On Shariah Law: Tolerance is the Law of the Land

On Shariah Law: Tolerance is the Law of the Land July 24, 2016

By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17537111
By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17537111

By Fatina Abdrabboh

I teach a course at a law school on Islamic Law, familiar to some as sharia. Yes, I teach sharia to American law students. In fact, the country’s leading law schools are increasingly offering this course alongside others meant to equip American law students with the cultural skills of a global world.

In my class, we spent almost the first half of the semester unpacking what Islamic Law is not. Many students came into the class with assumptions absorbed from our socio-political climate. That being said, many students complete the semester with insight into the ways a believing Muslim in America lives by sharia and how this way of life is perfectly fitted into our “western” society.

So, recent comments from Newt Gingrich, who ironically is also a former professor, in which he proposed a sharia law test for Muslims are dangerous, and quite frankly incoherent. Following the attack in Nice, France that killed at least 84 people, former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for the deportation of Muslim-Americans who “believe in sharia law.”  (He later backed down from this statement somewhat, but who’s buying that?)

“Western civilization is in a war,” Gingrich said. “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

Gingrich is not the only one thinking this way. He’s just one of the few openly advocating it. A lot of Americans don’t know what sharia means or have been fed misconceptions and falsities.

So, my first question is: Does Gingrich (or anyone) know what sharia means? Sharia means path — it is a Muslim’s way of getting closer to God. And, what sharia means can differ wildly from one Muslim to another. It can mean being honest and true to one’s self, feeding and helping the poor, combating income inequality, or engaging in reflective prayer.

“Sharia law” is not found in one book. The system of laws that Muslims abide by is a result of a millennium-and-a-half of differing philosophical, ideological and political histories of the Islamic world.

So, when Gingrich asserts that sharia law will be a marker for deportation, us Muslims and academics must ask: Whose sharia? Which interpretation? Is he talking about our prayers? Our charity? Our respect of our parents? To me, that sure sounds like our traditional “American” values.

The justifications for committing violence as a directive of the sharia is less reflective of the religious tradition and more reflective of extremists’ political exploitation of it. Sharia law provides the overarching ideological framework that Muslims live their lives by. It is a set of moral values that, at the end of the day, are ways that help you become a better person, a better community member and a better citizen.

Furthermore, the idea of asking Muslims to give up sharia is very much like asking Christians to give the Gospel. All practicing Muslims believe in shariaSo, we must ask Gingrich: Are you planning on deporting all Muslim Americans? Or just the ones who follow sharia and contribute in positive ways to their communities, those who identify the aims and goals of sharia to preserve “life, family, property learning and honor”?

“Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

Sharia is not incompatible with Western civilization or American values, rather it is Gingrich’s statements that are entirely un-American and incompatible with Western civilization. If the constitution is the heart of the United States, then Gingrich’s statement is as unpatriotic as one can get.

The United State is built on several foundations, including freedom of speech and religion. The religious test he proposes is directly opposed to the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees the right to practice religion freely. Article VI of the constitution stipulates, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This article is precise in language. The motive of the founding fathers is clear — the separation of church and state, precisely by neither promoting nor limiting religious belief. How would Gingrich explain his religious test to those that designed this democracy we live in? He wouldn’t be able to.

Religious tests have been administered in the past to weed out “secret” Muslims and Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, where they subjected victims to torture until they “confessed.” Most religious histories are replete with religious tests that have always been inaccurate and brutal.

What is even more disconcerting is that Gingrich proposed subjecting American citizens to this religious test — not only non-citizens entering the United States. He proposed interrogating and deporting several million American citizens. In another twist of irony, we do not have exact figures on the number of American Muslims because government census by religion is not lawful.

After media pushback, Gingrich admitted that indeed such a proposal was unconstitutional. But it’s alarming that he made the proposal in the first place. Shouldn’t a lifelong politician and statesman know better?

Rep. Keith Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress, went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show after Gingrich’s initial remarks to condemn them, saying “He does know better. That’s the sad thing about Newt Gingrich. He’s a very smart man. It’s just calculating, pandering, and it’s really sad.”

The type of America that Newt Gingrich (and several other politicians, including Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump) have proposed is frightening. It is the type of country that administers religious tests, punishes people for “thought crimes,” deports its own citizens and quashes liberty.

This is not the America the Founding Fathers believed in, and it is not the America we should ever allow ourselves to become.

Fatina Abdrabboh is the Executive Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) Michigan Office and adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State University Law School.


Browse Our Archives