| |
Below are extracts from letters from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government with appropriate replies:
1. “As for Shari‘ah law, it is an integral part of the Qur’an, rather like the Ten Commandments in the Bible, so calls to reform it are not practicable. It is the interpretation that is made of it to fit changing circumstances over time that matters. The implementation of Islamic law in those countries which practice it is through tried and tested courts of law and not, as sometimes is perceived, through public opinion. However, extreme punishment such as stoning, amputation and execution under Shari‘ah are wholly inconsistent with international human rights standards. We are opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.”
To say that “Shari‘a law is an integral part of the Qur’an rather like the Ten Commandments in the Bible” is actually a complete misrepresentation. Shari‘a law was created by scholars in the two centuries following the writing of the Qur’an. They drew not only on the Qur’an but also on the hadith (a vast range of texts recording Muhammad’s words and actions). Shari‘a law is not written in the Qur’an the same way that the Ten Commandments are in the Bible. While the Ten Commandments is a fundamental text which cannot be changed, Shari‘a Law is the result of numerous interpretations of many different texts. There at least 5 different versions of Shari‘a extant today.
2. “.. Shari‘ah law does not apply in the UK and all the indications are that most British Muslims do not see the severe penalties for apostasy that may be in evidence in certain other countries as having a place in Islam in the 21st Century. Indeed British Muslims play a prominent role in inter-faith dialogue and activity and the promotion of understanding and respect between the world faiths represented in the UK based on their shared core values. I believe British Muslim leaders take the opportunity to preach the benefits of this approach when they meet their counterparts from Muslim countries.”
Whilst it is true that Shari‘a law does not officially apply in the UK, this does not mean it is not enforced unofficially. The Islamic Shari‘a Council of UK and Ireland (established in Birmingham in 1982) claims to issue fatwas and verdicts based on the four Sunni schools of law. By April 2002 the Council had dealt with almost 4000 cases, mainly concerning family law. As other councils are formed, there is no doubt that a parallel alternative legal system operates on a voluntary basis in the UK in the Muslim community. Particularly, in the case of family law, Shari‘a councils are sanctioning practices which are considered illegal under British law, including polygamy and child marriages. For example, the Shari‘a Council for the Darul Uloom London, in its introductory web page dealing with divorce mentions that:
“If a girl has not reached adulthood (ie she is not yet having menses) or if the woman has passed a certain age and the Menses have stopped, then three months is the iddat period” The iddat period is the time that must pass before a divorced woman may remarry.
It is also clear that many British Muslims would like to see official recognition of Shari‘a law in British law. A Guardian/ICM survey in 2004 found that 61% of British Muslims wanted civil cases to be handled by Shari‘a courts “so long as the penalties did not contravene British law”. A Daily Telegraph/ICM poll in February 2006 stated that 40% of British Muslims want Shari‘a law introduced to parts of the country that are predominantly Muslim.
The letter further states that “…all the indications are that most British Muslims do not see severe penalties for apostasy that may be in evidence in other countries as having a place in Islam in the 21st century.” This claim, unfortunately, is not supported by the actions of Muslim leaders and organisations. It was most notable in the widespread silence of mainstream organisations such as the MCB in the wake of the well publicised Abdul Rahman case. None of these organisations were willing to condemn the trial of Rahman for apostasy, or to assert that a Muslim has the right to leave Islam for another religion.
3. In the context of Abdul Rahman, a number of such letters stated: “Article 2 of the Afghanistan constitution provides for freedom of religion and we expect Afghanistan to respect its citizens’ constitutional rights.”
However, according to the English translation we have, Article 2 states:
1) The religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law.
So members of religions other than Islam are free to practise their faith, in other words, the faith they were born into. But Article 2 does not allow for the adoption of a different faith. It then goes on to limit the exercise of such faith to within the provisions of the law - laws which can be changed at any time. Worse, Article 3 states that no law can be “contrary to Islam” and Islamic law clearly prohibits apostasy. This “provision of freedom of religion” therefore does not allow for freedom to change religion. This is in clear opposition to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On this basis how can it be said that freedom of religion is being respected?
The letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office further states that the UK provides financial support to the Afghan Ministry of Justice to reform the judiciary in Afghanistan.
Whilst we are clearly pleased the UK is trying to exercise influence in this way, unless provision is made in the Afghan constitution and laws for the freedom to change religion, reform of the judiciary will not help the plight of converts from Islam.
4. We are also concerned about the plight of converts and apostates and believe that extreme punishments prescribed under Sharia law are wholly inconsistent with international human rights standards. We are opposed to the death penalty in all cases.
Thank you for your forthright condemnation of the death penalty. However, it is not only the “extreme punishments” which are inconsistent with international human rights standards, it is any form of punishment. Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 says “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 says everyone “shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
Please would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide a clear statement that it is wrong for any punishments to be meted out against a Muslim who converts from Islam to another faith and confirm what penalties can be meted out to those countries which breach such instruments.
|
