The attempt to proffer God-conscious responses
No really, it’s all been a big misunderstanding. Sharia is
- not just one thing
- a matter of ideals rather than law
- a matter of interpretation
- subject to change
- not all that much about punishment
- full of rules about evidence that make punishment notional
- inspiring
See? Totally reassuring, right? And all those women being whipped or stoned in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and the like are just having some kind of mass hallucination, because sharia is nice so that kind of thing couldn’t happen.
In short, shariah includes the attempt to proffer God-conscious responses to an ever-changing reality. And in this capacity, many of its rules are subject to change with changes in the circumstances to which it seeks to respond.
Except, of course, when it doesn’t, and they aren’t. But always look on the bright side of life, eh?
As long as those changes are approved by the patriarchy, of course.
Is any country with ostensibly Sharia law a place where women have any real rights? Where discrimination is not embedded in the legal system?
Regardless of what it was intended to be, Sharia represents in practice (a) an excuse for mistreatment of women in places where it has been long-enshrined, and (b) an excuse to reject the norms of Western nations, for Islamist Muslims living there, in favor of a separatist community of outsiders. Neither current usage fits with the rosy picture painted in the HuffPo.
I’ve heard it claimed that, until roughly the late 19th Century, women had more rights under Islam (eg. could own property in their own name) than they did in Christian countries. Assuming that’s true, well good for Islam. But that was then, this is now, and in the 21st Century we think that’s a damned low bar to set. (And we got where we are largely by jettisoning 90% of traditional Christian baggage.)
Perhaps the most troubling statement of all is this one:
In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, Islam is incompatible with any other form of law or social organisation. I think we should take this as a very serious warning, and begin asking very pointed questions about the possibility of accommodating Islam within a democratic system of governance. I do not believe it can be done. From where I sit this is precisely what Sherman Jackson is saying, and he doesn’t even notice that he has given us more reason to worry than we had before he wrote is piece.
Yeah, we all know how that works. Rape=adultery.
If Mr Jackson has read ‘1,081 pages of the two-volume Arabic text from which [he] studied shariah, only 60 pages were devoted directly to criminal sanctions! (Jihad, incidentally, took up only 19.)’ he’ll have noticed that a lot of it is about the treatment and trading of slaves. Does Mr Jackson believe this reconciles the ‘is’ with the ‘ought’?
According to Imam Rauf, the ‘moderate’ cleric who wants to build the New York Islamic center, ninety percent of Sharia law is consistent and compatible with the U.S. Constitution. The areas of difference are “small and minor.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/13/new.york.imam/?iref=obinsite
Does anyone know what these specific “small and minor” differences actually entail?
I don’t doubt this is true. I have said on several occasions that if you ask yourself which of the major world religions has the most intrinsically dangerous theology (independent of how it is currently practiced by the majority of followers, which has much more to do with historical, political, and sociological factors than the theology itself) I think it would be a close call between Christianity and Islam. The majority-Christian nations tend to be less oppressive than their Muslim counterparts has little do with the theology, and much to do with the rise of secular Enlightenment-era ideals.
@Sigmund: When deciding whether Imam Rauf is a “moderate”, it is useful to keep in mind that a disturbingly large fraction (I would argue probably a majority) of our US representatives would tell you that “Judeochristian” law and the Ten Commandments are “consistent and compatible with the U.S. constitution”. And really, Talmudic law is no better than Sharia law — what keeps Judaism from being as dangerous as its other Abrahamic counterparts is the lack of any doctrine in support of converting other people, etc.
I mean, let’s say that there were a Catholic bishop proposing to build a giant YMCA in Manhattan. Could you really imagine him going on TV and saying, “I really think we need to keep Biblical principles completely separate from government. They are inconsistent and incompatible with the constitution.” Really? Even the most moderate bishop you can think of?
The problem is not that Imam Rauf isn’t a moderate; he is. The problem is that moderate religious leaders are still complete tools when it comes to things like that.
Shariah as usually implemented purports to include not only a body of rules to be followed, but also a system or process (called Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) that can be used to derive from the Qu’ran, hadith, and sunnah new rules to apply to situations not expressly addressed in those foundational materials. In that sense, the article’s description of Shariah is correct. Rough parallels with the Talmudic tradition and even the Anglo-American common law system aren’t completely inappropriate. Rough similarity in process among those systems, however, doesn’t warrant giving them equal regard or respect.
Shariah suffers from inherent limitations. First, its ultimate source of authority — the Qu’ran — is not subject to amendment. Muslim orthodoxy is that Muhammad’s alleged recitals of the word of Allah are eternal, unchanging, and universally applicable. One can find in the Qu’ran statements of some worthy general principles, including tolerance, mutual respect, a version of the Golden Rule, etc. — usually found among the Surahs Muhammad delivered in Mecca early in his ministry, before he acquired political power — but rational application of those principles to contemporary circumstances is limited by some of the more specific rules he laid down in later Surahs delivered when Muhammad was ruling a polity in Medina. Those more specific rules include some of those most distasteful to modern Western ideals, such as those governing the handling of slaves, the subordinate role and disfavored status of women, and the duty believers have to defend the Muslim community (i.e., practice jihad). Those portions of the Qu’ran are just as binding on the Islamic jurist (faqih) as the nice-sounding generalities. Even one very skilled at dialectic cannot make Shariah look good to contemporary Western observers without abandoning the orthodox Muslim view of the Qu’ran.
Another problem with Shariah — particularly in Sunni Islam — is that there is no authoritative person or body to decide contested issues. In theory, only a faqih trained in Islamic jurisprudence is supposed to issue a judgment (fatwa), but as I understand it, there is no universally recognized credential or qualification in Sunni Islam for service as a faqih. Many with doubtful qualifications and questionable motives — such as senior al-Qaida figures — purport to issue fatwas and there is no simple way to discredit them. It’s far too easy for the rich, powerful, or unscrupulous — all too often either the entrenched, reactionary forces or the violent, aggressive elements in Muslim cultures — to find someone willing to issue a fatwa to provide their agenda (whatever it might be) religious legitimacy, with no hope of any definitive, binding rejection of that ruling by a superior authority. The situation in Shi’a Islam is somewhat different, in that Shi’ism generally recognizes different degrees of authority among clerics who practice fiq. Again, however, there often is no central authority to resolve differences and conflicting rulings are common.
Of course, a Muslim country purporting to follow Shariah can vest a person or body with the requisite authority to resolve disputes over Shariah. Iran is a notable example. It has a Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council that can speak authoritatively on Shariah and under Iran’s constitution may block any action by other branches of government as “un-Islamic.” The problem is that they are largely unanswerable to the public and, broadly speaking, determine who will hold any public office and who their own replacements will be. That arrangement is tailor-made for entrenched, reactionary forces to perpetuate themselves with the force of law as well as religious sanction. Iran’s frankly benighted policies on women, gays, sexuality in general, Israel and Jews, minority faiths, and other matters should come as no surprise.
In sum, I’d have to agree that Shariah is a system of applying ideals to changing circumstances; it’s just that those ideals aren’t always so ideal and Shariah offers no good way to fix that problem.
Thanks Darron, that’s a great, informative comment.
The Saudi king recently cracked down on freelance fatwa-issuing, but of course as in Iran, the “official” fatwas will hardly be responsive to the people.
I don’t object to the claim that sharia is a system of applying ideals to changing circumstances, I object to the system and the ideals. I object to theocratic systems and ideals as such.