Ayatollah Ali Sistani on Sharia in the West, The Washington Times, February 25, 2008http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/NATION/702235403/1003 Iraqi Ayatollah urges Muslims to mind laws THE WASHINGTON TIMES - MONTREAL — Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has sent a message to Muslims in Western nations, urging them to obey the laws of the countries in which they live. The fatwa was delivered at a Montreal news conference of prominent Shi’ite Muslims on behalf of Ayatollah Sistani, the Washington-based Center for Islamic Pluralism reported yesterday. “Muslims have undertaken to obey the laws of the country of their residence and thus they must be faithful to that undertaking,“ the fatwa said. It condemned all acts of violence and encouraged imams to keep a watchful eye on what’s going on inside their mosques.
International Director Irfan Al-Alawi on Rowan Williams and Sharia in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 13, 2008Sharia Promotes DisunityLiberal Muslims express themselves in the debate in Great Britain The archbishop of Canterbury has sparked, with his call for a limited use of the Islamic sharia, a violent discussion. Many Muslims also dissociate themselves from the postulate. Since Gordon Brown became the British prime minister, the Union Jack flies above Whitehall. The ministries were compelled to hoist the flag the whole year. The patriotic gesture should help to the new feeling of “Britishness” of which Gordon Brown has long spoken. However, what is Britishness? The question is posed in debates on cultural and national identity in the United Kingdom again and again. Without finding the slightest common denominator that would hold the nation together. Since the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, last week entered a political mine field, it is finally clear: We want no sharia. The religious head of the state Church of England had suggested in a speech to lawyers and during an interview with the BBC that in Great Britain elements of Muslim law should be accepted, especially, in family and financial disputes. The speech gave rise to a coalition between forces which one would have considered seldom compatible until now. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed, and were joined by the representatives of the different minorities and religious communities: The country has laws, and they apply to all. “Back room justice” This view is shared by wide sections of the Muslim community, including the Muslim Council of Britain. Nevertheless, the latter organization of Muslim federations argues that Muslims desire equal treatment with other religious communities, especially with Jews. The Jewish Beth Din [religious court] regulates civil and commercial conflicts, but is subordinate to British law. Presently about 30 sharia courts also operate in Great Britain, and the number of Muslims using their services grows. They are not based in British law, making their decisions technically inadmissible, and their judgments count only as long as the affected persons accept them. Liberal Muslim groups warn about establishment of such courts. Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council, which maintains an online-portal against the radicalization of youthful Muslims, worries about the menace of “back room justice.” He argues that you cannot compare these committees to the Jewish Beth Din. “The Jews have lived for 300 years in this country, and their judges are experts in British law. However, many sharia judges have no notion of local jurisprudence.” It is doubtful which interpretation of Fiqh, or Muslim jurisprudence, is to be applied. There are, in Sunni Islam, four Schools of Jurisprudence, and they have produced different interpretations; in this lies, according to Irfan Al-Alawi, international director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, the danger for the cohesion of the community. There would be no guarantee at all that judges were experts in all four schools. “The introduction of sharia courts in Great Britain would cause chaos among Muslims,” he says. “People come from quite different countries and cultures with different administrations of justice – which should then have jurisdiction?” Sharia courts, he believes, would promote disunity among the Muslims and open the door to arbitrariness. “And to whom should women appeal, when they believe they are unfairly treated in a divorce?” Faith – but without compulsion In Al-Alawi’s opinion sharia cannot be applied by halves or limited to a quarter of its weight, and official recognition could open the gates to further denial of personal liberty such as compulsory covering of the female face or a ban on women driving. “Sharia is bound up, today, with establishment of an Islamic state. This is a demand promoted by Islamic extremists and from which the biggest part of the Muslims sharply dissociates itself. The majority of the British Muslims love the British law,” says Haras Rafiq. “Precisely this law permits us to maintain our religion in a way which is required by us. Nobody here makes me drink alcohol and eat pork, I can get Halal meat, adhere to fasting and prayer times, and circumcision of boys is permitted.” The archbishop has done a disservice to them with his speech, Muslims immediately complained. They did not start the debate and have not brought any emotional heat to it; the media did this. The ghosts are summoned, and, nevertheless, liberal Muslims as well as representatives of the Anglican church can find sense in this: A debate is on the table, now it should be led rationally. Lilo Weber Translated by Veli Sirin, CIP Germany, www.islamicpluralism.de
www.nzz.ch Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 13. Februar 2008 Scharia fördert Ungleichheit Liberale Muslime äussern sich zur Debatte in Grossbritannien Der Erzbischof von Canterbury hat mit seinem Votum für eine beschränkte Anwendung der islamischen Scharia eine heftige Debatte entfacht. Auch viele Muslime distanzieren sich von dem Postulat. Seit Gordon Brown britischer Premierminister wurde, weht der Union Jack über Whitehall. Die Ministerien wurden angehalten, rund ums Jahr die Flagge zu hissen. Die patriotische Geste sollte zu dem neuen Gefühl von «Britishness» verhelfen, von dem Gordon Brown seit längerem spricht. Doch was ist Britishness? Die Frage wird in Debatten über kulturelle und nationale Identität im Vereinigten Königreich wieder und wieder gestellt. Ohne dass man sich einigen konnte auf einen kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner, der die Nation zusammenhält. Seit aber der Erzbischof von Canterbury, Rowan Williams, letzte Woche ein politisches Minenfeld betrat, wird zumindest eines klar: Wir wollen keine Scharia. Das geistliche Oberhaupt der englischen Staatskirche hatte in einer Rede vor Juristen und in einem Interview mit der BBC angeregt, dass in Grossbritannien Elemente des muslimischen Scharia-Rechts vor allem bei Familien- und Finanzdisputen anerkannt werden sollten. Die Rede provozierte eine Koalition zwischen Kräften, die man bisher als wenig kompatibel betrachtet hatte. Labour, Konservative und Liberaldemokraten waren sich einig und mit ihnen die Vertreter der verschiedenen Minoritäten und Glaubensgemeinschaften: Das Land hat eine Gesetzgebung, und die gilt für alle. Eine «Hinterzimmer-Justiz» Diese Ansicht wird auch in weiten Teilen der muslimischen Gemeinde vertreten, so vom Muslim Council of Britain. Indes räumt die grösste Dachorganisation muslimischer Verbände ein, man wünsche Gleichbehandlung mit andern Glaubensgemeinschaften, vor allem mit der jüdischen. Deren Beth Din regeln zivile und kommerzielle Zwiste, sind aber dem britischen Gesetz unterstellt. Tatsächlich operieren in Grossbritannien derzeit auch ungefähr 30 Scharia-Gerichte, und die Zahl der Muslime, die ihre Dienste in Anspruch nehmen, wächst. Sie sind indes nicht im britischen Recht verankert, also technisch unzulässig, und ihre Beschlüsse gelten nur so lange, als die Betroffenen sie akzeptieren. Liberale muslimische Gruppierungen warnen vor einer Etablierung solcher Gerichte. Haras Rafiq vom Sufi Muslim Council, der sich unter anderem mit einem Online-Portal gegen die Radikalisierung von jugendlichen Muslimen engagiert, sorgt sich um eine drohende «Hinterzimmer-Justiz». Man könne diese Gremien nicht mit den jüdischen Beth Din vergleichen. «Die Juden sind seit 300 Jahren in diesem Land, und ihre Richter sind Experten in britischem Recht. Viele Scharia-Richter aber haben keine Ahnung von der hiesigen Justiz.» Fraglich sei, welche Auslegung der Fiqh, der muslimischen Gesetzgebung, angewendet werde. Es gibt im sunnitischen Islam grundsätzlich vier Rechtsschulen und innerhalb dieser zahlreiche Auslegungen; gerade darin liegt, laut Irfan Al Alawi, dem Internationalen Direktor vom Centre for Islamic Pluralism, die Gefahr für den Zusammenhalt der Gemeinde. Es sei nämlich keineswegs garantiert, dass die Richter sich in allen vier Schulen auskennen. «Die Einführung von Scharia-Gerichten in Grossbritannien würde ein Chaos unter den Muslimen anrichten», sagt er. «Die Leute kommen aus ganz unterschiedlichen Ländern und Kulturen mit unterschiedlichen Rechtsprechungen - welche soll denn nun gelten?» Scharia-Gerichte, so glaubt er, würden die Ungleichheit unter den Muslimen fördern und der Willkür Tür und Tor öffnen. «Und an wen appellieren etwa Frauen, die sich in einem Scheidungsverfahren ungerecht behandelt fühlen?» Glaube - aber ohne Zwang Die Scharia lässt sich seiner Meinung nach nicht zur Hälfte oder zu einem Viertel anwenden, und die offizielle Anerkennung könne die Schleusen öffnen für weitergehende Eingriffe in die persönliche Freiheit wie Schleiergebot oder Fahrverbot für Frauen. «Scharia ist eigentlich gebunden an die Errichtung eines islamischen Staates.» Eine Forderung, die von den islamistischen Extremisten getragen wird und von der sich der weitaus grösste Teil des Muslime scharf distanziert. «Die Mehrheit der britischen Muslime liebt das britische Recht», sagt Haras Rafiq. «Genau dieses Gesetz erlaubt uns nämlich, unsere Religion so zu pflegen, wie es von uns verlangt wird. Niemand zwingt mich hier, Alkohol zu trinken und Schweinefleisch zu essen, ich kann Halal-Fleisch bekommen, meine Fasten- und Gebetszeiten einhalten, sogar Beschneidung von Knaben ist erlaubt.» Der Erzbischof habe ihnen mit seiner Rede einen Bärendienst erwiesen, hörte man Muslime erst klagen. Nicht sie haben die Debatte in Gang gesetzt und sie schon gar nicht emotional angeheizt; das taten vorab die Boulevardmedien. Die Geister sind gerufen, und dem können liberale Muslime wie auch Vertreter der anglikanischen Kirche doch einen Sinn abgewinnen: Die Debatte ist auf dem Tisch, nun sollte sie vernünftig geführt werden. Lilo Weber
www.cbn.com/CBNnews/326256.aspx A New Muslim Nation in Europe? – Christian World News, February 22, 2008CBNNews.com - Kosovo, a former province of Serbia, caused international furor when it declared its independence this week. While the world community works out the international implications of Kosovo’s independence, others are worried about a Muslim-majority state in Europe. The creation of a such a state raises fears of a radical Islamic state that would persecute Christians and become a base for terrorism. Christians Targeted for Almost a Decade Since 1999, the Orthodox Christian Serb minority has been attacked by the Albanian Muslim population. In 2004, Muslim mobs attacked Serb enclaves, destroying hundreds of churches and monasteries. This week, Kosovo’s President Fatmir Sejdiu tried to calm the fears of the Serb Christian minority. “We understand their fear, but there is no reason to fear,” he said. “They will be part of the process as they were before.” But the Serbs may be targeted more for their Serb ethnicity than their Christian faith. Peter Kuzmic is a Slovenian Evangelical and human rights advocate. He says Kosovo’s Muslims are moderates, who do not want a religious war. “This Kosovo situation is not a question of a religious war. It’s not a religious question,” he explained. “It’s a political question, territorial question and religion is being abused by extremists on both sides.” Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism has lived in Kosovo. He says there is religious freedom for all faiths in Kosovo. “It is a majority Muslim country,” Schwartz said. “It is also filled with Christian missionaries who have never been molested. I have walked up and down the streets of the main towns and there are Holiness churches and Evangelical churches. These are all new and nobody says a word about it.” Targeted By Jihadists? However, some terrorism experts believe Islamic states like Saudi Arabia want to export their strict brand of Wahhabi Islam to Kosovo. They warn that Kosovo’s moderate Muslims, angry at high unemployment, organized crime, and drug smuggling, would welcome a Taliban-type rule. Prior to this week’s declaration, John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Russian television that Kosovo is a potential target for takeover by radical jihadists. “I think it’s very risky if it’s granted recognition by the U.S. and other European countries,” Bolton told the Russian interviewer. “I don’t think it is economically viable. I think its instability risks attracting Islamic extremists from around the world.” But Schwartz says Islamic radicals won’t find a welcome in Kosovo. Its people are grateful to the U.S. for protecting them. “The bottom line is the Kosovars now have freedom and they have freedom because of the United States,” he explained. “And they’re not dumb. They’re not going to turn to radical Islam.” Now the Bush administration is counting on this new Muslim nation to be an ally, not an enemy, in the war on terror. Russia and China have joined Serbia in protesting Kosovo’s independence to the United Nations. They say the declaration violates international law.
| 
