The earthquake was felt early in the morning off the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and Marin County

Conversation

Don’t blame Islamic extremism for sharia – blame colonialism

In a warning that Islamic extremists want to impose fundamentalist religious rule in American societies, right-wing lawmakers in dozens of US states have attempted to outlaw Sharia, an Arabic term often understood to mean Islamic law. These political debates – which cite terrorism and political violence in the Middle East to argue that Islam is incompatible with modern society – reinforce stereotypes that the Muslim world is uncivilized. It also reflects ignorance of Sharia, and it is not a strict legal code. Sharia means “the way” or “the way”: it is a broad set of ethical values ​​and principles drawn from the Qur’an – Islam’s holy book – and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. As such, different people and governments may interpret Sharia differently. However, this is not the first time that the world has tried to find out where Sharia fits into the world order. In the 1950s and 1960s, when Great Britain, France, and other European powers abandoned their colonies in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, the leaders of the new sovereign Muslim-majority countries faced a decision with enormous consequences: Should they build their governments on the foundation of the Islamic faith. Or adopt European laws inherited from colonial rule? My historical research shows that the political leaders of these young countries have consistently chosen to maintain colonial justice systems rather than enforce religious law. Newly independent Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia, among other places, were all restricted to applying Sharia to marital disputes and inheritance within Muslim families, just as colonial officials did. The rest of its legal systems will remain based on European law. To understand why they chose this course, I researched the decision-making process in Sudan, the first sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from the British, in 1956, in the national archives and libraries in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and in interviews. I discovered with Sudanese lawyers and officials that senior judges, politicians and intellectuals had already pushed for Sudan to become a democratic Islamic country. They envisioned a progressive legal system compatible with the principles of the Islamic faith, in which all citizens – regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity – could freely and openly practice their religious beliefs. Sudan soon wrote: “People are as equal as the teeth of a comb.” – Supreme Court Judge Hassan Muddathir in 1956, quoting the Messenger Muhammad in an official memorandum that I found archived in the Sudan Library in Khartoum. “The Arab is no better than the Persian, and the white is no better than the black.” But the post-colonial Sudanese leadership rejected those calls. They choose to preserve the English common law tradition as a law of the land. My research identifies three reasons why early Sudan marginalized Sharia law: politics, pragmatism, and demography. Rivalries between political parties in post-colonial Sudan led to a parliamentary stalemate, making it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. So Sudan simply preserved the colonial laws already in the books. There were practical reasons for maintaining English common law, too. The Sudanese judges were trained by British colonial officials. So they continued to apply English common law principles to disputes they heard in their courtrooms. The founding fathers of Sudan faced pressing challenges, such as creating the economy, establishing foreign trade and ending the civil war. They felt that it was simply not possible to reform the smooth system of government in Khartoum, and that the continued use of colonial law after independence also reflects the ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity in Sudan, and then, as it is now, Sudanese citizens speak many languages ​​and belong to dozens of ethnic groups. At the time of Sudan’s independence, people practicing Sunni and Sufi Islamic traditions were largely living in northern Sudan. Christianity was an important religion in South Sudan. The diversity of Sudan’s religious communities meant that maintaining a foreign legal system – English Common Law – was less controversial than choosing which version of Sharia law would be adopted. Why Extremists Triumph My research reveals how the current instability in the MENA region is, in part, the result of postcolonial decisions to reject Sharia. In maintaining colonial legal systems, the appeasement of Sudan and other Muslim-majority countries that followed a similar path were the forces of the Western world, which were pushing their former colonies towards secularism. But they avoided solving difficult questions about religious identity and the law. This led to a disconnect between the people and their governments, and in the long term, this disconnect helped fuel unrest among some citizens of deep faith, leading to sectarian calls for the ultimate unification of the religion and the state. These interpretations triumphed in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and parts of Somalia and Nigeria, and imposed extremist versions of Sharia on millions of people. In other words, Muslim-majority states hindered the democratic potential of Sharia by rejecting it as a major legal concept in the 1950s and 1960s, leaving sharia in the hands of extremists. But there is no inherent tension between Sharia, human rights and the rule of law. Like any use of religion in politics, the application of Sharia depends on who uses it – and why, leaders in places like Saudi Arabia and Brunei have chosen to restrict women’s freedom and the rights of minorities. But many Islamic scholars and grassroots organizations interpret Sharia as an ethical system that is flexible, rights-oriented, and equal in thinking. Religion and Law Around the world, religion was woven into the legal fabric of many post-colonial countries, with varying ramifications for democracy and stability. After its establishment in 1948, Israel discussed the role of Jewish law in Israeli society. Ultimately, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his allies chose a hybrid legal system that combined both Jewish and English common law. In Latin America, Catholicism imposed by the Spanish conquerors supported laws restricting abortion, divorce, and gay rights. Throughout the nineteenth century, judges in the United States regularly invoked the legal principle that “Christianity is part of the common law.” Legislators still routinely invoke their Christian faith when supporting or opposing a particular law. The political extremism and human rights violations that occur in these places are rarely understood as inherent flaws of these religions. When it comes to Muslim-majority countries, sharia law bears the blame on reactionary laws – not the people who pass those policies in the name of religion. In other words, fundamentalism and violence is a post-colonial problem, not a religious problem. Deterministic. For the Muslim world, finding a system of government that reflects Islamic values ​​while promoting democracy will not be easy after more than 50 years of failed secular rule. But peacebuilding may require that, this article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. Read more: * What does Sharia mean: The answer to 5 questions * How can Islamic law confront ISIS * The travel ban imposed by Trump is just one of many American policies that legalize discrimination against Muslims Mark Fathy Masoud received fellowships from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Memorials, the Carnegie Foundation of New York, the American Council for Learning Communities, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, Fulbright Hayes, and University of California. Any opinions expressed herein are the responsibility of the author.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos