Thoughts on Shiria (Islamic) Law

This started out as an EMail discussion of reports that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is looking for ways to cancel the peace treaty with Israel and then the topic slid over to Islamic Law, where one of the discussants suggested that Sharia law is pretty rigid and wedded to the past, with the door to real changes having closed a thousand years ago.  That assertion created this question:

Joe, Muslim academics tell me that there is Sharia law but not A [single] Sharia law.  The ones I speak with point to it as malleable and interpretable.

This is an important question for those of us in the West, in that a Sharia that does not adapt to the 21st Century might turn out to be a major stumbling block on the way to peace and cordial relations between Muslim and non-Muslim nations.

Here is a response from Air Force Captain Mark Jacobson, a Truckee (C-17s) and blogger at Building Peace.♠  Captain Jacobson spent a year studying in Jordan on an Olmsted Scholarship.

Yes, there is no one monolithic shariah, and Muslims—like people of all faiths—are constantly working out their beliefs for themselves.   But at the same time, there IS a canon of Islamic jurisprudence that has been considered authoritative for much of Islam's history.  This body of law evolved within a few centuries of Muhammad's death and is reflected in the four classical schools that prevail in the Sunni world.   Islamic scholars have a very high regard for jurists who came before them, so this body of law is foundational.   Many Islamic scholars really do consider these rulings set in cement, which is why—as Joe correctly states—the gates of ijtihad were considered closed over a thousand years ago.   While this body of law is not monolithic, the overall themes are mostly consistent.   Many aspects of this body of law are deeply disturbing, such as women's rights and the treatment of religious minorities.   When Islam's critics raise these issues, they aren't making them up.   The reason these issues keep rearing their ugly heads in diverse countries all over the Islamic world is because Islamic scholars mostly uphold and build off of this body of law. 

The majority of people who rush to Islam's defense really have no idea what this body of law says, or the importance it has in the Islamic world today as a source of authority.   Ironically, I have found the most honest treatments on the subject coming from Muslim reformers.   Muslims ARE having vigorous discussions about how to fuse Islam with the modern world, but traditional Islamic jurisprudence poses a formidable obstacle.   This has been a recurring theme in books I've read.   Many reformers see classical Islamic jurisprudence as the product of tribal and misogynistic cultures, and as a terrible distortion of Muhammad's original message… but this viewpoint is heresy to many Muslims.   That is why reformers like Khalid About El Fadl and Amina Wudud get death threats from other Muslims, and reformer Tariq Ramadan could not call for an outright ban on stoning adulterers (he instead called for a moratorium while Islamic scholars reviewed the practice).   These scholars are challenging the entire system of Islamic jurisprudence that has been enshrined for over a thousand years.   Some reformers engage with existing Islamic jurisprudence, but others find it so problematic that they choose not to deal with it; they trust their values and instincts about what is morally right, focus on general Islamic themes like social justice, and don't worry about what Islamic law says (and in my experience, this is how most everyday Muslims live).

So what is the bottom line for non-Muslims concerned about this stuff?   We need to recognize that classical Islam did evolve in ways that enshrined some extremely problematic rulings, and these ideas have sacred authority among Islamic scholars second only to the Qur'an and hadith/sunna.   In fact, some of these rulings come directly from the Qur'an (stoning adulterers) and hadith (killing unrepentant apostates).   For that reason, these rulings will continue to pump toxins into the Islamic world for quite some time.   We need to be honest about the role that Islamic doctrines play in fueling these beliefs and practices, which so many Americans are loathe to do.

But the good news is that, despite the pull of classical Islamic jurisprudence in a certain direction, Muslims believe diverse things and live in diverse ways.   I absolutely reject doctrinal determinism, for many reasons, which is why I feel compelled to engage every time someone raises the issue.  Many Muslims, perhaps most, are trying to reconcile their faith with the modern world and contemporary moral values.  They are having vigorous discussions about religious authority and doctrine, and most Muslims I know elevate core principles like mercy, justice, and compassion over medieval rulings.   Many Muslim scholars are doing groundbreaking work in reforming the entire institution of Islamic jurisprudence.  We need to encourage these scholars and let them do their work.

In al Qaeda we are up against people who are rooted in an unwillingness to see Sharia Law change from what they understand it to have been a thousand years ago. However, there are a billion Muslims out there and while some follow the views of al Qaeda and the Wahhabists found in Saudi Arabia,♥ most do not.  Distinctions are important here.  We should not be fooled into thinking that every Muslim is like the late and unlemented Osama bin Laden. Nor is everyone like Nobel Prize winning author Naguib Mahfouz, author of the acclaimed Palace Walk.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Since Captain Jacobson is recently returned from Jordan and back to the cockpit, he is trying to "relaunch" his blog, so lots of comments will be encouraging to him.
♥  Even in Saudi Arabia there is movement, like giving women the right to vote, soon, in municipal elections, and providing education for women.  Perhaps education is the key to progress.