It’s interesting how Islam has appeared in the newspapers over the last few days. In the first instance, preacher Abu Hamza is reported to be extradited to the US to face terror charges. At the same time, in a move said of as hypocritical in a country that allows platform for characters such as Nick Griffin, respected cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi was denied entry to the UK due to his comments justifying Palestinian acts of suicide bombing. But it was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments on the possibility that Shariah law may be permissible in the UK which incited the most interesting response.
The red tops (UK tabloids) were quick off the mark to paint a picture of a burqa-ed Britain; underlining the average layperson’s understanding of what constitutes Shariah law, and being about two thousand miles off the mark from what the Archbishop meant. The idea put forth by Dr Rowan Williams suggested that certain facets of the Shariah, such as Islamic finance and marriage (and subsequent dissolution) laws, be integrated into the current framework of the British legal system. Note that his argument is integration into, not replacement of, British law.
Williams has been met with much criticism, not only from members of the Anglican church, but also from Muslim conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi, who argues that such a suggestion could not come at a worse time. While in principle I agree with Williams’ suggestion - mainly from the perspective of the protection of women under marriage laws - Warsi does have a point. From media reports in the past 36 hours, many seem to have jumped onto the Islamophobia bandwagon a bit too quickly.
Resistance seems to stem from three perspectives. First are those who use hudud punishments such as the cutting off of hands for theft and stoning for adultery to define everything that is Shariah, where as this is but a small part of the whole Islamic legal system. Second are those who generally see no sense - or respect - for rule of religion of any sort, be it Christian, Judaism or Buddhist; and therefore would find the suggestion of any type of religious law embedded as an option under British law to be a general affront to their ‘liberties’ and the secular system the country has for so long enjoyed. And third are those who are not clear of the context of what Dr Williams is arguing. Perhaps a smaller fourth group also exists : those, like Warsi, who do not find the idea wrong as much as the timing is.
Williams may be a man a little ahead of his time. He is a few steps ahead of his detractors: he knows pretty well that for instance, Muslims will continue to marry under religious laws - his suggestion would allow recourse and in some cases, help under the current legal system. Assertions that Muslims choose to live in the West because of a wish to escape Shariah law is also misleading; symptomatic of a misconception of what Shariah law is, and no thanks to the voice given to ex-Muslims such as Hirsi Ali. When you are hell bent on painting a poor picture of someone, the fact that he wears his shirt tucked out on an otherwise perfect body is the flaw you magnify over and over again. Misconceptions of what constitutes Shariah law, among other facets of Islam, gets that treament all too often.
As with most news items hitting the headlines, this will most probably die down in the next few days (unless someone kidnaps a teddy bear and calls it Jesus or something). What is obvious, though, is the power of the media in shaping how people have reacted. You can lay down your Jewish conspiracy theories of media control at my door if you wish; my challenge to the Muslim world is, what are you doing about it? What steps have you taken to right these misconceptions? Get your happy astronauts off the moon, get your fingers out of arms deals - and instead get your movies in the cinemas. Stop using your newspapers to silence opposition that may, at some point, provide you with some semblance of accountability for your misspending; if you can’t tell them what it’s all about, who do you think will do the job for you?
Comments (4)
A very interesting entry!
What are we doing about it? Tricky task really. But I guess it’s not really a battle against ‘them’ (whoever they are) – but probably it’s a battle that should start within the Muslim themselves.
Misconception of Islam (and the Sharia Law) is common everywhere. Not only in the UK (Which, IMHO, is more than expected) – but it happens in our own backyard (Shocking? No!).
“First are those who use hudud punishments such as the cutting off of hands for theft and stoning for adultery to define everything that is Shariah.”
I believe majority of Malaysians do have the same mentality, either secretly or openly. And I’m not exclusively referring these misled Malaysians to some Ah Sengs or Kumaris – but they also include many Abduls and Fatimahs. Kalau orang Islam sendiri yang menghuni negara predominan Islam (yang kebanyakan pernah dapat asas didikan agama!) boleh salahmengerti tentang undang-undang Syariah – nothing is too surprising with the current controversy. With everyone here (in UK) jumping way over the board.
Totally agree with you on this: “What is obvious, though, is the power of the media in shaping how people have reacted”.
Penduduk UK [yang sepatutnya lebih educated dan open-minded berbanding orang Malaysia] pun senang digula-gulakan oleh media arus perdana (esp. the ‘red tops’ – or is it the redneck media?). They never bother to find the real truth (walaupun UK sangat kaya dengan sumber wacana dan info!). Instead they are more than happy to join the tabloid bandwagon. For people in UK to behave that way (padahal tradisi ilmu dan kesarjanaan formal di negara ini sudah berusia lebih 400 tahun!) - I find it very ironic.
May be that’s just the nature of every human-being. In a way, it justifies the reason why such ‘total freedom’ (of media) is not allowed in Malaysia. Because as the case in the UK proves, regardless of how ‘mature and clever’ the rakyat claim they are – the media is still very influential in shaping how they would react.
If the government allows the media to define what’s wrong and right; and to take full control of how the people should perceive things – I think that’s not a wise governing style.
My lima-sen thought.
My counter to the media argument would be: if there is no total press freedom, then that is more susceptible to abuse by those who control it.
The difference between the UK and Malaysia is that in the UK, with relatively more press freedom, the media is independent and even the government is not above media scrutiny. In Malaysia, the government is the media, and therefore, puts itself beyond scrutiny.
P/S: I am going to try your tuna salad as lauk very soon!
I don’t think this issue is going to die down any sooner, I’m afraid. Dari semalam sampai pagi ini, hampir semua channel cakap pasal ni. I’m now watching this debate, ‘The Big Question’: “Should Britain recognise Sharia Courts?”
Some of the comments really annoyed me, and they precisely reflected some of your points. Satu minah ni cakap dengan begitu confident: “From my knowledge of the Sharia Laws, women are MASSIVELY disadvantaged”.
I think it will. Give it at most, one week. Cerita Gillian Gibbons guru teddy bear pun sekarang tak disebut orang lagi.
Madeleine Bunting in yesterday’s Guardian has a good rational viewpoint, sans Islamophobia-fuelled mass hysteria.
Trackback/Pingback (1)
[...] Sila lawati: Komen:tari dan Organised Chaos [...]