What is Sharia Law

[Bulldog Bats]

Back to my "two wrongs". When countries with secular laws to to passlaws that extend beyond its authority, there are ways to challenge/change the law.

And yes, there is an issue over the words and the interpretation. All the more reason why you shouldn't use an unclear ancient text as a basis for modern law.

The reason to have a written Constitution/system of laws is that the law will rule over the weakest/most evil leader in charge, and you can change those rules when society changes (ie slavery, female vote).

 

[Traitorfish]

...Is Bulldog Bats implying that slavery only became objectionable when "society changed"?

 

[Tee Kay]

When countries with secular laws to to passlaws that extend beyond its authority, there are ways to challenge/change the law.

This is one of the many great advantages of secular, non-holy laws, yes. Though challenging the law isn't unheard of in Sharia either, as the apostasy thing demonstrates.

And yes, there is an issue over the words and the interpretation. All the more reason why you shouldn't use an unclear ancient text as a basis for modern law.

But unclear modern texts are okay?

The reason to have a written Constitution/system of laws is that the law will rule over the weakest/most evil leader in charge

Stalin's Soviet Union had the most liberal constitution in the world. Didn't stop him.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Unclear modern texts can be changed. Unclear ancient texts cannot, especially when the source is divine - for that very reason. No system is perfect, and any system can be abused/ignored (Stalin/Nixon/Hitler). All the more reason to have a system as objective and clear as possible.

I am a Christian. Every argument I made against Sharia can be made against using the Bible as a basis for law. I would oppose that just as strongly.

Take concepts from your religion, or any other source you hold to be important, as a basis for your law. But don't say "my God says this, therefore, for that reason, it controls". Especially when it does, or even can, control those who do not believe in that God, or that God's word should control.

 

[El_Machinae]

So you won't have a problem with people following Sharia law as long as there is a parallel court system for non-Muslims or Muslims who choose not to go to Sharia courts?

I mean, if that's the case, it's not a bad idea in itself but it seems to go against the basic tenets of 20th century liberalism. All equal before the law, and all that.

Well, the ability to negotiate our own contracts is essential to modern liberalism. Contracting a Islamic 'vibe' into a set of contracts doesn't seem too out to lunch. No, I don't want parallel court systems; the majority of Sharia law seems to be around a person lives as a private individual. Power to them.

But unclear modern texts are okay?

Not if people start worshiping the text.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I am not implying anything. Slavery has been an issue since before Genesis. When the US Constitution was drafted (and before), it was a hot-button issue that almost de-railed the process. A compromise was made, just as other compromises were made prior to the Civil War (ie Missouri Compromise).

Even after the Civil War, rights were not equal. The country has had many changes, be it the amendments to the Constitution, and the civil rights laws of the 1960s and beyond. To this day, I, and many others, contend that it still is not equal.

Through the years, as different issues came up, they were dealt with (Blacks, women, Japanese, homosexuals, illegal aliens, and many others). As the issues come up, they are dealt with, and as society changes, so do our laws, and our Constitution. In fact, there is a movement right now for a Constitutional Convention to deal with some of the things Obama has done that other feel is contrary to his powers as President.

When you use an ancient, religious text as your basis for law, you do not have the option to change it. A man who believes in the word of God is not going to say God is wrong - that is blasphemy.

If you have a better solution for securing the rights of all in a stable society, I am all ears.

 

[Ajidica]

When you use an ancient, religious text as your basis for law, you do not have the option to change it.

Not necessarily.
Easiest example is the Second Vatican Council and a rather substantial overhaul of canon law.
Additionally, as much as the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia try and make it seem like their version of Sharia Law and Islam is the original variety, it is a relatively recent (and quite radical) take on traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scholarship.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not necessarily.
Easiest example is the Second Vatican Council and a rather substantial overhaul of canon law.

I wouldn't even say it's a case of "not necessarily", so much as a case of "not usually". The idea of a Big Bumper Book O' Rules containing anything and everything you'd need to know is equally alien to Judaism, Christianity and Islam- and in Islam most of all, because it is simply not possible to read the Qur'an literally.

 

[Tee Kay]

Additionally, as much as the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia try and make it seem like their version of Sharia Law and Islam is the original variety, it is a relatively recent (and quite radical) take on traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scholarship.

"Lo! Allah hath made ye male and female, and verily the female shall not operate motor vehicles" (Not the Quran, 9:23)

 

[H4run]

Of course it is relevant. If a country adopts Sharia law, or any Sharia guidelines, it will extent to any non-Islamic citizens, or visitors to that country.

Also, not every Islamic person may support Sharia law. For example, Americans who serve in the military or many federal offices take an oath to support the US Constitution - I know several in the army. The US Constitution includes freedom of religion. Those are Islamic persons who do not support Sharia.

Finally, most posters in support of Sharia have ignored the other issue. There have been many examples where Sharia law has been used to violate many people's idea of basic human rights.

Again repeating what TK and myself already stated, the application of shariah mustn't always refer to the Quran and Hadith. It employ both level, the level of global understanding of moral, which I stated in Ottoman called adamiyyah I will not stated the detail because it will be long and peoples might wont read it, but in short it is pretty much like human right, ex: you must not take anyone life, you must not violate other property, etc. While in other side it acknowledge locality of different custom and law, here truth become relative, and each community apply the law that they believe, that mean Christian using Christian law, Muslims using Muslims law. That said, if there is caliphate that apply shariah, and you violate the law, if you are a Jew then you go to the Jewish court that is being enrol and organize by Torah-Talmud not to the shariah law.

So shariah can reference to any law and custom that is exist within its system. It do apply in Early Caliphate, Ottoman, Mughal but I don't know much about Safavid or Fatimid but TK mention it so it might be also, because shia have pretty much different doctrine than sunni.

 

[H4run]

Additionally, as much as the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia try and make it seem like their version of Sharia Law and Islam is the original variety, it is a relatively recent (and quite radical) take on traditional Islamic jurisprudence and scholarship.

They doesn't have shariah reference for that, because in Hadith there are clear account that woman able to travel alone. But they argue the implementation of such rule is not fit for 21st century because there is so many corruption. And it apply solely for the safety of woman so they made this "new" idjma of ulama that is out from hadith tradition, which contradict to the early madinah society that been recorded by hadith and it should be their source of law if they really want to implemented shariah.

 

[classical_hero]

That can be said for many many things, can't it?

At least, Sharia can be shown to have a pretty good track record pre-20th century wrt respecting other religious traditions' autonomy and applying Islamic law strictly to Muslims. This includes most of the periods of the early caliphates, and the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal Empires.

Look at this website and a map of the massacres of Jews before 1948, they go all the way to the foundation of Islam.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/massacre-of-jews-by-muslims-before-1948.html

You only had peace if you weren't a Muslim by knowing your place as someone less worthy than a Muslim and pay jizya fr that privilege of living under their rule.

 

[Tahuti]

What is Sharia Law?

Well, I guess it some kind of law used by some barbaric desert savages. Why should we even bother giving a serious discussion?

 

[H4run]

Look at this website and a map of the massacres of Jews before 1948, they go all the way to the foundation of Islam.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/massacre-of-jews-by-muslims-before-1948.html

You only had peace if you weren't a Muslim by knowing your place as someone less worthy than a Muslim and pay jizya fr that privilege of living under their rule.

I don't even need to defend the reality that Jew escape massacre in the West Europe to the Islamic state at that time (Caliphate, Emirate (like Ayyubid) and all of those kinds). Line of Jewish scholarship is flourish when they actually experience their own golden age in the Islamic state. Peoples like Abu al-Fadl ibn Hasda (vizier at Zaragosa), Maimonides, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Yehuda Halevi (Samuel Ha-Nagid ibn Nagrela, king's minister and poet), should I mention more? even a nationalistic Jewish historian like Max I Dimont said the Jews not only welcome and protected but also become elites and put in important position in Islamic state. Even they develop their own mysticism in Islamic Spain.

I really don't have particular resentment or fanatically impulse or call of nature to degrade specific religion (except for government which is not religion) to make my belief seems right, because that is a clue that I don't have enough faith on my religion that I need an applaud and confirmation from other regarding my religion by degrading other.

If you believe in something truly, you don't need other approval of your superiority to convince you, you too content with your own, which I don't see that in you. Even though I can do what you do with stronger prove but I think it is not productive. I think by noting other positive and negative in balance manner, with honesty, peoples can exercise their righteous deeds, not by manipulating of other positive effort in history.

Jizya is nearly as same with zakat that Muslims paid. And during the time of the second Caliph, the peoples of the books during old ages get basic supply like food and shelter directly from the government. You can't even compare that to how we crypto Muslims live in medieval Christian country.

 

[Ajidica]

You only had peace if you weren't a Muslim by knowing your place as someone less worthy than a Muslim and pay jizya fr that privilege of living under their rule.

By pre-modern standards that was downright progressive.

 

[Tee Kay]

Jizya is nearly as same with zakat that Muslims paid. And during the time of the second Caliph, the peoples of the books during old ages get basic supply like food and shelter directly from the government

Great, Muslim and socialist

 

[H4run]

Great, Muslim and socialist

I was on the leftish movement before I become Muslims, the first character that interest me to Islam is Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, and the one who made me acquaintance with this figure was a protestant genius (even though he nearly atheistic, really not clear) an activist (leftist also) from other city but we are close friend. After that I encounter with other Muslim organization. That said, if you look at the time of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz you will quite amaze with the social system at that time. Most of peoples at least have 1 house and 1 donkey/horse; when the zakat want to be distributed no one held debt and no one goes to the level of poverty; so the zakat goes to the youth who want to get married, or Christian merchant to improve their income hence improve jizya, or freeing the slaves.

And as far as I know he is the only suni figure that both the sunni and the shia love and respect.

 

[Zelig]

I don't know much about Sharia, but if a law can be interpreted the way it's interpreted in Saudi Arabia(and it doesn't matter if it's interpreted less strictly elsewhere) then it's not a law I think it's worth supporting. If the law is ambiguous then it's a problem with the law.

Careful, you're going to encourage the lawyers.

"Islamic persons" has to be the most awkward phrasing I've encountered in a while.

I don't think corporations can be muslim.

 

[Traitorfish]

By pre-modern standards that was downright progressive.

By contrast, in 1492 Castile-Aragon declared Judaism illegal, and anyone who wouldn't leave or convert was executed without trial. The thousands who were executed by the Crown or murdered while trying to escape constitutes what is probably the single largest mass-killing of Jews until the Russian Civil War.