Have noticed that the discussion on this thread has turned to Shariah law. Only had a quick look at a few posts but the following may be of some interest.
First of all, the phrase ‘creeping Shariah law’ (a concern for many and a phrase that I have encountered in the past) dates back to some misreported comments made by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
In fact, Shariah law has no traction in UK law. None whatsoever. See John Bowen’s excellent little book
Blaming Islam for more on this.
Secondly, what usually gets missed from any discussion of Shariah is what that word means for moderate/liberal Muslims. For moderate Muslims, God's mind is the homeland of Shariah. In other words, Shariah plays roughly the same role that eternal law does in Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law theory. What this means is that, since God's mind cannot be entirely known by humans, they have to figure out what the best legal system is.
For Aquinas, that involved using our God-given power of reason plus revelation (the Bible) to arrive at one. For Muslims, there is the Qur'an (though from what I recall, there aren't many passages in it to do with legal matters) and hadith (stories about what Muhammad said and did that are regarded as having varying degrees of veracity depending on the chain of transmitters or
isnad for any particular story).
So when most people think they are talking about Shariah, they aren't. What they are doing is discussing
fiqh or jurisprudence.
Plus, people tend to write about Islamic jurisprudence as if it were a monolithic entity when, in fact, historically, there have been about 130 schools of Islamic legal thought. I suspect that what those people are referring to is the Hanbalite law school so selectively drawn upon by the Saudis. It's from that lot that we get approval for a lot of the vile and nasty stuff.
According to the moderate conception of
fiqh, it can only approximate Shariah, as it would be presumptuous for a moderate Muslim to second guess the mind of God. This explains the proliferation of law schools within Islam and the emphasis on the use of
'aql' or reason, to constantly revise the law to uphold justice.
In effect, what this means is that most of what is called Islamic law is a human product subject to error, revision, development and nullification. The eternal law as it exists in God's mind is perfect, but it is also inaccessible to human beings. Human beings should strive to reach for and understand the divine law, but it is arrogant and offensive to ever claim that we could be certain that we have successfully grasped the eternal law.
Therefore moderates contend that a jurist must humbly admit the possibility that what is claimed as Islamic law is subject to error. He must expend his best efforts to understand the eternal law, but must never assume that his opinion is identical to it. Again, there are some parallels with Aquinas's conception of rationality (
recta ratio) in his own theological and ethical system, the one that has been influential on Catholicism.
For the jihadists, contrastingly, using reason is forbidden. All that Muslims need to do is find the law and apply it strictly and faithfully, and that is the end of the process. Puritans believe that God made about 90% of the law clear in Qur'an and hadith, leaving about 10% open to debate.
In other words, God is conceived of like a micromanager, and the social impact that the law might have upon people is disregarded. This is why, for example, jihadists have been so unpopular when they have tried to impose their uber-harsh form of Islamic law on other Muslims. They are oblivious to the horrendous suffering caused by the laws they have enforced. This is because they believe the laws they have imposed really do reflect the mind of God, so there is no point in evaluating the actual impact they have.
So there you go. That's my attempt to have a go at explaining the difference between the moderate and Islamist/Salafi-jihadist notions of Islamic jurisprudence.
In the UK, are there lots of Muslims who are Islamists? Yes.
Would they like to see a strict form of Shariah law introduced? Yes.
An example would be Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation that is now proscribed. Ed Husain's
The Islamist will tell you all about them.
But in that book, Husain also describes the more moderate and liberal form of Islam that used to hold sway in much of the Islamic world until the Saudis started spreading their intolerant version of the faith on the back of their oil wealth. Then, of course, you have to factor in the Iranian Shia, who are just as bad.
But this is all recent. Go back a hundred years and this is what Western scholars were saying about Islam:
First of all, here's Hamilton Gibb:
“It possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial understanding and cooperation. No other society has such a record of success uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavours, so many and so various races of mankind.”
Then there is the assessment of Sir Thomas Arnold:
“On the whole, unbelievers have enjoyed under Muhammadan rule a measure of toleration, the like of which is not to be found in Europe until quite modern times. Forcible conversion was forbidden, in accordance with the precepts of the Quran… The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Muhammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances rather than inspired by a settled principle of intolerance… But such oppression is wholly without the sanction of Muhammadan law, either religious or civil”.
Now believe it or not, there are lots of Muslims, many of whom reside here, who are as repulsed by the excesses of the worst kinds of
fiqh as the rest of us. As for the surveys that suggest that they aren't, Charles Kurzman has some pointed observations to make about the way that those questions are framed in this book:
And you see, that's the thing. You rarely encounter liberal Islam outside of academia, probably because it isn't of interest or newsworthy to a media that wants to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry.
So what I would encourage people who are concerned about Shariah is therefore to read up on it. Because the academic writing on it is actually fascinating and not at all dry or dull. Here are some recommendations.
Khaled Abou El Fadl -
The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists
El Fadl is - for my money - the world's leading authority on Shariah and an obvious good guy. This interview with him is well-worth reading:
UCLA professor, once a fanatic himself, is now a leading scholarly voice against intolerance among Muslims. Death threats don't deter him.
www.searchforbeauty.org
Then there's these two:
Sadakat Kadri -
Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shariah Law
I don't have Kadri's book any more but he is a UK lawyer and Muslim, whose other publication was on the trial of OJ Simpson. Don't be put off by the approving blurb by Boris Johnson on the cover.
Lastly, this is a US publication but the title might reassure. I have it but haven't got around to it yet:
