Western media propaganda for Islam
One of the most shocking things about recent history is how western media offered massive platforms to Muslims to spread their propaganda. This is how a Muslim could promote the utterly vile Sharia law on BBC:
BBC propaganda
Quote: "Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia"
A manipulative statement - how would he know what people "understand"? Personally, I perfectly understand Sharia law and I know that it is abhorrent! The fact that I don't agree with the author of this article doesn't mean that I "misunderstand" what Sharia is, it just means that I disagree - and I have a lot of evidence to prove my point.
"It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic"
Correct - because it does include all those things and it truly is archaic! It is more barbaric and primitive than the Old Testament, which was already about 2700 years old when Mohammed made up his Sharia laws.
In the meantime, Humanity had gone through enormous social changes, including massive progress in legal systems and religious views. The Tao, Buddhism, ancient Greece, Roman law and Jesus all were far more advanced. Islam and it's barbaric Sharia law represent a massive regression.
"and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires"
Yes, Sharia law is extremely intolerant, even outright fascist. If you don't want to be a Muslim, you'll be murdered. If an unmarried couple has consensual sex, they will be physically "punished" etc.
Speaking out against these grotesque laws or Islam in general will get you a death penalty.
So how does this guy spin it - without any contradiction?
"Many Muslims, however, hold a different view"
That's hardly relevant - of course Muslims see it "differently". They have no choice.
"In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity"
This is clearly an absurd claim - there's nothing "nurturing" about having your limbs hacked off or being murdered. What he does not explain is the concept of "humanity" under Islam: only Muslims are considered as "human beings". Non-Muslims are considered as "lower than animals".
"They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed"
That's how it is defined, in Islam. There's not a shred of evidence for any "divine" origin. Islam is packed with nonsense and entirely false claims.
"In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential."
What "potential" is left after Sharia law destroys any liberty? Here is the article's first accurate statement:
"The Sharia regulates all human actions and puts them into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked or forbidden."
It's interesting that the author illustrates "Life under sharia" with the photo of a woman wearing a niqab, a slave outfit - and those are sad eyes:
Here is another true statement:
"Basically in Islam the needs of society always come first"
Except that "society" is an emergent concept - only individuals exist. If the rights of the individual are not protected, any society that results will be no good. All 57 Islamic countries provide evidence that it is no good to live in an Islamic society. They are corrupt, dictatorial and apart from a small elite, the majority of the people are unhappy and want to migrate to western countries.
Then there's the usual denial of Mohammed's pedophilia:
"The Prophet's wife Aishah [...] there was no physical relationship until Aishah reached puberty - but this in itself could have been at around 9 or 10 years old. That is not an unusual age for menstruation to start in hot climates"
This is an absolute lie - puberty actually started later than it does in modern societies, due to much richer food. In ancient Rome, the earliest age of marriage was 14. Puberty at 9 is extremely rare. Even if a girl did enter puberty at a very young age, that would not make her suitable to be raped. A girl that age is not able of giving consent.
"and once a girl is capable of producing a child she is regarded as technically a woman."
A 9 year old could not possibly bear a child without a serious risk to her own health. And who but a pedophile would be attracted to a 9 year old girl?
Interestingly, Aisha never had any children by Mohammed, although he had frequent sexual relations with her, base on the Hadiths - Mohammed liked to brag about his "sexual performance". The obvious explanation is that he destroyed her sexual organs when he raped her at the age of 9.
"What areas of law do Muslims in Britain think are mishandled by British state law?"
Given that millions of Muslims voluntarily migrate to western countries, but hardly any western people migrate to Islamic countries - which don't allow immigration, anyway, it's pretty obvious that they see live in western countries as far better than in their home countries.
"I think Muslims generally are shocked by the general lack of respect and discipline here, especially if they are immigrants and not born here"
Most of that disrespect is shown by immigrants! Before the 3rd world mass immigration, life in western countries was extremely safe. As Ayan Hirsi Ali said, she was extremely surprised by how natural it was for people in Holland to leave their hose without any kind of fear, something she had never experienced before in her home country, Somalia, which is an Islamic country.
"They are particularly shocked by lack of discipline in schools and the difficulties faced by so many teachers in getting children to behave in class and actually learn"
That was never a problem until that same mass immigration:
"They are shocked by the appalling rates of theft"
Most thieves are 3rd world immigrants.
"drug addiction"
Most drug dealers are 3rd world immigrants.
"rape of children and old ladies"
Both are crimes committed mostly by Muslim migrants! Based on the latest UK parliamentary report, 19'000 British girls are exploited by Islamic rape gangs and this has been an ongoing crises for over 30 years - mostly ignored by the UK government:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-child-sex-abuse-exploitation-rotherham-rochdale-police-a9215261.html
"homosexuality - especially when it is being put forward as quite normal and an acceptable alternative sexual lifestyle; homosexuals in positions of authority (from teachers to MPs)"
It's utterly hypocrite that the BBC allows this Muslim to make such an openly anti-homosexual statement, which would cause anyone else to be cancelled.
"They are also shocked by the general lack of respect for those in authority"
In other words he dislikes individual liberty and the freedom to criticize government?
"I don't think lawyers in the UK would ever bring back the death sentence, but many people here think that they should"
Indeed, how about the death penalty for the thousands of members of Islamic rape gangs in the UK?
Why did the BBC allow this Muslim apologist to spread such horrible ideas?
Law Teacher "academic" text
The BBC article is just one of many. Even a supposedly respectable law journal allowed this kind of propaganda, as recently as 2019:
"Research Will Be Defining the Concept of Sharia Law"
The author is an unnamed law student, which is truly worrisome - a man with such a twisted view of morality should never get a law degree. He tries to make excuses for the violent, barbaric Sharia law.
"There are relevant convention rights established in the Human Rights Act 1998. These are everyone’s right to life (Article 2), which many may argue that Sharia law is breaking by imposing the punishment of beheading or stoning to death"
That's not an argument, that's a fact. And here comes the excuse:
"the evidence needed in Sharia law is very strong, and in the case of fornication and a person is beheaded and stoned to death four evidences are required to witness the incident. They must all have seen the act at the same time, and must report it immediately."
This is a virtually impossible condition to fulfill.
"If this is not the case the people reporting the incident will get 40-80 lashes"
So individual witnesses are punished if they report a rape. These rules are apparently made to ensure that rape is virtually impossible to prosecute.
"Another convention right is that no one must be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment (Article 3). In Sharia law all punishments are done publicly, and therefore may be in contradiction to the HRA 1998"
Indeed!
"Also the HRA sets out that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (Article 6(2)), which is the other way around in Sharia law"
The more you know about Sharia law, the more repulsive it is. How can one presume an accused person as "guilty"?
"Another relevant convention right is that everyone has the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9 (1) (2)), which in Sharia law the issue of Apostasy does not comply with"
Indeed - Islam is a fascist ideology that prohibits people from coming to their own conclusions.
So how does he try to justify this?
"Sharia law differs significantly from English law in the fact that the applied law is prescribed by Allah,"
Oh, of course - the famous lie - except that it is 100% man-made. Like all other legal systems.
"This is because Sharia law is not amendable and no one has the authority to change any provisions given in the main sources"
That is precisely why it is unacceptable and should never be tolerated by any decent society.
"Sharia law is divine in origin, complete, comprehensive and perfect in all respects from the time when Allah revealed it to Muhammed"
How in the world did this sentence get printed in a law journal?
It's not divine, it's not complete, it's not comprehensive and it most definitely is not perfect. It's fascist, barbaric, absurd, illogical, packed with immoral, unjust rules that are completely unacceptable.
Take the simple fact that Jews and Christians are at best tolerated in Islamic countries if they accept the status of Dhimmi (semi-slave) and pay a heavy tax, while atheists, polytheists (e.g. Hindus), Buddhists etc. are expected to convert or be murdered. How can anyone try to defend such a system?
And yet, the law journal "Law Teacher" published this apology for Sharia law? What's wrong with them?