Why Shariah?

[Nabisco007]

This article is long but very interesting so I would encourage y'all to read at least part of it.

The New York Times > Log In

[sixpakistan]

Great article. Nice to see an educated appraisal of shariah by a secular educator in a mainstream paper.

[Nabisco007]

sixpakistan said

Great article. Nice to see an educated appraisal of shariah by a secular educator in a mainstream paper.

yea and in such depth. It's pretty amazing.

[Jamroll]

Very good read. Thanks for posting, Nabs.

It's interesting that he has a pretty good understanding of basic Islamic history, and it's almost a little ironic that such an article was written by someone who works for the CFR.

[jinnzaman]

Meh, the article is okay. On the one hand he's calling for Westerners not crap their pants every time someone with a beard says the word "Shari'ah", but on the other hand, he insinuates that the democratic implementation of the Shari'ah is acceptable. Instead of the Shari'ah having its own independent authenticity and authority, it is, again, judged through the lens of non-Islamic European concepts of legitimacy. To me, I don't see a difference between Feldman's subtle conclusion and the more brazen Eurocentric rejection of Islamic law since they both predicated on the assumption that the philosophical assumptions of Western legal theory are superior to Islamic law. There's no need to "revise' something merely because it isn't in accordance with the 21st century Western understanding of law and ethics. The article is replete with liberal jargon that has absolutely no relevance to the legalese that jurists have historically utilized in extracting rules from the plethora of divine texts. Muslims do not need the permission of Western states to implement the Shari'ah. They do not need to implement it democratically or rationalize it to placate the Western political palate.

[sixpakistan]

jinnzaman said

Meh, the article is okay. On the one hand he's calling for Westerners not crap their pants every time someone with a beard says the word "Shari'ah", but on the other hand, he insinuates that the democratic implementation of the Shari'ah is acceptable. Instead of the Shari'ah having its own independent authenticity and authority, it is, again, judged through the lens of non-Islamic European concepts of legitimacy. To me, I don't see a difference between Feldman's subtle conclusion and the more brazen Eurocentric rejection of Islamic law since they both predicated on the assumption that the philosophical assumptions of Western legal theory are superior to Islamic law. There's no need to "revise' something merely because it isn't in accordance with the 21st century Western understanding of law and ethics. The article is replete with liberal jargon that has absolutely no relevance to the legalese that jurists have historically utilized in extracting rules from the plethora of divine texts. Muslims do not need the permission of Western states to implement the Shari'ah. They do not need to implement it democratically or rationalize it to placate the Western political palate.

You're expecting/asking for too much.

[jinnzaman]

sixpakistan said

You're expecting/asking for too much.

Why is that?

Why do we as a people need the permission of a bunch of rich predominantly White states to form of our own legal system?

[Bluestar]

umm, because i don't think people will be too happy if we start chopping hands off and stoning people to death in the public park i.e. it doesn't do wonders for social cohesion, kind of puts a stop to integration too.

If we're allowed to implement Shar'iah then anyone can devise their own legal system and justify it under the name of religion, that would bring chaos.

Do you think Shariah can really be implemented right now? Nobody can agree on anything, even if we do change it to adapt to the context we live in, what if half of the madhabs refuse to see it as legitimate? Are we going to have a different shariah for each madhab?

Unless of course you make a one man jinnzaman country and implement it in that. In which case, good luck

[Variable]

I remember I suggested Shariah as being the best route for Iraq, and hardly anyone on here agreed with me... and that came from a pretty broad spectrum of Islamicans.

In any case I agree with Jinn, when it came to the section on 'democratic shariah'. It sounded like what he was suggesting would be a new take on it, would sacrifice some things that I'd think were critical for it to be still considered Shariah.

[Timbit]

Once IbnM and sixpak Uncle are rich enough, then they can buy an island and Jinnzaman can come and implement Shariah law in it. And whoever wants to can come and live in it.

'Cause I mean, IbnM is going to buy an island anyway, so what's one more, right? For the Ummah.

[jinnzaman]

Bluestar said

umm, because i don't think people will be too happy if we start chopping hands off and stoning people to death in the public park i.e. it doesn't do wonders for social cohesion, kind of puts a stop to integration too.

If we're allowed to implement Shar'iah then anyone can devise their own legal system and justify it under the name of religion, that would bring chaos.

Do you think Shariah can really be implemented right now? Nobody can agree on anything, even if we do change it to adapt to the context we live in, what if half of the madhabs refuse to see it as legitimate? Are we going to have a different shariah for each madhab?

Unless of course you make a one man jinnzaman country and implement it in that. In which case, good luck

All of these arguments have been asked and answered.

Firstly, the question is not whether non-Muslims are going to approve the Shari'ah, but whether Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) commanded us as an Ummah to implement certain legal pronouncements. That should be the governing concern, not whether it offends people who wouldn't be subjected to those laws anyway.

Secondly, different states should be allowed to implement their own laws within their own boundaries. It is still possible to have a general human rights scheme and a functional international legal system while respecting local law. A multipolar world is possible once hegemony is removed. I have no problem with liberal democratic capitalism. I respect it immensely as an ideology, but I don't feel obliged to accept its assumptions. If Westerners or any other people want to live in a society governed by it, thats perfectly fine with me. However, their right stops at the borders of the Muslim world just like our rights to the Shari'ah stop at non-Muslim lands. Both systems are predicated on certain assumptions and ultimately, each world view is subjective and thus, equally authoritative.

Thirdly, you make it seem as if ikhtilaaf is a new bar to the implementation of the Shari'ah. This is the weakest argument of them all and it presumes that the madhaib are in contest with the legal system when they are the very institutions which expound on it. Not only is the implementation of the Shari'ah possible with the different madhaib, it is absolutely necessary. For over 1300 years, most Muslim states implemented the Shari'ah and they seldom had problems with the fact that people followed different madhaib. Imam Mawardi resolved this debate almost a thousand years ago by stating that a Qadi is different from a Faqih. Whereas the latter is concerned with the coherency of his jurisprudence, the former is concerned with achieving justice and is thus not bound by any one particular school. Clearly, the following of madhaib isn't going to be an issue for a future Islamic state as it never was in the past.

[ChotooMotoo]

because it's sooo tasty.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

[sixpakistan]

jinnzaman said

Why is that?

Why do we as a people need the permission of a bunch of rich predominantly White states to form of our own legal system?

We don't at all. You know I'm the last person that thinks that way. :P

I was just pleasantly surprised to see an educated take on it in a mainstream American publication. I don't agree with all of it obviously, but it's miles ahead of any other analyses/discussions of shariah I've seen in the Western media, where shariah is generally viewed as something evil that should be feared. Maybe I'm just jaded & have low expectations?

[jinnzaman]

sixpakistan said

We don't at all. You know I'm the last person that thinks that way. :P

I was just pleasantly surprised to see an educated take on it in a mainstream American publication. I don't agree with all of it obviously, but it's miles ahead of any other analyses/discussions of shariah I've seen in the Western media, where shariah is generally viewed as something evil that should be feared. Maybe I'm just jaded & have low expectations?

You're an uncle, what do you expect? :P

The academic discourse and the presentation of Islam in the Media isn't going to correct itself on the own. We have to unread the subtle and not so-subtle derogatory reading of Islam in intellectual circles and take actions to correct it.

[Bluestar]

jinnzaman said

All of these arguments have been asked and answered.

Firstly, the question is not whether non-Muslims are going to approve the Shari'ah, but whether Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) commanded us as an Ummah to implement certain legal pronouncements. That should be the governing concern, not whether it offends people who wouldn't be subjected to those laws anyway.

Secondly, different states should be allowed to implement their own laws within their own boundaries. It is still possible to have a general human rights scheme and a functional international legal system while respecting local law. A multipolar world is possible once hegemony is removed. I have no problem with liberal democratic capitalism. I respect it immensely as an ideology, but I don't feel obliged to accept its assumptions. If Westerners or any other people want to live in a society governed by it, thats perfectly fine with me. However, their right stops at the borders of the Muslim world just like our rights to the Shari'ah stop at non-Muslim lands. Both systems are predicated on certain assumptions and ultimately, each world view is subjective and thus, equally authoritative.

Thirdly, you make it seem as if ikhtilaaf is a new bar to the implementation of the Shari'ah. This is the weakest argument of them all and it presumes that the madhaib are in contest with the legal system when they are the very institutions which expound on it. Not only is the implementation of the Shari'ah possible with the different madhaib, it is absolutely necessary. For over 1300 years, most Muslim states implemented the Shari'ah and they seldom had problems with the fact that people followed different madhaib. Imam Mawardi resolved this debate almost a thousand years ago by stating that a Qadi is different from a Faqih. Whereas the latter is concerned with the coherency of his jurisprudence, the former is concerned with achieving justice and is thus not bound by any one particular school. Clearly, the following of madhaib isn't going to be an issue for a future Islamic state as it never was in the past.

These are theological answers but not practical ones.

In any case the muslim shariah system is available in london where solutions to marital/divorce/fiscal matters can be solved. The range of people that i have spoken to about this do not have a problem with it as the jewish equivalent already exists. From what i can remember there was not such commotion when it was set up but i suppose in the current context we shouldn't find it too surprising. I think it's a good idea obviously, because it allows people to seek advice from people who may know more than them about the subject but also from people they trust.

I only hope that it acts more as a citizens advice bureau too.