Written October 2004. Revised January 2009.

In the bigger context of 'state terrorism' and all the issues that are inherently tied to it -- in particular, Islamophobia (something the left and right can succumb to) -- the topic of Shariah (as it relates to the legal aspect/family courts for Muslims) should not lose its relevance.

Charles Demers made an interesting point regarding the framing of the Shariah Law debate that littered the Canadian airwaves not long ago:

"Democratically-minded Canadians ought certainly to oppose the introduction of religious courts in this country, but not primarily because of some abstract allegiance to the concept of the separation of religion from matters of state. In the face of a very real and contemporary onslaught on the rights of a persecuted minority, we ought to insist that the fundamental egalitarian principles of equality before the law and access to the courts of the land be upheld, and that no Jim Crow standards be allowed in our legal system." (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6230)

In a world that is increasingly hostile to Muslims -- both knowingly and unknowingly -- many have spoken out against the implementation of religious courts in Canada which have long been in existence before. Demers provides a different outlook from the usual and biased attacks based on the atheistic-fundamentalist principle of "separation between church and state". Demers took into account the very real onslaught on the Muslim community and the threat of turning the Muslim community into second and third tier citizens. Of course, these are all viable fears that cannot be ignored. There should be careful attention given to the application of such things and to ensure that they are properly implemented.

All of that said, there are important principles to take into account (not just regarding the recent debates in Canada but on a much wider basis):

i. There is diversity in the Muslim community as to how it perceives the legal aspects of Shariah Law.
ii. Non-Muslims and Muslims alike should have trust on the proponents of Shariah Law -- primarily, on traditional and orthodox Muslims -- in that they know what is best for their own community of believers and that they will implement it in the best and most just of manners.
iii. That a formal legal/contractual agreement has been made between all parties before it can be implemented.
iv. The universal principle of: "Applying to yourself, what you apply to others."
v. The issue of religious respect.

As it relates to Article I, Demers is quite aware that there is diversity in the Muslim community in how Shariah Law is perceived. Nevertheless, there are specific issues -- much of which are well-known, controversial and are quite numerous -- within Shariah Law that even traditional and orthodox Muslims are in argument about (although, that is not what I am trying to discuss here). Demers puts it perfectly:

"Shariah" is a term encompassing a broad collection of laws and over a thousand years worth of jurisprudential study based on the Qu'ran and the Sunnah or Hadith (guidelines based on lessons from the life examples and specific instructions of the Prophet Muhammad). There are several schools of Shariah law, some emphasizing traditional Islamic concepts such as itjihad, or the application of human reason and rationale. Other interpretations – such as the Wahabi current enforced by Washington's Saudi allies – insist that the "gates of ijtihad" have been closed for centuries, and invent an imagined, archaic set of laws that enshrine the sanctity of ersatz-medieval social customs while still allowing for enormous fleets of Mercedes and multi-billion dollar luxury hotels.

Consequently, as for the second one, there is clearly no element of trust being displayed toward Muslims who want the implementation of Shariah Law. Upon mention of the word 'Shariah', there is already a clear and apparent bias against it, without the slightest consideration from both people in the left and right. There is a patronizing attitude falsely proclaiming that 'these Muslims' are inherently incapable of knowing what is best for them and that they will not resist if the laws they want are unjustly implemented.

Thirdly, there is the issue of people willingly and democratically wanting to live under such laws. Everyone has the free will to sign a contractual agreement that will bind them to a body of law; in general, no one will be forced to live under it -- Muslims or non-Muslims alike, as this would be a direct violation of the fourth principle: "Applying to yourself, what you apply to others." Consequently, violating this universal principle is in total contradiction to the message of Islam. As it relates to the much broader topic of state laws, every country has the right to choose how they live as dictated by the people, bounded together by consensus building. Any OPINION will need to face the challenge of trying to gain clout amongst the population within the political arena. Either that or just take over a country in a dictatorial-fascist fashion which I would assume no one wants.

Lastly, there is the issue of religious respect which requires all citizens to be accommodated as much as possible so that they can live their religious beliefs to the fullest. In this matter, people from both the left and right are inherently disrespecting what the majority of Muslims believe: Shariah Law is a part of Islam and cannot be put aside as irrelevant by devout Muslims, it is practiced every day (specifically, the non-legal aspect - ie. praying, fasting, etc). Thus, Shariah Law becomes a human rights issue and must be considered as a fundamental right of Muslims who believe in it. It is an issue of religious respect and accommodation. The legal aspect can be opposed on practical grounds (ie. it will turn the Muslim community into a second or third tier people), but there needs to be recognition of how complex the issue is and an acceptance of it in principle. At the most minimum, refer back to Muslim scholars who specialize in the issue. People can oppose it if they want but there is nothing wrong if people choose for it to exist. That is the purpose of consensus building. In principle, people really need to change their attitudes.

In short, respect in principle, the decision of a majority of Muslims to live under Shariah Law (whatever interpretation is widely accepted by Muslims) because it is an inseparable part of their belief system and an optimal means of self-expression and self-representation. After that, seek to apply it to the nation-state/country level. In a nutshell, it is their own life, let them choose it, let them build consensus. Consequently, these Muslims should be given the benefit of the doubt, in that they know best how to apply their laws in the most effective, just and self-preserving manner to themselves. We should not be patronizing the beliefs of people if these beliefs do not violate any of the principles that have already been highlighted. Most importantly, we should not patronize the concerns of such individuals pertaining to issues of social justice. You will find that a large majority of Muslims, who argue in favor of Shariah, have the deepest concern about it.

All of these principles need to be taken into account as a whole when it comes SPECIFICALLY to the Muslim community just as they were toward the Jewish community before. They were allowed to build consensus and it is only recently that it has gone down. With all the principles I mentioned, one cannot simply apply one principle in isolation. Beyond these generalities and principles, we turn to specific issues and arguments. Before we can move ahead and deal with those, we need to change our attitudes.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood