Compliance With Sharia Law At London Metropolitan University

By Aeneas • on April 13, 2012

Above: Minerva as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions (Daniel Chodowiecki, 1791)

A recent article on MailOnline reports that London Metropolitan University is considering banning the sale of alcohol on campus because it is thought that its Muslim population, which represents 20% of student numbers, think that drinking alcohol is immoral. This is yet another example of the actual application of sharia law in the United Kingdom.

Despite many actual examples of the implementation of Islamic law many sharia apologists refuse to acknowledge that it is actually being applied in Britain. Sharia of course is well known for its brutal punishments, yet many people do not realise that sharia is not a pick ‘n’ mix collection of laws but an integrated total system which is an alternative to our own legal system.

Of course there is no honesty with regard to the step by step implementation of this alternative legal system, instead of calling it the implementation of sharia law it is referred to as a ‘sensitivity’ measure. Of course it is not being very sensitive to the remaining 80% of the student population, but it seems that their opinions do not matter. Many pro-sharia activists claim that sharia just applies to Muslims only, but in this case the reality is clear for all to see – the entire population of London University is effectively subject to sharia.

What will happen if the 20% that apparently define the rules at London University become offended with the presence of Bibles, or the ringing of church bells, or the presence of practicing homosexuals or unveiled women on campus? To even consider this position on alcohol London Metropolitan University is demonstrating a trend towards theological tyranny.

The reality of the situation is that the university is either responding to prejudice against Western cultural norms or is unilaterally trying to socially engineer those norms out of existence. It is unclear whether this prejudice comes from the Muslims students themselves or from non-Muslim ‘progressive’ university administrators. In all likelihood it is the latter and it would be very gratifying to see the Muslim population of the university standing shoulder to shoulder with the 80% to demonstrate that Islam does not want to impose its morals on non-Muslims.

How with the theological regime that appears to preside over the administration of the university affect the student intake in the future? Will the university effectively end up as an Islamic ghetto where non-Muslims do not feel comfortable? Will it encourage the emergence of a sharia police force on campus that will extend the anti-alcohol regime to ensure that people merely in possession of alcohol are harassed and vilified?

If some students choose to create a version of the seventeenth century religious sect ‘The Ranters’ will their freedom of religion be respected or will the university find itself in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights? You never know, a European Court of Human Rights ruling might mean that Ranter ‘places of worship’ would have to be reopened and expanded.

If alcohol prohibition is just applied to defined areas of the campus, then another danger emerges – the creation of religious ghettos within the campus itself. University Vice Chancellor Professor Malcolm Gillies seems to think that imposing what is effectively sharia law on campus and creating the possibility for the emergence of ghettos is a way to create a liberal environment. A genuine liberal environment requires tolerance, and if someone is obliged to bow to another person’s religious views then it is not a liberal environment. A liberal environment is one in which even a person whose religion forbids alcohol tolerates other people drinking alcohol in their midst. Indeed, a great many Muslims would probably be horrified that Professor Gilles appears to be suggesting the opposite. Perhaps a large number of Muslims will ask him to mind his own business.

There are massive social implications regarding the ideas put forward by Professor Gilles because similar proposals could conceivably be made for society as a whole. His argument is that because of an increased number of Muslims at the university then it is the university’s duty to change the rules in order to accommodate their religious views. This is a very dangerous position to take and has massive implications if applied to society in general which also has an increasing Islamic population. Will we find that the laws of the land are similarly changed when the Islamic population reaches 20%. Is this what the Archbishop of Canterbury meant when he made his infamous comments regarding the inevitability of adopting certain aspects of sharia in Britain? Is the real reason for the Government’s current campaign against drinking less to do with health concerns and more to do with making our society sharia compliant?