Nothing is what it is: Islam is Not Islam and Sharia Not Sharia

That is, if you listen to Muselmanic agit-props like   who are given a forum at the Grunard or at the Islam-infested BBC.

The Islam-propaganda  machine is cranked into high gear: New Statesman’s Senior Editor Mehdi Hasan sounds almost hysterical as he accuses British Lawmakers of “being obsessed with sharia law”, a clear case of projection according to the Mohammedan playbook.

Mehdi Hasan

If you care to read it, keep this in mind:

“The unbelievers are like beasts: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing” (2:172)

“Sharia bill is based on a false premise”


Bonus: A false picture of Islamic Forum Europe

Sharia is a misunderstood term in the west and Lady Cox’s bill only perpetuates the myth that it conflicts with British law.

Ya think?

What could possibly be misunderstood about a law that approves of female genital mutilation; the restriction of non-Muslim religious practice; the devaluing of a non-Muslim’s life as compared to that of a Muslim; the brutalizing of women; the forbidding of music; and, of course, jihad and Islamic supremacism?

The question: Should religious law be curbed?

Lady Cox is wrong to assume that anyone other than the criminal courts of England and Wales, and the law of England and Wales, has or claims to have legal jurisdiction over criminal matters (whether or not they are family related) and criminal law.

What does this bill do? The short answer is that it moves us backwards.

The way forward for Musleh is Islam, of course.

Why? Because it starts with a false premise. Sharia tribunals do not seek, or have power, to impose decisions over and above the existing law of the land.

Muslims are religiously obliged to replace the ‘man-made’ laws of the kafirs with the ‘divine’ laws of Allah, the sharia, which then apply to all. The existing law of the land must be done away with as soon as Muslims have the numbers and the power.

These tribunals only deal with the very narrow issues of marriage and divorce: they do not deal with any issues surrounding domestic violence or criminal activity. Moreover, they have no enforcement powers, therefore any sharia ruling is seen as advice, since there is no power (nor the seeking of any power) of enforcement.

Its all about power, Musleh, is it not?

“These tribunals only deal with the very narrow issues of marriage and divorce.” Very narrow issues?

Fairly broad and fundamental issues in any civilised, secular and democratic society.

That women who come to this country with little or no English and are then discriminated against by their own husbands or relatives has nothing to do with sharia, but rather with traditions and culture. This should not be used as a stick with which to beat sharia councils.

No. Can’t use a stick to beat the sharia councils. Lets give them a stick to beat women instead.  And why would we want anyone in the country come to this country with little or no English? For cultural enrichment?

Note  also that no Islamic headbanger can ever make a case without pointing at the Jews:

Just as any Jewish woman who wishes to be free from the religious ties to her husband would approach the Beth Din, likewise many Muslim women want religious points answered in their potential separations. What can possibly be wrong allowing these women to have answers to their religious questions?

Jewish courts do not rule on the basis of a law that Jews are laboring to impose upon the whole of British society. Sharia courts are.

Sharia remains one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented terms in the west. The Islamic legal code is only a part of the sharia. Technically, sharia embodies theology, law and ethics. So Muslims, simply by virtue of giving in charity, looking after their families or assisting their neighbours, are actually following “sharia”.

Only a Muslim can understand Islam. Yawn!

So, is there any conflict between sharia and the British justice system? As the lord chief justice said in 2008:

“There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution [with the understanding] … that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”

If I only had a dollar for every clueless judge, priest or politician! I could take all our readers out to dinner.

A common argument one often hears is that sharia and western laws are incompatible – as if the whole nation is being asked to choose one or the other wholesale. According to Muslim jurists, sharia has five overarching universal goals: the preservation of religious freedom, of life, of intellect, of property and of lineage. These universal principles are in fact compatible with most justice systems.

There is no religious freedom for unbelievers under the sharia. Property, lineage and intellect? Musleh makes it up as he goes along, hoping you are ignorant of what Islam really has in store for you.

Sharia teaches Muslims that they are religiously bound by the contracts they enter into and are morally obliged to fulfil them. In other words, sharia tells Muslims that they, as legal citizens of the UK, are bound to abide by and respect the laws here because that is the social “contract” that they have consciously entered into by virtue of residing here.

Not. Muslims generally don’t respect the laws of the kafirs and are obliged to replace them with the sharia. In fact Muhammad himself said that no contract or promise given to a kufar is worth anything and that it can be broken anytime.

Now Musleh invokes the freedom of religion canard:

This presumes, by the way, that freedom of religion exists so that Muslims are not prevented from carrying out their basic religious duties. Therefore, paradoxically and in contradiction to the common myth, instead of conflict we have a situation where Muslims are actually more faithful to sharia when they are abiding by the laws of the land they reside in. Even many Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, remain ignorant of this crucial fact.

Today, many high street banks are already offering a range of sharia-compliant finance and mortgage products. Is this contradictory to the British justice system?

Of course it is. Last time I checked it was a total flop. Besides, its used to finance the jihad, so why is it not totally forbidden?

Sharia articulates very clear rights and duties of both husband and wife. There are more responsibilities both financial and social on the husband than there are on the wife.

What is clear when the women is illiterate and nothing more than chattel?  The husband can do what he wants.

Women have a right to their husbands’ income in as far as it is the husband’s duty under Islamic law to financially provide for the whole family’s needs. A woman has the option of working, but the income she attains is solely her property and her husband or other family members have no right over it.

Yeah. Show me the money! As long as Muslims insist to bring illiterate, underage females into our countries as breeding stock for the jihad, they are hardly employable. They will be a constant burden to the taxpayers of the host country.

It is also a fact that most users of sharia tribunal services are women. It is a well-known fact that many Muslim women have successfully, legitimately and speedily ended an Islamic marriage due to husbands not fulfilling their rights or for other reasons. How else will they seek separation in such cases?

By getting a divorce through the courts.

The blanket claim that women’s witness is worth half that of men totally misses the complexities of Islamic law. In some limited areas of Islamic law, two female witnesses are required where one male witness will suffice. However, there are other areas where one female witness is sufficient. This issue would not affect most of the issues and cases dealt with by the sharia courts.

Gosh, so it is only some areas in which a woman is worth half as much as a man but not all. Well that’s all right then.

These courts are totally based on voluntary participation and every man and woman has recourse to ordinary British law. Thus ask the question: does this bill do more harm than good? The answer surely must be yes.

You might find the answer here: Sharia Law or One Law for All?

So what’s really happening here?

The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

And once Muslims have power, what do they do?

Kenyan Muslim leaders call for death penalty for gays

Muslim leaders in Kenya have called on the government to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals and to boycott their businesses, media reports said Monday.

“Death is the only punishment prescribed by Islam for such people…”


3 thoughts on “Nothing is what it is: Islam is Not Islam and Sharia Not Sharia”

  1. Dr Mark Durie:

    Australia Gets It Right on Sharia Implementation

    Not really. There is still a little bit of resistance, but not nearly enough:

    The Australian Government is holding a national inquiry into multiculturalism. In relation to this, The Australian newspaper reported on 17 May 2011 that the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) has requested the introduction of Sharia law under the umbrella of multiculturalism (the AFIC submission can be downloaded here: other submissions can be found here).

    In response to the AFIC submission, Australian Attorney-General, Robert McClelland has stated that:
    “Sharia law has no place in the Australian legal system.”
    “As our citizenship pledge makes clear, coming to Australia means obeying Australian laws and upholding Australian values.”
    “Australia’s brand of multiculturalism promotes integration. If there is any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law, then Australian law wins out.”
    “People who migrate to Australia do so because of the fact we have a free, open and tolerant society where men and women are equal before the law irrespective of race, religious or cultural background.”
    “Indeed, all applicants for citizenship swear collective allegiance to the people of Australia, and undertake to respect our customs and abide by our laws. The values underpinning those principles will not be changing.”

    Arguments used by the Federation of Islamic Councils for accommodating sharia law include:
    Islam itself advocates legal pluralism, with each religious community following its own laws.
    Islam allows a place for customs or cultural practices, provided that they do not conflict with fundamental requirements of Islam.
    The dhimmi system under the Ottomans allowed non-Muslims to be governed by their own law, giving them power and dignity in their own right.
    Although modern scholars reject the dhimmi system as unjust, Muslims in the West are worse off than dhimmis, because they are compelled to live under Western law and are not granted their own ‘Millet’ or officially recognized ethno-religious community.
    Islamic law is part of Muslims’ culture, so multiculturalism should provide a place for Islamic law.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chief Justice of England have both endorsed religious pluralism through accommodating sharia law.
    The Australian Government already actively supports accommodation to sharia law in the areas of halal food and Islamic finance. It is claimed that the Australian Assistant Treasurer, Nick Sherry has ‘pledged’ to amend tax laws in order to attract more Islamic finance to the country.
    It is inconsistent to rule out introducing sharia law while at the same time encouraging the development of Islamic finance and the government regulation of halal food.
    Although some Muslims believe that sharia is immutable, many Muslim scholars do not agree, and “AFIC takes the position that Islamic law is changeable according to the requirements of
    different places and times, and therefore, suits the values shared by Australian people.” Thus an adapted sharia can be included under the covering of Australian law.
    A compromise is required between Muslims and Australia: “Muslims in Australia should accept the Australian values, and Australia should also provide a ‘public sphere’ for Muslims to practice their belief.” What this means is that for Muslims to actively support Australia as a concept, they need the quid pro quo of official public recognition of Islam through legal accommodation of sharia law: “This approach demands a compromise from Islam, which should be open to other values, and also to make a similar demand of Australia. It is not only Australian Muslims who should reconcile these identities, but also all Australians.” This is what the submission called ‘twin tolerations’: the religion tolerates the state and the state tolerates the religion (citing Alfred Stephan). The AFIC submission states: ‘It takes two to tango.’
    The AFIC submission is a request for Australian society to offer a kind of legal covering for Islamic sharia to exist within it.

    In separate comments, AFIC spokesman advanced further arguments:
    Sharia accommodation is already working well in Britain the the USA.
    If the Government does accommodate, this will prevent ‘extremists’ within Islam from taking over the agenda of the Muslim community.
    What is being proposed at present are accommodations to divorce and family law, which will not affect non-Muslim Australians: “This is about personal issues about family, and won’t affect any other Australian,” and “It’s about a system that does not impinge on the rights of any other Australian.”
    In a related news story, it has been reported that sharia courts are already functioning in Sydney, Australia. This is hardly surprising, and only mirrors a pattern which has been observed all throughout Western nations.

    To which I make the following observations:

    The Australian Government is wise and sensible to act quickly to reject sharia implementation. This is consistent with a series of public statements made over the past decade by both Labor and Liberal governments.

    It is a terrible irony that Muslims use references to the oppressive dhimmi system as an argument for implementing legal apartheid in Western nations.

    The Muslims’ suggestion that accommodating sharia law will combat extremism can be interpreted as a threat. The implication arises that if Australians don’t give Muslims the sharia they want, then Australia will have to deal with the extremists instead, who will ‘take over’ the agenda of the Islamic community. Does this imply a threat of terrorism? It is important not to capitulate to such threats, in which ‘moderates’ exploit the threat of ‘extremism’ to advance their sharia agenda.

    Requests for sharia implementation will never end. No matter how much is granted, more is demanded. There is hardly an Islamic state in the world which is not troubled with activists demanding stricter sharia observance. Such groups often resort to violence. So it does not follow that granting more sharia somehow mollifies the extremists. If that were so, more sharia-compliant societies would have less violence from the advocates of extreme sharia. In fact the opposite is true. Demands for sharia are a slippery slope: the more is given, the more is demanded. Better to draw a line in the sand now. The Australian Government is right to take a stand on this issue.

    We should have one law for all. What AFIC in effect is asking, is for Muslim women to be treated as second-class citizens under Australian law, because they will have less rights in a sharia court when pursuing issues such as divorce and custody, than in a state court. It is self-serving for Muslim men to argue that Australia must respect the rights of Muslim women to live according to the dictates of sharia law, when sharia law gives men considerable legal advantages over women.

    Islamic law discriminates against Muslims by compelling Muslims to live according to a legal code which their conscience may reject. For this reason, in 2003 the Grand Chamber of the European Human Rights court upheld the dissolution of the Refah Party in Turkey. Refah had aimed to install a plurality of legal systems, under which each community would be ruled according to its own religious principles. The court found that a plurality of legal systems is incompatible with human rights. Legal pluralism was found to be inconsistent with the European Convention of Human Rights, because the state would thereby compel individual Muslims to live according to religious rules with which they may not personally agree (see Paul Taylor, Freedom of religion: UN and European human rights law and practice, p.315).

    Food and finance are the thin edge of the sharia wedge. Australian authorities should pay careful attention to AFIC’s argument that halal food regulation and sharia finance are examples of accommodation to sharia, and seriously consider limiting the advance of these two practices in our nation for this very reason. There is much that could be done. For example, it should be required for halal-slaughtered meat to be labeled clearly in supermarkets, so that customers may know they are buying the meat of ritually slaughtered animals, especially since part of the price they pay for halal products consists of a certification fee paid to an Islamic agency.

    Australia should introduce laws to limit the advance of unofficial sharia courts and other sharia practices. They should also carefully monitor the extent of such practices. Sharia law, as it applies to family issues, discriminates against women, and is contrary to basic principles of justice and fairness. For example the state could make it illegal for licensed religious practitioners (many of whom are authorized by the state as marriage celebrants and whose activities receive tax concessions) to officiate at religious marriages if these marriages are not also recognized by the state. This would discourage the practice of polygamous unions which are not recognized by the state. It makes no sense for the state to license religious practitioners who are thumbing their noses at the government by conducting legally unrecognized polygamous marriage ceremonies on the side. The state cannot restrict private religious practices, but it should be more discerning about who receives the privilege of legal recognition, including tax privileges.

    A particular issue is the coercion of people to go to sharia courts to settle matters. The state should explore the introduction of laws which protect the rights of Muslims – specifically and especially women – who choose to live in ways which are not sharia-compliant. For example, if a woman obtains a civil divorce, she should not be subject to unfair discrimination or intimidation from other Muslims because her divorce is not an Islamic one. Clearly this is a complex area, and there are limits to the ways in which the state can intrude on religious practices, but there is also a need to protect the rights of individuals to live according to their consciences, without fear. This includes the right of Muslims NOT to live according to sharia law.

    Australian leaders have been setting a good example to the world through their clear stand against sharia implementation. However much more could be done.

    Of one thing we can be sure: the religious requirements of Islam mean that requests for sharia accommodation will not go away, ever. The challenge is to just keep saying ‘no’.

  2. It is a well-known fact that many Muslim women have successfully, legitimately and speedily ended an Islamic marriage due to husbands not fulfilling their rights or for other reasons.

    From what I have heard and seen it takes years for a woman’s point of view on her marriage, her beatings etc. to be even heard by an imam.
    Most times the imam simply advises the woman to obey the husband and the beatings will stop. Some justice that is.

  3. Lebanon’s highest Sunni Muslim authority misunderstands Islam, says law against wife-beating and marital rape would “have a negative impact on Muslim children”

    “Good women are obedient….As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

    “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” — Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460

    “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle.” — Ibn Majah 1854

    Can we get a condemnation of the Dar al-Fatwa from any Islamic spokesman in the West? Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Feisal “Man of Peace” Rauf? Anyone? Anyone? “Lebanon Sunni clergy reject domestic abuse law,” from AFP, June 24 (thanks to JW:

    BEIRUT — Lebanon’s highest Sunni Muslim authority on Friday rejected a bill aimed at protecting women against domestic violence and marital rape, saying it would lead to the demise “of the family as in the West.”
    “Islam is very aware of and concerned with… resolving problems of poor treatment… but this should not happen by cloning Western laws that encourage the breakdown of the family and do not suit our society,” said the influential Dar al-Fatwa in a statement on its website.

    Dar al-Fatwa also slammed as “heresy” a clause in the bill that criminalises marital rape, accusing those behind the draft law of “inventing new types of crimes.”

    “This will have a negative impact on Muslim children… who will see their mother threatening their father with prison, in defiance of patriarchal authority, which will in turn undermine the moral authority” of fathers, it said.

    “We must continue to follow sharia (Islamic law) as concerns the Muslim family,” it added.

Comments are closed.