|
Why Islamic Law should be opposed? |
|
By
Azam Kamguian Islam
is an all-encompassing religion that controls and has opinion on
everything from the dowry to the periods of women, from the amputation of
limbs of thief to the stoning of adulterers, from food to the creation of
the World. No detail of daily life escapes its attention. It interferes in
anything and everything. The Islamic law tries to legalise for every
single aspect of an individual's life, the individual is not at liberty to
think or decide for himself, he has but to accept Allah's ruling as
interpreted infallibly by the doctors of law. Islamic
law forcefully opposes free thought, freedom of expression and freedom of
action. Accusations of impurity, of apostasy is waiting to silence any
voice of dissent. Suppression and injustice shapes the lives of all free
minded people above all atheists, who are deprive of all freedom. One is
borne Muslim, and one is forced to stay Muslim to the end of their life.
Islamic law denies the rights of women and non- - Muslim religious
minorities. Non -believers are shown no tolerance: death or conversion.
Jews and Christians are treated as second - class citizens. In
countries which have proclaimed an Islamic state, such as Iran, the Sudan,
Pakistan, some states in Northern Nigeria, and Afghanistan under the
Taliban, we can already see the pernicious effects of the Sharia: the
stoning to death of women exercising their right to personal freedom;
random accusations of blasphemy - carrying a mandatory death penalty -
being used to settle personal grudges, public hangings for apostasy, real
or alleged, and many other cruelties. A
fundamental aspect of Islam is that the will of god should be followed.
Thus it is god and not the people that decide how things are to be. In an
open and free society, people lay the boundaries of powers of organs of
state, that is, the people dictate the powers that state is to have over
them and the people through their elected organs and representatives
decide the laws. The situation is quite different under Islamic states or
where Islamic law acts as an important part of the legal system. Examples
are Saudi Arabia where the Koran has been declared to be the constitution
and no laws contrary to it can be passed. Other examples are Iran, the
Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and many other Middle Eastern
countries where Islamic law has a considerable influence on the legal
system. This is clearly not acceptable and is denying the people the right
to determine the governance of their countries. The
Sharia & Human Rights Human
rights and the Sharia are definitely and irremediably irreconcilable and
antagonistic. Oppression, massacres, intimidation, lack of freedom,
ferocious censorship are the undeniable facts of all countries designated
Islamic. Human rights are desirable to ensure a certain standard of living
for people across the globe. It is often alleged that Human rights
constitutes a means of enforcing western ideals on others who might not
believe in them. It is not acceptable to let governments and authorities
away with many of the abuses by using cultural relativism as an excuse. We
cannot let cultural relativism becomes the last refuge of repression. To
accept religion as a justification for human rights abuses is to
discriminate against the abused and to send the message that they are
un-deserving of human rights protection. Perhaps
the most unsavoury aspect of Islamic law from human rights perspective is
the punishments doled out. Islamic law regulates individual morality,
being opposed with sexual morality. From flogging to stoning to death of
individuals. Sexuality and sexual behaviour is a realm that Islam has
strict rule on. Adultery is strictly forbidden and harshly punished. The
punishment is execution, death by stoning or flogging. Homosexuality is
also forbidden and punishable by Islamic law. To add to the inhumane
nature of executions, in majority of countries under Islamic states, these
executions are carried out in front of crowds of people. The
Sharia & Women's Rights In
the Koran and according to the Sharia, women are considered inferior to
men, and they have less rights and responsibilities. As regards testimony
in the court of law and inheritance, a woman is counted as half a man,
equally in regard to marriage and divorce, her position is less
advantageous that that of the man, her husband has the legal, moral and
religious duty to beat her. She
does not have the right to choose her husband, her clothing, her place of
residence, and to travel. A very young legal age of marriage ranging from
9 in Iran to 13, 15 and 17 (in Tunisia) is also another aspect of Sharia.
This is according to the way Muhammad the prophet of Islam married Aisha a
9 - year old girl when he was 43. The four orthodox law schools plus shi'i
mainly differed on points important to women. In all schools marriage is a
contract according to which husband should perform sexually and provide
materially for the wife. The wife must have sex whenever husband wishes. A
man can easily divorce a woman by pronouncing it three times. Polygamy up
to four wives was permitted, in shi'i sect, temporary marriage is allowed
where man can have access to unlimited number of women. The practice is
known as Mot'a or Sigheh. According to Islamic law men were permitted
concubines and female slaves. Islamic law and the Koran permit men to beat
their wives if they disobey. Another
discriminatory rule is that in many Muslim inhabited countries a woman is
not allowed to marry a non-Muslim whereas men are allowed to marry
non-Muslims. With the object of protecting morality and preventing sexual
anarchy women are expected to cover their whole bodies bar their faces and
their hands up to their wrists. Islamic law is totally against dress
freedom. This is obviously a huge infringement on the personal development
of women, not allowing them to develop sexually and as people. It is
inhumane to imprison women behind veils when it is men, who according to
Islam and Islamic law cannot be trusted to control themselves. Once
again, in order to protect morality it is dictated that women cannot be in
contact with men to whom they are not related without the presence of some
male relative. The segregation of sexes in this way makes it very
difficult for women to leave their houses and participate in society in
any way at all. Islamic law in this way completely prevents women from
taking part in society and keeps them locked up, isolated and unable to
reach their potential. Women deserve to be treated as human beings and for
this reason alone Islamic rule and Islamic law which are completely
misogynist must be opposed. The
Sharia & Discrimination against non- Muslims In
addition to the imposition of Islamic morality on non-Muslims, Sharia law
dictates that there should not be equality between Muslims and
non-Muslims. Under strict Sharia law only Muslims can be full citizens of
a Muslim state. Many of Islamic states shamelessly discriminate against
non-Muslims. In Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait being Muslim is a precondition
of naturalisation. A person who believes in a scriptural religion, such as
Christianity or Judaism will have limited rights in an Islamic state; they
cannot participate in public life or hold positions of authority over
Muslims. Anyone else is deemed to be an unbeliever and is not permitted to
reside permanently in an Islamic state. In addition, the Koran only
recognises People of the Book as religious communities. Others are pagans.
Pagans must be eliminated. In
many Islamic states, non-Muslims men are not allowed to marry Muslim women
and in criminal prosecutions non-Muslims are given harsher punishments
than Muslims. Crimes against Muslims are often punished more severely than
crimes against others. In many countries the testimony of a non-Muslim in
court s not equal to that of a Muslim. Freedom
of religion does not just mean freedom to hold a faith but also the
freedom to change one's religion or belief. Apostasy is when a Muslim
advocates the rejection of Islamic beliefs or announces his own rejection
of Islam by word or by act. That is when a Muslim abandons his or her
faith. Apostates face the most ferocious violence, often are punished to
death. This discrimination is clearly contrary to freedom of belief and
religion and the principle that religion should be a private affair of
individual. The use of any and especially such violent coercion in matters
of faith is completely unacceptable. Believing
in religion should be voluntary and as a private matter, otherwise people
who practice a religion are not doing so of their own convictions but
rather because of the sanctions that will be imposed on them if they
don't. When the law gets involved, religion is no longer between the
individual and what or whom they believe, as it should be. The
Sharia & Freedom
of Expression Under
the Sharia and where Islam oppresses, writers, thinkers, philosophers,
activists, artists are all deprived of their freedom of expression.
Islamic regimes are notorious for suppressing freedom of expression.
Often, as the government aligns itself so closely with Islam any critics
of the government are accused and charged with vague charges of heresy and
insulting Islam. Under Islamic law people are deprived of drinking,
playing music, reading literature on philosophy, sexuality, and arts. For
the human rights abuses sanctioned by, the discrimination
institutionalised in, the autonomy deprived by, the lifestyle choices
deprived by and the human dignity eroded by Islamic Law, this barbaric
inhumane law should be opposed. In
the west, even in countries which have a sizeable Muslim minority, any
idea that the Sharia could have any sway should be strongly opposed since
it conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the
law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that law
must be based on the will of the people. Islamophobia
& Racism The
problem for us in the west is how to oppose these violations of human
rights without being accused of neo-colonialism and racism, and of failing
to respect different cultures. There is a key
- point here, that human rights are vested in the individual, not
the group. As soon as rights are accorded to any group rather than to
individuals it creates the possibility for conflict that only between the
group and those outside it, but between the group and its own members. Any
group, which denies the right of its members to leave, is in contravention
of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. It is clearly
one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century that
becoming a Muslim is a one way street. Whether by birth or conversion
(historically likely to have been a forced conversion and an
imposed phenomenon) once you are a Muslim the only way out - under the
Sharia - is death. Apologists
for Islam often claim that this sort of argument is based on a mis
-understanding of Islam, the religion of peace. Apologists will quote this
sura rather than that to prove their point. But like the Christian Bible,
of course, the Koran has arguments to support every possible point of
view. The only answer to this is to show by actual examples the reality of
what is happening in countries that have fallen under the sway of the
Sharia. It is also frequently claimed that critics of Islam are guilty of
a) racism, and b) Islamophobia. Since we are discussing religion and not
race, the first argument fails. Certainly in the west there is a high
degree of correlation between race and religion. The Muslims in Britain,
for example, tend to be of Middle Eastern origin. Nevertheless, it is
perfectly feasible to love the believer but hate the belief. Human beings
are worthy of respect but not all beliefs must be respected. Attempts to
make Islamophobia a crime are thinly disguised attempt to equate
anti-Islamic arguments with racism. It is essential to distinguish
criticism of Islam both from fear of Islam and from fear, hatred or
contempt for Muslims. But often, moral criticism of Islamic practices or
criticising the Islamic religion is dismissed as Islamophobic. When
Islam really does promote violence by advocating jihad to achieve world
domination, when it really does say that men should beat women and that
the testimony of a woman in court is worth half that of a man and that
followers of Islam should not befriend Jews or Christians, then why not
having fear to it? Why not criticising it? The
world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in
the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to
criticise Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully
recognised. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against
blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended
to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. But once we are prevented
from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas: then we
are on the slippery slope back to the dark ages. Of
all the existing ideologies and religions, Islam remains the greatest
danger for humanity, as it has not been caged by progressive forces and
because of the terrorising power of political Islam and the close ties of
states and the establishment Islam. We
must recognise that our society is far larger, diverse and complex than
the small primitive tribal society in Arabia, 1400 years ago, from which
Islam emerged. It is time to abandon the idea that anyone in the region
should live under Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular
state that respects freedom from and of religion, and human rights founded
on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means rejecting
the claims by orthodox Islamic scholars that, in an Islamic state,
sovereignty belongs to the representative of Allah or Islamic justice. It
is crucial to oppose the Islamic Sharia law and to subordinate Islam to
secularism and secular states. Adapted
from a speech given by Azam Kamguian at a discussion panel & debate on
10 October 2002, organised by University Philosophical Society of Trinity
College, Dublin - Ireland. |
www.middleastwomen.org