an arbitral decision, this is most likely done informally, with­out the parties having filed an application form, although definitely featuring a written arbitration agreement.^{[187] [188] Bowen managed to interview some clients, but was not himself allowed into their hearings, either.189 Siddiqi claims to be very open and transparent, though, criticising in fact that many articles and programmes about mat are created without even talking to them. In line with this, mat did agree to let the BBC do a programme including filming on the premises and in Siddiqi's office. Apart from that, mat has been hugely dis­cussed about, but not appeared in the media very often. It is also noticeable that to the best of my knowledge no decision by mat has ever been taken to court either for judicial review or for enforcement. Therefore, there is no evi­dence to be found in court records either.}

Based on this state of information, the evaluation of the combination of Islamic and English law by mat rests on a dissatisfying empirical foundation. At the same time it seems questionable whether the highly emotional debate on the legal effects of mat's actions was worthwhile, given the assumption that arbitration procedures are just a minor part of its business.