Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Prejudiced pundits fuss over sharia

By Irfan Yusuf - posted Friday, 15 February 2008


About this time five years ago, the world's 70 million Anglicans had a new Archbishop enthroned in his cathedral.

Australia's ABC Radio National reported at the time: "Rowan Williams is a man with a lively mind and some controversial views. He has already spoken out against a war with Iraq. And he has also attracted the wrath of conservatives in the Church for his liberal views on homosexuality and women priests."

But it hasn't just been conservatives in the Anglican Church who have resented this self-styled "hairy leftie Welshman". Many are opposed to the Archbishop's attempts to bring the Anglican and Catholic churches closer together. His stands on homosexuality in the Church have led to Sydney's Archbishop boycotting the upcoming 10-yearly Lambeth conference for Anglican bishops, to be held in London.

Advertisement

But all that pales into insignificance compared to the wrath Williams has earned from cultural warriors over his recent speech on sharia, the Islamic sacred law. Under the heading of "Owlbrows hits back", the right-wing opinion editor of Sydney's Daily Telegraph, Tim Blair, labels Williams the "Archmullah of Canterstan".

So why all this fuss? Apparently Williams suggested that Britain should allow sharia to become the law of the land, or at least some of it, or something like that.

Actually, I don't know what the Archbishop's speech was about, because unlike so many other commentators chewing at the Archbishop's flesh, I am honest enough to admit I have not read the entire speech.

Hence, I won't be commenting on the speech. I don't wish to behave like thick-sheikhs (Muslim or otherwise) who will condemn an author on the basis of innuendo, rumour or some similar source.

Of course, not having read the speech hasn't stopped prejudiced pundits from passing blank-cheque fatwas.

It also hasn't stopped claims that an entire legal tradition developed over a period of 1,400 years (and still developing) is little more than a system of non-anaesthetic amputations.

Advertisement

It is as if some imagine the Muslim world to be something out of Monty Python's Life of Brian, a place where women dress up as men and attend the stoning of blasphemers after watching some bearded Palestinian chap from Bethlehem stand on a hill and make a nonsensical declaration such as: "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

The response to the Archbishop's speech has exposed the gross ignorance and prejudice of so many in the Western World towards anything deemed even remotely linked to Islam.

During his recent Australian tour, American-Iranian comic Maz Jobrani spoke of his comedy trio, appropriately called The Axis of Evil, performing to sellout shows in Kuwait, Cairo and Bahrain. He said he noticed that people in the Middle East know more about Western culture than vice versa.

Once again, Muslims have been forced onto the front page, to explain themselves and justify their faith, except this time it isn't because of the inflammatory words or deadly actions of a Muslim on the other side of the planet.

I guess what many readers will be wondering is whether Muslims on either side of the Tasman want sharia law to be implemented. The answer is: I don't have the faintest.

Why? Because I haven't asked every Muslim in New Zealand or Australia what she or he thinks of sharia. Even those claiming to speak for Muslims have never polled their communities about their views on these types of issues.

During recent trips to Indonesia and Malaysia, I was surprised by how different people's images of sharia were.

In Malaysia, groups such as Sisters in Islam campaign for less rigid interpretations of certain aspects of Malaysian Islamic family law. They are supported by some of Malaysia's top Islamic lawyers, including Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali, of the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

Such debates are almost unheard of in Java, where sharia means non-interest banking and ethical investments. Meanwhile, in South Asia, people associate sharia with not just family law but also the law of inheritance.

Then there is the distinction between sharia as the outer manifestation of Islamic worship and tariqa (also known as tasawwuf to Sunni Muslims, irfan to Shia Muslims and sufism in the West) as the inner manifestation. In this sense, sharia is the Islamic equivalent to what Christians call liturgy.

Even if Muslims here wanted to, I doubt they could get their act together to implement sharia. They cannot even agree on when the lunar months start and finish. In Sydney, we typically have Ramadan starting on at least three separate days. Some imams insist on sighting the moon with their naked eye. Others like to use astronomical calculations, or some combination of the two.

Given that our imams cannot even agree on such simple liturgical issues, one can hardly expect them to provide much guidance on the implementation of sharia in a Western country. With that in mind, I feel I can confidently predict we won't be seeing a sharia state on either side of the Tasman at anytime before the next ice age.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in New Zealand's Press on February 13, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

52 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Irfan Yusuf is a New South Wales-based lawyer with a practice focusing on workplace relations and commercial dispute resolution. Irfan is also a regular media commentator on a variety of social, political, human rights, media and cultural issues. Irfan Yusuf's book, Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-Fascist, was published in May 2009 by Allen & Unwin.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Irfan Yusuf

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Irfan Yusuf
Article Tools
Comment 52 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy