I do not think Hollywood could have come up with a more sensational movie. The famous Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad, Pakistan is raided by government security forces in a crackdown on militant religious seminary students locked in a stand off that lasted several days. The standoff began on July 3, when clashes erupted at the mosque and 16 people were killed. The mosque was then besieged by government forces, and negotiations began in hopes of ending the crisis.

Hundreds of students surrendered, and the mosque's leader was caught trying to escape wearing a woman's burqa. When negotiations finally failed, the army stormed the compound, and dozens of people were killed when it was all over. The final death toll is still unknown, with the government saying 108 people being killed, and leaders of hard-line religious parties claiming that at least 400 people were killed. Concerns about reprisal attacks from militants were well placed, as several suicide bombings have taken the lives of hundreds of people in the ungoverned tribal areas of Northwest Pakistan.

The Lal Masjid, built in 1965 and named for its red walls and interiors, has long enjoyed patronage from influential members of the Pakistani government, from prime ministers to army chiefs. Things changed, however, after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Pakistan officially allied itself with the United States in the "war on terror," and the leadership of the Lal Masjid became a fierce opponent. In fact, frequent calls for the assassination of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf were made at the mosque.

Starting in 2006 - and this is the primary impetus for the crackdown on the mosque - the mosque's students and leadership began a Taliban-like judicial system and instigated scores of incidents including kidnappings, arson, and murder. Many of their actions were against alleged brothels and sellers of music and movies. Apparently, they felt that if the government and local authorities will not implement "Islamic law," then they will take matters into their own hands. The whole story is much more complicated, and I am sure more details will emerge in the coming days and weeks.

This got me thinking about the whole issue of Islamic law (known to most as Sharia law) and efforts by Muslims all across the world to implement it in their own legal systems. There are several issues that come into play when the issue of Sharia law comes up, and they are not easily resolved. First of all, what is Sharia law? For most people, I suspect, when the word "Sharia" is mentioned, they immediately think of two things: cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning the adulterer to death. Yet, it would not surprise me in the least if many - if not most - Muslims think the same about Sharia.

Yet, the Sharia is much more than that. At its essence, Sharia is the attempt on the part of human beings to discern and implement the will of God on earth. It encompasses all aspects of one's life, not just criminal law. Muslim scholars have outlined the objectives of the Sharia to be five: preservation of religion, life, lineage, wealth, and intellect. Every "rule" in the Sharia harkens back to one of these core principles. Yet, is there one set of "rules" that all Muslims across the globe agree is the "Sharia"? Are there differences of opinion as to what the Sharia says about this thing or that?

Most definitely. While there is legal consensus on some issues, Muslim scholars have had different opinions regarding practically every aspect of Sharia. There may be a majority who believe this or that, but there usually is juristic dissent; there usually is a "minority report." Herein, therefore, lies a problem: how can Muslims implement "Sharia" law - which has a divine connotation - when there is difference of opinion about what exactly the Sharia says about a particular matter?

If Muslims were to sit down and write a book of laws based on the Sharia, which view should be taken? If the "majority" view of the scholars is taken, is this unjust? Isn't the "minority" opinion also valid? What about the opinions of other schools of law? Which one should be adopted? What should determine which opinion should be adopted as the "correct" view? These rules exist in the Islamic legal system, but are they being applied presently?

And what if societal norms and other circumstances change with time? Should the law change with them? The answer to this question is easy when it comes to secular law, but with Sharia law as understood by Muslims today, would this be interpreted as "changing God's law"? How is this tension resolved? It is well known in the annals of Islamic jurisprudence that the law must be re-examined with changing times. But, there are too few Muslim scholars who espouse this view, and many hearken back to medieval legal constructs and apply today. This is simply untenable.

As far as criminal law is concerned, it seems that Muslims are so quick to implement the hudud punishments, i.e., the stoning of adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves. Yet, there are so many mitigating circumstances when it comes to these punishments, and they are frequently neglected. A perfect example of this is the case of Amina Lawal in Nigeria (a case which many Muslim scholars also found appalling). Lawal was condemned to death by stoning for alleged adultery (even though the man was let go for "lack of evidence"). The judges presiding over her case apparently followed the Maliki school of law, but they completely ignored the procedures in the Maliki school that would have set Ms. Lawal free.

Moreover, a well known principle of Islamic law is that if the conditions in a society do not permit the application of a particular law, it should not be implemented. For instance, if poverty and privation is rampant in society, how can the law of amputation for theft be applied? Furthermore, the Prophet Muhammad was reported to have said (found in the collection of Al Tirmithi), "If there is any way (to avoid punishing someone for a legal offense), let that person go. For it is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing."

These basic principles, it seems, have been completely neglected and abandoned by Muslims today. Doesn't this lead to injustice? Isn't that the exact opposite of what Islamic law is all about? Does this fact, therefore, justify calls for a moratorium on the implementation of the criminal penal code, as made by academics such as Tariq Ramadan? In addition, under Islamic law, those punishments should be instituted only by the Caliph. The Caliphate, even in nominal form, has been absent from the Muslim world since World War I.

Then there is the whole issue of "There is no compulsion in religion." (2:256) How does this come into play with respect to humans implementing what they believe to be God's law? Although there is some compulsion when it comes to the government imposing law and order (people are "compelled" to drive under the speed limit), some Muslims elevate all sinful acts to the level of criminal law, which was never intended by the Sharia. For example, the students of the Lal Masjid were reported to have harassed sellers of music, because they believe music is "haram," or forbidden by Islam.

Yet, there are a number of Muslim scholars that have said that there is nothing in Islam that prohibits music. If these students have their way and ban all music, isn't this "compulsion in religion"? Aren't they imposing their own personal religious view upon the rest of the community? Doesn't this violate the letter and spirit of 2:256? Isn't this not Sharia but vigilantism, which is expressly forbidden by the Sharia itself?

These are only some of the many questions that need to be addressed when it comes to Sharia, and I do not even pretend to know the answers to these questions. Yet, these questions must be answered and these inherent tensions need to be resolved by the scholars of the Muslim world today. I also must say that there should be nothing wrong with raising such questions in the first place.

Many Muslims today, especially after 9/11, operate under a "siege" mentality and feel the whole world is against them. This has come about because of the intense scrutiny, heretofore absent, placed upon Islam, its tenets, and Muslim communities in the wake of horrific acts of terrorism committed in Islam's name. Add to that the enormous amount of suspicion of the Muslim community by their non-Muslim neighbors because of the acts of a few terrorist criminals. As a result, many Muslims feel that taking a critical eye toward issues such as Sharia law is somehow being "disloyal" to Islam.

But truth does not fear investigation, and the least we can do - especially when it comes to attempting to implement His will on earth - is ask ourselves hard questions. If we do it wrong and say "God says thus," we will be lying on behalf of God, something against which He warned us sternly: "So woe to those who write scriptures by themselves then say it is from God in order to sell it for a petty price. Woe to them for what they have written on their own; and woe to them for what they earn!" (2:79)

The purpose of the Sharia is to promote justice and the common good. In fact, many people will be surprised to learn that the Sharia serves as the inspiration for the law in many Muslim countries, and there are no problems at all. In a minority of instances, however, the Sharia - as Muslims have presently applied it - has been an instrument of injustice and intolerance (think Afghanistan under the Taliban and Nigeria in the Lawal case) . This was never the intention of the Lawgiver.

The problem is, too many Muslims fail to understand this, and disaster has been handed down in the name of God and His religion. This cannot be allowed to happen again. This is, admittedly, a very sensitive issue, but we cannot shy away from this in the least. Our very salvation is at stake. Yet, in speaking with Muslim scholars, there is hope. The religious establishment all across the Muslim world is working hard to update itself, under their own imperative and not from any pressure from the West. Hopefully these forces for change will win the day.

It must have occured to great scholars like Dr. Hashimi by now that all religions are mainly defined by the worst qualities and not the best. I see no hesitation among muslims to berate a Hindu as caste-ridden or a Christian for Crusading or a Jew for being a supporter of Israel. Then why crib about Sharia being defined in the minds of non-musilms, by beheadings and dismemberment and stoning to death?

I have read articles on this terrible mosque matter by those who are aware of this situation there. I don't know what this article here does except restate what's in the press already with some added commentary that is dull, like a Friday sermon.

Well - it is the age old problem of 'I am better than anyone else! yet they all blame me!' syndrome at work!

Migocup, I think you failed to realise that the main purpose of the article is not to talk about the Lal mosque issue, but about Islamic law (as the title clearly suggests). Lal mosque was merely brought up as an example of some Muslims 'blindly' applying what they believe to be the only sharia rules that are valid.
I think questions stated here are very relevant to the current state of Islamic law formation. What is sad is that Muslims seem to have completely forgotten the centruries-old legacy of Islamic jurisprudence and the diversity of approaches to the interpretation of the will of God, and hence, the deduction of sharia laws.
"The religious establishment all across the Muslim world is working hard to update itself, under their own imperative and not from any pressure from the West. Hopefully these forces for change will win the day." I really hope something comes out of this, and very soon.

Amiga Dana, I don't think you can read any failure in my comment. The discussion about sharee'a in this article was not convincing. I found it to be full of cliches. This is my take. There are tons of articles on islamic law. this one, for me, fell flat.

Well my dear brothers and sisters, it looks like there is not enough to read. This article looks like some of my students trying to beef up their assignments for submission.
There appears to be some obsession with religion, religious beliefs and the enforcement of these beliefs on everyone irrespectively.

Please be aware that in such a modern world, people have choices, however, it appears that these things are being pressurised down everyone's throats. I am not therefore surprised by the number of such incidents around the world in killings, bombings, murdering innocent people.

How can any religion subscribe to killings?

I am sorry, I have learned to respect moderate people who respect each other in all walks of life and leave people as unique individuals. we all have choices!

Hi,

There are two Islam going on; one of Allah in which INSHALLAH prevails and Allah being Spirit, it is SHARIA FREE. SHARIAH is man made and unlike the Word of God, it varies from country to country. This is the Islam of Sun, the Primary Source of Light. In this Islam, every one whether male or female has to give his own account to Allah.

Whereas the present Islam of Shariah is dominated by the Mullahs and their Fatwas in which INSHMULLAH predominates. It is of moon, the Mullahs and the stars, the people of good morality. In this one you give your account to Mullah who in the Islam of Allah is a son of Satan or antichrist like the Popes and his stooges.

That is why you have sectarian riots in religious communities dominated by their satanic heads as in Islam, no person can stand between man and Allah or give your account to God as in Popes.

This is why I am terrified when Muslims in certain countries (lately Canada) start talking about implementing Sharia law. The reality is that the implementation of this law lies in the hands of men which are influenced and guided by their own interpetations and experiences. Usually the quest for the implementation of "Sharia" stems from the desire to control and coerce. As a Muslim I do not need any group of "men" to direct or decide my fate, it lies in the hands of Allah(swa).

Hi,

A true Mussallman being in Allah and Allah in Him, he does not need any Shariah Laws written by men as he knows how to behave. Such people are Arif and although they are above the moral laws yet they observe them for the sake of morality.

Such a True Mussallman should have conscience or ZAMEER, truthful, contented and merciful. He does not need to say prayer but ponder over His Word. No Hajj or fasting for him either.

Such Mussallmans are very few indeed and Shah Shamas Tabrez was a typical example but satanic Mullahs got him stoned to death through the orders of the king.

There are more Kaffirs in the East than in the West and the Kaffirs create sectarian riots. Kashmir is the Epicentre of such Kaffirs and now they are reaping the Reward for their satanic activities from All merciful Allah. Allah being Spirit, people get Rewards according to their conscience/Zameer.

I am such a Mussallman and I go by the Will of Allah and not of the wills of Mullahs/men.

Let me define the word Mussallman. It stands for Musallum, Firm believer in Allah who goes by His Will called Raza, Eeman stands for Faith in Allah. To be a Mussallman is not a joke as go by INSHALLAH and not by INSHMULLAH, the Fatwas.

What a great article. I always shared this opinion. There are lots of questions to answer and inconsistencies to explain. I always believed that religion is personal and therefore there can't be religious law all people must respect, because it invalidates the principle "no compulsion in religion". I would never like to live in a county where there is sharia, not because I want to be criminal, but because the power of one individual who would testify wrongly could mean my death, and it can happen that people get rid of other people with false testifying.

Hi,

I agree with you. Popes and Mullahs have killed many for opposing their authoritarian views but those days of burning people at stake are gone by.

Let us today discuss religion with an open educated people where no one can impose his views upon others.

Listen to every one and take what is good.

This is a wonderful discussion in that I had thought that Shariah law was an integral part of Islam. It is very heartening to learn differently. Does the Koran include Shariah law? That question has kept me from reading it.

The term Shariah law also brings to mind the mistreatment of women for many people.

Hi,

Yes. A person who can think logically can enjoy the subject of religion and find out much more through common sense than reading Books.

Try my articles and see how I have found the hidden treasures.

grace, I recommend some books to read by Khaled Abou El Fadl on this matter: 'The Great Theft', and 'Speaking in God's Name' (which has so much detail and use of legal language, but very enlightening nevertheless). You would definitely enjoy reading 'The Search for Beauty in Islam' as well. Not necessarily directly related to your question, but it's very much within the same line.

Hi,

Tell me if any author states INSHMULLAH or Fatwas as non-islamic? Have you heard the word Inshmullah?

There are guidelines and reccomendations in the Quran as to lifestyle choice, but few specific punishments. I agree that much of the current man made shariah contradicts the assertion in the Quran that there is "no compulsion in matters of faith."
While every society needs to function with rules and guidelines that protect the safety and well being of it's citizens, I have found that much of the current man made and interpeted Sharieh focuses on the punishment and micro control of society. As we have seen in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Taliban controlled Afghanistan that this imposition of man made law (masquerading as religion)often has the reverse effect, pushing people towards deviant behaviour, clandestine sex, drug and alcohol use, oppression and degradation of the disenfranchised, etc.

Hi,

There are lss thefts in Arabian countries than all other countries of the world. It is due to harsh punishment and that should be the way but in Europe, the thieves live a life of luxury in Jail at the expense of public who were the victims.

It does not make sense. There is no doubts that Arabian countries are well suppressed for the sake of good behaviour.

Still Allah being Spirit, Shariah has no place in the Islam of Allah, the Sun. Moon and star Islam is of Shariah.

It is all well and good for Moslem individuals to call for reform of Sharia or even for its abolition, but that is not the way Islam has been working for 1400 years. Sharia is considered holy law, based on the Koran and Hadith plus some analogical reasoning and consensus among serious Islamic religious scholars, the ulema. Never have individual, non-credentialed Moslems had any input here. Sharia law, which is obligatory not only for Moslems, but eventually, for all of humanity, is set forth in "Reliance of the Traveler" (available from Amazon.com). This compendium was written hundreds of years ago and was certified as still valid only a few years ago by four members of the ulema from Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and al Azhar in Cairo. Everyone at altmuslim.com ought to read this book, before discussing the subject, in order to see what Islam really requires Moslems to do.

By the way, the passage in the Koran about "There is no compulsion in religion." was written in Mecca in the period before the hegira. All the Meccan verses, according to Islamic law, were superseded by the verses which came later. This is the hallowed doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which cannot just be wished away. It is part and parcel of Islam. The Koran itself says that some verses may be superseded by other ones ("better ones"), and this is what happened to the "no compulsion" verse. All Islamic scholars know this. Therefore, even with the best intentions in the world, you will not convince any imams, mullahs, sheiks, ayatollahs or muftis that the verse is still valid.

Such discussions as this on altmuslim.com are possible only in an infidel country which permits freedom of religion, which no Moslem country permits. Isn't this ironic?

"Such discussions as this on altmuslim.com are possible only in an infidel country which permits freedom of religion, which no Moslem country permits. Isn't this ironic?"

I believe that we had enough of being the laughing stock of the world, with our "carefully" chosen words like infidel. There are other religions and they outh to be respected. There is no "infidel" country. There are many Muslims living in the west, and such conotations make our lives miserable here. That is not Islam.

"Sharia law, which is obligatory not only for Moslems, but eventually, for all of humanity, is set forth in "Reliance of the Traveler" (available from Amazon.com)."

Naivety is the greatest problem of us Muslims. You can't force people into actions. It is absurd and uncivilized to think people need to act as one religious law wants them to act. Everybody is reponsible individually for his deeds. As long as there is no validation of public space people should be able to do what they want.