SHARIA – What it is? And what it is not?

Part 1

Sharia - What it is?

Sharia in its generic sense is a linguistic term and not a theological one. It is not an exclusively Islamic term either, and
although in terms of current usage it has become synonymous with Islamic Law, the term itself is non specific. Just as
the word law can be used to refer to laws of any country so can the word Sharia.

Lexicographically the term Sharia originates from the root word Shara which literally means Route, Street, Path or
Way, and as many scholars of Arabic have stated that the term connotes to a Way to the Water, this fits in very neatly
with the Islamic notion that water is at the root of life.

Therefore, being a way of life, Sharia then entails having a framework of rules and regulations within which public and
some private aspects of a Muslim's life are regulated within the boundaries of an Islamic State.

Sharia directs Muslims in Non-Muslim lands to live there under a covenant abiding by the law of their adopted home-
lands wherever they may be so long as those laws do not prevent them from living out the Islamic ethos of their life.

In it's most common usage, Sharia then refers to the entire body of Islamic Law ranging from civil, commercial,
personal, matrimonial and criminal to name a few.

Most Common Misconception:

The most common error of judgment about Sharia, even amongst erudite members of the civic society is, to focus
“solely” on it's criminal penal code aspects and imply as if that is what Sharia is all about, when very clearly it's remit
is much wider than that.

Objectives of the Sharia:

For anything to be effective it must have its objectives, and Sharia is no different in this respect.

Under the overarching Objective of Protection there are 5 Targets for achievement which are enumerated as follows:

Protection of:

1. Life

2. Family

3. Dignity

4. Intellect

5. Property

In one sense, most Countries Laws will have a set of Objectives much similar to the above, irrespective of what you call
those set of Laws i.e. Constitution or a Bill of Rights or Sharia. All of them, one way or another, and in some form or
shape, strive to achieve the goals highlighted above.

1
One could then argue that with a commonality of purpose with other systems based on these common goals, the
essence of Sharia exists in Most Free Societies albeit with different labels.

Those who scream that implementing Sharia will cause breaches of the British Laws are not aware of the intrinsic
commonality of purposes between the two as above.

Moving further on from these basic Objectives – we can now try to unravel some of the nuances surrounding this term
Sharia.

Differentiate Between the Sources and the Derived Interpretations....

According to one author, a common error in most contemporary literature on the subject of Shari’ah is to saddle
the understood with the revealed. This clutters the various issues in the minds of many including some Muslims
too, who inappropriately regard scholarly interpretations of the sources (the Quran and Hadiths) sacred as well, when
clearly there should be a clear analytical demarcation of boundaries between the two.

Mainstream Islam makes a distinction between Interpretation, Inferences, Discernment and Deep Understanding
which is known as FIQH (Jurisprudence) and their founding principles which are called the SHARIA.

Islamic Jurisprudence can be derived from a Consensus of the Majority of the Scholarly Opinions known as Ijma, and
in situations where no tangible rules exist within the Sources; Analogical Deductions known as Qiyas is relied upon.

Thus, the Sources, Quran and Hadiths remain unchangeable, whilst the interpretive law known as FIQH is an open
dynamic and an ever evolving document which is upgradeable as and when the need arises.

Expanding Relevant Divine Laws to take account of New Situations

Like with any other body of Knowledge, Sharia also has some basic Laws and Principles that are Incontrovertible
because they are divinely ordained and are not affected by the passage of time, being timeless they are applicable to all
relevant situations.

This relevancy to situations is the underpinning factor of the Sharia Laws. However, as time and sciences advance if
new aspects of life evolve, then, the divinely ordained laws can be expansively deduced to take account of new
developments whilst maintaining the cause and effect of the original injunctions which form the trunk of the tree.
Branches and shoots are then grown from the main trunk to take care of each new development.

For example, Consumption of Alcohol as an intoxicant is banned through divine commandment, however in due
course as science advanced, use of Alcohol as a disinfectant and as a sanitizer was developed and this particular use of
it became acceptable and has been put into practice. Incidentally, it were the Muslims who pioneered the use of
Alcohol as a disinfectant. This acceptable other use (rather than consumption) of Alcohol came about through
intellectual exertion of the scholars of that particular time faced with a new challenge, this process of exertion is
known as Ijtihad, and if the exertion used the process of analogical deductions than it is termed as Qiyas, the
conclusions reached by any of these procedures then gets incorporated into jurisprudence which is termed as
FIQH.

The whole process is kept open for review and further development should it become necessary to do so down the
years. Nothing is written in stone or considered to be set for eternity as far as Islamic Jurisprudence fiqh is concerned.

The deductions drawn from enduring divine commandments must follow the basic principle that, what is arrived at
should not make what is Prohibited Permissible and vice–versa.

Distinction should should also be made between Affairs (Mu'amalaat) and acts of Worship (Ibadaat).
2
There is plenty of room to maneuver in the conduct of day-to-day affairs so long as the

boundaries of rights and duties of self and others are not breached, and here, jurisprudence (fiqh) is very often playing
a catch up game with evolving scenarios.

Matters of Worship (Ibadaat) and the set of Testimonies of Beliefs (Imaan) though are regarded as sacrosanct. The
range of physical acts and spiritual practices that constitute worship and the spectrum of beliefs must be traceable
directly to a clear and unambiguous command in the Quran or to a Tradition.

Novel variations (Bidda'at) in matters of Worship are generally frowned upon. Innovations in such matters which
cannot be supported or exemplified from the sources will enter hell fire says one famous Tradition (Hadith).

However some of the contemporary scholars are now talking about differentiating between Innovations that do not
violate or harm anything in the sources and they term these as Acceptable Innovations (Bidda'at-e-Hasana) and those
novel variations that Transgress what is in the sources. The use of Prayer Beads (Tasbeeh) is regarded by many as an
acceptable form of innovation.

Difference of opinion on a matter amongst contemporary Islamic Scholars, causes divisions that are broadly grouped
between camps of scholars from the Middle East and the traditionalists from India and Pakistan, each camp having
their own stance on an issue that range from being dogmatic to being liberals on various matters.

Historically, however, there have been four main schools of thought from which mainstream Islamic Opinions are
drawn, and these take their names from the names of their founding Imams called Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii and Hanabali
who are credited with having formulated those thoughts based on their own collation of Prophet Mohammad's
sayings, examples or approvals which they thought to be authentic, whilst most Shia Muslims draw their jurisprudence
from their twelve Imams.

Sunni and Shia Islam

A word or two, here about the human brainchild differentiation between Sunni and Shia Islam. It has to be said
that, Prophet Mohammad was of neither of these persuasions. We do not find these distinctions or terms in the Quran
or the Traditions nor in the lives of any one of his immediate companions (sahabas) who are generally regarded as
beacons of light, nor do we see such divisions in any one from the generation that immediately followed the
companions. These are therefore man made divisions rooted in the historical dispute that arose on the matter of
succession to the Prophet.

FATWA - What does it mean?

This is another term that raises thoughts of horror in the Western mindset and needs to be clarified, because it is very
often given a status higher than is due to it during discourses on Sharia.

In the normative English Language sense it is usually taken to mean a religious opinion. It is not an order or a
proclamation and hence it is wrong to refer to it as an edict.

Fatwa (s) exist mainly to clarify very unusual or subtle points of law or to give moral authority to a given interpretation
of a rule. It is a “dictum” and not a dictate given by some one (usually a scholar) on a current issue.

Compliance of a Fatwa is usually left to the discretion of the one who has sought that opinion, the person or authority
issuing the Fatwa cannot enforce it's compliance. Even the Fatwa(s) issued by the esteemed Al-Azhar Islamic
University of Cairo are not considered to be binding, individual Muslims are free to accept them or not. A Fatwa is
specific and not general, it does not become part of jurisprudence unless it is poured upon by a recognized body of

3
scholars and agreed upon by the majority of them. A Fatwa issued by a National Theocratic body of a Muslim Country
is not binding on Muslims of Other nations.

In this context, Corporal Punishment or any Sanctions are the responsibility solely of the Islamic “State” and citizens
are barred from taking the law into their own hands. Penalties handed down by an Islamic State are effective only
within the geographical boundaries of that State.

An Islamic State cannot ordain Muslims living in non-Muslim countries to act against the Interest of their Host
country or to contravene any of its laws, this is prohibited by the Islamic Shari’ah.

Four Wives Issue.....

This notion that Muslim men are allowed to have four wives is often flagged up by non-Muslims during discussions
about Islam and used as a stick to beat it with. This is yet another glaring example of how scriptures can be quoted
selectively and completely out of context.

Reason enough for Ali, the fourth Caliph of Islam, banning any Muslim from giving exegeses of any verse of the Quran
unless that person was well versed in the knowledge of the historical reasons for the revelation of the verses, their
contextual meaning and each verse's place in the collation of all other verses on the subject. Combined together these
are known as Asbaab-e-Nuzool or reasons for the revelation.

The contextual reasoning for the revelation of the verse vis-à-vis multiple wives was the situation of many wars and
battles that early day Muslims had to endure, resulting in a large number of war widows having to fend for themselves
and being at the mercy of others. To provide them with a roof over their heads, a reasonable means of support and
maintenance and continuing paternity for their children, permission was then accorded for more than one wife by a
revelation so long as those circumstances pervaded. Prophet Mohammad himself found it difficult to manage multiple
wives; this was then to demonstrate to the Muslims at large how difficult polygamous life is.

Caveat..that people conveniently ignore

Even the verse of the Quran that talks about the permissibility of multiple wives has a caveat attached to it at the end
when it says that: “...you are allowed one, two, three or four wives, (with the caveat) but if you cannot deal with
them with equal justice then there is only One wife for you. Often, people read the first part of this verse and run away
with it ignoring the later part of the verse which carries the proviso.

Some one may be able to divide material things of life equally amongst multiple wives, but Love is some thing that
cannot be dispensed equally.

Sharia ONLY where it Suits us.....?

Leading British Banks like the TSB and HSBC have been offering Islamic Law (Sharia) Compliant products for many
years now and when they started these schemes no body pointed a finger at them.

Press Agency Reports that the Treasury has also been exploring the possibility of borrowing funds on the Islamic
bonds market which is estimated to be worth £5.5 billion. A consultation exercise to determine whether these will be
practical has just finished and it is due to report to the Treasury on it's conclusions and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer is likely to announce in the March 12 budget whether the Treasury will press ahead with the Sharia (Islamic
Law) Compliant Bonds to attract money from the Middle East.

The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Mr. Ed Balls is also quoted in these reports as saying that: “The Islamic
Financial Market is growing year on year and we want London to play a key role in this area....”We will do everything
we can to promote new ways for British Muslims to Bank Save and Borrow.”
4
The same Agency Reports also quotes a Treasury spokesman saying that: “Just because of your faith, there shouldn't
be any issue about your access to financial services in the U.K.”

...Notice that, there has been almost no “Hoo-ha” about taking the financial benefits of Sharia.

Beth Dins , Canonic Law Societies and the Sharia Councils:

Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries and no body has raised any fuss about them.

No claims here that the existence of Jewish Religious Courts (Beth Dins) is neither breaching English Law nor any
allegations that they tantamount to Legal Apartheid. But as soon as the talk is about accommodating Sharia Law and
Sharia Courts, people are jumping ahead of the wagon and bringing forth their derailing phobias.

The Orthodox British Jews in particular, make frequent use of the Beth Dins to seek redress if they are in dispute with
one another in civil, commercial and matrimonial matters.

English law is thought to show regard to a third party that litigants have agreed to as an arbiter between them, hence
they show consideration to decisions handed down by third parties such as Beth Dins.

If they are well organized with qualified jurists acting as judges, then the Sharia Courts deserve the same recognition.

The Beth Dins are not just venues for litigation between Jews, but they take care of a range of other Jewish Community
affairs such as deciding on the dates of the Sabbath Certification of bakers, butchers, caterers etc and resolve ethical
issues surrounding medical treatment of Jewish patients.

Sharia Councils in Britain apart from adjudicating on divorce issues don’t play any significant role in adjudicating on
civil and commercial disputes between Muslims, perhaps because their role as third party arbiters has not been
recognized by the British Judicial System in the same way as the Beth Dins have, but, other than this, they deal with
ethical issues related to financial and commercial dealings and medicine submitted to them for an opinion.

For Muslim Dietary issues, there is a separate organization known as Halal Food Authority that issues certification to
Butchers etc.

Deciding on Unanimous dates for Muslim Festivals is a very distant dream though; this role is at present played out by
major Mosques in leading towns of Britain in the long cherished hope that the minor mosques will follow suit, which is
not always the case.

The Recognition sought by Sharia Councils, is similar to what the Beth Dins have enjoyed for years, i.e. to be seen as a
useful provider of civil arbitration, and like the Beth Dins, they do not seek to replace the state's civil courts. There is
though a need to explain to litigants what is entailed in arbitration binding or otherwise and there should be some
recourse to the state’s courts in case of need.

In case of Marriages, most British Muslims still opt to obtain a Civil Marriage Certificate from a Registrars’ Office in
addition to the Islamic Marriage Certificate called the Nikah Nama which documents the marriage and records the
matrimonial gift that the groom offers to the bride which can be claimed by her at any time. A highly erroneous,
though common “misconception” amongst particularly the Asians is that this matrimonial gift is payable only upon
divorce. This perception needs changing.

There can also be a written pre-nuptial agreement between the bride and the groom laying down the terms and
conditions of the marriage and the conduct of matrimonial life, though enforcement of this is another issue as this has
not been tested to any large extent in civil courts.

5
Just like with the Beth Din Divorce Procedures, Civil Courts are still the preferred options for many Muslim couples
seeking divorce, this is mainly due to concerns vis-à-vis matters pertaining to division of property and maintenance
issues, though many obtain both the Islamic divorce aswell as the Civil one. Re-Marriage in Islam to the same spouse
is permissible only after a natural divorce from a second spouse. This is to prevent couples from divorcing in a fit of
temper and then regretting later.

In common with Beth Dins, No Sharia Court or a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal will entertain criminal cases.

Similarly Canon law Societies and Diocesan Tribunals have been in operation in Britain for many years, but none of
the politicians or church leaders who recently so vehemently railed against the Sharia Laws regard these Law Societies
and Tribunals with the same degree of mistrust as they do with the Sharia Laws. No charges of breaches of British
Laws and no allegations of One Law for some and another law for others here.

Part 2.
WHAT IS NOT SHARIAH…?

Having given this brief overview of What Sharia Is let us now look at some of the wild and frenzied allegations, often
quite misleading at that, that have been hurled at this term Sharia, mostly in the media, which are full of myths and
innuendos and try and unravel the truth that has been obscured by some wild allegations.

Education

Three words that are more important than anything else in removing mountains of misunderstandings, dispelling the
myths and dispensing the truth vis-à-vis Sharia are Education, Education and Education.

Let us now begin to analyse some of the most famous examples of ill judged and ill informed comments that came out
in the wake of Archbishop’s views on the subject.

Breaches of the English Law.?

Reacting to the views expressed by the Archbishop on the subject of Sharia, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s official
spokesman said that “….Sharia Law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of the English Law”.

The commonly understood Shari’ah principle is that it is not just Sharia Law but no other law will allow this to be
done. The Prime Minister himself has quite rightly so kept out of this fray.

However, The Archbishop never claimed or advocated that this should be so, and quite naturally, the spokesman could
not support his contention by referring to any part of the interview in question or to any speech or to any subsequent
statement that it was claimed so either by the Archbishop or by anyone else for that matter.

The PM’s spokesman may not be aware that it is a written or unwritten statutory requirement of the Shari’ah for
Muslims living in a non-Muslim Country requiring them to live there under a covenant with the host country that they
will abide by the law of the land.

Thus, there is no question of Sharia Breaching English Law as is alleged, and if there is a conflict between sections of
the Sharia Law and those of the Common Law, then the law of the land gets precedence.

And if, for some Muslims, obeying the laws of a land where they are living is an unbearable burden, then, on the Day of
Judgement they will be rhetorically asked by God “Was not my earth wide enough for you to have made a choice.”

The Principles of Sharia Cannot be used in Civil Courts claimed further the PM’s spokesperson.
6
However, if one looks carefully at the Objectives of Sharia mentioned earlier i.e. the Protection of Life, Family, Dignity,
Intellect and Property then, are these objectives not what any British or any Civil Law aspires to?

Hence, in essence, the Principles of Sharia have values common with any Civil Law in spirit if not in words, if only the
Downing Street's spokesman knew this.

The Glue that binds our Society together…..

Liberal Democrat Leader Mr. Nick Clegg, in reacting to the Archbishops comments, suggested that Equality before the
law is the glue that binds our society together without knowing that this equality was firmly established within Islamic
Jurisprudence over 1420 years ago when the 2nd Caliph Omar Ibn-ul-Khattab was summoned to appear before the
Judge (Qazi) to answer a claim made against him by an ordinary citizen. As the Caliph entered the Court Room the
judge stood up as a mark of respect, because the Caliphs in the early days of Islam were also seen as the ultimate
arbiters of Islamic Jurisprudence, and therefore offered Omar a seat close to him.

Omar immediately rebuked the Judge saying that this was the Judge's very first mistake in the case – by honouring
one of the litigants above the other, Omar than chose to sit alongside the claimant.

Having hailed this Principle of Equality before Law, Mr. Clegg then went on to say that: “We cannot have a situation
where there is one law for one person and different laws for another”.

It is a bit surprising that a party leader like Mr. Clegg has not heard of the Canon Law and the Jewish System of Beth
Din both of which have been in happy co-existence alongside the British Legal System for many years, or is this a
tongue-in-cheek way of Mr. Clegg saying: Privileges for Christians and Jews but not for the Muslims of Britain.???

Mr. Clegg went on further to say that: “There is a huge difference between respecting peoples' right to follow their own
beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of the law” - does this mean that Mr. Clegg will vote
against Britain's opt out rights to excuse Britain from certain European Laws? Because Britain feels that those
European Laws are not in sync with its own laws?

No one, the Archbishop included, and certainly not the Muslims of Britain are arguing to be excused from the rule of
the law, so, one wonders from where Mr. Clegg had this notion. What Muslims are asking for is to be treated at par
with the Christians and Jews of this country by being allowed to have their matrimonial, family and civil disputes to be
judged in accordance with the laws of their own faith which were revealed to them over 1400 years ago and regulated
by their faith's Jurisprudence.

Just as the British Legal System recognizes the Canonical Law and the Jewish Beth Din System of resolving disputes
whilst retaining it's Supremacy over them, so should it accord recognition to the Sharia System of resolving Muslim
Family, Matrimonial and Civil Affairs in the same way.

How Much Louder do we need to Shout...!!!!

Hear ye one, hear ye all, Forced marriages are a cultural practice, it has nothing to do with Islamic Sharia which in fact
“Prohibits” Forced Marriages. For a Marriage to be valid in the eyes of Islamic Law it has to be conducted with the
freely given consent of both bride and the groom. Allah has cursed the man who forcibly marries a woman says the
Quran.

But, despite of our best efforts to dispel the myth that Forced Marriages are welcome in Islam, people like Cardinal
Murphy-O'Connor, leader of the 4.5? million Catholics in England and Wales has still not heard us, he fears that
implementing the family law aspects of Sharia would mean opening the doors to Forced Marriages which he says we
don't want in this country, and neither do the Muslims.

7
Clearly, the entire Islamic Establishment and Sharia are one with the Cardinal on this, but does he know it. All Islamic
Establishments every where will join forces with any secular or religious Establishment to rid society of the curse of
Forced Marriages.

For the ordinary man on the street not to know is one thing, but for one of the Main Church Leaders of England that
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is, to be so ill informed on the subject begs belief.

“The Cardinal says that although moderate Muslims are strongly opposed to forced marriage, it is a reality in Islamic
countries.”

What the Cardinal forgets to point out is that you don't have to be a moderate Muslim to oppose forced marriages
because, Islam itself opposes forced marriages. It may be a reality in some Islamic Countries as the Cardinal asserts,
but there are many realities in Christian Countries as well which have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus or that
of the Church. One Freebie newspapers' recent headlines screamed: “Official: We are a nation of Drunks” - will it then
be right to blame Christianity for this dilemma of our nation? If not, then why attribute some thing like forced
marriage to Islam which it forbids.

The Foreign Office, Home Office, the Police and some members of the House of Lords are working extremely hard to
HIGHLIGHT the problems surrounding the Cultural issue of Forced Marriages to ensure that no Muslim young
woman falls prey to this evil practice. Is Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor not aware of all the work that is going on around
the subject?

The Cardinal, when he raises the issue of Polygamy, may also not be aware of the changes that are envisaged by the
govt. in this regard. As one Sunday Telegraph Report suggests that the Government had decided to allow husbands
with "multiple" wives to claim extra housing and income benefits, arguing that recognizing "valid polygamous
marriages" is "the best possible" option maintains the govt according to that article.

When people come to this country, the Cardinal says: “they have to obey the laws of the land." and this is exactly what
the Sharia expects of Muslims living in a non-Muslim country to do, if only the Cardinal knew.

Obeying the laws of the land is one thing, but desiring to conduct one's matrimonial and personal affairs in accordance
with one's own faiths jurisprudence is an another matter, and the latter should not be seen as a violation of the former.

The Cardinal has campaigned for the Catholic Church to be exempt from new homosexual rights laws - even though
his mantra is that the laws of the land must be obeyed, so, what happened to that mantra? Exemptions for his Church
only – but not for Muslims..? Who also wish to live according to their deeply held convictions and beliefs.

CLAIMS of Legal Apartheid....

Speech writers of Mr. David Cameron and Lord Carey may have caused an enormous amount of embarrassment to
their bosses by planting on their lips the claim that accommodating aspects of Sharia Law within the British Legal
System will lead to Legal Apartheid.

A look at the centuries of history of the Canon Law Societies, Diocesan Tribunals and Beth Dins operating in the U.K.
belies this claim by their speech writers.

A case then for Party Leaders and opinion formers to be more knowledgeable than their spokes persons and speech
writers.

Contact details of the Writer of this Article:

Saeed AbdulRahim E-Mail: Islamic_Wisdom@yahoo.co.uk .....

8
Tel: +44(0)207 263 1966 Cell Phone: +44(0)7960110425

=====================================================