India Takes a Stand: Banning Sharia While Europe Surrenders to Islamic Law

by Uzay Bulut, originally published at Gatestone Institute, reposted with permission

Incorporating Sharia Law into European Legal Systems” vs A State in India Bans Sharia

• Lawmakers in an Indian state… have approved landmark legislation to… [ban] discrimination against women based on Islamic sharia law… personal laws that would be common for all citizens, regardless of religion.
• Replacing sharia law with a universal civil code across all of India would vastly ensure more rights for women and children and secure gender equality, and would be most welcome in other nations on the grounds of humanitarian fairness.
• “By 2030, there will be 60 million Muslims living in Europe. We are witnessing the process of the Islamisation of Europe, including Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden…. Mosques financed by Islamic countries are the backdrop for Muslims’ lives in Europe… Koranic schools are financed mainly by the rich Gulf states.” — Elżbieta Kruk, Member of the European Parliament, July 7, 2020.
• Three choices are offered to non-Muslims: conversion to Islam, sword or dhimmitude, an inferior status in which non-Muslims are allowed to survive as long as they pay tribute…. Western nations must choose a fourth path: freedom. And this new choice would require more courage, resolve and strength as opposed to appeasement and surrender.

Lawmakers in an Indian state ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have approved landmark legislation to unify personal laws across religions, a move that bans discrimination against women based on Islamic sharia law.

Approval by the State of Uttarakhand makes it the first in the country since independence from Britain in 1947 to pass a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The bill provides uniformity in personal laws regarding inheritance, marriage, divorce and adoption, amongst others, across various communities in Uttarakhand. The new bill mandates a set of personal laws that would be common for all citizens, regardless of religion.

According to India Today:

“The Uttarakhand UCC bill makes it mandatory to register live-in relationships and puts a complete ban on polygamy and child marriage. It also recommends a common marriageable age for girls across all faiths and similar procedures for divorce.”

India, a secular democracy with a majority Hindu population, also hosts a population of more than 200 million Muslims. It is the world’s third-largest “Muslim country.”

While Muslims in India are allowed to follow sharia law in matters such as family or inheritance, India’s central government could end this by adopting a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India, on a national scale.

Sharia law in Islam is, sadly, not favorable to women, their status, or rights. Under sharia law, Muslim men are allowed to marry up to four wives and have been granted the upper hand when it comes to supremacy in the home, divorce, and spousal and child support.

In addition, while the legal age of marriage in India is 21 for men and 18 for women, sharia law in the country states that those who have attained puberty are eligible to be married.

Replacing sharia law with a universal civil code across all of India would vastly ensure more rights for women and children and secure gender equality, and would be most welcome in other nations on the grounds of humanitarian fairness.

Reuters reported on February 7:

“‘The Uniform Civil Code will give the right to equality to everyone without any discrimination. … We must make history by clearing it,’ said Pushkar Singh Dhami, the [Uttarakhand] state’s chief minister, just before BJP lawmakers and some others voted in favor of the bill.

“Rooted in the framework of the Indian Constitution, the code puts an end to religious interpretation of laws guiding marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession.

“Dhami said it ‘provides security to women and empowers them.’

“The code sets a minimum marriageable age for both genders. It guarantees equal rights to men and women on issues pertaining to divorce, share in ancestral property and offers rights to adopted children, those born out of wedlock or were conceived through surrogate births.

“A legal expert working on the UCC bill in Uttarakhand said Islam’s Sharia laws permits polygamy and has no stringent rules to prohibit marriage of minors.”

Although America’s First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” in fact, Utah was not able to become a state in 1896 until, in Congress’s Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, it had banned polygamy. The passing of this landmark civil code in the Indian state of Uttarakhand sets a crucial example for the West, which increasingly appears caught between universal rights for everyone or the right to restrict universal rights in favor of religious rights.

Sharia courts, or councils, have been established in many countries in the West, such as Canada. In 2004, Margaret Wente, writing for the Globe and Mail, reported:

“The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. The arbitrations will deal with such matters as property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren’t supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.”

Under sharia, if women do not do what the men in their family tell them – regarding, for instance, “dressing too Western,” undergoing genital mutilation, where, how and with whom they can spend their leisure time, or being in the unsupervised company of an unrelated man — the consequences can be severe, from being beaten to being killed. Some women, notes the author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “not only comply with those rules but … also enforce them.”

Where, one wonders, are the women in the West, the self-described “feminists,” to help protect these women, or even to even to speak out against such abuse? Instead, many claim that they “choose” to wear a hijab; that it is “empowering.” In Iran, however, women are being imprisoned, raped, tortured and killed, for “choosing” not to wear a hijab.

What happens if a Muslim woman “chooses” not to, such as the BBC journalist Bella Hassan — in London?:

“I no longer feel accepted in my own community and I no longer feel that I am safe…. After I took off my hijab, I started getting death and rape threats from men. They were criticising me, slut shaming me – men I didn’t know…. There is no specific punishment for women who don’t wear the hijab. It says in the Quran that God will deal with them, but Muslim men from my country decided to deal with me, instead of God.”

Sharia law is creeping into Europe through Islamist parties and organizations, accompanied by the problem that some of the extremely religiously observant would reportedly like to “impose sharia” on everyone. In 2013, more than a decade ago, Mara Bizzotto, a member of the European Parliament, informed the European Commission that:

“In Spain, Norway, Sweden and Finland, Islamist parties whose manifestoes revolve around the ultimate goal of incorporating sharia law into European legal systems, are growing increasingly stronger. In the most recent local elections held in the Belgian capital Brussels, two members of an Islamist movement who have publicly stated that they want to do all they can to impose sharia in Belgium within the next 20 years, were elected as town councillors in the municipalities of Molenbeek and Anderlecht.

“In an interview, the newly elected town councillors said, in reference to imposing sharia, that it was still too soon as society was not ready and that they would have to cut too many people’s hands off. They also propose banning mixed-sex working environments and reintroducing the death penalty.”

Britain seems to be one of the most striking instances. Sharia councils – also known as Sharia courts – have existed in the UK since the early 1980s. The Islamic Sharia Council, based in Leyton, East London, was established in 1982.

“These organizations are accused of operating a parallel legal system in the UK,” reported Susanna Lukacs, a researcher, in 2023.

“While their rulings have no legal validity, they have a decision-making capacity. Currently, there is no reliable statistic on the number of sharia councils in England and Wales, estimates vary between 80-85 and they are growing in number.”

According to a 2019 report by David Torrance, an expert on constitutional law at the House of Commons Library:

On 22 January 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe agreed the text of Resolution 2253: Sharia, the Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights. Paragraph 8 states that the Assembly is:

“‘concerned about the ‘judicial’ activities of ‘Sharia councils’ in the United Kingdom. Although they are not considered part of the British legal system, Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept the irreligious jurisdiction mainly in marital and Islamic divorce issues, but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts. The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases. The Assembly is aware that informal Islamic Courts may exist in other Council of Europe member States too.'”

Sharia is Islamic law. It is based on the sunnah — the “path” or way of life of Islam’s prophet Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith (the sayings and deeds of Muhammad, passed down orally and written roughly 200 years after his death). It is an organized body of rules derived from various Quranic verses and historical narrations.

According to sharia, leaving or criticizing Islam is punishable by death. Jihad (warfare in the service of Islam) is a communal obligation; homosexuals must be killed; a husband is allowed to beat his wife to discipline her; a woman is not allowed to marry or get a divorce on her own free will; non-Muslims have to pay a special “poll” tax (the jizya) to Muslim authorities; marrying children at the age of puberty is permitted and, the sexual slavery of non-Muslim women is condoned.

The website “thereligionofpeace.com” summarizes what sharia law entails according to Islamic scriptures by referencing the classic manual, Reliance of the Traveller, considered one of the soundest translations of Islamic law:

“Sharia is explicitly opposed to religious freedom, freedom of conscience and the free exchange of ideas. It is violent, openly bigoted toward non-Muslims, discriminatory, and unflinchingly sexist. Large sections deal with the practice of slavery. None of this changes by affixing a ‘phobia’ label or otherwise insulting detractors.”

The website quotes from “the classic manual, Reliance of the Traveller, considered one of the soundest translations of Islamic law”:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad… is such Koranic verses as:

-1- “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2: 216);
-2- “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4: 89);
-3- “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9: 36)…

According to the (Koran 9: 29):

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day… (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Sharia has strict rules discriminating against women. According to thereligionofpeace.com, citing Reliance of the Traveller:

“A woman may not ‘conduct her own marriage’, meaning that she is not free to marry by choice. A male guardian is required to validate the marriage agreement.

“A woman is not free to choose her guardian. It is assigned by family relation. Once she is married, she becomes the charge of her husband’s guardianship.

“A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man (Quran 2:221).

“An untranslated portion of the Sharia even forbids an Arab woman from marrying a non-Arab man.

“A woman has no right to custody of her children from a previous marriage when she remarries.

“It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when he asks her… and she can physically endure it.

“It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband.

“When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife, he warns her in words. If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow.

“The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

‘Divide the universal share so the male receives the portion of two females (Rule of inheritance based on the Quran 4:11)

“It is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled.”

The website cites Reliance of the Traveller on Sharia law rules regarding non-Muslims:

“The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

“It is not permissible to give zakat [almsgiving] to a non-Muslim.

“It is offensive to use the vessels [dishes] of non-Muslims or wear their clothes.

“A non-Muslim may not touch the Quran.

“Non-Muslims are not allowed to ‘mix’ with Muslims at certain events.

“It is permissible for a Muslim to visit a non-Muslim who is ill, but not recommended. (Same with visiting the grave of a non-Muslim relative.)

“A non-Muslim may not inherit from a Muslim. (or vice versa)

“There is no penalty for a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim.

“Non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state may live free from harm if they:

– pay a special ‘poll’ tax (the jizya)
– comply with certain Islamic rules, specifically the penalty for adultery (stoning) and theft (amputation)
– distinguish themselves from Muslims by dressing differently
– keep to the side of the side of the street when Muslims pass
– accept a lesser form of greeting
– agree not to build new churches or ring church bells
– do not build houses higher than those of Muslims

“The agreement is broken if the non-Muslim breaks the rules, fails to pay the poll tax, ‘leads a Muslim away from Islam’, ‘mentions something impermissible’ about Islam, or marries or has sex with a Muslim woman. If this happens, then the non-Muslim is treated as a prisoner and may be lynched — provided they do not first ‘convert’ to Islam before the sentence is rendered.”

Last year, in Cameroon, for example, 30 fishermen were kidnapped and 10 others murdered for refusing to pay their “taxes” (jizya).

According to thereligionofpeace.com, citing Reliance of the Traveller, the rules of Sharia law regarding art and music include:

“Musical instruments are condemned.

“One should know that singing or listening to singing is offensive (with the exception of songs that encourage piety).

“Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him for each picture he made, to torment him in hell

“Pictures imitate the creative act of Allah (when they are of animate beings).

“It is unlawful to decorate walls with pictures (generally interpreted as pictures of animate beings).”

In 2020, Elżbieta Kruk, a Member of the European Parliament from the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, presented a written question to the European Commission. She said:

“By 2030, there will be 60 million Muslims living in Europe. We are witnessing the process of the Islamisation of Europe, including Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. Muslims are living in closed communities, mainly in the suburbs of cities, which are de facto not subject to the law of the land. In these communities, Sharia law applies and families living there pay Islamic taxes in accordance with Sharia law.

“According to a report by France’s Directorate-General for Internal Security (DGSI), commissioned by former French Minister of the Interior Christophe Castaner, as many as 150 urban districts are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists. In France, the police have virtually no access to these districts, and they must be protected by the French Army if they wish to enter ‘no go’ zones.

“Mosques financed by Islamic countries are the backdrop for Muslims’ lives in Europe. In Muslim-controlled districts and micro-territories there is discrimination against girls in public schools, and children and young people are subjected to Islamic indoctrination. Koranic schools are financed mainly by the rich Gulf states.

“1. What steps is the Commission taking to better integrate Muslim communities?

“2. What steps is the Commission taking to combat discrimination against Muslim women and girls in Europe?

“3. What measures will the Commission propose to reduce the phenomenon of Islamic radicalisation inside Europe, which takes place under the guise of religious education?”

Effective measures the European Commission could implement include banning sharia courts or councils across Europe, strictly monitoring mosques and Islamic schools, banning any foreign funding to Islamist organizations, banning the foreign funding of mosques and schools, and deporting radical Muslims who call for jihad or sharia law.

As recent marches across Europe in support of the terrorist group Hamas have made clear, Europe is facing a serious, intermittently violent, jihad. The surge of migrants can also be understood not just as hope for a better economic opportunity, also as “emigration for the sake of Allah.”

India shows the West an alternative path: to protect the rights of everyone, especially women and children, and to ensure the human rights of liberty and freedom for everyone.

As Bat Ye’or, the author of eight books on the history of Islam and dhimmitude, six of which are available in English, said in an interview:

“Every European is aware of Europe’s transformation under the pressure of massive Muslim immigration. Some Muslims are perfectly integrated and oppose the Islamization of European school teaching, culture, law, society. No European or American well integrated in its Western and Judeo-Christian culture could possibly welcome its replacement by a Koranic shariah society, imposing its religious conception of history which affirms that jihad is just and resistance to jihad is aggression. Nor could he accept the discriminated condition of the women, the denial of the equality of human beings, and the restrictions on knowledge.”

As the increasing number of Islamists in the West demonstrates, the future of Western civilization is threatened by Islamization. The Islamic ideology of conquest demands that a land, once conquered for Islam, belongs in perpetuity to Muslims. Three choices are offered to non-Muslims: conversion to Islam, sword or dhimmitude, an inferior status in which non-Muslims are allowed to survive as long as they pay tribute.

All these options are against human dignity. Western nations must choose a fourth path: freedom. And this new choice would require more courage, resolve and strength as opposed to appeasement and surrender.

Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.