What does "sharia" mean?

[Amira]

How do you define "sharia?"

 

Do you think your definition is the same as most Muslims?

[nd293]

My understanding is that it is law that applies to Muslims, covering civil and criminal matters, based, I guess on the Qu'ran and Hadith. I'm guessing it would include financial matters like Islamic banking and loan practices etc and personal matters like divorce under 'civil'?

 

My understanding may or may not be right, but I don't get to 'define' a Muslim concept. I certainly don't see sharia as being something inherently scary or dangerous, although it can be that in practice in some circumstances.

[Amy in NH]

My understanding is that it is open to interpretation based on original language, intent, and current cultural needs.

[Rosie_0801]

Why are you asking?  :bigear:

[Amira]

Why are you asking? :bigear:

Because I was watching a conservative news thing today and was reminded that the way they were using the word isn't the way I use it, or the way I hear Muslims use it, and I wondered how people here define it. Since I don't have any real-life friends right now. :)

[Faithr]

I was just discussing this with my dd the other day.  I think it can mean different things.  Conservatives tend to use it to mean when extremists cite Sharia law when they behead, stone, etc infidels or women accused of adultery and that sort of thing.  There is a lot of brutality that goes on under certain regimes.  BUT it can also be used to mean moral law or even natural law.  So it is an imprecise term that gets used imprecisely by lots of different people.

[elegantlion]

I took a Crusades class last semester. The professor took a lot of time to explain Islam both historically and contemporary meanings. I'd have to dig out notes to give a good description. The first indicator is that if someone says sharia law they are being redundant, sharia means "Islamic law"

[Farrar]

Hm... In addition to some of the things said above, I think of it as being something people advocate for who want there to be less of a separation between state and religion. I don't know if that's correct though... I guess it just seems that if you're advocating for religious law, that seems implied.

 

My gut reaction is definitely a negative one, but I also assume that there's plenty good in sharia as well. I mean, religious laws tend to be founded in basic morality - no killing, no stealing, etc. 

 

I'm sort of curious to hear more nuanced thoughts...

[Guest]

The sharua is the practical applications of the spiritual precepts of Islam as derived from the Hadith and Quran by scholars of the religion. It is flexible, not immutable, and it covers all outward aspects of life.

 

I do think my understanding jives with the majority of Muslims outside of tyrannically controlled areas :)

[Crimson Wife]

I think of it as the Muslim equivalent to canon law in Roman Catholicism.

 

Where I have a problem with it is when it is applied to non-Muslims or when it is given precedence over civil law. That is where there is a big difference these days between Islam and Catholicism. The upshot of all the turmoil of the Reformation & Counter-Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment eras means that canon law is very limited in whom and what it applies to and never takes precedence over civil law. For example, I could get a civil divorce if I felt the circumstances warranted regardless of whether or not I qualified under canon law for an annulment.

[KarenNC]

I think of it as similar to Jewish halakhah http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm or the rules of behavior Christians base on their scriptures and tradition, that cover basically how to be as a human being and how to relate to one's deity. Basically, guidelines on how to be with other people, the world around us, and that which is currently beyond our understanding. I presume that, like those, it covers all aspects of life. 

 

As with these other religions, I presume that different sects, groups, cultures, and/or individuals might have different levels of observance or interpretation, ranging from very literal to very conservative to very liberal. I also presume that, as we see in the US with certain political groups, there are those within each religion who think that their interpretation of their group of guidelines is fixed in time and the only possible "real God-ordained " one for the entire world and should be the law of all the lands, while others can or are willing to separate out theological guidelines that govern the behavior of adherents, with religious consequences, from civil laws that apply equally to all, and to consider the impact of cultural and scientific changes on interpretation of theological guidelines. I also presume that there are individuals/subsets within each of those groups who choose to warp such guidelines and use them as weapons against those who don't agree with them or for their own gain, while there are also individuals/subsets within each who choose to understand such guidelines as a call to be the best they are capable of being.

 

Caveat: I was raised with a parent whose interpretation of Christianity was (and is) very literal, very much used as a weapon (he was Calvinist for a long time, then fundamentalist evangelical in my early teens, but I consider his personal interpretation of both to be rather warped and extreme). I broke with that as a young adult and went Episcopalian (very liberal Christianity theologically) for close to 10 years, so I've spent a number of years deeply and actively involved in what I consider to be both extremes of Christianity. Later I studied for a year with a rabbi for potential conversion to Reform Judaism (the liberal end of Judaism), eventually ending up a Neopagan Unitarian Universalist (about 18 years). I have really only a very surface understanding of Islam and different sects within it, no personal experience, so take my opinion with that in mind. :)

Edited August 20, 2016 by KarenNC

[Crimson Wife]

One of the biggest issues I have with sharia is that it conflicts with the basic civil right of an individual to choose his/her religion. People are routinely executed for "blasphemy" in Islamic countries when it is discovered that they have converted to Christianity or another religion. It's tragic :(

[Amira]

I'd really like to keep this to individual understand of the meaning of the word, not a critique of the way Islamic jurisprudence is implemented in different places. Because that's something else entirely.

[Amira]

If you have a negative view of the term, does okbud's definition change that at all for you?

 

 

The sharua is the practical applications of the spiritual precepts of Islam as derived from the Hadith and Quran by scholars of the religion. It is flexible, not immutable, and it covers all outward aspects of life.

 

I do think my understanding jives with the majority of Muslims outside of tyrannically controlled areas :)

[TravelingChris]

I view it as Islamic law.  I see it negatively for the most part. I see it negatively against woman, children, gays, people of other religions, etc.  I am fully aware that it is implemented differently in different areas.  Some areas are relatively mild and some are very very harsh.  Unfortunately, it seems that throughout the Moslem word  the more strict interpretations are gaining ground.

[Farrar]

If you have a negative view of the term, does okbud's definition change that at all for you?

 

 

 

Hm. Maybe a little. I find it hard to move beyond the idea that a lot of the newsworthy discussion about it focuses on lack of separation between church and state. So, even if it's interpreted flexibly or even if it's all things I basically agreed with, that aspect still bothers me. I have a similar negative feeling about people who try, for example, to put the Ten Commandments up in American courthouses. It's not that I object to the Ten Commandments, it's that I object to civil governance being anything but secular. And maybe that's a good comparison, though I'm not sure. Because in this metaphor, if sharia is the Ten Commandments, then there's nothing wrong with it per se, it's the forces who wish to have no distinction between religious and government law.

[Amira]

I wish there were a corresponding Christian term to make it easier to understand.

 

To me, sharia is partly the basis for law and culture in the Muslim world, just like the US has a Judeo-Christian basis. It's also the way to be a Muslim (the word means way or road in Arabic- I live on Sharia xxx, for example). There are a number of Muslim-majority countries that don't use a sharia-based legal system at all.

 

Sharia in its entirety can never apply to a non-Muslim, and only a few aspects of it might apply to non-Muslims in a country with a sharia-based system.

 

I'm concerned that a Muslim could say they follow sharia, meaning that they are trying to be a good Muslim, but others might hear that as something very different.

[Guest]

There is a lot of frustration over the word itself in otherwise progressive groups in the us because it did not translate neatly, but doea include both the word and the thing...the idea... "Law." So people reflexively compare it to our own system if governance. But it's a more complex word than that.

 

And it __is__ grievously misused by very bad people. Again, both the word itself and the execution of it as a concept and guidance for life.

[Farrar]

If I heard an American Muslim say they followed sharia, I wouldn't assume anything negative necessarily. Maybe this word is like jihad? A word that can mean different things in different contexts? My mom's old tenants were Muslim and the dad had a T-shirt that said something about jihad, but I know it's a word that can also be about a personal struggle to believe or just mean something akin to evangelism. It's just that we hear it in this other context of holy war so often that for Westerners it's hard to shake that context?

[Guest]

I'm concerned that a Muslim could say they follow sharia, meaning that they are trying to be a good Muslim, but others might hear that as something very different.

The very first episode if the excellent podcast Good Muslim, Bad Muslim delves a bit into how many (especially younger) Muslims in the West experience the duel connotations of these ideas.

[Crimson Wife]

Sharia in its entirety can never apply to a non-Muslim, and only a few aspects of it might apply to non-Muslims in a country with a sharia-based system.

 

All the Christian martyrs executed for "blasphemy" would disagree with you. They are non-Muslim but still subject to sharia.

 

[Crimson Wife]

If I heard an American Muslim say they followed sharia, I wouldn't assume anything negative necessarily.

 

I would, just as if I heard someone say they followed Christian Reconstructionism including Old Testament law. Theocracy is something that all reasonable people should oppose regardless of whether or not they agree with the theology being imposed.

[Amira]

All the Christian martyrs executed for "blasphemy" would disagree with you. They are non-Muslim but still subject to sharia.

 

Are you referring to Muslims who have converted to Christianity or to Christians living in Muslim countries?

 

I stand by my statement that most aspects of sharia never are applied to non-Muslims (and I am not without experience as a Christian living in different Muslim countries). Sharia is far more than regulations about blasphemy.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are you referring to Muslims who have converted to Christianity or to Christians living in Muslim countries?

 

I stand by my statement that most aspects of sharia never are applied to non-Muslims (and I am not without experience as a Christian living in different Muslim countries). Sharia is far more than regulations about blasphemy.

I would guess both. And I don't think that executing those who convert because they were Muslim before makes it any better.

[Amira]

I would, just as if I heard someone say they followed Christian Reconstructionism including Old Testament law. Theocracy is something that all reasonable people should oppose regardless of whether or not they agree with the theology being imposed.

Does okbud's explanation of sharia make a difference to you? Sharia does not equal Islamic fundamentalism. I cannot oppose sharia as a whole because I would be opposing everything about being Islam without any question, and that is not acceptable in my opinion.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Amira

[Guest]

I would, just as if I heard someone say they followed Christian Reconstructionism including Old Testament law. Theocracy is something that all reasonable people should oppose regardless of whether or not they agree with the theology being imposed.

See that's the sticky wicket. Because "following Sharia" does not mean living in or advocating for living in a theocracy.

[Amira]

I would guess both. And I don't think that executing those who convert because they were Muslim before makes it any better.

Of course not. But one can be very much opposed to extreme interpretations of blasphemy while understanding that sharia does not mean that Muslims execute people for blasphemy.

[Farrar]

I would, just as if I heard someone say they followed Christian Reconstructionism including Old Testament law. Theocracy is something that all reasonable people should oppose regardless of whether or not they agree with the theology being imposed.

 

Interesting. If a Christian told me they tried to follow Old Testament law in their lives... well, honestly, I'd roll my eyes a bit and try not to ask about shellfish because there's a lot of conflicting stuff in there... but I wouldn't necessarily assume it meant theocracy. I totally agree that all people should oppose theocracy. I guess that's my question about sharia. Does it always imply a lack of boundaries between state and religion? To me, that's what I think of when I hear it, but I don't really know.

[Guest]

(obviously I agree religious execution is abhorrent)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Of course not. But one can be very much opposed to extreme interpretations of blasphemy while understanding that sharia does not mean that Muslims execute people for blasphemy.

 

It is a bit hard to suss that out when there seems to be numerous countries who have put that interpretation in to law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Interesting. If a Christian told me they tried to follow Old Testament law in their lives... well, honestly, I'd roll my eyes a bit and try not to ask about shellfish because there's a lot of conflicting stuff in there... but I wouldn't necessarily assume it meant theocracy. I totally agree that all people should oppose theocracy. I guess that's my question about sharia. Does it always imply a lack of boundaries between state and religion? To me, that's what I think of when I hear it, but I don't really know.

 

Following Old Testament law would have me scratching my head.  If they said Christian Reconstructionism that would definitely mean they were seeking a theocracy.

 

[Amira]

Interesting. If a Christian told me they tried to follow Old Testament law in their lives... well, honestly, I'd roll my eyes a bit and try not to ask about shellfish because there's a lot of conflicting stuff in there... but I wouldn't necessarily assume it meant theocracy. I totally agree that all people should oppose theocracy. I guess that's my question about sharia. Does it always imply a lack of boundaries between state and religion? To me, that's what I think of when I hear it, but I don't really know.

No, it doesn't. Sharia isn't a formal legal system- that's one aspect of sharia, but certainly not all of it.

[Amira]

It is a bit hard to suss that out when there seems to be numerous countries who have put that interpretation in to law.

What I'm trying to get at here is that sharia does not equal a formal system of Islamic law. Some countries do have horrifying blasphemy laws, but that does not mean it's sharia.

 

The way the word is used in English is very different than how it's used in Arabic and that could lead to major misunderstandings and discrimination.

[KungFuPanda]

I think in English people are beginning to use it to invoke fear. Since they'll be labeled racists if they use the word "Muslim" with such contempt, they've switched to using "sharia law" instead. If your faith forms your ideas of what is right, good, fair, or just . . . these ideas will seep into your life and your laws. Our money saying "in God we trust" is sharia-esque. Religion has cultural implications and it just seeps in. I don't think most Muslims embrace extremist interpretations of sharia law any more than most Christians believe in "Spare the rod" or "An eye for an eye." Yes, there are geographic pockets of people where this thinking is clung to more fiercely, but it's fading rapidly in a world where access to information is getting easier every day.

[Petrichor]

I would agree with okbud's definition. And I'm muslim. And I feel that that is how the muslim community that I am involved in understands the term as well.

 

I would, just as if I heard someone say they followed Christian Reconstructionism including Old Testament law. Theocracy is something that all reasonable people should oppose regardless of whether or not they agree with the theology being imposed.

 

 

Theocracy is "bad" because of how it is implemented. If the theocracy requires all people to adhere to x religion, that's not cool. That would amount to forcing people to follow a religion, without the prerequisite of them truly believing in the religion. 

 

A major problem with Christian theocracies (and perhaps the majority of theocracies) were that the leadership picked and chose what they wanted included in the religion. And that there were (sometimes severe) disadvantages for those who decided not to follow the religion of the theocracy. 

 

You (general you, because I think it's a sentiment many people share, and you may not share, I don't know) You can't assume that Islamic law requires people to follow the religious aspects of the law if they don't believe in it. You can't assume that Islamic law puts the leader as the representative of God on Earth, or even that Islamic Law claims that the leader has a direct connection to the Divine. The leader in an Islamic government doesn't get to change the laws as he pleases, saying that God told him to. 

 

So, just like every Muslim I know, I don't think that there is currently a majority Muslim country that follows Islamic law as it was revealed by God. 

 

I don't believe that sharia is antiquated. It's a system of law that promises incentives to those who do good, and warns those who are tempted by evil. 

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

As far as I know, Sharia predominantly governs the hows of people's daily lives, and doesn't give much guidance on how to run a state, since people generally don't have to do that.

[Guest]

As far as I know, Sharia predominantly governs the hows of people's daily lives, and doesn't give much guidance on how to run a state, since people generally don't have to do that.

Accurate.

[Rosie_0801]

Accurate.

 

Does it then follow that there is no Islamic way to run a state, or is that over stating it?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would agree with okbud's definition. And I'm muslim. And I feel that that is how the muslim community that I am involved in understands the term as well.

 

 

 

Theocracy is "bad" because of how it is implemented. If the theocracy requires all people to adhere to x religion, that's not cool. That would amount to forcing people to follow a religion, without the prerequisite of them truly believing in the religion. 

 

A major problem with Christian theocracies (and perhaps the majority of theocracies) were that the leadership picked and chose what they wanted included in the religion. And that there were (sometimes severe) disadvantages for those who decided not to follow the religion of the theocracy. 

 

You (general you, because I think it's a sentiment many people share, and you may not share, I don't know) You can't assume that Islamic law requires people to follow the religious aspects of the law if they don't believe in it. You can't assume that Islamic law puts the leader as the representative of God on Earth, or even that Islamic Law claims that the leader has a direct connection to the Divine. The leader in an Islamic government doesn't get to change the laws as he pleases, saying that God told him to. 

 

So, just like every Muslim I know, I don't think that there is currently a majority Muslim country that follows Islamic law as it was revealed by God. 

 

I don't believe that sharia is antiquated. It's a system of law that promises incentives to those who do good, and warns those who are tempted by evil. 

 

Hold on.  How is that also not a problem with Islamic theocracies when we have people in this thread saying that what those nations/groups are representing to be Sharia really isn't?  And it seems that being a Shiite in a Sunni dominated regime (and vice versa) can have serious disadvantages as well.

 

 

[Roadrunner]

I was once told that according to Islam punishments as described in Islam can only be doled out in a perfect society. Something along the lines of if you have a society where nobody is poor, everybody has access to food, shelter, and basics, then you can implement punishment for stealing. I am not sure how true that is and I am not sure if that even changes much, but the implication was one could never have a perfect society, so therefore those laws can't be applied? The person was a student from Benin.

 

I think of Old Testemant inspired Muslim law when I think of Sharia. As a secular human being I don't see how I could ever be at ease with something that is religiously inspired, yet I am not sure if our secular way of punishment (long prison sentences where inmates are subject to rape and all sorts of violence or death by lethal injection) is that much more human. It all repulsed me.

[Guest]

Does it then follow that there is no Islamic way to run a state, or is that over stating it?

definitely overstating. I mean Abu Bakr and co did their thing.

 

And there are Islamic principles on which one could base the governance of a state, just as our founders endeavored to base ours on enlightenment principles.

 

The Sharia is both time and place specific, though, as it relates to being a group if ppl. So anyone who wants to genie us all into the dark ages (figuratively speaking, since the European dark ages were anything but in the Islamic world of the time) ...you can automatically see that they are either ignorant of Sharia, or purposefully abusing the concept for their own (nefarious--cant be good) ends.

[Farrar]

Theocracies are a poor system of government, full stop, whether Muslim or Christian or Pastafarian. 

 

Democracy is so very imperfect, but I am far more comfortable in my existence as a woman, an atheist, as the mother of a gay kid, than I ever could be under anyone's theocracy, no matter how it's implemented.

 

Frankly, I can't even imagine how one could imagine that a theocracy benefits anyone except those members of the majority religion.

 

So far as being tempted by evil goes - it sounds an awful lot like Christianity to me.

 

Yes, exactly what I was going to say in response to that comment. Well, I wasn't going to bring the Flying Spaghetti Monster into it, but otherwise...

 

That comment of Dust's makes me feel like sharia *is* inexorably linked to governance, honestly.

 

Maybe it's just hard to tease apart. The US was founded with clear separation between church and state written into our founding documents. And a system of governance that was inspired by a most secular movement of thought in the Enlightenment. But to say that our laws weren't deeply influenced by Christian conceptions of morality is very misleading because of course they are. Perhaps there's a similar relationship between civil governance in the Muslim world and sharia?

[Spy Car]

The path [through the spiritual desert] to the [divinely provided] watering-hole.

 

Bill

 

[Guest]

The only people I personally who actually wanted to live in a theocracy were women who moved, singly, to Egypt and Saudi, respectively.

 

What a nightmare.

 

But see what happened there? The question was what us Sharia. ___Someone___ said "theocracy," so we're talking about that now. Muslim and otherwise. Even though it was explained that Sharia is (seriously) almost all about things other than public governance

 

 

That Muslims all just agree on everything is a given, fallaciously, and the most conservative thing offered is taken up as THE truth of the thing.

 

Sharia is like common core math standards on steroids, and with God in the mix.

[Guest]

The path [through the spiritual desert] to the [divinely provided] watering-hole.

 

Bill

If anyone doesn't know, bill here is referring to another, correct, translation of the word. "Path to life-sustaining water"

 

The gravity of that is easy to grasp when you consider that the Arabs were desert dwellers who, even for city dwellers, revered the Bedouin way if life and mythos.

 

The alternative translation also belies the complexity of the term, and concept. It means both "law" and "path to life sustaining water"

[Guest]

Rabbit trails in threads touching on Islam inevitably end like:

 

"Muslims are shitty. "

 

"Yeah they are".

[Guest]

Yes I know you did not say that Sadie.

Edited August 20, 2016 by OKBud

[8circles]

Honestly, I don't get it.  I mean, I understand the explanations in theory, I don't understand what it looks like in reality.

 

[Guest]

It is foreign for _sure,_ in the most basic understanding of the word foreign.

[Rosie_0801]

Honestly, I don't get it.  I mean, I understand the explanations in theory, I don't understand what it looks like in reality.

 

It often looks like really mundane things like having to ritually wash the walls of the toilet when your friend's tot comes over and pees all over the place.

 

Of course, if my friend's kid comes over and does that, I also have to wash the walls. I just don't do it according to a religious ritual.