The World’s Muslims: Beliefs About Sharia

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society
URL - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-worlds-muslims-beliefs-about-sharia.html

My Notes:
There are a few assumptions made in the following survey that do not address the cognizance of alternative laws in the Muslim majority nations. This makes the survey questionable to me, other than that,  it is quite a revealing Survey.  

 The Muslim majority nations for centuries or for decades know no other law than Sharia, at least the last three generations grew up knowing only one thing; Sharia Law, and many of them do not even have an idea of another law. As Americans we know the civil laws, we seldom know about the existence of any other laws, only the Jews and Muslim are aware of the other laws, while Sikhs, Hindus and others fall upon their traditions to resolve their personal conflicts. Indeed, I made that very statement on Hannity Show on Fox News in February this year.

The survey results speak out loudly the difference between nations that are European (secular) in nature including Turkey and Indonesia (non-European) where less than 30% favor Sharia, where as all other nations with the exception of Indonesia favor higher than 70% - Indonesia has a sizable number of Hindu population and their constitution, Panchsheel is pluralistic in nature.

The respondents should have been asked their knowledge about the intent of the Sharia Law, and asked if that would be the only way to serve Justice? The results would have been different.  I will be doing a detailed analysis of the figures and have a presentation in a few days. I know, I will be called by TV and Radio Stations and I need to be ready to respond. Shouldn't all of us be ready? 

I wrote a piece in July 2010 in Huffington Post called, Sharia Law not in America and the revised version is called Genesis of Sharia, which, I am  getting ready to submitt for publication. This piece is the most basic piece to understand Sharia, even those who have some idea about it will get it. By the way, I am honored that almost identical piece with similar flow was published by Dr. Amina Wadud in November 2010, four months later. Sharia has never been defined in this manner before.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Links to his work on Islam, Pluralism and civic topics are at www.MikeGhouse.net and his daily articles are at www.TheGhouseDiary.com
 

Courtesy Pew Survey dated April 30, 2013

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society
http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia.aspx

Navigate this page:

• Sharia as Divine Revelation  
• Interpreting Sharia  
• Sharia as the Official Law of the Land  
• Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens?  
• How Should Sharia Be Applied?  
• Views on Current Laws and Their Relation to Sharia                    

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God. Muslims also tend to believe sharia has only one, true understanding, but this opinion is far from universal; in some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations. Religious commitment is closely linked to views about sharia: Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to say sharia is the revealed word of God, to say that it has only one interpretation and to support the implementation of Islamic law in their country.

Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country, the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.14 Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.

Sharia as Divine Revelation
gsi2-chp1-1

In 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of God. (For more information on sharia see text box.) In no country are Muslims significantly more likely to say sharia was developed by men than to say it is the revealed word of God.

Acceptance of sharia as the revealed word of God is high across South Asia and most of the Middle East and North Africa. For example, roughly eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) in Pakistan and Jordan say sharia is the revealed word of God, as do clear majorities in most other countries surveyed in these two regions. Only in Lebanon is opinion more closely divided: 49% of Muslims say sharia is the divine word of God, while 38% say men have developed sharia from God’s word.

Muslims in Southeast Asia and Central Asia are somewhat less likely to say sharia comes directly from God. Only in Kyrgyzstan (69%) do more than two-thirds say Islamic law is the revealed word of God. Elsewhere in these regions, the percentage of Muslims who say it is the revealed word of God ranges from roughly four-in-ten in Malaysia (41%) to six-in-ten in Tajikistan.

Views about the origins of sharia are more mixed in Southern and Eastern Europe. At least half of Muslims describe sharia as the divine word of God in Russia (56%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (52%). By contrast, three-in-ten or fewer hold this view in Kosovo (30%) and Albania (24%).

Overall, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to believe that sharia is the revealed word of God than are those who pray less frequently. This is the case in many countries where the question was asked, with especially large differences observed in Russia (+33 percentage points), Uzbekistan (+21), Kyrgyzstan (+20) and Egypt (+15). Views on the origins of sharia do not vary consistently with other measures, such as age or gender.

Interpreting Sharia
gsi2-chp1-2

Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know.

A majority of Muslims in three Central Asian countries – Tajikistan (70%), Azerbaijan (65%) and Kyrgyzstan (55%) – say there is only one way to understand sharia. But elsewhere in the region there is less consensus, including in Turkey, where identical proportions (36% each) stand on either side of the question.

Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe tend to lean in favor of a single interpretation of sharia. However, only in Bosnia-Herzegovina (56%) and Russia (56%), do majorities take this position.

Across the countries surveyed in South Asia, majorities consistently say there is only one possible way to understand sharia. The proportion holding this view ranges from 67% in Afghanistan to 57% in Bangladesh. But more than a quarter of Muslims in Afghanistan (29%) and Bangladesh (38%) say sharia should be open to multiple interpretations.

In the Middle East-North Africa region, belief in a single interpretation of sharia prevails in Lebanon (59%) and the Palestinian territories (51%). But opinion in Iraq is mixed: 46% say there is only one possible way to understand sharia, while 48% disagree. And in Tunisia and Morocco, large majorities (72% and 60%, respectively) believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations.

In Southeast Asia, opinion leans modestly in favor of a single interpretation of sharia. The biggest divide is found in Thailand, where 51% of Muslims say there is only one possible understanding of Islamic law, while 29% say it should be open to multiple interpretations.

In a number of countries, significant percentages say they are unsure whether sharia should be subject to one or multiple understandings, including at least one-in-five Muslims in Albania (46%), Kosovo (42%), Uzbekistan (35%), Turkey (23%), Russia (21%), Malaysia (20%) and Pakistan (20%).

An individual’s degree of religious commitment appears to influence views on interpreting sharia. In many countries where the question was asked, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely than those who pray less often to say that there is a single interpretation. The largest differences are found in Russia (+33 percentage points) and Uzbekistan (+27), but substantial gaps are also observed in Lebanon (+18), Malaysia (+16) and Thailand (+15).

Sharia as the Official Law of the Land
gsi2-chp1-3

Support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across the six major regions included in the study. In countries across South Asia, Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region most favor making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land.

In South Asia, high percentages in all the countries surveyed support making sharia the official law, including nearly universal support among Muslims in Afghanistan (99%). More than eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (84%) and Bangladesh (82%) also hold this view. The percentage of Muslims who say they favor making Islamic law the official law in their country is nearly as high across the Southeast Asian countries surveyed (86% in Malaysia, 77% in Thailand and 72% in Indonesia).15

In sub-Saharan Africa, at least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they favor making sharia the official law of the land, including more than seven-in-ten in Niger (86%), Djibouti (82%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (74%) and Nigeria (71%).

Support for sharia as the official law of the land also is widespread among Muslims in the Middle East-North Africa region – especially in Iraq (91%) and the Palestinian territories (89%). Only in Lebanon does opinion lean in the opposite direction: 29% of Lebanese Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land, while 66% oppose it.

Support for making sharia the official legal code of the country is relatively weak across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. Fewer than half of Muslims in all the countries surveyed in these regions favor making sharia their country’s official law. Support for sharia as the law of the land is greatest in Russia (42%); respondents in Russia were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the country’s ethnic-Muslim republics. Elsewhere in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, about one-in-three or fewer say sharia should be made the law of the land, including just 10% in Kazakhstan and 8% in Azerbaijan.
gsi2-chp1-4

Again, level of religious commitment makes a big difference in attitudes about the implementation of sharia. Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely than those who pray less frequently to favor Islamic law as the official law of the land. The difference is particularly large in Russia (+37 percentage points), Lebanon (+28), the Palestinian territories (+27), Tunisia (+25) and Kyrgyzstan (+24).

Across the countries surveyed, support for making sharia the official law of the land generally varies little by age, gender or education. However, in the Middle East-North Africa region, Muslims ages 35 and older are more likely than those 18-34 to back sharia in Lebanon (+22 percentage points), Jordan (+12), Tunisia (+12) and the Palestinian territories (+10).

Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens?
gsi2-chp1-5

Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.

The belief that sharia should extend to non-Muslims is most widespread in the Middle East and North Africa, where at least four-in-ten Muslims in all countries except Iraq (38%) and Morocco (29%) hold this opinion. Egyptian Muslims (74%) are the most likely to say it should apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, while 58% in Jordan hold this view.

By contrast, Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe who favor making sharia the official law of the land are among the least likely to say it should apply to all citizens in their country. Across the nations surveyed in the region, fewer than a third take this view. This includes 22% of Russian Muslims (who were asked about the applying sharia in their country’s ethnic Muslim republics).

In other regions, opinion varies widely by country. For example, in Southeast Asia, half of Indonesian Muslims who favor sharia as the official law say it should apply to all citizens, compared with about a quarter (24%) of those in Thailand. (Thai Muslims were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the predominantly Muslim areas of the country.) Similarly, in Central Asia, a majority of Muslims in Kyrgyzstan (62%) who support making sharia the official law say it should apply to non-Muslims in their country, but far fewer in Kazakhstan (19%) agree. Meanwhile, in South Asia, Muslims who are in favor of making sharia the law of the land in Afghanistan are 27 percentage points more likely to say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law than are those in Pakistan (61% in Afghanistan vs. 34% in Pakistan).

How Should Sharia Be Applied?
gsi2-chp1-6

When Muslims in different regions of the world say they want sharia to be the law of the land, do they also share a vision for how sharia should be applied in practice? Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.

Family and Property Disputes

Islamic law addresses a range of domestic and personal matters, including marriage, divorce and inheritance.16 And most Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land in their country are very supportive of the application of Islamic law in this sphere. Specifically, in 17 of the 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half favor giving Muslim leaders and religious judges the power to decide family and property disputes.

Support for allowing religious judges to decide domestic and property disputes is particularly widespread throughout Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region. Across these three regions, at least six-in-ten Muslims who support the implementation of sharia as the official law say religious judges should decide family and property matters. This includes more than nine-in-ten in Egypt (95%) and Jordan (93%), and nearly as many in Malaysia (88%) and Pakistan (87%).

In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land are somewhat less enthusiastic about having religious judges decide matters in the domestic sphere. Across these two regions, fewer than two-thirds favor giving religious judges the power to decide family and property disputes. The least support for allowing religious judges to decide matters in the domestic sphere is found in Kosovo (26%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (24%).

 Penalty for Theft or Robbery
gsi2-chp1-7

Among those who want sharia to be the law of the land, in 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis at least half say they support penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers.17 In South Asia, Pakistani and Afghan Muslims clearly support hudud punishments (see Glossary). In both countries, more than eight-in-ten Muslims who favor making sharia the official law of the land also back these types of penalties for theft and robbery (88% in Pakistan and 81% in Afghanistan). By contrast, only half of Bangladeshis who favor sharia as the law of the land share this view.

In the Middle East and North Africa, many Muslims who support making sharia the official law also favor punishments like cutting off the hands of thieves. This includes at least seven-in-ten in the Palestinian territories (76%) and Egypt (70%), and at least half in Jordan (57%), Iraq (56%) and Lebanon (50%). Only in Tunisia do fewer than half (44%) of those who want Islamic law as the law of the land also back these types of criminal penalties.

In Southeast Asia, about two-thirds (66%) of Malaysian Muslims who want sharia as the law of the land also favor punishments like cutting off the hands of thieves or robbers, but fewer than half say the same in Thailand (46%) and Indonesia (45%).

In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. Across the two regions, only in Kyrgyzstan do more than half (54%) support punishments such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves. Elsewhere in these two regions, between 43% and 28% of Muslims favor corporal punishments for theft and robbery.

Penalty for Adultery
gsi2-chp1-8

In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.18

Some of the highest support for stoning is found in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region. In Pakistan (89%) and Afghanistan (85%), more than eight-in-ten Muslims who want Islamic law as their country’s official law say adulterers should be stoned, while nearly as many say the same in the Palestinian territories (84%) and Egypt (81%). A majority also support stoning as a penalty for the unfaithful in Jordan (67%), Iraq (58%). However, support is significantly lower in Lebanon (46%) and Tunisia (44%), where less than half of those who support sharia as the official law of the land believe that adulterers should be stoned.

In Southeast Asia, six-in-ten Muslims in Malaysia consider stoning an appropriate penalty for adultery. About half hold this view in Thailand (51%) and Indonesia (48%).

Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. Among those who favor Islamic law as the official law of the land, only in Tajikistan do about half (51%) support this form of punishment. Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe.

Penalty for Converting to Another Faith 
gsi2-chp1-9

Compared with attitudes toward applying sharia in the domestic or criminal spheres, Muslims in the countries surveyed are significantly less supportive of the death penalty for converts.19 Nevertheless, in six of the 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of those who favor making Islamic law the official law also support executing apostates.

Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.

In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.

A majority of Malaysian Muslims (62%) who want to see sharia as their country’s official law also support taking the lives of those who convert to other faiths. But fewer take this position in neighboring Thailand (27%) and Indonesia (18%).

In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. Support for killing converts to other faiths falls below one-in-ten in Albania (8%) and Kazakhstan (4%).

Views on Current Laws and Their Relation to Sharia
gsi2-chp1-10

Many Muslims say their country’s laws do not follow sharia, or Islamic law. At least half take this view in 11 of the 20 countries where the question was asked. Meanwhile, in six countries, at least half of Muslims believe their national laws closely adhere to sharia.

Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia are among the most likely to say their laws do not adhere closely to Islamic law. A majority of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (68%), Russia (61%) and Kosovo (59%) take this view. Roughly four-in-ten Muslims in Albania (43%) also say their country’s laws do not follow sharia closely, and about half (48%) are unsure.

In Central Asia, at least half of Muslims in Kazakhstan (72%), Azerbaijan (69%) and Kyrgyzstan (54%) say their laws do not follow sharia closely. In Tajikistan, by contrast, 51% say the laws of their country follow sharia.

In the Middle East-North Africa region, Muslims differ considerably in their assessments on this question. Lebanese Muslims (79%) are the most likely to say their country’s laws do not follow Islamic law closely. At least half of Muslims in the Palestinian territories (59%), Jordan (57%), Egypt (56%) and Tunisia (56%) say the same. Fewer Muslims agree in Iraq (37%) and Morocco (26%).

In the two countries in Southeast Asia where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say their country’s laws adhere to sharia. By a 58%-to-29% margin, most Malaysian Muslims say their laws follow sharia; in Indonesia, the margin is 54% to 42%.
gsi2-chp1-11

Muslims in Afghanistan stand out for the high percentage (88%) that says their laws follow sharia closely. Fewer Muslims in the other countries surveyed in South Asia believe their laws closely follow sharia (48% in Bangladesh and 41% in Pakistan).

Across the countries surveyed, many Muslims who say their laws do not follow sharia believe this is a bad thing. Muslims in South Asia are especially likely to express this sentiment, including at least eight-in-ten Muslims in Pakistan (91%), Afghanistan (84%) and Bangladesh (83%). In Southeast Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region, too, Muslims who believe their country’s laws depart from sharia tend to say this is a bad thing. At least six-in-ten in the Palestinian territories (83%), Morocco (76%), Iraq (71%), Jordan (69%), Egypt (67%), Malaysia (65%) and Indonesia (65%) hold this view. Somewhat fewer Muslims in Tunisia (54%) say the same.

In the Middle East-North Africa region, Lebanon is the only country where opinion on the matter is closely divided. Among Lebanese Muslims who say their laws do not follow sharia closely, 41% say this is a good thing, while 38% say it is a bad thing, and 21% have no definite opinion.

Muslims in Southern and Eastern Europe and Central Asia are less likely to say it is a bad thing that their country’s laws do not follow sharia. Among Muslims who believe their country’s laws do not follow sharia, fewer than a third in most countries surveyed in these regions say this is a bad thing, while many say it is neither good nor bad, or express no opinion. The two exceptions are Russia and Kyrgyzstan, where almost half (47% each) say it is a bad thing that their country’s laws do not adhere closely to Islamic law.

Footnotes:  

14 For analysis of views about sharia among Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa, see the Pew Research Center’s April 2010 report “Tolerance and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa.” (return to text) 

15 In Thailand, respondents were asked if sharia should be made the official law in the predominantly Muslim areas of the country. (return to text) 

16 See Quran 4:22-4; 65:1-6; 4:11-2. See also Hourani, Albert. 1991. “A History of the Arab Peoples.” Harvard University Press, page 65. (return to text) 

17 Certain hadith specify that some crimes, including theft, merit corporal punishments, such as whipping or the cutting off of hands. See Sahih al-Bukhari 81:771, 81:778, and 81:780. (return to text) 

18 Certain hadith prescribe stoning as the appropriate penalty for adultery. See Sahih al-Muslim 17:4192 and 17:4198. (return to text) 

19 Certain hadith either state or imply that the penalty for apostasy, or converting to another faith, is death. See Sahih al-Bukhari 52:260 and 83:37. (return to text) 

Photo Credit: © Scott E Barbour

Most read articles at ShariaLaws.com

I was just checking the statistics at www.ShariaLaws.com


Imam Kavakci's article read by 18,600
   http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-fiqh-and-islamic-law_15.html
    
Hasan Mahmud's article - Examples of Sharia Law was read by 14,690
    http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/10/examples-of-sharia-law.html
 
Dr. Mohamed Omar Farooq's Sharia Value was read by 13,450 
http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2008/03/sharia-value.html
    
Genesis of Sharia law was read by 12,900
   http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html 


Personally, one of the most influential articles on Sharia that I have read was by Dr. Mohamed Omar Farooq, it has helped shape my understanding of Sharia.

Mike Ghouse
Publisher of this website

Islamic Sharia Law is NOT a Word of God!

The Classical Islamic Sharia Law is NOT a Word of God! (Part 1: How the Qur’anic Message Has Been Subverted)

By Muhammad Yunus, NewAgeIslam.com -Epitome of Justice and Equity for a thousand years of Islamic civilization - now a threat to Islamic civilization and World peace, warranting an urgent paradigm shift in Islamic Juristic thoughts. By Muhammad Yunus (Joint Author), Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009 The caption is shocking indeed! The qualifying statement may, however, turn the shock into posthumous glory, concern, and challenge. The essay attempts to bring across the dichotomy between the Classical Islamic Law and its divine Sharia (the Qur’an), and the incipient role of the former in feeding Islamophobia and Islamofascism – the twin menace that complement each other to  reduce Islam to a violent, intolerant cult and provoke a clash of  civilizations, threatening Islamic civilization and world peace.     1. The Divine Sharia of Islam – the Qur’an.   The Qur’an uses the words Shira (technically shir‘ah and Sharia (tech. Shariah) synonymously with the generic notion of a system or principles of law (5:48, 45:18). The Qur’an further declares that it is a book of wisdom (hikma, 10:1, 31:2, 43:4, 44:4) that is made clear and distinct (12:1, 15:1, 16:64, 26:2, 27:1, 36:69, 43:2, 44:2)  with all kinds of illustrations (17:89, 18:54, 30:58, 39:27) to guide humanity and bring it ‘out of darkness into light’ – an idiomatic expression that connotes social, moral and ethical reform; and “to lift from humanity the burdens and shackles that were upon them from before” (7:157). The Qur’anic paradigms are eternal, free from any addition or alteration since the revelation that was preserved orally as well as in various indigenous writing materials (suhuf, 80:11-16). It lays a great emphasis on the ‘constants’ of life – how a human being should behave regardless of time and era. Thus, it encompasses a broad spectrum of universal paradigms - justice, liberty, equity, good deeds, good neighborly and inter-faith relations, sharing of wealth with the poor, eradication of slavery, deliverance of women from various entrenched taboos, conjugal oppression and dehumanization; good business ethics, fair payment for goods and services, financial support to the needy, use of intellect, striving for excellence – to cite some major examples. 2. The Classical Islamic Law - Contemporary Sharia Law of Islam. The Classical Islamic law is a cumulative juristic tradition that encompasses the legal responsa (fatawa) and opinions (rai) of all past jurists of Islam. Accordingly, it is shaped and informed by the customs, traditions, social and political conditions, juristic norms and the state of knowledge of the diverse historical points of Islamic civilization - dating from the founding Caliphate (632-661/10-40 AH) through the medieval ages to this day. Accordingly, it is a repository of, among countless other rulings, such notions as stoning to death for adultery, capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy, punishment for homosexuality, slavery, discrimination and hatred against non-Muslims, demographic division of the world between the Muslims and non- Muslims, division of knowledge between Islamic and non-Islamic, temporary marriage, on the spot divorce, parental immunity against child abuse, gender disparity and so on, that are antithetic to the Qur’anic message. In historical perspective, these notions may not be out of line with those of the other civilizations, but dwelling into that will detract from the subject. The truth is, many of the fundamental notions and rulings of today’s overgrown Classical Sharia stand in sharp stark contrast to the realities of the modern era, as well as to the Qur’anic message. 3. Historical roots and contributions of the Classical Islamic Sharia. Islam came at a time when the world was largely in a state of jahilliya – ignorance, injustice, oppression and exploitation. The notion of universal justice had yet to evolve. A suspect of a petty theft was bound hand and feet and thrown into a pond. If he sank, his guilt was established and punishment meted out. But if by any chance he floated, he was deemed to being possessed, and burnt on the stakes. The slaves were branded, chained, collared and dehumanized and remained slaves for their lives. If they married and raised children, the whole family became slaves. Women (wives) were sold as commodity - they could be killed by their husbands if caught in the bed with a stranger, or burnt alive with the corpses of their dead husbands as part of social norm. The pariah and the underdogs of the society – the blind, crippled, and mutilated, the lepers and the incurably diseased were regarded as the accursed creatures of God. Condemned, lampooned and ostracized, they were forsaken by their next of kin and forced to live in isolated colonies. The criminals, and the prisoners of war were slaughtered, pilloried and crucified; they had no legal hearing, nor any defense. The aristocracy watched with excitement the live show of humans being torn apart by wild beasts, or slaying rivals in vain bid for survival… The animal instinct of man reigned supreme. This is but a part of the melodrama that was played as daily norm in different parts of the world since the ancient times. The Qur’an came to rid the world of this beastly heritage. Accordingly, among other revolutionary reforms, it placed profound emphasis on justice (7:29, 16:90,  4:58), declared justice as a harrama or binding obligation (6:152), asked humanity to give witnesses truthfully – even if it concerned themselves, their parents or relatives, the poor, or erstwhile enemies (4:135, 5:8), and to have trained professionals to guide the judges for justice to prevail (7:159, 7:181). Consequently, since its inception, administration of justice became the taproot of governance in Islamic state. This is amply illustrated by the following proclamation of Caliph Umar (634-644) issued to his governors (rendered from Arabic/Urdu): “Administration of justice is an essential duty after the praise of God. Treat people equally, whether in your immediate presence, or in your court, so that the weak do not despair of justice, and the guilty may not be hopeful of your concession. One who makes a claim requires proving it. One who denies must take an oath. Compromise is permitted, provided it does not turn the halal (permissible) into haram (forbidden), and vice versa. If you have to give a decision tomorrow, reflect on it carefully today. If you have doubt on any matter not contained in the Qur'an or the Prophet’s Sunna (example), deeply ponder over it, and take account of similar instances and others’ opinions, and reflect over it logically...” [1] Thus, the administration of justice with due witnessing and engagement of trained people (fuqaha) occupied the central stage of civil administration in Islam. This led to a high pitch of intellectual activity in juristic fields – any detail of which will be too technical for this exercise; but suffice it to say, that the first three centuries of Islam saw a proliferation and flowering of learned fuqaha (jurists). The names prefixing the Classical law schools (Hanafite, Shafi’ite, Malakite, Hanbalite, Ja‘farite) are those of the most learned jurists of the era [2]. However, more than a thousand years down the history, today it does not represent the universal and non-partisan spirit, juristic rigor, vitality, discipline, depth, wisdom, rationality and Qur’an-compatibility of its early centuries. In fact in the hands of extremists, radicalized elements, Pakistanis and Talibans, is an overgrown, unmanageable juristic domain, that, as applied, represents a cancerous version of its early counterpart – and the cancer is only metastasizing as time goes by.   4. How the Qur’anic message has been subverted to evolve rulings contradictory to its message? As Islam entered new cultures and civilizations, it encountered customs and juristic norms that contradicted the Qur’anic paradigms. To accommodate them into Islam, the doctors of law declared: “Any Qur’anic verse which contradicts the opinions of ‘our masters’ will be construed as having been abrogated, or the rule of preference will be applied thereto. It is better that the verse is interpreted in such a way that it conforms to their opinion.” [3]  The doctors of law extrapolated this contra-Qur’anic ruling from a number of Qur’anic verses. Thus, the opening statement of the verse 3:110: “You are the best community brought forth for humanity.” Disregarding the historical context of the verse, they argued that as the leaders and guides of ‘the best of community’, they could never fall into error, even if their views conflicted with the Qur’an. The opening statement of the verse 2:143, “Thus We have made you a justly balanced community”, was cited to infer God’s special favor to Muslim community for all times. The statement, “You who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger and those among you in authority…” (4:159) was interpreted to imply the infallibility of the judgment of the one in authority on the premise that one whose obedience is commanded must be immune to error. Dialectical methods were then applied to establish the infallibility of the consensus (ijma) of the scholars – a core juristic doctrine. The theologians came up with supportive ahadith [4] and the doctors of law canonized the Hadith corpus as being indirect revelation that could legitimize their juristic notions and doctrines. Accordingly Hadith was canonized as the second source of law after the Qur’an – an ingenious juristic notion that became a fundamental doctrine of Islamic jurisprudence. This happened in the second and third centuries of Islam, when juristic and theological activities were at their peak. Armed with these juristic rulings and doctrines, the jurists were free to issue any legal ruling or fatwa, if barely a couple of them agreed on it, and legitimize it by supportive traditions (ahadith). The floodgate was opened and the Qur’anic message was subverted to meet the social, political and historical realities and the aspirations of the ruling elite and the vested interest of the era – a mammoth floodgate that continues to discharge an endless stream of fatwas to this very day.  5. The fallouts of the Islamic Sharia Law at this historical juncture. There can be no doubt that, among other things, i) the Classical Islamic Law entertains notions that are antithetic to the Qur’anic message as well secular notions and universal values (2 above); ii) its application in some of the Islamic countries  – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran for example has led to oppression of women, gross human rights violations, stagnation of developmental activities and authoritarianism, frustrating the democratic aspirations and civil rights of their people, casting a long shadow over their futures; iii) its gender bias handicaps the advancement and empowerment of women in most Muslim countries; iv) its discrimination against minorities and brutal apostasy and blasphemy laws are blatantly punitive to the minorities in Muslim majority Sharia-compliant countries; v) its barbaric criminal justice, excesses, hegemony and pan-Islamic aspirations are fuelling Islamophobia; vi) its precedents of wanton terrorism, such as those left by the Kharijites [5] and Qaramites [6] are feeding radicalization and Isalmofacism; vii) its disregard, if not abhorrence of popular sports, recreational and cultural activities, and exclusivist underpinnings are conducing to alienation of Muslims from the mainstream society in the Muslim-minority countries; viii) its division of knowledge between Islamic and non-Islamic – such as still in vogue in many madrasas is hampering the spread of universal education among the Muslims and narrowing their intellectual horizons; ix) its notion of wealth purification by giving only 2.5% of liquid assets (nowhere the Qur’an puts this, or any figure) regardless of the lawfulness of means is promoting corruption, widening income disparity, and increasing the poverty levels in Muslim countries; x) its singular emphasis on rituals and cold shoulder, if not a blind eye to the social, moral and ethical tenets and intellectually stimulating paradigms of the Qur’an is reducing Islam to virtually a cult incapable of making its mark on the modern civilization; xi) its religion-centric political orientation and division of the world between Muslim and non-Muslim blocks is obsolete today when non-Muslim powers like India, America and EU help the Muslims in their liberation wars (such as in the erstwhile East Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya) and the NATO attacks Yugoslavia to save the Albanian Muslims from extinction - let alone the rising trend of secularism across the world; and xii) it can potentially promote sectarianism in Islam by accentuating the classical mathhab based division. In consideration of the above listed points (that can extended), it is high time that Muslim elite, educated class and intelligentsia take full cognizance of the dichotomy between the Classical Islamic Law (Islamic Sharia Law) and the divine Sharia of Islam – the Qur’an that does not entail any of the noted fallouts and incongruities. A denial or tacit oversight of this bitter truth will only exacerbate the problems they are facing in both Muslim majority and minority countries by the application or desired implementation of the Islamic Sharia Law or the machinations of its petro-dollar showering champions and propagators.  (To be concluded) 6.Way Forward The jurists of Islam can draw modern law (Sharia) based on broader social, moral, ethical paradigms of the Qur’an and its emphasis on equity, justice, wealth distribution and other liberating paradigms [1 above], but without transgressing limits. They must consider the historical context of the Qur’an, as many of its allusions like hunting animals to catch birds (5:4), traveling to the Mecca for Hajj on lean mounts (22:27), employing cavalry in battle (8:60), flogging for zina (prostitution by married women) (24:2) and exemplary amputation punishments (5:33, 5:38) accorded with the paradigms of the seventh century Arabia. The Qur’an could in no way ask its audience to engage the practices of later historical eras – let alone the 21st century world. Therefore, a 21st century Sharia (system of law) of Islam must be commensurate to its realities. The Qur’an allows a flexibility or dynamism in the notion of Sharia by complementing it with the term, ‘minhaj’, or ‘an open way’ (5:48) that allows the diverse communities at different historical locations to evolve their own Sharia “in accordance with the exigencies of the time and each community’s cultural development.” [7] 7.The Western secular laws stand more Qur’an-compatible than the Classical Islamic Law (Islamic Sharia Law).  Paradoxically, except for some non-negotiable areas (gay rights and marriage, extramarital sex, unqualified freedom of speech, ultra vires legislative power of the consensual majority as well as the Head of State for example), the Western secular notions are more attuned to the Qur’anic message, that is, more Qur’an-compatible than those espoused by the Classical Islamic law. This is no window dressing or turning coat to appease the West. More than a hundred years ago, the Egyptian scholar, Muhammad Abduh, wrote that the 19th century advancement of Europe commenced only after “Europe began to throw off their bondage and reform their condition, reordering the affairs of their life in a manner akin to the message of Islam, though oblivious of who their real guide and leader was. So were enunciated the fundamental principles of modern civilization….” [8]. Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), the Egyptian scholar and Islamic activist who founded the Muslim Brotherhood extolled the merits the Western civilization as the epitome of the Qur’anic message [9]. Shaykh Rifa‘a Rafi‘ al-Tahtawi (1801-1873), a traditional Al-Azhar scholar and an admirer of Western scientific advancement said upon his return from France that he “found (in France) true Islam but no Muslims, while in Egypt, he found many Muslims but no true Islam—meaning that in his view, the civic virtues embraced by French society embodied a more true representation of Islam than the Muslim societies of his time.” [10]. Thus the Muslim countries who are aspiring to build people oriented democratic societies as in the West, may consider to take a Western model, but not like Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) who had expunged the Islamic symbols (Arabic script, traditional dresses, hijab etc.) from the social and political fabric of the nation and replaced the Islamic Sharia Law of his country with Swiss and Italian based legal system. Today’s Muslim countries must not cut their intellectual moorings from Islam as it is inextricably ingrained in Muslim psyche.     8. Are the Western laws forbidden to Muslims as they are man-made? The bold statement in the concluding part of the preceding Section seemingly carries a fundamental anomaly: Western secular laws are man-made and therefore cannot be privileged over the Classical Islamic laws that are derived from the Qur’an and thus represent God’s will. But this argument is fallacious. From the Qur’anic perspective, all humans stand on equal footing as God’s deputy on earth and recipients of some of God’s Spirit (15:29, 32:9, 38:72), and therefore all noble woks of man have their origin in God’s Virtues, and human accomplishments in all fields including jurisprudence and governance of a state are nothing but the result of God’s Mercy and Grace upon humanity. Therefore, rejecting any so-called secular or modern institution, just because its architects are not Muslims will be as fallacious as rejecting all the good things of modern life that characterize the Western civilization just because their origin is non-Islamic. Thus, there could be no Qur’anic basis to forbid the so-called secular laws and institutions, except those of them that repudiate any of the explicit tenets of the Qur’an. In first century Islam, usul al fiqh (Principle of rational logic and reasoning) was the primary vehicle of jurisprudence after the Qur’an and was privileged over the Hadith [11]. This is an umbrella concept drawn from the Qur’anic vocabulary (root FQH, verse 6:65…) and embraces such notions as i) qiyas (parallelism), ii) ijma/ jama‘ah (consensus of the scholar/ community) iii) ‘urf (established custom and practice of the community), iii) islah (community good), iv) ijtihad (critical thinking or independent intellectual probe), and v) istihsan (one’s best judgment). Practically all these notions, drawn from the Qur’anic diction, are consistent with and even identical to those employed by the Western secular jurists and doctors of law in their jurisprudence, except for terminological differences. Hence, regardless of whether the Western doctors of law believe in the Qur’an or not, the laws they developed are rooted in the Qur’anic universal notions, except those that fall beyond its expressed prohibitions and permissible limits.   Furthermore, the application of the Qur’anic principles can enhance the civil rights of the individual that can be subverted by consensus in modern democracy. As Muhammad Abduh records, Islamic law (drawn on the Qur’anic principles), gave full right to a poor non-Muslim woman to refuse to sell her small dwelling, at any price, to the local powerful amir (governor) who wanted it in order to enlarge a mosque, and to a Jew to have Caliph Ali summoned to the court and stand with him before the judge for a legal hearing, and get a fair judgment [12]. The reverse scenario – a poor Muslim woman in a non-Muslim majority country refusing to dispose off or part with her land to meet the need or the desire of the dominant community, or to bring a charge against the Head of the State is possible only in theory. Thus, while there is a great deal of synergy between the paradigms of the Qur’an and the articles of Western secular laws, there are some grey areas, while the Qur’anic principles do not privilege community consensus or state authority over civil rights. On the whole, there is no Qur’anic or ontological basis to forbid the Qur’an-compatible Western secular laws to the Muslims. The Muslim jurists should therefore have no hesitation to adopt the Western laws, but eschew those statutes of the Western laws that conflict with the message of the Qur’an. They must also be ready to adjust the personal laws within the broader paradigms of the Qur’an, like combining the Qur’anic decree on leaving a will (2:180) with its inheritance laws (to adjust the inheritance ratios among the children as merited) - rather than privileging the latter over the former, extending maintenance for the divorced woman until her remarriage or demise (2:241), entitling a believing non-Muslim widow to full Islamic inheritance rights (as she is entitled to full dowry, 5:5) giving equal rights to a woman as an individual (9:71), empowering her as a full witness for business contracts (2:282 - the business world is not fraught with hazardous and male occupied any more) – if not venerating her (4:1), for example . Conclusion. The object of this essay is not to undermine the entire domain of the Classical Islamic Law dating from its glorious formative period. Down the centuries, it enabled the Islamic civilization to offer enormously higher standards of justice, peace and security of life and property to the common people than the other major contemporaneous civilizations. It was also the bedrock of pluralism that enabled the minority to flourish, live in harmony with the Muslims - such as in Spain, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, India, and preserve its own heritage and language - Aramic is still spoken in Damascus, the seat of the Umayyads (661-750) – the first Islamic (dynastic) Caliphate. It was by far the best system of law for almost a thousand years of human history as testified by the highest echelon of Western scholarship [13]. However, with an endless series of paradigm shifts in human civilization from the medieval era to this day, many of the Classical Islamic Law’s rulings stand in conflict with the modern secular values, creating a civilizational divide. Besides, its application by the Islamists and extremist Muslim outfits such as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan is pushing those countries to anarchy and civil war. Most alarmingly, some of its preposterous rulings and notions that remain buried in its exhaustive discourses feed Islamophobia, Islamopathy, radicalization, Islamofascism, violent sectarianism and international terrorism, demonize Islam and its Prophet, and trivialize the entire global Muslim country in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thus, any perceptive mind would conclude that in the historical perspective, the domain of the Classical Islamic Law (Islamic Sharia Law) has run out its course. However, the Divine Sharia of Islam – the Qur’an is beyond history’s timeframe. Its compatibility with the Western secular values and pluralistic, humanistic, gender neutral, universal paradigms [1 above] crown it as the ideal alternative to the Classical Islamic Law. However, the Qur’an must be probed in a historic-critical, gender-neutral, intra-textual and universal manner while its best meaning must be sought (39:18, 39:55). [14]   To sum up, in a grand irony of history, the Western Islamophobic protagonists are waging a Quixotic crusade against the Islamic Sharia Law – a proxy war against an invisible enemy on behalf of those facing the real enemy. It is time that the Muslim elite and leadership put their act together to achieve a gigantic paradigm leap - from the Classical Sharia Law of Islam to a Modern Islamic Law (Sharia), accommodating Western secular values - within the broader framework of the Qur’an. Their complacence and inaction may lend strong credence to Khaled Abou El Fadl’s agonizing concern: "Is it possible that the day will come when ours will be designated a "vanished civilization." [15] There is, however, no suggestion to consign the domain of the Classical Islamic law into the archives. Far from it! The rich heritage of the Classical Sharia Law of Islam must be studied as a technical subject - as being currently done in some of the major universities of the world, and its principles must be applied to broaden the scope of modern law for the greater good of humanity. Notes:  7. Muhammad Assad, The Message of Islam, Chapter 5, Note 66. 8. Extracted from John L.Esposito’s Islam in Transition, New York 1982,  p. 27. 9. Cited by John Donohue and John Esposito, Islam in Transition, New York, 1982, p. 82. 10. Harvard Online International Journal, Vol. 52, April 2011, Note 19. 11. Yusuf Guraya, Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence, Delhi 1992, p. 29/30 12. John L. Esposito, Islam in Transition, Oxford University Press, USA 1982, p. 26. 13. The following comments by Count Leon Ostrorog made during his historical lectures in the University of London on the Angora Reform in 1927, bring across the point made by this author : “The Eastern thinkers of the ninth century laid down on the basis of their theology, the principle of the Rights of Man, in those very terms, comprehending the rights of individual liberty, and of inviolability of person and property; described the superpower in Islam, or Califate, as based on a contract, implying conditions of capacity and performance, and subject to cancellation if the conditions under the contract were not fulfilled; elaborated a Law of War, of which the humane and chivalrous prescriptions would have put to blush certain belligerents in the Great War; expounded a doctrine of toleration of non-Muslim creeds so liberal that our West had to wait a thousand years before seeing equivalent principles adopted.”  - Extracted from Outlines of Mohammedan Law, Asaf A.A. Fyzee, 5th Edition, 2005, New Delhi, p. 53/54 14. Essential Message of Islam, Amana Publications, USA, 2009, p.xxxix/xl 15. The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books, Barnes and Noble, USA 2006, p.209. Notes:  1.     1. Shibli Noumani, al-Faruq, 1898, Karachi reprint 1991, p. 191/192.] 2.     Abu Hanifa (80 AH/699 CE -149 AH/766 CE), Malik ibn Anas (97-179 AH), Muhammad al-Shafi’i (150-205 AH), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164-240 AH). The Shia Imam, Ja‘far al-Sadeq (83 –148 AH). 3.     Ahmad Hussain, Doctrine of ijma in Islam, New Delhi, 1992, p.16]. 4.     i) “My community will not agree on an error. When you see a disagreement, you should follow the overwhelming majority;” ii) Follow the community (jama‘ah) of the Muslims and their leaders;” iii) Whatever the Muslims consider good is good in the eyes of God, and whatever they consider evil is evil in His eyes.” 5.     Kharijites were a brutally fanatic sect who readily killed their opponents and “caused rivers of blood to flow in the first three centuries of Islam.” Philip K. Hitti History of the Arabs, 1937, 10th edition; London 1993, p. 247. Some of the sect members justified the killing of the children of polytheists, their own parents, and all the non-Muslims of the world. - Ghunit al-talebin, Urdu translation by Shahir Shams Barelwi, Arshad Brothers, New Delhi p.178-180. 6.     The Qaramites. Founded by Hamdan Qarmat, a power hungry Iraqi peasant, around 860 (247 AH) (third century of Islam), the sect grew as a Bolshevik style revolutionary movement “that developed into a most malignant growth into the body of political Islam.” Qarmat’s successors “founded an independent state on the western shore of the Persian Gulf (286 AH), … from where they conducted a series of terrible raids on neighboring lands,.. laid waste most of lower al-Iraq, became the terror of the Caliphate … and kept Syria and al-Iraq drenched in blood.” ---- Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.  URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/the-classical-islamic-sharia-law-is-not-a-word-of-god!-(part-1--how-the-qur’anic-message-has-been-subverted)/d/5714

Genesis of Sharia law

Originally Published in July 2010 at Huffington Post with the Title, Sharia Laws, not in America
URL - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html

P R E A M B L E

Whether you are a theist, atheist or an agnostic, you may see the element of balance embedded in every aspect of creation be it matter, life or environment.  The earth rotates on its own imaginary axis and circles the sun with precision, and so do the other planets in the universe. When it comes to seasons it appears that, they are programmed to be within a range of prediction. No matter where you sow the tiny seed of wheat, the process is predetermined as to what happens to that seed, so is the human body, one wrong food can mess up that balance. Everything about the nature is balance, precision and harmony.

What does the process (God) that created matter and life want? I believe it wants us to maintain that balance and harmony for our continued existence, it’s our freedom and ability to tune ourselves and our environment to constantly maintain that balance that gives us life. 

What does God really want? Like a mother who wants her kids to do well; like the teacher who wants his students to score A’s, like a chef who wants all her patrons to enjoy her food, like the maker of iPhone who wants all its customers to enjoy the phone to its max benefit, God wants all his creation (life, matter and environment) to function effectively and in harmony and cohesion as he has created. That can be called God’s will and subscribing to that thought can be called submission (Quran), surrender (Bhagvad Gita) or follow (Bible) the creator.

Ever since our conscious life began, there have been a number of individuals from among us, who have worked hard to keep God’s will. The purpose of every religious or non-religious leader was create such societies where no one had to live in fear of the other, or no one was to be pushed out of harmony.

Religion is a beautiful instrument with a purpose to maintain the social cohesiveness among the inhabitants, a majority of people get that right, a few don’t, and those who don’t,  don’t realize that they are working against the balance without being aware of it.

Justice is the one word that wraps God, balance, harmony and cohesion together and that is the foundation of all societies, without justice, things go awry and if not checked, they will degenerate from there. Krishna had mentioned whenever there is adharma (righteousness turned upside down), some one will appear from among us to fix it.

S H A R I A

Each society, civil or religious has its own code of conduct that it operates on. Islam is no different. Sharia in its simplest form is a how-to-serve-justice manual based on the Qur'an and the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings and life examples). Indeed, it is a human effort to understand the concept of justice enshrined in Qur'an for the day-to-day living. Sharia like all other human laws, including the laws of the United States has its own shortcomings when it comes to just applications of the law. However, the world has evolved* but Sharia has a few frozen lakes.

American Muslims have placed their trust in the American justice system and will continue to oppose the kind of Sharia "that is prevalent in a handful of Muslim majority nations across the globe". The right wingers are duping Americans to believe that Muslims want that kind of Sharia law here in America, they are wrong, no Muslim organization in America has asked for it, none.  I will be one of the first ones, if not the first one, to stand up against Sharia for public, however, I support Sharia for personal use of people to square off their conflicts. We are Americans and the law of the land is our law. There is no substitute for it.

G E N E S I S  O F  S H A R I A 

After the death of Prophet Muhammad and the first four 'rightly guided' Caliphs,  the new community was grappling with the unique issues and were battling within to ensure that no one is denied justice. The desire to be absolutely just was overwhelming..

Allah commands justice and good conduct [Quran 16:90; 4:58]. You should stand firm in justice, even if it goes against yourselves or parents and relatives. Follow not your personal inclinations, lest you not be just [4:135, 6:152]. And do not let the hatred of someone prevent you from being just towards him [5:8]. You should do justice in all circumstances without any bias, discrimination or prejudice whether the outcome goes against you or your loved ones, or in favor of your rivals. 

Each issue was different and the decisions were customized to one's situations, it required a full time judge to study the books thoroughly before a recommendation was made. The scholars of the time were challenged to cut down the margin of error in such decisions by standardizing the process to render judgments on a daily basis to meet the growing demand for justice.
  
The scholars of the time met the challenge and created a body of knowledge as supplementary guidance and established the standards of moral conduct. Sharia laws were designed to be free from misapplications and regret-free decision-making processes.


P E R S O N A L  A N D  P U B L I C  S H A R I A 

Sharia is divided into personal and public based on the functions. The personal Sharia is about the relationship between an individual and the creator, whereas the public Sharia is relationship between the individual and the society.

The personal Sharia deals with beneficial actions of individuals, they are purely personal and ritualistic in nature that every individual Christian, Jew, Hindu or a Pagan follows in living his or her daily life.  Actions like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, charity, feeding the hungry, taking care of neighbor,  zakat, marriage, death and burial rituals etc.  It is indeed a guide for individual Muslim to observe and follow his or her faith.


The public Sharia on the other hand deals with the individual's relationship with fellow members of the society like divorce, business contracts, adultery, theft, murders, conversion, apostates and inheritance.

The intent of the Sharia laws was to construct a complete justice system with fairness to all members of society. Peace and a sense of security are the products of justice in a given society.

American Muslims have placed their trust in the American justice system and are happy with the public laws that serve justice.  They are not looking for any law to substitute the American laws while they practice their faith. 

 The violations of justice and the rule of law are found in every faith, culture and political system, to varying degrees. In this respect no community is free of blame and no one can cast the first stone against another community.

However, like all laws, the Sharia for public application needs a serious revision to reflect the changing needs of society. The values enshrined in the Qur'an are dynamic, and because Sharia laws are derived from the Qur'an, they must reflect the dynamic applicability of the book. In modern times, the contentious issues that have most often recurred stem from treatment of divorce, women's rights, inheritance, theft, adultery and apostasy.

Even here in America, laws originally framed with the intention of ensuring liberty and justice for all were misapplied for over a century after they were written, resulting in a serious denial of rights to women and slaves. It is only in the last 75 years that we are tuning ourselves to the intent of our constitution. A woman is no longer considered a chattel, and slavery has become an outlawed practice. As of right now the rights of individuals with different sexual orientations are at the center of the debates as much as accepting a woman president in our country. In terms of capital punishment we are still evolving; we are behind Europe and we remain as antiquated as Saudi Arabia in putting people to death.

But even as we speak today there is yet another speculative issue that has been brought up: the issue of application of Sharia laws here in our country. This contentious debate is largely a product of the right-wing media and many a fearful neoconservatives. As an American Muslim who has  traveled throughout this country, I can strongly affirm that no group of American Muslims has called for the application of Sharia laws in America. Although a few individuals may have expressed their support for compliance with the laws here in our country, they have nevertheless remained avid supporters of the laws and freedoms of the United States.

S H A R I A  I N D U S T R Y
 
The Sharia industry has been built with strong fortifications, to the point that many Muslims are led to believe that Sharia law is divine. In this way the application of Sharia throughout history can be comparable to the business protection plans used by defense, tax preparers and other industries, where the involved matters are made so complicated that they are needed by the society.

The brouhaha about Sharia Law by many a congressman and lelegislators is really ridiculous, these legislators who are introducing the bills in different states to ban Sharia laws are as neanderthalic as some of the Talibans.  Hear me out, if you and your spouse file for divorce, the judge will not bang his gavel and say, its done. Efforts will be made for you to find reconciliation and alternate services such as arbitration, psychological counseling and pastoral counseling,  hoping you may find the magical moment to reconcile. Add to that Rabbinical counseling where the Rabbi counsels the Jewish couple to bring them back together,  so Muslims are asking an option of having a Imam counseling. What the hell is wrong with that? Enough is written about it on the right pane of this site. 

Islam teaches each individual to be accountable for his or her actions. We do not need a Sharia industry, and Islam certainly does not have clerical establishment built into it, nor is there a need for one.

We can retain the private Sharia and let go of the public Sharia; the civil laws of our nation provide ample justice, and we don't need a duplicate system. Sharia law was never considered divine to begin with. Hence, there is no need to even dream about it.

A M E R I C A N  M U S L I  M S

American Muslims have placed their trust in the American justice system and will continue to oppose Sharia laws as they are currently applied in many places across the globe. I will be one of the first ones, if not the first one, to stand up against it. The Muslim majority in America is happy with the American system and does not want to have Sharia law here in America.

On the Hannity Show on Fox News, I have challenged the likes of Geller, Spencer and others to show an American Muslim Organization that wants to impose it on Americans, its merely a hype, they cannot substantiate it. This may be bad news for the likes of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer,  Bridgette Gabriel, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, John Hagee and a host of other right-wingers, who thrive on selling hate and painting chaotic scenarios. It will hurt their sales and affect their cash flow. They cannot dupe Americans with unsubstantiated and statistically insignificant claims. Americans are trained to see another point of view and to be non-judgmental.

However, I urge the passionate neocons to become ambassadors of peace in mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill. It will not make them as much money, but they will be able to sleep in peace. We all need to work for a safe and prosperous America with a focus on social cohesion and removing the division and wedges between us.

As a Muslim I stand against Sharia for public consumption, but allow for personal use for people to square their conflicts. We are Americans and the law of the land is our law. There is no substitute for it. 

Please note that almost every paragraph is based on verses from Quran, but I am not quoting them here, as it is written for the general audience and from a common sense point of view.  However, when I give a talk to Muslims, I will quote them.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes his work through many links.