Sudanese trousers woman challenges Sharia code

The trial of Lubna Hussein, a young woman facing 40 lashes for wearing ‘indecent clothing’ in public was adjourned by a Sudanese judge, says The Daily Telegraph.

Miss Hussein, a former journalist and United Nations press officer is expected to learn whether she would be found guilty of committing an indecent act and sentenced to 40 lashes with a camel hair whip inside the Khartoum court.

However, the judges adjourned their verdict until 7 September.

It was apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph, to consult over whether Miss Hussein’s UN job would grant her immunity, reports The Daily Telegraph.

At the time of her arrest, Hussein was working for the media department of the UN mission in Sudan, which gives her immunity from prosecution.

She submitted her resignation after her trial began because she wanted to go on trial to challenge the dress code of the Sharia law, says The Guardian.

Miss Hussein told the Reuters outside the Khartoum court that the judge wants to check with the UN whether she has immunity from prosecution, according to The Daily Telegraph.

“I don’t know why they are doing this because I have already resigned from the United Nations. I think they just want to delay the case,” Miss Hussein said.

The former journalist and UN press officer, who is in her earlier 30s, said she was arrested by the Public Order police for wearing ‘indecent clothing’ when she was in a Khartoum restaurant with 12 other women.

At that point of time, Miss Hussein was wearing a pair of loose green slacks, blouse and a think headscarf, and the rest of the women were also in trousers.

She and the rest of the women were then deemed to have contravened Article 152 of Sudanese law, which punishes with 40 lashes anyone who “commits an indecent act which violates a public morality or wears indecent clothing”.

Ten of the women accepted the punishment of 10 lashes, but Hussein and two others did not.

She says: “"I am not afraid of being flogged. I will not back down,” she told The Sunday Telegraph in her first interview with a Western newspaper.

“I want to stand up for the rights of women, and now the eyes of the world are on this case, I have a chance to draw attention to the plight of women in Sudan.”

Miss Hussein's defiant stand against the charge has gathered wide publicity and has embarrassed Sudan's strict ruling regime, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Women’s groups have argued that the law gives no clear definition of indecent dress, leaving the decision of whether to arrest a woman up to individual police officers.

Miss Hussein then argued wearing trousers does not contravene Sharia, the Islamic law in operation in Muslim northern Sudan.

She went to say “If I’m sentenced to be whipped, or to anything else, I will appeal.

“I will see it through to the end, to the constitutional court if necessary. And if the constitutional court says the law is constitutional, I’m ready to be whipped not 40 but 40,000 times.”

She defiantly appeared in court wearing the same clothes in which she was arrested. She printed 500 invitations to supporters, human rights activists and journalists to attend the hearing.

Should Sharia law be incorporated into British legal system?

The Archbishop of Canterbury told the BBC the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Sharia is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life.

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK has to "face up the facts" that some of the British citizens do not relate to the British legal system. He insists adopting part of the Islamic Sharia law would help to maintain social cohesion.

However, as the Archbishop is reportedly a no stranger to controversy, his argument was quickly followed an uproar.

Conservative leader David Cameron argues it would undermine society and alienate other communities.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said he cannot agree with his successor's opinion, but he defends Dr Williams by saying he should not be forced to quit.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid tribute to the Archbishop’s "great integrity" and "dedication to public and community service", but he said religious law should be subservient to UK law, according to the guardian.

On the other hand, some of the Muslims shared different point of views over should Sharie Law be incorporated into British legal system.

Shaista Gohir, Government Adviser of Muslim Women, told the BBC if the Jewish community have a choice to operate their own courts in the UK, it is not surprising that Muslims are now asking for Sharia courts too. However the debate should also includes "whether any form of religious arbitration should be allowed”.

She said: “I personally think that we should not have Sharia courts as the majority of Muslims do not want it. Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

"Various polls have so far indicated that around 40% want Sharia law. Although this is a significant percentage, why ignore the views of the other 60%?”

Shaista said as UK Muslims are from across the world and therefore very diverse, it is unlikely all Muslims would ever agree to a single interpretation or implementation.

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, told the guardian there was no reason Shaire law’s principles could not be used in mediation as long as it is subject to the “jurisdiction of the English and Welsh court".

He added that Sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" and "It was not very radical to advocate embracing Sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion.

"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

Inayat Bunglawala, from the Muslim Council of Britain, told the BBC Sharia law applied only to civil matters.

He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all.”