The conversation
Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism – blame colonialism
Warning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rule in American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of US states have tried to outlaw Sharia, an Arabic term often understood as Islamic law. These political debates, which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society, reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized. They also reflect ignorance of the Sharia, which is not a strict code of law. Sharia means “way” or “way”: it is a wide range of values and ethical principles that come from the Koran – the holy book of Islam – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently. Still, this is not the first time the world has tried to figure out where Sharia fits into the global order. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France and other European powers gave up their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the leaders of the newly sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: should they switch their governments to Islamic ones Build religions? Adopt values or the European laws inherited from colonial rule? The Great Debate Immutable, as my historical research shows, the political leaders of these young countries chose to maintain their colonial justice systems rather than impose religious law. The newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other things, restricted the application of Sharia law to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, as their colonial administrators had done. The rest of their legal systems would continue to be based on European law. To understand why they chose this course, in 1956 I examined the decision-making process in Sudan, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from the British. In the national archives and libraries of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and in interviews with Sudanese lawyers and officials, I discovered that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals were indeed pushing for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state. They envisioned a progressive legal system that conforms to Islamic beliefs and in which all citizens – regardless of religion, race or ethnicity – can freely and openly exercise their religious beliefs: “The people are like the teeth of a comb,” wrote Sudan soon The future Supreme Court Justice, Hassan Muddathir, quoted the Prophet Muhammad in an official memorandum in 1956 that I found in the Sudan Library in Khartoum. “An Arab is no better than a Persian, and the white is no better than the black.” However, the post-colonial leadership of Sudan rejected these calls. They decided to keep the English tradition of common law as the law of the country. Why obey the oppressor’s laws? My research identifies three reasons why early Sudan overrode Sharia law: politics, pragmatism, and demographics. Rivalries between political parties in post-colonial Sudan led to a parliamentary stalemate that made it difficult to pass meaningful laws. So Sudan just kept the colonial laws that are already on the books. There were also practical reasons for maintaining English customary law. Sudanese judges had been trained by British colonial officials. Therefore, they continued to apply English common law principles to the disputes they heard in their courtrooms. The founding fathers of Sudan faced urgent challenges such as building the economy, building foreign trade and ending the civil war. They just didn’t think it made sense to overhaul the smoothly functioning system of government in Khartoum. The continued application of colonial law after independence also reflected the ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity of Sudan. Back then, Sudanese citizens spoke many languages and belonged to dozens of ethnic groups. At the time of Sudan’s independence, most of the people practicing Sunni and Sufi traditions of Islam lived in Northern Sudan. Christianity was an important belief in South Sudan. Because of the diversity of faith communities in Sudan, maintaining a foreign legal system – English common law – has been less controversial than choosing which version of Sharia law to adopt. Why Extremists Triumphed My research shows how today’s instability in the Middle East and North Africa is, in part, a consequence of these post-colonial decisions to reject Sharia law. In maintaining colonial legal systems, Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that had embarked on a similar path have appeased the western world powers that were pushing their former colonies towards secularism. However, they avoided solving difficult questions about religious identity and law. This created a separation between the people and their governments. In the long run, this separation helped fuel the unrest of some citizens of deep faith, leading to sectarian demands to unite religion and state once and for all. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Somalia and Nigeria, these interpretations triumphed, forcing extremist versions of Sharia law upon millions of people. In other words, Muslim-majority countries curbed Sharia’s democratic potential by rejecting it as a general legal concept in the EU in the 1950s and 1960s, sharia in the hands of extremists. But there is no inherent tension between Sharia, human rights and the rule of law. As with any use of religion in politics, the application of Sharia law depends on who is using it – and why. Leaders from places like Saudi Arabia and Brunei have decided to restrict women’s freedom and minority rights. However, many Islamic scholars and grassroots organizations interpret Sharia as a flexible, right-wing and equitable ethical order. Religion and law worldwide Religion is tied into the legal framework of many post-colonial nations, with different consequences for democracy and stability. After its establishment in 1948, Israel debated the role of Jewish law in Israeli society. Ultimately, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his allies opted for a mixed legal system that combined Jewish law with English customary law. In Latin America, Catholicism imposed by Spanish conquerors underpins laws that restrict abortion, divorce and gay rights. Throughout the 19th century, US judges consistently invoked the legal maxim that “Christianity is part of common law.” Legislators still routinely invoke their Christian faith when they support or reject a particular law. Political extremism and human rights violations that occur in these places are seldom understood as defects inherent in these religions. However, when it comes to Muslim-majority countries, Sharia is to blame for regressive laws – not the people who adopt these policies in the name of religion. In other words, fundamentalism and violence are a post-colonial problem – not a religious inevitability. For the Muslim world, after more than 50 years of failed secular rule, it will not be easy to find a system of government that reflects Islamic values while promoting democracy. But building peace can take it. This article was republished by The Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to exchanging ideas from academic experts. Read more: * What Sharia means: 5 questions answered * How Islamic law can adopt ISIS * Trump’s travel ban is just one of many US directives that legalize discrimination against Muslims. Mark Fathi Massoud has received fellowships from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, Carnegie, Corporation of New York, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, Fulbright-Hays, and the University of California. All views expressed here are the responsibility of the author.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.