Sharia: a route to rule of law?

If you're like most Americans, this sums up your understanding of sharia.

To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed.

The author of a piece in this week's NY Times Magazine sets out to correct this fallacy and to discuss how sharia may actually be an aid to Islamic countries hoping to establish rule of law. He starts with the definition, noting that sharia is not actually a set of rules, but principles.

Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose. At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law...The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will.

He goes on to explain how sharia was used in a balance of powers in traditional muslim societies, with leaders subject to the law that was interpreted by scholars (much like today's executives are checked by judges). In other words, it was used as a check on abuse of power, a problem plaguing many muslim countries from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

Interesting stuff.

Update: MSP Airport cabs will take passengers or queue up

In an interesting twist, the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Minnesota found a way out of its dilemma involving Muslim cab drivers refusing rides to people carrying alcohol. Any cab driver who refuses a passenger has to return to the start of the cab queue, a wait of as much as 3 hours for another passenger. I don't think Muslims should be punished for wanting to follow their faith, but neither should people seeking cab drivers be discriminated against for not following Muslim law.

Update 10/26/06: as one might expect, a few other bloggers are weighing in. This guy says we should let Muslims discriminate, but post signs to let people vote with their dollars. Another says that any preferential treatment for Muslims based on their religion clearly violates the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. Interesting stuff.

Have booze, won't travel

The Minneapolis Airport has recently been struggling with an issue brought to them by travelers - Muslim cabbies refusing rides to people carrying (even unopened) liquor, citing their religious beliefs. This is similar to an issue arising a few months back, where national attention was focused on pharmacists who would refuse to dispense the morning-after pill, citing their Christian religious beliefs.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Muslim cabbie issue was that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was negotiating with cabbies and considering a special light for the cabs to indicate drivers who would refuse service to booze carriers. In other words, they were ready to accomodate this service distinction.

In an email listserv I read, one respondent found this idea a slippery slope:

Still, this seems to me to set a very troubling precedent. Cabbies are licensed to provide a secular public service that, in my mind, has nothing to do with their personal religious belief systems. If they are allowed to discriminate based upon their personal belief systems, where does it end? A special light for cabbies who refuse to transport scantily clad women? Another light for cabbies who refuse to transport women and men traveling together (unless of course they show proof of marriage)? I recall an incident reported in the local press a few years ago in which a Mpls cabbie kicked a gay couple out of his cab (which I believe violates the city's anti-discrimination ordinances). Perhaps local cab drivers and/or local Muslim leaders can chime in and educate the rest of us on this issue: What are the limits here? When should a cabbie's personal beliefs influence whom he chooses as a client?

The challenge is that both pharmaceuticals and cab rides fall under the purview of state licensing and therefore have a modicum of state oversight. I would think that nondiscrimination clauses should apply in both cases and that these cabbies should not be able to prohibit riders who are carrying legal and unopened substances.

After all, it really comes down to an issue of religion in a secular society - your freedom to practice extends right up until you force your beliefs on me. Christian fundies, take note.