Author: Ophelia Benson

Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law would be received enthusiastically as well-intended and an effort to reduce racial tensions in the society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their “white Christian culture” under threat asked for his resignation. Women rights activists, secularists and such like attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but only in family matters. He has just missed the point.

The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles’ heel of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogynism is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power they first and foremost victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.

One main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams’ promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by “honor violence,” forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.

It may be argued that the Archbishop’s intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether the Archbishop’s proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslims’ demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality, not for differentiating; equality before the law and in the social, economic and political spheres. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of the long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.

However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and eventually giving such high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.

Some misguided section of the “intelligentsia,” academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called “cultural community” to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are down trodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.

There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the “Muslim communities” will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop, to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.

Giving the Archbishop’s intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in “Muslim Communities” he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.

And finally, as a veteran women’s rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state, as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams’ proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or the like.

14 February, 2008

Sung by a chorus of dancing mullahs:

SHARIA

She’s by a tree with young Ali

Her husband is away.

We see here there

And grab her hair, she knows she’s going to pay–

And poor Ali he had to flee his parents couldn’t bear

To see him stoned for doing what is natural…..

She doesn’t seem repentant,

So we choose the largest stones;

The Prophet calls it mercy

(plus they’re good for breaking bones)

And young Ali has joined us

As a witness on his own;

We’re going to make her pay for what seems natural….

—I’d like to say a word before we throw….

Then say it Mullah Ibrihim

–Sharia says ‘Aim low.’

(Chorus)

O, How do you solve a problem like sharia?

How can we make the heathen understand….

How do we make the devils know sharia–

Is coming your way and soon will rule your land!

Oh great is the wisdom found in our sharia

Such wisdom cannot be equaled on the earth–

But how do we make you stay,

And listen to what we say–

Why do you spurn our Prophet and our God?

Oh how can we make you learn to love sharia–

Why does it always have to end in blood?

(Recitative)

When I read it I get chills

Paradisaical thrills

Emanate from every page my eyes do scan.

Full of justice full of love,

Full of vengeance from above,

It can only have been written by a man!

Just as fair as fair can be

Plain for everyone to see

Tit for tat and quid pro quo and eyes for eyes!

It ‘s amazing how it rings–

Allah’s wrath to all it brings

Swords on fire smiting liars for their lies!

It is truthful, it is just

It’s a mouthful, it’s a must–

It’s alarming—It’s disarming (giggle)

It’s the law!

Your daughters had better learn to love sharia.

The mullahs have said they ought to wear hijab

It’s all very clearly written in Sharia:

A snip of the clit by kindly Doc Hallab.

Your women will be protected by sharia

It keeps them at home and faithful in their bed.

The husband is smiling greatly for sharia

Says “Better off faithful to your vows than dead”

(Process to centre stage)

Oh great is the wisdom found in our sharia–

Such wisdom cannot be equaled on the earth.

But how do we make you stay

And listen to what we say–

Why do you spurn our Prophet and our God?

Oh how can we make you learn to love sharia–

Why does it always have to end in blood?