Sharia (Islamic Law) is NOT Holy

41 Responses to “Sharia (Islamic Law) is NOT Holy”

1. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 9:16 am

   The author writes:

   “True, the West, and particularly America, has a great deal to answer for. And Muslims are quick to point a finger at the injustices committed by American and European foreign policies and hegemonic tendencies.”

   And that’s where I start disagreeing with him.

   I do not see the “injustices” American and European foreign policies and “hegemonic tendencies” have committed.

   I never did find imperialism particulatly unjust, given that it brought stable government and relative peace to areas of the world that were, to put it bluntly, uncivilised before. And I am referring to both European and Arab/Muslim imperialism. Most of humanity’s great achievements came forth from the great empires.

   And so did most of humanity’s great evils. The Nazi empire, the Japanese empire, the Russian and Soviet empires brought injustice. But the British empire brought civilised law and the abolition of slavery among other achievements.

   The Muslim empire was at its height one of the largest empires in the world. I don’t think Muslims can point the finger at European countries and call them imperialists.

   In the last hundred years European and American foreign policy (with the French being late) towards the Muslim world tended to be two-pronged:

   1. Give those countries independence as quickly as possible.

   2. Treat their little oddities, including stoning adulterers and murdering children, as parts of their culture and don’t act.

   There are certainly nations in the world who have been victims of imperialism. But the Arabs are not among the victims. The Arabs are among the imperialists.

2. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 9:38 am

   He does make many good points though:

   “The totalitarian vision of Islam as a State thus transforms Muslim politics into a metaphysics: in such an enterprise, every action can be justified as ‘Islamic’ by the dictates of political expediency as we witnessed in revolutionary Iran.”

   He makes a good point about the divine too. He says that only the Quran can be said to be divine in Islam. And that is true. The beauty of the Abarahmic religion lies not in the huge number of holy things it features, but in the lack of them. Monotheism replaced religions that had hundreds of “gods”, lots of holy places, holy trees, plants, people etc. The truth Abraham realised was that the world is fairly normal, and not everything is holy.

3. Drima on September 19th, 2007 9:52 am

   Andrew, when I began to read the article, I was about to dismiss it as biased after observing what you mentioned in your first comment. However he proceeds with many solid points and doesn’t resort to self-victimhood. It’s the overall premise which I heartily agree with and support. The trouble is, too many Muslims consider Sharia to be “holy” and as such unquestionable when it comes to reform.

   Only the Quran is divine.

4. Roman Kalik on September 19th, 2007 10:17 am

   I liked the article overall, even with the questionable beginning. The remaining 95% were very interesting and informative.

5. Sheema on September 19th, 2007 10:19 am

   Drima, Ziauddin Sardar has been a long-time hero of mine. Although I may not agree with everything he says, I do think that he is absolutely brilliant.

   His relentless deconstruction of modern Islam is refreshing and simply eye-opening. It was after reading his “Introducing Muhammad” book that it finally dawned on me that there was more to Islam than what I had been taught at school, and he made me realise that there was a whole LOT of questioning to be done by modern Muslims.

   If you’re not acquainted with his work, I highly recommend that you start reading his writings - starting with the aforementioned book, and also “Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Skeptical Muslim”. He can be a bit verbose and has a tendency to ramble sometimes, but his heart’s in the right place.

   Incidentally, he’s also written a book about KL: “The Consumption of Kuala Lumpur”.

6. Peter on September 19th, 2007 12:21 pm

   “The only thing that remains constant in Islam is the text of the Qur’an itself”

   Why does Ziauddin Sardar abstain from directing his critical analysis towards the Qur’an itself? Seems inconsistent to me.

7. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 12:26 pm

   Drima,

   I see we pretty much understood the article in the same way, applying even the same logic to understanding it.

   I agree with you that, in Islam, the Quran is divine.

   But I am not sure whether the Tanakh (Tora and rest of Jewish Bible) and the Christian Bible would not also have a “divine” status in Islam, since Muhammed made it clear that the Jewish and Christian religions were also true. The Quran “corrects” and confirms a few stories and laws told in the Bible.

   Assuming these statements, which I base on my reading of the Quran:

   1. Christianity and Judaism are based on the truth.

   2. Some specific claims of the Bible are wrong (as per the Quran).

   3. Some specific claims of the Bible are true (as per the Quran).

   Does that not mean that the Bible is divine too, at the very least the parts that the Quran confirms and possibly all the parts that the Quran does not deny since the Christian and Jewish religions are true religions?

   How do (educated, orthodox) Muslims see that matter? Is the Tora divine and binding for Jews or not?

   As for Sharia and other Islamic writings that came after the Quran, to believe that they are divine means to believe that somebody else after Muhammed had the gift of prophecy. I don’t think Islam allows such an assumption or belief.

8. Drima on September 19th, 2007 12:45 pm

   Peter, because the article focuses on Sharia (Islamic law), not the Quran itself. Why is that inconsistent?

   By the way for those interested in the history of Islamic law, check this out.

9. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 12:45 pm

   “Why does Ziauddin Sardar abstain from directing his critical analysis towards the Qur’an itself? Seems inconsistent to me.”

   It’s not inconsistent at all. He starts with the assumption that the Quran is the word of G-d. He is trying to prove that Sharia is not.

   Hence his critical analysis is targeted at that which he wants to disprove and not at that which he knows to be true.

10. Peter on September 19th, 2007 1:48 pm

    To me it´s evident, one could place the Qur’an in its historical context and explore it´s origin. Obviously it would imply a comprehensive knowledge of history and a taste for critical thinking.
    Ziauddin Sardar demonstrates those qualities in his analysis of Sharia. But why stop when it comes to the Qur’an? It would be interesting to learn something new.

    To others the Qur’an is divine. But why suddently stop the critical thinking? You might as well say that Sharia is devine (as some do) and not a result of history and context.

    I think we are going in circles

11. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 2:06 pm

    “To me it´s evident, one could place the Qur’an in its historical context and explore it´s origin.”

    Go ahead.

    “To others the Qur’an is divine. But why suddently stop the critical thinking?”

    How do you know he didn’t already analyse the Quran and simply arrived at the conclusion that it is G-d’s word?

12. Howie on September 19th, 2007 2:36 pm

    Don’t we have the same problem with Torah vs. all the commentary or “halacha” which is the Jewish version of Sharia I guess or that hadiths etc.?

    Isn’t it the same thing with the Bible and various Christian canons?

    And bottom line, we all interpret our “divine” books or accept others intepretations, so I guess we all practice “sharia”.

    Another complicated problem…but me…I don’t think Sharia is divine and I don’t believe the canons nor the Halacha were through divine inspiration…just people’s opinions, some that might hit the “Truth”

13. DZA on September 19th, 2007 3:18 pm

    you know what would really make Islam right? removing the bullshit called Sunnah from it
    by sunnah i mean the “authentic” book of bukhari.. that thing is a disgrace and yet people still blv in it more than the quran itself
    what a shame, 1200 years and muslims still taking it as truth

14. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 3:34 pm

    “Don’t we have the same problem with Torah vs. all the commentary or “halacha” which is the Jewish version of Sharia I guess or that hadiths etc.?”

    No.

    First of all, most of what the Tora commands to believe affects Jews only. Whether Jewish law is G-d-given or not doesn’t change the fact that it is Jewish law.

    The Tora remains valid, whether dictated by G-d or written by someone (or a group) inspired by G-d or human invention.

    I don’t think the idea that commentary is the word of G-d was ever widespread among Jewish communities.

    “Isn’t it the same thing with the Bible and various Christian canons?”

    No. The Christians included letters and writings of all kinds in their “New Testament”. I don’t think they say G-d wrote any of it. People wrote about G-d (and Jesus), G-d did not write anything new Himself. What Jesus said was written down by other people, his followers, and I don’t think Christians have ever claimed anything else.

15. The Raccoon on September 19th, 2007 8:09 pm

    Andrew - the ultra-Orthodox Jews consider Halacha to be more or less unquestionable, save for some minor interpretations… rather like assorted Islamic fatwas. I still can’t get over that moronic Rabbi who decided that Eilat is not part of Israel.

    And by the way… even though Jewish Law applies exclusively to Jews (with the notable exception of the 7 Noahide Laws), it’s still largely a crappy piece of work and I wouldn’t want it practiced on me or anyone. Then again, I can say the same about the majority of secular laws (why the bloody hell shouldn’t I smoke weed if I damn well want to?! ).

16. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 8:25 pm

    Raccoon,

    I know about them. But they are very much not in the majority among Jews and a fairly new phenomenom. Plus most Rabbis I have met were not morons.

    Jewish law does not, I think, outlaw the smoking of weed. It’s like looking for the Biblical term for Value Added Tax. Some laws are simply man-made and were never part of G-d’s plan. :-))

17. Andrew Brehm on September 19th, 2007 8:29 pm

    Drima,

    I think you would have enjoyed observing the three of us, Racoon, Roman, and myself, in Tel Aviv that evening.

    We seem very much to represent three different extremes. Raccoon is very secular, Roman very religious, and I was very much in the middle.

18. Roman Kalik on September 19th, 2007 9:13 pm

    Raccoon, for religious purposes, Eilat is not part of Israel. The mitzvos (religious requirements of a Jew) that have to do with the Holy Land, like Shmita (no farming the land every 7th year), do not apply there. The same is true for most of the Arava region of the Negev. The area simply wasn’t part of the Biblical Israel. Don’t make more of that than what it’s really is, man.

    By the way, guys, what do you think of this: http://egyptreality.blogspot.com/2007/09/trip-to-eilat-elat-eylat.html

    Drima, I oversimplified on Sudan in that discussion because it wasn’t the topic. In any case, Amre’s living in Dreamland. A bad Dreamland. And hopefully Isis will have fun in Eilat.

19. Roman Kalik on September 19th, 2007 9:29 pm

    Raccoon, about the Halacha. The Torah (not mere Rabbis) clearly states that a person who breaks the rules of the Shabbos (Sabbath) must die. The same is true for pre-maritial sex.

    And yet, I do not see a Rabbinical Court issue such a verdict. This is because the perception regarding this matter changed a long time ago. We left such punishments to the Almighty, should He see fit to give them. Be it in this world or the next.

    Halacha is very fluid. What was set over 2000 years ago by the Great Gathering can change, merely by looking at it in a slightly different manner. If we can change the way we look at the perceived Laws of Divinity, who said that the Laws of Men with Divine Mandate are somehow stronger?

20. Howie on September 20th, 2007 12:01 am

    AB

    don’t think the idea that commentary is the word of G-d was ever widespread among Jewish communities.

    You are very wrong…Orthodox believe “Torah” included Mishan, Talmud and even Zoar(especially in Chabad’s case)were all given at the same time at Mt. Siani).

    You are also wrong about Christian canons. The Catholic Church believes the Church Fathers and the Pope were/are infallible and their intepretations are divinely inspired.

    I think the same holds for sunnah and hadith.

    I am not against “wise” leaders studying and intepreting for us…mullahs, rabbis ,priests…but I DO think it is BS that they have a special hotline to the Holy One…baruch hu u’barch haShemo.

21. Drima on September 20th, 2007 1:46 am

    From Islamic law to Jewish law.

22. Howie on September 20th, 2007 5:19 am

    From Islamic law to Jewish law.

    And Christian…

    I am talking about the shared concept…that it started with one holy book…then the interpreters step in and then the interpreters of the interpreters…etc.

    The basic thing we all (those of us that give a shit about these matters anyhow) making decisions about what God gave and what Man fancified, hallucinated, manipulated etc.

    To me…it is one heck of an important question and enormously complex with enormous reprecussions.

    Of course there is the Raccoon way…smoke a joint and say screw it (I STILL don’t believe a Russian exists that is allergic to alcohol…Russian my ass)I bet he is a Mormon raccoon.

23. Finnpundit on September 20th, 2007 6:55 am

    Oh, give it up, y’all. God is a superstitious concept borne out of psychological longing for an ultimate parental figure to make sense of an existence experienced by freakishly thinking yet brutal animals, namely, us.

    Our longing will not make God exist, though we might try with all our hearts.

    The real challenge is to imagine the goals of a life conducted with the assumption that God does not exist.

    Only that subject is worthy of debate.

24. Roman Kalik on September 20th, 2007 8:07 am

    Finnpundit? That’s your opinion and belief. You are entitled to both. Some of us here believe in something different. Kindly refrain from patronizing us as if we were infantile morons.

25. Andrew Brehm on September 20th, 2007 8:41 am

    “Orthodox believe “Torah” included Mishan, Talmud and even Zoar(especially in Chabad’s case)were all given at the same time at Mt. Siani).”

    Never heard that story before.

    Most orthodox I know will not even let you refer to the entire Tanakh as “Torah”.

    The Mishna was written by Rabbis called “Tanna” (Singular). The word ends on Aleph, which makes me think that it is an Aramaic, not Hebrew word. If it is Aramaic, it means that Mishna was produced a long time after the Torah.

    I doubt that the Babylonian Talmud was produced at Mt. Sinai either.

    Perhaps you have a source for your ideas?

    “You are also wrong about Christian canons. The Catholic Church believes the Church Fathers and the Pope were/are infallible and their intepretations are divinely inspired.”

    I am not wrong. The Catholic Church believes that G-d, via Jesus, gave the Church Fathers the power to make decisions. They believe that a decision by a Pope is as true as a decision made by G-d. But they do not claim that the Pope is a prophet or copies G-d’s statements.

    You have interesting views on the religions and I would love to learn about your sources.

    “I think the same holds for sunnah and hadith.”

    And you are wrong again. That was sort of the point. In Islam, there is no prophet after Muhammed. How can anybody after Muhammed be inspired by G-d (in the sense that he is able to write down NEW statements allagedly made by G-d)?

26. Andrew Brehm on September 20th, 2007 10:18 am

    Howie,

    I think you are confusing the Talmud with the Oral Torah. The orally transmitted tradidions have only been written down a LONG time after the Torah was written.

27. Andrew Brehm on September 20th, 2007 10:20 am

    Howie,

    I think you are confusing the Talmud with the Oral Torah. The orally transmitted tradidions have only been written down a LONG time after the Torah was written. The Mishna records the oral traditions but was not created or received at Mt. Sinai when the Tora was.

28. Roman Kalik on September 20th, 2007 11:52 am

    Drima, can you please check if there is a comment of mine awaiting moderation? Or filed as spam? There was another reply that I wrote here yesterday, and it isn’t up.

29. The Atheist Who Thought He Was God : The Sudanese Thinker on September 20th, 2007 1:16 pm

    […] I LOVE Dilbert! This one is for all the Atheists in the house. It’s related to the previous discussion. […]

30. Roman Kalik on September 20th, 2007 1:20 pm

    Thanks, man! Reply’s up now.

31. Drima on September 20th, 2007 1:28 pm

    No problem bro.

32. Howie on September 20th, 2007 1:51 pm

    AB

    Well…you are wrong my friend

    http://www.jewfaq.org/beliefs.htm

    Read #8 for starters…But I have read this in many sources and have heard it directly from the mouths of Orthodox rabbis…including my own rabbi who, for example, on Rosh HaShanah stated that the Zohar was given on Mt. Siani as well.

33. Drima on September 20th, 2007 2:18 pm

    Ya, my Rabbi said the same thing too. Hmmm… strange…

34. Andrew Brehm on September 20th, 2007 2:43 pm

    Howie,

    You are again confusing the Oral Torah with the Talmud.

    The Talmud is the written version of the Oral Tora plus commentary written down within the last 2000 years.

    I think we would save some time if you simply accepted that I don’t see the Talmud and the Oral Tora as the same thing, as I have said a few times (and as you have ignored all along).

    As far as I know it is Jewish belief that the written and oral Torah were given at the same time. But it is not Jewish belief that the Talmud was written at that time.

    Quoting the site:

    “In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

    Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.”

35. Howie on September 20th, 2007 3:37 pm

    AB-

    you are missing my point. And I know the difference between Oral tradition that was codified by Caro etc etc.

    My point is this…many Orthodox Jews accept Misnah, Talmud, even Zohar and other commentaries (up to about the 1700’s) as Torah. As somehow divinely revealed…not just opinions and guides but all of it somehow divinely inspired.

    Anyhow…you don’t accept my point…but try asking say, a few Chabad rabbis or yeshiva students about this question. For those who believe Halacha is binding, then, de facto, they must believe it is the word of God. Otherwise they are just rabbi worshipping

    And it is a critical issue to this entire discussion…the bottom line of which is “who, if anybody, has access to God’s word”. This is an issue throughout the religious world and has enormous impact.

36. nominally challenged on September 20th, 2007 5:55 pm

    Andrew -

    Avot I:1

    The first book of the Mishna (and of the Talmud) clearly states the belief that the oral law and the written law were given at the same time, but the oral law was only written down, in the form of the Mishna, later. However, the belief is that the Mishna is the self-same oral law given at Sinai. That is, as far as the Jewish faith is concerned, a basic principle.

    That the Talmud (Gemara) is an Aramaic commentary on the Hebrew Mishna is not in dispute.

    There are certainly people who believe, as Howie noted, that the Zohar was given at Sinai as well. Chabbad tend to subscribe to this belief, but they are not the only ones.

    However, to take Howie’s point, the word ‘Torah’, in religious circles, usually refers to the whole shebang: the actual first five books, the Mishna, the Gemara and all sorts of other things (including, in appropriate circles, the Zohar). When the orthodox ’study Torah’ in yeshivot, they are not merely studying the first five books of the Bible. For the most part, they will be studying the Talmud, and auxiliary books, since by that stage of learning, knowledge of the first five books is a given.

    And yes, Halacha, as redacted through the Talmud from its sources in the Mishna and the Torah, is often viewed by the orthodox as tantamount to the word of god.

37. The Raccoon on September 20th, 2007 7:13 pm

    Drima - LOL about your Rabbi

    The Joooz have occupied your comments space, bro

    And as for Ijtihad… we’ve discussed this and all right-thinking people seem to agree that a dynamic philosophy is better than a static one.

    The question that has bothered me (and still does) is one of Islam’s readiness to accept Ijtihad. Most Muslims are utterly ignorant about Islam; many Mullahs are psychotic bastards only interested in maintaining their grip over their brainwashed human herds… or so it seems.

    How much influence can a dude with ideas like his have?

    Especially compared with bastards like Khomeini or Bin Laden?

38. tommy on September 20th, 2007 8:48 pm

    you know what would really make Islam right? removing the bullshit called Sunnah from it
    by sunnah i mean the “authentic” book of bukhari.. that thing is a disgrace and yet people still blv in it more than the quran itself
    what a shame, 1200 years and muslims still taking it as truth

    Yes, this is similar to one of the reasons I’ve always found Christian fundamentalists funny: they elevate Paul’s teachings to the level of Christ’s teachings.

39. Drima on September 22nd, 2007 3:09 am

    “The Joooz have occupied your comments space, bro :P”

    LOL Raccoon, I don’t mind at all. I’m learning a lot.

    Tommy, welcome back man. It’s been a while!

40. Islam and Sexuality: “The Perfumed Garden” and Our Present Reality : The Sudanese Thinker on January 29th, 2008 10:41 am

    […] and in addition to that Muslims need to realize that the bulk of Islamic law hammered into our heads growing up is the non-homogeneous interpretations and opinions of many, […]

41. will on February 23rd, 2008 7:37 pm

    The Shari`ah is a human construction; an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context.

    That is a key phrase that muslims should remember. Sharia law is MAN MADE it doesnt come from a ‘god’. I wish muslims would spend more time trying to help & benefit society in more practical ways then trying to take over Governments & religions for the sake of ‘allah’.

    The West doesnt need more ethics, morals or a change in culture.

    We need to stop being afraid and simply work with what we are given with… BUT NOT SHARIA!

    Perhaps muslims wanting sharia law should go back to the Middle East & see how vastly different American, Western Freedoms are from sharia laws.

Leave a Reply