[B][URL="http://islamicway.tumblr.com/post/15426807286"]SHARIAH LAW: THE FIVE THINGS EVERY NON-MUSLIM (AND MUSLIM) SHOULD KNOW[/URL][/B]
[B]1. What does Shariah mean?[/B]
Shariah is the law of the Qur’an and literally means “A path to life giving water.” In fact, the word [I]Yarrah[/I](i.e. the root of the Hebrew word Torah) means precisely the same thing. Therefore, Shariah is actually ingrained in Abrahamic tradition.
Shariah is comprised of five main branches: [I]adab[/I](behavior, morals and manners), [I]ibadah[/I] (ritual worship), [I]i’tiqadat[/I] (beliefs), [I]mu’amalat[/I] (transactions and contracts) and [I]‘uqubat[/I] (punishments). These branches combine to create a society based on justice, pluralism and equity for every member of that society. Furthermore, Shariah forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. Islam’s founder, Prophet Muhammad, demonstrated that Shariah may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation.
Additionally, the Qur’an does not promote any specific form of government, but requires that the form people choose must be based on [I]adl[/I] or “absolute justice.” The Qur’an says, “Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression. He admonishes you that you may take heed” (16:91). Notice, religious preference is never mentioned. Therefore, in ruling with absolute justice, for example, the righteous Jewish King Solomon ruled as a just monarch based on this fundamental principle of Shariah Law—justice.
[B]2. Do Muslims want Shariah to rule America?[/B]
No. Remember, the Qur’an teaches that religion must not be a matter of the state. Shariah is a personal relationship with God. Prophet Muhammad, even as the de facto ruler of Arabia, wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah. Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion. The Qur’an clearly says, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:257). Furthermore, Shariah obliges Muslims to be loyal to their nation of residence. Therefore, American Muslims must adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
[B]3. If Muslims don’t want Shariah to rule America, then so what if it’s banned?[/B]
First, Shariah is a personal relationship between a Muslim and God. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion—particularly private exercise. Second, if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam’s guidelines. If similar restrictions were imposed for other faith groups, then no Minister could conduct a marriage ceremony, no Catholic Bishop could read the last rites and no Rabbi could perform circumcision on an infant male Jewish child—because these are all Judeo-Christian religious laws. Even within our current legal system, American Jews regularly resolve civil matters through rabbinical courts known as [I]beit din[/I]. American Muslims simply want to enjoy their same constitutionally guaranteed right.
[B]4. What does Shariah say about other religions?[/B]
Shariah law champions absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For example, the Qur’an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews, Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack. (22:41) Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha—and must respect their adherents. When Prophet Muhammad peacefully became the ruler of Arabia, his primary condition for non-Muslims (and Muslims) to reside in Arabia was that they allow all people of all faiths—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or idol worshipers—to worship in peace and without oppression.
[B]5. What about countries that oppress people and claim they follow Shariah?[/B]
Such countries have ignored the fundamental tenet of justice inherent in Shariah Law, and have instead used Shariah as an excuse to gain power and sanction religious extremism. To be sure, not a single example of a “Shariah compliant” country exists. In fact, the most “Muslim country” in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought—all hallmarks of Shariah Law. Those nations that oppress in the name of Shariah are as justified in their claims, as the slave owners who claimed their right to slavery was based on the Bible.
As for the “violent” verses from the Qur’an that are cited by both extremists and critics—honest legal interpretation abhors quoting an excerpt as a means to understand the full law. Unfortunately, both extremists and critics refuse to adhere to this basic principle. In sum, Shariah law guides a Muslim’s personal relationship with God, just as the Old and New Testaments guide Jews and Christians in their personal relationships with God. These paths to life-giving water are nothing to fear.
I found this piece in a blog post made by [B]Qasim Rashid.
[/B]Many people find Sharia Law a threat, often because of mis-information.
Is it really bad? Do you think muslims really want to take over the world?
"Do you think muslims really want to take over the world?"
Applying one single agenda to 1.5 billion people is dumb
And the blog post is really one-sided.
Haven't the Jews been using their own religious code for civil matters in the West for decades?
I don't think they've taken over yet.
Did you guys know that Islam is a religion?
Basically put, I think them trying to put their law into places like the UK is bullshit, and it shouldn't even be considered. Just leave that law to countries where they are native or have majorities of Islamic people, don't go around being all bitchy towards us because we don't follow those laws.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;36588662]Basically put, I think them trying to put their law into places like the UK is bullshit, and it shouldn't even be considered. Just leave that law to countries where they are native or have majorities of Islamic people, don't go around being all bitchy towards us because we don't follow those laws.[/QUOTE]
But other religions already use their version of the 'sharia law' in the UK, and have so for a very long time.
It has nothing to do with Westerners following them, they're used to facilitate civil matters between Muslim families. Stop reading the daily mail.
Since I'm not a muslim, no, I do not follow it. I don't, however, feel it's bad. Having read a Quran before I know what it [i]actually[/i] is, and it isn't what the radicals claim it is.
Well that's silly, "oh that's not what the religion really says those countries just aren't following it"
if they're not following it then isn't the reality of Islam different from this ideal stuff?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36589822]Well that's silly, "oh that's not what the religion really says those countries just aren't following it"
if they're not following it then isn't the reality of Islam different from this ideal stuff?[/QUOTE]
You're making me defend religion, and I hate you for it.
But why would you confuse the fact that Islam extents to a huge variety of countries where it isn't a problem with "lol radicals errywhere".
The problem with Sharia law is fairly simple. Why in itself it was not a bad legal system in it's inception, it is extremely formalised which means that you generally have issues changing it directly. One of the only ways that you can affect it is via good Iurisprudence, but the problem with that, is that it can only go as far.
As it is, Sharia would be okay for some nations as a secondary legal source which is only used as an influencing factor - similar like preexisting judgements in similar cases in contentinental legal systems.
Not binding but can influence.
But it's very problematic if used as a primary legal source. An even bigger issue is, that Sharia exists on legal niveau of it's own.
In most nations you find these levels
Constitution>Ratified international treaties (tend to be positioned supralegally over laws>laws (and binding judgements in precedent legal systems)>sublegal stuff - edicts from ministries, council and similar. Essentially only legal if a law gives it legality.
With Sharia you add an extra level which also often is positioned in direct competition with constitutional segments.
----------------------------------
Of course the actual implementation of Sharia varies from country to country. Some only use it as that guiding force. But others tend to really position it into a position of power.
All beliefs are false and we all have to live in a society of falseness, but I guess that's part of being a human with an ego.
Personally, I don't like the idea of any kind of religious influenced law, as it adds another level of bullshit onto the pile of bullshit that is already present.
This is the view of some people - which also differs from the views of other people championing something with the same name but entirely different ideas of what it means.
People who can clearly see the bullshit (enlightened) should be in charge, and the first port of call should be breaking humanity out of the bullshit and into a more clear reality. People wouldn't need to be enlightened themselves, simply be aware of the difference between truth and belief and thus able to call themselves an adult for the first time.
Minimizing and cutting down everything to it's simplest, core and most understandable nature should be a priority, instead of making things more complex in order to try and understand them.. because that's when things stop making sense and we have to invent more bullshit to attempt to explain it.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36588696]But other religions already use their version of the 'sharia law' in the UK, and have so for a very long time.
It has nothing to do with Westerners following them, they're used to facilitate civil matters between Muslim families. Stop reading the daily mail.[/QUOTE]
That's fucking stupid. A different set of laws should not apply to people of different religions. Matters should be facilitated justly and effectively, which cannot come about with a religious institution.
By allowing other people to settle legal matters in their own manner you are getting rid of the idea of blind justice. Secular law and methodology should be applied equally to all people.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36591576]By allowing other people to settle legal matters in their own manner you are getting rid of the idea of blind justice. Secular law and methodology should be applied equally to all people.[/QUOTE]
But people settle their own legal matters all the time, in a manner in which both parties agree to.
It's rather draconian if you're trying to impose some absolute law in civil disputes between two agreeing parties.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36590047]You're making me defend religion, and I hate you for it.
But why would you confuse the fact that Islam extents to a huge variety of countries where it isn't a problem with "lol radicals errywhere".[/QUOTE]
I'm not doing that at all, the post said "Such countries have ignored the fundamental tenet of justice inherent in Shariah Law".
Obviously if there are entire regions where shit does happen then the reality is that that is what Islam is in practice it really doesn't matter what it should be because it isn't. It's just as silly to say USSR wasn't communism because it doesn't matter, that is what communism looks like in reality and not ideology.
Sharia law would work ok if it was not so rigid, the only real way it can be changed is through total religious and governmental agreement. Also, it is highly centralised, meaining it is based or taken from a few places. This wouldn't be too bad if the same law was used everywhere, but it isn't. Currently, in countries which have adopted some form of sharia law, it is bent and cherry-picked extensively.
Therefore, I think it is bad.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36591897]But people settle their own legal matters all the time, in a manner in which both parties agree to.
It's rather draconian if you're trying to impose some absolute law in civil disputes between two agreeing parties.[/QUOTE]
Maybe there is a miscommunication between us. I believe that every court and legal document should be secular and apply evenly. If Person A and Person B want to enter an agreement as outlined in Sharia, it should be allowed as long as the agreement follows the current laws in place.
However, if Person A and Person B want to legally settle a dispute in court, they should not be allowed to have it done consistently with Sharia, it should be wholly consistent to the secular laws in place.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;36588353]
[B]4. What does Shariah say about other religions?[/B]
Shariah law champions absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For example, the Qur’an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews, Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack. (22:41) Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha—and must respect their adherents. When Prophet Muhammad peacefully became the ruler of Arabia, his primary condition for non-Muslims (and Muslims) to reside in Arabia was that they allow all people of all faiths—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or idol worshipers—to worship in peace and without oppression.[/QUOTE]
Not so fast.
[QUOTE]"Qur'an 9:5: And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
"Qur'an 4:89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
"Qur'an 8:12: [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
"Qur'an 9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."
[/QUOTE]
tl;dr: Murder anyone who doesn't convert into Islam. Stop falling into random propagandas already.
I am against it because Sharia law is too easily abused by extremists.
Salafists and Whabbists would define Sharia differently than how it is described in that blogpost.
Basically extremists adhere to a stricter form of Sharia that would also be applicable to everyone in a nation/region, not just the Muslims. An example would be criticism of Islam (in particular Muhammed), which under Sharia is punishable by death.
I think it should just stick to some parts of the world. It should not be everywhere.
[QUOTE=sonerin;36613914]Not so fast.
tl;dr: Murder anyone who doesn't convert into Islam. Stop falling into random propagandas already.[/QUOTE]
Not so fast.
Shariah =/= Qur'an
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36621050]Not so fast.
Shariah =/= Qur'an[/QUOTE]
Qur'an > Islam > Islamic orders (kill non-muslims) > Shariah > Dead non-muslims > This debate
[QUOTE=NoDachi;36621050]Not so fast.
Shariah =/= Qur'an[/QUOTE]
"There are two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah."
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia[/url]
Where does Sharia come from if not from the Qu'ran and your prophet?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36622784]"There are two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah."
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia[/url]
Where does Sharia come from if not from the Qu'ran and your prophet?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what you said. Sharia is the Islamic law which comes straight out of Qur'an.
Allowing one group of people to practice their own law system undermines that countries encompassing judicial system. However, I do not mind if Shariah is applied in a private context as long as no public laws are broken through the verdict and the participation is wholly consensual, essentially it being just another type of mediation.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36630387]Allowing one group of people to practice their own law system undermines that countries encompassing judicial system. However, I do not mind if Shariah is applied in a private context as long as no public laws are broken through the verdict and the participation is wholly consensual, essentially it being just another type of mediation.[/QUOTE]
The aim of Sharia is to spread and fight non-believers untill they convert into Islam. There's no way of studying this in a private context, this isn't Sharia. You're supposed to fight non-believers untill they become Muslims, Islam forces itself on everyone.
You guys should get over the fact that Islam is nothing like a peaceful friendship religion. It's a hate cult.
[QUOTE=sonerin;36630554]The aim of Sharia is to spread and fight non-believers untill they convert into Islam. There's no way of studying this in a private context, this isn't Sharia. You're supposed to fight non-believers untill they become Muslims, Islam forces itself on everyone.
You guys should get over the fact that Islam is nothing like a peaceful friendship religion. It's a hate cult.[/QUOTE]
Even if what you said was true, how does applying it in purely consensual out of court mediation contribute in any sense to fighting non-believers, seeing as unless said non-believer was curious they would never agree to the mediation being based upon Shariah.
Furthermore while it is true and entirely possible to correlate extremist versions of Islam with a Hate cult, it is a sweeping generalisation to imply that all of Islam is entirely a hate cult
Personally I'm against any religiously motivated law and legislation unless it's further backed up by reasoned logic and science.
[QUOTE=TestECull;36589701]Since I'm not a muslim, no, I do not follow it. I don't, however, feel it's bad. Having read a Quran before I know what it [i]actually[/i] is, and it isn't what the radicals claim it is.[/QUOTE]
I have also read a Bible and it is NOTHING like what Republicans claim it is.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36631931]Even if what you said was true, how does applying it in purely consensual out of court mediation contribute in any sense to fighting non-believers, seeing as unless said non-believer was curious they would never agree to the mediation being based upon Shariah.
Furthermore while it is true and entirely possible to correlate extremist versions of Islam with a Hate cult, it is a sweeping generalisation to imply that all of Islam is entirely a hate cult[/QUOTE]
A common misconception is that Gandhi didn't fight. He did. Fiercely.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sonerin;36630554]The aim of Sharia is to spread and fight non-believers untill they convert into Islam. There's no way of studying this in a private context, this isn't Sharia. You're supposed to fight non-believers untill they become Muslims, Islam forces itself on everyone.
You guys should get over the fact that Islam is nothing like a peaceful friendship religion. It's a hate cult.[/QUOTE]
American Baptism is just as abusive shit as you claim Islam is. I don't see that being outlawed or actively fought. I would love to, so the worst we can worry about again is philosophical appliance of protestant practices, but no... It's still ok to apply peer pressure to outdated ideas and force it on everyone. all cool.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;36632397]
A common misconception is that Gandhi didn't fight. He did. Fiercely.
[/QUOTE]
I'm having trouble seeing how this is relevant at all to what I said ???
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36631931]Even if what you said was true, how does applying it in purely consensual out of court mediation contribute in any sense to fighting non-believers, seeing as unless said non-believer was curious they would never agree to the mediation being based upon Shariah.
Furthermore while it is true and entirely possible to correlate extremist versions of Islam with a Hate cult, it is a sweeping generalisation to imply that all of Islam is entirely a hate cult[/QUOTE]
Islam orders Muslims to discriminate and murder non-believers. This is enough for us to consider Islam to be a hate cult. Read the verses I posted above.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;36632397]
American Baptism is just as abusive shit as you claim Islam is. I don't see that being outlawed or actively fought. I would love to, so the worst we can worry about again is philosophical appliance of protestant practices, but no... It's still ok to apply peer pressure to outdated ideas and force it on everyone. all cool.[/QUOTE]
Hurr durr other religions are violent too let's not give a shit about Islam because there are other violent religions hurr fucking durr. Just because Christianity and other religions have violence in them will make Islam crystal clear hurr durr fucking derp.
This thread is aimed towards Islam, not Christianity. We are talking about the dark side of Islam here, feel free to create another thread to debate about Christianity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
