I’m just making a point of logic here, using the following case. (The details don’t matter).
- Muslim leader loses Sharia law fight over divorce settlement
- You can’t use sharia law in divorce deal: Muslim hospital consultant told to pay ex-wife maintenance despite claims he owes her nothing under Islamic rules
Dr Al-Saffar said after the case: …. ‘Family law in this country is biased against Muslim people.’
No! In this case, UK Family Law was in favour of equality for Muslim women.
- It is often a case that equality laws are biased against specific religious positions, and so can be interpreted as anti-Christianity or anti-Islam.
- But those same laws are not therefore anti-people, and can’t be interpreted as anti-Christian or anti-Muslim. They are pro some people and anti others in those religions.
Only people who consider that the only people of prime concern are men, and typically straight men, and that all the others are 2nd class and not as worthy of consideration, would claim that such policies and laws are biased against the people of that religion.
This is an extension of a point I and others have made elsewhere:
Although we are often concerned about the impact of a religion on those outside that religion,
often many or most of the victims of a religion are the followers of that religion.