Here's what you need to know about Sharia:. What does its name mean? Read More. The word Sharia means "the path," or "a road that leads one to water. Katrina Pierson: Khan supports Sharia law he doesn't What's in Sharia? Sharia is based on Islam's holy book, the Quran, and the life of prophet Mohammed. The majority of it concerns the faith of the individual and how to practice Islam, along with guidance on when to pray and how to fast during Ramadan.
Taliban: Women to have rights within Islamic law Uncertain times ahead for Afghan women. What is Sharia? Sharia is Islam's legal system. Image source, Getty Images. What does this mean in practice? Sharia law decrees that men and women should dress modestly, although countries vary in how they interpret this. The city that wants mannequin heads removed.
How are rulings made? Judge Nenney Shushaidah is one of Malaysia's first female Sharia high court judges. The woman who decides if men can take a second wife. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time. The equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death Deut.
In a more secular context it is similar to arguing that the use of printed money in America is unconstitutional— ignoring the interpretative process of the Supreme Court. In reality, Sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims.
Muslim scholars historically agree on certain core values of Sharia, which are theological and ethical and not political. Moreover, these core values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of America. Muslims consider an interpretation of Sharia to be valid so long as it protects and advocates for life, property, family, faith, and intellect.
Muslim tradition overwhelmingly accepts differences of opinion outside these core values, which is why Sharia has survived for centuries as an ongoing series of conversations. Sharia has served Muslims who have lived in every society and in every corner of the planet, including many Americans who have lived in our country from before our independence down to the present day.
Recent statements from Muslim religious authorities, such as the Amman Message, show the dynamic, interpretive tradition of Islam in practice. In fact, the Amman Message is a Sharia-based condemnation of violence. It is surprising that a group claiming to be invested in American national security would suggest that we make nonviolent engagement criminal.
And the authors propose doing so with no sense of irony. The authors have already conceded that even mainstream Muslims espouse Sharia. It is no secret that many Christians interpret their own faith to mean that non-Christians are destined for Hell. Is this too a form of supremacism? Not all Muslims subscribe to the theological concept of taqiyya, however. In the face of non—Muslim assumptions about their oppression, increasingly many Muslim women in the West and beyond are describing their religion, at its origins, as one of female liberation.
This is well documented in a range of recent studies, such as by Shelina Janmohamed [16] and Philip Lewis and Sadek Hamid. Of course we must be careful here. Moreover, undoubtedly there are clear differences between the rights of men and women in some areas of fiqh that offend the Western assumption that everyone should have identical rights.
But they are controversial and are sometimes accused of gender discrimination. In certain circumstances, primarily business disputes, Muslims are able to settle their affairs under Islamic legal norms, via the English law rules on arbitration.
The Arbitration Act allows people in a dispute formally to agree to have their issue resolved by a third party of their choice, the arbitrator. For a number of years Muslims have been making use of this process through an organisation called the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal MAT , which settles commercial disputes following Islamic principles but in a way that conforms with English law. The vast majority of people who use their services are women, and their primary activity is facilitating the granting of a religious divorce to Muslim women.
Occasionally, when a Muslim woman seeks an end to her religious marriage nikah , her husband may refuse to agree to the divorce. This puts the woman in a very difficult situation, because in Britain a nikah formed within Britain has no legal standing, unlike for example church marriages.
This problem is compounded by the fact that many British Muslims do not get their religious marriages registered officially, often due to misunderstandings about the status of the nikah in English law. With no civil marriage, women stuck in these situations have even less recourse to help from the courts. Women in such situations are in limbo.
Abandoned by their husbands, they are considered unmarried in the eyes of the state and so cannot get financial help, but see themselves and are seen by their community as still married and unable to move on. Sometimes it will try to reconcile the couple, since the preservation of marriage is preferable to divorce in Islam.
But if reconciliation is impossible, the council will usually push the husband to grant the divorce. Sometimes, the council may declare an annulment of the marriage faskh unilaterally, for example if there is evidence of abuse, if the husband refuses to engage, or if a civil divorce is already under way.
The councils are clearly providing a needed service for these women. But there was also evidence of bad practice. In some councils, there are problems which disadvantage or even put at risk the women they are trying to help. Some insisted on mediation between the couple as a preliminary step in the process, which could be entirely inappropriate if the relationship was abusive.
Sometimes the mediation could involve intrusive questioning about the relationship, or could be drawn out for several months. Some councils lacked proper safeguarding procedures, and few had women as actual panel members with some notable exceptions.
It recommended that legislation should be amended to require civil marriage to take place before or at the same time as an Islamic religious marriage, and to enable judges to refuse to grant a civil divorce to Muslim couples until the husband has granted his wife a religious divorce.
These changes would help Muslim women in the future. Recently it was reported that the government is exploring potential legal changes to ensure that Muslims get civil marriages, as suggested by the commission.
It has argued that facilitating even the self—regulation of the councils could be seen as endorsing them as an alternative to the civil courts. Regulation is clearly needed, but that is unlikely to happen without some state encouragement even at arms—length. Ultimately, this issue raises difficult questions about the extent to which religious groups should be free to operate their own legal institutions, and the extent to which such institutions should be regulated by the state.
Banning the councils would not deal with the underlying problem creating the demand for their services and may drive them underground, making discriminatory practices more likely and increasing the risk to vulnerable women. The state is only allowed to interfere with them in limited circumstances, for example in order to protect the rights of others, and it must do so in a proportionate way. For some readers, that may seem like a legalistic loophole that could excuse the government from taking more firm action.
0コメント