From the Freethinker in the UK: Silly Fears Over Non-Existent Sharia Law

I've recently added the Freethinker, an atheist publication dating back to 1881, back on our blog roll; they have unusual religious stories which can be equally of interest and applicable to political ideologies in the U.S.  In particular, institutionalized Islamophobia is rampant on the right in this country.  It is a knee-jerk issue, a political dog whistle topic, especially among the would be Christian theocrats among the religious right, who would impose their notions of Christian/ Biblical law on the rest of us, to the detriment of our freedom of religion, or from religion.

This was one of the Freethinker's recent posts that caught my attention, in that context:

Two guys called Mo fined for spraying burqas on billboard models in London

THE Mos – short for teenage morons Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir – have earned themselves convictions for criminal damage after they did a cover-up job on scantily-clad models featured in poster ads.

According to this report, the two 18-year-old Muslims from east London were caught defacing advertisements when members of the public called police.

Vandals Hasnath and Tahir

They had been spotted painting over a Lynx advert which showed Kelly Brook as an angel, as well as painting over the other side of the hoarding, which was an ad for the film Drive Angry.

I was not familiar with either the model or the product referred to; so I don't know which of these photos, if any, was the catalyst for the vandalism.  The movie looks to be a particularly vapid, stupid action film, so I hadn't paid any attention to it either.  Readers can see some of the photos in the ad campaign for a deodorant referenced, here.  The movie poster was probably something like this one,  below.  The fact that Ms. Heard, seen here, has recently announced that she is dating a woman, and is apparently bi-sexual, may have been an additional incentive for the vandalism, but the images themselves in either case are hardly hard core exposure.

The article continues (numpties is Scot-speak for idiots).  These two fools clearly were clueless; that they could be so naively ignorant is in itself a concern as to what kind of world view and lack of education they must have to think and act this way.  Beyond that they seem harmless enough, and appear to have wised up after their quite peaceful encounter with the law.

When police arrived, they admitted what they had done.

The numpties admitted the offence, saying they were acting in the greater good because women should not be uncovered.  Taiwo Akinrowo, prosecuting in their recent court case, said:

They told them [the police] that the way the women had been photographed was against their religion and said it was a sin in Islam for a male to look twice at a woman who is not covered. Both have admitted painting over them. At first, they did not think it was a bad thing to do but they accept that it was not legal because it was not their property.

I personally, as a woman, have an issue with any religion that operates on the premise that when men experience lust - as both men and women sometimes do - it is the women who are held responsible somehow for the troubling (or pleasurable, or both) emotions that the men feel.  While there are cultures that use Sharia law to enforce that responsibility on women, it is far more an ethnic and  regional cultural attitude than a religious one.   There are numerous Islamic men and women who have no problems with western morality and dress, including the wearing of bikini style swimwear, or underwear models, etc. in advertising.  This is more an example of a relatively innocent culture clash than a dangerous Islamic threat.  These young men were stupid, but well intentioned.

Hasnath – who had earlier been fined £100 for posting stickers which declared Tower Hamlets a “gay-free zone” – declared:

If someone was to look at our wife or mother or daughter with a bad intention we would not like it, so we were just trying to do good.

They were each told to pay costs of £283 and were released on a 12-month conditional discharge.

Last month, posters were found in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest declaring the boroughs to be “Sharia-controlled zones”.

The posters said:

You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.

Underneath, images indicate that smoking, alcohol and music are banned.

Islamic hate preacher Anjem Choudary, who said in 2008 that gays should be stoned to death, has claimed responsibility for the campaign.

This hardly translates into a threat of enforcement of Sharia law; Andjem Choudary can say whatever he likes, but if the only response is spray painting bill boards in questionable taste, there is little harm done. 
Quotes from the wikipedia entry for him provide a larger perspective for the conservative religious views (photos from other sources):

Choudary has received little support from the mainstream UK Muslim population, and has been largely criticised in the media.

and

Choudary, center

 In January 2010 Guardian contributor Mehdi Hasan wrote: "Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what gives him the right to pontificate on Islam, British Muslims or 'the hellfire'? Or proclaim himself a 'sharia judge'?", and claimed that Choudary was "as unrepresentative of British Muslim opinion, as he is of British anti-war opinion."

and 

Choudary, left

Choudary has received little support from the mainstream Muslim community, although in January 2010 Telegraph writer Jamie Bartlett speculated that he might have "some" support among the minority of Muslims in the UK who could be considered to hold conservative views.

There have been no instances that I can find of alcohol being banned, or smoking, or music, or the stoning of gay men, or even harrassment of men or women minding their own business, expressing their own personal style, walking down an English street; no Sharia law in evidence ANYWHERE.  Nor is there any indication that is likely to happen any time soon, because while events like this are a minor embarrassment to the perpetrators, they are no real threat to anyone. 

The low key approach, rather than an over reaction to non-existent Sharia law is more than sufficient, and it avoids the escalation of fear, hostility and ill-will.  Any other reaction is an over reaction, other than to push back equally against militant Christian fundamentalists who would equally impose their extremist notions on the rest of us, if we let them.