We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.
But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.
In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.
The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.
Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.
Sherman A. Jackson: Sharî'ah: Between Two Popes
Sherman A. Jackson: What Is Shariah and Why Does It Matter?
If Muslims (along with fundamentalist Christians and Jews) could just accept their book’s writings for what they are – an opinion about how people should live during a very different time in the very distant past, progress could be made.
Not only do Muhammad’s words not cover many current moral dilemmas, but much of what is covered is terribly outdated. To site one obvious example, no country in the world today openly supports slavery, yet Muhammad not only supported the keeping and capturing of slaves, he owned slaves himself. Some of our (U.S.) country’s forefathers also believed in the institution. However, there is an important difference. Our and other democracies were able to rewrite the laws once the immorality of slavery was recognized. Islam, on the other hand, is stuck trying to explain why Muhammad, the epitome of perfection in man, not only neglected to condemn the practice, but in fact, practiced it.
Al Sharif
Actually, what muslims want is to ensure that *our* secular laws are not in conflict with the quran or the sayings of Mo (as they have clearly demonstrated with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, scarf controversies, etc).
"The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law"
Yep. That's why Saudi Arabia is so similar to the US.
India has a separate set of civil laws for Muslims, based upon Shariah, as do the Philippines. In many places though, even though they have religious courts, most day to day issues of justice are still dealt with by secular courts. Leaving issues of marriage, inheritance, and morality to the religious courts.
- How will Shariah law treat the observant of other religions when their beliefs and practices inevitably conflict with the "legalities" of Shariah? To make it easy, how will Jews drink ritual wine or Christians enjoy port roast? False comparisons of penalties for obvious crimes like murder with those for dietary or sexual "crimes" are not allowed, nor are abridgements of simple freedoms permissible.
- How will Shariah law be updated to deal with reality in modern life? Only the most zealous truly believe that thousand-year-old text, even if divinely inspired, applies literally to conduct at the corner of 55th and 6th in this century. False choices of councils of benighted elders making "adjustments" are not allowed.
Frankly, any religious government with its divine law is purely a power play to enthrone the social club with the most devoted members and especially to give status to its self-appointed and self-perpetuating priesthood.
I like the American model better even though we have apparently lost sight of it recently.
Nemo