Thou shall not... what? A Skeptic's Take on Shari'a Law

For this week’s blog post, I thought I would discuss my thoughts on the idea of religious law, specifically, shari’a law.

To start out, I would like to mention that I really enjoyed the reading this week. Something about this author just resonated with me. Perhaps it was the fact that all the major points were summarized at the end of the article. 

Regardless, one of the sections that most interested me was “Scripture and Religious Law.” The article begins off with an explanation of religious law, stating “religious law is thus understood to be revealed by God, and designed to govern human affairs.” Therefore, since religious law is of “divine origin, there is an implicit assumption that they are static and unalterable,” although change is possible through “evolving interpretations.”

This idea of “evolving interpretations” is where I begin to become skeptical. I understand  the concept of people observing a sacred text as law, but where does interpretation come into play? When should we stop or start interpreting the text literally? Do religious teachings “transcend cultural specificity and apply to all Muslims regardless of time, place and circumstances?” How can a person, even a religious scholar, have the power to change the way we look at God?

One the same token, how can one ignore the obvious inconsistencies in the text? How can one, dedicated to the “protection of life,” seemingly accept slavery? Or one, dedicated to “honor,” have multiple wives? 

When dealing with the nuances of daily life rather than philosophical ideals, the time and context when the Qur’an was written becomes far more apparent.