It’s time to lay the sharia bogeyman to rest

Why are our lawmakers obsessed with “sharia law”? With the political temperature rising up as Britai

You might think that US Republicans considering a run for the White House in 2012 would have piles of political and economic problems to focus on: home repossessions, job losses, petrol prices and the like. Why, then, are so many of them apparently obsessed with sharia, or "Islamic" law?

The former senator Rick Santorum, who announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on 6 June, has denounced "creeping sharia" in America. Another GOP presidential candidate, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, has demanded "a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognised by any court in the United States".

This isn't just right-wing rhetoric. A dozen US states are considering measures to ban sharia - which they define as the "legal-political-military doctrine" behind Islamist terrorism. But defenders of the various bills and proposals are unable to cite a single court case in which sharia has been invoked.

Take Oklahoma, which became the first state to make it illegal for its judges to rely on sharia in November 2010. Yet Muslims make up less than 1 per cent of the state's population - a minuscule 30,000 out of 3.7 million Oklahomans. The residents of the Sooner State are as likely to be judged according to Jedi law as they are by Islamic law.

Fearmongering

The hysteria around sharia has become the modern-day equivalent of the 1950s Red Scare, with Islamists replacing communists "under the bed" - on both sides of the Atlantic. First there was the focus on jihad and "holy war". Then the hijab and the niqab. And now, sharia. The very word sends chills down the spine of not just conservatives but liberals, too. It conjures up horrific associations of hand-chopping, flogging and stoning.

In the words of the Islamic scholar and Oxford academic Tariq Ramadan, "the idea of sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam . . . It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word."

It isn't just Muslim intellectuals who have been pilloried for committing the cardinal sin of trying to have a calm and rational discussion about sharia. Take the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our esteemed guest editor might not thank for me raising the subject again (indeed, he might even be pulling at his non-Islamic beard as he reads the headline on this column), but in February 2008, ahead of a speech on Islamic law, Rowan Williams told the BBC that the adoption of some elements of sharia by the British legal system "seems unavoidable".

The political and media response was astonishing - frenzied, hyperbolic and Islamophobic. The Sun raised the spectre of "medieval punishments" being inflicted on the British public and claimed that the archbishop was "giving heart to Muslim terrorists plotting our destruction". Alison Ruoff, an obscure member of the Church of England's governing body, the General Synod, called on him to resign. Politicians, including the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, queued up to distance themselves from Williams's supposed gaffe.

The archbishop's nuanced yet thought-provoking speech in 2008 referred to a "real debate among Muslim scholars" over the meaning and scope of sharia and argued that "there is no single code that can be identified as 'the' sharia".

Most non-Muslims in the west seem united with hardline Islamists in the misguided belief that there is one monolithic, unchanging sharia. But Williams was right: there isn't. Sharia, which translates not as "Islamic law" or "religious code" but as "pathway to the water", extends beyond the realm of criminal and civil law and covers personal and ethical matters such as sexual relations, diet, hygiene, prayer, fasting and charity.

In the mainstream

There is no Muslim equivalent of the Ten Commandments codifying Islamic law. Nor does the Quran pretend to be an all-encompassing legal or penal code. Sharia, therefore, is constantly evolving, with different Islamic scholars - Sunni/Shia, conservative/liberal, Arab/ non-Arab - offering differing interpretations. Yet here in the UK, ahead of the government's publication of its updated strategy for tackling extremism and terrorism on 7 June, officials briefed friendly reporters that any "advocacy of sharia law" would be deemed a failure to “reflect mainstream British values" and seen as a sign of extremism.

It is absurd to describe those who express the slightest support for sharia, in any shape or form, as "extreme" or "un-British". Is Gordon Brown an Islamic extremist? When he was chancellor, Brown repeatedly urged the City to become the "gateway to Islamic finance" and encouraged the proliferation of sharia-compliant banking in the UK.

Then there are those practising and observant Muslims - moderate, integrated, non-violent - who would consider themselves to be adherents of sharia in an ethical or social sense. Are they extremists, too? Polls show that most British Muslims oppose the introduction of sharia in this country; the minority of those who do express support for Islamic law tend to be referring to the resolution of civil disputes. I have yet to come across any mainstream British Muslim group advocating the execution of Ryan Giggs.

So sharia isn't what many think it is. Nor is it coming to a courtroom near you. Tackling the crises in employment and housing should be the priority for legislators. It's time to lay the sharia bogeyman to rest.

158 comments

Des Demona's picture

@Mancunian

Did anyone give a crap here about sharia until Mehdi tossed his islamgrenade?
I guess any publicity is good publicity.

Ah yes, Muslim Spain. Those were the days.

Julia Harris's picture

Is Sharia Really Benign? Wake up.
by Robert Spencer (more by this author)
Posted 06/21/2011 ET

Now that 20 states are considering legislation to outlaw Islamic law (Sharia), Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S—particularly the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—have launched an energetic media campaign to whitewash Sharia and gull Americans into believing that it is as benign as a game of dominoes.

To that end, Nezar Hamze, executive director of the South Florida chapter of CAIR, published a piece in the Miami Herald assuring us that Sharia was as American as baseball and fishing—and conveniently leaving out everything about Sharia that makes people believe it is a threat in the first place.

Hamze attributed concern about Islamic law to those who “claim that 'Moozlims' are trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Sharia” and are ready to “run out with pitchforks and protest signs.”

“Moozlims.” “Pitchforks.” Hamze was semaphoring that the only people who could possibly be concerned about Sharia are ignorant racist yahoos. This is just a smear tactic, but it works insofar as it warns unreflective and uninformed leftists (i.e., virtually all leftists) not to dare to oppose Sharia: We wouldn’t want to align with rednecks, now, would we?

Hamze quoted Florida politician Adam Hasner as saying that “today there is an enemy, and that enemy is Sharia-compliant Islam.” Then Hamze commented: “This statement is ridiculous. When I wash before praying, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I offer a greeting to someone, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. What in the world is Hasner talking about?”

Hamze left out a few details. When I cut out a woman’s clitoris, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I forbid non-Muslims to practice their faith openly, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I count a non-Muslim’s life as less valuable than a Muslim’s, that is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I brutally lash a woman, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I smash musicians’ instruments and threaten them, saying they better not play music again or else, this is Sharia-compliant Islam. When I wage war against and subjugate unbelievers, this is Sharia-compliant Islam.

And so the same question Hamze asks should be asked of him: What in the world is Hamze talking about? Does he really expect us to believe that Hasner is upset about washing before prayers and greeting people?

Hamze insists that while his opponents “claim that the ‘Moozlims’ are trying to infiltrate our court systems and replace our Constitution,” in reality “not one Muslim has introduced anything to any legislative body calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution or for the Sharia to replace the law of the land.”

In fact, Sharia has been involved in court cases in 23 states. And while “not one Muslim has introduced anything to any legislative body calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution or for the Sharia to replace the law of the land,” that is only because they are not fools: To do such a thing would be very close to open sedition, and would draw upon the Muslims involved a torrent of popular disapproval and law enforcement scrutiny. Better to work behind the scenes. Remember Imam Musa al-Sadr, the Washington, D.C., imam who wants to establish an “Islamic State of North America no later than 2050.” Remember the Muslim Brotherhood’s program in the U.S. of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Hamze criticized Rep. Allen West (R.-Fla.), charging him with saying during his campaign that “we are at war with Islam” and “Islam is not a religion.” West even had the audacity to claim, according to Hamze, “that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were doing exactly what the Koran told them.”

Yet the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 stated explicitly that they were doing exactly what the Koran told them. And many Muslims say that Islam is at war with us. I believe Islam is a religion, but also more than a religion: a political system, and one that is repressive and authoritarian. We ignore or deny this at our own peril.

Hamze concluded by telling Americans: “Educate yourself on Islam.” I strongly recommend that. Americans who do so will see through Hamze’s deceptive rhetoric, and see the usefulness of anti-Sharia legislation.

Daulat Ram's picture

KEIR

I pointed out:

'Muslims venerate Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mary.'"

You reply: "Not the biblical ones."

In what way are they worse than the biblical ones?

Islam is a blood sister of Christianity, very close to their mother faith: Judaism.

Christians and Jews today are inclined to very conveniently forget that there could have been no Islam without Christianity and Judaism. It is merely another version of the Judaic faith, expressed in Arabic, the language so close to Hebrew that is the language of the Arabs, brothers of the Jews.

'Muslims venerate Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mary.'

Most of the great scientific and philosophical ideas of civilization came out of polytheistic societies: Egypt, Mesapotamia, China, Hindu India, Classical Greece and Rome.

Until they were freed by the Enlightenment, the Jews contributed very little to science and philosophy.

Classical Greece and Rome (to a lesser extent) were very fertile in philosophical and scientific ideas. After the coming of Christianity, this ceased to be so.

The Arab made advances in science, but this was in their early period, before the full force of monotheistic orthodoxy was clamped down on them. After that their civilization decayed into uncreative despotism.

Polytheistic Hindu India was very creative in philosophy and science, but ceased to be so in any major way with the conquest by the fierce monotheism of the Muslims.

The West only reawakened to science and philosophy when it began to shake off the deadly grip of the Christian church.

I think the record in favour of polytheism is pretty clear.

Th Jews, who claimed monotheism is such a great boon to the world, gave the world nothing by way of science or philopsophy as long as they wwre in the grip of Judaism; only their freeing by the European Enlightenment made them a force to reckon with in these spheres.

Nope.

It is all too clear that monotheistic Judaism and its progeny, Christianity and Islam, have held mankind back. Polytheistic Mesapotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India, have helped it to progress.

The JChristians and ews have little right to complain about Muslim fundamentalism. These Muslims are merely faithful followers of the Mosaic creed.

The only great bdifference between Jews and Muslims is that Muslims stayed in their homelands while the Jews were able to imbibe Enlightenment ideas (the fruits of the scorned “pagan” “idolatrous” Greece) in their Western exile. The fanatical Muslims of today are a mirror image of Old Testament Jews.

There is no reason whatever why Israel would have been much freer than Saudi Arabia had it not been founded by Jews from Europe.

Tim's picture

The internet is a funny little invention...it allows the powerless knuckle draggers in the real world to sound off with a cloak of anonymity, under the pretense that they are educated and are who they say they are.

At this stage I don't bother reading Mehdi's Islam articles anymore, instead I scroll down to the comments section to be entertained and to shake my head.

And give it a rest Julia Harris, you're clearly a guy living with his parents. You certainly don't have children (you wouldn't be posting countless times on here) and you definitely don't have MasterS!! degrees, let alone an undergraduate degree. You might want learn the difference between 'they're, there and their' (doubly so if you're American) before trying to fool people.

Alexis's picture

Oh dear, julia Harris is really a fat man living in his parents attic.

If that bigot had half a brain cell then he would be dangerous.

Daulat Ram's picture

The Jews learned tolerance in the West.
#
The fierce intolerant Middle Eastern monotheism Jews passed on to the West, called by us Christianity after the notably egoistic and intolerant man who founded it (he claimed to be both God AND the son of God!) , gave Jews the Holocaust.

But the inheritance of Greek tolerance we call the Enlightenment gave the Jews freedom of thought.

Daulat Ram's picture

KEIR:

You are sanitising Christianity.

In its actual precepts the Koran is actually LESS violent than the Bible.

Christ threatened eternal damnation in Hell for anyone who dared to question him. Me or Hell was his reasoning.

He also built anti-semitism into his religion by obsessively focusing it on the idea of Jewish betrayal. This led in the end to the Holocaust. Islam is not traditionally anti-semitic, by contrast.

The reason why the West is tolerant and the Muslims are not is that the West has in efffect abandoned Christianity, while the Muslims kept Islam.

Once you get Moses - a man who imposed a ruthless monotheism that beleved the religious inheritance of NO other people had value, and a strict detailed set of rules for daily life - you get Jesus.

He - or rather Paul, his successor- spread the Jewish totalitarian monotheism to non-Jews. Along comes Mohammed, inevitably, with a severe call to purify that monotheism and reimpose the set of minute rules for daily life the Christians had let lapse a bit.

It's logical and inevitable.

If you buy the Middle Eastern religion in any form, you end up with Islam.

Daulat Ram's picture

KEIR:

You are sanitising Christianity.

In its actual precepts the Koran is actually LESS violent than the Bible.

Christ threatened eternal damnation in Hell for anyone who dared to question him. Me or Hell was his reasoning.

He also built anti-semitism into his religion by obsessively focusing it on the idea of Jewish betrayal. This led in the end to the Holocaust. Islam is not traditionally anti-semitic, by contrast.

The reason why the West is tolerant and the Muslims are not is that the West has in efffect abandoned Christianity, while the Muslims kept Islam.

Once you get Moses - a man who imposed a ruthless monotheism that beleved the religious inheritance of NO other people had value, and a strict detailed set of rules for daily life - you get Jesus.

He - or rather Paul, his successor- spread the Jewish totalitarian monotheism to non-Jews. Along comes Mohammed, inevitably, with a severe call to purify that monotheism and reimpose the set of minute rules for daily life the Christians had let lapse a bit.

It's logical and inevitable.

If you buy the Middle Eastern religion in any form, you end up with Islam.

Daulat Ram's picture

KEIR:

You are sanitising Christianity.

In its actual precepts the Koran is actually LESS violent than the Bible.

Christ threatened eternal damnation in Hell for anyone who dared to question him. Me or Hell was his reasoning.

He also built anti-semitism into his religion by obsessively focusing it on the idea of Jewish betrayal. This led in the end to the Holocaust. Islam is not traditionally anti-semitic, by contrast.

The reason why the West is tolerant and the Muslims are not is that the West has in efffect abandoned Christianity, while the Muslims kept Islam.

Once you get Moses - a man who imposed a ruthless monotheism that beleved the religious inheritance of NO other people had value, and a strict detailed set of rules for daily life - you get Jesus.

He - or rather Paul, his successor- spread the Jewish totalitarian monotheism to non-Jews. Along comes Mohammed, inevitably, with a severe call to purify that monotheism and reimpose the set of minute rules for daily life the Christians had let lapse a bit.

It's logical and inevitable.

If you buy the Middle Eastern religion in any form, you end up with Islam.

Mr. Divine's picture

gerry: I don't know if these viewpoints that you mention are 'extremist'. In my mind extreme views are ones that lead to suicide bombers .. and there is very few of them.

Just because someone thinks that women should dress more modestly isn't really extreme. Many Christian people think the same way and you can't call them extreme. They are just different to what you think.

Latest tweets