You are here

Sharia

Type: Article

In our opinion, the Imams and Islamic scholars have failed to make the case that the jihad currently practised by ISIS and other groups is not sanctioned by Islamic texts. The critics have broken the very rules they accuse ISIS of not following when they try to make their case by ignoring abrogation and parts of Islamic texts that are inconvenient to their argument.

They have also tried to substantially misrepresent the way Islam was spread after the initial conquest of the Arabian peninsular as been by defensive wars and peaceful invitations to people to become Muslims. The historical record shows a very different picture.

Similarly with slavery, their claim that Islamic states have abolished it (under pressure from Western countries it must be said) is technically accurate, however slavery is still legal under Islamic Sharia law and it is still widely practised in several Islamic states. There is no will or movement in Islam that we are aware of to change Sharia law to abolish slavery and that such a movement is most unlikely to occur as Muhammad kept slaves himself and the Qur'an itself says that captured women may be used as sex-slaves:

[Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" Also Quran (23:5-6) , Quran (4:24) , Quran (8:69) ]

Fatwa: https://islamqa.info/en/20802

Blog: http://abdullahsameer.com/blog/does-islam-allow-sex-with-female-captives-of-war/

The critics have also implicitly endorsed the principle of Sharia hadd punishments (Stoning, flogging, amputation) provided correct [Islamic] procedure has been followed. That these senior figures of Islam, many in the West, who purport to be moderate implicitly endorse such punishments rather than flatly rejecting is troubling.

The most troubling aspect however is that a multitude of senior Islamic figures are unable to make clear and unambiguous case against Islamic jihad and an Islamic caliphate that all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, can clearly understand. The truth is that this letter appears to be mostly a public relations exercise designed to quiet growing Western fears regarding Islam. To that end, this letter is just another example of 'jihad by the pen' and one our governments have been quietly complicit in since 9/11 as this white paper on Reversing the Ostrich Complex makes clear.

As the article from 2013 by Tom Holland says - “It is not enough to engage with the jihadis solely on the battlefield. They must be defeated as well in mosques, and libraries, and seminar rooms. This is a battle that, in the long run, can only be won by theologians.” On the basis of this very serious effort by these Muslim critics of ISIS, we appear to be a long way from that happening, if indeed that case can be made in any unambiguous way?

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”

This letter is intended as a template for people to use to make their views known to HardCash Productions at hardcash@HardCashProductions.com re: their upcoming programme(9th Nov on ITV) which, from the content of this letter,  appears intent on labelling AMW and those who support her as 'far-right' for having concerns about Islam-sharia. I hope people will use this opportunity to make their views known to HardCash Productions and later Ofcom if the programme fails to present the reasons behind our concerns. Note this initiative hasn't been inspired by AMW in any way.

A selection of recent interesting tweets:

Australian #Muslim 'Your allowed freedom of speech, within the limits we set' https://t.co/bZrj8fRDfq

— Agenda Of Evil (@AgendaOfEvil) 30 March 2017

EUROPE IN 2016 - A YEAR OF TERROR 

One of our supporters sent us this copy of a letter they had received in response to their complaint.

"Dear ShariaWatch,

This is what I received as the BBC's response to my complaint.
Effectively a total brush-off"

 

The BBC response is attached as a download file

 

Parliamentary enquiry into Sharia Councils in the UK: Submission of Oral Evidence

 

A suggested copy of a letter to send them can be downloaded here. View the letter here.

Dear…

Two inquiries in to the use of sharia law in the UK are currently on-going; one such inquiry was ordered by Prime Minister Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, the other a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry. Given this, the BBC has had cause to cover the issue of sharia law in recent weeks.

BBC coverage of this topic has been both unbalanced and incomplete, with vital information excluded. Please address the following points.

I’ve been writing a book for a long time now. I have been to countless publishers. Those who gave me a response told me how good it was, but… Not one will print it. We know why. But I’ll explain further.

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO EUROPEAN FEMINISTS

 

Dear feminist,

 

I write this as a last ditch attempt to reach you; to reach your common sense, and to reach any genuine concern at least some of you may have about the future of women’s rights in Europe. ‘Why only Europe?’ may well be your first question, and the answer is quite simply that we are threatened in a way we have not known in our lifetimes, and this threat is entirely preventable.

 

Some years ago I had the experience of living under the Saudi implementation of shariah - it was a very different experience.  Not to sound dramatic, but it was a fearful experience.  One false move and one became very aware of the antiquity of shariah.  It is a remnant of a type of barbaric law of previous millennia.

Whilst the Judeo-Christian based legal systems are older, they are not quite as unforgiving as shariah, and they promote ‘one law for all’ whereas shariah does not. 

As I mentioned in a previous article, I will be addressing, in a series of articles, different forms of violence that we witness today, and will try to find its roots in the Islamic scriptures and early history of Islam.

Domestic abuse is about control and Sharia law has already gifted this ‘control’ to husbands.

The papers are full of stories about how ISIS is winning control in Iraq, Syria etc.  But we hear less about how the Islamist ideology is handing control to men here in Britain, and sharia law is placing victims of domestic abuse in vulnerable positions.  Under sharia law, a man can utter the words ‘Talaq; Talaq; Talaq’ - meaning divorce - and the marriage contract is cancelled. 

Sharia Compliant Finance (‘SCF’) is a growing area of finance which many UK banks and financial institutions have bought into uncritically. The UK Government has also jumped on the bandwagon and announced that the UK will be the first non-Muslim country to issue lunch a sharia bond. Last year London was the first city outside the Islamic world to host the World Islamic Economic Forum and the government released a document in which David Cameron says: “The future of Islamic Finance in the global economy looks bright.

Over the last week or so, we’ve seen several new exemptions made to accommodate both sharia finance principles and halal food.

It was revealed this week that Subway, one of the largest fast food outlets in Britain, has decided to exclude pork and ham from its menu in around 200 of its stores. Furthermore, what meat remains will be exclusively halal – meat from animals slaughtered in accordance with sharia law.

In a statement, a Subway spokeswoman said “All halal meats are certified by the appropriate halal authorities.”

It has long been said, and written, that those who stand in front of a sharia tribunal to have their marriages and divorces ruled upon, are doing so by choice.  “It is their right” is a frequent response.

Earlier this year, the Law Society (the “trade union” for solicitors in England and Wales) issued guidance to its members on how to draw up wills in accordance with sharia law.

The guidance can be found here

What would we think of a man who believed that his wife should be subservient to him, to be obedient to him?  What would we think of a man who demanded his right to physically chastise his wife if she did not conform to this?  What would we think of a man who demanded that, even if he were hitting her, that divorce rights rested with him only and the marriage could only end on his sayso?  What would we think of a man who demanded that his children were his only and his wife had no rights or say over what happened to them?  What would we think of a man who insisted that his wife’s word was w

Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the UK’s House of Lords, has re-introduced her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill in June of this year. 

The Bill had another First Reading in the Lords on the 11th of June, and will have a second reading in the autumn.

If you expected Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, to have learned lessons from his previous sharia-based gaffe, think again.

Islamic State (or ISIS or IS) is without doubt a particularly vile Islamist group.  Disavowed by Al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the group emerged in early 2013 and is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Baghdadi recently declared himself leader of a new caliphate which so far covers parts of Iraq and Syria. Islamic State intends to stretch its caliphate much further – including in to parts of Europe.

What is Shariah Law? To answer this question, one must understand that Shariah Law stems from the justification of the acts of physical and sexual violence of one man some 1400 years ago.

A concerned lawyer has contacted Sharia Watch having read an article concerning pro-sharia lawyer and practitioner Aina Khan.  Khan is a frequent advocate of the sharia system in the UK and regularly claims that she is concerned only about the rights of women who find that their marriages are not registered under English law.  She says she is trying to obtain rights for such women, and she uses sharia to do so.  But, as this lawyer points out, there are remedies within English law for unmarried partners who face problems regarding property or child custody. 

He wrote:

After the beheading of the two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, President Obama made a claim very similar to the one Islam’s apologists constantly repeat with every horrific crime committed by an Islamic terrorist group. He said: "ISIL is not Islamic”, and backed up his claim with two statements:

No religion condones the killing of innocents

The vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim

"

Introduction

Sharia Watch UK seeks to highlight and expose those movements in Britain which advocate and support the advancement of sharia law in British society.  We seek to explain and describe sharia law in relation to specific issues – primarily the treatment of women, freedom of speech, finance, and the marketplace.

Type: News

Country: 
India
News Date: 
08/09/2017
Summary: 

“Those who oppose, question or do not accept the Sharia or Islam, we will explain these things to them also. If they still are not convinced, then they will be ex-communicated from the religion and not be considered as Muslims.”

Comparable declarations saying that jihad terrorists will be excommunicated and not be considered Muslims have been rare, at best.

Note also the implications of this for Islamic reformers, and for Islamic apologists in the U.S. who insist that Sharia stonings and amputations, misogyny, and oppression of non-Muslims have nothing to do with Islam.

Type: Publication

Author(s):

Summary: 

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.

Type: Link

Pages

Subscribe to Sharia