Shari’a
law: frequently envisioned as a cloud that hangs over Muslim countries and
peoples, spoiling their political processes, putrefying their ideas, making their
peoples extremists, and subjecting their women to a sorts of inequality. Rather
than this negative, frankly wrong, definition of Shari’a law, I have come to
understand Shari’a as “a religious code for living, in the same way that the
Bible offers a moral system for Christians.”[1]
While Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’ it is certainly not a ‘religion of
violence’ either. Such generalizations work for no religion, not even
Christianity; having said that, religion can be a tool for peace. Shari’a itself
ranges in its interpretation and implementation. At its most basic level, it
governs prayer, fasting, donations, and modesty. But it goes beyond this; just
as in other faiths, interpretation is up for grabs between different groups:
conservatives and Islamists take it to mean one thing while liberals take it to
mean another. Along this spectrum, most religions can in fact be divided.
Returning to Islam though, the fact that there are divisions between the
schools of Shari’a law illustrates just how hard it is to define the term (here
I refer in large part to the Sunni tradition of Islam). The arguing from what
was essentially the beginning of Shari’a law – the master-student relationship between Malik ibn Anas and Ibn al-Shaf'I - likewise
exhibits the vague nature of just what Shari’a law is.
Nevertheless,
despite the Hanbali, Hanifi, Maliki, and Shafi’I schools of Islamic
jurisprudence; Shari’a law is something more. As Sumbul Ali-Karamali writes in The Muslim Next Door: The Qur’an, the Media,
and that Veil thing[2]
“The five basic tenets of Islam are the guidelines for how Muslims conduct
their daily lives.”[3] (In
reference to 1. The declaration of faith, 2. Prayer, 3. Fasting, 4. Pilgrimage
and 5. Donation to Charity.) Obviously, this description is more personal and,
most importantly, more accurate, in my opinion. But as a value system, is Shari’a
law as described by Ali-Karamali that strange?[4]
At one point in her essay she discusses Islam’s strict rule concerning dating: “Strictly
speaking, Islam does not prohibit dating, depending upon how ‘dating’ is
defined. Islam does not precisely prohibit men and women from talking or having
coffee together or going out with chaperones. However, Islam does prohibit any
physical intimacy between males and females outside of marriage.”[5]
Is this statement really any different from Orthodox Christianity’s position
that unmarried people should be celibate? As Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov writes: “Attitudes
appear to be much more pronounced with respect to premarital sex: just don’t do
it.”[6]
Such attitudes extend to other faiths from one degree to another as well.[7] As
such, is Islam’s version of moderation exemplified by Shari’a law that is
presented in The Muslim Next Door so
outlandish? I believe I have illustrated that this is not the case.
Having said that, the power of the
religious scholar is the most significant aspect of this study:[8] As
interpreters of the Islamic literature, they have shaped the course of Muslim religious
development for centuries. While these people (the Ayatollah Khomeini for instance)
do hold much power in some circles, they may not be overarching or supreme figures
of leadership in all.[9]
Nevertheless, such figures have historically designated the way forward for the
Muslim community and so exert a considerable amount of power on the
practitioners of the faith. For them, Shari’a law may mean something else
entirely: a way of controlling a nation, of securing political power, or simply
of maintaining a way of life.
With all of this in mind, I would now
like to more concretely lay-out my definition for what Shari’a might be.
According to Ali-Karamali, “… the rules in Islam come from Shari’a, the
guidelines of Islam. This includes the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the guidelines
developed by religious scholars interpreting the Qur’an and the Sunnah over the
centuries.”[10]
This statement is in sharp contrast to the depictions of Shari’a law that we
see in the media: Islamic law taking over country after country, ravaging landscapes
as suicide bombers terrify the frightened populaces of the world’s cities.
Rather, according to the views presented in the two readings from Ali-Karamali’s
The Muslim Next Door, Shari’a is a
way of life specifically for the Muslim community. So I would ask you, put down
that copy of Cruel and Usual Punishment:
The Terrifying Global Implications of Shari’a Law[11]
instead, think of Shari’a law as an ethical system; a way of life just like
Christian ethics, deontological ethics, and so on.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/qanda.islam
[2]
Sumbul Ali-Karamali, The Muslim Next Door: The Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil thing (White Cloud Press, 2008)
[3]
Ibid. 6.
[4]
Ibid. 27.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov, “There is no Sex in the Church,” American Theological
Inquiry: A Biannual Journal of Theology, Culture, and History (2011) 61.
[7] http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/sexbuddhism.htm
provides an overview of Buddhist views on the subject. http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm
offers an explanation on the Jewish perspective.
[9]
Ibid.
[11]
Nonie Darwish, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The
Terrifying Global Implications of Shari’a Law (Nelson, Thomas, Inc. 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment