Is Shariah Implementable?
By Nadir Baloch
“Shariah for the UK” depicted a banner during a demonstration held by Muslims in London to condemn blasphemous publications. Such calls have sparked concern and distress among western countries where Muslims live in large numbers. . In 2008 United Kingdom allowed Islamic Law (Shariah) to be used in deciding the matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance to make legal decisions for Muslims who opted for it. Whereas, in the United States’ Oklahoma State a ballot was passed to ban the use of Shariah in court cases in November 2010.
The debate hasn’t been limited to the West only. Shariah has been a highly argued subject in the Muslims countries too. It lacks a unanimous structure because different sects in Islam interpret Islamic injunctions differently. Islamic Shariah of Shias isn’t applicable to the Sunnis and vise versa. The fierce differences between the main two sects of Shia and Sunni in Islam very much symbolize the controversies surrounding the so called Islamic legal system. Besides, there are several other schools of thoughts within the Muslim community that interpret Shariah differently.
Shariah is basically an Islamic legal system designed to interpret divine guidance. It was first introduced and used as the main source of legislation during the Umayyad Caliphate (661 – 750 AD). The system was mend to ensure complete submission to the will of Allah by defining every minute action. Shariah is partly implemented in some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen and Brunei but with different implications resulting from diverse explanations.
Criminal Laws in Sharia have been the most controversial ones and inapplicable even in most of the Muslim dominated countries. Punishments such as stoning for adultery, flogging for drinking alcohol and amputation for theft have received worldwide condemnation. Other debates surrounding Sharia have been child marriages, polygamy, gender biased inheritance rules, female genital mutilation and honor killings.
The Islamic Legal System is derived from four sources: Quran, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas. The conflict surrounding Shariah results from the fact that all the above mentioned sources lack authenticity. Even Quran which is considered the word of God in Islam isn’t devoid of dispute.
Ibne Abu Dawud a renowned scholar of Quran and Hadith in the 9th Century revealed controversies over the compilation of an official Quran and burning of other versions by Uthman Ibne Affan the third Caliph of Islam. In his book Kitab al-Masahif he narrates that Abdullah Ibne Masud who was one of Prophet Muhammad’s closest servants and had learned Quran from him had refused to accept Uthman’s official Quran as the pure version. The book also said that Hujjaj Ibne Yousaf the infamous governor of Iraq had also made changes in the consonantal text of Quran. Hence, creating doubt over the purity of the book which is the most reliable source of Shariah.
The second most prominent source is called Hadith. It is the collection of sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad. The fact that the first biography of Muhammad was written a hundred years after his death by Ibne Ishaq raises questions over the genuineness of Hadith too. What makes Hadith more unreliable is the argument amongst Muslim scholars as to which tradition actually belongs to the prophet of Islam. Most of the Muslim scholars even rejected the first biography of Muhammad by Ibne Ishaq calling it blasphemous.
Kutub us Sittah (six books) are considered the most reliable source of Hadith by Sunnis. These books are named after the collectors of Hadith such as Al Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Al Tirmizi, Al Nasa and Ibne Maja. Shia Muslims have their own different collection of Hadith called Kutub al Arba (four books) comprising of Asul-i-Kafi, Man La Yahdruhu Al Fiqh, Tahdiib Al Ahkam and Al Istibsaar. The method of collection for all the individual collectors has been different and confusingly contradictory. There has been an endless debate as to whose collection of Hadith is the most reliable one. In fact the contradictions are so apparently sharp that it becomes almost impossible to make distinction between genuine and fake Hadith.
The remaining two sources namely Ijma (consensus of the Islamic scholars) and Qiyas (the analogical method of deciding a matter based on the teachings of Quran and Hadith) have been the weakest sources since the two depend on the more important main sources of Quran and Hadith.
Movements for the revival and complete imposition of Shariah like that of Taliban and recently ISIS can be quoted as examples of how confusing Shariah can be. The mode of operation of both however cruel and unacceptable to the modern world were yet justified through examples from the actions of Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand those opposing the brutality also quoted examples of kindness from Islamic history to condemn these acts.
Shariah is very confusingly controversial even among its supporters. And the dispute within the Muslim community over the legitimacy of Shariah and its sources alone is sufficient to say that Shariah cannot form the basis of a compound system required in the modern day.
Nadir Baloch is a blogger from Pakistan. He can be contacted at [email protected].
The photo attached in the mail is taken from the express.co.uk
The United States Constitution may not be perfect Nevertheless it’s still a whole a lot better then the cruel oppressive Sharia law. Just look at the so called rights rights of the Iranian citizens that are in great contrast to the genuine rights of the American people in the United States . Pity the poor the oppressed people who have to exist under the tyrannical rule of the mullahs who govern by the brutal and harsh Sharia law. As the Bible teaches “All the days of the oppressed are wretched.” Proverbs 15:15. [N.I.V.] In addition, there is the internet site bansharalaw.com
Polish take a stand.
Watch “Year 2015 – Poland: Thousands of Poles against muslims in Warsaw.” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/xMTC0SbF5VQ
Watch “Polish football fans send clear message to muslims and islam” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/hKgQYfZtsGQ
Watch “Polish Football Fans: No to this Islamic Horde!” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/VDx7NL5VuKs
Sharia law is a draconian set of rules and regulations reflecting a 7th century Arabian mindset,hence its barbarity and opposition to human rights. It therefore has no relevance in todays society, which has laws that can be changed for the betterment of humanity, unlike the Sharia which is eternally fixed.
The Author does not answer his own question, not that there is anything wrong in that – Socratic teaching is always better than didactic.
It seems to me that the Author expects Sharia aka “Allah’s Laws” to be present in one unique and perfect form and bases his (apparent) dismissal on the facts that (1) various forms exist and – more importantly – (2) the weakness of the sources as well as (3) the condemnation that various aspects of Sharia engenders.
(1) The first point is analagous to the various forms of National laws (or even differences in State Law in the US) and I suspect that no-one would say that such laws are “unimplementable” due to such differences.
(2) The second is only relevant to those who actually think that sharia really is “Allah’s laws”. Most other law systems have equally (or even more so) “weak” sources; older systems (e.g. the U.K.) have in Common Law elements that are as much custom as anything else. Again the lack of “authority” – any and all laws can be repealed – does not affect the implementation of the law. Thus from an outside viewpoint, this is hardly grounds for deciding whether or not sharia is implementable. Further, from an “inside” view there is little doubt that those who wish to implement sharia in it’s full barbarity are quite convinced that their version is indeed “Allah’s laws” and thus inarguably right and proper. Thus this point does not address the question posed in the article.
(3)The other ground – condemnation – is also irrelevant. For example: many Countries condemn the U.S. for using the death penalty; which has not, does not and will not prevent the US from so using it. The same point can be made about China and other non-Muslim Countries, aspects of whose laws also draw condemnation. In fact within non-Muslim societies condemnation of the law is a great pass-time, laws are always being “condemned” in one way or another – hence the continual implementation of legislation. Again this objection does not really address the Author’s argument.
The author goes on to say: “[T]he dispute within the Muslim community over the legitimacy of Shariah and its sources alone is sufficient to say that Shariah cannot form the basis of a compound system required in the modern day.”
On one level this is clearly true: Sharia is completely incompatible with any other form or source of law which those seeking to implement Sharia reject as “man-made law” and thus clearly inferior to what they uncritically believe to be “Allah’s laws”.
My objection here is that those Muslims who seek the implementation of Sharia are not seeking a “compound system” of law – they are seeking to implement Sharia alone, thus the incompatibility of Sharia with other systems is also an irrelevance.
Thus in my view the author does not actually address the question he poses, at least not from an outside perspective.
What he does do is hold Sharia Law up to it’s own claim of being “divine” law and shows that this is not the case. The question answered by the Author is really “Is Sharia law god’s law”, to which we can see the answer is “No”.
“Is Shariah Implementable?”
The answer is clearly “Yes.” There is little or nothing to prevent Muslims in Muslim-majority Countries or areas implementing Sharia. As the author states, ISIS implements a version of Sharia with great gusto, as does Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be “Is Shariah Implementable in non-Muslim Countries?”
The answer to that is a qualified yes.
Within Sharia itself, or at least within Islamic doctrine are the concepts of Tayseer (ease) and Darura (necessity). These are more or less the two sides to the same coin, but in effect what they mean is that elements of Sharia can be “set aside” if implementing it would cause “difficulties” for the Umma. Thus, using Tayseer, western living Muslims won’t stone adulteresses, not because they all think doing so is “barbaric”, but because those they know that to do so would bring down condemnation or worse on a weak Muslim community, as well as the arrest and trial of those who did. Again, using Darura, they will use the western court system, in the eyes of some illegal Kafir courts, to obtain their rights since this is better for the Umma than suffering without redress. But a corollary of that is that those Muslims who seek to implement Sharia, even when they set aside elements of Sharia, are only doing so until conditions change such that they may be implemented without detriment to the Umma.
In the U.K. we have “Muslim Arbitration tribunals” or “MAT”s which are effectively Sharia Courts implementing Sharia law. Originally these were supposed to only operate for divorce, wills and other civil matters. However evidence has emerged that they are also “trying” criminal matters, which lie outside their legal purview in the eyes of British law (though not in the view of the Islamic judges, for whom Sharia is the only ‘just’ system of course). To date they have not attempted to impose Hadud punishments for the reasons given above, but (at the risk or repetition) this is not to say that they would not do so if conditions permitted.
It therefore follows, in my view, that Sharia law is definitely implementable and that it can be done so with sufficient flexibility to allow gradualism in any environment, which only makes it more, not less, dangerous because in the final analysis under the inhumane strictures of Sharia law everyone suffers, Muslim and non-muslim alike.