Clarifications on Sharia law (Observer letter)

(see original letter below)

Dear Editor,

This is a response to Anthony Gordon’s letter (published February 2, 2010) about Sharia law following the call by the head of the Jamaica Muslim League for homosexuals to be executed.

Like many Christians/Westerners, Mr Gordon fails to distinguish between Sharia law and local custom. Similar to Western law, Sharia is open to different interpretations and is administered in different degrees in Muslim societies.

So, while homosexual acts are regarded as a sin by the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the examples set by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him), there is no universal application of the death penalty for homosexuals across the Muslim world.

Another glaring mistake made by Mr Gordon is his reference to Islamic executions being carried out by stoning the person to death. I think he might have got his religions muddled, as executions under Sharia are not prescribed to be carried out by this method.

As a matter of fact, even the slaughter of animals under Sharia law is to be done as swiftly and humanely as possible.

Another bone of contention is Mr Gordon’s haste to criticise what he sees as the imbalance in Islamic inheritance laws in favour of the males.

What he fails to realise is that whatever a woman gets from an inheritance is her own to do what she wishes with it, while the eldest male in the family, who gets a bigger share, is obliged to provide for the women in the household when he assumes the role of the head of the household on the death of the father.

It is also a little known fact that a Muslim wife is not under any obligation to work outside the home and her husband is supposed to provide all her material needs, including household help.

The sole “duty” of the wife is to see to the upbringing of the children and the running of the household, she does not have to do any of the “work” herself.

It is funny how non-Muslims rush to the defence of “oppressed” Muslim women when their women had to fight tooth and nail to achieve some form of equality and rights that Muslim women have had for 1,400 years.

Islam should be viewed as a religion that immensely improved the status of women and granted them many rights that the modern world has recognised only this century. Islam still has so much to offer today's woman: dignity, respect, and protection in all aspects and stages of her life, from birth until death, in addition to the recognition, balance, and means for the fulfilment of all her spiritual, intellectual, physical and emotional needs.

That's why it is no surprise to find that most converts to Islam, today, in a country like Britain are women. In the US female converts to Islam outnumber male converts four to one.

Women and men are regarded as equal in the sight of God, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and will receive the same reward in Paradise.

As for veiling and the headscarf, this is also not enshrined under Sharia, but is recommended for women as sign of their devotion to Islam.

I have never heard non-Muslims condemning a Catholic nun for wearing a head covering, or ever seen a picture of the Virgin Mary without a headscarf, so why the double standard?

What about what Paul had to say in I Corinthians 11:3-10 regarding women covering their head, is this being followed by modern-day Christians?

Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites, for example, still insist that their women wear veils, as do certain Jewish sects.

Mr Gordon needs to do a little more research before he engages in any more Islam bashing.

Farruk Muhammad Abdullah

London