‘Imposing’ Sharia Law

Text from an anti-sharia UK Secularist campaign group

Text from an anti-sharia UK Secularist campaign group

‘Imposing Sharia Law’

What do many media outlets, Western government reports, politicians speeches, ‘Muslim’ modernist rhetoric and Islamophobe propaganda all have in common? They all agree on one thing – to characterise the desire of ‘Islamists’, and Islamic ‘extremists’ as seeking to “impose” Sharia on the world.

The reason they use this line of rhetoric is simple, it makes non-Muslims and Muslims ignorant about Islamic revival, to think that the work to re-establish an Islamic state involves going against people’s conscience, and forcing people to live under a law system against their will.

The truth is actually ironic.

Firstly, ‘Sharia law’ is a tautology, since the word Sharia means ‘Law’ and thus the sentence literally translates as ‘Law law’. The reason the word ‘sharia’ is used, is because it sounds foreign and maximises fear to the ears of non-Muslims.

Secondly, the phrase ‘Imposing Sharia law’ is idiotic, since what law isn’t imposed? Are there voluntary laws? The reason law is called law, and not ‘guidelines’, is because law is obligatory, whereas guidelines aren’t. By definition, en-forcing the law is an imposition on those who break it!

Thirdly, is there any citizen of the U.S., France, UK or other Western nation that can opt-out of the laws they live under without having to leave the country? No. What if a citizen in these countries doesn’t believe in the law, must they be under it? Yes – there is no options given to its citizens to be an exception to the laws.

In fact, many Christians and Muslims have been sent to jail, or are forced to cease following their religious conscience because the law imposed upon them a set of rules they didn’t believe in.

In Western Secular countries, we find Women banned from wearing hijab in schools and Niqab bans across europe. Muslims are forbidden to pray in public in France. Catholic adoption agencies (despite being privately funded) are forced to close for not adopting children to same-gender couples. Christians and Muslims arrested by police for preaching same-gender sexual intercourse is sinful. Christian hoteliers prosecuted for not allowing a same-gender couple to use a room in their hotel. Christian counsellors lose their jobs for refusing to counsel a same-gender couple. Muslims are prosecuted for criticising Western foreign policy. Two non-violent Muslim political parties are banned (which was upheld by European Court of Human Rights) for espousing ideas against Secularism and Liberal Democracy etc etc the list goes on.

Was not the Secular Liberal law imposed upon these tax-paying citizens? Did they have a choice in the matter? No. So Secular Liberal Democracy (Liberalism) doesn’t care whether you agree with it or not, it forces all submit to it, whether you consent or not. As Secularists say ‘One Law for All’… their law.

secularonelawforall

This was taken from another Secularist campaign poster…sounds strangely like the text of Sauron’s ring from Lord of the Rings…

Islamic law actually doesn’t impose itself on people without their consent. Every time a Caliph comes to power, the Muslim community must consent through Bayah (pledging allegiance after a decision/election process) to the new Caliph. This then forms a consensual contract with the leader which establishes his authority to rule with Islamic law upon the Muslims. In fact, the Muslims establish a Caliph precisely to rule with Islamic law – and thus discharge their collective obligation to God.

When the Islamic state is created, it will start off with consent of the Muslims, and continue getting its consent with every new Caliph – the same can’t be said for the Western system.

In the West, whether you vote or not, all must obey the imposed government. The so-called ‘democratic’ elections do not give people a choice to affirm a national law or ideology (like whether they want Communism, Liberalism or Islam), but only to select the leader to rule over them according to a pre-arranged system. The people are not requested to consent to their government in the modern democratic system, only to consent to its rulers…and even then, not exactly, since Western rulers tend to generally be elected on a fraction of the actual population. In fact, one could say that the people who voted against the successful candidate will have him/her imposed upon them.

Just ask yourself, while deposed Egyptian president, Mohammed el Morsi, the so-called ‘Islamist’ was obtaining a referendum to get national consent on a new constitution – how many Western countries historically have conducted referendums on their constitutions? Did the so-called ‘free’ country of USA ask its citizens to consent to their famous constitution? No.

Remember when Western politicians were decrying Morsi for not involving more Christian input in the constitution’s drafting? It was said that since Christians are 10% of the Egypt, the constitution should represent them, however, I somehow don’t see France caring if its anti-hijab and anti-Niqab laws represents the 10% Muslim population there (which as you know France can ignore because Democracy tilts towards the majority, and doesn’t care about minorities…unless they happen to a non-Muslim minority in a foreign Muslim country).

It seems the West wants Muslims to be more Democratic than even Western Democracies are!

Lastly, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are not to be subject to laws they don’t believe in. Non-Muslims get to live under their own law systems, under their own regional government in autonomous areas – which historically are either regions like Millets, or city Quarters. Jews lived under Jewish law, Christians lived under Christian law, Zoroastrians lived under their own law,  no matter how strange or horrific Muslims found it, like ‘self-marriage’ which was legalised incest. The famous Islamic scholar Ibn Qayyum al Jawziya discussed this specific case and re-iterated the standard Islamic response of non-interference in the practices of Zoroastrians,  in his treatise ‘Akham Ahl ul Dhimma‘ (the rulings on non-Muslim contract-citizens [of the Islamic state]).

History and Islamic teaching demonstrates that Islamic law is the only law system that actually didn’t impose itself. The same can’t be said for the totalitarian system of Secular Liberal Democracy, which spreads only its own definition of ‘human rights’ and enforces only its vision on the world’s populations whether or not they have their own differing conceptions of human rights.

Secularism…one law to rule them all…and in the darkness bind them…

f0ce20470167d4c5020d0bc56efeda5e



Categories: ARTICLES, Muslim Debate Initiative, Political System, The Muslim Debate Initiative, WRITINGS

Tags:

13 replies

  1. Almost all of the examples given are for intolerance, eg Christian people turning away gays. Sharia is intolerant. Sharia is a religious law. Forget it.

    • Tolerance is letting someone live according to their conscience. Intolerance is when others make you do things against your own conscience.

    • Do you want to forget it being a “religious” or “bad” law?

    • “Almost all of the examples given are for intolerance, eg Christian people turning away gays. Sharia is intolerant. Sharia is a religious law. Forget it.”

      All you have done is stated the obvious ie that those who agree with a certain law will see those who do not agree as ‘wrong’ in one way or another…be it ‘intolerant’, ‘misguided,’. ‘uninformed’, ‘wicked’ or whatever.

      But that was not what the article was about.

      The article clearly showed that

      a) the idea that Islamic law is oppressively ‘imposed’ on the people is wrong, since it is the very nature of laws to be imposed….and this is born out by the fact that laws are imposed in all countries of the world

      b) that the secular democracies of the West are the real oppressors since they demand that ALL the people follow THEIR laws, whether or not they believe them to be right…whereas Islam allows minorities to follow their own laws, provided this is done in a certain defined area.

      These are the points you should be addressing.

  2. This write up invite us to think about our strategic effort to let the Indian Government allow Shariah based banking system in India. Whether should we call it Islamic or else? How to convey the majority community who is not in favour of accepting anything in the name of Islam.

  3. Interesting dance about law, but no one wants stoning, beheading, and amputations at any cost. The Indian Penal Code written by the White Man somewhere in 1860 for the Asian Muslim-Hindu savage is adequate, and happily remains in Force even till today. Only the White Man with the Greek civilization to back him from the concept of the  Goddess “Justina”, have an adequate system of fairness built into them denied to the Barbaric Asiatic and African. The Hindu is clever and has no such yearning to enforce the “Laws of Manu”, which are similar to the morally repugnant Shariat code.

  4. An awesome article! The best article I have read on the subject! Logical, succinct, and to the point. Excellent brother Andalusi!

  5. Sure all non-Muslims get to live under their own laws under Sharia, if a known Muslim wanted to openly become a christian and live under those laws with the Christians, that would be fine and he could do that right?

Trackbacks

  1. 'Imposing' Sharia Law - Abdullah al-Andalusi
  2. Ban the the law law | Siyasah Press
  3. Universities are places of learning. Free speech must not die there. | Lawyers' Secular Society

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: