In a refreshing departure from Sharia apologias common in Middle East studies, University of British Columbia Islamic law professor Rumee Ahmed rejected the “myth” of Sharia (Islamic law) as a “static, fixed, reified entity” on April 22 in the Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies’ wood-paneled boardroom. Ahmed’s presentation, “Shari’a 2.0: Islamic Systematics and the Science of Islamic Legal Reform” before a student-dominated audience of about fifteen, demonstrated simultaneously Sharia’s all-too human origins as well as its embedded dangers.
He described a “sharp, sharp disconnect” between contemporary and historical Islamic interpretations of Sharia. According to the former, Islamic legal scholars substantiated their claim of being central to legitimating Islamic regimes that claimed to rule by God’s law. Yet judges who were not legal scholars often made politically motivated legal decisions that were subject to subsequent overruling by temporal rulers such as caliphs. Campaigning armies, meanwhile, would simply make unilateral decisions without consulting legal scholars on issues such as the division of spoils.
Concerning pre-colonial Islamic legal scholars, Ahmed questioned the power and reputation of such men in a world of three percent literacy. Political patronage could compromise the purity of their intentions. Danger lurked, he noted, since their struggles with rulers could lead to imprisonment or even execution.
Ahmed expressed a “very cynical view” regarding past legal use of Islam’s canonical texts. Quran 8:67-68, concerning the Muslim victory at the Battle of Badr under Muhammad, suggested that taking prisoners manifested a failure to fulfill a divine command to fight the enemy. But “sharp breaks” throughout history in the acceptance of taking and ransoming prisoners by Sunni Islam’s Hanafi school of jurisprudence demonstrated how Islamic law responded to political developments with theological reinterpretation.
Practical realities aside, Ahmed described how earlier Islamic legal scholars created in their voluminous writings “subjunctive worlds.” Although these legal visions often had no expectation of implementation, they expressed the “ideal relationship between human beings and God.” “Writing a book of law is never a waste of time,” he noted, but is a “way to express your religiosity” or a “devotional act” similar to prayer. The intricacy of such legal thinking means that attempts to reform a single point of Islamic law on, for example, punishments involving whipping necessitates considering several other elements of Islamic legal theory.
Islamic legal history is replete with controversies surrounding reform, he said. Quran 5:38 was “pretty clear” in mandating hand amputation as punishment for stealing, although some had tried to interpret this verse to mean “cut off their power” with imprisonment. Several hadith, or canonical narratives of Muhammad’s life, however, did indeed mandate amputation and formed a corresponding pre-colonial Islamic legal consensus, contrary practice notwithstanding.
Slavery’s permissibility received a similar “unequivocal yes” in Islamic law sixty or seventy years ago. Political pressures forced Muslim scholars to justify abolition in what Ahmed described as a “little bit of a technical argument” premised on the understanding that “times have changed.” The Islamic State (ISIS), though, has recently reintroduced slavery, arguing that times have changed again.
Other controversies involving Sharia have been addressed creatively, Ahmed noted. The Egyptian jihadist group Gama’a al-Islamiyya, for example, discovered in Western contract law a unique basis for abolishing airline hijacking: the purchaser of an airline ticket may not violate its terms by destroying or seizing the plane. In the political sphere, while many European diaspora Muslims vote simply for the sake of political participation, the Sharia principle of maslaha or public good allows conservative Muslims to participate in non-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam.
One of Ahmed’s Powerpoints stated, “Gender: The Greatest Challenge to Islamic Reform.” “Gender pervades every part of Islamic law,” he explained, a law that was traditionally patriarchal. The Quran, for example 4:11, prescribes half the inheritance for women as for men.
Nonetheless, Sharia’s past malleability made Ahmed optimistic that in Islam, “any law, no matter how entrenched it seems in Muslim texts, can be reformed.” To this end, he is developing an application allowing popular citation of legal arguments and sources in order to “democratize” and “crowdsource Sharia.” That way, less educated and “state-sponsored ulama” (religious scholars) will “not have a monopoly on Islamic law.”
Ahmed himself would like to “get less religion” in Muslim governance, but Sharia is not going to disappear from Muslim societies anytime soon, including pertinent national constitution clauses. An “overwhelming number” of surveyed Muslims expressed a belief in Sharia, often including corporal punishment, as divine. Alternatively, millions of Muslims sought an Islamic theological basis to justify their support for human rights norms such as gender equality. “Context driving law is not just legitimate, it’s inevitable,” he concluded.
Ahmed’s illuminating and refreshingly honest examination of Sharia raised several important concerns surrounding Islamic law and its reform. On one hand, critical examination of Sharia’s past could cause many Muslims to be as reform-minded as Ahmed and to reject Sharia as a divinely-ordained, unalterable legal code that demands future application. On the other hand, Sharia contains serious moral failings not easily resolved even with the most sophisticated (or sophistic) Islamic theological and legal arguments.
As presented by Ahmed, Islamic law suffers from an unwieldy, unstable, and incoherent structure stemming from Islam’s doctrinal foundations. As one of his slides stated, Islam’s arbitrary conception of God is “beyond our moral code.” Islamic norms then derive from Muhammad, who “is supposed to be the pristine believer” in Islamic teaching and thus, according to some Islamic teachings, incapable of sin. On the basis of the life of this seventh-century desert dweller, Islamic law has accepted slavery while possessing an “unnecessary amount of information on the law of wells.” Developing modern legal standards for a free society within such a body of law will be difficult indeed, which is why Ahmed’s insistence on reform is so important.
Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
Jay Airahs says
Islam blinked yet again
If it were not for sites like Jihad Watch reveling the stink of Islam there would be no serious soul searching within Islam.
More Ham Ed says
That’s true, and I would estimate the questioning of Islam “within Islam” is probably less than 0.1% because I’ve never seen a million muslims anywhere working together to STOP violent teaching. However the questioning of Islam seems to be around 99.9% from outside Islam.
mortimer says
Agree with both comments. There is virtually NO DESIRE to reform Islam within Islam. I am surprised Ahmed Rumee is not called an ISLAMOPHOBE!
Ahmed Rumee starts questioning the validity of the Islamic ‘traditions’ and the ‘consensus’ of Islamic scholars. He does not realize the process will lead not to reform, but to the collapse of the reasoning that supports Islam. To analyze the historicity of Islam is similar to pulling a thread on a sweater. The fabric of the Islamic edifice is a series of self-refuting traditions and circular arguments. The ‘consensus’ of Islamic scholars is actually the essence of Islam. It is the keystone of Islam. Pull it out and the other stones in the Islamic arch immediately fall. All that remains, is the walls without a roof. Most of the mullahs today realize that Islam is false, but they cannot bring themselves to leave it. They linger hoping desperately that something will pull Islam out of the fire. As it is, Muslims are presently burning their house down.
mezcukor says
Very well said Mortimer.and very true
Cicero says
Mortimer , your. Comment on this article is is eloquently argued and well written. From what you have said I have learnt another argument!
Well done and thank you.
May the posters on this site take example from you and make intelligent remarks which further the debate in this war of the worlds
Fritz Kohlhaas says
He is a voice in the wilderness! The Mullahs, the leftist/progressive imbeciles and the PC idiots will scream “ISLAMOPHOBIA”! There is no islamophobia! However, there is what I call “ISLAMONAUSEA”!
No Fear says
Sharia is based on Mohammed. Nothing that Mohammed wrote or did convinces me that he was a “prophet”. He was a military leader and a gangster.
A gangster is capable of building a strong fighting force if he can convince his henchmen to stick to good breeding practices.
A gangster can compose a convincing religious text, especially one filled with plagiarisms.
A gangster can behead Jews and encourage his henchmen to rape.
Mohammed, the gangster..
Jay Airahs says
Are we allowed to call Muhammad a child rapist and .owner of numerous sex slaves.
Yes we are. Muslims say it themselves if they dare to read Islamic teachings.
Muslims only have two choices if they wish to be decent human beings.
Either to leave Islam or forever bow their heads in shame at the unmitigated disgrace of Muhammad.
jayell says
“Sharia is based on Mohammed…. “….who, we are told, was in direct contact with Allah and who, we are again told, communicated verbatim the words of the Almighty, words which must not be altered or ‘interpreted’ in any way or form. (The fact that these ‘words of the Almighty’ just happened to coincide with what was going on inside Mohammed’s head at the time is another matter and should not concern us here – or indeed anywhere, or so we are commanded!). So when our good friend Mr. Ahmed decides that it all needs reforming (because he has the sense to realise that he can’t flog this load of antediluvian drivel to a more advanced Western audience) he is actually going so far beyond his remit as a ‘good muslim’ as to de-legitimise the whole Islam thing. So, Mr Ahmed, save yourself the trouble. Ditch the whole lot.
RG says
I DON’T CARE WHO HE THINKS HE’S TRYING TO ASSUAGE – THIS GUY IS DANGEROUS!!!!!
Even if he is personally convinced that Sharia needs reforming, he’s only going to attract gullible young minds to research islam AT THEIR OWN PERIL.
What ultimately can be his ulterior motive, however, is that he’s practicing islamic ‘taqiyya’ and ‘stealth jihad’ for the very purpose of sucking innocent young minds into the cesspool of islamic thinking!!!!
ISLAM IS ROTTEN TO ITS VERY CORE – IT DOES NOT NEED REFORMING, IT NEEDS ABSOLUTE EXPOSURE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION!!!!! A rotten apple is good for nothing than to be thrown out!!!
NOTHING, BUT NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM STUDYING AND TRYING TO REFORM THE REGURGITATIONS OF ISLAM’S FALSE DEGENERATE PEDOPHILE!!!
Jay Airahs says
Political correctness imposed by the defenders of Islam crowd will only permit examination of Islam’s rotted core stupidity if it is claimed that the intent is at ‘reform’
Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali has dangled that reform appetizer in front of a pack of foaming at the mouth PC defenders of Islam to keep them at bay.
Champ says
Bravo, RG! I wholly agree, word-4-word!
TediNeo98 says
Spot on RG – rotten to the core.
Lia Wissing says
Ouch, and here I was hoping that the students present were all muslim! And that they were listening instead of shouting & screaming!
William Lucas Harvey Jr. says
UH – “…Islamic regimes that claimed to rule by God’s law” – Really ?.
They REALLY mean “to rule by ALLAH’S law”, with “Prophet” Mohammed and their “Holy Book” the Qur’an, as Islam and Muslims do NOT accept ANY Faith, Theology, Deity, or Prophet other than that of Islam.
Clay says
For Islam to reform it has to reject the Koran.
Christianity has reformed by gradually leaving cultural traditions and replacing that with Biblical Scripture. Islam states that the Koran is an exact copy of a book in heaven written by Allah. How can that change or reform and still be Islam?
Zimriel says
I do hope you’re not asking for more scriptura-sola Martin Luthers in Islam; they’ve had plenty (Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiya, the Sauds).
Islam needs something more like, well, Jesus. The Shi’a would probably say they have that in the Imams, but that hasn’t been working out too well.
Jay Airahs says
Jesus would have nothing to do with such filth as Islam.
Therefore your comment is nonsensical, although you may have meant well.
“The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”
Clay says
Precisely. Islam can not be reformed due to the way that they see the Koran as being a copy of a perfect book that is in heaven. Islam has to reject the Koran and then it wouldn’t be Islam.
The best reform that Muslims could have is for them to convert to Christianity and know Jesus.
Don McKellar says
Unfortunately the only way in which Islam will be reformed is through the nuclear obliteration of Mecca — which is extremely unlikely. Once Mecca is reduced to a lake of radioactive glass and the surrounding area is a Forbidden Zone, Islam will be rendered “touchable” and fallible in all moslem minds. All those millions of moslems, bowing down and banging their heads on the floor five times a day, facing a place which doesn’t exist any more. How long do you think they’re going to be able to take that? Islam will be reformed in very short order, and for the better — though likely through a lot of bloodshed amongst themselves.
All that’s going to happen to this silly fool is that he’s going to get himself killed by a more devout moslem — and probably by a family member, at that. Honour killing written all over this guy.
Zimriel says
The Romans already tried that. Only then, the holy centre of worship was the Temple in Jerusalem and the troublesome Semites were the Jews. Burning down the Temple and expelling the local monotheists did not destroy Judaism.
So nuking Mecca won’t work. These other sons of Abraham will bow to the memory of Mecca and treat it as the martyrdom to cover all martyrdoms.
Don McKellar says
It actually reformed Judaism and it became a more tolerant and more positive religion. It worked very well and for the better. No longer was it a literal religion, but a metaphysical one that became flexible and encouraged questioning — even of god.
You are also making a mistake in claiming that moslems are “sons of Abraham” like the “others” (ie. Judaism and Christianity). The authors of the koran actually modified that fictional character to suit their own purposes.
Don McKellar says
Not that wikipedia is a good source for anything, but there is a good summation of what happened when that temple was destroyed and why, ultimately, it was a positive development for the religion:
“Following the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews, Jewish worship stopped being centrally organized around the Temple, prayer took the place of sacrifice, and worship was rebuilt around the community (represented by a minimum of ten adult men) and the establishment of the authority of rabbis who acted as teachers and leaders of individual communities (see Jewish diaspora).”
Arthur says
I thought Islam was already “reformed” by the Ahmadi sect, resulting in their becoming labelled heretics? It didn’t work.
Some things are just too broken to be fixed; those things need to be replaced.
RG says
Touché, Arthur, touché!
RonaldB says
Rumee Ahmed looks friendly, and doesn’t have the dead eyes one usually sees in Muslims.
He seems to be saying that “Islam will adapt”. When the mullahs are being paid by rulers, such as in Saudi Arabia, they find theological arguments against the Islamic State, which wishes to depose, and probably behead, the royal family. When they mullahs were under Saddam Hussein, they found no theological arguments justified opposing the ruler, because the consequences were too horrible to imagine.
But, Rumee Ahmed did not talk at all about individual conscience. Islam teaches obedience to Islam, and has no concept of the individual conscience independent of the rules and commands of sharia law. You might be able to get a group of Muslims who interpret the Koran a bit differently for awhile. But, since he mentions that sharia interpretations depend heavily on political and physical threats, what happens when the Muslims have a Muslim community in a tolerant liberal environment, i.e., in the West? There is no immediate pressure to make sharia law interpretation to conform to what we think of as civilized.
So, given Rumee Ahmed’s own interpretation of the flexibility of sharia law, there is no evolutionary pressure in the West to make sharia conform to Western standards. Quite the opposite.
I think that Muslims still in the Muslim countries should all be given the opportunity to develop and modernize Islam in a Muslim community, that is, in their own Muslim country and community.
If Islam cannot change according to their satisfaction, they can publicly denounce Islam and leave Islam, making themselves eligible for a shot at immigration. If they choose to remain with Islam, they can continue to reform it within their already-existing Muslim community.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, Andrew Harrod, for this report.
Perhaps the fault is wholly on my end, but I am having trouble following you.
For one thing, when I click on the word “presentation” to see Rumee Ahmed’s presentation, I get an error message.
Also, I wish I knew what is meant by “pre-colonial” Islamic legal scholars. Does this refer to the Islamic colonization of the Mahgreb by invaders from Arabia? Or might it refer to the colonization of the now-Islamic country of Indonesia by the Dutch?
Ahmed says “Islamic law suffers from an unwieldy, unstable, and incoherent structure stemming from Islam’s doctrinal foundations.” It would be nice to have an example of this incoherence. Did Ahmed cite any?
Particularly puzzling, though, is
==QUOTE==
[Rumee Ahmed] described a “sharp, sharp disconnect” between [1] contemporary and [2] historical Islamic interpretations of Sharia. According to the former, Islamic legal scholars substantiated their claim of being central to legitimating Islamic regimes that claimed to rule by God’s law.
==UNQUOTE==
So according to contemporary [former=contemporary, latter=historical] interpretations of Sharia, Islamic legal scholars claim to be central to legitimating Islamic regimes that once claimed to rule by God’s law, and they substantiate [present tense; is the past tense of misprint?] their claim of being central to this effort. But how do they substantiate this claim? And how do these contemporary interpretations differ sharply from the latter, historical interpretations?
Andrew Harrod says
Ahmed seemed to mean with “pre-colonial” scholars before the era of European colonization of Muslim countries.
I am not sure what you mean by a link to the presentation. I simply linked an announcement for the presentation, with certain background information about time and place.
BC says
It is ridiculous in the 21st century that anybody is talking about ‘god’s’ laws. The Islamists say there is no need for democracy or elections as everybody should live according to ‘gods’ law. There are no gods and so there is only law made by men in the name of ‘gods’ which are imposed on superstitious people
Clay says
Then there is no right an wrong. There is just what the strong impose on the weak.
Then there is nothing wrong with what the Islamist do. You have nothing to complain about.
duh_swami says
This is just another load of Allah’s excretions…another pile…Those darned Allah piles are all over the place.
Spencer cleans up as many as he can, but they just keep falling, like Allah ate too many beans or something…Yuk….
mortimer says
Why do Muslims want to resuscitate this monster? Some Muslims today are foolishly trying to resuscitate Islam. That is why we are experiencing so much terror and murder. Rumee Ahmed should stop attempting to resuscitate Islam. On the contrary, he should join us in hammering a stake into its vicious heart to make sure it never lifts its head again. This beast was a bloodsucking monster from the start. What is there to resuscitate?
sheik yer'mami says
I don’t see where this reformer reforms anything with stuff like this:
“… the purchaser of an airline ticket may not violate its terms by destroying or seizing the plane. In the political sphere, while many European diaspora Muslims vote simply for the sake of political participation, the Sharia principle of maslaha or public good allows conservative Muslims to participate in non-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam.”
There are ongoing Muslim plots to seize planes and to blow them up.
And the shari’a principle of maslaha or public good allows conservative Muslims to participate in non-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam”– what kind of rubbish is this?
Why allow any Muslim to participate innon-Muslim politics in order to advance Islam?
There is nothing in it for us, no matter which way we turn with these clowns. The whole purpose of their miserable existence is the advancement of Islam and shari’a, which is toxic. Why allow such a jerk to promote this filth at a Catholic university?
Nat says
Sucking people into believing that you can “reform” a psychopathic gang of mass rapists and murderers is deception, and downright evil.
Boca says
It is truely shocking to the enlightened cultures of the west to have to deal with this demon-haunted Islamic theocracy on a daily and exacerbating rate. Seems we have been forced back into the pre-American and French revolutionary period when dogmatism and elitism prevailed…until…….
voegelinian says
The first sentence of this article by Andrew E. Harrod is problematic, a stumbling block that sticks in the craw:
In a refreshing departure from Sharia apologias common in Middle East studies, University of British Columbia Islamic law professor Rumee Ahmed rejected the “myth” of Sharia (Islamic law) as a “static, fixed, reified entity”…
Huh? There are so many things wrong with this one doesn’t know where to start. First of all, it implies that the conception of Sharia as a “static, fixed, reified entity” is common and entrenched. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case, where a conception of Sharia as wonderfully fluid and diverse (so fluid and diverse we can’t pinpoint any condemnation of it) actually dominates the public airwaves in news media, academe, arts & entertainment, and among political pundits. Thus, this Prof. Ahmed’s alternative perspective isn’t reasonably described as “refreshing” — but actually as drearily unsurprising in its reiteration of a meme that has already been repeated a thousand times (no less by the unctuously smarmy Reza Aslan).
Andrew Harrod says
The opening phrase with “refreshing” refers more to the presentation as a whole, in which Ahmed did indeed acknowledge serious problems with sharia.
R Cole says
I can see what he is saying – or where he places his hope – in the “crowdsource Sharia” where the questions Muslims are posing to the clerics / online scholars – suggest a fundamental change in opinion – and sees this as an opportunity to switch the answers – to offer less antiquated solutions.
The pressure of common humanity is on the sharia.
Online scholar sites – issued 250,000 fatwas in a single year. ~How much time do you have!!
::
‘Cause You’re a Liar!!
With Islam there has been so much deceit – you almost need to look for another angle – for example, feigning religious moderation has been one of the ways to gain the confidence of westerners in authority. And there is example after example.
A red flag is also the suggest – that democratic voting system be used to advance the sharia – something that the former Turkish President stated – when he said that ‘democracy was like a streetcar – when it gets to your stop – you get off’.
In addition – where the idea behind establishing a moderate version of Islam/the sharia – may another approach to fulfill Muhammad’s dictate that every nation will adopt this sharia law – in the end. As it stands – although Muslims might find sympathy in some quarters – nestled behind so-called anti-Islamophobia campaigns – for their sharia – there is pretty much little or no support outside of that.
::
Get Freud
At the basis of Islam there seems to be the personification of a huge ego – that one might mistakenly for thinking that if you pray hard enough [and at the precise times] you could invent a rocket ship to fly to space – among Islam’s offerings – a complete system for state governance and law, a military system, laws that govern how one wipes one’s behind – various things to do with survival in the desert, and camels’ piss in case you get marooned in the desert. Oh and burying the dead in one day – because it would stink to high heaven in that desert sun – no embalming technology here.
It is hard to imagine how this religion can stop exulting itself with lofty claims of having all knowledge and all solutions – to humble itself to become a faith only religion – or personal belief system – that infringes on the rights of no others.
::
To the Previous Pope – and the Need for Logic & Reason in Religion
Given the state of the Islamic world today – the rise of IS and other radical Islamic groups – reform has to be high on the agenda – not pointing fingers at so-called Islamophobes and the crusades as the source of Islam’s problems. Some element of speaking truth to this Islamic power – needs to start gather its snowball pace.
::
Amen
Muslims are praying for the destruction of the west – and the deaths for this and that place – trouble is they are getting what they are wishing on us.
Possibly the best place for Islam is in a museum display – that is behind a glass – that is behind another glass – with 24 hour guard. We can brush our hands of it.
Then we can say amen to that!!
Uncle Vladdi says
This is not “refreshing” at all – IT’S ALL LIES!!!
Sharia became fixed and immutable when the original Haneefite version was adopted into the Ottoman empire’s legal code – so ALL MUSLIMS KNOW IT WELL and followed it for over a millennia!!!
The reason he’s lying about it is as part of their new “islam isn’t a monolithic danger” and of course also to their usual “It’s open to peaceful interpretation, you hateful racist bigots!” strategies to trick unbelievers into accepting it!
Abdul Ameer says
What am I missing here? Where is Rumee’s honesty when it comes to the jihadist doctrines of standard Sharia law which are based on specific passages from the Koran and the Sunnah? Generalizations about the malleability of Sharia law will just not do. Neither will any attempt to place verses from the Koran into a particular historical context, thereby limiting the validity of that verse to a particular event nearly 1400 years ago. That is blasphemy because every word of the Koran is considered to be Allah’s literal words, valid for all of eternity. All of the verses of the Koran originated in some historical context, but none of them are limited to that context. Those verses are all phrased generally, and they are to be applied for all of eternity. Why should Rumee be given a forum for his obfuscation and false hopes?