Shari'a: What Is It?

[Debater Slayer]

In a lot of the debates I have seen on RF and elsewhere about Shari'a, it seems that a staple in almost all of them is a lack of establishing what Shari'a means and what it includes prior to or while debating it. Were it not for the possibility that this thread will turn into a debate, I would have posted it in Interfaith Discussions. As things stand, though, I'm going to post it in Religious Debates.

The first thing to clarify here is that "Shari'a law" is a redundant term: in Arabic, shari'a already means "law." Hence Shari'a in uppercase is Islamic law. Saying "Shari'a law" is basically like saying "electronic smartphone" or "Internet website." Semantically, shari'a means "a source of water" or "a straight path."

With the above out of the way, it is crucial to point out that Shari'a is absolutely not merely the Islamic penal code; it is not exclusively about lashing, cutting off thieves' hands, stoning, or imposing a tax on non-Muslims. Shari'a comprises all of Islamic law, so it includes rules and teachings addressing matters such as praying, fasting, paying zakat, performing pilgrimage, dividing inheritance, and even being kind to one's parents.

When you hear, say, American or European politicians talking about Shari'a, you will probably rarely hear them talk about anything other than stereotypical aspects thereof, such as stoning and cutting off thieves' hands. This is a superficial understanding of Shari'a that seems to be rather popular as a weaponized political and religious tool, and while Shari'a does have a detailed penal code, it is, as mentioned above, far from being the only thing that constitutes it or even most of what constitutes it.

In the Qur'an, the word shari'a means "an ordained way" or "a defined religious path":

Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.

Source of translation: Surah Al-Jathiyah [45]

Since Islamic law deals with the entirety of how a person is supposed to live their life, it is accurate to say that giving to charity, striving to be on kind terms with one's family and relatives, and even being honest in one's dealings are acts that conform to Shari'a—at the very least, the most mainstream interpretations thereof.

So, while there is truth to the view that Shari'a has a strict penal code, it is not the whole truth, nor does it define the entirety of Shari'a. As the backbone of a person's way of life, Shari'a is an entire system dealing with different aspects of life, from state law to the personal details of everyday life. It is, in other words, the "ordained way" of the religion of Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for posting this, @Debater Slayer .

You remind me of the often-repeated claim that Islaam is a complete way of life.

It feels like Shari'a is a major reason why, and that while the interpretations of what that entails in practice are likely to vary, it is at least nominally contradictory and probably naive to attempt to have Islaam without Shari'a (or vice-versa).

Then again, I also get the sense that it is a bit misleading to directly compare "western" judicial law with Shari'a. The premises, the underlying assumptions and requisites and perhaps to a significant extent even the goals are not entirely alike. And that, I must assume, causes considerably unease and confusion from both sides of the fence.

I wonder how it sounds to the random, average Muslim to hear for the first time of the principle of secularism in Western societies.

It may well sound a direct contradiction of terms - a system of laws that insists on disconnecting itself from any creeds and religious systems. I can almost glimpse a scene of family members commenting among themselves how insane those westerners must be to even consider such a thing. Do they like running blind and lacking any clear reference for their societies' values, or what?

Meanwhile, I am never entirely sure that I understand what Shari'a is or means. Most accounts are fairly coherent in claiming that it is a system of laws and other societal parameters that, in essence, aim to direct the behavior of Muslims so that they don't stray too far from what pleases God according to the revelation of the Qur'an. Since so many millions of Muslims live under or hope to establish some interpretation of it, I must assume that it sounds logical and appealling for many people. Recent years' interactions suggest that a significant part of that appeal may be the promise of a central, reliable, literally perfect and god-given set of parameters and references.

It is such an alien idea to me that for a very long time I kept expecting people to immediately explain to me, without any asking or prodding, why it would be perceived as reasonable. Apparently not too many people - or at least not too many Muslims - realize that such an explanation is necessary, and in fact badly needed.

There are very serious contradictions and dangers on even nurturing the idea that scripture and theistic doctrine might turn out to be reliable, effective sources of social and moral parameters for whole communities. Such an idea glosses over the complexities and the marvelous potentials of the variety of people in any reasonably sized community. It lends itself to all kinds of abuse and disrespect, and all but requires the existence of a social environment that is never quite at ease with independent thought and moral discernment.

People who rely too often on instructions on how they are expected to behave are not likely to develop in a very healthy way, for moral actualization can only exist when people allow themselves a modicum of daring and moral courage. Moral development can only grow so far while defining itself as a form of obedience to norms and rules; soon enough comes an actual, very real need to instead challenge those rules, learn and understand the consequences, and from there work to improve the rules somewhat, before again finding the need to transcend them and accept the consequences when necessary.

In a nutshell: social rules and laws have a role, but even theoretically that role is just way too limited to be capable of holding the responsibility for the well-being of sizeable communities. Personal responsibility and moral courage are in fact necessary.

 

[icehorse]

My short definition would be something like:

"Sharia is the legal branch of a (theocratic), Islamic society."

A key point is that Islam has theocracy as one of its important goals. Given that Muslims consider Islam to be without flaw, I have to question the sincerity of Muslims living in secular societies who claim to be loyal to the secular nature of that society. That seems to me to be an oxymoronic claim.

 

[idav]

Here is what wiki says. It does encompass a whole system of morality but there is a legality to it.

Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.

Sharia - Wikipedia

Like what got passed in UK.
The UK's Sharia 'courts'

 

[firedragon]

My short definition would be something like:

"Sharia is the legal branch of a (theocratic), Islamic society."

A key point is that Islam has theocracy as one of its important goals. Given that Muslims consider Islam to be without flaw, I have to question the sincerity of Muslims living in secular societies who claim to be loyal to the secular nature of that society. That seems to me to be an oxymoronic claim.

Not quite right mate.

Sharia is personal. You can make it societal and thats what they have done.

There is no one book called Shariah. Shariah simply can vary according to what as a person you would like to pick and choose from old books, ahadith, tafsirs and Quran. Each person picks what he likes. That is why countries like Saudi Arabia is so tyrannical while many other countries are secular.

Islam per say does not have theocracy as one of its important goals. Yes, Muslims may consider such but the statement is absolutely wrong.

I personally like the Quranic interpretation of the deen or system. You should study that in the context of the Quran itself. Very different to what you have been painted with.

Cheers.

 

[LuisDantas]

Given that Muslims consider Islam to be without flaw, I have to question the sincerity of Muslims living in secular societies who claim to be loyal to the secular nature of that society. That seems to me to be an oxymoronic claim.

That is a reasonable wariness to have, although I suspect that things are somewhat more complex in practice.

Most Muslims seem to either be genuinely uninterested in politics or instead to trust that the necessary changes will be made to happen in due time as God wishes. That, by its turn, may or may not include some form of specific expectation of concrete happenings to build a path for that change.

Out of the top of my mind, there is a fair variety of possible stances for Muslims living in secular societies.

• There are, of course, those who feel unconfortable with secularism and can't wait to see it replaced by Shari'a. Which is not to say that they will be many, nor that most of those will be very passionate about it. Quite on the contrary. But most of them will be at least somewhat supportive of attempts at establishing a theocracy, mainly because they sincerely if naively believe that to be a good and desirable thing.
• Many others will have various degrees of confort with a secular society while simultaneously holding either a vague or a solid belief that Shari'a would somehow be better anyway. This group will be perhaps the most difficult to predict. While they may well personally have no issue with secularism, they are not expected to go out of their way in order to protect it, if they even want to protect it in the first place.
• An intriguing, likely yet almost clandestine possibility is that some difficult-to-gauge percentage of Muslims do not actually want Shari'a as such, yet lack the willingness to say so outright. It may be difficult to muster the courage to tell family and friends that one disapproves of their hopes and goals. Besides, at the individual level it may easily appear to be unnecessary or pointless as well. Why become a "troublemaker" on the eyes of loved ones if odds are that there will be no significant changes in the greater scheme of things anyway?
• Then, of course, there are probably at least a few "cultural Muslims" somewhere out there. People who have been raised in at least nominally Muslim environments and have learned Islaamic concepts and language, even if they do not necessarily value or believe much or all of it. Still, even if only out of sheer necessity to communicate with their families, they will nonetheless use Islaamic concepts and references often. This is by far the most hypothetical of those groups. What little I know hints that while cultural Muslims probably exist in fair quantities, they tend to keep their stance fairly secret and, in some rare cases, to leave Islaam and even theistic belief entirely. Apparently it is not very usual for Islaamic social environments to be receptive to overt lack of interest in their traditional beliefs. Considerable peer pressure exists to either have or pretend to have a measure of overt interest in those beliefs. It would not surprise me to learn that many Muslims are literally unable to understand and accept that someone from their families might turn out to be an unbeliever for no particular reason.

 

[icehorse]

Not quite right mate.

I've read the Quran mate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not a Muslim here, but I think Islam is not a system that stays separate from state political systems. It has everything to do with a country's policies. There is also absolutely no question in Islam that unbelievers burn in hell forever with no take-backs. It is not an optional teaching. This makes politics nothing important compared to beliefs. Dying doesn't matter. Living barely matters at all. All that matters is going to heaven, and so any policy or country that at all interferes with belief is a policy or a country that is causing people to go to hell.

I think this, because I once believed that unbelievers would go to hell for all of eternity. In such a situation, I also could not rest while the government in any way interfered with belief in God. I could not accept anything irreligious in the air around me, such as secular radio, secular television or secular laws. It would be inhuman of me not to care about the eternal damnation of other people.

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam per say does not have theocracy as one of its important goals. Yes, Muslims may consider such but the statement is absolutely wrong.

I find your post generally over-optimistic regarding personal freedoms, but this statement in particular jumped to my attention.

Would you like to elaborate on your view of why Islaam does not have theocracy as a goal, and perhaps also why many Muslims misunderstand that part?

I personally like the Quranic interpretation of the deen or system. You should study that in the context of the Quran itself. Very different to what you have been painted with.

That may well be, but this statement of yours is unfortunately not very informative.

I take it that Deen is this concept, which is hard to translate in one word? The wiki article implies that possible translations include "Creed", "submission" (to social or presumably divine plans and expectations), "acceptance" (of the status quo and one's role in it) or even "Dharma".

Din (Arabic) - Wikipedia

That may be significantly different from our perceptions, but this really needs some elaboration. For instance, it is not at all clear whether you are talking about something that exists in practice or of some abstract ideal.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In the Qur'an, the word shari'a means "an ordained way" or "a defined religious path":

Interesting post. Islam has been around many centuries. What would be a good example of a nation or empire in your opinion where Sharia has been implemented successfully? Do you have an example where it has been applied contrary to the spirit that Muhammad would have intended? Thank you in advance for answering my questions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I accidentally erased a fairly long comment on your questions, @adrian009 , but perhaps that is for the best. That will encourage me to go straight to the point.

I assume that you are well aware of how often and pointlessly discussions arise on whether any given community or government is "truly" Muslim, I don't think it will be any easier to reach consensus on what constitutes a "succesful" implementation of Shari'a. Not only because Shari'a is not that distinct from Islaam itself, but because it is of the nature of Islaam to presume divine, unquestionable and eternal perfection to its principles and to blame any and all problems to the human, earthly implementations of those, no matter what.

By all indications, Shari'a can only be fairly described as very authoritarian, even all-out repressive in nature. It can even be said to be inimical to personal freedoms, as it keeps reminding people of supposedly god-given duties, obligations, and expectations. It is no accident that to this day there is no true room for even discussing the legitimacy of homoaffectivity in Muslim societies, for instance.

So, at the face of it, there is really no good reason to doubt that Muhammad or even the Qur'an would fully approve of most of the attempts at establishing Shari'a since his time. I can certainly think of no obvious reason why, say, current Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Lybia, Iran and Iraq shoud not be considered fair implementations of Shari'a. Or, for that matter, Taliban Afghanistan, the Ottoman Empire, ISIS.

Sure, none of those are perfect societies, not by a long shot. And that is probably why you ask. But Shari'a-based societies are not supposed to be perfect except according to the promises of Islaam.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sharia is a fact that even muslims hate.

Excuse me? Are you sure about this?

It sounds vaguely unlikely.

 

[Nakosis]

Excuse me? Are you sure about this?

It sounds vaguely unlikely.

Some Muslims hate it, though I guess that makes them ex-Muslims. I think though, I'm agreeing with you. I don't care if someone chooses for themselves to follow Sharia law as long as there's no expectation that anyone else needs to follow it nor respect any of it's tenants.

Also, someone wants to define Sharia law, I don't think they can do that for all Muslims or perhaps even for anyone other than themselves. Ask 10 religious folks about the truth of God's/Allah's law and you'll get 12 different answers.

Religious leaders are free to interpret the Bible/Quran as best they see fit for whatever goal motivates them. An ideology of peace or hostile takeover, depends on which Muslim you ask.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also, someone wants to define Sharia law, I don't think they can do that for all Muslims or perhaps even for anyone other than themselves. Ask 10 religious folks about the truth of God's/Allah's law and you'll get 12 different answers.

While I see your point, the fact remains that plenty of Muslim governments past and current make the attempt anyway. There has never been any shortage of Islaamic courts.

 

[Nakosis]

While I see your point, the fact remains that plenty of Muslim governments past and current make the attempt anyway. There has never been any shortage of Islaamic courts.

I agree, or I think I'm agreeing with you, this is bad. Regardless the interpretation, just on the principle that we should not let religious ideology govern our civil laws.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, or I think I'm agreeing with you, this is bad. Regardless the interpretation, just on the principle that we should not let religious ideology govern our civil laws.

I guess we are in agreement. But I don't think it is quite possible for Muslims to agree as well.

Well, not without putting their status as Muslims into question, anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

you are not excused.I am so sure about this. I am from Turkey.

Please tell me more.

 

[icehorse]

you are not excused.I am so sure about this. I am from Turkey.

awe-some!!

 

[Dawnofhope]

I accidentally erased a fairly long comment on your questions, @adrian009 , but perhaps that is for the best. That will encourage me to go straight to the point.

I assume that you are well aware of how often and pointlessly discussions arise on whether any given community or government is "truly" Muslim, I don't think it will be any easier to reach consensus on what constitutes a "succesful" implementation of Shari'a. Not only because Shari'a is not that distinct from Islaam itself, but because it is of the nature of Islaam to presume divine, unquestionable and eternal perfection to its principles and to blame any and all problems to the human, earthly implementations of those, no matter what.

By all indications, Shari'a can only be fairly described as very authoritarian, even all-out repressive in nature. It can even be said to be inimical to personal freedoms, as it keeps reminding people of supposedly god-given duties, obligations, and expectations. It is no accident that to this day there is no true room for even discussing the legitimacy of homoaffectivity in Muslim societies, for instance.

So, at the face of it, there is really no good reason to doubt that Muhammad or even the Qur'an would fully approve of most of the attempts at establishing Shari'a since his time. I can certainly think of no obvious reason why, say, current Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Lybia, Iran and Iraq shoud not be considered fair implementations of Shari'a. Or, for that matter, Taliban Afghanistan, the Ottoman Empire, ISIS.

Sure, none of those are perfect societies, not by a long shot. And that is probably why you ask. But Shari'a-based societies are not supposed to be perfect except according to the promises of Islaam.

Its must be frustrating to thoughtfully compose a response, then to have it vanish in a heartbeat!

I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. On the other hand I am a pragmatist, rather than a theorist. So if I'm looking at political or religious systems of thought the immediate question is "What does that look like?" or "If we applied that, what would happen?" or "What would be different?". We can consider these questions as applied to individuals, communities, and nations. It was approx. 610 CE that Muhammad began preaching His revelation from God. There is much to learn from history about the successes and failures of applying Muhammad's Teachings. Although there are problems with this analysis as you rightly point out, a theoretical analysis divorced from history and peoples lives will be far from satisfactory.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My short definition would be something like:

"Sharia is the legal branch of a (theocratic), Islamic society."

A key point is that Islam has theocracy as one of its important goals. Given that Muslims consider Islam to be without flaw, I have to question the sincerity of Muslims living in secular societies who claim to be loyal to the secular nature of that society. That seems to me to be an oxymoronic claim.

Here is what wiki says. It does encompass a whole system of morality but there is a legality to it.
Sharia - Wikipedia

Like what got passed in UK.
The UK's Sharia 'courts'

As I said in the OP, yes, Shari'a includes a penal code, and it covers different aspects of life—including state law—but Shari'a as a whole is not just a penal code by any means.