Misplaced Fear.
RELIGIOUS ISSUES_110208.
MISPLACED FEAR.
Dr. Rowan Williams delivered recently an address, focussing on an important practical issue, the need for Christian and other mainly Western cultures to understand more about the social factors currently active in the Islamic world. The Sharia is the omnibus term applied to the entire scope of laws encountered in a state with an Islamic majority, but in other states, especially in the West, that word has been
used as a label for certain penal terms, found in the Hudud, the Islamic code of punishments. A number ofthese items are frankly dire and barbarous, including stonings, severance of limbs and executions by beheading. Dr. Williams’ use of the word ,sharia, has thus triggered, vast emotionally hostile, reactions from many in the West, who have limited knowledge of Islam and its developments. Remedying matters
by trying to overcome that tide of resistance seems to be almost impossible, yet a way must be found, for the factors of mistrust and fear have to be dispelled, if there is to be any hope of establishing intercommunal respect and co-operation.
Many years ago, in lectures at university on Roman Law and Jurisprudence, my fellow students and I learned of a useful classification of law into three categories;-
[a] ideal or Natural law, jus naturale;
[b] the laws of nations and states, the jus gentium; and
[c] the law of the individual country concerned, the jus civile, including its criminal law system.
That threefold grouping distinguished between the top tier (high idealism, the concept of a perfect system), the second tier (an appraisal of the actual laws which are currently applicable in all states),
and the third tier, (that system of law which applies locally). Only the first or highest tier made any claim to virtue or or moral principle,so leaving categories 2 and 3, comprising what actually exists.
Analysis and comparison between systems of law in the jus gentium group will reveal some similarities and a variety of differences, so such an exercise in respect of English law and sharia systems would be a useful comparative treatment. Those features which appear similar or even coincide could well indicate the extent to which English law and sharia systems could converge and even collaborate. To that extent the perceived contrasts between English law and the sharia could be diminished, which would be a worth while achievement in relieving tensions and suspicions in a state where large numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims coexist. It could help to diminish mutual misgivings and foster mutual confidence and trust between otherwise contrasting communities.
Anyone who considers that Muslim beliefs, doctrines and practices are monolithic is grievously mistaken. One instance, taken from a state with a narrow Muslim majority, the Federation of Malaysia, illustrates the point. In the early 1990’s one state in that federation,Kelantan, pursued its traditional, fervent beliefs by legislating to make the Hudud, the code of criminal penalties within the
Sharia law, part of the law of that state. Massive controversy followed, for many devout but moderate Muslims disagreed, pointing out that measures prescribed for lawless C7 Arabia had little relevance to a modern, well governed state. There is not even agreement between scholars over exactly which offences come within the Hudud, an issue which was challenged ,because the protagonists of the Bill had prepared their own list, which differed in some respects from the views of many scholars.Non-Muslims in Malaysia, nearly 50% of the population, also protested. The upshot was that Dr.
Mahathir, the then Federal Prime Minister, and his fellow ministers decided to intervene in Kelantan’s affairs and prevent the passage of that state's legislation to implement the Hudud. Needless to say, the affair provoked much polemic, and many
speeches,broadcasts, articles and books. One book, written by Rose Ismail and her colleagues, The Hudud In Malaysia,strongly attacks the discriminatory provisions against women found in that code and elsewhere; it contains vivid accounts of the whole affair, but another document, the text of Dr. Mahathir’s masterly speech in the closing stages of the affair showed, not merely his political skills, but his firm
grip of both the theology involved and the fracture lines within Islam on these disputes. He also indicated that Malaysia’s huge non-Muslim minority rendered the possible introduction of the Hudud as being in reality a non-starter.
Within the thirty-five states with Islamic majorities, there is little sign of unity in respect of the Hudud or even the other parts of the Sharia. Morocco does not recognize the Sharia at all, nor does secular Turkey, while Iran has since the end of the War with Iraq in the 1980’s ceased to sanction the severance of limbs for theft, mainly because of the confusion caused by the prevalence of war wounds,which were a far cry from the stigma, which had earlier attached to the sight of a convicted thief. Elsewhere in Muslim countries attitudes appear to be changing, not merely amongst feminists and liberals, and references to Allah, the All-Merciful, are being taken more seriously now than rhetoric about the principles in the Hudud.
Dr. Rowan Williams may be regarded as politically naïve in broaching the need to improve intercommunal relations by speaking about the Sharia system of law to such a hostile audience, beyond the gathering of academics, whom he formally addressed, but his plea for a comparative study of English law and the Sharia systems was thoughtful and fully justified. If some convergences were to appear between the two apparently diverse systems, that could help greatly in showing that Christians and Muslims had more in common than they had previously realized. On the basis that knowledge is more cogent and constructive than fear, Dr.Williams is right, for intercommunal fears have to be countered and replaced by realism - and, eventually, mutual respect and trust, truly a Christian endeavour.
Michael B. Buck.
##############################################################################################################################################################l
MISPLACED FEAR.
Dr. Rowan Williams delivered recently an address, focussing on an important practical issue, the need for Christian and other mainly Western cultures to understand more about the social factors currently active in the Islamic world. The Sharia is the omnibus term applied to the entire scope of laws encountered in a state with an Islamic majority, but in other states, especially in the West, that word has been
used as a label for certain penal terms, found in the Hudud, the Islamic code of punishments. A number ofthese items are frankly dire and barbarous, including stonings, severance of limbs and executions by beheading. Dr. Williams’ use of the word ,sharia, has thus triggered, vast emotionally hostile, reactions from many in the West, who have limited knowledge of Islam and its developments. Remedying matters
by trying to overcome that tide of resistance seems to be almost impossible, yet a way must be found, for the factors of mistrust and fear have to be dispelled, if there is to be any hope of establishing intercommunal respect and co-operation.
Many years ago, in lectures at university on Roman Law and Jurisprudence, my fellow students and I learned of a useful classification of law into three categories;-
[a] ideal or Natural law, jus naturale;
[b] the laws of nations and states, the jus gentium; and
[c] the law of the individual country concerned, the jus civile, including its criminal law system.
That threefold grouping distinguished between the top tier (high idealism, the concept of a perfect system), the second tier (an appraisal of the actual laws which are currently applicable in all states),
and the third tier, (that system of law which applies locally). Only the first or highest tier made any claim to virtue or or moral principle,so leaving categories 2 and 3, comprising what actually exists.
Analysis and comparison between systems of law in the jus gentium group will reveal some similarities and a variety of differences, so such an exercise in respect of English law and sharia systems would be a useful comparative treatment. Those features which appear similar or even coincide could well indicate the extent to which English law and sharia systems could converge and even collaborate. To that extent the perceived contrasts between English law and the sharia could be diminished, which would be a worth while achievement in relieving tensions and suspicions in a state where large numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims coexist. It could help to diminish mutual misgivings and foster mutual confidence and trust between otherwise contrasting communities.
Anyone who considers that Muslim beliefs, doctrines and practices are monolithic is grievously mistaken. One instance, taken from a state with a narrow Muslim majority, the Federation of Malaysia, illustrates the point. In the early 1990’s one state in that federation,Kelantan, pursued its traditional, fervent beliefs by legislating to make the Hudud, the code of criminal penalties within the
Sharia law, part of the law of that state. Massive controversy followed, for many devout but moderate Muslims disagreed, pointing out that measures prescribed for lawless C7 Arabia had little relevance to a modern, well governed state. There is not even agreement between scholars over exactly which offences come within the Hudud, an issue which was challenged ,because the protagonists of the Bill had prepared their own list, which differed in some respects from the views of many scholars.Non-Muslims in Malaysia, nearly 50% of the population, also protested. The upshot was that Dr.
Mahathir, the then Federal Prime Minister, and his fellow ministers decided to intervene in Kelantan’s affairs and prevent the passage of that state's legislation to implement the Hudud. Needless to say, the affair provoked much polemic, and many
speeches,broadcasts, articles and books. One book, written by Rose Ismail and her colleagues, The Hudud In Malaysia,strongly attacks the discriminatory provisions against women found in that code and elsewhere; it contains vivid accounts of the whole affair, but another document, the text of Dr. Mahathir’s masterly speech in the closing stages of the affair showed, not merely his political skills, but his firm
grip of both the theology involved and the fracture lines within Islam on these disputes. He also indicated that Malaysia’s huge non-Muslim minority rendered the possible introduction of the Hudud as being in reality a non-starter.
Within the thirty-five states with Islamic majorities, there is little sign of unity in respect of the Hudud or even the other parts of the Sharia. Morocco does not recognize the Sharia at all, nor does secular Turkey, while Iran has since the end of the War with Iraq in the 1980’s ceased to sanction the severance of limbs for theft, mainly because of the confusion caused by the prevalence of war wounds,which were a far cry from the stigma, which had earlier attached to the sight of a convicted thief. Elsewhere in Muslim countries attitudes appear to be changing, not merely amongst feminists and liberals, and references to Allah, the All-Merciful, are being taken more seriously now than rhetoric about the principles in the Hudud.
Dr. Rowan Williams may be regarded as politically naïve in broaching the need to improve intercommunal relations by speaking about the Sharia system of law to such a hostile audience, beyond the gathering of academics, whom he formally addressed, but his plea for a comparative study of English law and the Sharia systems was thoughtful and fully justified. If some convergences were to appear between the two apparently diverse systems, that could help greatly in showing that Christians and Muslims had more in common than they had previously realized. On the basis that knowledge is more cogent and constructive than fear, Dr.Williams is right, for intercommunal fears have to be countered and replaced by realism - and, eventually, mutual respect and trust, truly a Christian endeavour.
Michael B. Buck.
##############################################################################################################################################################l
posted by Michael Buck at 2:06 AM
0 comments
