What’s wrong with Shari’ah Law? [Archives:2003/688/Opinion]

One of the most perplexing comments that one is confronted with is that of the many commentators in the Western press and media, especially in the United States, in which these commentators express an absolute rejection of Islamic Shari'ah?, as if it was the worst of evils. This unexplained prejudice has appeared extensively in the press especially more recently in discussions on the newly drafted Afghan Constitution and the yet to be drafted Iraqi Constitution. The amusing thing is that most of these commentators try to reflect knowledge of the implications of Shari'ah ordinances, when making these comments, but in actuality they are the least discerning when it comes to understanding Islam in general, let alone having any grasp of Islamic jurisprudence. However when they make these comments we are led to believe that the author is a Rhodes scholar on Islamic dogma and law, when in fact the comments are the result of an obvious prejudice towards anything to do with Islam. Examples of these comments: “the only worry is that the Afghan Constitution will be codiciled with the insistence that the Constitution should not conflict with Islamic Shari'ah”, or “the Iraqi Shiite clergy will insist that the Iraqi Constitution must be based on Islamic Shari'ah”, etc.
To most laymen reading such comments, the perception conveyed by such comments is to suppose that anything to do with Islamic Shari'ah is an intolerable no no that would lead to the end of the world, and must be avoided at all costs. In addition such comments reflect an obvious contempt towards Islamic jurisprudence.
Any faithful Moslem will insist that Islamic ordinances are based on Divine revelations and accordingly ordained by God Almighty. They are not subject to dispute by any God-fearing believer. In other words, no man is capable of suggesting that God's wisdom should be relegated and the comments of such critics should be given more serious thought. Thus a rejection of Shari'ah is a rejection of God's prescription for a just and equitable social regime, not to mention that a preposterous assumption that God's laws should be replaced by supposedly more superior mundane man-made laws is being promoted. Moreover, since the source of Shari'ah is one and the same Deity, these critics of Shari'ah are insisting that social well-being entails a total disassociation from the Creator, who, it should be noted, is the same Divinity believed in by Christians and Jews.
This is totally unacceptable to any faithful believer in God, let alone faithful Moslems (not just “radical Moslems”, or “Islamic clerics”, as anti-Shari'ah “pundits” would often call pro Shari'ah elements). With respect to an Islamic clergy, suffice it to say that these commentators tend to ignore the fact that there is no clergy in Islam. The Quran is clear on this and points out that clerical orders, or priesthoods, are man-instituted institutions that were never ordained by God. In Islam, there are scholars, or “Ulema”, who do not possess any spiritual authority or act as medians between believers and the Lord. These Ulema are usually well versed in the interpretation of the Quran and traditions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, PBUH, and are helpful in matters of litigation and as conscientious references for the proper understanding and application of Islamic dogma. These religious guides are usually well known in their communities and only those that have shown a respectable record of integrity, credibility and honesty will reach such venerable status. The overwhelming majority of Islamic Ulemas in most of the leading Islamic sects are open-minded and are usually keen on and advocate for the achievement of justice and the removal of all forms of oppression. The radical spate of so called “radical Ulemas”, who are said to follow orthodox fundamentalist orientations and who have gained more media attention of late are usually followers of the Wahhabi or extreme Salafi sects, are really a minority among the vast multitude of Ulemas (both Sunni and Shiite) in Moslem communities throughout the world. The former are quite heavily disputed by the latter and their knowledge of religious ordinances is highly suspect by most of the latter breed of Ulemas of most of the traditional Islamic sects. Yet the Western critics of Shari'ah seem to lob all Moslem Ulema in the category of the radical Ulemas, which is a serious misconception.
An important historical fact is that most modern Western legislation has its origins in Islamic jurisprudence, for it was Islam that introduced most of the modern concepts of social justice, freedom and even political participation; i.e., democratic government. In fact it is when Moslems abandoned the real effective application of Islamic Shari'ah that the Moslem world became subjected to gradual degradation of its social, political and economic prominence in the world and thus witnessed an overall degeneration of their social, political and economic conditions and eventually underdevelopment. On the other hand, the West was actually applying much of the concepts outlined in Shari'ah legislation, with more effectiveness than what most modern Moslem societies have failed to realize. The problem is not in Islamic Shari'ah, but rather the lack of finesse in the management of the affairs of the Moslem states, and the inability to institute the appropriate control measures that will ensure the proper conscientious application of the Shari'ah laws as ordained by God. However there is a trend towards devising the appropriate regimes that can achieve this. Iran represents the most successful institutional rendition of Government by Shari'ah ordinances, and notwithstanding the anti Iranian bias in the Western press, thanks to prodding by the heavy Zionist influence, many Moslems of the world are pleased by the results so far achieved by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its obvious acceptance by the Iranian people. In the end that is what really counts, isn't it?
——
[archive-e:688-v:13-y:2003-d:2003-11-24-p:opinion]