FrontPageMagazine.com

10/21/2008

Taking Sharia to Court

By Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Hasan Mahmud, the Director of Sharia Law at the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) that played a vital role in the successful movement against the Toronto Sharia Court. The court had been established in 1991 (and functioning since then) with the blessing of Ontario law and was banned in 2003 when the Ontario Government enacted a new law banning all faith-courts. He has authored books, debates, docudramas and a DocuMovie on Sharia. He has also spoken on Sharia in various conferences in Europe, North America and Asia.

FP: Hasan Mahmud, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Mahmud: Thank you Jamie and Salam to all.

FP: I want to talk to you today about the possibility of actually facing down Sharia Law in a Western court. But first, tell us the reason why you oppose Sharia.

Mahmud: We oppose Sharia Law because its spirit and many laws are against women, non-Muslims and justice. First of all Jamie, the word Sharia literally means path on sand created by animals going to flowing water-spot. The Quran used it only once and its derivative only twice (5:48, 42:13 and 45:18) to mean Moral Code. That is why our Jurist Imams never claimed divinity, never called their juristic opinions “Sharia Law” or “Allah’s Law”, nor did they allow them to be enacted by Caliphs as State law, even after repeated proposals. The institution of Sharia Law put on the label of Sharia changing its meaning from Moral Code to State-law. This deception to people’s faith is a crime itself. That is why we support Sharia but oppose the institution of Sharia Law. FP: So what do you think about enacting actual legislation to criminalize the spread of Sharia law?

Mahmud: Yes, certainly we want it. See, people’s minds are full of hot violence such as bombing beheading Jihad etc. But cold violence of systems and laws destroys lives and rights of more people. Sharia Law in general is cold violence. Criminalizing all violence is one of the basic tasks of governments. Here is why we want it. We tried our best to engage its leaders in public discussion but they never responded positively. They propose that the world-order based on secondary rights of non-Muslims and women, even Muslim women is better than secular democracy. And that too they don’t want to discuss in public. In this situation enacting legislation to criminalize the cold violence of Sharia law and discussing it in a Western court is the best way to sort things out.

FP: Can it be done? How is it possible?

Mahmud: It is possible, easily. That non-Muslims are pigs are in the books of so called Islamic school in UK is publicly confessed by its top administrator. The government must be pressed to take action against it. Another example - Canadian Muslims were free to choose between the Canadian Sharia Court (1991–2006) and the Canadian court. In their brochure they claimed if we went to Canadian courts instead of theirs, we were virtual apostates. Then the law of killing apostates anywhere by anybody follows. This is serious blackmailing. On page 16 they invited Canadians to communicate their concerns. I mailed them twice for dialogue, to show us their laws and some court-cases without names of clients. These emails are still on record. Nothing happened. I proposed to MCC to take legal action for such blackmailing and deception to Canadians but we couldn’t for many reasons. Polygamy and half-inheritance to daughters took place in formal and informal Sharia courts in New York, Toronto and UK. In the U.S., hate preaching of the Saudi syllabus is on record at USCIRF. Such cases are against local laws; it is possible to take them to the court.

FP: But how is it possible to take a theology to court?

Mahmud: Content moves with container. Theology will automatically follow once we take the perpetrators of those cases to court. Someone actually sued Sharia Law in India – but there has been no follow-up since then. The task is centrally ours, the non-Political Muslims. Most Western critics of Sharia law eventually turn on Islam and criticize not to correct but to punish us. They have seen only one side of the coin and seem to have no clue of the other side – a private Islam that is Islamically more legitimate than the Islam based on Sharia Law. Most of them are stuck with radical Islam, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban and Al Qaeda. If they alone play the central role in dragging Sharia law to Western court then the result will be disastrous.

FP: Why will the result be disastrous?

Mahmud: If the Islam-bashers take Sharia Law to court the opponents will quickly and successfully sell it in the Muslim world as “Another Conspiracy against Islam”. Muslims organizations should be in the driving seat, supported by other forces. Note that some such organizations are either not aware of or ignore the difference between Sharia and Sharia Law. This is a strategic mistake. I was sad to see that European Muslim democrats invited Salman Rushdi and Ian Hirsi Ali in their upcoming conference. This is also a strategic mistake. No sustainable success against Sharia law can be achieved without the support of a good part of Muslims. It is possible to get their support by exposing deception and injustice of Sharia Law.

FP: What about the prospect of taking legal action against governments for not protecting their citizens from the violence of Sharia law?

Mahmud: Yes, the state should be dragged in front of the law for its failure of protecting vulnerable citizens. If a State’s illegal actions can be taken to court why not its inactions? Actually one of my friends already proposed it and I am sure people are looking for ways to do it. Examples of States’ failures are given above; if this is not betrayal of the State to citizens what is? If State courts are too expensive or demanding, Human Rights Commission is a good alternative to start with.

Western foreign policy to Muslim world is related to this issue and must also be addressed in courts. Its hypocrisy and violence destroyed millions through genocides and gave new birth to Sharia Law. It also made serious dent to secular democracy and gave the chance to Sharia Law to emerge as alternate world-order. You cannot take Sharia Law to court and pamper its owner, the Saudi king.

FP: If we can do it, how do we maintain our commitment to free speech and freedom of religion?

Mahmud: It is up to our social scientists to develop and fine-tune the mechanism. West’s commitment to free speech and freedom of religion (and multiculturalism) are based on trust. Its founders never imagined that one day some cunning players would abuse it. It is pity that the institution that does not believe in freedom of religion uses the slogan to spread its prison of religion. Note that Human Rights do not include faith-based rights because some faiths are dangerous; they legitimize violence and deception by divinity. Their Islam is a mouse-trap of one way – you can enter it but there is no exit. The best way to smash its theological foundation by a nonviolent interpretation of Islam and we do have that.

FP: Describe the physical risks involved in taking these steps.

Mahmud: The law that not only allows lying but makes it “obligatory in certain circumstances” (Mawdudi, Shafi’i Law, Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 etc) actually goes much further. Eliminating all opponents by any means is their god’s command on them. Isn’t it a dangerous theology? Sharia Law defines non-political Muslims as apostates and then the law of killing apostates follows. People are afraid of taking steps against their violence. This proves that their successful strategy of intimidation works. But you cannot ultimately survive by feeding a crocodile. Anyone who will drag Sharia Law to court will definitely invite assassination. This is another proof of its violence. We are in a mess today because our forefathers cared for their physical safety a little too much. If we don’t stand up then we will leave a worse world for our kids.

FP: So how do we start the process?

Mahmud: Talking less and working more, as our opponents do. Human society is on fire from many directions. Once we work together and put the fire put, then we will have enough time to debate and prove that Islam is a legitimate religion. So stop and condemn Islam-bashing and create people’s awareness about violence of Sharia Law. Create pressure on governments from every side to outlaw it. Encourage politicians who are against Sharia Law. Create Quality Control in immigration process. Monitor activities of every Islamic organization (many of them pose as moderate Muslims). Collect information and documents of the deception of Sharia Law, its betrayal of Islam and its devastating impact on human life in past and present. Keep peaceful Muslims on our side by explaining the nonviolent interpretation of Islam – it is Islamically more legitimate than Sharia Law. Glorify the benefits of the freedom of Western civilization. Lastly, activate the non-political Muslim organizations with resources and engage expert lawyers to take specific violence of Sharia Law and inactions of Western States to court.

Easier said than done but it is possible.

FP: Hasan Mahmud, you are an example of courage to the world. It is an honor to speak with you.

Mahmud: It is simple common sense to stand up for Human Rights. I am only a foot-soldier of Sufi Love of Ibn Arabi, Reason of Ibn Rushd, History-based vision of Islam of Ibn Khaldun, Islamic secularity of Al Farabi, and lastly Aroz Ali Matubbor the late Bangladeshi philosopher who taught me how to question a religion rationally.

Salam to all and see you in the field.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=1DDC7A50-334B-490D-9B11-BCB7D88E71B9

Posted on November 11, 2008 at 4:15 PM PST