It seems that the Islamists, and some anti-Islamists, are getting into the debate involving the implementation of Sharia with certain assumptions in mind.
1. There is such a thing as The Sharia!
This is simply not true. Muslim scholars do not have a single detailed rule of Sharia that they agree upon. They agree on broad principles which most humans do, but in general they do not agree on a single body of law which they call Sharia. They have loads of different interpretations on most aspects of their religious code – if not all. To give an example let’s take the rulings of alcohol and wine. Is wine or alcohol forbidden? If it is both or either, is there a punishment? If so, what is the punishment? If not then it is up to the authorities to criminalize or not – a process called Tazir. The fact is there is no consensus on such issues.
So Islamists are not imposing Sharia in as much as calling for a sectarian state such as Shia Islamist Iran, or Wahabist Saudi Arabia or Taliban-twisted interpretations of Deobandism in Afghanistan, etc.
2. Are differences tolerated? What kind of differences should be tolerated in “Islamic” interpretation/s of Sharia? Well according to Ibn Taymia a medieval theologian, and a favourite of Jihadists and Islamists, as long as the person is sincere in his ijtihad (efforts to find the “truth” or Gods judgment), whether it is to do with fundamentals (Usul) or detailed questions about secondary issues (furoo – branches) or matters which are to do with beliefs or rituals, it is all tolerated. This is the case as the companions of the Prophet and the first generation of Muslims all differed with each other on all issues including basic beliefs. He answers the question: what if some consider certain things definitive/clear cut or speculative? He says this is a matter of opinion which people differed over! Ibn Taymiya in his book al-Fatawa al-Kubra, Vol. 20, p.256. (See Shawkani‘s Irshad ul-Fuhul Dar ul-Kutub ul-Ilmiya 1995 edition Beirut-Lebanon page 385).
3. The ruler should not impose his opinion of the Sharia – in fact according to Ibn Taymia this is HARAM! Forbidden! Ibn Taymia, like John Locke, says that authorities are not allowed to enforce one religious opinion tradition i.e. Sharia rules over the another. Rather they should be free to follow their own religious conviction, and rulers rule in the temporal i.e. secular sphere. (See this Islamist blog, for the details and an example of Ibn Taymia’s fatwa stating this!)
The main argument against imposing the Sharia normally came from the propounders of Fiqh (interpretations of Sharia) who believed that imposing it on society by a political authority would cause trouble and sectarian strife (this is way before they tried it in Iran and Sudan!).
When Imam Malik the founder of the second sunni school of Islamic Fiqh was given an opportunity to impose his interpretations across the Muslim empire, he replied:
“Do not do so! For people have already heard different positions, heard ahadith and related narrations. Every group have taken whatever came to them and put it into practice, conforming to it though others differed. To take them away from what they have been professing will cause a disaster! Therefore, leave people with whatever school they follow and whatever the people of each country choose for themselves”. (See here for full reference.)
I guess imposing Sharia is not quite what medieval Sharia expounders quite had in mind.
2 Comments
Zorro,
Excellent post, extremely interesting topic. I wonder though, with reference to your third point, whether Ibn Taymia had in mind the Christian doctrine of the two swords expounded by Gelasius? Ironic considering his responsibility for the Acacian schism!
I think it may be similar though not quite the same thing. Pardon my ignorance how was Ibn Taymia responsible for the acacian schism, or what form in Islam, unless you mean his slightly anthropomorphic conception of the Divine, but not sure if it is quite as analogous to the christological question and conflict.