I was going to title this article as "Why the West should not fear Sharia law in Libya and even if they do it's none of their business". I thought it may be too hefty as a title for a blog that has a tiny (and I'm not entirely consistent) readership. But it certainly summarises my views on this subject quite nicely.
Ever since the declaration of liberation of Libya from that non-Islamic tyrant Gaddafi, and after Mustafa Abdul-Jalil's speech in which he proclaimed the Libyan constitution will be based on Islamic Jurisprudence (often translated into English as Sharia law), that has been an uproar by a significantly large section of the self-righteous, arrogant and self-proclaimed flag bearers of a fair justice system of the Western media and politicians. "This will mean girls can no longer have an education", they bemoan. "Women driving cars in Libya? Don't be silly", they'll tell us. Even
It is odd that the phrase Sharia can strike such fear into the heart of people, where it seems to conjure up images of evil. And the phrase, as used in the English media at least, of Sharia law is weird also. It is like saying PIN number or Sahara desert. But those oddities of Englishisms are innocuous, whose use is simply an accepted eccentricity of the language. Unlike the intentions of using Sharia Law, Fatwa or Jihad. It's not as if these words are particularly difficult to translate, or whose meanings are complex. So, instead of "The Muslim government has decided to base the law of the land upon Islamic Jurisprudence within the Muslim nation" we hear "Sharia Law has been imposed by the Islamist government upon the people". Or for "The Islamic Scholar made an Islamic judgement that such act is permissible in Islam" we read "The Mullah has proclaimed a Fatwa on this issue". The Arabic is used to scare people, not presenting the truth to what it really means or how it applies.
And the scaremongering never ends. Yesterday I read in the Guardian blogs that Islamic law (I will henceforth no longer use Arabic words) means "forced child marriages.......female genital mutilation". And then today I read a blog by Melanie Philips where she compares Islam to Stalinists and Nazis and then has the audacity to use double speak to prevent anyone from calling her an Islamaphobe. She is, because she doesn't understand, nor try to understand what it means. She finishes her blog tellingly......Where, oh where is our Churchill? A man who may have been a war hero, but whose lack of tolerance for anything different (especially other races), is well documented. Ms Philips, are you trying to tell us something?
Now, I'm not going to try to defend or justify Islamic law to people. I don't need to, as Allah is our justification. I will not look to "convert" people, either literally or metaphorically. There are some things that can never be adequately explained to the non-muslim. But - and this is a very large point - the lies and misguidance must end about what Islamic law is and is not. The Quran is very clear "For you is your way of life and for me is mine". If there was a referendum tomorrow in Libya about whether to introduce Islamic law as the basis for all laws, it would vote to introduce it by a landslide. This is what the people want and they would go into it with eyes wide open. They do, after all, know more about their religion than the West. So, Ms Philips, for you is your way of life and for us ours. And I would genuinely ask - what is it about the imposing of Islamic law in Muslim nations that affects you? Why is it so important to you that Libya, for example, is not based on Islam? Do you not know that Libyans are, almost bar none, muslim? And that the people want Islam to rule? The people want it. And what would democracy say about that? The Western media like those above need to quickly understand that the Muslim people are not in need of your advice, as we are an intelligent, guided and in general morally upright people. As a rule, Muslims, guided by the Quran, are tolerant of how people wish to live their lives. But we are intolerant of people telling us how we should live our lives and there will be a reaction. Of course there will.
And to give a balanced view, there are some controversial (as far the West is concerned) principles within Islamic law. The punishments imposed for serious crimes are often described as barbaric. But what journalists over here fail to put across - either through ignorance or more likely malice - is the judicial system that sits behind the punishments. For stealing you cut off the hand, but to do that there must be 2 reliable witnesses to have seen the crime actually being committed. And we don't mean, they saw the thief running from the scene of the crime. Or they saw the thief with the goods in his hand. No, they must have seen him actually stealing it. This is the justice system that your Ms Philips will often neglect to mention. When in British law it is claimed you can only convict someone if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, in Islam, that evidence DOES contain reasonable doubt. And with the evidence that is used to convict people here, an Islamic judge cannot
I once was having a debate with a colleague of mine many years ago, about the imposition of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. The debate went on for quite a while. I would explain that for the people of Saudi they value the rights of society over the rights of the individual. It is much more preferable to them that they can feel safe leaving their shops attended and the thieves risk having their hands chopped off, than being extremely vigilant so that a criminal's "rights" are maintained. Rights of society over that of the individual. And then she exclaimed "well I'll never live there ". And this the crux of it. You see "the Saudi's never asked you to live there " I told her. And this is the point in Libya. The application of Islam in Libya is not done to please foreigners. Its not being implemented because we wish to encourage foreigners to live there. It's done for us. So let us be. That is not to say non Muslims are not welcome. But let's be clear about what Libya is and what it isn't. And if you don't like it, well Gods earth is widespread so live within it wherever is best suited to your way of life.
To conclude, this debate should not go down the route of which life is best. I, as a believing Muslim, am in no doubt. But I am humble enough to understand that is not what people in the West want. But please, Western journalists and bloggers, understand the opposite is true and what we want in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is what is right for us. And if you leave us be, if then we can live in total harmony. This is not a theory. I live in Britain and interact extremely successfully with British people of different religions, races, cultures and mindsets. Because we have all one thing in common and that is live and let live. And what works on the micro-social level will surely work at the macro.
And Ms Philips et al, please, do not persist in drowning in your ignorance. Learn the truth. You may be pleasantly surprised. And if you do not wish to, then just leave us be. Its makes everyone happier.
Ever since the declaration of liberation of Libya from that non-Islamic tyrant Gaddafi, and after Mustafa Abdul-Jalil's speech in which he proclaimed the Libyan constitution will be based on Islamic Jurisprudence (often translated into English as Sharia law), that has been an uproar by a significantly large section of the self-righteous, arrogant and self-proclaimed flag bearers of a fair justice system of the Western media and politicians. "This will mean girls can no longer have an education", they bemoan. "Women driving cars in Libya? Don't be silly", they'll tell us. Even
"....it might have been better to have stuck with the devil we knew (Gaddafi) because we don't know what the 'devils we don't know' may end up doing" (have a listen here).This guy would rather see an evil, murderous, tyrannical leader remain in power torturing his people for another 42 years than to see Libya implement Islamic law. How messed up is this guy?
It is odd that the phrase Sharia can strike such fear into the heart of people, where it seems to conjure up images of evil. And the phrase, as used in the English media at least, of Sharia law is weird also. It is like saying PIN number or Sahara desert. But those oddities of Englishisms are innocuous, whose use is simply an accepted eccentricity of the language. Unlike the intentions of using Sharia Law, Fatwa or Jihad. It's not as if these words are particularly difficult to translate, or whose meanings are complex. So, instead of "The Muslim government has decided to base the law of the land upon Islamic Jurisprudence within the Muslim nation" we hear "Sharia Law has been imposed by the Islamist government upon the people". Or for "The Islamic Scholar made an Islamic judgement that such act is permissible in Islam" we read "The Mullah has proclaimed a Fatwa on this issue". The Arabic is used to scare people, not presenting the truth to what it really means or how it applies.
And the scaremongering never ends. Yesterday I read in the Guardian blogs that Islamic law (I will henceforth no longer use Arabic words) means "forced child marriages.......female genital mutilation". And then today I read a blog by Melanie Philips where she compares Islam to Stalinists and Nazis and then has the audacity to use double speak to prevent anyone from calling her an Islamaphobe. She is, because she doesn't understand, nor try to understand what it means. She finishes her blog tellingly......Where, oh where is our Churchill? A man who may have been a war hero, but whose lack of tolerance for anything different (especially other races), is well documented. Ms Philips, are you trying to tell us something?
Now, I'm not going to try to defend or justify Islamic law to people. I don't need to, as Allah is our justification. I will not look to "convert" people, either literally or metaphorically. There are some things that can never be adequately explained to the non-muslim. But - and this is a very large point - the lies and misguidance must end about what Islamic law is and is not. The Quran is very clear "For you is your way of life and for me is mine". If there was a referendum tomorrow in Libya about whether to introduce Islamic law as the basis for all laws, it would vote to introduce it by a landslide. This is what the people want and they would go into it with eyes wide open. They do, after all, know more about their religion than the West. So, Ms Philips, for you is your way of life and for us ours. And I would genuinely ask - what is it about the imposing of Islamic law in Muslim nations that affects you? Why is it so important to you that Libya, for example, is not based on Islam? Do you not know that Libyans are, almost bar none, muslim? And that the people want Islam to rule? The people want it. And what would democracy say about that? The Western media like those above need to quickly understand that the Muslim people are not in need of your advice, as we are an intelligent, guided and in general morally upright people. As a rule, Muslims, guided by the Quran, are tolerant of how people wish to live their lives. But we are intolerant of people telling us how we should live our lives and there will be a reaction. Of course there will.
If all of that came to pass, it would be a terrible thing for Libyans, but so far, there is no indication that this is what Jalil has in mind. And even if it is, unlike Gaddafi, Jalil is not a dictator and therefore does not have the power to impose whatever his will may be on his fellow citizens – or at least, that's the idea of establishing a democracyThe above quote is from the Guardian blog. How immensely arrogant and ignorant is this writer? Drowning as he is in his ignorance, he doesn't seem to realise that the Libyan people want nothing better than to have Islam ruling their land. And arrogance to believe that the example of the West is proof that their way of life is better. Really? Ignore what is acknowledged as crimes everywhere - such as murder, theft and violence - though these are far more prevalent in the civilised West. How about failed marriages, single parents, adultery, breakdown of family, lack of respect for elders, the attitude of it being just about me? These are the hallmarks of the modern, democratic and civilised West and this is not what Libya wants.
And to give a balanced view, there are some controversial (as far the West is concerned) principles within Islamic law. The punishments imposed for serious crimes are often described as barbaric. But what journalists over here fail to put across - either through ignorance or more likely malice - is the judicial system that sits behind the punishments. For stealing you cut off the hand, but to do that there must be 2 reliable witnesses to have seen the crime actually being committed. And we don't mean, they saw the thief running from the scene of the crime. Or they saw the thief with the goods in his hand. No, they must have seen him actually stealing it. This is the justice system that your Ms Philips will often neglect to mention. When in British law it is claimed you can only convict someone if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, in Islam, that evidence DOES contain reasonable doubt. And with the evidence that is used to convict people here, an Islamic judge cannot
I once was having a debate with a colleague of mine many years ago, about the imposition of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. The debate went on for quite a while. I would explain that for the people of Saudi they value the rights of society over the rights of the individual. It is much more preferable to them that they can feel safe leaving their shops attended and the thieves risk having their hands chopped off, than being extremely vigilant so that a criminal's "rights" are maintained. Rights of society over that of the individual. And then she exclaimed "well I'll never live there ". And this the crux of it. You see "the Saudi's never asked you to live there " I told her. And this is the point in Libya. The application of Islam in Libya is not done to please foreigners. Its not being implemented because we wish to encourage foreigners to live there. It's done for us. So let us be. That is not to say non Muslims are not welcome. But let's be clear about what Libya is and what it isn't. And if you don't like it, well Gods earth is widespread so live within it wherever is best suited to your way of life.
To conclude, this debate should not go down the route of which life is best. I, as a believing Muslim, am in no doubt. But I am humble enough to understand that is not what people in the West want. But please, Western journalists and bloggers, understand the opposite is true and what we want in Libya and the rest of the Arab world is what is right for us. And if you leave us be, if then we can live in total harmony. This is not a theory. I live in Britain and interact extremely successfully with British people of different religions, races, cultures and mindsets. Because we have all one thing in common and that is live and let live. And what works on the micro-social level will surely work at the macro.
And Ms Philips et al, please, do not persist in drowning in your ignorance. Learn the truth. You may be pleasantly surprised. And if you do not wish to, then just leave us be. Its makes everyone happier.
No comments:
Post a Comment