What is Sharia Law

[H4run]

Yes, I know it's a matter of faith for you to disagree if someone says "the evidence is not clear". Honestly, the timing of the Quran compiling would have been a lot clearer if Muhammed had just dictated the durned thing instead of having to figure out which chapter refers to which event.

I don't know what evidence is not clear if the account is written and included in classical historiography, from Tabari till Ibn Kathir.

You talking about the asbab (or the timing) of the Quran been revealed? there are two book regarding this matter for both Quran and Hadith, asbabun nurut and asbabun nuzul, now many Quran include it as a footnote, for example Quran that I hold.

 

[Farm Boy]

There is a difference between religious beliefs, and when those beliefs are codified into the law of the land. At least in the US, you can have any religious belief you want, but that doesn't mean the government is enforcing it.

And I support this sentiment. I support the government cutting out certain expections for religion, allowances persay, like access to peyote in certain religions or neice marriages<shudder> in certain Jewish traditions, but I do not support the government allowing the censure of rights under even "consensual" waiving of rights for religious purposes. However, given the public support remaining for blue laws, and depending on the pocket, the support for Jewish or Muslim law, I think we'll lose over time, sir. The bifrucation of thought is a long shot bet.

 

[El_Machinae]

A tremendous amount of precedent has been set due to Jewish culture. It wasn't really deemed 'an issue' due to the relatively small population size. The incredibly higher-numbered Muslims will be able to draw upon that precedent, especially in areas where there's a thematic overlap (kosher foods, etc.)

 

[Bulldog Bats]

1.Two wrongs do not make a right,
2. In this country, laws and customs (nativity scenes in public squares) are falling
3. Sharia laws, at least in some of its implementation, are a little more, shall we say, intrusive.

There is nothing illegal with those countries adopting it. - they do not have our Constitution. But some of the results are scary, at least to most western sensibility.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Examples:

In 2013, a Saudi court sentenced a man to forcible paralyzation for a decade-old stabbing, when he could not afford the $266,000 payment to the victim.

According to a report by the National Commission on Status of Women(NCSW) "an estimated 80% of women" in jail in 2003 were there as because "they had failed to prove rape charges and were consequently convicted of adultery."[5]
Stories of great personal suffering by women who claimed to have been raped appeared in the press in the years following the passing of the Hudood Ordinance. The case of Safia Bibi is one of this: a blind girl and victim of rape who was prosecuted for the crime of zina because of her illegitimate pregnancy, while the rapist was acquitted. The case stirred many protests from Pakistani activists and lawyers along with international human rights organizations. The appeal judgment of the Federal Shariah Court cleared the girl of the accusation of zina. - from Wikipedia entry on Hudood Ordinance.

2013 - man sentenced to death for maligning Muhammed.

Just about any older religious text has passages most people would find wrong if carried out in modern society - Sharia law permits it, and their tribunals enforce it.

 

[H4run]

Examples:

In 2013, a Saudi court sentenced a man to forcible paralyzation for a decade-old stabbing, when he could not afford the $266,000 payment to the victim.

According to a report by the National Commission on Status of Women(NCSW) "an estimated 80% of women" in jail in 2003 were there as because "they had failed to prove rape charges and were consequently convicted of adultery."[5]
Stories of great personal suffering by women who claimed to have been raped appeared in the press in the years following the passing of the Hudood Ordinance. The case of Safia Bibi is one of this: a blind girl and victim of rape who was prosecuted for the crime of zina because of her illegitimate pregnancy, while the rapist was acquitted. The case stirred many protests from Pakistani activists and lawyers along with international human rights organizations. The appeal judgment of the Federal Shariah Court cleared the girl of the accusation of zina. - from Wikipedia entry on Hudood Ordinance.

What happen in Saudi is horrific, and their so called "Islamic law" is in fact more patriarchal saudi traditional law (not even arab, even though arab traditional law horrific but at least much better in some aspects) than an actual Islamic law. Rape in Islam is death, no matter who you are and what kind of monster you are rape mean death.

While in many of the rape case in Saudi they much blaming unto the victim than the criminals, which also happen in many other nations, however combine it with the death penalty and you get a mess horrible chunk of unjustice in their system of justice.

Many testimonies given regarding this include by the royal princess herself which I remember my mother read about it however I don't know the level of truth inside the story, the story is her cousin been rape by other cousin while he is drunk, instead of punishing the man they punish the woman.

Given to the fact that those things happen however it is mainly because the Saudi themselves not apply the Islamic shariah as they should be, they just creating a legal system that benefiting their own elites. This is one of the reason the Jihadist was running after their head because they are not apply the shariah correctly as it should and much of the law only apply for the masses not for the elites and nobles, in fact Al Qaeda in the first place was form to be against the Saudis but thanks to US intervention on protecting their best friend, now the fire spread becoming global jihad.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

1. As I said, the issue is not just the law, but how it is enforced. With regard to rape, it is my understanding that a woman needs 4 witnesses, and if she does not prove rape, she is convicted of adultery (see my prior post for numbers).

2. As to what I presume you mean US (and other countries) support for Israel, it is irrelevant. I take it because your position is that because there is support for a people they consider infidels, it is alright to take their stance enforcing Sharia law. So much for tolerance.

 

[Tee Kay]

Pointing to Saudi Arabia as an example of why Sharia is bad is like pointing to Hitler to show that vegetarians are evil.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

The blasphamy issue took place in Pakistan, and how about this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/gaza-hamas-takes-another-step-toward-sharia-to-introduce-lashing

 

[H4run]

1. As I said, the issue is not just the law, but how it is enforced. With regard to rape, it is my understanding that a woman needs 4 witnesses, and if she does not prove rape, she is convicted of adultery (see my prior post for numbers).

2. As to what I presume you mean US (and other countries) support for Israel, it is irrelevant. I take it because your position is that because there is support for a people they consider infidels, it is alright to take their stance enforcing Sharia law. So much for tolerance.

The blasphamy issue took place in Pakistan, and how about this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/ga...roduce-lashing

First. During the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, a rapist was punished based on only the testimony of the victim. Wa'il ibn Hujr reported that a womam publicly identified a man who had raped her. The people caught the man and brought him to the Prophet Muhammad. He told the woman to go, that she was not to be blamed, and ordered that the man be put to death.

In another case, a woman brought her infant to the mosque and publicly spoke about the rape that had resulted in her pregnancy. When confronted, the accused admitted the crime to the Caliph Umar who ordered his punishment. The woman was not punished.

While the 4 witness requirement is for adultery not rapes. Why four? In Islam the punishment of a crime that only done to oneself, like drinking alcohol, adultery, drugs, it is punished if it effected and witnessed by the public. While if it is done in their own house, the crime is just within themselves and God. Unless the crime already go out to public and effected others, the crime is not any longer "personal" hence it is punished.

So you get it wrong.

Second, I don't mean Israel, I mean Saudi.

Third. Jihad watch, answering Islam, Islam religion of peace, is not a good place for you to found an objective report about Islam or the Muslims. It is like you want to learn about Russia to Russophobic thinkers. It is worst than you want to learn about Uyghur reading chinese national news paper. And you must distinguish between the religion and the believer.

fourth. The application of hudud as long as I understand (the things that you worry so much) can be done only under Caliphate or Emirate or any type of Islamic government. I doubt it is legal to perform hudud in lets said US, because Obama is not our amirul mukminin or leader of the pious. So please, don't worry

 

[H4run]

Pointing to Saudi Arabia as an example of why Sharia is bad is like pointing to Hitler to show that vegetarians are evil.

My friends told me, during his hajj, he was listening to the lecture of Saudi Imam with their neo-salafis base ideology, on how picture is haram or forbidden in the saudi salafi school tradition (manhaj). However, as he walk away from the masjid, tons of King Saud pictures been decorated along the street. Most of Muslims organization from light to hardcore, from happy Sufi till strict ISIS, from Tabligh and Muslims brotherhood till Hizbut Tahrir, from most of the Sunni till Shia are resent toward the Saudis. Mainly because of how ridiculous they are, and apart of it also because their level of hypocrisy which is outstandingly awesome.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

- I NEVER said Jihad Watch was objective - but is the story untrue?

- As to rape/adultery, I am going by the report of the NCSW - do you say that what was written was untrue? Doesn't matter what the Quran says - using it as a basis for modern law is wrong, just like using the Bible's "eye for an eye" or stoning would be wrong.

- As to Saudi v. Israel, regardless, it doesn't matter. Because you don't like that another country is friendly with someone you don't want them to be, THAT gives you reason for your position?

- Agains, also Pakistan and Gaza - unless you can show the stories are wrong, I stand by it.

 

[Traitorfish]

You know who never had truck with any of this Holy Book-inspired nonsense? China. Forget beating everyone over the head with the Western stick, we should be deferring to people who've managed to administer a secular system of justice for two thousand years, rather than a poxy two-hundred-and-even-then-only-sorta.

I, for one, welcome our new Confucian overlords.

 

[H4run]

- I NEVER said Jihad Watch was objective - but is the story untrue?

I don't know I don't live in Gaza and honestly I have a respond paper to be done but CFC is so tempting. I checked the source that Jihad Watch quoted, it is from Israel National News and the starting of the statement is...

Gaza&#8217;s Hamas terrorist rulers have taken another step towards the implementation of strict Islamic sharia law in the region...

I already knew what will be the rest. That said, mostly the use of the words to describe rules that is applied by Hamas most probably hyperbolical and overstated. Judging the variable modifier from the news how they change "Hamas" into "Gaza's Hamas terrorist".

Maybe there are application of lashes and new rule regarding modesty for Muslims, however I don't think it is as horrible as they want to picture. Btw who is the terrorist in the first place? never mind..

- As to rape/adultery, I am going by the report of the NCSW - do you say that what was written was untrue? Doesn't matter what the Quran says - using it as a basis for modern law is wrong, just like using the Bible's "eye for an eye" or stoning would be wrong.

So you stated that rape need four witness in Islam according to your studies?

- As to Saudi v. Israel, regardless, it doesn't matter. Because you don't like that another country is friendly with someone you don't want them to be, THAT gives you reason for your position?

You try to question my reasoning, but in your previous reasoning you criticizing the inhumanity of the Saudi legal system and how horrible they are, which I agree and Saudi pretty much a mistake from its very own existence. But when I express my disagreement with the nation that supporting the regime existence, you come back and attacking my reasoning because you forgot these horrible despot and tyrant are actually your government allies?

- Agains, also Pakistan and Gaza - unless you can show the stories are wrong, I stand by it.

also Singapore, I heard they also lashing peoples. Lets civilize them!

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Who is the terrorist? Not gonna go there, because there is no fair answer, and it is irrelevant.

As to the witnesses, I already gave my source.

As to Saudi, I don't care - two wrongs don't make a right. Sharia law, as I see it implemented, is contrary to most people's (other than Islam's) view of basis human rights.

Your argument seems to be:
1. I like it because I respect the Quoran - I respect the Bible, but don't believe it should be used as a basis for secular law, implemented by a government which has to deal with those outside the religion.
2. The rest of the world is anti-Islam and evil, so the country can do it. - No logic there.
3. The only issues are in Saudi Arabia - based on what I presented (which did not take much reading), we have at least two others.

Dude, I have nothing against your religion. I have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddist, agnostic, atheist, etc. I respect every person's right to worship (or not worship) whatever they want. But when they want to hold their religious beliefs over a country, where it affects those who do not share the same beliefs, I find that wrong, especially when such implementation goes against what most people feel are basic human rights.

 

[classical_hero]

I don't know what your Church told you about the Muslims and what they believe, we consider you as a peoples of the books, we can't eat meat that is slaughter by any religion except ourselves, Jewish and Christian. Muslims males cannot married with females from any religions except Muslims, Jewish and Christians. Muslims preserve its Christian population and they remain predominant in most of the Muslims region like Syria, Egypt, and many other region at the pre-Islamic period was predominantly Christian, until Abbassid time where the conversion to Islam is increasing. Christian and Jewish have a long line of scholarly tradition in Islamic world, and inhabit city like Damascus, Baghdad, Andalusian, etc, one of the important Jewish scholar that is grow in the Muslim community is Maimonides that later on he become close with Saladin.

We don't approve Jesus as god and we seen that as taking another partner beside God and Islam consider that an unforgivable sin that is correct, as you also see us as infidel with your own believe, Jesus for us is a Prophet of God and son of Mary, not a God himself. However in no way we marked Christian to death, if that is the case the Muslims already done inquisition to Christian population inside of their territory which we are not. In contrary, even not all, many of Christian mark us as anti-Christ, notably John of Damascus is the most early, and genocide us in the Jerusalem, in Spain or even cannibalize us during the Crusades in Syria.

So please, have a correct perspective regarding Muslims. My house mate for years in university was Catholics, I don't remember the time where I want to choke him to death at night, he is that close to me he even stay in my parents house for months. That to say, it is not our view regarding Christian which is problematic, but some of the Christian view (thanks to Orientalism) regarding us and how they assume we view them is quite scary, problematic and horrible.

[wiki]Shirk (Islam)[/wiki]
"Literally, it means the establishment of "partners" placed beside God." That is basically how they consider Christianity, since they believe we worship 3 gods for believing in the trinity. We say that Jesus is God and Muslims say that is polytheism. Why do you think so many Christians are killed in Muslim countries today? As El_Mach said, the Quran is schizophrenic in that in some passages it condemns Christianity and yet in other it praises them.

Evidence.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah_responds.htm
"Allah Almighty's response to the pagan polytheists from the hindus, and trinitarians and others about the impossibility of having multiple GOD:"

Evidence 2.
http://www.exploring-islam.com/are-christians-polytheists.html
" Christians do commit shirk in their perception of Jesus (pbuh) however they cannot be called Mushrik simply because they do not appreciate that what they are doing is Shirk. The Qur&#8217;an does say that this kind of belief is Shirk but has never called Christians Mushrik (just as there are many Muslims who have aspects of Shirk in their beliefs and practices but cannot be called Mushrik)."

 

[H4run]

Your argument seems to be:
1. I like it because I respect the Quoran - I respect the Bible, but don't believe it should be used as a basis for secular law, implemented by a government which has to deal with those outside the religion.

2. The rest of the world is anti-Islam and evil, so the country can do it. - No logic there.

Don't put words in my mouth BB I never say such things. As far as I can see my argument is not about what I like or dislike, respect or disrespect is not the concern of my argument, the concern of my argument is whether such rule that you gave as an examples that represent Islam if it truly representing or not.

Institution in Islam is not inviolable it is open to mistakes, in Sunni tradition the things that inviolable is Quran and Shahih Hadith, you must know this. While in Shiah tradition the things that inviolable is Quran, tradition, Imamah and Ahlu Bayt. So if you want to talk about what represent Islam or not according to Sunni view, we must base it on legal text and rules that is set by the Quran and Hadith, just think these two as somekind like constitution.

Base on this two also we can take a graps and picture on what does it mean if the shariah is implemented. And mark me, I don't argue to force implementation of shariah in your country or others, I just arguing regarding your assertion that not belong to its place.

If said, you don't agree that married adulterer to be stone to death, I don't have anything to say about it, because it is as it is, and I understand your source of disagreement. But when you start saying Saudi and Pakistan are Shariah base government and a true manifestation of Islamic state, then I must said what shariah have to said about them.

2. The rest of the world is anti-Islam and evil, so the country can do it. - No logic there.

And again I'm sorry to said that you put another words in my mouth, in no way I tell that the rest of the world is "anti Islamic", that not even an overstatement because I never said such thing. Non Islamic doesn't have to be anti-Islamic, it just doesn't represent Islam. Everything are not always dichotomy.

Dude, I have nothing against your religion. I have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddist, agnostic, atheist, etc. I respect every person's right to worship (or not worship) whatever they want. But when they want to hold their religious beliefs over a country, where it affects those who do not share the same beliefs, I find that wrong, especially when such implementation goes against what most people feel are basic human rights.

You may see it that way, I have nothing to object. And it is good to not having any pre-assumption and sentiment to peoples and their believe, it is a positive attitude.

 

[H4run]

[wiki]Shirk (Islam)[/wiki]
"Literally, it means the establishment of "partners" placed beside God." That is basically how they consider Christianity, since they believe we worship 3 gods for believing in the trinity. We say that Jesus is God and Muslims say that is polytheism. Why do you think so many Christians are killed in Muslim countries today? As El_Mach said, the Quran is schizophrenic in that in some passages it condemns Christianity and yet in other it praises them.

Evidence.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah_responds.htm
"Allah Almighty's response to the pagan polytheists from the hindus, and trinitarians and others about the impossibility of having multiple GOD:"

Evidence 2.
http://www.exploring-islam.com/are-christians-polytheists.html
" Christians do commit shirk in their perception of Jesus (pbuh) however they cannot be called Mushrik simply because they do not appreciate that what they are doing is Shirk. The Qur&#8217;an does say that this kind of belief is Shirk but has never called Christians Mushrik (just as there are many Muslims who have aspects of Shirk in their beliefs and practices but cannot be called Mushrik)."

As I already stated earlier here:

We don't approve Jesus as god and we seen that as taking another partner beside God and Islam consider that an unforgivable sin that is correct, as you also see us as infidel with your own believe, Jesus for us is a Prophet of God and son of Mary, not God himself.

also others if it is not Kaiserguard then Warpus, already stated earlier that in Islam we have tawheed or you may say monotheism, which we only worship God alone and God is one, not one in the form of unity not in the form of league, but One, God is not begot nor begotten. And we consider Jesus as a Prophet and Messenger of God not as God himself. Worshiping Jesus as a God is shirk, look again to my previous commentary is really not contradicting.

Despite that, whether you like it or not, we consider you as peoples of the books and once in our civilization Christians inhabiting Muslims society living side by side. I don't know if that make you happy or make you sad because you want it to be the opposite.

 

[Farm Boy]

You know who never had truck with any of this Holy Book-inspired nonsense? China. Forget beating everyone over the head with the Western stick, we should be deferring to people who've managed to administer a secular system of justice for two thousand years, rather than a poxy two-hundred-and-even-then-only-sorta.

I, for one, welcome our new Confucian overlords.

Truly a bastion of human rights and respect of individual freedoms, indeed.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

While trying to be respectful, but responsive to OP, let me make two arguments:

ONE
- Sharia law is based on the religious moral teachings of Islam;
- Many people, especially those who are not Islamic, disagree with some of these beliefs;
- Many people/countries do not support a theocracy, regardless of the religion;
Rightly or wrongly, those are facts.
But when you take those religious beliefs, and extend it to secular law, thereby holding its tenets to those who do not believe in the principles, it is wrong. I may not eat meat on Friday during Lent, but I will gladly sit down and dine with you in a restaurant on those dates.

TWO
Sharia law does not give equal protection to certain groups (women, non-Islamics), and the penalties, as I have pointed out earlier, can be very harsh. Again, you, as a male Islam, may support it. But many do not, and you have no right to have your beliefs held over them.

I could to try make other arguments, and point out where in the Quoran, it is not as simple, consistent, or benign, as where you have cited (just like the Bible has passages that can be considered contradictory). But I am not going to be able to cite you point for point, and that goes beyond my two arguments above.