Shari'a

The Shari'a, or Islamic law, is incapable of distinguishing morality from law. Nor does the Shari'a intend to do such a thing. For devout Muslims, morality is not codified by law: morality isùor should beùlaw itself. The Shari'a, derived from the Qur'an, is likewise the word of Allah, and as such, there is no distinction whatsoever that need be drawn between legitimate jurisprudence and religious ethics; they are one and the same, each bound up irrevocably in divinity. Thus, in Muslim society, political leaders are expected to embody both political and moral authority. This creates fodder for controversy as the debate over secularization rages in diplomatic circles and within extremist groups.

In the 21st century, as Western ideologues in the United States and Great Britain wage a War on Terror against fundamentalist Muslim foes, we will do well to consider the fiercely ideological Shari'a when we assess the moral obligations and rigid loyalties that drive these Muslim 'fanatics' to oppose us. Islam has thus become a very potent diplomatic tool, one upon which the policy-making processùfor the Western World as well as the Islamic Worldùwill likely depend. The existence of the Shari'a in Islam challenges the most fundamental Western approach to morality and law by calling attention to the chasm that exists between these conceptions in the Western mind. The Shari'a, in enforcing the idea that this ch

. . .
. The law, deeply religious by its very decree, cannot therefore conceive of a secular society (Strawson 5). As a consequence, those such as Azam Kumguian oppose the Shari'a on the grounds that, contra-liberalism, in Islamic law: "No detail of daily life escapes its [the Shari'a] attention. It interferes in anything and everything. The Islamic law tries to legalize for every single aspect of an individual's life, the individual is not at liberty to think or decide for himself, he has but to accept Allah's ruling as interpreted infallibility by the doctors of law" (1). This is not to say, however, that within the Muslim faith there are no conflicts as it pertains to the Shari'a. As surely as Western ideologues will debate the nature and scope of liberty, so too Muslims interpret the Qur'an and the Shari'a differently. Professor Akbar S. Ahmed, distinguished commentator on Islamic affairs, felt that by 1999 the clash between Islamic religious and political authority had reached a crucial juncture. In his article, "Islam's Crossroads", Ahmed postulates that the extent to which future Muslim states will utilize the Shari'a as a diplomatic tool depends largely upon which model of rule, and which style of leadership,
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Indeed Western, Shari'a Islamic, Christians Hindus, Shari'a Islam, Pakistan Jinnah, Muslims Shari'a, Western World, Crossroads Ahmed, Nor Shari'a, Azam Kumguian, islamic law, human rights, morality law, diplomatic tool, world wide web, muslim brotherhood, western liberal, diplomatic practice, wide web, western world, retrieved world, retrieved world wide, encountering islamic law, muslim brotherhood movement, shari'a islamic law,
Approximate Word count = 2081
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)