Why can't a Muslim woman marry a Christian or a Jew?

“Lawful to you in marriage are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time when you have given their due Mahr (bridal-money given by the their husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity not committing illegal intercourse, nor taking them as girlfriends.”
Verse 5: Sura Ma’idah.

Based on the above verse the wide consensus amongst Muslims is that whilst a Muslim man is permitted to marry a woman of the Book (a kitabiya) which has been expressly permitted by the Quran, the silence with regard to Muslim women indicates that a Muslim woman cannot marry man of the Book. This issue has raised concern amongst Muslim women and non - Muslims point this as being ‘another one of’ Islam’s bias against women.

The marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is a marriage between two people who have two different moral codes. What is permitted and halal to the Muslim is permitted to the non – Muslim but what is forbidden and haram to the Muslim is not so forbidden to the non – Muslim. For example to raise a glass of champagne in toast is not just permitted but required for the non – Muslim whereas it is forbidden for the Muslim. This is only one of many possible clashes between these two moral codes.

However the haram conduct of one spouse may or may not infect the purity of the other spouse. For example if the husband is a drunkard, that does not make the wife a sinner as long as she is not an accomplice to his drunkenness. Thus in the story of Musa (alai) his foster mother Aasia is one of four holiest women in Islam even though her husband Fir’aun was cursed to be drowned in the Red Sea. In the context of modern day marriage there is one instance when the haram of one spouse does tend to pollute the other spouse.

Every Muslim knows the importance that Islam places upon earning and the strict rules it places upon the way we earn our incomes. If we consume haram earnings it pollutes us completely unless we purge the pollutant. Thus, on forbidden earnings even if we give zakat, it is not accepted by Allah (swt). Therefore Islam requires Muslims to exercise the highest degree of diligence and scrupulousness in the matter of how we earn our living. We should therefore not consume what is not ours and ensure that the sources of our income are also halal.

As we know the same rules of halal and haram that apply to the Muslim don’t apply to the non – Muslim. Thus the non – Muslim can invest in a distillery and consume the earnings whereas the Muslim cannot. More importantly in the context of modern financial instruments, the non – Muslim can transact in riba or interest whereas the Muslim cannot. To the non – Muslim it would only be ‘natural’ to invest in financial markets and instruments and earn the interest on the return. If the non – Muslim is need of capital then he obtains a loan where he undertakes to pay an interest. This is ordinary for them but not for us.

Now let’s examine the clash of the halal and the haram in the context of the marriage of the Muslimah to the non – Muslim. How can she ensure herself that her sustenance is halal? One option is for her to impose the strict rules of Islamic etiquette on her husband. She has to tell him he cannot have savings accounts which pay him interest or take that loan to buy that car at low interest. She has to tell that even though a stock is doing well on the market that they can’t buy it because the company is engaged in a haram business. She also has to tell him that he cannot take his clients to ‘drinks’ so that he could clinch the deal. Is this feasible in reality? Is it fair on him, to impose a strict code of conduct which is rooted in something he does not believe in? Preventing him from doing things which in his view are ‘perfectly normal’? Spouses imposing rules on each other and supervising for compliance is the formula for an unhappy marriage especially if the one who is asked to observe the restrictions does not accept the rationale behind those rules.

Rather than imposing rules she has another option. She can provide for herself and her child and leave her husband the discretion and the freedom to earn his money the way he thinks is right but not be responsible for her and their children. Thus she will provide for them 100%. So from the house rent, to the car petrol, to the utility bills, to the school fees to even the vacation, the woman pays! Is this again an acceptable social reality?

Let’s presume for arguments’ sake that she imposes these rules and he obliges but what if unfortunately they divorce? Can she now insist that he maintain her or the kids? What obligation does he have to stick to the rules? Can she accept those payments? Thus as single mother she has to fend and provide for the child.

What we see is that in the marriage between the Muslimah and the non – Muslim, the Muslim either has to provide for herself and her kids or be engrossed in a lifelong debate with her spouse as to what is halal and haram when it comes to their family finances. Is this what Islam wants for a Muslim woman?

The status of a woman is Islam is that of security and dignity. Islam imposes rules on men and women so as to ensure the dignity of the woman. Islam recognises that the dignity and security a women depends largely on her financial independence. Thus at the time of marriage Islam requires the payment of Mahr. That however is not all. No matter how rich the woman is in Islam the woman has the absolute right to be maintained. “They (women) have rights (over their husbands with regard to living expenses)” (Sura 2:228). Therefore any property that belongs to her before, during or after the marriage does not belong to the husband and the husband has no right to demand that such property be utilised to meet family expenses.

This does not mean that a Muslimah has to stay at home. The first woman to enter Islam was the Prophet’s (sal) wife Khadeeja (rali) who was a very rich businesswoman and who in fact employed the Holy Prophet (sal) before their marriage. A Muslimah can insist on her maintenance from her husband without expending a cent from her property or earnings. This is a right every woman, believing or non – believing has and it is a security that a woman is given.

In a marriage between a Muslimah and a non – Muslim, a Muslimah loses this status of dignity and security. She marries a man who does not understand or believe in this and could insist that she contribute to the family expenses. Most non – Muslim marriages go on a 50% - 50% basis. But even for 50% that he contributes; well she has to impose rules on him and tell him to comply with Islamic laws of finance and trade, which after all he does not accept and what more she has to earn a living.

Thus the marriage of a Muslimah to a non – Muslim does not give her the secure framework which Islam gives the woman where she keeps her earnings and the husband provides for all her and their children’s needs through earnings which are halal.

However in the case of a Muslim man and a non – Muslim woman, the woman retains her security because as a Muslim man he is bound to provide for her and to let her enjoy for herself her income and property. This then secures him as well because he does not have to worry about the purity of her earnings nor does he have to impose strict rules on her to secure his purity.

This however is not the end of it. What if this woman from a state of non – hijab, decides to wear the hijab. Is that something that the non – Muslim male would permit? In a rare instance the husband might support it, but will he continue find her attractive? Will that marriage be without friction?

So when a Muslimah marries a non – Muslim she puts herself in a situation where there is a spiritual and emotional contradiction in her life and she loses her security and risks losing her dignity. She has to live life where she continues to defend her way and her rules which are more restrictive than his. That is neither the life of marital bliss nor the status that Islam wants to give her.

Now many women might say, yes, you may be right, but let me take the chance. The choice should be left to me. In other religions they leave choices to the human despite all his failings. They tell him, consume alcohol but with moderation. We know only too well how man can consume it with moderation? Allah (swt) being our Creator knows what we can and we can’t and so in His infinite wisdom saves us from our own ‘choices’ and discretion and prohibits what we simply cannot handle and gives us our security, dignity and peace.

The rules of Islam are what Allah (swt) has imposed in His divine wisdom so that His creations may live in peace in this world and in the hereafter. The logic that lies behind these rules is something we humans can only try to understand but Islam is not a religion the beauty of which is accessible only to a mystic. The beauty and the logic of Islam can be understood by the common person, only if she makes an effort to see it.

I end by praying that Allah (swt) should guide all of us in the correct path.

Allahu Akbar!

An Interview with Mustafa Barghouti

Muslim women in hijab come to the fore

By H. Omer

This article was published in the Daily Mirror - Sri Lanka :- http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=20775

My eyes popped upon seeing the photos of the winners of the 1st and 2nd places for Oralists at the Jessup International Law Moot Competition for 2008. They were women, they were Muslim and they were in hijab. The ‘Jessup’ is the Olympics for law students and winning the prize for Oralist is like winning the 100 meters. Muslim women are coming to the fore and doing it all in hijab.

Reflecting on this one does wonder whether to say that the Islamic attire of hijab is backward or oppressive is one big, fat, pseudo-intellectual lie. If not how does one explain the hijab clad Shaheed Fatima, the Human Rights Barrister, with a BCL from Oxford and a Kennedy Scholar to Harvard and the winner of the ‘Professions Woman of the Future Award’ at the prestigious Women of the Future Awards in 2007?

The hijab is a head covering worn by a Muslim woman, done as a requirement of her religion. No other female attire has been subject to so much scrutiny and of course criticism. To the critics the hijab is a symbol of patriarchy and oppression. A seeming critic, M. A. Nuhman in an article titled “Ethnic consciousness, Fundamentalism and Muslim Women” identifies the Purdah or the hijab as “a manifestation of the ideology of female segregation and subordination”. Given that the Muslim girl in hijab is now a common sight in schools and shopping malls, it is useful to examine the validity of these criticisms.

There is very little evidence that the hijab has stifled or restrained a Muslim woman from pursuing her goals and aspirations, as a person and as a woman. Well it has restricted her choice of wardrobe but what else has the hijab stopped? The interesting point is that hijab is worn by a Muslim woman when she goes out of her home, not when she’s stuck at home. Thus the hijab is a symbol of emancipation in itself.

Nuhman states that hijab become more prevalent after 1985 but he interestingly cites “[t]he literacy rate of the Muslim women in 1921 was only 6%, but it has been raised to 75.5% at present. It is a fairly satisfactory development in comparison with the 82.5% of the overall female literacy rate in Sri Lanka. In 1942 only one Muslim female student entered the University of Ceylon. However, for the last ten years more than a hundred Muslim girls have been entering from many parts of Sri Lanka to the universities for several fields of study including medicine and engineering.....the Universities Grants Commission Report, [states that] 32% of the total Muslim students who got admission to the universities for the academic year 1990/1991 were female students.”

The point is that despite becoming a phenomenon in 1985 Muslim women in higher education has not declined but increased. This point is buttressed by Nuhman when he states that “[d]ue to this new development, after 1985 Sri Lankan Muslim women were compelled to wear hijab and it has become the school uniform for Muslim girls in all the Muslim schools except in the primary classes. The Muslim girls who attend non-Muslim schools also have to observe this.” Therefore all those Muslim girls who constituted the 32% entering University or a significant portion of them studied and sat for their examination in hijab. The hijab didn’t cover the route to University.

The fact is that the hijab is the passport to freedom to many Muslim girls. Parents are more willing to let their daughters out to pursue higher studies and employment, on the silent satisfaction that their child is conscious of her religion and identity in this challenging world.

Really, is the requirement that a woman should cover her hair, ears and neck and reveal only her face when men don’t have to do that, “a manifestation of an ideology of female subordination”? That contention is premised on an assumption that the ability to wear [or reveal] whatever one wants, is emancipation. To put it graphically, if men can walk around topless, so should women, because otherwise a woman is not equal to a man and any rule against women going topless is a manifestation of an ideology of female subordination. There may be some of you who may subscribe to such a notion of equality but to me it is a fairly shallow way to look at concepts like equality, let alone equality between the sexes.

Another slur cast upon the hijab is that women are being forced to wear it. No doubt there are instances that groups have forced women to wear the hijab. However that does not explain the energy and the vigour that women have shown around the world in fighting for their right to wear the hijab. The fight against the French laws against wearing the hijab was fought not by some ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim male but by intelligent and articulate Muslim women. Shabnam Mughal, the lawyer who asserted her right to wear the nikab in an employment tribunal in the UK was after all, a lawyer. Don’t tell me someone forced her to wear it.

If the hijab is some patriarchal imposition, why are the women in Turkey, still fighting for their right to wear the hijab, twenty eight years after it was banned from schools, universities, public and government buildings? Their fight is not easy, they fight the Kemalist secularists in their own country and the secularists in the EU and in the European Court of Human Rights which continues to side with the secularists rejecting the rights of the women. Human Rights Watch, to its credit has come in support of the Muslim women and asserted their right to wear the hijab, when other women’s rights groups active in Turkey stayed silent.

To describe the hijab as a symbol of backwardness is to insult the intelligent, smart and accomplished women who beautify themselves with it and who tell the world that there is more to them than that meets the eye and their beauty is more than skin deep.

“Wearing traditional Muslim dress has encouraged me. It’s not an obstacle – quite the opposite.” Ruqaya Al Ghasara, Asian Games Gold Medallist.

Why were charges dropped against suspected 9/11 bomber?

Mohamed Al Qahtani spent the last six years as a celebrity at Guantanamo Bay. He was the notorious '20th hijacker' and a star detainee. Whenever Guantanamo or the 'War on Terror' was challenged Qahtani, the 20th hijacker was thrown in as justification.

In 2006 Human Rights Watch reproted that Qahtani was forced to wear women's underwear, stand naked in front of a woman interrogator, and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash, in late 2002 and early 2003. Human Rights groups which got hold of a leaked copy of his interrogation log book which showed he was also subjected to sleep deprivation and forced to maintain "stress" positions; concluded that the treatment "amounted to torture". However the US government maintained that the interrogation did not amount to torture but only "abusive and degrading". The Centre for Constitutional Rights which represents Qahtani described the logs as "a shameful window onto the depravity of [the] administration and the depths to which they have been willing to sink."

In February 11,2008 the US government decided to charge Qahtani and five other equally 'famous' detainees for their involvement for what happened on September 11, 2001. However yesterday on May 13, 2008, the administration decided to drop charges against him without comment and without prejudice.

The mega million question is why were the charges dropped on Qahtani? The US government has not made a statement explaning this. Is it because the US finally realised that the flimsy evidence against Qahtani i.e. confessions signed by him, were obtained under torture and therefore decided to drop charges to preserve the integrity of the process?

The dropping of the charges is a well placed damage control strategy by the administration.

Recently the prominent international lawyer Philippe Sands QC, published Torture Team a book that gives a detailed account of what happened to Qahtani, the scraps of forced confessions that the US administration called 'evidence' and the people behind the torture. The book however is not mere a narrative. It's a strong, cogent and convincing brief for the prosecution of those involved in the torture on Qahtani for crimes against humanity and in fact hints that there is at least one judge and prosecutor in a European country famous for arrest warrants who seriously consider such a prosecution.

Given the publicity to book recieved Sands was requested to give a special testimony before the Congress Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2008 just a week before the dropping of the charges against Qahtani. In fact the Congressmen on the committee made specific queries as to possibilities of indictments and whether there were time limitations for such prosecutions.

The lawyers and the officials including Rumsfeld who were behind the torture of Qahtani had clearly met their Waterloo. Given the material in the book and the hint of possible prosecution, what if Qahtani's trial proceeded, he is found guilty and executed? It would only strengthen the resolve and the case of any prosecutor against the men indicted in Sands' book.

Dropping of the charges? It is another attempt at cover up and run for cover by Rumsfeld and the lawyers.

Over 10,000 rally in London for Palestine

As this week marks the 60th commemoration of the Naqaba, around 15,000 Londoners gathered at Trafalgar Square in London on Saturday May 10, 2008 to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians and to remind their government of its responsibility as the principal author of the Catastrophe. The rally at Trafalgar Square was the culimnation of a long procession that began near the Temple tube station. It was a great show of people power which has been the characteristic of the Palestinian struggle for independence and the message was clear telling the oppressive Zionist regime that the fight is long from over. The rally demonstrates the vibrancy of the British society were despite the distorted media coverage and the altered history books they have the courage and the conviction to call their government to account.

Interestingly despite heavy media presence there was little or nothing of this massive protest in the electronic media or press.

From the River to the Sea - Palestine will be Free!

Blog or Clog?

Scrutiny, ridicule and criticism are not strangers to Islam or to Muslims. Dinidu De Alwis, an apparent journalist contributing to the Sunday Times has decided that he should take his turn at this ancient practice and so wrote two blogs in his website and the first post of which can be found at http://dinidudealwis.com/?p=105.

Nonsensical musings of a self confessed ignoramus should not be the subject of an elaborate response. However the blog written by De Alwis deserves particular response for the fact that it is written by journalist and for the comments it has elicited.

De Alwis is a tragic comedy of epic proportions and classic case of confusion and contradiction.

His ostensible objective is to demonstrate that the extremism in Islam is ‘founded and fed’ from the Quran. But his problem with the rational Muslims is that they have not explained the contextual meaning of the Quran to the extremists. In other words the extremists have read the Quran out of context according to him. Then clearly one cannot argue that the Quran ‘founded and fed’ the extremism. If someone were foolish enough to read De Alwis’ posts and attack a Muslim, having read it out of context, then could it be said that the blog ‘founded and fed’ the attack? So in other words De Alwis scores an own goal and defeats through his argument his objectives. Hurrah hurrah.

In substantiating his argument about a contextual interpretation to the Quran, he cites five verses of the Quran. But before getting down to that let me point out that De Alwis asks himself the question, ‘[I]s the Quran aggressive?’ and gives the emphatic response, ‘Yes it is’. However at least he has the honesty to admit that the strength of the opinion is restricted to the ‘bits and pieces’ he read, vide his post script ‘[F]or the purpose of writing these posts, I’ve read only bits and pieces of the Quran’.

What De Alwis has done is like criticising Darwin’s theory of evolution after reading ‘bits and pieces’ of On the Origin of Species. Intelligence would inform and a sense of responsibility would caution that comments of the strength of De Alwis’ should only be made after a proper research and analysis. The postscript does not exculpate the inadequacy in terms of research. And this lack of responsibility is most shocking as the following paragraphs will show.

Since his comments are based on ‘bits and pieces’ they surely deserve to be shredded into ‘bits and pieces’.

After offering the opinion that the Quran is a book of aggression he qualifies that by saying that it should be seen “in the socio-political situation at the time. People, tribes and countries were at war, and a sense of unity was needed. This for Muslims came in the form of religious unity.” Thereafter citing verses of Sura 8:55 to 60 he states “[R]ead the thing, and try to understand contexually. It’s survival.”

So according to his ‘contextual’ interpretation the verses have something to do with ‘survival’....but forgive me for you confuse, for in your postscript you write, “and have not attempted to understand it in a non-literal manner.” So then what were you doing trying to give the contextual meaning up there a few paragraphs ago?

Not only was the introduction contradicted by the body, the body is contradicted by the postscript!

Secondly what was the ‘socio-political situation of the time’? What was the historic context in which those particular verses revealed? These are questions which the posts don’t answer.

In any case for that contextual interpretation of unity to succeed the author would have to demonstrate that either that the early Muslims were an amalgamation of tribes or clans which were previously at war or potentially at war but who were kept together because of Islam.

Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Islamic history would know that early Islam spread not with clans and communities coming together en masse but on an individual basis. During the migration to Yathrib the Muhajireens left some of their family behind, family that did not accept the Message of the Holy Prophet. In fact some of the leaders in the campaign against the Holy Prophet were his own uncles. So how can one say that groups were at war and they came together because of Islam, when in fact, families had to part ways because of the religion?

One of the most dignified of the companions of the Prophet and a person who has a very important place in Islam was Bilal ibn Rabbah, who was the first black man to embrace Islam. He did it, on his own and not as part of a peace deal between warring communities.

Therefore if the author gave a contextual interpretation, it is suspect for the reasons set out above.

Having decided to argue that there is a contextual approach he then proceeds to blame the ‘rational’ Muslims for ‘as a group of people who have an understanding of what the Quran says, as a group of people who understand that old time religious text writers loved using parable and metaphor’ for not sharing their knowledge with the alleged extremist elements.

The author’s understanding is that the Quran is a product of ‘old time religious text writers’. The author though having decided to grapple with a heavy subject like interpreting the Quran neither bothered to understand it’s method of revelation and compilation nor tried to understand the basis of the ‘understanding’ of the ‘rational/extremist/blind faith Muslim’ whoever they may be.

This intellectual lethargy on his part is fatal to his argument because none of the three groups of Muslims as interestingly classified by him ‘understand’ the Quran as being the product of ‘old time text writers’ who ‘loved using parable and metaphor’. Every Muslim believes and it is a fact of Islamic history that the Quran was revealed to the illiterate Holy Prophet and that it was held in memory and written in various separate places/documents and thereafter consolidated into one book. The Quran is not therefore the product of ‘old time text writers’. So the rational Muslim does not have the understanding that the author attributes the rational Muslim to have and upon which attribution the author decides to confer blame.

He argues that the extremist terrorist takes a literal interpretation to the Quran. Islamic jurisprudence has no place for a literal interpretation because it’s based on the four pillars comprising of the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyas. The words of the Quran as given meaning to by the Sunnah of the Prophet and applied when necessary by analogy [Ijma] and consensus [Qiyas].

Then you might ask, what is Quranic literalism? For starters De Alwis must stop relying on such unreliable sources of information as the Wikipedia. It is as accurate as its general editors, the general public. Readers of this blog should visit the Wikipedia entry on Quranic literalism. See the subheading ‘references’. There is no reference to support the assertions made there. It seems our journalist needs to be taught the basic lesson to ‘always check your sources’.

There is a lot more to be said and written about that blog. But I will stop at this for now. De Alwis, why don’t get over your problem with the Quran and the Muslims and try to learn and understand its true meaning and beauty. Read it contextually and as a whole and understand its true meaning as that is what you have advocated. It is the religion and the Holy Book of one fifth of the world’s population and an important minority in Sri Lanka who have contributed positively towards the country. They are a community of intelligent people who don’t take anything blindly, not even their faith as you may suggest, but analyse and critique things and this includes your blog.

Carlo Latuff and the Holocaust in Gaza

The Danish Cartoons and the Freedom of Expression

Danish newspapers decided to exercise their ‘freedom of expression’ and republish the cartoons that Muslims all over the world found offensive and insulting.The cartoons were printed for the second time in response to an alleged discovery by the Danish intelligence of a conspiracy by three Muslims in Denmark to assassinate one of the cartoonists. To paint a fair picture it must be noted that none of the conspirators of the murder plot are being put on trial with two of them who are non-citizens being extradited and the third, a Danish Muslim being set free without trial.

On the first occassion German, French, Swiss and other European newspapers (excluding British newspapers) republished the cartoons to stand by the Danish newspapers. The cartoons opened a Pandora’s Box of issues and prompts a serious examination of how far the freedom of expression goes.

Democratic societies cherish the freedom of expression because there cannot be a truly functioning democracy if people are not allowed to express their opinion and participate in it fully. Nevertheless it is not an absolute right. It is constrained and as stated above the cartoons question where the boundary lines are drawn. If the purpose of the freedom of expression is to ensure a well lubricated democratic mechanism, then the freedom of expression should extend that far.

Therefore the question boils down to whether these cartoons in any way help the ‘democratic’ framework of any society? If they do, then Muslims should learn to respect the rights of the European cartoonists. To answer this we need to imagine a situation where ridicule of the sacred was commonplace and Danish cartoons were standard modes of political and social expression.

This imaginative task is made easy in that a somewhat similar although not identical event did occur at the University of Oregon where one student newspaper, the Commentator published the Danish cartoons and in response another student newspaper the Insurgent published cartoons showing Jesus Christ in a disparaging manner.

The Insurgent was not published by a group of Muslim students but by American students who justified the publication on the basis that they wanted Americans to realise the offense in the Danish cartoons. They thought that the best way to do this would be to translate the offense into Christian terms. The question then is did it ignite a sense of empathy amongst Christians for Muslims? The answer is obviously that it did not.

With the aid of that reflection we can now return to assess the value of these cartoons to a democratic society. Subjecting another community to ridicule and disrespect and that too deliberately does not help but only harms the democratic process. If one views democracy as a continuing dialogue between groups in a society it is important that the channels of communication are kept unhindered and more so intact. Therefore whilst a democratic society is nourished by free expression of views and thoughts democratic societies also require a restriction of those rights where they endanger the democratic process. In the context of Europe, Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights recognises that since the freedom of expression “carries with it duties and responsibilities, [it] may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights carries a similar restriction on grounds of protecting the rights of others and public morals.

The jurist Ronald Dworkin writing in The Guardian on February 14, 2006 joined the cartoon debate and wrote that even bigots should be allowed to express themselves “If we expect bigots to accept the verdict of the majority once the majority has spoken, then we must permit them to express their bigotry in the process whose verdict we ask them to respect”. However how much does such bigotry help the bigot or his cause let alone the process?

To put my argument in a nutshell, a dissenter in a family discussion on a choice for a holiday decides to ridicule the other family members in the most offensive manner. It makes the other members angry and offended. They feel ridiculed and disrespected. Can he, the dissenter, justify the ridicule by saying that the ridicule was in exercise of his right to participate? The answer is dependent on the purpose of his participation. He is allowed to participate and permitted to express himself so that he contributes to the decision-making process. However if his contribution is patently and deliberately negative, aimed at disrupting the process and the proceedings, they cannot be a legitimate exercise of his right to participate in the discussion. It is in fact an abuse of those rights. The entire question is how does it help the decision making process or the dissenter’s cause itself?

The freedom of expression has its democratic purpose. Its limits are pegged to that. Where it strays outside its democratic purpose, it is not a legitimate exercise of the freedom but an abuse of it.

Lord Carey and the Shariah debate

The defence of Western secularism against the ‘invading forces’ of Islamic Shariah lead by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has dealt body blows to the United Kingdom and its portrayal as ‘a Western secular democracy based on human rights’. The big debate has exposed the double standards and the inherent hypocrisy in Western notions of ‘secularism’, ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’.

For Lord Carey as he wrote in the Telegraph “[T]he watchword for any dialogue, worth its name, between Muslim and Christian communities must insist on reciprocity - - that rights guaranteed to all in the West should be granted to minorities in Muslim lands.” By tying the rights of British citizens to those of Christians outside the UK Lord Carey launched the biggest attack on secularism, democracy and human rights. May be we should remind Lord Carey that when Jesus Christ turned the other cheek he was not insisting on reciprocity!

Lord Carey has chosen to join the debate against Dr. Williams without a proper understanding of the remarks made by Dr. Williams and without reflecting on how Shariah works in countries that are secular and democratic.

Lord Carey raises fears of a parallel system of justice. However Dr. Williams called for the Shariah to be introduced as the personal law of Muslims in the UK and not for anything more. It would be a parallel system only in the limited area of marriage and divorce. In any case special or parallel legal regimes are not strange to the English Legal System. The Jews have their Beth Din. There is nothing in principle that prevents the existence of special legal regimes for special communities governing special relationships. India is a text book example.

Another criticism levelled to the introduction of the Shariah is the lack of universal agreement in its application and interpretation. If that was the yardstick upon which the legitimacy of a legal principle was to be assessed then there would be little of English common law remaining. It is inherent in religious institutions and laws that they are subjected to an array of views most often contradicting each other. No stranger to such multiplicity of controversial views is the Anglican Church itself of which Lord Carey was once the head.

In his article Lord Carey cites harassment of minority Christian communities in Muslim majority countries. Firstly it is unfortunate and secondly it is un-Islamic. But then how could Church burning be an argument against the introduction of Shariah law if there is no principle in Shariah that advocates or urges people to burn Churches? Mosques are burnt in the secular West. Could that then be the fault of the secular laws?

There is an argument also made that Shariah law is contrary to human rights and disadvantages women. Shariah will never live up to the Western standards of women’s right which allows a woman to remove her hijab but prevents her from wearing it. Western notion of liberalism and freedom is the freedom of a horse in a stable, restricted to the four corners of what the West perceives as being right and wrong.

Even though the West pontificates to the rest of the world about equality and the treatment of minorities the outrage against the comments expressed by Dr. Williams exposes its double standards. It shows that there are some in British society who have a difficulty in accepting certain segments of the population purely on the basis of religion and culture. They seem to hold the view that Muslims are and should be second class citizens. These thoughts are the biggest threats to a secular, free and democratic United Kingdom. Respecting minorities and appreciating the fact that they are different from us and making room for them to live in our society as equal citizens would be what is truly British and it is something that we can achieve.