What is Sharia Law

[Angst]

... And how in the world is it evil?

 

[Perfection]

Baby don't stone me no more.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Moderator Action: RD threads are not the place for clever one-liners.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Quackers]

... And how in the world is it evil?

Step 1, click Perf's link.
Step 2, read "criticisms".

Wait for Masada to defend Islamic law cuz, ur rasist.

Moderator Action: RD threads require a minimum level of discourse, this post falls below that line.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tahuti]

The Sharia are a set of laws developed to make family laws and a state's legal system compatible with Islam. However, not all components of Sharia are executed in all countries that have Sharia laws: For instance, Israel and the UK have Sharia laws that are binding and enforced by government, but to Muslims only and only in regard to family law, usually marriage.

In fact, Hudud (a component of Sharia detailing punishments, but widely confused - especially by Islamophobes - to be the whole of Sharia) is only one component of Sharia, and binding in only a very few Muslim countries. Some Muslim countries do not have Sharia laws at all, such as Azerbaijan and Turkey. Not that it will interest dumbasses like Wilders, of course.

Not all aspects of Sharia are evil, though a lot of it is outdated and should not be practiced today, given that Sharia laws were conceived in pre-modern times and significantly different circumstances applied back then. However, you do not need to practice Sharia to the letter to be considered a Muslim. Conversely, the Israeli and British experience show that Western countries can practice minimalist implementations of the Sharia without turning into another Saudi Arabia. So while it isn't exactly an example for all of us to follow, it is shrouded in a lot of abusive myths and misused by right-wing populist <snip> for their own purposes.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Quackers]

If you hate gays, woman and believe infidels should be 2nd class citizens than you have full sharia law.

 

[MilesGregarius]

If you hate gays, woman and believe infidels should be 2nd class citizens than you have full sharia law.

You mean like some Southern Baptists, Free Presbyterians, and Ultra-Orthodox Jews?

 

[NovaKart]

Most Muslim countries are influenced by Sharia but don't have it entirely. In Iraqi Kurdistan alcohol is legal outside of Ramadan and dress codes are not enforced by law. I'm not aware of punishments for adultery but I have heard of women being jailed for moral offenses. I think it might not be strictly legal but it happens. According to the internet homosexual sex is not illegal either but most people think that it is which makes me think it might be a gray area as well.

Social penalties are high and honor killings are not that unusual.

Regardless of all that, it's very different from Saudi Arabia. Businesses do not close during prayer times. Fasting is not legally required, restaurants just put a big canvas in front of the doorway and they're often pretty full.

 

[NovaKart]

You mean like some Southern Baptists, Free Presbyterians, and Ultra-Orthodox Jews?

There's a lot of variation among Southern Baptists. Most of my extended family is Southern Baptist and I grew up occasionally going to the church and many people are not nearly that extreme. Not every church follows the Southern Baptist Convention. The church we went to left the organization because they let women be deacons and some other disagreements. I think they are pretty behind on the gay thing however. Well I notice you put some Southern Baptists so I guess we agree on that.

 

[H4run]

... And how in the world is it evil?

The repetition of how it is associate with is the one that make it seems evil. Each time "shariah" law mention the first things that pop up in peoples mind is cutting hand, stoning and other type of hudud punishment. In the other hand if one talk about democracy law peoples never associate it with shot in the spot, hanging peoples, executing peoples in electric chair or other type of death penalty and execution. Also when one think about Chinese law they never think about slow slice and other 5 basic punishment in Chinese traditional law, also when one thinking about medieval Christian European law they never think directly about Iron Maiden.

As other mentioned already, shariah law consist many things that sometime essential to practising Muslims, like law of inheritance, for marriage and divorce, and many other detail things. Shariah law also have a tight relation with "shar'i economy" ruling about halal trading, and forming public institution like banking that is free from usury which is heavily forbidden in Islam. Country like Philippine already constitute shariah law for their Muslims population.

While in many Muslims country non usury bank or shariah Bank already establish, even though I pretty much pessimistic regarding how they earn their profit and count the dividend for the customer, however I really hope there will be one day an idealist shariah Bank system for Muslims that really not used usury.

In conclusion hudud is just a punishment for criminal case in shariah, while shariah bodies constitute very much larger aspects than just hudud, it just a 1 percent that cannot be use to generalize the rest 99 percent of the shariah law.

 

[MilesGregarius]

There's a lot of variation among Southern Baptists. Most of my extended family is Southern Baptist and I grew up occasionally going to the church and many people are not nearly that extreme. Not every church follows the Southern Baptist Convention. The church we went to left the organization because they let women be deacons and some other disagreements. I think they are pretty behind on the gay thing however. Well I notice you put some Southern Baptists so I guess we agree on that.

Exactly. I was raised Catholic; I could (should?) have added Opus Dei or any other batch of fanatically intolerant religious types. The same regard should be applied to Muslims who aren't off-the-deep-end Salafists and the like.

 

[H4run]

Most Muslim countries are influenced by Sharia but don't have it entirely. In Iraqi Kurdistan alcohol is legal outside of Ramadan and dress codes are not enforced by law. I'm not aware of punishments for adultery but I have heard of women being jailed for moral offenses.

During the early Caliphate alcohol never been forbidden, it was spread and sold for the non Muslims population, I don't know some of Muslims have an idea that shariah must forbid selling alcohol which I against with because it is never be the case.

Don't want to make a make up about Islam here to make it seems fit with what everybody hope and being an apologist, so I will tell it as the way it is, the punishment of adultery that is commit by unmarried person is whipping. While if it is done by the marriage person for example a married male commit adultery with a non married woman, as far as I understand, the male should be stoned while the female should be whip. While the punishment for rape is death penalty.

However the crime like adultery or drinking alcohol only punished if it in public. While if it happen in private the crime (sin) like alcohol or adultery that is committed by consent and only harming one self not other, it is should be kept in private, the sin become something between the person and God. And in Hadith it is part of the sunnah (obligation) to not spy other fault or sin in their private life, no one perfect, if their crime or sin to themselves is conceal by God it mean God being merciful to them and give them chance to repent. But when the crime known by public, or done in public that is when the punishment executable, because his personal sin not become personal anymore, it already effected or able to inspired to public to do the same sins hence spreading corruption, in this level the punishment is must be executed.

Social penalties are high and honor killings are not that unusual.

Honor killing is a tradition that already there before Islam, it is not coming from Islam, my wife studied ilahiyat and we have a quite decent knowledge about fiqih. So do something like bride kidnapping in central asia or genital mutilation. And for marriage the decision is not in the hand of the father, but it is in the hand of daughter, father only acted as a wali of daughter, but being a wali does not mean he have right to decide something instead of the daughter, which is most the traditional Muslims did and it is something that is not in Islam, and I hate it and against it so much.

 

[Tahuti]

Social penalties are high and honor killings are not that unusual.

Note that Islam bans honour killings and are performed for cultural reasons. In North Africa, honour killing was a custom well before the arrival of Islam. It also happens in Armenia, and used to be legal in a number of Catholic countries including France as in flagrante delicto.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sharia law as practiced in the US and similar countries is no different than Catholic canon law or Jewish Halacha. Trying to ban it is an attack on the basic tenet of freedom of religion.

 

[Goodfella]

You mean like some Southern Baptists, Free Presbyterians, and Ultra-Orthodox Jews?

Yeah pretty much.

 

[Angst]

This post is not directed at anyone in particular, but I felt I should present my general thought of this matter beyond my opening post -- I deliberately left it open as I knew it would invoke a strong discussion from post one.

The thing about Sharia is that I know quite a few Muslims claiming the same as haroon -- that Sharia law is actually a whole complex ordeal other than the iffy connotations it usually has in the west; and its democratic implementation (which should be possible) would not be that different from our imagination of a Christianity-based democracy.

Most of haroon's posts -- if I discern them correctly (I find your English difficult to understand at times; but at the same time, you seem quite knowledgable so please don't take offense I find that my English is more unclear than yours fwiw ) chime with this understanding of Sharia law. Its very wiki page underlines the importance of an electoral procedure; while I admit to not knowing the particular nature of it, it's pretty interesting to look into, especially when considering the only legal documents of our Christian culture preach for us to sell our daughters for donkeys and such.

The only thing I know he's wrong about is the iron maiden - as far as I know, the device is actually a 19th century improvised device of scrap metal which was then promptly claimed to have been used in the barbaric middle ages. Which then means that the iron maiden was never actually used.

However, his claim in its essence remains relevant and true as it underlines a period of brutality which is hard to truly understand as a modern European. I'd say that many modern Europeans have a quite barbarous understanding of Christian brutality in the middle ages, but I don't think they understand the similarities between that and the horrendous practices other religious traditions are capable of. I don't think modern Europeans understand the blind zealousness of the average person in old Europe as I do at least.

Basically, with my very limited understanding of Sharia law, it is compatible with democracy in some sense at least. Every Muslim I know tells me this. And if it's all about interpretation, I don't think it's meaningful to point it out, I think it's meaningful to promote and preserve that kind of good thinking.

 

[H4run]

Most of haroon's posts -- if I discern them correctly (I find your English difficult to understand at times; but at the same time, you seem quite knowledgable so please don't take offense I find that my English is more unclear than yours fwiw )

hey don't worry I don't offended you are even kind comparing to my lecturer I even feel thankful you inform me about my English so I can be more careful and practice more, my first intention in this forum is to learning, especially English. As I learn more than 1 language I sometime mix the syntax. And your English is perfect

The only thing I know he's wrong about is the iron maiden - as far as I know, the device is actually a 19th century improvised device of scrap metal which was then promptly claimed to have been used in the barbaric middle ages. Which then means that the iron maiden was never actually used.

Some claim it is just a creation or hoax. However there are many other equal example that we can use, like the Inquisitor's torture device, and we can even search more. But the things that I want to say is we don't grow to directly associate Christianity with torture tools or democracy with death sentence. It just part of the large body law of Christianity and Democracy, as you also stated. While in Islam, when one talk about shariah, the only things that pop up in peoples mind is cutting hand and stoning. It is like when I heard about the words "democratic law" I directly associate it with the death penalty.

 

[muhtesem insan]

... And how in the world is it evil?

http://quran.com/4/34

 

[H4run]

http://quran.com/4/34

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good." [Noble Quran 4:19]

"They (your wives) are your garment and you are a garment for them." [Noble Quran 2:187]

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women." [Noble Quran 2:228]

"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward." [Noble Quran 33:35]

The thing is you must put the verse in context. The verse that you quoted used the words fa'izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original, translated here 'talk to them persuasively,' 'leave them alone (in bed - fi'l-madage'),' and tap lightly (percuss them) not strike them. Some translators of this verse have mistakenly used the word "beat" to represent the word "dhaaraba" in Arabic. This is not the opinion of all scholars and those who are well grounded in both Islam understanding and the English language.

 

[Masada]

Wait for Masada to defend Islamic law cuz, ur rasist.

That sounds like a wicked case of mens rhea. And no, I don't feel you need a bollocking. You're getting it enough in the Multiculturalism thread. For reference, I'm also cool with defending Jewish law which doesn't seem to interest you quite as much for some reason.

 

[Tahuti]

That sounds like a wicked case of mens rhea. And no, I don't feel you need a bollocking. You're getting it enough in the Multiculturalism thread. For reference, I'm also cool with defending Jewish law which doesn't seem to interest you quite as much for some reason.

The fallacies begin by presenting Islam as a unique case deserving of inferior treatment.