What is sharia and why does it matter

Such scriptural punishments for these acts and indeed, in some cases even the very condemnation of them horrify people today. However, there are several important conditions that mitigate the severity of these punishments:. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment. Altogether, then, it seems that the hudud were intended to be harsh enough to ward Muslims off from committing the crimes, but with standards of proof high enough so that the stated punishments were rarely carried out.

They may have faced other punishments handed down by the judges, who could use their discretion to hand down punishments in line with the circumstances of the case at hand.

Depending on the crime, those punishments could still have been severe. Many consider these rules to have been designed for a specific historical context and that they are inapplicable for the very different modern world. In recent years there have been a number of surveys of British Muslim attitudes. These tend to show that British Muslims overwhelmingly feel a strong sense of belonging to Britain.

But regarding Muslim attitudes to Islamic law, the polling questions are often very poorly worded and sensationalist, so we learn very little about their actual views, including on the specific issue of the introduction of the hudud punishments. It may indicate anything from respondents feeling the question was too simplistic to answer adequately, to having given the topic little thought, to being confused or conflicted about the issue. No doubt some will be thinking of the re—establishment of laws that promote socially conservative values.

But others may mean specific changes to English family law, such as the legal recognition of Islamic religious marriage, which would be no bad thing see below. As with the hudud, the reality is more complex. The particular example about testimony is subject to great debate and disagreement among modern Muslim scholars.

Today, some Muslim scholars argue that it was uncommon for women to be involved in commercial transactions in early Islam; the stipulation for two women as witnesses was not a comment on their mental capacity but a reflection of their likely lack of expertise in such matters, with one being able to support the other. Some Muslims will therefore see this stipulation as unnecessary in a modern world with much greater female education.

In the face of non—Muslim assumptions about their oppression, increasingly many Muslim women in the West and beyond are describing their religion, at its origins, as one of female liberation. This is well documented in a range of recent studies, such as by Shelina Janmohamed [16] and Philip Lewis and Sadek Hamid.

Of course we must be careful here. Moreover, undoubtedly there are clear differences between the rights of men and women in some areas of fiqh that offend the Western assumption that everyone should have identical rights. But they are controversial and are sometimes accused of gender discrimination. In certain circumstances, primarily business disputes, Muslims are able to settle their affairs under Islamic legal norms, via the English law rules on arbitration.

The Arbitration Act allows people in a dispute formally to agree to have their issue resolved by a third party of their choice, the arbitrator. For a number of years Muslims have been making use of this process through an organisation called the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal MAT , which settles commercial disputes following Islamic principles but in a way that conforms with English law.

The vast majority of people who use their services are women, and their primary activity is facilitating the granting of a religious divorce to Muslim women. Occasionally, when a Muslim woman seeks an end to her religious marriage nikah , her husband may refuse to agree to the divorce. This puts the woman in a very difficult situation, because in Britain a nikah formed within Britain has no legal standing, unlike for example church marriages.

This problem is compounded by the fact that many British Muslims do not get their religious marriages registered officially, often due to misunderstandings about the status of the nikah in English law.

With no civil marriage, women stuck in these situations have even less recourse to help from the courts. Women in such situations are in limbo. Abandoned by their husbands, they are considered unmarried in the eyes of the state and so cannot get financial help, but see themselves and are seen by their community as still married and unable to move on. Sometimes it will try to reconcile the couple, since the preservation of marriage is preferable to divorce in Islam.

But if reconciliation is impossible, the council will usually push the husband to grant the divorce. Sometimes, the council may declare an annulment of the marriage faskh unilaterally, for example if there is evidence of abuse, if the husband refuses to engage, or if a civil divorce is already under way. The councils are clearly providing a needed service for these women. But there was also evidence of bad practice. In some councils, there are problems which disadvantage or even put at risk the women they are trying to help.

Some insisted on mediation between the couple as a preliminary step in the process, which could be entirely inappropriate if the relationship was abusive. Sometimes the mediation could involve intrusive questioning about the relationship, or could be drawn out for several months. Some councils lacked proper safeguarding procedures, and few had women as actual panel members with some notable exceptions. It recommended that legislation should be amended to require civil marriage to take place before or at the same time as an Islamic religious marriage, and to enable judges to refuse to grant a civil divorce to Muslim couples until the husband has granted his wife a religious divorce.

These changes would help Muslim women in the future. Recently it was reported that the government is exploring potential legal changes to ensure that Muslims get civil marriages, as suggested by the commission. It has argued that facilitating even the self—regulation of the councils could be seen as endorsing them as an alternative to the civil courts. Catholics have the teachings of the magisterium teaching authority , which deal with things like marriage, business practices, and social justice.

Some people falsely equate Sharia with criminal or huddud laws, which are centuries-old specific punishments for major crimes such as killing, adultery, or theft. Unfortunately, the misapplication of these laws by the Taliban or other contemporary groups or governments generally contradict both the letter and spirit of Sharia and have given it a bad name.

Fatwa is an Arabic term that means a ruling or legal opinion that has been deduced by a qualified Islamic scholar or someone claiming authority in Islam on issues pertaining to Islamic law that generally have not been previously decided. Since these opinions are non-binding, Muslims are free to choose whether or not to follow them. Understandings of Sharia vary widely among Muslims; the same is true of concepts of human rights, which differ widely in different countries and among different people.

The Declaration of Human Rights enumerates both civil liberties e. The rights affirmed include freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion and conscience including the right of other religious communities to live according to their own beliefs and laws , and, in particular, rights for women, including the right to inherit and own property, which were not granted to European women until the 19 th or even the 20 th century. While no Muslim-majority country—and indeed no country in the world—has fully lived up to the ideals of the Declaration of Human Rights, Sharia as understood by the majority of Muslims clearly supports the aspiration to do so.

This is clear evidence that while there is no universal understanding or application of Sharia or Islam generally, groups such as the Taliban do not represent the mainstream and are definitely extreme in their practices, which is why they have been condemned by other Muslims. Muslims follow Sharia in the same way that people of other faiths follow their sacred laws and traditions. The American way, as enshrined in the religion clauses of the First Amendment of the U.

Constitution, protects freedom of religion and religious practice. It allows religious and secular groups to follow any way of life, so long as it is voluntary and they respect the rights of others. America has always had numerous religious groups who follow their own sacred laws and lifestyles Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Amish, Buddhists, Quakers, religious communes, etc. American Muslims practice Sharia on a voluntary, private basis in a manner similar to Catholics who obey the magisterium or Jews who follow halakhah.

The essential parts of Sharia are practices such as daily prayers, fasting during the month of Ramadan, marriage contracts, and rules for charity and investments. For example, if a Muslim eats a halal or kosher hamburger, nothing prevents someone else from eating a bacon cheeseburger! Muslims can be true to both America and to their religion just as Christians, Jews, Hindus, or adherents of any other religion can be true to both their country and their faith.

According to our understanding of Islamic teachings, anyone living under the protection of a civil government in the country in which they reside owes obedience to that government, regardless of what type of government it is or whether or not one is living in a Muslim-majority country.

However, the First Amendment clearly provides protection for the free exercise of religion, which includes protecting the rights of Muslims, as well as Jews, Christians, and others, to observe their own laws in matters of faith, including the adherence to rules regarding personal worship and some family laws. However, no religious law can supersede state or federal law. Moreover, Sharia commands Muslims to abide by the law of the land in which they reside. No, America Muslims are merely trying to follow Sharia in their personal life just as practicing Jews try to follow Jewish law halakha.

There is no evidence of American Muslims individually or as a group trying to force Sharia on others. Muslims are obligated to adhere to the law of the land, and the observance of any laws that run contrary to the Constitution such as polygamy would be prevented even if someone tried to implement them.

American democracy is based on the Constitution. The Constitution protects rights such as religious freedom, privacy, and private property. Muslim Americans can follow Sharia Islamic values and way of life in the same way that adherents of other religions follow their sacred laws, values, and lifestyles.

The basic parts of Sharia rituals, marriage and family life, charity and ethical business practices are private and voluntary. Almost all religions have some kind of sacred law. Secular law also provides parameters or limits on following sacred law, to ensure that the public interest is protected e.

There is an ongoing debate in the West over religion and modernity. Some say they are compatible and others say they are not. However, this issue has long been discussed in the West, and both Western and Muslim societies struggle over religious traditions in our modern life. Beginning with the Enlightenment in the 18th century, many scholars and others have argued that religion and modern life are incompatible and that as societies become more modern they also necessarily become more secular and less religious.

This also helps explain why the Islamic sharia is taught and transmitted across generations not in terms of state law codes as civil law systems, like those in most of Europe, are taught or in terms of actual court cases and precedents as common law systems in the Anglo-American world are taught , but in terms of scholarly writings. It sounds like sharia could be anything anybody wants it to be. How can that be law? Because someone in a position of political authority might say it is.

As we have portrayed it, the Islamic sharia does not sound so much like a legal system but instead like an intellectual tradition. That it is. But is it ever law in the sense of rules enforced by the state? Sometimes states appoint officials or legislative bodies to rule or write laws in accordance with their understanding of the sharia. In such cases, Muslims are free to believe whatever they like, but when it comes to enforcement, officials enforce the law that has been written down.

Most majority Muslim states today would claim to adhere to the Islamic legal tradition, but most laws on the books today do not come from Islamic legal sources. How did this happen? And what does it mean for the sharia?

Until the twentieth century, it was fairly common for Muslim rulers to appoint judges and then allow them to rule in accordance with their own understanding of the sharia. Sometimes rulers would submit their own edicts to the sharia courts for consideration, adjudicate cases themselves, or form specialized courts for disputes between specific groups like merchants.

Non-Muslims and foreign citizens might have their own courts for their own communities. Only a few countries have the first category of courts today, in which those with Islamic legal training adjudicate cases based on their understanding of the sharia.

In most Muslim countries today, the laws enforced are those written by states. Many have comprehensive codes of law, based sometimes on European civil codes.

Some states formerly ruled by Great Britain have been influenced by common law. In all such cases, rulers or legislators often explain that they are operating within the bounds of the Islamic sharia; their goal is to allow Muslims to live the Islamic way. That means avoiding any law that clearly violates the sharia, drawing from the sharia in a few areas such as family law, observing the clearest sharia provisions, and taking whatever steps they see as necessary without violating the sharia to maintain order and the public good.

Islamic finance is based on some distinct principles, such as requiring that those who provide funds cannot expect to be repaid with fixed interest; instead, they must participate in some of the risk of the enterprise they are funding. In practice, many Islamic financial practices and instruments have developed in ways that closely resemble those of non-Islamic finance.

The Islamic sharia often has general influence in three other areas. First, it is often mentioned in constitutional texts, with real symbolic value but uncertain legal meaning. Second, it often influences the way that rights are understood. Freedom of religion, for instance, generally does not protect public blasphemy. And since religion often informs family law, religious freedom often means the right to pick which officially recognized religion one subscribes to rather than a fully individual freedom of conscience.

Finally, Islamic law still has strong symbolic appeal among some constituencies so that politicians might call for the application of criminal penalties in a manner consistent with classically derived punishments emphasizing corporal punishment rather than modern civil codes emphasizing incarceration , though such steps are more frequently discussed than actually taken.

Do Muslims want to bring sharia to America? Most Muslims want to live within the bounds of the sharia but very few want to substitute it for the U.

Most Muslims in America are satisfied practicing their religion under the current legal system. A few very religious Muslims in America have sought to find ways to make sharia legally binding in their private lives by asking that U. In this sense, they are acting perfectly in accordance with the legal order. Such tools require the consent of the parties and can only be enforced by the regular courts if they are consistent with U.

Nevertheless, some American political leaders have suggested some kind of sharia-based screening in which Muslims would be required to renounce any attempt to supplant the U. Is sharia unfair to women?

The sharia treats men and women differently in family relations. And that can certainly be unfair at times if fairness is seen as requiring equality as it often does in liberal societies. Actual practice varies quite considerably, however, because it does not depend only on the legal rules derived from the sharia but also how they are applied and interpreted.

Generally, social, legal, and political factors have a very great impact on how favorably husbands, wives, and other family members are treated. Men should provide and protect; women should obey. In general, husbands can divorce their wives at will; they can also be married to more than one woman at the same time. Wives have far more restricted rights of divorce. These arrangements are certainly not equal, but they do provide women with the ability to make some claims and demand some protections.

Husbands who abuse them or fail to provide are violating their rights. Women are allowed to earn income and own their own property but are not expected to contribute financially to the household. First, what social customs prevail? In others, that ownership is real and places them in a potentially powerful position. In some societies or in some marriages , the groom promises a significant sum of money to be paid in the event of divorce or death. The effect is to make it financially difficult for a husband to divorce his wife; it also means that if he provides his wife with grounds for seeking a court-ordered divorce by abusing or abandoning her, he incurs significant financial loss.

Divorce in some such instances can be more threatening to the husband than to the wife. Without accounting for what customs prevail and what the arrangements of a specific marriage are, it is difficult to say in the abstract who holds how much power.

Second, what law is on the books? Since Islamic jurisprudence offers a large body of possible rules to adopt and enforce, there is actually wide latitude for states to adopt practices with very different implications.

Third, how do those in charge of enforcing the law courts and police behave? Does a divorced woman have a realistic chance of obtaining an amount a husband pledged? How do police and judges treat allegations of abuse? Because such practical questions have such enormous implications, most of those who criticize existing practices as unfair to women seek not to abandon the sharia basis of family law but instead to adopt interpretations and encourage practices to address the claimed imbalance.

Does sharia require that apostates be killed? Muslim political authorities almost never have executed apostates. But apostasy is still seen as a grave, if rarely punished, offense. Why is it so offensive? And why, if it is deemed so offensive, is little done about it?

What explains these attitudes?