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.
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 : If there is one American media figure who has done more than any other to rupture the long-standing conservative consensus on Israel, it is Tucker Carlson. A son of a diplomat and a deeply patriotic American, Carlson has positioned himself as the most relentless critic of Israel’s outsized influence over U.S. foreign policy, congressional decision-making, business networks and geopolitical strategy. In his telling, Washington’s reflexive alignment with Israel has drawn the United States into wars, drained its treasury and compromised its sovereignty.
That argument was on full display in February 2026 at Ben-Gurion Airport, where Carlson conducted a combative, two-and-a-half-hour interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Carlson accused American officials of “prioritizing Israel” over their own country, pressing Huckabee over civilian casualties in Gaza, biblical rhetoric invoked by Israeli leaders, extradition disputes and the scale of U.S. military aid.
Carlson’s contention was blunt: if American taxpayers provide billions in assistance — at least $16.3 billion in direct military aid since October 2023, with broader estimates exceeding $21 billion — then American officials have a duty to ask hard questions. He framed the issue as a defense of U.S. sovereignty. Why, he asked, should a prosperous, technologically advanced nation with a strong per-capita income require continuous American subsidy?
During the interview, Carlson raised the issue of Christian casualties in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the destruction of churches, hospitals, and schools operated by Christian communities. He questioned the ambassador about reports that Christian civilians had been killed and Christian institutions damaged during military operations. The ambassador acknowledged that such incidents had occurred, describing them as unintended consequences of war and stating that Israel had expressed regret over those events.
The debate intensified when the ambassador argued that Christians enjoy greater protection in Israel than in many Muslim-majority countries. Carlson challenged that assertion, claiming that there are more Christians in Qatar alone than in Israel. He further argued that Qatar has provided land for churches, schools, and hospitals and that Christians there live openly and peacefully. In contrast, Carlson alleged that Christians in Israel face intimidation and harassment and that their numbers have declined in recent years due to emigration.
While referring to the Epstein files that have been made public in the United States, Carlson raised the issue of connections between Jeffrey Epstein, the established paedophile and blackmailer and Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, and the present President and former prime ministers of Israel. He said that Israel used Epstein’s facility to compromise influential political figures, royalty, senators, and members of Congress through illicit activities involving minors and used their engagement as a blackmailing tool to garner support for Israel in the important decision making in Washington and other influential political capitals. He confronted the Ambassador to hold the Israelis accomplices of Epstein accountable. The Ambassador admitted the connection between Epstein and Mossad but evaded the question by stating the responsibility for prosecuting crimes committed on U.S. soil lies with American authorities, since Epstein operated primarily within the United States.
During the interview, Carlson directly confronted a theological claim of Israel for the land promised to them by God “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” He pointed out that, if interpreted literally in contemporary geopolitical terms, such a claim would encompass parts of present-day Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and beyond.
Carlson pressed the ambassador on whether this scriptural narrative could justify territorial expansion under the banner of a so-called “Greater Israel.” In response, the ambassador said that if Israel conquered those territories then why not. The tone and tenor of the Ambassador clearly suggested that he was aligned with the Israel dream of greater Israel and was playing his part to pursue the elusive Israeli dream.
During the exchange, Carlson raised the issue of civilian casualties, specifically asking about how thousands of children had been killed during Israeli military operations. The ambassador acknowledged that large numbers of civilians, including thousands of children, have died in the conflict, but maintained that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attempt to minimize civilian harm even much better than the US army does.
Carlson then pressed further, asking whether the ambassador was implying that the U.S. military operates with lower moral standards than the IDF. In response, the ambassador cited historical examples of American warfare, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the flattening of the entire Germany during World War-IIduring and civilian casualties in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. The Ambassador seemed so bought up by Israel that in defence of the IDF that he blamed the US army as worse than the IDF, clearly reflecting where his loyalties are and how, instead of defending the interests of the US in Israel, he was defending Israel which was against the term of employment of an Ambassador.
Under the Vienna Convention an ambassador’s foremost duty is to represent and protect the interests of the sending state—not to advocate for the host country. In a high-profile interview, the ideal ambassadorial posture would have re-centered the discussion on U.S. interests rather than theological or expansionist narratives.
Now the question has been raised as to why Israel has strengthened its regional deterrence capabilities while the United States has borne significant costs—deploying troops, maintaining military bases across the region, committing naval assets to protect sea lanes and allied interests, and providing substantial financial and military assistance. They argue that this burden has placed American personnel and infrastructure at heightened risk while increasing fiscal and geopolitical strain.
As a result of Carlson’s crusade against Israel’s tyranny in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar and Iran and its support based in Congress, Senate and White House, according to Pew Research Center, the public’s views of Israel have turned more negative over the past three years. More than half of U.S. adults (53%) now express an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 42% in March 2022 – before the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and the ensuing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
What began as a series of interviews has now evolved into a defining ideological confrontation within American conservatism. Carlson is not merely questioning battlefield tactics or diplomatic language; he is challenging the moral, financial, and strategic foundations of America’s unconditional alignment with Israel. By forcing senators and ambassadors to defend casualty figures, regime-change rhetoric, and billions in aid, he has exposed a widening rift between interventionist orthodoxy and nationalist restraint. Whether one views his campaign as courageous accountability or destabilizing provocation, it has undeniably shattered the illusion of consensus. The Republican Party may still stand institutionally with Israel, but the grassroots conversation has changed — and once a foreign policy doctrine is dragged into open public trial, it rarely returns to unquestioned authority.
ISLAMABAD: Parliamentary Secretary for Information and Broadcasting Barrister Danyal Chaudhry on Monday stressed that national security was “non-negotiable” after Pakistan carried out strikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan, killing over 80 terrorists.
“Pakistan has always chosen the path of dialogue and peaceful coexistence. But when Afghan soil continues to be used for proxy attacks, we have no choice but to defend our homeland. National security is non-negotiable,” Chaudhry said in a statement.
The PML-N MNA affirmed that the people of Pakistan “stand firmly” with their armed forces in the fight against terrorism.
He urged the Afghan government to take “decisive action to prevent its land from being used for cross-border militancy”, warning that lasting peace in the region depended on the “complete dismantling of terrorist sanctuaries”.
Noting that the recent operation “successfully neutralised militants involved in attacks on Pakistani soil”, Chaudhry stressed: “This action was aimed solely at those responsible for violent attacks inside Pakistan. Every precaution was taken to protect innocent lives.”
He also pointed to Afghanistan’s emergence as a “sanctuary for multiple terrorist groups”. Referring to a United Nations report, he noted that militants from 21 terror outfits were operating from Afghan territory, posing a serious threat to regional stability.
He specifically called out India’s “continued support for terrorist networks”.
“India is actively funding and training these groups, equipping them to carry out cross-border attacks against Pakistan. Such elements deserve no concessions,” the parliamentary secretary asserted.
His remarks came after Pakistan carried out airstrikes on Afghanistan in a retaliatory operation targeting groups responsible for recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
The strikes killed “more than 80 terrorists”, according to security sources.
The strikes were conducted in retaliation for a series of suicide attacks in Islamabad, Bajaur, and Bannu that had claimed the lives of Pakistani security personnel and civilians. Authorities described the operation as intelligence-based and proportionate, aimed solely at those responsible for the attacks.
‘Decisive struggle against terrorism’
Separately, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Faisal Karim Kundi asserted that the country will “not allow our soil to be destabilised by forces operating from across the border in Afghanistan”.
In a post on X, he said: “The citizens of Pakistan, especially the resilient people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, stand firmly with our armed forces and security institutions in the defense of our homeland.”
He further said: “The sacrifices of our martyrs bind us together as one nation. In this decisive struggle against terrorism, Pakistan stands united, resolute, and unwavering.
“Our sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the people of this country stand shoulder to shoulder with the state to protect it at all costs.”
A total of 1,557 Venezuelan political prisoners have applied for amnesty under a new law introduced on Thursday, the country’s National Assembly President has said.
Jorge Rodríguez, brother of Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodríguez and an ally of former President Nicolás Maduro, also said “hundreds” of prisoners had already been released.
Among them is politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, one of several opposition voices to have criticised the law for excluding certain prisoners.
The US has urged Venezuela to speed up its release of political prisoners since US forces seized Maduro in a raid on 3 January. Venezuela’s socialist government has always denied holding political prisoners.
At a news conference on Saturday Jorge Rodríguez said 1,557 release requests were being addressed “immediately” and ultimately the legislation would extend to 11,000 prisoners.
The government first announced days after Maduro’s capture, on 8 January, that “a significant number” of prisoners would be freed as a goodwill gesture.
Opposition and human rights groups have said the government under Maduro used detentions of political prisoners to stamp out dissent and silence critics for years.
These groups have also criticised the new law. One frequently cited criticism is that it would not extend amnesty to those who called for foreign armed intervention in Venezuela, BBC Latin America specialist Luis Fajardo says.
He noted that law professor Juan Carlos Apitz, of the Central University of Venezuela, told CNN Español that that part of the amnesty law “has a name and surname”. “That paragraph is the Maria Corina Machado paragraph.”
It is not clear if the amnesty would actually cover Machado, who won last year’s Nobel Peace Prize, Fajardo said.
He added that other controversial aspects of the law include the apparent exclusion from amnesty benefits of dozens of military officers involved in rebellions against the Maduro administration over the years.
On Saturday, Rodríguez said it is “releases from Zona Seven of El Helicoide that they’re handling first”.
Those jailed at the infamous prison in Caracas would be released “over the next few hours”, he added.
Activists say some family members of those imprisoned in the facility have gone on hunger strike to demand the release of their relatives.
US President Donald Trump said that El Helicoide would be closed after Maduro’s capture.
Maduro is awaiting trial in custody in the US alongside his wife Cilia Flores and has pleaded not guilty to drugs and weapons charges, saying that he is a “prisoner of war”.
The Iran War That Turned Against Trump
Iran’s Strategy: Stretch the War
Probability of Victory in an Iran–U.S.–Israel War
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?