Take a look at Dr Mohammad Mukadam, chairman of the AMS-UK (Association of Muslim Schools UK).
He believes in practising the shari’ah in toto. But is reticent when it comes to stating the shari’ah penalty for apostasy in a public televised debate. When pushed, he relents and speaks his mind:
“If it’s an Islamic country, then the Shari’a is very clear. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. But what’s the relevance between what happens in an Islamic country and Great Britain. I fail to see the connection.”
Personally, I agree that there should not even be a notional connection between the shari’ah in an Islamic country and public law affecting muslims in Britain. I would go further and state that even in most Muslim-majority countries, administrations have been sensible enough not to institutionalise the shar’iah applied as state legislature, but rather confined it to matters of personal ethics.
What is interesting in the video is the assertion made by Dr Mukadam, that it is possible to disengage aspects of the shari’ah, in this case the penalty of apostasy, from the canon of law. This is coming from a man who is in charge of the umbrella organisation for Muslim schools which states the following as its one of its aims.
“The AMS is guided by the central goal and principle of abiding by the Qur’an and the Sunnah in all our affairs.”
So it would be relevant to ask, ‘what are children in Muslim schools taught about the significance of the shari’ah for British muslims’? And since the chairman of the AMS suggests that there is no relevance for the penalty of apostasy for muslims living in Britain, why is there a need for children in muslim schools to be taught the importance of living by the totality of the shari’ah?
Why not go the whole nine yards and state the obvious: the shari’ah as a lived experience is a pick-and-choose matter. The notion of the shari’ah as ‘Absolute’ is incorrect and judging by its in-adherence as a public legal constitution, has long been irrelevant.
hat tip: Billy
5 Comments
Thanks, Faisal. And note how he has a slip of the tongue and says at 6 minutes 59 seconds, ‘Apostrophe is dealt with by the death penalty’
*gulp*
The salafis are very strict with their grammar. No apostrophes, or you will be given the full stop!
hahaha
Professor Dawkins misunderstands the concept of irtidad in Islam, conflates it with the idea of apostasy in Christianity. (This in itself underlines the incorrectness of his view that the only religious input a modern education requires is a study of the bible. Professor Dawkins himself would be far better off with a slightly better education of Islamic principles).
Indeed, it seems Dr Mohammad Mukadam could also benefit from further education in Islamic principles. He meets Dawkins’ question about “apostasy” with an answer that lacks nuance to the point of being grossly incorrect.
The misunderstandings of the professor and the doctor are broadcast on TV, and propagated on blogs. A big cafuffle ensues. And in the mean time, no one gives any attention to what the Prophet and the Qur’an really said about the matter.
At the least the girl in the hijab was honest enough to say that she didn’t know the answer to Professor Dawkins’ question.
“cafuffle”?
From the Urban Dictionary :
Anyway, this exchange between the learned man and the shaykh reminds me of one of Omar Khayyam’s quatrains:
A learned man said to a whore, “You’re drunk,
Caught every moment in a different snare.”
She replied, “Oh Shaykh, I am what you say,
But are you what you seem?”