Sharia ( ) refers to a body of Islamic law. In the Islamic state Sharia governs both public and private lives of those living within the state. Sharia governs many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, and social issues. Some accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include reform Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.
Before the 19th century legal theory was considered the domain of the traditional legal schools of thought. Most Sunni Muslims follow Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or Shafii, while most Shia Muslims follow Jaafari (Hallaq 1997, Brown 1996, Aslan 2006).
Legal scholar L. Ali Khan explains that "the concept of shariah has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature. For some Muslims, shariah consists of the Quran and the prophet’s Sunna but nothing else. For others, it also includes classical fiqh. Most encyclopedias define shariah as law derived from the Quran, the Sunna, and classical fiqh derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas).This definition of shariah inappropriately lumps together the revealed with the unrevealed. This blending of sources has created a muddled assumption that scholarly interpretations are as sacred and beyond revision as are the Quran and the Sunna. The Quran and the Sunna constitute the immutable Basic Code, which should be kept separate from ever-evolving interpretive law (fiqh). This analytical separation between the Basic Code and fiqh is necessary to" dissipate confusion around the term Sharia. See The Reopening of the Islamic Code:The Second Era of Ijtihad," 1 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 341 (2003).
Sharia has certain laws which are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete and timeless for all relevant situations (for example, the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant). It also has certain laws which are extracted based on principles established by Islamic lawyers and judges (Mujtahidun).
For traditional Sunni Muslims, the primary sources of Islamic law are the Qur'an, the Hadith, the unanimity of Muhammad's disciples on a certain issue (ijma), and Qiyas (drawing analogy from the essence of divine principles). Qiyas — various forms of reasoning, including by analogy — are used by the law scholars (Mujtahidun) to deal with situations where the sources provided no concrete rules. The consensus of the community or people, public interest, and others were also accepted as secondary sources where the first four primary sources allow.
In Imami-Shi'i law, the sources of law (usul al-fiqh) are the Qur'an, anecdotes of the Prophet's practices and those of the 12 Imams, and the intellect (aql). The practices called Sharia today, however, also have roots in local customs (Al-urf).
Islamic jurisprudence is called fiqh and is divided into two parts: the study of the sources and methodology (usul al-fiqh - roots of the law) and the practical rules (furu' al-fiqh — branches of the law).
The comprehensive nature of Sharia law is due to the belief that the law must provide all that is necessary for a person's spiritual and physical well-being. All possible actions of a Muslim are divided (in principle) into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Fundamental to the obligations of every Muslim are the Five Pillars of Islam.
Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Sudan, Libya and Afghanistan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of relatively harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy.
Many consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel; Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime. In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crime of adultery, and other such punishments such as amputations for the crime of theft and flogging for fornication or public intoxication. *
An unusual secular-state example was the (rejected) proposal for a Sharia arbitration court to be established in Ontario, Canada. That province's 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid congestion and delay in the court system. The proposed sharia court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Critics claimed that misogyny which they held to be inherent in Sharia might influence the Canadian justice system, but proponents argued that those who do not wish to go by the court's rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada would be only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of Canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court could appeal to a civil court. As such, this sharia court would be only a very pale version of Sharia.
On September 11, 2005, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty stated in a telephone interview that religious arbitration would no longer be allowed. However, the proposed changes to the Ontario Arbitration Act* do not specifically mention religious arbitration, but reduce the power of private arbitration in the area of family law, and introduce other changes. Specifically, under the proposed changes family arbitrators will be regulated, participants in family law arbitration cases will not be able to give up their right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court, and a pre-nuptial agreement to resolve family law matters, should they arise, through an arbitrator rather than through a court will no longer be binding.
Nevertheless, the proposed changes were condemned by parts of the Muslim community.
Though Islamic law is interpreted differently across times, places and scholars, following fundamentalist's literal and traditional interpretations, however, it is legally binding on all people of the faith and even on all people who come under their control.
Sharia dictates that Muslims may only eat from meat that has been slaughtered in the name of God and meets stringent dietary requirements. Such meat is called halāl, or "lawful". Islamic law prohibits a Muslim from eating pork, and most juridical opinions also hold monkey, dog, cat, carnivores and several other types of animal as harām (prohibited). For the meat of an animal to be halāl it must be one of the declared halāl species, and the animal may not be killed by excessively cruel or painful means. The traditional means of slaughter is by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest.
According to the Qur'an, the animal does not have to be slaughtered by a Muslim, but may be slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian (People of the Book) as long as it meets their strict dietary laws (Al-Ma'ida 5: "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you.") Thus, most Muslims will accept kosher meat as halāl. (Qur'an 2:173, 6:121)
Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. In theory, Sunni Islamic law allows husbands to divorce their wives at will, by clearly saying talaq ("I divorce you") three times in public. In Shi'a Islam, divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary. In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. * Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states. The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be best.
In addition, women are generally not allowed to be clergy or religious scholars. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith.
A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.
See also ma malakat aymanukum.
The Qur'an also places a dress code upon its followers. The rule for men has been ordained before the women."say to the believing men to lower their gaze and preserve their modesty, it will make for greater purity for them and Allah is well aware of all that they do." For women, it emphasizes modesty. Allah says in the Qur'an, "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof(interpreted as the face and hands), and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments (interpreted as the body shape and possibly the hair) except to their husbands or their fathers, or their sons, . . ." (surat an-Nur verse 31). All those in whose presence a woman is not obliged to practice the dress code are known to be her mahrams. Men have a dress code which is more relaxed: the loins must be covered from knee to waist. The rationale given for these rules is that men and women are not to be viewed as sexual objects. It is a fail safe system. Men keep their guard up and women protect themselves. Should either one fail, the other prevents the society from falling into fitna.
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has controversial laws against these dress codes in schools and work places. After the declaration of the Republic in 1923, as part of revolutions brought by Atatürk, a modern dress code was encouraged. It is against the law to wear a head scarf while attending public school in Turkey. , as well as France, where the recently enacted rule caused huge public controversy .
Some view Islamic women as being oppressed by the men in their communities because of the required dress codes. However, in more moderate nations, where these dress codes are not obligatory, there are still many Muslim women who practice it. Some choose to wear such clothes of their own free will because they believe it is the will of Allah, others due to community and social pressures.
One of the garments some women wear is the hijāb (of which the headscarf is one component). The word hijab is derived from the Arabic word hajaba which means 'to hide from sight or view', 'to conceal'. Hijāb means to cover the head as well as the body.
The medieval jurist ash-Shafi'i, founder of one of the main schools of fiqh, commented on this verse that "hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."
The Arabic verse uses idribu¯hunna (from the root daraba ضرب), whose commonest meaning in Arabic has been rendered as "beat", "hit", "scourge", or "strike". Besides this verse, other meanings for daraba used in the Qur'an (though not with a human direct object) include 'to travel', 'to make a simile', 'to cover', 'to separate', and 'to go abroad', among others. For this reason — particularly in recent years (e.g. Ahmed Ali, Edip Yuksel) — some consider "hit" to be a misinterpretation, and believe it should be translated as "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and separate from them." Certain modern translations of the Qur'an in the English language accept the commoner translation of "beat" but tone down the wording with bracketed additions. Whatever idribu¯hunna is meant to convey in the Qur'an -- and multiple, complementary meanings are quite common in Islam's holy book -- the verb is directed, not at a single husband, but to the community as a whole.
Several Hadith urge strongly against beating one's wife, such as: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43), "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)". Others hadiths do indicate that husbands have a right to discipline their wives to a certain extent:
According to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research:
However, punishments are authorized by other passages in the Quran and Hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extra-marital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rational for extra-legal punative action while others disagree (quotations provided by Syed Kamran Mirza):
Some critics have pointed to "honor killing" as an illustration of the problems with Muslim culture and Shariah law. While the practice of honor killing is common in many Muslim countries, most Islamic leaders and scholars condemn the practice of honor killing, and argue the practice is not based on religious doctrine. *.
For a more detailed examination of the Islamic view of adultery, see Zina.
For a more detailed examination of "honor killing", see the Wikipedia entry.
Female circumcision is not part of mainstream Islam. It is not practiced in Maghreb countries and most of Asia, but is performed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike across East Africa and the Nile Valley, as well as parts of the Arabian peninsula and Southeast Asia. In both areas, the custom predates Islam. Many African Muslims believe that female circumcision is required by Islam, but a large number of Muslims believe this practice has no basis in Islam. Nevertheless it is justified on religious grounds both by Muslims and Christians who practice it, mostly in parts of Africa.
The Egyptian-born president of the 'European Council on Fatwa and Research', Yusuf al-Qaradawi, emphasises that this is not a religious obligation, but expresses his personal preference for removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, called clitoridotomy (Fatwa on islamonline.net.)
The use of the term 'circumcision' is highly confusing, as the practice ranges from a mild superficial act that does not reduce any physiological function (the 'real' circumcision) to various forms of partial or even complete removal of female genital organs. In certain countries, this is accompanied by reducing the genital opening. These forms are, because of their brutal nature, also referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM). This term is most often used in official publications of the United Nations and World Health Organization.
In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death.
In most interpretations of Sharia, the death penalty is applied for homosexual acts. According to the opinions of scholars, acceptable means of performing the execution included burning, throwing from tall buildings, and stoning. *
Death by stoning is also the penalty for adultery, while lashing with 100 stripes is usually the legal penalty applied for fornication (when the guilty party(-ies) is(are) not married).
In Egypt, public authorities annulled, without his consent, the marriage of Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd when he got in conflict with an orthodox Islamic cleric from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The cleric had condemned Abu Zayd's reading of the Qur'an as being against the orthodox interpretation and labelled him an apostate (seen as a non-believer and consequently not permitted to marry or stay married to a Muslim woman). Abu Zayd fled to the Netherlands, where he is now a professor at the university of Leiden.
see also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
On the other side, legal scholar L. Ali Khan determines "that constitutional orders founded on the principles of Sharia are fully compatible with democracy, provided that religious minorities are protected and the incumbent Islamic leadership remains committed to the right to recall".L. Ali Khan, A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003, ISBN 9041120033 However, Christian Pippan argues, that this contradicts the political reality in most Islamic states. "While constitutional arrangements to ensure that political authority is exercised within the boundaries of Sharia vary greatly among those nations",Nathan Brown, Islamic Constitutionalism in Theory and Practice in Cotran, Eugene and Adel Omar Sherif (eds.), Democracy, the Rule of Law and Islam, London, Kluwer Law International, 1999 most existing models of political Islam have so far grossly failed to accept any meaningful political competition of the kind that Khan himself has identified as essential for even a limited conception of democracy. Khan, writes Pippan, dismisses verdicts as from the European Court of Human Rights or the Turkish Constitutional Court "as an expression of purely national or regional preferences."Bookreview of Khan's "A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History" by Christian Pippan for "The European Journal of International Law"
Several major, predominantly Muslim countries criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran claimed that the UDHR was a "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. Therefore the Organization of the Islamic Conference adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This Declaration became severely criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women, the restrictive character in regard to fundamental rights and freedoms and attacking the integrity, and dignity of the human being.
see also Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Arabic words | Islamic law | Legal codes
شريعة إسلامية | Xaria | Sharia | Schari'a | Sharia | Ŝario | Charia | Shari'a - شريعة | Syariat Islam | Shari'a | שריעה | Sharia | Sharia | シャリーア | Sharia | Szariat | Charia | Шариат | Šari'a | Sharia | Şerîat | Шаріат | 沙里亞法規