Sharia Laws:

Submitted by Atiq Malik (United States), Feb 28, 2009 at 16:39

28^th February 2009

Re: Sharia Law Articles:

Following the damning article published by Times Series of Newspapers and Wembley Observer online and Print editions: dated 26 February 2009, 25 February 2009, please see below my response.

Whilst we live in a democratic country where freedom of speech should not only be tolerated but encouraged, the discussion surrounding my comments regarding Sharia Law have quickly taken a very sinister turn and have been used by many as an opportunity to air racists and Islamophobic views against Islam and Muslims.

In light of the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments that Sharia law was 'unavoidable' in the UK and in light of the reactionary racist backlash that followed, I posted a comment arguing that I did not see a problem with the rulings of Sharia law, believed by Muslims to be the law of God laid down in His scripture. I argued that Muslims in the UK should be allowed, if they so please, to apply Sharia Law to their personal lives as long as both parties agree to it.

Not only did my comments not break any laws, my suggestion that Sharia Law could be applied to the UK would in no way set a precedent. As I made clear in the posts following my original comment, English law states very clearly that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute. Members of other faiths in the UK have the legal freedom to practise their own religious legal code where matters of their private affairs are concerned. Many British Jews for example turn to their own religious courts known as the 'Beth din' to resolve a vast number of civil disputes, from marriage and divorce to business matters. As this is the case, Muslims, I argued, should be allowed to set up something akin to the 'beth din'.

Members of the blogs where I posted my original comments, rather than questioning me on my views, took my comments out of context and used them as an opportunity to use Islamophobic stereotypes to condemn Islam and Muslim. I will be pursuing action against the 'Wembley Observer' and the 'Willesden & Brent Times' for misconstruing my comments. In no way did my comments 'advocate' the stoning of adulterous women as was reported by the 'Willesden & Brent Times' and in no way did I place emphasise on women when writing about some of the Sharia punishments. The claim by the 'Wembley Observer that I was expelled from the Brent Conservative Group in May last year for voting against Tory Policy is also untrue as I chose to leave the Group and form the Democratic Conservative Group.

Whilst there have been calls from some demanding that I be removed as Councillor, there were no serious calls for the resignation of either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, both of whom recognised the possibility of integrating some aspects of Sharia Law into the English legal code. Lord Phillips, in a speech to the London Muslim Council argued that "Sharia law was rooted in the sense of doing God's will in the ordinary things of law." The Lord Chief justice highlighted the "widespread misunderstanding" of the nature of Sharia law, and argued: "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 democracy is to mean anything at all, views like mine, however unpopular they may be, should be in the least tolerated. If Muslims, regardless of their location, opt via democratic methods to be ruled by a Law which they believe is just, then surely it would be a betrayal of democracy to vilify Muslims for their choice. Unfortunately it seems apparent that a constructive discussion regarding Sharia Law cannot be had as Sharia Law has been misrepresented and misunderstood.

Regards,

Atiq

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".