Human Trustees

King David wanted to build a temple for God, but the prophet Nathan told him that God had designated his son to carry out that task (II Samuel 7). Years later he recounts to his son Solomon that the reason God did not grant him that privilege was that “he had killed many men in battles . . . and shed so much blood” (I Chronicles 22:8). Though David is the beloved author of the Psalms, celebrated both in the Bible and Quran, he was also a king who greatly extended the borders of the territory he had inherited. Kings and rulers, by definition, wield the sword. The Bible also tells us that several centuries before God ordered mwo4mhua to undertake bloody conquests in the land of Canaan. Yet we forget that mwo4mhua was the great prophet Moses’ underling and disciple.

            When the people of Israel were traveling in the territory to the east of the Jordan River, kings Sihon and Og refused them passage and attacked Israel. In the end, both kings and all their people were slaughtered and their territory occupied by the tribes of Reuben and Gad. In a later episode, after some Israelite men were seduced into idolatry by some Moabite women, God ordered Moses to send a small army to wipe out the Moabites in revenge – which they did in short order. But Moses was “furious” when they returned. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. So he had all the women who had been married killed, saving only the young virgins. “You may keep them for yourselves,” he told them (Numbers 31:1-24).

            Honestly, there is a lot more graphic violence in the Old Testament than in the Quran. But to Jews and Christians, this is not generally disturbing. Enter hermeneutics (the art of interpretation of the sacred texts). Either by putting greater weight on some texts rather than on others, or by saying (as in this case) that what God said in those days does not apply to the present day, people of faith find ways to balance out the tensions in their holy book.

            We’ve all been preoccupied this past week with the news of Bin Laden’s demise. Is this the end of al-Qaeda as we know it? Will we be facing a spate of retaliatory attacks? My own educated guess is that al-Qaeda has taken a serious blow. But Osama bin Laden’s “martyrdom” will likely recruit more “jihadis” to the wider cause. Splinter groups here and there might be emboldened, so attacks will no doubt continue in one form or another.

            But, you might be asking, how could you compare Old Testament/Hebrew Bible wars of aggression with current Islamic terrorism? For most Christians today this has no relevance whatsoever in the light of the gospel of peace. Yes, “ethnic cleansing” as we put it today seems to have been given divine sanction in that part of the Bible. But the Israelites, you say, were not trying to take over the world by force of arms and to impose on all the worship of Jahweh, while smashing all the idols of the nations! True enough, yet the church, from Constantine to Charlemagne, and from the Crusades to the Spanish Reconquista, the Inquisition, the forced conversion of millions of Latin American Indians and the bloody religious wars in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe, has managed pretty well to ignore the Sermon on the Mount! Hermeneutics do count . . . and also for Muslims, we shall see.

            With this in mind, allow me to give a bit more background on jihad, first on the bin Laden brand in this blog, and then more generally in the next blog. So what are the “sword verses” in the Quran and what is their context?

            Muhammad received his first revelation in 610 and from the beginning experienced staunch opposition from the Meccan tribal leaders. When in 622 he was able to “emigrate” to Medina (the Hijra), it was after at least one attempt on his life. Mecca had vowed to destroy the nascent community of Muslims, Jews and polytheists ruled by Muhammad in that desert oasis. To be sure, it did not help that Muhammad’s fellow immigrants from Mecca now made it a practice to raid Meccan caravans. But the course of war had been set from the start. And now from Medina it unfolded: first, a decisive victory against great odds – the Battle of Badr (624); then a defeat – Uhud (625); finally, the Battle of the Trench, during which a formidable Meccan army retreated after an unsuccessful forty-day siege (627). All this time, both Jewish and polytheist Medinans (and “hypocrites”) had tried to help the Meccans against Muhammad. This is called political treason in any polity in the world.

            Herein is the context of the “sword verses.” They come from the last revealed sura (“chapter” – there are 114 altogether), Sura 9, so the backdrop is the later Medinan period, up until the year 630 when Muhammad rode victoriously into Mecca with a vastly superior army. (Incidentally, it is the only sura NOT prefaced by “In the name of the Merciful, the Compassionate”). The first verse is often quoted with its second half missing: “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.” Yet the second half tones it down significantly: “But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way for God is forgiving and kind” (Q. 9:5). The other verse is more straightforward: “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor hold the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Q. 9:29). It should also be noted that the Quran uses the word “to kill” or “fight to kill” in almost all instances of fighting in God’s cause; rarely is “jihad” used for this. But in the legal literature down through the centuries it was used in this way.

Fast forward to the 20^th century . . . Sayyid Qutb, the chief propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood at the time of Egypt’s October Revolution in 1952, disagreed with the more moderate wing of the movement that had renounced violence. In his writings, he advocated a return to the classical version of jihad, that is, that Muslims should fight to extend the borders of the Abode of Islam and thus reduce the size of the Abode of War. Wage an all-out war; aim to conquer the world, and when that is achieved, give people the “freedom” to accept Islam or not. But the state will be an Islamic one, following the classical dictates of Sharia law (as you know from my previous blogs, this is Qutb’s imagining an ideal divine law that could be applied, ready-made, to the world as it is today – Sharia is in fact a very contested term!).

Contrast this worldview with that of the Muslims, who at the risk of their life have been protesting and demonstrating in the streets of Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, asking for democracy and civil freedoms. The “Arab Spring,” as they call it, potently proves that bin Laden and his associates badly lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses. Jihad is a much wider, and for the vast majority of Muslims, a much more peaceful idea.

I was teaching a seminar course on intra-Muslim debates on human rights at Yale University and we had just covered a variety of Muslim "fundamentalist" views. Out of fifteen students I had four Jews, four Christians, and seven Muslims. One Orthodox Jewish student (actually the president of the Yale Friends of Israel that year) raised his hand to comment, "I have to tell you that the more I listen, the more I connect with these conservative, politically active, law-oriented Muslims. No joke, not a day goes by that I'm not furiously involved in two or three arguments about religious law. This is what we breathe!"

Indeed, Judaism and Islam, unlike Christianity, are faith traditions that revolve around the down-to-earth, practical rules of living that were inspired by the sacred text, then distilled by rabbis and ulama' (Muslim jurists), first orally and then finally written down according their respective schools of law. Christians tend to be more preoccupied with right belief (orthodoxy), whereas right conduct (orthopraxy) commands the allegiance of Muslims and Jews.

The short prayer, or the Quran's first sura (or "chapter," out of 114 altogether), al-Fatiha ("the Opening"), which a practicing Muslim pronounces seventeen times a day in the course of five ritual prayers, says, "Guide us in the straight path." The word Sharia, which symbolizes the God-shaped form the world is to take as his people follow this path, also literally means "the path to the watering hole." So Islamic law is also the path of salvation through the arid and forbidding desert of life that leads into the gardens of bliss in the hereafter. In this blog I describe Sharia, as seen by Muslims, as divine, flexible and comprehensive. And so in the context of the current frenzy in several states to "outlaw Sharia," I'm arguing that 1) it's like telling a Muslim she can't practice her religion at all; and 2) it displays a staggering ignorance about how Islamic law actually works; and 3) there's nothing to fear about Muslims embracing Sharia.

First, Sharia in the Islamic perspective is divine in origin, since only God is the legitimate ruler of the world. The two main sources for discerning the will of the divine Legislator are the sacred texts – the Quran, first and foremost, and then the authoritative collections of all the reports (or hadiths) about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did. After all, he remains THE godly example all Muslims strive to follow; so this second source of Islamic law is called the Sunna (the "path" or "model" of the Prophet). At the same time, Muslim scholars have always recognized that sacred texts – whether the Quran, which contains the very words of God, or the Sunna, which houses reports of varying levels of authenticity and reliability – have to be interpreted by human beings (there are other "sources," but they are of the rational type, and I will leave them for another blog).

This is why "Sharia," as the symbol of God's will in this world and the next, is always distinct from "applied jurisprudence" in Islamic law (fiqh, from a word meaning "understanding"). Fiqh comprises the traditions of understanding and practical application of the texts that are followed in various schools of Islamic law (the Sunnis have ended up with four; and the Shia with only one). So one should never confuse Sharia with fiqh (though some Muslims do at times). Sharia is divine, whereas fiqh is man-made, and hence, flexible. In classical Islam, a jurist who had attained the highest level of learning and experience, the mujtahid (one who can practice ijtihad, or the "effort to produce a new ruling in a new situation") was said to receive a double reward if God deemed him correct, and only one reward, if not. In both cases the mujtahid had exerted much effort (notice: same root as jihad) to produce a correct ruling.

So, for example, the Quran forbids (as in the Torah) the eating of "carrion, blood, pork, meat offered to idols, or an animal that was strangled or killed by a violent blow" (Q. 5:4). In the grey areas, however, some schools say all aquatic animals can be eaten. But some say that only those aquatic animals in the shape of a fish can be eaten. Others say tortoises are forbidden, and all agree that frogs cannot be eaten, because of a reliable hadith in which the Prophet forbade the killing of frogs. On the other hand, all domestic animals can be eaten, but there is disagreement regarding riding horses and work horses. On this the Hanafis (one of four Sunni schools) say eating them is reprehensible. As you can see, flexibility is the watchword, and thus one often-quoted hadith has Muhammad saying, "diversity of legal opinions is a mercy."

Another sign of flexibility is the maxim that no rule holds under necessity. Stealing or eating pork is no sin if you are dying of hunger. Pregnant women, sick persons or travelers can put off their Ramadan fast till a better time. Using sand for the prescribed ablutions for prayer instead of water when none is available is fine. But more importantly – and this has become very popular today – attention to the "objectives of Sharia" has always led Muslim jurists to believe that its primary purpose was to benefit humanity. Here the key word is maslaha, translated as "public benefit," or even an equivalent to the "common good." This kind of emphasis of late, together with the quranic maxim that God wants to make our life easier, not harder, has led contemporary scholars to focus more on the spirit of the law, as opposed to the strict letter of the law (more on this in a blog devoted to human rights).

Finally, Islamic law is comprehensive. It is designed to help humans sort out all their various actions into five categories. Only the first and the last, the mandatory and the forbidden, have consequences for the next life. The recommended or praiseworthy are those actions, which if acted on will bring reward, but if shunned bring no punishment. The blameworthy or reprehensible category includes actions, which if carried out will incur a penalty (like eating work horses for Hanafis, and smoking for most jurists today); yet avoiding them brings no reward. The fifth is the middle category, covering the great majority of human acts: those that do not fall in the four above categories are neutral. Islamic law presumes that most of what people choose to do everyday is permissible, if in fact it is neither forbidden nor reprehensible.

There are two general categories covered by Islamic law: the religious rituals ('ibadat, or "worship items") and rules concerning human relationships (mu'amalat). The first category contains the "five pillars" of Islam: the shahada, or "testimony"; ritual prayers (salah); almsgiving (zakat); the month of fasting (Ramadan); and the pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj), and a few other items as well. But the second category is the largest. "Human transactions" includes commercial and property law, judicial procedure, and criminal law. But notice: it never included constitutional law. In a blog devoted to Islam and politics I will show, God willing (in sha'a Allah), that Muslim rulers always ran their own legal system parallel to the Sharia courts, and that a wide variety of political arrangements over the centuries were deemed "Islamic."

Just like their Jewish counterparts, Muslims venerate Sharia as the path to God's blessing in this life and the next. Yet at least thirteen states in America today have bills pending to outlaw any use of Sharia. Arizona-based attorney David Yerushalmi, who has written for years about the danger that Sharia represents in subverting American freedoms, has now drafted the strictest bill for consideration by the Tennessee legislature. As far as he's concerned, it's only the part of Sharia that's connected to jihad that is targeted, because to his mind it could lead to the overthrowing of the US government. But as Islamic Society of North America spokeswoman Sarah Thompson stated, "The way that it's worded makes the assumption that any practice of Islam is a practice of terrorism. And that's a dangerous line to walk. It excludes the millions of Muslims that are practicing peaceably from the ability to do so."

All these attempts to impugn Islamic law will likely be declared unconstitutional in the end. As seen here, Sharia includes all of human life, but like many other aspects, past fiqh rulings on jihad have been hotly debated by Muslim jurists, and especially in the modern period (a topic for another day). Of course, there are classical readings of the texts that radical Muslims have leaned on to recruit from the wider Muslim community. There are also specific fiqh rulings from the past (still "on the books" in some places) that contravene established norms of human rights today. I'll deal with that later. What is clear, however, is that Sharia itself – as a sign and symbol – remains at the heart of Muslim spirituality. And for that reason, in the best tradition of our American democracy, we should shun witch hunts of all kinds and welcome to the table our fellow-Americans who happen to be Muslims, as we did – reluctantly at first – Catholics and Jews in the not-so-distant past.

Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin recently served with the US Special Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet his role was mostly in intelligence gathering as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence at the Pentagon. As a loyal patriot in the military, Boykin was and continues to be laser-focused on our nation’s enemies.

No one would deny that transnational terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and its affiliates or Taliban-related fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan (tribal-based with local aims) are sworn enemies of the US. What I would like to highlight here is Boykin’s unshakeable certainty that “Islam” equals Sharia law, and Sharia law equals a system inherently bent on world domination. In a recent article, posing as an expert on all things Islamic, he proclaims,

Sharia law is the foundation of Islamic theocracy and totalitarianism. The establishment of global Sharia law is the goal of the adherents to authoritative Islam. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land. That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America.

Here I only test one of his claims: that Sharia as blueprint for global hegemony is the view of “many influential elements in America.” God willing, I will follow up with three more blogs touching on other aspects of this most misunderstood aspect of the Islamic faith – Sharia law.

But first, just a little background into the wider (and influential) movement to which Boykin relates. In today’s social science parlance, I speak here of “the anti-Sharia discourse.” Indeed, Boykin is the lead author of a book on this topic, Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (2010). It is published by a think-tank led by Frank Gaffney, who was a top security adviser for President Reagan. The book’s description on Amazon.com reads: “This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as ‘shariah.’”

Many other voices from several quarters have joined in this chorus. I’ll only mention one here, Steven Emerson and his Washington-based SAE Productions and its nonprofit wing, the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. And it seems that Emerson’s “nonprofit” pitch that America stands on the brink of impending doom at the hand of Islamic radicals is in fact rather profitable. In 2008 alone he collected more than $3.3 million. Investigative journalist Bob Smietana got interested in this one arm of “a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances” by virtue of covering a trial in a suburb of Nashville, Tennessee.

Opponents of the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN, managed to monopolize six days of court hearings with lectures on how Islam is not a true religion but rather a conspiracy to take over America and squash its cherished freedom. Unsurprisingly, one of the witnesses was Frank Gaffney whose think-tank had determined that one of the board members of the new mosque had been a member of Hamas (an allegation denied by the member and his board). Gaffney reiterated what other self-proclaimed experts in Sharia law had said, namely that Islam and Sharia were inseparable and therefore posed a vital threat to US security.

            Fortunately, a coalition of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims stood up to defend the construction of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. One of those prominent voices was that of Florida mega-church pastor Joel Hunter, who said that it was ludicrous for the opponents of the mosque to base their opposition on the claim that Islam was not a religion but a political system with a built-in legal code at war with American democracy. He added that Muslims are like other past minorities that faced tough challenges to be accepted in America. For that reason, he was not going to relent: “Islam is facing that now and we will not rest until they have equal rights with other religions.”

            The latest news is that the judge was ready to throw out the opponents’ challenge to the green light for the building permit issued by the Regional Planning Commission, but they did manage to have another hearing scheduled for April 13. Regardless of the outcome, however, the fact that the opposition has gained so much traction is a testimony to the power and magnetism of the anti-Sharia discourse.

            Yet that line of thinking is totally divorced from the worldview of the vast majority of American Muslims. Not only did all the major Muslim organizations in this country immediately condemn the attacks of 2001; they fervently and unequivocally support the ethical ideals of democracy and human rights, including religious freedom. The imam of the Manhattan mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has been at the center of the “Park51” controversy (their new building a couple of blocks away from “Ground Zero”), is a veteran of interfaith dialog. Imam Abdul Rauf explained what he has learned as an American Muslim in his book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America: A New Vision for Muslims and the West. As a young man he sailed into New York Harbor in December 1965, eying the Statue of Liberty. “Little did I realize then,” he mused, “that I was to discover the riches of my faith tradition in this land. Like many immigrants from Muslim lands, I discovered my Islam in America.”

            One of his discoveries was that with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution the United States of America is a better “Muslim” country than most so-called “Muslim countries.” I cannot here go into all the details, but let’s start with this summary:

Muslim legal scholars have defined five areas of life that Islamic law must protect and further. These are life, mind (that is, mental well-being or sanity), religion, property (or wealth), and family (or lineage and progeny). Any system of rule that upholds, protects, and furthers these rights is therefore legally “Islamic,” or Shariah compliant, in its substance. Because these rights are God-given, they are inalienable and cannot be deprived of any man or woman without depriving them of their essential humanity.

            Another part of his argument centers around the two central commandments of love for God and love of neighbor. The three Abrahamic faiths, and Islam’s religious law (the Sharia) make this distinction. Their followers are to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. “Our Christian friends,” he writes, “call this the ‘vertical dimension’ of religious practice.” The second part is more sociological, having to do with the “horizontal dimension” of our faith – how we relate to those around us. The first dimension in Islamic law is called the ‘ibadat, the ritual aspect of the faith (the five pillars of Islam, and the like). The second dimension is the mu’amalat, literally the mutual relationships of people in society, which covers family law, contractual or commercial law, and penal or criminal law. That second branch, as opposed to the fixed nature of the first, is extremely flexible. As long as those objectives of Sharia are met (as stated in the block quotation above), they are constantly in need of revision and reformulation, so as to respond to the changing needs of society over time.

More detail will come in subsequent blogs. Here I only emphasize that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf sits squarely in the center of mainstream American Islam. In an evangelical-Muslim dialog to which Rick Love and I contributed, which was organized by Georgetown University last year, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was giving out free copies of his book. Muslims disagree on many details of theology, law and politics – as do Jews and Christians among themselves. But one thing is for sure: the conspiracy theories of Jerry Boykin and Steven Emerson have nothing to do with the view of Sharia held by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim American community.

Humantrustees.org aims to foster understanding and cooperation between Muslims and Christians so as to empower them to live up to their God-given calling as “trustees of the earth.” This Christian initiative seeks to accomplish this goal through scholarship, teaching, news commentary, and networking between scholars, members of both communities, and with anyone else who is passionate about peace and human flourishing.