Sharia

Sharia or Shariah is the body of religious law governing the cultural life of Islam, both in its Sunni and Shia branches. Islam draws no distinction between religious and secular life, and hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals and the administration of the faith, but every aspect of day-to-day life. There are no modern parallels to this concept, but the caesaropapism of the Byzantine empire, in which religious and secular life were blended into one, and law ultimately derived from the written word of God was embodied in the ruler, may bear some useful parallels for the historian, in spite of the many obvious differences.

History and Background

The authority of Sharia is drawn from two major and two lesser sources. The first major source is specific guidance laid down in the Qur'an, and the second source is the Sunnah, literally the 'Way', i.e. the way that Muhammad (the Prophet of Islam) lived his life. (The compilation of all that Muhammad said, did, or approved of is called the Hadith.) A lesser source of authority is Qiyas, which is the extension by analogy of existing Sharia law to new situations.

Finally Sharia law can be based on ijma, or consensus. Justification for this final approach is drawn from the Hadith where Muhammad states; "My nation cannot agree on an error." The ummah, or community of Muslims, comes together with each applying his ijtihad, or independent thought and judgement, to achieve this consensus. The role of ulema, i.e. scholars, is critical, since they are the ones who study the Islamic law and therefore have authority to represent it. Sharia has largely been codified by the schools (maddhabs) of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh).

The comprehensive nature of Sharia law is due to the belief that the law must provide all that is necessary for a person's spiritual and physical well-being. All possible actions of a Muslim are divided (in principle) into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Fundamental to the obligations of every muslim are the Five Pillars of Islam.

In theory, there is no conflict between the process as outlined by Muhammad and very progressive and consultative political movements, e.g. green parties. In fact, the latter even defined Four Pillars of the Green Party, to some degree in imitation of Islam's Five Pillars, and in admiration of the idea of a consensus-driven process of the whole community coming to some well-reasoned conclusion compatible with science and scholarship. In practice, however, there is often incredible tension between conservative, liberal or secular forces:

Practice of Sharia

Most countries of the Middle East and north Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain only religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence. Sharia is also used in Sudan, Libya and for a time in modern Afghanistan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of spectacular and gruesome punishments (such as amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, or stoning for adultery) without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony (including the necessity of four eyewitnesses, with women's testimony counting no less than that of a man). Such measures are usually introduced to gain support of local ulema who are often community leaders in rural areas. Their examples are not always humane or even reasonable. Muslim scholars tend to agree that Muhammad himself would not run courts along these lines in an otherwise secular society, nor introduce these punishments into societies rich enough to afford prisons and rehabilitation, cohesive enough to prevent those accused from being killed by outraged victims and communities.

An unusual secular-state example is a Sharia arbitration court being established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid backing up the court system. The court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Its critics fear that the misogyny of some forms of Sharia could end up influencing the modern Canadian justice system, but its proponents say those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it.

Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law has no one, set meaning for all time and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Englightenment readers of philosophy, religious law is relegated to ritual (as opposed to law in a civil sense), or even to just being history. In the hands of zealots, it becomes legally enforced against all people of a faith, and even against all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Indonesia, or Pakistan. All of them are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary. (As is true for Jews and Christians, etc.)