An American Muslim Journal

A proud, patriotic, shariah practicing American? Huh? Yasir Qadhi explains...

Is it possible to be a patriotic American and still practice "shariah"?  If "shariah" is defined accurately, then, I think so.  If by "shariah" one incorrectly thinks of subversive, violent aggression against America, then obviously not!

Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim and an Islamic scholar, gives a pretty good explanation of why he is both a patriotic American and a "shariah" practicing Muslim.  Mr. Qadhi does an excellent job of explaining "shariah" and how it is compatible with the oath of American citizenship.

Mr. Qadhi gives a good introduction to shariah:

The word ‘shariah’ literally means ‘path,’ and for all Muslims, the shariah is a set of ethics and laws they believe will lead them to God’s mercy.

The bulk of the shariah, approximately 70 percent, deals with rituals of worship. For example, the shariah tells me that I should regularly take time out of my day to remember God. It advises me to give charity, and instructs me that a percentage of my earnings and savings should be dedicated for the poor.

The shariah instructs me how to fast every year in order to cultivate patience and to feel unity with those who are less fortunate. It asks me to commemorate the faith of the Prophet Abraham by visiting the house of worship that he built in Mecca, and details the rituals that I should perform during this pilgrimage.

Approximately 25 percent of the shariah deals with dietary restrictions and personal economic and family laws. Just like kosher laws for Jews, Muslims have their own laws in the shariah that regulate the way animals should be slaughtered, taking into consideration respect for their lives and feelings.

Family law in the shariah requires Muslims to follow religious customs when marrying or divorcing. For example, a husband is obliged to gift his wife a monetary gift at the time of marriage and is also obliged to pay an additional amount in the case of divorce. The shariah also prohibits Muslims from dealing in usurious transactions. All of these laws, far from opposing the laws of the land, are in fact protected by our U.S. Constitution.

Based on Mr. Qadhi's description of shariah, attempts to criminalize the practice of shariah, as several states are attempting to do, are plainly unconstitutional.  This is because criminalizing the practice of ones faith as described above would infringe on a Muslim's right to exercise his faith unimpeded by the state.

I highly recommend reading the essay.  It was posted on a blog called "Faith in Memphis".

Unfortunately (in my humble opinion) but not surprisingly, Mr. Qadhi's essay has angered some Muslims. Mr. Qadhi's essay was posted on another website - www.muslimmatters.org - and there he received some serious criticism from some Muslims.

The arguments of those who criticized Mr. Qadhi were - yawn - quite predictable.  I hope American Muslims go to the www.muslimmatters.org website and add their voices of support for Mr. Qadhi.  I confess, I like what he said because it makes sense to me and it is a religious scholar affirming what I have come to believe based on my own personal study of Islam.

____________________________________________

About Yasir Qadhi 

So, who is Yasir Qadhi?  Here is his bio from AlMaghrib Institute, an institution he is involved with:

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is the Dean of Academic Affairs at AlMaghrib Institute, the man behind the curriculum and other academically intensive programs like IlmSummit. Shaykh Yasir is known among his students as “GQ” and for his excellent Tajweed in the English language (i.e. his perfect enunciation of every letter). Give him any old and dry subject and Shaykh Yasir can rehash it, spice it up, and hand it back to you an exciting and intriguing topic of discussion. We dare you!

He was born in Houston, Texas and completed his primary and secondary education in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He graduated with a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Houston, after which he was accepted as a student at the Islamic University of Madinah. After completing a diploma in Arabic, he graduated with a B.A. from the College of Hadith and Islamic Sciences. Thereafter, he completed a M.A. in Islamic Theology from the College of Dawah. He is in the final stages of completing his PhD in Religious Studies from Yale University.

His published works include Riya'a: The Hidden Shirk, Du'aa: The Weapon of the Believer, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, and many others. He is also active on a number of Islamic Satellite stations around the world including Islam Channel, Al-Huda Channel, and PeaceTV.

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi lives in Memphis, Tennessee where he serves as a resident Scholar of Memphis Islamic Center.

 

 

 

USA Today: More states enter debate on sharia law

via USA Today:

Constitutional expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California-Irvine, says the Oklahoma law won't stand because it discriminates against one religion and violates the requirement for "full faith and credit," which requires Oklahoma courts to enforce judgments from other states and countries.

"There is no blossoming of sharia law in Oklahoma," says Randall Coyne, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. "There's no risk of Oklahoma falling under the sway of sharia law or any other law other than American law for that matter. It's fear mongering at its worst."

If there is no risk of this so-called "sharia law" "creeping" into our justice system then why are we spinning our collective wheels over this issue?  Why are we as a country fretting over this non-issue?  It's because there is a large group of people who have a strong dislike - in some cases even hatred - for Islam and for Muslims.

I don't think they have one singular reason for their hatred.  Some have had extremely bad experiences at the hands of Muslims.  Others are driven by their own religious beliefs.  And still others are simply too intellectually challenged to think for themselves and fall prey to the hate-couched-as-patriotism lies that pollute the blogosphere and the faux news networkers and right-wing radio.

Our laws - the laws of the United States of America - are quite capable of addressing the challenges posed by contracts and agreements drafted in other countries or between multi-national corporations with provisions invoking other countries' laws.  The concepts of "comity" is a part of an established legal subject area commonly known as "Conflicts of Laws".  It's a course and a topic that's on most bar exams and is taught in all law schools.

One of the rules in the "conflicts of laws" is that legal documents and agreements entered into in other jurisdictions (and presumably under other laws) shall be given full faith and credit (they'll be honored and followed) as long as they don't seek to do something that goes against our own public policy. Another consideration is whether or not the agreement or judgment was rendered in a judicial system that meets a modicum of due process (a baseline or a minimum amount of due process).

This simple principle protects us from unreasonable outcomes.  The example cited in the USA Today article - the one where a man is not restrained by court order from forcing himself on his wife because his religious beliefs say he is allowed to do so - is an example of a judge's failure to apply a basic analysis under the principles of "conflicts of laws".  

It is not, on the other hand, an example of creeping foreign laws invading and undermining American jurisprudence.  The judge who failed to issue the protective or restraining order made a mistake.  He should have reasoned that despite the man's religious beliefs' sincerity, his actions violate a core legal principle that each person has the right to not consent to sexual intimacy with another.  Or to put it more directly, a man does not have the right to force a woman to engage in sex with him.

This little drama in Oklahoma has nothing to do with undermining the will of the people or our democracy either.  That's another red herring some folks are tossing around.  What's happening vis-a-vis the courts is precisely how our system of governance is intended to work.  When the people vote for something that violates our Constitution the courts, through their separate powers as a distinct branch of our government, step in and put the brakes on the unconstitutional will of the majority from being implemented.

Phew!  Thank God we live in a sophisticated system of government where the tyranny of the majority can be checked!

____________________________

This makes me want to listen and sign along with this song:

Terry Jones' "church" to be listed as hate group because of its stance on Gays and Muslims - Doh!

From Gainsville.com:

"It wasn't a very hard call to be honest with you," said Mark Potok, who tracks extremism for the Montgomery, Ala.-based civil rights organization and serves as editor of its magazine. "Essentially (Dove World Pastor Terry Jones) is completely over the top with his hatred of gay people and of Muslims."

Mmm mmm mmm.  Muslims are being lumped together with gay people...  What's the world coming to?

That's not going to go over well in a few mosques around my part of town.  I can almost see the cognitive dissonance steaming from the ears of some folks as they think to themselves "He hates gays and Muslims? So I have to like him and hate him at the same time?!"  Crazy.

And in other Gay and Muslim news...

A Christian minister in Minnesota said on his radio program that the nation's first Muslim member of Congress was soliciting the support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to implement Sharia law.

Damn!  They've discovered the secret Muslim-Homosexual-Sharia Law-Overthrow the Constitution plot. Frankly, I'm just surprised no one saw this one sooner!

So I guess all that anti-gay sentiment from earlier (where the locals at the mosque say bad things about gay people) is just a rouse to cover up the plot led by Congressman Keith Ellison.  Pretty sneaky!