babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Shariah and the rule of law
March 16, 2008 - 8:43am
but I found this a refreshing take from someone who is a real scholar, by the sound of it:
http://tinyurl.com/3bq34x
In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word "Shariah" conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more?
How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation.
Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.
In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest.
The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.
.
[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]
But with persecution, aggression, enslavement and disenfranchisement by imperialism, and with native democratic and socialist movements crushed by complicity between imperialism and their own ruling classes, the people of these countries desperately return to darkest dead-end religious traditions - the only "culture" that imperialism will allow.
The same phenomenon can be seen, ironically, in the United States itself.
By the way, it's not about Shariah, it's about all religious-based ancient law. The earth isn't flat and God doesn't rule. It's time to move on.
Indeed, many of our organizations attempt precisely this when we try to solve problems instead of calling the cops, pulling out baseball bats or suing each other's asses.
Let's beware of cultural imperialism when we tout State-ordained systems as superior - while at the same time we acknowledge that we have lost control over this State - if we ever had any.
An interesting note that the author of the posted article doesn't really get into and unionist and martin hint at is the mix of Shariah and the state.
Doesn't Shahadah kind of forbid hierarchal government? If none is worthy of worship except god then that would kind of kill the principle of statehood, no?
So when state leaders campaign on a platform of Shariah law aren't they de-contextualizing Islam?
Kind of like campaigning for capitalism with the words of Christ?
Only if you worship the state! I don't see how a prohibition on worshiping anyone or anything but God would preclude democratic (as opposed to "hierarchical") government.
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
My point was that the prohibition wouldn't preclude democratic government. I didn't claim to have seen one!
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Whether under the USSR or the West's sphere of influence, they have only seen corrupt dictatorial regimes where corruption is part of the system.
When you have to bribe a municipal officer o get a birth certificate rather than se your file "lost", when you have to have a relative within or pay someone to get a job, when you have to pay a bribery to the driving examiner to get your driver's license otherwise you will have to undergo the exam six or seven more times...
You get desparate for a system where corruption is not tolerated.
Amen!
That's besides the oddness of suggesting that imams are above corruption...
-Sexism as in Sharia,
-Imams not beyond corruption,
-Classism as in "I support former Bell Exec because she is a woman" and "I do not support women who are victims of polygamy" (may also be because the Bell Exec is white and the others are brown, which makes that... racism?)
Double standard as in Saudi Arabia is doing far worse to its citizens than Nazi Germany but that comparison is not applicable to "nice" Israel vis a vis Palestinians.
Sharia and Imams are about right wing stuff, what you see is what you get. Unlike pseudo-progressive hypocrites!
Now I challenge you, unionist, to show one case of one single imam who was convicted of bribery or corruption.
Imams may incarnate any evil you can think of. But corruption, No. Hence the unparaleled popularity of Hamas, Hizbollah etc..
Cultivate yourselves, folks, instead of specializing in snarking and jumping at the word Islam or Sharia as your masters in the msm mesmerized you to do so.
No Muslim woman is called by her husband's name, by the way! Because they have never been men's properties, like elsewhere.
I hope you, unionist and the other one who talks about sexism, I hope you had come up with some thoughts as to what attracts today's muslims towards thinking Sharia is a good alternative.
I myself do not give a duck about Sharia, I just tried to give my view, met only with your few words snarking. Get over your ignorance, hate and hypocrisy, both of you.
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Those who might think about taking shelter under Sharia obviously haven't had a chance to live under a sharia-based government.
Corruption in Iran at all levels are so high that people now consider the old Shah officials as saints comparing to Iranian clerics regarding financial, social and political corruption.
And don't let me start about Saudi Arabia!
Show me a few muslims who have actually LIVED under a sharia government for a few years and still like it, and then we talk!
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Both.
And it is primarily driven from old testament, book of Leviticus. Ancient Jewish law was the original basis of Islamic Sharia.
I could give you a list, but it would be way too long.
As far as Iran (as the main sharia-based government today) is concerned, it is far easier to give a list of those clerics who are NOT corrupted!
In Iran, since early 1980s, it has been practically impossible to get permit for any kind of factory, international trade business or other big things like that unless you share it with a cleric or a close relative of a cleric.
I am very ill at ease by armchair speculation from Western self-appointed pundits about the ethics of Muslims when the West jails or assassinates their community leaders, replaces them by puppet regimes and rains fragmentation bombs and gunfire on civilian populations to quash any resistance to self-interested invasion.
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
I said "in comparison". The current regime has passed SAVAK by miles where it comes to torture and assassinations.
The total estimate of those killed by SAVAK in 20 years are now estimated to be between 2000-3000, most of them died during armed fighting. Few prisoners were actually executed in jail.
In comparison, during only one week (the infamous September 88 massacre), between 3000-4000 prisoners were executed in Iran. None of them had been sentenced to death. They all had jail terms. However, based on an order came from Ayatollah Khomeini they were all executed. This resulted in the protest and eventually resignation (or removal) of Khomeini's official heir designate, Ayatollah Montazeri. Thousands more were executed during other periods or during armed fighting.
Most of the revolutionary leaders spent time in SAVAK jail and managed to get out. The revolutionary regime practically wiped out any potential threat.
As for assassination, the Iranian regime has carried out several high profile assassinations in the US and Europe, as well as many inside Iran, including murder of a former health minister in 1988, a former labour minister and top opposition leader in 1997, as well as several intellectuals and writers in what was later called "Chain murders". I am not aware of any assassination of this type by the former regime.
This is not to absolve the former regime of its wrongdoings, corruption and crimes. But that regime got what it deserved; it was toppled in a popular revolution and many of its officials were sent to gallows. This regime, on the other hand, has been a lot more cruel, a lot more corrupt, and still in power.
Not really. Your original posting was about Sharia and rule of law. My postings show the actual "rule of law" under Sharia governments.
In response to the above quote in your main post, I should say it was probably a fairly modern code of law for its time, but only until maybe 1300s or 1400s. Not, as the above quote claims, for "most of its history". Since then it has been stuck in time.
Could you show a case where an official of Hizbollah or Hamas was accused or convicted of bribery.
For these are the systems that Arab Muslims are looking at. Not Iran, not Saudi Arabia.
I am sure you have not read my first post where I gave examples of corruption. For if you had, you would not indulge in examples of assassinations etc.. I was talking bakshish, pot=de-vin, bribery, rashwa, do you understand any of these words, by the way.
Before you got into your delirium as a zealous and eager native informant ready to "spill the beans", giving examples of this and that, you would have better read what is being talked about here. But again, I should have specified that I am talking about Arab Muslims, as my knowledge of other Muslims is wxtremely limited and as my resources are in Arabic.
Stuck in time? Your information, Sanizadeh, may apply to Iran. You have no authority to speak for Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries because you obviously have no clue.
The Personal Status Code of Tunisia, for example is inspired by Sharia, as interpreted in Tunisia by Tunisians, not in Iran by Iranians. Tunisian women enjoy a status that make many Western women envious.
With all due respect, you are a primary example of the mushrooming experts in the West -since Sept. 11- on Islam and on Sharia who first only have partial knowledge and second do not speak one word of Arabic, which is the language of the Qur'an and the Sunna and whatever.. hence relying on translations.
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Adam, there is indeed no question that your knowledge of Muslims and Islam in general is extremely limited. However I don't appreciate being called a "native informant" by someone who himself is not a "native" within this context (Iranian revolution). Check and see how many real "natives" from Iran disagree with me.
As with Hezbollah and Hamas, Neither is responsible for carrying out Sharia as an official code of law. One is not a "government", and the other has been ruling in an extremely limited fashion and in a bloody war situation. Iran was the same between 1980-1988. Such situations provide no indication or proof about how Sharia would work in normal situation. The Iranian situation since 1988 does.
I know why you want to exclude Iran from your examples, but it is because Iran is a prime evidence that breaks your argument, not because Iran is non-Arab. The Sharia rule in Iran and Indonesia and Arab World and Pakistan is the same with only minor differences. Instead of Hamas and Hezbollah, why don't you talk about Sudan and Saudi Arabia, two other countries that implement Sharia in official code of law?
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: sanizadeh ]
Really? And the headscarf is banned in Tunisia. Could you explain to me what part of Sharia is that?
Really ironic to hear it from someone who calls himself "Adam Stratton". However, I don't need to rely on translation of Quran or Hadith; my Arabic is good enough to read them, and Persian and Arabic are close enough to share a large number of words. My knowledge of Islamic sharia is solid. And as a practicing muslim, I know what I am talking about.
Could you give us a little bit about your experience; e.g. how long have you lived in Muslim countries and where?
Barred in public institutions. A middle way between the school of thought that says it is a requirement and another that says it is not mentioned in the Qur'an therefore it is not a requirement.
And even if it is totally banned. Tunisian clerics interpret Sharia with progress of time. Tunisians are still Muslims without the headscarf.
Now, where in the Qur'an does it say that the headscarf is a requirement for Muslim women, Sanizadeh?
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Are you an expert adam? You can read Arabic? You've studied the Qur'an? Or is this comment hilariously ironic?
These are the type of comments that for instance converts to Islam -not my ca, by the way- hear often from their "fellow" Muslims and it really disappoints them (converts)greatly.
You know, Sanizadeh, that this is akin to questiong that someone named Mohamed Ali Hasan be Canadian? A case of bigotry and ethnocentricity? It is the same with Islam.
In Islam names are not important at all, you should know. Many Muslims think that one has to have a "Muslim" name. Nothing further from the truth.
Now, if I give you my background, how would that advance the discussion ?
[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]
Well If a convert who has just joined Islam starts to lecture his/her fellow Muslims about their lack of Islamic knowledge or Islamic languages, then I think s/he deserves the disappointment. You were the one who started it.
Because you are not being quite honest here, allow me to clarify your point here: The Tunisian clerics, living under a secular dictatorship that has been brutally attacking Islamists, had the choice between losing their heads or somehow justifying the actions of their government. They chose to save their neck. Let's see what they would have done if they were actually "running" the government.
No surprise there. In later years of Soviet union when some limited religious activities were allowed, the muslim religious authorities in Central Asia issued fatwas to make fasting and travel to Mecca voluntary for muslims. That' of course, is not part of Sharia in any way but the poor guys had no choice.
Convicted??
They try themselves!
Long live Religion! Judge, jury, executioner - and salvation! All available through one regular donation.