You are here

Introduction To Sharia Watch

Introduction To Sharia Watch

This brief introduction seeks to address 3 issues:

  1. What is Sharia Watch

  2. We must only challenge specific aspects of Islam-sharia, we cannot take on a complete religion.

  3. Our view on various remarks Anne Marie Waters has made on twitter about Islam being “evil” and a “killing machine”

What is Sharia Watch

The primary purpose of Sharia Watch UK Ltd. is to monitor sharia law and how it affects the UK and might affect the UK in the future as the number of Muslims grows in the UK. The first point to recognise is that there is no unique UK version of either sharia or Islam . Events abroad within the Islamic world are likely to have an influence here and Islamic societies abroad provide a view of the possible future development of Islam-sharia in the UK and Europe as the Muslim demographic increases. That view, complete with vigilante killings of people whom Muslims claim have 'blasphemed' or insulted Islam etc., isn't a pleasant picture.

As sharia covers all aspects of society and Islamic life (ECHR: “the way it[sharia] intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.“) , most aspects of Islam are covered on the site. It should also be noted that sharia law is derived from the Quran, Sira (biography of Muhammad) and hadiths(accepted accounts of Muhammad's words and deeds).

As most Muslims view the Quran as timeless and Muhammad as the example of a good Islamic life (the Quran praises him/his character 91 times in various ways), this means that sharia cannot be easily changed. This is a point we will return to later.

The ultimate aim of Sharia Watch UK is to get sharia law banned in the UK and that dovetails with the UKIP proposal in their GE2017 manifesto:

“The growth of sharia councils is of great concern to the public, as is the apparent unwillingness of the political class to prevent them proliferating. UKIP will take action: we will establish a legal commission to draw up proposals to disband sharia councils.”

The new party ForBritain is also very likely to make similar proposals.

This idea is also echoed in this op-ed in the Daily Express:

We have a long tradition of welcoming other cultures to our shores but anyone who wants to live here must abide by British customs and laws.

For far too long the authorities have been allowing some communities to behave as if they can set their own rules and another example of this is the shocking rise in sharia courts, which should be closed down forthwith.

In making the case for this policy against sharia law, Sharia Watch can provide a useful evidence base when debating the policy and arguing for the case for a ban if this policy is part of the ForBritain and UKIP manifestos at the next General Election as I hope it will be. That evidence base consists of links to news articles, opinions, publications and videos plus articles written for Sharia Watch.

Key Points Relating To Sharia

Relationship of Sharia Law to Jihad

Firstly is that the ultimate objective of the many jihad groups around around the world is to establish sharia law as the basis for Islamic rule and as such sharia does present a threat to the UK and our values.

This blog poses some awkward questions about jihad, the example of Muhammad and Islam.

Legal Precedents

Secondly, this European Court of Human Rights judgement provides crucial opinion on the nature of sharia law:

ECHR Judgement Summary:

"sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights"

Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”

Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

A copy of the original source document can be found on the ECHR website: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2003_ENG.pdf

In particular, these individual elements of this concise summary are worth highlighting:

  • is stable and invariable (meaning relatively unchangeable)

  • pluralism in the political sphere/the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it

  • its criminal law and criminal procedure

  • its rules on the legal status of women

  • the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts (All encompassing).

Each of those points alone is a damning commentary on sharia, taken together they form, in our opinion, an overwhelming case that sharia law should not be practiced or taught in the UK.

On the back of this ruling, the ECHR upheld a ban by a Turkish constitutional court in the 1990s on a political party campaigning to introduce sharia law there. This provides a strong legal precedent for banning sharia law in the UK. If a Muslim majority country can ban a political party for wanting to introduce sharia law then the UK should be able to ban the teaching and practice of sharia law itself.

Further the Council of Europe are now examining the compatibility of a state being a member of the ECHR and also a signatory to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights which was signed by 57 Islamic countries and essentially subordinates human rights to sharia law. This provides more legal precedent for a ban on sharia law in the UK.

Personal Experiences/Views of Ex-Muslims

Sharia Watch has a small number of human aspect stories, mostly from individuals of Muslim heritage which can be found in these links. They represent a variety of differing experiences:

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=content/worth-less-aynaz-anni-cyrus

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=authors/shazia-hobbs

http://annierulebritannia.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/saudi-arabia-middle-east-paradise-my.html

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=authors/abdullah-sameer

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=authors/kamal-azmy

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=content/british-apostate-tells-tommy-robinson-muslims-tried-kill-me

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=content/powerful-speech-ex-muslim

http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=tags/ex-muslims

We cannot take on a complete religion

The nuances of presentation here are crucial but when UKIP proposed a policy of banning sharia councils in the UK it did, in essence, challenge Islam as a whole. This is because for Sunni and Shia Muslims, Islamic sects representing circa 99% of Muslims, sharia law is a central tenet of Islam and not bolt-on extra. This position is reinforced, as stated above, by the fact that 57 Islamic countries have signed the Cairo Declaration Of Human Rights which subordinates human rights to sharia law.

Further, as we have said previously sharia law derives from Islamic texts and is viewed as “god's law” by many Muslims. Challenging sharia law and making the case as to why it should be banned in the UK means challenging the base Islamic texts from which sharia law is derived.

Yes, the message must be nuanced and we believe, focussed on sharia councils and what is taught to children in madrassa but no one should be under any illusion, challenging sharia law means challenging the foundational Islamic texts from which it is derived.

Remarks About Islam

With the above in mind, let's address our understanding of two widely quoted tweets By Anne Marie Waters that the media are trying to use against her. These are “Islam is evil” and “Islam is a killing machine”. I believe there is good evidence to substantiate both comments which we will briefly summarise:

  1. Tariq Ramadan(Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies; Research Fellow of St Antony's College Oxford) is quoted as saying in an article that “many Muslims consider hudud punishments(amputation, stoning etc.) as barbaric” but that he could only call for a moratorium not a ban on such punishments because on the whole most Islamic scholars consider them Islamic due to textual references but that the conditions under which they should be implemented are nearly impossible to re-establish. From the news reports below, it is obvious that several Islamic countries disagree that conditions for implementation aren't established.

  1. Hudud Punishments: These are stoning, amputation of limbs, crucifixion, flogging and execution. Some people wrongly believe that these are only carried by 'extremists'. If that view is true then there are many extremist governments in Islamic countries. It is far from being 'only' Saudi Arabia which is a common misconception as this small sample shows:

Abu Dhabi: Two separate sentences of stoning to death in 2013

Iran: Unveil machine to amputate fingers of thieves

Indonesia: Several instances of flogging

Nigeria: Women face death by stoning over sex

Nigerian man faces stoning death

Pakistan: Christian boy faces death penalty for insulting Islam on Facebook

Sudan: Second Woman Sentenced to Death By Stoning

Brunei: Adopts sharia law amid international outcry (2014)

Malaysia: Amputations & stoning: Malaysia govt backs Islamic penal law (introduced 2016)

These are far from being the only instances or the only states but the geographical spread and recent adoption of these barbaric laws by Islamic states where they were previously not applied shows the claims of apologists to be false. Further the fact that many Muslims consider parts of their own texts to be “barbaric” is hardly a recommendation for Islam.

    1. Fatwa: The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him This is hosted on a website with a “.uk” domain name and it is possible the owner of that website is resident in the UK. This thinking is a clear threat to free speech which is the cornerstone of our democracy and it is clear from the text that it is based on Quranic verses.

    2. Some scholars have estimated that there may have been as many as 270m deaths of non_muslims due to jihad. http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/?q=tags/genocide

    3. Slavery is still legal under sharia law and it is estimated that between 140m and 180m people have been victims of Islamic slavery since Islam was founded.

    In summary, the above I believe clearly vindicate Anne Marie Water's statements. The acid test here is a simple question I have asked many people: “Do you agree with the ECHR ruling above on the nature of sharia law? Yes or No with reasons if you wish please?”. Too many people either simply don't answer or avoid the real question with a response like 'sharia law has no place in the UK'. This is true but it avoids addressing the nature of sharia law and the Islamic texts from which it is derived.

    It may well be that the media and the government in the UK plus a goodly number of our own people wish to politely avert their eyes from the truth but eventually these are going to be issues that we cannot ignore.