What's new

Sharia laws, theories vary among world's Muslims

mujahideen

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
2,407
Reaction score
0
Sharia laws, theories vary among world's Muslims

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Sharia law is understood and applied in such varied ways across the Muslim world that it is difficult to say exactly what it is and how it could fit into a western legal context, according to experts on Islam.

Full Islamic criminal law, the harsh code most non-Muslims think of when they hear the word sharia, is applied in very few countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Islamic "personal law" for issues like marriage and inheritance is much more common.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sparked off a storm last week by suggesting Britain adopt some sharia law. British Muslims defending him stressed most of the Islamic world also rejected the ultra-orthodox model that he clearly ruled out.

"There are 57 Muslim countries in the world and only two or three of them impose full sharia criminal law. Why on earth would we want to have that here?" asked Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.

There are also widely differing interpretations of sharia, both within the four classical Sunni and one Shi'ite schools of jurisprudence and between traditional and modern thinkers.

"In the Muslim world these days, 'sharia' means a whole variety of different things," said John Voll, professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University in Washington.

Williams apparently had in mind a modern school of Muslim thinking that sees sharia as a system of essential Islamic values rather than a fixed code of harsh punishments, he said.

LIMITED USE


Most Muslim states limit the use of sharia to "personal law" on issues such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody. Western critics say most Muslim personal law limits women's rights and introduces inequality before the law.

Egypt says sharia is the main source of its legislation but has penal and civil codes based mostly on 19th century French law. Hudoud, the corporal and capital punishment outlined in the Koran, has not been applied there in modern times.

Muslims cannot convert to other faiths and non-Muslims who convert to Islam are not supposed to leave it, but a court allowed this for 12 people in a landmark case last week.

Pakistan has a similar split between civil and penal codes carried over from the British colonial period and Muslim personal law. It also has a Federal Sharia Court to decide if laws passed by parliament conform to Islam.

Apart from a few public lashings since Islamisation started in the 1980s, harsh physical punishments have not been imposed. Nobody has been executed under a law banning blasphemy against Islam, but some accused blasphemers have been killed by mobs.

Lebanon has 18 recognised religious denominations among its Muslims, Christians and Druze and all have religious courts for personal law and civil courts for everything else.

In India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and followers of other faiths can decide whether they want to be bound by secular personal law or their own religious code.

SHARIA-COMPLIANT


Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation and quite moderate in Islamic terms. Its western province of Aceh uses sharia law as part of a local autonomy deal granted by Jakarta and people have been caned for adultery, gambling and stealing.

Nigeria's northern states adopted a harsh sharia code in 2000, but punishments have been rare. A woman convicted of adultery, Amina Laval, was freed on appeal after her sentence of stoning to death caused an international uproar.

About a dozen other women convicted of adultery have also been freed on appeal.

In contrast to this traditional jurisdiction, modern Muslim scholars such as Swiss-born Tariq Ramadan interpret sharia more broadly as "the expression of the universal principles of Islam" and a way of thinking that helps express them in daily life.

This approach can accept secular laws as "sharia-compliant" if they reflect Islamic values. "Even simply by trying to respect Muslim ethics, one is already in the process of applying the sharia," Ramadan has written.

Thus Williams, who cited Ramadan in his speech, said Britain already had sharia in its legal system through laws that allowed Islamic no-interest mortgages and contracts.

Another leading thinker, French imam Tareq Oubrou, advocates a "sharia for minorities" respecting Islamic values as ethical guidelines for Muslims and civil jurisprudence as the law for all citizens in a country.

(additional reporting by Reuters bureaus)
 
Before I start, I want to clarify that my view is from a historical perspective only and I am no Islamic scholar and have no wish to pass judgement on any particular law or school of thought.

Most people come out and say that Sharia is what was practiced during Mithaq Medina and the by the Rashideen. This is however over simplification.

IMO, differrent interpretation of the Shari law and the Quraan is mainly due to the fact the Sharia was not codified until the time of Imam Abu Hanifa, born in 80 Hijra. No matter how correctly one passes the saying from one generation to another, there is bound to be some change in words when quoted to the third party and thus a possibility of change in the meaning cannot be ruled out. ( For example, I cannot accept that Hazart Ayesha was only 9 years old when she was married. This implies a tarnish on the Prophet ( PBUH) who was in fact a perfect man. Therefore this Hadith, even though written in Sahih Bukahri is probably a misquote).

Secondly; the Rashideen have, in case of emergency, set aside Islamic laws corcerning food; as Hazrat Omer ( RA) did during the time when there was a famine in Madina. This great personality carried sufficient weight among the Sehabas that no one dared to accuse Hazarat Omer ( RA) of bida'a when he introduced " Assalata khairum min noam' and formalized the Tarveeh prayer. Such personalities did not exist by the time Sharia law's codifcation started, literal interpretation of the Hadith was thus insisted upon.

Finally, with the translation of Greek and Roman philosophy; knowlege of science and medicine along with many philosophical ideas were introduced to the ummah. Many of these were alien to the Arab culture. For example Sufi concept of wahadat al wajood, wahdatal shaood and fana fillah. As a result, a debate started among the muslim scholars and we had sects such as Mu'tazallites and Al Ashariyah. Sharia that we have today is largely the result of which school of thought prevailed.

Until the Ottomon times, Hanafis and Shaafie schools were predominent. With the rise of Salaafin and Wahabism, Hanbally school and its modification by Ibne Timiyah prevailed in the Arabian penansula. This influence was carried into India thru Deobandi school. Dont know how many muslims are aware that
even Khaarjiites still exist in the form of Ibaadites of Oman.

In Shia Islam, there were also many diversifications. There were Zaidis, Ismailis ( later split into Agha Khanis and Vohras). Among the Ithna Ashaaris were also Ussoli and Akhbaris schools.

No wonder Muslim ummah is confused as to which Sharia to follow. Thus we have a problem about the imposition of the Sharia law. When Muslims have this difficulty, one can imagine the problem West is facing in trying
to understand what is Sharia.

IMO Sharia is a way of life and includes not only the personal law, but also penal code, trade and foriegn affairs. Which of the many schools should one follow I leave it to the conscience of the person.
 
Good Post Niaz!

Judgement about Sharia should be left to the person!.... Sharia followup is basically the problem for New Muslims since the born muslims normally adopt and follow the school of throught they belong to by birth. Which by my thinking is wrong. We should always understand what we believe in. We should learn about all school of throughts and the differences among them (which are minor).

School of Thought doesnot change the overall understanding of the message of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and Quran. The difference lies only in the interpretation of various events which describe the daily life of people and ways of life. Interpretation of Sunnah as per Quran and basic Fundamentals are same.
 
Good Post Niaz!

Judgement about Sharia should be left to the person!.... Sharia followup is basically the problem for New Muslims since the born muslims normally adopt and follow the school of throught they belong to by birth. Which by my thinking is wrong. We should always understand what we believe in. We should learn about all school of throughts and the differences among them (which are minor).

School of Thought doesnot change the overall understanding of the message of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and Quran. The difference lies only in the interpretation of various events which describe the daily life of people and ways of life. Interpretation of Sunnah as per Quran and basic Fundamentals are same.

Any rule and law should be in context of place, time and wholistic culture rather than religion. Also any effective law should be very clear of its purpose, else every one will start interpreting for own benefit.
 
One can easily follow sharia law on his own, without the need to have it as the official law of the land. Since the interpretations among Muslims vary, it makes sense that Sharia should have nothing to do with the country's laws. Each person can live his life according to what he believes in on his own.
 
Divine and Solid!

It is not upto every muslim to Interpret Islamic Laws! One doesnot have the knowledge to do so!

The Four School of Thoughts are the Guidence we have and that is what is refered by all the Scholars of Islam.

Becoming a Scholar without knowledge is an Atheistic Approach of Understanding!

Having knowledge about School of thoughts and then commenting about the logic of Sharia Laws and Differences between School of Thoughts is a better option for Muslims one Understands!.....;)
 
Sharia law in a Muslim country should be according to the Fiqa(School of thought) that Majority follows .
 
One can easily follow sharia law on his own, without the need to have it as the official law of the land. Since the interpretations among Muslims vary, it makes sense that Sharia should have nothing to do with the country's laws. Each person can live his life according to what he believes in on his own.

Agreed!!! A country law is more inclined towards the prevailing culture, economic/social/political condition and geographical situation and need to be improved time to time, basically amendments in law (amendments is not possible in Shariah ). There is no law and rule perfect w.r.t time dimention.

Every one is free to follow one's own faith, but Land's law should be prevailed.
 
Let us rephrase your words:

"Muslims should not use their brains. They should stop thinking and follow whatever their religious priest tells them".

"Becoming an atheist is evil and stupid".

Change the letter muslims to hindus.
 
Good Post Niaz!

Judgement about Sharia should be left to the person!.... Sharia followup is basically the problem for New Muslims since the born muslims normally adopt and follow the school of throught they belong to by birth. Which by my thinking is wrong. We should always understand what we believe in. We should learn about all school of throughts and the differences among them (which are minor).

School of Thought doesnot change the overall understanding of the message of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and Quran. The difference lies only in the interpretation of various events which describe the daily life of people and ways of life. Interpretation of Sunnah as per Quran and basic Fundamentals are same.

Sorry Brother .
But I have a few problems with your post. Sharia is not something that an individual understands. It is the rule of Islam iimposed in the light of the Quran , Hadith and best practice, implemented by people who have the relevant knowledge of Islam. It is important that it be done this way otherwise individual interpretation of Sharia would lead to chaos.
Secondly, it is not the problem of new Muslims,but a collective responsibility of ALL Muslims to implement Sharia. I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but the so called born muslims are nowadays so ignorant of islam that it is almost akin to a state of being a nonmuslim. I will include myself first in this category.
You are right in your supposition that following a particular school of thought isnt exactly right, but the reason is one of convenience, ie then it becomes imperitive for all muslims to extensively read and understand the Quran, Hadith and history of the Caliphs of Islam, interpret all school of thoughts and adopt the best method that is available. I and most muslims do not do that.
Your impressions about the schools of thought are well thought out and commendable. However, the problem is one of the study required for this as most of the books are in Arabic and people often spend years to collate information form various sources to get to a logical and thought out conclusion.
Then we have the Western, pro democracy,wine drinking and womanizing , liberated Muslims, and the Mullah with his typical tunnelld vision and his own vested interest, not necessarily backed by reroducable evidence and certainly sometimes totally illogical thought process,for their own vested interests, want to change everything so that it can be distorted to their own tastes. The good intentions may be there but the understanding certainly is not and in the long term they will cause more harm than do good.
So all in all it a very difficult issue, which needs a lot of thought. If for instance you want ot impose Sharia, in Pakistan, I would firstly have an impartial referendum asking the people what they want.
If the answer is yes, then set up a senate of all the religious schools, supervised by a senior judge with a knowledge of Islam to frame the laws. Because all the laws in accordance of our constitution, should be comp[liant with Sharia, we should hear all schools of thoughts, invite foreign experts if necessary for their interpretations and then have a rule that is accepted by all which is enforcable.
the third thing is to change all the carriculum and enforce a national carriculum in ALL school to create harmony and understandinfg and respect for law.
Finally have a strong and independant judiciary, which is impartial and can impose the law without fear of recrimination.
Then perhaps in a generation or 2 we might---just might get there.
WaSalam
araz
PS: I would be very happy for you to correct any of my misunderstandings.
jazak Allah o Khair
 
Sharia law in a Muslim country should be according to the Fiqa(School of thought) that Majority follows .

You are very right. I remember,in early 80sthe Khaana e Firang(Iranian Embassy) borught out an edict from the Ayatullah Khomeini, saying that the reason for implementation of Fiqah e Jaaferia in Iran was the dominance of the Shia sect-- Therefore the imposition of Sharia in Pakistan should be in accordance with the dominant sect,s beliefs. Needless to say it was shot down in flames by the shia community. However, my thinking is that we should shut all the Mullah in a building and let them fight it out and then come out and give us a final version of law that can be implemented. That way A- you will have a lot less Mullahs, and B- a Law which will have to be supported by all the sects.:coffee::D:cheesy:
But on a serious note, why cant we return back and pick up the Fikh of Imam Jaffer Sadiq(Original rather than theShia Law) who taught all the Aimmaa?. You might call this a Salafi Idea, but who would dare refute Imam Jaffer e Sadiq.
WaSalam
Araz
 
Becoming a Scholar without knowledge is an Atheistic Approach of Understanding!

Islam is not rocket science. Anyone who reads the Quran can understand it. There are Muslims in Western countries, they did not need any government to tell them what to do. I do not need some illiterate mullah who has no knowledge of anything outside Islam to tell me how to live.

For example, if we let mullahs rule the country they would outlaw interest. Interest is one of the most important principles of economics, without it banking and many other endeavors are not possible. Now I know you're going to say that there are interest-free Islamic banks, but they cannot sustain countries, they are merely meant for a small segment of the population. Even Saudi Arabia has interest in it's economy.

To a mullah, nothing matters but what he thinks is divine law. If he had his way, he would put a gun to your head and shoot you for taking part in a such an unholy activity.

There is no if's and buts in Islam about interest. There can be no interest. That means Sharia is absolutely inapplicable in the modern world, and unlike what Muslims like to think, not perfect and not meant to be applied till eternity.

Pakistan is running on interest including the money borrowed from international donors to build the roads you drive on, to build the industries that provide you clothing and to build dams which give you electricity to run your computer.

Now if you will choose to exclude yourself from anything to do with financial interest, ie. go live in a cave in Waziristan, then I will say you are a man of principle and I will respect you for your beliefs. But until you do that you are a hypocrite for arguing for Sharia law.

araz said:
It is the rule of Islam iimposed in the light of the Quran , Hadith and best practice, implemented by people who have the relevant knowledge of Islam.

It is quite funny that these people who like to enfore Sharia cannot read or write 99% of the time. Afghanistan really benefitted from many years of Sharia rule! We all saw the marvelous transformation of their society from back when it was a flourishing country with educated elite rulers to the time when it was ruled by lice infested bearded nutjobs!

The people of Afghanistan benefitted so much from sharia. Their children never went hungry, there was enlightenment and happiness everywhere. Women were treated like queens, and all in all Allah was very pleased of them.

Now that they have a democratic government which is building schools with the help of the great heathen USA, they will surely burn in hell for daring to let little girls venture forth from their homes to seek non-Islamic education.

And then there's Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land which chops of peoples hand for stealing. Surely, that is the way to punish a theif. It dosen't matter that after this punishment not only will he be poor and hungry but a cripple as well. Oh and if women get raped, they must bring four male witnesses. How DARE they get raped without permission and not in the presence of 4 males who would testify on her behalf in court. If a woman says she was raped and she can't produce these witnesses, she surely is an adulterer and must be stoned to death!!!

Oh and the great country of Iran, which sentenced two 16 and 17 year old boys to death for daring to be homosexual! It dosen't matter that scientists say that gay people have female chemicals produced in their brains, Sharia says its wrong so that's the way it is no matter what the stupid scientists say! The two boys were crying right before their death, but the steadfast Irani Muslims did not waver from Allahs word, they put a noose around their necks and raised them high into the sky with cranes, leaving them to gasp in pain for over half an hour.

Surely Allah is very pleased with these acts of Sharia enforcement and I cannot wait until the day my great country of Pakistan too follows these great ideals. I can only hope Allah gives us the strenght to follow the shining examples of Saudi Arabia where a mother cannot drive her daughter to school, and of course Iran and the Taliban version of Afghanistan too.
 
Any rule and law should be in context of place, time and wholistic culture rather than religion.


How would you define wholistic culture?????
In context of the place the laws dealing only with rules of that country can be implemented which can not deal with the religiouse issues of a community.
 
Back
Top Bottom