These days we find some people criticizing the Islamic sharia laws as generically regressive and oppressive of non-Muslims. They also criticize India’s Muslim rulers of the past as having denied equal rights and freedom of religion to non-Muslims. However, when we review the record of the six hundred year long Muslim era in India, and especially that of the three hundred and fifty year long Moghul empire, we see a totally different picture. We find that most Muslim rulers asked the officials of their state to be non-sectarian and to ensure justice and harmony for their non-Muslim subjects.
The Moghul kings took special pride in the fact that the followers of various religions other than Islam lived peacefully and thrived in their empire. Shaikh Abd al-Rahman a Islamic scholar in the period of emperor Jahangir commenting on this trend wrote in his memoirs, “The Moghuls ensured the supremacy of Din by their exaggerated concern for social harmony. In Moghul India in that period, the followers of all religions generally lived in peace and performed their religious rites and social practices freely. And yet the Moghuls acted in complete accord with the injunctions of their faith. “
Emperor Jahangir in keeping with the traditions of his father emperor Akbar, commissioned a translation into Persian of celebrated Arab scholar Ibn Miskawaih’s treatise ‘al-Hikmat al-Khalida’, that he asked all of the senior officials of his state to use as a guide in carrying out their various functions. This book contains the maxims of Greeks, Persians, Arabs and Indians. The four core ethical norms for the rulers for the management of state that this treatise lists are: 1. Hard work and independent and intelligent application of mind by the ruler to evaluate the incumbents for different type functions in the state. 2. Insistence on prioritizing issues and policies and quick follow-up for their execution. 3. Constant vigilance so that no official dare neglect his duties or be oppressive and unkind to the populace. 4. Adequate reward for efficiency and excellence and punishment for the evil doers. It is worth noting that religious intonation was not included in the core guidance for managing the affairs of the state.
Also ‘Akhlaq-e-Jahangiri’, another treatise on managing the affairs of the state by Nur-ala-uddin Qazi, that Jahangir commissioned and that he used for managing the Moghul empire emphasizes the independent goodness of justice not religious orthodoxy. In the chapter on justice, this book reiterates that justice and not religion occupies principal place in matters of governance, and that a non-Muslim but just ruler serves society better than an unjust Muslim. Justice he adds, on account of its inherent strength and goodness, sustained power in ancient Persia for five thousand years in the dynasty of Nausherwan-e-Adil, even though all the rulers of the dynasty were fire worshippers.
This book quotes prophet Mohammad saying that God revealed to prophet David that he should instruct his people to, “not abuse and speak evil of the kings of Ajam, for they filled the world with justice so that my slaves may live in safety”.
The Moghul rulers and officials generally believed in and practiced religious tolerance. Abdul Nadir Badayuni, the unofficial historian of Akbar’s time wrote the following in one of his commentaries, “Hindustan is a wide place where there is an open field for all manner of licentiousness, and no one interferes in another’s business, so that everyone can do just as he pleases”.
As is well known Moghul kings from Akbar in 1556 to Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1857 freely married Hindu wives and had their sons marry Hindu women. In their courts Hindus occupied up to forty percent of all top positions including commanders of their armies. And they regularly participated in at least the three top Hindu festivals, namely Dussehra, Diwali and Holi. In developing their cultural practices they sometimes borrowed from Hindu practices. At the same time they gave much respect and positions of authority to Islamic scholars, Qazis and Sufi saints and sought their advice. None of the extremist interpretations of Sharia laws like amputating the hands of thieves, death punishment for adultery, forcing men to wear beards, preventing women from acquiring education and working etc were ever practiced in the reign of the Muslim kings in their six centuries long era in India.
The other relevant observations are those of the French traveler Francois Bernier who visited India in 1690 in the period of emperor Aurangzeb. After commenting disapprovingly on Hindu beliefs and rituals regarding solar and lunar eclipses, he wrote in his travelogue, “The Great Moghul though a devout Mohammedan permits these ancient and superstitious practices; not wishing or not daring to disturb the gentiles in their free exercise of their religion. It is part of their policy to leave the idolatrous population which is so much more numerous than their own, in the free exercise of their religion.”
Nur-ala-uddin Qazi has also recorded anecdotes about the earlier period of Sultan-ala-uddin Khilji. In that period a Muslim governor of Panipat by the name Dalur had imprisoned a Hindu on some pretext and released him only upon payment of a large sum of money, and then made more demands for more payment. The victim sought refuge and relief from Shaikh Sharaf-ala-Uddin, a local Sufi saint. The Sufi saint conveyed the complaint to the Sultan, who immediately replaced the said Muslim governor with his own son and pledged to the saint that if his son does not behave with fairness towards the local Hindu populace he will replace him too.
This does not mean that Moghuls were not concerned with Islam. Moghul historian Najim-e-Sani’s authoritative book ‘Manazirah-e-Jahangir’ states that consolidation of the bases of their glorious community and reinforcement of the injunction of the illustrious sharia have been equally among the significant achievements of Jahangir’s reign.
It is clear that enlightened and flexible interpretation of sharia, guided the Muslim and Moghul pattern of governance in India, in a world where it became possible to use the term sharia not merely in its narrow and rigid legalistic sense. The Muslims of these domains found a way out after the supposed closure of the door of ijtihad. In the regime of this enlightened sharia, non-Muslims, like Muslims, could build their own places of worship, could practice all of their religious traditions and customs and had plenty of freedom. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhandi the famous Naqshbandi theologian of the early 17th century wrote that, “On the day of Ekadashi when the Hindus abstain from eating and drinking they see to it that no Muslim bakes or sells bread or other food in the bazaar. On the other hand in the month of Ramadan they cook and sell food openly.”
Yet in the same era the Moghuls prided in calling themselves the Light of the Faith, eg Jalal-al-din Akbar and Nur-al-din Jahangir. The Qazi and Sadar of Mughal times, as in all other Islamic states, occupied high positions; and Muslim divines, among others, had land or cash grants to maintain lofty symbols of Islam through the length and breadth of the empire. The periodic dispatch of rich donations to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, with the official delegates of Hajjis were a common practice throughout the long Moghul period.
Mir Muhammad Nauman an important divine in the early 17th century saw the reigning ruler Jahangir not only a man of piety and justice but also as someone who ensured compliance with the ordinances of the sharia. To Moguls sharia came to be synonymous with divine law (namus-e-ilahi) which meant absolutely no humiliation of or injustice to the non-Muslims. The most important task was to ensure a balance of conflicting interests, of harmony between diverse groups and communities, and non-interference in their beliefs and practices.
Photo: Delhi Jama Masjid
Kaleej,
We all agree that Akbar was a great king….very tolerant towards non-muslims…..i really admire how moderate he was…..
But, no one in this forum……not even the most conservative muslims…is goin to believe your paragraph about Aurangazeb…..that someone called Francois Bernier ..who already disapproved hindu beliefs….vouches for the secularism of Aurangazeb….
Aurangazeb’s rule was a period of utmost oppression against non-muslims….he massacred hindus and sikhs…..everyone knows this and accepts this….hindus and muslims…..its as good a fact as the destruction of Babri by hindus…..
I really want to see if any muslims even support your blog on this….glossing over the mistakes and gloating over the good deeds is kinda like misrepresenting the facts….
Instead of a pre-conceived ideas, which are expected on this read, I must say that there is nothing like moderation or democracy in those days. To analyse the past with current prism is not logical or objective. I am from an area, where from Aurangzeb, the ‘ameer’ of ‘dakan’ passed on the orders of the Emperor. He did so in west as well as east. In fact the claimant of ‘Akand Barath’ should be ashamed to know that it was the military leadership of the Prince (Aurangzeb) that their India was made and in this age of information, they still show that though now ‘that’ India is 8 countries (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Burma included – here I excluded Nepal, Bhutan and Afghanistan because majority of these countries’s are was outside the then India).
The mighty army that he had under him was enough to subjugate the so called opperssed but these things never happened. I am still searching for a proof and we should not sentence the accused till we have proof. Hear-say in this age shows that these people are living in fools paradise.
PS: We do not have any fine, delicate and artistic buildings or ruins from past except from the Muslim rule. We Indians cannot claim Indus Valley civilisation to be ours as it belongs to Pakistanis.
I guess the key point I’d make to you Kaleej, is that was then, this is now. The standards and expectations then were different. By the standards of the middle ages, much of Mughal India was a tolerant, perhaps even “secular” place. If the same laws were applied today, however, it could not be regarded in that way. I would not accept any injunction that allows Hindus to convert to Islam, but not vice versa, for example. Would you accept laws that allowed you a degree of religious freedom, but less than that was available to me? No, I would not expect you to.
By talking about how sharia law is very enlightened, you miss the point – it puts all non-Muslims into categories where they have inferior rights, second class citizenship, etc., at least by modern standards. What was enlightened in 1500 cannot be regarded as the same if it is implemented today.
IMHO
While I consider the “secular” nature of many of the Mughal kings, assuming that the sacrifices of the Sikh Gurus to protect Hindus were “exceptions” ; allow me to add that I cannot consider indications of marriages of a Rajput Princess with a Mughal as evidence of secular tradition. I would like to know how many alliances of Rajput Princes and Mughal Princesses were sanctioned.
Those were political “accomodations” and nothing to indicate secular culture. It was more of real politik. But that was then.
There is a new generation of educated Indians who have no issues against inter-religious marriages. It is trite to say that times and circumstances have both changed. Let us not twist history to portray a secular spirit when it did not exists. Akbar, himself, as a ruler had his side of policies that were controversial – but who is not? Aurangzeb on the other hand has been portrayed in a different manner.
Like I’m not responsible for the crimes that my forefathers may have committed, similarly it makes little sense to carry the stale baggage of history in case of others.
Kaleem, if someone blesses you that your son or brother may be like aurangzeb will you consider it a blessing?
The other thing that you have not failed to point is Hindu beliefs. May be Francois might have his personal choice.
Anyway, if someone comes and puts an enlightened Hindu Law in India will you accept it?
PS: We do not have any fine, delicate and artistic buildings or ruins from past except from the Muslim rule. We Indians cannot claim Indus Valley civilisation to be ours as it belongs to Pakistanis.
what an absurd comment, india is choc a bloc full of the most amazing architecture and buildings predating muslim rule, many of the ruins in fact destroyed by muslims in their iconoclasm. In fact, near Bhopal there is the sanchi stupa- all beheaded buddhas thanks to a muslim raid. Whole of North and South India have dime a dozen hindu temples and ruins and buildings.
Kaatib may also like to know that during Aurangzebs time, he faced a severe challenge militarily from both the Marathas and Jaswant Singh of the Rajputs, and hence was unable to practise his ruthless policies in depth in the north and deccan consistently.
I would request kaatib to read more kitaabs, and learn about the person he is defending.
This article is about the 600 year history of Muslim kings/rulers in India and how they implemented laws and justice to the population including non-Muslims. In the then feudal era it talks about how most Muslim kings (not just Akbar) ran a just and fair government implementing justice to all including non-Muslims. It indicates that the allegation that Muslim kings in India were unjust and brutal to the non-Muslims is erroneous.
Aurangzeb was not as secular as Akbar or Jahangir or Shahjahan. But he dispensed fairness and justice. However in reaction to his having more religious leanings some motivated historians have savaged him as “Alamgir zaalim tha, sitamgar tha, Hindu-kush tha.” (Aurangzeb was brutal, tyrant, oppressor of Hindus.) An unbiased reading of history rather than reading material produced by Muslim basher writers (BJP, VHP, etc) brings out the fact that he was a strict and demanding administrator. (eg George Bush is less liberal as Presaident than Bill Clinton). He was as tough on Muslim kings/ army chiefs in his empire’s adjoining states (notably in Deccan) as on those who happen to be Hindus. He gave lots of money, estates to Hindu temples; at the same time some of his overzealous generals demolished a couple of temples. Richard Eaton, a professor of History at Arizona State University, has written a very well researched article on this topic that debunks the BJP/VHP propaganda.
If Muslim kings in India used Islamic laws, so did Hindu Rajahs (Mysore, Baroda, Rajputana, Gwalior, Cooch Bihar etc etc and chieftains like Shivaji ) used Hindu laws. But that does not mean that either were inherently oppressive of religious minorities. Oppression was an individual trait that varied from king to king.
Again “that was then, this is now”. For someone to think that the purpose of this article is to lobby for Sharia laws today (either in India or any Muslim majority country) is a flight of fanciful imagination. Those who are alleging that I have misarepresented facts should point out specific areas in my article rather than make the kind of generalized comments that BJP, VHP, Shiv Sena make.
Facts show that Sharia laws can be interpretted in an enlightened and flexible way; Sharia laws are not a scourge and inherently draconian and oppressive. When West Asian Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian countries came under the sway of Muslim kings, those rulers implemented very enlightened/flexible interpretations of Sharia laws and religious minorities were not reduced to second class citizenship. Just because Taliban or Saudi Arabia have interpretted Sharia laws in an extremist manner it does not mean that the institution of Sharia is brutality incarnate.
Nice article Kaleem. For some Aurangzeb will remain the brutal villain of Indian Muslim history irrespective of what alternate sources may say. I used to read Akilesh Mittal’s Itihaas column in Asian Age (on Sundays). He would often touch on Muslim history with a relatively balanced approach.
Anyway, some criticism. You say that these kings implemented enlightened/flexible Shariah laws. But did these ‘interpretations’ of the Shariah find acceptence among the scholars of Shariah? The scholars of Tasawwuf are not authorities (per se) of Shariah so their acceptence or rejection is not defining. Is there defintive indication in Shariah texts of repute that these interpretions (not amputating the hands of thieves, no death punishment for adultery) are acceptable to the scholars? If so, then your assertion is correct otherwise these interpretations would appear to be their way of changing/ignoring the Shariah laws to suit their sense of justice/law.
Why can’t we accept laws that work for our current society and current realities. Do we not have the intelligence to debate in a civil manner on the basis of secularism, logic, justice and fairness to find laws that are acceptable to all. A democratic liberal society should continuously rethink its way of life and be open to new ideas. Being a prisoner of the past based on perceived notions of glory can only hold us back – be it Hindu law (I don’t know if something like that would find acceptance today) or Shariah or for that matter Christian law.
Hello Mr. Kawaja,
I have resumed commenting on articles at this site again after a satisfactory reply to my complaint to the moderator regarding a blogger’s attempt to incite violence.
Persecution of Hindus under the islamic rule (circa 712 A.D. to the 1800s) is very clearly documented in Wikipedia under the topic ‘Persecution of Hindus’. This also cites specific cases of:
- Hindus executed for not converting to Islam (during the Sultanate period)
- Hindu temples destroyed (at various times during raids by zelous islamic invaders, the Sultante and Mughal empires)
- Hinduim suppressed by disallowing celebration of specific festivals like Diwali during the reign of Aurangazeb and a ban on construction of new temples
I hope you don’t find this source biased. If you still do please correct it with proper historical references.
Strangely under the topic “Persecution of Muslims” their persecution in India seems to have started (as per Wikipedia) during after indepedence in 1947!
So, I fear your article will fail the ‘Historical Scrutiny’ test.
When West Asian Jewish, Christian, Zorastrian countries came under the sway of Muslim kings, those rulers implemented very enlightened/flexible interpretations of Sharia laws and religious minorities were not reduced to second class citizenship
‘some overzealous generals destroyed a couple of temples’
what an obvious attempt at negationism. actually we hindus had forgotten all abt it, why did u mention it to refresh our memory?
the so called ‘bjp’ propoganda draws from official court documents of indian rulers. dismissing it by calling it names is another attempt at negationism.
facts show that sharia laws are almost invariably interpreted to the detriment of non muslims. why not dwell on that fact?
Some responses:
Typically In the courts of the Indian kings, who implemented enlightened sharia laws with flexibility, there were scholars who had a rigid interpretation of Sharia and the Sufi scholars who interpretted Sharia in a liberal manner; and between the two there was continual difference of opinion. Some Sufis went too far in their liberalism and crossed the line. For instance a few Sufi saints in the times of Jahangir and Shahjahan are known to believe that doing Sijda (prostration) towards a very very learned Hindu saint was ok since Islam puts so much emphasis on acquiring knowledge. Clearly they were wrong. Then there were the rigid scholars who decreed that Sarmad the famous Sufi saint in Aurangzeb’s time who pronounced “anal Huq” (I am the truth) be put to death for trying to share God’s unitarian authority on truth.
Obviously “then was then”; and in those 600 years neither oppression of Hindus was standrad operating procedure of the Muslim kings; nor every king was as liberal as Akbar-Jahangir-Shahjahan. Similarly for Hindu kings neither oppressing religious/ethnic minorities nor being very fair with them was standard operating procedure.
Thus biased accounts like the one in Wikipedia describing the 600 year Muslim rule as uncontrolled oppression of Hindus are just a propaganda mill. If that was so how come after 600 years of such oppressive rule of Muslims the proportion of Muslims in India in 1947 was less than 30% ?
In fact even In Arab countries in the 7th through 12th centuries there were some Caliphs who enforced rigiv interpretation of Sharia, and some (Caliph al-Mamun) went so far as to say that Quran may not be divine but the created word of Mohammad. And they treated the Jewish and Christian minorities with fairness.
Unfortunately with at the initiative of BJP/RSS/VHP a massive propaganda is sweeping the Hindu community since 1980s to wholesale malign all Muslim kings including the ultra-liberal Akbar-Jahangir-Shahjahan as brutal oppressers of Hindu community, demolishers of Hindu temples, rapists of Hindu women. etc. Some Hindu historians like PN Oak have contributed much to this rewriting of history to malign even the most liberal Muslim kings. Thus Taj Mahal is being presented as a rebuilt Hindu-Jain temple. Such insanities are abounding in India in the last 20 years.
I am not trying to indulge in “negotianism” with Hindus trying to accept a little blame on Muslim kings and say that mostly the kings were ok. I am just trying to ask people to be objective and look at the facts of history in the proper perspective.
Since in 1984 Hindus massacred 4,000 Sikhs, should anyone say that in post 1947 India Hindus have indulged in across the board oppression of Sikhs ? Since perhaps several hundred thousand Muslims have been killed in hundreds of communal riots at the hands of Hindus in India, should anyone say that in post 1947 India Hindus oppressing Muslims has been standard operating procedure in India for 60 years ?
With regards to your last point, “should anyone say that in post-1947 India,” actually, lots of people say that, or similar things.
My point to you would be, you say that this is not about trying to implement Shariah now. Kaleem, if we could all feel that what you said was true, then we would all just let it RIP and forget about it, probably even acknowledge your points and move on.
But the fact of the matter is very different; you may not want to impose Shariah and inequality and restrictions on my religious and political rights onto me; but the fact of the matter is, there are a very large number of Muslims who do. And they say that they are trying to establish “justice” by doing so. By defending Shariah historically, you are giving them ammunition for today. Surely, you know this, so I have to question your motivations on this point.
If I were to defend the economic development record and administrative accumen of Narendra Modi, and note that violence against Muslims under his rule has been only sporadic, both of those statements would carry elements of truth. But it would miss the larger picture of why he is offensive, and some of your views on the Mughals – and Shariah – do the same.
There was an interesting article by a prominent author which said that pakistan has become what it has and can be attributed to the aurangzeb like mentality of its people. The pakistani history texts even today glorify aurangzeb and inspire there generation to become like that. We are all seeing the results.
I think glorifying aurangzeb or anybody like him is proabably the worst human rights crime possible.
According to me imposing any kind of religious law on anybody is against freedom. If a religion is true you dont need any laws for it…It should be good enough to reform a person as it is….Except for national constitution approved by every Indian nothing else should ever be imposed on anybody.
Chirag, Achal:
1. My objective in writing this article was to show that Sharia laws are not generically oppressive and a scourge. In the long history of Islam some extremist rulers eg Saudi Arabia, Taliban have interpretted Sharia in an extremist, draconian manner, yet most others have interpretted it very liberally. Secondly I tried to demonstrate that most rulers in the long Muslim era in India were not oppressors who imposed draconian laws on non-Muslims. But I am not advocating that Sharia laws be imposed in today’s world. Yet a few elements of Sharia laws (eg personal laws) are an inherent part of the lives of Muslims. Even the archbishop of Caterbury recently said that in UK some elements of the Sharia laws can be included for the UK Muslims.
2. Muslims are not alone in this respect. Hindu and Christian family/personal laws similarly contain elements from their religious laws.
3. I realize some people of various faiths think that even in family/personal laws there should be no religious elements. But most people of all religious faiths accept including some elements of their religion in their family laws.
4. In including the example of Aurangzeb in my article I was neither praising him nor condemning him, just giving facts. We can not compare today’s Narendra Modi with Aurangzeb of 300 plus years ago, because the Indian saociety has changed completly. In those days feudalism was the norm; today the norm is democracy. Aurangzeb was a very conservative and hard ruler; but he was that for everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims. For their own political reasons in the last about 70 years certain political elements are trying their best to paint him as a tyrant and oppressor of Hindus.
So if Bishop of Canterbury had said the opposite (i.e. that Sharia laws cannot be included for UK Muslims) would you agree with that?
And what if there are other Bishops who actually criticize Sharia laws?
I hope you did get a chance to read all the reaction his comments caused, and the aftermath. Even some Muslims living in UK were critical of his statements. Let’s not even talk about the practical headache it would be to decide which laws to implement and which to leave out, and how to do that with different Muslim communities living in a secular country.
If he really was a tyrant and oppressed Hindus, why should there be an issue in accepting that? Some other political elements have been trying to brush those facts under the carpet for half a century now. So, who is correct? And history has become a political football, used by all sides – left and right. When people defend Aurangzeb, I see a mirror image on some blogs where others are even criticizing Akbar as intolerant and cruel! Stupid ideologies and -isms – cherry-picking facts to suit their own narrow purposes.
Hello Kaleem,
I have not been following this blog for sometime. You have claimed that Wikipedia’s article on ‘Persecution of Hindus’ by Islamic rulers is but a ‘propaganda’. If that were true that your article is equally guilty of another such propaganda of simply negating a large portion of Indian History.
The article in Wikipedia gives specific references of historical journals and dates but you still choose to ignore them. To simply term an encyclopediac work as ‘propaganda’ shows that you don’t seem to really care for the facts.
I personally think in today times Sharia, in whatever manner it is interpreted, is simply irrelevant to non-muslims. I think Islamic nations could do well to all turn secular leaving Islam to be followed as a religion by its followers than a political system.
As for the archbishop of Canterbury, we all know the opposition to his statement.
We need look no further than the havoc personal and religious laws have played in the Indian legal system.
Kaleem,
but when people talk of Shariah, they are talking of much, much more than a few elements of family law. If that’s all it was I’d have no problem, and the vast majority of others would not, either. But when the modern Islamists talk Shariah, they mean everything, not just a few elements of family law.
If any Hindu were to espouse such beliefs, they’d be condemned, by you, as communal and bigoted. Yet you seem to defend them, or discount the threat of them, or basically give a “I’m against them, but for the spirit of Shariah law” when these types of beleifs come from Muslims.
An article in defense of Shariah is not just a historical article – it has profound implications for our future course of action today, and for the rights of non-Muslims here on this planet of ours. Like I said, if the modern Muslim movements were more secular, I’d accept your point and let it RIP, actually in that circumstance, it really wouldn’t matter, so why bother giving offense or even arguing? I do not care if Aurangzeb destroyed temples or not, as long as we can build temples all over the world today without governmental laws against it. I really would not care if he converted people through state-sponsored discrimination or favoritism, if it were not also an active presence in today’s Islamic world.
But it does have relevance to our world today, and therefore your points have to be challenged. And that’s why everyone who is not Muslim has challenged them here; that’s why even the mildest advocacy of even family-law Shariah meets so much hostility in turn. If you don’t want this response, take on your own Islamists and their viewpoints, and neutralize them, before writing such articles in defense of historical Shariah. Nobody would be bothered by any historical defense of casteism if caste was not so pervasive today, and the same applies to the inequities of Islamic law.
Check out Malaysia. A modern country, more prosperous than India, better run. A diverse as India. A people who are generally moderate and not extremist. And, because of Shariah law, oppressive towards non-Muslims, and towards non-Muslim religions. You may think a political order in which I can be sent to 6 months of re-education camp (and forced to eat beef while there) because of my religious beliefs is basically an anachronism that doesn’t really reflect the spirit of Shariah. I could care less about your interpretation of the spirit of it; all I care about is the practice, and I can see the way it treats non-Muslim religions, right in front of me, all over the world.
Look at the unequal treatment of different religions in prosperous and super-rich Dubai. Again, this unequal treatment is not because the people there are fanatics. this unequal and unjust treatment is a direct result of Shariah law.
And that’s not the worse of the worst, that’s not Saudi Arabia or Sudan or the various poster-childs. What I’ve cited are actually moderate and nice places; but their laws are embedded with inequality and injustice.
Our religious rights are equal to yours; our right to shape in political system in accordance with our spiritual or moral beliefs is equal to yours; and Shariah, even in its most liberal form, denies both of these things. It denies my right to, for example, promote Hinduism, at the expense of Islam; but it upholds your right to promote Islam at the expense of Hinduism.
It is unequal, and unjust; therefore, it is wrong. It must be opposed today; and efforts to justify it historically must also be opposed.