As Islamist parties emerge victorious from Arab ballots, some are having second thoughts about the Arab Spring. The widespread concern is that post-dictatorial Middle Eastern states will turn into illiberal democracies rather than liberal ones. And while the threat of illiberal democracy is valid for any late-democratizing country -- just look at Mr. Putin's Russia -- the Middle East bears an additional and unique risk: Islamic law, or the shariah, which might imply corporal punishments for criminals, degradation of women, and persecution of perceived impiety, blasphemy or apostasy.
In the face of this risk, a remedy is often hoped in the power of pragmatism. For example, Egypt's triumphant Freedom and Justice Party, an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood, will ruin the country's tourism industry if it bans alcohol. Incumbent Islamists who will have to deliver to their people will face such challenges, the hope goes, and be forced to soften some of their rigid standards.
Besides pragmatism, however, there is another source that the more progressive Islamists such as Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia's Ennahda, seem willing to utilize for modernizing their future vision: simply a non-literalist approach to the sharia, which will focus on its "intents" rather than the medieval means that were used to serve those intents.
The basis for this non-literal approach goes back to Imam Shatibi, a scholar from the 14th century Muslim Spain. In his magnum opus, Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law, Shatibi studied the whole shariah carefully, and concluded that all its decrees could be rendered to the protection of five fundamental values: Life, religion, property, progeny and reason.
If these intents (maqasid) of Islamic law are taken as its ever-valid content, but the means of these intents are allowed to vary according to time and milieu, as some theologians suggest, then there opens ample ground for reform. Corporal punishments, for example, can be explained as resulting from historical necessity. For instance, in 7th century Arabia, there were neither any correctional facilities nor any bureaucracy to run them. But now we live in a different world.
Or the seemingly misogynistic sayings of Prophet Muhammad, such as his advice that women should not travel alone, can be explained as reasonable precautions in his historical context: In 7th century Arabia, an unprotected woman wandering in the desert would easily fall prey to brigandage. In the modern world, however, both law enforcement and means of travel have improved immensely -- and therefore the Saudi ban on women's driving can be declared absurd.
Islamic history presents examples showing how this non-literalist understanding of the sharia allowed imported adaptations. One exemplary period that I focus on in my book is the late Ottoman Empire, the very seat of the last Islamic caliphate, that rendered most corporal punishments in shariah obsolete, replacing them with fines and prison terms. In the 19th century, Ottoman Islamic scholars explicitly acknowledged "laws should change as times change." They blessed important liberal reforms -- Jews and Christians acquired equal citizenship, laws that banned apostasy were abandoned, and an elected parliament was opened. In the works of Islamic liberals such as Namik Kemal (1840 -1888), whose ideas led the ground for the Ottoman Constitution of 1876, the shariah had turned into a doctrine of God-given "inalienable rights of men" -- a basis for liberty, not a threat to it.
However, the post-Ottoman Middle East was drawn into a political and cultural crisis, and Islamist movements emerged with a reactionary zeal. Ultra-literalist Salafis grew into a potent force, and instead of reforming the medieval sharia to adapt to the modern world, they forced the modern world to adapt to the medieval shariah.
These fundamentalists did not realize that their blind literalism could lead them to follow the letter of the law, but betray its intents. For example, the Qur'anic requirement to bring four witnesses to prove an accusation of adultery, whose explicit purpose is to protect women from libel, could turn into a protection for rapists in Pakistan. Or the obsession to separate the sexes could produce ridiculous fatwas in Egypt, such as that a man and woman can work in the same office space only if the woman, in order to establish a maternal relation, breast-feeds the man.
The Western civilization is familiar with a version of this problem from its own canon: The frequent criticism that Jesus brings in the New Testament to the Pharisees, a conservative and literalist Jewish sect of that time, is very relevant. The Pharisees, Jesus noted, were obsessing about the minute details of religious law but leaving undone "the weightier matters of law" such as "justice, and mercy, and faith." "The Sabbath was made for man," Jesus also proclaimed, turning the Pharisee mindset upside down, "and not man for the Sabbath."
The future of freedom in the Islamic civilization partly lies in a similar insight -- that the shariah was made for man, and not man for the shariah. Luckily, the sources that will help nurture that insight are more abundant in Islamic theology and jurisprudence than what is often thought.
Follow Mustafa Akyol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AkyolinEnglish
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations
Qasim Rashid: Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim ...
Thank you for concisely and eloquently putting down in this article exactly what needs to be changed in order for the Muslims to become what they are supposed to be. Subservient to God and not to patriarchal power struggles.
Half of these fatwa issuing men and judges hiding behind shariah instead of helping victims...I don't even consider them muslims anymore. And it's Rushdi who has a price on his head! Go figure.
Some of us tried to warn about this from the beginning. In particular, political commentators from Russia were united about making this warning, and made it more responsibly than the Right did in ths US. Yet ALL of us making this warning were ignored.
Only now that the damage is done are people beginning to admit that we were right. Illiberal democracy has already overtaken Egypt.
Thank you, you are a breath of fresh air. The world needs you now more than ever.
The Bible has similar antiquated insinuations that women should obey the man, etc., but was written in a time when women were considered property, so amounts to pure nonsense in this time. Any statement, from any ancient text, that is repugnant to reason should be abandoned and recognized as fallible and out of context. The problem with all fundamentalism is it thumbs its' nose at reason. 'Reason', someone once said, is the hand-maiden of truth". If anything is repugnant to reason, it cannot be true, this is the litmus test.
Oh, wait, that's the way church, mosque and temple have always done it. That's why Sunnis and shia's kill each other, unless it was about who was descended from whom.
As a gay man on the receiving end of fundamentalist religions obsession and oppression my whole life, I have a better plan. How about we abjure the alleged moral authority of these ancient texts, which have been ripped out of their cultural, lingusitic, historical, and religious milieus, translated by fallible people hundreds of years later? How about we based our moral and laws on facts, logic, experience, understanding, and compassion, instead of the badly translated opinions of ancient scribes?
Recently, iranian mullahs hung two young men who had been convicted of homosexuality. I know that shariah justified their murders, but what sick mind justified shariah?
A woman in Nigeria (?) was raped and convicted of audltery. It would take a truly woman-hating-and-fearing man to come up with something as twisted as that.
thousands of years ago, El/Allah/Adonai/God murdered the world's population for for their sins, including little babies ripped from their mothers arms in the rising floods, little babes who couldn't have sinned even if they had wanted to?
And I'm supposed to be receiving moral instruction from the likes of those mullahs, of that god?
"that the shariah was made for man, and not man for the shariah"..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------you should take it a little further.. all shariah and religion was man-made, there was no divine sanction involved, the sooner you get your blinkers off, the better
The miracle of the Qur'an is not a magical event. The Qur'an won't turn fish into cats, or water into wine. The miracle of the Qur'an lies in its penetrative understanding of the human psyche, far superior to anything I have ever read.
Remember, the Qur'an is also a work of literature, the pinnacle of the Arabic language. You will not understand the depth of the Qur'an if you read a translation. That would be like trying to appreciate Wordsworth or Whitman by reading a translation in Russian.
I'll give you an example just to give you a taste of what I'm trying to say, "Kun Fayakun" (from a recent Bollywood song) translates into "He says be, and there is." The translation is accurate, but volumes have been written on these 3 words alone because the words are chosen to convey a very deep meaning.
I look forward to your articles on HP.
You are a gem!
Keep up the excellent work!
We need more thinkers and writers like yourself.
Take care,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is another way:
The punishments in the Qur`an are the maximum, not minimum.
And they are meant to be carried out in extreme cases and in a society where all other dimensions of Islam are fully functioning.
Since it is not possible to establish that ideal Medinan society, the punishments suggested in the Qur`an cannot be carried out, and the judges in an Islamic state should take that into consideration and decree other forms of punishment to the convicted.
Muslims generally make a great mistake when they think that the process of Islamization BEGINS with the Qur`anic punishments.
Consequently, they wreak havoc on earth and make a mess of Islam.
The Islamization begins with the metaphorical "Meccan Phase", where enlightenment takes place through proper grooming of the self.
The door to "Medina" (that is, a social situation) did not open for the Prophet until the Muslims had gone through that grooming.
So how can we try to force it open for us when our collective situation is so pathetic?
How can we verify this objectively?
"And they are meant to be carried out in extreme cases and in a society where all other dimensions of Islam are fully functioninÂg."
How can we determine whether such has taken place anywhere, objectively?
"Since it is not possible to establish that ideal Medinan society, the punishmentÂs suggested in the Qur`an cannot be carried out"
In which case, why punish anyone using laws that specify the maximum and are not meant to be used until ideal conditions prevail?
"Muslims generally make a great mistake when they think that the process of IslamizatiÂon BEGINS with the Qur`anic punishmentÂs."
How can we determine, objectively, that they are wrong and not you?
"ConsequentÂly, they wreak havoc on earth and make a mess of Islam."
Or maybe Islam forces them to wreak havoc on Earth. Again, how can we objectively determine whether such is or is not the case?
What objectivity are you talking about?? This is an article in the religious section, that too, about a monotheistic religion. Leave 'objectivity' which is based on 'reason' at the door before you walk in here.
Some in the West have stated that the "War on Terror" is now a "War on Islamism".
Therefore, one must be extremely careful when declaring someone an "Islamist" because of the obvious implications.
I would argue that Muslims must not use these terms at all!
As for Shari'ah, I have written extensively on this subject in HP comments sections.
And as a Muslim who adheres to Sufi Islam, our interpretation of Shari'ah is different from many Muslims and is much closer to the original Islam.
Suffice it to state that Shari'ah to us is the outer form and is akin to an egg shell that protects the embryo and provide it with the most conducive environment for its growth and progress.
Similarly, Shari'ah provides an outer, protective shell to the self for it to grow and evolve so that it reflects the higher qualities, such as selflessness, compassion, generosity, love, peace, justice, humility, etc.
How does one determine whether something is to be taken literally, and whether taking something non-literally will meet the intent? What is the intent of the Sharia law that following it literally causes harm and mayhem?
Why would you rationalize a objectively non-determinable intent when the literal is clearly nonsensical?
Why not live by laws that you create that form sense to begin with, literally?
----------------------------------------------
These are deep questions and will require you to study Islamic Law in a systematic fashion, from a teacher, like Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, who is an expert on Islamic Law.
See this: http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/index.html
---------------
Because the Muslims have been given the Law by God as He gave the Law to the Children of Israel through such Prophets/Messengers as Moses.
We find the Law in the Qur`an.
For example, when a Muslim kills another Muslim intentionally (pre-medidated first degree murder), the killer is to meet the same fate.
But if a Muslim kills another Muslim by mistake, he is to compensate the victim's family and/or fast to cleanse his/her soul.
This much is in the Qur`an.
But through different methodologies, the Muslim jurists generally agree that these punishments are:
a) Maximum
b) Need to be contextualized
For further reading, I invite you to read Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Feisal Abdul Rauf and Fethullah Gulen.
Right! Are you aware that you are lying when you say that is exactly what is specified by the Quran? Do you realize that if it were true it makes the Quran look sillier than it is?
Imagine that.
A woman is accused of adultery.
She denies it.
So they bring in a witness
She denies it.
So they bring in another witness
She denies it.
So they bring in another witness
She denies it.
So they bring in another witness
She denies it.
Then they let her go.
LOL
---------------------------------------------------
I am not aware that this is in the Qur`an.
Can you please cite the Surah and Verse numbers?
Thanks,