What does "sharia" mean?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Rabbit trails in threads touching on Islam inevitably end like:

 

"Muslims are shitty. "

 

"Yeah they are".

 

No one said that in this thread.  We did have someone say Christian theocracies are bad (and they are) while Islamic ones would be just fine.

[8circles]

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.

 

Yeah, I'm just going to echo Sadie's post after this.  I get this example, Rosie.  These are things that I don't hear about because, frankly, their so unimportant to other people.  I don't care what kind of religious rituals one does in one's own home and I don't think anyone does.  When we hear about sharia it is about things that affect the legal system.  It is about applying certain "standards" to other people, not people voluntarily seeking out their own direction. 

[Rosie_0801]

Ugh, I know I said I wasn't posting anymore but I can't help myself and you can assume my underlying lack of wanting to send Muslims to Manus or something.

 

If it's nothing much to do with the law, and it's more akin to things like keeping a kosher kitchen, why is the focus in AU on the law ? And whilst that focus often comes (negatively) from bogans who voted for Hanson, it is also coming from Muslims who want a system of sharia law recognized ?

 

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/december/1294083136/sally-neighbour/way-watering-hole#

 

I mean, are Muslims and non Muslims alike in getting the legal focus wrong ? If the real focus is on ritual wall cleaning, why is the mutual focus elsewhere here ?

 

And if you can't answer, can you rephrase for me and ask the question without the taint of my natural hostility towards religion, so that someone else may answer ? :)

 

As far as I can tell, when actual, normal people, Muslims talk about wanting any aspect of Sharia implemented here, it's about two things.

 

Firstly, they want to arrange their marriages, divorces and finances Islamically. Those things are legal issues, not just a "it's your house, you cook what you like, Mate' thing. This has nothing at all to do with what the rest of us non-Muslims do. People screaming about that are conveniently forgetting that there are Indigenous courts for some issues and the Orthodox Jews outdo everyone else in the country with their insularism- but perhaps that's ok because they live in rich suburbs.

 

Secondly, it's a kind of wishful thinking of paradise on earth. If only we could all implement Sharia and like, actually have it work properly without human rights abuses, we would all be so close to God and there would be world peace, alhamdulillah.

 

That's the best I can do from a totally not an expert, but "some of my best friends are Muslim" ;) perspective.

 

 

If anyone is going to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to Sharia their divorces and whatnot, because one party or other might get screwed over, you and I are only going to laugh ourselves sick at their innocence/ignorance, because Australian law screws everyone over on those topics already that it is pretty hard to take comfort that it is a secular screw over.

[Rosie_0801]

Civil law for a secular society seems reasonable to me. Thanks for explaining though.

 

The court's first priority is for people not to use it, so Sharia based mediation services make sense. If people can use them to work out some sort of compromise, the court doesn't have to deal with them. But, they, like secular mediation services, are not legally binding.

 

I quite agree that religion isn't going to cure the family court. I'd like to know more about how Indigenous courts run. I think we might find useful answers there.

[Roadrunner]

Amira, this is actually and excellent question because we all see media use opinion polls to scare the population that a significant percentage of American Muslims like sharia. We always assume they must like executing converts and chopping hands off for stealing, but we never stop to ask how they understand it and what it means to them. It makes a big difference.

[goldberry]

Without going out and researching, just answering off the top of my head, I would have thought that Sharia means implementing the Muslim beliefs as legal law in a certain area.  I would have assumed that would include whatever punishments, etc were specified for certain crimes under Muslim belief.

 

It sounds like you are saying that Sharia just equals Muslim beliefs or code?  But doesn't have anything to do with implementing that as a legal system over people?  Is that correct or a misunderstanding?

 

 

[Guest]

Meep meep

Edited August 21, 2016 by OKBud

[Petrichor]

No one said that in this thread.  We did have someone say Christian theocracies are bad (and they are) while Islamic ones would be just fine.

 

Don't misquote me. I purposely didn't say Muslim-majority ones would be just fine. 

 

However, historically, there HAS been Islamic theocracies that have been just fine. In the early history of Islam, theocracy worked out great for the Muslims and for the non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Since then, not so much. 

 

Take adultery law, for instance. The only way to be found guilty of adultery is for multiple people to witness actual penetration, or to admit to adultery of your own will. Even pregnancy where the baby is born looking nothing like the woman's spouse isn't enough to find her guilty of adultery. How rare should if be then, to punish for such a crime? A person has to really want the punishment, or be committing something very lewd to be found guilty for such a thing. But if you look at Muslim majority countries today, you see such punishments being applied much more often than is reasonable under Islamic law (i.e. with non-coerced admission of guilt or multiple witnesses to penetration)

 

 

Feel free to point out examples of Christian (or other) theocracies that were good for those adhering to the government religion as well as for those not following that religion. My knowledge of history isn't exactly perfect, and Christian Spain is the main thing that keeps coming to mind. 

[Petrichor]

Sorry for somewhat derailing your thread, Amira. 

 

I get upset when I read threads or articles like this that make me start to realize I'm "other." I go through life blissfully unaware that most of the people who surround me don't actually share my worldview. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Don't misquote me. I purposely didn't say Muslim-majority ones would be just fine. 

 

However, historically, there HAS been Islamic theocracies that have been just fine. In the early history of Islam, theocracy worked out great for the Muslims and for the non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Since then, not so much. 

 

Take adultery law, for instance. The only way to be found guilty of adultery is for multiple people to witness actual penetration, or to admit to adultery of your own will. Even pregnancy where the baby is born looking nothing like the woman's spouse isn't enough to find her guilty of adultery. How rare should if be then, to punish for such a crime? A person has to really want the punishment, or be committing something very lewd to be found guilty for such a thing. But if you look at Muslim majority countries today, you see such punishments being applied much more often than is reasonable under Islamic law (i.e. with non-coerced admission of guilt or multiple witnesses to penetration)

 

 

Feel free to point out examples of Christian (or other) theocracies that were good for those adhering to the government religion as well as for those not following that religion. My knowledge of history isn't exactly perfect, and Christian Spain is the main thing that keeps coming to mind. 

 

You certainly implied an Islamic theocracy would be "just fine", and it is hard to say that wasn't your intent when you come back and say that some Islamic theocracies were just fine.

 

And are we certain said theocracies were just and fair?  I am not sure your example of death for adultery is as wonderful as you claim.  And it also brings up the issue of rape under Sharia Law.  Isn't there a debate as to whether the four witnesses rule applies to rape as well? And haven't rape victims been accused of adultery and punished?

 

I also never said there was a good example of Christian theocracy (in fact I clearly stated the opposite).  I was pointing out that somehow an Islamic theocracy could be just and fair when a Christian could never be was absurd.

 

[8circles]

Meep meep

I'm getting the feeling that you object to the direction this thread is going. Or something.

 

I haven't seen anyone say anything approaching "Muslims are shitty". I think people are mostly speaking about theocracies and expressing negativity toward them all, Muslim and Xian alike.

 

I would love for you to explain if we're not understanding something. I admit I don't get it.

[eternalsummer]

Don't misquote me. I purposely didn't say Muslim-majority ones would be just fine. 

 

However, historically, there HAS been Islamic theocracies that have been just fine. In the early history of Islam, theocracy worked out great for the Muslims and for the non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Since then, not so much. 

 

 

 

What was the punishment in these theocracies for apostasy?  At that point you have someone who I suspect is subject to sharia (as a Muslim) but is no longer, according to the modern western understanding of religion and human rights, a Muslim.  

 

 

OP, my understanding of sharia, broadly speaking, is a system of prescriptions for behavior founded on Islamic religious belief that seeks to replace or supercede secular law.

 

I don't think many people care what codes people use to govern themselves in their religious belief or personal life (although we may find some of those codes abhorrent by modern standards, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever), but when a group of people advocates to use those codes to replace secular law in a western society - that is kind of anathema here, imo.

[Amy in NH]

I read an easy to understand and hopefully accurate explanation in The Muslim Next Door, written by an American Muslim woman. It covers a lot of the misunderstandings that have been posted in this thread. Good book; I recommend.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Amy in NH

[Amy in NH]

What was the punishment in these theocracies for apostasy? At that point you have someone who I suspect is subject to sharia (as a Muslim) but is no longer, according to the modern western understanding of religion and human rights, a Muslim.

 

 

OP, my understanding of sharia, broadly speaking, is a system of prescriptions for behavior founded on Islamic religious belief that seeks to replace or supercede secular law.

 

I don't think many people care what codes people use to govern themselves in their religious belief or personal life (although we may find some of those codes abhorrent by modern standards, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever), but when a group of people advocates to use those codes to replace secular law in a western society - that is kind of anathema here, imo.

Why we don't want secular laws based on Christianity either. Sharia is not meant to apply to nonMuslims.

[eternalsummer]

I also think that in the US there is a degree of respect for religious freedom that doesn't exist as firmly in the European consciousness - for example, a lot of people here find it very strange that the French ban certain forms of religious dress.  Part of this might be situational - we don't have as large a Muslim population, and certainly not as large a non-integrated Muslim population.  Part of it is also probably cultural, though - the freedoms in the Bill of Rights are pretty firmly ingrained in American society in a way that the same freedoms are not in many European societies - we don't (as a whole, not speaking for individual Americans) have the same views about owning guns, or freedom of speech (you can deny the Holocaust here, and while many people find it abhorrent to do so, most of those same people would defend the legality of doing so in the US).

 

So there is, in America, a strong tendency towards the defense of these freedoms that is not as present in Europe.

[Amira]

Without going out and researching, just answering off the top of my head, I would have thought that Sharia means implementing the Muslim beliefs as legal law in a certain area. I would have assumed that would include whatever punishments, etc were specified for certain crimes under Muslim belief.

 

It sounds like you are saying that Sharia just equals Muslim beliefs or code? But doesn't have anything to do with implementing that as a legal system over people? Is that correct or a misunderstanding?

Sharia can have a major impact on a country's legal system, depending on the country. But even if a country's entire legal system is based on sharia, it still can't enforce the entire body of of understanding of how to be a good Muslim on anyone in the country- far from it. Even in a country like Saudi Arabia, which is one of the very few examples of places where sharia is more strictly enforced for more people, including non-Muslims in a few cases, your average person doesn't have to regulate their lives according to sharia unless they choose to because sharia is so much more than a legal system or a list of rules for proper hygiene or a set of clothing requirements or a list of prayer times even though for some Muslims it might include all of those things (plus a lot more).

 

(This last part isn't meant as a direct response to your post, just more general thoughts about the topic). The assumption that sharia is automatically a bad thing if it's implemented in someone's life or if it guides a country's legal system is concerning to me, especially when it's reduced to code for chopping off hands or oppressing women or theocracy. In the first case, most any devout Muslim is going to be following sharia and that certainly doesn't mean anything negative or that it's a formal legal system, it's a way of life. In the second place, sharia as a influence on a legal system isn't one static body of law- different countries have implemented Islamic principles differently in their countries and it's actually quite interesting to see how culture, colonial influence, and so much more affect a Muslim country's legal system- it is not just about religion. Also, Islam places a high value on a lot of ideals that are beneficial to democracy and it's actually possible to create a legal system influenced by sharia that is democratic and secular.

 

Also, I wish I could like Rosie's posts.

[Shred Betty]

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 :)

 

 

 

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

Yes I have a negative view of the term... I am sorry that "what it means" is not "how it is being used," BUT

 

the term is being used to describe a concept. This is my opinion and obviously from reading the above thread I see I don't really understand what it means to Muslims, unfortunately.

 

Concept: that there is a government body that has set up codes rules and laws to protect people, execute justice, whatever.

There are people living within that governments' jurisdiction who would rather follow a different set of rules and laws.

Because it's different, (not better or worse, just different,) it's different! There exist differences between how the government would handle a case / execute justice, and how this other system would handle a case / execute justice. Maybe the different code would be better! More humane! But the point is, it's different from "the establishment." SO dont you think the important point is not really what this different system is, but what it isn't? It "isn't" the establishment. The people who want to follow the different code don't want to follow the established civil government code.

 

That's the concept I think some people are trying to convey when they use that term. obviously I take your point that the term does not translate to that meaning, that sucks. No, Okbuds definition will not change what I think of when I hear the term being used by people who are using it to mean the concept I described above. But if i heard someone else use it who in context I couldn't be sure that they meant the above concept, I'd try to keep in mind in future it can have very different connotations. LOL

 

This has Probably exactly NOTHING to do with what sharia really is or means. That's unfortunate, but it's kind of like saying the word "Christmas" really means "birth of Christ" when what we mean is a concept: holidays, presets, evergreen tree, family dinner, winter, twinkle lights. You can't really marry the term "birth of Christ" to the whole concept and expect to replace definitions.

[Amira]

What was the punishment in these theocracies for apostasy? At that point you have someone who I suspect is subject to sharia (as a Muslim) but is no longer, according to the modern western understanding of religion and human rights, a Muslim.

 

 

OP, my understanding of sharia, broadly speaking, is a system of prescriptions for behavior founded on Islamic religious belief that seeks to replace or supercede secular law.

 

I don't think many people care what codes people use to govern themselves in their religious belief or personal life (although we may find some of those codes abhorrent by modern standards, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever), but when a group of people advocates to use those codes to replace secular law in a western society - that is kind of anathema here, imo.

Of course, that would be anathema, both to Muslims and non-Muslims as a whole. Is there any evidence of a widespread movement advocating replacing secular western legal systems with a system based on sharia principles? Of course there are extremists who advocate this, but they shouldn't be conflated with your average Muslim living in the US because the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, just like the vast majority of Jews and Christians don't think the Ten Commandments should be codified into western law either. Edited August 21, 2016 by Amira

[Shred Betty]

Wow! I guess what I hear myself saying is that when I hear about someone who wants to follow "sharia" law over the "establishment," they are kind of in rebellion, or anti government, or anti establishment, or would rejoice in the dissolution of "the state," yeah that kind of sucks, considering what the term probably should mean to me :( I've been watching too much inflammatory media obviously. Sorry, interesting discussion!!

 

Edit: obviously then when I hear the term I think extremist, not Muslim.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Shred Betty

[Shred Betty]

Of course, that would be anathema, both to Muslims and non-Muslims as a whole. Is there any evidence of a widespread movement advocating replacing secular western legal systems with a system based on sharia principles? Of course there are extremists who advocate this, but they shouldn't be conflated with your average Muslim living in the US because the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, just like the vast majority of Christians don't think the Ten Commandments should be codified into western law either.

Lol @ post timing!!

 

Riddle me this!!!

So if "the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, " (They don't believe their laws need to be applied to non believers) then does the vast majority of Muslims believe that "regular law" isn't for Muslims? THIS is why the term seems negative to me. I thought it meant they believed that regular non sharia law should not apply to Muslims. Make sense?

[Rosie_0801]

Lol @ post timing!!

 

Riddle me this!!!

So if "the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, " (They don't believe their laws need to be applied to non believers) then does the vast majority of Muslims believe that "regular law" isn't for Muslims? THIS is why the term seems negative to me. I thought it meant they believed that regular non sharia law should not apply to Muslims. Make sense?

 

No. Ask any Muslim thief if they'd rather have their hand cut off or pay a fine. :p

 

 

There's more to Sharia than what punishments people get for breaking laws. Sharia covers a whole lot of stuff that secular law doesn't care about at all, so in those matters *there is no conflict.* Just like the state doesn't care how much money you put in the collection plate at church, how you clean your bathroom, takes no stance on the correct length of time to breastfeed babies and doesn't care how you divide your assets when you get divorced unless you show up in court demanding a ruling.

[8circles]

Of course, that would be anathema, both to Muslims and non-Muslims as a whole. Is there any evidence of a widespread movement advocating replacing secular western legal systems with a system based on sharia principles? Of course there are extremists who advocate this, but they shouldn't be conflated with your average Muslim living in the US because the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, just like the vast majority of Jews and Christians don't think the Ten Commandments should be codified into western law either.

 

Again, I'm admitting my ignorance.

 

I guess I don't understand the point of me having an opinion or understanding (besides the fact that understanding is worthy on it's own) of sharia if it means what you (& others) say it means.  Because when I hear about it - not just in the US but in other countries - it isn't what you describe.  So has the meaning changed or does this start to become a "no true Scotsman" situation where all the people vocally using this term to mean the wrong thing are just wrong and not really following Muslim law?  I apologize if I'm not using the right terms, please let me know if I'm not clear.

 

Piggy-backing onto what Shred Betty said about anti-establishment... if people want to solve their issues or handle their lives with consulting a group that will guide them religiously, they can do so.  But it has to fit within the framework of the laws of the land.  If it does so, it shouldn't be an issue.  If it doesn't, then in order to implement it the laws of the land would have to become more theocratic, no?

[8circles]

No. Ask any Muslim thief if they'd rather have their hand cut off or pay a fine. :p

 

 

There's more to Sharia than what punishments people get for breaking laws. Sharia covers a whole lot of stuff that secular law doesn't care about at all, so in those matters *there is no conflict.* Just like the state doesn't care how much money you put in the collection plate at church, how you clean your bathroom, takes no stance on the correct length of time to breastfeed babies and doesn't care how you divide your assets when you get divorced unless you show up in court demanding a ruling.

 

I get that sharia is much bigger than I originally thought - I didn't know that prior to this thread.  So, if there is a move to implement sharia in a western country (thinking about the article that Sadie posted), which parts is it talking about?  I assume all of it but it sounds like that isn't really the case.

 

I'm also curious about the rules about Muslims who have converted to something else & so are no longer Muslim - that's been asked about a couple of times but I haven't seen it addressed.

 

ETA:  So you mention the matters which are more private and so there would be no conflict - what about the matters which are in conflict with secular law?

Edited August 21, 2016 by 8circles

[Rosie_0801]

Again, I'm admitting my ignorance.

 

I guess I don't understand the point of me having an opinion or understanding (besides the fact that understanding is worthy on it's own) of sharia if it means what you (& others) say it means.  Because when I hear about it - not just in the US but in other countries - it isn't what you describe.  So has the meaning changed or does this start to become a "no true Scotsman" situation where all the people vocally using this term to mean the wrong thing are just wrong and not really following Muslim law?  I apologize if I'm not using the right terms, please let me know if I'm not clear.

 

Piggy-backing onto what Shred Betty said about anti-establishment... if people want to solve their issues or handle their lives with consulting a group that will guide them religiously, they can do so.  But it has to fit within the framework of the laws of the land.  If it does so, it shouldn't be an issue.  If it doesn't, then in order to implement it the laws of the land would have to become more theocratic, no?

 

I'm thinking there are kind of three categories of stuff.

 

1. Mundane stuff like not eating pork, breastfeeding and how to ritually clean your bathroom.

*Nobody cares. Do what you like.

 

2. Things that we have secular laws about but those laws don't get put into play until people show up in court.

*Nobody cares until you show up in court, because until then, it's your own private business. Division of assets and stuff like that. If two parties can agree on whatever, they can go ahead and do that, but if they can't agree, the court will apply whatever ruling it usually does in such cases.

 

3. Illegal stuff like drink driving, assault, arson.

*Generally speaking, the law will kick your butt to some degree* no matter what religion you are.

 

*Unless you donate big bucks to the government, maybe. :p

[Amira]

Again, I'm admitting my ignorance.

 

I guess I don't understand the point of me having an opinion or understanding (besides the fact that understanding is worthy on it's own) of sharia if it means what you (& others) say it means. Because when I hear about it - not just in the US but in other countries - it isn't what you describe. So has the meaning changed or does this start to become a "no true Scotsman" situation where all the people vocally using this term to mean the wrong thing are just wrong and not really following Muslim law? I apologize if I'm not using the right terms, please let me know if I'm not clear.

 

Piggy-backing onto what Shred Betty said about anti-establishment... if people want to solve their issues or handle their lives with consulting a group that will guide them religiously, they can do so. But it has to fit within the framework of the laws of the land. If it does so, it shouldn't be an issue. If it doesn't, then in order to implement it the laws of the land would have to become more theocratic, no?

I agree that the meaning in English is what you and others here have explained. I just want English speakers to know that the translation for the English term sharia isn't sharia in Arabic, that a codified legal system of cutting off hands and requiring niqabs is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, and that it's only extremists who believe that all humans should be Muslim or follow all Islamic principles. Muslims use the legal framework in the country they're living in, just like everyone else does.

 

Are there laws in Muslim countries I'm concerned about? YES! A million times yes. But going after "sharia" (the English definition) isn't the way to fix that. And implying that Muslims are immigrating to other countries to implement "sharia" (English definition again) is demonizing.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Amira

[eternalsummer]

Of course, that would be anathema, both to Muslims and non-Muslims as a whole. Is there any evidence of a widespread movement advocating replacing secular western legal systems with a system based on sharia principles? Of course there are extremists who advocate this, but they shouldn't be conflated with your average Muslim living in the US because the vast majority of Muslims believe sharia isn't for non-Muslims, just like the vast majority of Jews and Christians don't think the Ten Commandments should be codified into western law either.

 

 

I don't think most people are concerned about the majority of Muslims; they are concerned about Muslims who advocate replacing secular law with sharia.

[8circles]

I agree that the meaning in English is what you and others here have explained. I just want English speakers to know that the translation for the English term sharia isn't sharia in Arabic, that a codified legal system of cutting off hands and requiring niqabs is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, and that it's only extremists who believe that all humans should be Muslim or follow all Islamic principles. Muslims use the legal framework in the country they're living in, just like everyone else does.

 

Are there laws in Muslim countries I'm concerned about? YES! A million times yes. But going after "sharia" (the English definition) isn't the way to fix that. And implying that Muslims are immigrating to other countries to implement "sharia" (English definition again) is demonizing.

 

Ah, OK.  Now I'm getting what you're saying.  Sorry if I'm slow.

 

I hope I've not come across as going after sharia or demonizing muslims as that isn't my intention.  I am not afraid of sharia being implemented in the US and this was more an exercise in understanding for me.  I've learned a lot.

 

ETA:  One more thought.  to the bold.  If that is the case I'm not sure why it's ever an issue.  Again, I might be really ignorant here.

Edited August 21, 2016 by 8circles

[Rosie_0801]

I don't think most people are concerned about the majority of Muslims; they are concerned about Muslims who advocate replacing secular law with sharia.

 

Why? All they can do is have a whinge unless they can form a majority in government. 

[Shred Betty]

I agree that the meaning in English is what you and others here have explained. I just want English speakers to know that the translation for the English term sharia isn't sharia in Arabic, that a codified legal system of cutting off hands and requiring niqabs is almost non-existent in the Muslim world, and that it's only extremists who believe that all humans should be Muslim or follow all Islamic principles. Muslims use the legal framework in the country they're living in, just like everyone else does.

 

Are there laws in Muslim countries I'm concerned about? YES! A million times yes. But going after "sharia" (the English definition) isn't the way to fix that. And implying that Muslims are immigrating to other countries to implement "sharia" (English definition again) is demonizing.

Ok, then to answer the silent question, "when you hear the term "sharia" on the x news station, do you think of someone who want to cut off body parts?" Then the answer is NO lol I do not think of Sharia as that, at least I didn't until now! Lol. And I do watch a lot of inflammatory media, who have you thinking those watching them must be thinking that :) I am just guessing!

[Amira]

I don't think most people are concerned about the majority of Muslims; they are concerned about Muslims who advocate replacing secular law with sharia.

Fortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that this is a widespread (or even a barely noticeable) problem among Muslim immigrants to non-Muslim-majority countries or among Muslims born in non-Muslim-majority countries.

 

And how in the world would these extremists manage to implement "sharia" (English defintion) in a western country? Like Rosie said, they don't have enough political power to do so.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Amira

[Joules]

Sharia law to me is just Muslim rules.  It's analogous to Halakhah, Torah, or Rabbinic Law, or Canon law or I guess what Protestants call "Biblical law" (is there a word for it**).  Leviticus is an good example of what would be sharia.  They are the laws of the lands or tribes in the days when everything was ruled by religion.  Most of them are historical, with some pretty horrible bits that are not acceptable in modern society and some really good bits like "though shall not kill" and "love thy neighbor".

 

Most religious people only apply these laws to themselves or those in their religious house.  They use them to govern marriages, confirmations, social issues, diets, etc.  Most modern people leave out the awful bits and don't stone people in their congregation that commit adultery or murder their non-belief-sharing neighbors.

 

Some people of all religions are extremisms and apply the awful bits to their own or everyone.

 

Some governments have a bit of religious law in them.  We have a bit of our analog to sharia law in our "In God we trust" and swearing on a Bible.  Any time one quotes Biblical scripture as a justification of a law or government policy, they are asking for a bit of our sharia-law-analog. 

 

Some governments are a theocracy that only apply the good bits.  I think some people in America would like this to be a Christian country.  They are exactly like the people that would like a sharia law country (but only with the good bits.)

 

Some governments are extremism theocracies, so not only are they ruled by religion, but they are ruled by the good and bad bits.  And sometimes they make up extra bad bits just to punish groups that they don't like.  I use the phrase "make up," but in their minds it is the "proper interpretation" of the word.

 

I and many Americans would like to live in a secular country with secular laws, where people are free to practice their religious laws (sharia, biblical, rabbinic or whatever) as long as they do not violate the secular laws.

 

 

 

 

 

**It struck me as interesting that here in American we have words for laws in other cultures, but I can't think of one in our own.  What do Muslim or Jewish people call Christian laws?

[Joules]

I don't think most people are concerned about the majority of Muslims; they are concerned about Muslims who advocate replacing secular law with sharia.

 

There are many more people (at least here in America) that would like to replace our secular government with a Christian one.  Considering the numbers (about 70% Christian and 2% Muslim), I don't think sharia is much of an issue here.  Plus many, if not most, of both of those numbers would prefer to have a secular government and be free to practice their religion on their own (particularly since in all religions there are different denominations or sects, and there would be a serious question as to which one would be the law.)

Edited August 21, 2016 by Joules

[Joules]

 

Piggy-backing onto what Shred Betty said about anti-establishment... if people want to solve their issues or handle their lives with consulting a group that will guide them religiously, they can do so.  But it has to fit within the framework of the laws of the land.  If it does so, it shouldn't be an issue.  If it doesn't, then in order to implement it the laws of the land would have to become more theocratic, no?

----------------------

ETA:  One more thought.  to the bold.  If that is the case I'm not sure why it's ever an issue.  Again, I might be really ignorant here.

 

 

 

 

 

I think most Muslims are concerned with the opposite. Yes, they intend to follow the law of the land and just use religious mediation within their group.  This is in no way wrong or against the law.  However, with the anti-Islam sentiment rising in America and some people pushing a more Christian U.S. government, I would guess they are concerned that they will no longer be free to even practice their religion in private, even if it doesn't violate the law of the land. (Just trying to build a Mosque in the Bible Belt is quite challenging.) So I would think they are more concerned with the U.S. become a Christian theocracy, than with trying to make it a Muslim one.  

Edited August 21, 2016 by Joules

[Pam in CT]

To the OP question, in my own head I translate "sharia" as roughly equivalent to the Jewish concept of "halacha," which more or less means "the path," or the way that leads to transcendence (metaphoric strand) / the way God wants us to walk (more literal strand).  It is rooted in both sacred texts and human (though ancient) commentary on those texts; and covers extremely mundane things (i.e. how to clean an oven), extremely personal things (i.e. when married sex is permitted), a great range of interpersonal things (property conflicts, allowable interest, penalties / compensation for infractions against other individuals or the community).  

 

On the one hand it goes far deeper into individual and family conduct that civil law generally does; on the other was not, at the time of its development, really envisioned as a code that extended beyond the Jewish community... which at the time of its development was understood to be distinct from, separated from surrounding cultures.

 

I don't know enough about sharia to know how well "halacha" and "sharia" really do match up, but that's roughly how I understand it.

 

 

 

And... I dunno, Amira.  At a 50,000 foot view, I also wrestle often with how often we mean different things when we use certain language, and how many different types of misunderstandings and conflicts ensue because we don't have a common definition of common words.  And it's hard enough to understand one another's meaning when we're all speaking the *same* language, let alone when discussion turns to words from *other* languages.  (There was a thread a while back that hinged on different meanings attributed to the Spanish word "oferta" that was eye-opening to me.)

 

But in the case of "sharia," I do think the uneasiness extends beyond just a language issue (even though there is one) and into others that are simultaneously bigger and more basic: divergence of views across US society about the extent to which (majority) religious values should inform our civil laws, related conflict about Freedom To exercise religion vs Freedom From religious intrusions into the public sphere, shifting balances between majority and minority, and how those shifting demographics further disrupt our already-contentious public policy arena.

 

 

 

I don't think most people are concerned about the majority of Muslims; they are concerned about Muslims who advocate replacing secular law with sharia.

 

Fortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that this is a widespread (or even a barely noticeable) problem among Muslim immigrants to non-Muslim-majority countries or among Muslims born in non-Muslim-majority countries.

And how in the world would these extremists manage to implement "sharia" (English defintion) in a western country? Like Rosie said, they don't have enough political power to do so.

Yes... and yet.  Muslims, at 0.9% of the US population compared to 70% Christian, certainly do not have the political power to impose religiously based codes on the rest of society.  They do, however, add more just a little more weight to the non-Christian-religious minority population segments and non-religious population segments.  The share of the heretofore-dominant majority *is* declining, and those demographics *are* disruptive to the heretofore-dominant majority, and even though 0.9% is tiny, it is still part of an increasing, and increasingly vocal/visible, encounter with a larger political plurality who (in different ways, for different reasons) are increasingly calling into question the old majority-church/state, Freedom To/Freedom From balances.

 

Which (ahem) has historically extended well past having In God We Trust printed on our money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think most Muslims are concerned with the opposite. Yes, they intend to follow the law of the land and just use religious mediation within their group.  This is in no way wrong or against the law.  However, with the anti-Islam sentiment rising in America and some people pushing a more Christian U.S. government, I would guess they are concerned that they will no longer be free to even practice their religion in private, even if it doesn't violate the law of the land. (Just trying to build a Mosque in the Bible Belt is quite challenging.) So I would think they are more concerned with the U.S. become a Christian theocracy, than with trying to make it a Muslim one.  

 

 

Yes.  I obviously can't speak for Muslims, and the language "Christian theocracy" is maybe farther than I'd go.  But there really have been community ordinances passed specifically so mosques could be prohibited, armed protestors circling mosques, Muslim women whose hijab has been forcibly yanked off on planes. Muslims' Freedom To worship is by no means assured here... and majority-religion advocates for Freedom Of Religion are largely untroubled by such episodes.

[8circles]

 

 

 

 

I think most Muslims are concerned with the opposite. Yes, they intend to follow the law of the land and just use religious mediation within their group.  This is in no way wrong or against the law.  However, with the anti-Islam sentiment rising in America and some people pushing a more Christian U.S. government, I would guess they are concerned that they will no longer be free to even practice their religion in private, even if it doesn't violate the law of the land. (Just trying to build a Mosque in the Bible Belt is quite challenging.) So I would think they are more concerned with the U.S. become a Christian theocracy, than with trying to make it a Muslim one.  

 

 

Well, I'm concered about the same thing.  I don't want a xian theocracy either.  But this thread was about sharia and what it means and I haven't meant to say muslims want this or that or anythings.  I'm just trying to understand what the word means and what a practical application looks lke.

[8circles]

Sharia law to me is just Muslim rules.  It's analogous to Halakhah, Torah, or Rabbinic Law, or Canon law or I guess what Protestants call "Biblical law" (is there a word for it**).  Leviticus is an good example of what would be sharia.  They are the laws of the lands or tribes in the days when everything was ruled by religion.  Most of them are historical, with some pretty horrible bits that are not acceptable in modern society and some really good bits like "though shall not kill" and "love thy neighbor".

 

Most religious people only apply these laws to themselves or those in their religious house.  They use them to govern marriages, confirmations, social issues, diets, etc.  Most modern people leave out the awful bits and don't stone people in their congregation that commit adultery or murder their non-belief-sharing neighbors.

 

Some people of all religions are extremisms and apply the awful bits to their own or everyone.

 

Some governments have a bit of religious law in them.  We have a bit of our analog to sharia law in our "In God we trust" and swearing on a Bible.  Any time one quotes Biblical scripture as a justification of a law or government policy, they are asking for a bit of our sharia-law-analog. 

 

Some governments are a theocracy that only apply the good bits.  I think some people in America would like this to be a Christian country.  They are exactly like the people that would like a sharia law country (but only with the good bits.)

 

Some governments are extremism theocracies, so not only are they ruled by religion, but they are ruled by the good and bad bits.  And sometimes they make up extra bad bits just to punish groups that they don't like.  I use the phrase "make up," but in their minds it is the "proper interpretation" of the word.

 

I and many Americans would like to live in a secular country with secular laws, where people are free to practice their religious laws (sharia, biblical, rabbinic or whatever) as long as they do not violate the secular laws.

 

 

 

 

 

**It struck me as interesting that here in American we have words for laws in other cultures, but I can't think of one in our own.  What do Muslim or Jewish people call Christian laws?

 

I agree with you except there really isn't an equivalent in protestant xianity IMO.  I don't think "Biblical law" is in any way similar to what we've discussed.  Maybe "OT law" is better, but we don't follow it.  I'm not sure "Canon law" is the same either, but is closer.

[elegantlion]

 I live in an area where one municipality has had "In God we Trust" printed on the back of police vehicles. It was largely applauded in the public eye. I find it eye-rolling annoying at least and disrespectful of the separation of church and state. I can't help but see it as a knee jerk reaction to the growing diversity of  race and religion happening in our area. 

 

 

Which (ahem) has historically extended well past having In God We Trust printed on our money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

Fortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that this is a widespread (or even a barely noticeable) problem among Muslim immigrants to non-Muslim-majority countries or among Muslims born in non-Muslim-majority countries.

 

And how in the world would these extremists manage to implement "sharia" (English defintion) in a western country? Like Rosie said, they don't have enough political power to do so.

Don't you know that they're outbreeding us and the Quiverfuls are the only ones taking the threat seriously or doing anything about it?!?! #superiornumbers

[Bluegoat]

I don't have a good technical understanding of how Muslim scholars define it.

 

I tend to think of it, as some said above, as similar to other religious law codifications in Christianity.  However, I see it as taking a somewhat different approach to the idea of a secular state and secular law.

 

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing - the west took one type of path to trying to create a way to approach the problems of the relationship between institutional religion and institutional government, but I would not assume it is the only way, or the best way for all circumstances.  It has had its own problems, and still faces some challenges as a model - it may be that it will fail, in the end. 

 

I tend to think it's pretty stark cultural bias to say other approaches are uncivilized, just because they are different.  The Islamic world seems to be looking for a slightly different path, and right at the moment they seem to be in the middle of a very turbulent time around that and related issues.  But I think it could be very interesting to see what they come up with.

[Bluegoat]

The court's first priority is for people not to use it, so Sharia based mediation services make sense. If people can use them to work out some sort of compromise, the court doesn't have to deal with them. But, they, like secular mediation services, are not legally binding.

 

I quite agree that religion isn't going to cure the family court. I'd like to know more about how Indigenous courts run. I think we might find useful answers there.

 

It might be really different in Australia, but here in Canada I think it might be a bit akward to separate the idea of religious influence on courts being not helpful, on the one hand, and looking at indigenous courts as being possibly enlightening, on the other.  One of the things that is very typical of the various indigenous justice institutions seems to be that they are very much rooted in what are explicitly recognized as spiritual values.  A lot of the First Nations programs and institutions use a restorative justice model, and I have a hard time imagining how that could be really taken as separate from a particular spiritual/religious perspective.  That isn't to say that it involves no separation of institutional religion, but it does seem to involve a very direct acceptance of spirituality and its institutional forms as being related to how we deal with law and order.

[Bluegoat]

What was the punishment in these theocracies for apostasy?  At that point you have someone who I suspect is subject to sharia (as a Muslim) but is no longer, according to the modern western understanding of religion and human rights, a Muslim.  

 

 

OP, my understanding of sharia, broadly speaking, is a system of prescriptions for behavior founded on Islamic religious belief that seeks to replace or supercede secular law.

 

I don't think many people care what codes people use to govern themselves in their religious belief or personal life (although we may find some of those codes abhorrent by modern standards, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever), but when a group of people advocates to use those codes to replace secular law in a western society - that is kind of anathema here, imo.

 

I am not sure that I would put it as saying it wants to replace or supercede secular law.  As a concept, it really precees the whole idea that there could be a separation between secular and religious law.  That idea never really took off in the Islamic world in the same way it did in the CHristian world, and many of the Islamic countries that use a model of secular law got there through western influence.  It's never been an argument that is considered settled in Islam as it was for most Christians.

 

 And I think you could say that one of the ideas that is often (not always by any means) related to this argument within Islam to it is that such a divide between sacred and secular is actually not really possible - some might see it as a kind of making do in an imperfect world, others might think of it as an illusory situation (not a good thing generally), or some would say it is a kind of blasphemous division. 

[Lady Florida.]

Theocracy is "bad" because of how it is implemented.

 

I disagree.

 

Theocracy is bad. 

 

The End.

[Aelwydd]

I see sharia law as the Islamic/ eastern packaged equivalent of the Catholic Christian/ western concepts of natural and Canon law.

[Aelwydd]

Not sure why so many here refer to Western law as secular. Certainly, our interpretation and understanding of law is has effected a more secular application in modern times. But much of Western law was historically predicated upon natural law, which is heavily influenced by Catholic jurisprudence.

[goldberry]

Isn't the fight to ban homosexual marriage an example of trying to implement a religious principle into secular law governing people who do not follow said religious principles?

 

People who want to prevent homosexuals from marrying have lots of reasoning behind why this isn't just a religious principle but also a social one.  But I would suppose that in Muslim countries there are plenty of arguments about how their laws are not really religious but social as well, and have social impact.  

 

I'm only bringing this up because of the concept that including religious laws into secular governing veers into creating a theocracy, which most seem to oppose.  Yet here in America, we have a pretty significant movement to do the same thing. 

 

 

(FTR, I am a Christian who is non-political.)

[Bluegoat]

Isn't the fight to ban homosexual marriage an example of trying to implement a religious principle into secular law governing people who do not follow said religious principles?

 

People who want to prevent homosexuals from marrying have lots of reasoning behind why this isn't just a religious principle but also a social one.  But I would suppose that in Muslim countries there are plenty of arguments about how their laws are not really religious but social as well, and have social impact.  

 

I'm only bringing this up because of the concept that including religious laws into secular governing veers into creating a theocracy, which most seem to oppose.  Yet here in America, we have a pretty significant movement to do the same thing. 

 

 

(FTR, I am a Christian who is non-political.)

 

I tend to think that it is questions like this where the limits of making separate spheres for what counts as "secular" and what counts as "religious" become a little difficult.  And really - that isn't where the idea of the separation of church and state started, exactally, either, it's something of an aquired idea.

 

In its most basic form, the idea of the secular state came about both to protect the Church from the influence of secular rulers, political interference really, and vice versa - though in many ways the latter was less important.  So direct connections between religious institutions and government were cut.  Instead, individuals acted as a kind of mediator between the two - a particular religious institution might have no power to create legislation, but it could influence and shape the views of individual members of government, or voters.

 

There was absolutely an expectation that individuals would act, in their role as voters or governors, according to their values - there was nothing strange if a member of a particular religion voted for legislation, say, protecting unions, because it reflected his religious values, or even what his Church recommended.  The presumption was that everyone's participation in government would in some way reflect their wordview, whatever it was.

 

In this example, we can say - what is institutional marriage - well, by definition, it isn't a private matter, or it would simply be a contract between individuals.  It depends on some kind of social definition of marriage - an agreement on some level about what it is, what it is for, why we have it as a social institution at all.  Well, how do we come to have a social understanding of marriage in order to create the framework for an institution, if we aren't drawing on people's private views on marriage? 

 

There is pretty much no way to make that kind of determination apart from people's beliefs about the nature of marriage which are heavily predicated on questions like what does it mean to be male or female, what is the purpose of sexuality, and also how they think public marriage benefits, or does not benefit, society at large.  Pretty much any institution we come up with will include some views, but exclude others.

 

I think this worked well for a long time, even as religion became less influential, simply because there was a certain amount of general agreement or agreement of assumptions about many of these questions where personal views and institutions intersect.  It's becoming tricky though, as we see more real diversity within the population, and some of the viewpoints are actually not mutually compatible within a single system.  To my mind, that is what is interesting about watching to see what kinds of different paths other cultures might find for trying to mediate these kinds of questions effectively.  We are too ready to assume our method has been successful, I think, when it is perhaps ebtering a period where some new ideas or solutions may become necessary.

[Aelwydd]

Isn't the fight to ban homosexual marriage an example of trying to implement a religious principle into secular law governing people who do not follow said religious principles?

 

People who want to prevent homosexuals from marrying have lots of reasoning behind why this isn't just a religious principle but also a social one. But I would suppose that in Muslim countries there are plenty of arguments about how their laws are not really religious but social as well, and have social impact.

 

I'm only bringing this up because of the concept that including religious laws into secular governing veers into creating a theocracy, which most seem to oppose. Yet here in America, we have a pretty significant movement to do the same thing.

 

 

(FTR, I am a Christian who is non-political.)

Yes, this is correct. The socio-political opposition to same sex marriage stemmed primarily from organized alliances between the LDS church, the American branch of the Catholic Church, and evangelical Protestant groups. I'm not familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of LDS jurisprudence, but the Catholic position was and is heavily undergirded by its theological definition and interpretation of natural law. Protestant groups inherited the same legal basis of argument from a shared historical understanding of natural law as well.

 

All this boils down to is: a theological doctrine on human relations framed within a historical perspective on natural law, and therefore presented as universally binding upon society as a whole.

 

Basically, same sex marriage should not be legal, because natural law - which contrary to its name does not speak to naturalism, but is premised upon human rationality as a divinely gifted rational soul - asserts such behaviour is "disordered."

 

So essentially, it is a movement by a religious subset of the population to protect and build upon theologically based law, to which all citizens are subject.

 

That isn't theocracy, because there is a separation between Canon church law and secular law. But it is a secular legal system which still inculcates a certain amount of Western theological (classical Christian) jurisprudence.

 

Islamic sharia seems to me be a very tight marriage of "church law", as it were, and its version of natural law (moral laws which are universally applicable).

[Bluegoat]

Yes, this is correct. The socio-political opposition to same sex marriage stemmed primarily from organized alliances between the LDS church, the American branch of the Catholic Church, and evangelical Protestant groups. I'm not familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of LDS jurisprudence, but the Catholic position was and is heavily undergirded by its theological definition and interpretation of natural law. Protestant groups inherited the same legal basis of argument from a shared historical understanding of natural law as well.

 

All this boils down to is: a theological doctrine on human relations framed within a historical perspective on natural law, and therefore presented as universally binding upon society as a whole.

 

Basically, same sex marriage should not be legal, because natural law - which contrary to its name does not speak to naturalism, but is premised upon human rationality as a divinely gifted rational soul - asserts such behaviour is "disordered."

 

So essentially, it is a movement by a religious subset of the population to protect and build upon theologically based law, to which all citizens are subject.

 

That isn't theocracy, because there is a separation between Canon church law and secular law. But it is a secular legal system which still inculcates a certain amount of Western theological (classical Christian) jurisprudence.

 

Islamic sharia seems to me be a very tight marriage of "church law", as it were, and its version of natural law (moral laws which are universally applicable).

 

I think that what you are seeing in how people understand sharia law is a cultural setting that, of its own self, never tried to create the institutional split between the state and church in quite the same way the west did.  And that it to some degree there is a commonly retained a view that sees that hard split as an artificiality that will prove unworkable or unstable.

 

So - some characterize it as a split between the west, that sees that view as not only workable but necessary, and the Islamic nations, that see the western split as more or less in need of modification, and which have in many cases never committed themselves to making that distinction in the same way.  And I think those nations and people would say - "why should we make that particular distinction when we think it will not work - who are you to say it is fundamental to good government or even democracy?  Your success hasn't been enough to convince us you have it quite right.  Your assumption of having made a superior or necessary leap seems to rest on shaky ground."

 

OTOH, we in the west seem to take that split so much for granted that we don't really even think about whether there could be other, workable, possibilities.  The idea of secular government for many has perhaps even gone from being a strategy adopted to solve a particular kind of problem and create good government, to being seen as an end in itself.

[Aelwydd]

I think that what you are seeing in how people understand sharia law is a cultural setting that, of its own self, never tried to create the institutional split between the state and church in quite the same way the west did.  And that it to some degree there is a commonly retained a view that sees that hard split as an artificiality that will prove unworkable or unstable.

 

So - some characterize it as a split between the west, that sees that view as not only workable but necessary, and the Islamic nations, that see the western split as more or less in need of modification, and which have in many cases never committed themselves to making that distinction in the same way.  And I think those nations and people would say - "why should we make that particular distinction when we think it will not work - who are you to say it is fundamental to good government or even democracy?  Your success hasn't been enough to convince us you have it quite right.  Your assumption of having made a superior or necessary leap seems to rest on shaky ground."

 

OTOH, we in the west seem to take that split so much for granted that we don't really even think about whether there could be other, workable, possibilities.  The idea of secular government for many has perhaps even gone from being a strategy adopted to solve a particular kind of problem and create good government, to being seen as an end in itself.

 

Part of the issue is the definition of "secular government."  There are many Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who would vociferously defend secular government as the only way to ensure religious freedom.  In the case of a devout believer making this argument, I believe they are defending the understanding of secular government as a kind of "neutral observer" whose function is to protect the free exercise of religion in all spheres of life, private and public.  This includes the exercise of individual belief in schools, workplaces, government agencies, in law and politics. In this scenario, a secular government is not atheistic, but is merely non-sectarian.

 

This perspective works inasmuch as the majority religious traditions are able to find enough overlap in the Venn diagram of moral rules to form a viable public space together.  It's also why many the Protestant-majority U.S. was quite distrustful of a Catholic Presidential-candidate John F. Kennedy.  It stood to reason that if Protestants could shape and mold public policy based on a view informed by personal religious beliefs, then Catholics might also act according to their personal beliefs - which included loyalty to a certain Bishop of Rome.  We all know how that played out - Kennedy basically had to assure voters that he would compartmentalize his personal beliefs from his political actions, thereby assuring the voters that they would not be subject to policies shaped or influenced by some foreign theocratic state.  That concession has carried forward to today - where voters look suspiciously on anyone from a religious background perceived to be in competition with Protestant / secular America.

 

On one hand, we had Barack Obama having to assure people of his religious identity as a Christian, and this was meant to refute questions of his suitability mainly coming from the political "right."  They very much did not desire to have a practicing Muslim in office of POTUS.  Then, we have Joe Biden and his "I'm personally against abortion, but pro-choice politically,"  which is sort of a code message to people on the "left" - "Hey, I know my Church is anti-abortion, and I believe that's the right position to take, but don't worry about me trying to enforce that on the rest of you."  

 

Of course, depending on what side one takes on Muslims and Catholics in office, probably influences the degree of cognitive dissonance expected from a politician or other public servant, who also happens to be a devout believer.

 

So, that's the religious side of it. The atheistic/ agnostic side of things has put a whole new patina on this "secular government" business.  Whereas many a believer has held that "secular" = non-sectarian, now, secular is increasingly coming to mean "a-theistic, naturalistic, humanist."  So, it's not a competing religious perspective, like Protestant versus Catholic, so much as a competing religious philosophy.  It's not Rome versus Luther, or the Moors versus the Crusaders.  It's not even Pope Paul V versus Galileo (as Galileo, a man of science, as also a man of faith, himself).

 

It's Epicurus' primitive physics (atomism) versus Aristotle's forms. The state is to form its rationale, its laws, and judgments based upon empirical evidence, not 

religious/ philosophical proofs. That is, the secular state is not only to refrain from entering the realm of religion, it is to refuse to even acknowledge its existence outside the boundaries of the private sphere of life.  And, when religiously-tainted practices and rationales are discovered outside their private domain - in public education, in courtrooms, in places of (corporate) business - they are scrutinized and weighed against the greater freedom of the public to be "free from the sphere of religion."

 

Speaking as a secular (agnostic) humanist, I value individual freedom and individual conscience.  I, personally, have no desire to live in a society where,  if I walk without my head and body covered in loose clothing, and without a male relative, I'm regarded as "loose" or "dishonorable" to my family.  Such attitudes do derive from persistent cultural and religious beliefs (Adam and Eve, anybody?).  That attitude I described, by the way, would have been at home in most medieval Christian societies.  (It turns out that misogyny and patriarchalism are shared moral values in all three Abrahamic faiths - not surprising given their Bronze Age, desert-bred origins).

 

However, I also do not desire to live in a monochromatic society where morals are expressed as the p-value derived from crowd sourcing. Religious and philosophical traditions represent a cornucopia of human thought and imagination.  A society that lacks fluency in religious and philosophical thought is a society that lacks a valuable discipline in cultivating critical thinking skills. For much of human history, our understanding of the cosmos was necessarily derived from observation, speculation, and philosophical arguments and logic, because we lacked the modern tools of science.

 

But now that we have the scientific methodology, and the powerful tools we built from an empirical understanding of the physical universe, we seem to have decided we've arrived.  That we know so much more from science that that is all we will ever need and we will find all our answers through the rigors of evidence-based study.  The problem is, we've limited our sources of evidence to just what we can empirically test.  There is an infinite number of things we do not know about ourselves or the cosmos.  It seems rather one-dimensional to limit our approach to finding some of those answers to only what we moderns accept as scientific evidence.

 

I think we cultivate a tremendous amount of knowledge but not a lot of wisdom.  And this goes for believers as well.  Many, if not most believers I know, have only a passing familiarity with the logic underpinning the doctrines they embrace.  They'd rather find a 30 second YouTube video by some polemic talking decrying the "immorality" of all those godless New Atheists and how they can't possibly have any sort of moral system apart from the Bible.  Do they carefully  investigate the claims of both their belief system - in this example, Christianity - and the articulated position of their opponents?  Have they ever looking into the arguments for and against the other side?

 

This kind of push-pull between intelligent and informed opponents is sorely missing from US political dialogue.  And honestly, I think it's missing from most Islamic countries as well - I don't see a lot of evidence for examining their own system of beliefs.  Many are so focused on defending their culture from Western hegemony, and sending out their own sound bites - "Islam is the Answer!" - that any disagreement risks retribution and ridicule.  

 

So, I guess the question of how I view sharia is related to the overall picture of how Muslims present themselves.  IME, many of the conservative Muslims strike me as very similar to conservative Christian Protestants and traditionalist Catholics.  That is, they are interested in imposing their worldview on the surrounding society, to solve its problems. I would prefer that Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, believers and non-believers, all -- sought instead to  inform public policy and law through thoughtful dialogue, careful restraint of baser instincts (racism, clannish mentalities, aggression, etc.) and sensible compromise. 

 

As long as "compromise" remains a dirty word, and it's vogue to demonize people of a differing worldview, we will continue to see mistrust fostered between believers and non-believers.  If people can come to some sort of synthesis of common understanding, then a government which acknowledges both and gives space to both secular and non-secular practice, is possible.  But if religious people continue to try to wrest back their majority through power grabs and secular people continue to scoff at all religious arguments as "stupid" or "ridiculous," then to maintain stability one or the other will be forcefully ejected from the public sphere.  Right now, it's looking like religionists are losing that battle, for weal or for woe, as they say.

 

I don't see Islamic societies really faring much better.  The truth of the matter is secularism is sweeping the entire globe, not just Western societies.  What Islamic societies frequently will not admit is that many of their own populaces are privately de-converting.  There are many stories about how Muslims are immigrating to Europe and changing the social fabric -- there is not much said about the 15 - 20% of such Muslims who secularize within the first generation.  The attrition is greater with subsequent generations.   And this does not even touch on those who act as cultural Muslims in Muslim countries, but who privately do not believe, or may even be atheists. They may live under sharia, but that does not mean they agree with it or prefer it.

 

So that divide between religious law and public policy is going to be tested and is being tested, all over the world.  The evolution of human social conventions with the internet and information, combined with the huge increases in scientific discoveries means that we are all facing the question of how to meld the old ways with new understanding.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Aelwydd

[Rosie_0801]

It might be really different in Australia, but here in Canada I think it might be a bit akward to separate the idea of religious influence on courts being not helpful, on the one hand, and looking at indigenous courts as being possibly enlightening, on the other.  One of the things that is very typical of the various indigenous justice institutions seems to be that they are very much rooted in what are explicitly recognized as spiritual values.  A lot of the First Nations programs and institutions use a restorative justice model, and I have a hard time imagining how that could be really taken as separate from a particular spiritual/religious perspective.  That isn't to say that it involves no separation of institutional religion, but it does seem to involve a very direct acceptance of spirituality and its institutional forms as being related to how we deal with law and order.

 

Indigenous spirituality is different. :p