Responding to Tangoman

Collounsbury claims this is false.

It was false, as constructed it clearly indicated by suggestion that the Saudi extremism is the norm when in fact it is not.

It's more accurate to say that the sentence was poorly constructed by suggesting that religious police enforce Islamic law in many Islamic countries. In fact, religious police are features of the two countries specificed in the quote but the opening clause is mainly correct in that Islam and sharia are prominent in many Islamic countries. All one need do is ask Amina Lawal who was sentenced to stoning (eventually overturned) for adultery by the Nigerian Sharia Court.

It certainly is not correct in the manner implied.

The Nigerian case is peripheral (never mind it is not part of The Middle East which is what the article was focused on) and the Sharia courts 'innovation' of recent vintage in Nigeria.

It is certainly not typical or normal to have Sharia courts of that kind anywhere in the MENA region.

Criminal and in most civil courts are almost exclusively based off of Code Civil throughout MENA and indeed the wider Islamic world.

Further, Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution reads:

Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

And? (Presuming the cite is correct, I don't feel like checking)

A piety, but in fact both civil law and criminal law and court practice are based off of Code Civil, with some influence from Islamic jurisprudence.

Practical reality.

Of course the real problem in Egypt is that the courts are weak, prone to corruption and under State control.

Visions of Sharia based barbarity are far and away trivial as compared to the real practical problem of underpaid judges, gross corruption and the interference of Mubarek's secular secret police in judicial affaires.

Article 7 of the Iraqi Constitution reads:

No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam

Shrug.

What the universally agreed tenents of Islam in fact are is rather less than clear to me, the constitutional clause is an empty piety in large part. The Iraqi law codes and court system remain based on the Code Civil system, largely off of the initial interpretation into Arabic that the Egyptians (as well as Iraqis) developed in the late colonial/early independence era.

Article 227(1) of the Pakistani Constitution reads:

All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.

When did Pakistan become the Middle East?

Various Provinces within the nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria use Sharia law. Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Yemen have criminal laws that reflect traditional Islamic practice, banning Muslims from drinking or selling alcohol.

And in North America, there are laws banning the sale of alcohol and other immoral products, etc. on Sundays.

The point being what?

(again of course, the article was about the Middle East, so muddying the waters by dragging in non-Middle East countries rather changes the standard from what I was commenting on, rather like a comment on North America and the response notes practice in Norway.)

I would note, as a point of correction, that Jordan does not ban the consumption of alcohol by Muslims, although liquor store licenses etc. can not be primarily held by a Muslim. He has to have an Xian partner. Ah yes, and alcohol can't be sold within x metres of a Mosque.

Shrug. In plenty of ostensibly secular European and North American jurisdictions there are bans on sale of alchohol within x metres of a church etc.

And if one rewinds merely 20-40 years, one would find yet more laws based on explicetly Xian religious precepts.

Religious sentiment having influence on law codes reflects the underlying culture and certainly if one stops shrieking in fear over the scary Muslims, one would recognise much of the supposedly scary "Sharia" influence over law is really no different than similar Xian influence over the law in Xian countries - historically until very recent times and even presently.

One should be able to analytically distinguish between actual Sharia courts run on by the ulema, and proper court systems and legal codes that naturally reflect the societal mores of the underlying society.

The first is a serious problem and very bad practice. The second may or may not be a genuine issue.

However, the Islamophobes like to confuse the issue by throwing up in the scariest light possible any potential 'influence' - and engaging in massive straw man and red herring argumentation.

An Egyptian court, in 1993, declared Nasr Abu Zayd an apostate and ordered he be divorced from his Muslim wife. His crime? The court didn't like some of his writings.

Indeed, and it was a scandal in Egypt.

In actual fact, the proceedings were rather more complex. Under family law for Muslims, which is civil code mixed in with Sharia jurisprudence a Muslim woman can't be married to a non-Muslim. The Jihadis who brought the case claimed Zayd was an apostate because of his writings, and by a chain of argumentation got around to getting the judge to force the divorce.

The story here is less Sharia code influence, but rather Jihadi neo-Salafi nutjobs intimidating the state and judges into issueing a completely mad and nonsensical ruling (although very much in the political tradition of the secular Nasserite system of political manipulation of courts to render bizarre verdicts againts opponents). The ruling actually made no sense even under Sharia - it was pure abuse.

Also, many Middle Eastern nations guarantee the freedom of religion but those rights don't include the right to speak against Islam nor to act on such convictions. It's also forbidden for Muslims to convert away from Islam.

Indeed. Nothing is perfect.

However, that is hardly the same as blood-drenched Sharia courts and the like scare-mongerers like to pain.

I would note being mildy critical of Islamic practice is typically not an issue.

In this area, I am simply patient.

A culture that feels itself under attack is not going to change such clauses, although they're hardly necessary. Symbolic value.

The fundamental issue here is that in Islam, there is no separation between the sacred and the secular. The law is infused with religion.

So was Xian law, that is not the same problem.

Most law in MENA - in real terms - as I noted is based on Code Civil and not in practical terms infused with religion, again contra the scare mongering.

The concept of a division into sacred and secular is certainly absent in the Islamic tradition, as a specific structure.

However, at the same time in actual Sunni practice and historically Shia, "clerics" did not get involved in actual rulership. They gave moral advice to rulers, who applied the law.

There is plenty of basis to build a legal tradition that while having recourse to religious sentiment to inform its standards, is independently administered.

Will it look like the European case? No. But that is neither good nor bad. It is different. In practice one might end up in the positive or the negative, but like ostentatious secularism - which produced the murderous regimes of the Communist world - it could produce either.

To say that Saudi Arabia are Iran are unrepresentantive with respect to Islamic law is not entirely accurate.

Rubbish.

KSA and Iran are absolutely far away from typical MENA region practice with respect to the Law, regardless of your clouding the issue with scare-mongering distortions and vague hand waving.

They are certainly the most severe in interpretation, but let's wait to see what happens with Hamas, and see what happens if Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front actually takes power.

FIS in Algeria is dead.

As to Hamas, yes, indeed one has to see.

However, in actual MENA region, Iran and KSA remain unrepresentative.

collounsbury
'Aqoul
www.aqoul.com