Few UK voters realise the UK’s current legal system and democracy could easily be replaced by Sharia Law as soon as 2040; naively assuming that, contrary to the title’s implication, Sharia Law, has nothing to do with non-Muslims.


Immigration and far higher birth rates among the UK Muslim population as compared with the rest of the UK caused the Muslim population to increase from the 2001 Census 2.71%, by 1.63 times, to 4.41% in 2011. Demographic experts expected this trend to continue, so that Muslims would constitute 50% of the UK population by 2061, but, now, due to continued mass immigration, Muslims could predominate as early as 2040. Polls in Muslim countries show over 75% support state law being based on Sharia Law, so why should this change when they migrate to the UK?


Even, as UKIP proposed, outlawing Sharia Law and specific aspects of it such as wearing the Burka in public and FGM would not prevent a democratically elected majority of Muslim MP’s enacting a Manifesto pledge to substitute the current UK legal system, based on Western values mostly derived from the Judeo/Christian traditions, with Sharia Law; turning the UK into a truly Muslim State.


Muslim extremist terrorists and 23K+ UK Jihadists wouldn’t be required – other than to police Sharia Law. Making the non-terrorist, seemingly more moderate Muslims look comparatively respectable; the Muslim terrorists’ atrocities distract us from this peaceful invasion and take-over by stealth.


To fully assess whether the imposition of Sharia Law would be a problem or not, we need to examine both what is set out in the Koran and its other sources, as well as Sharia Law based Islamic States regimes. The latter is particularly important as “actions speak louder than words” and as Sharia Law specifically promotes “Taqiyya” – the practice of being allowed to lie to defend and/or advance Islam (Koran 16:106 and 3:28) – we cannot rely on the veracity of any interpretation.


A 2011 UNICEF report concluded that Sharia Law provisions are discriminatory against women from a human rights perspective, highlighting that in legal proceedings under Sharia Law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s before a (Sharia) court. This is against the fundamental principle of UK law that all individuals are equal before the law, and also against anti-discrimination provisions especially on grounds of gender. Why are establishment feminists silent about the serious and ongoing misogynistic practices derived from Sharia law?


Further medieval and abhorrent examples of Sharia Law provisions concerning women are:

• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (Muhammad‘s words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A girl or woman who has been raрed cannot testify in court against her raрist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove the raрe of a girl or woman, failing which a girl or woman who alleges raрe is guilty of adultery – punishable by stoning.
• A man convicted of raрe can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car.
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.


Muslim countries recognise that Islam and Christianity are incompatible and so they outlaw Christianity. The Wikipedia article ‘Christianity in Saudi Arabia’ states: “The Saudi Arabian Mutaween, (the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice – religious police) prohibits any religion other than Islam. Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death.”


In Pakistan, online comments by Christians have been interpreted as blasphemy even though not being Muslims they should therefore not be subject to Sharia Law. UK Imams interviewed by the BBC following the recent murder of a Pakistani student for alleged blasphemy, did not object to death sentences, saying: “That’s up to the [Sharia] Judge”, but only to the manner of the murder. No wonder the practice of so-called honour-killings continues, even in the UK.


In 1998 the Constitutional Court of Turkey banned and dissolved Turkey’s Refah Party which sought to introduce Sharia Law on the basis that “Democracy is the antithesis of Sharia” – a ruling upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. If this and Sharia Law practices are of no concern in the UK, then we can ‘live and let live’ and thereby allow the Muslim take-over and inevitable imposition of Sharia Law. Otherwise, we need to work out policies to stop the otherwise inevitable. The longer this issue is left unaddressed, then like the North Korea military situation, the larger it will become with potentially commensurate increased difficulty in eventually dealing with it.


When conducting performances of Karl Jenkins’ ‘The Armed Man: a mass for piece’ I have included the sometimes omitted ‘The Call to Prayers’ movement and organised an Imam to sing it – and will do the same again next time I conduct the work. I am not against Muslims as people at all, but I do not want UK law and democracy replaced by Sharia Law.


As I have written elsewhere, in order to engage the majority of the population in this issue, UKIP needs a comprehensive set of imaginative and practical solutions to everyday issues upon which the majority of the electorate vote, as otherwise if the UKIP messenger gets metaphorically shot, then the whole message dies too.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email