1. What does Shariah mean?
Shariah is the law of the Qur'an and literally means "A path to life giving water." In fact, the word Yarrah (i.e. the root of the Hebrew word Torah) means precisely the same thing. Therefore, Shariah is actually ingrained in Abrahamic tradition.
Shariah is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), i'tiqadat (beliefs), mu'amalat (transactions and contracts) and 'uqubat (punishments). These branches combine to create a society based on justice, pluralism and equity for every member of that society. Furthermore, Shariah forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. Islam's founder, Prophet Muhammad, demonstrated that Shariah may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves--never through forced government implementation.
Additionally, the Qur'an does not promote any specific form of government, but requires that the form people choose must be based on adl or "absolute justice." The Qur'an says, "Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression. He admonishes you that you may take heed" (16:91). Notice, religious preference is never mentioned. Therefore, in ruling with absolute justice, for example, the righteous Jewish King Solomon ruled as a just monarch based on this fundamental principle of Shariah Law--justice.
2. Do Muslims want Shariah to rule America?
No. Remember, the Qur'an teaches that religion must not be a matter of the state. Shariah is a personal relationship with God. Prophet Muhammad, even as the de facto ruler of Arabia, wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah. Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion. The Qur'an clearly says, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:257). Furthermore, Shariah obliges Muslims to be loyal to their nation of residence. Therefore, American Muslims must adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
3. If Muslims don't want Shariah to rule America, then so what if it's banned?
First, Shariah is a personal relationship between a Muslim and God. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion--particularly private exercise. Second, if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam's guidelines. If similar restrictions were imposed for other faith groups, then no Minister could conduct a marriage ceremony, no Catholic Bishop could read the last rites and no Rabbi could perform circumcision on an infant male Jewish child--because these are all Judeo-Christian religious laws. Even within our current legal system, American Jews regularly resolve civil matters through rabbinical courts known as beit din. American Muslims simply want to enjoy their same constitutionally guaranteed right.
4. What does Shariah say about other religions?
Shariah law champions absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For example, the Qur'an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews, Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack. (22:41) Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha--and must respect their adherents. When Prophet Muhammad peacefully became the ruler of Arabia, his primary condition for non-Muslims (and Muslims) to reside in Arabia was that they allow all people of all faiths--be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or idol worshipers--to worship in peace and without oppression.
5. What about countries that oppress people and claim they follow Shariah?
Such countries have ignored the fundamental tenet of justice inherent in Shariah Law, and have instead used Shariah as an excuse to gain power and sanction religious extremism. To be sure, not a single example of a "Shariah compliant" country exists. In fact, the most "Muslim country" in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought--all hallmarks of Shariah Law. Those nations that oppress in the name of Shariah are as justified in their claims, as the slave owners who claimed their right to slavery was based on the Bible.
As for the "violent" verses from the Qur'an that are cited by both extremists and critics--honest legal interpretation abhors quoting an excerpt as a means to understand the full law. Unfortunately, both extremists and critics refuse to adhere to this basic principle. In sum, Shariah law guides a Muslim's personal relationship with God, just as the Old and New Testaments guide Jews and Christians in their personal relationships with God. These paths to life-giving water are nothing to fear.
Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations
Archived-Articles: Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
Shari'ah (Islamic law) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Islamic Law, known as "Shariah": primary source of persecution of ...
Rashids article tries to say that he knows more islam than the house of saud,the iranians,the egyptians,the tunisians who interpret the hate filled verses of the koran and live upto them. whom does Rashid think hes kidding
I always enjoy and appreciate your articles. This was an excellent primer and introduction to Shariah. As a friend and 40 year student, I did question one small detail of the article. You stated, "Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha--and must respect their adherents."
My understanding that the mass of Muslims as well as Muslim scholars down through the ages have rejected the prophet-hood of Krishna and Buddha, calling them idolators and polytheists. Please point out specific references from medieval scholars--not contemporary reformers--stating that Hinduism and Buddhism are "People of the Book" or had received a Messenger or Revelation from Allah.
Readers of this article should be aware that Mr Rashid is an Ahmadi. Not accepted as a Muslim among mainstream Islam. Like other religions he is surely entitled to his views, opinion and will be responsible for those on day of Judgement however his position is NOT position of Muslims. some of his statements are surely wrong. and Yes, Bud - Krishna and Buddha are not considered prophets according to Islam netiher are they considered People of Book as christians, jews and sabiens are (Quran - chapter 2 - verse 62). Those who are called People of the Book are clearly mentioned in Quran.
While i thank Mr Rashid for writing this article, It is important to know for the long term clarity that his positions are not the positions of mainstream Islam.
following video (http://www.drhatemalhaj.com/dawah-ilm-knowledge/living-islam/the-call-to-ban-sharia-implications-and-answers/)
Since the major purpose of Shairah is to guide man’s search for truth, Shariah encompasses guidance related to both material and spiritual experience. All aspects of an individual’s spiritual understandings and undertakings, which come under the rubric of purification, tazkiyah, should be intentionally subjected to the criterion — the reality-check — of Islamic law. The Shariah therefore provides the ultimate criteria for judgment on every aspect of life.
Two Divisions of Shariah
The first division encompasses al-ibadat, the acts of worship, which include: ritual purification, prayer, fasting, charities, pilgrimage to Mecca, and other ritual acts.
The second division encompasses al-mu’amalat, human interaction. These include:
financial transactions
laws of inheritance
marriage, divorce, and child care
food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
penal punishments
warfare and peace
judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
other forms of human dealings as time and place determine
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/8761/shariah-in-the-usa/
It must be remembered that being written by a Muslim, who is not even practicing them, doesn't give much credibility to the comments (favioring modern legal system). Please remember the input of practicing Muslims living in US as well who are trying to live Islam on daily basis. Social ills of Muslim societies are not Islam's ills.
I am sure that is the author's belief and understanding, but it doesn't change the fact that Islam is, indeed, the state religion in MOST Muslim-majority countries, and is sometimes compulsory.
Saying they aren't REALLY acting like Muslims is completely non-helpful, since they are certain that they ARE.
Things are not perfect in many countries, Muslim-majority or not. Western nations have misinterpreted and misapplied Biblical codices for centuries. The best way to cure misinformation is with correct information.
I like what the Author Qasim Rashid, said in his last paragraph of the article: "As for the "violent" verses from the Qur'an that are cited by both extremists and critics--honest legal interpretation abhors quoting an excerpt as a means to understand the full law. Unfortunately, both extremists and critics refuse to adhere to this basic principle. In sum, Shariah law guides a Muslim's personal relationship with God, just as the Old and New Testaments guide Jews and Christians in their personal relationships with God. These paths to life-giving water are nothing to fear." -- HOW TRUE!! I congratulate the author for such a wonderful article -- I have posted it on my Facebook site just so my Muslim and Non-Muslim friends can also read and learn.
-You are a muslim woman and don´t know what sharia REALLY is?
Sex segregation and veiling
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27668
That is why in Islamic societies, there is the segregation of the sexes and the Qur'an orders both men and' women to "lower their gaze" (24:30-1) and for women to wear the Hijab so that "they may be recognised and not molested" (33:59) as it is better for the purification of the hearts of both the sexes (33:53).
When I point out that the Ten Commandments in the Bible, laid out by Allah to Musa ("God to Moses", when I tell them this) are just as much part of the Shariah as anything in the Qur'an, they begin to understand a bit more.
The Ahmadis can get away with this brief interpretation of their path (Shariah) primarily because they are a minority in all the countries in which they live.
[I would like to point out that they must be given freedom of religion and protection as well as absolutely no persecution of them]
But imagine, they form an overwhelming majority in a country and are faced with the challenges of deciding on a form of government/governance, a constitution, a judiciary, law enforcement agencies, lawyers and judges, an army, etc., etc.
Would their country's constitution be based on the Qur'an and their Prophet and his successors (called, caliphs by them), or would it be based on completely secular (that is, wordly, free from religion/spirituality) teachings/premises and system(s)?
Would their judges be making decisions based on secular laws or laws that are derived from the Qur`an, their Prophet and his caliphs (khalifas), albeit that they suit the contemporary needs?
Would they defend their territory using their armed forces?
If so, then what would be the principles they would follow to defend themselves? Would these principles be based on the Qur`an, their Prophet and his caliphs, or would they be based on the teachings of some other men and women who are secular?
If they say that all or some of these will be based on the Qur`an, their Prophet and his caliphs, then that would make their path (Shari'ah) to also encompass public and state issues.
If so, I suggest that America is what it is precisely because you are wrong.
Presidential Candidate Obama answered the question in this way in his “Call to Renewal” speech of 2006:
"…secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.
[But] …Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tdoQr3BQ1g
Mr. Rashid, in answering his second question, clearly states Ahmadi support for separation of religion and state. So your question becomes: Will Ahmadis betray their own principles if they have the power to do so, or are they being intentionally deceptive?
Moreover, the way you answered my comments indicates that you are not that familiar with the teachings of the Qur`an.
The author of this blog, being familiar with the Qur`an and Hadith and the teachings of his prophet, should have no difficulty comprehending what I stated and where I was coming from.
Ghulam Ahmad is their prophet.
They believe in the Qur`an and the Prophet Muhammad and his teachings.
The Qur`an clearly has injunctions that go beyond personal issues and fall into the realm of society.
The blogger should understand that and be able to answer by queries.
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day.
Qur'an 4:59-60
And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires.
Qur'an 5:49-50
Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.
Qur'an 6:114
But it is also misleading, for it gives the impression that it's about Islam, whereas it's been written by an Ahmadi, and the Ahmadis took a different path from Islam when they accepted a man named, Ghulam Ahmad, a Prophet and the Messiah that the Jews are waiting for, and also Jesus Christ, that is, Ghulam Ahmad is that Christ whose second coming the Christians and the Muslims are waiting for.
It is also misleading in the sense that it omits some of the controversial issues, for example, segregation of men and women, rights of gays and lesbians, the practice of homosexuality, and the interpretation of those Quranic verses that talk about penalties and other issues that are better implemented by a government and not individuals.
Please see my other comments for detail.
Or maybe you're saying all Muslims in the world agree upon one standard view of Islam that Ahmadis somehow drastically violate and there aren't dozens of differences various Muslim clerics get into heated arguments about regularly and through the centuries. You also seem to suggest that belief in the advent of the Messiah is a non-Islamic belief or even for that matter believing that the Messiah all other faiths are waiting for is in fact the Messiah of Islam is non-Islamic.
Regardless, whatever you believe about him is not the case, he is very much talking about Islam and he does not refer to other religions or beliefs to support it.
Also, he does not address those issues b/c this article is about the greater issue of the practice of Sharia law, not the individual laws and practices. Yes those deserve there own articles but someone, maybe him, can do that another time. Maybe some commenter can address them here.
However, to suggest that "the Qur'an teaches that religion must not be a matter of the state." the author is using the language that is acceptable to those who want to contain and tame Islam and relegate it to personal piety and a very narrow sphere of influence.
There are verses in the Qur`an that require a correct and suitable interpretation and application by the scholars to meet the requirements of contemporary life.
But they cannot be implemented unless they are in the constitution of a society, a body of judiciary and agencies who would enforce the decisions of the judges.
For example, the Qur`an states clearly that if a Muslim kills another by mistake, he must cleanse his soul through good works. But it also states that he should compensate the family of the victim.
How would that be applied correctly in a society, where societies are divided into countries these days?
Who would make sure that justice is served?
Who would make the ruling and enforce it?
My assumption is that a country's citizens were asked in a referendum if they wanted the above injunction in the constitution and the majority said yes.
4. The assertion that Ahmadi Muslims are "not in power" or "a minority" and therefore it is appropriate to dismiss their application of Shariah is not only a baseless argument but ignores the merits of the argument set forth by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. It is akin to admitting that you cannot find a flaw per se, but that's okay because they're not "Muslim enough" anyway. The fact is that Ahmadi Muslims are the only Muslim Community firmly established in 200 nations, have built 15,000 mosques, 600 schools, and dozens of hospitals. Moreover, they have translated the Qur'an in full into over 70 languages -- more than the entire "majority" of the Muslim world combined. No other sect of Islam can claim such accomplishments. Likewise, to lump the entire Muslim world as "Sunni" "Shia" and "Ahmadi" is a deliberate misrepresentation of the diversity within the Muslim world. See e.g. http://www.real-islam.org/73_8.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches By the way, Ahmadi Muslims ARE Sunni Muslims, as we accept the Khulafa Rashideen.
5. @ Jan Allen McDaniel - Your belief in an alleged contradiction in the Ahmadi Muslim Community's application of Zakat is wholly incorrect, based on your confusion between Zakat and Alms Giving. They are two different things. Read about it here: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/An-Introduction-to-Financial-Sacrifice.pdf
Keep the discussion going. Email me if you'd like. God bless.
I appreciate the healthy dialogue and encourage it to continue. Many have asked questions - far too many to answer individually (a nice problem) - so I will try to address some overarching themes generally. Free to email me.
1. This Op Ed's purpose was to provide a general overview of Shariah Law--not to be a detailed comprehensive analysis of the 4 school of madhab. Such analysis, even critics of this Op Ed will concede, is impossible in 800 words. But, understand proper Islamic Ijtehad. First Qur'an, then Sunnah, then Hadith. Never vice versa. Sunnah and Hadith can only be accepted if they comply with the Qur'an or can be complied with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is first and final. If you're wondering, this is per the Hanafi madhab.
2. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has never shied away from any verse of the Qur'an, hence why I wrote alleged "violent" verses. The theory of abrogation is baseless. To back that up, we have written an extensive commentary on every single verse of the Qu'ran: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1 Plug in the chapter and verse of whatever verse you think is "violent" or abrogated and read the logical explanation. As always, feel free to email me with questions. This is an open invitation.
3. Here is a brief explanation of why Islam considers Buddha (as) and Krishna (as) true Prophets of God. http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/prophets.html
They refer to earlier communications from God (aka scriptures) as well as those ayaat that are in the cosmic and in one's own self.
Had there been any Qur`anic verses abrogated, why would they still be in the Qur`an?
And why wouldn't Qur`an's author, claimed by the Qur`an to be God, have listed those verses so there would not be any ambiguity or dispute in this matter?
Muslims over the years have dug a lot of holes.
The doctrine of abrogation is one of them.
And the corollary of that doctrine is even more absurd: that there were verses in the Qur`an that are not part of its text any longer, but there application is still valid. Utter nonsense!
- I think there is enough evidence to suggested the opposite
The Gradual Prohibition of Alcohol in Islam
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/gradual_prohibition_of_alcohol.htm
Drinking was a part of the lives of the people at that time and Allah in his divine wisdom had them quit gradually. This was Allah’s plan the whole time. But if Allah were to completely prohibit drinking all at once, it would have been very difficult for them to abide by that law immediately. This simply shows Allah’s mercy and consideration for his creation.
The gradual prohibition came in 3 verses in the following order:
Surah 2:219
They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder
Then....
Surah 4:43
O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say.....
Then....
Surah 5:90
O ye who believe ! wine and the game of chance and idols and divining arrows are only the abomination of Satan's handiwork. So shun each one of them that you may prosper.