Sha'riah

Sha'riah

Front Page has a great interview with Freedom House's Paul Marshall. He is talking about sha'riah law, and explains one reason that it always polls well in Muslim nations:

One thing I quickly learned was that Muslims mean very different things when they use the term. Sharia's root meaning is "the way" or "path to the water" and to most Muslims it implies doing God's will, not necessarily imitating the Taliban. In Indonesia, polls show 67 percent support for "Sharia" but only 7 percent objecting to a woman head of state. There it seems to means something like the American polling term "moral values." Polling in Iraq shows a similar pattern: 80% support for Sharia combined with 80% support for equality of men and women.

To many Muslims, criticism of Sharia as such sounds strange because, much as they might disagree with stoning adulterous women or cutting off the hands of thieves, the word implies “justice” or “goodness.” So I use the phrase ‘extreme Sharia’ to describe the laws implemented by the Saudis, Iran and others throughout the world.

Another thing that is important to realize is that there is more than one "kind" of sha'riah. There are multiple traditions of legal interpretation inside of it, but that's not what I'm getting at here. The "extreme Sharia" Marshall mentions is actually two different phenomena: the type of radical, Caliphate-style law put forth by al Qaeda, Hizb ut Tahrir, and their ilk; and traditional, tribal understandings of the Islamic law, which have evolved in place over the course of centuries. The sha'riah we encountered in Afghanistan, or that is practiced today in parts of Nigeria where Saudis have been teaching their radicalism, is fundamentally different from the kind that is practiced in Aceh province, Indonesia. We are, and must be, opposed to the first type; but the second type can be useful to us.

Aceh won the right to have a sha'riah court that the Indonesian government would be bound to respect. They opened the court in 2003, but have only just begun doing any sort of corporal punishment this summer. Widows and orphans are pleased by the new court, as their rights are somewhat more certain under the Islamic law than under Indonesia's rather corrupt legal system.

Hizb ut Tahrir is active in Indonesia, but I am given to understand that they find that they have a very limited following in Aceh. A good friend of mine who is something of an expert on the topic informs me that their own native tradition of Islam is too conservative for the Islamist radical. Conservatives, if they are true conservaties, have institutions and traditions they wish to preserve and uphold. Aceh's native culture has several features, particularly forms of art, that are sternly disapproved of by the Islamists. The Islamist agitation against those features has alienated conservative Muslims from the radicals. As a consequence, this living tradition is a stronger break on the radicals than any government action has been.

Another of the ongoing disputes, my friend tells me, is over the introduction of the parts of sha'riah that cover thieving. The problem, you see, is that the Islamic law covers corrupt officials as well as bread-thieves, so there is some foot-dragging among the politicians in charge.

Nothing surprising about that, I suppose. In any event, the Islamic law is popular. Precisely because corruption is so rampant in Indonesia, there is some feeling among the people that it is good to have the option of having their case heard by local, trusted 'holy men' instead of judges appointed by the central government.

It is easy to imagine even Americans feeling the same way -- I suspect that there are many people who would rather have their legal disputes resolved by a preacher they know and trust, according to Biblical principles they feel they understand (although they may be wrong about that...), than by lawyers and judges interpreting a legal code that may be both alien and complicated. I suspect that is the case, even though we have a legal system that works fairly well most of the time, with a class of lawyers that is professional and honest, at least by Indonesian standards. If our courts and judges were routinely corrupt, the option would seem that much more appealing to that many more people.

In any event, as Marshall says, we have to engage the issue of sha'riah more than we have. If the radicals are to be defeated, we have to understand both what they really want, and what obstacles to them arise from the cultures that they are trying to change. Some of these "conservative Muslims" are potential, natural allies to us. All they want is a stable, orderly and just society, under the rules that seem natural and right to them; all we want is for them not to harbor and train terrorists.

We ought to be able to make that work. Part of the key is appearing to be an ally of the traditional and conservative parts of Islam, where they survive. The Saudi money has infiltrated much of the globe, as we have come to understand, but even that large a lever can shift a traditional culture only slowly. In those places like Aceh, where the culture's old forms are naturally opposed to the radicals, sha'riah is not our enemy. In those places like Afghanistan where the traditional culture has been uprooted by constant war, and the Saudi-financed radicals have taken over the place, it is. We have to be able to see the difference, and also to express clearly to worldwide Muslims why we are sometimes unmaking "the path to the water."