Sharia law is a set of Islamic rules and principles derived from the Holy Book of Islam, the Quran, and the hadiths. It sets the fundamental laws of the Islamic lifestyle practised in several Middle Eastern, Northern African and Asian cultures. Nevertheless, the universality and adaptability of these laws have long been a matter of debate in legal affairs. From women’s education under the religious government to the repression of minorities, the “Sharia Law” is certainly a hurdle that the international community must overcome.  

By Farid Shukurlu
U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week raised questions about open borders and the presence of Islamic law in the UK, with direct references to the country. Sharia councils have long been a subject of heated debate on television and, increasingly, on the streets.

It is no longer feasible to dismiss millions of Europeans as simply “Islamophobic”. The global West cannot tolerate these unlawful and invasive religious centres, which, though unofficial and limited to civil matters such as marriage and inheritance, nonetheless raise serious concerns about the rise of parallel legal systems that appear to conflict with British common law.

This controversy has been further fuelled by rising levels of illegal migration from regions where Sharia law dominates, intensifying cultural and legal tensions. A common practice in cities such as London and other major European cities is uncontrolled migration.

To stay with the example of London, Mayor Sadiq Khan is frequently criticised for overlooking the influence of Sharia councils and the broader challenges posed by unchecked migration. His stance epitomises Britain’s struggle with multiculturalism, set against the pressing need to preserve the rule of law.

It is estimated that fifteen nations currently practise Sharia law by constitutional mandate. These are not secular Muslim-majority states such as Turkey or Azerbaijan. However, human rights violations in countries governed by Sharia cannot be ignored.

One of the most contentious issues is equality: while global human rights law upholds non-discrimination, Sharia law imposes a hierarchy of rights. Muslim men enjoy the most rights, Muslim women fewer, and non-Muslims and non-believers even less. This principle directly contradicts Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which guarantees equality regardless of race, sex, religion, or status.

Gender inequality further victimises women, constituting major human rights violations in Islamic societies. Women often inherit less than men, and their testimony in court is valued at half that of a man’s. Such practices expose the myth of “universal” human rights promoted by an international community willing to accommodate autocratic Islamic governments.

When it comes to inheritance, women often experience fewer rights, as daughters typically receive only half of the inheritance that sons do. These aspects of the Sharia law are against the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as they demand that all states legitimise laws to tackle gender-based discrimination in society, from marriage affairs to social relations. However, the Sharia law violates this obligation because of the treatment of women under this religious law.

The third point, regarding the incomprehensibility of Sharia law in relation to global human rights, relates to the freedom of speech, which is protected in the West.  The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to religion. Similarly, Article 10 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (ECHR) provides religious freedom to European Union citizens.

These practices are not observed in the Sharia law. It preaches various punishments for converts to other religions. This falls under the violation of the fundamental freedom of individuals to practice their religion freely. In severe cases, conversion to other faiths is punishable by death.

Sharia law prescribes inhumane punishments such as flogging, whipping, amputation, and stoning. Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, these practices constitute both physical and psychological abuse. Notably, the Islamic Republic of Iran refused to sign the treaty, as its legal system is based on Sharia law. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights likewise prohibits torture and cruel or degrading punishment. Sharia law not only breaches these provisions but also undermines fundamental principles of legal morality, making it incompatible with global human rights.

From a legal point of view, the Sharia law poses a challenge for international lawmakers, as there should be a separate count for the application of Islamic law. The European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Sharia law, in principle and in practice, is incompatible with the core principles of democracy and human rights.

Therefore, it is considered to contradict the applicability of human rights in Islamic countries where Sharia law is practised. Islamic courts are based on the teachings of the religion, and they may lead to a case in which individuals, especially women, face discriminatory punishments.

Even though it is highly unpopular, there are still critics who argue that Sharia law can and should be reformed since it is outdated and does not align with modern principles of human rights. Their main argument is based on the Islamic principle that states there is no compulsion in religion. They would like to see a more progressive application and interpretation of Sharia, which is often referred to as the gender jihad.

This version of the Islamic teachings is believed to reconcile with global human rights. However, it seems unlikely, considering that Islamic scholars generally believe in the preservation of the application of sacred texts. The social structure of Muslim countries also plays a vital role, as most countries happen to be conservative rather than progressive.

Reforming Islamic law would require urging Islamic states to change their socially conservative nature, but doing so is not easy due to various allegations of apostasy. Unfortunately, until drastic reforms happen, the Sharia law will continue to breach fundamental principles of human rights.

Looking at the current state of Afghanistan, where women were not rescued after the earthquake, as it was considered un-Islamic to touch them. We can clearly see the worst side of Sharia, which endangers basic norms of human nature and spirit. Scholars may argue that reforms are necessary, but how can one teach conservative Muslims about the harmful and deadly side of their religion?

The best way to overcome this abomination is to secularise Islamic societies with state atheism until there is a degree of questioning of the morality of valuing life.