Shari'a and Western Compliance

Article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a
2. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.

This declaration - made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and intended as an counter measure to the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - exposes the slippery slope on which Western societies tread when indulging Shari'a-based interpretations of rights and freedoms. If every such right and freedom is bounded by religious edict, then no such rights and freedoms will exist.

Accommodation without limit is in effect enslaving supplication. Any parent with a wayward histrionic child will know that. Churchill knew it. Even Roosevelt knew it. Certainly Lincoln and JFK knew it. Do our leaders (politicians, intellectuals and clergy) know it?

Apparently not. Many Western European countries (Holland, UK, France, Italy, Norway) have made allowances for these fundamental restrictions, the same restrictions that have produced deadly fatwas issued against those who propagate ideas hostile to Islam. Where does it end? Imams central to current Islamic orthodoxy (such as Qadi 'Iyad, who died in 1149) confirm that any Jew or Christian who reviles Mohammed, or commits blasphemy, should be burned or beheaded unless they convert.

Authorities in these same countries often inhibit the criticism of Islamic history and doctrine. One can easily exhibit, in the West's leading museums, Christ and Pope figures fornicating, or publish in our press cartoons of demonic Jews with Stars of David and skulls-caps feasting on Palestinian babies. Yet our media will not dare publish cartoons of Mohammed or demand an open, fear-free discussion of all the reasonable and varying interpretations of the Koran that stand as alternatives to the current immovable, literal and fundamentalist doctrine - to do so will engender an earthquake, as the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper found out.

To censor any criticism of Jihad, to disallow any open discussion thereof, is to accommodate fascist authoritarianism, anti-Semitism and anti-secularism. This supplication by its very nature is oppressive and dehumanizing. This is not what the French Revolution was about, nor the American Bill of Rights - never mind what brought Moses down from Mount Sinai.

If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that it is not pleasant for non-Muslims living in societies influenced by Sharia law. We see the ongoing burning of Coptic churches in Cairo, forced abductions and conversions of Coptic daughters, suicide bombings against the Baghdad Christian community, the de-Christianizing of Bethlehem, a simmering war on the Hindus in Kashmir, the illegality of bibles and crosses in Saudi Arabia, and Bahai's under enormous pressure in Iran. Our goal in the West should be to foster tolerance, not to make allowances for its erosion.

Until the Muslim world rejects its dominant fundamentalist ideology, until it allows a long overdue reformation in Islam, the hazards of Shari'a and the inviolability of Koranic law will remain an ominous threat to the West's ongoing freedoms, democracy and tolerance.

Leslie J. Sacks

Harvard’s capitulation to Sharia

Harvard’s capitulation to Sharia

Article follows my comments:

I believe this quote is pulled out of thin air and there are a few more mistakes in the article. It should not be passed on as "truthful" reflection of the situaion. “Here is a discussion of the ceremonial for collection of the jizya by the 13th century Shafi’i jurist an-Nawawi: “…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent.” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims- Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists- subjugated by jihad.

Mike Ghouse

Harvard: America’s “Hub” For Sharia?
By Andrew Bostom Monday, March 10, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2184

Right on the heels of Harvard’s capitulation to Sharia mores at its Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center, the Harvard “academic” community indulged an ideologue with much grander aspirations for implementing Sharia, UCLA Professor of Law, Khaled Abou el Fadl.

My dear friend and colleague Hillel Stavis had the morbidly fascinating experience of witnessing this pseudo-academic fraud peddle his paltry wares March 5, 2008 at Harvard’s Divinity School, during a lecture entitled, non-sequitur, “Conceptualizing Islamic Theology: Sharia and Human Rights Doctrine”

Here are Hillel Stavis’ cogent first hand observations, in his own words:

Of all the evasions, obfuscations and diversions uttered by UCLA’s Professor of Law Khaled Abou el Fadl yesterday [ i.e., March 5, 2008] at the Harvard Divinity School, none was more revealing than his opening declaration that Sharia Law’s compatibility or incompatibility with human rights was wholly “vacuous” and “irrelevant”. None of the 60 or so, mostly Muslim attendees, seemed to have had a problem with this statement. The audience reaction, from both Mr. Fadl’s academic colleagues (among whom was Harvard’s Roy Mottahedeh, Gurney Professor of History, a specialist in Persian history) and students was more disturbing than the actual presentation.

Professor Mottahedeh lamented the fact that Muslims have spent too much time trying to reconcile Shari’ah with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, urging the world to supplement it with the Muslim version. Of course, the former is truly universal, the latter particularistic.

And so, a Harvard tenured professor would essentially replace one with the other in a kind of perfecting process.

Nearly 5-years ago now, I warned that El Fadl’s much ballyhooed reputation as a reformer was completely unjustified. Specifically, I noted his pattern of uniformed or deliberately deceitful presentation:

Recently El Fadl elucidated his “construction” of the tolerant tradition in Islam as part of an essay collection. He focused this presentation, appropriately, on two of the most obvious challenges to any such construction, i.e. jihad, and the poll tax (jizya) levied on non-Muslims under Islamic rule. El Fadl’s arguments regarding both jihad and the jizya in this essay merit close scrutiny, as these institutions are integrated into the corpus of the Shari’a, or sacred Islamic law. I believe his omissions of evidence in this essay, combined with an excessive reliance on sacralized, whitewashed historiography, refutes the prevailing notion that El Fadl is engaged in a sincere effort to instill fundamental change in Islam.

El Fadl states categorically: “..Islamic tradition does not have a notion of holy war. Jihad simply means to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause...Holy war (al-harb al-muqaddasah) is not an expression used by the Qur’anic text or Muslim theologians. In Islamic theology war is never holy; it is either justified or not...” This contention cannot be supported on either theological-juridical, or historical grounds, and in fact contradicts the conclusion of an earlier essay by El Fadl.

El Fadl’s discussion of jihad is rendered meaningless by a blatant historical negationism of both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. In his analysis of the poll tax (jizya), he relies exclusively upon the sacralized early Muslim historiography of this institution. El Fadl thus attempts to uphold the “virtuous” aspects of the jizya, omitting any reference to the consistent, intentionally humiliating character of its application…El Fadl’s presentation excludes discussion of how the jizya was viewed by classical Muslim jurists. There was in fact a basic consensus among the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the intimate relationship between the institutions of jihad against the infidels, and jizya. El Fadl ignores these extensive writings, and instead asserts whimsically, “…there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice, but a functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Only an ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a divinely sanctioned program of subordinating the non-believer.”

Another important aspect of the jizya that El Fadl ignores is the widely upheld, although not unanimous view of the classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence about the “humiliating” imposition and procurement of this tax. Here is a discussion of the ceremonial for collection of the jizya by the 13th century Shafi’i jurist an-Nawawi: “…The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks…”

El Fadl also fails to discuss how the “contract of the jizyah”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims- Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists- subjugated by jihad. Some of the more prominent features of the system of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; the restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches and synagogues; the inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to overall taxation, and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; the obligation for Jews and Christians to wear special clothes; and their overall humiliation and abasement.

And I concluded with this relevant assessment:

It should be abundantly clear that Professor El Fadl’s disingenuous revisionism hardly qualifies as a sincere effort to promote a meaningful Islamic “Reformation”. Intended or not, his whitewashed, “ahistorical” presentation is dangerous, and serves to justify alarming contemporary Muslim assessments of dhimmitude, and its appropriate application, even today! For example, Palestinian Authority (PA) Undersecretary for Awqaf [Religious Endowment], Sheik Yussef Salamah, representing the PA at a May 1999 “Inter-Cultural Conference,” in Tehran, praised the 7th century system of Ahl Al-Dhimma (i.e, the system of dhimmitude), as the proper paradigm for relations between present day Muslims and Christians 58. Palestinian Authority employee, Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi later reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews during a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza:"We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.”

One needs simply to contrast El Fadl’s meager revisionist approach with the unequivocal statements of a Muslim academic such as Professor Bassam Tibi. Professor Tibi possesses the insight and courage to acknowledge that a meaningfully reformed Islam must embrace the pluralistic spirit of the Western Enlightenment:

“..In the context of religious tolerance-and I write this as a Muslim- there can be no place in Europe for Shari’a …Shari’a is at odds with the secular identity of Europe and is diametrically opposed to secular European constitutions formulated by the people… I hold out for the superiority of common sense over religious faith (i.e., absolute religious precepts); individual human rights (i.e., not collective human rights); secular democracy based on the separation of religion from politics; a universally accepted pluralism; and a mutually accepted secular tolerance. The acceptance of these values is the foundation of a civil society..”

Professor Tibi’s comments underscore basic truths that apologists for the Shari’a such as El Fadl refuse to acknowledge. For example, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam maintains that the Shari’a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and includes the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to “guide” humanity. This statement captures the indelible influence of jihad ideology on the Shari’a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Shari’a-inspired Cairo Declaration, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, while stressing the absolute equality of all human beings. Indeed a Senegalese jurist (and Muslim), Adama Dieng, (then serving as secretary-general to the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists), courageously declared in 1992 that the Cairo Declaration introduced an intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women.

Subsequently, Daniel Pipes elaborated on El Fadl’s so-called “anti-Wahhabism,” which is negated by his continued apologetics for jihad terrorism, and open espousal of the implementation of Sharia in non-Muslim societies, as a leading pseudo-academic, cultural jihadist. Pipes highlighted, for example the fact that Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96), an important 20th century Egyptian cleric, remains one of Abou El Fadl’s chief intellectual influences. However, as I have noted, the “anti-Wahhabi” al-Ghazali, then an official of Al Azhar University, supported the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular Egyptian writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda’s murderer, al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, “A secularist represents a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It is the duty of the government to kill him.”

Over fifty years ago (i.e., circa 1955), Gustave von Grunebaum (d. 1972), a major scholar of Islam, well prepared to make sound judgments on matters related to Islamic societies, issued this prescient warning based upon actually studying the writings of the Muslim ideologues of his day, including El Fadl’s ideological inspiration, Muhammad al-Ghazali. [Gustave von Grunebaum, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1955, Vol. 14, p. 202, (Book Review of Muhammad Al-Ghazzali’s, Our Beginning in Wisdom, 1953, translated by Ismail R. al-Faruqi)]:

The political constellation of the moment which is likely to continue for some not inconsiderable length of time has induced us to envisage ourselves in a world of an “either…or.” We concern ourselves with the compatibility or otherwise of Islam with communism and regardless of the conclusion in which we acquiesce, we are apt to overlook the fact that the Muslim circles most emphatically opposed to communism are at the same time potentially if not actually the most formidable stronghold of hostility to the West. Ghazzali’s tirade against American Democracy (pp. 60-62) with its warning “against the spreading American ways,” with its condemnation of “the domestic as well as foreign policy of America” as “actually a systematic violation of every virtue humanity has ever known” should make us aware that the Muslim “extremists” will be with the West not because of any recognized affinity but merely out of momentary political considerations. Ultimately, the self-conscious world of Islam would wish to consolidate into a power center strong enough to set itself up by the side of the Russian and the Western blocks, strong enough to determine for itself what its primary political concerns should be, and strong enough perhaps to be no longer compelled to westernize for the sake of survival. The hot-headed half-truths of Ghazzali must not delude us into considering absurd the aspiration of those who feel that for its revival Islam needs less rather than more gifts of the West.

At present, more than fifty years later, the distressingly stupid leaders of our universities remain oblivious to (or if ever aware, hostile to) von Grunebaum’s profound insights, allowing post-Edward Saidian pseudo-scholars like El Fadl and Mottahedeh, to blissfully pursue their university-supported efforts aimed at “peacefully” subverting the US to Islamic Law.

Let me state bluntly, and humorlessly, I have lost all patience with such fraudulent “presentations,” and their utterly ridiculous academic patina—they are pernicious.

Mr El Fadl, and his equally deficient Harvard host Roy Mottahedeh want nothing less than for our liberal democracy to willfully impose upon itself the Ur-Fascistic totalitarianism of Sharia. Only the most empty-headed buffoons, their minds melted away by ceaselessly and uncritically imbibing the cultural relativism that prevails in our “academy,” and “public discourse,” would even begin to entertain El Fadl’s premise. And yet there he was, at Harvard, no less, espousing such hideous ideas along with the dangerously ludicrous Mr. Mottahedeh, who endorsed them.

Hillel Stavis sent me this apposite closing observation shortly after hearing El Fadl’s lecture, and the equally inane commentary of his host, Mottahedeh:

Harvard seems to have heard Mr. Mottahedeh’s message recently when it accorded exclusionary rights to Muslims by banning men from one of its gyms at designated hours to accommodate Muslim women. Given the professor’s desired trajectory of Islamic “ethics”, we might even see the ultimate penalty for apostasy applied to those foolhardy students who decide to change their religion while at Harvard.

Texas : Adopting Shariah

Texas : Adopting Shariah

The law of the land: Adopting Shariah is no way to bridge cultures
06:37 AM CST on Friday, February 15, 2008

Mike Ghouse: I am pleased to hear that the North Texas Muslim leaders said that “their religious doctrine calls for Muslim migrants to abide by the laws of their host country. These are the words for everyone to live by.”

Sharia laws are derivatives from Qur’aan and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad on living a life of Justice and peace. As with every group, the extreme interpretations by certain institutions and individuals, and their perpetuation have become contentious. The conflicts are in the areas of divorce, apostasy and women where fine tuning of our understanding is needed.

The basis for Qur'aan is justice, when there is justice people feel secure and live in peace, harmony and prosperity. As far as the Sharia in public life is concerned, our civil laws are just and are good for every one. The rest of the Sharia is about one's devotion to God and how it is carried out, and it usually remains in the private domain.

American and Canadian Muslims value and trust our justice system and feel comfortable with our civic laws.
##

It's hardly surprising that British politicians and tabloids are thoroughly roasting the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, for remarking last week that partially adapting Islamic Shariah law into the U.K. legal code "seems unavoidable."

A big surprise, though, was the ripple effect his comments had in North Texas. American Web sites and blogs, including that of Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, came alive with a bizarre discussion of Islamic law already being imposed in our courts.

First, let's debunk the myth: Shariah is not now and should never be a part of the Texas legal code. We live in a secular society where the laws are designed specifically not to be influenced by religion or reflect a religious preference.

The question arose when an Arlington Muslim couple, Rola and Jamal Qaddura, filed for divorce in 1999. After prolonged court battles, they agreed to arbitration by a private Richardson-based group, the Texas Islamic Court. The arbitration agreement wound up in the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, which upheld its validity in 2005.

Throughout the case, our courts never relinquished judicial control. And that's how it must always be. In the eyes of the law, the Texas Islamic Court has zero judicial authority and was brought in only as a private civil arbiter, a common practice.

The British and U.S. secular legal systems are rooted in the Magna Carta. The law of our land should never adapt to the ebb and flow of migrants from countries where other legal codes prevail – particularly not a religious code like Shariah, which authorizes harsh treatment of women and severing the hands of thieves.

Editors and reporters from this newspaper met 14 months ago with North Texas Muslim leaders, including, coincidentally, one of the arbiters in the Qaddura case. They said their religious doctrine calls for Muslim migrants to abide by the laws of their host country. These are words for everyone to live by.

Considering the rising tensions between Muslims and Christians across Europe, it's hard to criticize the archbishop of Canterbury for trying to strike a conciliatory tone. But adaptation to Shariah is no way to bridge our cultures.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-sharia_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.46053d3.html




-----------------------------------------
Integrating Islam into the West
By Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst

Thursday, February 14, 2008

LONDON:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams - the titular head of the 77-million strong worldwide Anglican Church - ignited a huge controversy last week when he suggested in a lecture in the Royal Courts of Law that Britain should adopt certain aspects of Shariah law. This was done with the benign intention of integrating into British law the practices and beliefs of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims.

However, the archbishop's apparent suggestion that Muslims could opt out of secular common law for separate arbitration and judgement in Islamic religious courts created the impression of one law for Muslims and another for everybody else.

This incendiary idea (subsequently corrected by the archbishop) provoked a furor about states within states and a widespread fear that any license granted to Shariah law would also license its more extreme aspects. Unfortunately, the media storm masked the real message of the speech, which concerned the authority of the secular state and its impact on religious minorities in general and Muslims in particular.

For the genuine target of the archbishop's lecture is the increasingly authoritarian and anti-religious nature of the modern liberal state. Militant secularism has forbidden head scarves and wall-mounted crucifixes in France. It has also banned Roman Catholic adoption agencies in Britain for not selecting same-sex couples as potential foster parents. Under the banner of free speech, secular Italian leftists recently prevented Pope Benedict XVI from addressing La Sapienza University in Rome on the subject of rational enquiry.

Williams' legitimate religious concerns with freedom of conscience tie in with wider Western worries about the consequences of failing to integrate a growing, devout and alienated Islamic minority within a relativistic and increasingly aggressive secular culture.

However, the solution proposed by the archbishop repeats the errors of 1960s liberal multiculturalism. In conjuring up the idea of communities sharing the same space but leading separate lives, he unwittingly endorses a scenario that entrenches segregation and fractures any conception of a common good binding all citizens. Despite this, Williams at least recognizes that Britain is struggling to find a way of accommodating its increasingly ghettoized and radicalized Muslim population.

Clearly, the integration of Islam into secular democracies is a challenge that confronts the Western world as a whole and Europe in particular. Regrettably, there are problems with all the existing secular models of integration. British and Dutch versions of multiculturalism hoped to ensure the equal rights of all citizens, but both countries - in abandoning the cultural cohesion based around religion - lost the very medium in which majorities and minorities could share.

Germany eschewed its own Christian legacy in favor of an ethnic account of its identity. Though it grants generous socio-economic rights, the German model still refuses Muslim "guest workers" citizenship and thus participation in civic life.

In France, the Republican ideal appeals to immigrants, but its secular reality denies the primary religious form of their identity. Moreover, the Muslim population is discriminated against in the labor market and tends to be confined to the banlieues. The French model's refusal to accommodate religion prevents France from broadening its concept of French identity.

The trouble with all the European models is that they enshrine the primacy of secular law over and against religious principles. Far from ensuring neutrality and tolerance, the secular European state arrogates to itself the right to control and legislate all spheres of life; state constraints apply especially to religion and its civic influence. Legally, secularism outlaws any rival source of sovereignty or legitimacy. Politically, secularism denies religion any import in public debate and decision-making. Culturally, secularism enforces its own norms and standards upon all other belief systems. In consequence, the liberal promise of equality amounts to little more than the secular imposition of sameness. As such, contemporary liberalism is unable to recognize religions in their own right or grant them their proper autonomy.

By contrast, the United States offers a strong integrated vision that allows for the public expression of religion under the auspices of a state that guarantees not just individual rights but also the autonomy of religious communities. Even though minorities in the United States have suffered discrimination, the American model of religious integration explicitly shields religion from excessive state interference. Thus loyalty to the state is not necessarily in conflict with loyalty to one's faith. Perhaps this explains why American Muslims appear more integrated and less alienated than their European counterparts. In part, this is because the European Enlightenment sought to protect the state from religion, whereas the American settlement aimed to protect religion from the state.

Thus, the real reason for Europe's failure to integrate Islam is the European commitment to secularism. Only a new settlement with religion can successfully incorporate the growing religious minorities in Western Europe. Secular liberalism is simply incapable of achieving this outcome. Paradoxically, what other faiths require for their proper recognition is the recovery of the indigenous European religious tradition - Christianity. Only Christianity can integrate other religions into a shared European project by acknowledging what secular ideologies cannot: a transcendent objective truth that exceeds human assertion but is open to rational discernment and debate. As such, Christianity outlines a non-secular model of the common good in which all can participate.

Rather than trying to defend religion through the guise of secular multiculturalism, the Archbishop of Canterbury should have been defending religious pluralism through Christianity. What Muslims most object to is not a difference of belief but its absence from European consciousness. Thus the recovery of Christianity in Europe is not a sectarian project but rather the only basis for the political integration of Muslims and peaceful religious coexistence.

Phillip Blond is a senior lecturer in philosophy and theology at the University of Cumbria. Adrian Pabst teaches religion and politics at the University of Nottingham and is a research fellow at the Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies.

Shariah laws in the west

Shariah laws in the west
ISLAMIC SHARI’AH IN THE WESTERN WORLD
Asghar Ali Engineer

The article follows my comments:

Sharia guidance is helpful in personal life in terms of following the religion for oneself and finding guidance in how to: pray, fast and figure out what portion of your income is to be paid in charity etc. Let’s call this private domain and Sharia code is a good source to give the logistics and it works fine.

When it comes to public domain that is dealing with a person other than you, justice is the core value of Islam, and our civil laws are just and fair to take care of that part of the life. In the public domain our Civil laws are good replacement for Sharia, particularly because the civic laws are applicable to all Citizens of the nation fairly.

Sharia laws are derivatives from Qur’aan and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad on living a life of Justice and peace. As with every group, the extreme interpretations by certain institutions and individuals, and their perpetuation have become contentious. The conflicts are in the areas of divorce, apostasy and women, where fine tuning of our understanding is needed.

The basis for Qur'aan is justice, when there is justice people feel secure and live in peace, harmony and prosperity. As far as the Sharia in public life is concerned, our civil laws are just and are good for every one. The rest of the Sharia is about one's devotion to God and how it is carried out, and it usually remains in the private domain.

American and Canadian Muslims value and trust our justice system and feel comfortable with our civic laws to take care of the public issues, meaning issues that affect another individual other than oneself.

Mike Ghouse
# # # '

ISLAMIC SHARI’AH IN THE WESTERN WORLD
Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective March-1-15, 2008)


As the population of Muslims is increasing in western countries like
U.K., USA, Canada etc. the demand for applying Shari’ah law to Muslims
is being voiced. The Government of Canada was toying with the idea of
enforcing Shari’ah law in the state of Toronto but none other than
progressive Muslim women and men themselves opposed government’s
intention to apply Shari’ah law and in view of stiff opposition by these
Muslims, government gave up the idea’

Now comes the news that the U.K. Government may also think of applying
Shari’ah law to Muslims of U.K. the Archbishop of Canterbury has also
favored this measure. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop is reported to have
said that the adoption of some aspects of Shari’ah law in the UK seems
unavoidable. May be Archbishop is extending hand of friendship towards
the Muslim minority which is of considerable size by now and is seeking
some kind of accommodation with Muslim leaders. Or, may be he is under
pressure to approve of application of Muslim law.

The BJP in this country wants Muslim law to be abolished although Muslim
majority in India is much greater in size than in the UK. At one time it
was unthinkable for Muslims of UK to have Islamic law applied to them
but fast increasing population is creating pressure on the government.
Though as yet we have not heard any opposing voice from progressive
Muslims of UK, it may be matter of time before it is heard.

If Islamic law as codified by Muslim jurists of medieval ages is
applied, it will create more problems for Muslim women. Our ‘Ulama voice
stiff opposition to any change in the law in keeping with the Qur’anic
spirit, it can certainly better the modern laws pertaining to marriage,
divorce and property rights. But problem is our jurists and ‘ulama are
too rigid to agree for any re-thinking even in the sprit of Qur’an.

Also, as rightly pointed out by some commentators there is no single
law. Islamic law is different for Muslims of different sects. Even Sunni
Muslims are divided into various legal schools like Shafi’I, Hanafi,
Maliki and Hanbali and in U.K. there are Muslims, following all these
schools besides Shi’ah Ithna ‘Asharis and Isma’ilis. Though marriage may
not be much of a problem but divorce and inheritance laws can cause
major problems in these different schools of law.

Though men will certainly gain but Muslim women will be great loosers,
if one goes by traditional Shari’ah laws. The Qur’anic provisions were
interpreted in medieval cultural ethos and women, in that cultural
milieu was far from equal. In western countries discrimination on the
basis of gender is a major issue and educated Muslim women mainly
complain against discriminatory practices in the extant Shari’ah laws.

In all Muslim countries there is movement for change in existing Shari’ah
laws and particularly women are demanding change and progressive men
conscious of gender equality support them. If Shari’ah law is applied in
countries like UK, will it be applied as it exists, say in Sunni schools
or it will be reformed? If it is reformed who will bring about reforms?
In India Muslim women are against oral divorce pronounced in one breath
and ‘Ulama oppose any such change. It is ultimately secular courts,
which are rejecting triple divorce insisting on proof for divorce.

The Muslim women in India are also pressing for standard nikahnama which
is perfectly Islamic as marriage is contract in Islam and yet ‘Ulama are
not agreeing to nikah contract favoring women in Iran too, there is
women’s movement and many women have been condemned to death by stoning
on charges of adultery and the Islamic jurists are not prepared to
effect any change in traditional Ithna Ashari law prevalent in Iran.
Those women demanding reforms have been sent to jail. There is also muta’
marriage in force in Iran which again favors men.

In Saudi Arabia there are much severer problems and women cannot even
enter into business deal directly without a male member apart from being
forbidden to drive vehicles. They cannot vote in elections also.
Recently municipal elections were introduced in Saudi Arabia but women
were not allowed to vote despite demand from women.


I have met many ‘ulama in UK. They are as conservative as in Islamic
countries, perhaps even more in the alien environment of UK and other
Western countries. If any attempt is made to apply Islamic law in UK it
will trigger off bitter controversy between Muslims and non-Muslims, on
one hand, and between Muslims and Muslims, on the other. The Muslim
women are bound to protest.

Large number of Muslims is from various Arab and African countries with
extremely conservative background and if ‘ulama oppose any change in
Muslim law or its selective application and these conservative Muslims
will fully back up these ‘ulama. Obviously, progressive Muslims wanting
change in Shari’ah law will be outnumbered and the Government will have
to listen to the conservatives.

Though there is provision for re-thinking in Islamic law called ijtihad,
to this day ‘ulama never allowed any one including one of their own
tribe, to resort to ijtihad. An ‘alim of standing of Muhammad ‘Abduh in
Egypt in late nineteenth century and early twentieth century had to face
stiff opposition for his advocacy of change and re-thinking of Islamic
laws. Though he rose to the high status of grand mufti of Egypt, yet he
could not bring any change.

When the then President Sadat’s wife Jehan Sadat used her influence to
introduce a law by interpreting a verse of the Qur’an that a marriage
would be registered only if husband bought a house in the name of his
wife, it was removed immediately after the assassination of Sadat. Hosni
Mubarak, the present president of Egypt also faced stiff opposition from
the ‘ulama of al-Azhar when he introduced a bill empowering women to
obtain khula’ (women’s right to obtain divorce without husband’s
consent). He had to agree to a compromise formula before he could get
the law passed.

This is the state of affairs in Islamic countries where reform should
have been easier in totally Islamic milieu. How difficult it would be in
non-Islamic countries, one can well imagine. In India where there are
largest number of Muslims next only to Indonesia, ulama have opposed any
change saying it is Muslim minority country and non-Muslim government
has not right to interfere in Islamic laws.

When the Supreme Court of India granted maintenance to an aged woman
beyond iddah period, the ‘ulama, as well as Muslim political leaders,
raised storm of protest and ultimately Government of India reversed the
judgment of the highest court by enacting a law restricting maintenance
within the iddah period. Thus UK Muslims will also face these dilemmas
once Islamic law is introduced in UK or for that matter in any European
and other western countries like USA or Canada.

The ‘ulama consider formulations of medieval ages sacred and even
divine. For them the Qur’anic concept of justice is secondary to men’s
authority over women. Men’s right to divorce is considered as absolute
whereas women’s right is constrained by men’s consent. Thus it is men
who has authority to divorce although there is no such authority given
by the Qur’an to men.

The ‘ulama consider women as weak and emotional and incapable of taking
proper decision and hence only men should take crucial decisions though
women could be consulted. By the same reason they also think that a
woman should not become head of state as it would be disaster for the
state. This view is supposedly based on one hadith authenticity of which
has been questioned.

Today there is great need for re-codification of Islamic laws and if Qur’anic
spirit is followed in re-codification of Islamic laws in the areas of
marriage, divorce and inheritance, these laws will be as good as modern
laws based on the concept of gender equality and also much of the
differences between various madhahib (schools of law) can be minimized.

These differences between various schools of law are precisely because
of differences of opinion between jurists as also due to impact of local
conditions, customs and traditions. Despite these differences all the
jurists of the time were agreed on one thing: women are sinferior to men
in every respect though there is no such assumption in Qur’an at all.
This assumption of inferiority of female sex was introduced by the
‘ulama and jurists who were themselves product of patriarchal ethos.

The Qur’anic injunctions on personal laws have no such direct or even
indirect assumption and hence these injunctions prioritize women’s
rights. However, the right-based discourse for women could not be
accepted by patriarchs of the time even though it was divine and hence
Shari’ah laws were based more on patriarchal opinions and divinity was
subjected to patriarchy.

Gender equality, originally found in Qur’an and lost in medieval
patriarchal ethos has to be rediscovered buried in Qur’anic revelation
and then only gender justice can be restored.