Photo taken in Dalson, East London, England
Shariah Law came into existence between 700 to 900 CE and is derived from the interpretation of the Islamic holy books the Quran and the Hadith. There are clear forbidden acts in the holy books that have migrated over to Shariah Law (which literally means the path to water) such as forbidding the drinking of alcohol and eating pork, gambling, charging or paying interest (riba), murder, theft, extramarital relations, and eating forbidden foods (such as meats from animals that have been slaughtered not in accordance with Islamic rules (Haram). Homosexuality is forbidden (except maybe in Mullah sons of the Supreme Leader). Violence, treason, idolatry, false testimony, and fraud are also forbidden. It is interesting that alcohol consumption on this earth is strictly forbidden; it is nevertheless freely available in Paradise. According to Surah 47:15 of the Quran, rivers of wine are available to anyone who dips their cup into such rivers.
Sources of friction stem from interpretations of sovereignty. Shariah relies on God as the source of legislation while democracy depends on the rule of the people. The problem comes that God’s word is interpreted differently by all religions. And there are 10,000 religions in this world. Holy books are often internally inconsistent and certainly do not agree with one another. A democracy frequently changes what is right and what is wrong. Our Senate and the House weigh in constantly, and then the Supreme Court is often the final arbiter of who is right and who is wrong. God does not change, and his Law therefore does not change either.
Equal rights is another point of contention. It takes two women’s testimony to counter the testimony of one man in Islam, while in most of Western jurisprudence men and women have had equal rights for many decades. In the US, equality between men and women was codified one hundred years ago. Freedom to believe in any or no God is a cornerstone of Democracy, while in Shariah Freedom to believe in any or no God is a cornerstone of Democracy, while in Shariah Law anyone who wants to abandon Islam or raise their children in a different or no religion is considered an apostate punishable by death. That is an incompatible position. Although Islam permits other religions to exist, those other people who are not Muslim are at an inferior status in the society, and in the past there was a fee that non-Muslims had to pay for that right, the Jizya. Some extremist groups still practice the Jizya, which is specifically permitted by the Quran.
Capitalism depends on lending money and charging interest, both of which are a sin in Islam, which would make our economy unworkable. Shariah Law allows a man to have four wives. That would not work here either. Polygamy was outlawed by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States.
England has Shariah Councils, which allows private arbitration between consenting adults in civil disputes. But such tribunals must operate within the boundaries of English law.
Texas state leadership has looked into the feasibility of having Shariah Law as an alternative to arbitration in certain conflicts. I would hope they do not do so. It could lead to Muslim women having to wear burkas! It has in Iran, where you get shot in the head for not wearing the burka, as happened in 1922 in the Masah Amini protests that killed hundreds, including school children. The most recent uprising in Iran against the Mullahs this year led to the death of thousands.
The holy books of both Islam and Christianity were written at a time when science, geography, mathematics, etc. were not nearly as advanced as they are now. They were addressed to an ancient, relatively primitive audience. This is evidenced by the discrepancies with current knowledge as to when the Earth was created, 6000 years ago according to the Bible vs. 4.5 billion years ago according to science, where the center of the universe is, or what revolves around what heavenly body. Galileo proved the Earth revolves around the sun, which almost cost him his life. Science and religion have opposing views on many earthly events that, in all likelihood, could and did not happen, such as Mohammad’s night ride on a celestial creature, a Buraq (lightning in Arabic), that could fly from Mecca to Jerusalem accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel in mere moments, a distance of 1500 km. Nor did God stop the sun in its orbital path so that Joshua could triumph in his battle against the Amorites described in the Old Testament. That is why our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, recognized the irreconcilable discrepancies between the holy texts and science and made sure that there was a separation of church and state, as those discrepancies would not be compatible with democratic principles. We cannot possibly have Shariah Law in this country because it conflicts with too many customs that are deeply embedded in our society. Just as Christian Nationalism cannot have a place in the administration of Congress nor the Executive or Judicial branches of our government either, for the same reason. Shariah Law is not compatible with our democracy, despite what Abdul Al Seyed claims.