Naz Shah. A Labour luvvie.
Lovely Naz has recently castigated attempts to conduct an inquiry into Sharia courts in the UK. More specifically, she denounces such attempts as, wait for it, ‘Islamophobic’.
Sharia law is Islamic law. As a religious law, it governs the actions and behaviour of those who subscribe to the Islamic faith. It is derived from a range of teachings pertinent to Islam, principally the Qu’ran and the Hadith.
As can be expected from a system of laws derived from religious texts written centuries ago, Sharia mandates the use of severe punishment (e.g., death, torture) for homosexuality, adultery and apostasy (i.e., unbelief in Islam). It is easy to see how all this might clash somewhat with Western values. Y’know, those values that facilitate unbridled prosperity, innovation and creativity – liberty and freedom of expression.
I support Naz’s right to believe that Sharia law has a place in the UK. What is more troubling for me however is that she is a politician who is actively taking steps to secure its existence in the UK. This is where the game changes.
In her interview with BBC Radio 4, Shah stated that Sharia law in the UK is simply a complementary ‘code of conduct’ and that there is only one rule of law, that of the British courts. She also stated that:
‘Sharia councils sometimes are last resorts, where people have lost legal aid, we’ve had austerity kicking in and the courts don’t want to deal with small disputes.’
The influence of government policy to impose an imported worldview (i.e., a system of laws) on a population whose beliefs and values are antithetical to that worldview is destructive, provocative and clear in its intent to subjugate. Calling this worldview a ‘code of conduct’ is mere fluff. More importantly, such an attempt is also likely to fail or come up against resistance.
There are a number of facets to this argument, but two will suffice here. The first is the undeniable reality that the existence of two systems of law operating in any one jurisdiction violates the principle upon which Western civilisation has made it this far; the rule of law. The second is that using political office to embed what is essentially an imported way of life from the Middle East is an act of subterfuge, and reflective of efforts to install Islam into UK political life wholesale, albeit incrementally. It is immaterial that the practice of Sharia law in the UK would be confined to Muslims. A broader principle is at stake, namely, that everyone must live under one law. Incorporating multiple systems of law seeds uncertainty, inequality, arbitrariness and great opportunities for tyranny to take advantage and flourish.
The Soft Coup
My thesis underpinning this blog is set out in my first blog post and describes Labour’s evolution under Corbyn as a cloaked vessel through which the principles and doctrines of Islam are ‘bootlegged’ into the centre of British politics. Shah’s recent attempts to influence the government’s approach on Sharia courts is yet another feature of this complex landscape; Shah, as a Labour MP, is one of the many interests in and around Corbyn’s Labour party who is playing an active part in this ‘bootlegging’. She may have honourable reasons (arguably) supporting her actions (e.g., ensuring that women are not trapped in abusive marriages by virtue of there being no system of laws to apply to end the marriage). It is nonetheless incredible that Shah is basing an argument to deface the rule of law because a minority of persons who seemingly ‘benefit’ from an imported system of laws require it. I say that this is incredible because it means one of two things; either that Shah is unintelligent to the point that she does not understand the significance of this contradiction or that she does understand it and wishes to see it enshrined. Either way, this is a danger that cannot be ignored.
Fusing Islamic and Socialist Agendas: Taqiyya in Action?
Ultimately, Shah is a perfect illustration of what is happening with Labour. Her statement that Sharia law is needed in the UK because it helps women who cannot obtain access to legal aid in an era of austerity embodies my thesis perfectly; this is a clear fusion of socialist dogma with Islamic ideals that serves to bootleg the latter into the centre of British politics and bring about a soft Islamic coup over an extended period of time.
To reiterate a point from my first blog post, a soft Islamic coup is a process that takes years, even decades, and maybe a century or two. Nevertheless, the Islamic imperative of doing God’s work (i.e., spreading the religion) transcends time. Any steps taken by adherents (no matter how small or trivial these steps may be) to advance the spread of Islam is part of a ‘sacred’ effort to spread Islam over time and in any way possible. This applies, even if those efforts involve combining the advancement of Islam through combination with other political ideologies. Indeed, the Islamic concept of ‘Taqiyya’ justifies followers to engage in deceptive practices and to even denounce Islam itself, but only if this advances the cause of Islam. Combining the spread of Islam with socialist reasoning is a perfect example of this. Among other things, this combination increases the palatable nature of the idea and to give the idea traction in radical Left circles (e.g., Momentum)
Shah is a perfect embodiment of an attempt to disguise the spread of Islam into British political life. In the long term, this is simply one small feature of a larger attempt to install a soft Islamic coup.