Ban – The Law – Law
Recently Abdullah Andalusi wrote an article on his blog entitled ‘Imposing Shariah law’. I say recently, but it was like a month ago. Also, if you’re reading this a year from when I write this article, that statement is just downright inaccurate. I guess it would make more sense to say that Abdullah Andalusi wrote an article on the 7th of December 2013. In any case though, the article can be found here.
The brother discusses the fallaciousness of the argument that shariah law seeks to impose itself on every living being; really it’s a good read. However one point in particular really stuck out for me, and that was the point that ‘shariah law’ as a term is tautological. Shariah, as the brother points out, translates as law. So when people say ban shariah law or shariah law is barbaric; what they’re actually saying is ‘ban law law’ and ‘law law’ is barbaric. This may not sound like an important point, but it is.
It creates what is known as cognitive dissonance; which is to say, it creates conflict between the beliefs held by a person and his actions. It works like this, Ahmed believes that praying is fardh and if he doesn’t pray he will be punished in hellfire; but Ahmed still doesn’t pray. The theory is that everyone strives for consonance, where there is no conflict between the internal and external. The dissonance in the case of wanting to ban ‘shariah law’ is that the individual still holds onto the belief that law should be enforced. The idea is that you would ban ‘shariah law’ by bringing in legislation, thereby bringing in law to ban law!
Dr. Usama Hasan said in an interview that “In Islamic teaching you shouldn’t drink alcohol, but you can’t impose Islamic law on other people,”. You can find the quote somewhere on this page: [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-brick-lane-protest-muslim-2926404] (although I added the italics for emphasis). The contradiction here being, that alcohol is illegal according to shariah, but you can’t implement shariah!
I want to change Dr. Usama’s statement a little bit, “In law you shouldn’t steal, but you can’t impose law law on other people”. If you can’t punish people for breaking your law, then what good is it? Islam is the same. Although I agree with Dr. Usama that Shariah cannot be implemented in the UK by force, after all the general population isn’t Muslim
The psychological conflict between thought and action become clearer when people talk of banning the law law. The statement in itself is self defeating. There is no harmony between belief and action. Not just with the statement (ban shariah law), but with the latent and underlying belief that any law should not be enforced. As I said earlier, I agree with Dr. Usama, and I would expect that pro-secularists reciprocate that belief; but, that isn’t the case. Pro-secularists don’t just want ‘shariah law’ banned in secular countries, but globally. At odds once again with their own beliefs, they want to restrict Muslims for whom ‘shariah law’ is ‘law law’ and impose on them ‘secular law law’.
Leon Festinger, to whom the theory of cognitive dissonance belongs, says that if a person has dissonance he will be in pain until he finds consonance. With so many conflicts between thoughts and actions then, is it any wonder that Muslims with secular leanings veer more and more off the edge until some of them leave Islam altogether?
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent that of the Siyasah Press editorial board.