The Sharia Debate - A Perspective

The debate about sharia law is highly emotive. Sharia is complex but I suspect many only consider the most extreme aspects. Given the current situation that's understandable,  but are we being fair in doing so.  I don't claim to be an expert, even Muslim Scholars differ however I think I can apply reason and fairness.

In reality, Sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims. Moreover, these particular values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of Australia and the very vast majority of Australians. I guess a simplistic comparison would be Christians using the 10 Commandments as their guide with some extras. 

·       educating the individual; 

·       Upholding morality in public and private;

·       preventing hardship, on individuals and society;

·       establishment of justice;

·       preventing oppression. 

One of the more contentious examples in Australia is that Sharia law decrees that men and women should dress modestly, although Countries vary in how they interpret this.  It’s fair to say that in some countries like Saudi Arabia and Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan the application of this, as it this applies to women is repressive. On the other hand most women in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia (except for Aceh) and western countries as an example choose how they dress in compliance with their religious law. That is their decision, not ours to demand. This is also at the heart of one of the emotive debates in Australia.    

If I’m honest I find women ‘modesty’ dressed less offensive than many of the immodesty dressed women on our streets. I am not intimidated by women covering (anymore). I say anymore because when I was first confronted by large numbers of women in niqabs my first reaction was sorrow and my second was slight intimidation. After years of mixing with these women it doesn’t bother me anymore.  I do however respect the fact that many in this country are intimidated and distrustful.  

Other areas of daily life where Muslims may turn to Sharia for guidance include family law, finance and business.

Sharia is extremely complex as there are five different schools of Sharia law.  There are 4 Sunni doctrines; Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi. There is one Shia doctrine; Shia Jaafari.  Where it becomes complex is the five doctrines differ in how literally they interpret the texts from which Sharia Law is derived.

For the majority of Muslims, those we like to refer to as 'ordinary' Muslims they just want to live their lives in peace and consider an interpretation of Sharia to be valid so long as it protects and advocates for life, property, family, faith, and intellect. So when people call for Sharia to be banned and those who follow Sharia to be deported or have any government support removed they are essentially including all Muslims. That’s where problems arise in my opinion.

I found this recently. I'll post unedited because it's interesting to review in the context of how the majority of Muslims live their lives and how we live our lives.

"The scholars explain that the welfare of humans is based on the fulfilment of necessities, needs, and comforts.

Necessities

Necessities are matters that worldly and religious life depends 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 (added NOT to be interpretation as welfare payments) in this life and the hereafter.

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

Religion: 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.

Life: 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. 

Intellect: 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 Sharia with regards to needs and comforts is summed up in the Qur’ān,"

The question then arises how these are applied. 

Religion: I'm not going to focus on the point of religion. I think that is worthy of separate review. I will say this however, when I've asked my Muslim friends both here and overseas about praying so often; why they do and the benefits they gain, they've stated; it helps them to maintain discipline to lead a better and more productive life. It helps them to learn about themselves; how do they become better people and it gives them a release, almost like meditation. That said, I acknowledge it does cause divide with the non-Muslim community.

Life: I don't believe anyone can take issue with the description here apart from the interpretation of punishment. Many people have very strong opinions about the taking of life as punishment for taking another person's life. However let's not forget even the U.S. has the death penalty and they do execute people. The latest was only last week.  It is also prudent to point out that many Muslim states that follow Sharia Law do not have death penalties. In fact the vast majority don't or they are very sparingly applied. Example, the sentence is death but not carried out and the perpetrator jailed instead. 

The other issue relates to the method of execution. We consider, rightly so, the thought of beheading abhorrent. In fact, delivered as capital punishment it's a quicker death than hanging or lethal injection. Note I’m not referring to the barbaric practices of ISIS. On the other hand if you read about recent executions by injection in the US they were nothing short of barbaric in the extreme. 

Interestingly enough many of those who are outspoken in this country on capital punishment in say the ME are the very same ones who are advocating on social media that we should send Christine Milne and the Greens to the Iraq for ISIS to behead them. Now I have little time for Christine Milne but what awful comments. To me it's sickening that people would even consider saying that. 

I consider ALL capital punishment abhorrent.  The same as the chopping of hands etc. and no one in a modern society would entertain something as barbaric. That said given the level of attack we see on social media with reference to ‘medieval’ practices I was somewhat stunned to see the results of a recent survey in the UK on the application of capital punishment. 45% were still in favour. 16% of UKIP supporters said beheadings were acceptable. I found that enlightening given UKIP’s attacks on Muslims and immigration.   

Intellect: Nothing overtly controversial here except alcohol and drugs. But when you consider the impact that drugs and alcohol has on society; the destruction, the violence, the exploitation, the crime and the resultant poverty perhaps we should be debating the pros and cons. If people choose not to drink or take drugs we should be congratulating them, not attacking them. I know a couple of people who have in fact converted to Islam to help them beat their drug and alcohol addiction. They’ve been successful and I admire them greatly. 

Now, the punishment handed out by some hardliner Muslim's to those who do abuse substances is harsh and we find it abhorrent but so are the soft penalties we hand out. The only different is in the Muslim world the perpetrator suffers in 'our' world the victims continue to suffer.  Once again, the issue is one of degrees not necessarily the 'value’ of don't drink or take drugs. 

Lineage: Marriage. This is a very touchy subject. That said I can see some merits in linage and the continuation of human life.  It's sex outside of marriage and adultery that probably causes the greatest divide. We witness almost daily the impact on society of children born out of wedlock. Often, this is due to reports of abuse and far too often today the deaths of innocent little children.

Many also complain about the burdens on the welfare system due to unmarried women and single parents.  It's lamentable that it's far too easy for young girls to have children with limited ability to look after them and to some degree I believe we seeing the manifestation of this over many years in the increase in disenfranchised youth.  Youth who I might add are ideal targets for radical Muslims or radical any other group for that matter.

Remember, many of those globally who are now fighting in ISIS corner the Middle East are converts. The murderers of Lee Rigby were converts.  Some of our worst offenders were converts. So, I have no issue with a group of people who say marriage is sacred and should be preserved. 

The other issue which causes eruptions is the practice of stoning of those who commit adultery or have sex outside of marriage. The practice is abhorrent. Thankfully, stoning is practised in few countries and instances are largely due to remote 'tribal' communities handing out punishments. The bible and the Torah in fact talk of stoning but thankfully we've moved on. 

Many Muslim clerics, religious scholars, and political leaders, including those in the countries where stoning is practiced, have condemned stoning as “un-Islamic”. Changes are happening, albeit slowly in some parts. With the exception of idiotic youths and radicals I feel safe in saying 99.99% of Muslims in this country neither want to see or support the practice of stoning or lapidaries as it's also referred to. 

Wealth: Nothing controversial here and I've stated a number of times when it comes to Sharia banking laws I think we could learn a few things about application / non application of fees and charges. Let's face it; there are many people who spend a lot of time complaining about the unfair practices of banks and credit card companies. Perhaps we should be having the debate about whether it would be in our best interests to review of Sharia banking laws.  If they are better than ours, fairer than ours, we'd be a bit silly to just dismiss them because Muslims want that for themselves, don't you think?  That said any law has to be a law for all, not some. 

The other point that is used as a bat to belt up Muslims is the abuse of welfare. Now, we have definitely been made aware of a few Muslim abuses recently. It's also fair to say that many economic refugees have tried to come here because of access to welfare. Some have admitted that. By and large however according to the 2011 Census data the 'ethnic' groups accessing welfare don’t highlight those from Muslim countries as the biggest offenders. Brits, Italians & Greeks are the biggest users of welfare. I suspect given the debacle created by Labor, that this has changed, but it's an interesting fact nevertheless. So I guess if we now have more from the Muslim community accessing welfare due to failed immigration we can blame our political leaders. 

Needs and comforts: Not a lot to say about this. People living in this country want small luxuries however modest to make life easier and more enjoyable. Speak to most Muslim dads and they will tell you (often with a chuckle) about their wife's and their daughters and dresses and shoes. At least my friends have. We all want a comfortable life. I can’t see anything wrong with wishing the same for our fellow man.

So back to the call to Ban Sharia!! All I ask is this, when we condemn Sharia let's be very clear what it is exactly that we are condemning. When ignorant politicians like Jacqui Lambie demand that those who advocate Sharia Law be kicked out or lose access to welfare let's be very specific about EXACTLY what elements we are talking about. Because if we are not specific we (using the royal we) are just merely attacking a whole group of people who by and large follow a set of moral principles in living their lives peacefully, respectfully and ethically. 

I expect there are many who will read this and brand me a Muslim apologist. Jackie Lambie would brand me a Sharia terrorist. I'm neither; Muslims don't need me, an 'infidel' to apologise for them. They're more than capable of expressing their own views. As for Ms Lambie her opinion is totally irrelevant to anyone with an ounce of decency or intelligence. My only objective is to try and bring some balance and to be fair to those who are 'assaulted' merely because of who they are and the values they choose to live by.  

So let’s try and be clear about what is we are railing against as this relates to Sharia Law; religious law, common law as opposed to statutory law. For that matter, the radical Muslim element can shout all they like for Sharia Statutory Law, it won’t happen.

Religious law refers to ethical and moral codes taught by various religious traditions. Examples include Christian canon law, Jewish halakha and Hindu law as well as Sharia Law