Making up shariah as we go: Iran bans make-up for women on TV, state TV chief claims it goes against shariah.
“Make-up by women during television programs is illegal and against Islamic sharia law … There should not be a single case of a woman wearing make-up during a program,” Ezatollah Zarghami was quoted as saying by the reformist Etemad newspaper.
He also called for the media equivalent of a ghetto for women.
Zarghami, a former member of the elite Revolutionary Guards who has been re-appointed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also ordered that women guests should “preferably” be hosted by women.
Because if women interview men they’re likely to fall into each other’s arms before the end of the show. Right.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 1:33 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
This is another example of confusion around the way the term Shari’ah is used. The term Shari’ah refers originally to the entire corpus of Islamic law which divides actions into 5 categories (or 7 for the Hanafis).
Not every “shari’ah ruling” in this sense is meant to be enforced by the government. Of course, there is generally great disagreement about what is supposed to be enforced and what is not.
In general, rulers (and qadis or judges) in the past had wide latitude to engage in discretionary use of their authority and would be seen as ruling “by Shari’ah” but this was not understood to necessarily imply that every act they took was precisely specified by Islamic law and had to be followed or implemented the same way by everyone else.
Of course, I’m not qualified to comment with respect to the Shi’a where the imams and even modern day scholars who reach a high enough level or understood to be able to issue rulings which become authoritative in themselves as I understand it. And that is not to imply that the Iranian regime is a faithful or true representation of the Shi’i tradition.
All of which is preface to saying John that it is actually not crazy at all for someone to suggest that the Shari’ah (in the sense of the complete corpus of Islamic law, more commonly referred to as fiqh) would at the very least frown upon and very possibly prohibit women from wearing makeup in front of non-related men. Of course, the relationship of this fact ot what should be the policies of a state run tv program is a different matter.
johnpi 2:37 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
All of which is preface to saying John that it is actually not crazy at all for someone to suggest that the Shari’ah (in the sense of the complete corpus of Islamic law, more commonly referred to as fiqh)
The error is right there: you’ve conflated shariah and fiqh. Shariah is God’s law, and the construct erroneously implies that the prohibition on wearing makeup comes directly from God. I acknowledge your definition is widespread, but this is a clever way of putting words in God’s mouth, an authoritarian overreach. And it diminishes the religion to make such an implication.
So now we turn to the non-Muslim in Dawah and seem to be saying, “God said you can’t wear makeup on TV,” or even worse things, such as when the Muslim Brotherhood said female genital mutilation is Shariah. What a sin.
Call it fiqh, call it subjective interpretation, call it human law, but don’t call it Shariah.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 4:43 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
John,
Shariah and Fiqh are basically interchangeable terms. Some people may try to make one mean this and one mean that, as I mentioned above, but that is a decision they make. The definitions that you seem to assume for the words are clear neither in the sources or the tradition.
By the way, I take the point that you are afraid of people claiming something as the judgment of God when human interpretation is involved. But that is necessarily true of either Fiqh or Shari’ah…by the way the whole point of fiqh is a process to determine God’s ruling on a particular issue. Are you positing some definition where following shari’ah is mandatory but following fiqh is not? The fiqh categories include haram and wajib or fardh. These are statements that an act is either required or forbidden by God.
So the distinction you are positing is in your own mind. It may be in others’ minds too but there is no basis for imposing it on everyone.
On a deeper level, although as I’ve said, I understand your point, I think your whole argument and other similar arguments among liberals is disingenuous. You claim your problem is with people claiming their own interpretation to be God’s and you want to preserve the sacred nature of God’s commands, but some of the rulings that you would never ever be in favor of implementing are precisely those ones which are found directly in the eternal speech of God (for example the hudood criminal punishments like cutting the hand of the thief or stoning the adulterer) which would necessarily fit under your definition of Shari’ah. But the scholars of fiqh have laid down the conditions for the implementations of those punishments and only an ignoramus would claim “Don’t pollute our ’shariah’ by watering it down or understanding it through your man made ‘fiqh’!”
You’ve apparently been taught something by someone here about the definition of these terms that you haven’t thought through or examined deeply for yourself. I encourage you to do so.
I haven’t the slightest idea of how the non-muslim in da’wah got introduced to the discussion. Who in your post or in my comment was talking about methodology of da’wah?
Allah knows best.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 5:06 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
John,
I hope I didn’t come across too harshly. As I said I understand your point and the notion you seem to try to be capturing in your distinguishing of the two terms is one I’ve seen others use as well.
But for the reasons I’ve tried to point out and could try to make more clear, I don’t think it’s a framework that holds up to reflection or deep examination and I think it leads to a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of what fiqh/shari’ah/islamic law is actually all about.
johnpi 7:22 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Shariah and Fiqh are basically interchangeable terms
I maintain that too often, this can lead to grievous error and sully the reputation of the religion.
By the way, I take the point that you are afraid of people claiming something as the judgment of God when human interpretation is involved.
Good. We aspire to manifest God’s law on the planet, but we end up practicing Islamic jurisprudence.
An anecdote you may be familiar with: Somebody says to a famous judge, “Get out there and do justice.” The judge replies, “I don’t do justice, I practice law.”
…the whole point of fiqh is a process to determine God’s ruling…
Again, authoritarian overreach. It’s an effort to determine what is likely to be most pleasing to God, but God never gave voice to rulings about lipstick, or affirming fgm. This may sound to some like semantics, but the way you have framed it as “God’s ruling” makes it far more difficult to throw over errors, and gives undue finality to the rulings of those mere humans we call wise scholars.
Are you positing some definition where following shari’ah is mandatory but following fiqh is not?
No. We aspire to understand God’s law and make it manifest, but fiqh is a human thing, albeit a human thing infused with the best wisdom of our scholars and therefore not something to be casually discarded.
It may be in others’ minds too but there is no basis for imposing it on everyone.
By virtue of making your assertions in simple unqualified declarative sentences with the voice of omnipotence (“Shariah and Fiqh are basically interchangeable terms”) you seek an imposition of your own.
(for example the hudood criminal punishments like cutting the hand of the thief or stoning the adulterer) which would necessarily fit under your definition of Shari’ah.
And yet we have no less a source for modifying the amputation hadd than Caliph Umar Al-Farooq. We liberals are standing in a strong Muslim lineage with this sort of parsing of the divine rulings to better accomplish God’s will. I’m not against human interaction with the sources, I’m only interested in calling it what it is, ie, ‘human interaction with the sources.’
Again to use an American legal analogy, Umar’s example is like Brown vs Board of Education, a decision that we respect and that still guides us to this day. The ruling of whatever wannabe scholar presided over the stoning of the rape victim in Somalia is like the Dred Scott decision, and we properly revile it to this day.
I haven’t the slightest idea of how the non-muslim in da’wah got introduced to the discussion. Who in your post or in my comment was talking about methodology of da’wah?
My point was to illuminate the kind of miscommunication and misrepresentation that results.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 7:49 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
John, you’re just restating over and over the point that I said I agreed with you about along with restating my own argument to me (about the hudud) as if it were some sort of rebuttal.
You claim that Shari’ah means something sacred that comes directly from God without human interpretation. State to me a single example of a Shariah ruling according to your definition.
If you are saying that Shari’ah means a law that comes directly from God but the point is that it doesn’t exist then this is ridiculous.
Both Shari’ah and Fiqh are terms for Islamic law which is the product of human beings interpreting divine sources.
johnpi 8:08 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
restating my own argument to me (about the hudud)
No. I think you said liberals were inclined to practice a kind of ’salad bar’ Islam, and with Umar I provided an example of how liberals stand firmly within the tradition to rebut you.
I think where we are missing each other here is that I am questioning the actual language we are using. I would resist using the phrase “Shariah ruling,” because the rulings are not pure expressions of God’s law, and therefore put words in God’s mouth.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:11 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
No, I said liberals (actually quite explicitly) that liberals like you sometimes claim as you have explicitly in this post that the problem with conservatives or more orthodox or traditional Islamic thinkers is that they present ‘interpretations’ as being directly from God. Except when they don’t like what does come directly from God, then they are all for interpretations and claim that these interpretations represent more closely what God intended than would a literal reading.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:24 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
My most sympathetic understanding of John’s argument is basically this: He is saying don’t say the Shari’ah says…. when you are only presenting your own interpretation/understanding because by using the word Shari’ah you imply something comes directly from God.
My point is that this argument would mean that one should never ever say “The Shari’ah says….” because every attempt to derive a ruling from the divine sources involves human interpretation.
The exact same purpose you seem to be desiring would be achieved by the means I’m suggesting John, that people should understand Shari’ah and Fiqh are basically interchangeable and both mean human endeavors sometimes the result of unimaginable knowledge study and effort and sometimes not so much to determine God’s ruling on a particular issue from the divine sources.
This neither means that one has to agree with every single ruling a scholar of fiqh comes up with (indeed one could not since they often contradict each other) nor does it mean that one is free to simply declare every opinion they don’t like to be bad if they do not have the qualifications and have not studied the issue.
johnpi 8:27 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Then we’ve slipped into the false duality of liberal/conservative here.
My purpose is not to criticize any group of Muslims for offering their own interpretation as God’s own law. My purpose is to criticize offering any human interpretation as God’s own law. What a ruling is is as close as we think we can get – but it’s never infallible enough to be called pure Shariah.
johnpi 8:31 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
The basic logic of language argues against your assertion that fiqh and Shariah are “basically interchangable.” There are reasons why words come into existence. Two words are not created where one will do.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:31 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
No, I think we’ve slipped into the false duality of fiqh vs. Shari’ah
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:34 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Terms are used by different people at different times with different meanings John. I am not claiming some kind of essential for all times unity between the terms. I am trying to advise you that adopting the distinction you are trying to adopt here isn’t useful analytically, doesn’t hold up to examination, and isn’t the best way to achieve the rhetorical goal you’re trying to achieve.
Omar 8:02 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
According to Dr. Hashim Kamali (author of this book) he defines Sharia as part of Revelation, and fiqh as the human endeavor to understand Revelation. I like to think of it in terms of Oneness (Revelation) and Multiplicity (Reason).
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:16 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Omar,
Again this is what sometimes people say, but it doesn’t hold up to examination.
Again, I would ask someone to give me an example of a Shari’ah ruling according to this definition.
Unless one just says that the entire text of the Qur’an and all the authentic ahadith that are relevant to legal rulings is “The Shari’ah” I don’t know what that gets you. I guess John is arguing one should never say “The Shari’ah says….”
johnpi 8:19 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
I guess John is arguing one should never say “The Shari’ah says….”
Of course not. That’s absurd.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:25 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Actually I think that is the best light in which to cast your argument John. If not, I’m still waiting for you to give me a single example of what you should say “The Shari’ah says…” that does not involve any human interpretation.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:30 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Which is exactly why I tried to show you before that you don’t want to be making this argument because the only possible examples that could fit into this statement under your definition are direct restatements of legal principles from the Qur’an (and only arguably) from the Hadith. But you don’t want to say “The Shari’ah says cut the hand of the thief” You want to (or should want to…I certainly do) point out the actual Shari’ah ruling regarding theft is more complicated and nuanced and based on a combining of a lot of different evidences and human effort at interpretation not just regurgitating the text, even where that text is the eternal literal speech of Allaah (swt). But the result of that effort by a qualified scholar can still be termed “Shari’ah.” or “Fiqh”
johnpi 8:40 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
I think you are perceiving me to be falling into the literalist trap, while my effort is to try to obtain better accuracy in both understanding and communication when we say something is within or without Islamic law.
bingregory 8:55 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Seems like the same distinction applies to any attempt to operationalize God’s words. Allah orders us to make salat, but can we really say that we are making salat as Allah commands when our methods of making salat are inescapably flawed. You wind up setting up a kind of Platonic duality between the ideal form that resides (sorry if that’s clumsy – you know what I mean) with Allah and the created reflection of it. So there is Salat and then there is the prayers that we make, there is Remembrance of Allah and there is the zikr we make, there is Shariah and then there is the law that we make: I think that is the natural consequence of what you’re suggesting, John – not that I’m automatically disagreeing with that conception.
johnpi 9:06 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
I think you are getting the gist of my point, though I’m not prepared to assert ‘Platonic duality’ broadly, at least not without a lot of reflection. But it could certainly be carried that way…
Getting back to a concrete example, when someone says ‘God’s law (Shariah) says you can’t wear makeup on TV’ or ‘God’s law (Shariah) says we have to do fgm’ it misrepresents God and throws the religion into disrepute.
Omar 9:19 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink
Sorry, I should’ve clarified that I’m not disagreeing or taking sides with anyone. I don’t have any opinion on this… I only relate what I’ve read.
I should’ve elaborated that Dr. Hashim, in the essay I was reading, was making an analogy of jurisprudence with theology and takes a historical perspective, where he ends up saying that the Sharia “ended” with the Prophet (S) and thereafter it was fiqh… and of course the very word “fiqh” has a history on its own according to different time periods.
Anyways, speaking of fiqh, there’s a free on-line lecture series with Sh. Abdullah (of Zaytuna Institute) on Usul al-Fiqh here. I’m mentioning it because he does get into trying to define things… which I don’t completely don’t understand myself.
Hicham Maged 2:37 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
Abu Noor, you hit the nail, so in addition to what you mentioned, I am to place my favourite wondering phrase: “people are obsessed by women; either Muslims or non-Muslims” Humm …
bingregory 7:54 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
Not every “shari’ah ruling” in this sense is meant to be enforced by the government
This is a great point. Any secular law must carry a penalty for breaking it, but shariah allows for moral commandments that are not necessarily enforced by the state. Non-enforcement doesn’t have to mean sanction of the deed.