[ad_1]
The conversation
Don’t Blame Sharia For Islamic Extremism – Blame Colonialism
To warn that Islamic extremists want to impose a fundamentalist religious regime in American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of American states have attempted to ban Sharia law, an Arabic term often interpreted to mean Islamic law. These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to claim that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is not civilized. They also reflect ignorance of Sharia law, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “path” or “path”: it is a vast set of values and ethical principles taken from the Koran – the holy book of Islam – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia law differently. Yet this is not the first time the world has tried to figure out where Sharia law fits in the world order. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Britain, France and other European powers abandoned their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the leaders of the newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision with enormous consequences: should they build their value governments or embrace the European laws inherited from colonial domination? The Great Debate: Invariably, as my historical research shows, the political leaders of these young countries have chosen to retain their colonial justice system rather than impose a religious law. Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia, among others, all limited the application of Sharia law to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, as their colonial administrators had done. The rest of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law. To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence from the British, in 1956 at the National Archives and Libraries in the capital. Khartoum, and in interviews with Sudanese lawyers and officials, I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals were pushing for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state. They envisioned a progressive legal system in accordance with the principles of the Islamic faith, a system in which all citizens – regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity – could practice their religious beliefs freely and openly. “People are equal as the teeth of a comb,” Sudan soon wrote. -the future Supreme Court justice Hassan Muddathir in 1956, quoting the Prophet Muhammad, in an official memorandum that I found archived in the Sudan Library in Khartoum. “An Arab is no better than a Persian, and a white man is no better than a black man.” However, Sudan’s postcolonial rulers rejected these calls. They chose to keep the tradition of English common law as the law of the land. Why keep the laws of the oppressor? My research identifies three reasons why early Sudan sidelined Sharia: politics, pragmatism, and demographics. Rivalries between political parties in postcolonial Sudan led to a parliamentary deadlock, which made it difficult to pass the law. ‘significant legislation. Sudan therefore simply maintained the colonial laws already in force. There were also practical reasons for maintaining English common law. Sudanese judges had been trained by British colonial officials. They therefore continued to apply the principles of English common law to disputes heard in their courtrooms. The founding fathers of Sudan faced pressing challenges, such as creating the economy, establishing foreign trade and ending the civil war. They felt that it was simply not wise to overhaul the rather fluid governance system in Khartoum. The continued use of colonial law after independence also reflected Sudan’s ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. as today, Sudanese citizens spoke many languages and belonged to dozens of ethnic groups. At the time of Sudan’s independence, people practicing Sunni and Sufi traditions of Islam largely lived in northern Sudan. Christianity was an important faith in southern Sudan. The diversity of faith communities in Sudan meant that maintaining a foreign legal system – English common law – was less controversial than choosing which version of Sharia law to adopt. Why Extremists Triumphed My research reveals how the current instability in the Middle East and North Africa is, in part, a consequence of these postcolonial decisions to reject Sharia law. By maintaining colonial legal systems, Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that followed a similar path appeased the powers of the Western world, who were pushing their former colonies towards secularism. But they avoided solving difficult questions about religious identity and the law. This created a disconnect between the people and their government, and in the long run this disconnection helped fuel unrest among some citizens of deep faith, leading to sectarian calls to unite religion and state once and for all. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Somalia and Nigeria, these interpretations have triumphed, forcing extremist versions of Sharia law on millions of people; in other words, Muslim-majority countries held back the democratic potential of Sharia by rejecting it as a dominant legal concept in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving Sharia in the hands of extremists, but there is no no inherent tension between sharia, human rights and the rule of law. Like any use of religion in politics, the application of Sharia law depends on who uses it – and why. The leaders of countries like Saudi Arabia and Brunei have chosen to restrict women’s freedom and the rights of minorities. But many Islamic scholars and grassroots organizations interpret Sharia law as a flexible, rights-based, and equality-oriented ethical order. Religion and Law in the World Religion is woven into the legal fabric of many postcolonial nations, with varying consequences for democracy and stability.After its founding in 1948, Israel debated the role of Jewish law in society Israeli. In the end, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his allies opted for a mixed legal system combining Jewish law and English common law. In Latin America, the Catholicism imposed by the Spanish conquistadors underpins laws restricting abortion, divorce, and gay rights. And throughout the 19th century, American judges regularly invoked the legal maxim that “Christianity is part of the common law.” Lawmakers still regularly invoke their Christian faith when supporting or opposing a given law. The political extremism and human rights violations that occur in these places are rarely seen as inherent flaws in these religions. When it comes to Muslim-majority countries, however, Sharia takes the blame for regressive laws – not the people who adopt those policies in the name of religion. Fundamentalism and violence, in other words, are a problem. postcolonial inevitability. For the Muslim world, finding a system of government that reflects Islamic values while promoting democracy will not be easy after more than 50 years of failed secular rule. But building peace may require it. This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Read more: * What Sharia Means: 5 Questions Answered * How Islamic Law Can Confront Daesh * Trump’s travel ban is just one of many US policies that legalize discrimination against Muslims Mark Fathi Massoud has received scholarships from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, Fulbright-Hays, and the University of California. All opinions expressed here are the responsibility of the author.
[ad_2]
Source link