The conversation
Don’t blame Sharia for Islamic extremism – blame colonialism
Warning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rules on American communities, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of American states have tried to ban 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 not civilized. They also reflect Sharia’s ignorance, which is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “way” or “way”: it is a broad set of values and ethical principles extracted from the Koran – the holy book of Islam – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments can interpret Sharia in different ways. Still, this is not the first time that the world has tried to discover where Sharia fits into the global order. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Britain, France and other European powers renounced their colonies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the leaders of the newly sovereign majority Muslim countries faced a decision of enormous consequence: they should build their governments based on Islamic religion values or embrace European laws inherited from colonial rule? The great debate Invariably, as my historical research shows, the political leaders of these young countries have chosen to maintain their colonial justice systems instead of imposing religious law. The newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia, among other places, limited the application of Sharia to marital and inheritance disputes within Muslim families, just as their colonial administrators did. The rest of the legal systems would continue to be based on European law. To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to become independent from the British in 1956. In the national archives and libraries of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and in interviews with lawyers and Sudanese officials, I found that leading judges, politicians and intellectuals really pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic state. They envisioned a progressive legal system consistent with the principles of the Islamic faith, in which all citizens – regardless of religion, race or ethnicity – could practice their religious beliefs freely and openly. “People are like the teeth of a comb,” he wrote shortly – future Supreme Court judge Hassan Muddathir in 1956, quoting Prophet Muhammad, in an official memo I found on file at the Sudan Library in Khartoum. “An Arab is no better than a Persian, and white is no better than a black man.” Sudan’s post-colonial leadership, however, rejected these calls. They chose to maintain the tradition of customary English law as the country’s law. Why keep the laws of the oppressor? My research identifies three reasons why primitive Sudan left out Sharia: politics, pragmatism and demography. The rivalries between political parties in post-colonial Sudan led to a parliamentary stalemate, which made it difficult to pass significant legislation. Thus, Sudan simply kept the colonial laws already in place. There were practical reasons for maintaining English customary law as well. Sudanese judges were trained by British colonial officials. Thus, they continued to apply the principles of customary English law to the disputes they heard in their courts. Sudan’s founders faced urgent challenges, such as creating the economy, establishing foreign trade and ending the civil war. They felt that it was simply unwise to reform the governance system that worked well in Khartoum. The continued use of colonial law after independence also reflected Sudan’s ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. Then, as now, Sudanese citizens spoke many languages and belonged to dozens of ethnic groups. At the time of Sudan’s independence, people who practiced the Sunni and Sufi traditions of Islam lived mainly in northern Sudan. Christianity was an important faith in southern Sudan. The diversity of Sudan’s religious communities meant that maintaining a foreign legal system – English common law – was less controversial than choosing the version of Sharia to be adopted. Why did the extremists triumph? My research reveals how today’s instability in the Middle East and North Africa is, in part, a consequence of these post-colonial decisions to reject Sharia. By maintaining colonial legal systems, Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that followed a similar path appeased the powers of the western world, who were pushing their former colonies into secularism. But they avoided resolving difficult questions about religious identity and the law. This created a disconnect between the people and their governments. In the long run, this disconnect helped fuel unrest among some citizens of deep faith, leading to sectarian calls to unite religion and the state once and for all. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and parts of Somalia and Nigeria, these interpretations have triumphed, imposing extremist versions of Sharia on millions of people. In other words, Muslim-majority countries have atrophied Sharia’s democratic potential by rejecting it as a dominant legal concept in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving Sharia in the hands of extremists. But there is no inherent tension between Sharia, human rights and the rule of law. Like any use of religion in politics, the application of Sharia depends on who is using it – and why. Leaders from places like Saudi Arabia and Brunei have chosen to restrict women’s freedom and the rights of minorities. But many scholars of Islam and grassroots organizations interpret Sharia as a flexible, rights-oriented and equality-oriented ethical order. Religion and law around the world Religion is woven into the legal fabric of many post-colonial nations, with varying consequences for democracy and stability. After its founding 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 common law. In Latin America, Catholicism imposed by Spanish conquistadors supports laws that restrict abortion, divorce and the rights of homosexuals. And throughout the 19th century, judges in the United States regularly invoked the legal maxim that “Christianity is part of common law”. Lawmakers still often invoke their Christian faith when supporting or opposing a particular law. Political extremism and human rights violations that occur in these places are rarely understood as flaws inherent in these religions. When it comes to Muslim-majority countries, however, Sharia law blames the regressive laws – not the people who approve these policies in the name of religion. Fundamentalism and violence, in other words, are a post-colonial problem – not an inevitable religious problem. For the Muslim world, finding a system of government that reflects Islamic values while promoting democracy will not be easy after more than 50 years of failed secular government. But building peace may require that. This article was republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Read more: * What Sharia means: 5 questions answered * How Islamic law can stand up to ISIS * Trump’s travel ban is just one of many U.S. policies that legalize discrimination against Muslims. Mark Fathi Massoud received grants from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, Fulbright-Hays and the University of California. Any opinions expressed here are the responsibility of the author.