What is myth and what is real in Islamic law?

To The Daily Sun,

The Sun printed an article written by Asma Afsaruddin from the Indiana University, "What Sharia Means," which concluded with the assumption that the article "dispels some myths about Sharia." But does it? Is her description fair and a complete picture or is it more a case of best foot forward?

Islam is a duality stemming from its founder's two different periods, the first in Mecca, the second in Medina, each of which contradict the other. For every good and positive expressive statement in the first period, there is an opposing bad and negative, almost without exception, from the second. Either can be used by any practitioner to arrive at the objective they wish to achieve, good or bad. There is no real standardization, no central control. Each Mosque is free to interpret Sharia as best they see it, or to make it fit whatever it wants to or needs to.

As an example, Ms. Afsaruddin starts off saying Sharia is not a body of laws but concludes the paragraph stating it is referred to as as Islamic law. A difference without a meaning, seems to me.

In her description, "it requires Muslims to be just and fair in their dealings with everyone, to refrain from lying and gossip, etc., and always promote what is good and prevent want is wrong." This is all from the time Muhammad started in Mecca. After he went to Medina, everything changed and the good and positive "Islamic Bill Of Rights" became only for Muslims. Non-Muslims became Kafirs. Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language. Kafirs can, according to the Quran, Hadith and Sira, the three Holy books of Islam, be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured or killed without guilt or consequences. This applies to any non-Muslim; however, a disproportionate degree of hatred is directed toward Jews. In the three holy books, more hatred is directed at the Jew than was in Mein Kampt.

Ms. Afsaruddin gives a glowing revelation that the Quran recognizes absolute equality of men and women as human beings. Again, sounds great, but is this so?

In Quran 4:34: Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As for women you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after that, then do nothing further, surely Allah is exalted and great.

Hadith (Abu Dawud 11, 2142) Mohammed said: "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

(Bukhari 7,62,132) The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife or slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day." Most of those in hell will be women.

04.9 The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

(Bukhan 3, 48, 826) Mohammed asked, "Is not the value of a woman's eye-witness testimony half that of a man's? A woman said, "Yes," He said, "That is because a woman's mind is deficient."

L10.3 They divide the universal share so that the male receives the portion of two females.

Quran 4: 11 It is in the manner that Allah commands you concerning your children: A male should receive a share equal to that of two females.

Hadith (Abu Dawud 11, 2155) Mohammed said: "If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say; O Allah I ask You for the good in her, and in the disposition You have given her; I take refuge in You from the evil in her, and the disposition You have given her." When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of it's hump and say the same thing.

This attitude is repeated many times more in Islam's holy books, so it is apparent that the equality of woman in Islam, Afsaruddin spoke so glowingly of, is more in theory than reality. This is true of most of that lady's assertions ascribed to Islam. It all depends on how any individual chooses to apply it.There can be a dozen sides to any single issue.

As for her obligatory attributing resistances to allowing Sharia Law being due to fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims or Islamophobia, that's nonsense. It's no different than anyone trying to introduce Chinese law or some other legal system into our country. We have no need of external systems; our laws protect the rights and privileges of everyone in this country far better than any known foreign system. Sharia in particular has far too many variables to comport with our laws and Constitution to be even remotely acceptable.

Steve Earle

Gilford