Shariah was never in India

Islam was brought to India by the invading Mughals and propagated with force. The natives were converted with force alright, but the invaders found it monumentally difficult to inculcate conduct in compliance with the Hadits or Shariah. Local customs and practices continued to be followed and Shariah could never be imposed on the converts. After all, it is difficult to change centuries old practices in the first place and that with something that was devised 1400 years ago in a far off foreign land much to the frustration of the Mughals. Try as they might – as Aurangazeb did – to impose the Islamic way of life, it was simply too difficult to force a foreign way of life.

One of the founders of Jamia Milia Islamia (and eventually it’s Vice-Chancellor), Prof. M. Mujeeb, records in his book Indian Muslims, that Shariah could never be enforced in India. And with the wane of Mughal rule after Aurangazeb, Shariah became even more irrelevant. The British began imposing laws that were far, indeed the opposite of Shariah.

The Khilafat movement was the fillip the orthodoxy needed and it brought them back to the table. Now the movement itself fizzled of course when the Caliphate was abolished in 1924, but significant momentum was gained. That led to evangelist movements to spread Islam and ‘purify’ it which in turn eventually led to the demand for Muslim Personal Law. Until then, Muslims all over India were governed by local Hindu customs and laws.

Muslims in Malabar and South Canara were followed the Marumakkathayam and Aliyasanthana laws. Local Hindu laws were followed by Bohras, Memons of Kutch, Khojas. Similar was the case in U.P. It was no different in Punjab, North West Frontier Province and other places. In fact, here’s Dr. Ambedkar countering Muslims members of the Constituent Assembly demanding an exclusive law for the Muslims alone –

My first observation would be to state that members who put forth these
amendments say that the Muslim personal law, so far as this country was
concerned, was immutable and uniform through the whole of India. Now I wish to
challenge that statement. I think most of my friends who have spoken on this
amendment have quite forgotten that up to 1935 the North-West Frontier Province
was not subject to the Shariat Law. It followed the Hindu Law in the matter of
succession and in other matters, so much so that it was in 1939 that the Central
Legislature had to come into the field and to abrogate the application of the
Hindu Law to the Muslims of the North-West Frontier Province and to apply the
Shariat Law to them. That is not all.
My honourable friends have forgotten,
that, apart from the North-West Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of
India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and
Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the
matter of succession. In order to bring them on the plane of uniformity with
regard to the other Muslims who observed the Shariat Law, the Legislature had to
intervene in 1937 and to pass an enactment applying the Shariat Law to the rest
of India.
I am also informed by my friend, Shri Karunakara Menon, that in
North Malabar the Marumakkathayam Law applied to all-not only to Hindus but also
to Muslims. It is to be remembered that the Marumakkathayam Law is a Matriarchal
form of law and not a Partriarchal form of law.
The Mussulmans, therefore,
in North Malabar were up to now following the Marumakkathyam law. It is
therefore no use making a categorical statement that the Muslim law has been an
immutable law which they have been following from ancient times. That law as
such was not applicable in certain part sand it has been made applicable ten
years ago. Therefore if it was found necessary that for the purpose of evolving
a single civil code applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion,
certain portions of the Hindus, law, not because they were contained in Hindu
law but because they were found to be the most suitable, were incorporated into
the new civil code projected by article 35, I am quite certain that it would not
be open to any Muslim to say that the framers of the civil code had done great
violence to the sentiments of the Muslim community. [Link]

But the Muslim Personal Law, hoisted on India in 1937, itself is not fully compliant with Shariah. The law board is divided from within and has split a few times with different sects and women forming their own boards. And when you learn that few Muslims abide by it, it becomes clear that the demand for Shariah is a political tool for the orthodoxy to remain relevant and to seek concessions from the state and most importantly, to counter uniform civil code as mandated by the Constitution (article 44) which states "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The demand for Shariah or personal law is retrograde, backward looking and contradicts our Constitution.

(Much of the above can be found in Arun Shourie's A Secular Agenda).

Sharia spreading under the garb of "multiculturalism"

Courts around the world are giving in to Islamists. They seem unwilling to take on the freedom challengers and hope incorporating Sharia will placate them. This is a monumental folly. The free world continually fails to realise what the Islamists stand by. Nothing short of a global Sharia implementation will gladden the "true of Muslim faith". Rallying crowds holding placards that proclaim "Islam will reign supreme" or "Islam will rule the world" are not being humourous. They similarly proclaim "Death to {insert non-muslim country name here}" and are serious about it.

Sharia is now spreading thick and fast across (an increasingly dhimmi) Europe. We have seen the Geert Wilders case earlier. Now Italy and France join the ranks of dhimmis.

In the first trial, the three were
sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged
that the teenager was "brutally beaten up" for having "dated" a non-Muslim and
in general for "living a life not conforming with the culture" of her
family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the
court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for "her own good." The
Bologna public prosecutor's office then disputed the acquittal of the three
accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and
ruled in favor of the charged parties. [Link] (Emphasis added)

Girls apparently want to flee into France. But do they have any hope there?

Indeed in one very publicized case, last
June, a French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who wanted the
annulment of his marriage because his wife turned out not to be a
virgin. What this decision amounted to was the endorsement of the
repudiation concept. [Link] (Emphasis added)

No they don't. Sharia follows them there too. And apologists do not get it.

In Switzerland [...] an anthropology
professor at the Fribourg university wrote that a special jurisdiction for
Muslims could be envisioned in Switzerland. He added that including elements
from Islamic law could allow to better manage the multiculturalism issue. [Link] (Emphasis added)

There, that word again. Curiously, multiculturalism seems to accommodate only the Muslims, while every other immigrant group must adapt and assimilate. Where the "secular" champions fail, this British Muslim MP gets it right.

[...] Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP
said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links
with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women could be "abused" by Sharia courts, which may give
unequal bargaining power to the sexes. [Link] (Emphasis added)

Thus allowing the Muslim "isolation" and "segregation". Precisely the same Muslim "grievances" giving fodder to the Ismalists. It is baffling that rather than listen to reformed Muslims, the "secularists" insist on appeasing the Mullahs. Conceding to them is pushing the Muslims deeper into their grips. Giving in to Sharia is giving up our freedom.

One way street

Sharia and radical Islamists are gaining foothold and the leaders of free world fail to see that. In their attempt to come across as friendly and to appease the Muslim world, they are committing some grave mistakes that could well be irreversible. Limiting free speech was recently made legitimate. And now, Sharia is being granted legal status. Our leaders are capitulating in the face of Islamic aggression rather than defend freedom.

Islam is a one way street. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim.

FREEDOM of religion as stated in Article
11 (1) of the Federal Constitution does not cover Muslims who wish to convert at
any time.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz
said Muslims who wish to renounce the religion would need to obtain an order or
declaration from the Syariah Court, which has the jurisdiction under state
Enactments of Islam. [Link]

While it is all well, indeed the religious duty, of a Muslim to convert the 'infidels' and wage jihad to further Islamic interests, there is no religious sanction for a Muslim to renounce his faith. He is locked in forever.

“The judgment in the case states clearly
that a Muslim cannot renounce the religion as he wishes. If such freedom is
given to Muslims, this will affect the status of Islam as the official religion,
as stated in the Federal Constitution,” he said. [Link]

That was Malaysia. Similar is the case with Pakistan which is an Islamic state and jihadi education has been institutionalized. Intolerance of the 'kafirs' and demands for Sharia are but the natural outcome.

If history is any indication, this exercise of trying to 'reach out' to the Islamic community is futile. Besides, Sharia is patently undemocratic. Once it is sanctioned, democracy is lost. We have seen what Sharia did in Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled. We are seeing what it has started doing in the Swat region. Having tasted success, the Taliban now wants to globalise jihad -

The Taliban in Waziristan announced
forming a ‘Shura Ittehadul Mujahideen’ (Council of United Mujahideen) on Sunday
to wage jihad ‘in an organised manner’.

Pamphlets distributed in the Miranshah
Bazaar and other areas of the agency headquarters said the forces led by Mullah
Muhammad Omar and Osama Bin Laden were fighting against ‘infidels’ led by US
President Barack Obama, Pakistani President Asif Zardari and Afghan President
Hamid Karzai. [Link]

Every jihadi has cited Koran as his inspiration -

They quoted verses of the holy Quran
calling people to fight a holy war against ‘infidels’, who they said were
killing innocent Muslims. [Link]

However, Mullahs would like us believe Islam is a religion of peace. And our 'secularists' perpetuate this myth. Within our own borders, we are witnessing a growing allegience to the global jihad. Worldwide 'Islamic brotherhood' finds more resonance among Indian Muslims who increasingly see themselves as part of a 'Muslim world'. Grievences have shifted. Victimhood is morphing into dreams of reclaiming some mythical 'Islamic glory'. History, apparently only begins from where they want it to.

Talking to Sharia professing representatives can never achieve anything that is hoped for. This realisation seems to be lost on our leaders of the 'secular' variety. The Islamic leadership is unanimously clear in what it aims for, jihad is legitimate and 'infidels' must be conquered, yet our heads remain buried in sand.

Eulogizing radicals, throwing millions at the them, approving of Sharia and engaging closet jihadis in discussions renders it impossible to reform and assimilate Muslim society into the modern world.