|
Some Hermeneutical Reflections on Interactions of Islamic Sharia[i]
and Cyberspace in Iran
By Dr Hassan Rezaei
From the moment the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim Empire, adopted the
Mecelle-i Ahkam-ý Adliye[ii]
under the influence of the
Code
Napoleon of 1807 until
now, Islamic Sharia has
addressed principles, concepts
and institutions of modern law,
particularly human rights,
without any open, inclusive or
trustful reconciliation. A
history of conflicting legal
dualism among Muslim countries
starts with the Majallah,
which are on the one hand
attached to traditional
perceptions of Sharia and on the
other forced to adopt modern
model of codes of law. Despite a
long period of encounter with
the law of the modern world,
considering the actual dilemmas
of Sharia in most Muslim
countries, one can still firmly
claim that Sharia, particularly
its criminal and family justice
rulings, may be regarded as the
harshest system of law facing
modernity in comparison with
other traditional legal systems
throughout the world.
While the world community is deeply concerned about Islamic Sharia,
especially after the events of
11 September disclosed its acute
crisis, it seems that
progressive Muslims within the
Muslim world who witness the
actual problems of established
Sharia in their own communities
are also losing their patience
for Sharia to be transformed
into a modern system of law
based on human rights in the
near future. What makes this
transition more urgent is not
the aftermath of New York
events, but instead the last
decade of the twentieth century
and the aftermath of merging
information in post-industrial
societies with their postmodern
philosophies and literature. The
more the modern world enters the
age of information and
communication, the more Muslim
societies find that the timely
transition from the current
Sharia is inevitable. Owing to
rapid developments in
information and communication
technologies (ICT) and their
prevalence across the world,
many Muslim societies have
access to these technologies,
especially the World Wide Web.
Along with this increase in the
access of many Muslims to the
Internet, calls have arisen for
instant resolution of the
dilemma of Sharia and modernity.
Currently, many strong online
voices from all over the world
(including most of the western
strategic studies centers) are
calling for emergency, short-run
transformation in Islamic Sharia.
As ICT technologies expand within the Muslim societies and the Internet in
particular gains increasingly
more validity among middle-class
Muslims, we can see more
reflection on the how the kernel
of these societies (i.e.,
Islamic Sharia) is represented
in Cyberspace, and about the
impacts of the information
society and its main component,
the Internet, on the development
of Sharia in the future. By
considering the existing
features of online Sharia with a
Shia reading of it in the
Iranian context, this article
seeks to show that with the
expansion of Cyberspace among
the masses, people become
conscious about the historicity
of Sharia rulings, and that one
can expect a revolution in Shia
Islam through this public
consciousness. Without depicting
any utopian, emancipatory
account of the information
revolution, I want to argue that
the “open” networks that are
increasing rapidly among
Iranians, when added to the
historical discourses of
rationalism and justice in Shia
and the very young and
well-educated majority of the
Iranian population (40 millions
under 30 years old), will create
an historical openness in the
closed space of existing
understandings of Sharia.
Two main assumptions ground this argument. First, a peaceful transition of
Iranian society to an open,
democratic one is only possible
through a paradigm shift in
Sharia. In other words, a
sustainable, authentic democracy
is not foreseeable in Iran
without the advent of a
rights-based legal system evoked
from Sharia traditions. In order
to avoid being labeled as a
foreign or alien plan, this goal
must be pursued by means of a
serious criticism from inside
Muslim society. As Iran’s
century-long experience shows,
modernist or secular discourses
that see no role for Sharia
discourse in the public sphere
of Muslim societies cannot
further the institutionalization
of democracy and tolerance in
societies with such strong roots
in tradition. Secondly, there is
currently an understanding of
Islamic Sharia developed by
various social, non-violent
members of Iranian society, in
particular women and youth,
which can pave the way for the
peaceful advent of a right-based
legal system which is compatible
with the
emerging postmodern information
society.
When all Sharia judgments become available online, then the free flow of
information and knowledge will
electronically deconstruct
existing Sharia-subjectivism
whether the autocratic,
hard-line clerics like it or
not. The mechanism for this
deconstructive process, for
which Iranians made three
revolutions during the last
century, is the emergence of a
cyber, democratic public sphere
in which a paradigm shift in
assumptions and preconceptions
of classical power-based Sharia
will take place. This time the
Internet revolution will be
matched by a revolution in
Islamic Sharia because a soft,
open and transparent Cyberspace
will break the hegemony of
Sharia institutions and their
hard rules over individuals. The
new Sharia that will show itself
primarily in Cyberspace and
which feeds from it will be a
system of rights, including the
rights of both human beings and
nature; its discourse is not
power, but freedom.
The Iranian Internet, through alliance building and community networking,[iii]
not only develops ways to foster
individual enlightenment, but
only facilitates ways to develop
a higher social awareness. In
the young Iranian cyberspace we
can easily hear the voices of
future, the aspirations of a new
generation born after the
revolution to live in an open,
free and happy society and to
enjoy their God-given rights.
Interestingly, these voices are
largely stressing nonviolence.
The more Iranian cyberspace
grows, the more Sharia discourse
becomes public and
intersubjective and reaches out
to the broader world. The
emergent Iranian right-based
readings of Sharia in cyberspace
contain new promises and
aspirations, not only for the
Iranian people, but also for the
entire Muslim world and even for
the world community.
In conclusion, the absence of power, in a Foucaultian sense, is necessary
for a new paradigm of Sharia to
be. In other words, the context
of the Being of the new Sharia
is an interactive, dialogic and
intersubjective one which
evolves constantly. It is freed
from any discourse of power.
Hence, it is inevitably through
the discourse of freedom that
Sharia justice will be
legitimated, renewed,
universalized and, of course,
resonated to the only Self there
is in the entire universe. It
will do this by transcending the
letter of the canonical
scriptures and the ego of
fundamentalists. This Sharia is
secular (not secularist) because
it is rooted in Being that does
not suffer a dualism of matter
and spirit.[iv]
It is revealed. It is always
present and open towards the
future because it crosses in
time and space. It is in our
nearness and comprehensibility
because it is in dialogue with
us; here, hierarchy has no
place. It discloses itself
constantly. We do not need to
make it. It is simply
in-the-world-with-us. It is our
Existential. It discloses itself
in our Sites. We are all in the
Site of its disclosedness.
To give a schema of this paradigm shift in Sharia discourse, in the
following table I compare some
significant preconceptions of
the two paradigms as they relate
to criminal justice.
|
Concept |
Power-based Sharia |
Right-based Sharia |
|
Justice |
1) Exclusive, monologic, perceived as the consequence and effect of Fiqh
Norms
2) Permitting a broad range of discriminations in law |
1) Inclusive, dialogic, perceived as the Cause and Scale of Legal Norms
2) Negating any from of discrimination in law |
|
Jihad |
Using violence against Enemies (Others who are opposed to us) |
Striving for peace and justice universally, Responding to injustice |
|
Crime |
1) To perpetrate a haram act
2) defined as violation of the authority of the Islamic Ruler and his
Rulings which create
guilt before both Allah
and the Ruler, deserving
pain in both this world
& another world (Double
jeopardy)
3) Offence understood in Arabian-shaped, religious morality terms
4) Stigma of crime unremovable, specially in corporal punishments |
1) Violation of codified rights with criminal sanctions
2) defined as violation of right-based relationships
3) Offence understood in its whole context - moral, social, cultural,
economic, political and
global (both social
/individual harms and
needs)
4) Stigma of crime removable through restorative practices |
|
Responsibility |
Paradoxically focus on establishing blame, on guilt, on pain, on past
wrongdoings (did he/she
do it?) and taking
punishment, on one hand,
and stressing on
minority of the most
people except with
authoritarian Fuqaha |
Focus on problem solving, on future, on mutual liabilities and obligations
of all members of
community to repair
relationships and making
thinks as right as
possible (who has been
hurt, what are their
needs & whose
responsibilities are
these?) |
|
Life |
1) Dependent on the certainty/speculation of the Faqih
2) Prevalence of retaliation and execution
3) No consideration of moral damages
4) Sectarian and ideological definition of life
5) Priority of religious beliefs over life (e.g. execution of apostates),
reason (e.g. execution
on third repetition of
drinking alcohol),
offspring (stoning and
execution of sexual
offenders), and property
(execution on third
repetition of theft) |
1) Abolishment or tight restriction of execution (only for serious murder
such as genocide.)
2) Definition of life includes physical and moral aspects, humans and
other beings.
3) Life as the ultimate goal of the legislator. |
|
Sexual Relations |
Maximal involvement of the criminal law by stoning, whipping, and
execution |
Involvement of the criminal law as last resort to protect rights |
*Research
Fellow of the Max-
Planck Institute for
Foreign and
International Criminal
Law, Freiburg-Germany
[i]
Islamic Sharia
herein means what Muslim
societies, specifically
Iran in our present
discussion, made and
make of Islamic texts in
the Koran and Sound
Sunna. Unlike abstract,
subjective definitions
of Sharia as Allah’s
injunctions or
intentions, this concept
of Sharia is an
objective matter which
is not only related to
the established texts,
but which can also be
easily traced throughout
the history of Muslim
societies in the form of
authoritative Fatwas
(scholarly judgments)
and institutions
established in
accordance with them.
[ii]
The Mecelle
in Turkish or
Al-Majallah in
Arabic, compiled from
1868 to 1876, was the
first codification of
Islamic Sharia in modern
history. Based on the
Hanafi school of Sharia,
it codified the Sharia
decrees on property in
addition to some general
principles of Sharia, in
particular a number of
general rules related to
ownership and
transaction. It was
published in 1868 under
the name of "Compilation
of Juridical
Provisions". The Ottoman
Penal Code, also called
the Mecelle, was
adopted 11 years later.
The Majallah,
which was a product
of the first systematic
reform movement among
Muslims, had been
implemented in the large
territory of the Ottoman
Empire before its
destruction, including
present-day Turkey,
Palestine, Egypt, Saudi,
Iraq, Syria, Jordan,
Lebanon, Cyprus,
Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Some
provisions of Mecelle
are still in effect in
Arabic countries. See
S. S. Osnar, The
Majalla in M.
Khadduri (ed.), Law
in the Middle East,
Vol. 1 (New York: AMS
Press, 1984), pp.
292-308.
[iii]
Particularly by
considering the
phenomenon of the
Weblogs that are
probably the most
advanced examples of
Social Software
today.
[iv]
Traditional and
power-based Sharia
readings suffer from an
infinite dualism that is
essential; between the
Creature and the
Created, between matter
and spirit, between man
and woman, between the
world and the hereafter,
between Self and Other ,
between Imam/ Vali
(ruler) and people,
between Muslim and
Non-Muslim, between
expert and layperson,
etc. A short look at the
post-revolutionary
legislations which are
basically discriminatory
reveals the broad
consequence of this
worldview.
|