Malik Fraz Ahmad, UK
In his recent speech at the United Nations, US President Donald Trump declared, ‘London wants to go to Sharia law.’ These remarks highlight and reflect the enduring persistence of common myths around Sharia law. Aside from the US President, many have voiced their concerns on the world stage and in the media regarding Sharia law. The very word Sharia can ignite an unparalleled devotion in some, whilst invoking fear or even hatred in others. But what does it truly mean? And why does it continue to be misunderstood in Britain today?
The Literal Meaning
Even a cursory glance at the etymological roots of the term Sharia shows just how far its caricature is from its true meaning. According to the Hans Wehr Arabic Dictionary, the term Sharia finds its roots in the Arabic verb Shara’a, which is linked to the idea of a divinely ordained path. Defined literally, the term means ‘the path leading to the water.’ Therefore, it is symbolic of a source of spiritual life and rejuvenation. In this sense, Sharia law is not merely a set of commandments, but a complete code of conduct for Muslims to follow throughout their life.
Particularly in the UK, Sharia has become a hot topic of conversation, as Muslims turn to using Sharia councils in order to resolve their various matters. This has given rise to the perception that Sharia law is becoming more pronounced in the country or that some desire for ‘Sharia Courts’ to become more prevalent. However, it is also worth noting here that the term ‘Sharia Court’ can be a misnomer, as the word ‘court’ is misleading.
In fact, the term has found mainstream traction due to its usage by the media. A House of Commons briefing document of 2019 states: ‘The term “Sharia courts’ is often used in the media but it is not usually used by the organisations themselves. ‘Sharia council” is the more common term used by the organisations, and by academics who specialise in religion and the law.’
In a world dictated by social media therefore, algorithms entrench biases and shape false perceptions. People reside in this virtual village, rarely venturing outside to validate or fact-check information. Within this environment, the words ‘Sharia courts’ are purposefully used to stoke fear because to call them ‘courts’ would impute powers to them that in reality they do not and cannot exercise.
According to government statistics, Sharia councils are used overwhelmingly by women seeking an ‘Islamic divorce’, and thus the majority of edicts pronounced therein pertain to religious rather than legal questions arising out of the marriage contract. Such pronouncements hold no legally binding authority, and in very limited instances they have been used by courts to adjudicate on financial disagreements accruing out of the couples’ contractual obligations, particularly where such marriages do not have a civil footprint in the UK. Thus, the existence of Sharia councils in fact safeguards the rights of such women seeking to resort to their ‘tribunal of choice’ in cases of matrimony, where their preference is for the dispute to be adjudged according to religious law.
Freedom, Not Compulsion
Sharia is also not unique or exclusive to the Islamic faith. It is not a new phenomenon or reality as every faith has its own form of divine teachings and laws. For instance, British Jews routinely go before their own Beth Din courts to arbitrate real estate deals, divorces and business disputes. Sharia councils thus are merely one part of Britain’s rich tradition of accommodating and recognising the rights of religious groups to seek guidance from their own traditions, so long as they remain subordinate and do not contradict the overriding law of the land.
From an Islamic point of view, a democratic system of governance is not merely a right, but a trust to be discharged as equitably and fairly as possible. Chapter 4, verse 59 reads, ‘Allah commands you to make over the trusts to those best fitted to discharge them.’ And while no political system is mentioned in the Qur’an as the only valid system against all others, democracy appears to have been preferred: in the context of the governance of societal affairs the Qur’an states in chapter 42 verse 38, ‘…whose affairs are governed by mutual consultation.’
Moreover, justice remains a seminal feature in Qur’anic discourse in all matters, particularly in governance. The Qur’anic injunctions on the dispensation of justice envision the formation of an impartial and egalitarian arrangement of social and political institutions. Notably, the Qur’an endorses the values of diversity and social cooperation that are vital to the aim of institutionalising justice in society and actually speaks of diversity and difference as a merciful gift to mankind in chapter 11 verse 118: ‘If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people…’
The Qur’an goes on in chapter 49 verse 13 to provide that God grouped people into various tribes and nations so that they ‘may know one another.’ Jurists have reasoned that the provision ‘may know one another’ points to the notions of social cooperation and cohesion in order to establish a just society.
As far as the question of whether Islamic law can be imposed perforce, the answer based on the Holy Qur’an is a definite no. The Holy Qur’an says in chapter chapter 2 verse 257: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’
In chapter 88 verses 22 and 23, even the Prophet Muhammad (sa) was told in clear words by God that ‘thou art but an admonisher; Thou hast no authority to compel them.’ How, when the founder of Islam said it was forbidden to compel anyone in matters of faith, and when the principles of justice have been so emphatically embodied within the rubric of the Quran, can any Muslim then have the authority to impose Sharia Law on others?
Fascinatingly, we can find the successful implementation of a multi-jurisdictional approach to legal systems from the times of the Holy yProphet (sa). After his migration to Madinah, he led a multi-faith society that included large Jewish communities. Despite Islamic law already being revealed at that time, whenever Jews came to him for guidance or for decisions, without fail he would enquire from them whether they would prefer their dispute to be settled according to Jewish law, Islamic law or according to arbitration. This example quashes any notion that the Sharia system is based on compulsion, as opposed to mutual consent.
A Crisis of Perception
Why then in contemporary discourses and nomenclature, is Sharia law perceived as inter alia, rigid, dogmatic, or even violent? Regrettably, this mischaracterisation has been exacerbated by the actions of some Muslim-majority governments that have weaponised religious law for political ends.
By enmeshing religious extremism with political power, some Muslim-majority countries have created a brutal brand of governance which, instead of upholding justice, uses the banner of Sharia to suppress minorities and entrench power. Such abuses are spurred not by the love of any faith but an insatiable hunger for power and are completely divorced from and antithetical to the true spirit of Islam.
This distortion is consistent with a broader global trend. Around the world, legal systems, religious and secular alike, are increasingly being manipulated and weaponised for political ends. Sadly, we see legal orders, particularly those which are intended to police at the international stage, being treated with casual utilitarian pragmatism and apathy. Conventions and treaties are selectively enforced only when politically expedient. Justice is becoming secondary to power, and the rules-based system is under serious threat as the ‘might is right’ approach becomes entrenched. This malaise is one which must be tackled and arguably poses a far greater challenge to global justice than the voluntary religious councils of communities in Britain.
Conclusion
In a society as diverse as Britain, fear often arises from what we misunderstand or misname. Often there is not an ounce, a jot, a scintilla of truth to the charges levelled against Islam, and they collapse under scrutiny. Consequently, it is vital that we challenge these tropes which are banded around with reckless abandon by opportunistic politicians and agitators, with their voices being amplified by a broken and partisan media. Only then can we claim to be working towards a harmonious and peaceful society in which justice, equality, equity, tolerance and freedom are enjoyed by all.
About the Author: Malik Fraz Ahmad is a Durham Law Graduate, originally from Bradford. He maintains a keen interest in matters of public law, U.K constitutional law and international human rights.
Add Comment