[lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in Germany
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:15:32 -0700
Hello Phil.
I don't "post links to comments [I] make in another context." The Lit-Ideas
format doesn't allow for long posts, especially long posts that quote other
long posts for context. After having my posts refused by Lit-Ideas many
times, I began posting them on my blog. There is no dual context. However,
once I start posting on my blog on a subject I may continue posting
something there for continuity.
As to the danger of the "increase of Sharia Law," Fundamentalist Muslims
deriving from Salafist and Sayid Qutb teaching believe in a "Creeping Sharia
Law" as one of the devices intended to complete the Jihad that Mohammad
started. That Jihad will only be completed when the entire world is Muslim.
This is what I was referring to in an earlier note today when I said I have
been criticized for taking Islamists at their word, for, my critics assert,
Islam except for a few malcontents is longer radical but mellow. I don't
believe their criticism is born out either by history or what I read. It
isn't going to become mellow unless we apply some tenderizer; which the
Politically Correct are appalled by.
You say the term "Sharia Law" is being used ambiguously. You are
theoretically correct if you mean "being used variously," but I am worried
about the modern Islamist and Salafist use of this Law, not "Moderate-Muslim
usage" should there be any. [I once challenged Omar to produce writings by
moderate Muslims that weren't located in Western nations. The best he could
do was a writer in a military compound in Pakistan.]
Your final comment is "I think Lawrence and Kern are both badly mistaken
about the so-called threat of Islam in the West. First, it badly
misunderstands Islam, and in this case Sharia. Second, it vastly
overestimates the unity of Islam and Muslims, ignoring divisions and
schismatic tendencies.
Muslims as a whole agree on very little, if anything, and the idea that they
represent a threat to anything or anyone except themselves is to enter the
realm of fantasy.
I probably have several discussions of this matter on my blog, and I have to
go for my semi-yearly medical checkup in a few moments so I'll try to be
brief. There are two views regarding the danger of Islam and each view has
its champions. Your view is best argued by Gilles Kepel (especially The War
for Muslim Minds) and Olivier Roy (especially Globalized Islam). While both
authors agree that there is a current problem, they minimize it and one of
them (Roy) believe the radicals are well-educated malcontents that will not
count much in the long run.
The other view on this subject of the quality exemplified by Kepel and Roy
include Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Youssef M. Choueiri, and David
Selbourne.
The last time we debated these matters, Phil, the discussion was more
theoretical. Sure, we both agreed, Radical Islamists were "saying" a lot of
things, but what actually were they doing? We could only speculate. Now
the discussion has moved forward a bit. Now they are doing more. They are
advancing Sharia Law. Like the frog in the pot Liberals deny the heat. The
rest of us see an unflinching direction.
If an enemy declares he is going to kill, maim, or otherwise harm us, those
of us on the David Selbourne side of the argument, even if we don't embrace
it as single-mindedly as he does, believe it is safest to take the threat
seriously. Liberals and Leftists think it important not to take it
seriously. I won't ask why they don't because I have read Kepel and Roy.
But I have read a number of writers who don't hold their view, and I may as
well number Samuel P. Huntington. Clashes will occur on into the
foreseeable future.
Francis Fukuyama while not a Liberal has a vested interest in the views of
Roy and Kepel because he believes that in the long run Liberal Democracy
will defeat all challenges. It has already defeated the major challenges of
Fascism and Communism; so the relatively "minor pinpricks of Islamism" (as
described by Kepel and Roy) will be healed in the not too distant future.
Maybe, I would say to Fukuyama, but not without a more forceful resistance
than I see in Western Europe at the present time.
Also sincerely,
Lawrence Helm
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Phil Enns
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:13 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in Germany
Lawrence, it really is awkward if you regularly post links to comments you
make in another context. To respond on this list to comments made elsewhere
is to put at a disadvantage those who don't follow your link. And to expect
people to visit your blog in order to understand comments made on this list
is self-serving.
On his blog, Lawrence quotes from an interview with Soeren Kern, who is
supposed to be some kind of expert on European security issues. I haven't
read anything by Kern, so I don't know if he is any good or not, but from
what Lawrence quotes, Kern can't be providing much useful when it comes to
Islam and Muslims.
Lawrence approvingly quotes Kern: "But the proliferation of Sharia law in
Germany suggests Merkel is mistaken. Sharia law now does apply in Germany."
First, the increase of something does not make it authoritative, legal,
representative or anything else other than the increase of something. The
increase in nutty talk about returning to the gold standard does not mean
there is a return to the gold standard.
Second, the term 'Sharia law' is being used ambiguously. All Muslims are
expected to live according to Sharia. In this sense, Sharia is a set of very
general principles meant to guide all Muslims in how they live their lives.
Examples of this might be avoiding drinking alcohol and refraining from
usurious financial dealings. This sense of Sharia does not provide specifics
for daily life, such as whether one should never drink alcohol or merely
avoid drunkenness, or what counts as a usurious financial practice or what
counts as an approved financial practice. Sharia law, in this sense, is
applied everywhere there are faithful Muslims. There is also a tremendous
amount of disagreement about the nature of this Sharia. For example, I was
at a conference where Muslims engaged in very heated argument over whether
Sharia was one, eternal and unchanging, or whether there were multiple
Sharias that changed according to different interpretations relative to time
and place. An example of someone who is trying to 'modernize' Sharia is
Abdullahi Ahmed An-na'im, whose writings I would highly recommend for those
interested.
Sharia is a set of general principles which need to be applied in specific
cases. This application is done through fiqh, which is a kind of legal
reasoning that attempts to apply general rules to individual cases. Sunni
Muslims have four main traditions of fiqh, Shi'i have two, and then there
are a multitude of minor fiqh traditions. Each of these traditions of fiqh
have unique ways of applying Sharia to daily life, guiding everything from
the details of how to hold ones hands while praying, to issues like
marriage, divorce and inheritance.
Within these traditions, there would be a great deal of variation depending
on culture and who is doing fiqh. If a Muslim has a question regarding some
aspect of faithfulness, they might go to an expert in fiqh to ask for
guidance. (In my experience, Muslims don't always take this advice and often
will shop around to find someone who will give the advice they prefer.) In
this sense, there would be 'Sharia courts', which would be a formal setting
where an expert in fiqh would give advice on how to apply Sharia to specific
cases. These judges do not have any authority for Muslims beyond their
reputation as experts, and cannot enforce their judgments. In my experience,
Muslims are often very creative in how they apply the judgments of these
courts, making adjustments as deemed necessary. It is very likely that these
courts are operating anywhere there is a large enough community of Muslims.
While many of the issues addressed in this kind of Sharia court would not
fall under civil law, for example, how to celebrate Islamic holidays in a
non-Muslim country, some would. The obvious examples are marriage, divorce
and inheritance. Lawrence refers to a case where a German court seems to
have acknowledged fiqh regarding Islamic marriages and issues of
inheritance. The writer of the article takes this to be deference to Sharia
law, however, and I am not a lawyer, it seems to me to be deference to the
wishes of the dead man, as evidenced by the dead man's commitment to a
particular understanding of Sharia. That is, if one wants to discern the
intentions of a dead man, one might refer to the beliefs he held as a guide.
This is hardly deference to those beliefs. In this way, where reasoning
about religious beliefs can contribute to settling civil disputes, I don't
see any problem with religious courts, whether Muslim, Jewish or other,
being adopted under a larger system of constitutional law.
These courts would not be a parallel legal system, since their judgments are
not legally binding beyond the authority granted by civil law and not
enforced by an authority outside of the state.
Finally, there are civil legal systems that are understood as being Sharia,
with Sharia civil laws. Examples of this would be found in Saudi Arabia and
Iran, and what I saw in parts of Indonesia. In Aceh, Indonesia, it is the
law that Muslim women have to wear the hijab and that all Muslims observe
Ramadan. This is obviously not the case in Germany, Britain or any other
Western country. However, Kern and Lawrence both imply that this is or might
be the case. A German court recognizing that a Muslim man will have
intentions that accord with his religious faith is tantamount to instituting
that faith as civil law, leading inexorably to the excesses so gleefully
noted by many critics.
I think Lawrence and Kern are both badly mistaken about the so-called threat
of Islam in the West. First, it badly misunderstands Islam, and in this case
Sharia. Second, it vastly overestimates the unity of Islam and Muslims,
ignoring divisions and schismatic tendencies.
Muslims as a whole agree on very little, if anything, and the idea that they
represent a threat to anything or anyone except themselves is to enter the
realm of fantasy.
Individuals and groups of individuals can of course be dangerous, but this
has nothing to do with religion.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Other related posts:
