World News
Shariah Courts in the UK and the USA: A False Alarm?
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : A strange new alarm is being manufactured in our time—an alarm that travels faster than facts. In social media clips, in talk shows, and now even in parliamentary and congressional messaging, we are hearing a rising cry that “Sharia must be banned” in the United Kingdom and the United States. The claim is repeated with an air of urgency, as if a parallel state is quietly taking over, as if Western civilisation is under legal siege, as if courts have been replaced and constitutions have been hijacked. It sounds dramatic. It sounds mobilising. It sounds like a culture war slogan designed to trigger fear. Yet when one pauses and asks the basic question—what does “Sharia” mean in the UK or the USA in real, legal terms?—the entire narrative starts to collapse under its own exaggerations.
First, Sharia as it exists for Muslims living in non-Muslim countries is not a state law, not a criminal code, not a government “replacement” for British or American law. In practice, what is most often being discussed are voluntary religious opinions and community-based mediation on personal matters such as marriage, divorce, family disputes, and inheritance—issues that Muslims want resolved in a way that aligns with their faith while still living fully under the law of the land. Even in the UK debate, reputable fact-checking has repeatedly stressed that these bodies are not “courts” in the sense of legal authority; they do not override national law, and the word “court” itself misleads the public into imagining a sovereign parallel judiciary.
The “numbers” that inflame public panic are a classic example of how fear grows when precision is absent. Some voices insist that there are “300 Sharia courts” in Britain, and that the UK is “gradually turning into a Muslim country.” But the most responsible public record is blunt: no one has an official, definitive count, and credible estimates vary widely. Reuters, citing the UK’s own independent review, notes that the number of Sharia councils operating in England and Wales is unknown, with academic and anecdotal estimates ranging roughly from 30 to 85—and, importantly, that to the best of the review’s knowledge there were no such councils in Scotland. Full Fact has likewise explained that there are no definitive figures and that claims about large totals often bundle together everything from major councils to small local forums and online services, turning a complicated social phenomenon into a simplistic “invasion” statistic. Even evidence submitted in the UK parliamentary process has described the number as disputed, pointing to research that identified around 30 “major” councils while acknowledging smaller local bodies might not have been captured—again, a far cry from the certainty with which “300 courts” is shouted in viral posts.
So why does this fear persist? Because it is emotionally profitable. In politics, the easiest way to rally a base is to create a symbol of threat, strip it of nuance, and repeat it until the public stops asking questions. When Nigel Farage famously claimed there were “80 practising Sharia courts” in the UK, the line travelled further than the careful corrections that followed. That single sentence became fuel for a decade of “no-go zones,” “Muslim ghettos,” and “parallel legal systems” rhetoric—even though the legal reality remains that Britain’s law is Britain’s law, and religious mediation cannot lawfully supplant it. In Parliament, Baroness Cox has been among the most prominent figures pushing legislation aimed at restricting or regulating these councils, presenting her campaign as a protection against discrimination—particularly against women—while critics argue the wider debate too often spills into civilisational suspicion rather than focused legal reform.
Now look at the United States. Here, the phrase “Sharia courts” is even more misleading. There is no recognised network of Sharia courts governing cities, no constitutional pathway for such a thing, and no American jurisdiction where Islamic law overrides U.S. law. PolitiFact has addressed the underlying rumour directly: there are no communities “under Sharia law” in the United States in the sense alarmists claim; any attempt to force religious code as law would collide immediately with constitutional limits and civil courts. Yet the political theatre continues. “Anti-Sharia” messaging has not been confined to fringe social media; it has been institutionalised through recurring legislative attempts, often framed as “foreign law bans,” even when American courts already operate under the Supremacy Clause and constitutional protections.
The scale of that legislative churn is not small. A well-known academic/public-policy tracking project notes that since 2010, over 230 anti-Muslim bills have been introduced or enacted in U.S. state legislatures, and that “anti-Sharia” efforts are part of that ecosystem of institutionalised othering. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented waves of anti-Sharia bills over the years, including a spike in state-level introductions in the late 2010s. And now, in the current congressional atmosphere, the slogan has returned again in high-profile federal proposals. Congress.gov records legislation explicitly titled to keep America “Sharia-free,” and House text for a “No Shari’a Act” frames its purpose as reaffirming that only American law governs American courts, even though that principle is already foundational.
The names behind these pushes matter because the user asked for “renowned politicians,” and because the political mainstreaming of suspicion is precisely the engine of Islamophobia. In the United States, Senator John Cornyn and Senator Tommy Tuberville publicly announced a “No Sharia Act” in October 2025. On the House side, public communications around “No Sharia” legislation have been promoted by figures such as Congressman Randy Fine, with references to support from other lawmakers. Separately, Congressman Chip Roy has promoted a “Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act,” reflecting how the phrase has become a repeatable political brand rather than a response to a real legal takeover.
In the United Kingdom, the roster looks different, but the pattern is the same: claims about large numbers, claims about demographic replacement, claims about enclaves, and claims that Britain is “becoming” something else. Petitions have demanded bans on the basis of “85 courts,” illustrating how figures—accurate or not—become a rallying device. The Times has described the UK as a “western capital” for these councils and repeated the figure of 85 in its own framing, which then further recirculates through social media as “proof” that a parallel state exists. Meanwhile, fact-checkers and parliamentary materials keep insisting on what the public debate keeps forgetting: there is no legal authority here that outranks national law, and the uncertainty of numbers is routinely exploited by those who want certainty of fear.
All of this is producing something far more dangerous than the imaginary menace it claims to prevent: a widening social permission structure for hostility toward ordinary Muslims. The suspicion is no longer only about “law.” It bleeds into clothing, prayer, diet, family life, neighbourhoods, and identity—turning everyday religiosity into a presumed pathway to radicalisation. In this climate, even the most basic Islamic principle for minorities living in non-Muslim lands is erased: Muslims are religiously obligated to respect the law of the land they live in, and if a society forbids core worship entirely, classical teachings emphasise either compliance with law or relocation rather than rebellion. The modern anti-Sharia campaign, however, behaves as if Muslims are secretly trained to undermine constitutions—when, in reality, most Muslims are simply trying to preserve family norms, marry, divorce, and distribute inheritance in a manner consistent with faith while remaining loyal citizens bound by national law.
And here is the tragedy of misunderstanding that your narrative rightly points to: Western publics are often told that Islam is “incompatible” with Western civilisation, as if Islam is built on hatred of the West. But the deeper truth is that Islam obliges belief in the prophets revered in Judaism and Christianity, including Jesus (peace be upon him) and Mary—an interfaith common ground that is rarely highlighted in angry soundbites. When that commonality is buried, fear fills the vacuum. Demagogues then sell the public a simplified enemy: “Sharia.” It becomes a code-word, not for a real legal system in London or Texas, but for the presence of Muslims themselves.
If the aim is genuinely to protect women’s rights and protect citizens from coercion, then the honest path is specific reform: ensure civil marriage registration, strengthen legal aid and awareness, clarify that any religious mediation cannot pretend to be a state court, and prosecute coercion or abuse wherever it occurs—without turning an entire faith into a suspect class. That is what serious governance looks like. What we are watching instead is the conversion of ignorance into policy branding, and policy branding into social hostility.
This is why the new “ban Sharia” wave must be confronted with calm, verified facts and moral clarity. In the UK, we do not have “300 Sharia courts”; we have contested estimates of voluntary councils—often described in the range of about 30 to 85 in England and Wales, with no confirmed presence in Scotland in the cited independent review. In the United States, we do not have Sharia-governed towns; we have recurring anti-Sharia bills and rhetoric that treats Muslims as a fifth column even while the Constitution already governs the courts.
The time has come for philosophers, thinkers, and religious scholars—Muslim, Christian, and Jewish—to raise the level of discourse in public spaces, especially on social media where fear spreads fastest. If the West can learn once more to distinguish between a citizen’s private religious ethics and the public law of the state, then Muslims who live in the UK and the USA—obeying the law, contributing to society, paying taxes, raising families, and pursuing dreams—can continue to live in peace, with dignity, and with the freedom that Western civilisation itself claims to cherish.
Prime Minister Mark Carney says an overwhelming vote by people in Alberta to remain part of Canada is a “great result” for the country.
Speaking to reporters as he walked into a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Carney said he was “thrilled that Albertans have chosen unity” by rejecting a proposal to pursue separation through a binding referendum.
Preliminary results indicate more than two-thirds chose Canada over a push for independence for the province, according to Elections Alberta.
Monday’s referendum was the result of a months-long campaign by separatists in the western Canadian province to get a public vote on the issue.
Provincial leader Danielle Smith welcomed the initial results, commenting: “Albertans have voted for a stronger Alberta in a united Canada.”
Premier Smith herself opposed the separatist push but said the public will for a vote was undeniable, and many supporters of her own political party – United Conservative Party – were in the separatist camp.
Smith said she would address Albertans later on Tuesday on the path forward for the province.
In making the case for independence from Canada, many of the separatists said the oil-rich province’s economic growth had been stifled by the environmental policies of Canada’s central government in Ottawa.
But those who opposed a breakup – including Carney – called for Canada to present a united front in the face of external pressures, including an ongoing trade war with the United States.
“They’ve chosen to build together,” Carney said. “They’ve chosen to continue to take care of each other, to move forward, to move forward together, with purpose, high ambition.”
Carney added that he had spoken to Smith that morning and discussed “moving forward in the spirit of cooperative federalism, including on issues of immigration, other common priorities”.
Over the past year, the prime minister has worked with Smith on a number of shared goals, including pushing for an oil pipeline to the Pacific coast.
At a pro-separatist watch party in Edmonton, the hum of upbeat chatter quickly quieted as those presentsaw the projected results.
After overnight vote projections were published by Canadian broadcaster CBC and others, the mood soured. The watch party attended by the BBC packed up quickly, and people went home.
One of the separatist leaders, Jeffrey Rath, struck a defiant tone, however, vowing that “our movement isn’t stopping and we’re continuing to move forward”.
Speaking to the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme, Rath, a lawyer based in Calgary, said he saw Monday’s vote as a “first step” which had taught the movement some “valuable lessons”.
Asked whether his movement would push to keep holding votes on independence until it got the result it wanted, he responded “why not?”, and insisted that “the math and the economics” all added up on his side of the argument.
Premier Scott Moe, from the province of Saskatchewan, said he was glad Albertans chose unity, but added that “there is still work to be done on improving how Western Canada is treated by Ottawa”.
Pierre Poilievre, the leader of Canada’s Conservative party and a member of parliament from Alberta, said on social media that “the promise of Canada is worth fighting for”.
“Now our focus must be on results in people’s lives: affordable food and homes, safe streets, strong borders, and less immigration,” he said.
Smith called the vote after a grassroots group gathered about 300,000 signatures on a petition seeking a binding referendum on separation.
The petition was blocked by a judge, saying it failed to consult indigenous First Nations people – however, Smith opted to go ahead with the ballot.
Another group collected signatures for its own petition that opposed separation, which was signed by more than 400,000 people.
The key question on Monday’s voting paper asked: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
It’s the first time a Canadian province has weighed the issue of separation since Quebec’s two referendums, in 1980 in 1995.
Both of those were unsuccessful, but Alberta separatists believe Quebec used the threat of independence to gain significant political leverage over Canada’s central government.
Smith said before the vote that if Albertans chose the remain option, a binding referendum on separation would not be held – at least, not while she was in power.
Despite the projected results, the conversation around Albertan sovereignty is not over.
Separatists leaders have indicated that they plan to try and push Smith out of power within her United Conservative Party, in the hope of installing a leader who is more sympathetic to their cause.
Another separatist leader, Mitch Sylvestre, told the BBC on polling day that “a lot of work will have to be done” to curb the appetite for independence if his side did lose.
Although responses to the referendum question were tallied first, there were nine other non-binding questions on Monday’s ballot paper.
Five of these dealt with immigration, while the other four focused on the Canadian constitution.
Early results suggest that most will pass, including proposals for the province to take increased control over immigration levels.
Capitalist Greed and Fossil Fuels Threaten Human Civilization
Columnist: Zeeshan Khan
We are distressed by the deaths and devastation caused by floods, and we are being told that in the solar universe revolving around the sun, the only cradle of human life, our Earth, is under the threat of coal, oil and gas bombs which have the capacity to cause destruction far greater than the combined power of atom, hydrogen and cobalt bombs, and it is rapidly rushing towards doomsday.
Those who are telling and warning us are 160 intellectuals belonging to 46 countries of the world, who have received world-level awards and prizes for their outstanding services and performance on the subject of environmental pollution. They have published a joint appeal in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and all other prominent newspapers of the world, in which it is said that thought should be given to foiling the last attempts to destroy human life and civilization, otherwise the world of colour and fragrance, sound and melody, beauty and love will end, will be extinguished, and everything will end with it.
It has been told that the profit-seeking of the capitalist system, which has touched new extremes of greed for wealth, has also crossed the extremes of interfering with natural seasons due to the enormous use of coal, oil and gas, because of which global warming can increase by six degrees, which can completely change the climatic conditions of the world. The earth can refuse to grow grain, water to quench thirst can become extinct, the world can enter its last war for life, the garment of human civilization can be torn to pieces. These apprehensions have been expressed for the last century, and for the last quarter century, emphasis has also been laid on efforts to handle and improve this situation, but the countries suffering from greed for wealth of the capitalist system all over the world, including America, are busy in thwarting these efforts and have brought the world along with human life and civilization to the last edge of destruction.
The 160 intellectuals have appealed to all sympathetic institutions, associations and groups of the human world that, in their own interest and in the interest of their future, they should protest against those running the industries engaged in the abundant use of coal, oil and gas, and refrain from actions that further worsen the conditions of “global warming” and turn the whole world into a blazing furnace, and also try to think that if there will be no human population in the world, where will they sell their products and from where will they earn profit? The economy and market shops also need customers. If there are no customers, how will markets run? If in the six degrees of global warming, i.e., unbearable heat, the whole world is made into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then who will survive? Why does this not enter the minds of the profit-seekers of the capitalist system?
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Israel’s expanding international reach raises a question that governments can no longer comfortably avoid: when does cooperation become dependence, and when does dependence begin to compromise sovereignty? Weapons, surveillance systems, intelligence partnerships, diplomatic advocacy and investment can establish enduring influence inside another country’s institutions. Examined together, these relationships reveal how a state can acquire leverage far beyond its territory without formally governing the societies affected by its decisions.
The central issue is the conversion of access into power. A weapons contract opens a relationship with a defense ministry. Technical support creates continuing contact with military personnel. Surveillance technology enters intelligence institutions. Political advocacy cultivates sympathetic decision-makers. Commercial partnerships establish constituencies interested in preserving cooperation. These channels can reinforce one another until challenging the relationship carries significant institutional and political costs. Influence becomes most consequential when governments stop asking whether those costs have narrowed their freedom to act.
Ideology matters because it shapes how political leaders justify the exercise of power. Religious nationalism can turn territorial ambitions into sacred obligations and portray compromise as betrayal. Where officials invoke divine entitlement or historical destiny, their language deserves close examination against their policies. The danger is the translation of claims about exceptional entitlement into governmental practice: unequal rights, territorial expansion or the belief that ordinary restraints should yield to a privileged national mission.
Such claims must be attached to identifiable leaders, movements and decisions. Their political force lies in what they authorize. A government that presents its objectives as beyond legitimate challenge creates conditions in which critics become enemies and civilian suffering becomes an acceptable instrument. International partners then face a choice: impose meaningful limits or help normalize exceptional treatment. Strategic friendship becomes dangerous when it functions as permission to evade accountability.
Israel’s international security industry supplies material foundations for its reach. Its defense ministry reported approximately $14.8 billion in new export contracts during 2024. These transactions can establish relationships lasting far beyond delivery. Advanced equipment requires maintenance, training, replacement parts and software. A government purchasing such systems must consider the political implications of relying on an external supplier for essential capabilities. The resulting vulnerability deserves as much attention as the advertised military advantage.
Latin America illustrates several pathways through which these relationships develop. Guatemala’s military governments received Israeli arms and assistance during a period of brutal repression. Colombia’s longstanding reliance on Israeli equipment, including Kfir aircraft and Galil rifles, complicated disengagement when diplomatic relations broke down. Argentina under Javier Milei and Honduras under Juan Orlando Hernández supplied prominent diplomatic backing through commitments concerning Jerusalem. Ecuador under Daniel Noboa pursued cooperation across defense, security, agriculture and water. Together, these cases show military, political and developmental relationships creating multiple points of institutional attachment.
Elsewhere, diplomatic openings and strategic partnerships expand the network. Bolivia restored relations in December 2025. Venezuela’s foreign ministry confirmed continuing technical cooperation following Israeli earthquake assistance in 2026. Recognition of Somaliland introduced Israel into a sensitive sovereignty dispute in the Horn of Africa. India developed extensive defense cooperation, while Austria established a strategic partnership. These relationships differ, but their cumulative significance is international access across security, technology, development and diplomacy. Each deserves examination for the commitments it creates and the interests it advances.
Political lobbying adds another layer. Former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr criticized what he considered excessive pressure from a hardline pro-Israel lobby on government policy. His account raises a fundamental democratic question: can elected officials exercise independent judgment when organized advocacy enjoys privileged access to executive leadership? The answer requires examining meetings, funding, communications and policy changes. Citizens should know whether decisions reflect publicly defensible national interests or pressure operating beyond effective scrutiny.
Surveillance exposes an especially intrusive form of power. Citizen Lab has documented Pegasus attacks involving journalists and human rights defenders. Such capabilities can penetrate the communications through which societies investigate corruption and organize opposition. Responsibility extends through the supply chain, from developers and licensing authorities to purchasing agencies and political leadership. Governments that conceal surveillance abuses cannot credibly claim to protect the freedoms those abuses undermine.
Economic sovereignty requires equally rigorous scrutiny. Banking infrastructure, telecommunications, investment platforms and critical software should be examined for ownership, access rights, contractual dependence and security vulnerabilities.
Claims about foreign control must be established through records and technical evidence. Governments should identify who can access sensitive information, interrupt essential services or influence strategic decisions. Confidential contracts cannot substitute for public accountability where national systems and citizens’ rights are at stake.
The United States provides the principal institutional foundation of Israel’s strategic support. Its longstanding military-assistance framework makes clear that international protection rests on identifiable decisions by legislators and administrations. Those decisions carry responsibility. Officials cannot authorize assistance and then treat its foreseeable consequences as someone else’s concern. An alliance becomes a mechanism of impunity when support continues without meaningful examination of conduct.
Gaza gives this argument its moral urgency. UN satellite analysis based on July 2025 imagery identified damage affecting approximately 78 percent of structures. The scale demands answers from Israeli authorities and the governments sustaining their military and diplomatic position. Palestinian rights cannot remain subordinate to the convenience of strategic partnerships. International standards lose their authority when powerful relationships determine whose suffering produces consequences.
Every government should therefore audit its dependencies, disclose sensitive agreements, investigate unlawful surveillance and scrutinize political influence. Where relationships facilitate abuse or compromise independent decision-making, they should be restricted, renegotiated or ended through lawful processes. Sovereignty requires the capacity to refuse.
Israel’s international influence deserves sustained scrutiny because power exercised through dispersed institutions can escape the accountability attached to visible force. The response must be concrete: expose the mechanisms, identify the beneficiaries and impose enforceable limits. No government should enjoy exceptional permission to override another society’s independence or another people’s rights.
Experts Urge Early Screening to Prevent Heart Disease and Dyslipidemia in Pakistan
‘Great result for Canada’, says Carney as Alberta votes to reject separatism
Rare Earths: Pakistan’s Economic Part 2
New Chapter for Dragon Boating in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial associations officially set up with sights locked on national competitions and international representation.
South Korea’s Yoo Useong Steps Onto the Global Strongman Stage as World Strongman Federation Professional Athlete
A Survey of Mata-E-Zeest
-
Pakistan News2 weeks agoNew Chapter for Dragon Boating in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial associations officially set up with sights locked on national competitions and international representation.
-
Sports4 months agoSouth Korea’s Yoo Useong Steps Onto the Global Strongman Stage as World Strongman Federation Professional Athlete
-
Art & Culture1 year agoA Survey of Mata-E-Zeest
-
Europe News2 years agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News2 years agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Art & Culture2 years agoWill Snow White be a ‘victim of its moment’? How the Disney remake became 2025’s most divisive film
-
American News2 years agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Entertainment2 years agoChampions Trophy: Pakistan aim to defend coveted title as historic tournament kicks off today