Presumptive presidential hopeful and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wants Congress to pass "a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States." The cause célèbre presumably animating Gingrich's concerns was a case in New Jersey involving a Moroccan immigrant whose wife alleged marital rape. The judge in the case rejected the wife's claim on the grounds that the husband's religious beliefs negated the likelihood of criminal intent. That these beliefs, which the judge presumed to be grounded in sharia, could actually exculpate this man, at least at the lower court level, proved to Gingrich that sharia was a mortal threat to American law, totally incompatible with "American values" and a contradiction of the most basic protections that Americans -- especially women -- take to be their birthright.
We may overlook for the moment that "marital rape" is a very recent concept in our American system, the first state to criminalize non-consensual sex between spouses being South Dakota in 1975 and the last being North Carolina in 1993. We may also overlook the unfounded assumption that the Moroccan man's understanding of sharia necessarily equals sharia. We may ignore as well Gingrich's appeal to "big government" as opposed to relying on the otherwise trusted market of ideas. We will even overlook the fact that a number of Christian conservatives have expressed reservations about the concept of "marital rape," arguing that marriage by definition implies consent to sex, even if it does not imply any right for either spouse to resort to violence. Instead, I would like to focus on what strikes me to be a much deeper and more problematic assumption underlying not only Mr. Gingrich's position but that of many others who see it as their duty to warn us about the dangers of sharia, often through painfully misinformed and misleading depictions.
A common approach to convincing people that sharia is at irreconcilable odds with America and that Muslims who argue otherwise are just not telling the truth is to refer to sharia manuals themselves, books written by Muslim jurists with the presumptive purpose of laying out the law of Islam. As the anti-sharia critics usually do not know Arabic themselves and are untrained in sharia, the books they rely on are invariably translations of books that are themselves invariably centuries old. Now, no one would claim to be able to give an accurate picture of contemporary Chinese, Indian or American law by citing manuals several centuries old. But when it comes to sharia, the assumption is that, as a religious law grounded in an unchanging divine revelation, the law itself must be fixed and unchanging. Thus, it makes no difference when or where a manual on sharia is written; these books all reflect the permanent, unchanging -- and unchangeable -- law of Islam.
This kind of thinking takes me back to graduate school and an old friend of mine, a 13th century Egyptian jurist, Shihâb al-Dîn al-Qarâfî (on whom I wrote my dissertation). Al-Qarâfî noted that the problem of taking sharia to be the equivalent of the contents of books was a problem even for trained jurists. He pointed out, however, that sharia is not the mere contents of the Qur'ân, the teachings of the Prophet and the schools of law but an attempt to process lived reality in light of these. As a result, law books always include the jurists' responses to facts on the ground in addition to their relevant interpretations of scripture and of tradition. As such, just as the socio-political, cultural, economic and other aspects of the facts on the ground are likely to change, so too must the law. In this light, al-Qarâfî insisted, it was patently wrong to hold contemporary societies to conclusions reached by the jurists of the past contemplating the realities of the past. To clarify his point, he poses the following question and gives the following response:
Q: What is the correct view concerning those rulings found in the school of al-Shâfi'î, Mâlik and the rest, which have been deduced on the basis of habits and customs prevailing at the time these scholars reached these conclusions? When these customs change and the practice comes to indicate the opposite of what it used to, are the fatwas recorded in the books of the jurisconsults rendered thereby defunct, it becoming necessary to issue new fatwas on the basis of the new customs? Or do we say, "We are mere followers. It is thus not our place to innovate new rulings, as we lack the qualifications to engage in independent interpretation. We issue, therefore, fatwas according to what we find in the books handed down from the master jurists."?
R: Holding to rulings that have been deduced on the basis of customs after these customs have changed is a violation of unanimous consensus and an open display of ignorance of the religion.
Al-Qarâfî was himself a follower of the school of Mâlik. But in a demonstration of his point, he argued that there were numerous rulings recorded in the books handed down from Mâlik on which it was not permissible to follower the leader. For example, Mâlik, who lived several centuries before al-Qarâfî, had indicated that certain phrases when uttered constituted a declaration of divorce. Against his fellow Mâlikîs, whom he casts as sloppy in their juristic thinking, al-Qarâfî insisted that these phrases had absolutely no legal effect whatsoever today.
You know that you do not find anyone using these phrases today for this purpose. On the contrary, whole lifetimes pass and no one hears anyone say [these things] to his wife when he wants to divorce her. No one hears anyone use these phrases today, neither to sever the marital bond, nor to designate the desired number of divorces.
Returning to Mr. Gingrich and those who follow his lead, it is true that books on sharia, especially the ones they quote, may not recognize marital rape as a legal concept. But this does not mean that sharia can never do so. Rightly or wrongly, the issue itself has simply not attracted enough juristic attention among American Muslims to produce a debate that is serious enough to produce new juristic perspectives on the matter. But just as the early community following the Prophet's death encountered new, non-Muslim realities and processed these into new sharia rules, there is nothing in sharia that would prevent a similar process from taking place in America today.
Of course, this is no guarantee that "marital rape" will gain acceptance as a sharia concept. (I personally see some of the same problems with it that I see with the concept of marital theft or libel.) But whether or not it does will depend on the deliberations of contemporary, especially American, Muslim jurists, not solely on whether or not this or that ancient manual recognizes it.
If the aim of Mr. Gingrich and his supporters is to protect and promote the welfare of all Americans, they might consider an approach that allows for mutual benefit in place of one that reduces us all to the blind pursuit of raw competitive advantage. On this approach, warnings about sharia might at least take seriously what American Muslim jurists have to say about the matter. It might also recognize that the fears, concerns and legitimate aspirations of American Muslims are no less worthy of consideration than those of their non-Muslim compatriots.
Josh Goodman: What Sharia Law in Democracies Tells Us About Islam
John L. Esposito and Sheila B. Lalwani: Bigotry and Islam: Bill O'Reilly's at It Again
Mike Ghouse: Sharia Law: Not in America
Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives ...
Eugene Robinson - Sharia as the new red menace?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602
Sharia law contradicts our constitution. It is a fundamental conflict between secular and religious law.
"8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do. "
"9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it)."
We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies.
We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers...
We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience...
We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.
We call on the governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy,... eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence; reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims; and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.
We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy. etc.
The focus is on the wrong Continent.
Are you so quick and willing to allow the FLDS to proceed with 14 year old marriages and polygamy because it is their religion?
There is already a de facto unconstitutional religious test for political office in this country.
We see the deadly shariaa dance when the judge sanctions domestic violence as legal and stoning to death for the lady seen talking to a stranger.
"Source Book of Islam, that the only violence that is allowed by God is in self-defense and only proportionate and within a lot of restrictions."
Here is a better expert.
"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...." (Sahih Muslim 19.4294)
Probably when the oil runs out. The religious forecast is Revelation 18:3 which I believe is discussing middle eastern oil and resulting wealth; all nations must have it and will alter their national policies in order to get it: "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies."
Can you point me to similarly recent Christian dogma supporting the killing of an unruly son?
The same applies to the old practice of slavery.
I read books on religion which conforms to reality; in fiction I prefer John Gresham and Jeffery Archer.
The "real Sharia", again, as YOU perceive it!
What YOU consider to be "read Shariah" is nothing more than YOUR understanding of what it is!
Aren't others allowed to define what Shari'ah is to them?
Are you the only one whose understanding of the Shari'ah is the correct one?
If so, then I call it arrogance and closed-mindedness and exclusivism.
But you choose to draw your conclusions from the actions of a few.
For example, you continue to tell us that the people in the Middle East danced on the streets on Sep 12, 2001, but the reference you provided a few days ago was of a couple of thousand Palestinians who were rebuked by the Palestinian Authority.
Why do you choose to look at THEIR acts and NOT the acts of the thousands of Iranians who held rally IN FAVOR and IN SYMPATHY of America after 911 and were as horrified of it as anyone else?
Why not use THEIR example and that of many other peaceful and peace-loving Middle Easterns and say, "That's Shari'ah!"?
Why do you insist on only looking at the thorns and not the flowers?
Does this not mean that you are LOOKING for the thorns?
You have been told time and time again that the Muslims are not monolithic. Yet, you choose to paint them all with the same brush.
Why?
This is commendable but is the first I have heard of such a thing.
1. Muslims overwhelmingly denouced 911.
2. Muslims are the biggest and the largest targets of terrorism!
3. There have been many Muslim voices against extremism. See this for example: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/search/results/2e0933f7d89884936335a6ec7d8946bb/
4. I can prove from the Source Book of Islam, that the only violence that is allowed by God is in self-defense and only proportionate and within a lot of restrictions.
Agreed.
Re: #4 - I can do that - and I'm not even Muslim!
As In: it doesn't take a lot of knowledge or willingness to see what the Quran actually teaches; some people accused the Prophet Muhammad of doing all sorts of terrible things -- and others believed them; the Quran, however, fully supports your view, and it is echoed by quite a few Muslim and non-Muslim writers.
The problem is:
People a couple of centuries after Muhammad, who were very authoritarian, created a body of "Sharia law" (i.e. fiqh) that was very authoritarian and cruel.
People a couple of centuries ago (the ones who co-formed Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia) decided that Islam needed to reform to what it was originally - but they went to the 9th century Ullama (Islamic law-givers/interpreters) - rather than straight back to the Quran.
Liberal Muslims (i.e. Sufis), like liberal Christians, don't need to see the ancient laws reformed - they just see beyond the form of the law, to the essence of what religion can be: a map to fulfilled consciousness, and thereby, fulfilled living.
The Quran and the Prophet Muhammad actually teach a lot of very open-minded, accepting things, toward women, children, enemy combatants, etc. -- especially for that time and place.
Peace to all.
Where is the outrage from the christians?
Both of these puritanical sects have a history of misogny, child abuse and sexual abuse.
Again, where is the outrage from the right?
I lived next to, went to school with, played and worked with Amish and Mennonites children and adults; to this day my mother's next door neighbors are Amish.
Western Muslims rarely use the word "Shari'ah".
Those Western Muslims who wish to practice their religion simply ask: "Is this act or thing Islamic?"
After that, the answer depends on the scholars they trust, the books they read and their individual circumstances and needs.
And that's what makes the Muslims extremely diverse, perhaps the most diverse religious community in the world!
Overwhelming majority of Western Muslims just stick to the basics of their religion, the parts that deal with personal piety, heigene and the essential spiritual practices, such as the 5 daily prayers, fasting, chrity, hajj, etc.
They are not concerned about who rules and governs the country so long as they can live in peace, are able to feed their families, get education and do the most essential duties as Muslims.
They are not concerned about any world domination or anything like that.
So, to those Western Muslims, the current hype and obsession about Shari'ah is bizarre to say the least.
Western Sufi Muslims go a bit further than common Western Muslims in that they carry out additional spiritual exercises and focus more on moving away from the lower aspects of the self.
The primary concern for the Western Sufi Muslims is love.
If Muslims are concerned about love, than all the violent acts 9/11 'til now are because of too much love?
Please clarify.
Thanks,
Some people consider Islam as you have described, but not most.
Muslims are extremely diverse. It is erroneous to lump them all together.
I have never heard of an imam inciting violence. Your experience may have been different. They usually focus on personal piety in their Friday sermons, at least where I have lived.
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/