On Shari'ah and American Politics

Recently, Oklahoma state senator Rex Duncan proposed "a ballot measure that would prohibit courts from considering international or sharia law when deciding cases. He says the measure is a 'preemptive strike' against 'liberal judges' who want to 'undermine those founding principles' of America."  The proposition is a glaring example of wingnuttery at its worst but, to add fuel to the fire, another person asked the question, "What is 'liberal' about Sharia law?"

This is my response to that question.

Shari'ah is neither "liberal" nor "conservative."  It is a codification of Islamic rules and regulations on topics that are both discussed in the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and on topics that are not discussed directly but are derived from fundamental principles (for example, much of Shari'ah law on Islamic finance is derived from principles such as the ban on usury (interest)).  Whether Shari'ah matches up with American liberal or conservative political thought is not a concern to most Muslim jurists... or most Muslims for that matter.  Muslims think of Islam as the middle path, a religion that tries to avoid the extremes.  And while some positions within Shari'ah match up with what American conservatives believe in, other positions match up with what American liberals believe in.

If a liberal non-Muslim doesn't believe that Shari'ah takes "liberal" positions, they don't know Islam or Shari'ah that well.  Islam believes in social justice.  Islam believes in an equitable distribution of wealth within society.  Islam believes in the equitable treatment of people and their human dignity.  Islam believes in promoting a healthy society.  Islam believes in preserving life.  Islam believes in a healthy business environment ("Main Street") rather than a casino economy ("Wall Street").  Islam believes in maintaining a healthy ecosystem.  (There are probably more "liberal" positions I could mention, but these seven will have to do for the moment...)

Trying to prevent Shari'ah from being used as a code of law is like trying to prevent water from doing what it does.  Non-Muslims can try to channel Shari'ah away or dam it up, but Shari'ah finds its own way.  Muslims use Shari'ah without the consent of non-Muslims as much of Shari'ah is simply the rules of conduct Muslims use between themselves in their day-to-day lives.  It is largely only within certain issues (e.g., family issues, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance) that Muslims want to incorporate Shari'ah within the existing legal frameworks.  That some non-Muslims want to prevent this from happening only speaks to their ignorance about Shari'ah and Islam.

Understanding Malaysia (I)

This post is in response to a diary over at Street Prophets, entitled Religion News: Malaysia, which discussed two recent stories, the so-called "Allah" case where the Malaysian Catholic newspaper, The Herald, has been fighting the government for the right to use the word "Allah" in its English-language publication, and an unrelated story about three women who were caned (along with four men) for adultery. I didn't have time when that diary first came out to write a lengthy comment; however, with my other priorities now fulfilled, I've been able to work on a response.

What I want to do in this post is to explain some of the context in which these two stories are set. The stories come from a country that most Americans are unfamiliar with, involving a religion that many Americans don't understand very well, in part due to all the misinformation about our religion that circulates in both the virtual and real worlds. Not surprisingly, this context is very complex and subject to frequent changes involving, among other things, Malaysian history, politics, personalities, racial and ethnic relations, and religion. I've tried to explain all these aspects as briefly as I can; however, the essay is already long enough that I've decided to split this "comment" into two posts.

Before I begin, I want to give my bona fides regarding Malaysia. I freely admit that I'm an outsider looking in. However, those of us here in Singapore are almost all, by definition, Malaysia-watchers due to the proximity between their country, peoples and cultures, and ours. Many Singaporeans, including my wife's family, have relatives in Malaysia. When Singaporeans talk about going on holiday, they normally mean traveling up to Malaysia, and indeed, I myself have made a number of trips into Malaysia since 2003. Their news often is reported by Singaporean media, and one Malaysian TV channel, with its own news program, is broadcast into Singapore. And, of course, I am married into a Malay family with whom I have discussed Malaysian culture, history and politics many, many times over the years. So, while my knowledge about Malaysia is certainly imperfect, I think I have a decent grasp about what goes on up in that country.


There are several things one must keep in mind when discussing religious news out of Malaysia: Malaysia is a melting pot of several different ethnicities and cultures. Western (Peninsular) Malaysia (which I've traveled through) is primarily made up of Malays, Chinese and Indians, whereas East Malaysia (on the west coast of the island of Borneo) is mostly made up of Bumiputera (Boo-me-poo-trah), the indigenous tribes, along with Malays and Chinese (there are hardly any Indians in East Malaysia). There have also been strong influxes of immigrants (especially illegal) to Malaysia from all over South and Southeast Asia. So ethnically, religiously, and culturally, there is a very wide mix within Malaysia.

Another factor to consider is Malaysian politics. The country is a parliamentary democracy, and has about 33 political parties; however, four parties dominate: UMNO (United Malays National Organization), DAP (Democratic Action Party), PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the People's Justice Party, most commonly known as Keadilan), and PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party). UMNO has been in power more or less since independence in 1957, working through a coalition with 11 other parties to form Barisan Nasional (National Front). This coalition is the legal holder of the Prime Minister-ship; however, it is UMNO that calls BN's shots. The other three major parties, DAP, Keadilan and PAS, recently formed their own coalition, called Pakatan Rakyat (People's Alliance). This alliance is still rather shaky, especially as its leader, Anwar Ibrahim (a former Deputy Prime Minister under Dr. Mahathir Muhammad) is in the opening stages of his second sodomy trial. Likewise, there are some lingering concerns among non-Muslims that PAS's recent "good behavior" will revert back to its original form some time in the future.

Malaysian politics have been in a state of flux since 2002, when the former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir (he was originally a medical doctor), announced that he would retire from office in 2003, serving as PM for a total of 22 years. Dr. Mahathir is arguably the most influential man in Malaysian history, and still commands respect and admiration from many Malays. As mentioned above, Anwar Ibrahim was Dr. Mahathir's former Deputy Prime Minister, but was sacked by Mahathir in 1998; there are various suggestions as to why this was done. Anwar's replacement as DPM was Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who eventually replaced Dr. Mahathir as PM in 2003. Abdullah was generally seen as a promising replacement to Mahathir, especially with respect to getting rid of the corruption within Malaysian society. Although he won election to a second term in 2008, Abdullah was increasingly seen as a weak leader. Dr. Mahathir even quit UMNO as a protest against Abdullah's leadership. Abdullah finally resigned in April 2009, with Najib Abdul Razak (son of Malaysia's second Prime Minister) currently in office.

The 12th General Election, in March 2008, not only saw Abdullah reelected PM by a slimmer margin than he had won in 2004, it also saw the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, making significant gains in both the national and state parliaments. In the national parliament, BN lost a total of 58 seats while Pakatan Rakyat won a total of 62, bringing their total number of seats to 82 (36.9%), up from a total of 20 seats (9.1%) won in 2004. Keadilan had won 31 seats, up from 1 in 2004, while both DAP and PAS won 16 new seats each. In the state parliaments, Pakatan Rakyat took over five states, up from one in 2004 and two in 1999 (PAS had won the state parliaments in the previous two elections).

Now, of course, UMNO feels threatened by the rise of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, but of the three opposition parties, UMNO feels most threatened by PAS. DAP's constituency is mostly Malaysian Chinese, along with some of the Indian population, while Keadilan's is mostly left- to moderate-Malays. PAS has traditionally targeted very conservative Muslims, while UMNO has picked up the majority of conservative Muslims who fall between Keadilan and PAS. (When I say "left," "moderate" or "conservative," I'm not using the terms associated with American politics; rather, I'm using descriptions for Muslim attitudes. If one was to compare Asians' political views to that of Americans, you'd find that many Asians are definitely left-of-center.) UMNO doesn't target Keadilan supporters because the latter are mostly anti-UMNO; however, PAS has traditionally worked toward turning Malaysia into an Islamic state (through the implementation of all aspects of Shari'ah). As a result, UMNO has tried to increase its electoral support by stealing away PAS supporters by being "more Muslim than thou." UMNO still isn't nearly as conservative as PAS was in the early 2000s, before the latter's big electoral defeat in the 2004 election, but UMNO has definitely made overtures toward the more conservative Muslims (who tend to concentrate in the north of the country).

In the meantime, I think we are seeing two distinct developments happening within the government's bureaucracy with respect to religious issues. On the one hand, I think more bureaucrats are taking advantage of the political flux to make their own judgments regarding religious issues. One example is the fatwa against yoga that was issued back in 2008. This was slapped down by the Sultan of Selangor, who said that the council which issued the fatwa should have consulted the nine Sultans of Malaysia first. Another development is that there seems to be confusion between the two sets of judiciaries (the civil courts and the Shari'ah courts) as to who has precedence over various matters. The Shari'ah courts, apparently, are either taking the lead or being referred to by the civil courts. This was one of the criticisms with respect to the caning of the three women. As the Al-Jazeera article that Ojibwa referenced notes:

The caning, however, has raised new questions about whether a state religious court can sentence women to be caned when federal law precludes women from such a punishment, while men below 50 can be punished by caning.

However, the trend I have observed over the past few years is that if the case involves a Muslim or issues pertaining to Islam, then the Shari'ah court will have precedence, regardless of what the federal law says.

To be continued...

[For an earlier post I wrote about the "Allah" case, see The Situation in Malaysia. Cross-posted at Street Prophets.]

"Human-Made" Rules in Islam

Recently, one of my readers has asked me to answer some questions her husband has asked of her. Based on the questions she submitted and several other e-mails she has sent to me, her husband, a European convert to Islam, appears to be a lukewarm Muslim at best. (I do realize that I'm only hearing from one-half of this couple; in fact, this woman has asked me to meet her husband face-to-face, but my schedule in the evenings and on the weekends at this time makes such a meeting very difficult to arrange.) She has asked me, instead, if I would post my answers to her questions on my blog, so I'm going to address each question separately as time permits, insha'allah.

Here is her e-mail:

Here are among the questions my husband always ask me
1) He said some of the rules in Islam are actually human-made. Some are not necessary in this modern world. For instance: the hijab for ladies, abolution before prayers, prayers with the necessary standing rules.. (sometimes I adapt the prayer accordingly like when we were on traveling). Also the importance to eat halal food ( for him only pork is haram, but all others should be halal like chicken, meat eventho it is not slaughtered by muslim)

"He said some of the rules in Islam are actually human-made."

My answer: Of course; so what? My initial thought was, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) created a number of "rules" that we Muslims follow; he was a man, like us. Thus, yes, some of the rules in Islam were created by a man. "But," my wife says, "the Prophet (pbuh) was also guided directly by Allah (swt) and the angel Jibril; in that regard, he wasn't like other men." To which I most wholeheartedly agree. However, even if we set the Prophet (pbuh) aside as a special case (which, obviously, he was), many men - scholars, jurists, imams - over the centuries have defined and refined "the rules in Islam" (regardless of whether one classifies them under fiqh or shari'ah) that Muslims live under.

However, just because these rules are made by men doesn't invalidate them. There are several reasons for this. First, the vast majority of men who have created rules have done so based upon the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah. In order for any rule in Islam to be valid, there has to be justification for the rule; that justification almost always comes from the appropriate Qur'anic ayat and/or ahadith from the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah. Secondly, even though individual men may have different opinions regarding a specific issue, the rules Muslims follow are based upon a consensus (ijma) of opinions. Extreme opinions are noted but rejected in favor of the majority opinion; likewise, as the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said, "My community will never agree upon an error." So a human-made rule in Islam is not necessarily invalid simply because it came from a man or men.

Two other points I'd like to raise: All these men over the centuries - the scholars, jurists and imams - who created the rules that Muslims follow, the vast majority of them have significant credentials in terms of their ability to render a judgment. To which I would ask you, what are your qualifications? Why should I trust your judgment? What do you bring to the table?

And secondly, don't you see the hypocrisy inherent in your own statement? You apparently think that something is wrong if the rules in Islam are human-made, but then you go ahead and make up your own rules! Ridiculous!

To be continued, insha'allah.

Who is a Radical Muslim?

A few days ago, when I wrote my post CSM: Ten Terms Not to Use with Muslims, I had also cross-posted it to the website Street Prophets as well. The post there, not surprisingly, has generated a lot of commentary (44 comments so far). One person, "Sandbox" (an Islamophobe), has been trying to peddle their definition for a "Radical Muslim." I reject that definition, and I've explained why down below:

FYI, my definition of Radical Muslim is someone who wants to "legally" institute sharia law to govern the host country's Muslim community or who supports violent jihad as a way to settle international disputes.

First, I'm aware of your definition; you've written it before at DKos [Daily Kos]. I reject it. You paint Muslims with such an overly broad brush that, to us Muslims, your "definition" is meaningless. All Muslims would be "radical" by your definition. Here's why:

The notion that a Muslim is a "radical" if he or she wants to legally institute Shari'ah to help govern a country's Muslim community is patently absurd from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. First, as a Muslim jurist from Nigeria said in a BBC documentary, "Islam is Shari'ah; Shari'ah is Islam." This is true. The basis for Shari'ah is the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). If one is a practicing Muslim, one will by definition be following Shari'ah. Much of Shari'ah is internalized, meaning that Muslims follow Shari'ah law in their own lives without sanction from the State (to give a Christian example, a person fasting during Lent is following the equivalent of "Christian Shari'ah"). In that regard, no one can stop Muslims from implementing some (probably most) aspects of Shari'ah. The aspects of Shari'ah that are externalized, i.e., need to be legally instituted, tend to be in the following areas: family law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.) and criminal punishments (hudud). Here in secular Singapore, Shari'ah with regard to family law has been part of the country's legal code since the beginning. The Shari'ah Court system here was started over 50 years ago. Muslims are governed by Shari'ah; non-Muslims have their own code of laws. The system works very well. Only hudud isn't implemented here, and there is no pressing claim by Singaporean Muslims to implement it. So, practically speaking, Shari'ah in Singapore works very well. No one is considered to be a "radical" Muslim if he or she supports Shari'ah law. But people like you have tried to transform Shari'ah into such a bogey monster word that, without understanding how Shari'ah really works in the real world, you perpetuate misunderstandings between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

With respect to your second qualification, once again, by not understanding the difference between jihad and qital and harb, you malign a word that is very dear to Muslims. The other day I attended a seminar on fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. One non-Muslim participant's statement was a much better definition (IMO) than yours. He said, "Fundamentalists are people who are just trying to figure things out, versus extremists, who want to hurt other people." That works much better for me. By your definition, you would have to condemn the United States for the war in Iraq and Israel for its wars in Gaza and Lebanon because both countries have used "violent jihad" as ways to settle their international disputes. Somehow, I don't expect to hear any denunciations from you anytime soon.

The irony is that the real extremist Muslims are those people who would seem to be most like non-Muslims. At that same seminar, the professor who led it pointed out that one of the surviving 7/7 (London) bombers (whom he interviewed) did not know the basics of Islam such as how to pray or even how to perform wudu, the ritual ablutions that are required before prayer. Likewise, it's well known that the 9/11 terrorists were known to go drinking, gamble and visit strip clubs. These are not the actions of Muslims, but it is what non-Muslims might do. Your so-called "secular Muslims," the ones who non-Muslims support, are more likely to be extremists than observant Muslims. But you'd never know because they've hidden themselves in plain sight by acting like the rest of non-Muslim society.

I Hate To Say I Told You So...

Metaphorically speaking, of course. One of the things I love about Islam is that it's a very practical religion. Non-Muslims may not like the various rules within the religion, but I have found, by and large, that Allah (swt) put them there for very good reasons. For example, "don't drink alcohol." How many benefits would there be to the individual, to society, if people didn't drink? How many lives would be saved, for example, if there were no drunk drivers? I used to read "Dear Abby." How many letter writers' lives would be changed for the better if they lived an Islamic lifestyle? "Dear Abby" would probably go out of business.

Likewise, the world is now in the midst of an economic crisis the likes of which no one has seen since my parents were toddlers. How much better would the economy be if it followed Islamic business principles? The following passage comes from one of the economics blogs I read, Angry Bear:

It was about an interview by Bill Moyers of John Bogle. He noted:

JOHN BOGLE: Well, it's gotten misshapen because the financial side of the economy is dominating the productive side of the economy...We've become a financial economy which has overwhelmed the productive economy to the detriment of investors and the detriment ultimately of our society.

I want to come back to the difference between the financial system and the productive system. The productive system adds to the value of our economy. And, by and large, the financial system subtracts. And, yet, it's growing and growing and growing. And this short term thing where short term orientation in which trading pieces of paper is regarded as a social value. It is not a social value.

Go listen to it. Then listen to Mr. Moyers latest interview with Kevin Philips.

But what's here that doesn't get the attention is the United States in the last 20 years undertook an enormous transformation of itself with no attention paid. And what it means is and what makes all this so frightening is the country is at risk because of the size of the financial sector that has never been graded on its competence and behavior in any serious way. They are the economy at this point. And we are now seeing what happens when a 20 to 21 percent of GDP financial sector starts to come unglued.

You had essentially a financial sector that, let's say, was sort of neck and neck with manufacturing back in the late 1980s. But they got control in a lot of ways in the agenda. Finance has been bailed out. I mean, everybody thinks this is horrible now what we're seeing in terms of bailouts. Even a lot of the people who do it think it's bad.

This has been going on since the beginning of the 1980s. Finance has been preferred as the sector that got government support. Manufacturing slides, nobody helps. Finance has a problem, Federal Reserve to the rescue. Treasury to the rescue. Subsidies this, that, and other.

I am certain we have to do something to help the money flow such that it does not take down the entire system. It would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces not to protect ourselves from what a few have done. We have to be adults, suck it up and clean up the alcohol aroma vomit all over our bathroom.

But, we do not have to let it happen again. There is only one solution to this and no one, not anyone is pointing it out: Put the financial sector of the economy back in alignment with the productive sector. What got us in this mess is our (well not all of us) belief that the financial sector can stand on it's own as a primary wealth/money creator. It can not. Never could. But, believing it put the impetus to the creation of “vehicles” for creating trades. You know all those securitized whatevers, and alphabet monikers, and insurance for insurance for insurance based on alphabet monikers of securitized whatevers. What did people expect would happen when you turn the part of your system that is dependent on activity in an other part for it's existence into a stand alone money creator. If you are going to keep generating money from money, then you are going to have to keep coming up with new “product.” New designs, new marketing to create an need and want, new packaging, BRANDING.

Again, Mr. Philip put's it this way:

But we've seen the central component of the rise of the financial sector is the rise of the debt industry. Mortgage, credit cards, all these gimmicks that Wall Street sells-- just all kinds of products. And, of course, the products are laying an egg all over the world right now.

Get it? We take an industry subservient to the needs of production and turn it into a competitor of production. I can polish and sell rocks without a bank to borrow from. I can accumulate wealth over time. My business may grow slowly and so may my wealth, but I can do it. But, remove all non-financial activities and what does financial do to survive? What does it do to survive with no one needing a loan, backing, no desire to produce in a way that increases our productivity such that we have more time to purse happiness (that constitution purpose)? We treat finance as if it is the chicken/egg question. It is not. Finance came second and is dependent.

This particular author, "Divorced one like Bush," isn't a Muslim as far as I know, but he actually advocates a principle of Islamic finance: Making money from money is not Islamically acceptable.

Money is only a medium of exchange, a way of defining the value of a thing; it has no value in itself, and therefore should not be allowed to give rise to more money, via fixed interest payments, simply by being put in a bank or lent to someone else. The human effort, initiative, and risk involved in a productive venture are more important than the money used to finance it. Muslim jurists consider money as potential capital rather than capital, meaning that money becomes capital only when it is invested in business. Accordingly, money advanced to a business as a loan is regarded as a debt of the business and not capital and, as such, it is not entitled to any return (i.e. interest). Muslims are encouraged to purchase and are discouraged from keeping money idle so that, for instance, hoarding money is regarded as being unacceptable. In Islam, money represents purchasing power which is considered to be the only proper use of money. This purchasing power (money) cannot be used to make more purchasing power (money) without undergoing the intermediate step of it being used for the purchase of goods and services.

Principles Of Islamic Banking

In Islam, we use money for productive purposes that are for the benefit of the community as a whole. Money is not to be used to make more money directly, such as through interest. We use money to make more money indirectly, by investing money into productive assets, such as businesses, that will (insha'allah) make profits. It's a slower process, but it's a much more stable and safer system than the highly leveraged economy that's now melting down.

Update: For some similar posts, read Islamic Finance Shows Banks the Way Forward and Islamic Banking Restrains Bankruptcy.

"Christian Ramadan"

An odd story out of the Netherlands:

To motivate young people to observe fasting and prayer during the 40-day Lent, Catholics are promoting the religious occasion this year as a "Christian Ramadan", the Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday, February 12.

...

Der Kuil said the idea of "Christian Ramadan" was spurred by concerns that the Lent has become less important for Dutch over the last generation, especially since the Vatican loosened fasting strictures in 1967.

He notes that of the four million Dutch who describe themselves as Catholics and the 400,000 who attend Mass every week only a few tens of thousands still fast Lent.

Most Catholics now focus on charitable work during the 40-day feast.

Through the "Christian Ramadan" campaign, the organizers hope to bring back spirituality and sobriety to the Catholic tradition.

...

Der Kuil said they wanted to benefit from the increasing familiarity and popularity of the word Ramadan.

"The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent."

...

Der Kuil recognized that through the campaign they came to realize the amount of similarities between Muslims and Christians.

"The agreements are more striking than the differences," der Kuil maintained.

"Both for Muslims and Catholic faithful the values of frugality and spirituality play a central role in this tradition."

(Source)

Several thoughts come to mind:

Does this mean that Christianity is so weak in Europe that a Christian concept such as Lent can only be understood by defining it through the terms of what many view as a rival religion?

If you have to define your own religion in terms of another's, then it's time to admit that the other side has "won," that Dutch Catholics should admit the truth and become Muslims.

That if your religion is so weak and your culture doesn't practice - literally - what you preach, then maybe it's best to get on the cases of your lapsed brethren for their own faults rather than bad-mouthing people from other religions who are more pious than you.

The real problem in Europe isn't "Multiculturalism" or "Shari'ah" or "Jihad" or "Eurabia" or any of the other bogey words that have come to symbolize the West's Islamophobia. The real problem is that most Muslims practice what they preach, that they live their religion (as we are supposed to), and that just scares the crap out of them. Because Europeans are afraid of religion. Because living a religious life will take them out of their comfort zone, introducing them to new routines and a new lifestyle. But especially because they realize that they live in a religious backwater. That despite all their material achievements and economic success, they've become spiritually backwards. The Quraish were in a similar situation during the last stages of the Age of Jahiliyah: economically successful, spiritually impoverished. Allah (swt) was merciful to the Quraish: they realized the truth before it was too late and became Muslim when they had the chance. The question now is whether Europeans (in particular, and the West in general) will do the same.

Insha'allah.

On Adultery

The following is a response of mine from some comments over at Rob Wagner's blog, 13 Martyrs. Rob had originally written in response to a previous comment by "anonymous":

And, anonymous, yes, the death penalty for adultry [sic] is hideous, but as a rule not practiced, especially in Arab countries.

To which "anonymous" wrote:

OK. So Arab countries are not, as a rule, following islam. [sic] Good! But would it really be a better world if we sacrelized [sic] murder on grounds of adultery, as is the case with sharia?

My response to "anonymous":

The problem with a lot of people (and not just Westerners) is that they look at another culture through their own cultural perspective without much thought as to the reasoning why something is in another culture. You think that, from Rob's statement, that Arab countries aren't following Islam (correctly). That isn't the case. The shari'ah system is set up to make these types of punishments difficult to implement. On the one hand, the punishment is very severe because it's trying to deter the crime from being done in the first place. Muslims know that if you're not punished in this life, you may be punished, insha'allah, in the next, and that punishment may be much more severe than the punishment today, insha'allah. Better to avoid any punishment whatsoever by not committing the crime in the first place. On the other hand, to convict for adultery requires four witnesses. Unless you're an idiot like Paris Hilton or Rob Lowe, where your sex tape gets distributed publicly, the odds are very low that people may witness your affair. (Still, Allah (swt) knows, and you'll answer to Him.)

Which comes to your supposedly rhetorical question, which you obviously know my answer: yes. Religion is not just about the betterment of the individual, but of society as well. Groups of people ("nations," as they're called in the Qur'an) can and will be collectively punished by Allah (swt), insha'allah, for their transgressions. Both the Bible and the Qur'an make that abundantly clear. (Sodom and Gomorrah? There are other examples in the Qur'an.) Adultery is not just a problem for the individuals concerned or their families. It affects society as well. The transmission of STDs, the breakups of families, the custodial issues about children? These all hurt society and, yet, you'd rather society to continue on its merry way instead of trying to curb the problem? At least Islam makes a serious attempt.

Quiz on Islam

A couple days ago, I created a quiz on Facebook regarding introductory information on Islam. You can either take the quiz here and see how well you did now, or try your luck on my blog. The degree of difficulty for this quiz is, IMO, rather easy, even for non-Muslims (Muslims should get 100%). I'll put the answers up in the comment section in a day or two, insha'allah.

Question #1: Which of the following is not one of the five pillars of Islam:
a) Fasting
b) Hajj
c) Jihad
d) Prayer

Question #2: Muslims fast during the month of:
a) Shawwal
b) Muharram
c) Rajab
d) Ramadan

Question #3: Muhammad (pbuh) was originally from which town:
a) Makkah (Mecca)
b) Medina
c) Ta'if
d) Yathrib

Question #4: The Islamic calendar begins with which event:
a) The year of Muhammad's (pbuh) birth
b) The year Muhammad (pbuh) received his first revelation
c) The Hijrah
d) The year of Muhammad's (pbuh) death

Question #5: The Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) over a period of:
a) One day
b) Thirteen years
c) Twenty-three years
d) Thirty years

Question #6: The name of the angel who revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad (pbuh) was:
a) Jibril (Gabriel)
b) Mikail (Michael)
c) Israfil (Raphael)
d) Izra'il (Azrael)

Question #7: Ritual prayer in Islam is known as:
a) Shahadah
b) Salat
c) Zakat
d) Sawm

Question #8: Muslims must pray how many times a day?
a) Once
b) Three times
c) Five times
d) Seven times

Question #9: Which of the following groups is not considered Muslim?
a) Sunni
b) Sufi
c) Baha'i
d) Shia

Question #10: The Arabic term for Islamic law is:
a) Fiqh
b) Jihad
c) Shari'ah
d) Khalifah

Mike Huckabee's Christian Shari'ah

So, how is what Mike Huckabee said about trying to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect Christian beliefs any different from Muslims wanting to adopt Shari'ah as the basis for a law of the land.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

Oh, that's right... It's OK when Christians want their own Shari'ah, but not when Muslims do.

Shari'ah

I recently discovered Rob Wagner's blog, 13 Martyrs, and have really enjoyed his writing. (He's now on my blogroll.) Rob lived and worked for three years as the managing editor of an English-language newspaper in Jiddah, KSA, and he comes across as knowledgeable about Islam and the Middle East. (When are you going to become a Muslim, Rob?) His most recent post is Truth and Lies About Shariah, and I thought I'd make a few comments with regard to the nature of shari'ah.

If, for the average non-Muslim, jihad is bogey-word #1, "shari'ah" is a close second. The word itself means "path to the water source." The analogy is appropriate for the Qur'an often refers to Jannah (heaven) as a garden "beneath which rivers flow." The problem for most non-Muslims is that they have a very limited and fuzzy understanding of what shari'ah refers to. Most discussion focuses on what Muslims refer to as hudud. Hudud has specific, fixed punishments for a limited number of crimes, namely, the drinking of alcohol, theft, highway robbery, illegal sexual intercourse (zina), and the false accusation of zina against a person.

Shari'ah, however, is much broader, covering a wide range of areas affecting a Muslim's daily life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. In June, The Guardian had an article about shari'ah courts in Britian (In the Name of the Law) that gave an idea of the breadth of cases one local court, in Leyton, has dealt with:

It considers everything from inheritance settlements and whether property deals comply with Islamic laws against accruing interest, to the proper time to start Ramadan (in a country that is always overcast, how can you rely on the first sighting of the crescent moon?) and whether a soft drink that advertises itself as a non-alcoholic alcopop can actually be allowed to call itself alcohol-free. In one email, a woman who is losing her hair asked if Muslim women are allowed to wear wigs.

But the overwhelming majority of cases are to do with divorce - 95% of the roughly 7,000 cases the council has dealt with since opening its doors in 1982 - and, specifically, with releasing women from bad or forced Islamic marriages.

One thing that Rob wrote that I don't agree with is:

Sharia can't fit on a wide scale in a democratic country. However, neighborhood mosques have been very successful both in the UK and the United States in using Sharia to settle local minor disputes, somewhat akin to a small claims court or private arbitration. And in some African Muslim communities, citizens have the option of using Sharia to administer small-scale civil or criminal justice. It appears to work at this level if supervised properly, but anything broader would create significant conflicts with existing secular laws.

If you're one of my long-time readers, you know that I've often spoken highly of Singapore's Syarhiah Courts. Singapore is a great example of a secular, democratic government that has implemented shari'ah into its legal framework. Here, the syari'ah courts deal primarily with family issues: marriage, divorce, inheritance, custodial issues, matrimonial property, and the like. Other issues, such as dietary issues, organ transplants, zakat (charity), etc., are dealt with by MUIS, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, which is an agency of the Singapore government. Other aspects of shari'ah, especially banking and commercial law, are being phased into the Singapore legal code, especially as Islamic banking becomes more prominent within the banking industry. About the only major area where shari'ah hasn't been implemented in Singapore is with regard to criminal law.

It's not that shari'ah will necessarily create conflicts with existing secular laws; if done properly, such as through Singapore's example, shari'ah and secular law can complement each other.

Regarding Sunnis and Shias, the Caliphate, Shariah, and the Separation of "Mosque and State"

"I've heard the Sunni and Shia division described as analogous to Protestant and Catholic; except that Sunni and Shia may even pray at the same mosque, because it doesn't make a day-to-day different, it just makes a difference in governance. Would you say that's a fair comparison?"

Roughly. To be honest, I've never been in a Shia masjid, and much of what I know is based on hearsay. I've heard that there are several differences between how they pray and how we Sunnis pray, but that the differences are relatively minor. Even so, there are some minor differences in how Sunnis pray (those who follow the Maliki school of thought have their arms hang at their sides while standing during salat; the rest of us cross our arms, right over left, when we stand). These differences don't invalidate one's prayer. Of course, Sunnis and Shias pray together at al-Masjid al-Haram, the Sacred Mosque located in Makkah, at al-Masjid an-Nabawi, the Mosque of the Prophet (pbuh) in Medina, and at other masjids worldwide.


"I think I understand what you're saying about proseletyzing. I am wondering how that plays into the idea we often hear about that (some) (which?) Muslims want to restore the caliphate, want a large Islamic state, want everything under sharia law, etc. It seems to me there's a difference between wanting to spread the religion, and wanting to spread religious rule. You've addressed the former; can you address the latter?"

Yes, there are some people who want to restore the Caliphate, although I think this is mostly a pipe dream at this time. (I've written about this topic on my own blog; see Bush Administration Misuses the Word "Caliphate".) Shariah is a much broader topic and would require a diary or three to explain. Some year maybe, insha'allah. ;) The thing to understand is that Shariah is a very large and comprehensive corpus of law. It covers many topics. What most Westerners worry about are the Hudud laws and their punishments for criminal behavior; however, these people haven't learned to differentiate between "Shariah" and "Hudud," the latter being a small subset of the former.

Some modern "secular" governments have incorporated parts of Shariah into their legal systems; e.g., Singapore. Here, Shariah is applied for Singaporean Muslims with regard to domestic issues (such as marriage, divorce, domestic disputes, burial, etc.). Also, Shariah with regard to Islamic finance is quickly being incorporated as Singapore embraces Islamic banking. So "Shariah" is not quite the bogeyman that many Westerners worry about.


"Related, but distinct: I've heard it said that Islam does not recognize a separation of church and state. Can you comment?"

That is essentially correct. Muslims don't really look at Islam as a religion per se; it's not just a part of our life to put away most of the time and bring out every now and then when we feel the need to be spiritual. Islam, for us, is a way of life, and many acts that we do in the course of our daily lives are a form of worship. As such, because government and politics play large parts of our lives, we don't believe that you can fully separate "church" from state. However, since the Prophet (pbuh) migrated to Medina, there has been a concern among Muslims that people of other religions need to be treated as fairly as possible and that they would not be judged necessarily under Shariah.

This is another huge topic and would require a dairy or three to cover with any justice.