September 11, 2001 is a day forever marked in American history. Not only is it the day of the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center towers, but it was also the day where the Western Hemisphere and its views on Islam were changed forever. Shortly after the September 11th attacks, journalist, Oriana Fallaci, published a 168-page book entitled, The Rage and the Pride. In this book, Fallaci claimed that attacks like these are essentially the central doctrine of the Islamic faith and that Muslims had intentions to destroy the Western World. Now, jump forward nearly twenty years into the future. Almost twenty years later, and the Islamic faith is still to blame for the attacks due to ignorance as well as common misconceptions about the faith.
The most common misconception about the Islamic faith is that all Muslims are vicious terrorists/extremist. Huma Ahmad states, “When a gunman attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism, a Catholic IRA guerrilla sets off a bomb in an urban area, or Serbian Orthodox militiamen rape and kill innocent Muslim civilians, these acts are not used to stereotype an entire faith (Ahmad,1).” Ahmad makes a striking claim here by pointing out a major, hypocritical flaw in our judgement of the faith. After 9/11, Americans linked all Islam with hatred and violence, but Americans haven’t had the best track record at applying the same rules across the board. Misconceptions like this take place when people try to make a connection between Sharia and the huddud, or criminal laws. The huddud laws are certain punishments reserved for major crimes. They are claimed to be mandated by God. For example, robbery is punishable with a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison if the offender shows his remorse and no property damage was caused. The maximum sentence is death by crucifixion if the offender has killed and stolen the victim’s possessions. However, as stated before, it is simply a common misconception for huddud laws to be equated with Shariah Law.
The Shariah Law is a form of Islamic law which was derived from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the prophet Muhammad. It is defined by Muhammad as “the Way of the Muslims in the sense of the divine law and the proper ordering of society on earth.” (Reed, Melanie D). The term Shariah is used by Muslims to define their values, code of conduct, and religious commandments or laws in which they refer to as a guideline to live by. There are three specific categories of issues that Sharia Law addresses. These categories are religious worship and ritual, private social interactions, and public law issues. Although Sharia addresses both public and personal aspects of life, it is mainly focused on personal religious traditions such as prayer and fasting (Islamic Networks Group (ING)).
In order to consider if Sharia Law would be compatible in the Western Hemisphere, we must first look at the concerns behind Sharia in America. Some may argue that Sharia law in a way is a totalitarian system because of how strictly it covers so many various aspects of a person’s life. The Qur’an, which is the Islamic equivalent to the Bible, was founded in divine revelation and it is believed to be God’s word. Those part of the Anti-Sharia Movement argue that it takes away a human’s sense of choice and free will and contradicts the idea of freedom. The Anti-Sharia Movement argues that Sharia Law simply doesn’t align with American ideologies. They also argue that Muslims are in a sense trying to “sneak” Sharia Law into the American judicial system. In reality, it is simply just judges interpreting American laws while also taking a person’s faith into consideration. Statements like these can be problematic for the Islamic community. When people are ignorant and not inclined to listen about certain topics, it leads room for misconception of Islam and claiming it to be a violent and intolerant group.
Over the past half-century, American society has moved to a more secular model of the nation deeply rooted in religion that it once was and in a sense is more exclusive to religious Americans. Religious Americans feel as if they are being cast to the side because they feel traditional American courts do not fully embrace their religions and its beliefs there for not making it a major factor in their final decisions. This wasn’t always the case though. Up until 1924, legal issues of any kind were handled in state courts according to that state’s laws. In 1924 however, the Federal Arbitration Act provided religious Americans to resolve disputes using whatever form of law they would like. This practice is known as Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Alternative Dispute Resolution states that people should have the ability to settle their cases not only in the American judicial system, but within any parameters that both sides agree to.