The Guardian is at it again. It has published yet another article by David Shariatmadari on how a ‘leading barrister’ says ‘Sharia is compatible with human rights’. If you read the article though, it hard to find much evidence on how it is compatible other than that this is the barrister’s ‘interpretation’.
So we’re back to the ‘interpretation’ argument and also of course the bogus ‘not in the Koran’ argument.
Listen up Guardian: Sharia law is based on the Koran but also the Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence so whilst ‘not in the Koran’ might be a helpful PR exercise, it’s not very upstanding journalism, now is it?
It’s disturbing that ‘leading’ barristers and newspapers can say Sharia is compatible with human rights whilst it amputates, stones to death, imposes veiling, and kills apostates as we speak.
The best line of the whole puff piece though has to be: ‘only about half a dozen allow for amputations’. Only?!!
David is the Guardian paying you to write this crap or the Islamic regime of Iran? Oh I forgot, same difference…