The ‘Shari’ah’ debate (2)

Sheikh Ishaak Nuamah Opinion Apr - 11 - 2014 , 11:55

The writer continues the discussion on one of the most debated issues of our time — ‘Shari’ah’—and its relevance, which started last week.

Read on...

Shari’ah does not have the dynamism to meet the needs of society.

There is no doubt about the fact that society is dynamic in all facets of human life. But “Shari’ah” has in-built elements of dynamism that facilitate its response to the changing needs of society.

I shall deal with the dynamism of “Shari’ah” later in this write-up. For now, what I would like to point out is that:

•The Creator knows the being He has created more than himself. The Quran points out this fact in a question form.

“Does He Who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” Qur’an 67:14

Analogically, when an engineer manufactures a product, he provides for its use a manual that guides the user. The engineer does so because he knows the product more than its user.

Similarly, the Creator knows the creature He has created and therefore provides laws that will guide him and meet his needs and the changes that may occur thereof.

• The principle that underlies change is the theory of evolution which asserts that everything in life is in constant change. But it has to be noted that this assertion is incorrect.

Indeed, there are two aspects of man’s life, namely aspects that are static and those that change with time. How does “Shari’ah” deal with what is static in human life and what changes from time to time.

What is basically static in life is that man continues to be a creature with a body, mind and spirit. In response to this static nature, the Creator has provided for man principles that are static and do not change with the passage of time.

Principal among such principles are faith in Him, the Almighty; morals; laws that ensure sanity and security of society; laws that ensure purity of the human self, etc.

And, in addressing the changing needs of society, “Shari’ah” makes provision for “al-ijtihaad” (independent reasoning).

Using the tools of analogy, indispensability and necessity, muslim scholars have the capacity to think through the changing needs of society in economics, politics, education, technology, etc. and develop appropriate laws that are in conformity with Islamic principle.

These tools make it extremely possible for “Shari’ah” to address the changing needs of society.

• If “Shari’ah” was implemented from the seventh century to the early part of the 20th century, what makes it difficult for Muslim countries to implement it in our time?

• The emergence of manifestations of crime, injustice and moral decadence in all facets of human life clearly shows the inefficiencies in man-made laws, and in a world where new options are being sought to address human problems, why can’t Muslim countries give “Shari’ah” a trial?

The recent cry for “Shari’ah” banking, which is interest-free, in the West after the failure of capitalist free market banking based on “interest” is a case in point of new options being sought to address human problems.

The witness of history

History is a witness to the ability of “Shari’ah” to meet the needs and developments in all societies.

For any legal system to stand the test of time, it needs two things and each one complements the other:

(a) Throughout the history of that legal system, it empirically confronted new challenges and developments in different societies but it was able to overcome them through a legal system that is built on pragmatic foundations.

And for well over 1,300 years, “Shari’ah” operated effectively in all Muslim societies with diverse economic, cultural and political backgrounds. This was possible because “Shari’ah” has sound and realistic foundations upon which it is built.

(b) That legal system should have the capacity to provide justice for all, and “Shari’ah” did just that in all lands where it was implemented.

The punitive laws provided by Islam are barbaric

This assertion targets “Shari’ah’s” punitive laws on murder, stealing and adultery. On murder and adultery, Islam prescribes the penalty of death; and on stealing, Islam recommends the penalty of hand cutting.

What is barbaric about these prescriptions? Five issues shall be addressed here.

They are the voices that raise the issue of barbarism; the purpose of these laws; the dynamics of their application; some of their prescriptions in modern democracies; and their impact on countries that have applied them.

The voices

The voices that raise the issue of barbarism come from the social thought of liberal philosophy, a thought that is anti-religion, and against any sense of spirituality and does not have a sense of respect for divine prescriptions.

It is a thought that emanated from the French Revolution in the 18th century, a revolution that was anti-God and gave rise to Secularism in the West. And, of course, the key element of secularism and its processes of secularisation is alienation of religious thought to the background of human life.

The question then is, how can a voice that is anti-God pass a positive verdict on a prescription that comes from the Creator?

The writer is a Theologian/Educationist

ishaakn25@yahoo.com