Here is a video of the 8 December 2011 Debate: Sharia Law Negates Human Rights. For the motion:
Maryam Namazie – Human rights campaigner, spokesperson One Law for All. Against the motion: 1) Ayazz Mahmood – UK Ahmadiyya Muslim University of Theology and Languages 2) Jonathan Butterworth – UCL Law Teaching Fellow and Co-ordinator of “Just Fair.”
Skip to content
Skip to sidebar
Skip to footer
21 Comments
Lulwah
is it an open event? are tickets required?
David Crawford
Is it an open event? Tickets?
MaryamNamazie
Yes it is open to the public and free.
RUNMAD
This should be a great event. While I believe this website promotes an obscure and incorrect picture of Shariah, I commend them on holding a fair and objective discussion to address this important topic.
I’m from the States so I will not be able to attend, but I sincerely hope it is recorded and uploaded, unedited. God bless. Er, I mean, may the black agnostic void that is the universe by chance move molecules in your favor.
Tommy Wells
You mean there really is a debate? See Saudi Arabia ban on women driving today.
I also love that “Drinks” will be provided. “Wine, Mr. Mahmood?”
sm
dry religious humor….how pathetic
A Shah
That was really a rude comment to make – I thought One Law for All and it’s meet propagated and publicized rules which everyone could follow, this certainly does not help your message!
RUNMAD
Can’t wait to see the video. Will you guys be publishing the unedited video on your website? i.e. will you publish all four speeches or just your own two?
MaryamNamazie
We always put full videos without edits on our website. See for example our previous debate at the House of Lords. It will be available soon.
Bill Taamit Smith
Can’t wait for the video. When will it be up. Anyone attended? How did it go.
MaryamNamazie
The hall was full. A video of the event will be put on site soon.
sm
Can’t wait for the video post…when will it be posted by?
RUNMAD
Thank you Maryam. Much appreciated. I mean that. God bless (I mean that too).
RUNMAD
Seems pretty clear who won the debate. Better luck next time Maryam.
kope
do muslims gave fuck that you dont like sharia?
Zia H Shah
Muslim Tradition is not equal to wife beating or child marriage like the Western civilization is not equal to torture in Abu Gharaib or alcoholism or Christian tradition or atheism equal to Spanish inquisitions or holocaust
Any tradition that is followed by billions and have millions of apologists is bound to show some dirty laundry for one reason or another. Without going into specific reasons, why we all have dirty laundry, because we all sweat and are smelly mammals, let me just suggest that to understand a tradition, you want to immerse yourself in it at least temporarily, while you study it, so you can judge it in a holistic fashion as an insider rather than as an outside critic, who just frowns at what he or she finds ugly! Take a leaf from the book of Jonathan Butterworth, how he discovered Islam by studying it at some length with a open mind and positive attitude.
One may not agree with individual details of what is written in the Holy Quran and it does not have to be forced on a society. It only gives a choice to the society. For example, I have never known any woman, including my mother, whom I respected and loved a lot, who would be happy with the permission of polygamy. However, this does not mean that polygamy is bad for those women who cannot find a suitable husband or for those children, who do not have a loving and responsible father.
Each and every recommendation of Sharia, weather it is mentioned in the Holy Quran or not, should be judged on its utilitarian value and not lumped together to promote the monster of Islamophobia or a political agenda of grabbing power. If we lump every thing together, it is not a dialogue but merely political posturing! Read further in the Muslim Times about my analysis of the debate.
Kiran
A real shame that a muslim from the Sunni or Shia sects wasn’t on the panel – maybe then it would have been a more meaningful debate. I would have been interested to see the thoughts of those that actually conduct these so-called Sharia Courts in the UK. The voices of all those involved should be heard…
My personal thoughts – Sharia Law is very much flawed and not adequate for this country. If segments of the Muslim community wish to use it then fine, but it can not take precedence over the English Legal System or European Law.
Maryam – try and listen more with an open-mind.
MaryamNamazie
I am sorry but I can’t be open-minded about misogyny. Not everyone is able to tolerate the intolerabe!
El-Sid
Mr. Mahmood is either a liar or he doesn’t know his own religion. There are many Hadith which speak of Mohammed ordering people to be stoned to death:
“Narrated Ash-Sha’bi: from Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. Ali said, ‘I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah’s Apostle.’” (Bukhari 82:803)
“Narated By Abdullah bin UmarA : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.” (Bukhari 23:413)
Al-Bukhari is one of the six major hadith collectors in Sunni Islam and his hadith are considered to be sahih (authentic). Since Sunni Muslims are ordered by Allah to obey the prophet and to follow his example it is obvious that stoning is sanctioned by Islam.
Olaf
If Sharia were so well aligned with Human Rights, there would be no need for a separate court system.
Take any one Sharia law, ask yourself “Does the Sharia court apply this law equally to men and women?” If the answer is “no” then Sharia law negates human rights by not treating men and women equally.
The speaker in the black hat suffers the dissonance of being intelligent enough to know Sharia negates human rights, but being simultaneously under control by those who are less intelligent than he. So sad.
Hugo
Lots of interesting points in this debate. In my opinion, the most interesting point centers around the issue
of interpretation within Islam.
I think there is lot of apologism for Islam going on in western society. One issue is a sort of post-colonial guilt perhaps.
Another is that critics of Islam often get put in the same category as the xenophobic far right and anti-Islam
debate gets stifled with cries of, you are a racist, you are intolerant, you are sowing hatred etc. etc.
So often I see this argument presented:
“The Muslim community is diverse, and very different between different countries etc. There are many
interpretations of Islam, therefore it makes no sense to attack Islam itself, because it is not a monolithic entity.
The problem is with extremists, not with Islam and all religions have extremists anyway….”
The same argument is presented in the debate with regards to what sharia *really* is – is it the Ahmadiyya view, the Iranian view etc.
Whilst I agree that not all Muslims are the same and that one can argue endlessly about what the ‘true’ sharia is,
and therefore whether it is truly bad or not, this is all ultimately missing the point.
I believe in a non-religious secular society and that morality does not come from any Gods. But with Islam, you
have a book; the Quran and this book self-proclaims to be the unalterable literal word of God.
The problem is this book is full of contradictions, with suras that one can use to back up an argument that Islam is peaceful, but also to back up the Iranian etc. viewpoint of Islam. Both sides can equally claim to the true Islam.
Both can provide scriptural argument to back up their claims, from a book that both believe to be the literal word
of God. This is very significant.
As long as religion is allowed to enter the public space (and start deciding laws) etc. it can be backed up by it’s
proponent’s (flawed in my opinion) dogma.
The fact that there are relatively reformed Muslim groups like the Ahmadiyya doesn’t change the fact that the
Quran says what is says and any group can cherry pick the verses and be inspired to believe that their interpretation
is the correct one.
For this reason, whilst I accept the Muslim world is not one entity, as long as we don’t have a reformed version of Islam that does away with the Quran in favour of a Quran 2.0, Islam as a whole has something to answer for.
Sharia law does negate human rights, even if some people advocate a watered down version of it.
Religion has no place deciding on laws full stop, because the moment it does, we have to choose someone’s
version of what those rules are and that is very dangerous.
Keep up the good work Maryam!