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.

Hi,

Islam is the Universal religion of this Dark Age in which you are directly responsible to Allah if you go by the Islam of INSHALLAH. In such a Islam, there is no compulsion at all. In this True Islam, there are more Muslims in the West than in the East. East is full of infidels. I am a Muslim but not a Mohammedan. I do not say prayer, fast or go to Hajj. This Islam information you gain by reasoning logically and taking the meanings of the words such as Mussallman as a person who is a firm believer, Mossallum, or as the Christians say, "Sealed" in Allah (Eeman. Such a Mussallman is shameful for being the son of Man, truthful, contented and merciful. You would be surprised that most of the so-called Muslims of rituals even do not know the origin of the word "Allah". In my Islam, no Ilah; then no Allah. Hajj is for establishing your covenant with your tribal Ilah. Kabah is the Temple of Adam.

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)."
Please cite your proof from the Quran that shariah is obligatory.

The Quran, which is the divine word of Allah (swa) supercedes any man made law, that includes laws written by sheikhs, scholars and mullahs, as they are still men, and as such have the same flaws as any other human being. It is ludicrous to believe that any human being is not influenced by his or her surroundings, culture and circumstance, thus making his or her rulings subject to scrutiny. There is much precendence in Islam for ijtahad or critical thinking.

WELL SAID. I SUPPORT THESE VIEWS. IN FACT CHRIST NANAK SAID, "DO NOT SAY THE BIBLE AND QURAN ARE NOT TRUE BUT THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT PONDER OVER HIS WORD IS FALSE OR NOT TRUTHFUL BUT A LIAR". HOLY BOOKS ARE TO BE PONDERED OVER IN SPIRIT AS ALLAH IS SPIRIT AND NOT THE LETTERS.

I CAN TELL YOU MANY THINGS BUT WE HAVE MORE FANTICS THAN WISEMEN CAPABLE OF PONDERING. DO YOU KNOW THAT HAJJ USED TO BE FOR BOYS OF 12 TO YEARS OLD TO ESTABLISH THEIR TRIBAL LINK.

You want proof from the Koran that Sharia is obligatory? No problem. First of all, the Koran says in many places that Moslems must obey Allah AND Muhammad. Therefore, whatever Muhammad is believed to have said (the authenticated Hadith) becomes law according to the Koran. The Koran also says:
"Ask those who recall if you know not." (16:43)
"Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain knowledge of the religion to admonish their people when they return, that happily they may take warning.: (9:122)
"O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you.": (4:59)
There are also hadith to confirm this. Remember that the authenticated hadith are obligatory because the Koran requires believers to obey the Prophet.
"Allah's hand is over the group, and whoever dissents from them departs to hell." For more citations from the Hadith, see Reliance of the Traveler p.24-25. In fact, see the whole chapter "The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship".
Also, the Koran prescribes many laws concerning status of women, inheritance, punishments, etc. Moslems are not permitted to consider these to be "man-made". These, together with the authenticated Hadith, form the sacred part of the Sharia.

If you can convince all of the Islamic religious authorities, or any of them, in fact, that sharia is not obligatory, congratulations! There is no sign of it, yet. But, I wish all of us good luck!

P.S. It is a common misconception that "ijtihad" means "critical thinking" which any Moslem may engage in. That is not the commonly and traditionally accepted definition of the term. Ijtihad means the opinion of QUALIFIED Islamic scholars who are called upon to apply sacred law from the Koran and Hadith to practical situations. The qualified religious scholar is called a mujtahid. This is not something that an unqualified Moslem is permitted to engage in.

So, my definition of a Muslim does not fit into your Quran or qualified Muslims.

Allah does not bind you in Shariah laws but sets you free in spirit. Shariah and INSHMULLAH binds you. Such an Islam is not of Allah but of the Mullahs.

I am glad that most of you are open minded and take cricism in good faith.

"My" Koran????? Wow, have you got a wrong number! It is your Koran, not mine. And, I also do not have any definition of "Muslim". Islam defines who is a Muslim and who is not. I have no opinion of my own on the subject. I am merely an outside observer.

If your definition of who is a Muslim and what the Koran says conflicts with the traditional and accepted definitions established by the Islamic community over the centuries, that is your problem, not mine. An outsider normally just accepts the definitions used by the majority of the members of a religious community, and especially the definitions used by the majority of the educated and religiously qualified members of that religious community. To accept other definitions leads to a breakdown in communication and to misunderstandings because people use the same words but mean quite different things. They then think that they are talking about the same thing, but, in fact, they are talking about different things. What's the point of that? Unless, of course, the purpose is not communication but deliberate miscommunication for ulterior purposes.

Christ Nanak was also an Apostle of Islam and he has defined who is a Muslim. Circumcision does not make a person a Muslim.

Hajj is not for Muslims but for young boys only.

The Quran does not make hadith obligatory merely because it asked us to obey the Prophet. The Prophet himself could have written down anything he wanted to during his lifetime but he chose not to. IF you have studied the science of hadith, you know that most hadith were recorded decades and even centuries after the Prophet died. Most of them passed through a long chain of narrators. All of the narrators were human beings, with their own influences and beliefs. Because of this there are many hadith which contradict eachother as well as the Quran. I think the spirit of the hadith used to impart knowledge of the admirable characteristics of the Prophet to be most imperative to Muslims.
As for the comment that only Sheikhs or Mullahs are allowed to make ijtihad, this is not only ludicrous but the reason many Muslims continue to wallow in poverty and have human and civil rights abuses perpetrated on them in the name of Islam. Osama bin Laden is referred to by some as a sheik, yet not many Muslims would wish to put their life in his hands and live under shariah as defined by himself and other wahabis.

A skeptic might say that, in fact, the hadith are more reliable than the Koran, itself. After all, the hadith are supported by several witnesses, whereas all you have is Mohammad's word for the Koran.

As for the hadith being obligatory, the Koran does not "ask" you to obey the Prophet. It orders you to do so. Apparently you think you know about the "admirable characteristics of the Prophet" which are "most imperative for Muslims". Where did you find out about these "admirable characteristics" if not from the Hadith? And, what about the not so admirable characteristics which are also related in the hadith? Or, are you content to pick and choose whichever characteristics appeal to you?

Do you pick and choose the verses of the Koran, too, which appeal to you? After all, the Koran is loaded with contradictions, too. Traditionally, those contradictions were resolved through the principle of abrogation whereby later verses replace earlier verses which are in contradiction.

How you define Islam for yourself is your business, not mine; and I would not presume to say you should do it one way or another. It is just that, if you deviate from the tradition of the religious authorities, you end up with your own idiosyncratic version of Islam which is comfortable for you but which has no relevance to Islam as a whole or to the crucial task of averting the danger that traditional Islam presents to the world (and to you, too, by the way).

I watch this web site often because the discussions here are usually relevant, friendly, and intelligent. Seldom have I seen people miss the point this badly in how this topic relates to America. Sharia is not a "Law". In the USA all laws come exclusively from the government and are judged valid by comparison to the US Constitution. The way you guys are discussing this topic highlights a one source of the problems non Muslims in this country have with Muslims. STOP CALLING IT A LAW! In this country there is a separation of church and state. Please treat it as it is; a canon of rules which those people who have chosen to worship as a Muslim should follow according to their understanding of them.

Thank you.

Thank goodness that there is separation of church and state in this indifel land and that sharia is not the "law" in America -- at least not yet. Nobody is claiming otherwise. However, the use of the word "law" with regard to Sharia is totally appropriate because "law" also refers to religious law, not only secular law. Judaism has its religious law, too. In Islam, sharia is considered law binding upon all Muslims. In an Islamic state, which does not separate the civic from the religious, sharia religious law is also "civic" law, with prescribed punishments, including death, for particular transgressions, such as apostasy. Because of the unity of Islamic society, whatever is considered a sin is also a crime. Unfortunately, an integral part of Islamic law is the requirement to impose Islamic law on the entire world, not only upon Moslems. That is the basis for Islamic imperialism. There may be many enlightened Moslems who find the notion abhorrent that sharia law should be imposed even on Moslems, let alone upon non-Moslems. Good for them! But their views do not change Islamic law which is still being taught in all the Islamic schools in the world, as far as we know.

Hi,

But religion has become opium for the masses and men in the garbs of priests exploit the simpletons.

Islam which stands for the submission to the Will of Allah, INSHALLAH was the religion of Christ Jesus and so is mine. In my Islam, a True Mussallman is one who has conscience or Heeya, speaks truth and does not tell lies, he is contented and does not fleece or loot others and finally he is merciful and not cruel. Such a Mussallman with all the positive qualities is in Allah and Allah in Him. Others who fall short of this definition are not in Allah but in Satan and they are called infidels.

Todays, East is full of infidels and the West has the greatest number of Mussallmans.

Dear Nijjhar,

I am glad that you qualify "Islam" by saying "my Islam". This may work for you, and you deserve respect for breaking with Islamic tradition. From the point of view of an outside observer, however, your idiosyncratic version of Islam, benign though it is, has no relevance to the danger which traditional, mainstream Islam presents to the civilized world today. This will remain the case unless and until you can get a large movement behind you which will challenge the Moslem religious authorities. Good luck!

Montedoro

>> From the point of view of an outside observer, however, your idiosyncratic version of Islam, benign though it is, has no relevance to the danger which traditional, mainstream Islam presents to the civilized world today.

I mostly read comments when I'm bored but this struck me as especially stupid. America invades Iraq because Muslims are dangerous. America invades Vietnam because communists are dangerous (does business with them 20 years later). America dismisses the hope of international court of justice. America dismisses the hope of real debt relief to Africa ... yet "Islam".. the boogeyman is capable of posing a danger to the civilised world today. I think arrogance and a complete lack of objectivity make some people feel very safe.