Shari’a Law Negates Human Rights Debate

On Thursday 8th December 2012, University College London Union Atheist Secularist and Humanist Society (UCLU ASHS) hosted a debate, the motion of which was “Sharia Law Negates Human Rights”. The two proponents of the motion (namely, Maryam Namazie and Annemarie Waters) were provided by UCLU ASHS from a campaign called “One Law for All”- a campaign to eradicate Sharia in all its forms and guises both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere abroad. The speakers against the motion were provided by the University College London Union Ahmadiyya Muslim Students Association (UCLU AMSA) and were the respected Khuddam members, Ayyaz Mahmood Khan and Jonathan Butterworth. Also present at the debate was Fahim Anwar, head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association (AMYA UK), Dr. Aziz Ahmad Hafiz, deputy head of the AMYA UK, and Dr. Tauseef Khan, head of the AMYA Student Department UK. The entire proceedings were captured by a film crew sent by Muslim Television Ahmadiyya (MTA), the official channel of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (Sky: 787).

A strong publicity and awareness campaign carried out before the event paid off on the night with the entire 130 seater theatre overspilling within minutes, so much so that late-comers (unfortunately) had to be turned away. The audience comprised of an approximate 60:40 split between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. Though previous AMSA events have been hosted at UCL (as well as Queen Mary’s, and more recently, at Imperial College London), no event in recent years has been on the same scale as this debate.

The moderator of the debate, sporting a fetching bowtie, opened the event with the rules of the debate and the associated time allotted for each speaker. Twenty minutes maximum were to be given to each of the four speakers. The first speaker was Maryam Namazie, who sought to argue that Sharia Law does negate Human Rights. She spoke from her perspective as a Human Rights campaigner and attempted to appeal to the emotional sensibilities of the audience by citing innumerable human rights violations perpetrated in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabic, Algeria and various other countries. In this vein, she read out a poem written by Algerian women regarding the suppression of their voice under the Algerian government’s implantation of Sharia law. The mainstay of her argument was that it wasn’t even a question as to whether Sharia Law negates Human Rights, as the behaviour of those countries that profess the Sharia as the code of law, speak for themselves. She alleged throughout her talk that Islam pronounces stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, death for homosexuality, as well as a host of other barbaric punishments.

The first speaker from the UCLU AMSA panel was Ayyaz Mahmood Khan. From the outset he made it clear that to speak of the Sharia in relation to the behaviour of any individual contemporary country was fallacious. He further elucidated that the Sharia draws principally upon the Qur’an primarily, then the practise of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) before drawing, as a tertiary source, from the hadith. By relying and quoting from these sources, he went sequentially through each allegation against the Sharia made by Maryam Namazie and demonstrated that the barbaric practise of contemporary countries she relied upon to make her point was contrary both to the letter and the spirit of the Qur’anic teaching, as well as the practice (Sunna) of the Noble Messenger (saw). He further emphasised that the true nature of the Sharia relies upon the principle of absolute justice and that the sharia actually therefore calls for a separation of the mosque and the state, de facto secularism. Finally, he made it clear that the two most destructive wars in human history were fought on the basis of geo-political considerations-not religious ones. To highlight that the abolition of religion is not the solution to the cruelty perpetrated by governments, he cited the two notoriously atheistic states-China and Russia, who together were responsible in the 20th century for some of the worst human rights violations, with estimates of 50 million people killed under the atheistic Chinese dictatorship of General Mao. Finally, Ayyaz ended his talk by acknowledging that the Islam presented by him may not be the Islam that the audience has ever been presented with; the reason for this, he said, was that the Islam presented by him is the Islam of the Prophet Muhammad(saw), an Islam which has been revived in this age by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as), the Promised Messiah and Imam Al-Mahdi

Annemarie Waters-the second speakers proposing the motion, also asserted the same points, though attempted to do so through the eye-glass of contemporary British law. She focussed less upon the international manifestations of Sharia, but attempted to hit closer to home by drawing the audience’s attention that Sharia is increasingly being implemented in the UK under the guise of “Arbitration Law”. By citing various quotes from the “Sharia Council of Britain”, she sought to persuade the audience that as Sharia is discriminatory (specifically between men and women) it is not in line with the principles enshrined in the European Court of Human Rights. To this end, she cited anecdotal evidence from instances in the UK where women have suffered at the hands of their husbands, only to have justice denied to them when the matter was taken to the Sharia Arbitration tribunals.

Jonathan Butterworth, a UCL law faculty lecturer and co-ordinator of Human Rights charity “Just Fair”, was the final speaker of the debate and the second speaker to oppose the motion. From his opening words, it was clear that Jonathan was taken a different approach-his was a peace offensive and he sought to win his argument with love. To that end, he made it clear that neither he nor Ayyaz disagreed that Sharia is implemented throughout the world to suppress human rights, but that such implementation could not be taken as the definition of sharia. Jonathan sought to strike at the heart of the issue, by asking the question as to what the basis is of both the International Charter of Human Rights, and of the Islamic Sharia as enshrined in the Qur’an and implemented by the Prophet Muhammad(saw)? His argument was that freedom was the basis for each and thereby opened his speech with the quote of J.S.Mill:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. (J.S.Mill On Liberty)

To highlight this common basis between the true Sharia and the International Charter of Human Rights, Jonathan took each of the salient articles of the charter, provided the Qur’anic verse which corresponded to the article, before providing an example from the life of the Prophet(saw) to demonstrate the manner in which this particular right was put into practise. This method of sequentially going through Human Rights Charter ended on the personal note that he himself was a convert to Ahmadiyyat- the True Islam, and that his journey to this truth required the investigation on his part. He ended on the exhortation that it is the job of each person to seek out the true Islam-the Islam as practised by the Prophet Muhammad(saw) and which could now only be found in the fold of the Promised Messiah(as).

The question and answer session that followed was intense to say the least, yet there were moments when the heavy clouds of discussion and debate were penetrated by a ray of humour. The questions lasted for approximately two hours. A resolution was, to some extent, reached-that the question of whether Sharia law negates human rights, depends principally on whether the Sharia that is being discussed is the abhorrent Sharia as practised by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan which is in direct conflict to the express statements of the Qur’an, or whether it is the timeless, matchless Sharia as implemented by the Holy Prophet of Islam(saw). Towards the end of the debate, Annemarie Waters accused Ayyaz and Jonathan of living in a “fantasy” and a “fluffy world” which bears no relation to the reality of Sharia today. She then said something along the lines that “(paraphrased) I would like to see how you (the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) would practise Sharia if given the opportunity”. The future of Ahmadiyyat-the True Islam, will bear witness that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will never willingly or consciously be a party to injustice in any sphere of human relations and is every day, by God’s Grace, re-establishing on Earth those inimitable blessings that vanished and had ascended to the Pleiades.

The debate was very well received by those present who appeared to, by and large, appreciate the peaceful and evidenced understanding of Sharia law outlined by the representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association. Some of those attending the lecture were particularly taken aback by the Ahmadi understanding of Sharia law and asked if they could be provided with some of the literature published on this subject by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association later on.

It is hoped that the event, in line with the wider objectives of AMYA, has encouraged healthy debate on a much misunderstood issue surrounding Islam and engendered a sense of co-operation and dialogue between the various communities and societies that make up Great Britain.

 Source: Muslims for Humanity


34 thoughts on “Shari’a Law Negates Human Rights Debate

  1. I will continue to pray and increase more then before for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Prophet Jesus (as). I only have to say to those atheist STOP making jokes with Allah and His Messengers. Allah created you and shell you will be returned to him. Allah can bring punishment for you and before you atheist like you who made jokes to other prophet they were punished by Allah too.May Allah defeat you in you’r mission and punish you. (Ameen)

  2. Already told you that the rape and witness question is answered in the sharia video – long ago (despite the fact that you produced no evidence to show that these acts are derived from the Qur’an and Sunna).

    Still no verse or hadith from you. No substance and just populist arguments. You have not been misquoted and all comments are on the same page for EVERYONE to see regardless. Some might admire how resolute you have been in avoiding substantive verses and hadiths – I do not.

    ”Preach to the choir” is a poor choice of words. If we denied just a few of our fundamental beliefs then we would be kings in the eyes of the mainstream Muslim world, but the Ahmadi conviction means that we seek to please God and not to appease man (unless for God’s sake), even to the cost of our own well being. If we were preaching to the choir then Ahmadis would not be systemically deprived of basic human rights, even the right to life in increasing cases, for more than 100 years. If our current stance is apologetic then it is a pretty rubbish attempt and we are not, all thanks belongs to God, stupid people.

    Substance = 0 (will you ever actually produce any)

  3. “They are illegal actions committed by Muslims for any number of reasons (e.g., politics, power, wealth, greed, land, etc.), but because of Islamic teachings.”

    And those teachings come from Muslim teachers, teaching the koran. Thank you for that clarification.

    Showing that you have misquoted me is enough for readers to see through your circular arguments. Victimology is totally and utterly irrelevant, and a smokescreen and anyone can see through that, if they have a mind to. You have totally ignored substantive questions by saying in effect that I should quote from the koran. You could say that comments on *’four male witnesses to rape’ are nonsense, and not part of Sharia, but instead you attack my ‘style’.

    You ascribed to me this sentiment
    “…every Muslim with an extremist view is killing people…”

    I asked you to *point to that statement and you have not, indulging instead in a reducto ad absurdam about WalMart and Euroguns.

    I do not ‘preach to the choir’ like you do, but that does not make me an extremist, like one who exhorts others to violence, or indulges in acts of terror. So your inability to differentiate between extremists and those who ask you questions, is your inability, not mine.

    A Merry Christmas to all.

    *P.S. Two questions, care to answer? Anyone?

  4. @Tim Bus

    I frankly do not know what your intention in coming here is.

    To quote you “But all the inspiration for barbarism is contained in the Koran.”

    That’s like saying that “But all the weapons for barbarism are found at Euroguns.”

    If you’re saying it, it can only mean that you are blaming Euroguns in some way or other. It doesn’t do any good to then specify that “So, the koran is blameless? Possibly. It’s just those bad imams and extremists distorting its true meaning.”

    Either you think the Qur’an is to blame (or even partially to blame) for barbarism, OR you believe it is blameless.

    If you think it’s to blame, then come out with the passages you think are food for barbarism.

    If you are of the opinion that there are no such passages inciting barbarism in it, then it makes no sense at all to say that it is a source of inspiration for barbarism. Barbarians could boast that the source of their strength is the food they buy at Walmart, but of what use would it be to declare that “All the food for barbarism is contained in Walmart”?

    In a word, you should stop beating about the bush and come clean with whatever it is that is bothering you about the Qur’an. Then we can discuss it with you. Just dropping gems of the type of “maybe the Qur’an is blameless and maybe it isn’t” will bring nothing to the debate. Extremists, rapists, murderers, thieves and all manner of criminals go to the same schools as good, decent people do. The fact that they grow into sick individuals whilst others grow into healthy, good individuals has nothing to do with the curriculum of the school, and has everything to do with the sickness already in their hearts.

    The very fact that you choose to call yourself SUB MIT, the wrong way round, and that your email logon is dhimmislam shows that you dislike Islam intensely, not to say hate it. So, come clean and discuss what you dislike about it, instead of going round and round with your intensely annoying “don’t misquote me” refrain. Sub Mit and dhimmislam are quite enough to reveal what kind of thoughts you have, so just speak your mind and enough of playing the “don’t misquote me” victim game already.

  5. Tim Bus on December 21, 2011 at 3:08 am
    theartofmisinformation on December 20, 2011 at 8:31 pm
    “Your statement:
    “Your statement that the Qur’an is full of barbarism reminds me of white Christians saying the Jews are all damned or hudreds of years later that the black man is inferior to the white man. I find your rhetoric both dangerous and brutally barbaric. I find it very hard to differentiate between tyour rhetoric and that of an extremist Muslim – quite telling.”

    “Your statement that the Qur’an is full of barbarism…”

    Is not the same as my [actual] statement:

    “But all the inspiration for barbarism is contained in the Koran.”

    Fundamentalists/terrorists/imams everywhere quote the Koran as their inspiration and source for what is [what they consider to be] the RIGHT and JUST and IMPERATIVE path.” [edited]

    Further, I do NOT include all imams, just those who are demonstrably shown to incite hatred or even violence, or are quoted by the terrorists by name, and are connected to an act or acts of violence. So, the koran is blameless? Possibly. It’s just those bad imams and extremists distorting its true meaning. Without it, there would be no shouts of ‘Allahu Akbar’ at so many of the attacks. I don’t believe Brevik or McVeigh shouted “MY God is greatest”, when they launched their attacks, so their religion is incidental, not their inspiration.

    @ handoftalha on December 22, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    You ascribed to me this sentiment
    “…every Muslim with an extremist view is killing people…”

    Please point out where I said that. Deliberately twisting my words, as the other example above, is dishonest and misleading, and demeaning to what you claim to stand for. Note that I don’t call you an extremist for calling me an extremist. Any reader with just a little common sense, and not blinded by feelings of superiority, can see the hollowness of your rhetoric. I have NEVER called for violence against anyone, let alone laying a finger on anyone, let alone being a murderer.

    Certainly some of the extremists do not kill people with their own hands. They locate vulnerable individuals (including at least one mentally challenged teen) and ‘train’ them to increase their hatred to the point of becoming a suicide bomber. Those who failed have stated that certain rewards were promised to them as an inducement. Remember also, that behind every suicide bomber their is a long chain of planners, fundraisers, recruiters, trainers, inspirers, target scouts, safe-houses, bomb manufacturers, logistic experts, and who knows what else. So the number of ‘really-bad’ extremists is much larger than the number of terrorists/suicide bombers.

    As far as I am aware, NONE of this applies to the Ahmadis. I don’t know if the MSM knows the differences between different parts of the ummah, whether they would inquire, whether they would care, or whether they would comment. But you persist in not answering cogent questions, and resort to attacking me instead.

  6. Again, you jump to an extreme whereby you assume that Omar was calling all non-Muslims, even all non-Ahmadi Muslims, diseased. Perhaps in the context of this discussion he meant that those ”Muslims” who add false notions and statements to the Qur’an and Sunnah in order to justify illegality are diseased? But, then again, optimism might be a tad too much to expect from you – that is, when Islam is concerned.

    The Prophet (saw) of Islam has no ideology of his own. He is an embodiment of the Qur’an and all that he believes in doctrinally and ideologically is taken from the Qur’an. It is, therefore, reasonable to argue that those acts perpetrated in the name of Islam which are not derived from the Qur’an are not Islamic by any definition. They are illegal actions committed by Muslims for any number of reasons (e.g., politics, power, wealth, greed, land, etc.), but because of Islamic teachings.

  7. @ Omar Anwar on December 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    “Stoning to death, murder for apostasy etc. Nowhere in the Qur’an you will find these punishments.”

    But you will find them in the real world, really dead people, C/O mohammed’s ideology.

    “…strengthen us so that the diseased may see the truth.”

    So anyone who doesn’t share YOUR world view is diseased? Very progressive, not to say charming. Your semantics, not mine. Doesn’t show Ahmadis in a very good light. How say you, brothers and sisters?

  8. Stoning to death, murder for apostasy etc. Nowhere in the Qur’an you will find these punishments. You will find them in the Bible and the Thora. Brothers and sisters, we have great work ahead of us to be done for the cause of Islam. May Allah (swt) strengthen us so that the diseased may see the truth. Amen.

  9. Correction: Instead of ideal Islamic state, what I really should have said is ideal secular state run by people following/mirroring the correct teachings of Islam.

  10. In an ideal Islamic state (thinking of the time when the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) was the leader of Medina) – A situation may arise whereby one party chooses, say, the Islamic law under which he/she prefers the case to be heard, while the other party would rather be treated under Jewish law. I imagine the verdict of innocent/guilty would be based on a fixed set of secular principles common and fair to both parties, while the compensation/punishment would be based on the religious law of the relevant party. Is this correct?

    If so, is it really JUSTICE for a defendant who is found guilty to get away with a possibly less-severe punishment than the plaintiff would have accepted had the plaintiff been guilty of the same crime? To clarify my point, I present the example of a Muslim accusing a Jew who is found guilty, and the Jew chooses the punishment of an eye for an eye. Some time later the same Jew accuses the same Muslim of the same crime, and this time the Muslim is found guilty, only to be handed a less/more severe punishment. That may be freedom, but is it justice?

  11. Maybe TIM BUS is willing to engage in a public debate like his friends Maryam and Anne-Marie, and put his arguments to actual scrutiny, rather than hiding behind semantics?

    Maybe…or maybe he prefers to remain anonymous and avoid actual accountability of having to support his assertions with facts.

    After all, Maryam and Anne-Marie didn’t let facts get in the way of a good story, why should Tim?

  12. @Tim Bus:
    First you were insinuating that the Qur’an is intrinsically evil, and the proof of that – in your eyes – is that extremists draw their inspiraton from it.
    I told you that even from Holy Scripture, the Devil can draw proof to back up his lies. It seems you didn’t quite understand the analogy.

    Anyway…moving on to your next tirade, how can you tell the difference between our citations and the Devil’s?

    1. We call to the Absolute, Indivisible Unity of God, whereas the Devil deceives you into believing that God is not really One Indivisible, and in fact contains several personae, or worse – he calls you to atheism.

    2. We call to love for all and hatred for none, whereas the Devil teaches you how to uphold harassment, war, racism, hatred and intolerance.

    3. We call to a wholesome life safe from the dangers of alcohol and drugs, whereas the Devil entices you to absorb these poisons with the false promise that it will be ok if taken in moderation.

    4. We call towards sharing our wealth with the poor and needy, whereas the Devil calls you to selfishness with the deceptive lie that “Had God wanted to help them out of poverty, He would have; it’s not your problem.”

    5. We call upon everyone to accept all prophets and messengers of God sent to all nations on earth by God, whereas the Devil tells you to accept some and reject others, or worse, to reject them all.

    6. We call all people to unite under One God and to do good deeds to one another in preparation for life after death where we will all be questioned, whereas the Devil tricks you into believing that only you shall have salvation and everyone else will go to Hell; or worse, that you should live your life selfishly because there IS no life after death.

    7. We call to harmony, truth and sincerity which give people real peace of mind, whereas the Devil calls to mockery and vile attacks on other people’s beliefs to cause them suffering and mental anguish.

    The differences between our citations and the Devil’s are so numerous, that only a soul blinded by evil could say that he can see no difference in his and our citations.

  13. Salam Admin.

    Can we set up a page per topic that Tim has suggested (or whatever is most appropriate) so that we can present the Ahmadiyya view on each of them. Tim can then respond and we can continue the debate.

    Tim – I think you’ll find with Ahmadis we are not afraid to tackle issues head on and are proud of our beliefs. More than willing to discuss them.

  14. Extremist Muslims, the minority that they are, take great pride in always looking emphasising extremes when they discuss anyone who does not conform to their way of thinking. Similarly, you have, on various occasions, drawn extreme conclusions about Islam when you could have adopted a more middle ground. Your Qur’anic inspiration, Banu Qurayza, Somali Pirates, etc., comments illustrating this. Such extremist views are what lead to acts which remove the basic rights and freedoms of others.

    Again, I won’t let you dictate the debate so as to avoid the real and meaningful issues. I said it was difficult to distinguish your mentality from that of an extremist. Your reply was to the extreme by assuming that every Muslim with an extremist view is killing people while that is not true. Stick to the subject and don’t deviate please. Yet again, semantics accompanied by no substance.

    I will not discuss anything further with you unless you actually put forward a substantive argument and stop making populist generalisations which are of no value to the discussion.

    Lastly, your argument regarding terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda and the Qur’an being an inspiration for them is a completely erroneous one. The Qur’an is both a text for the ordinary man and a text for the jurists – in that laws, legal procedure, legal maxims, and punishments can be extracted from the Qur’an. Just as with any civilized people, Muslims/Islam does not advocate that the layman can extract, verify, interpret and apply laws from the Qur’an and Sunnah which relate to criminal and civil matters. The Muslim jurist, or faqih, must study Islamic law and its related subjects for up to ten years before he is even allowed to approach this subject. It is universally accepted, by almost all Muslims, that the individuals who interpret the Islamic sources for al-Qaeda are not qualified to do so. The people who are qualified to interpret Islamic law, however, have, with next to no exception, issued edicts against al-Qaeda and its actions. These groups are political in nature and have little to do with the Qur’an or Sunnah.

  15. @peace4everynation on December 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm said:

    “@Tim Bus
    Surely you’ve heard of
    “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.””

    Indeed. That’s one thing we agree on.
    So how do I differentiate between your citations and the Devil’s?

    If you note, I asked some Ahmadi to correct where I was in error in what I quoted as perceived Sharia, and thus far, nothing has emerged. Instead, theartofmisinformation focuses on her inability to differentiate/distinguish between me and extremist muslims.

    Is it extremism to ask for answers, or to call for the blood of others, or worse, to kill thousands in the name of your ideology?

  16. I will be surprised if his or her name is Tim, the screen name is just an acronym of “submit”, a common term used by Islamophobes. For me, that in itself is the proof that he/she has not come here to have a meaningful debate. It also exposes the prejudicial nature of his/her arguments. Ever since he/she has been criticising Islam on this blog, I have noticed that the arguments are based conjecture, assumptions ( some of them silly) and in any case without any foundation. If his/her plan is to just attack Islam while conveniently hiding behind the pardah ( pardon the pun) of Internet, which appears to be the case judging by his/her posts so far, our brothers and sisters are doing a fantastic job providing answers based on logic and facts. All he/she ends up doing is trying to spread hate, but without success here. If his/her intention is to hold a meaningful debate here then I would expect him/her to tell us what he/she thinks is the right philosophy to follow or he/she follows, until that point I would personally take it as an attempt to create disorder here. Oh and I don’t think the punishment should be death ( from this forum at least) , although that could be his/her next argument based on the twisted and out of context quoting of sharia

    Peace be on all.

  17. Tim,
    I think before a detailed discussion takes place on the Ahmadiyya viewpoints, you (and us) should firstly try to understand and accept that just because you have a particular idea of what is right, it does not mean it is the correct position but be open to ideas and willing to listen and empathise with an opposing view. Until we are willing to try to understand the context with which certain principles stand we will not be able to have a worthwhile discussion. Ahmadis should take a similar stance and eventually we may be able to understand each other even if we disagree. We can all live together in the same society although there may be major difference in opinion and it all boils down to respect for each other as people, each others views and cultures etc.

    Furthermore we should be willing to give credit where it’s due and not hide behind our ego in case the opposing argument goes against either you or us.

    I hope you understand what I’m trying to get at and that we can have a solid discussion that helps lead to greater understanding without creating divisions between us but brings us closer. That is the aim of the Ahmadiyya Community and I believe that if we stick to basic principles similar to the above then perhaps we can get there.

  18. “The organisers did not go ahead with the vote.”

    Thank you for that information. I certainly think that a vote would prove only one thing – the proportions of Ahmadis and Atheists. I cannot imagine either side yielding one vote to the other.

    “You have, however, outdone yourself with the ”inspiration comment.””

    I gave that some thought and the word ‘justification’ also came to mind. And what I and you think is immaterial; what the ‘actors’ believe and do, at least as filtered by the MSM, drives public opinion. The fact that there is an al-Awlaki figure behind a Major Hassan as a religious source and ‘conduit’ (?) to the intent of the Koran, is a justification and an inspiration to the terrorist.

    “I find it very hard to differentiate between tyour rhetoric and that of an extremist Muslim – quite telling.”
    “Again, I am still struggling to distinguish between you and extremist Muslims.”

    Would you please give examples of extremist muslims, by name and act?

    You discredit your community by your extreme characterization of my rhetoric and person.
    Where have I propounded anything extreme? Please quote me. Everyone can see that you have mostly not answered substantive remarks (which is why I thanked you for the ‘vote’ reply), but attacked semantics. If you are indeed struggling to distinguish between me and mass murderers of New York, Bali, Madrid etc. then the problem is with you, and it’s quite telling.

    But back to substantives, will you answer this paragraph on behalf of Ahmadis?
    “…when apostates can be killed, women receive half the inheritance of men and have half their voice in court, when dhimmis cannot testify against Mohammedans, when rape victims are punished but not the rapists, when homosexuals are hung…”
    I already indicated that your position might be different from the majority, that none of those remarks apply to you, but you chose to not address that point. If ALL Ahmadis receive equal inheritance, have the same voice in court, non-muslims may testify against muslims with equal voice, rapists are jailed without the necessity for four MALE witnesses, homosexuals are not put to death, then you do not practice the Sharia as it appears to be practiced in many muslim countries.

    Can you indicate what Ahmadi declaration or charter documents your alternative approach to those parts of Sharia which abrogate the UDHR?
    Or is this all a moot point? In what city/state does Ahmadi law apply?

  19. @Tim Bus
    Surely you’ve heard of
    “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
    That does not make the Scripture evil per se. It would be ridiculous to dismiss the Scripture just because the devil seeks justification for his crimes in it.
    Or, as they say:
    “Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

  20. The organisers did not go ahead with the vote. Your defense is semantics and not reasonable by any standard. The Syria comment is a populist response which fits your trend to date. The Tory Government is Christianity, the Democrats are Christianity, the Knesset is Judaism.

    You have, however, outdone yourself with the ”inspiration comment.” Rather than actually engage with the text of the Qur’an and qualify your opinion, you can simply infer that even if we were to prove that the Qur’an contains good, it is still an ”inspiration for barbarism.”

    Are you going to post anything which contains factual and evidenced substance or will you simply continue using clever language which is flawed at its very core? Again, I am still struggling to distinguish between you and extremist Muslims.

  21. You devolve the conversation when you deliberately misquote me, and I cannot allow you to get away with that. By your thin and populist logic I am damned! Your statement:

    “Your statement that the Qur’an is full of barbarism…”

    Is not the same as my statement:

    “But all the inspiration for barbarism is contained in the Koran.”

    Fundamentalists/terrorists/imams everywhere quote the Koran as their
    inspiration and source for what is the RIGHT and JUST and IMPERATIVE path.
    The ‘moderate’ Muslim leader Erdogan stated categorically that there is only ONE Islam. That must be the Islam which has killed about 5,000 Muslims in Syria.

    But what of the vote? Can anyone tell me what the vote was for/against the motion? And was any part of the proceedings not recorded, either on audio or video?

    Thank you.

  22. Not to mention Chairman Mao – an atheist – who massacred approx. 65 million people.

    Tim, if you want to see where our peaceful interpretation of Shari’ah which espouses human rights and freedoms is practised in the world, then go no further than the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community itself. You will be surprised to find out that 100% of our community worldwide follows our interpretation of Shari’ah in action.

    So yes, no death for apostasy (my great-great grandfather was stoned to death for becoming an Ahmadi Muslim, so I don’t know anyone better to explain how heinous I believe it is, and that according to Islam too), no child marriage, no wife-beating, the list of “No’s” goes on…

    If only you choose to investigate. Our philosophy is of course, “Love for All, Hatred for None”.

    You also conveniently ignore the fact that the real Shari’ah giving human rights and freedoms to all people regardless of face or race was implemented in governments for over 700 years in medieval Islamic Spain, al-Andalus. In that civilization, Hindus, Christians, and Jews would all peacefully cohabit Spain and contribute to society. Buddhists were prevalent in the Persian empire as well; so much so that the renowned poet Rumi wrote a poem about an Iranian Buddhist. Zoroastrians were also widespread.

    You also ignore the fact that the Shari’ah was implemented in the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in a way that it was peace, freedom, human rights, and absolute justice and kinship.

    Don’t believe me? Then why did the Prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) make a treaty with his contemporary Jews and Christians in which he safeguarded the rights of those 2 parties and made the Muslims understand that the priests and rabbis must be shown respect. The treaty was so filled with the concept of absolute kinship that Seyyidina Muhammad (sa) went as far as to say that Muslims must help Christians build their churches and Jews their synagogues.

    This is the same principle given in the Qur’an itself, by God Almighty:

    “Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah’ — And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty” (22:41)

    I invite you to objectively study Islam as interpreted in belief AND practise, by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the revival of Islam in the latter days.

    And with that, I send you the greeting proposed by the Qur’an and Prophet (sa):

    PEACE be upon you! 🙂

  23. I think the problem that many of the anti-Sharia brigade have is that they do not understand how Sharia is meant to be derived and therefore they can’t understand our citing the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith as evidence that refutes their beliefs about Sharia. They present themselves as very rational and modern people, but they seem to throw all that out the window when their emotions and ego takes over…because they can’t ever be wrong about something they lack knowledge about right? It’s unbelievable really that we can’t have a logical discussion with such people…and I thought the extremist Muslims we face were bad. Can’t really see a difference in attitude. It’s sad really. We Ahmadi Muslims have a lot of work to do to get the message of Peace out there because people just can’t accept such a truth it seems.

  24. Assalamu Alaikum!
    The long awaited video! I sat and watched every second of it. Jazakallah to the MTA team for such an excellent production.

    I think the debate can be summed up in one scene. Maryam asks something along the lines of “Can stoning be proved from the Hadith?”
    Brother Ayyaz replies, “No.”
    Maryam looks lost gets a bit hot under the collar and can only reply with, “but but, how old was Aisha when she married the Prophet?” which was totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    Maryam and her colleague were quick to point out that the manner in which Shari’a law is practiced today by some countries is totally wrong and I can agree with that. However to say it is the fault of Islam and not explain why so is just nonsensical. In the whole debate only 1 verse of the Holy Qur’an was discussed and the rest was just emotional arguments that didn’t back up their points but only what brother Jonathon explained the Prophet (saw) had already prophesised.
    The point raised by one of the ladies in the audience regarding whether the actions of a group of people is truly representative of their faith or whether one should go to the source and judge on that was one I think Maryam quickly brushed aside. It was a highly pertinent point and I can already see it being discussed above. Maryam described such people as “what-about-ers”, but I think the way she had planned her argument did not accommodate such a point as it was a direct attack on it. In regards to this I remember reading a quote somewhere which goes along the lines of “Religion only seems flawed because those that practice it are flawed. People like you and me, we are not perfect.”

    Brother Jonathon summed it up rather nicely when he ever so lovingly said that religion doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon, especially Islam which is rapidly growing and so there is no point closing your eyes like a child and hoping the whole problem just vanishes, because that isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

    Once again, Jazakallah for sharing this. May Allah reward both the panel members who were defending the honour of the Holy Prophet (saw) and this beautiful faith, and I also pray for the two ladies too that may Allah guide.


  25. By your thin and populist logic we would all be damned! The actions of Somalian pirates mean that Islam and its founder are barbaric according to you. So therefore the killing of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Japan, etc., by Christian nations and peoples should also determine that Christianity and its founder are barbaric? Likewise, the killing of Jews by Hitler and Russians by Stalin should determine that Atheists are barbaric? I guess I could keep going all night long and the conclusion is, by your logic, that all systems of belief / non-belief and their founders are barbaric. Again, to carry any weight you have to evolve the discussion and present reasoned and evidenced arguments.

    Your statement that the Qur’an is full of barbarism reminds me of white Christians saying the Jews are all damned or hudreds of years later that the black man is inferior to the white man. I find your rhetoric both dangerous and brutally barbaric. I find it very hard to differentiate between tyour rhetoric and that of an extremist Muslim – quite telling.

  26. “But if someone can unequivocally state that NONE of those abrogations of the UDHR are practiced by the Ahmadiya, then that is a totally different picture.”

    Would you care to answer that statement, on behalf of Ahmadiyyat?

    So if I offer an example like Pym Fortuyn or Vincent van Goch, or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie or others, what is your reply?

    “If it is your intention to argue that Islam is a barbaric religion then do so with evidence or not at all.”

    If it were barbaric, there would only be one left, and then he would die.
    But all the inspiration for barbarism is contained in the Koran. True Muslims are those who follow that faithfully: spread Islam over the whole earth: convert, dhimmi or die. The Barbary Pirates – creators of the US Marines – were Muslims, practicing their religion. Barbaric acts, in the name of Islam, happen on a daily basis.

  27. You devolve the conversation when you put forward the ”anecdotal” argument and I cannot allow you to get away with that. Do not try to absolve yourself from having to offer evidenced arguments by, in effect, saying: there is no point in evidence because you guys will not accept it. Burden of proof is one of the most essential elements of every legal system in the world. Therefore, to make sweeping statements about apostates being killed under Shari’a law is of no real value to anyone – except, I would argue, those people who have already made their mind up about Islam and shout loudly ”here, here” whenever anything negative is spouted about Islam, regardless of truth or falsehood. If it is your intention to argue that Islam is a barbaric religion then do so with evidence or not at all.

  28. Hudur Aqdas (ayyadahu Allah ta’ala bi-nasrihi al-’aziz) in his Friday Sermon on December 16th 2011 speaking on the topic of Holy Quran: the source of guidance and salvation, said,

    Here [in UK], two women are renowned to raise excessive objections against Islamic laws in their lectures. Through the efforts of Khuddamul Ahmadiyya UK a debate was held with them at UCL (University College London). The debate was organised by the university. The two ladies, as is their way, presented excessive objections against Islam at the debate. Two of our Khuddam, a student of Jamia who is of Pakistani origin and the other a new convert of English origin responded to them in a positive and reasoned way in light of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an which is the true teaching of Islam. It is understood that this left them indignant and even their supporters expressed regret at their excessive objections. Thus the teachings of Islam were triumphant through young Ahmadi men. (Summary translation from

  29. What was the vote on the motion? I don’t see that mentioned.
    And if the whole process took 80 minutes plus two hours questions, close to 3.5 hours with introductions, what has been excluded from this video?

    “…implantation of Sharia law…”

    A most interesting Freudian slip, considering first the implantation of foreign laws into the UK, and then their implementation.

    “She alleged throughout her talk that Islam pronounces stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, death for homosexuality, as well as a host of other barbaric punishments.”

    Whether she quoted 1,000 or 1,000,000 instances, those who don’t agree, will call that anecdotal. The ‘peaceful’ ones will call those the actions of extremists or fundamentalists, while the fundamentalists will say ‘so what’ this is Islam, you deserved it.
    She said Islam, and not Sharia? But Islam without Sharia would not be Islam; and without Islam there would be no Sharia.

    “…common basis between the true Sharia and the International Charter of Human Rights…”

    The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is an alternative document to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the OIC objects, that says people have “freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Sharia, without any discrimination on grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations”. Freedom in accordance with Sharia is a paradox, when apostates can be killed, women receive half the inheritance of men and have half their voice in court, when dhimmis cannot testify against Mohammedans, when rape victims are punished but not the rapists, when homosexuals are hung… But if someone can unequivocally state that NONE of those abrogations of the UDHR are practiced by the Ahmadiya, then that is a totally different picture. If and when there is an independent Ahmadi state, they can sign the UDHR, without a problem.

    “…Ahmadiyyat- the True Islam…”

    Ah, isn’t every religion the true religion? I can see that raising the hackles of the majority, just as Mohammed did in the 7th century.

Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s