Adam Deen is an international public speaker on Muslim Apologetics.
A former Islam channel presenter who has been working in the field of Muslim apologetics for almost a decade. He has contributed to debates on issues ranging from religious philosophy and theology. His work draws on contemporary philosophy to defend Islam in debates. He has regularly appeared on mainstream TV.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
What isn't wrong with Maryam Namazie’s view of Sharia law ?
Apologies this article has now moved to the new site. Click here
The last point is paramount - the misuse of Shariah means its not universal and therefore not applicable throughout one area. That doesn't mean the shari code isn't applicable - IT IS.
jazkallah khair Br Adam. I have seen some non muslims (especially atheists) get very excited about Namazie's recent outbursts and condemnation of shariah as being injustice and all that- but as you say, its more to do with WHO is running the Law in that land and HOW.
'There are many religious courts. Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and so on. Yet no uproar regarding the complexities of those? Or the treatment of women within them and how rulings are derived.
None of the posts have shown any level of understanding of Islam. At any level. So any opinion is superfluous.... See more
Purely xenophobic, cliched remarks that have been better articulated but ultimately stem from the tabloid press. Oh and Sky news and any other social "expert."
The fact that the writer has an agenda considering her background and membership of The Council of Ex-Muslims (one must seriously question the point of a such an organisation!) has skewered her perspective.
If this debate is to be had, secularists, atheists MUST come to the table with some semblance of academic understanding.
I love the old "Oh in Muslim countries they are not doing it properly" argument. lol
You know that if people like Suhaib Hasan - member of UK Shariah Council ever got their way, they would happily implement the sort of Shari'ah Law we see in Saudi.
Instead of criticising Maryam - spend more time criticising - and changing - the religious leaders who would inevitably make the decisions if Shari'ah Law were ever fully implemented.
You say that we should criticize the use of the law and not the law itself; firstly, if sharia courts were not allowed to function, there would be no opportunity to misuse the law within them. We must deal with the reality and not with some obscure ideal. The reality is that sharia courts have handed down judgments which are discriminatory to women and children, such as an inheritance case where a daughter received half of that of her brothers. The reality is also that domestic violence cases have led to no punishment for the perpetrators other than ‘anger management’ classes. It is also a reality that a woman must pay more to initiate divorce proceedings because “a woman’s word needs to be corroborated”. It is also a reality that the ‘judges’ in these courts are always men.
I’m sure you are aware of a little piece of legislation known as the Human Rights Act. This does not allow public bodies (including courts and tribunals) to operate in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention provides, among other things, a person’s right to fair hearing and fair trial. You do not even dispute the fact that child custody reverts to the father at aged 7 “in the view that it is the child’s best interest”. So the assumption is that being with the father is in the child’s best interest unless otherwise shown? As presumption in favour of any gender is biased and sexist, so how on earth could it ever offer a ‘fair’ hearing or trial for the woman? A unfair legal system such as this, based on religious doctrine, should be illegal in this country under the Human Rights Act, in order to guarantee, as far as is possible, a fair hearing and fair system of justice – for women as well as men.
1.Sharia Law is part Islam.A muslim will not doubt the Sharia 2.like any law,the application of it will take circumstances into consideration.. 3.therefore,Sharia is the Text and the Application of the Sharia is the Context....we need honest,scholarly muslim judges to apply the Shariah 4.Shariah as part of Islamic Creed is immutable....Sharia as Law should be "flexible"
The argument that if we didn't have shariah courts there wouldn't be abuse assumes that in britain where women and men have gone to shariah courts that the rule has actually been abused. I wonder could you give one example of this in the UK. Secondly the argument is equally valid to be applied to any court system including British legal system. That isn't an argument to abandon courts in their entirety but rather it's an argument to better regulate them.
As for women receiving half the inheritance of a man. This again is taking a rule in isolation to islams perception of society and the relationship between men and women. For example where brother and sister are half brothers through the same mother but different fathers the inheritance is equal. Where they share the same father then the brother gets more but the brother is obliged to give nafaqa bill maroof. Which means maintenance according to the common expectations in society. As for the first example the brother isn't obliged to give nafaqa.
So although women have the right to work and earn money they also have the right to demand money and maintenance from those obliged to give it.
Could u give me any examples where men according to the shariah are able to physically abuse their wife and only go to anger management classes? That is incorrect and I feel full of assumptions and prejudice.
As for the perceived bias within the shariah about custody then let me remind you of 'fathers for justice' who argue that mothers can effectively cut off all access to their children and it is clear that in British legal system favours the mothers I can give u statements from experts in law in this regard.
In Islam the issue of custody is far more nuanced than simply applying age to it. The importance of the mother the guardianship of the father the best interests of the child and the desires of parents and child are taken into consideration. So it certainly isn't just some arbitrary age.
As for the human rights act. I'm sorry but is this the same act that allows Belgium to ban the niqab or France to ban the hijab in public state buildings like schools and hospitals. Or the same act that allows the bans on minarets in switzerland, the detention without charge of ppl like barber ahmed or the allowance of rendition and extraordinary rendition? I could go on (honestly I could).
Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in.
I liked the article very much, I think its a case of the spirit of the law verses the letter of the law.
Lots of people have contentions and issues with Shariah because of the dogmatic way it has been implemented, and I can accept thats a valid contention.
However it's a shame that the same critics fail to see the spirit of the law - nicely explained in the example of adultery and hudud. The evidence needed to apply the hudud is so difficult,therefore in essence it is a symbolic punishment only truly carried out if the adulterers accept it.
This to me is a mercy from Allah - you do something blatantly wrong and even then the punishment you deserve is not easily implemented...? SubhaanAllah.
Ultimately its down to the people who implement Shariah,not the Shariah itself - couldn't agree more.
If the implementation is wrong does that infer the principle or value itself is wrong? Quite a big conclusion to deduct.
Relative example:
1. Criminals who go to prison and re-offend when they are released.
Does that mean there is something wrong with the whole concept of Justice and punishment?
Would we sit for hours debating what is a crime and what is justice - no we would look at the prison system, the reasons for re-offending, the individual, the support systems in place after they were released from prison. Practical solutions.
2. A man who is unfaithful to his wife.
Does that mean there is something wrong with the institution of marriage?
Would we debate the biological ability of men to stay faithful, the value of marriage in society today, and so forth. No we would accept its a human error, and leave it at that.
The list goes on of deductions you can make based on human nature and error in implementing or carrying out certain values and ideas.
I'm very open to debate and improving the society we live in, but whenever we engage in discussion we have to ask ourselves what is our intention?
If our core belief is religion is a waste of time, and any practical implementation of it is therefore also a waste of time, then we are doing an injustice on a whole social group who hold the values of faith very dearly.
Any debate or discussion is tainted with the all too familiar stench of arrogance and contempt for things we don't understand.
Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all.
Values people like Maryam and the Governments who implement Shariah need to embrace mentally and spiritually.
I'm aware of the various silly reasons Muslims come up with to justify Shari'a law. The basic point is, this isn't necessary in a Western country. Go practice it elsewhere. If Adam had been paying ANY attention to the Guardian article, he would have read the rather lengthy comments below about explicit cases concerning discrimination regarding Shari'a law.
Anonymous posted: "The argument that if we didn't have shariah courts there wouldn't be abuse assumes that in britain where women and men have gone to shariah courts that the rule has actually been abused. I wonder could you give one example of this in the UK."
How about the fact that girls will be coerced and feel pressured into bowing down to a shari'a, and not a legal British court, which by the way, makes no distinction between the amount of inheritance between a man and a woman?
"Could u give me any examples where men according to the shariah are able to physically abuse their wife and only go to anger management classes? That is incorrect and I feel full of assumptions and prejudice."
Have you heard of a little surah which allows the man to beat his wife as a last resort? Now I"m sure you're going to come about with the rejoinder that, "Oh, it's only in certain circumstances, and and the beating is very light." Well, so much for Shari'a treating men and women equally. If she steps out of line, it's okay to beat her as a last resort (just don't hit her face). But remember to put her in her place. British courts do not allow this.
"As for the human rights act. I'm sorry but is this the same act that allows Belgium to ban the niqab or France to ban the hijab in public state buildings like schools and hospitals. Or the same act that allows the bans on minarets in switzerland, the detention without charge of ppl like barber ahmed or the allowance of rendition and extraordinary rendition? I could go on (honestly I could)."
What is it with this constant quest to be a victim? It's a safety issue! Certain places SHOULD be mandated off-limits to the burka for security reasons. In Toronto, there was the recent case of someone wearing the burka that robbed a bank, and no one could recognize that person. Furthermore, in the West, when working in the public sector, people need to see the face! That's just how it is. As for the minaret ban in Switzerland, again, Muslims like to reassert the status as the constant victim. What's up with that? In Egypt and Pakistan, churches get burned to the ground, or, like Egyptian copts, they have to beg and plead with authorities in order to get a church built! You complain about your victim status, but you know that the freedom Muslims get here is far greater than the freedom Muslims give to Christians back in the Middle East. If life is so bad for you here, why aren't Muslims leaving en-masse for the Middle East?
"Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in."
Muslims can't even come up with a consensus on what Shari'a means. And in case you haven't noticed, there's an Iranian woman on death row about to be sentenced for adultery, how's that for human rights in Islam? Now you could say, "Oh, but those countries don't practice it right," but let's face it, Muslims don't even come to an agreement on what shari'a is! If you feel this strongly, why don't you go to an Islamic country where you'd feel more at home? Why is there this constant need for whims and silly moans? Secondly, a woman's testimony is only worth half of a man's. That's hardly fair and equitable in relation to gender.
Anonymous wrote: "Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all."
Which is why Shari'a is not necessary. A woman's testimony is worth less than a man's. That's just the start. Stoning for adultery is allowed; a non-Muslim's testimony is worth less than a Muslims. Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!
All in all, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here can even provide that shari'a is fair and equitable. Not one. Why are all of you so concerned with bringing shari'a and causing concern to the West? Simply pack up and leave to a Muslim country. This is exactly the reason that it was banned here in Canada. And there shouldn't be ANY religious courts, it's too confusing to have any parallel systems of justice.
Oh, and even if you wanted to argue that Islam and Shari'a uphold women's rights, who cares? The rights that a shari'a court brings is nothing compared to what we have today.
"Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in."
Muslims can't even come up with a consensus on what Shari'a means. And in case you haven't noticed, there's an Iranian woman on death row about to be sentenced for adultery, how's that for human rights in Islam? Now you could say, "Oh, but those countries don't practice it right," but let's face it, Muslims don't even come to an agreement on what shari'a is! If you feel this strongly, why don't you go to an Islamic country where you'd feel more at home? Why is there this constant need for whims and silly moans? Secondly, a woman's testimony is only worth half of a man's. That's hardly fair and equitable in relation to gender.
Anonymous wrote: "Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all."
Which is why Shari'a is not necessary. A woman's testimony is worth less than a man's. That's just the start. Stoning for adultery is allowed; a non-Muslim's testimony is worth less than a Muslims. Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!
All in all, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here can even provide that shari'a is fair and equitable. Not one. Why are all of you so concerned with bringing shari'a and causing concern to the West? Simply pack up and leave to a Muslim country. This is exactly the reason that it was banned here in Canada. And there shouldn't be ANY religious courts, it's too confusing to have any parallel systems of justice.
Oh, and even if you wanted to argue that Islam and Shari'a uphold women's rights, who cares? The rights that a shari'a court brings is nothing compared to what we have today.
I'd also like to point out this part of Adam's article:
"One has to remember that the Hudud (capital punishment) at the time of Prophet Mohammed was meant to function as a symbolic deterrent signifying the severity of the act. This reasoning is supported by the near impossible standard of evidence needed for such punishments to be enforced. In reality, Hudud would never actualize, unless the party involved pleaded guilty in order to take the punishment in this world rather than the after life."
Well then, you know that it makes it just as impossible to PROVE that rape has occurred? Why are there Afghani and Pakistani girls in jail? Because they couldn't PROVE that they were raped. Didn't have the requisite four witnesses. And besides, for some reason, it says "male" and not "female" witnesses, thus signifying a man's testimony over a woman's.
I see no one has yet responded to my comments, and I just would like to respond to a few others:
@Adam M Ali:
"There are many religious courts. Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and so on. Yet no uproar regarding the complexities of those? Or the treatment of women within them and how rulings are derived."
There are Hindu and Sikh law courts in the U.K? I wasn't aware of that. I was only aware of the Beth Din and the Shari'a court systems. However, there's no need for ANY sort of religious court with a secular U.K.
"None of the posts have shown any level of understanding of Islam. At any level. So any opinion is superfluous...."
So, no one can criticize the religion, because if they do, they probably don't have any understanding of how it works right? Like most Muslims who can't even agree on what Shari'a is supposed to mean? Ask several different Muslims, you get several different answers on what Shari'a is.
"Purely xenophobic, cliched remarks that have been better articulated but ultimately stem from the tabloid press. Oh and Sky news and any other social "expert.""
Right. Because that's the standard answer: anyone criticize Islam, you must be a racist (or a xenophobe), even though Islam is a religion not a race. A lot of people are against the Shari'a court system, so they must be racist, xenophobic, not able to understand the religion right? Even though Maryam herself is an Iranian and not a White British woman.
"The fact that the writer has an agenda considering her background and membership of The Council of Ex-Muslims (one must seriously question the point of a such an organisation!) has skewered her perspective."
Why is there a need to question the reason behind the organization? Those who leave Islam do face death threats, not all, but it happens. And Maryam herself has been the recipient of death threats. If there's a need to questions an ex-council of British Muslims, is there a need to question why there should be a Muslim council of Britain?
@Abd Hamid Mat Sain,MD:
"1.Sharia Law is part Islam.A muslim will not doubt the Sharia"
Really? Because as I've pointed out before, Muslims can't agree on what that is. Does that mean you can't be a secular Muslim?
"2.like any law,the application of it will take circumstances into consideration."
Great, as does British law, why can't people just follow that?
"3.therefore,Sharia is the Text and the Application of the Sharia is the Context....we need honest,scholarly muslim judges to apply the Shariah."
Well, there are, what? Four different schools of thought regarding Islam, more than one that declares one who leaves Islam is to be killed? So who is to decide which scholars to follow? Choudry (a fanatic part of a group that wants Shari'a in all of the UK) says that he wants to take over the Throne of Britain and implement it HIS way. Who is to disagree? Right? Having a Shari'a court only increases fanaticism, because this gives credence to the radicals' idea that they're above Western law. You live in the West, follow Western law, not some 7th century Arabian law.
"4.Shariah as part of Islamic Creed is immutable....Sharia as Law should be "flexible"
Again, but by who's standard? Since most can't agree on what it is? Why not just follow British courts? Oh, and I'd like to point out that divorce is tougher under Islam for women than for men. There's no need for any of this. Having different religious courts just complicates things.
How many times did the death penalty occur in the time of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?"
Which has what to do with what? As I've mentioned, the majority of Muslims can't come to agreement on what shari'a is. Hence, there's no need for it here. Not everyone wants some 7th century Arabian law in the West.
I think 'Anonymous' who has had plentiful to say but little understanding to show for it really needs to read Adam's article again. Nice and slowly, without the blinkers.
Anonymous' basic argument is to rave about legal aspects of Shari'a which are bandied about on the internet and on hate sites. If that veritable nonsense gets deconstructed, which of course is inevitable, then just hide behind this false mantra that 'Muslims can't even agree what Shari'a means!!!'
Not a convenient failsafe my dear, because Shari'a as a general legal system is quite easily defined and articulated in an Islamic context (legal theorists have been doing it for hundreds without a problem). Differences of opinion in specific jurisprudencies is non-sequitur in this regard.
Anonymous wrote: "... which by the way, makes no distinction between the amount of inheritance between a man and a woman?"
Didn't Adam tell you to comprehend the legal backdrop first and not consider rulings in an isolated vacuum?
Under Shari'a the financial obligation of maintaining and providing for the family and relatives falls to the males. They have to do this by law. So you're damn right they get more inheritence - much of which is spent on the females of the household! In contrast, whatever the females get is theirs to do with as they please. No obligation to spend on anyone else.
Adam and people in the comments even mentioned this. It's a shame that those blinkers of yours censor those facts which are inconvenient to your carefully rehearsed propaganda.
"Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!"
Trust me Anonymous, you've definitely not read any mainstream scholarly text on Islamic history. Maybe you think you won't be caught out repeating failed polemic on hate websites. History shows that Muslims let others resolve disputes according to their own legal systems. In many cases, non-Muslims and in particular Jews enjoyed positions of authority in Muslim states.
"What is it with this constant quest to be a victim? It's a safety issue! Certain places SHOULD be mandated off-limits to the burka for security reasons. In Toronto, there was the recent case of someone wearing the burka that robbed a bank, and no one could recognize that person."
Oh, what an admirable pretext. Stop them Burka Bank Robbers. That's why you want it banned. Right? Wearing the loose burka clothes and face-veil doesn't lend itself very well to robbing banks. Probably why it isn't a big hit in the Middle East.
We all know that the Islamophobe crew hates any overt signs of Muslim identity in society. You can be open with us, you don't need to use these false pretenses.
Deep down you support measures like 'head rag tax' and 'minaret bans' - not because headscarf is costly to society or because skydivers might inadvertently impale themselves on pesky minarets or whatever cute excuses you might invent - but because you see Muslims peacefully practicing their religion as fundamentally intolerable: a symbolic concession of the West to Islam.
So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.
“Not a convenient failsafe my dear, because Shari'a as a general legal system is quite easily defined and articulated in an Islamic context (legal theorists have been doing it for hundreds without a problem). Differences of opinion in specific jurisprudencies is non-sequitur in this regard.”
Really? Which is why most Muslims disagree on what Shari’a is? You have, what? 55 states practicing Shari’a, and according to some Muslims, they’re not really Islamic states. Who is to decide? Choudary himself has declared that they’re not really Islamic states, so who is to decide? Why can’t people come to a consensus on what Shari’a entails, if it’s so easy to follow?
“Didn't Adam tell you to comprehend the legal backdrop first and not consider rulings in an isolated vacuum? Under Shari'a the financial obligation of maintaining and providing for the family and relatives falls to the males. They have to do this by law. So you're damn right they get more inheritence - much of which is spent on the females of the household! In contrast, whatever the females get is theirs to do with as they please. No obligation to spend on anyone else.”
Of course, do you also know that the man is given the final word on EVERYTHING? He is the head of the household with the obligation to not only spend on everything, but the one who has final say on everything. Now of course, you could argue that the wife is to be consulted, but he has the final say on everything. The Qu’ran also instructs women to be obedient to their husbands, a heavy price to pay for financial ‘freedom,’ wouldn’t you say? Is this allowed in the British court system? BTW, what do you think of divorce being tougher on women?
“Adam and people in the comments even mentioned this. It's a shame that those blinkers of yours censor those facts which are inconvenient to your carefully rehearsed propaganda.”
Of course, because anyone who criticizes Islam is what, a xenophobe?
“Trust me Anonymous, you've definitely not read any mainstream scholarly text on Islamic history. Maybe you think you won't be caught out repeating failed polemic on hate websites. History shows that Muslims let others resolve disputes according to their own legal systems. In many cases, non-Muslims and in particular Jews enjoyed positions of authority in Muslim states.”
An Islamic state is ideological: people who reside in such places are either declared as Muslims or non-Muslims, and those who are non-Muslims pay a heavy jizya tax. Because of this second-class status, non-Muslims are not entrusted with the responsibilities of policymaking. Only when they embrace the Islamic faith, do they become equals with Muslims in matters of policymaking. By the way, I advise you to do a little research on the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands today: particularly the Pakistani Christians and Egyptian Copts. http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=6260.
“Deep down you support measures like 'head rag tax' and 'minaret bans' - not because headscarf is costly to society or because skydivers might inadvertently impale themselves on pesky minarets or whatever cute excuses you might invent - but because you see Muslims peacefully practicing their religion as fundamentally intolerable: a symbolic concession of the West to Islam.”
Ah, yes, the old, you must be a racist because you criticize Islam routine. Should I then stereotype you and call you a White, liberal wussy? When criticizing Islam, you are: a) a racist, b) xenophobe, or a ‘red neck’ if you like, c) a Zionist Jew, or d) indoctrinated by the Jewish media. What other reasons can you think of, Jerry?
“So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.”
What? That Muslims are all victims even though they continue to come here? That Muslims are the ‘Jew of Europe?” Do you agree with that, Jerry? Are Muslims being persecuted and thrown into ovens like the Jews? Because more than once, I’ve heard a Muslim leader at a time or two compare the treatment of Muslims in Europe to that of the Jews. Do you agree? What irritates me is that Muslim leaders, rarely, if ever, criticize the treatment of non-Muslims and women in Muslim countries. They focus, primarily on the victim status in Western states, but rarely upon what is occurring in Muslim lands. If Muslims want the occasional claims of victimization taken seriously, they, like you, should then criticize what is occurring to non-Muslims and women in Muslim lands. We could talk about other things Jerry: we could talk about how Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry either alcohol or dogs in their cabs even though it’s part of their jobs; we could talk about the physical attacks on girls in European countries for not wearing the hijab. How about that, Jerry? What about honour killings, shall we talk about that? Would it interest you to know that Muslims are responsible for 96% of honour killings worldwide? http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings. But, groups like CAIR and others don’t want to distinguish honour killings from other forms of ‘domestic violence.’ Rarely do I hear Muslim leaders speak out about such things, just reinforcing their victim status, as are you. Do you agree with that Jerry, are Muslims just victims?
You know what’s funny? You purposely overlooked EVERYTHING else I wrote: I wrote about Afghani and Pakistani girls in PRISON, because they can’t prove the allegation that they’ve been raped. Didn’t have the requisite four witnesses.
And as for “you and your likes” – who are you to judge me? I just want everyone to follow ONE law, not a different law from everyone else. Is that too much to ask, Jerry?
“Oh, what an admirable pretext. Stop them Burka Bank Robbers. That's why you want it banned. Right? Wearing the loose burka clothes and face-veil doesn't lend itself very well to robbing banks. Probably why it isn't a big hit in the Middle East. We all know that the Islamophobe crew hates any overt signs of Muslim identity in society. You can be open with us, you don't need to use these false pretences.”
In certain areas, yeah, maybe it’s necessary as a safety issue, rather than just an all out-blanket ban, which is impractical. France and Belgium proposed an all out ban, so perhaps limiting the burka from certain areas may be more practical, as well as running a campaign against those who would force girls to wear the hijab or the burka. And we all know it happens: in fact, in Muslim countries, there are attacks against girls who don’t wear it by throwing acid, or mutilating them in other ways, so excuse me if I don’t feel too sorry for women who feel they’re forced to take it off in the West. If I visit a conservative Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, I’m forced to wear the hijab. But hey according to you, anyone who criticizes Islam must be either a) racist, or b) xenophobe, even though Islam isn’t a race, it’s a religion. And you can be open with us, what are you? Some white guy named “Jerry,” who’s taken it upon himself to defend the poor, oppressed Muslims, who continue to come to the West? Even though they’re suffering from huge amounts of persecution here?
Islamophobia btw, isn’t a real word..should we then invent another world for the attacks on Jews by Muslims in European states? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1946851.stm How about Judeophobia?
“So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.”
What? That Muslims are all victims even though they continue to come here? That Muslims are the ‘Jew of Europe?” Do you agree with that, Jerry? Are Muslims being persecuted and thrown into ovens like the Jews? Because more than once, I’ve heard a Muslim leader at a time or two compare the treatment of Muslims in Europe to that of the Jews. Do you agree? What irritates me is that Muslim leaders, rarely, if ever, criticize the treatment of non-Muslims and women in Muslim countries. They focus, primarily on the victim status in Western states, but rarely upon what is occurring in Muslim lands. If Muslims want the occasional claims of victimization taken seriously, they, like you, should then criticize what is occurring to non-Muslims and women in Muslim lands. We could talk about other things Jerry: we could talk about how Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry either alcohol or dogs in their cabs even though it’s part of their jobs; we could talk about the physical attacks on girls in European countries for not wearing the hijab. How about that, Jerry? What about honour killings, shall we talk about that? Would it interest you to know that Muslims are responsible for 96% of honour killings worldwide? http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings. But, groups like CAIR and others don’t want to distinguish honour killings from other forms of ‘domestic violence.’ Rarely do I hear Muslim leaders speak out about such things, just reinforcing their victim status, as are you. Do you agree with that Jerry, are Muslims just victims?
You know what’s funny? You purposely overlooked EVERYTHING else I wrote: I wrote about Afghani and Pakistani girls in PRISON, because they can’t prove the allegation that they’ve been raped. Didn’t have the requisite four witnesses.
And as for “you and your likes” – who are you to judge me? I just want everyone to follow ONE law, not a different law from everyone else. Is that too much to ask, Jerry?
Mr Deen - what exactly is the point of your wordy ramblings? They are all hot puffs of air that will be blown away on the winds of time and utterly forgotton. Meanwhile, women and children suffer and die in the dark corners where Sharia law is used to control the people. What have you DONE today or any day to help them?
Honestly, I remember reading that silly woman's article a few weeks back and was just so mad at the typical rubbish she was spewing.
My fear however was that her seemingly knowledgeable standpoint on the topic would spur on people who already thought the way she did and would also convert people sitting on the fence.
Checking the guardian website to read the comments only confirmed my fear.
This article however has put that painfully memory to bed. Good read before getting ready for jumah!
I'm by no means an expert on this topic so just a few points or questions.
1. If shariah law is to be used when in the right context, and no place currently has the right context, are we saying it should not be used at all? Or are the situations it is being used for in terms of giving advice (I don't think these courts have genuine legal power do they?) ok because the people in charge of it have been assessed and they are indeed the perfect muslims when it comes to making a judgement on that issue?
2. I'm not sure the UK law system is so perfect as for lots of the comments on that article to say "We are doing perfectly fine here, we don't need your Muslim laws". I should probably add I am a Hindu myself so I apologise for any subconscious or acquired bias in anything I write!
3. I'm somewhat confused as to how and who decides whether something is indeed correct or incorrect when it is something not specifically stated in plain language in the Quran. I hear some tell me that "Many great scholars seem to agree..." but if even one disagrees, is it up to the individual people or communities to decide which they accept as there is no definitive authority and person who can judge except Allah?
4. I hear also of the time of perfect or near perfect humanity when Islam was used more wisely quite soon after the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammed (sorry about spelling mistakes). I also hear others say "That country/place is Muslim, and it does bad things, often in the name of religion, therefore Islam must be bad". Once again, how can we as mere humans decide which is the correct one? People tell me it's blindingly obvious one is correct (Muslims and others tend to say the older supposedly more peaceful one is correct, some others say there are obvious quotes which justify the "bad" (I know it's hard for humans to judge what is good and bad in an objective way) side which is why "Islam is on the whole, not good). I am just struggling to see the practical implentation of this all.
5. I bring up practical implentation as one thing often thrown at followers of Sanatan Dharma (or Hindus or whatever you wish to call them) is that the lack of authority means it's impossible to say who is right and who is wrong and so practically people go in different directions. This is different in other religions? Really? I also like to think Shia and Sunni are not all that different, am I wrong or are the theological differences just the start of a big chasm between them?
6. I often see those of Abrahamic faiths moaning about how they are criticised too much, with Islam probably being on the receiving end of lots of mainstream criticism at present (Christianity has it's fair share too!), but this gives a great platform to people such as Adam Deen to tackle misconceptions and other issues. I started reading and listening to the likes of Deen and Tzortzis on the back of the publicity (how commercial of me I know, forgive me!) and feel I have a more positive view of the faith now (I'd say I was pretty neutral due to my lack of knowledge) even with my very limited knowledge. Sanatan Dharma doesn't get this opportunity so when things which could easily be tackled by Hindus such as the caste system and supposed inequality amongst beings or living creatures is raised, occasionally by Muslims (misquote and out of context master being Zakir Naik but I'm sure many of you know this anyway), there isn't much of a platform given to tackle them.
29 comments:
MashAllah great post Brother.
The last point is paramount - the misuse of Shariah means its not universal and therefore not applicable throughout one area. That doesn't mean the shari code isn't applicable - IT IS.
We'll make dua' for Maryam.
Islam = Shariah. Shariah = Islam.
http://www.muslimness.com
"the real criticism ought to be directed at the misuse of the law, not the law itself."
I agree.
jazkallah khair Br Adam. I have seen some non muslims (especially atheists) get very excited about Namazie's recent outbursts and condemnation of shariah as being injustice and all that- but as you say, its more to do with WHO is running the Law in that land and HOW.
Superb rebuttal!
'There are many religious courts. Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and so on. Yet no uproar regarding the complexities of those? Or the treatment of women within them and how rulings are derived.
None of the posts have shown any level of understanding of Islam. At any level. So any opinion is superfluous.... See more
Purely xenophobic, cliched remarks that have been better articulated but ultimately stem from the tabloid press. Oh and Sky news and any other social "expert."
The fact that the writer has an agenda considering her background and membership of The Council of Ex-Muslims (one must seriously question the point of a such an organisation!) has skewered her perspective.
If this debate is to be had, secularists, atheists MUST come to the table with some semblance of academic understanding.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6721158.ece'
My comment on the article...
I love the old "Oh in Muslim countries they are not doing it properly" argument. lol
You know that if people like Suhaib Hasan - member of UK Shariah Council ever got their way, they would happily implement the sort of Shari'ah Law we see in Saudi.
Instead of criticising Maryam - spend more time criticising - and changing - the religious leaders who would inevitably make the decisions if Shari'ah Law were ever fully implemented.
@ Hassan
It's not an argument, its a fact .
Great Article and to the point.
thank you Adam.
You say that we should criticize the use of the law and not the law itself; firstly, if sharia courts were not allowed to function, there would be no opportunity to misuse the law within them. We must deal with the reality and not with some obscure ideal. The reality is that sharia courts have handed down judgments which are discriminatory to women and children, such as an inheritance case where a daughter received half of that of her brothers. The reality is also that domestic violence cases have led to no punishment for the perpetrators other than ‘anger management’ classes. It is also a reality that a woman must pay more to initiate divorce proceedings because “a woman’s word needs to be corroborated”. It is also a reality that the ‘judges’ in these courts are always men.
I’m sure you are aware of a little piece of legislation known as the Human Rights Act. This does not allow public bodies (including courts and tribunals) to operate in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention provides, among other things, a person’s right to fair hearing and fair trial. You do not even dispute the fact that child custody reverts to the father at aged 7 “in the view that it is the child’s best interest”. So the assumption is that being with the father is in the child’s best interest unless otherwise shown? As presumption in favour of any gender is biased and sexist, so how on earth could it ever offer a ‘fair’ hearing or trial for the woman? A unfair legal system such as this, based on religious doctrine, should be illegal in this country under the Human Rights Act, in order to guarantee, as far as is possible, a fair hearing and fair system of justice – for women as well as men.
One Law for All
1.Sharia Law is part Islam.A muslim will not doubt the Sharia
2.like any law,the application of it will take circumstances into consideration..
3.therefore,Sharia is the Text and the Application of the Sharia is the Context....we need honest,scholarly muslim judges to apply the Shariah
4.Shariah as part of Islamic Creed is immutable....Sharia as Law should be "flexible"
Salaam
Salaams
Just to respond to anonymous.
The argument that if we didn't have shariah courts there wouldn't be abuse assumes that in britain where women and men have gone to shariah courts that the rule has actually been abused. I wonder could you give one example of this in the UK. Secondly the argument is equally valid to be applied to any court system including British legal system. That isn't an argument to abandon courts in their entirety but rather it's an argument to better regulate them.
As for women receiving half the inheritance of a man. This again is taking a rule in isolation to islams perception of society and the relationship between men and women. For example where brother and sister are half brothers through the same mother but different fathers the inheritance is equal. Where they share the same father then the brother gets more but the brother is obliged to give nafaqa bill maroof. Which means maintenance according to the common expectations in society. As for the first example the brother isn't obliged to give nafaqa.
So although women have the right to work and earn money they also have the right to demand money and maintenance from those obliged to give it.
Could u give me any examples where men according to the shariah are able to physically abuse their wife and only go to anger management classes? That is incorrect and I feel full of assumptions and prejudice.
As for the perceived bias within the shariah about custody then let me remind you of 'fathers for justice' who argue that mothers can effectively cut off all access to their children and it is clear that in British legal system favours the mothers I can give u statements from experts in law in this regard.
In Islam the issue of custody is far more nuanced than simply applying age to it. The importance of the mother the guardianship of the father the best interests of the child and the desires of parents and child are taken into consideration. So it certainly isn't just some arbitrary age.
As for the human rights act. I'm sorry but is this the same act that allows Belgium to ban the niqab or France to ban the hijab in public state buildings like schools and hospitals. Or the same act that allows the bans on minarets in switzerland, the detention without charge of ppl like barber ahmed or the allowance of rendition and extraordinary rendition? I could go on (honestly I could).
Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in.
I liked the article very much, I think its a case of the spirit of the law verses the letter of the law.
Lots of people have contentions and issues with Shariah because of the dogmatic way it has been implemented, and I can accept thats a valid contention.
However it's a shame that the same critics fail to see the spirit of the law - nicely explained in the example of adultery and hudud. The evidence needed to apply the hudud is so difficult,therefore in essence it is a symbolic punishment only truly carried out if the adulterers accept it.
This to me is a mercy from Allah - you do something blatantly wrong and even then the punishment you deserve is not easily implemented...? SubhaanAllah.
Ultimately its down to the people who implement Shariah,not the Shariah itself - couldn't agree more.
If the implementation is wrong does that infer the principle or value itself is wrong? Quite a big conclusion to deduct.
Relative example:
1. Criminals who go to prison and re-offend when they are released.
Does that mean there is something wrong with the whole concept of Justice and punishment?
Would we sit for hours debating what is a crime and what is justice - no we would look at the prison system, the reasons for re-offending, the individual, the support systems in place after they were released from prison. Practical solutions.
2. A man who is unfaithful to his wife.
Does that mean there is something wrong with the institution of marriage?
Would we debate the biological ability of men to stay faithful, the value of marriage in society today, and so forth. No we would accept its a human error, and leave it at that.
The list goes on of deductions you can make based on human nature and error in implementing or carrying out certain values and ideas.
I'm very open to debate and improving the society we live in, but whenever we engage in discussion we have to ask ourselves what is our intention?
If our core belief is religion is a waste of time, and any practical implementation of it is therefore also a waste of time, then we are doing an injustice on a whole social group who hold the values of faith very dearly.
Any debate or discussion is tainted with the all too familiar stench of arrogance and contempt for things we don't understand.
Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all.
Values people like Maryam and the Governments who implement Shariah need to embrace mentally and spiritually.
I'm aware of the various silly reasons Muslims come up with to justify Shari'a law. The basic point is, this isn't necessary in a Western country. Go practice it elsewhere. If Adam had been paying ANY attention to the Guardian article, he would have read the rather lengthy comments below about explicit cases concerning discrimination regarding Shari'a law.
Anonymous posted:
"The argument that if we didn't have shariah courts there wouldn't be abuse assumes that in britain where women and men have gone to shariah courts that the rule has actually been abused. I wonder could you give one example of this in the UK."
How about the fact that girls will be coerced and feel pressured into bowing down to a shari'a, and not a legal British court, which by the way, makes no distinction between the amount of inheritance between a man and a woman?
"Could u give me any examples where men according to the shariah are able to physically abuse their wife and only go to anger management classes? That is incorrect and I feel full of assumptions and prejudice."
Have you heard of a little surah which allows the man to beat his wife as a last resort? Now I"m sure you're going to come about with the rejoinder that, "Oh, it's only in certain circumstances, and and the beating is very light." Well, so much for Shari'a treating men and women equally. If she steps out of line, it's okay to beat her as a last resort (just don't hit her face). But remember to put her in her place. British courts do not allow this.
"As for the human rights act. I'm sorry but is this the same act that allows Belgium to ban the niqab or France to ban the hijab in public state buildings like schools and hospitals. Or the same act that allows the bans on minarets in switzerland, the detention without charge of ppl like barber ahmed or the allowance of rendition and extraordinary rendition? I could go on (honestly I could)."
What is it with this constant quest to be a victim? It's a safety issue! Certain places SHOULD be mandated off-limits to the burka for security reasons. In Toronto, there was the recent case of someone wearing the burka that robbed a bank, and no one could recognize that person. Furthermore, in the West, when working in the public sector, people need to see the face! That's just how it is. As for the minaret ban in Switzerland, again, Muslims like to reassert the status as the constant victim. What's up with that? In Egypt and Pakistan, churches get burned to the ground, or, like Egyptian copts, they have to beg and plead with authorities in order to get a church built! You complain about your victim status, but you know that the freedom Muslims get here is far greater than the freedom Muslims give to Christians back in the Middle East. If life is so bad for you here, why aren't Muslims leaving en-masse for the Middle East?
"Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in."
Muslims can't even come up with a consensus on what Shari'a means. And in case you haven't noticed, there's an Iranian woman on death row about to be sentenced for adultery, how's that for human rights in Islam? Now you could say, "Oh, but those countries don't practice it right," but let's face it, Muslims don't even come to an agreement on what shari'a is! If you feel this strongly, why don't you go to an Islamic country where you'd feel more at home? Why is there this constant need for whims and silly moans? Secondly, a woman's testimony is only worth half of a man's. That's hardly fair and equitable in relation to gender.
Anonymous wrote: "Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all."
Which is why Shari'a is not necessary. A woman's testimony is worth less than a man's. That's just the start. Stoning for adultery is allowed; a non-Muslim's testimony is worth less than a Muslims. Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!
All in all, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here can even provide that shari'a is fair and equitable. Not one. Why are all of you so concerned with bringing shari'a and causing concern to the West? Simply pack up and leave to a Muslim country. This is exactly the reason that it was banned here in Canada. And there shouldn't be ANY religious courts, it's too confusing to have any parallel systems of justice.
Oh, and even if you wanted to argue that Islam and Shari'a uphold women's rights, who cares? The rights that a shari'a court brings is nothing compared to what we have today.
"Problem with the idea of secular human rights is the competing rights between individuals together with the current tastes of society that inevitably shapes it and also the need to 'balance' rights with security. Hence secular rights are in constant flux and change which is unable to achieve balance for ppl within society. And it's unable to achieve a consistency to such an extent that ppl can actually hold onto the laws as an absolute that ppl can thus believe in."
Muslims can't even come up with a consensus on what Shari'a means. And in case you haven't noticed, there's an Iranian woman on death row about to be sentenced for adultery, how's that for human rights in Islam? Now you could say, "Oh, but those countries don't practice it right," but let's face it, Muslims don't even come to an agreement on what shari'a is! If you feel this strongly, why don't you go to an Islamic country where you'd feel more at home? Why is there this constant need for whims and silly moans? Secondly, a woman's testimony is only worth half of a man's. That's hardly fair and equitable in relation to gender.
Anonymous wrote: "Society thrives on RESPECT and JUSTICE for all."
Which is why Shari'a is not necessary. A woman's testimony is worth less than a man's. That's just the start. Stoning for adultery is allowed; a non-Muslim's testimony is worth less than a Muslims. Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!
All in all, there's not one shred of evidence that anyone here can even provide that shari'a is fair and equitable. Not one. Why are all of you so concerned with bringing shari'a and causing concern to the West? Simply pack up and leave to a Muslim country. This is exactly the reason that it was banned here in Canada. And there shouldn't be ANY religious courts, it's too confusing to have any parallel systems of justice.
Oh, and even if you wanted to argue that Islam and Shari'a uphold women's rights, who cares? The rights that a shari'a court brings is nothing compared to what we have today.
I'd also like to point out this part of Adam's article:
"One has to remember that the Hudud (capital punishment) at the time of Prophet Mohammed was meant to function as a symbolic deterrent signifying the severity of the act. This reasoning is supported by the near impossible standard of evidence needed for such punishments to be enforced. In reality, Hudud would never actualize, unless the party involved pleaded guilty in order to take the punishment in this world rather than the after life."
Well then, you know that it makes it just as impossible to PROVE that rape has occurred? Why are there Afghani and Pakistani girls in jail? Because they couldn't PROVE that they were raped. Didn't have the requisite four witnesses. And besides, for some reason, it says "male" and not "female" witnesses, thus signifying a man's testimony over a woman's.
I see no one has yet responded to my comments, and I just would like to respond to a few others:
@Adam M Ali:
"There are many religious courts. Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and so on. Yet no uproar regarding the complexities of those? Or the treatment of women within them and how rulings are derived."
There are Hindu and Sikh law courts in the U.K? I wasn't aware of that. I was only aware of the Beth Din and the Shari'a court systems. However, there's no need for ANY sort of religious court with a secular U.K.
"None of the posts have shown any level of understanding of Islam. At any level. So any opinion is superfluous...."
So, no one can criticize the religion, because if they do, they probably don't have any understanding of how it works right? Like most Muslims who can't even agree on what Shari'a is supposed to mean? Ask several different Muslims, you get several different answers on what Shari'a is.
"Purely xenophobic, cliched remarks that have been better articulated but ultimately stem from the tabloid press. Oh and Sky news and any other social "expert.""
Right. Because that's the standard answer: anyone criticize Islam, you must be a racist (or a xenophobe), even though Islam is a religion not a race. A lot of people are against the Shari'a court system, so they must be racist, xenophobic, not able to understand the religion right? Even though Maryam herself is an Iranian and not a White British woman.
"The fact that the writer has an agenda considering her background and membership of The Council of Ex-Muslims (one must seriously question the point of a such an organisation!) has skewered her perspective."
Why is there a need to question the reason behind the organization? Those who leave Islam do face death threats, not all, but it happens. And Maryam herself has been the recipient of death threats. If there's a need to questions an ex-council of British Muslims, is there a need to question why there should be a Muslim council of Britain?
@Abd Hamid Mat Sain,MD:
"1.Sharia Law is part Islam.A muslim will not doubt the Sharia"
Really? Because as I've pointed out before, Muslims can't agree on what that is. Does that mean you can't be a secular Muslim?
"2.like any law,the application of it will take circumstances into consideration."
Great, as does British law, why can't people just follow that?
"3.therefore,Sharia is the Text and the Application of the Sharia is the Context....we need honest,scholarly muslim judges to apply the Shariah."
Well, there are, what? Four different schools of thought regarding Islam, more than one that declares one who leaves Islam is to be killed? So who is to decide which scholars to follow? Choudry (a fanatic part of a group that wants Shari'a in all of the UK) says that he wants to take over the Throne of Britain and implement it HIS way. Who is to disagree? Right? Having a Shari'a court only increases fanaticism, because this gives credence to the radicals' idea that they're above Western law. You live in the West, follow Western law, not some 7th century Arabian law.
"4.Shariah as part of Islamic Creed is immutable....Sharia as Law should be "flexible"
Again, but by who's standard? Since most can't agree on what it is? Why not just follow British courts? Oh, and I'd like to point out that divorce is tougher under Islam for women than for men. There's no need for any of this. Having different religious courts just complicates things.
How many times did the death penalty occur in the time of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?
"Anonymous said...
How many times did the death penalty occur in the time of Prophet Muhammad (saw)?"
Which has what to do with what? As I've mentioned, the majority of Muslims can't come to agreement on what shari'a is. Hence, there's no need for it here. Not everyone wants some 7th century Arabian law in the West.
I think 'Anonymous' who has had plentiful to say but little understanding to show for it really needs to read Adam's article again. Nice and slowly, without the blinkers.
Anonymous' basic argument is to rave about legal aspects of Shari'a which are bandied about on the internet and on hate sites. If that veritable nonsense gets deconstructed, which of course is inevitable, then just hide behind this false mantra that 'Muslims can't even agree what Shari'a means!!!'
Not a convenient failsafe my dear, because Shari'a as a general legal system is quite easily defined and articulated in an Islamic context (legal theorists have been doing it for hundreds without a problem). Differences of opinion in specific jurisprudencies is non-sequitur in this regard.
Anonymous wrote:
"... which by the way, makes no distinction between the amount of inheritance between a man and a woman?"
Didn't Adam tell you to comprehend the legal backdrop first and not consider rulings in an isolated vacuum?
Under Shari'a the financial obligation of maintaining and providing for the family and relatives falls to the males. They have to do this by law. So you're damn right they get more inheritence - much of which is spent on the females of the household! In contrast, whatever the females get is theirs to do with as they please. No obligation to spend on anyone else.
Adam and people in the comments even mentioned this. It's a shame that those blinkers of yours censor those facts which are inconvenient to your carefully rehearsed propaganda.
"Heck, history in certain places shows that, throughout Islamic history,non-Muslims weren't even ALLOWED to bring a Muslim to court!"
Trust me Anonymous, you've definitely not read any mainstream scholarly text on Islamic history. Maybe you think you won't be caught out repeating failed polemic on hate websites. History shows that Muslims let others resolve disputes according to their own legal systems. In many cases, non-Muslims and in particular Jews enjoyed positions of authority in Muslim states.
"What is it with this constant quest to be a victim? It's a safety issue! Certain places SHOULD be mandated off-limits to the burka for security reasons. In Toronto, there was the recent case of someone wearing the burka that robbed a bank, and no one could recognize that person."
Oh, what an admirable pretext. Stop them Burka Bank Robbers. That's why you want it banned. Right? Wearing the loose burka clothes and face-veil doesn't lend itself very well to robbing banks. Probably why it isn't a big hit in the Middle East.
We all know that the Islamophobe crew hates any overt signs of Muslim identity in society. You can be open with us, you don't need to use these false pretenses.
Deep down you support measures like 'head rag tax' and 'minaret bans' - not because headscarf is costly to society or because skydivers might inadvertently impale themselves on pesky minarets or whatever cute excuses you might invent - but because you see Muslims peacefully practicing their religion as fundamentally intolerable: a symbolic concession of the West to Islam.
So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.
Jerry said...
“Not a convenient failsafe my dear, because Shari'a as a general legal system is quite easily defined and articulated in an Islamic context (legal theorists have been doing it for hundreds without a problem). Differences of opinion in specific jurisprudencies is non-sequitur in this regard.”
Really? Which is why most Muslims disagree on what Shari’a is? You have, what? 55 states practicing Shari’a, and according to some Muslims, they’re not really Islamic states. Who is to decide? Choudary himself has declared that they’re not really Islamic states, so who is to decide? Why can’t people come to a consensus on what Shari’a entails, if it’s so easy to follow?
“Didn't Adam tell you to comprehend the legal backdrop first and not consider rulings in an isolated vacuum? Under Shari'a the financial obligation of maintaining and providing for the family and relatives falls to the males. They have to do this by law. So you're damn right they get more inheritence - much of which is spent on the females of the household! In contrast, whatever the females get is theirs to do with as they please. No obligation to spend on anyone else.”
Of course, do you also know that the man is given the final word on EVERYTHING? He is the head of the household with the obligation to not only spend on everything, but the one who has final say on everything. Now of course, you could argue that the wife is to be consulted, but he has the final say on everything. The Qu’ran also instructs women to be obedient to their husbands, a heavy price to pay for financial ‘freedom,’ wouldn’t you say? Is this allowed in the British court system? BTW, what do you think of divorce being tougher on women?
“Adam and people in the comments even mentioned this. It's a shame that those blinkers of yours censor those facts which are inconvenient to your carefully rehearsed propaganda.”
Of course, because anyone who criticizes Islam is what, a xenophobe?
Jerry wrote:
“Trust me Anonymous, you've definitely not read any mainstream scholarly text on Islamic history. Maybe you think you won't be caught out repeating failed polemic on hate websites. History shows that Muslims let others resolve disputes according to their own legal systems. In many cases, non-Muslims and in particular Jews enjoyed positions of authority in Muslim states.”
An Islamic state is ideological: people who reside in such places are either declared as Muslims or non-Muslims, and those who are non-Muslims pay a heavy jizya tax. Because of this second-class status, non-Muslims are not entrusted with the responsibilities of policymaking. Only when they embrace the Islamic faith, do they become equals with Muslims in matters of policymaking. By the way, I advise you to do a little research on the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands today: particularly the Pakistani Christians and Egyptian Copts. http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=6260.
Jerry said:
“Deep down you support measures like 'head rag tax' and 'minaret bans' - not because headscarf is costly to society or because skydivers might inadvertently impale themselves on pesky minarets or whatever cute excuses you might invent - but because you see Muslims peacefully practicing their religion as fundamentally intolerable: a symbolic concession of the West to Islam.”
Ah, yes, the old, you must be a racist because you criticize Islam routine. Should I then stereotype you and call you a White, liberal wussy? When criticizing Islam, you are: a) a racist, b) xenophobe, or a ‘red neck’ if you like, c) a Zionist Jew, or d) indoctrinated by the Jewish media. What other reasons can you think of, Jerry?
“So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.”
What? That Muslims are all victims even though they continue to come here? That Muslims are the ‘Jew of Europe?” Do you agree with that, Jerry? Are Muslims being persecuted and thrown into ovens like the Jews? Because more than once, I’ve heard a Muslim leader at a time or two compare the treatment of Muslims in Europe to that of the Jews. Do you agree? What irritates me is that Muslim leaders, rarely, if ever, criticize the treatment of non-Muslims and women in Muslim countries. They focus, primarily on the victim status in Western states, but rarely upon what is occurring in Muslim lands. If Muslims want the occasional claims of victimization taken seriously, they, like you, should then criticize what is occurring to non-Muslims and women in Muslim lands. We could talk about other things Jerry: we could talk about how Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry either alcohol or dogs in their cabs even though it’s part of their jobs; we could talk about the physical attacks on girls in European countries for not wearing the hijab. How about that, Jerry? What about honour killings, shall we talk about that? Would it interest you to know that Muslims are responsible for 96% of honour killings worldwide? http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings. But, groups like CAIR and others don’t want to distinguish honour killings from other forms of ‘domestic violence.’ Rarely do I hear Muslim leaders speak out about such things, just reinforcing their victim status, as are you. Do you agree with that Jerry, are Muslims just victims?
You know what’s funny? You purposely overlooked EVERYTHING else I wrote: I wrote about Afghani and Pakistani girls in PRISON, because they can’t prove the allegation that they’ve been raped. Didn’t have the requisite four witnesses.
And as for “you and your likes” – who are you to judge me? I just want everyone to follow ONE law, not a different law from everyone else. Is that too much to ask, Jerry?
Jerry said:
“Oh, what an admirable pretext. Stop them Burka Bank Robbers. That's why you want it banned. Right? Wearing the loose burka clothes and face-veil doesn't lend itself very well to robbing banks. Probably why it isn't a big hit in the Middle East. We all know that the Islamophobe crew hates any overt signs of Muslim identity in society. You can be open with us, you don't need to use these false pretences.”
In certain areas, yeah, maybe it’s necessary as a safety issue, rather than just an all out-blanket ban, which is impractical. France and Belgium proposed an all out ban, so perhaps limiting the burka from certain areas may be more practical, as well as running a campaign against those who would force girls to wear the hijab or the burka. And we all know it happens: in fact, in Muslim countries, there are attacks against girls who don’t wear it by throwing acid, or mutilating them in other ways, so excuse me if I don’t feel too sorry for women who feel they’re forced to take it off in the West. If I visit a conservative Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, I’m forced to wear the hijab. But hey according to you, anyone who criticizes Islam must be either a) racist, or b) xenophobe, even though Islam isn’t a race, it’s a religion. And you can be open with us, what are you? Some white guy named “Jerry,” who’s taken it upon himself to defend the poor, oppressed Muslims, who continue to come to the West? Even though they’re suffering from huge amounts of persecution here?
Islamophobia btw, isn’t a real word..should we then invent another world for the attacks on Jews by Muslims in European states? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1946851.stm How about Judeophobia?
Jerry said:
“So all this doubletalk about inequalities is hypocrisy on your part - you and your likes proudly proclaim one rule for Muslims and another rule for everyone else. That isn't playing the victim card, it's a matter of fact.”
What? That Muslims are all victims even though they continue to come here? That Muslims are the ‘Jew of Europe?” Do you agree with that, Jerry? Are Muslims being persecuted and thrown into ovens like the Jews? Because more than once, I’ve heard a Muslim leader at a time or two compare the treatment of Muslims in Europe to that of the Jews. Do you agree? What irritates me is that Muslim leaders, rarely, if ever, criticize the treatment of non-Muslims and women in Muslim countries. They focus, primarily on the victim status in Western states, but rarely upon what is occurring in Muslim lands. If Muslims want the occasional claims of victimization taken seriously, they, like you, should then criticize what is occurring to non-Muslims and women in Muslim lands. We could talk about other things Jerry: we could talk about how Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry either alcohol or dogs in their cabs even though it’s part of their jobs; we could talk about the physical attacks on girls in European countries for not wearing the hijab. How about that, Jerry? What about honour killings, shall we talk about that? Would it interest you to know that Muslims are responsible for 96% of honour killings worldwide? http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings. But, groups like CAIR and others don’t want to distinguish honour killings from other forms of ‘domestic violence.’ Rarely do I hear Muslim leaders speak out about such things, just reinforcing their victim status, as are you. Do you agree with that Jerry, are Muslims just victims?
You know what’s funny? You purposely overlooked EVERYTHING else I wrote: I wrote about Afghani and Pakistani girls in PRISON, because they can’t prove the allegation that they’ve been raped. Didn’t have the requisite four witnesses.
And as for “you and your likes” – who are you to judge me? I just want everyone to follow ONE law, not a different law from everyone else. Is that too much to ask, Jerry?
Mr Deen - what exactly is the point of your wordy ramblings? They are all hot puffs of air that will be blown away on the winds of time and utterly forgotton. Meanwhile, women and children suffer and die in the dark corners where Sharia law is used to control the people. What have you DONE today or any day to help them?
Please read my piece on FGM.
http://adamdeen.blogspot.com/2010/06/does-allah-order-female-genital.html
Really great article!
Honestly, I remember reading that silly woman's article a few weeks back and was just so mad at the typical rubbish she was spewing.
My fear however was that her seemingly knowledgeable standpoint on the topic would spur on people who already thought the way she did and would also convert people sitting on the fence.
Checking the guardian website to read the comments only confirmed my fear.
This article however has put that painfully memory to bed. Good read before getting ready for jumah!
I'm by no means an expert on this topic so just a few points or questions.
1. If shariah law is to be used when in the right context, and no place currently has the right context, are we saying it should not be used at all? Or are the situations it is being used for in terms of giving advice (I don't think these courts have genuine legal power do they?) ok because the people in charge of it have been assessed and they are indeed the perfect muslims when it comes to making a judgement on that issue?
2. I'm not sure the UK law system is so perfect as for lots of the comments on that article to say "We are doing perfectly fine here, we don't need your Muslim laws". I should probably add I am a Hindu myself so I apologise for any subconscious or acquired bias in anything I write!
3. I'm somewhat confused as to how and who decides whether something is indeed correct or incorrect when it is something not specifically stated in plain language in the Quran. I hear some tell me that "Many great scholars seem to agree..." but if even one disagrees, is it up to the individual people or communities to decide which they accept as there is no definitive authority and person who can judge except Allah?
4. I hear also of the time of perfect or near perfect humanity when Islam was used more wisely quite soon after the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammed (sorry about spelling mistakes). I also hear others say "That country/place is Muslim, and it does bad things, often in the name of religion, therefore Islam must be bad". Once again, how can we as mere humans decide which is the correct one? People tell me it's blindingly obvious one is correct (Muslims and others tend to say the older supposedly more peaceful one is correct, some others say there are obvious quotes which justify the "bad" (I know it's hard for humans to judge what is good and bad in an objective way) side which is why "Islam is on the whole, not good). I am just struggling to see the practical implentation of this all.
5. I bring up practical implentation as one thing often thrown at followers of Sanatan Dharma (or Hindus or whatever you wish to call them) is that the lack of authority means it's impossible to say who is right and who is wrong and so practically people go in different directions. This is different in other religions? Really? I also like to think Shia and Sunni are not all that different, am I wrong or are the theological differences just the start of a big chasm between them?
6. I often see those of Abrahamic faiths moaning about how they are criticised too much, with Islam probably being on the receiving end of lots of mainstream criticism at present (Christianity has it's fair share too!), but this gives a great platform to people such as Adam Deen to tackle misconceptions and other issues. I started reading and listening to the likes of Deen and Tzortzis on the back of the publicity (how commercial of me I know, forgive me!) and feel I have a more positive view of the faith now (I'd say I was pretty neutral due to my lack of knowledge) even with my very limited knowledge. Sanatan Dharma doesn't get this opportunity so when things which could easily be tackled by Hindus such as the caste system and supposed inequality amongst beings or living creatures is raised, occasionally by Muslims (misquote and out of context master being Zakir Naik but I'm sure many of you know this anyway), there isn't much of a platform given to tackle them.
7. Keep up the excellent writing sir.
Post a Comment