The sharia advocates stonings, beheadings, the inferiority of women, the murder of gays, apostates, opposition to free speech, supremacy of Muslim believers over unbelievers etc. How could possibly anyone think that such abuse and strictures could bring peace? The misguided Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Hassan Kukah, thinks so. He asks….
According to the principles of Sharia, we are supposed to be seeing joy, happiness and equity and so forth. Well, those who brought the Sharia should tell us why Boko Haram and bandits have now taken over our country?
Kukah sounds more like an orthodox Imam than a Catholic Bishop. Groups like Boko Haram, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda are deeply committed to Islamic orthodoxy, but Kukah fails to see it. He failed to read Islamic texts that advocate abuse of infidels and are acted upon by zealous adherents; and he has been convinced, perhaps by the Pope of Islam, that normative Islam is a religion of peace.
“Kukah: Sharia Was Supposed To Bring Joy — How Come Boko Haram And Bandits Have Taken Over?”, Sahara Reporters, May 3, 2019:
“Now it is virtually impossible to travel from Sokoto to Zamfara by road because of insecurity in the country. In 1999, Sharia Law was declared in Nigeria, and almost all the 19 northern states joyfully, exuberantly adopted it. According to the principles of Sharia, we are supposed to be seeing joy, happiness and equity and so forth. Well, those who brought the Sharia should tell us why Boko Haram and bandits have now taken over our country.”
Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, is worried about the mounting insecurity in many parts of the North despite the introduction of Sharia to widespread Islamic acclaim.
Kukah was speaking in Abuja on Friday during a lecture titled ‘Optimising Public Relations Strategies for National Cohesion’, which he delivered at the 2019 Annual General Meeting of the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR).
He urged the Nigerian government to interrogate the governors who introduced Sharia Law in 1999, on the emergence of Boko Haram sect.
He said the insurgents’ areas of operation are contiguous with the areas where the Sharia declarations were made.
“To create a much better, just and fair society, hypocrisy has to stop,” he said according quotes reported by TheNation.
“Now it is virtually impossible to travel from Sokoto to Zamfara by road because of insecurity in the country. In 1999, Sharia Law was declared in Nigeria, and almost all the 19 northern states joyfully, exuberantly adopted it.
“According to the principles of Sharia, we are supposed to be seeing joy, happiness and equity and so forth. Well, those who brought the Sharia should tell us why Boko Haram and bandits have now taken over our country.”…..
Savvy Kafir says
Read a friggin’ book sometime, Bishop Kukah! Start with the Qur’an. And read it assuming that it really means what it says. Because it DOES, as unlikely as that seems.
revereridesagain says
Follow that up with “Jihadist Psychopath”. Experiences described therein may begin to sound very, very familiar…
mortimer says
Bishop Kukah assumes that John 15.11 (“These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.”) has the same purpose as Sharia law. The goal of Sharia law is to show Muslims how to FULLY SUBMIT to Allah’s commands … how to be perfect slaves of Allah.
Slavery is the goal of Islam, rather than joy and rather than a society ruled by critical thought and the rule of law.
Allah’s laws are absurd and inscrutable, so Islam does not promote thought, but blind obedience. Allah’s laws are brutal and heartless, so Islam does not promote ‘joy’, but the blind obedience of enslavement.
Gary says
He very likely knows exactly why it is so. He is calling upon the unqualified advocates to confront the contradiction.
Indiana Tom says
Yeah, I think the guy is really calling out the promoters of sharia as to why it is not bringing about bliss and harmony. Sort of like calling out to communists why the gulag is not a workers paradise.
mortimer says
No, Bishop Kukah, you are wrong. Sharia’s purpose is not ‘JOY’ or ‘HAPPINESS’ … but enslavement to the will of Allah.
“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition …” -Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
source: Meeting in Qom “Broadcast by radio Iran from Qom on 20 August 1979.” quoted in Taheri, The Spirit of Allah (1985) p.259)
mortimer says
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: “The religious law of Islam is seen as the expression of God’s command for Muslims and, in application, constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon all Muslims by virtue of their religious belief. Known as the Sharīʿah (literally, “the path leading to the watering place”), the law represents a divinely ordained path of conduct that guides Muslims toward a practical expression of religious conviction in this world and the goal of divine favour in the world to come.”
The ‘happiness’ of Islamic paradise is eternal sex with slaves and a mansion served by a minimum of 70,000 slaves per Muslim. That is what Sharia law is actually promoting, Bishop Kukah is an unread, unstudied Pollyanna and doesn’t have a clue.
abad says
Sharia is supposed to bring joy?
This bishop is as mentally ill as the next suicide bomber.
Does he really think Allah is the same God as the one in the Bible?
DBM echo says
Could it be possible he was using sarcasm?
Rick says
Sarcasm is how I see it.
kuriakose says
Yes, it certainly looks like he was being sarcastic.
And our stalwarts go on a spree condemning the poor Bishop.
Moral of the story-don’t be hasty.
mortimer says
DBMecho may have the right explanation … the good bishop may be speaking tongue-in-cheek.
gravenimage says
Could be sarcasm–or could be pandering. Hard to tell.
TomD says
It’s sarcasm. Take a look at a long quote of his that I’ve posted below.
AnneM04031959 says
Islam is not from God.
rooare says
To judge any system one must study the source documents and it’s founder, not what it’s adherents and/or experts say the system is. And any system that will not allow itself to be critiqued will not stand under debate in the market place of ideas and therefore should be rejected.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Help me out here. Am I the only one who reads this differently? To me it comes across (also from the original article) that Bishop Kukah is saying, I told you so.
Stinkhorn says
Yes, agree with you. Sounds like the Bishop knows the answer, and unless he is actively seeking to be murdered, his question is about as strong as it can get to invite people to work it out themselves given the environment he’s currently in.
Keys says
I read the article the same way as you, I think, AP. The Bishop is being cautiously sarcastic toward the muslim leaders.
Never trust a muslim; never trust a group of them, especially an Islamic country.
observer says
I want to ask those commenting so dismissively on this Bishop if, in his situation in Nigeria, they would do as he has done ?
He probably stands to lose his life now for something as mild as that…
If I examine myself, I doubt I would have his courage…
Criticism from this distance is armchair stuff… although I know it helps us to feel better when we’re sounding off… been there, done that, got the badge.
In my country I am sometimes so incensed about what I hear going on in other parts of the world, that I want to write letters to the press …….. but we have a large muslim population and this keeps me from speaking out; plus, my knowledge is not up to that of Robert and Team, so…
Who’s ready to throw the first stone at me… ?
Shalom everyone…
Anjuli Pandavar says
Thank you, SH and Keys.
“Never trust a Muslim.” Indeed. That’s going to be a very hard lesson for our society to learn. I think that what we’re seeing in our societies is much worse than mere cognitive dissonance. If someone openly declares himself part of a group whose holy writing calls for your death *and* calls on him to lie about it *specifically to you*, and you then insist on *protecting* his human rights, you are denying that he is more than just a human being; that he is also a weapon — a Muslim is a weaponised human being. A Muslim, someone who adheres to the Qur’an and the life and saying of Muhammad, is a deadly weapon, sometimes in plain sight, sometimes concealed; sometimes armed, sometimes in safe mode, but *never* not a weapon, even if it turns out he lives peacefully and dies peacefully. To defend such a person’s human rights in a way that makes the entire society available for him to kill, is not cognitive dissonance. We might need a special term for such conduct, but cognitive dissonance doesn’t get even close.
When Muslim women’s immediate response to critique of Islam and criticism of Muslims is to *defend* Islam and Muslims, that is not cognitive dissonance either.
There is another fallacy sometimes heard, especially amongst ex-Muslims: the Islamic imperative to kill apostates is rebutted with the refrain: freedom of religion also means freedom *from* religion. This is a cop-out. It leaves intact the Islamic imperative to kill. Clearly, there is a problem with freedom of religion if it allows a religion intent on wiping out all other religions the freedom to do exactly that. Some try to get around this by denying that Islam is a religion, which is clearly stupid. The problem is that the freedom of Muslims to practise religion is treated as if Islam is not a weaponised ideology. The freedom of religion itself, and the conditions of its practise, need to be such that no religion is able to deny any rights to anybody, and needs to be enforced, which in the case of Islam, we already know has to be vigorous and robust, i.e., don’t be nice about it.
If you are responsible solely for your own life and no one else’s, then by all means, trust a Muslim. But if the lives of others are in your hands and you still insist that the “human rights” of Muslims overrides all other considerations, then you are criminally responsible for creating the conditions under which a Muslim, *any* Muslim, may do exactly as the Qur’an and Muhammad order him to do: kill. It is unfortunate that we have no choice but to deal with Muslims as we deal with anyone who poses a danger to the lives of other, but we bear no responsibility for their being Muslims in the first place. That responsibility is entirely theirs. We are fully entitled to insist on taking no risks with Muslims; to insist on paying no price for their deeds. The onus is *on them* to bear all risks, to put up with all inconvenience, to endure all discrimination, to pay the full price, if they expect us to accept them — each capable of obeying the Qur’an and Muhammad at any moment — to dwell in our lands. It’s as simple as that.
At time of writing, jihad terror attacks since 9/11 stood exactly one short of 35,000. It tallied 34,999. Now it’s Ramadan, the killing-orgy month. They’ll clear that milestone within the next 24 hours. Note that tallies of jihad mass murders do not include the “peaceful” Muslim murders, such as parents killing their daughters, blood feuds, stoning to death of adulterers, throwing gay people to their deaths off high places, killing apostates, men killing their own babies by non-Muslim women who refuse to convert to Islam, etc. This is the diffused mass murder of everyday, normal, peaceful Islam, the Islam that “moderate Muslims” agree with. Sure, there are people who call themselves “Muslim” who are reviled by all this, especially in the West. They are the only Muslims who think they’re Muslims. The Qur’an has much to say about them, as do Muslims in Muslim lands. So go on, focus on the “good Muslims”, the “moderate Muslims”, the “peaceful Muslims”, and trust them. After all, it’s impossible that *your* child, or *your* fellow citizen, could ever add to Islam’s great slaughter tally.
Keys says
Well thought out, Anjuli Pandavar.
Aussie Infidel says
Anjuli Pandavar,
Your response is most appropriate. Defending the right of someone to practise a religion like Islam is akin to committing religious and cultural suicide. When our founding fathers drafted our constitutions, they were defending relatively benign beliefs in deities which normal human beings followed, and whose ethics were mainly forces for good. But Islam – which is largely a newcomer to the West – is completely different. Islam is much worse than any other religion, and deserves no protection at all.
Individual Muslims are like the followers of all other religions. There are those who don’t believe and don’t practise what their holy scriptures teach (the so-called moderates), and are Muslims-in-name-only (MINOS). And there are the deeply devout militant types who are prepared to commit violence in the name of Allah. But Islam – as it is written – is an intolerant, supremacist, misogynistic, deceptive and violent creed. Islam is certainly not a ‘religion of peace’, and has no place in any civilized society.
Muslim women are also deeply indoctrinated in Islamic belief. To turn their backs on their faith would be to some extent cognitive dissonance; because Islam is the only religion they know, and they are effectively protecting their ‘protector’ (enslaver?) – as in the Stockholm syndrome. But unconsciously, Muslims know that by not defending Islam, or worse criticizing it, could lead to retribution against them. Like all religions, Islam employs fear to control its followers, and of course to terrorize infidels. Most religions are relatively benign, but Islam is thoroughly abhorrent, because it is also deeply political. And not only is it political, it is also supremacist and criminal in its intent; because it preaches violence against non-Muslims, and absolves Muslims of any blame.
Islam is stamped all over with the unmistakable mark of the psychopath; and given its origins, how could it be any different? Muhammad was a warlord, and a violent psychopath. Psychopaths are supremacists, egotists, or narcissists, and often schizophrenics (Muhammad also had delusions). Psychopaths also have no empathy toward others, no remorse for their actions, and always play the victim.
Militant Muslims certainly are “deadly weapons”; their behaviour is simply that of habitual criminals. No amount of therapy (short of a brain transplant) can cure psychopaths. We might be able to prevent the ‘moderates’ from becoming too involved, but it won’t change the mindset of the psychopaths. They will forever remain dysfunctional and potential jihadists.
“Freedom from religion” is an important consideration to prevent people from being persecuted by dominant creeds (as I once was). But it is a non-sequitur in an Islamic society, where the dominant religion preaches violence and discriminates against unbelievers; and is backed up by the law.
TimC says
Yup. Came here to say this. It’s just his way of saying “this is bullshit” without lifting his collar and showing the button.
FYI says
A question this catholic bishop should ask himself while he is at it is..
“Is the current pope a catholic?”
Apparently not…Dubbia 2016,Filial correction 2017{accused of Heresy},Amoris laetitia(condemned as contrary to catholic morality..},the mc carrick case{caught out lying..}..more errors to come no doubt;the fruit of Vatican 2 which emptied the churches and scattered the flock.
Stay tuned to Rome!…which these days should have as its motto:Non Semper Fidelis
CRUSADER says
But… IS the current pope/dope a catholic !?!?!!?
Bishops have to follow the pope leadership, right…?
CRUSADER says
Bishop probably got a deceptive and diluted message from Muslims!
First it starts as a jaunt to a water-fountain,
then it becomes an opening of flood gates!
SHARIA = “Path to Watering Hole….”
=============================
***The Monthly has this to say —
http://www.themonthly.com.au
Sharia Law :
Cory Bernardi is in full flight, fulminating on one of his pet themes – the danger to Australia posed by Islamic sharia law. “We should not entertain any thought of introducing any aspect of sharia law into Australia. Sharia law is wholly incompatible with the Australian way of life,” the Liberal senator from South Australia rails. Bernardi is leading the charge on several fronts: women who wear the burqa, the “sheikhs and muftis” who advocate Islamic family law, and the Gillard government’s moves to lure the multi-billion-dollar Islamic banking and finance sector to Australia. He invokes the spectre of a parallel legal system that relegates women to second-class citizens and targets homosexuals for hanging. “We need to stop the expansion of fundamentalist Islam in Australia lest we lose the foundation, the essence, the very culture of our great nation.”
Meanwhile, in a tiny office in Lakemba, south-western Sydney, with prayer beads hanging from the bookshelves and Islamic texts stacked to the ceiling, the Muslim minister and police chaplain Sheikh Khalil Chami quietly and methodically administers sharia law. A woman has come in asking to divorce her new husband because he lied about his family, profession and financial circumstances. Divorcing him under Australian law will not be enough, because unless they are divorced under Islamic law he will insist she is still his wife and she’ll be unable to re-marry. Another spurned husband is furious that the cleric agreed to give his wife a divorce against his wishes. Sheikh Chami shakes his head ruefully at the soaring divorce rate – 36%, he says – among Muslim Australians. Divorce requests make up the bulk of his work, and 49 out of 50 are initiated by women. “It’s because of the style of the life now, a woman doesn’t need a man to be her boss. One lady told me ‘I don’t want to lick the shoes of a man – why should I? He’s not better than me.’ Here a woman doesn’t need a husband to look after her. She can work and the government takes care of her security, so why should she have to live a miserable life?”
Contrary to popular belief, there are many grounds on which a Muslim woman can seek a divorce: if her husband abandons, neglects or fails to provide for her, financially or sexually; if he is cruel or abusive, or disposes of her property; if he is imprisoned or insane, or has leprosy or venereal disease; or if he doesn’t treat her as well as his other wives. In many Muslim countries women are unable to enforce these rights, but in Australia Sheikh Chami says 99% of women who want a divorce get it, usually to their husbands’ dismay. “Men don’t understand it,” he shrugs. “They still think they’re the kings of their home.”
Sheikh Chami’s Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba’s Haldon Street is one of dozens of shopfronts, mosques and offices around Australia where imams and Muslim scholars are busily dispensing sharia law – with no sign yet that Australian civilisation is about to crumble. There are no adulterers being stoned or thieves with severed hands, just thousands of Muslims managing their personal and financial issues in accordance with both their religious beliefs and Australian law.
“When people hear the word ‘sharia’ they only think of the punishments, as if Muslims are only concerned with punishing people, chopping off hands and stoning people,” says the secretary of the Australian Islamic Mission, Siddiq Buckley. “Of course that is part of sharia but it’s only a very small part of it.” He hastens to add that no one is suggesting the draconian hudud punishment laws be added to the raft of sharia regulations used in Australia.
“There are practical examples of [sharia] here already. We have Muslim schools, mosques, funeral parlours, shops and businesses. We’ve got abattoirs, Islamic charities, Islamic financial institutions. There are so many things – halal meals served on airlines. This is all part of sharia,” says Buckley.
Despite this, any suggestion to expand or legally recognise elements of Islamic law in Australia provokes wanton alarm, exemplified by Cory Bernardi and echoed by talkback radio callers across the country. We saw this in March 2010 when the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Dr Zachariah Matthews, suggested during an open day at the Lakemba Mosque that aspects of sharia, such as Muslim family laws, should be given legal recognition. And we are seeing it again, amid moves by the federal government to amend financial and taxation laws to facilitate sharia-compliant banking and finance in Australia.
There is doubtless a streak of ignorance and hysteria that flares whenever these issues are raised. But there are also deep-seated and legitimate concerns about the separation of Church and State, the impact on Muslim Australian women, the role of religious clerics with no formal legal training, and the potential of a parallel legal system that could undermine the legal equality fundamental to the rule of law. The same worries have fuelled bitter debates in other western countries, such as the UK and Canada. “We haven’t yet had a debate in the way those two countries have; when we do, it needs to be a genuine dialogue,” says the Sydney lawyer Ghena Krayem, who is completing a PhD on Islamic family law in Australia.
….
CRUSADER says
….
Sharia is an Arabic word meaning ‘way’ or ‘path’,
which originally meant ‘the way to the watering hole’.
For Muslims, it means the path to Allah and a virtuous life, based on the edicts of the Prophet Mohammed set out in the Koran, and his sayings and deeds as recorded in the body of knowledge known as the Sunna. Sharia governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life, from food, hygiene, sexuality and family to politics, banking and business.
“The objectives of sharia are to protect five things – religion, life, our progeny, human dignity and property. This is what sharia seeks to achieve,” says the secretary of the Australian National Imams’ Council, Sheikh Mohamadu Salem.
Strong anecdotal evidence suggests Australia’s Muslim population – 400,000 and growing (about 40% of whom were born here) – are increasingly turning to sharia to resolve their affairs in areas such as marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. “Regardless of their religiosity, even if they have never walked into a mosque in their lives, and don’t really pray or do any outwardly religious things, when it comes to marriage and divorce they think it’s important to go to a mosque or imam,” says Krayem. Marriage and family are central to the Islamic faith, so “they want to have someone there to give it that religious blessing.”
The research suggests most Muslims marry under both Islamic and Australian secular law. That’s the straightforward part. Divorce is much more tricky, at least for the wife. A Muslim man can end his marriage simply by announcing “I divorce you” three times, a practice known as talaq. In theory, most jurists say this should be done according to strict guidelines, including that the three pronouncements should occur three months apart and at a time when the woman is not menstruating and the couple have not had sex. In practice, however, many men think it’s enough to simply say “I divorce you” three times in a row to end their marriage, whether the wife likes it or not.
A woman, on the other hand, must go to an imam and persuade him she has valid grounds for divorce. In many Muslim communities women have no power to exercise this right. In Australia they do, though it cuts both ways. “It can work for some women if they need the imam to pressure the husband, but for other women the husband might pressure the imam,” says Anisa Buckley, who is finishing a PhD on Muslim women and divorce at the University of Melbourne. “A lot of imams want to help women but sometimes they can’t say what they really want to say because they still have to appease the wider community, and in most cases that means men. If a woman’s husband is on the board of the local mosque, the imams are stuck, their job is on the line.”
Both researchers say women persevere with the Islamic system because it’s important to their beliefs, although some resort to the civil courts. “A lot of the literature draws this picture of Muslim women as really vulnerable and depressed, and I’ve no doubt some of them are, but to paint this whole group of women this way is to do them a great disservice, because they are exercising a great deal of agency in this process,” says Krayem.
Like any breakup, the results can be heartbreaking. A Muslim man who divorces his wife is supposed to give her a financial settlement but many ignore this; while a woman who seeks a divorce against her husband’s wishes has no financial rights and, worse still, has to pay back the dowry he paid when they married, which may amount to tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Men can use this to effectively blackmail their wives, either to stay in the marriage or to exchange the debt for custody of the children. If the wife re-marries, the husband has control over whom the children live with. While such provisions may be offensive to other Australians, Sheikh Chami says devout Muslims accept them simply because “it’s the law of God.”
The same applies to polygamy, which, despite its illegality, is quite common, the sheikh says. “I know one person – he has three wives, not two. I know many people who have two women and the women are happy with it, they don’t complain.” Sheikh Chami says he will not endorse multiple marriages in Australia himself, because they are tolerated but not encouraged in the Koran, but a man wanting to take a second wife can readily find someone to approve it. “If I don’t want to do it, another imam will do it.”
Krayem believes the position of women could be strengthened if the system – which is currently ad hoc, arbitrary, opaque and unregulated – was formalised under Australian law. A legalised process could enshrine rights that many women don’t even know they have under Islam, such as a pre-marital marriage contract that can stipulate a whole range of provisions including as-of-right divorce, the freedom to work, study or travel, or exemption from housework.
“What is needed in terms of family law is not recognition of sharia per se – whatever that means – but a dispute resolution process that is useful to the Muslim community and is sensitive to their needs,” says Krayem.
Some Islamic organisations have been vocal in advocating such a move. The Australian Islamic Mission argues Muslim family law could function in the same way as the Jewish Beth Din court, which adjudicates on personal, business and community issues, or the Indigenous courts set up for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Siddiq Buckley says it could work under the mediation set-up already in place: “We have mediation centres already in Australia where agreements are presented to the courts, and the courts say ‘thank you very much’ because it saves them time, resources and money.”
An informal system along these lines operates in Victoria, under the auspices of the Australian National Imams’ Council, an umbrella group of Islamic clerics. Mohamadu Saleem, who has a masters degree in Islamic jurisprudence, presides over a panel of four or five sheikhs. “We have a very established system where the husband and wife have the option of applying for a family member or an imam to act for them. It’s an alternative dispute resolution system,” says Sheikh Saleem.
He cites a case where a woman whose husband had withheld money she was entitled to was ordered to pay her 50% of his assets, and a dispute between a businessman and a mosque, where the imams mediated a $50,000 settlement that was subsequently endorsed by a civil court. On family matters, Sheikh Saleem says, his panel believes strongly that women should get justice, and that the welfare of children should be paramount.
The Imams’ Council supports a move to cement its system in Australian law. “Naming the court in English as a sharia court is a misnomer, it’s not a sharia court, it’s a court of arbitration on family matters,” says Sheikh Saleem. “It shouldn’t be construed as Muslims taking over Australia. That will never happen.”
Perhaps surprisingly, the idea enjoys some backing in secular legal circles. One supporter is Robin Inglis, chief executive of the community-based Fitzroy Legal Service in Melbourne’s northern suburbs, which are home to a substantial Muslim population. He says Islamic courts “would fill a really important need and would be a win–win situation”. Inglis says the ideal of equality before the law is fine in principle but rarely achieved in practice, as minority groups such as Muslims often find the civil court system daunting, inaccessible, prohibitively expensive and incomprehensible. “We’re not trying to argue that sharia courts or sharia law are some sort of utopia or panacea, but the notion of trying to use the strength and expertise of particular communities to enrich how the Australian legal system functions is really worth talking about. I don’t see it as undermining Australian law or the international laws we’re signed up to.”
….
CRUSADER says
….
However, within the Muslim community, it’s a deeply polarising issue. Proponents of sharia are often condemned for fuelling hostility towards the Muslim community, while opponents are attacked if they seem to question or criticise Islamic law. The Islamic Council of Victoria was so convulsed by a controversy that erupted after one of its board members advocated sharia courts in 2009 that it won’t even discuss the matter, although an insider confirms it is “completely opposed in any shape or form” to legal recognition of sharia law.
One outspoken opponent organisation is the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria.
“Our experience in Australia is that when this proposition is made, it’s made to serve the interests of a small group of conservative men, particularly as it relates to matters of family and relationships,” says the council’s executive director, Joumanah El Matrah. “Muslim understanding and day-to-day ethics around relationships have changed, so this tradition of imitating practices formulated in the time of the Prophet Mohammed – I don’t think that is acceptable to a vast majority of Muslims now.”
El Matrah points to the British experience: in the 1980s, the government refused to recognise Islamic family law, for fear it would violate the rights of women. So Muslim activists established the Islamic Sharia Council to operate their own family courts. A 2009 report by an independent think tank, Civitas, found at least 85 sharia tribunals operating across the UK, including 13 run by the Sharia Council (which had made more than 7000 rulings) and five run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, whose rulings are enforceable under the British Arbitration Act.
A series of fatwahs, or religious rulings, on the Sharia Council’s website provide a flavour of its approach. A female medical student asking whether she can touch male patients is advised that after graduating she should “just treat the women”. A woman asking why her testimony is worth half that of a man under Islamic law is told: “Man’s mind is uni-focal while the women’s mind is multi-focal”; a man with a task “may not be distracted by anything”, while “a woman may be busy in kitchen work and she will be easily alert to a phone buzzer or her infant’s cry from the cradle … Thus she has got a very praiseworthy character but that is not so good for a case of testimony, which requires more attention and concentration.” As for why men have the upper hand in divorce: “The women are kind-hearted human beings who are governed by their emotions [whereas] … man is governed by his mind … He would think twice but more than that before uttering the word talaq (divorce).”
Supporters say some Muslim women prefer the sharia tribunals to civil courts, where they encounter racism and bigotry, and where it takes longer to get a divorce. Najma Ebrahim, a former co-ordinator at the Muslim Women’s Helpline, says the Sharia Council provides a vital service to women, especially on divorce. “Her faith – her fate – is important to her, so when she goes to the council and gets that decision, at least for her she knows she is not doing something wrong,” she told the BBC. The Times reports that 5% of cases before the sharia courts are brought by non-Muslims who find them easier to use than the English legal system.
However the courts have been repeatedly condemned by human rights campaigners and women’s groups. The Civitas study says they operate in “an institutionalized atmosphere of intimidation”, while the House of Lords has ruled they are “arbitrary and discriminatory”. A report released in June 2010, ‘Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights’, says the religious courts are “incompatible with human rights” and their implementation of marriage, divorce and child custody laws are “a cornerstone in the subjugation of women”. The study cites one case where a woman who went to the council for mediation reported that the judge told her to “listen to her husband, otherwise she would burn in hell”. Further cases cited in the study include ones where abusive fathers have won custody of their children and violent husbands have been advised to take anger management courses.
Critics note there is no regulation or monitoring of the courts, no control over appointment of ‘judges’, often no legal advice for clients, and no right of appeal. The chair of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain, Fariborz Pooya, says Britain is “outsourcing the legal system to Islamic groups”, which is “a betrayal of the rights of our most vulnerable citizens”. The One Law for All campaign is pushing to have the Islamic courts outlawed.
Australian advocates stress they are not pushing for formal sharia courts, but rather a recognised alternative dispute resolution system for Muslims who wish to resolve their affairs according to their religious beliefs. They admit a lot of preparatory work would need to be done, chiefly professional training for those who would administer the system. “The imams need to be trained from an Australian legal point of view,” says Siddiq Buckley. “They have come in with religious training but they don’t understand very well how Australian legal institutions operate and how the law works. So we’d need to run a lot of education courses to get the imams up to speed.”
But the Australian Islamic Mission faces an uphill battle winning community, let alone political or public, support. “We simply don’t have sufficient scholarship in Australia,” says Joumanah El Matrah. “To bring in an alternative process for Muslims is really not recognising their difference, but severing them from the rest of the state.”
Less divisive is the push by the Gillard government to reform financial and taxation laws to facilitate Islamic banking and finance in Australia. Following a recommendation by the 2009 Johnson report, ‘Australia as a Financial Centre: Building on our Strengths’, the government asked the Board of Taxation to review the tax treatment of Islamic finance products to remove existing impediments to their use. The aim is to help Australia secure a share of the booming global market for Islamic financial services, which is worth more than one trillion dollars annually.
“There’s billions of petro-dollars being pumped into western countries,” says Chaaban Omran, CEO of Crescent Investments Australasia, who was part of an Austrade delegation to the Middle East in April. “There’s a lot of liquidity in the Middle East, a lot of cash, and that cash will never come to Australian shores until they know the deals they do here will be done according to Islamic finance.”
Islamic finance spurns the buying and selling of cash and the charging of interest, which is condemned as “usury” in the Koran. Instead it relies on trading in assets and commodities, profit and loss sharing, and leasing arrangements. When buying a house, for example, a Muslim man wishing to comply with sharia would have an investment firm buy the house for him and then lease it back over a period of 25 years, after which it would be transferred into his name.
A discussion paper by the Board of Taxation refers to five main features of Islamic economics, as set out by market intelligence organisation Standard & Poor’s: interest must not be charged; uncertainty in contractual terms is forbidden; financing of industries deemed unlawful by sharia – such as weapons, pork or gambling – is prohibited; parties to a financial transaction must share in the risks and rewards; and each transaction must be based on a tangible, identifiable asset. Because it is based on trading in real assets, Islamic finance is inherently stable, as demonstrated during the global financial crisis, which was sparked in part by predatory lending practices forbidden in Islam. Omran says that while the Dow Jones Global Index fell 40%, the Islamic Market Index showed a positive return.
The Board of Taxation’s paper points out that sharia-compliant investment has potentially broad appeal because of its “ethical character and financial stability”. Dr Abul Jalaluddin, a director of the Muslim Community Co-operative (Australia), says amending financial and taxation laws to facilitate Islamic finance here could have huge benefits for Australia. “If you look at the enormity of the Islamic finance industry worldwide, if you only get a little slice of it that will be into the hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Cory Bernardi’s claim that Islamic banking and finance must be resisted because it is “incompatible with western life and values” has been given short shrift in Canberra, even within his own party. Bill Shorten, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, says “Islamic finance is a rapidly growing part of the global financial system and Australia is in an excellent position to capitalise on that growth.”
Muslim activists are heartened that, at least in this respect, Australians are becoming more open to the potential benefits of sharia law, and hope this concession won’t be the last. “Muslims aren’t going to go anywhere, just because people say ‘why don’t you go home?’,” says Siddiq Buckley. “This is home. And Australian Muslims have the same right to influence the government as anyone else.”
THE MONTHLY
============
Sally Neighbour is a multiple award-winning journalist and author, best known for her work as a reporter with Four Corners, recognised by three Walkley Awards. She is the author of “The Mother of Mohammed” and “In the Shadow of Swords”.
gravenimage says
Nigeria: Catholic bishop asks “Sharia was supposed to bring joy, how come Boko Haram and bandits have taken over?”
…………….
Uh…right. Doesn’t cutting off the limbs of petty thieves, flogging those who take a sip of alcohol, and stoning women to death always “bring joy”? Good grief…
M. Muthuswamy says
From my recent article: ” A new analysis of a 2013 Pew Research Center report suggests that sharia’s popularity in a community can make religious leaders and their radical ideas highly influential, while in communities where sharia has little influence, religious leaders and their radical ideas likewise lack influence. . .the support levels for religious leaders and sharia [in about 20 countries] broadly correlate with the strength of homegrown jihadist attacks. ”
May be the bishop can use the data. . .
Eric Jones says
Some Christian clergy spend so much time giving superficial answers to the church goers real problems that these clergy wind up lying to them selves.
Eric
Mario Alexis Portella says
not me https://thegreatarchitect.blog/2019/04/13/is-christianity-the-same-as-islam/
Keys says
Just ordered your book, MAP.
“Islam: Religion of Peace?: The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up”
Violation of natural rights, indeed !
Relic says
taken over?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO8RuIu4FuY
na says
Isis has new plan to take over India. In India, Islam failed because Islam started from North and it was spreading to south. That is against All’s will, wrong direction. Islam should always start from south. That is why they started Caliphate in Sri Lnka. to North and to east China.
gravenimage says
I don’t think Muslims care where they start from geographically. Certainly in Africa they also started from the north.
And as bad as things are in Sri Lanka with the Jihad terror attacks this Easter Sunday, Sri Lanka is *not* a Caliphate. Sri Lanka is majority-Buddhist.
CRUSADER says
Na may have something to contribute here, but sure darned wish Na would keep facts straight.
gravenimage says
So do I, CRUSADER.
na says
?
Marigold says
Let’s hope the bishop may be using sarcasm deliberately as a weapon against the so called ”moderate” Muslims who are always claiming Islam is a religion of peace.He might not be as naive as he sounds.He would have to be careful about what he said or he could provoke the militant Islamists into attacks on Churches and Christians. It is always better to give someone the benefit of the doubt
CRUSADER says
“It is always better to give someone the benefit of the doubt”
OH, REALLY?
That’s what happened here!!! And it changed history….
(“The Messenger” film scene where Christians become duped by Muslims)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3c6p5awTIg
Indiana Tom says
Sharia means path or way. Sharia is the path to the shit hole.
James says
He rather sounds like unorthodox anti Islamic Imam like Imam Tawhid by criticizing Jihad
Simon Platt says
I think you misunderestimate the bishop.
gravenimage says
I think you are right, Simon. It looks as though Bishop Kukah actually is a regular critic of the horrors of islam:
https://thenationonlineng.net/bishop-kukahs-attack-on-islam-my-conditional-ceasefire/
Muslims seem to be unhinged over his mild criticisms.
Frank in Canada says
Some of the critics of the bishop, in these comments, seem more anti-Catholic than anti-Islam !
Get a grip ! The bishop is no fool. His was a sarcastic, rhetorical question – intended to expose the hypocrisy of those who peddled sharia to the country, using their standard tactics … lying and deceit. The bishop is nor Bergoglio !
Jayell says
Exactly! He’s saying that “According to the principles of Sharia, we are supposed to be seeing joy, happiness and equity and so forth….” Which, of course, means ‘joy’ and ‘happiness’ for those muslims who benefit from the criminal misogynism of islam and the ‘equity’ of the thieving scrounger. We all know that.
kuriakose says
Seconded. The comments seem rather vitriolic. Plus the long essays on why the Bishop is wrong on what islam is really about-is it for the Bishop’s benefit? No one knows whether the bishop reads JW.
Why people cannot read properly is beyond me. Plus some silly comment about the possibilty of the Bishop pandering to islam. For heaven’s sake, the Bishop is surrounded by a sea of hostile muhameddans, he has to choose his words carefully. Otherwise the repercussions for the his flock will be horrendous-slaughters, church burning, mutiliation, etc.
WPM says
I agree kuriakose
the Bishops first duty is protect his flock .He is questioning if Sharia is doing any good to the people in charge of the government in an inoffensive way to not provoke a full out Jihad against his people. It is easy for us to type out under false names in the west on the internet what a leader of a church should do and say when his people are being attacked by “sea of hostile muhameddans” he is at least speaking out in his way to defend his people as safely as possible. The silence of the Pope is an unforgiven sin on this issue his open appeasement of Islam policy has not added to the safety of these Catholic being wipe out in these African countries. The silence of women in the west of the treatment of women in Moslem majority countries, the silence of leaders of western Europe leaders on Sharia law creeping into every day life of the average non-Moslem citizen of Europe. The silence of democratic leaders as the two Moslem “fresh faces” of congress make more open anti- Jewish and anti-American remarks public with no reaction from the democratic party no acknowledgement that maybe a “person of color’ or a member of a “religious minority member ” could be a racist hate filled bigot calling for violence against other outside of their faith circle?
kuriakose says
WPM, very true. It is the Pope and the western European leaders and some American polticians who are the real appeasers of islam and enabling them to gain political power.
TomD says
We can be fairly certain the Bishop is using irony. Here are comments he spoke on or before November 30, 2015 on the origins of Boko Haram:
“A hypocritical elite continues to believe that it can claim the benefits of democracy but use it only to consolidate its hold on power. This is what has laid the foundation for what is now Boko Haram…We must locate the current crisis of Boko Haram within the context of the inability of the northern Muslim elite to live by their own dubious creed of being Muslims. They preached Sharia Law but only for the poor. They preach a religion that encourages education, yet their own people are held in the bondage of ignorance. They did not wish to live by the same standards, so they decided to live their own Islam in the capitals of the world away from the prying eyes of their own people. Boko Haram began as a revolt against this mendacity, subterfuge and hypocrisy. Now, I hear Muslims in northern Nigeria hiding under the cover of the facts by saying: ‘These Boko Haram people are not Muslims. They do not represent us’. Well, first, they are your own children. You must take responsibility for what has made them what they are today and to the rest of society. They claim they have been inspired by the Quran and no other holy book. They say they want to build an Islamic state. So, they are Muslims. After all, from the debates of the Constituent Assemblies of 1979, 1988, and 1995 and beyond, did their fathers and grandfathers not stage walkouts, demanding Sharia Law? The promise to institute Sharia has become the most potent tool for political mobilization and organization. Till date, the tactics may have changed, but the essence has not. Rather than face the tough questions of how and why over 15 million children in the northern states are on the streets; how and why the northern states are falling behind on almost every index of development, the northern Muslim elite continues to live for just the moment, with no plans for tomorrow…Should we pretend that a society that allows the forced marriages of its young daughters could frown on the idea of a group kidnapping and forcing young girls into sexual slavery? Islam must have an honest look at the mirror and have an internal discussion…It is my considered view that northern Islam has to confront the realities of taking its religion into the modern world of democracy seriously. Muslims in northern Nigeria cannot accept democracy and reject the inclusive nature of its philosophy as it is the case today”
TomD says
Here is another quote of him, from October 13, 2017:
“From my own experience, I find that the British high commissioner [ambassador], the ambassadors from European countries, the American ambassador — they are pandering more to Islam than to Christianity, because most of them have turned their backs on Christianity…We can’t go to the Irish ambassador or the Spanish ambassador and say, ‘This is for the Catholic Church. People are not interested…In Ramadan, the ambassadors of Islamic countries are very keen to come to the Muslim celebrations in a way and manner that the Irish or any of these ambassadors are not likely to do for [Christmas] midnight Mass or the Easter celebrations…Before our election, John Kerry came to Nigeria. John Kerry, when he was secretary of state, left the U.S. and came straight to see the sultan of Sokoto. It was a visit that nobody could explain. John Kerry claims to be a Catholic. This is the perfect example. He landed in Abuja. The American Embassy is in Abuja. There is a cardinal in Abuja, and a very visible cardinal for that matter, but it doesn’t cross the mind of John Kerry to even see out of courtesy the cardinal. He takes another plane to Sokoto and goes to the palace of the sultan, the head of the Muslims…The reaction of the Nigerian Christian community was very interesting. They thought Kerry was pushing the Islamic agenda. This was ahead of the elections, and they thought he was giving the Muslim candidate a leg up…In a country like Nigeria, influence is peddled, and we are not there at the table. We have not trained our people for roles in public life…we are still very shy of the public space, and we are not aware of how much things have moved on”
TomD says
Another quote of the Bishop: decried in a January 8, 2017 homily the “cries of shrill Islamization across the land…These cries arise when those in power use religious affiliation and blatant nepotism as means of access to power”
BTW, that day was the day his brother was released from Muslim captivity.
kuriakose says
TomD, thank you for those links. Let’s hope those who were so hasty to condemn him will have the decency to apologise.