With the possible exception of the word jihad, there can't be an Arabic word that inspires more confusion, misinformation and fear than the word shariah. Glenn Beck has an entire career based on ramping up fear over both words (yes, Beck is a moron, but a dangerous moron since he does this deliberately for money). I'll have more to say about jihad later, but I thought I'd say a few words about shariah because it popped up in class the other night as part of discussion so it's on my mind.
As always, I throw out my normal disclaimer that I'm not an Islamic scholar nor do I speak for my faith. Rather, I'm just an individual believer working my way through faith.
First off, what does shariah even mean? Folks with a knowledge of Arabic will often point out that to say shariah law is a bit clunky because one of the translations of the word shariah is "law," so, following that logic, you'd be saying law law (much as when you're saying Sahara Desert you're actually saying Desert Desert). Maybe a better translation for the word shariah is "path." I say this because I think it's better to think of shariah as a thought process than a set of laws. Shariah isn't like the US Constitution where you could do a Google search and come up with a link to a set document. So, when someone is railing against a Muslim wanted to implement shariah it's important to know what they're talking about; certainly, you can still dislike the notion, but dislike it for what it is and not what Fox News tells you it is.
As always, I'm borrowing heavily from other sources, in this case, not surprisingly, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and his book The Heart of Islam. In this case check out his chapter on "Divine and Human Laws." Again, this book is simply required reading.
When I explain shariah to students in class I usually do so in this fashion: imagine that you're a Muslim trying to live in this world and you are day to day faced with problems that require a decision; shariah is essentially the thought process wherein you would work through that conundrum and come up with an answer.
It's a complicated process, but it would roughly work this way: you'd work your way, top through bottom, of these guidelines.
Not surprisingly, if you're a Muslim you would start with the Quran. The Quran is far more than a book of laws, but there are a lot of laws in the Quran. During the Prophet's life (and thus at the time of the revelations) there was no structured, centralized government and no set law code, so, again not surprisingly, a lot of the revelations provided legal structure. You're that Muslim trying to make a decision so you'd start here, but also with the understanding that the Quran is not designed to cover every specific contingency to every specific question.
Failing that, you'd turn to the Hadith (sayings) or Sunnah (actions) of the Prophet. That is, did Muhammad ever say anything or do anything that might shed light on your decision. One of the unique things about Islam is that you have this whole body of knowledge that exists outside of the Quran. By way of comparison, Christianity does not have a collection of stories of Jesus that exist outside of the New Testament. Coming back to our present day Muslim trying to make a decision, did anyone ever ask the Prophet a question that might shed light on your situation?
Now, if you don't find the answer in the Quran or the Hadith or the Sunnah, then what? Then you would move to Analogy (qiyas, in Arabic). Again, using an example from class, you may want to download a movie illegally, and that probably wasn't covered by Islamic scholars centuries ago, but there are certainly analogous decisions. This eventually takes us to issues like Consensus (ijma): have a consensus of scholars of the entire community ever agreed on something (as you might expect, all of this gets less and less uniform or likely as you get further away from the Quran as a basis). Eventually you'd work your way through concepts such as Equity (istihsan) or Public Interest (maslahah mursalah).
Now, it's more complex than this, and not every school of Islamic thought would agree upon every step, but at least you get the idea of the thought process wherein you would be trying to come up with an answer to one of the many problems that pop up during your day to day life, which might be a business decision or whether one should cheat on their spouse or what one can eat or anything from the most profound to the most mundane.
So, when Muslims talk about implementing shariah what does that even mean? In the dozens and dozens and dozens of countries wherein Muslims are in the majority there are only a couple wherein shariah is the law of the land. In all the others there is also a generally secular and usually Western law code left over from the days of colonialism, so even if you're a Muslim living in a Muslim-majority country you're balancing out the laws of the states with the dictates of shariah. And, as we've discussed, Muslims are directed to, as much as they can, follow the laws of the state. It's also important to keep in mind that shariah applies to Muslims and not non-Muslims, so even if you're a Hindu or a Christian living in a Muslim-majority country shariah doesn't really apply to you (although the notion is that you'd at least try and show respect to the Muslims adhering to it). In the end you're not implementing shariah, because it already exists in your day to day life.
I had a feeling that this would turn into a lengthy post, and, of course, this is just scratching the surface of a remarkably complex concept, but I thought it was worth introducing (and I'll have more to say about it tomorrow using a case study). The last thing I'd like to add is that I'd argue that shariah is not really that odd of a concept, and that every person of faith, or probably even every atheist, has their own version of shariah that influences that decision making process. If you think of shariah as a thought process then I think my statement is irrefutable. If you're a devout Christian facing a similar set of problems in your day to day you probably would go through a different but in other ways similar parallel process. You might start off with the New Testament, and even draw a distinction between the synoptic gospels and the later letters of Paul, and then maybe cycle back to the Old Testament, and if you're Catholic you might then consider a Papal dictate or counsel decision, and the move on to more personal issues such as fairness. Or if you're a more secular Christian you might start with more personal beliefs or even the laws of the state, and maybe only then cycle back to holy scripture. And even if you're an atheist, you would still face similar decisions referencing scientists or philosophers or your own personal philosophy as you tried to make the call on what to do.
This brings me back to the initial distinction between "laws" and "path" as the best translation of the word shariah. If it's a path then I think we're all on our own path no matter our faith or lack of faith. If shariah, and by extraction Islam itself, is nothing more than a set of laws then our faith or more than a set of religious dogma than a true faith.
As always, I throw out my normal disclaimer that I'm not an Islamic scholar nor do I speak for my faith. Rather, I'm just an individual believer working my way through faith.
First off, what does shariah even mean? Folks with a knowledge of Arabic will often point out that to say shariah law is a bit clunky because one of the translations of the word shariah is "law," so, following that logic, you'd be saying law law (much as when you're saying Sahara Desert you're actually saying Desert Desert). Maybe a better translation for the word shariah is "path." I say this because I think it's better to think of shariah as a thought process than a set of laws. Shariah isn't like the US Constitution where you could do a Google search and come up with a link to a set document. So, when someone is railing against a Muslim wanted to implement shariah it's important to know what they're talking about; certainly, you can still dislike the notion, but dislike it for what it is and not what Fox News tells you it is.
As always, I'm borrowing heavily from other sources, in this case, not surprisingly, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and his book The Heart of Islam. In this case check out his chapter on "Divine and Human Laws." Again, this book is simply required reading.
When I explain shariah to students in class I usually do so in this fashion: imagine that you're a Muslim trying to live in this world and you are day to day faced with problems that require a decision; shariah is essentially the thought process wherein you would work through that conundrum and come up with an answer.
It's a complicated process, but it would roughly work this way: you'd work your way, top through bottom, of these guidelines.
Not surprisingly, if you're a Muslim you would start with the Quran. The Quran is far more than a book of laws, but there are a lot of laws in the Quran. During the Prophet's life (and thus at the time of the revelations) there was no structured, centralized government and no set law code, so, again not surprisingly, a lot of the revelations provided legal structure. You're that Muslim trying to make a decision so you'd start here, but also with the understanding that the Quran is not designed to cover every specific contingency to every specific question.
Failing that, you'd turn to the Hadith (sayings) or Sunnah (actions) of the Prophet. That is, did Muhammad ever say anything or do anything that might shed light on your decision. One of the unique things about Islam is that you have this whole body of knowledge that exists outside of the Quran. By way of comparison, Christianity does not have a collection of stories of Jesus that exist outside of the New Testament. Coming back to our present day Muslim trying to make a decision, did anyone ever ask the Prophet a question that might shed light on your situation?
Now, if you don't find the answer in the Quran or the Hadith or the Sunnah, then what? Then you would move to Analogy (qiyas, in Arabic). Again, using an example from class, you may want to download a movie illegally, and that probably wasn't covered by Islamic scholars centuries ago, but there are certainly analogous decisions. This eventually takes us to issues like Consensus (ijma): have a consensus of scholars of the entire community ever agreed on something (as you might expect, all of this gets less and less uniform or likely as you get further away from the Quran as a basis). Eventually you'd work your way through concepts such as Equity (istihsan) or Public Interest (maslahah mursalah).
Now, it's more complex than this, and not every school of Islamic thought would agree upon every step, but at least you get the idea of the thought process wherein you would be trying to come up with an answer to one of the many problems that pop up during your day to day life, which might be a business decision or whether one should cheat on their spouse or what one can eat or anything from the most profound to the most mundane.
So, when Muslims talk about implementing shariah what does that even mean? In the dozens and dozens and dozens of countries wherein Muslims are in the majority there are only a couple wherein shariah is the law of the land. In all the others there is also a generally secular and usually Western law code left over from the days of colonialism, so even if you're a Muslim living in a Muslim-majority country you're balancing out the laws of the states with the dictates of shariah. And, as we've discussed, Muslims are directed to, as much as they can, follow the laws of the state. It's also important to keep in mind that shariah applies to Muslims and not non-Muslims, so even if you're a Hindu or a Christian living in a Muslim-majority country shariah doesn't really apply to you (although the notion is that you'd at least try and show respect to the Muslims adhering to it). In the end you're not implementing shariah, because it already exists in your day to day life.
I had a feeling that this would turn into a lengthy post, and, of course, this is just scratching the surface of a remarkably complex concept, but I thought it was worth introducing (and I'll have more to say about it tomorrow using a case study). The last thing I'd like to add is that I'd argue that shariah is not really that odd of a concept, and that every person of faith, or probably even every atheist, has their own version of shariah that influences that decision making process. If you think of shariah as a thought process then I think my statement is irrefutable. If you're a devout Christian facing a similar set of problems in your day to day you probably would go through a different but in other ways similar parallel process. You might start off with the New Testament, and even draw a distinction between the synoptic gospels and the later letters of Paul, and then maybe cycle back to the Old Testament, and if you're Catholic you might then consider a Papal dictate or counsel decision, and the move on to more personal issues such as fairness. Or if you're a more secular Christian you might start with more personal beliefs or even the laws of the state, and maybe only then cycle back to holy scripture. And even if you're an atheist, you would still face similar decisions referencing scientists or philosophers or your own personal philosophy as you tried to make the call on what to do.
This brings me back to the initial distinction between "laws" and "path" as the best translation of the word shariah. If it's a path then I think we're all on our own path no matter our faith or lack of faith. If shariah, and by extraction Islam itself, is nothing more than a set of laws then our faith or more than a set of religious dogma than a true faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment