By Irfan Yusuf - The Sydney Morning Herald - Sydney, NSW, Australia
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Law of our land can never be sharia
I have a confession to make. I have not read the recent speech given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams in which he mentions the nasty "s" word. You know - the word that reminds us all of mass stonings and beheadings and amputations. And because I haven't read the speech, I will not be commenting on the points he makes. But not everyone taking part in this latest flare-up of cultural warfare is behaving as cautiously.
Instead, even respected newspapers are behaving like tabloids, publishing articles that suggest honour killings and other despicable cultural practices not exclusive to Muslims are somehow sanctioned by Islamic sacred law.
Sharia is not the name of a draconian system of legal punishments. Rather, sharia is a legal tradition, a set of legal principles based on certain values that are identical to those contained in the old and new testaments.
Further, legal scholars in the East and West agree the legal traditions of sharia, English common law (from which our legal systems are derived) and European civil law have borrowed from and influenced each other. It is only by ignoring history and present realities that one concludes sharia and Western legal traditions are mutually exclusive.
Many readers will wonder what 360,000-odd Australians who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms think of sharia. Do we want to establish the Islamic Republic of Australia? Will men be forced to grow beards as majestic as that of Dr Williams? Will the Parliament be moved from Canberra to Lakemba?
Muslims are not the only religious group with an ancient sacred law which they occasionally would like secular law to take account of. On a number of occasions, joint submissions have been made by Jews and Muslims in areas such as ritual animal slaughter, burial and the treatment of bodies in autopsies.
In August 1989, the Australian Law Reform Commission began an inquiry on the topic of multiculturalism and the law. Numerous submissions were received from various ethnic and ethno-religious communities. A submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, a peak Muslim body representing the congregations of about half of Australia's mosques, concerned a number of issues relating to family law.
In particular, there was some concern that under the Family Law Act 1975, Muslim women were being forced to wait at least 12 months from the date of separation to file for divorce. Under most interpretations of sharia, the waiting period was much shorter.
But how many Australian Muslims follow sharia when family disputes arise? My experience in legal practice has been that the parties will go for whichever system gives them the most favourable outcome. This usually means following a system which has the force of secular law.
Australian Muslim attitudes to sharia are further complicated by the fact Muslim migrants come from more than 60 countries. Different Muslim cultures understand sharia in different ways.
For instance, Indonesians tend to associate sharia with non-interest banking and ethical investments. In South Asia, where the common law has incorporated sharia codes in family law and inheritance, Muslims view sharia in these terms. Hence, it will be almost impossible to find any consensus among Australian Muslims as to exactly what sharia is. Implementation is virtually out of the question.
Muslim migrants have included refugees from Islamic theocratic regimes. They include the Hazara tribe of Afghanistan, most of whom fled the theocratic regime of the Taliban which claimed to be implementing sharia. I doubt many of these Muslim Australians would want their adopted nation to become a sharia state if it means anything like the laws of Afghanistan or Iran.
The term sharia is also used to refer to the outer manifestation of Islamic worship, as opposed to tariqa (which Westerners would refer to as Sufism) which represents the inner spiritual aspect of worship. In this sense, sharia is liturgy. And liturgy does not need secular law to protect its integrity.
Even in simple liturgical matters, there is little agreement. For instance, imams have yet to agree on a method for determining the beginning of sacred lunar months such as Ramadan. Given the lack of consensus on such basic issues, don't expect to see much sharia anytime before the next ice age.
Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com.
http://www.altmuslim.com/a
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Law of Our Land
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Law of our land can never be sharia
I have a confession to make. I have not read the recent speech given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams in which he mentions the nasty "s" word. You know - the word that reminds us all of mass stonings and beheadings and amputations. And because I haven't read the speech, I will not be commenting on the points he makes. But not everyone taking part in this latest flare-up of cultural warfare is behaving as cautiously.
Instead, even respected newspapers are behaving like tabloids, publishing articles that suggest honour killings and other despicable cultural practices not exclusive to Muslims are somehow sanctioned by Islamic sacred law.
Sharia is not the name of a draconian system of legal punishments. Rather, sharia is a legal tradition, a set of legal principles based on certain values that are identical to those contained in the old and new testaments.
Further, legal scholars in the East and West agree the legal traditions of sharia, English common law (from which our legal systems are derived) and European civil law have borrowed from and influenced each other. It is only by ignoring history and present realities that one concludes sharia and Western legal traditions are mutually exclusive.
Many readers will wonder what 360,000-odd Australians who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms think of sharia. Do we want to establish the Islamic Republic of Australia? Will men be forced to grow beards as majestic as that of Dr Williams? Will the Parliament be moved from Canberra to Lakemba?
Muslims are not the only religious group with an ancient sacred law which they occasionally would like secular law to take account of. On a number of occasions, joint submissions have been made by Jews and Muslims in areas such as ritual animal slaughter, burial and the treatment of bodies in autopsies.
In August 1989, the Australian Law Reform Commission began an inquiry on the topic of multiculturalism and the law. Numerous submissions were received from various ethnic and ethno-religious communities. A submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, a peak Muslim body representing the congregations of about half of Australia's mosques, concerned a number of issues relating to family law.
In particular, there was some concern that under the Family Law Act 1975, Muslim women were being forced to wait at least 12 months from the date of separation to file for divorce. Under most interpretations of sharia, the waiting period was much shorter.
But how many Australian Muslims follow sharia when family disputes arise? My experience in legal practice has been that the parties will go for whichever system gives them the most favourable outcome. This usually means following a system which has the force of secular law.
Australian Muslim attitudes to sharia are further complicated by the fact Muslim migrants come from more than 60 countries. Different Muslim cultures understand sharia in different ways.
For instance, Indonesians tend to associate sharia with non-interest banking and ethical investments. In South Asia, where the common law has incorporated sharia codes in family law and inheritance, Muslims view sharia in these terms. Hence, it will be almost impossible to find any consensus among Australian Muslims as to exactly what sharia is. Implementation is virtually out of the question.
Muslim migrants have included refugees from Islamic theocratic regimes. They include the Hazara tribe of Afghanistan, most of whom fled the theocratic regime of the Taliban which claimed to be implementing sharia. I doubt many of these Muslim Australians would want their adopted nation to become a sharia state if it means anything like the laws of Afghanistan or Iran.
The term sharia is also used to refer to the outer manifestation of Islamic worship, as opposed to tariqa (which Westerners would refer to as Sufism) which represents the inner spiritual aspect of worship. In this sense, sharia is liturgy. And liturgy does not need secular law to protect its integrity.
Even in simple liturgical matters, there is little agreement. For instance, imams have yet to agree on a method for determining the beginning of sacred lunar months such as Ramadan. Given the lack of consensus on such basic issues, don't expect to see much sharia anytime before the next ice age.
Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com.
http://www.altmuslim.com/a
Labels:
faith
By Irfan Yusuf - The Sydney Morning Herald - Sydney, NSW, AustraliaWednesday, February 13, 2008
Law of our land can never be sharia
I have a confession to make. I have not read the recent speech given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams in which he mentions the nasty "s" word. You know - the word that reminds us all of mass stonings and beheadings and amputations. And because I haven't read the speech, I will not be commenting on the points he makes. But not everyone taking part in this latest flare-up of cultural warfare is behaving as cautiously.
Instead, even respected newspapers are behaving like tabloids, publishing articles that suggest honour killings and other despicable cultural practices not exclusive to Muslims are somehow sanctioned by Islamic sacred law.
Sharia is not the name of a draconian system of legal punishments. Rather, sharia is a legal tradition, a set of legal principles based on certain values that are identical to those contained in the old and new testaments.
Further, legal scholars in the East and West agree the legal traditions of sharia, English common law (from which our legal systems are derived) and European civil law have borrowed from and influenced each other. It is only by ignoring history and present realities that one concludes sharia and Western legal traditions are mutually exclusive.
Many readers will wonder what 360,000-odd Australians who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms think of sharia. Do we want to establish the Islamic Republic of Australia? Will men be forced to grow beards as majestic as that of Dr Williams? Will the Parliament be moved from Canberra to Lakemba?
Muslims are not the only religious group with an ancient sacred law which they occasionally would like secular law to take account of. On a number of occasions, joint submissions have been made by Jews and Muslims in areas such as ritual animal slaughter, burial and the treatment of bodies in autopsies.
In August 1989, the Australian Law Reform Commission began an inquiry on the topic of multiculturalism and the law. Numerous submissions were received from various ethnic and ethno-religious communities. A submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, a peak Muslim body representing the congregations of about half of Australia's mosques, concerned a number of issues relating to family law.
In particular, there was some concern that under the Family Law Act 1975, Muslim women were being forced to wait at least 12 months from the date of separation to file for divorce. Under most interpretations of sharia, the waiting period was much shorter.
But how many Australian Muslims follow sharia when family disputes arise? My experience in legal practice has been that the parties will go for whichever system gives them the most favourable outcome. This usually means following a system which has the force of secular law.
Australian Muslim attitudes to sharia are further complicated by the fact Muslim migrants come from more than 60 countries. Different Muslim cultures understand sharia in different ways.
For instance, Indonesians tend to associate sharia with non-interest banking and ethical investments. In South Asia, where the common law has incorporated sharia codes in family law and inheritance, Muslims view sharia in these terms. Hence, it will be almost impossible to find any consensus among Australian Muslims as to exactly what sharia is. Implementation is virtually out of the question.
Muslim migrants have included refugees from Islamic theocratic regimes. They include the Hazara tribe of Afghanistan, most of whom fled the theocratic regime of the Taliban which claimed to be implementing sharia. I doubt many of these Muslim Australians would want their adopted nation to become a sharia state if it means anything like the laws of Afghanistan or Iran.
The term sharia is also used to refer to the outer manifestation of Islamic worship, as opposed to tariqa (which Westerners would refer to as Sufism) which represents the inner spiritual aspect of worship. In this sense, sharia is liturgy. And liturgy does not need secular law to protect its integrity.
Even in simple liturgical matters, there is little agreement. For instance, imams have yet to agree on a method for determining the beginning of sacred lunar months such as Ramadan. Given the lack of consensus on such basic issues, don't expect to see much sharia anytime before the next ice age.
Irfan Yusuf is a Sydney lawyer and associate editor of AltMuslim.com.
http://www.altmuslim.com/a
1 comment:
-
Anonymous said...
-
Good one. I almost feel like there are forces that have to stir the pot to keep the 'global clash' moving along the track. Most non-Muslims will inevitably become fearful when the word is mentioned and quite a few Muslims aren't skilled enough to recognize the complexities of the issue.
-
4:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Good one. I almost feel like there are forces that have to stir the pot to keep the 'global clash' moving along the track. Most non-Muslims will inevitably become fearful when the word is mentioned and quite a few Muslims aren't skilled enough to recognize the complexities of the issue.
Post a Comment