Last month with the Charlie Hebdo killings, something that got overlooked was the release of a book by French author Michel Houellebecq set in a near future where France is ruled under Shariah Law(TM).
There were many outcries, some defending the book (under free speech), some attacking it for fearmongering and playing into the ideologies of the far right.
But not many seem to have actually asked the question over how accurate it would be and what would a French state under "Shariah Law (TM)" actually be like.
Granted that as it is a work of fiction, it does not need to match any reality out there. The question is less if the book is accurate and more what would a European country with a majority non Muslim population be like under "Shariah Law (TM)".
First thing that would surprise many is that there is not a "Shariah Law(TM)". Shariah means "the way" and is about the philosophy and methodology in lawmaking.
There are many books on Islamic jurisprudence and are from different schools of law but they differ in methodology depending on the school of law they followed and much would not be about civil law but about personal law - something that is not implemented by a state.
Further, rulings in Islamic Law are not as opaque and powerful as those from Christian authorities. While a Christian authority would position its position as the "Will of God", in Islamic law the judge would not be so presumptive - his view is an opinion based upon his understanding of the source material and is not considered beyond reproach.
If true Islamic law was ever implemented in Europe, the first issue would be that it would only apply to Muslims and there would need to be a civil code that applies to everyone including non Muslims.
Rules on Hijab
Firstly, no everyone wont be covered up. The Islamic rules of Hijab apply to Muslims. I do not know if historically there has been any civil punishment for flouting them, or whether it has been left as a family matter.
In either event, the Islamic rules only apply to Muslims and the historic response to others not following the rules is to avert our gazes.
Alcohol
Will alcohol be banned? no. Non Muslims are allowed to drink. In early Islamic times, any puiblic display of drunkenness was punished so as to not allow it to spread.
Haraam Food / Pork
Islam does not prohibit non Muslims from consuming haraam food. However it does demand protection for animals and prevention of cruelty, so dishes where eg living fish are eaten could be banned.
Education
Would everybody be forced to study the Qur'an and/or arabic? no. This has never been forced on anyone, not even Muslims.
Would the sciences be verbotten? no, unlike the Christian churches, Islam has always placed greater importance on science and it is understood as a way to learn more about God's creation.
Freedom to practice other religions
Would christians have to convert to Islam or go into hiding/be killed? No. This has actually been something that is almost uniquely christian with events such as the reconquista/spanish inquisition, reconquest of sicily and loss of eastern european lands (Bulgaria and others) to Christians in the 19th centur where being Muslim often meant a choice between hasty exile or a death sentence.
Building churches
Would this be banned? no. While some call the document promising to protect christians in the Yemen a forgery, it is no doubt a historical document and is alteast centuries old.
Democracy?
While the Islamic ideal is that leadership should be given to those that do not covet it, according to some historians, when it came the time to choose the third caliph, the adults of madinah were "polled" to decide who should become the third caliph.
These are not new historians and even if their accounts are discounted, the idea of polling for leadership is not one that is against Islam.
Some argue that electing a leader is allowed, but there is no Islamic history setting term limits. But we know from the nomination of the second Caliph that adding conditions to leadership is allowed - Caliph Umar (ra) who had not even wanted the ridaa wars to take place was given the condition that the fight against the Persians over Mesopotamia must not be abandoned.
Tax / Jizya
Would all non Muslims have to pay another tax for being non Muslim? Not neessarily.
To expand, it needs to be explained that Jizya is meant as a protection tax - a tax which in return gives the state's protections. It applies to those that are unwilling to take part in the states affairs.
I have read previously that in arabia there was a tribe of non Muslims who agreed to take part in Muslim afairs of state, fight along with Muslims but not pay the jizya and they were allowed to do so.
This shows that there is no need for an extra tax and it is perfectly valid for contributing citizens not to be treated differently based upon faith.
For other taxes, most are there to provide a service and the historical example used in Muslim books of charging the beneficiaries of a canal system for its building/upkeep would apply.
Would everyone be forced to pray?
There is a verse in the qur'an condemning those hypocrites that pray only to be seen as worse than the non believers. I would suggest that any saudi-arabia style public enforcement of prayer times etc would not apply this verse in the best possible terms.
What would change?
The system would only need to be changed to allow Muslims to practice Islam within the law. Any laws banning the hijab would need to be revoked and some might cry at this but the banking system would need to be changed to allow Muslims to have interest free banking and limit speculation.
There would be other changes as society demanded them, but the idea of forcing non Muslims to comply with Islamic law is alien to Islam.
Comments
First of all let me congratulate you on the article, well worth a reprint in MSM, but this is unlikely to happen.
Agreed, no one needs to wear an Hijab, as is seen by the fact that some Muslims wear a niqab and others do not. It depends on the partiqular sect of Islam one follows. But in all cases, based on the fact if one visits, or works in a Muslim majority country, One must dress in a manner not to offend Muslims.
Again based on personal knowledge, while working in both Libya and Saudi Arabia. Alcohol is definitely banned in both Countries. The display of drunkenness in public is definetly punishable. Whist enjoying a drink, i do believe in moderation.
Would everyone be forced to study the Quran and/or Arabic. Agreed there is no compulsion, but all documentation was in Arabic, which one had (or the company did) to pay a fixer (go between) to interpret. Compare this with the current situation in the UK most documents are produced in many languages
Science, yes many centuries ago Christian Churches did not place much importance (there are still some denomiations that try to ban the teaching of evolution etc) But these are in the minority, most Christian denominations place a great importance on scientific knowledge (some people would say to the detriment of their Christian teaching?)
Yes this as happened, but Christianity and the west have long since left these ideas behind. Has you quote hasty exile or a death sentence, but this was done when religion and political power were one. Both was used to control the masses by a few, purely for the benefit of the few. An example, Henry viii, and split between the Catholic Church followed by the dislution of the Monastries to obtain money for Henry viii. This resulted in the loss of a safety net (alms from the monastries to the poor) and the oppression of the poor (Fuedal System)
Yes some Islamic Countries allow the building of Churches, Egypt allows Copts to build Churches, but under very strict controls. (not within the sight of a Mosque is one example) Some allow the use of a Church, but do not allow rebuilding of old churches, or indeed the ringing of bells on Sunday.
While the Islamic ideal is that leadership should be given to those that do not covet it, Edmunde Burke said something similar, "Those who wish to be politicians, should be banned from political office". Some argue that electing a leader is allowed, but there is no Islamic history setting term limits. Electing leaders by a poll of adults in the Islamic past, i believe did cause the split between (inherited leadership and elected leadership) but there as beeny many cases of Democratic elections being turned (in the modern era) to a one man, one vote, once. Most western countries have a set term of office for their elected officials to prevent this happening.
In the early 80's workers in Libya and Saudia Arabia did pay Jizya Tax, This as since stopped, but the Muslim Brotherhood did try to introduce it under Mohamed Morsi's rule in Egypt. Again this as now been banned.
The last comment would depend on what sect of Islam became dominant. There are strict forms that are not tolerent of any other society, be they Islamic, or Christian, or indeed no religion. My hope is that a combination of western tolerence, with the simple lifestyle in some Islamic countries, might result in a diferent society. Less greedy and grasping, but only time will tell.