Sunday 7 September 2008

 

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Clemency Burton-Hill
Clemency Burton-Hill

Clemency suggests


Our survey shows British Muslims don’t want sharia

Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Don’t believe the Lord Chief Justice any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury, say Stephen Schwartz and Irfan Al-Alawi

A senior establishment figure has once more raised the question of whether sharia law should be introduced as a parallel system of justice for British Muslims. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, was following in the footsteps of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who in February suggested that the institutionalisation of unspecified aspects of sharia law is ‘unavoidable’.

Rowan Williams gave the appearance of mere cluelessness; discussing sharia in a vague, multiculturalist manner apparently intended to project warm feelings toward British Muslims. But Lord Phillips, in attempting to move from nebulous clichés to specifics, has done far more damage than the Archbishop.

For non-Muslim authorities to propose the introduction of sharia as a legal standard for Muslims in any non-Muslim land is not only absurdly patronising and discriminatory, but also violates the canons of traditional sharia law. Sharia has always held that Muslims emigrating to non-Muslim lands are obliged to accept the laws and customs of their new homes, and must not attempt to change them in an Islamic direction. Precedent for this goes back to the counsel of the Prophet Mohammed himself, when his followers, persecuted in Mecca, sought a temporary refuge in the nearby Christian kingdom of Ethiopia.

Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s preeminent sharia authorities, teaches that, ‘If [a Muslim] has given [a non-Muslim government] a commitment — even if indirectly (as is implied in the immigration documents) — to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfil his commitment.’ If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory.

Subscribe now

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments

Post a comment


Your comment:*

Your name:*

Your email address:*
(We won't publish this)

*Required information

Please click the button only once - your comment will not be published immediately

bill

July 10th, 2008 1:35pm

Of course, we all know this. It's just the usual clap-trap the elite serve us up to keep us divided so we don't look to closely at how they're cynically ripping us off.
Yawn.
I wouldn't mind so much but I think they genuinely believe they're being clever/

Keith

July 10th, 2008 1:56pm

I am not surprised UK Muslims feel patronised by this,I am sure many are here precisely to avoid over the top interpretations of religious law.They must be sick of other religious and PC politicians claiming to know what they want.The system of secular law in the UK is better than any religious system, more just and more equitable and caters for belief and non belief. Let us also remember that non believers and those not attached to organised religions have equal rights under the law with the religious and can equally be offended by overt displays of religion or religious law.

Herbert Thornton

July 10th, 2008 6:05pm

The last sentence of this paragraph in the survey strikes me as especially significant -

"Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s preeminent sharia authorities, teaches that, ‘If [a Muslim] has given [a non-Muslim government] a commitment — even if indirectly (as is implied in the immigration documents) — to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfil his commitment.’ If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory."

Now, let us ask ourselves - do any of the political parties see virtue in that last sentence? If so, which?

Ib

July 11th, 2008 11:34am

Very helpful. Our government at all levels consults very hard liner Muslim 'leaders', hence beds moved 5 times per day in Dewsbury hospitals, the pulling of honour killing legislation. Churches do the same, speaking to ultra conservatives as representing all Muslims.
It has been a disastrous policy, strengthening the fanatics, bringing ordinary Muslims by birth under their 'leadership', and making British Islam more and more conservative. Look at the muslim council of Britain website and its links to DTI rules for prayers etc in factories.
So thanks: we rarely get a snapshot of grass roots opinion.

Charles Smyth

July 11th, 2008 11:39am

For those who must have Sharia as the law, there are states to which they can repatriate or expatriate to, in order to enjoy this class of law. In the UK and/or EU an introduction of Sharia would be divisive in itself vis-à-vis the state law, which is designed to be even handed to all, and would, as has been tentatively suggested in Germany, demand the reintroduction of other faiths' doctrines into law. Fortunately, the majority of Muslims in the UK have more sense than to advocate the introduction of Sharia, which many of them have fled to the UK, to avoid.

http://www.youtube.com/v/R4J80UytcHo

Iftikhar Ahmad

July 11th, 2008 12:52pm

Salaam

Sharia laws and State funded Muslim schools are for those who believe in Sharia laws and who would like to send their children to Muslim schools. Silent majority of Muslims would like to live under Sharia laws and want to send their children to Muslim schools. There is no complusion in Islam.

Nicholas storey

July 11th, 2008 1:36pm

For the sake of comity between peoples, I welcome comprehensible explanations of Islam, since it is much misunderstood by non-Muslims and, like anything that is misunderstood, it is routinely feared and, ultimately, attacked by the tabloid-led rabble; especially when a cynical minority of cynics adopt the ostensible cause of Islam to pardon and excuse the perpetration of attrocities in order to satisfy some perverted instinct. It might be useful if someone ran through the major basic tenets of Islam for the non-Muslim British public - and even for the Americans. Then they might realize that Islam does not reject the person whom they call 'Jesus of Nazareth' as a great prophet, it rejects that he was the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. But all that should be dealt with comprehensively by those who know far more about it than I. Turning to the article, several points do arise: first of all, you say that Muslims are told that they should abide by the Laws of the land into which they go. However, what if they find the very core of the State into which they go, so lacking in moral fibre that it has lost its own sense of identity and desire to uphold its own laws; that it bends with the wind and shows eager to adopt the healthier parts of Sharia, even to a restricted extent? Would Islamic scholars then deny Muslims the right to exploit this weakness, this rottenness to the very core in the State into which they have gone? For, the Archbishop of Canterbury as the head of the Church of England (which, the last time that I looked, was both still a Christian organization and still an established part of the Constitution)has no business making political pronouncements about the state of the secular law, except to the extent that it is proposed to make it inconsistent with Christian morals or ecceliastical law. Rather, he and his clergy have a bounden duty to get out there and convert non-Christians to Christianity. Is this not how it all began - men (mainly but not just men) dying for the Faith? Men like Thomas More died to uphold his own brand of the Faith, the point of which would be lost on most modern Britons. Secondly, since the whole purpose of abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor was to make the judiciary appear to have no political links or bias, one wonders why the unelected Lord Chief Justice sees fit to give out political opinions (coincidentally as spineless, as ignorant, as unwise and as contrary to the purpose of his office, as the opinions of Dr Rowan Williams) on the legal infra-structure, enacted by Parliament, which it is his sole function to enforce.
NJS

David Short

July 12th, 2008 5:00am

I once had the chance, which I did not take, in a farmhouse in a very posh part of England, the Cotswolds, to ask: 'More tea, Vicar?'

I wish I had, just for history's sake, but we were talking, lots of us, about the Muslim religion, and this was about 15 years ago.

I said to the young vicar, who was in fact drinking lots of whisky under the disapproving nose of his wife because he had a service to perform that evening: 'But of course Islam is an evangelical religion!'

He replied, quite correctly: 'So is Christianity!'

I missed another opportunity around a Sunday fireside to reply: 'How true, vicar! How true!'

Do we value our own religion?

If not, then don't complain.

Nicholas Storey

July 12th, 2008 10:50pm

David Short says 'don't complain' - but he doesn't say about what. Might he please clarify?

Vir Narain

July 15th, 2008 3:04pm

So British Muslims do not want Sharia. What if they did? Surely it is not for them to choose, or not to choose, what laws should govern the United Kingdom. The line of reasoning implied by the title is pernicious


In this section

Labour’s punishment freaks are hounding honest citizens

Ross Clark

Ross Clark says that far from keeping our streets safer or cleaner, the government’s new force of amateur policemen are ignoring the worst offenders and pursuing law-abiding innocents instead

‘Whoever killed Benazir wants to kill me’

Christina Lamb

Christina Lamb interviews the husband of the late Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari, who hopes to be named President of Pakistan this Saturday

Never mind the Olympics — get set for the Jubilee

Robert Hardman

Free and open to everyone, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 will eclipse the London Games, says Robert Hardman — an unforgettable tribute to the monarch

A pilgrim’s progress for the 21st century

Mary Wakefield

Mary Wakefield talks to the author William P. Young, whose self-published religious novel has astounded the publishing world and sold nearly two million copies

In defence of David Southall

Theodore Dalrymple

Theodore Dalrymple examines the evidence against two much-vilified British paediatricians, Professors Southall and Meadow, and finds it sadly lacking

Related articles

Shared Opinion

Hugo Rifkind

A new cold war means spies. But what can Russia offer Oxbridge graduates these days?

My big worries

James Delingpole

Bonekickers (BBC1); Burn Up (BBC2)

And Another Thing

Paul Johnson

Eye-stopping glimpses of an exotic and forbidden world

Growing up in no man’s land

Zenga Longmore

Zenga Longmore on Yasmin Hai's new book

The importance of being serious about France

Denis MacShane

The new French ambassador is a figure of significance

Spectator recommends

Sky TV, Broadband & Talk from £16 a Month

Sky TV & free broadband packages available from £16 a month. Choose from a standard free sky box, sky plus...


Spectator classifieds

ROME CENTRE

PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique

City Breaks. ROME and PARIS

ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit  www.romanreference.com  and  www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.

Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).

Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs!  You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other