# data[].attributes.headline
A Short Course 1: What Is Shariah | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.subject
A Short Course 1: What Is Shariah | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Shariah?

Adherents to shariah are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to the survival of the Constitution of the United States. Shariah is based on the Quran, which Muslims believe is the "uncreated" word of Allah as dictated to the prophet Mohammed; hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed; and agreed interpretations by Islamic scholars. Shariah commands that Muslims carry out jihad indefinitely until the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, where shariah is not enforced, is brought under the domination of the Dar al Islam, or House of Islam (literally the House of Submission), where shariah is enforced.

Shariah commands both Islamic terrorism and pre-violent, "civilizational jihad" or "stealth jihad," depending on necessity and circumstances. Those who work to insinuate shariah into the United States are conspiring to subvert and replace the Constitution, because under shariah, freedom of religion and other civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution - and the very concept of man-made law - are incompatible with Islam.

Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under shariah, where Allah and only Allah has provided the law.

This is not a radical concept in Islam, but a fundamental tenet of the faith. Shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities - not simply fringe extremist elements who have supposedly "hijacked" the religion - to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice. All Muslims, regardless of where they live, must submit to be governed by shariah, a cradle-to-grave "complete way of life" that mandates social, cultural, military, religious and political norms.

Millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, but those who do submit to shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one. By offering little, if any, meaningful opposition to the shariah agenda and by meekly submitting to it, a large number of Muslim communities and nations generally exhibit an unwillingness to face the consequences of standing up to shariah's enforcers within Islam.

Shariah is a totalitarian ideology that controls all aspects of life. All are forced to submit to Islamic law as defined by theologians. Shariah institutionalizes discrimination against women, deprives people of freedom of expression and association, criminalizes sexual freedom, and incites hatred and violence against people of certain social groups. As manifested in countries officially ruled by Islamic law, shariah condones or commands abhorrent behavior, including underage and forced marriage, "honor killing" (usually of women and girls) to preserve family "honor," female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse, and even marital rape.

Islam requires all Muslims to wage jihad. Some interpret jihad as a personal struggle of self-discipline and self-sacrifice to improve oneself to glorify God. Others interpret it as holy war in pursuit of a global Islamic state known as a caliphate, ruled in accordance with shariah.

Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh in Arabic, forms the legal context for shariah and its rulings. Shariah scholars typically cite as authority for jihad any of the 164 verses of the Quran that specifically refer to jihad against non-Muslims in terms that include military expeditions, fighting enemies, or distributing the spoils of war. Among the most categorical of such Quranic entries and the most often cited as authoritative by the shariah scholars is the "Verse of the Sword." That verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then leave their way free to them; for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Quran 9:5)

Under the terms set down in the Quran, pagans or polytheists must convert or die. As for Jews and Christians, known in the Quran as the "People of the Book," the definitive prescription for their treatment is as follows: Fight them "until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29) Thus, Jews and Christians need not convert or be killed. They have a third option: Submit to Islam as second-class citizens or "dhimmis."

We inadvertently submit as dhimmis when we censor ourselves or one another to avoid "offending" Islam or Muslims. When we change our customs, rules and laws to conform with demands of Muslims who immigrate to our country. When we apologize unnecessarily for our country and our culture. We become dhimmis when we go along with demands by, say, a cleric who insists on offending the vast majority of our countrymen by building a mosque next to Ground Zero.

When we lose the ability to define our wartime enemy since 9/11, we become dhimmis. Our leaders do. Each of us does.

Little by little, we erode away our own rights, laws, customs and civilization by submitting as dhimmis. We eat away at our own national ideals, our own personal dignity, and the rights of those around us when we practice shariah-ordained dhimmitude.

Think this can't happen in America? Look at Europe, where a number of nations have become dhimmified to the point where shariah law is now practiced in enclaves or more broadly, side by side with the national law awaiting the day when - through demographics, political action, financial subversion or other means, the West's total submission is achieved.

In the next installment from Shariah: The Threat to America, we'll take a look at the connection between shariah and jihad - and how together they threaten each and every one of us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Short Course 1: What Is Shariah | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adherents to shariah are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to the survival of the Constitution of the United States. Shariah is based on the Quran, which Muslims believe is the "uncreated" word of Allah as dictated to the prophet Mohammed; hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed; and agreed interpretations by Islamic scholars.

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani

Islamic civilization, since the time of Prophet Muhammad (s) until now, is firmly founded on the concept of 'rule of law.' For that reason, the law is published and known, and citizens and courts are expected to uphold it. In addition, Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law - Shariah. If a Muslim citizen commits a religious violation, he is judged according to Islamic law. A non-Muslim citizen is judged in religious issues by the laws of his own faith.

Invoking Divine Principles and Human Reason

Islam is a complete package - a complete message and way of life. To fraction it into its component, then examine them individually, will yield little or no understanding of Islam's holistic whole. Inevitably aspects of Islam examined separately, without a wide-ranging grasp of its totality, will be taken in a fragmented context, in which case aspects may take on the appearance of extremism.

However, when viewed from a comprehensive perspective by any fair person, Islam will be found sensible in all its aspects and practices. Could it be otherwise for a faith that powers one of the greatest living civilizations - one whose dynamism and creativity supplied a foundation for countless aspects of modern society?

Shariah is the Islamic Law - the disciplines and principles that govern the behavior of a Muslim individual towards his or herself, family, neighbors, community, city, nation and the Muslim polity as a whole, the Ummah. Similarly Shariah governs the interactions between communities, groups and social and economic organizations. Shariah establishes the criteria by which all social actions are classified, categorized and administered within the overall governance of the state.

Shariah first establishes the patterns believers should follow in worshipping Allah: prayers, charity, fasting and pilgrimage.

Islam's law comprises a comprehensive outlook on life. As one looks from a satellite at this planet, the Shariah conceives of the earth as a single 'city' with diverse inhabitants-in modern parlance, a 'global village.' Islam looks to the benefit of the society as a whole from a general perspective and presents a theoretical model that if followed provides safety and protection for society.

Shariah literally means 'a well-trodden path to water,' the source of all life, representing the Path to Allah, as given by Allah, the Originator of all life.

Islamist Understanding of Shari'ah

Now a great problem today is that a new movement within Islam, the Islamist movement, has innovated a non-traditional approach to Shariah which vitiates all of the past approaches and establishes a rigid, hardline and non-pragmatic approach which vitiates all semblance of humaneness, sanity, moderation and decorum which constituted Islamic Law's traditional implementation over the past 14 centuries of history.

Islamist states take the letter of the law - this is 'Black letter law' without regard to precedence. As Christopher Houston asserts:

Indeed, the logic of the Shariah, with its minimal number of clear interdictions, and maximal scope for the interpretative extension of key precepts to particular situations, means that any freezing of the ulama's 'arbitrary' decisions arises not so much from the essential characteristics of the Shariah, but from the historic institutionalizing of a particular legal tradition or method of exegesis or from the hegemony of a particular interpretation. Whether this lack of institutional and conceptual closure ironically encourages modern Islamist states (Saudi Arabia?) or groups to force such closure is another question. Paradoxically, the provisionality of law-making allows some Islamist groups to interpret the Qur'ān as affirming a radical negation of human autonomy.

Traditional governments in Islam on the other hand, follow precedents established over many centuries -just as is done in the US - they do not follow absolute 'letter of the law.'

Olivier Roy sums up the position of traditional Islam when he writes:

The Shariahis never closed, for it is based not on a core of concepts, but rather on an ensemble of precepts which is at times general, at times precise, and which expands to include the totality of human acts through induction, analogy, extension, commentary, and interpretation.

Islam as a Complete Package - Three Aspects

Islam is a complete way of life, sent by Allah in the form of revelation by means of Prophet Muhammad (s). As such it covers the three essential needs of human life: physical, intellectual and spiritual. These three aspects of the faith are known individually as:

1 Islam - Divine law

3 Iħsān - Ethics and moral character.

The first aspect, Islam, deals primarily with the physical aspects of the faith, such as its obligations, prohibitions and recommended actions. This is the part of the faith governed by Shariah - Islamic law. This aspect cannot however be implemented by itself, but must complement the other two. When the Prophet (s) taught Islam to his followers, he taught them all these three aspects at once, in a natural and holistic approach.

Shari'ah's Primary Objective is Mercy

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ

And the Prophet (s) said, "The Most Merciful shows mercy to those who have mercy on others. Show mercy to those on earth, and the One above the heaven will show mercy to you."

From this, and many other source texts, one can summarize the primary objective of the Shariah, ( maqsad al-Shariah al-asasī) as Kamali has done:

The ulema [scholars of Islam] have, thus, generally considered Rahmah [Mercy] to be the all-pervasive objective of the Shariah and have, to all intents and purposes, used it synonymously with Maslaħah [benefit in everyday communal life].

Similarly, Schact observes:

... the underlying tendency of the Qur'ānic legislation was to favour the underprivileged; it started with enunciating ethical principles... This feature of Qur'ānic legislation was preserved by Islamic law, and the purely legal attitude, which attaches legal consequences to relevant acts, is often superseded by the tendency to impose ethical standards on the believer.

Since Mercy is the Shariah's primary goal, it is clear that this cannot be achieved if the believers who implement it are not embued with this essential quality.

When society is informed by spiritual values, the purpose of Shariah, to bring out mercy to mankind, will be natural manifestation of those values. When an individual's faith is informed by spiritual values his psyche and ethical compass will be balanced and his desire for immoral or criminal acts eliminated or reduced. Without such values, essential in removing the psychological illnesses and the societal ailments which afflict people in difficult physical situations, man becomes nothing more than a political animal and law becomes a means and an end, in-and-of itself.

Followers of Wahhabi movement, created by Muħammad ibn Abd al-Wahhāb (d. 1787), who make up the majority of implementers seeking 'Islamic' states today, reject the principles of spirituality, rather, they base their view of Islam purely on material aspects. Thus they see that the only approach to handling crime is to punish the perpetrator with a physical punishment.

Bases of Shari'ah - Revelation and Reason

The bases of Shariah are four: two are revelatory, coming from Allah, and include the two core sources, the Qur'ān, Islam's holy book, and the Sunnah (the practice and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s)); and two are based in rational endeavor, consensus ( ijma) and analogical juristic reasoning ( qiyās).

Fiqh-Application of Shari'ah in Real Life

The Shariah, based primarily on texts from Qur'ān and Sunnah, embodies broad, general rules that are immutable, not unlike today's modern societal rules: the sanctity of life, security and freedom of expression, and the inviolability of these rights. The adaptation of law according to time and circumstance is necessitated by changes in society, and the influx of various cultures and material conditions. Islam first came to one people with one lifestyle. As the religion spread and the borders of Muslim lands expanded, all of the different civilizations, each with their own codes of law, traditions and cultures, had to be incorporated into the Islamic polity. This was not achieved overnight and took great foresight on the part of Muslim jurists, being most elegantly brought out in the development of fiqh, the jurists' law.

Kamali states:

The primary sources of Islamic law are twofold: divine revelation () and human reason (). This dual identity of Islamic law is reflected in its two Arabic designations, and . Shariah bears a stronger affinity with revelation, whereas fiqh is mainly the product of human reason. Shariah literally means "the right path" or "guide," whereas fiqh refers to human understanding and knowledge. The divine Shariah thus indicates the path to righteousness; reason discovers the Shariah and relates its general directives to the quest for finding solutions to particular or unprecedented issues.

Kamali defines fiqh as a rational endeavor primarily based on speculative reasoning. Amplifying on this he says:

Fiqh is defined as the knowledge of the practical rules of the Shariah, which are derived from the Qur'ān and the Sunnah. The rules of fiqh are thus concerned with the manifest aspects of individual conduct. The practicalities of conduct are evaluated on a scale of five values: obligatory, recommended, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. The definition of fiqh also implies that the deduction of the rules of fiqh from the Qur'ān and the Sunnah is through direct contact with the source evidence and necessarily involves ... independent reasoning and intellectual exertion ().

Khalid Muhammad delineates the distinction between Divine Law (Shariah) and Jurisprudence ( fiqh) thus:

Shariah ... stands for the normative order that Muslims have developed as an Islamic way of life. Its translation as "Islamic law" is not adequate because Shariah covers a wider range of meanings than "law" usually does. Modern Muslim jurists often define Shariah as revealed or divine law in order to distinguish it from ... the Muslim jurists [have made] continuous efforts to keep Islamic law acceptable to the people by bringing the legal norms close to social norms [through fiqh, the jurists' law, which is jurists interpretation of Shariah, and qānūn, which is state law. This distinction aims to stress the divine nature and origin of Shariah in order to establish that its norms are binding because they are divine in origin fiqh localized in time and place]

Shari'ah's Foundations

Communal Interdependence

Islamic law is founded on the principle that individuals rely on other individuals. A single person cannot carry out every aspect of Shariah by himself, but needs other individuals that act as well, and from whose combined actions the society benefits as a whole. It is impossible for a person to reach perfection, but Islamic Shariah shows that one can reach perfection. How? By bringing all the people together. The society as a whole produces perfection which the individual by himself or herself cannot do. Through individuals striving for perfection and their interactions with each other under the Shariah, the entire society is refined.

This principle may be most clearly exemplified in the pilgrimage. A form of worship mandated for each individual, for whoever can afford it at least once in life, it nevertheless engages the entirety of society to accomplish it and it cannot be performed except as a community holding a global perspective. People gather in one place from around the world to fulfill this Divine command at the individual level, and altogether are successful at a single moment in affecting global changes. For that reason, Hajj has often been compared to an international assemblage, in which ideas, images and faith are gathered and shared in a vast revival of the community's dedication to Divine Service, and through service to Allah, service to humankind.

Objectives of the Law (Maqasid al-Shari'ah)

The overarching objectives of Shariah, where as mentioned above the overarching goal is Mercy, or the benefit of society ( maslaħah), are sometimes summarized under the following broad categories:

Shaykh Abd al-Ħalīm Maħmūd, a Shaykh of al-Azhar and one of the highest scholars in Islam in recent times, wrote:

Regarding the Objectives of Shariah, Kamali states:

The precedents of the leading Sahaba (Companions of the Prophet) indicate, on the other hand, that they saw the Shariah not only as a set of rules but also as a system of values, where the specific rules were the tangible manifestations of those overriding values... .it was not until the time of al-Ghazālī (d. 505H), and then al-Shatibi (d. 790H), that significant developments were made in the formulation of the theory of Al-Maqasid.

Levels of Observance

Al-Fārābī (d. 950 CE), a leader in Islamic political thought, expounded these ideas pertaining to the governance of different sizes of community:

As humanity expanded through the earth and inhabited all its areas, it resulted in the formation of different nations and cultures.We can categorize the approach of nations into two: the ideal ones who are able to observe the highest level of principles and rules and those who observe them only partially. Those who observe the highest level are divided into three categories:

Highest are those in which the whole global society agrees and works together in unity.

Second is the localized observance - a region, city or state of the society works together in unity while the rest does not.

At the lowest level we find a district or community in which harmony and cooperation are observed.

Al-Shātibī defined Shariah's levels from a different perspective:

Shariah law aimed to protect five basic human interests: religion, life, reproduction, property, and reason. He also found that these basic interests were universally recognized among all other nations. He developed a model of Islamic law consisting of three concentric circles.The innermost circle deals with the essential laws concerning the five basic interests. The second circle covers those laws and practices that are not directly related to the above-mentioned laws but are assimilated into Shariah on account of public convenience... al-S hātibī finds the normative basis of Shariah, deeply rooted in human reason and social practices and standards.

Commenting on the role of reason in defining juristic law ( fiqh), Christopher Houston observes:

Mallat Chibli writes:

The lessons of the classical age, to sum up, are... : the rule of law is established as a principle, so is the concept of the right of man... At the same time, there is a dimension of civil society with its own autonomous regulation which can be found, in first approximation, in the importance of custom [ urf[ and its legal recognition, and in an identifiable sphere of separation of powers with the ruler on the one hand and ulama, muftis and qāļīs, on the other.

A partially-deficient society is one in which extremes are applied. Such societies take only parts from the whole. Because of this, the society both progresses and suffers at the same time due to the imbalance in its observation of Shariah.

Such was often the case in Islamic history, where Islamic Law was implemented at some levels of society and not others. Often the ruler was exempt from provisions of law by royal fiat or explicit decree.Arjomand observes:

The legal history of medieval Islam is replete with examples of conflict between royal public law and the Shariah. The same is true of modern constitutionalism in the Middle East. Clashes between the jurisdiction of the state laws and the Shariah surfaced in a basic form in the constitutional debatesin Iran in 1907-8, and since then in Pakistan and elsewhere. ... But the civil rights to security of life and property - the first to be introduced in the Muslim world, though at variance with the political culture of the patrimonial and imperial systems of the Middle East - were not contradictory to Islamic law.

Shari'ah's Sources

1 Revelation
Qur'ān
The primary source of Shariah are two: Qur'ān and Sunnah. The Qur'ān is held by all Muslims as the ultimate source of law, being revealed from Allah to the Prophet Muhammad (s), and therefore perfect and infallible.

The Qur'ān contains broad, general rules that are immutable, not unlike societal rules of today: the sanctity of life, security and freedom of expression, and the inviolability of these rights. The adaptation of law according to time and circumstance was necessitated by changes in society, and the influx of various cultures and material conditions. Islam first came to one people with one lifestyle. As the religion spread and the borders of Muslim lands expanded, all of the different civilizations, each with their own codes of law, traditions and cultures, had to be incorporated into the Islamic polity. This was not achieved overnight and took great foresight on the part of Muslim jurists. This is most elegantly displayed in the development of the law.
Sunnah
Much of the Qur'ān was revealed through actual events encountered by the Prophet (s), and questions asked and answered by him. The Prophet (s) also used the Qur'ān as a basis of his own teaching and adjudication. Nevertheless, the Qur'ān is neither a legal nor a constitutional document, although legal materials occupy a small portion of its text; less than 3 percent of the text deals with legal matters. The legal contents of the Qur'ān were mainly revealed following the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Medina, where he established a government and the need therefore arose for legislation on social and governmental issues.

The second revealed source of Shariah is the Sunnah, or practices, injunctions and recommendations of the Prophet (s) as well as actions of others he approved or did not rebuff. It is consensus of scholars that the Sunnah is accorded the status of revelation, according to the explicit Qur'ānic text:

2 Reasoning

Hashim Kamali states:

The nonrevealed sources of Shariah are generally founded in juristic reasoning (). This reasoning may take a variety of forms, including analogical reasoning (), juristic preference (), considerations of public interest (), and even general consensus () of the learned, which basically originates in ijtihād and provides a procedure by which a ruling of juristic reasoning can acquire the binding force of law. Analogy and consensus have been generally recognized by the vast majority of ulama, but there is disagreement over the validity and scope of many of the rational proofs that originate in ijtihād.

The other principles were originated by the companions after the Prophet (s) and "Alī used to formulate his own opinion by means of and Ijtihād, or juristic reasoning through analogy ( Ijithad based on istišlāħ, always basing his opinion on the broader aims of the Shariah." qiyās, istishāb, qiyās) is a principle explicitly founded in the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (s) in the famous hadith of Muadh.

Who is Eligible to Explain the Shari'ah?

These two groups must work together - like two parties in which both seek the best understanding by applying their utmost efforts. The Center of Rulings and the mufti build the information model while the judge applies it to a particular case.Each case studied by the judge ( qāļī) is an attempt to comprise a particular verdict based on the legal precedent given by the mufti which can be applied in the specific judgment.

It is essential to understand that no one can issue a ruling without qualification, and no one can issue a judgment without qualification. Since rulings have a tremendous impact on the life of society and ruling on the individual, it is essential that those issuing them have excellent moral character, and most importantly that they are qualified.

قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ لَكُم مِّن رِّزْقٍ فَجَعَلْتُم مِّنْهُ حَرَامًا وَحَلاَلاً قُلْ آللّهُ أَذِنَ لَكُمْ أَمْ عَلَى اللّهِ تَفْتَرُونَ

This verse emphasizes that no one has the right to judge something right or wrong unless he has complete evidence from the pertinent information as found in the source texts, from deep discussion among the people who have a grasp of the issue at hand, and to seek all meaningful evidence. Otherwise one should remain silent for then one would be lying against Allah and against the religion.

Imām Shāfiī, founder of one of the four great schools of jurisprudence, said:

It is not allowed for anyone to give a Shariah explanation ( fatwā), except one who knows the Holy Qur'ān completely including what verses are abrogated and by which verses they were abrogated, and which verses resemble each other in the Qur'ān and whether a chapter was revealed in Makkah or Madina. He must know the entire corpus of the Hadith of the Prophet (s), both those which are authentic and those which are false. He must know the Arabic language of the time of the Prophet (s) with its grammar and eloquence as well as know the poetry of the Arabs. Additionally he must know the culture of the various peoples who live in each different nation of the community. If a person has all such attributes combined in himself, he may speak on what is permitted ( halal) and what is forbidden ( haram). Otherwise he has no right to issue a fatwā.

It is related that one of the greatest scholars of Shariah, Abd al-Raħmān ibn Abi Laila said:

I was able to meet with one hundred and twenty of the Companions of the Prophet (s). Every one of these companions was asked about specific Shariah issues, seeking a verdict, but they avoided rendering a decision instead pointing to another companion to issue the answer. They were afraid to give an answer that would be incorrect for which they would be responsible before Allah.

That shows that one can be deeply imbued with Islamic knowledge, as were all the Prophet's Companions, and yet still feel unqualified to give a verdict. All one-hundred and twenty of the Prophet's Companions with whom ibn Abi Laila met were hesitant to issue a fatwā.

Imām Nawawī, one of the greatest of Islam's later scholars, related that Imām ash-Shubī and Ħasan al-Bašrī and many others of the Successors [generation immediately succeeding the Companions of the Prophet (s)] said, "people of today are quick to issue a ruling based on their analysis concerning someone. If an answer had been sought for that same issue at the time of Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb ¦ (second caliph of the Prophet (s)), he would have gathered all the participants of Badr [i.e. 313 of the foremost Companions of the Prophet] in pursuit of the answer."

Historically, ijtihād has been perceived as a concern primarily of the individual scholar and mujtahid. But in modern times, ijtihād has become a collective endeavor that combines the skills and contributions not only of the scholars of Shariah, but of experts in various other disciplines, because acquiring a mastery of all the skills that are important to society is difficult for any one person. Ideally, independent reasoning should be combined with the Qur'ānic principle of consultation (), making it a consultative process, preferably as an integral part of the workings of the modern legislative assembly. Ijtihād has also been seen in the past as a juristic concept, a preserve of the jurist to the exclusion of specialists in other disciplines. But as a method by which to find solutions to new issues, ijtihād should be exercised by the scholars of Shariah as well as by experts in other disciplines, provided that those who attempt this independent reasoning acquire mastery of the relevant data, the Quaran, and the Sunnah. There is thus no reason why experts in Islamic economics and medicine, for example, could not carry out ijtihād in their own fields.

Detailed Objectives of the Law (Maqasid ash-Shari'ah)

Schact, in describing the purpose of the Law writes:

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani describes the intent behind Divine Law, something which has been strongly highlighted in the current era as people with various agendas, from apologist to extreme Islamist, seek to define Islamic Law within a Western framework of understanding:

The ultimate worth of actions is based on intention and sincerity, as mentioned by the Prophet (s), who said, "Actions are by intentions, and one shall only get that which one intended." The Shariah covers all aspects of human life. Classical Shariah manuals are often divided into four parts: ... personal acts of worship; ... commercial dealings; ... marriage and divorce, and penal laws.

The legal philosophers of Islam, such as Ghazālī, Shāţibī, and Shāh Walīullāh explain that the aim of Shariah is to promote human welfare. This is evident in the Qur'ān, and teachings of the Prophet (s).

The scholars explain that the welfare of humans is based on the fulfillment of necessities, needs, and comforts.
Necessities
Necessities are matters that worldly and religious life depend upon. Their omission leads to unbearable hardship in this life, or punishment in the next. There are five necessities: preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and wealth. These ensure individual and social welfare in this life and the hereafter.

The Shariah protects these necessities in two ways: firstly by ensuring their establishment and then by preserving them.

To ensure the establishment of religion, Allah Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.

To ensure the preservation of human life, Allah Most high legislated for marriage, healthy eating and living, and forbid the taking of life and laid down punishments for doing so.

Allah has permitted that sound intellect and knowledge be promoted, and forbidden that which corrupts or weakens it, such as alcohol and drugs. He has also imposed preventative punishments in order that people stay away from them, because a sound intellect is the basis of the moral responsibility that humans were given.

Lineage: marriage was legislated for the preservation of lineage, and sex outside marriage was forbidden. Punitive laws were put in placed in order to ensure the preservation of lineage and the continuation of human life.

Wealth: Allah has made it obligatory to support oneself and those one is responsible for, and placed laws to regulate the commerce and transactions between people, in order to ensure fair dealing, economic justice, and to prevent oppression and dispute.

Needs and Comforts: Needs and comforts are things people seek in order to ensure a good life, and avoid hardship, even though they are not essential. The spirit of the Shariah with regards to needs and comforts is summed up in the Qur'ān,

وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ

And,

مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَـكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

Therefore, everything that ensures the human happiness, within the spirit of Divine Guidance, is permitted in the Shariah.

Deferral of Ruling and Judgments

The Middle Path

Islamic Shariah calls people to the middle path in all things in belief, worship, ethics, morality, behavior, individual interactions, social interactions and in intellectual understanding. This is the basis of Shariah's širāţ al-mustaqīm - the Straight Path.

This essential principle of Shariah is known as " al-wasaţīyya", moderation, as mentioned in the Holy Qur'ān, وَكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً "we made you a nation of justice and clemency. " This principle encourages clemency and reasonableness in making judgments.

وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُواْ كَآفَّةً فَلَوْلاَ نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ طَآئِفَةٌ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُواْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُواْ قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُواْ إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ

This Qur'ānic exhortation recommends that a handful of individuals should come forth and study the faith deeply - they become the ones to advise the community in religious issues.

Allah said, فَاسْأَلْ بِهِ خَبِيرًا " and He said: " Ask about Allah from one who knowledgable." فَاسْأَلُواْ أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُون indicating the need to ask those possessing knowledge of an issue; not from one's opinion or from someone who is ignorant. so ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know,"

Imām Mālik was once asked about twenty-two different juristic issues. He only responded to two. In answering these he prayed seeking support from Allah and he was not hasty in his responses.

It is said that "the one among you who quickly runs to make fatwā, is like one who is running to throw himself into the fire." Such sayings emphasize the importance of deep consideration when making a ruling.

Ease above Ardor

Another principle in issuing a fatwā the mufti must seek the easiest way that people can apply, which is acceptable in Islam.

يُرِيدُ اللّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ

and the Prophet (s) said, "make things easy and do not make them difficult."

Differences as Mercy

Prophet Muhammad (s) said, "Islam consists in three hundred and thirteen roads (Shariah). There is not one upon which one meets Allah, Almighty and Exalted except he enters Paradise through it."

Prophet Muhammad (s) said, "It is meritorious for a judge to make an interpretation ( ijtihād), even if wrong. But for the judge who adjudicates rightly there is twice the merit,"

meaning he received the merit of striving to seek a correct judgment and the reward of having done so.

One of the Successors of the Prophet (s), the caliph Umar ¦ ibn Abd al-Azīz said, "I don't like to see the Companions of Prophet (s) agreeing on the same issue, rather I prefer to see them disagree."

What he meant was that if the Companions, who are the main reference for the Shariah, disagree, different valid viewpoints would emerge, and in this way more solutions to the same problem would become available. This kind of dispute never divides the community.

Dr. Muhammad Imara of Al-Azhar in Cairo says:

It is easy to avoid discussing the differences in the Ummah but it is impossible to remove them and say that all will accept the same ideology and school. Whoever thinks that about the Muslim Ummah can one day be free of schools of thought, is in fact an enemy of freedom and diversity, or believes in an idealistic dream which is, in reality, impossible to expect. For stifling intellectuality and preventing different ways of thinking about religion from being expressed, in essence imposes dictatorship on religion ...

Muslims are thus presented with competing fatwā s. In such cases he or she would

In the verses of punishment, one finds that Allah always follows by mentioning forgiveness, as in:

فَمَنْ عُفِيَ لَهُ مِنْ أَخِيهِ شَيْءٌ فَاتِّبَاعٌ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَأَدَاء إِلَيْهِ بِإِحْسَانٍ ذَلِكَ تَخْفِيفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَلَهُ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

This is made very clear in the Qur'ān wherein each mention of punishment, is followed by the mention of repentance and forgiveness.

...كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاء تْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

In mentioning the laws of punishment for waging war, the Qur'ān recommends the death penalty. However, even for this most grievous crime it allows a way out

إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ تَابُواْ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَقْدِرُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Again emphasizing forgiveness, Allah says:

وَلْيَعْفُوا وَلْيَصْفَحُوا أَلَا تُحِبُّونَ أَن يَغْفِرَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

And in respect of cutting the hands of the thief, Allah says:

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

We see that all these verses which commence as verses of punishment are immediately followed by verses of mercy. That is Islam's way of dealing with criminality to reduce the severity of punishment. That is why a judge must examine each case with great consideration.

It is reported by 'Āishā that the Messenger of Allah (s) said: "Ignore the offenses of those seen to possess [good] qualities ( dhawi 'l-ħayāt), except in [corporal and capital] penalties."

نعَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ادْرَءُواالْحُدُودَعَنالْمُسْلِمِينمَااسْتَطَعْتُمْ فَاِنْكَانَ لَهُ مَخْرَجٌ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُ فَاِنَّ الاِمَامَ اَنْ يُخْطِئَفِي الْعَفْوِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ اَنْ يُخْطِئَ فِي الْعُقُوبَةِ ‏"

'Āishā also related that the Prophet (s) said: "Stave off the penalties from the Muslims as much as you can, and if any leeway is found then release the detainee. Truly it is preferable for the ruler to pardon mistakenly than to punish mistakenly."

Shaykh Yūsuf al-Rifai, commenting on the excessive application of punishments by Salafi extremists, writes:

...you forgot that the Prophet (s) said: "The first judgment that shall be passed among the people on the Day of Resurrection shall be over blood [unjustly shed]." Therefore, fear Allah and do not kill a life which Allah made sacred, except in justice!

Moderation

إياكم و الغلو في الدين فإنما هلك من كان قبلكم بالغلو في الدين

The Prophet (s) said, "Beware of extremism in religion. Those who were before you nothing destroyed them except their extremism in religion."

The moderate Islamic Shariah is described by the verse:

ادْعُ إِلِى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious

This verse shows that even in debates with others, one must use a good form of discussion and dialogue.

Allah prevented Muslims from discussion with non-Muslims except in a moderate way:

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ وَقُولُوا آمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

"and dispute not with the people of the Book except with means better than mere disputation, ... and say 'we believe in the revelation that has come down to us and in that which has come down to you. Our God and your God is one and it is to Him that we surrender.'"

And in another place He says:

وَإِن جَادَلُوكَ فَقُلِ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَاللَّهُ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

Gentleness

Islam encourages people to be good hearted:

فَبِمَا رَحْمَةٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ لِنتَ لَهُمْ وَلَوْ كُنتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ لاَنفَضُّواْ مِنْ حَوْلِكَ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ

it is part of the mercy of Allah that thou does deal gently with them. Were thou severe or harsh-hearted they would have dispersed from around thee, so pardon them and ask forgiveness for them

There are many other verses and hadith which will demonstrate the moderation of Shariah. The Prophet (s) said to his wife 'Āishā, "Allah loves gentleness in everything in this life and religion, either in tongue or in deed."

This is evidenced in the following aħādīth: "Allah loves kindness in all matters and, " Kindness makes things beautiful, violence makes them defective," as well as in the following wisdom of our forebears: "Whoever desires to command the common good, let him do it gently."

Public Interest

The subject of public interest ( maslaħa) has been subject of great interest to those studying Shariah from the viewpoint of its compability with Western law. On this topic Kamali says:

Although the leading schools have also recognized considerations of public interest ( istislah) as a source of law, they have generally tended to impose a variety of conditions on it because of its strong utilitarian leanings. Only the theologian Mālik advocated it as a source of law in its own right, which is why the considerations of public interest are seen as a Maliki contribution to the legal theory of the sources, the usul al-fiqh. Whereas analogy operated within the given terms of the existing law, and juristic preference basically corrected the rigidities of analogy, public interest was not bound by such limitations. Furthermore, it vested the ruler and mujtahid with the initiative to take all necessary measures, including new legislation, to secure what he considered to benefit the people.

An example of istislah, or public interest is when Imām ibn Ħanbal issued a verdict permitting compelling the owner of a large house to shelter the homeless.

Imām Aħmad also endorsed requiring striking workers and craftspeople to continue to provide their services at a fair wage to avoid hardship on society.

Muhammad Khalid, remarking on this topic states:

[Islamic jurists] frequently invoked the principles of necessity, expediency, preventive measures, state of emergency, and other similar doctrines to reconcile the contradictions between laws and social norms. The contradictions continued because these doctrines were not regularized as "norms" in the legal theory. Nevertheless, some Muslim jurists tried to develop legal theories to regularize the quest for a normative basis of Shariahin the social practice and usage of the people.

Ibn Abidin's notion that the law was not wholly built on revelation, but that some of the material was collected by the founder mujtahid from the customary law of his time. He goes on to posit a new legal category within the law-the books of the school, which stand below the texts of revelation ( nass, Qur'ān and Sunnah), and are even eclipsed by the urf, laws that derive from local customs.

One of the main forms of extremism in religion is complete ignorance of the comprehensive nature of Islam. This is what makes an individual who has knowledge of parts but not the whole think he has entered the circle of scholars when the fact is he knows nothing but bits and pieces that he uses to deduce a verdict. Such a verdict will invariably be fraught with error.

In the time of the Prophet (s), the concern was that the Holy Qur'ān time was written by hand in fragments of skins and parchment, etc. and there was fear that the words might be twisted and meanings altered. Today that problem no longer exists, as the Qur'ān has been gathered and formalized, so to travel with the Qur'ān is no longer an issue.

The extremist on the other hand, will declare that the letter of the saying must be obeyed, without taking into consideration the circumstances and reasons for this ruling.

Another example: the Prophet (s) said, "a woman must not travel except accompanied by a relative." A mufti, examining this issue in detail, finds that in the past, someone traveling alone, through deserts, mountains and forests might face great ordeals. In emphasizing the respect and honor in which women are held, the Prophet (s) asked that she travel with a relative.

Today however, traveling from one place to another is no longer fraught with difficulty. One has complete security and is accompanied by hundreds of fellow passengers in the short time it takes to cover thousands of miles. Therefore there is no longer fear for a woman traveling alone, for she is accompanied by all the people on the plane, whom may be considered as adequate protectors. But the extreme interpretation of the hadith is that a woman cannot travel except with a relative, again emphasizing the literal meaning of the hadith.

If in such minor issues, we see examples of extreme literalism among the non-moderate Muslims, what then when it comes to cutting hands and stoning? These are far more serious issues to consider.

This verse addresses the extremists. Moderate Muslim scholars are extremely surprised to see those who migrated overseas to different countries around the world, seeking study and sustenance, have carried with them this extreme literalist ideology, The result has been the creation of a large number of groups and divisions within the Muslim community, seemingly showing the entire Muslim community as radical in their views and violent in their actions. If the leadership of the immigrant Muslims had shown moderation in the countries to which they moved, and integrated with the culture of the country, they would have greatly changed the stark image of Islam in the eyes of common people.

Khalid Muhammad states:

Shah Waliullah opens his work [ Ħujjatullāh al-bāligha] by refuting those who compared Shariah with the commands of a master intending only to test his slaves loyalty and sense of obedience. He rejected this view and argued that Shariah laws were not merely forthe sake of obedience; they have human welfare as their goal.Shah distinguished between religion and laws and elaborated his idea that religion is based on the principle of unity, while laws are based on the principles of change and diversity.

Yūsuf Al-Qaradāwī in Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase says:

Third, an individual may impose on himself the hardest conditions if he so wishes, testing his will to the limit, though moderation is the best and most appropriate way as the Prophet (s) says, "Allah likes people to take the [facilitation] licences He gave them as He hates their committing of sins [that anger Him]," reported by Aħmad, Ibn Hibban and Al-Bayhaqi, on the authority of Ibn Umar. It is also in the Saħīħ al-Jāmi al-Saghīr.

However, a faqih should not impose hard conditions on Muslims in the matters that concern the wide majority: he has to take into account that among them are the weak, the old and those who have lawful reasons for exception. A hadith says about leading congregational prayers, "He who acts as imām [leader] in prayer should make his prayer short, for among the people [behind the imām] are the old, the ill and those with errands to run." Prayer is a symbol of the various aspects of life Therefore, the faqihs of the Islamic Movement just cannot adopt strict opinions that restrict and do not facilitate, and prohibit but do not allow, especially with respect to the issues related to women, family, arts, entertainment and their likes. It also applies to penal codes, where the least punishment should be imposed, including the opinion that the repentance rescinds the ħadd, the opinion that the punishment for drinking wine is a discretionary one, and so on.

I would like our motto in this phase to be the statement of Imām Sufyān Al-Thawrī, "Only the trustworthy faqihs can give licences, but everybody knows how to pass a restraining pinion."

Khalid Muhammad points out that "at the level of religion, the Sufis, the pietist Muslim mystics, were the first to point out the contradiction between legal norms and Islamic ethical values." He writes:

Adaptation to Societal Norms

Khalid Muhammad writes:

Iman Shāfiī, the founder of one of the four schools of thought, he was living in Bagdhad when he put forth his school of thought as Imām Abū Ħanīfa and Imām Mālik before him. Imām Shāfiī came in the 2nd century of hijri and established his school of thought in Baghdad 1250 years ago Hijri. When he moved from Baghdad to Egypt in the last years of his life, he changed his school of thought. He said, "I saw people more corrupted in Egypt then from Baghdad. So what I wrote previously and explained is insufficient to treat these corrupted people because I was more lenient. Now I have to be more strict. So I have to change [my rulings]."

Shah Waliullah expounded the theory of evolution of society in four stages and found that social norms played a central role in the evolution of laws.

One can see this principle employed extensively today. Kamali mentions that " jurists have gone on record in recent years to issue a verdict ( fatwā) to declare photography permissible in this light. This is because photography has now become a ubiquitous practice among Muslims everywhere."

In another paper, Kamali writes:

Mālik is the chief source of the two important doctrines of public interest ( maslaħa) and blocking the means ( šad aļ-ļarā'i), both of which are eminently rational and rely mainly on personal reasoning. Maliki jurisprudence also attempted to forge a closer link with the practicalities of life in Medina and attached greater weight to social customs than other jurists did.

Shari'ah Permits Other Faith Communities Their Own Law

Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī writes:

Dhimma means a pact and guarantee. That is to say, the non-Muslims who live in Islamic society and within the Islamic nation, are the responsibility of Allah, His Messenger, and all Muslims, under their guarantee and their protection.

Islam established rules regulating the relations between the Islamic state and non-Muslims ... so that these would be natural relations. They are living in Islamic society under the general principle established by the religious legal authorities: 'What is [permitted] to them is [permitted] to us and what is [incumbent] upon them is [incumbent] upon us.' This is the basis for relations with non-Muslims, including the Jews except for that which requires a religious distinction. If their religion commands them to have a day of rest on Saturday, I will not impose upon them to work on Saturday and rest on Friday. No, I must be considerate. I respect what their religion dictates.

Our master Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz, whom the religious legal authorities call the fifth Righteous Caliph, sent [a letter] to Imām Ħasan al-Bašrī, who was one of the greatest-known religious figures of his time, telling him he was shocked to discover that the Zoroastrians in the land of the Persians, marry their mothers and sisters. How can we allow this? [Ħasan al-Bašrī] sent him a letter [of reply] and said this is permitted by their faith. Don't try to change this. Even if they marry their mothers, their religion allows this.

Respect for the dictations of [other] religions and faiths is one of the most fundamental things for us. We don't get involved in their affairs. Islam is at the top of the tolerance scale; it allows one to do what is forbidden to Muslims, if it is permitted [in one's owns religion], such as eating pork and drinking wine. Wine for the Muslims is the worst evil, it is one of the worst and most severe sins, yet so long as your religion permits it, we won't prevent it [from you]. What is required in this matter is that this [behavior] not be spread among the Muslims.

Schact writes:

The jurisdiction of the qāļī extended to Muslims only; the non-Muslim subject populations retained their own traditional legal institutions, including the ecclesiastical and rabbinical tribunals, which in the last few centuries before the Arab conquest had to a great extent duplicated the judicial organization of the Byzantine state. This is the basis of the factual legal autonomy of the non-Muslims which was extensive in the Middle Ages, and has survived in part down to the present generation.

'Political' Fatawa

Letter Versus Spirit of the Law

The intent of Islamic law is not punitive, as much as corrective and reformative.

Khurram Murad writes:

It is a significant contribution of Islam that these penalties are called ħudūd (boundaries) and not punishments: they are liabilities incurred as a result of crossing the boundary set by Allah.... Another important function which these punishments serve is educative, and thus preventive and deterrent. The Quran alludes to this aspect when it describes them نَكَالاً مِّنَ اللّه " as exemplary punishment from Allah."

) behind them. For example, the rules of hijab, the covering of women, were revealed in a time when the hypocrites were ridiculing Muslim women in the streets of Madina.

Reduction of Stringency with Time

One finds that in the early days of Islam some Divine orders were very strict, and were later reduced. For example, Muslims were not allowed sexual relations during the month of fasting due to the initially restrictive rules of the fast. Later revelations to the Prophet permitted intimacy during night hours (fasting occurs between sunrise and sunset).

Initially, the early Muslims were ordered to pray for one third of the night; to build up their spiritual relationship with God. Later this was reduced. Similarly, God initially declared that in a defensive war against an aggressor, unless the ratio of aggressors to Muslims exceeded 10-to-1 the Muslims were obliged to fight. This was later reduced to a ratio of 2-to-1 as the general level of faith decreased with the influx of new converts to the faith.

Thus we see the importance of gauging the capacity of the people to implement any given code of conduct. Today, it cannot be expected that the law be enforced as it was a century ago, as the conditions of life have changed immensely. For that reason, the Prophet (s) indicated that in the last days applying the letter of the law would become very difficult, saying that those who would attempt to implement religion in its entirety at that time would be like someone carrying a burning coal.

Another example is the requirement of prayer. The Prophet (s) was first told to order his nation to pray fifty times a day. During the Night Journey, this requirement was reduced to five prayers per day.

Flexibility in Application of Shari'ah

All the above is found in the theoretical definition of an Islamic state. However, in today's world, such an implementation is nowhere to be found, while those few nations who lay claim to an Islamic system of government are in fact quite far from its true implementation. These 'Islamist' nations tend to interpret Islamic law with the narrowest view, rejecting traditional teachings and scholarship. We find such governments constantly issuing decrees of stoning to death, amputating hands, lashing, and other severe punishments for various crimes.

The current overriding problem is 'Islamic' states follow the letter of the law - 'black letter law' ‑ without regard to precedents. On the other hand, in Islam, traditional governments follow precedents established over many centuries, much as is the case here in the U.S.

In Islam rules are tempered by application. As a simple example, who is allowed to make the judgment to cut the hand of a thief? Let me explain how this is implemented. First of all, you cannot cut the hands of someone who steals in order to eat, as we see today in Argentina. In Islam, the government's first duty is to help the impoverished; you simply cannot cut the hands of people who steal because they are hungry. If a person is in need of medicine and steals it, you cannot cut off his hand. The only time the judgment of cutting the hand applies is when someone steals out of greed, without need, and even then numerous criteria must be met to hand down such a punitive sentence.

Even rules based on the principle of consensus of scholars, ijma, which in itself is difficult to accomplish, can be changed. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, wrote:

Islamically, this concept of reformation or rejuvenation of the law is necessitated by change in society over time.

The Islamists differ from the traditionalists in that the latter call for a reinstitution of fiqh, but not necessarily an elimination of existing systems of law.

Islam requires in the case of the thief that the system attempt to rehabilitate him and seek ways to encourage him to repent:

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

This means he should be given every chance to reform, such as assisting him to earn a lawful living. It is the state's responsibility to ensure people's life needs are met, such that there is no need to steal. Job opportunities should be provided as a form of social security. Such examples can be found in Brunei, and in a number of other wealthy Muslim countries.

Unfortunately, today we see the reverse being implemented by "Islamic" nations. Someone steals medicine, food, etc. and is punished, while those who amass millions of dollars through dummy corporations, racketeering, money laundering, illicit drug and weapons sales, are never brought to justice. This is the sad condition of some Islamic religious leaders of our time, who follow the letter of the law in contravention of its spirit.

Followers of Wahhabism, whose teachings many of today's Islamic governments follow, have created a yardstick for Shariah that takes it to the harshest extremes when applied to common citizens. Those in power however, typically remain exempt form its application. This is a purely political implementation of the Shariah, done for show and thus appears wantonly cruel; utterly lacking wisdom. This is utterly contrary to the Objectives of the Law, Maqasid ash-Shariah. The Law was established to better the individual's relationship with his or her Creator and with fellow humans.

Of this rigidity, Schact writes:

... the Wahhabis in Arabia in the nineteenth and again in the present century ... made it their aim, ... to enforce Islamic law exclusively, to abolish the double system of administration of justice, and to outlaw administrative and customary law.

قال عليه السلام "وايم الله ، لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطع محمد يدها"

His intent was not to show Islam as stern Islam nor to demonstrate a specific parenting style, but rather to demonstrate how abhorrent theft, of any kind, is in the Eyes of God, including: corruption, forgery, bribery, deceit, and larceny. Today however, far from being blind, we see "Shariah Law" abused to advance one group against another, while those who manipulate it appear exempt from its impact.

Let us take another example - that of the punishment of stoning to death for the commission of adultery. In accordance with Islamic Law, the witness must pass his hand or a string between the man and woman, and find it is blocked. According to broad interpretation of the law, there must also be four witnesses, each of whom personally observed the act in detail " al-mā'il fī 'l-mukhala" (seeing the act with the eye), otherwise the accusation is dropped, and the witnesses are considered transgressors and defamers. This is what happened to Abī Bakrah, the honorable companion, when he accused Al-Mughīrah bin Shuba of adultery; Al-Mughīrah was release with no punishment, whilethe witness was arrested, when he said: "I only saw this man rising and falling, while on top of the woman, consecutively and taking turns". Although Umar ¦ (the second caliph in Islam), was certain that this pious person was telling the truth, he was forced as the leader to consider his testimony insufficient, and thus an act of defamation, so he punished him. On the other hand, Al-Mugīrah, having satisfied his urge retained his innocence.

Therefore, who can testify, fulfilling all the technical conditions and proofs that the crime was committed? Short of a confession, in practice there is no possibility of fulfilling the stringent evidentiary requirements to guarantee a conviction.

Another caveat attached to the required evidence to prove the crime of adultery is that without sufficient witnesses, the accuser actually becomes the accused and will be punished for the very ugly crime of libel - for which the accuser will be liable.

This demonstrates the essence of Islamic law, with the intent to raise the highest standard of morality for human beings, while in reality the law is almost impossible to legitimately enforce. Therefore, we see legal and social intent is to prevent an act from occurring by highlighting its enormity and emphasizing the threatened punishment, while not expecting it to be applied.

If it was true, that the penalty for the adultery, of a free wedded woman, is stoning to death, it would have been specifically mentioned, because of its terrible terror; and claiming the abrogation, of the above verses, by the " hadith", is reversing the criterion for deduction.

The concept at issue here "waiving the severest penalties by all available means," is best demonstrated by the following incident. A woman came to the Prophet (s) and confessed her adultery. However, the Prophet refused to accept the testimony and turned away from the woman. Time after time he tried to avoid having to implement the letter of the law, but the woman herself came back and insisted. He urged her to rethink the matter - perhaps she had not committed the act, or she was not in her full senses.

She returned and again confessed her crime. He wanted her to hide the act, but again she insisted.Further, she demanded to be punished. Then she came and said, "I committed that act and I am now pregnant." He instructed her, "Go and deliver the child, then return to me." She insisted on the punishment. So after delivering the child she came back. The Prophet (s) then bade her nurse the child for two and a half years. Finally, when all possible excuses had been exhausted, the Prophet had no choice but to implement the law.

However, his compassionate heart overwhelmed him and he told his Companions, "If the forgiveness that lady had received for her atonement was to be spread among all of you, it would suffice."

Thus we see that the message came to correct behavior, not to punish human beings. There is no greater symbol for Allah's dislike of an act than its expression as a form of punishment. Yet, despite this, one fails to find a single verse of Qur'ān ordering the penalty of death by stoning - as if by its absence, Allah were saying this is a punishment only for the most extreme cases of flagrant and wanton sexual activity in public, actions which will eventually destroy the moral fiber of the community.

How does the warping of this application of law take place? This is in fact due to the political reality behind the visage of extremism in every form. In reality ten percent or less of Muslims are fanatic in their ideology, not unlike the communists in recent history. Once they come into power, as in the Nigerian state of Katsina, they must implement their beliefs to prove themselves "righteous."

The first judicial change apparent in an "Islamic" state is stoning adulteresses and cutting the hands of thieves, while the spirit of law is abandoned. In the t rue Islamic teaching, the absence of the five daily prayers and fasting are greater issues for the community than stealing and adultery, as the abandonment of the daily applications of faith are more apt to quickly erode the social fabric.

Cutting of hands and stoning adulterers was legislated to emphasize the wrong of these particular actions: adultery and stealing. The purpose is not primarily application of the literal punishment, but is rather a means to emphasizing the enormity of these actions and to demonstrate the inhumanity of stealing as a form of injustice, or adultery, as a betrayal of one's spouse.

There are many manifestations in the Shariah that must not simply apply the letter of the law when societal issues might induce the crime. Oftentimes the purpose behind a ħadd ruling is more metaphorical than literal, preventive more than punitive.

As we have elucidated, cutting hands for theft is not the intent of the Shariah. Rather the intent is to prevent the commission of crime. This does not differ with the use of the various penalties in the Western modern law, legislated with the intent of eliminating criminal activity.

Al-Shāţibī writes:

Throughout Muslim history, those who neglected acquiring mastery over the science of Al-Maqāsiļ did so at their own peril, as it made them liable to error in ijtihād. Included amongst these were the āhl al-bida (the proponents of pernicious innovations), who only looked at the apparent text of the Qur'ān without pondering over its ultimate aims and objectives. These innovators [an allusion to the Kharijites] held steadfastly to the literal text of even the mutashabihah [the intricate, allegorical segments of the Qur'ān] and premised many conclusions on them.

Keep in mind that when these laws were revealed to the Prophet (s), he was an exceptionally just and merciful leader, as were his successors. For that reason when the lady came demanding to be punished for adultery, he made every effort to avoid implementing the prescribed punishment.

For this reason we say that the Islamic Shariah as a whole tried to balance all aspects of the community. Moderate scholars found that most problems in a community or society which cause people to violate the law, are found to originate in societal ailments, stemming from the environment and circumstances in which people are found. These make their way of dealing with others wrong, resulting in criminal pathology making them to act in a manner harmful to themselves and to society.

Gradual Application of Shari'ah

Islamic Shariah was not revealed piecemeal to the Prophet (s). It was implemented over 23 years, primarily in the last ten, after the establishment of the first Islamic state in Madina. Most of those who seek to re-introduce Shariah in their nations, have forgotten the wisdom for the gradual nature of this implementation. This was a necessary interval in the development of Islam, so that the people were not overwhelmed with new regulations and rules of conduct, but rather were able to learn it bit-by-bit, as it was revealed.

A familiar example is the process of revelation which culminated in the prohibition of liquor. The first verse revealed concerning liquor said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الصَّلاَةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَى حَتَّىَ تَعْلَمُواْ مَا تَقُولُونَ

Someone who is drunk neither knows what he is saying and might say something irreverent or even do something immoral, while praying. For that reason the people were not allowed to come prayer while drunk.

Western governments say, "don't drink and drive." Someone caught doing so is liable under the law, even if no crime has been committed. Effectively, drunk-driving becomes a crime. The intent however, is to prevent someone's drunkenness causing an accident. In such a case, the court will even increase the penalty. Thus we see the graduated approach also found in the West, with the 'intent of the law' being the key factor behind legislation.

Revelation of the verse of drunkenness impacted the drinking habits of the Arabs for which they were renowned. Since prayer while drunk was sanctioned, observant Muslims were forced to restrict their drinking to avoid prayer times. Since the five prayers are spread throughout the day, in practice this made drinking something that could only be done at night.

Later it was revealed to the Prophet:

يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَآ أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا

This verse, while hinting at the evil of drink, by no means forbade it. It was only some time later when the verse of prohibition was revealed and when news of the revelation spread, the streets of Madina ran red with the flowing of spilled wine.

Thus we see that in the hard-drinking society of pagan Arabia, a graduated approach was essential. It not only provided the ruling from Allah, but the reasons behind the ruling, which people of intellect always seek.

Now while drinking is prohibited, to drink in private was not culpable before the law. For that reason one can find liquor in private Muslim homes, even in the holy cities. However when the use of drink is obvious and outward, then it is culpable. This is similar to laws for public drunkenness in Western nations.

On this issue, Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī relates:

There is an example in that respect which is related concerning Umar ¦ ibn Abd al--Aziz, whom the Muslim scholars regard as the fifth rightly-guided caliph and a true follower of his great-grandfather, Umar ibn Al-Khaţţāb. ¦

Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz's son, Abd al-Mālik, who was a firm pious young man, said to his father one day, "O father! Why you do not implement the rulings firmly and immediately? By Allah, I would not care if all the world would furiously oppose us so long as we seek to establish the right [that Allah Almighty has enjoined]." These words show how zealous that young man was to destroy all signs of corruption and deterioration immediately and without delay whatever the consequences.

But the wise father said to his son, "Do not deal with matters hastily, son. Allah Almighty [Himself] despised drinking alcohol twice in the Qur'ān and did not declare it forbidden but in the third time. I am afraid that if I enjoined the right on people at one stroke, they would give it up all at once, which might lead to sedition.".

Extremist Hegemony

The utterly practical aspect of Islamic law is seen to be built into its framework. This aspect is often ignored by non-moderate Muslims, who seek to replace a corrupt society with an ideal one overnight, ignoring the essential inertia of human nature and societal conditioning. Thus, they end up trying to overpower man's resistance by force. This leads to brutal misapplication of the Shariah, particularly in the arena of crime and punishment.

Arjomand writes:

Agitating outside the Constituent Assembly, the fundamentalists, led by Abul-ala Mawdudi, called for the creation of an 'ideological state,' and turned not to the constitutional history of the Mughal empire, or any other Muslim state, but rather to the juxtaposition of Western constitutional blueprints to the scriptural sources of Islam. The result was the declaration of God's sovereignty in the 1956 constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which the late Fazlur Rahman characterized as a 'comic' transfer of political sovereignty to God, the famous Objectives Resolution of 1949.

The problem today is that extremists are in control of the Muslim mic. Those who went abroad and studied extreme doctrine are being used to perpetuate their ideas and prevent Muslims from living under a reasonable democratic system. They say, "don't talk to us, you don't know our way." They seek to impose a heavy-handed, strict and rigid application of Shariah on all the people as soon as they take power, resulting in an "allergic reaction" by the people to Islam and Islamic law, as conveyed by their hardline, fascistic approach.

One wonders how it is acceptable for these same Islamists to allow non-Muslims to train their military, while at the same time outwardly condemning them and considering work with them to be loyalty of the non-Muslims? They accommodated themselves to that by adjusting the law based on precedents in the sources of Shariah.

There is a conspiracy here to prevent the spread of democracy because it will remove the hegemony of Islamist oppressors. The mistake is in asking the wrong people for an opinion. Today the most oppressive people claim to speak on behalf of Muslims.

Sohail Hashemi, addressing this problem says:

... many Islamic reformers and reform movements shifted their strategy to a "top-down" approach ... [conce iving] Islamization as the obligation of the state. The result has been the proliferation of a holistic and authoritarian vision of Islamic life and politics among the most politically active and assertive Islamic intellectuals and groups. In the battle for control of the state being conducted by secular authoritarians on the one hand and religious authoritarians on the other, the gradual and educative path of Islamic reform has been marginalized or repressed altogether.

The result for ideological Islamist regimes has often resulted in a devolution from their stated goals of Islamization through unification of the judicial and executive roles, sometimes resulting in ironically non-Islamic results. Arjomand states:

It is interesting to note, however, that with the take-over of the modernized state and its legal framework by the Islamic militants and the declaration of the supremacy of the Shariah, the old dualism of public and sacred law reappeared immediately. This dualism enabled the clerical jurists of the Council of Guardians to defend property rights, which were fully consistent with the Shariah, against the later encroachments of parliamentary legislation since the early 1980s. But it also introduced fundamental contradictions in the Iranian constitutional law. Furthermore, proclamations notwithstanding, the Islamic law of unilateral divorce was not restored. A court order was required for divorce, and women began to play an increasing role in the family courts as assistant judges. In 1998 the first women judges were appointed, in clear contradiction to the Shariah.

The more general result of this new legal dualism was a prolonged constitutional crisis that was partly resolved by Khomeini's assertion of the superiority of state law over the Shariah in 1988. This principle was immediately institutionalized by the creation of a Council for the Assessment of the Interest ( maslaħa) of the Islamic Regime, which was duly recognized as an organ of the state in the constitutional amendments of 1989.

Various items of legislation previously vetoed by the Council of Guardians for being contrary to the Shariah became law, and the Assessment Council showed little hesitation to legislate beyond disputes bills. The result has in general been the strengthening of the authority of the state, but at least in one remarkable case it was a victory for women's rights. By a law enacted in November 1992, the Assessment Council instituted alimony as compensation for domestic labor during marriage. This radical departure from Shiite law was justified by the argument that domestic labor was distinct from reproductive duties required by the Shariah.

The final result of such divergence from "pure" Islam is too create an autocratic state system which in fact is nothing less than a dictatorship with Islamist "flavor." In such a situation, the enforcers and the same as the adjudicators, making for the typical conflict of interest all fascistic systems embody.

Conclusion

Islam aspires to the highest level of behavior at the individual, family and community levels. The Prophet brought different rules in order to accommodate the culture of each nation and tribe. Allah said:

وَلَوْ شَاء اللّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً

If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people ...

Why did He not do so? To allow flexibility in the rules governing mankind and to generate competition. That is why the 'door of ijtihād' remains open, allowing new laws to be created as time moves on.

In the time of Prophet Muhammad (s), Islamic Shariah was implemented over a span of twenty-three years. However the extremists have reversed this approach. They come to newly revived Muslims, expecting them to adopt every particular of Islam instantly, while exempting themselves. In reality they must begin with 'a' and proceed to 'z', but instead they go from 'z' and work backwards.

In a similar vein Schact writes:

By their decisions, the earliest Islamic qāļīs, did indeed lay the basic foundations of what was to become Islamic law. They gave judgment according to their own discretion or 'sound opinion' ( rāyy), basing themselves on customary practice which in the nature of things incorporated administrative regulations, and taking the letter and the spirit of the Qur'ānic regulations and other recognized Islamic religious norms into account as much as they thought fit.

In the early time of Islam, these methods were put together as the discussions ensued between the propagators of philosophy ( kalām) and ijtihād. To reduce that contention four schools were formalized as those in authority. That was done by consensus ( ijma) of scholars. Whoever references one of these four schools, is considered to have referenced the Qur'ān and Sunnah. Each school while agreeing with the others in the fundaments, differs from the rest in the branches. This provides enormous flexibility to the individual seeking a ruling which fits his needs.

Allah says in the Holy Qur'ān:

إِنَّ سَعْيَكُمْ لَشَتَّ

and He informed us:

وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لَجَعَلَ النَّاسَ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلاَ يَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِينَ

In acknowledging such diversity as Allah's own handiwork in creation, Allah sets the precedent for divergence of opinion in thinking. Dr. Imara comments on this saying:

In conclusion we will quote Dr. Ausaf Alī where he says:

Progress never comes without the pain that is caused by new ideas, new interpretations, new constructions, new paradigms, new theories, and new stocktaking of the situation. Of the tens of hundreds and thousands who participate in intellectual discourse, debate, and creative work only a very few turn out to have been right, and they too not entirely. But everyone, including even those who get it all wrong, contributes. What is crucial is that even those who turn out to be wrong in retrospect need freedom of speech and publication. ... To demand that everyone say only the things said before or look at things in accordance with the established opinions and the decisions of the organized groups or the government of the day is to foreclose all possibilities of any conceptual breakthroughs and thereby the enrichment of the conceptual resources of the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani Islamic civilization, since the time of Prophet Muhammad (s) until now, is firmly founded on the concept of 'rule of law.' For that reason, the law is published and known, and citizens and courts are expected to uphold it. In addition, Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law - Shariah.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Short Course 3: Civilization Jihad | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.subject
A Short Course 3: Civilization Jihad | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Civilization Jihad' -
the Muslim Brotherhood's Potent Weapon

Violent jihad dominates the attention of those responsible for national security. But the more dangerous long-term threat, the Center for Security Policy's Team B report found, is what the Muslim Brotherhood calls "civilization jihad."

This pre-violent form of jihad, according to the totalitarian ideology of sharia, is considered an integral, even dominant element of jihad.

Team B, which used open-source information to compile its groundbreaking report, Sharia - The Threat to America, takes a look at civilization jihad as part of enemy threat doctrine. Here's a summary.

While it is true that many Muslims do not follow the directives of shariah, let alone engage in jihad, too many of them provide the proverbial sea in which the jihadis swim. By offering little meaningful opposition to the jihadist agenda, a large number of Muslim communities and nations generally project a tacit agreement with jihadis' ends, if not with their means.

Under shariah, civilization jihad - a "pre-violent" form of jihad - is considered an integral, even dominant element of jihad that is at least as obligatory for shariah's adherents as the violent kind.

Such tactics are ostensibly "non-violent" (and therefore "moderate") not because the Muslim Brotherhood eschews violence out of principle, but because it has decided that this phase of battlefield preparation is better accomplished through stealthy means. Hence civilization jihad can be considered "stealth jihad."

Civilization jihad is a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating shariah gradually into Western societies.

The violence is always implicit in the overall strategy (such as that idea that we must proceed with the Ground Zero mosque, lest our opposition incite Muslim violence), albeit held in reserve for the final stages of the offensive. It is the combined effect of the violent and pre-violent strains of jihad that constitutes the most serious threat to America and its free people.
Origins of civilization jihad
We get the concept of civilization jihad from, among other sources, a document that was entered into evidence in the 2008 United States v Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial. The document, titled An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the United States and a member of the board of directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

The Explanatory Memorandum ( click here for the original document in Arabic) explains that the Muslim Brotherhood-organized "Islamic Movement" in the US is a "settlement process" to establish itself in the United States and, once entrenched, to undertake a "grand jihad" characterized as a "civilization jihadist" mission under Muslim Brotherhood direction.

Specifically the document describes the "settlement process" as a "grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated."

The Muslim Brotherhood is relying on non-Muslims in America to aid it, usually inadvertently, to destroy America from within.
Subjugation
Dawa, the call to Islam that by Islamic law must precede jihad, is all-too-often dismissed, as are its manifestations under the rubric of non-violent jihad, simply because this kind of assault does not kill. Instead, it intends "merely" to subjugate.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told a Toledo, Ohio, Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in 1995, "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawa."

Absent an appreciation of the threat posed by stealth jihad, the pre-violent civilization jihadist is free to proceed unimpeded under the radar in Western societies, infiltrating and subverting along lines specifically tailored to today's liberal, multicultural-minded non-Muslim populations. It does so in ways that are genuinely difficult to recognize, oppose or counter.

The objective of civilization jihad, also known as stealth jihad, is the same as the violent form of jihad: subjugation of Dar al-Harb (the "House of War," or the non-Muslim world) to shariah, which would result in the non-Muslim population of humanity being subsumed under Dar al-Islam, or the House of Islam.

Team B deals with the issue at length in its section on the Muslim Brotherhood, because the Brotherhood has the dominant role with respect to the prosecution of the pre-violent form of jihad in the United States and in the West more generally. The insinuation of shariah and its adherents into America's academic, banking and finance, government, intelligence, law enforcement and military institutions - as well as civil society more generally - is quite far advanced.

Official U.S. doctrine on threat development requires that threat assessment begin with an unconstrained analysis of the enemy's stated threat doctrine. The first two sections of the Team B report make plain that it is indeed possible to know the enemy and his intentions with certitude.

If adherents to shariah have sworn to destroy us, it is their doctrine that we are required to know. Whether that doctrine is judged by Team B to be accurate, appropriate or even identifiable with "genuine" Islam is irrelevant.

If it can be demonstrated that the enemy refers to and relies on this doctrine to guide and justify his actions, then that is all that matters in terms of the enemy threat doctrine. US civilian and military leaders must thoroughly understand and orient upon this threat doctrine for the purpose of defeating such foes.

Failing to orient an enemy's self-identified doctrines not only violates our own doctrine on threat analysis but renders us unable to defeat the enemy because we have failed properly to identify him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Short Course 3: Civilization Jihad | Shariah: the Threat to America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Violent jihad dominates the attention of those responsible for national security. But the more dangerous long-term threat, the Center for Security Policy's Team B report found, is what the Muslim Brotherhood calls "civilization jihad." This pre-violent form of jihad, according to the totalitarian ideology of sharia, is considered an integral, even dominant element of jihad.

# data[].attributes.headline
SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?

# data[].attributes.subject
SHARIA LAW — LIST OF KEY RULES — What Is Sharia Law?

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Islam's Sharia law is cast from the words of Muhammad, called "hadith," his actions, called "sunnah," and the Quran, which he dictated. The Sharia law itself cannot be altered but its interpretation, called "fiqh," by muftis (Islamic jurists) is given some latitude.

As a legal system, the Sharia law is exceptionally broad. While other legal codes regulate public behavior, Sharia regulates public behavior, private behavior, and even private beliefs. Compared to other legal codes, the Sharia law also prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation and favors corporal and capital punishments over incarceration. Of all legal systems in the world today, the Sharia law is the most intrusive and restrictive, especially against women. According to the Sharia law (see the links for details):

* Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands ( Quran 5:38).
* Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
* Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
* Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god).
* A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion).
* A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
* A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
* A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
* Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female ( Quran 24:13).
* A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.
* A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death (see " Islamophobia").
* A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
* Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (see Taharrush).
* A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
* A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
* Girls' clitoris should be cut ( Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
* A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Quran 4:34 and Religion of Peace).
* A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband's consent to divorce.
* A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
* A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
* A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
* A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
* Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be " Halal."
* Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
* Continue...

Which countries use the Sharia law?

Muslims' aspired Sharia state is the birthplace of Muhammad that has no legal code other than the Sharia law and enforces it without mercy: Saudi Arabia. But as detailed below, the Sharia law is also used in full or in part, nationally or regionally in:

* In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and other European countries that resist the Sharia law, it has proven adept at infiltrating elements of the society that are left vulnerable (see Sharia law in America and Islamization of America).

** Percent of Muslims who favor making Sharia the official law in their country (source: Pew Forum Research). In many countries where an official secular legal system exists alongside the Sharia law, the majority of their Muslim citizens favor making Sharia the official law. For example, while Egypt's military blocked the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in this direction in 2013, 74% of Egypt's Muslims still favor it. Even in Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia - Muslim countries with progressive images - the relatively secular ruling elite sit atop Muslim masses, 71%, 72% and 86% respectively of whom want their countries to be ruled by Sharia. And in Iraq, where the United States has been propping up democracy since 2003, 91% of its Muslims want to live under the Sharia law.

The number of countries penetrated by Sharia law continues to grow, as does the depth of its penetration in the countries already affected. This penetration is not by happenstance; it is managed to occur in five phases: see Spread of Islam and the 10 steps to Stop Islam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Islam's Sharia law is cast from the words of Muhammad, called "hadith," his actions, called "sunnah," and the Quran, which he dictated. The Sharia law itself cannot be altered but its interpretation, called "fiqh," by muftis (Islamic jurists) is given some latitude. As a legal system, the Sharia law is exceptionally broad.

# data[].attributes.headline
James M. Arlandson: Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies

# data[].attributes.subject
James M. Arlandson: Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
16 Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies
Can Modern Islam Reform Old Islam?
by James M. Arlandson, Ph.D.

This list
of shariah laws is intended to be read by judges, lawyers, legislators, city
council members, educators, journalists, government bureaucrats, think tank
fellows, TV and radio talk show hosts, and anyone else who occupies the "check
points" in society; you initiate the national dialogue and shape the flow of
the conversation in society. You are the decision and policy makers.

As
intellectuals, you believe the critics of shariah exaggerate (and maybe some
are guilty of it). They"re just "Islamophobes." Ignore them. Islam is a
worldwide religion, after all. It deserves respect.

You are
also thorough relativists who believe in tolerance for all religions, in all
their parts. At first glance, this is a commendable outlook.

You like
what Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor
to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks
my legs."

It is a
true that beliefs that do not harm us monetarily or physically should be
tolerated. Shariah has positive aspects to it - or, rather, they do no damage
in those two ways. Therefore, parts of shariah should be tolerated in a
religiously diverse society like America.

The Five Pillars are examples. They are part of shariah -
divine Islamic law, which traces its origins ultimately back to the Quran (or
Koran) and Muhammad's example or life, the sacred traditions, which were eventually
written down in the hadith. None of those five rituals and policies picks our
pockets or breaks our legs, if the five are done privately or in the mosque.

Unfortunately,
however, this list is not about the harmless parts in shariah, but the ones
that are incompatible
with the modern era.

Even
Thomas Jefferson had his limits. He sent the marines to take back captured
American merchant sailors and to open up the trade routes that were hampered by
the Muslim Barbary pirates in North Africa, who had sold the captives into
slavery or demanded ransoms.

Do
the elites have any limits?

In some
cases, a religion does indeed pick our pockets and break our legs.

Each item
in the list has one or more back-up articles. Readers should click on them to
find out that the thirty points come right out of original Islam and are not
invented out of thin air. Each back up also has a section on modern Islam,
mentioning Muslims - too few - who advocate reform.

And if readers would like to see various
translations of the Quran, they may go to the website quranbrowser.com
and type in the references. If readers are in doubt about the
meaning of a verse, they may go to the tafsir
(commentary) written by Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), one of the most authoritative and highly regarded
classical commentators in the Sunni world, at qtafsir.com; or the readers may search through the modern commentary by Sunni
Indo-Pakistani religious scholar and politician
Sayyid Abul A"la Maududi
(d. 1979) at englishtafsir.com.
1. The
mosque and state are not separate.
To this day, Islamic nations that
are deeply rooted
in shariah, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, do
not adequately separate the two realms, giving a lot of power to courts and
councils to ensure that legislation does not contradict the Quran (never mind
whose interpretation).

Most of the laws listed below come from this confusion.
2. Jihad
may be waged against injustice or an unjust nation, as Islam defines the terms.
Classical texts say Islam is justice, and no Islam is injustice.
Therefore, a "just war" can be waged against a nation or people who do not
submit to Islam.

Yet we are told in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human
Rights, which is based on shariah, that humane rules must be followed ( Article Three)
.
Does that article offer hope
that modern Islam can move past old Islam? Maybe.

However, the Quran, sacred traditions, classical law, and
historical Islam contradict or balance out some elements in Article Three.
Would there be a conflict between the old Islam and modern Islam, if war broke
out? Many Islamic clerics
issue fatwas
(religious rulings) to wage jihad.

3. Jihad
may be waged to spread Islam and force conversions - a holy war.
Waging jihad to spread Islam and force conversions is a perfect description of
"holy war." See Quran 8:39, 9:5, 9:11-12, 9:14, and 9:29; and then see 9: 33; 61:9
and 48:28.

Yet, we have been told for
many years now that holy wars and forced conversions were never done in Islam. That's
a myth imagined by Westerners.

However, read those
verses and click on the back-up articles:

Back-up
articles: Jihad
and Qital,
The Mission of Muhammad and the
Sword, and The Early Muslim Community and
the Sword.

Quran 47:4 and 33:25-27, 4:24 says those things (and the
last option - free release - is positive). Yet we are that in a jihad today everything must
be done humanely and justly.

However, the
back-up article, this fourth item, and the next four items in this list balance out that
claim. Would there be a conflict
between old Islam and
modern Islam, if war broke out?

Quran 4:24 and
especially the sacred traditions and classical law allow this. The sacred traditions
say that while out on military campaigns under Muhammad's leadership, jihadists
used to practice coitus interruptus with their female captives.

Women soldiers fighting terrorists today must be forewarned of the danger.
6. Property
can be destroyed or confiscated during jihad.
Quran 59:2 and 59:5 discuss those rules. Sacred traditions
and classical law expand on the Quranic verses. Modern Islamic law officially
improves on the Quran: see Article Three of
the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is nonetheless based on
shariah, but it outlaws wanton destruction of property. Would there be any conflict
between old Islam
and modern Islam in a war today?
7. Jihad
may be waged to collect spoils.
Quran 8:1, 8:7, 8:41, and 48:20 show this clearly. Early
Islam followed the old Arab custom of raiding caravans, but as its military
grew, the raids were elevated to jihad. The spoils of war were coveted. Which Islam
would prevail in a war today - the old one or the modern one?
8. A
second-class submission tax, called thejizyah,
must be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living
in Islamic countries.
Quran 9: 29
offers three options to Jews and Christians: (1) Fight and die;
(2) convert to Islam; (3) or keep their religion, but pay a tribute or
submission tax, the jizyah, while
living under Islam.

In Islamic
history, vanquished Jews and Christians became known as dhimmis. This word appears in Quran 9:8 and 9:10, meaning a
"treaty" or "oath," but it can also mean those who are "condemned" "reviled" or
"reproved" (Quran 17:18, 17:22; 68:49). The word "submission" in Quran 9:29 can
also be translated as "humiliation," "utterly humbled," "contemptible" or
"vile." It can mean "small" as opposed to "great."

Islamic nations today still seek to impose this second-class religion tax.
9. Slavery
is allowed.
It is true that freeing slaves was done in original Islam
(Quran 5:89 and 24:33), and the Quran says to be kind to slaves (Quran 4:36),
but that is not the entire story.

In addition to those verses, Quran 4:24, 23:1-7; 33:52 allow
the institution. Muhammad owned slaves, even one who was black (so says a
sacred tradition). He was militarily and politically powerful during his later life
in Medina, but he never abolished slavery as an institution.

Officially,
Islamic nations have outlawed slavery ( Article 11, which is still based on shariah). That
proves Islam can reform on at least one matter. Can it reform on the other
shariah laws? And we are told that "no other nation or religious group in
the world treated slaves better than the Muslims did." The back-up
article and next two items in this list contradict that claim.

The legacy of slavery still runs deep in Islamic countries even today.

Back-up
article: Slavery
10. A
male owner may have sex with his slave-women, even prepubescent slave-girls.
See Quran 4:24 and 23:1-7; but it is classical law that permits sex
with prepubescent slave girls and describes them as such. Some Muslim
religious leaders and others still advocate this practice, taking the slaves as concubines (though sex
with prepubescent slave-girls is another matter).

Back-up
article: Slavery
11. Slaves
may be beaten.
That's what sacred traditions and classical laws say. See Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of
Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery

Back-up
article: Slavery

Normally this is a prescribed punishment, but it is also
political, since it is about freedom of religion. Surprisingly the Quran does
not cover punishing apostates down here on earth, though in the afterlife they
will be punished. Does this modern Islam can reform old Islam? Quran 4:88-89,
9:73-74, and 9:123, read in that sequence, might deal with earthly punishments.
Mainly, however, the sacred traditions and classical law permit harsh treatment
for anyone who leaves Islam.

Back-up article: Freedom
of Religion

These verses should be read in historical sequence, for they
show that as Islam's military power increased, the harsh treatment of mockers
and critics also intensified, as follows: Quran 3:186, 33:57-61, 9:61-66, 9:73
and 9:123. Sacred traditions, classical laws, and historical Islam are
unambiguous about the punishments, recording the people, often their names, who
were assassinated for mocking Muhammad and the Quran.

Back-up article: Free
Speech

14. Drinkers
and gamblers may be flogged.

Quran 2:219, 4:43, and 5:90-91, in that sequence, show that
Islam gradually prohibited alcohol. The last passage also prohibits "gaming" of
sorts. The sacred traditions and classical law discuss punishing gamblers and
alcoholics. One tradition says to execute unrepentant alcoholics who do not
stop. But usually drinkers were flogged forty or eighty times, with garments,
palm branches, or sandals in early Islam.

Back-up article: Muhammad, the Quran, and
Prohibition

Categorized as qisas (like for like), Quran 5:45 is the
main verse (and see 2:187-189). Sacred traditions and classical laws spell out
which punishments should be inflicted on which offenses.

Islamic courts, depending on which way the plaintiff
directs, today may ask a doctor to surgically remove an eye or disfigure the
face or body in
some other way. Currently, qisas can be applied to children
in Iran.

The whole purpose of courts is to remove the punishment of
wrongs and injuries from the plaintiffs who are private citizens; otherwise, blood feuds and personal revenge make
punishments uneven - never mind excessive.

Back-up article: Law of Retaliation

16. The hand of a male or female thief may be cut off.

Quran 5:38 imposes this punishment. The traditions and classical law clarify that the theft has to be a valuable item; or mutilation might not be inflicted during a famine,

But amputation is still done today in Islamic countries and argued for by religious leaders or
legal scholars to understand it as if it is still
valid.

Back-up article: Thieves, Give Muhammad a Hand!

17. A
highway robber may be crucified or his alternate hand and foot cut off.

Quran 5:33 permit these punishments. Yes, from that verse
other punishments can be inflicted, but the point here is that execution for first-degree
murder with aggravated circumstances is one thing, but mutilation and
crucifixion is excessive.

Some Islamic nations can
still impose them
today, or religious and
legal scholars still
argue for understanding the punishments,
as if they are still valid.

Back-up article: Crucifixion and Mutilation

18.
Homosexuals may be imprisoned, flogged, or executed.

Surprisingly, the Quran is not all that clear on this
subject, but the traditions and classical laws are.

Back-up article: Homosexuality
19.
Fornicators may be flogged.
Quran 24:2 says this. The hadith and classical laws can
impose additional penalties like exile of the male for a year.

Back-up article: Adultery
and Fornication
20.
Adulterers may be stoned to death.
The verse that says to stone adulterers to death went
missing from the Quran, so says Umar, a companion of Muhammad and the second
caliph (ruled 634-644). But he left no doubt that this penalty was done under
Muhammad's direction, and the sacred traditions and classical laws confirm it.
But a few rules of evidence must be followed, like confession of the adulterer
or four eyewitnesses. In some interpretations of the law, if a
woman is raped, but cannot produce four just and pious men who witnessed it,
then she is slandering the alleged rapist (or gang rapists) - never mind that
the four just and pious eyewitnesses did nothing to stop it, but stood there
and watched it.

Back-up article: Adultery
and Fornication
21.
False accusers of sexual crimes may be flogged eighty times.
Quran 24:1-4 speak of corporal punishment for sexual sins.
Verse 4 says that if an accuser cannot produce four eyewitnesses to corroborate
his accusation, then he will be flogged (see Quran 24:13).

Some modern Islamic nations can still
impose the penalty for slander, and religious scholars still
argue for it.

Back-up article: Adultery
and Fornication

Quran 2:228 and 4:34
states that mankind is superior to womankind in a variety of legal and domestic
contexts. Quran 2:223 says
wives are fields, and their husbands can go into them whenever and however they
like. How does this inferiority work out in the law and society?
22. A woman
inherits half what a man does.
Quran 4:11 says
it, and the hadith (traditions) and classical law confirm it.

Back-up article: Women's
Status and Roles

Quran 2:282 says
it in the context of business law. But the hadith (traditions) explains that
women's minds are deficient; classical law expands this curtailment to other areas
than business.

Back-up article: Women's
Status and Roles
24. A
man may legally and irrevocably divorce his wife, outside of a court of law, by
correctly pronouncing three times "you are divorced."
Quran 2:229 says
this, and the traditions and classical law explain and confirm it. A judge in a
modern Islamic country will ensure that the husband did not speak from a fit of
irrational rage (anger is okay) or intoxication, for example. Then the court
will validate the divorce, not daring to overturn it, since the Quran says so.

Back-up article: Divorce
and Remarriage

Quran 2:230 says this, and the
traditions and classical law confirm it. Supposedly, this rule is designed to easy divorce (see the previous point),
but it produces a lot of pain, in Muslims today.

Back-up
article: Divorce
and Remarriage

26. Husbands
may hit their wives.

Quran 4:34 says it, and the traditions and classical law confirm it. There is a sequence of steps a husband follows before he can hit her, but not surprisingly this rule creates all sorts of abuse and confusion
in Islamic society today.

Back-up article: Domestic
Violence
27. A
man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
Quran 4:3 (and
33:50-52) allow this, but only if a man can take care of them. The traditions
and classical law confirm it. Modern Muslims still push for this old marital arrangement even in the USA, and many Islamic nations still
allow it. But some Muslims are fighting polygamy. The
hadith (traditions) paints a picture of Muhammad's household that was full of
strife between the wives.

Back-up article: Polygamy
28. A
man may simply get rid of one of his "undesirable" wives.
Quran 4:128 says
this. The traditions say about the verse that the wife whom Muhammad wanted to
get rid of was "huge" and "fat." She gave up her turn to his favorite
girl-bride Aisha. He kept the corpulent wife. There is heartbreak in Islam today.

Back-up article: Polygamy
29. A mature
man may marry a prepubescent girl.
Quran 65:1-4, particularly verse 4, assumes, but does not command, the practice. The hadith says Aisha was six years old when she was engaged to Muhammad (he was in his fifties), and their marriage was consummated when she was nine. The hadith indicate she was prepubescent at nine. She never did bear him any children. Classical law says a father may give away his prepubescent daughter, but she also has a few rights.

Officially many Islamic nations have raised the legal marriage age, but pockets in the Islamic
world still follow this old custom. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia okays marriage to ten-year-old girls. Work
is still needed to be done for the rights of girl brides,
particularly for their sexual health.

Back-up article: Marriage to Prepubescent Girls

Quran 24:31, 33:53 and 33:59 are not as clear about the veil as
one might first think. The verses say to dress modestly, but should the head be
covered or just the neckline? What about the face (except the eyes)? Thus, modern Muslims are now in a big debate over the veil. However,
the traditions and classical law are clearer than the Quran: the veil over the
face (except the eyes).
Conclusion
Compiling this list would not have been necessary if modern Muslim
religious leaders and jurists argued that all of those laws have expiration
dates - back in the seventh century. Instead, they are eager to impose those archaic laws today (with the exceptions duly noted
as the list went along). They believe all of the Quran is universally and timelessly
good.

However, most of the public, since 9/11 and the countless
posts about Islam since then, are laughing at Islam behind its back. The
traditionalists, whom we have kept track of in the series, appear very foolish,
when they defend the thirty rules. Do they really intend to tell us to our
faces that the thirty laws should be imposed on all of humanity for its own
good? Apparently so. But you traditionalists are gradually becoming a
laughingstock, in the eyes of most people.

Most people. Why not all?

The allies of
the traditionalists in the Western world and
elsewhere seem oblivious to the dangers built
into the laws.

Are all of these
laws on the brink of being imposed on the West, by the next day? No, but many
of them, especially the ones about marriage and family, can gradually be
lobbied for and slowly make their way into our culture and legal system and
advocated in school curricula, in the name of multiculturalism.

But will modern Islam reform old Islam? Will the Western
elites encourage reform, or do they believe Islam is fine the
way it is? Rather than they and traditionalists defending the thirty laws and
calling critics "Islamophobes," traditionalists and their allies should work hard to reform the
laws or, better yet, set them aside completely.

For example, the Quran and traditions, classical law, and
Islamic history promote slavery, but modern Muslim states have outlawed it -
officially (see nos. 9, 10, 11, above). This prohibition shows that modern
Islam can improve on original Islam - the one that Muhammad preached and
practiced. Slavery was done throughout the world in the old days; that's the (outdated)
historical context. Original Islam conformed to it. Can modern Muslim scholars
recognize that all of the other laws in this list were part of the same obsolete
historical context and throw out these archaic laws?

In the meantime, while we wait patiently for this Islamic Reformation
and Modernization (if it happens), the Western elites may want to remember
three universal rights that are self-evident, according to the Declaration of
Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The hallmarks of those three rights are, among other things, freedom of conscience to follow a religion of one's choice (or no religion at all) without being harassed. Freedom of speech - even the kind that criticizes the Quran and Muhammad - are signs that democracy and justice have taken root. Equality before the law for both sexes also defines the three universal rights.

However,
all
of those thirty laws suppress everyone's highest quality of life before the law and in society; they
suppress our maximum liberty; and they
suppress individual pursuit of happiness
as he or she defines it.

Finally, a religious utopia which is imposed from the top down in Islam, which harshly punishes sins or crimes by disfigurement or mutilation or flogging, and which denies the basic human dignity of the female sex, is the wrong direction for modern society.

Over the
centuries, and after many mistakes, the West has learned from its mistakes and is still learning. Islamic leaders say the West is arrogant. Maybe sometimes it is. But Islam's refusal to learn from the West is also a sign of arrogance. Islam must bend to us, not we to it. Islam is behind the times.

Tolerance of religions in their harmless aspects, like prayer, is one thing, but capitulation to their civilly and socially oppressive parts is another. Let's preserve our cultural and legal advancements without compromise. Let's keep religion and the state (government) separate.

Not one
word, phrase, or clause of these thirty shariah laws and even the Five Pillars should
ever enter our legal system, legislation,
policy formulations, or school curricula.

Most of all, let's keep (or return) to our three universal and foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of (individual) happiness.
James M. Arlandson has written a book: Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity. He has recently completed a series on The Sword in Early Christianity and Islam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
James M. Arlandson: Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
16 Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies Can Modern Islam Reform Old Islam? by James M. Arlandson, Ph.D. This list of shariah laws is intended to be read by judges, lawyers, legislators, city council members, educators, journalists, government bureaucrats, think tank fellows, TV and radio talk show hosts, and anyone else who occupies the "check points" in society; you initiate the national dialogue and shape the flow of the conversation in society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sharia Law — Muslims for Progressive Values

# data[].attributes.subject
Sharia Law — Muslims for Progressive Values

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #7

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shari'a is not a legal system. It is the overall way of life of Islam, as people understand it according to traditional, early interpretations. These early interpretations date from 700 to 900 CE, not long after the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) died in 632 CE. Shari'a can evolve with Islamic societi

# data[].attributes.headline
Crime and Punishment in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

# data[].attributes.subject
Crime and Punishment in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Security and stability are basic human needs, no less important than food and clothing. Without security and stability, a human being is not able to properly conduct his daily life, let alone come up with new ideas or contribute to the development of a high level of civilization.

Man has been conscious of the need for security since the beginning of his life on Earth, and he has continuously expressed his awareness of this need in many ways. With the formation and evolution of human society, he has expressed this and other needs through the establishment of a state and the formation of laws. This was accomplished in order to ensure general security, settle disputes and conflicts that threaten society, and oppose external threats to its security posed by other nations. The development of these man-made laws did not come to completion except in the last few centuries as the result of a long process of trial and error.

By contrast, the Law of Islam was sent down to Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, in its complete form as part of His final message to humanity. Islamic Law pays the most careful attention to this matter and provides a complete legal system. It takes into consideration the changing circumstances of society as well as the constancy and permanence of human nature. Consequently, it contains comprehensive principles and general rules suitable for dealing with all the problems and circumstances that life may bring in any time or place. Likewise, it has set down immutable punishments for certain crimes that are not affected by changing conditions and circumstances. In this way, Islamic Law combines between stability, flexibility, and firmness.

From what angle does Islam approach combating crime? What are the principles that the Islamic penal code is based upon? What are the distinguishing features of this code? What are the measures that it employs to combat crime? What types of punishments exist in Islam? What are the objectives behind their being legislated? These are the questions that will be dealt with in the following pages.

The Islamic Approach to Combating Crime

The ultimate objective of every Islamic legal injunction is to secure the welfare of humanity in this world and the next by establishing a righteous society. This is a society that worships God and flourishes on the Earth, one that wields the forces of nature to build a civilization wherein every human being can live in a climate of peace, justice and security. This is a civilization that allows a person to fulfill his every spiritual, intellectual, and material need and cultivate every aspect of his being. This supreme objective is articulated by the Quran in many places. God says:

"We have sent our Messengers with clear signs and have sent down with them the book and the criterion so that man can establish justice. And we sent down iron of great strength and many benefits for man..." (Quran 57:25)

And He says:

"...God wants ease for you, not hardship..." (Quran 2:185)

And He says:

"God wants to make things clear for you and to guide you to the ways of those before you and to forgive you. God is the All knowing, the Wise. God wants to forgive you and wants those who follow their desires to turn wholeheartedly towards (what is right). God wants to lighten your burdens, and He has created man weak." (Quran 4:26-28)

And He says:

"God commands justice, righteousness, and spending on ones relatives, and prohibits licentiousness, wrongdoing, and injustice..." (Quran 16:90)

Since the Islamic legal injunctions are aimed at achieving human welfare, they can all be referred back to universal principles which are necessary for human welfare to be secured. These universal principles are:

1. The preservation of life.

2. The preservation of religion.

3. The preservation of reason.

4. The preservation of lineage.

5. The preservation of property.

The Islamic penal system is aimed at preserving these five universal necessities. To preserve life, it prescribes the law of retribution. To preserve religion, it prescribes the punishment for apostasy. To preserve reason, it prescribes the punishment for drinking. To preserve lineage, it prescribes the punishment for fornication. To preserve wealth, it prescribes the punishment for theft. To protect all of them, it prescribes the punishment for highway robbery.

It should therefore become clear to us why the crimes for which Islam for which the Law has prescribed fixed punishments are as follows:

1. Transgression against life (murder or assault).

2. Transgression against property (theft).

3. Transgression against lineage (fornication and false accusations of adultery).

4. Transgression against reason (using intoxicants).

5. Transgression against religion (apostasy).

6. Transgression against all of these universal needs (highway robbery).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crime and Punishment in Islam (part 5 of 5): The Objectives of the Islamic Penal System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A detailed discussion about the regulations Islam has set in regards to dealing with crime in society. Part 5: A discussion of what the legislation of these types of punishment seeks to bring about in a society., A detailed discussion about the regulations Islam has set in regards to dealing with crime in society.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women - CounterJihad

# data[].attributes.subject
A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women - CounterJihad

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An essential, scholarly comparison of the rights of women under Sharia and in the West.

Women in the West are viewed as being equal to men from both an ontological and juridical perspective. Now, that is not to say that women have never been unjustly discriminated against in the West. On the contrary, it is a sad truth of history that throughout the centuries women in Western societies were often discriminated against.

Indeed, suffrage was only granted to American women in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." But for at least the past few decades in the West, the predominant idea is that men and women are equal, and that women are entitled to the same basic rights that men enjoy.

Nowadays there are many principles that are enshrined in Western law to protect the rights of women. For example, in the West, the testimony of a woman is universally held-including in courts-to have the same value as the testimony of a man. Domestic violence against wives in the West is strictly prohibited, though unfortunately it is still practiced by some husbands. Furthermore, divorce is just as easy for a wife as it is for a husband to file for.

In addition, there is no discrimination against women when it comes to inheritance. Women are not disenfranchised of their fair share of inheritance just because they happen to be women. In the West women can also, for the most part, dress in any way that they desire without great social repercussions-and certainly not any legal repercussions.

The practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in Western countries. The codification of monogamy into law goes at least as far back as Greco-Roman times. As a matter of fact, polygamy is seen in the West not only as an immoral practice but also as a practice that disenfranchises women. Moreover, Western countries take a strict stance on sexual exploitation and prohibit men from marrying or having sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls. And it goes without saying that Western countries strictly prohibit their soldiers from taking female sex slaves in times of war.

In sum, Western countries today treat women overall as equal to men, and there is no question that Western women enjoy individual freedoms. Western countries are the best places for women to live, where they can ascend to the highest seats of power in the land (think of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Theresa May, and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) through democratic processes, and where this is no theoretical obstacle to female leaders.

1. Under Sharia, Wives Can Be Beaten.

Whereas under Western laws women and men are equal, under Sharia women are not equal to men, but are considered inferior. Women are the object of many disparaging remarks in the earliest Islamic source texts, which form the basis for Sharia. For example, according to Q 4:34, husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they "fear disobedience" (which implies that actual disobedience need not occur for the beating to be justified):

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.

That wife-beating is permissible given (imagined or real) behavioral misconduct on the part of the wife is also found in Muḥammad's so-called "Farewell Address" or "Last Sermon," which has been preserved in Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra, the oldest and most reliable biography of Muḥammad that we possess.[1]

2. Under Sharia, Females Enjoy Fewer Rights than Males.

According to Q 2:282, the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man's:

And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.

According to Q 4:11 and Q 4:176, a woman may inherit only half as much as her male brother does. Furthermore, as Professor Samīr Khalīl Samīr, a native Arabic speaker with two doctorates and the former adviser to Pope Benedict XVI on Islam and the Middle East, explains, under Sharia "in a [religiously] mixed marriage [where the wife is non-Muslim], the wife legally loses the right to her husband's inheritance if she does not convert to Islam."[2]

3. Under Sharia, Marriage and Sexual Intercourse with Pre-Pubescent Girls is Permissible.

According to Q 65:4, sexual relations with females who have not yet had their menstrual cycle (i.e., pre-pubescent girls) are permissible. The verse is found in the sixty-fifth chapter of al-Talāq (Divorce), which begins by stating that "when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached (the end of) their waiting period (ʿ idda); a waiting period or ʿ idda is a certain amount of time that a Muslim man is supposed to wait before marrying a divorced woman, so as to make sure that she is not pregnant from her previous husband."[3] It is in this context that we are to read Q 65:4, which states the following:

(As for) those of your women who have no hope of (further) menstruation: if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months, and (also for) those who have not (yet) menstruated " [emphasis added].

Sayyid Qutb, the late prominent theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, explains in his renowned commentary on the Qur'ān (In the Shadow of the Qur'ān) that [ Q 65:4] is referring to "women who are past the menopause and those who do not as yet have a menstrual cycle because they have not attained puberty or because of a malfunction in their system" [emphasis added].[4]

Thus, in the context of this Qur'ānic chapter on divorce, it seems that this verse is stating that Muslim men (or husbands) are to wait three months before divorcing pre-pubescent girls (for the reason of making sure that young and apparently borderline post-pubescent girls are not pregnant; cf. Q 2:228). This is not just some interpretation that modern Islamists like Sayyid Qutb came up with; rather, such an interpretation of Q 65:4 is mentioned at least as far back as al-Tabarī (839 - 923), one of our oldest and most important sources of early Islam.

Furthermore, the Andalusian Malikī jurisprudent and philosopher, Ibn Rushd (1126 - 1198), known to the West as "Averroes," confirms the permissibility of having sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls in his legal handbook, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid (literally, "the beginning for him who interprets the sources independently and the end for him who wishes to limit himself"). In this work, and under the section entitled "the Waiting Period for Wives," he states the following: "the divorced woman whose marriage stands consummated may or may not be one who menstruates. If she does not menstruate, she may be a minor or beyond the age of menstruation.[5] "

It should be noted here that one of the most renowned Muslim figures of all times is unequivocally implying that marriage and sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls in Islam are licit.

4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands.

Under Sharia, a husband can divorce his wife simply by stating, "you are divorced" three times in the presence of two adult mentally sound males, without even having to justify his decision, and he will retain custody of any children. In this connection, Professor Samir states that "the most absurd thing is that if the husband later repents of his decision [of divorce] and wants to 'recover' his wife [for the third time], she must first marry another man who in his turn will repudiate her ( Q 2:229-30)."[6] By contrast, no such power is given to the wife.

5. Under Sharia, Female Rulers are Frowned Upon.

Sharia frowns upon female rulers. This originates from a ḥadīth in Sahih al-Bukhari, the most trusted Muslim a ḥadīth , where Muhammad, upon hearing the news that the people of Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen, states: "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."[7] Indeed, this is one of the reasons that is often cited for why women cannot be caliphs.[8] Although this is what Sharia teaches in theory, the practicalities of life give rise to some exceptions. In the Muslim world you did occasionally have female rulers like Shajarat al-Durr (d. 1257) who ruled Egypt in Medieval times. In more recent times, Benazir Bhutto won the elections in Pakistan and became Prime Minister of that country for two non-consecutive terms (1988-90, and 1993-96). So did Shikha Hasina, who won elections three times and is currently the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.

6. Under Sharia, Wives Should be Subservient to their Husbands.

Under Sharia, a husband has absolute authority over his wife. As Professor Samir remarks: "A man can forbid his wife to go out from the home, even to go to the mosque, since in a ḥadīth Muḥammad tells a woman that her prayer has no value if it is done without her husband's permission."[9] This is confirmed by The Reliance of the Traveler, an authoritative fourteenth-century Shafiʿī legal manual written by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misrī (1302 - 1367). The manual states that "a woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin....accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her."[10]

Furthermore, under Sharia, polygyny is allowed, for Q 4:3 explicitly permits Muslim men to marry "what seems good to you of the women: two, or three, or four."[11] Because of this verse, till this day in many Muslim countries it is permissible for a man to marry more than one wife.

Regardless of whether this custom was deemed to be socially acceptable by the seventh-century standards of Arabia, today only the very rare wife would find it permissible for her husband to marry another woman, let alone two or three more, even if she keeps her status as first wife.

7. Under Sharia, Women are Deemed Lacking in Faith and Intelligence.

As students of Islam know very well, Sharia does not just draw from Qur'ānic verses for its oppressive view of women. For it also draws on the aḥadīth (the so-called sayings of Muḥammad). In one such hadīth from Sahīh Al-Bukhārī, the most authoritative Sunni collection of ahādīth, Muḥammad states that the majority of the dwellers of hellfire are women, that women curse frequently and are ungrateful to their husbands, and, famously, that women are "deficient in intelligence and religion." The full hadīth is as follows:

Once Allah's Messenger [i.e., Muḥammad] went out to the Muṣalla [place of prayer] (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Messenger?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion [emphases added]."

Fundamentalist Muslims the world over insist on accepting this ḥadīth, which is virtually universally accepted as authentic or ṣahīh by even moderate Muslim scholars (who generally view just about everything in the collection of al-Bukahrī as authentic). Such aḥadīth have been a source of great injustice to women living in majority-Muslim countries.

8. Under Sharia, Raping Female Captives is Permissible.

What is particularly egregious in Sharia is that warriors are permitted to capture the women of "infidels" and use them for their sexual gratification. According to Q 4:3, Q 4:24, Q 23:5-6, Q 70:22-30, having female slaves, "those whom your right hand possess" (ما ملكت ايمانكم, transliterated as ma malikat aymānikum), is permissible.

Furthermore, interpreting ma malikat aymānikum as "female slaves" is not something that, pace Western-Muslim apologists, is only advanced by so-called Islamophobes. Our earliest tafsīr (Qur'ānic exegesis), the tafsīr of Muqātil Ibn Sulaymān, states that ma malikat aymānikum means walā'id (ولائد), which denotes female slaves.[12] This view has been held by many mufasirīn (exegetes) since medieval times, and A.J. Droge's recent 2013 scholarly translation of the Qur'ān, which is, in my opinion, the best English translation around, explains the phrase "those whom your right hand possess" as straightforwardly referring to female slaves.

Ibn Iṣhāq tells us that after Muhammad had 600 to 900 adult Jewish men of the tribe of Banu Qurayẓa beheaded and thrown into trenches for alleged treason, he "divided the property, wives, and children of b. Qurayẓa among the Muslims." Ibn Iṣhāq further relates that "the apostle sent Saʿd b. Zayd al-Anṣār brother of 'Abdu'l-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayẓa to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons [emphasis added]."[14]

Hence, according to Ibn Isḥāq, Muhammad enslaved women and sanctioned their being sold off (not much different from what ISIS militants are doing today with Yazidi women, no doubt modeling themselves after the Muhammad of the early Islamic sources). Furthermore, Ibn Iṣhāq tells us that "the apostle had chosen one of [the women of the tribe of B. Qurayẓa] for himself."[15] In other words, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was himself taking female captives for his own sexual gratification.

We also read in the Sīra about what is ostensibly Muḥammad's aggressive attack against the Jews of Khaybar (a Jewish-settled oasis about ninety-five miles north of Medina).[16] Ibn Iṣhāq reports on the authority of one ʿAbdullah b. Abū Najīḥ that on the day of the conquest of Khaybar, Muḥammad prohibited his fighters from having "carnal intercourse with pregnant women who were captured."[17] The implicature of this prohibition is that carnal intercourse with non-pregnant women who were captured was permissible.

Furthermore, we read in Ibn Iṣhāq that "the women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims."[18] That is, according to our earliest and best source on Muḥammad's life, Muhammad sanctioned the sexual use of female slaves, or "those who you right hand possess," to use Qur'ānic terminology.

In addition, when one reads the relatively early Islamic sources, one gleans that in the battle of Khaybar, Muḥammad himself had sexual intercourse with a captured woman, Ṣafiyyah bint Huyyay (Safiyyah, daughter of Huyyay), whose father Muḥammad had ordered killed, either the same night that he had her husband killed at Khaybar, or shortly thereafter on the way to Wādī al-Qurā (a "valley" which is located close to Khaybar).[19]

From Sahih al-Bukhari we learn that Suffiya, the "chief mistress of the tribes of Qurayza and An-Nadir" was originally considered by the Muslim victors as a slave woman or jārīya (جَارِيَةً), but that Muhammad manumitted her and subsequently "married" her (al-Ṭabarī tells us that this occurred after she accepted Islam).[20]

Ibn Isḥāq relates that when Muhammad first engaged in sexual relations with Ṣafiyyah (when he "married" her) in his tent (the same day or just a few days after killing her male folks), one Abū Ayyūb, Khālid b. Zayn,

passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle [i.e., Muhammad] and going around the tent until the morning the apostle saw him there and asked him what he meant by his action. He replied, "I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people, and till recently she was in unbelief, so I was afraid on your account."[21]

The above excerpt makes it abundantly clear that the guard wanted to guard Muhammad because he perceived him to be forcefully having sex with someone who must have harbored deep resentment and hatred for him because of his slaughter of her kin, particularly her father and her husband.

Indeed, ʾAḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Baladhūri (d. circa 892), one of earliest writers of Islamic history (particularly of the early Arab-Islamic conquests), relates that Ṣafiyya said the following:

Of all men the Prophet was the one I hated the most, for he had killed my husband, father and brother. But he kept saying "your father excited the Arabs to unite against me and he did this and that," until the hatred [for Muhammad] was gone from me.[22]

So, if our earliest sources on Islam are to be trusted, Muhammad, after he conquered the oasis of Khaybar, claimed Ṣafiyya bint Huyyay as his sexual captive.[23] Indeed, if the earliest sources on Islam are to be trusted, then one must accept the commonsensical conclusion that Muhammad raped Ṣafiyya,[24] and allowed his followers to similarly rape women who were captured during battle.[25]

Typically Westernized Muslims, if they are even aware of the existence of such stories in the earliest and most reliable biography of Muhammad, will dismiss them as ahistorical, and as having nothing whatsoever to do with pure and unadulterated Islam. However, there is no non-ad hoc reason to believe that these unpleasant events are not historical, whilst at the same time affirming that records more consonant with Western sensibilities are.

Furthermore, bracketing the question of historicity, there is much less reason to believe that contemporary actions that are consonant with what is recounted in these stories are "unislamic"-for these stories come from sources that form the very heart and soul of Islam.[26] Certainly Islamists are not going to buy the idea that such stories are unislamic or ahistorical just because they are contrary to Western sensibilities.

The fact is that ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, who are notorious for raping Yazidī women who they capture (sometimes shortly after killing their families and neighbors), are clearly acting within the interpretive parameters of traditional Islam and following the example of the Muhammad of the earliest Islamic sources.

In his legal handbook, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid,[27]the Malikī jurisprudent and philosopher Ibn Rushd confirms the permissibility of enslaving women after battle. In the section "Identification of the harm permitted to be inflicted upon the enemy," Ibn Rushd states in no equivocal terms that Muhammad "enslaved women."[28] Ostensibly the implication is that enslaving women after battle is justified, following the example of Muhammad.

There is no question that taking female captives in warfare is a practice that is sanctioned in the earliest Islamic sources; this practice or tradition is not just an innovation of groups like ISIS. And this is not just something that only so-called Islamophobic Westerners point out.

Indeed, Dr. Suʿad Ṣālih, former Dean of the Women's College of Islamic and Arabic Studies at al-Azhar University in Egypt (the seat of Sunni learning), very explicitly and nonchalantly states that taking female slaves ( milk al-yamīn) is Islamically permissible in a war against Muslim enemies. She gives an example involving Israelis, stating that were Israel to fall, it would be permissible to take Israeli women as captives and use them for sexual gratification in order to humiliate them.[29]

The irony that Dr. Suʿad Ṣālih, herself a woman, is sanctioning the sexual enslavement of female war captives, is completely lost on the former Azharī dean. But the irony is lost presumably because the former dean is utterly convinced that using female captives for sexual gratification is not something that is inhumane-after all, from her perspective, the flawless religion of Islam and the ideal for all mankind, Muhammad, sanction the practice.

Conclusion and a Possible Pathway for Reform.

Other examples of Islam's inferior view of women can be cited. However, the above accounts are sufficient to conclude that under Sharia, "men are superior to women" (Q 2:228) and that "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they [men] spend their wealth to maintain them [women]" (Q 34:4). Sharia then enjoins upon its adherents a profoundly un-egalitarian ethic, whereby women are deemed inferior to men.[30]

People who are endeared to the egalitarian-Western principles, particularly those who are Europeans, must fight the proliferation of Sharia ideas in their homeland. But in order to fight a fascistic and misogynistic ideology like Islamism, it is necessary for adherents of egalitarian-Western principles to first understand the motivations of Islamists.

And, make no mistake, the reasons that Islamists advance for just about everything they do, including their oppression of women, are based almost exclusively on their religious ideology. None of the sources cited above are exclusively political or social in nature-they are religious Islamic sources.

As was made explicit in the fifteenth issue of ISIS's Dabiq magazine, ISIS members and their Islamist cohorts are not nihilists who just have an innate and brute desire to oppress non-Muslims. Their actions are "cold and calculated," and they are acting out on what they believe, and what appear to be, relatively plausible interpretations of the Islamic source texts. Until this is exposed, challenged, and confronted by non-Muslim societies and reformist Muslims as well, there can be no victory against ISIS' oppressive ideology.

Now, the job of Western leaders and those in the intelligence community is to educate themselves about the underlying religious motivations of Islamists (and not censor talk about Islam in willful blindness). Muslim reformers, on the other hand, are tasked with the more difficult job of reforming Islam,and rejecting interpretations or Islamic source texts that are at odds with contemporary Western and egalitarian values.

Muslim reformers need to focus on cultivating a peaceful and tolerant Islam, one that bestows a much higher place to women than traditional Islam, and one which is not a prisoner to the above- interpretations or source texts.

However, as mentioned above, Muslim reformers should not just dismiss problematic stories like that of Ṣafiyya as ahistorical or unislamic whilst simultaneously accepting other material in the same earliest sources as being historical and Islamic. This is unlikely to convince any Muslim with a proclivity to the less palatable interpretations of Islam, and certainly not those who are intimately familiar with the source texts.

These Muslims, especially the non-Western ones, will immediately indict the Muslim reformer as succumbing to Westernizing influences in his/her understanding of Islam. They will challenge the reformer to explain why what he/she happens to find unpalatable in the sources is ahistorical or unislamic, and why what he/she finds palatable is historical or Islamic. The reformer will very likely be unable to provide a satisfactory answer here.

So Muslim reformers need a way to reform Islam without playing fast and loose with the source texts, an endeavor which is bound to fail (the proof of this is that so far it has failed miserably). Now, the reformation of Islam is a burden that moderate Muslims must carry themselves-reform cannot be imposed from outside the Muslim umma, but must arise naturally and organically within it. In a word, it is for Muslims themselves to go about the very difficult task of reforming Islam.

That being said, I suggest that one promising pathway of reform, at least one that is much more promising than cherry-picking what to believe in the early sources, is the methodology that is advocated by Ahmad Ṣubḥī Manṣūr, an Egyptian graduate of al-Azhar. Manṣūr is a prominent Muslim reformist who is a former Azharī PhD graduate and Azharī professor.

His reformist agenda is very simple: Islam should be based on the Qur'ān alone. To this end, he has written a whole book entitled al-Qur'ān wa Kafa ("the Qur'ān is Sufficient") wherein he defends the Qur'ān-only view, of which he is currently and incontrovertibly the number-one proponent.

Manṣūr believes that the extra-Qur'ānic Islamic sources, written as they were many generations after Muhammad's death, are historically unreliable, and are a byproduct of a later sectarian milieu with concerns that were alien to the time of Muhammad and the Qur'ān.[31] Indeed, he describes much of the unpalatable material found in the ahādīth as "garbage."

An upshot of his view is that many of the unpalatable teachings in mainstream Islam are not found in the Qur'ān, but in the extra-Qur'ānic sources, and so will be eliminated from his version of Islam. Examples of unpalatable doctrines or events that are not found in the Qur'ān but are present in the extra-Qur'ānic sources are as follows: the view that women make up most of hellfire and are lacking in faith and intelligence; the view that apostates should be killed; the stories that Muhammad enslaved women and had (ostensibly non-consensual) sexual relations with some female captives; the view that Muhammad wanted Jews and Christians expelled from the Arabian peninsula; the view that people should be fought until they believe in Allah and Muhammad's prophethood, etc.

It must be noted that the view that Islam should be based solely on the Qur'ān and not on the extra-Qur'ānic sources is not something that is completely without intellectual merit. The extra-Qur'ānic sources of Islam are in fact written long after Muhammad's death and contradict each other on many important points. That a ḥadīth in Sahih al-Bukhari has Muhammad saying that whoever changes his (Islamic) religion should be killed is hardly good evidence that Muhammad said such a thing.

Furthermore, eminent Western (non-Muslim) scholars of Islam, like Gabriel Said Reynolds of the University of Notre Dame, consider the extra-Qur'ānic Islamic sources, viz., the sīyar (plural of sīra), tafasīr (plural of tafsīr), and aḥadīth (plural of ḥadīth), to be historically unreliable for constructing the context of the Qur'ān, or giving us accurate information about Muhammad.[32] He views many of the extra-Qur'ānic stories as being Midrashic interpretations of enigmatic Qur'ānic verses that should be read as secondary literature rather than as historical accounts.

All this being said, the putative reformist pathway of Manṣūr is not without its demerits. First, the Sunna (or way of Muhammad) is firmly entrenched in early Islam and many Muslims would see a Qur'ān-only Islam as being very foreign from their understanding of the religion. And they would be correct. Qur'ān-only Islam is an alien form of Islam, after all, most of Islamic praxis today is based not on the Qur'ān but on the extra-Qur'ānic sources (particularly the aḥadīth); for example, the obligation to pray five times a day is not something that is taught in the Qur'ān, but in the extra-Qur'ānic source materials.[33] So in one sense, a Qur'ān-only Islam is arguably a different religion than the mainstream Islam that is practiced today.

Second, most scholars of Islam, whether Muslim scholars in Muslim countries, orientalist scholars, or otherwise, do believe that while the earliest extra-Qur'ānic Islamic sources are embellished, even to a high degree, they nevertheless retain a solid core of historical truth. Scholars like Reynolds are, as he himself notes, in the minority here. Orientalists still follow the methodology of the great Islamicist, Theodore Noldeke (1836 - 1930), which is different from the traditional Muslim approach to the sources only insofar as it utilizes a more critical approach.[34]

Third, while the Qur'ān-only approach does eliminate many things that are unpalatable to a Western audience, one is still left with apparently unpalatable verses in the Qur'ān. Some Qur'ānic verses, like the ones mentioned earlier in this article, will need to be explained by Muslim reformers. However, given that the Qur'ān is, as the Islamicist F.E., Peters notes, "a text without a context,"[35] there is much room for interpretive maneuvering.[36]

All things being equal, the less that is known about the context of an ancient text, the greater the plausible interpretations of the text. This gives Qur'ān-only Muslims much greater leeway in explaining the prima facie unpalatable verses than Christians and Jews have in explaining away the violent or unpalatable elements in the Old Testament (the context of which are quite clearly stated in the text itself).

This is just one of a few putative approaches that Muslim reformers can adopt in order to combat certain religious doctrines that are not compatible with an egalitarian and Western ethic. Whatever the path that Muslim reformers take, it will certainly be an uphill battle for them. Manṣūr himself was tried by an Azharī tribunal and expelled from the University in 1987. And after being on the receiving end of many death threats for his unorthodox views, he sought political asylum in the United States and was granted it in 2002.

More recently, a young reformist, Islam al-Buhayrī, was imprisoned by ʿAbd al-Fatah al-Sisi's "secular" Egyptian government for his vociferous efforts to reject much of what is unpalatable in the mainstream Islamic tradition. Likewise, Sayyid Al-Qumni is currently being taken to court in Egypt for his allegedly blasphemous reformist views. These courageous reformers are leading the drive towards reforming Islam, but when it comes to women under sharia, Muslim women themselves should be more proactive and they should take the lead in demanding equal treatment.

As can be seen from the above, there is much in the Islamic source texts that is not compatible with contemporary Western conceptions of the equality of man and woman. However, there are possible pathways for reforming these elements of Islam. And reformists who apply an intellectually consistent methodology, people like Dr. Manṣūr, should be encouraged.

[1] That being said, it should be noted that most commentators are in agreement that the beating should not be severe ( ghayr mubarraḥ). That the beating should be ghayr mubarrah is found in both the earliest tafsīr of the Qur'ān, as well as in the so-called Farewell Sermon, which is recorded in Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra. See Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, ed. ʿAbdallah Muhammad Shahāta (Beirut: Mu'assasit al-Tarīkh al-Arabī, 2002), 371. For the "Farewell Sermon," see the original Arabic in Ferdinand Wüstenfeld ed., Das Leben Muhammeds nach Muhammad Ibn Isḥāq (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1858-60), 969, and the corresponding English translation in ʻAbd al-Malik Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq, and Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1955), 651.

[2] Samīr Khalīl Samīr, 111 Questions on Islam: Samīr Khalīl Samīr, S.J. on Islam and the West: A Series of Interviews Conducted by Giorgio Paolucci and Camille Eid, ed. Wafik Nasry, trans. Wafik Nasry and Camille Eid (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 118.

[3] Sahih (correct) ahādīth also state that Muhammad married A'isha, the daughter of "the first rightly guided caliph" Abu Bakr, when she was just six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was just nine years old. See, e.g., Sahīh Al-Bukharī, Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadīth 236.

[4] Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur'ān, trans. Adil Salhi and A. Shamis (Markfield, Leicester: Islamic Foundation), 82.

[5] Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist's Primer (vol.1), ed. Ahsan Khan Nyzazee (Reading: Garnet Publishing, n.d.), 106.

[6] Samīr Khalīl Samīr, 111 Questions on Islam, 111-12. Also see Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misrī, The Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Sālik), trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1997), Book N (Divorce), sec. 7.7, 565. Q 2:229 states that "divorce (may take place) twice." A.J Droge explains that this is "usually taken to mean that a husband may divorce his wife twice and marry her; but if he divorces her for a third time, it is not lawful for them to remarry, until she has been married to another man and been divorced by him [cf. Q 2:320]." See A.J Droge, trans., The Qur'ān: A New Annotated Translation (Croydon: Equinox Publishing, 2013), 24.

[7] Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 88, ḥadīth 219.

[8] See, e.g., Ṣalāh Ṣāwī, al-Wajīz fī Hikm al-Khilāfa (n.p.:Dar al-ʿAlām al-Dowla, n.d.), 24.

[9] Samīr Khalīl Samīr, 111 Questions on Islam, 113.

[10] Ibid., Book M, sec, 10.3.

[11] Although the verse does frown upon taking more than one wife if the husband will not treat them fairly. And since it is practically impossible for husbands to treat more than one wife equally, some Muslim reformists have taken this to mean that polygyny is almost never permissible. The only exception to this rule is Muhammad himself, who had more than four wives. Q 33:50 is generally appealed to by Muslims as endowing Muhammad with this prophetic charism.

[13] A.J Droge, trans., The Qur'ān: A New Annotated Translation, 49 .

[16] Ibn Iṣhāq, Sīra Rasūl Allāh, 510-19. There are several lines of evidence that point to this being an aggressive conquest and not one done out of self-defense. For example, the people of Khaybar were clearly not expecting any attack, as they would if this were indeed an attack done out of self-defense. Indeed, Ibn Isḥāq tells us that "when the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear he attacked," and that "when morning came [but Muḥammad] did not hear a call to prayer" he rode out to attack. Indeed, Muhammad and his warriors came upon the early-morning famers of Khaybar who were "coming out with their spades and baskets ( Sirat Rasūl Allāh, 511)." Further evidence that that was not an exercise in self-defense was that , as Ibn Isḥāq tells us, when the people of Ghaṭafan heard that Muḥammad was moving his forces towards Khaybar, the men hurried to defend their brothers in Khaybar, only to reneg because of rumors that their families and properties were attacked during their absence. If this were an act of self-defense, the people of Ghatafan would likely have already joined the people of Khaybar prior to Muhammad's military movement (ibid.).

[19] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 8, ḥadīth 367; Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, ḥadīth 522; Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabari: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, vol. 9, trans. Ismaʿīl K. Poonawala (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 134-35. Al-Ṭabarī, The History al-Tabari, vol. 39, trans. Ella Landau-Tasseron (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 185. We say "relatively early" because, absolutely speaking, the extra-Qur'ānic sources of Islam are quite late. For example, the oldest biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasūl Allah by Ibn Isḥāq, was written at least around 120 years after Muhammad's death, and only comes down to us in rescinded versions (e.g., in the versions of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Hishām). Ibn Isḥāq's biography of Muhammad gives us further details about how Ṣaffiya's husband, Kināna ibn al-Rabīʿ ibn Abī al-Huqayq, was killed. Ibn Isḥāq relates that Muhammad tortured Kināna by kindling fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was near dead, prior to ordering Muhammad ibn Maslama to behead him. Ibn Isḥāq relates that Muhammad did this because Kināna would not disclose to Muhammad where the treasure of the Jewish tribe of Banu Naḍir was hidden. See ʻAbd al-Mālik Ibn Hishām, Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq, and Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Karachi; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 51.

[20] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 8, ḥadīth 367. Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabari: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, vol. 9, trans. Ismaʿīl K. Poonawala,134.

[21] Al-Tabarī, in his prominent Tarīkh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (the Annals of the Prophets and the Kings), also relates this story (though he seems to have been relying on a copy of Ibn Isḥāq's Sira) on the authority of al-Wāqidī, adding that after Muhammad's guard told him this, "the apostle laughed." Al-Ṭabarī also adds that Ṣafiyya was just seventeen years of age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her. Cf. Al-Ṭabarī, The History al-Ṭabarī, vol. 39, 185.

[22] ʾAḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī, Futūh al-Buldan, ed. ʿAmr Anīs al-Ṭabā (Beirut: Mu'assasit al-Ma'ārif, n.d.), 32.

[23] Indeed, Ibn Isḥāq tells us that Muhammad picked Ṣafiya for himself on account of her beauty ( Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, ḥadīth 522). She was, the sources tell us, originally picked out by Diḥya al-Kalbī, one of Muḥammad's subordinates (cf., e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 8, ḥadīth 367; Vol. 3, Book 34, ḥadīth 431; Vol. 5, Book 59, ḥadīth 512). However, her youthful beauty ostensibly caught Muhammad's eye and he wanted her for himself. So he gave Diḥya other captured women in exchange for Ṣafiyya. A in Sunan Ibn Majah states that Muḥammad gave Diḥya seven female slaves in exchange for Ṣafiyya (Vol. 3, Book 12, ḥadīth 2272).

[25] An interesting note in the context of this article is that Muhammad apparently did not wait for Ṣaffiya's three-month idda or waiting period to expire before he "married" her and had sexual relations with her. Just as he marks an exception to the "no-more-than-four-wives" rule so he marks an exception to the waiting-period rule. After all, in traditional Islam, Muhammad is considered to be al-insān al-kāmil, i.e., the perfect man. (Al-Ṭabarī states that he had married a total of fifteen women, consummated the marriage with thirteen, and was married to eleven at one time; cf. Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabari: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, vol. 9, trans. Ismaʿīl K. Poonawala,126-7.)

[26] I give a suggestion for how Muslim reformers can approach these thorny issues in the conclusion of the article.

[28] Ibn Rushd, The Distinguished Jurist's Primer (vol.1), trans. Ahsan Khan Nyzazee, 456.

[29] "برنامج فقه المرأة - د.سعاد صالح -المقصود بملك اليمين - Fiqh Al-maraa," YouTube video, 3:37, posted by "AlHayah TV Network," Sept. 12, 2014. She literally says that that a Muslim man can " yastimtʿ bīhim kama yastimtʿ bi zawjātihī " - i.e., he can" enjoy" female slaves or "those who his right hand posses" just like he "enjoys" his wives.

[30] As the Islamicist Samir Khalil Samir notes, although the Qur'ān clearly teaches the superiority of men over women, the male duty to provide for women is also explicitly stated. See Samir Khalil Samir, 111 Questions on Islam, 96.

[31] For example, in an interview with the prominent Muslim turned trenchant critic of Islam Brother Rachid, he boldly states that Mālik Ibn Annas and Ibn Isḥāq wrote the Muwatta and Sirā, respectively " min dimāghihīm " (literally meaning "from their brain"), implying that Ibn Isḥāq simply plucked the "historical facts" for his biography out of thin air. See "سؤال جرئ 378 لقاء خاص مع الدكتور احمد صبحي منصور: الجزء الأول", YouTube video, 15:17, posted by "Daring Question," Oct. 1, 2014.

[32] Regarding the tafāsīr, after Reynolds demonstrates that they reflect "both confusion and creative speculation" with respect to the mysterious letters ( al-ahruf al-muqaṭṭaʿa) that begin twenty-nine sūras (or chapters) of the Qur'ān, he states that "it seems to me unlikely, to say the least, that the mufassirun (Qur'ānic exegetes) are reliable preservers of an unbroken chain of Qur 'ānic interpretation, or that they remember perfectly the time and place and reason why individual verses were revealed, and yet at the same time totally fail to understand these letters." Cf. Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur'ān in its Biblical Subtext, (London; New York: Routledge, 2010), 19-20. With respect to the ahadīth, he states that "the ḥadīth come from collections written down only in the ninth century and have many legendary, tendentious, exegetical, and anachronistic features." Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 70. For a critical examination of the ḥadīth literature, see Igńac Goldziher's pioneering Muslim Studies, trans. S.M. Stern and C.R. Barber (Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1971); Goldziher's German original, Mohammedanische Studien, was published in 1889-90. Also see Joseph Schacht's seminal work, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950).

[33] The earliest mention of the obligation to pray five times a day comes from the account of Muhammad's ascent into heaven, found in the Sīra of Ibn Isḥāq (p.186-7). In the account, which is reminiscent of Abraham's plea with God to spare the just inhabitants of Sodom and Gomarrah, Muḥammad ascends into heaven and is told that the number of daily prayers that are obligatory is fifty. Moses then convinces Muḥammad to ask God to lower it to ten, and then finally to five, after which Muhammad is too ashamed to ask for a lesser obligation.

[35] Francis Edward Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 259.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women - CounterJihad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An essential, scholarly comparison of the rights of women under Sharia and in the West. Women in the West are viewed as being equal to men from both an ontological and juridical perspective. Now, that is not to say that women have never been unjustly discriminated against in the West.

# data[].attributes.body
Sharia Resource #8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The politically incorrect truth about Islamic law.