Comment: It is Not Suprising that Non-Muslims are going to Islamic Courts

According to various UK media outlets, non-Muslims are increasingly going to Shari’ah (Islamic law) courts for justice. The fact that non-Muslims are willfully using Shari’ah courts in the UK for adjudication in disputes should not be entirely surprising.[i] There are two reasons for this. The first is that the UK justice system is failing its people:

• The system is bringing justice in only 3% of offences committed.


• Punishment is not changing the behaviour of repeat offenders.


• The courts are still not equipped with powers to attack the problems which generate crime, with the result that they continue to send too many defendants to custody.


• Courts continue to experience delays - 24% of prisoners are not delivered to court on time; 52% of civilian witnesses come to court and do not give evidence; 64% of prosecution witnesses come to court and do not give evidence. Files of evidence provided by police to prosecutors are on time and up to quality in only 43% of cases; and the preparation by prosecutors is effective in only 60% of cases.


• 44% of fines are unpaid; up to 40% of community punishments are not served.[ii]

The second reason is that the Shari’ah is based upon a unique set of values. For example the Qur’an (the divine scripture upon which the Shari’ah law code is founded) resonates with teachings of justice,

“O You who believe! Be upholders of justice, bearing witness for God alone, even against yourselves or your parents and relatives. Whether they are rich or poor, God is well able to look after them. Do not follow your own desires and deviate from the truth. If you twist or turn away, God is aware of what you do.”[iii]

“O You who believe! Show integrity for the sake of God, bearing witness with justice. Do not let hatred for a people incite you into not being just. Be just. That is closer to faith. Heed God [alone]. God is aware of what you do.”[iv]

The two main terms used in the Qur’an for justice are ‘Adl and Qist. The literal meaning of ‘Adl is to divide into exactly equal parts so that there is no disparity between them. Qist means to be equal. Of course it would be difficult to apply these terms to the current situation in the Muslim world due to an absence of true political governance. Although ‘Adl and Qist are not witnessed in any considerable measure in the Muslim world today, Islamic history paints a different picture, one offers a better alternative to the gross corruption and abuse that we see today.

In Islamic history, where the unique values of Islam such as justice were propagated and implemented, the conclusions made by some historians are unparalleled. The Jewish historian Amnon Cohen states that the Jewish minorities sought justice from the Islamic courts rather than their own,“The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…”[v]

So it is no wonder that today there are a growing number of non-Muslims seeking justice via Islamic courts. It is difficult to think of a time in history when the host community of a population sought redress and justice from the courts of the minority. One can only imagine what it would be like if true Islamic governance was implemented in the Muslim world.

Notes

[i] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6721158.ece
[ii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/17/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation
[iii] Qur'an Chapter 4 Verse 135
[iv] Qur'an Chapter 5 Verse 8
[v] A World Within: Jewish Life as Reflected in Muslim Court Documents from the Sijill of Jerusalem (XVIth Century). Part One, 1994, Pennsylvania, p. 17.

My Next Event: Islam for Sale

Islam for Sale: One Day Intensive Dawah Course

With International Lecturer Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Saturday 15 August 2009, 9AM
Friendship Centre, Elm Grove, P05 1JT

Please attend this once in a life time opportunity to learn how to defend Islam, convey its message and demystify its way of life.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, an international da'ee - well experienced in debating academics and intellectuals on various topics including God's existence, the Islamic way of life, the miracle of the Qur'an and more - will take you through a method and approach to dawah you have not experienced before.

Hamza has just delivered this course in Malaysia with great success and is now going to to deliver it here in the UK!

We have all been asked difficult questions. Now is the time to answer them in a way that doesn't compromise Islam, yet delivers the message.

Please book buy your tickets now. Contact info@vivaciousmuslim.com

Debate Video: 'Does God Exist' with Humanist Society

Comment: Sarkozy’s Values & the Honour of Women

On the 22nd June 2009 French President Sarkozy announced that the Burqa is incongruous with French values. He said "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy continued "The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience."[1]

Despite Sarkozy’s political opportunism, his ideological contradictions expose his conscious ignorance, and some may say, out right hatred for the Islamic way of life. Sarkozy who advocates and propagates liberal secularism has forgotten his intellectual heritage. Liberal secularism rests upon the premise of individualism, in other words, viewing the self – the human being – as an abstract entity divorced from social attachments. Two key values are built from this premise, individual freedom and individual rights. According to individual freedom, also explained as freedom of choice, the Burqa shouldn’t be a problem and should be tolerated under French liberal values. So why the contradiction?

Sarkozy is a liberal secular ideologue who doesn’t want to understand or discuss the Islamic way of life. The Islamic way of life is not based upon the false premise of individualism, rather it views the human being as an entity with social links and obligations. This correct view on mankind develops and builds sublime values, which include honouring and protecting women.

In the Sarkozy paradigm these values do not exist hence he wants to fight against their emergence, even if it means contradicting his own ideological beliefs. For example in a liberal secular context, individual freedom allows and, in the case of Sarkozy (his wife is an ex-nudist model), promotes pornography. However pornography has been shown to facilitate rape. According to academic research by Diana E. Russell in her publication ‘Pornography & Rape: A causal model’ she states,

“ My theory about how pornography – violent and non-violent – can cause rape…drawn on the findings of recent research….I believe there are many factors that play a causal role in this crime. I have not attempted here to evaluate the relative importance of these different causal factors, but merely to show the overwhelming evidence that pornography is a major one of them”[2]

In this study journals and academic research were cited which concluded that 56% of rapists implicated pornography in the commission of their offences, 66% of rapists claimed they were incited by pornography and 30 % of college students would rape if they could get away with it.[3]

Sarkozy’s world view would not ban or criminalise pornography. This is because society itself is not considered or taken into account due to the core value of ‘individual freedom’. As a result Sarkozy’s values have contributed to the increase in sexual crimes in France. There are more than 25,000 rapes a year in France alone, and before Sarkozy points the finger at the Muslims or immigrants, 91% of those convicted are of French nationality.[4]

France is not alone in failing to protect and honour women either, in the UK 167 women are raped everyday[5] and in the US a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds. [6]

However in Islam, pornography is banned and is viewed as a dishonor to women. Islam protects women by honoring and providing mechanisms in its social model to protect them. The noble Qur'an highlights the immense responsibility men have towards women. The Qur'an says "Men are qawwamoona over women"[7]. The key word here is qawwamoona which comes from words such as qiwaamun meaning means of support, qaama almarata meaning he undertook the support of the woman, qaama alaiha meaning he looked after her, and qaama bihi he supported it. Therefore the Qur'an tells society to look after, protect and honour women.

But Sarkozy would rather flaunt that his wife was an ex-nudist model.

References

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm
[2] Diana Russell. Pornography and Rape: A Causal Model, in Feminism and Pornography. Oxford Readings in Feminism. 2000.
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.sosfemmes.com/english_rape/rape_statistics.htm
[5] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10309
[6] Broken Bodies, Shattered Minds: Torture and Ill Treatment of Women, Amnesty International, 2001
[7] Qur'an 4:34

The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission

Last month I participated in a ‘Dialogue With Islam’ debate with the well known author and philosopher Dr Nigel Warburton. The subject of the debate was “Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?” and overall I thought it was a positive experience.

My remit was to present religion, and more specifically Islam, as a force for 'good'. I started by presenting religion as a social phenomenon, this way the majority of the humanist/atheist audience who did not believe in the intellectual foundations of any religion, could appreciate the research. Due to the question we were addressing I started to speak about religion in general, I steered away from inquiring about God’s existence or the attempt to demonstrate the intellectual compatibility with religion and reason. I focused on understanding religious belief itself and how it relates to world views and their implications on individual and social action. After all this was the topic of discussion.

I assumed that this debate would fuel emotions, so I deliberately focused on academic well researched material rather than relying on my own subjective experiences. Hence I went straight to journals of psychology, sociology and philosophy on the study of religion and religiosity. To my amazement, it was very hard to find current research indicating that religion and its followers were a force for ‘evil’.

As a matter of fact contemporary research has opposite conclusions. According to the research, religion increases happiness, mental health and physical well being. It doesn’t stop there, the research also shows that religion prevents crime, increases rates of philanthropy and altruism. There is so much research out there, so it will have to suffice to give you a few examples.

• In 2001 Schnittker in the “Journal for the scientific study of religion” examined a data set of 2,836 adults from the general population and he found religious involvement had no significant relationship with depression. He also found that religiousness was a buffer against mental distress.

• In 2002 Smith, McCullough and Poll, in their journal “A meta analytic review of the religiousness-depression association: evidence for main effects and stress buffering effects” carried out an analysis of over 200 social studies and found that high religiousness predicts a rather lower risk of depression, drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts

• In 2002 Bryan Johnson and colleagues of the University of Pennsylvania Centre for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reviewed 498 studies that had been published in peer reviewed journals. They concluded that a large majority of studies showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self esteem, and lower levels of hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency.

• In the Handbook of Religion and Health, edited by Harold Koenig, Michael McCullough and David Larson. The authors reviewed 2,000 published experiments designed to test the relationship between religion and various medical conditions such as heart disease, cancer and depression. The overall results were that religious people tend to live longer and have physically healthier lives. Young people have significantly lower levels of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal delinquency and attempted suicide.

• Even in China an officially non-religious state. A recent study by Paul Badham and Xinzhong Yao for the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford University, reported that a majority of those felt religious experiences had a positive effect on their lives.

• In 2000, Political Scientist and Professor Robert Putnam surveyed 200 volunteer organisations and it showed that there was a positive correlation between religiosity and membership of volunteer organisations.

• The Index of Global Philanthropy, 2007 states: “Religious people are more charitable than non-religious not only in giving to their own congregations, but also – regardless of income, region, social class, and other demographic variables – significantly more charitable in their secular donations and informal giving.”

I ended my presentation by saying how Islam, using verses from the Qur’an and statements from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), achieves the above, but most importantly how it achieves a cohesive society (I have written about this at length on this blog, so I will not expand any further). I concluded by saying that if religion achieves these things, then it must be a force for good.

The disappointing thing for me was the level of argumentation from the Humanist side. It was mainly personal experience with no objective research. No evidence or justification was provided for the claims that were being made. Dr Warburton responded to my disappointment by saying that research doesn’t mean anything, and someone in the audience claimed that there is research to counter my claims. Interestingly, I was waiting for the research and the reason why my effort had been discarded as irrelevant, but I didn’t receive or hear anything, during or after the debate.

Is it not the humanist and atheist traditions that claim people of religion are not objective and do not use reason? According to this experience I wouldn't be wrong to find it difficult to appreciate why they can make such a claim.

But I did say it was a positive experience. The reason for this is because I learnt a lot about the mentality of some people who reject religion from a statement that was made by a member of the audience. It went something like this “We do not want to submit, submission is dangerous and backward”. I thought about this for a while and I gave the following response. Since then, I have called it the ‘logic of submission’.

The word logic comes from the Greek word ‘λογική’, and in philosophy, it concerns study of the principles of valid inference and sound reasoning. Logic is very important because its use allows us to effectively present and refute an argument. Now in the context of arguing that submission to God is the way forward, I used the following:

1. Submission to a higher being is more rational than submission to a human being
2. Islam requires humans to submit to a higher being
3. Therefore Islam is more rational

I pointed out that the above is almost irrefutable. The only way to respond to the argument is by dealing with some of the presuppositions. In this case the presuppositions are,

1. A higher being (i.e. God) exists
2. This higher being requires us to submit to it

I continued by saying that we would have to shift the debate to the existence of God and the miracle of the Qur’an, because if it can be proven that God does exist and that the Qur’an is a miracle, in other words, it has come from God, then the humanist should also submit (since the Qur'an tells us to submit to God). However the chair, Dr Mark Vernon, interrupted and reminded me it was not the topic of the debate.

I agreed, but it left me thinking that we Muslims do not have to answer all the questions anymore, such as “Why do you not eat pork?”, “Why do you fast?”, “Why do you pray five times a day?” All that we have to do is just tell people ‘because God said so’ and if people frown or suggest that we are crazy, then we should tell them about submission. Because it’s more rational to submit.

If they question us further and scratch the intellectual surface by highlighting our presuppositions, in other words our belief that God exists and that the Qur’an is a miracle, then all we have to do is show them.

And if you need some help, please see the links below:

Does God Exist?
The Miracle of the Qur’an

My Next International Events: Malaysia Tour

Malaysia Tour - Lectures & dawah worskhops by Hamza Andreas Tzortzis include:

10th July: Now we have Islam what are we going to do?
at the University Malaya 8PM - 10:30PM

11th July: One day intensive dawah course
at Boulevard Hotel, KL 9AM - 7PM

12th July: Is there a God? & A Response to Secular Liberalism
at University Malaya 10AM - 5PM

13th July: Being Muslim at University
at Maktab Perguruan Islam 8PM - 10:30PM

14th July: What it means to be a Muslim today?
at KGPA 8PM - 10:30PM

Other speakers include:

Shaykh Hussein Ye
Suhaib Webb
Dr Harlina
Mohammad 'Aerosol' Ali

Audio of Debate: "Does God Exist?" with Philosophy Lecturer Dr Bana Bashour