HOME
| This is an educational site about Sharia, as such you find both criticism and appreciation of parts of the Sharia. Please read the Genesis of Sharia first

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

For Justice’s Sake in India - Triple Talaq needs to go

Triple Talaq needs to go | www.ShariaLaws.com

Once again, this is a golden opportunity for Muslims to come together and reflect on the evil practice of triple talaq (divorce) and get rid of this misogynistic custom and go back to the Quranic principles of separation and a waiting period of three months (measurement of time) to ensure that justice, mercy and fairness principles of Islam are not compromised.

Triple Talaq happens when a pissed off husband can shout out the word Talaq (divorce) three times to end the marriage in a flash. Dubai even allows text message divorce, what a shame!  The wife is put on the street, there is no value to the relationship? Once anger is so much more important than the relationship.  This is certainly not Islamic, not Quranic and not the practice of Prophet Muhammad, who was a mercy to mankind.  Ending the relationship abruptly over irreconcilable differences is cruel.  Islam protects the rights of women, and the right to livelihood is one of them.

There is huge movement among Muslims women in India to rid of this practice. No religious scholar has the courage to take a stand, every one is afraid of what the other scholars will say to them. What can they say, it is not in the Quran.

If we don't do the right thing voluntarily, with enough Muslim women taking the stand, and Muslim men supporting it, Triple Talaq will be replaced by UCC which sounds bad, but is good, as it protects the rights of dependents far better than the falsified Sharia in practice. Parts of the Sharia that is practiced is not God's Sharia or Prophet's Sunnah - Can God be unjust and Prophet be unmerciful? 


Please visit www.ShariaLaws.com and check out the articles on the topic, particularly "Genesis of Sharia" and "Fixing Sharia Laws."

Islam is about justness, kindness and fairness, and if these elements are missing, we have to restore them, it is the responsibility of all humanity. 

This is a good piece and I am with it 100%. 

Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com
www.MuslimSpeaker.com 
# # # 

For Justice’s Sake

The apex court has the opportunity to enforce the true Islamic law on divorce.
Courtesy - Indian Express


Written by Tahir Mahmood | Published:March 22, 2016 12:01 am
supreme court, Islamic law on divorce, Muslim divorce law, muslim group, Islamic organisation, human rights, identity rights, personal law, judicial legislation, india news, nation newsThe Supreme Court of India.
Bai Tahira, Fuzlunbi, Zohra Khatoon, Shah Bano, Shamim Ara, Iqbal Bano, Khatoon Nisa, Shabana Bano, Shamima Farooqui. This is not a list of female Muslim names taken from Wikipedia but hapless victims of the Muslim law on “triple divorce” who have, since 1976, fought legal cases right up to the Supreme Court to secure measly amounts of money for their sustenance. The stories of their miseries are etched in the pages of the law reports of India.
The latest among the countless Muslim women in the country suffering the pang of “talaq, talaq, talaq” is Saira Bano, who is now before the apex court. Instead of traditionally invoking judicial mercy of ordering the divorcing husband to pay her maintenance, she has boldly challenged the constitutional validity of his action of kicking her out by using the so-called triple divorce formula. Entertaining her plea on February 29, the court has sought the government’s response.
The practice of talaq was most certainly not introduced by Islam; it was rampant in the Arab society of the time and Islam tried to gradually reform in a very humane way. There is nothing in the law of Islam that suggests that the husband is free to pronounce talaq in an irrational or unreasonable manner. It allows talaq, subject to several conditions that are of a dissuasive nature, their purpose being to discourage
the husband from exercising his right without careful consideration.
The Quran enjoins men not to act in haste and to coolly think before deciding on talaq, since “you may dislike something about your wife but, maybe, God has put in her some good for you.” There is nothing in the holy book that shows this provision is discretionary.
Just like nikah, talaq too is not just a word the mere utterance of which will terminate the marriage, but a procedure which must be meticulously followed. Only if all the prescribed steps of this procedure have been duly undertaken will a marriage be dissolved. Unfortunately, traditional interpreters of Muslim law give effect to a talaq pronounced by a man even in sheer violation of the true Islamic law and procedure for divorce, calling it talaq-ul-bidat (innovative divorce). According to them, a talaq-ul-bidat is “sinful but effective” — a strange proposition rendered into English as “bad in theology but good in law.”
If, after pronouncing a talaq-ul-bidat, a husband wants to reunite with his divorced wife, a wholly unlawful practice, based on a very distorted view of the concept of halala, is to be followed. Halala is, in fact, a concept very different from what it is erroneously believed to be. The rule takes care of the rare eventuality of a thrice-divorced woman remarrying but ending up with a failed marriage once again. It is certainly not meant to force a divorced woman to suffer the indignity of sleeping for a while with someone else before returning to the man who has inflicted on her the cruelty of unilateral talaq not recognised by the Quran. Halala, as practised in India, is clearly repugnant
to the fundamental duty of citizens to “renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
The laws in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, the Philippines, Sudan, Syria, the UAE and Yemen have totally recognised the concepts of triple talaq and halala. It is high time India followed suit and saved countless Muslim families from devastation. The judiciary must act in the matter as no legislative reform seems possible.
If Saira Bano’s plea, now before the Supreme Court, is accepted, there will be nothing “un-Islamic” about it. On the contrary, the court would be enforcing the true Islamic law on divorce and answering the Quran’s call for absolute justice and fairness in society.
The writer, a distinguished jurist, is professor of eminence and honorary chairman, Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

POLITICS Heidi Cruz: My Husband Is Here To Bring Christian Sharia Law To America

Oops, I thought Collin Taylor beat me to writing a similar article. I am glad he did not, and I will finish my article on Christian Sharia.

Mike Ghouse


Courtesy - Occupy Democrats

Religious extremism, once been relegated to the fringe of American politics, has broken through and now is a policy platform for Republican presidential candidates. Championed by Ted Cruz, his campaign is an affront to the Constitution that he claims to love so dearly and the religious pluralism that our nation was founded on. It’s a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who don’t happen to follow Cruz’s perverse interpretation of fundamentalist Southern Baptist Christianity.
Cruz’s wife, Heidi Cruz, made some extremely alarming remarks to South Carolina radio host Vince Coakley, in which she asserted that her husband was uniquely able to deliver a “combination of the law and religion,” which sounds alarmingly like a Christian version of the sharia law that Cruz was so terrified about Muslims imposing on Texas:

Explaining why she is supporting and campaigning for her husband, Heidi Cruz said “we are at a cultural crossroads in our country” and that she feels she and her husband “can be in this race to show this country the face of the God that we serve — this Christian God that we serve is the foundation of our country, our country was built on Judeo-Christian values, we are a nation of freedom of religion, but the God of Christianity is the God of freedom, of individual liberty, of choice and of consequence.

She went on to say that, “I think that’s something that this country really needs to be reminded of, is that Christians are loving people, are nonjudgmental people, but there is right and wrong, we have a country of law and order, there are consequences to actions and we must all live peaceably in our own faiths under the Constitution. And Ted is uniquely able to deliver on that combination of the law and religion.”

It is astonishing to see a presidential candidate openly espousing the end of separation of church and state, and it’s why Ted Cruz’s candidacy is so dangerous. If he somehow gets elected, we could see our nation of tolerance and diversity turn into a Republic of Gilead-style theocracy, and he’s not even being shy about it. This is a man who insists that he swears to defend the Constitution but then proclaims that our rights come from God; who took to the podium following his primary win in Iowa and yelled what was essentially the English equivalent of Allahu Ackbarwho manufactures the false narrative of “Christianity under attack” and swearing to defend “religious liberty” while working to deny those freedoms to members of other religions.


He’s the kind of false Christian who would shut his doors to Syrian children fleeing Russian bombs and chlorine gas; the kind who would openly endorses torturous waterboarding, the kind who goes to Flint, Michigan, to hand out clean water only to anti-abortion religious centers. He’s the kind of man who defends his endorsement from a preacher who said Hitler was a “hunter sent by God,” or that other endorsement by a man with links to white supremacy groups. This despicable man must not be allowed anywhere near the White House if we are to preserve the integrity of our union and our Constitution.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

India: Sharia Law Questioned AG Noorani

In an article “Hindutva’s stick” AG Noorani wrote a lot of fascinating things about Indian Personal Laws,  and I am focusing on the Sharia aspect of it, as I had written similar sentences in another article, both are presented here.
“The real issue is not the civil code. It is reform of Muslim Personal Law, which flagrantly violates the Sharia, the law ordained by the Quran. The perverted law now in force is oppressive to women, specifically the arbitrary triple divorce and polygamy. It is not Sharia that is followed in this but the “Anglo-Muhammadan” law of British times. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is in the grip of dinosaurs. A besieged community is a conservative community. It clings to what is left of its identity. Since Independence, the Muslim community has been exploited either by the “sarkari musalman” who acts as adalal (agent) between the state and the country’s Muslims, the quintessential Uncle Tom, or the reactionaries who control the board or the bogus secularism of some “secular” parties.”

Jawaharlal Nehru had to wage a battle within his own party, the Congress, against Hindu communalists. Muslims witnessed his helplessness, suffered in the never-ending riots, saw the erosion of constitutional safeguards and the attacks on Urdu, and faced the wrath of the rising forces of Hindutva. They withdrew into their own suffocating shell. The nation is poorer for that.

The issue, then, is the reform of Muslim Personal Law. Pressures for its abrogation by the uniform civil code retard the progress for reform. Professor J.N.D. Anderson noted: “It is the family law that has always represented the very heart of the shariah, for it is the part of the law that is regarded by Muslims as entering into the very warp and woof of their religion.” It has been “basic to Islamic society down the centuries”. This was why in 1931 the Congress Working Committee declared that “personal laws shall be protected by specific provisions to be embodied in the Constitution”. Nehru assured Mohammad Ali Jinnah, in a letter dated April 6, 1938, that the Congress had “declared that it does not wish to interfere in any way with the personal law of any community”. Law Minister G.S. Pathak said in the Lok Sabha on May 17, 1966, that “personal laws are mixed up with religion” and that “we cannot coerce people to accept our views about their religion and customs”. Earlier, a similar assurance was given in the Lok Sabha by Law Minister A.K. Sen on August 29, 1963.”

The full article is at: http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2015/11/hindutvas-stick-against-muslims.html

My note as preface to the article Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2015/10/muslim-women-facing-arbitrary-divorce.html

There is God's (Quranic) Sharia which is just and equitable, and there is man's sharia which is selfish and cruel.

In case of a divorce, the Quranic Sharia calls for separation for at least three months, while making efforts to reconcile the differences, if reconciliation is not possible then comes the divorce, where the man takes full responsibility for child support and alimony if the woman has no other source of income.God's law is common sense. (Genesis of Sharia Law)

However, what Muslims have been practicing is Man's (Male's) Sharia, believing that it is the divine law, and it is not. It is misogynistic and does not care about woman. The guy can say the word divorce three times, and the life that was built over a life time can be done away in a minute. Women constantly live in the fear of this ugly pronouncement and it is not acceptable. No human should live in apprehension, particularly the married women in a society where the are dependent.

This has got to go, unless we are just to fellow beings, our spiritual growth is incomplete. Being just amounts to being Godly or being spiritual or achieving Taqwa.

Thanks God for giving courage to Muslim women in India to take the bold step of calling to get rid of this ungodly law.
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer and a speaker on PluralismInterfaithIslampolitics, human rights, foreign policy and building cohesive societies. Mike offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. More about him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at TheGhousediary.com  

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce under Sharia Law

There is God's (Quranic) Sharia which is just and equitable, and there is man's sharia which is selfish and cruel.
 
In case of a divorce, the Quranic Sharia calls for separation for at least three months, while making efforts to reconcile the differences, if reconciliation is not possible then comes the divorce, where the man takes full responsibility for child support and alimony if the woman has no other source of income.God's law is common sense. (Genesis of Sharia Law)
 
However, what Muslims have been practicing is Man's (Male's) Sharia, believing that it is the divine law, and it is not. It is misogynistic and does not care about woman. The guy can say the word divorce three times, and the life that was built over a life time can be done away in a minute. Women constantly live in the fear of this ugly pronouncement and it is not acceptable. No human should live in apprehension, particularly the married women in a society where the are dependent.
 
This has got to go, unless we are just to fellow beings, our spiritual growth is incomplete. Being just amounts to being Godly or being spiritual or achieving Taqwa.
 
Thanks God for giving courage to Muslim women in India to take the bold step of calling to get rid of this ungodly law.
 
Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com
# # #

SC concerned over Muslim women facing arbitrary divorce

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/INDIA_F_0304_-_VeiledMuslimWomen452.jpg
Photo: asianews.it
New Delhi, Oct 29 : The Supreme Court has expressed concern over Muslim women facing arbitrary divorces and second marriages of their husbands even as their first marriages were subsisting.
Expressing concern on the issue of “gender discrimination… which concerns the rights of Muslim women”, the apex court bench of Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said the issue of rights of Muslim women against arbitrary divorce surfaced number of times but was not addressed.
The court said in its judgment pronounced on October 16 that there was no safeguard “against arbitrary divorce and second marriage by her husband during currency of the first marriage, resulting in denial of dignity and security to her”.
The apex court said this while noting the submissions made by lawyers on the question whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 would have retrospective effect.
Directing for a separate public interest litigation to address the issue, the bench issued notice to the Attorney General and National Legal Services Authority, returnable on November 23.
Issuing the notice and directing for the registration of the PIL, the court said, “Although the issue was raised before this court in the case of ‘Ahmedabad Women Action Group vs Union of India’, this court did not go into the merits of the discrimination with the observation that the issue involved state policy to be dealt with by the legislature.”
The court judgment noted that it was observed that the challenge to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was pending before the Constitution Bench and there was no reason to multiply proceedings on such an issue.
The court noted that the matter needed consideration by the apex court as the issue related not merely to a policy matter but to the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 and international conventions and covenants. —IANS

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Lesbian Rabbi Stands Up FOR Sharia Law


Rabbi Nafshi, thanks for standing up for the rights of others,  that is the right thing to do, and this Muslim and many more Muslims will stand up for your rights, the human rights of GLBT community in the pursuit of their happiness.  God's Sharia is not against you, but the man-made Sharia is, we see it practiced  in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan, but not in 50 other Muslim states.

There is a great need for Americans to learn about it, the folks like Tea party folks don't use their own mind, and are driven by a few hate mongers who has everything to gain.  Here are two articles Genesis of Sharia Law and Fixing Sharia Laws at www.ShariaLaws.com that will give you a better understanding of the Sharia Law in our context, as it can be applied here in the United States.

Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com 
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.MikeGhouse.net
# # # 



Lesbian Rabbi Stands Up FOR Sharia Law
 
Posted on Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 12:15 AM.

Robin_Nafshi
By Ben Barrack
If there is one group of people that would be put at the top of the list of Sharia law advocates for punishment, it would almost certainly be lesbian Jewish Rabbis like Robin Nafshi. Yet, in what can only be described as a case of Stockholm Syndrome on steroids, Nafshi is standing up for Sharia law. In so doing, she’s fighting for her own extermination.
In an op-ed that appeared in the Concord Monitor, Nafshi writes:
As the leader of a religious community with a wide range of political views, I am always cautious when speaking out on partisan issues. But sometimes, I must. Now is that time.
On Sept. 20, the delegates of the New Hampshire Republican Party adopted a Platform of Republican Principles. It contains 83 bulleted goals. Number 83 reads as follows:
“Take any and all actions possible to protect against the implementation of any part of Sharia law in New Hampshire, including legislation outlawing Sharia law.”
Sharia means “the way” in Arabic, and Sharia law guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna – the sayings, practices and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
Sharia law for Muslims is quite similar to Halakhah for Jews. Halakhah means “the way” in Hebrew and it guides all aspect of Jewish life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud – the sayings, practices, and teachings of the early Jewish Rabbis.
Why has the Republican Party singled out Sharia law? Why doesn’t it seek to protect against the implementation in New Hampshire of any part of Halakhah, or for that matter, Roman Catholic Canon Law?
Because the New Hampshire Republican Party and other states that have sought similar bans are playing off of what they believe to be a growing fear in this country. We live in a difficult time, historically. Extremist Muslims – a very small percentage of the overall Muslim population – have hijacked a peaceful religion and perverted it into something narrowly construed and intolerant of the West, Jews, Israel, democracy, women’s education and more.
The politicians who endorse anti-Sharia laws are exploiting Americans’ legitimate fears of ISIS, al Qaida, Hamas and other extremist groups in order to ostracize and discriminate against the American Muslim community.
As the stealth jihadists no doubt laugh their heads off (pun intended) at the level of sheer ignorance displayed by Nafshi, she fails to understand that not only is she advocating for her own destruction but in so doing, she’s facilitating it. In fact, those whom she chides for being opposed to Sharia law are further down on the list of candidates to be subjected to that law.
To use a fattened calf metaphor, in such a case the farmer has to provide the feed, the facilities, the care and ultimately slaughter said calf, which is an unwilling participant.
In the case of Nafshi, as the figurative calf, she’s doing all that for the farmer while also fighting off predators that would kill her, not to protect herself but to save herself for the farmer.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Muslims are ANGRY at Texas Mayor After She Stops “Sharia Court”… Here Is Her EPIC Response!

First of all, Jews News is a gossip magazine, equivalent of National inquirer, creating sensationalism. Look at the header itself, it is a dead give away.

Muslims like all Americans have the right to protest it.

We should not have called it Sharia Court, instead it should have been called Sharia counselling Center... exactly the same as Jewish counselling center with the same purpose. More about it by Robert Hunt at 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2015/03/anti-semitism-raises-its-ugly-head-in-irving-tx/

We failed to articulate the difference between Public and Personal Sharia and its effects. More about it at: http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html


I am completely out of time, if not, I would go and speak the council, it is a redundant item.

Mike Ghouse
www.ShariaLaws.com

# # # 



Courtesy of Jews News


1mayor
This radical group of Muslims is not pleased with the Mayor of Irving, Texas after she put the end to America’s first “Sharia Court.” Mayor Beth Van Duyne has accused mosque leaders of creating separate laws for Muslims, which is why the city voted to stop these supposedly “voluntary” tribunals from operating.
In a very close 5-4 vote, the city of Irving ruled to back the Texas state bill banning foreign law from the state. The bill doesn’t mention Sharia or any religion, but it’s a huge defeat for Sharia supporters, as such courts are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
All four of the “voluntary” court’s lawyers were unlicensed in the state of Texas, a third degree felony. Mayor Beth Van Duyne received several phone calls on the matter. It seems that the Islamic Tribunal not only was unlicensed, but they failed to notify the city of their illegal court being operated in city limits. She promised to get to the bottom of it, and she did.
By their own website’s admission, if U.S. law conflicts with Sharia law, “we follow Sharia law.” It also openly admitted separate rules for men and women in their proceedings, discriminating and humiliating women which is against the U.S. Constitution. The Islamic Tribunal also openly declared that they hope [this] will “set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.”
via Mad World News
Here is how Mayor Duyne responded on Facebook, before the historic and controversial vote:
facebook11
And while Muslims filled the city council hearing to voice their opposition, the Mayor shot back:
“This bill does not reference Shariah, Islam or even religion. It has nothing to do with preventing any tribunal,” Van Duyne told the crowd. “Why anyone would feel this is hatred or bigotry is absolutely beyond me.”
Good for Mayor Van Duyne! The legal system from the Islamic faith is incompatible with civilized Western cultures. To have anyone in America abiding by Sharia law is a dangerous precedent, which is why the city moved swiftly to outlaw the practice. No one is above the law!

FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE CLICK LINK

Saturday, December 6, 2014

My Turn: The misguided push to ban Sharia Law

This is the spirit of America, building and contributing towards cohesive societies. I am glad to see Abraham Foxman of ADL has taken the same position. At the end, we have all got to stand up for each other for creating a better world. Rabbi, I am glad to see this report.

Please visit www.ShariaLaws.com to read some of the thoughtful articles on the subject.


Mike Ghouse
# # # 


By RABBI ROBIN NAFSHI
For the Monitor
Saturday, December 6, 2014 
(Published in print: Saturday, December 6, 2014)
Courtesy Concord Monitor

As the leader of a religious community with a wide range of political views, I am always cautious when speaking out on partisan issues. But sometimes, I must. Now is that time.

On Sept. 20, the delegates of the New Hampshire Republican Party adopted a Platform of Republican Principles. It contains 83 bulleted goals. Number 83 reads as follows:

“Take any and all actions possible to protect against the implementation of any part of Sharia law in New Hampshire, including legislation outlawing Sharia law.”

Sharia means “the way” in Arabic, and Sharia law guides all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna – the sayings, practices and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Sharia law for Muslims is quite similar to Halakhah for Jews. Halakhah means “the way” in Hebrew and it guides all aspect of Jewish life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud – the sayings, practices, and teachings of the early Jewish Rabbis.


Why has the Republican Party singled out Sharia law? Why doesn’t it seek to protect against the implementation in New Hampshire of any part of Halakhah, or for that matter, Roman Catholic Canon Law?

Because the New Hampshire Republican Party and other states that have sought similar bans are playing off of what they believe to be a growing fear in this country. We live in a difficult time, historically. Extremist Muslims – a very small percentage of the overall Muslim population – have hijacked a peaceful religion and perverted it into something narrowly construed and intolerant of the West, Jews, Israel, democracy, women’s education and more.

The politicians who endorse anti-Sharia laws are exploiting Americans’ legitimate fears of ISIS, al Qaida, Hamas and other extremist groups in order to ostracize and discriminate against the American Muslim community.

Were the platform’s position to become law in New Hampshire, it would most likely be deemed unconstitutional. In 2010, Oklahoma voters passed a measure banning the use of Sharia law in the state. A federal appeals court declared it an unconstitutional singling out of a particular religion, a violation of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Oklahoma introduced a modified version. It passed, and Oklahoma joined Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee in enacting laws that prohibit courts to consider foreign law.

Such laws are unnecessary – and sometimes result in unintended consequences.

Our state courts apply foreign law only when two parties have negotiated a contract that calls for the application of foreign law. This is done frequently in business, especially when a foreign-based business has a presence in the state. For example, a Canadian business and a New Hampshire business might agree that in the event of a dispute, the matter would be decided in Canada. They have the right to do that, and a New Hampshire court might then be asked to enforce a Canadian judgment. This kind of thing happens all the time in the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But a ban on foreign law in our courts might no longer permit it.

And sometimes, on personal matters, parties agree to be governed by religious law. Many Jewish couples, for example, draw up a prenuptial agreement governed by Jewish law. In the event the marriage ends, it requires the couple to not only obtain a civil divorce, but also to comply with the requirements of divorce under Jewish law. A New Hampshire court would be asked to enforce that contract clause. But a ban on foreign law in our courts might no longer permit it.

While these two examples apply to a “foreign law” ban, we must remember that the Republican Party Platform position would ban only Sharia law. Two Muslims might use the principles of Sharia law to guide a financial contract just the same way the New Hampshire and Canadian businesses might use Canadian law to guide them. In the event of a dispute, however, a court might refuse to recognize the agreement between the two Muslims if the anti-Sharia provision becomes law, while the agreement between the New Hampshire and the Canadian businesses would remain in tact.

Too many people in our world – including, apparently, members of the New Hampshire Republican Party – believe that Sharia law is violent and contrary to our way of life.

Even if that were true, calling for its ban in our courts isn’t necessary. Our courts cannot enforce contractual provisions that violate public policy. If my congregation and I have an employment contract that requires disputes to be settled by a religious arbitrator who would apply Biblical principles, we can do that. But if the arbitrator rules that the congregation should stone me to death for working on the Sabbath, obviously a New Hampshire court would not enforce that ruling. This is the law in every state, making the adoption of a ban on Sharia law – or any foreign law – unnecessary.

There is only one reason for the inclusion of the anti-Sharia law in the Republican Party platform: hostility to Muslims. Muslims who live in America have a deep commitment to American law and the Constitution’s promise of religious freedom. Anti-Sharia proposals serve only to tell Muslims that they are less a part of the American family and less entitled to the protections of the First Amendment than their non-Muslim counterparts.

As a Jew, I know that my people have been persecuted for thousands of years, and that nations throughout history have passed laws to make it more difficult for Jews to practice our faith. I will not stand by and watch that happen to another minority religion. The New Hampshire Republican Party platform position is nothing more, in the words of Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, than “camouflaged bigotry.”

(Rabbi Robin Nafshi is the spiritual leader of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord.)

Monday, July 7, 2014

Supreme Court ruling on sharia courts draws sharp reaction from Indian Muslim clerics

URL - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2014/07/supreme-court-ruling-on-sharia-courts.html

Maulana Jilani's comment is precise and sums up the role of Sharia in one's life.   It was in the same spirit I have been writing about sharia Law in America.  Let personal conflicts be resolved between any two parties through any system that mitigates the issue and bring peace to the parties. 

 Zafaryab Jilani, member of the Muslim Personal Law Board, said, "We are not doing anything parallel to the judicial system and we don't say that any order passed by a Qazi is binding on all. Our sole motto is to resolve a matter with the consent of two parties involved in accordance with sharia."

The following statement by the Supreme Court needs to be understood, "Disapproving of a sharia court issuing fatwa and order against a person who is not before it, the Supreme Court on Monday said it has no sanction of law and no legal status." The Supreme Court is right, no one should pass a judgment against an individual without his or her presence in the court, and the right to defend himself or herself. There should be no judgement in absentia.

The third statement comes from Maulana Mohammad Sajid Rashid, president of Kul Hind Imam Association, the Maulana is dead wrong when he asserts, "A Muslim who does not follow the sharia is not a true Muslim." This statement is excessive, and amounts to stepping beyond Maulanas' bounds. 

For hundreds of years, the Muslim religious leaders had the power of the state behind them,  and got away flouting the God given freedom of expression in Quran,  " ... Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error ..." [2:256]. This is Islam's unambiguous affirmation of freedom of faith. It is time to question what has been passed onto us for generations. Is Maulana Mohammad Sajid Rashid talking about Quranic Sharia based on justice or the Human designed Sharia Laws that purport to serve Justice? Please note the difference at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html 

The Maulana's call amounts to rendering judgment in behalf of God. Even Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had admonished his associate for killing a man who claimed to be a Muslim but the associate did not believe in him.  The Prophet questioned him, how did you know what was in his heart? Indeed, he reiterated that God alone knows what is in one's heart.  No human has a right to judge on one's faith but God, and God is merciful and kind and offers the opportunity to seek forgiveness until the moment of death. 

Every practicing Muslim recites that God alone is the master of judgment at least 17 times a day. As a society, Muslim or other can punish the violators of the common rules for theft, cheating, robbing, breaking contracts, but God did not authorize any one to judge on one's faith. Islam is about freedom and not enforcement of faith. 

Mike Ghouse is a Muslim speaker, thinker and a writer, and presides over the World Muslim congress, a think tank, and a forum with the express goals of nurturing pluralistic values embedded in Islam to build cohesive societies. More about Mike at www.Mikeghouse.net 

# # #
Supreme Court ruling on sharia courts draws sharp reaction from Muslim clerics

PTI | Jul 7, 2014, 05.59 PM IST  - Times of India


Supreme Court ruling on sharia courts draws sharp reaction from Muslim clerics

Disapproving of a sharia court issuing fatwa and order against a person who is not before it, the Supreme Court said it has no sanction of law and no legal status.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's verdict on Monday declaring that a sharia court has no legal sanction drew sharp reaction from Muslim clerics who said that the Constitution allows them the right to work and act according to Muslim personal law. 

Zafaryab Jilani, member of the Muslim Personal Law Board, said, "We are not doing anything parallel to the judicial system and we don't say that any order passed by a Qazi is binding on all. Our sole motto is to resolve a matter with the consent of two parties involved in accordance with sharia." 

Khalid Rasheed Farangi, a Muslim cleric, said that under the Constitution, Muslims have the right to work and act according to Muslim personal law. 

"Indian Constitution has given us the right to act and work according to our Muslim personal law. 
"One must also keep in mind that Sharia Application Act, 1937, has very clearly said that in those cases in which both parties are Muslims and the matter is related to nikaah, talaaq, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, the decisions will be taken in the light of the Muslim personal law," he said, adding that the verdict needs to be studied properly before a final statement can be given. 

Maulana Mohammad Sajid Rashid, president of Kul Hind Imam Association, said the plea filed in the apex court is itself wrong as it is a religious matter. 

"If a person is practising a religion, he/she has to follow its preachings. A Muslim who does not follow the sharia is not a true Muslim," he said. 

Maulana Anisur Rehman, member of Imarat Shariah, Patna, however, agreed with the apex court ruling, saying that the judgment is not wrong and it is not going to hinder the functioning of sharia courts. 
"For arbitration, when two parties or people consensually approach the sharia court, it is lawful. The Supreme Court is not wrong, but I need to go through the entire verdict properly," he said. 

Disapproving of a sharia court issuing fatwa and order against a person who is not before it, the Supreme Court on Monday said it has no sanction of law and no legal status. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/followceleb.cms?alias=Supreme Court Ruling on Sharia Courts,Supreme Court,Sharia courts,Muslim Personal Law,Muslim Clerics on Sharia Courts

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Fixing Sharia Laws

I am pleased to recommend reading Genesis of Sharia Law, as a preface to Fixing Sharia Laws at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html

Published here on this site www.ShariaLaws.com and at OpEd news as well:  Continued: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fixing-Sharia-Laws-by-Mike-Ghouse-Apostasy_Blasphemy_DNA-Rape-Kit_Divorce-140115-276.html 




Rather than the outright rejection of Sharia, which serves as a system of justice to the given populations in Muslim majority nations, we need to fix the laws; without it a large swatch of population becomes rudderless. Our own constitution has been amended several times, and that is what is needed to be done with Sharia.


However, the moderate majorities in all groups see the value in fixing the cancerous cells, rather than rejecting the whole system.  Unless we fix things, injustice in the name of justice will continue.


The golden rule is central to all religions that say, "Treat others as you want to be treated."   There is not a religion on the earth that teaches one to treat the other any less.   Most people get their religion right, and some don't.


The conservative men tend to be insecure when dealing with women; no matter what faith they belong to, they behave the same. Their perceived safety hinges on keeping some one or the other under their thumb; usually women. 


Sharia was a human effort to dispense justice to fellow beings in accordance with Quran and the Prophet's examples; however, men are fallible beings and have failed to deliver justice. They have got it all wrong when it comes to women, apostates, blasphemers and the victims of rape. Sharia as practiced in a few of the Muslim nations does not reflect God's wisdom or the practice of the prophet. It needs to be fixed badly.

Our conservative lot gets offended when Sharia is criticized as they (mistakenly) believe that Sharia is God's law, delivered like Quran, and it is not. Criticizing Sharia is the right thing to do, after all how are we going to fix it?    

Muslims need to feel secure that God is not going anywhere, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not going anywhere nor Qur'an will disappear; they are eternal. God tells the prophet not to worry if people don't listen to his message, because he is the one who gives guidance. God also says he will protect his system (religion), shouldn't we trust in God? The conservatives, be it Christian, Muslim, Jews, Hindus or others, don't really trust in God, and aggressively preempt him.

Just as Americans cannot fathom any other form of law other than the one we know, the Muslims in Muslim majority nations cannot imagine any other law either. Our laws are not perfect, and neither is theirs. We have amended ours many a time, and need to include marriage-equality amendment and more. The Muslims have not made amendments to Sharia in a long time.  It is time to fix it and keep the laws to serve justice to the Muslim populations.

A majority of Muslim nations are not familiar with any other laws; they will resist pushing new codes on them, just as we would. Remember the Obama-care battle? We need to understand them and encourage amendments.  There is nothing wrong with the intent of Sharia; it's the corruption that needs fixing, when done, and Sharia would be as good as any other law aligning fully with the human-rights declaration.

Let's deal with a few Sharia-related issues concerning  rape victims, apostasy, blasphemy, and treatment of rape victims.
Rape


Sharia Unveiled
(image by Sharia Unveiled)

The Council of Islamic Ideologies (CII) in Pakistan declared that DNA evidence in case of rape is supplementary, and they still require the four male witnesses to prosecute the rapists. Science (knowledge) means nothing to conservatives whether they are Christians or Muslims.   
Asma Jahangir, the human rights activist of Pakistan, responded, "The council members were refusing to reach out for the truth in rape cases and had given such urgency and prominence to their recommendation as if acceptance of DNA testing was a great threat to Islam."

Moazam Syed wrote in the World Muslim Congress forum, "So a rape victim needs to produce four pious Muslims, who must have watched the full act of rape?" A few conservative Muslims may not like this statement, but  that pales to the misery of the rape victim, who endures the anguish for her entire life.  

That ain't justice, and that ain't Islam. The conservatives are not only defensive, but carry an attitude; any suggestion of reason or application of logic threatens them, and they scream that their religion is threatened. I have heard these sentences from Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and all other right-wingers in different circumstances.

A documentary (Pakistan) is in the making where a 13-year-old girl returning from the school was gang raped, and the damned judge was embarrassed that she dared to bring the case to his court, and the men laughed and questioned, why was she not at home? Shamefully, this is also a part of the men's attitude in America - she asked for it. 

I am glad they had the sense at least to debate, in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran; the woman would have been brutally stoned to death -- again, that is not Islam and purely the men culture of those nations.

Honor killing is not a thing to be slapped on to Muslims.  In Punjab, Haryana, and other parts of the subcontinent, the Hindus and Sikhs also kill their victim girls to protect the honor of their family. I am sure if we Google it, we may find surprises elsewhere.
Learning.

The first word in Islam is "Iqra" -- meaning read, recite, and understand. That was the first word uttered to Prophet Muhammad by angel Gabriel. Iqra opens the door to everything in life. On another occasion, the prophet said, if you have to learn something new, don't hesitate to go anywhere, including far- off lands like China.

The prophet did not say, "Your minds are being plucked out, you don't need it any more to think, everything is given to you in Quran and my examples, just follow it." Indeed the Prophet said, in his last sermon, that he was leaving this book to his followers to read, understand, and follow it.   
Doesn't learning imply reading, observing, understanding, and adopting the new information to the existing conditions for a better life and a better society?

Not all Muslims, but a few of the self-appointed guardians of religion, do not listen to God or the prophet. They have the arrogance to reject Iqra or go to China for learning. They have shut themselves out from learning and push others to do the same. Should we let them? Are they responsible for our actions?

Divorce

These men eagerly approved and adopted the text-message divorces and even e-mail divorces because they cared about men and not the women who were thrown under the bus at the whim of the idiot men. This is not justice and this is not Islam.

Some of the conservative men don't believe in equality of women, and simply don't listen to the prophet. Yet from that very same mouth, they say, "Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is a mercy to mankind" -- Do they fully understand what it means?  Fourteen hundred years ago, the Prophet declared that women are free to own property, own their business, initiate marriage and divorce, and could disobey their husbands if they were coerced into doing things against their will.  That is Islam.

A majority of Muslims believe in it; a few don't but get the media attention. Do we talk about good husbands? We always focus on the bad ones who are violent whether they are American, Chinese, and Arab, Indian, Hispanic, or Russian men.

1200 years later, the western societies accorded that status to women,  including the passage of women's-suffrage act here in America just a hundred years ago, while a few conservative Muslim societies have gone back to the times before the prophet.
Apostasy

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not punish apostates, that is those who chose to abandon Islam, and yet Pastor Naderkhani in Iran is being harassed; Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan and Lena Joy in Malaysia were relieved with the international pressures.

Paster NaderKhani of Iran
(image by Beloved country)

Prophet was clear, there is no compulsion in religion, and you cannot force any one to believe who does not want to believe. His own uncle chose not to believe in Islam; did the Prophet punish him?  This is a divine intentional example from God for people to learn, that there is no compulsion in faith; let anyone believe what he or she is comfortable with.  There is confusion among the average Muslims, and it behooves for Muslims to put this thing behind and move on.  It is time to follow the prophet and universally declare that there is no punishment for apostasy. 

Blasphemy

Prophet Muhammad did not punish anyone for blasphemy.  Instead he did the right thing; prayed for them. The self-appointed guardians of Sharia laws can tell great many stories of the prophet, yet they do the opposite. 

The blasphemy laws go against the God-given freedom and it aids the crooks to abuse it. In Pakistan a damned crook framed a girl for desecrating Quran.  A whole Christian town was destroyed before they discovered the truth; at least that is the saving grace


Salman Rushdie
(image by Salman Rushdie)

Muslims believe that we are answerable to God on the Day of Judgment. The more of us speak up, the greater the chance of delivering justice to fellow beings; if we don't, then evil persists. The least a Muslim can do is to speak up.

Sharia was a human effort in delivering justice to fellow beings in accordance with Quran and the Prophet's examples; however, humans are fallible beings and are not delivering justice to women, apostates, blasphemers and rapists, and the raped.  Sharia as practiced in a few of the Muslim nations does not reflect God's wisdom nor does it correspond with prophet's practice. It needs to be fixed badly before we sink with our sins of injustice to women.  More about Sharia at www.sharialaws.com.  

To be a Muslim is to be a peacemaker, one who mitigates conflicts and nurtures goodwill for peaceful co-existence of humanity. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation, life and matter. 

...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and a book with the same title is coming up. Mike has a strong presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.