The Alice In Wonderland World Where Sharia and Human Rights Are Compatible

By Aeneas • on January 17, 2012

It seems that the push towards sharia is continuing in the United Kingdom. A meme is being put forward by UK barrister Sadakat Kadri that sharia and human rights are compatible. The Guardian reports:

“A leading barrister has called for the UK to become more sharia-literate, while arguing that Islamic law can be compatible with the toughest human rights legislation.” (Guardian, 16 January 2012)

This is not really the case if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is used as the yardstick, otherwise why would the Islamic alternative to the UDHR, the ‘Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam’, have been necessary? This latter document does not really protect human rights, but only gives people ‘…freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah’ (bold added by the author for emphasis). The highlighted text above is a very big get out clause when it comes to real human rights, and this proviso is used throughout the document to nullify any real human rights provisions that may exist in the document to misinform and mislead the gullible.

Articles 24 and 25 of the Cairo Declaration, to make the philosophy behind it clear and to cut through the circumlocution and doublespeak inherent in many of the preceding articles, makes it crystal clear that the purpose of the document is not to protect human rights but to, with a nod and a wink to those who want a worldwide Caliphate, attempt to institute sharia globally.

ARTICLE 24: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”

ARTICLE 25: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of the articles in this Declaration.”

(bold added by the author for emphasis)

Circumlocution is even evident in the Guardian article at the end where it talks about ‘myths’ associated with sharia, for example:

“Stoning is not mentioned as a punishment in the Qur’an. It was institutionalised on the basis of hadiths (reports about Muhammad) which were themselves not written down until more than a century after his death”

And:

“The Qur’an repeatedly warns believers who abandon their faith that they will have to account to God in the afterlife, but it does not provide for their punishment on earth. Again, it was hadiths that later served to justify the death penalty”

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of sharia law understands that sharia law is derived from the Quran, and the Sunnah (the example set by Muhammad) which is often regarded as synonymous with the hadith. Did Prophet of Islam participate in, approve of, or in any way indicate that stoning was justified and that the death penalty an appropriate punishment for apostates?

With regard to the issue of stoning, the following is from Sahih Muslim (17:4207):

“Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah’s Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death. He then prayed over her (dead body). Thereupon Umar said to him: Allah’s Apostle, you offer prayer for her, whereas she had committed adultery! Thereupon he said: She has made such a repentance that if it were to be divided among seventy men of Medina, it would be enough. Have you found any repentance better than this that she sacr ficed her life for Allah, the Majestic?”

Quoted from: SearchTruth.com

It is clear from this quote that based on the example of Mohammed, sharia law does allow stoning. With regard to the issue of apostasy, the following is from Muhammad Ismâ’îl al-Bukhârî (Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17):

“Narrated ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.””

Quoted from: Masjid Al-Jama

It is clear that an attempt to mislead and misinform the public is been made via the meaningless statement ‘Stoning is not mentioned as a punishment in the Qur’an’ because it implies that sharia law is based solely on the Quran which is not true. In any case, stoning is used as a punishment in parts of Islamic world today – does this mean that entire nations are getting things wrong and effectively acting in an un-Islamic way? Also, if sharia law can be so complicated then how do people know whether or not they are breaking it?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the other hand does not put conditions of sharia compliance in place to make inconvenient human rights null and void. It allows rights such as equality before the law, the right for men and women to marry ‘without any limitation’, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to change religion. If a sharia clause was to be added then none of these rights would be possible.

Western legal systems, prior the process of sharia subversion, gave people equal rights before the law. These rights appear to be steadily eroding in order to placate Islamists and other advocates of sharia principles. The British Establishment certainly seems keen to move to a more sharia compliant legal system if comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips are representative. Opponents of sharia are now actively demonised and persecuted in many Western countries. Sharia principles go hand in hand with the ideology of political correctness which effectively prevents people in the West from defending their own culture thus making it ripe for sharia subversion.

Of course there are those who deny that our society is on the road to sharia. After all, sharia courts are just about family disputes – aren’t they? What they forget is that sharia is not a ‘pick ’n’ mix system’, it is a total system. It is not something that complements secular laws, it is an alternative to them. Our society is in the grip of an incremental but determined campaign of sharia subversion. A bit of sharia here and a bit there may escape notice and get people used to the idea, but it is still sharia. Sharia deniers also seem to ignore the other highway for sharia that is been driven into our legal system, namely the use of ordinary legislation as a host for sharia. Given that sharia principles are already finding their way into UK law via legislation such as the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 it is interesting to note that towards the end of the Guardian article Kadri is quoted as saying:

“I try to show how it’s only really in the last 40 years, since Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, but more especially since the Iranian revolution in 1979 that the idea of enforcing Islamic rules through national laws has come to the fore. Before 1973, it was only Saudi Arabia which actually did that.”

It is true that sharia law is not always referred to by name and that pro-sharia and sharia-indifferent legislators are sneaking it into our legal systems in this way. What she is accusing people like Gaddafi of seems to be what she should be accusing the UK Parliament of doing if she does not think national governments should be doing such things. Will she also be complaining about the actions of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) that seeks to get all the countries of the world to integrate its ‘Defamation of Religion’ Resolution into their national laws? After all, this resolution is effectively a sharia blasphemy law in all but name.

If the slippery slope to sharia is to be avoided in places like the United Kingdom, then legislation such as the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 are in urgent need of review. Furthermore the efforts of the OIC need to be actively resisted by all governments that cherish freedom (if there are any!) via their foreign policies and their participation in international regimes.

If we are expected to believe Sadakat Kadri’s assertion that Sharia Courts ‘played a role in safeguarding human rights’ then we have to accept that we have truly become an Alice in Wonderland society where reality is suspended and fantasy becomes the guiding principle of the land.