While it started out as a minor footnote, opposition to sharî'ah has now morphed into the mantra by which many justify their opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero mosque." If we allow this mosque to go forth, so the logic goes, the next thing you know, all the bars in the country will be shut down (and those infidel lushes flogged!), all the women will be draped in sheets, and Muhammad will replace Jacob as the most popular name in America. Allahu akbar!
While some of this hysteria is clearly being peddled by people who know better, most Americans are probably just engaged in a good-faith attempt to understand and respond to sharî'ah through the only prism they have: their own historical experience. I was recently reminded of this on a visit to Cairo, during which time two popes, one Catholic, the other Coptic, expressed almost mutually contradictory sentiments about sharî'ah. The chasm separating their perspectives related not to their different levels of knowledge about sharî'ah but almost entirely to their differences in historical experience.
I arrived in Cairo on the first of June. On 29 May, the High Administrative Court of Egypt had ordered the Coptic Church to issue marriage licenses to divorced Copts who wanted to remarry. The Church demurred, arguing that this went against official Church doctrine, according to which adultery, death or apostasy were the only legitimate reasons for divorce and thus the only basis upon which the Church could issue licenses to remarry. Because the couples in question did not fit any of these criteria, the Church insisted that it could not issue such licenses and that, in the name of religious freedom, the High Court should not try to force it to do so.
For the next three weeks (I left on June 19) Egyptian papers teemed with coverage of what was developing into a constitutional crisis -- demonstrations, letter-writing, rallies, the whole nine. Those who supported the secular character of the Egyptian state -- Muslim or Christian -- argued that in the name of equality (Muslims are free to divorce and remarry) and human rights (marriage is a fundamental right) the Coptic Church should either issue the licenses or be forced to do so by the state. The most interesting position, however, was that of the Church itself. In addition to religious freedom it invoked sharî'ah in its defense! Time and again, Church officials publicly invoked such sharî'ah maxims as, "When confronted with People of the Book (Jews and Christians), adjudicate among them on the basis of their own religion." The Coptic patriarch, Pope Shanoudah III, even went so far as to quote the Qur'ân directly in his weekly sermon: "Let the People of the Bible adjudicate according to what God revealed therein. And whoever does not adjudicate in accordance to what God reveals, they are among the corrupt" (5: 47). As if these statements were not explicit enough, in an interview published on 10 June in the official Ahram newspaper, Pope Shanoudah stated plainly and without equivocation, "We simply ask the judges, if they want to reconcile with the Church, to apply the Islamic sharî'ah."
It would be disingenuous, of course, to read more than tactical sophistication into the Pope's and the Church's position. After all, Pope Shanoudah did not rush out to sign up with the Muslim Brotherhood. Still, their statements and protestations make it clear that he and the Church understood that under sharî'ah they would enjoy the right to preserve their way of life as Christians and that the rules governing Muslims do not automatically extend to non-Muslims. One can thus imagine my surprise to read, also in the Ahram newspaper, statements by Pope Benedict XVI in which he expressed, during a visit to Cypress, fears about how Christians in the Middle East would fair under the rising tide of sharî'ah-minded Islamic resurgence. Rather than seeing in sharî'ah any protection for the rights of Christians or other minorities, Pope Benedict could only imagine it to be a threat to his co-religionists. What accounts for this difference between these two popes?
For Pope Shanoudah, sharî'ah took its definitive political character under the pre-modern order, when non-Muslim communities existed before the Muslim state, and and rather than obliterate these, the state merely required them to recognize its sovereignty. For Pope Benedict, sharî'ah was seen through the prism of modern Western history, where it was presumed to be the uniform law of a homogenizing nation-state that decides if, how and according to what rules communities are to exist. For Pope Shanoudah, sharî'ah included a palpable element of "live and let live." For Pope Benedict, sharî'ah was simply "the law of the land" -- for everyone.
Most Americans share the perspective of Pope Benedict XVI. While some of this is based on simple prejudice and the massive amount of disinformation being spread about sharî'ah, I suspect that most of it is based on the simple fact that people simply view sharî'ah through the prism of their own experience as citizens of a modern state. Just as the modern state applies a single régime of rules equally across the board to all citizens, so too, they assume, must sharî'ah. This, by the way, is not only the assumption of Pope Benedict and most non-Muslim Americans; many Muslims have also imbibed this understanding. But as Pope Shanoudah's and the Coptic Church's tactic demonstrates, this is more indebted to Western success at universalizing its narrative than it is to the intrinsic nature of sharî'ah itself. Bottom line? Sharî'ah accommodated the existence and lifestyles of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and countless others. It can live with a few bars and miniskirts and lots of Jacobs in modern America -- multiracial, multicultural, multireligious modern America.
Stuart Whatley: Democratic Values, Islam and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Fallacy
Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is one of the most dreadfully ahistorical assertions that I have ever read. "Accommodated"? Let's just take the Zoroastrians as an example. Prior to the unprovoked Arab invasion and conquest of Persia, Zoroastrians formed the overwhelming majority of the population (the rest being mostly Christian or Jewish; there were no Muslims in those days). At the time of the invasion, Zoroastrianism was a major world religion and the vehicle of a magnificent and ancient civilization which was still vigorous and successful.
Today, after 1,400 years of Islamic sharia, forced conversions, economic discrimination and expulsions, Zoroastrians form less than one percent of the population of modern Iran.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1864931,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians
Is this the "accommodation" that the author has in mind?
One should also try and look at Shariah in its entirety to understand it, looking it parts of it will only undermine the very complex model that Shariah is.
Here it is Day 5.....
Do you or do you not support the adoption of Sharia in the civil codes of the United States for those who elect it?
What about the Constitution and it’s impact on any implementation Sharia and our separation of Church and State? Do you think Sharia should like Christianity should be limited to personal and family matters unless there is an over riding State interest such as individual’s constitutional rights including the right to privacy?
Or do you think it is utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism and Islam be treated with equal deference as Christianity is? Or do you think it’s wiser that all religions stay as separate as possible from the State?
The Constitution is a great shield against the blending of the religious and the secular.
However, things that were once unthinkable do become the 'order of the day' in other times. Gay marriage is a good example. Can you imagine how implausible that would have seemed in the 1950s? I happen to be fine with it, but I could not have imagined such a thing growing up.
Finally, let's assume the most modern implementation of Sharia. I would still oppose the implementation of a civil law route for the codes. It would open up a separate legal code for all. I think that would be a disaster.
1.If her husband dies, according to the Brahmin originated Vedas, she has to be........"
Plain rubbish, Corporate US has lot of Hindu women in high positions.
Please send more! :)
The thing that matters is that does matter is that in the United States of America we have one secular law for all people, regardless of race, religion or creed. That is the America I grew up in and was raised to love.
America is a pluralistic nation, e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. I embrace that philosophy with all my heart and soul, it is what defines us as a people. However pluralism is not to be confused with separatist multiculturalism.
Accord one group such privileges and then all groups will demand it, we will be a house divided against ourselves with each religious sect demanding their own ability to create law for their own people. I'm sorry but that is not America. It has been a disaster in Britain and it would be an even worse disaster here. I think British activist Maajid Nawaz said it best when he said that "secularism is sacred".
Shari'ah, like any other religious code should be used as a moral compass, not for law. Those who extol the supposed benefits of religious law ignore the history of cruelty, violence and oppression that continues to this day when religious moral codes are enforced as state laws or are sanctioned by the state.
We have Christian civil courts in America? Or Jewish civil courts in America? I think not.
In America all cases are judged solely by secular law, not religious law, even in civil cases. This is as it should be, religious considerations have no legal authority, the wall of separation must never be compromised.
Even in secular Turkey the barriers have been falling, Turkey is backsliding on secular values. The Islamists gain more influence every day and are trashing Turkey's secular traditions. Perhaps the most egregious example of Turkey's fall to the Islamists is this from the Turkish PM Erdogan:
"It is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide... If there were such a thing in Darfur, we would be chasing this to the end"
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/11/09/Erodgan-prefers-Sudan-pres-to-Netanyahu/UPI-78161257774803/
So when an Islamist dictator slaughters 300,000 Muslim civilians in cold blood, 3 million more forced from their homes, and who knows how many raped and tortured, it is just peachy with the Turkish PM because don't you know, 'Muslims can't commit genocide'! But when Israel gets trigger happy, he won't even talk!
It is getting really scary out there...
A good example is school prayer. Wouldn't it have been better instead of banning school prayer, to have merely said that instead of a one size fits all school prayer to instead say that each student should be allowed to pray in accordance with his or her own religious beliefs and that the teachers and faculty should not lead in prayer?
To me it would have been a far more equitable solution that recognizes religious freedom for all. I think it is really things like this that have contributed to a siege mentality among Christians. Judging from what the Christians I know have said to me and around me, for what that is worth.
I've yet to see a better reason for a marriage as a civil matter and the separation of church and state.
This is Day Four of my unaswered question:
Do you support a separate civil Sharia administrative court for Muslims in the United States? Do you support anything similar to that construction of law?
Simple question.
So basically your question is irrelevant.
I think you ought to be a little less certain in your declarations, but I understand your points.
The New Jersey case was overturned, as I noted in my original post on the topic. In addition, the husband's clear declaration of Shria applicability was less than enlightened in this case. The fact that he was a Moroccan citizen does not negate the original problem of these cross cultural views in the United States. I suppose you are saying that the judges accommodation was not at all based on the cultural points. Fair enough. I liked your reference and will read more on the case.
Now, I am interested in why you do not take the Imam, and possibly Professor Jackson, at their word. They both advocate a separate legal code if people 'elect' it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html
I think Americans need to be asking these questions very seriously, if it happened in Britain it can happen here. I mean jeez, do we really want right wing evangelicals creating their own separate legal code for divorce and domestic violence cases. I can picture it now...
Accept Shari'ah as a valid source of law and before you know it everyone will want their own separate legal code.
I am no fan of monotheism, what difference does it make if I am stoned via Leviticicus, Paul or Qu'ran? I am still dead dead dead.
These people always mask their actions in appeals to their own doctrine when they can or in secular law when they have to. Rarely, but just as quickly they will turn to another faiths traditions. Its all a cynical and hypocritical attempt to maintain their own privilege and marginalize anyone else