La chose est simple. Dieu est au centre de tout. Le musulman que je suis n’arrive pas à concevoir quoi que ce soit sans y impliquer la notion de Dieu. La religion pour moi est tout simplement la vie, l’inanimé, l’infiniment petit, l’infiniment grand, bref, tout. Tout comme monsieur Jourdain faisait de la prose sans s’en apercevoir, tout comme chaque être humain fait (ou subit) de la politique sans s’en apercevoir, la religion est indissociable de ma vie de tous les jours, de mon travail, de mon boire, de mon manger, de mes peines, de mes joies.

La religion est pour moi la liberté.

Dieu est intemporel, ce qui signifie que nous ne pouvons lui appliquer aucun qualificatif humain. Je suis convaincu que Dieu nous a crées dans un but bien déterminé : vivre, croquer la vie à pleines dents, semer l’amour à tout vent (s’aimer à tout vent, comme Larousse) et rendre grâce au Seigneur pour ses bienfaits. Je suis conscient que mon séjour sur terre est limité dans le temps mais, et ça ne plaira pas à abou lahab, je suis aussi convaincu de l’immortalité de l’homme, que chacun d’entre nous a une part de divin, cette part qui fait que l’homme est bon par nature. C’est ainsi que tout acte que je fasse, autant que je le peux, je le passe au scanner de ma religion, de cette part de divin que Dieu a créée en chacun de nous. Il ne s’agit donc pas de vivre et de mourir comme des animaux. Notre devoir est de combattre l’injustice où qu’elle soit : en Islam, la religion de la « fitra », c’est à dire innée, l’être humain et sa dignité passent avant tout.

Trêve de mysticisme. Passons à des choses plus terre-à-terre. La chariaa, vous avez dit ? Comme je l’ai précédemment dit, et n’en déplaise à mon ami LA, Chariaa a sa racine en cha ra aa. Trois sourates contiennent des mots dérivés de cette racine, voulant dire la loi (j’y reviendrai) : 5 (48) 42 (13, 21) et 45 (18) cette dernière contient le mot chariaa).

Par ailleurs, je pense que la raison pour laquelle ce mot a si mauvaise presse en occident (et ensuite chez nous puisque nous sommes les "vaincus" et que les vaincus, comme disait Ibn Khaldoun, veulent toujours ressembler à leurs vainqueurs : Al maghloubou moulaon da’iman bitaqlid’ilghaleb), est la même que celle qui fait qu’ils croient (encore) que nous adorons une autre divinité que la leur et que nous appelons Allah ! Je m’explique : pour dire "loi" en arabe, on utilise le mot Chariaa tout comme on dit "Allah" pour Dieu. Ainsi, en cours d’histoire, la loi de Hammourabi nous était enseignée comme "Chariaatou hammourabi" (Je persiste et signe, LA J )

Passons aux choses sérieuses et je vais essayer d’être aussi clair que possible pour que les "p’tites têtes" puissent comprendre.

Existe-t-il UNE loi islamique ? La réponse est non. Voyons pourquoi.

Il n’y a pas de clergé en Islam, c’est d’ailleurs l’une de ses forces. Le Coran n’est pas destiné à une élite mais à tout un chacun, pour peu qu’il ait assez d’instruction pour lire, comprendre, analyser et décider. Le Coran est un guide pour toute l’humanité et toues les époques. Comprenez que chacun a le droit de comprendre l’Islam comme il veut mais selon son interprétation des textes coraniques. Par exemple, je suis un fanatique de la biologie et des sciences physiques ; c’est avec cet arrière-fond que j’aime lire le Coran et que je l’interprète à ma façon. Il ne faut toutefois pas oublier qu’un minimum de savoir et d’intelligence est requis pour pouvoir avoir sa propre vision de l’islam.

Il est facile de comprendre que les lois, en Islam, sont appelées à changer selon les époques. En se référant aux lois des religions monothéistes dont l’Islam est le prolongement, on s’aperçoit d’une grande différence selon les peuples, l’époque, la région etc. Lors de la révélation de l’islam, il y avait certaines lois qui régissaient la société d’alors (lapidation des couples adultères, mutilation des mains des voleurs etc.). Les principales punitions corporelles, habituelles alors, ont été maintenues essentiellement parce qu’elles étaient déjà en place, c’est du moins ce que je pense ; l’Islam n’a fait que les "démocratiser", c’est-à-dire les appliquer sur tous, sans discrimination.

Mais le Coran les a non seulement adoucies (jusqu’à rendre presque impossible d’obtenir la preuve du délit, comme l’exigence pour l’adultère de 4 témoins oculaires connus pour leur droiture et leur probité !!!) mais a aussi ouvert grand les portes pour leur interprétation. Je vais sûrement décevoir beaucoup de monde mais Dieu m’est témoin que je suis sincère et que je n’ai pas vendu mon âme au diable. J’ai de bonnes raisons d’être contre l’amputation des mains des voleurs, contre la lapidation des adultérins, contre la peine de mort (mais je n’arriverai pas à bien défendre mon avis sur cette dernière) mais je préfère de loin les châtiments corporels (autres que ces derniers) à la privation de liberté.

Sans aller plus loin et pour ne pas vous ennuyer, je pense sincèrement que les musulmans d’aujourd’hui devraient faire une relecture du Coran selon le 21e siècle : Dieu "savait" très bien en révélant le Coran qu’il allait nous parvenir ! La Sunna, oui pour tout ce qui est "Ibaadaat". Pour tout ce qui est "Mouaamalaat", le prophète (SAS) aurait dit : "Si je vous apporte quelque chose sur votre religion, agissez selon elle, et si je vous apporte quelque chose liée à ce monde, alors vous avez une meilleure connaissance de vos propres affaires terrestres "

Je suis convaincu que nos neurones fonctionnent aussi bien sinon mieux que ceux des ulémas des premiers siècles de l’Islam. L’un d’eux auquel on avait demandé pourquoi il ne suivait pas ses vénérés maîtres avait répondu :"Ce sont des hommes et nous sommes des hommes". Un autre, Abou Hanifa, a dit : « j’ai raison mais il se peut que j’aie tort et mes adversaires ont tort mais il se peut qu’ils aient raison ». Il a tout dit. Et c’était il y a 1400 ans...

C’est ainsi que je considère les différents partis qui, entre autres, appellent à respecter notre patrimoine arabo-islamique, comme autant d’interprétations de l’Islam. Ennahdha n’a jamais accaparé la religion ni ne s’est déclarée le porte parole unique de l’islam en Tunisie. Savez-vous que Bonaparte s’était inspiré de la loi islamique ? Ca me rappelle le mot « magasin » qui vient de l’arabe « makhzin » et dont nous avons fait, par retour incompréhensible, « maghaza » !!!

Que Dieu me pardonne si je me trompe.

Pour finir, voici un article très intéressant à lire et à méditer.

Struggles Behind Words : Sharia, Sunnism, and Jihad, Radwan A. Masmoudi  [1]

As linguists can attest, connotation is as important in defining meaning as denotation. The same term can mean different things for different people. Contrary to the saying, words can hurt more than sticks and stones. The diverse usage and interpretations of three Arabic terms -shariah, sunnism, and jihad- are more than a matter of linguistics. They reveal a conflict that has consumed the Muslim world for the last five hundred years. To understand the words is to understand the conflict, and this requires tracing the historic construction of their meanings.

For over a thousand years, the Islamic civilization was the beacon of scientific and human genius and the cradle of freedom and liberty. Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, Qairawan, and Cordoba were centers of science, medicine, culture, philosophy, and arts. Muslims, Christians, and Jews coexisted relatively peacefully in the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Spain. The arrival of the Crusader armies in 1095 was the first palpitation into the Muslim world by the Christian West-a West that would overpower it by the nineteenth century. Beginning around 1500 A.D., Muslims began to feel the pressure of the over-powering Christian West (the crusades in the Middle Ages and the European colonization of many Muslim countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries). Muslim theologians, scholars, and thinkers felt besieged by Western powers and culture and were concerned that Muslims were going to lose their religion and identity. They decreed that Muslims must reject everything from the West and hold on to their unique faith and beliefs. When the body is threatened, the mind cannot distinguish between the good and the bad. Unfortunately, this bunker mentality has persisted even after Muslim countries gained their independence in the twentieth century. Muslims are still afraid of the West, and many continue to reject it as an enemy of Islam and as an imperialist power out to destroy Muslim countries and Muslim identity.

Through the twentieth century, Muslim thinkers such as Jamal eddine al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Racheed Reda, and Khayreddine al-Tunisi, have attempted to revive and modernize Islamic thought, but they planted their seeds in ground made sterile by colonization and dictatorship. Many of the political elite in the Muslim world today were trained and educated in the West. They believe that secularism, the separation of religion from the state, is the best way to modernize their societies. However, since secularism was rejected by the religious establishment and ulamas (scholars), modern rulers have resorted to jail, imprisonment, and torture to silence the Islamic opposition.

The conflict between secularists and Islamists began with the century and turned violent and ugly in the eighties and nineties. This deadlock between the secularists and the Islamists (there are moderates and extremists on both camps) continues today in most Muslim countries. Shariah, sunnism, and jihad are three arrows in their quivers.

Shariah

Like the Old Testament, the Holy Quran contains several commandments that Muslims must follow and apply in their daily life. These commandments do not simply address purely religious issues, such as praying and fasting, but also political, economic, and social matters like inheritance, interest, economic justice, and legal punishments for certain crimes like theft, adultery, and drinking alcohol. These Quranic teachings are complemented by the tradition (sunna) of Prophet Muhammad and by the interpretations and opinions of the scholars. Throughout history, Muslim jurists and scholars had different and diverging opinions about many of these issues, and the process of ijtihad (innovation and reform) has been essential to adapting Islamic jurisprudence (shariah) to changing needs and realities.

Islamists believe that Muslims must "rule" according to the teachings of Allah and his prophet and do not have the option of implementing certain verses and not implementing others ; those who disagree they call unbelievers. They insist that the legal punishments (hudud) mentioned in the Quran (for stealing and adultery, for instance) must be applied literally, e.g. by cutting the hand of the thief, to obey God’s commandments. Secularists argue that those teachings and commandments were given to the Prophet in the seventh century to rule the Muslim society at that time. They insist that those commandments are no longer valid and that it is sufficient to implement the purely religious aspects of Islam, such as fasting and praying, to be a good Muslim. A modern state, they insist, must be based on scientific and secular values, and not on shariah.

The truth, however, is that shariah is also subject to interpretation and to the ever-changing needs of society. Muslim scholars have the responsibility of prioritizing the needs of the society and of coming up with the right solutions. True Sharia is a set of guiding principles to protect the individual and the society, and not just a set of rules that are fixed in time. To address the changing needs of Muslim societies, Muslim jurists and scholars have relied on a well-established process of innovation (ijtihad) which is not only based on Quran and religious tradition (sunna), but also on reason, deduction, and prioritization. Imam al-Ghazzali [1058-1111] wrote that "the purpose of the law (shariah) for human beings is fivefold : the preservation for them of their religion, soul, intellect, offspring, and property."

Two examples can illustrate this point. Fifteen years after the death of Prophet Mohammed, Caliph Omar ibn-al-Khattab stopped cutting off the hands of thieves because he argued that they had a legitimate need due to hunger and/or poverty. He justified his apparent contradiction of a verse from the Quran by saying that the principle of justice and fairness is supreme. Similarly, the councils of Muslim ulamas in Europe and the United States decreed in 2000 that it was permissible for Muslims residing in the West to buy houses with mortgages and to pay interest on these loans. This contradicts a clear Quranic teaching against interest (riba), but was justified by well-known and respected Muslim scholars, who argued that such permission was necessary for Muslims to meet their financial and social needs in the West.

These examples show that shariah is not fixed in time. True understanding and implementation of shariah requires change and adaptation based on the changing circumstances and needs of the society. This process of ijtihad was very common in the first three centuries of Islam but unfortunately was stopped in the fifth century. Modern attempts to restart ijtihad have so far been modest and not very successful. Proper use of ijtihad can bridge the gap between the secularists and the Islamists and offer the right solutions to the needs of Muslim societies today.

Sunnism

The big schism in the Muslim world, between Sunnis and Shiites, occurred fewer than thirty years after the death of Prophet Mohammed. It started as a political dispute over leadership and governance. Sunnis believe that Prophet Mohammed did not appoint a successor and therefore gave permission to Muslims to elect or choose their own leader after his death. Shiites, on the other hand, believe that he had appointed Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib, his close cousin and son-in-law, as his successor, and that the leadership of the Muslim nation (ummah) had to pass through the descendants of the Prophet. This difference of interpretation could and should have been resolved through peaceful negotiations, following the opinion of the majority and respecting the opinion of the minority. Instead, this political dispute turned into a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites when the fifth caliph, who ruled after the Prophet’s death, refused to share power with Ali’s supporters. The Muslim world has been ruled mostly by tyrants since that time, most of whom have been secular and not religious.

The fact that Sunni Muslims, who represent 95 percent of Muslims today, believe that the Prophet did not appoint a successor indicates that the ruler must be elected by the people and held accountable to them. This is the first foundation for democracy within Islam : a ruler and a government from the people, for the people, and by the people. Since the ruler is not appointed by God, he represents the will of the people and not the will of God. This second point, if clearly developed and understood, can also be used to bridge the gap between Islamists and secularists if both accept to respect the will of the people.

Ironically, some of the most oppressive regimes in the Muslim world today are secular, not Islamic, and one of the most democratic states is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the only state where Shiites represent a majority. Sunni Islam has, in fact, failed to practice consultation (shura) or democracy, except for a very brief period (app. 25 years) after the death of Prophet Muhammad. In modern day Iran, the struggle between reformers and traditionalists centers around the two major themes of democracy and ijtihad, and between different interpretations of Shariah. The good news is that, in Iran at least, the rulers have accepted to be guided by the will of the people and to hold free and fair elections.

Jihad

Jihad is the most misunderstood concept in Islam, by Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Literally, the word "jihad" means struggle in Arabic. It can be violent but is mostly peaceful. Muslims are ordered in the Quran to struggle for peace, equality, and justice, and to defend those who are oppressed on earth ("mustathaafeen fil ardh"). Muslims are forbidden from oppressing others or forcing others to become Muslims ("la Ikraha fi-eddeen"-"There is no compulsion in religion"). Jihad annafs, the most elementary and necessary jihad, is the struggle to lead a decent life and to stay away from evil and temptation. Even learning and studying were mentioned by the Prophet as a form of jihad because they lead to the betterment of the individual and society. The Prophet also said that the best and highest jihad is the struggle against oppression. Muslims have very seldom forced people of other faiths to change their religion or to become Muslims. Today, there are significant Christian minorities in Egypt, Palestine, and Lebanon, and significant Jewish minorities in Tunisia, Morocco, and Turkey.

Even when violent, jihad is mostly a defensive mechanism to free people from oppression and tyranny. Islam allows Muslims to bear arms and to fight only in self-defense when threatened by an enemy. The level of violence witnessed today in Muslim countries like Egypt and Algeria is mostly a response to the violence and oppression of the state, and would be absolutely unthinkable if these Muslim countries were democratic.

Jihad is therefore a positive force that, when understood within the correct context of Islamic principles and teachings, can lead the individual and the society to work and struggle for the common good and for the ideals of justice, freedom, and human dignity. On this point too, both secularists and Islamists can find common ground. The real jihad today is the struggle to build modern societies that are self-sufficient, economically and technologically advanced, and that can provide a decent life for all their citizens. Science and technology are important aspects of the new jihad, which seeks to improve the standard of living of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims and to reduce poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and illnesses.

The Path Forward

An analysis of the interpretations of sharia, sunnism, and jihad presents different facets of the conflict between secularists and Islamists. The best way to solve the standoff is through intellectual debates and discussions that try to find a middle ground, and through popular participation in ultimately choosing the path forward. In reality, the conflict is unnecessary, as both camps will find that they have more in common than they think. Islam, being a religion based on freedom of choice, encourages Muslims to think freely and to learn from the experience of other peoples and nations. Furthermore, Islam does not place anyone between people and God, and therefore does not have a religious hierarchy that can monopolize religion.

Today, Muslims are faced with the challenge of modernizing their societies while simultaneously safeguarding their religious beliefs and cultural heritage. Democracy and secularism have failed so far in Muslim countries because they are seen as "un-Islamic" or even anti-Islamic. Real progress can only be made through genuine reform (ijtihad), which combines modern democratic and secular principles with Islamic teachings and values. As long as Muslims are forced to choose between Islam and other ideologies, they will always choose Islam.