Introduction

When Westerners think of Sharia law, their concept is usually centered on excessive punishments, such as being stoned for adultery or having hands cut off for stealing. However, Islam presents Sharia not just as a legal system but as an integral way to fulfill the will of Allah for each person and situation since Allah’s will is to bring about compassion, generosity, and justice.  Muslims, therefore, justify these strong measures by arguing that they are used only rarely and in a way that will help people find their way back to Allah. This chapter examines the various aspects of Sharia law, along with the traditional account of its origins, then considers what revisionist scholars believe to be Sharia’s current significance and possible historical inconsistencies in its origin story. Does Sharia law have significance today, both to Muslims and non-Muslims? What does it reveal about Islam, both religiously and politically? These are important considerations, both for Christians who come to the issue from a religious perspective and for non-Muslims in general who want to understand the role of social justice and culture in the Islamic worldview.

The Traditional Muslim View

Muslims believe that Sharia developed from laws which were revealed in the Qur’an, as well as other laws that grew out of Muhammad’s own example or rulings that he gave during his lifetime.  These secondary laws came from the sunnah of the prophet, (meaning his words as well as his actions), and were collected in the written volumes of the Hadith. However, if any situation arose where these sources did not offer enough information to make a judgment, then the judges were free to use their intellect, as well as reason, in order to rule in these cases.  Thus, as one author declares, “Sharia is derived from the Quran, exemplified in Muhammad’s life, and explained by imams.”^[1]

The word Sharia comes from the Arabic word meaning “path to water,” or “pathway to be followed,” or even “the pathway for a Muslim to walk,” symbolizing a way of life that is followed to please Allah and emphasize the fulfillment of his will on an individual’s life.^[2] Sharia is considered the infallible law of Allah and therefore it must supersede all other codes of law. The areas of life that Sharia dictates behavior for far exceed a simple code of punishment for crimes. Instead, as Scott Bridger, a professor of Islamic studies points out, “Muslims believe Sharia contains a comprehensive system governing every aspect of their lives, from how to brush one’s teeth to how to conduct financial transactions.”^[3] Dr. Shawki Allam, the Grand  Mufti of Egypt, compares Sharia to the US Constitution and explains that “Far from a medieval code of capital punishments, the Shari’ah is a dynamic ethico-legal system designed to safeguard and advance core human values.” He later argues that, 

The sensationalism over the Shari’ah we see time and again is simply fear mongering. As much as it may bother those who spread hate, American Muslims put core tenets of the Shari’ah into practice every day when they operate soup kitchens, donate their time to community service, get married or divorced, practice their professions, run their businesses, have children, visit the sick, and much more.

Simply stated, the purpose of the Shari’ah is not to establish theocracies, to subjugate non-believers or to subject people to capital punishments. Rather, the Shari’ah aims to facilitate a believer’s attaining God’s pleasure, secure human welfare in this life and attain human salvation in the hereafter—ideals common to all Abrahamic faiths.^[4]

Thus, as Dr. Allam explains, Sharia encompasses every detail of a person’s life and informs them on how they should act in various situations: how to dress; how to enter a room; what to eat; how to eat; how to cook; how to relate to others; how wives should respond to their husbands; how women are supposed to behave in public; how to discipline children; how to guide families spiritually; how to handle money, property, inheritance, banking needs, etc. This full and detailed nature of the law, interestingly, is largely responsible for the popularity of Sharia with the average Muslim.  Some Muslims today who desire Sharia law do so because they are minority groups in non-Muslim nations, and they hope to insulate themselves through Sharia from the surrounding culture.

In Muslim societies, as well as for Muslims in minority situations, the process of interpreting and applying Sharia is called fiqh in Arabic, and this process is carried out by qualified religious scholars who use reason and tradition in order to apply Islamic law to every aspect of life for a Muslim. These Sharia rulings are first divided into two broad areas of guidance, one dealing with religious worship and the other covering worldly matters.  These two areas are further divided into three more specific areas: Religious worship and ritual, which covers prayer, fasting, and pilgrimages; private social interactions, such as marriage, business, and ethics; and then public laws, which cover topics such as government, criminal law, and war (Jihad). These divisions are then governed by five categories for classifying various behaviors and actions: obligatory, recommended, permitted (halal), offensive, and forbidden (haram).^[5] For example, prayer would be obligatory, meat prepared according to Sharia standards would be permitted, or “halal,” and drinking alcohol would be forbidden, or “haram.” It will be beneficial to review four general areas of Sharia law in order to understand the extent of its influence better.

Family Relationships 

This aspect of Sharia law deals with the roles of individuals within the context of home and family. Women are given detailed instruction on how they as wives should respond to their husbands, what their duties and responsibilities are, and how to bring up their children and teach them about Islam. Sharia also provides instruction on such small details as how a woman should dress (supplementing the Qur’an, which says women should dress modestly but gives no further details), what types of food she should cook, and how she should relate to men outside the family.  The question of why some Muslim women wear clothing that covers most of their body, even their face, often comes up in discussion. Muslim

women frequently suggest that this type of dress protects their modesty and even gives them freedom from being treated as a sex object. The Qur’an actually has very little to say about how women should dress. The most important verse in this regard is Sura 24:31, which admonishes women to cover their upper body with their veil. Later traditions, informed by the hadith, led to additional types of coverings traditionally worn in public or in the presence of adult males outside the immediate family. The hijab is a veil which usually covers the head and chest. It is also used as a general term for modest dress. A niqab is a veil that covers the face, showing only the eyes, and a burka is a full face and body covering that is worn in the most conservative Muslim countries. Sharia law gives men similarly comprehensive instruction on how they are to treat their wives, discipline their children, guide their families spiritually, and relate to other men in the community.

Crime and Punishment 

This area is the best-known (and even infamous) aspect of Sharia law outside of the Muslim community.  It gives what are often viewed as harsh punishments for theft, lying, murder, rape, and adultery, among other crimes.  These range from stoning a couple for adultery or beheading a blasphemer/apostate, to cutting off the right hand of a thief, to a hundred lashes for rape. These serious offenses are known as hadud and merit the harsher forms of sharia. Tazir refers to severe crimes that do not measure up to the strict requirements of hadud offences, such as receiving 80 lashes for drinking alcohol, though even drug use is sometimes punished by beheading. Muslims, however, point out that such severe punishments are rare and when they are used, it is in such a way that draws the person back towards a proper attitude of submission toward Allah. Thus, Sharia law should not be judged simply because of its strong stance towards crime.

Inheritance and Property 

Sharia also governs the practices of how wealth and property are passed on after death. Because Islam emphasizes the responsibility of men in taking care of the family, property is largely given to male descendants so that they can ensure the wellbeing of everyone else in the family. While Sharia law stipulates that women typically receive only half the inheritance, this is mostly because they are the protected members of the family, and are not usually obligated to support anyone.  If they are widowed, they will either marry again or live with relatives.  This dictating of how property is received, handled, and passed on is ultimately intended to help communities run smoothly without property disputes or families being in need.

External Customs 

Other aspects of Sharia law deal with slavery and the status of non-Muslims.  The Sharia code allows for slavery – anyone captured in Jihad or children of current slaves is a legitimate slave – but dictates at great length how these slaves are to be treated, especially the female slaves. Muslims say that slavery is extinct in most Islamic countries, so these sections would not apply today.  The features of Sharia that deal with non-Muslims consider that they are half the worth of Muslims in legal procedures. Also, their testimony is often considered unreliable and does not count for many decisions in the Sharia courts.  In addition, they were considered second-class citizens called “dhimmis,” and as a “protected” class had to pay a specific tax called the “jizya,” which exempted them from military duty and (at certain times) other aspects of Muslim law.  However, it also made them subject to a complex set of regulations that prevented them from having certain freedoms that Muslims had. These ranged from dress specifications to giving their seats up to Muslims when asked, to not having political rights.  Property and contract laws, on the other hand, applied equally to Muslims and non-Muslims.

The purpose of Sharia is to provide guidance for Muslims in every aspect of their lives so that they will be able to live in accordance with the will of Allah. In this way, as long as they follow the divine law, they will be able to please Allah, avoid punishment in this world and the next, and hope to live in peace with their neighbors. However, Sharia has not brought peace to Muslims or their nations, nor has it created a very tolerant situation for Christians and Jews living under a Muslim government. In fact, as we will demonstrate, sharia has created one of the most intolerant systems of inequality the world has ever seen.

Counterview

Revisionist scholars discuss Sharia law in two main ways: first, they question the legitimacy of its origins and cast doubt on it really being derived from Muhammad’s words and actions, and second, they argue that implementing Sharia law in modern societies is dangerous both politically and ethically. On the first point, these scholars argue that the origins of Sharia are dubious, as they trace their connection to Islamic code mainly through the Hadith and the Sunnah, which were written down 150 to 200 years after Muhammad’s death, and thus lack a convincing mandate.^[6] Furthermore, some scholars have concluded that many of the Hadith were fabricated at various times in order to favor a particular ruling over another side, and this dilutes the religious forces of the Sharia law even more.  It should also be noted that there are a number of contradictions in the Sharia code, so it cannot truly be considered to be a perfect or inerrant rule of law, Islamic or otherwise.^[7]

On the second issue, which deals with modern implementation of Sharia law, scholar Mark Durie warns that non-Muslims should not mistake the Sharia for an out-of-date relic of the past centuries.  Instead, he describes it as “an authoritative application of Muhammad’s example in a comprehensive and consistent way, using rigorous principles and Islamic case-law.  This is much more inclusive in concept than any penal code.”^[8] He goes on to explain that the root problem with implementing Sharia law is that Muhammad was not merely a religious figure, but also a political, military, and legal authority. Thus, as Bill Warner, the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam, reminds us, “Sharia law is the political implementation of the Islamic civilization.”^[9] In addition, any consideration of the laws of Islam is equally a religious, juridical, and political discussion.^[10]  Therefore, because the rules of Sharia define a total way of life, Durie says that “there can be no Islam without Sharia.”^[11]

Sharia law may have originated from the Hadith and the Qur’an in terms of its principles, but its actual modern form is a sprawling set of codes and rules very similar in its breadth to a nation’s entire legal codex.  Sharia law manuals contain the entirety of the rules in the form of a systematic reference book.  In actuality, only 14% of the total words of Sharia is derived from the Qur’an, while the balance of 86% is found in the Sira and the Hadith. Interestingly, one writer notes, this means that “Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Muhammad,” since the Sira records Muhammad’s life and the Hadith record his words and actions.^[12]

Sharia Changes

Another important factor to include in our equation is that Sharia continues to change through time, not only due to the continual interpretation of the religious leaders but also due to its intrinsic political foundation. Because Islam has linked itself to the political as well as the theological realm, in some cases the political aspirations of leaders or factions/parties have changed various aspects of the secondary elements (involving everyday applications) of Islamic practice.  When political or power goals are involved, the parties have used religious means to promote political ends.  This has fundamentally affected many aspects of Islam today, and Sharia law is perhaps one of the best examples.  Even if the Sharia law is valued for its ability to create a society of good Islamic order, and not for its historic or theological purity, it nonetheless reveals a flawed religion that has certain portions of its nature formed through conflicting religious and political views between warring factions.  At least it cannot be claimed that Sharia law is strictly derived from the Qur’an and Hadith, and thus it should more accurately be regarded in the light of man-made laws created around a religion, rather than laws received from direct revelation.

In addition, Sharia law dictates not only the actions of Muslims, but also of non-Muslims. In countries with a Muslim majority, this could mean that non-Muslims would have to subject themselves to state-legislated inferiority.  At the very least, it can be surmised that such a rule would not create a society that supported equal rights for all its citizens.  At the worst, the fact that fundamentalist groups, in particular, are the ones currently seeking to revert back to a more violent interpretation of the Sharia in order to promote their views is a warning sign of destabilization of the state.

The Development of Control through the Practice of Dhimmitude

It would be helpful at this point to understand how the practice of dhimmitude (forced subordination of non-Muslims) developed since it is inextricably tied to Sharia and provides a portrait of what non-Muslims have had to endure under Sharia domination. After Muhammad’s death, the second caliph, Omar, is said to have instituted a series of “conditions” that guided the Muslims in their treatment of the conquered Christians. Rather than execute all the Christians who would not convert to Islam (since this would decimate the pool of needed workers), a third choice was often preferred – paying the “jizya,” or head tax, with willing submission and “feeling themselves subdued” (Q. 9:29). In essence, this meant that the subjugated Christians, or non-Muslims, were to purchase their lives back from their Muslim conquerors and live in such a way that they would feel constantly intimidated. In order to regulate this lifestyle, a set of conditions was drawn up called the “Conditions of Omar.” It is probable that these conditions were developed long after the time of the second caliph, Omar, but his name and time period are now firmly associated with the rules that guided the treatment of the subjugated class of second-class citizens who became known as the “Dhimmis,” or “protected persons.”

According to the “Conditions of Omar,” the “dhimmis” were expected to agree to onerous conditions in exchange for their lives. The following list is presented through the voice of the captives giving the impression that these conditions were considered to be a fair exchange for safety.

When you came to our countries, we asked you for safety for ourselves and the people of our community, upon which we imposed the following conditions on ourselves for you:

1. Not to build a church in the city – nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas – and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslimquarters;
2. Not to prevent Muslimsfrom lodging in our churches, by day or night, and to keep their doors wide open for [Muslim] passersby and travelers;
3. Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayeror readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims;
4. Nor to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims;
5. Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it;
6. Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam;
7. Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor gird ourselves with swords;
8. To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down;
9. To host every traveling Muslimfor three days and feed him adequately;
10. We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma[covenant], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition”^[13]

Other restrictions were added over time. Omar reputedly added another one: “that Christians never raise their hands against a Muslim, including in self-defense.”^[14] In summary, these conditions resulted in extreme restrictions on the lives of the Christians and Jews, especially in the following three areas:

There were restrictions on expressions of worship:^[15]

Churches could not be repaired; crosses and Bibles could not be displayed; and the sounds of Christian prayers, bells, and singing were not permitted beyond the boundaries of the church.

There were restrictions on freedom:

Proselytizing Muslims was banned, as was any form of blasphemy toward Muslims, the prophet or Islam in general. Also, any Muslim who converted to Christianity was charged with apostasy and subject to the death penalty.

Christians were assigned an inferior social status:

Dhimmis were very much considered beneath the level of the Muslims. They had to humble themselves before Muslims; their testimony in court was not valid against a Muslim; they could not raise their hand against a Muslim even in self-defense; they could not hold public office or any other position over a Muslim; and a Christian man was forbidden to marry a Muslim woman, even though a Muslim man could marry a Christian woman. Christians and other non-Muslims were simply not considered equal in any way to Muslims.

These restrictions were established in the early days, and during the period of colonialism, they were overturned as the Muslims experienced the humiliation of losing their hegemony to the Western world. Raymond Ibrahim, a writer, and researcher for Gatestone Institute, says that “for the first time in Islam’s 1,200 years of existence (at the time), non-Muslim subjects were to be treated as equal to Muslims, and their right to religious freedom and worship was to be guaranteed.”^[16]

However, as Ibrahim reminds us, “these debilitations and humiliations, which were inflicted upon the Christians of the Islamic world in the past, are at this moment being inflicted upon the Christians of the Islamic world in the present, as a natural consequence of Muslims returning to the authentic teachings of Islam.”^[17] In fact, the Conditions of Omar is being dusted off and revived in a number of locations in the Middle East. For example, during a Friday sermon, Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi advocated a return to the past.

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet – there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim … If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.^[18]

If these were the words of a Muslim fanatic, that would be one thing. However, Ibrahim demonstrates that the Conditions of Omar are very much on the rise again:

Churches in Muslim countries are regularly bombed, burned, or simply denied permits to renovate or even to exist. Crosses are burned and Bibles are confiscated. Muslim converts to Christianity are often violently attacked and sometimes executed. Christians accused of committing “blasphemy” – which can mean simply discussing Islam, or even Christianity – are assaulted and killed. Jizya is exacted from Christians once again. Christians are forced to convert to Islam. Christian women and children are abducted and raped.^[19]

People in the West have a hard time understanding how these things could be going on in the world today, especially since many of the Muslims they know or are familiar with present a very different picture of what they call “moderate” Islam. Political leaders throughout the Western nations have continually made excuses for the actions of Muslim radicals and have aggressively promoted a hollow platitude that Islam means “peace.” This obfuscation has only exacerbated the problem and has given radical Muslims even more courage to expand their operations and recruit new warriors for their cause. Ibrahim explains,

When the West, or at least popular culture in the West, became spiritually bankrupt and began apologizing for itself, Muslims, disgusted, turned back to Islam and its way, the Sharia – all, of course, to Western approval and encouragement. And now the myopic West cannot comprehend that Muslims have gone back to treating Christians in the exact same ways Muslims treated Christians before Muslims began to emulate the West. That history is all but lost. In fact, the cognitive dissonance between what the multiculturalists in the West believe about the benign and even superior culture of Islam, and what is reported as actually taking place in the Muslim world, is so great that many Westerners simply cannot take in the facts.^[20]

One of the implications of this pattern is that Sharia is used to transform a non-Muslim host country into a sharia-compliant country. Then, as the population of Muslims increases, more demands are made, and the oppression of Christians becomes greater. It is a form of coercion.

The French philosopher, Jacques Ellul, illustrates this pattern by tracing the infiltration of Islam into France through three stages: The first stage involved small groups of immigrant workers coming from North Africa, mainly Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisa. The second stage began when the worker’s families were allowed to join them. The third stage is the result of the minor inroads made by the initial immigration becoming major obstacles in French society today. Ellul observes that these small steps ended up with the proliferation of mosques, the demands made by Islamic communities for special privileges, the destruction of churches, and the move of millions of Muslims into Islamic communities in the outskirts of our cities and to villages in our provinces!^[21]

Ellul’s overall comment on this predictable progression may be a warning to other countries experiencing mass migration from Muslim countries today: “Rather than integrating Muslims into French society, we witness the integration of France into Islam.”^[22]

We can also see this trend in a study performed by Peter Hammond, a former director of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. In the chart below, note how the rise of the Muslim population in a country not only results in greater influence but also there is a greater call for Sharia in all aspects of life, for the Muslim as well as the non-Muslim. There is also a trend of more violence committed by Muslims in their host countries as their numbers increase.

Influence through Demographics^[23]

Extent of Muslim Influence by the Numbers	Countries in this percent level
Less than 1% Muslims are regarded as peace-loving and not a threat; Muslim groups begin to work the system and push for an equal voice	United States, Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Norway
At 2% and 3% Proselytizing of minorities and major recruiting in jails and gangs takes place (Muslims expect majority governments to be compliant); will use our political systems, our constitutions based on freedom, and our educational systems against us	Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Thailand
From 5% on Disproportional influence; they will begin under-the-table coercion through the demand for halal food and religious “rights”; there is a push for the acceptance of Sharia law	France, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Trinidad & Tobago
10% or more of population Violence is often used in order to voice complaints and pressure the majority government; any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will bring violence and threats	Guyana, India, Israel, Kenya, Russia
After reaching 20% Riots become commonplace, Jihad militias form, persecution of Christians takes place, as well as church and synagogue burning	Ethiopia
At 40% you will find “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare”	Nigeria, Bosnia, Chad, Lebanon
From 60% you may expect “unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels”	Albania, Malaysia, Qatar, Sudan
After 80% expect “State run ethnic cleansing and genocide”	Bangladesh, Egypt, Gaza, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates
Near 100% will “usher in the peace of ‘Dar-al-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim”	Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen
But there is no peace!	Which Muslim majority country in the world has a thriving economy with freedom, security, and true peace for all of its citizens?

Comparison of “Stages”

It is evident from the comparison above that there are a number of similarities between the response of the church to Islam in the 7^th century and the 21^st century. There are four general stages that are represented at both times — denial, apathy, “complacent ignorance,” and fear. In regard to denial, those living outside the Middle East and North Africa in the centuries following the rise of Islam denied that there was much going on. When they did comprehend the gravity of the situation, they were apathetic about getting involved. In fact, it took almost 400 years for the church to launch a counter-attack (the Crusades). As one writer notes, there was also “complacent ignorance,”^[24] because the Christians outside of the strike zone were more concerned with their own peace and security rather than learning more about the enemy and seeking to rescue their brothers in Christ. Finally, there was fear – fear of getting involved, fear of retaliation, and fear of the unknown. We see the same responses today.

Similar Patterns

In the 7^th-century, these same patterns that we observe today developed in the borderland between the Arabs and the Christians. As the Arab horde moved northward behind the retreating Byzantine forces, some non-Chalcedonian Christian groups, who had been persecuted under the Byzantine rule, at first embraced the new religious movement as the “rod of God’s anger” intended “to deliver [them] from the Byzantines,”^[25] and they felt relief from what they considered an oppressive former regime. On the other hand, the “Byzantine polemicists saw Islam as a ‘Satanic plot’ to destroy Christian Faith.”^[26] Some of the sources cited religious devotion by the invaders and some cited brutality and godlessness. Overall, there seemed to be a sense of ambivalence and unpreparedness. At first, the new regime ruled from a distance and made light economic and civil demands. This further pleased the non-Chalcedonian Christians. However, as the Muslims gained more power, the suppression of Christian rights increased. In time, Christians were brutally persecuted, churches and Bibles were burned, crosses were banned and public preaching was denied. As the number of Muslims in the general population grew, many of the remaining Christians were faced with three choices: convert, submit and pay, or die.

Bill Warner notes how this pressure by the implementation of Sharia on Christians eventually resulted in the nations of Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Ethiopia to become Islamic and the Christians to become dhimmis. He explains,

Jihad placed Muslims in political control and established Sharia law. Then all of the Christians became dhimmis. Centuries of the jizya tax and third-class status caused them to convert. It was Sharia law and the dhimmi status that destroyed Christianity in Islamic lands. Western civilization cannot survive under Sharia law.^[27]

We see many of these same patterns reappearing in the 21^st century, especially in the Middle East. For example, as ISIS has been on the move in Iraq, they have been greeted with open arms by their fellow Sunni Muslims who hold disdain for the present U.S. built Iraqi government. As ISIS gains more power, there is greater suppression of the rights of Christians and those they consider to be Muslim “infidels.” Christians are faced with horrendous persecution as they experience torture, rape, crucifixion, and beheadings. Their churches are burned, crosses are banned, and public proclamation of their Christian faith brings swift martyrdom. In the end, they are given three choices: convert, submit and pay, or die (or flee before this happens). With meticulous and brutal conviction, parts of the Middle East are being “cleansed” of any Christian presence – a presence that has survived for almost 2,000 years.

Solutions

Are there any ways to break this pattern and bring true peace to the Middle East? The growth of “power Islam” seems to catapult forward when there is a political vacuum to fill. In the 7^th century, the retreat of the Byzantine forces left the Levant (the area that includes Palestine, Israel, and Syria) unguarded. In the 20^th century, there was a retreat of colonial forces that had provided modernization and movement toward Westernization. While the colonial forces were in control, the Middle Eastern Christians had been able to experience a type of “Golden Period” where the dhimmi status was lifted and they were able to build churches, receive better opportunities for education, and make advances in society. However, the colonial forces turned the power back over to the Muslims, and in a relatively short time, the rejection of western values provided an impetus to revive a socio-economic-religious worldview based on 7th century Islam. Because Islam is a theocracy, the success of “power Islam” has encouraged militant groups to believe that God is on their side. This, in turn, has fueled their belief that they have a mandate by God to subdue the rest of the world (the Dar al-Harb, or “house of war”) under the Dar al-Islam, or the “house of Islam” (or “house of submission” to God).

Durie says this is the reason most Muslims believe that Sharia should be the foundation for legislation, and it is also the reason that many constitutions in Muslim-majority countries demand Sharia law over any other legal system. After all, a nation cannot be Muslim without Sharia as the basis of the government, and, if sharia is the supreme guide over all that a Muslim does, then it should also be the supreme guide for the nation. However, as evidenced by countries that have the strictest sharia-dominant governments, like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, this preference for sharia has not produced model states.^[28]

Some believe that a secularization of Islamic countries needs to take place, involving the “separation of mosque and state.” With this type of separation, the state would protect the freedom of the religion and the religion would respect the role of the state. Then, when there is a proper balance between these “two worlds,” there can be peace. However, a theocratic nation, which Islam requires, will always be at war with the secular state.

Is Sharia Compatible with the U.S. Constitution?

As more refugees from Islamic countries make their way into America, some have asked whether Sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. First of all, American democracy is based upon the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects the rights of all of its citizens in regard to religious freedom, privacy, and private property. The Constitution also allows people to follow their conscience with respect to behavior, culture, and lifestyle, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Muslims find that many of these things are compatible with sharia and therefore are able to fit in with American lifestyles. However, there are other aspects of sharia that are not compatible at all and should not be practiced in a democracy, such as forced prayer, the requirement of halal food for non-Muslims, and a ban on legal activities for non-Muslims, etc.

Bill Warner believes that “there are no common principles between American law and Sharia,”^[29] and lists a number of restrictions to the freedom all Americans presently enjoy. Under Sharia law, he says, there is no freedom of religion; there is no freedom of speech; there is no freedom of thought; there is no freedom of artistic expression, and there is no freedom of the press. He also points out that there is no equality of peoples, for under Sharia a non-Muslim can never be equal to a Muslim. In addition, under Sharia law, there is no equal protection, but rather “justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.”^[30] Therefore, Sharia is incompatible with democracy since non-Muslims are not equal with Muslims.

This tension between democratic principles and Sharia law is amply demonstrated in the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still largely based on Sharia. Even with all the recent influences of America in these two countries, any success of implementing democratic ideas into these societies is doomed because sharia law will not tolerate the freedoms established in the constitutions of democratic nations. Furthermore, if an Islamized society is required for Sharia to be followed consistently by Muslims, there will always be the push for more and more Sharia compliance in the democratic society where Muslims are in the minority. Even a small percentage of Muslims in a society can cause large ripples by their persistent push for sharia-compliant demands. We can see this process at work in the “creeping Sharia” taking place here in America.

Ten Steps of Creeping Sharia

Sharia is political as well as religious. We can, and should, resist the political aspects of Sharia since the whole purpose of Sharia is to undermine our political system and install Sharia as the only law of the country. “Creeping Sharia” seeks to replace the legitimate government of the host country. The higher the population of Muslims, the stronger the push for Sharia. Here is an example of how ten possible steps may be implemented by Muslims to transform our society as Sharia uses our own compliance to religious demands against us.

First, there is a demand for prayer times at schools.^[31] After all, Muslims are required to pray five times a day, so in a democratic nation the public schools should respect the religious needs of Muslims and accommodate this “request.” Second, then comes the demand for a special room for prayer that can only be used for prayer. It would be too difficult to keep changing the room around for the prayer times, so a separate room would have to be set aside to fulfill this “request.” Third, there would be a demand for new plumbing for foot washing, etc. After all, proper prayers cannot be performed without the proper ablutions. Taxpayers would be asked to pay for these “requests.” Fourth, Muslims will have an opportunity to explain the practice of prayer. In order to give a reason for their demands, Muslim religious leaders would be asked to give their religious reasons for their “requests.” This would enable Muslims to teach Qur’anic material in the schools. Fifth, there would be a demand for halal food. After all, non-Muslims should not expect Muslim children to be forced to eat food that has not been prepared according to religious requirements. In time more of the food would become halal in order to make it easier to fulfill the “requests” of the Muslims. Sixth, special concessions for Ramadan would be requested. Since fasting is required of all Muslims during the month of Ramadan, schools will be asked to make special allowances for Muslim students since they would not be at their best during these times. Schedules for non-Muslim students would have to be re-configured. Seventh, there would be a demand for Sharia-compliant clothing. Beyond the requests that scarves and hijabs be allowed for the females, special requests for sportswear would also be made. Eighth, there would be demands for Sharia family law. This leap would be made easier with all the concessions made through the school system. The requests would begin with allowances for domestic issues such as marriage counseling, divorce cases, inheritances, and other family matters, but it would then escalate to the ban of alcohol, a push for Sharia finances, and a different level of treatment for honor killings and rape. Ninth, Muslims would demand to be recognized as a minority with special treatment in jobs, appointments, and civil rights. Even though Islam is not a “race,” this distinction would be used in order to gain popularization and acceptance of the “requests” made in this area. Tenth, finally there would be a demand for Sharia law instead of the U.S. Constitution. The “request” would be for Muslims to handle their own matters according to the rule of Sharia rather than the Constitution of the United States. After all, the Constitution does not make a provision against religion, so Islam, as a religion, should be allowed to have accommodations made in order to fulfill its rightful religious needs. Some may think that this scenario is over the top, but as Bill Warner points out, “Even though Sharia violates every principle of our Constitution, it is being implemented today, because Americans are unaware about Sharia or its meaning.”^[32] All ten of these steps have already been tested in various parts of America, with different results. It is only a matter of time if Europe is our example of the movement toward Sharia compliance.

Sharia is Not Equitable

Another reason to reject Sharia in the West is that it is not equitable for all people. It discriminates against women and all non-Muslims. It is not a system of true justice and should be rejected by all non-Muslim societies. As Mark Durie, author of a book on Sharia, notes, “For Sharia to be followed consistently and comprehensively – and this is most important – it requires an Islamized society.”^[33] Thus, once Sharia is allowed to operate in a democratic society, the push for more and more compliance to Sharia standards will not cease until the whole society is put under the thumb of Sharia. We already looked at the inequality of Sharia in regard to Christian dhimmitude, as well as the possible outcome from creeping Sharia. Another good example of this inequality can be found in the treatment of women, even in Muslim cultures.

Muslims will say that the status of women under Sharia is one of privilege because it is the man’s responsibility to take care of the family’s economic, religious, and social needs. The Qur’an (4:34) relates that this is because “Allah has made men superior” to women and given men more strength and wisdom in order to be “managers of the affairs of women.” However, this often relegates the women to a status of dependency where they have less rights than men, less freedom, and fewer legal claims. For example, a man can divorce his wife by saying “I divorce you” three times in the presence of witnesses, but the wife has to go through a difficult Sharia court procedure. In addition, since the women are often prevented from working outside the home, they have less means to earn a living. One of the most heartless rulings is that the wife is often not given custody of the children. In regard to marriage, the Qur’an (4:34) states that if the wife is not obedient, the husband should first admonish her, then refuse to share his bed, and last to beat her. In Sura 2:223, wives are said to be the “tilth” (fertile lands) for their husband’s sexual desires and are not allowed to refuse their husband’s desires. The rights are supposed to be equal, but they are not so. Women are responsible for the household and the family but are restricted in the greater society. The Qur’an even refers to women as inferior to men because men work to take care of women and therefore have a superior position (Q. 2:228, 4:34). In addition, the inheritance of women is half that of men (Q. 4:11), and their testimony in court is half that of a male (Q. 2:282). In the religious domain, women cannot take any leadership roles and have to pray separately from the men in the mosque. Women also have to cover themselves to safeguard their modesty and not distract men.

One of the most egregious practices involving Muslim women is the prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Even though the practice is not promoted in the Qur’an or the Hadith, it is prevalent in many parts of the Muslim world. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone this brutal procedure.^[34] This practice has had a long history in Islam, for John of Damascus, in his 8^th-century treatise, The Heresy of the Ishmaelites, mentions female circumcision as one of the distinctive customs practiced by those who would soon become known as Muslims.^[35]

In these and many other ways, women are basically second-class citizens in the world of Islam. This contrasts sharply with the status of women in the New Testament where Paul explains that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). If we are all one in Christ, then we have the exact same status in Christ and as Christians. As we have seen, this is not the case in Islam.

Another egregious practice that is still quite prevalent in Islam is human slavery. Most people are only familiar with the European slave trade, but the Islamic slave trade spanned a greater time period and involved a greater number of black Africans. In one study, it is estimated that 17 to 20 million slaves were captured in Africa and transported to the Islamic world between 650 and 1920 AD, while 11.7 million were taken from Africa across the Atlantic and into parts of Europe between 1450 and 1900 AD.^[36] It is also estimated that the mortality rate during transit in the Islamic slave trade ranged between 80-90 % among the men (due mainly to castration casualties), while the mortality rate hovered around 10% for the European slave trade (due to trans-Atlantic travel and disease). It is also the case that in the Islamic slave trade two out of three slaves were women because one of the chief purposes of slavery for Muslims was sexual exploitation. For the European slave trade, two-thirds of the slaves were male and were required mainly for agricultural work. Another little-known view held by Muslims is that blacks historically were considered inferior to other races. For example, a famous Muslim scholar, Al-Jahiz (781-869 AD), once wrote, “We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions.“^[37] This was not the view of earlier cultures, which seemed to have a more neutral view of blacks, but it became prevalent in seventh-century Arabia as Blacks became identified with the slave class after the Islamic conquest of Africa.^[38] Davis Goldenberg, for example, notes that in ancient Greece and Rome people were not defined by their color.^[39] However, this changed during the expansion of Islam when Goldenberg relates that “We first see this… explicit link between skin color and slavery in Near Eastern sources beginning in the seventh century.”^[40] It seems, then, that the Muslim view toward women and blacks is not one of equality, but rather of an inferior class of humans.  Many Muslims also believe that all non-Muslims are inferior and therefore need to be converted to Islam in order to be recognized as equals (Q. 61:9, 48:28, and 9:33). This attitude does not resonate well with the principles of the Bible or the ideals of a free society such as we have in America.

The Goal of Sharia

Ultimately, the goal of Sharia is to become the law of the land, so in this way, it is totally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Sharia should not be allowed in America except for practices that do not conflict with American laws and policies. Muslims have a right to practice their religion in America, but they do not have the right to alter the beliefs or practices of other religions or legitimate lifestyle choices.

Building Bridges to Understand

How should Christians respond to the problem of Sharia? We first need to understand Islam better, especially in the way that Sharia is intricately involved in every aspect of the religion and its political ambitions. Understanding Sharia will help us to better understand Islam. We also need to get to know Muslims so that we can put a face to Sharia and build relationships based on understanding and love rather than ignorance and fear. We need to fight the creeping Sharia that seeks to slowly erode the U.S. Constitution as well as the will of non-Muslim Americans to counter the rise of Islam in the world. We cannot afford to shuffle over to the sidelines. We need to hold fast to our Christian doctrine as well as the core of American values. We need to learn how we can turn this controversy into a transformation. Muslims need Jesus!

Michael Youssef, a Christian pastor, reminds us that, “In contrast to Christianity, Islam is a religion of law, blind submission, fear, and punishment. Under theocratic Islamic rule, submitting to the ruler is equal with submitting to Allah. Islam doesn’t simply require belief in Allah, the Koran, Muhammad as the prophet, and the Day of Judgment. Islam demands surrender and submission.”^[41] Christians, on the other hand, are to win over their enemies through love and compassion. Christians are also taught to confess their faults and to seek forgiveness. These things are central to Christianity, but they are relatively unknown in Islam. A loving, compassionate approach could be a powerful witness to Muslim friends.

Another way to help Muslims understand some of the stark differences between Islam and Christianity is to compare some of the harsh Sharia commands with the grace of God revealed in Scripture and through the life of Jesus Christ. Hopefully, when Muslims see how many of the principles of Sharia counter the grace and freedom of the gospel, they will be more attentive to what you share with them about Jesus Christ and Christianity. In the chart below, the left-hand column lists some of the inhumane commands of Sharia. In the center column is the source. Then, in the right-hand column, there are verses and ideas that you can share with your Muslim friends to demonstrate that Christianity is very different from Islam in these particular ways.

Sharia command	Source: Qur’an or Hadith	Gospel of Grace: Christianity
“We gave Moses the Scripture” (Q. 6:154). “This is my path, leading straight, so follow it, and do not follow other ways” (Q. 6:153)		“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
1.     Islam commands offensive and unjust jihad	Sura 9:29	Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Mat 26:52).
2.     Islam orders apostates to be killed	Sura 9:11-12	“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mat 5:43-44).
3.     Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death	Sura 24:2 for fornicators; stoning was left out of Qur’an by Uthman, but supplied in the hadith	Jesus said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). “Flee from sexual immorality. . . do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” (1 Cor. 6:18-19)
4.     Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed	Abu Dawud, no. 4447	“Do not be deceived. . . men who practice homosexuality. . . will [not] inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). [We can be changed by God’s grace]
5.     Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off	Sura 5:38; Buhkari, Punishments, no. 6788	Jesus said to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43) “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Eph. 4:28).
6.     Islam allows husbands to hit their wives	Sura 4:34	“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph. 5:25) “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7).
7.     Islamic law can still demand a literal eye for an eye	Sura 5:45	“You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mat 5:38-39)
8.     Sharia allows for FGM	The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.	“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Eph. 5:25)
9.     Slavery is still being practiced in Islam		“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

The Best Strategy

I like the approach that Nabeel Qureshi follows best. He first lists a number of similarities between Islam and Christianity to demonstrate that many Muslims are seeking to follow Sharia in order to please Allah and earn his favor. Then he points out that the main difference between Islam and Christianity is that while Muslims follow a legal code, Sharia, as their “path,” Christians do not follow a mere code, but they follow a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. As Qureshi says, “The way of life in one religion is through the law, while in the other it is through faith in a person.”^[42] Jesus Christ is the person that all Muslims need to be introduced to, and we have the honor and privilege of being the ones that God uses to share with them the one who is the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6).

Study Questions:

1. Sharia is based on the Qur’an and the Hadith. What are some general problems with claiming to base God’s eternal law on these particular documents?
2. What does Sharia reveal about Islam, both religiously and politically?
3. Who are the “dhimmis” and what were some of the conditions they were forced to endure under Muslim domination? How would life under Dhimmitude be destructive for a Christian’s faith?
4. What are the “Conditions of Omar,” and what are some of the ways that these rules control the Christians living under Sharia law?
5. Why would the more fundamentalist groups (like ISIS) be the ones most in favor of forcing Sharia on the rest of the population, whether a person is Muslimor non-Muslim? What do they hope to gain?
6. How does the increase in the percentage of Muslimsin a non-Muslim country affect the behavior of the Muslims toward their host country?
7. What are some ways that Christians should respond to efforts to establish Sharia in the United States? How can our understanding of Sharia be used to witness to our Muslim friends?

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION

[1] Nabeel Qureshi, No God But One: Allah or Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 34.

[2] Mark Durie, The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom (Deror Books, 2010), 40. Nabeel Qureshi, No God But One, 33-34. Bill Warner, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2010), 5.

[3] J. Scott Bridger, “What is Shariah Law?” November 4, 2013: https://www.baptistmessenger.com/the-worldview-of-islam-muslim-beliefs-practices/

[4] Shawki Allam, “Shari’ah Law: What it is and what it is not,” https://mfaegypt.org/2015/11/08/shariah-law-what-it-is-and-what-it-is-not/

[5] The Public Dhikr (Hadra) by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1996. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=990. (accessed October 1, 2018).

[6] Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins, 20.

[7] Ibid., 14.

[8] Durie, The Third Choice, 41.

[9] Warner, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, 8.

[10] Durie, The Third Choice, 50.

[11] Ibid., 40.

[12] Warner, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, 6.

[13] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (D.C.: Regnery, 2013), 25-27. See also, Medieval Sourcebook: Pact of Umar: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/pact-umar.asp

[14] Ibrahim, Crucified Again, 27.

[15] Summarized from Ibrahim, Crucified Again, 28-29.

[16] Ibrahim, Crucified Again, 12.

[17] Ibid., 29.

[18] Robert Spencer, Muslim Persecution of Christians (Sherman Oaks: David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2011), 41-42.

[19] Ibrahim, Crucified Again, 30.

[20] Ibrahim, Crucified Again, 17.

[21] http://www.faithfreedom.org/jacques-ellul-on-the-impossibility-of-integrating-muslims-in-western-societies/ (Accessed on October 2, 2018).

[22] http://www.faithfreedom.org/jacques-ellul-on-the-impossibility-of-integrating-muslims-in-western-societies/

[23] Adapted from Peter Hammond, “What Islam Isn’t,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Monday, April 21, 2008.

[24] Robert Wilken, “Christianity Face to Face with Islam,” 2009. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/01/christianity-face-to-face-with-islam.

[25] “’Christianity and Islam’ from Oxford Islamic Studies Online,” November 13, 2014 http://bridgingcultures.neh.gov/muslimjourneys/items/show/198.

[26] Ibid. (Gaudeul, vol. 1, 65).

[27] Warner, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, 31.

[28] Durie, Three Choices, 50.

[29] Warner, Sharia, 3.

[30] Ibid., 3.

[31] The first part of this scenario is based on the actual plans outlined on the web by a Muslim.

[32] Warner, Sharia, 9.

[33] Durie, The Third Choice, 49.

[34] http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/ (accessed 10/1/2018).

[35] Daniel Janosik, John of Damascus, First Apologist to the Muslims (Wipf & Stock, 2016), Appendix C, 268.

[36] Ralph Austen, African Economic History (Currey and Heinemann, 1987), 275.

[37] Jahiz, Kitab al-Bukhala (“Avarice and the Avaricious”)

[38] David Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, (Princeton University Press, 2005), 170.

[39] Goldenberg, David, The Curse of Ham, 200.

[40] Ibid., 170.

[41] Michael Youssef, Blindsided: The Radical Islamic Conquest (Kobri, 2012), 83.

[42] Qureshi, No God But One, 31.