Irfan hussain writes on Shariah controversy on Britain.

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/opinion/featured+writers/britain+as+a+postreligious+society THE furore triggered by Dr Rowan Williams’s controversial comments about the place of Sharia in Britain continues to ruffle feathers across the country. Whether the Archbishop of Canterbury’s attempt at clarifying his position at the Church of England Synod, or general assembly, on Monday, will succeed in calming people remains to be seen. The storm of outrage began last week when Dr Williams suggested that elements of the sharia could be incorporated into the law for Muslim citizens. Although he has since clarified that what he actually meant was that those parts of the sharia governing personal and property matters for Muslims could usefully be incorporated into legal provisions, he has not satisfied many Britons. At the Synod, Dr Williams said: “The question remains whether certain additional choices could and should be available under the law of the United Kingdom… it would create a helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim scholars…†This somewhat arcane formulation has done little to offset the impact of Dr Williams’s earlier reference to the sharia, a loaded term for most British people. To them it conjures up images of jihad, women covered from head to toe in all-enveloping burqas, forced marriages, long, unkempt beards, a hatred of Western values, and a generally obscurantist outlook on life. Thus, it was a shock to learn that one of the country’s leading clerics was advocating the adoption of elements from the Muslim code into their laws. The whole controversy lays bare the deep unease felt by most Britons about the presence of nearly two million Muslims in their midst. This sentiment has increased in intensity since 9/11, and particularly since 7/7. The idea that young Muslims, born and brought up in Britain and educated at state expense, could blow themselves up together with as many victims as possible, is a deeply horrifying one. In the public mind, what is driving this nihilistic agenda is Islamic fundamentalism based on a literal interpretation of Muslim holy texts, including the sharia. In any case, Britain is, in a sense, a post-religious society where the Church of England is more of a social grouping with clubs in the form of churches than a religious organisation. Most Brits cringe at the idea of being identified solely through their beliefs. Indeed, they secretly look down on anybody who wears his faith on his sleeve. Attendance at churches has been falling for decades, and recently, the Catholic church in the UK overtook its Protestant rival in terms of believers attending Sunday service. This is largely due to the huge influx of Polish (Catholic) migrants. In the last census, millions described themselves as atheists or agnostics; tens of thousands said in the census forms that they were Jedi warriors in the religion column. With this highly sceptical attitude towards questions of religious belief, we should not be surprised if the country erupted in anger and confusion over the archbishop’s recommendation to a multi-cultural nation. Although the British prime minister expressed confidence in the archbishop’s integrity and scholarship, he distanced himself from any consideration of allowing the sharia to become the basis for any aspect of the law. He made it clear that lawmaking was a function of parliament, and that belief was a personal matter in Britain. This controversy carries echoes of a somewhat similar event in Canada where one of the provinces considered making it legal for Muslims to live under Islamic personal law. This move ran into fierce opposition, especially from educated Muslim women. They insisted that they preferred the protection of Canadian law. They were joined by many human rights organisations, and finally, the proposal was shelved. Clearly, the whole question of religion in secular societies remains a contentious one. Had it not been for the mass migration of Muslims to the West, the issue would not have arisen. But the presence of millions of Muslims in secular democracies has caused much concern about identity and civilisation. Currently, the proposals to build huge mosques in London and Frankfurt have run into fierce opposition. Many Westerners ask, with considerable justification, why Muslims should enjoy endless religious freedom in their countries when Christians (and other non-Muslims) are not accorded reciprocal liberty in Islamic states. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, it is a crime to even own or sell a copy of the Bible. Obviously, there is no question of any faith building any house of worship other than a mosque. In Pakistan, no new churches or temples have been permitted, and even when a church was approved in Islamabad, local mullahs made construction impossible. Indeed, the treatment of minorities in Pakistan is a blot on our claim to civilisation. Given these double-standards, it is understandable that Westerners should be increasingly resistant to encroaching Muslim practices in their countries. And frankly, Muslims do not make things easier: groups like Al Muhajiroon in Britain openly demand that the country should be turned into an Islamic state. The involvement of scores of young Muslims in terror plots does little to further the cause of religious harmony. And of course, this kind of mindless violence gives racists an excuse to dramatise and exaggerate the threat it actually poses. Normally, middle-class Brits recoil at voicing any opinions that could be construed as biased against minority communities. ‘Political correctness’, a strong strain in public discourse, demands that all comments should be neutral in terms of race, religion, colour and gender. Giving offence to ethnic or religious groups is an enormous social gaffe that is avoided scrupulously in polite society. Despite these highly civilised values, the patience of many Brits is being tested by the words and antics of Islamic fundamentalists. And unfortunately, the sentiments expressed by Dr Williams, no matter how well motivated, have only served to exacerbate the growing differences between British Muslims and non-Muslims.

[kumble_rocks]

This is a BS , man .. Some of these lefties in social democracy are a weird bunch .. They fail to realize that while they are endorsing "Minority rights" , they are actually curtailing women's rights ...If these guys want to enjoy Sharia, let them migrate to Saudi ..:D

[Guest dada_rocks]

Don't give Irfan hussain's article a miss he is the only sane voice I have on that side of the border, he used to write with pseudonym Mazdak criticising govt while he was a bureacrat in Benazir adminstrtaion and he claims Benazir knew it all along but never targeted him as opposed to her father who got many a character like this grounded for voicing their opninon against him.

[Gambit]

Sigh. Bhaisahab, which part of 'NO religious discussions' don't you understand?

[Guest dada_rocks]

Oye kahan religious discussion ho raha hai.. its' totally political debate

[Gambit]

Shariah Law koi nayi party hai kya? Woh highlighted red text koi party manifesto hai kya?

[Guest dada_rocks]

isis liye kahte hain parh liya karo dumb pattern-mathcing mat kiya karo.. Shariah law is not up for discussion well what is there to discuss anyway.. demand for shariah in britain is being discussed and that is pure politics

[Gambit]

Agar politics discuss karna tha to saara masaledar religion waala text kyun bold kiya?

[Guest dada_rocks]

That is politics not allowing others to practice their faith in pakistan is politics

[Lurker]

Don't give Irfan hussain's article a miss he is the only sane voice I have on that side of the border' date= he used to write with pseudonym Mazdak criticising govt while he was a bureacrat in Benazir adminstrtaion and he claims Benazir knew it all along but never targeted him as opposed to her father who got many a character like this grounded for voicing their opninon against him.

Phir wahi :angry_smile: Yes Irfan Hussain is certainly a good moderate Muslim voice. I once had the good fortune of trading a couple of emails with him and I can say the man seemed genuine in his replies as well. Dawn does have some good columnists, at times they are a bit anti-India, then again thats expected. But overall quite strong and proud. Its fun to see how they take on the military junta time and again.

[Gambit]

That is politics not allowing others to practice their faith in pakistan is politics

:cantstop:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Ama yaar dukhi mat karo close kar do karna hai to.. had ho gai:cantstop:

[kumble_rocks]

Imho , just like criticism of Sati , child marriage etc should be allowed , in the same vein allowing criticism of certain aspects of Sharia must be allowed especially pertaining to women's rights .

[Guest dada_rocks]

No u can't do that just like Islamists have UPA govt by balls whereby Pranab Mukherjee goes to meet Taslima in dark hours and suggests her to leave the country,, I guess this site's balls too are under their clutch.. Discuss child-marriage mods themsleves will make the case hwo it's social evil and political matetr hence must be discussed but the moment islamist are shown in poor light in any debate it must be shunned completely.. And these folks call themselves liberal and also wonder why I call them psec:D I still remember how Sai Baba's debate case was made by some arcane logic:hysterical:

[Gambit]

Thread on sati savitri will get same treatment. Religious threads aren't allowed. If you want to condemn a religion, do it elsewhere.

[Gambit]

Ohhh Really :hysterical::hysterical:

Yes. :icflove:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Unless the post conveniently misses his radar:hysterical: mazaa aa riya hai aaj mere ko

[Gambit]

Unless the post conveniently misses his radar:hysterical: mazaa aa riya hai aaj mere ko

Matbal?