Shar'iah, your thoughts?
 

I am trying to understand more about the institutions of various religions and/or ideologies and how they affect their constituents, I am curious about Shar'iah, and wonder if anybody else is, so I am asking these questions in the attempt to help explain to myself the basic ideologies of many Shar'iah movements and why their seems to be such an outcry against it.

What do you know about Shar'iah? What have you heard about Shar'iah?

Do you believe Shar'iah is a viable political movement that should be instituted within the regulatory policies of humanities governing abilities?

Do you feel Shar'iah is for the people, by the people and of the people, is it the next movement in creating cohesive societies?

Do you feel that there is an ability to separate religion from Shar'iah or do you feel Shar'iah is merely a religious institution of governing?

Shar'iah as defined by the Council on Foreign Relations
Do you recognize the movement of Shar'iah within the Arabic nations, or any nation (at this moment there are attempts to implement Shar'iah in areas of Canada and the UK), as a viable means of governing humanity? Do you feel that Shar'iah has a place within the governing bodies of the world? If so, why do you believe it is a good system of governing to implement or if you disagree with Shar'iah why do you feel it should not be implemented as a governing hierarchy?

Would you live under Shar'iah? Do you feel that if Shar'iah were to become an accepted governing ideology that other religions, or freedom of religion in general, would suffer?

I've yet to find a historical case where religion and government being mixed together resulted in more stable and free society than one where religion and government were separated. It doesn't matter whether it's Shar'iah or a Christian theocracy, mixing the power of God with the power of the people never seems to work out.

I'd never live in a country that combined the two.

It's a little hard to suggest that the US government isn't tainted by Christian ideology.

Otherwise we wouldn't have issues with abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.

No suggesting here, I recognize that christian morality (as well as other religious/ideological themes) comes to play in the government arena in the U.S. many times, and I vehemently disapprove of that, but I do see U.S. citizens as attempting to separate church and state, not always well, but attempting this separation relentlessly, I am proud to help anyway I can to further that separation. I also see U.S. citizens as, at very least, set up constitutionally so that they are able to vocalize their discontent regarding the mixing of religion and governing without fear of state funded retribution.

Do you think Shar'iah offers the same opportunities to it's citizens?

The reason Shar'iah law is being attempted in various countries is that it allows the community to wholly ignore secular law.

In the vast majority of Arab states, Shar'iah law and legal institutions work in parallel with the government. By that, Imams and other Clerics can pass down judgments in divorce, civil issues, even cases in settling murders and honor killings. If a government judge hands down a decree, the loser can simply turn to a cleric and try it again. In what usually happens, the loser donates a generous sum to the mosque and amazingly wins the second go-round.

Now I'm willing to accept that in some developing countries Shar'iah is a good thing. Mostly in Northern Africa, the governments are so utterly corrupt civil suits often turn into the local governor grabbing up both defendant and plaintiff's property.... just because. In those instances the Clerics are the impartial parties which the judges are supposed to be, but with that said Shar'iah is NOT something we want. Shar'iah law is what allows the fathers in honor-killings to avoid punishment as the local police do not want to go against a clerical decree.

Shar'iah is not a system to develop law which is the area which you posted. Shari'iah is the legal system of settling disputes through interpretation of laws supposedly handed down by God. In essence your quote is Congress while Shari'iah is the Supreme Court.

Idyllic:

Here is a thread you may find enlightening.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...sk-muslim.html

seaver, while i agree with you, you do really make it sound quite simple when it comes to decrees by imams.

most arab countries have imams that are selected to work within the framework of the governments laws, but also within the context of shariah law. i guess like as you said supreme court judges.

not any imam can make a fatwa that is binding under a certain countries laws. here in the UAE, all imams are selected by the government for each and every mosque. whilst they can give decrees on day to day things, fatwas for criminal law must go through the government system. in saying this, many (id say most) islamic countries have quasi-islamic law implemented.

this obviously stops cowboy imams from decreeing judgements on honour killings and routes it through the government system.

Don't all religions have a similar set of rules, like abortion and gay marriage? I've always had the belief that religions center around a similar set of goals and ideology and are more alike than what's normally thought.

You can make any argument relate to religion in some way, because every issue has roots in religious beliefs. One Christian may think abortion is a sin; another may think it's not a sin but still isn't right to do; I, a Christian, am pro-choice. Different people of the same religion can have different beliefs.

Theocracy has never worked. Also, seeing as how I'm not Muslim, I would never want to live under Shar'iah. If there was a "Christian Shar'iah", I wouldn't want to live under that either.

It depends on the country. Many countries have made an uneasy accord with the Imams instead of directly ruling/choosing them. For example look at Egypt.

The government is technically a socialist dictatorship. However they've had such problems in the past dealing with the radicals and the Muslim Brotherhood they've made a truce with the clerics. In that, it's a parallel system. There are legal laws on the books, and the clerical religious laws. It's up to the plaintiff to choose which to go to, and for the vast majority of cases the government doesn't care. Very rarely, when the defendant is connected, the government can and does overrule the Shari'iah ruling... but again that's only rarely.

In practice I'll accept that they're not in direct conflict for the majority of cases in Egypt... and in cases of divorce the Shari'iah rulings are much more favorable to the woman compared with the government. The clerics in Egypt are much more balanced than in many other Muslim countries.

As previous posters have said, even our Western societies are based upon the Judeo-Christian moral system.

I have a hard time imagining living in a country with a Sharia system, and I don't believe that is an effective way to run a society. I think that's one of the main reasons the Middle Eastern countries are barbaric and underdeveloped - their religion is too closely related to the legal and political system.

do you mind explaining what you mean by 'barbaric and underdeveloped'?

ive travelled most of the middle east and im yet to see what you mean.

Just a note, that the muslim religion itself IS the legal and political system. If you read the posts earlier, you;ll see that shariah law is based on the quranic text, hadith (sunnah), and interpolated laws through both of these based on the opinions of jurists from different schools of thought.

since i live in the middle east (UAE), and some of you find it so dificult to fathom, but i live under quasi-islamic law. the laws here are based on shariah, but not implemented in the same way that say saudi arabia implements its laws. you will find this the case throughout much of the middle east, with cultural differences and interpetations of the laws differing from country to country. a hijab in turkey, is not a hijab is saudi etc.

probably with the exception of saudi, there isnt one country that is run purely on shariah law...and even then, the wahabbi ideology has killed the spirit of the message in the way it is being implemented.

Looking forward to Shari'a Law v2.0. Current version buggy, in need of upgrade.

When you say Judeo-Christian you actually mean Abrahamic... and Islam is an Abrahamic religion. If our laws were based more prominently on Christian teachings, no anti-homophobic laws would be on the books, everyone would have mandatory community service to heal the sick, and large percentages of our income would continually go to various charities to aid the poor.

As for your second statement, it is so rife with inaccuracies and false knowledge I'm not even going to start on it.

Of course you're right in saying that both Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions, but they are still rather different. The Judeo-Christian moral teachings are a basis for our Western society, and influence our lives on a daily basis. However, it is not through practical laws or ordinances, but on an unconscious level - practicing christians, as well as atheists. Our laws are based on these teachings, but they are just that - based, and so are the moral judgements and thoughts of most people in our culture. In Middle-Eastern societies, the laws are religious in and of themselves.

And regarding the second part of your post, you may be right as well. I've just had some bad experiences dealing with people of Middle-Eastern cultural descent, and their attitude towards other people and the world in general. I won't go into detail on this, but I admit I might be a tad judemental when it comes to this. So, again - I admit I was a little too quick to judge.

Well in large part the religion is law statement belongs solely to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Almost all other Arab countries have constitutions written in large part by France and England which have secular law and court systems. So when you're discussing this topic you MUST get specific on which countries we're going to be discussing.

Syria is 100% secular Ba'athist regime.
Lebanon is 100% secular democratic, with a 60/40 government position split depending on Christian/Muslim religion.
All Magreb (N. Africa) are secular, with only Egypt having a parallel legal system.
UAE is secular
Yemen is secular
Jordan is secular
Iraq was, and still is secular
Turkey is secular
Palestine was secular, and Hamas still does not control the territory fully (it's complicated)

So when you're discussing these, please be specific on the realm of which we discuss. In addition, room must be left in the conversation to divide fatwas and actual enforceable power. If every random fatwa is allowed into the discussion, then by that logic Australians could be lumped into something that Jeremiah Wright might say.

Considering that christianity has had a 600 year headstart on islam, you'd assume that those laws would be more refined. If you look back then, you'll probably find christianity was having similar issues as islam is having today.

But please do remind me send you the version that is released in the year 2610.

Islam 2: Qu'aranic Boogaloo

The troll. Don't feed it.

Win!

how is shari'a a movement?
what does customary law do exactly once it turns into a movement?

It's been a movement since the mid '90s to get Shari'iah parallel legal systems, such as in Egypt, to exist in England, France, Holland, etc. It hasn't gained much ground, and has led to a strong counter reaction in the Netherlands... but it's a movement that exists.

Some of you might find this an interesting read. It's an analysis of a position by Daniel Pipes and his opposition to Sharia law in Ontario (essentially family law arbitration courts). It examines the double standard in Pipes' arguments and compares/contrasts between Sharia (Islamic law) and Halakha (Jewish law), the latter of which doesn't seem to get much discussion.

It should provide some relevant context for this thread in a wide capacity.

Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 1 | loonwatch.com
Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 2 | loonwatch.com

I hear and read too many horror stories about sharia law I suppose. And I hear the extreme examples, the sensational examples like women being stoned to death for adultery and criminals getting their heads and hands cut off. Its frightening stuff. Its strange to me that there are places on earth that do this and condone these actions even now. The fact that homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran to me is crazy, same with polygamy. Just the whole idea of mixing these extreme religious viewpoints into judicial and official proceedings makes me nervous, harshes my mellow. I probably need to educate myself more on the more moderate versions of sharia law.

Halakha doesn't get much discussion because one of the founding principles of all jewish law is "Dina d'malchuta dina", literally "The law of the land IS the law", which is a pretty fundamental difference as compared to Sharia law.

Let me start with this disclaimer, this post is for the purpose of discussion, there are no hidden attacks herewith and should you feel attacked, please push the button. I ask these questions with full knowledge that this is a controversial subject, but one I feel needs to be approached in a forum where shared responses are valued and open for discussion.

The politics of religion, do they belong within the politics of government: I am only aware of the Ten Commandments as any true tenets of Christianity as related to the New Testament and practiced widely, or considered relating to the institution of secular laws, though I find half of them simply rooted in religions antiquity, I acknowledge the necessity to define laws of man within some conformed standard in the history of humanities social evolution. I find many of the Commandments merely outdated, however, 6, 8 & 9 are the true power holders, imho, but these are not religious laws to me as much as they are humanities, in general, leaving the other commandments to personal, religious and historical interpretations. I know interpretations of biblical verses led to many human judgment issues in the early days of Christianity, as well most religions and ideologies in the foundation of creating cohesion's within their particular sect, but these were, from what I understand, merely interpretations of verse, i.e. "the church says" or “the bible/verse/parable is interpreted to mean” especially as far as the New Testaments’ “parables”...... Not to mention that many of these “books” of the bible are written by men from viewpoints that were entrenched in the historical developments of communities “governed” by oligarchies, rooted patriarchal, and within specific tradition, and passed via birthrights or bloodlines of power, as opposed to ones true capacity to rule.

My understanding is that these “books/texts of the Bible” were different religious mens perceptions and interpretations of the verses’ or parables’ “inherent” teachings in the simplicity of the Ten Commandments as interpreted to fit one tribe’s choices of “law” at that time in history under the circumstances of their particular moment, but not the actual “words” of God to be harkened as strictured law in this day. I am also led to believe, and attempt to understand, that all verses of the Qur’an are considered to be “The verbatim word of Allah” and to be accepted as such from the writings of Muhammad. From what I know of the Qur'an, which isn't much because without the knowledge of the stories behind the words, it just comes across as, at times, beautiful poetry left open for a myriad of interpretations. Though, I also find that the "verses" are taken more literally in instances of "law" and are taken to minute detail and decisions. I am led to believe that the words of the Qur’an are totally devoid of personal interpretation even in the present everyday life of Muslims who live devoutly within Shari'ah, or not, it is what it is, period. Correct me too, when I say, that most punishments within the teachings of the New Testament (as opposed to the Old) fell more to God, after one dies, and less and to the religious leaders of a sects organization, outside of being ostracized by specific groups (i.e. some Mormon practices and some Jehovah witness sects ostracizing their members), there isn’t a whole lot of “stoning” or “honor killing” or “mutilation” as payment for the breaking of a spiritual law that is linked back to Gods’ actual words and not mans interpretation of them in the New Testament.

I guess what I am saying is that the New Testament, and the modern human condition within truly secular societies, allows for mankind to question the “laws/ideologies/interpretations” of the bible as more than just the “word of God” but the word of God as interpreted by man. Truly secular societies are permitted to question their religious books and the words therein, fundamentally and historically, without persecution, without fear of being ostracized from family and friends or even death. True secularization within modern societies has developed from understanding and accepting the inherent self-servitude of mankinds’ interpretations of histories religious and or ideological past societies’ and any individuals antiquated interpretations of others interpreted verses, allowing growth for humanities’ development and the eventual separation of church and state that came as a final end to the varied murky attempts at religious text elucidations. It seems to me that the Qur’an disallows, in general, any and all interpretations that would allow it to be fully embraced within a modern establishment of progressive societies, outside of attempts to mold a society around the word of Muhammad, which is perceived as the verbatim word of Allah and is not to be interpreted by the average reader but only by those who are born within the realms of the religious leaders of Islam and their interpretations, therefore it would seem impossible to separate Islam and in turn Shar’iah from the politics of governing within Muslim societies until the Qur’an can be seen more as a personal guide in faith and less as an Islamic societies law. It seems to me that Muslims are forced to adhere to the Qur’an with no wiggle room or they merely wiggle themselves outside the faith of Allah, altogether. I wonder if the ability to interpret the words of the Qur’an will be permitted to happen at all outside of the Imams, will Islam ever allow for personal interpretations of the Qur’an to match the evolution of mankind in, modern politics, technology, science, evolution of the species, etc…? Am I right to believe that the worse affront to Allah is to be a Muslim who has turned away or denies the Islamic faith and Shar’iah law?

Again, let me reiterate, the questions I am asking are an attempt to understand, not an attempt to negate or defame or insult anyone or anyone’s belief, but to try and see a perspective that will help me appreciate more the religious devotions’ and politics of Islam as well as Judaism and Christianity, we can talk Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, New Age, Hare Krishna, Sikhism, Agnostic, Atheist, Scientology, Satanism, etc…. I am interested in them all, it just so happens that about half of the worlds population call themselves Christian or Muslim, Hindus make an impressive third most followers’ leaving the remaining 30% or so of the populace scattered amongst all forms of interesting beliefs (39+ different beliefs/religions/ideologies Religion, World Religions, Comparative Religion - Just the facts on the world's religions.) or lack thereof. If I am being perceived as insulting, this is not my intent, and I apologize. I respect completely each and every humans individual right to believe in whatever they wish and do not, myself, strive to sway any one to my views. Thank you for any and all personal perspectives, I think we have a right, as well as a necessity, to discuss openly the beliefs of others as well as ourselves to help in removing fear that can be found in ignorance, but in this we must strive to realize that many people want to ask some tough questions and are truly afraid of not only offending others, but of persecution too and considering that Islam cannot be removed from the politics of governing in it’s current capacity, I am deeply curious how the political affairs of humankind can coexist within the politics of a religious based culture that does not seem to recognize the profound necessity to completely separate church and state in all of humanities governing judicial matters.

One more question, can a non-Muslim hold office in a traditionally Islamic state, would it be permitted under Shar’iah law for a Christian to be in a position of power within the political realm of Islam, or say a Hindu, or a Buddhist?
Though still mostly Christian and or Jewish there are Muslim and Buddhist members of congress as well as many women and a beginning openness to GLBT within the political offices of the U.S., do you think this diversity, or beginnings of such, could been seen in the political leadership of Muslim nations under Shar’iah?

Are Muslims permitted to question the Qur'an without fear of retribution?

idyllic,

while i only have an hour and a half before i go to work, i fear that even this isnt enough time for me to answer all your questions, queries and proddings. seriously. I'm happy to give you the lowdown and tell you my side of the equation, others here might be able to chime in too.

however, i do have one concern here, that from the limited knowledge you have about islam, the quran, sunnah, hadith, along with the different opinions and interpratations of the different schools of thought and the imams themselves, it is impossible that you can make any sort of stance on this matter, or base your knowledge on any conclusion. i personally know many imams and sheikhs who devote their lifetime to specialize in the study of shariah law.

however, this is the type of language that concerns me with your post...

I am also led to believe.....
From what I know of the Qur'an, which isn't much...
It seems to me that Muslims ....
I am led to believe that the words of the Qur’an ...
It seems to me that the Qur’an disallows...
It seems to me that Muslims are forced ...

and thats just reading through that quickly...there may be others

you're makiing assumptions on things you do not know, have heard from others or just plainly wrong.

i think what you do need to do is go down to your local bookstore and buy a quran off the shelf..or better yet, if theres a muslim bookstore in town, they'd probably be happy to give you one.

after reading the english version (try the Yusuf Ali or the Pickthal translations into english which i recommend are the best for ease of reading) try and read about the history of hadith and the 4 schools of thought which can become a bit daunting. just as a basis to try answer some of your questions.. if your intention is purely for the pursuit of knowledge, then that is what id recommend.

the other request i have is that you break up your questions from the body of your assumptions as it gets confusing. i will try and answer these questions tonight, as much as i can, but i wont be home before 10pm tonight so it may have to be over a few days

again, id love to answer all the questions..as ive said before i dont profess to know everything, but as the resident muslim here, id love to try and help you (and everyone) understand queries they may have. dont take my response the wrong way, but i think you'll just need to work on the way you present your view instead of a lump of text which makes readability pretty hard. ...and for the record, i dont get upset.

lots of assumptions, lots of theories, lots of questions...i'll try my best

I'm happy with secular law, thank you very much. I'm totally fine with people having whatever religious beliefs they want, but most of the laws from their traditions suck.

Really? You want to cut off my foreskin? In the 20th century? Really? You think that rape victims should be stoned to death? Really? Aborting a clump of cells is murder? Really?

will, from a person i considered as a pretty smart human being, if you were referring to islam, then thats about the dumbest thing you've ever said.

islam doesnt want You to cut off YOUR foreskin. There are plenty of muslims with foreskins. If you convert you dont have to cut it, and non believers are not obliged to snip it either

find me a reference where islam condones such practices as rape victims being stoned to death. please dont use the taliban as a reference. that is not islam.

aborting a clump of cells is not considered murder under islam. there is a time period where up until such time the embyro is not considered human yet. i think its 4 or 4 1/2 months.

so to answer your questions... No. Not really.

It's a shame you didn't read my post more carefully. I was condemning laws that stem from any religious beliefs. I cited Judaism, Islam, and Christianity because I didn't want this to be another pile-on-Islam thread. Judaism includes cutting the foreskin. Islam includes, according to some, stoning a woman to death for being raped. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception (without demonstrating it) and then condemns abortion as murder. These are nonsensical rules that cannot be questioned within their faiths. Secular laws have the benefit of being subject to change and questioning. I can question a legislator or judge because humans are fallible. I can't question a god because the believers think their morality is absolute.
You don't want me to go down this road, dlish. I respect you and I respect your beliefs. I know that you would never consider stoning a woman to death for anything regardless of whether it could be found in the Qur'an or Hadith. My one and only point is that religion-based laws aren't for me. I prefer secular law.

apologies for the rash posting will.

i wasnt sure if it was or wasnt meant as islam, hence the disclaimer "if you were referring to islam..". Since you were'nt then its not the dumbest thing you've ever said, and it makes perfect sense. the beauty of hindsight. apologies again.

In any case, i still thought that the 'some' you refer to with regards to stoning for rape, are people like the taliban and their ilk. of course i cant speak on behalf of every scholar/sheikh/imam but from what ive seen, heard and read, none of these in their sane mind would make such a judgement for a rape victim.

i think some of the laws may need revamping, how so, i cannot say, but the fact is that islam and shariah isnt a rigid body of laws and is open to interpretation, further analysis and criticism contrary to what some might think. It's evolution is obvious over the past 14 centuries, but like ive mentioned, its still 6 centuries behind christianity. Thats not to say that islam will condone scantily clad women in 600 years or pre-marital sex etc, but that islam is prone to change with time within the confines of islamic law.

It's not easy to revamp religious laws because now the source material is nearly impossible to change (in the day of mass-printed holy books). It would be impossible for the Pope to go back and cross out a bunch of crazy stuff in Deuteronomy because it doesn't fit modern sensibilities. The Hadith are a bit more fluid because certain ones can move in and out of favor, but any particularly unpopular rules from the Qur'an are going to be impossible to change without pissing off a lot of people. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is perfect, similar to Christians believing the Bible is inerrant.

What you end up with, in my understanding of history, is the fundamentalists that take everything as gospel (ha! religious pun!), and the moderates that take some of it as gospel and dismiss other parts because they're outdated or offensive. The problem is that the moderates don't really have good reason to abandon parts of their religion, at least not reasons they're willing to admit. My mother, a Catholic, supports abortion, supports divorce, supports contraception, supports homosexual rights, etc. So what does that mean when she opens up the inerrant word of the Christian God and sees these things basically set in stone? She won't admit it to herself in such blatant terms, but she thinks parts of the Bible are flat out wrong. She thinks things that the Vicar of Christ says are flat out wrong. She disbelieves inerrancy. She probably believes that Jesus died on the cross for her original and subsequent sins, but that's hardly the only thing in the Bible. Worse still, when she's confronted by a fundy armed with specific Bible verses, there are things she just can't reconcile, so she reverts. I've actually seen her change her stance on homosexuality (temporarily) when confronted by a nutter wielding a Bible and calling out specific quotes about homosexuals. It kinda sucked.

My point is ultimately those archaic, cruel laws are going to be sticking with us for the foreseeable future. Sure, moderates will use what little wiggle room there is to drag their faiths kicking and screaming into the present, but the verses don't change. It's because of that inflexibility that religious law, imho, can't work. It's why I love the Constitution so much; it's a living law.

Will.... please read the Haditha for which the Imams quote in such instances.

You'll quickly find that it was ancient cultures which adapted the relatively modern religions... not the other way around. In the same way that, while Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, homophobia had spread itself deeply into Christianity.

You MUST separate the scripture and the implementation of the religion if you are going to attack the religion. Otherwise, you're falling into the same logical fallacy as Glen Beck (Germany had socialized medicine, Obama wants socialized medicine... Obama = Nazi!).

In addition, I don't believe you understand how the Muslim world faiths are built. The Qur'an is a very, very, short book. It has a couple of laws and teachings, but one can pull very little from it. These are the words of God in their faith. Where the Imams get their bat shit crazy stuff from are almost always from relatively innocent statements in the Haditha.

Haditha is a collection of teachings from Muhammad, recited some 60 years post-facto from people who were there, and cross referenced to be relatively accurate. In the Haditha innocuous statements get severely misinterpreted and changed into something different.... to continue old traditions. Just like how in Lebanon/Egypt the veil is a simple had scarf, and in Persia and many of the 'stans the veil is a full separation.... these traditions existed long before and the interpretation shifted with the cultures it crossed.

You're completely incorrect when you point out "the scriptures don't change".. because they do.

Your mother should read older interpretations of the Bible. In the High Middle Ages, they actually understood the bible's complexity much more than we do today. They understood then that the Bible is not the word of God, as they had various Bibles which said different things. They also cared enough to research the historical allegories, to understand the meanings within different statements. Us reading the Bible today is like a Chinese man who's just learning English reading a statement of "one in hand and one in the bush". We understand the phrase, broken as it is, but there is no way that man would possibly understand it without the proper education on the phrase.

For example, if they pull out the Sodom and Gommorah tale about homosexuality... "...let them out so that we may know them..." It gets interpreted modernly that everyone in the city was gay so god smote it. In reality it was breaking the sacred duties of a host against his guest... a guest should never be gang-raped while the host can prevent it (especially angels I guess). If fundy's dont believe it... then simply ask them why would he offer up his own daughter to be gang-raped? The duty of the host/guest was more important than preventing the rape of your own daughters... something which could never be properly understood today. It said nothing about homosexuality, it was rape.

Another example off the top of my head which is always misinterpreted modernly is why Sloth is a deadly sin and the phrase "idle hands do the devil's work". The definition of sloth has changed over the centuries, most notably in the 1800s with our own knowledge of depression. Sloth isn't a deadly sin because everyone needs to pull their own weight to survive... but because of a misunderstanding of depression. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed, it saps energy and causes you to not care about work... and causes one to do the only unforgivable sin (suicide). So naturally they determined the actions they saw prior to the suicide made the suicide occur. Sloth as a sin is only misinterpreted in the modern interpretations, just as the previous one. So if you wish to give your mother ammunition against fundys, she'll have to go back to older (and more knowledgeable interpretations).

But the problem is that then we fall into what is basically a No True Scottsman fallacy of redefining what constitutes as "true muslim" to the point where there are more that aren't than are.


I've suggested this to various people before as well. A good place to start is learning hebrew, or at the very least using jewish copies of the bible. It's kind of hard to continue misinterpreting a mistranslation when you've either read or have the original and common mistakes are pointed out to you.

Nice, Seaver. Keep going, I'm getting all sorts of smarter over here.

No, you're misinterpreting my statements.

I learned a long time ago never to use the term "true (X)" to describe a person's faith. What one can do, however, is separate the practice from the origin. For example, I would never say holding your hands together in prayer is un-Christian. The holding together dates from a feudal practice of recognizing one's lord, and submitting to him. Older forms of prayer were more similar to Judaic customs of holding the hands palm up in a symbol of lifting the lord and holding reverence towards the heavens. Now I'm not saying one is better than the other, but one should recognize the origins of the practice.

I've read some, but it's not always easy to tell which ones are popular at the moment. I read the Qur'an from cover to cover twice, though. I don't think it makes sense to get into a debate about what does or doesn't constitute a legitimate lesson from which Hadith, though. Plenty of Christians dismiss some of the more overt human rights violations in the Bible (in fact, in a competition of most rules that involve stoning, Christianity wins hands down). What's important isn't what parts of their religion religious moderates ignore, what's important is what the words of their religious texts actually say.

I'll give you an example: Surah 24:2 states very clearly the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes. It's not as bad as stoning, I suppose, but it's not exactly something we'd consider just in the western, industrialized countries. The young woman in Somalia that was raped and then charged with adultery by an Islamic court found herself in a very sticky situation despite being a victim. Regardless of how modern you might be, or how westernized your particular sense of justice, those words aren't going to change. The penalty for adultery, according to the Muslim holy book, is 100 lashes.
That's because it's in the Bible multiple times. Homosexuality is condemned in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Jude 1. While you're certainly right that the Jesus of the current Bible didn't have anything to say on the matter, the Bible itself certainly seems to have an opinion. When homophobes go looking for scriptural justifications for their irrational hatred for gay people, they can certainly find them.
Whoa, whoa, this isn't an attack. I'm trying to keep this factual. Factually, the Torah, Bible, and Qur'an include rules which featured incredibly harsh punishment for seemingly victimless or small offenses. Because one cannot amend or modernize these laws (you'd get in a bit of trouble for amending holy texts), one would either have to implement all of these frightening laws or would have to be trusted to pick and choose.
I managed to pull an extreme punishment for adultery out of the Qur'an with a 3 second google search. I think that particular text has a lot more law than you suppose. If you'd like I can find some "bat shit crazy" stuff from the Qur'an, though I think it would be a waste of time.
The Abrahamic texts, Torah, Bible, Qur'an, are no longer changing. While, as I've said repeatedly in this thread, Hadith fall in and out of popularity, the Qur'an remains.
IThis seems to be getting off topic. Leave us say that once inerrancy goes out the window, so also goes the religion.
A lot of people disagree with your interpretation of religious law and you're using this as a defense of religious law? You sure you want to go down that line of thinking?

Sounds great dlish, Thank you in advance for your perspective, I look forward to your help and knowledge. Please understand I use those phrases to insure it is understood that I am not questioning the faith of Islam as much as I am questioning the ability to question the practices of Qur’anic fundamentalism as based in Shar’iah and how it pertains to secularism within Islam. I am wanting to insure that it is apparent I am asking these questions without any solid preconceived convictions blanketing the religion but to insure whoever wishes to discuss this that I am asking based on the perceptions of Islam as any outsider may view it. I say, “it seems to me,” or “I am led to believe,” because that is the reality of it, It seems to me that the teachings of the Qur’an are not easily understood even with reading the actual book line by line, and I am led to believe, by not only many verses within the Qur’an, but by societies perspectives and the differing viewpoints of Islam, that separating Shar’iah from government policy without personal interpretations of the Qur’an may be very difficult indeed, considering those interpretations will need to take into account what most people are coming to view as personal freedoms.

It is difficult to introduce oneself to Islam by simply reading the Qur’an. I am reading the Qur’an, as best as a newbie can without the historical input, as I said it can be quite the ride in poetic verse without contextual help from a religious leader, but an interesting and beautiful read. I am repeatedly brought back to attempting to separate the religion from the politics so as to appreciate the words without letting to many media stories skew my interpretations, this is a very difficult task as the extremists have used many verses as their weapon of choice in furthering their tyranny, and the voices of opposition in those interpretation are drowned out by the horror stories of war.

Much truth here, I grew up going to church, occasionally, with my grands, my grandfather was a church “elder” and always attended bible studies, I still have his books, but he was VERY vocal about his perceptions of the word, both he and my grandmother would refuse to say that Jesus descended into hell, can you image, when we would say the Apostles’ Creed my grandparents would be silent at that part and refuse to speak it, at first I was embarrassed as some members would look at us disapprovingly, I thought that my grandparents must be anti something, but I realized as I grew older, they were really being pro-humanity and pro-love…. in their own way. I respect them and religion now because of this, that they gave me the ability to believe in what I deemed to feed humanities peace and love focus, without forcing me to believe words merely because someone else did, they taught me it was good to learn for oneself the truths of freedom of choice, period. It has empowered me, and to some degree, causes me to be slightly disillusioned by those who do not stand for the perspectives of intrinsic human kindness with full knowledge of what is beneficial for humanities evolution, imho.

I used to think it was hard to grasp that anyone would use an omnipotent power in this day as an excuse for tyranny, but I now realize the simplicity of power that resides in this form of control..... it occurs within a myriad of religions/ideologies, even just simple fear of the unknown can create a bases for tyranny. It seems to me that Islam is the squeaky wheel right now and the book is the Qur’an and considering the breathe and width of control allowed within the interpretations of this religious doctrine, it is a powerful, powerful tool when in the wrong hands interpreted for self-serving oligarchies, it can be rather frightening, so too was the Old Testament at one time, and the New when interpreted with malicious intent. I have a great deal of comfort in exposing the antiquities of the Bible, recognizing the cohesive necessity of history and yet finding in the words, truth, but this is what I was taught, or allowed to learn. So I have been reading the Qur’an now and studying Islam and find that many are just not permitted the same pleasure of interpretations, at least this is the appearance that I understand is a reality based on all the media and the fear mongers, the Islamophobics, and to some degree many Muslims, particularly fundamentalists, but without fail extremists.

I wonder if there is any reality to this inability to question the words or to interpret them personally. Is it actually the word of Allah that states you cannot alter the perceptions of the Qur’an or is it merely some self-serving men/women who still wishes to use the words as some form of power over man and woman (especially woman) kind. Let me add, I have read plenty in all books that I find to be so dated as to be totally defunct of value in this day of scientific awareness, those passages/verses I merely write off as mankind learning to protect life with the least amount of scientific knowledge available.

Very good, this is exactly the things I am looking for, that personal interpretations left to the will of those who search deeply with a "happy" or "intrinsic" good heart, so to say, find in the words value that is more than others who would find sorrow, sadness, despair, anger, hate, war, etc. Absolutely a beautiful perspective Seaver and I can see the association and the value, love this. Your interpretation also bares witness the necessity to keep a deep separation of religious ideology from state involvement so that people are permitted the opportunities to find these positive truths without state represented religious leaders altering it's meaning before consumption into some poison to sedate the masses in an attempt to control said masses via religious doctrine. With this control the doors open to the beginnings of tyranny, wherein the “house of the tyrannical leaders" is more and more a place of worship, where we are taught to worship the humans who have bent doctrine to suit their own tactics, thereby the "house" of leaders becomes less and less a building of secularism based in the protection of personal freedom separated completely from religious idealizations. Eventually the state becomes the religion, religion becomes the state of mind and the leaders become infallible super-humans who rule tyrannically with doctrine as their law and weapon, and these laws are usually the cruelest in all forms of humanities control.

I tell my kids that the words Toy and Gun cannot be used together, ever..... so to, I believe, that the words State and Religion must not ever merge, not ever.

I had never heard of this interpretation, but I could see where it can be fair to draw this line of thought in a way to break down the some of the homophobes religious control. This is what needs to be done with religious text so that we as humans can perceive alternate views outside of those taught to us within a singular tribe (family heritage, local church, friends, etc.) we need the opportunity to see perspective from others and to choose the one that best suits the progression of humanity away from oppressive thinking, to teach our children advancements in mankind and continue concreting the split between church and state by removing any negatives that can be used to tyrannize a population. The Sodom and Gomorrah parable is used to tyrannize over sexual proclivities, so lets alter the perceptions of mankind, remove the stigma, blame that which we know is wrong, i.e. rape, good move. Though the story still sucks that he would offer his daughters, we are well aware of the conditions women started in the world of religion, eventually we will find a way to view positive, Wow, now that I think about the realities of women within all three books, women still have a long way to go for freedom over the ability to be tyrannized by religious doctrine, scary long way, to the core. Societies based in secularism where women are gaining some ground in equality are far more progressive and technologically advanced, this is what matters now, this is the push for secularism that must be accomplished, and women need to be freed from religious tyranny so they may help in teaching further secular awareness.

Can that happen, can the words of religion ever be interpreted in a way that would free women from the blanket of religious oppression? I cannot find a way to view the origins of woman as created from man in a way that would allow equality for the female gender. Maybe a new thread here, with personal perceptions of how to read religious doctrine with equality for both sexes?

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

If this question crosses the line of personal choice just tell me, no prob. but what is the issue with scantily clad women, or pre-marital sex, aside from religious doctrine. Is there a verse within the Qur'an that speaks specifically of a woman being less than virtuous if she wears a bikini to the beach (over simplifying here, for pov), or being unrighteous if she is not proven a virgin. Is it against Shar'iah to view the female body outside of the bedroom (not necessarily nude) or for the female to be scantily clad. Do you think that Islam could ever view scantily clad women as still virtuous? I know I am adding more questions to you dlish, but this one caught my eye.

At no point did I defend religious law. I simply want the idealistic religious law to be fairly represented, and facts which go with actual legal implementation in a modern world.

ill give you one example of what i meant about the interpretation on it, and i think this will give you an indication that the quran is open for interpretation provided that you have a sound base to make your judgement

a) you use other supporting verses from the quran.
b) or you use hadith as a source,
c) other jurists opinions on the matter that are based on those two sources.
d) qiyas - arriving at an injunction through analogy

jurists have pondered the 100 lashes theory to the point that there are two popular opinions at the moment..one is that the person recieves 100 lashes seperately. the other is that its 100 lashes on one whip. barbaric to some maybe, but its just an example of the line of thought on islamic rulings. my point is really that shariah isnt as rigid and some may think, and could be implemented as a 'living body of law' as such.

another example is the law forbidding alcohol. on one hand islam forbids alcohol but not other forms of intoxicants. there isnt an explicit prohibition regarding this. this doesnt mean that other forms of intoxicants are ok to use. so jurists have used the principles of the verse on alcohol to deduce the line of thinking that in the same way that alcohol intoxicantes, so does cocaine or hashish etc etc. this is what qiyas is. Qiyas: Definition from Answers.com

idyllic,

if you read deep enough, you'll find that even the veil is not explicitly mentioned in the quran. what you will wind is verses on modesty and morality. there are rules for male dress codes as well as female dress codes.

while back in those days women that did not cover, some were considered harlots, but in this day and age and with the changing time, uncovered women are not considered as such, even by islam. There are literally millions of muslim women who do not cover their heads. my sister is one of them, and until recently so was my mother, and no one ever considered them to be less than virtuous

As far as islam is concerned, people cannot judge based on conjecture. but if you put a mens magazine in front of me and ask me if a woman that happens to be on the front page in a bikini is making her 5 daily prayers, im going to have to say no. she may be a believer, but she's less virtuous.

as for the covering of a muslim woman, again its considered modesty to not show their body to other than family members. so indoors, muslim women dress like anyone else. outdoors, they're supposed to cover. ive met many people who've thought that muslim women need to wear the veil 24-7.

The veil is only mentioned in a Haditha in an off comment by Muhammad.

I don't remember the verse (it's been half a decade), but Muhammad was sitting in a tent with an Officer. He basically asked where the daughters were, and the officer replied they're behind the curtain. Muhammad stated, that's good.

And that was pretty much it.

The veil was a MUCH more ancient tradition, which varies depending on where you go. The Mahgreb (N. Africa Coast) had old traditions where Men and Women are separated completely, women stick to the rooftops during the day so they can buy/sell items without ever seeing a man, and vice versa with the men on ground level. The cities are built so one can walk rooftop to rooftop. These cities existed as such when the land was primarily Christian, and continued on with the help of that off-cuff comment.

If you go to Egypt as a white american female and don't wear the veil nothing will happen. If you look Arabic without the veil as a woman you'll get cat-calls (they think you have lower morals)... but nothing worse than a good looking woman walking past a bunch of construction workers.

It’s in the Qur’an, see chapter 24, verse 31: In these next two verses the women are the wives of Mohammad so one can see where women of Islam would desire to follow in the paths of the most righteous women of their faith, the wives of the prophet. That would be a powerful incentive to be and/or remain veiled, so one could emulate the wives, outside of social views and/or Shar'iah alone. I now understand why it is said that the more virtuous women wore the veils while those of less virtue did not, the prostitutes, etc. This one will be difficult to traverse for women and still maintain their own sense of faith based oneness with their God, I find that kinda sad, imho. I also find it sad that I have to, in some sense, give up a bit of oneness with my God if I wish to deny that I am made form the rib of a man, for if I accept this as true doctrine, I can never be mans "equal", only what was once his property. But I do it because I have to for my own sense of equality within the human-race and I justify this as it was a necessity for man to place ownership on women at the time the Old Testament was written, but I don't live in that time, I live in this one. Sometimes religious doctrine hurts twofold.

Chapter 33, verse 55 and 59 respectively:I don’t have a problem with women who do not wish to expose their bodies, I have a problem with women and men who feel that only non-virtuous women will allow themselves to be seen in something like a bathing suit, and that by wearing a bathing suit females are already viewed as less virtuous, it is this thinking that sets into motions the belittling of women outside of doctrine and the excuse of harm upon them i.e. “she was asking for whatever attention she got, look at how she was dressed.” This mentality places on women the burden of self protection from a society who would use them merely because she wears less, who would view a woman as already devoid of virtue based merely on external appearance. If a woman walks down the street in a bikini how does this define her morals? In what way does what a woman wear prove her as chaste or unchaste. In FL, many women walk around in the scantiest of attire, but I cannot determine their level of sexual awareness based on the amount of skin they expose and for someone to assume that a scantily dressed female is less virtuous is, imho, wrong. I remember high school with many religious girls who were virgins who wore two piece bathing suits, what right do I have to judge them at all regarding their choice of attire? Modesty should be a personal choice but one that does not find definition or necessity of adherence for proof of anything in religious doctrines or rape will linger in religious societies as less than the crime against humanity that it is. In truly secular societies, no means no, period, even if a woman is stripping naked while swinging on a pole, who are we to judge their morality, go ahead, throw that stone (glass houses shatter easily). Sometimes I simply believe that religious doctrine (ALL confining religious/ideological doctrine), sucks the ability for humanity to progress within the “science of evolution” as humankinds’ most valuable cohesive element in this modern day of our existence.

so im not even sure where you got that translation from. by the looks of it, but from reading that it seems to be either be a a literal fundamentalist translation, or a non muslim translation.

the thing is, your translating from arabic to english, and then adding to its text. so really anything in brackets is not found in any quran, but rather someones opinion. so youve got 3wo possibel errors with this translation..the error in the translation, the addition in text and the possible error within that context. it looks like theres more in brackets than isnt!

also, you're trying to tell me that islam promotes rape or even slightly promotes it, then theres no use having this conversation.

and yes i still stand by my comment, according to islamic moral code, which sets guidelines for dress and morality, if you're wearing a bikini in the street, how is that not exceeding those limits set.

people judge on what is apparent and what they see, and if i see a women walking around in a thong, i'm not going to assume she's going to church straight after. It's like seeing a pornstar with a cross around her neck, but she's still a believer right?

This is from The Holy Quran, tr. by Yusuf Ali, [1934], at sacred-texts.com, this is the version you suggested I read, I always try to read the closest to origin before I read later versions as they are less likely to be translated on modern view, though I am glad to see that some of the verse has been updated to a more modern thought, it still exists within the text, the veil, covering oneself to “prove” virtuous faith, even chap. 33, verse 55 states who it is o.k. to appear unveiled before though it does not use the term veil. The reality is that fundamental Islam is as alive and well within the Muslim populace as to is the fundamental Jews and the fundamental Christians. The veil is in the Qur'an, and as such can be used by extremist as a weapon of oppression, recognizing this is the first step to freeing the women who are subjugated within this doctrine. I am not speaking specifically of you dlish, nor your interpretation of the Qur'an (which appears to be more modern and giving to personal freedoms within your beliefs), just the reality of what is out their for the tyrannical extremist to use and what needs to be exposed to all Muslims who wish for personal freedoms outside of what doctrines these extremist use to manipulate and control.

Pickthall Translation:

Chapter 24, verse 31, followed by Chapter 33, verses 55-59:

From what I understand Pickthall is an older translations then Yusaf Ali and the two joined together to work on the Ali version, I have to say, from just this little reading, I like the Pickthall before Ali better, but I will have to read more before I make a definitive decision because as I read it again it comes across as though it is defining who the wives should "converse freely" with? Interesting and at times beautiful words, religion really gets me going, can you tell?

As for your other comment, Mary of Magdalene was said to be a prostitute who washed Jesus' feet with her hair, she was forgiven and became a great follower of Jesus, though I believe she became more. I have no problem believing that a porn star can have a valid and enriching relationship with God, she has that right, and I have not the right to deny her of it just because of what she does, do you, can anyone of us decide for another what is in their heart based on their sexual proclivities? Judgment is left for God in my eyes, not me..... I can demand, and within a secular society, fight to insure that those who kill or steal or lie (big lies, mind you, like insider trading lies), will be removed from society and placed away from hurting anyone else, but after that, personal judgments are just that, personal, imho. Human nature and social science should have little to do with personal faith, or God, in a secular society, again imho. Religious devotion is that which is between a person of faith and their God, period, imho. Who am I to judge that relationship, but I will sit on a jury and after hearing the pros and cons, judge the actions that result from ones faith, especially when a religious person uses that faith as an excuse for bad behavior or if they are found to be forcible and against my will, attempting to alter my faith or my relationship with my God, or attempting to deny me that personal right. Sometimes I wonder if this is what many Muslims believe American people are trying to accomplish. Do many Muslims you know or are around feel that Americans are trying to alter their perceptions of faith? Do Muslims feel threatened by Christianity?

p.s. Every religion that subjugates women owns this sentiment.
I have said over and over again how many religions and ideologies that subjugate women as possessions and place them within the confines of doctrine have lead to many religious men believing that women who do not live the life as doctrine deems virtuous are open to judgment by those who do and that those men will have a tendency to view these women as “asking for it”, this mentality is found all over in the teaching of oppressive doctrine in both the Old and New Testament (see 1 Corinthians 11) and the Qur’an (I will need to read other books to move farther than these three books). Don’t twist my words to fulfill the hate I am sure you have felt from others for I have felt it too, I have already stated I am not a hatemonger, the only thing I hate is tyranny, is terrorist, is people who use “omnipotent” doctrine as a controlling weapon over a populace unable to defend themselves and stuck within the words of their own faith, Christianity is a major player in this realm, why do you think I study religion myself if for nothing else than to expose my own need to remove that potential of oppression over me. If you are done with this thread, I appreciate you perspective and I have enjoyed our conversation, but I am not stepping on your toes, I am merely stepping, in a direction away from fear and toward education and personal religious freedom and the faith to live within my world as an equal and all that is inherent with said equality.

idyllic,

just to clarify a few things, when you speak of versions of the quran, you need to remember, there is only one version, which is the arabic version. anything other than arabic is cosidered a translation.

Marmaduke Pickthall was the son of a pastor or reverend who converted to islam. he was born in the late 1800, as was Yusuf Ali. both became respected authorities in translating the quran and endorsed by the al azhar university in egypt. i have never heard that pickthall helped yusuf ali with his translation. maybe he did, but thats really besides the point.

as for the verses being updated to modern thought, again, the verses remain unchanged. its the translations that differ.

i do agree with you that there are fundamentalists in all religions as wella s all walks of life. there are fundamentalist athiests, fundamentalist communists, fundamentalists [insert group here].

i have nothing to gain from this thread, so i have no need to twist your words. im merely answering whatever queries you have. i hold no hate for anyone who asks. i am no scholar, im merely filling a void here.

what i do want to say is that muslims are not afraid of christianity. in fact i see it the other way around. you can ask any muslim about chrsitianity and they know the basics at the very least. i myself spent many years studying comparitive religion. you'll find that you can ask the general christian about islam, and you're bound to get blank stares. what i do find amusing is that you used america and christianity synonymously. but to answer frankly, muslims are not afraid of christianity's influence. what is a threat in the world (which isnt only a thread to islam) is commercialism and not a theological threat. from my travels around the middle east, ive found that western commercial influence is a far greater danger than any threat. some of those influences are a good thing, other may not be, but many can cause turmoil and havoc if introduced into a society that is not ready to accept them.

ive read mary magdalenes story, she may or may not have been a prostitute, but she's still worthy of forgiveness for whatever sins she may have committed. i cannot judge a pornstar by banishing them to heaven or hell. thats not my job, but if i see a pornstar with a cross on her chest, im barely going to think that she's a mighty servant of god since she's not adhering to the basic principles of her faith. its pretty simple.

as far as men using religious doctrine to control women, well thats about everywhere else in the world. men use power to control women, they also use money to control women. religion is just another add on to that, and its not confined to religion alone.

id like to just mention that i do have a lot of muslim 'fundamentalist' friends as you'd like to call them. they arent all as bad as you think. these people have a strong adherence to their faith and are resigned to practicing it. i see nothing wrong with that. they all have jobs, families and hobbies outside of their religious practice as well as live modern lives. my opinion is that you should get to know a few muslims to understand their culture, behaviour, practices etc. you'll find that they all dont live in the dark ages and they live similar lives to you and i. try it, you might surprise yourself.

I know this is an old thread, but I found an interesting paper covering specifically Sharia law and the perceived threat it poses (or will eventually) to non-muslim religions and political systems.

Here is the source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...2009142010.pdf


Here is an excerpt on the joys of Sharia Law:

The following are some of the most important – and, particularly for Western non-Muslims, deeply
problematic – tenets of shariah, arranged in alphabetical order. The citations drawn from the Quran, schools
of Islam and other recognized sources are offered as illustrative examples of the basis for such practices under
shariah.
1. Abrogation (‘Al-mansukh wa al-nasikh’ in Arabic—the abrogated and the abrogating):
verses that come later in the Quran, chronologically, supersede, or abrogate,
the earlier ones. In effect, this results in the more moderate verses of the Meccan period
being abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan verses. “When we cancel a message,
or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you
not know that God has power over all things?” (Quran 2:106)
2. Adultery (‘Zina’ in Arabic): unlawful intercourse is a capital crime under shariah,
punishable by lashing and stoning to death. “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a
shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.” (Q 17:32) “The woman
and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred
stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if
ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness the punishment.”
(Q 24:2) “It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of
three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated
murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and
thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against
the faithful].” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa’i)
28
3. Apostasy (‘Irtidad’ or ‘Ridda’ in Arabic): The established ruling of shariah is that
apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found. “Anyone who, after accepting
Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in
Faith—but such as open their heart to Unbelief—on them is Wrath from Allah, and
theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Q 16:106) “Some atheists were brought to Ali
and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, ‘If I had
been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying,
‘Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).’ I would have killed
them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic
religion, then kill him.’” (Bukhari, Volume 9, #17)
“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…..When a person
who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves
to be killed…There is no indemnity for killing an apostate…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, Reliance
of the Traveler, Chapter 08.0-08.4)
4. Democracy & Islam: Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic
law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted,
shariah. Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony. “And if any fail to
judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than unbelievers.”
(Q 5:47) “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty Allah alone. He is the
absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and
wrong.” (Mohammed Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, 3d rev. ed.,
(Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Text Society, 2003), 8.)
“The shariah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards.
Rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must
conform.” (Muslim Brotherhood ‘spiritual leader’ Yousef al-Qaradawi)
5. Female Genital Mutilation: “Circumcision is obligatory….for both men and
women.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3)
6. Gender Inequality: Shariah explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men.
• Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man: “And get two
witnesses, not of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and
two women, such as ye choose for witnesses.” (Q 2:282)
• Women are to receive just one half the inheritance of a male: “Allah thus directs
you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of
two females….” (Q 4:11)
• Muslim men are given permission by Allah in the Quran to beat their wives: “As
to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them
first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them.” (Q 4:34)
29
• Muslim men are given permission by Allah to commit marital rape, as they
please: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how
ye will….” (Q 2: 223)
• Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four wives and to keep concubines in
any number: “…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye
fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive
that your right hands possess…” (Q 4:3)
• Muslim women may marry only one Muslim man and are forbidden from marrying
a non-Muslim: “And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-
Mushrikun [non-Muslims] till they believe in Allah alone and verily a believing
slave is better than a (free) Mushrik, even though he pleases you....” (Q 2:221)
• A woman may not travel outside the home without the permission of her male
guardian and must be accompanied by a male family member if she does so: “A
woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable
kin….accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj.
It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow
her.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, m10.3)
• Under shariah, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male
Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam thus places the burden of avoiding illicit
sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In effect, under shariah, women
who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce the requisite four male
Muslim witnesses are admitting to having had illicit sex. If she or the man is married,
this amounts to an admission of adultery. The following Quranic passages,
while explicitly applying to men are cited by shariah authorities and judges in adjudicating
rape cases: "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four
witnesses (to adultery), flog them..." (Q 24:4) “Why did they not bring four witnesses
to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the
sight of Allah, stand forth themselves as liars!” (Q 24:13)
• A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a
prior marriage: “A woman has no right to custody of her child from a previous
marriage when she remarries because married life will occupy her with fulfilling
the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending the child.” (‘Umdat al-
Salik, m13.4)
7. ‘Honor’ Killing (aka Muslim family executions): A Muslim parent faces no legal
penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild: “…not subject to retaliation”
is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring,
or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, 01.1-2)
8. Hudud Punishments: The plural of hadd, is “a fixed penalty prescribed as a right of
Allah. Because hudud penalties belong to Allah, Islamic law does not permit them to
be waived or commuted.”69
30
• “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if
you believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of believers witness their
punishment.” (Qur’an 24:2)
• “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a
[Muslim] person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the
land—it would be as if he slew the whole people….The punishment of those
who wage war against Allah and his apostle, and strive with might and main for
mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands
and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land…” (Q 32-33)
• § p0.0. From the Kitab al-kaba’ir (Book of Enormities) of Imam Dhahabi, who
defines an enormity as any sin entailing either a threat of punishment in the hereafter
explicitly mentioned by the Koran or hadith, a prescribed legal penalty
(Hadd), or being accursed by Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him & give
him peace). (‘Umdat al-Salik, Book P “Enormities,” at § p0.0)
• “Shariah stipulates these punishments and methods of execution such as amputation,
crucifixion, flogging, and stoning, for offenses such as adultery, homosexuality,
killing without right, theft, and ‘spreading mischief in the land’ because
these punishments were mandated by the Qur’an or Sunnah.” (Islamic Hudood
Laws in Pakistan, Edn 1996, 5.)
9. Islamic Supremacism: belief that Islam is superior to every other culture, faith,
government, and society and that it is ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate
them: “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted
from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Q 3:85):
• “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind.” (Q 3:110)
• Non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (Q 98:6)
• Be “merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Q 48:29)
• “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on
all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” (Hassan al-Banna, founder
of the Muslim Brotherhood)
• “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.
The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted
religion on Earth.” (Omar Ahmad, Council on American Islamic Relations
co-founder/Board Chairman, 1998)
10. Jew Hatred: Antisemitism is intrinsic to shariah and is based on the genocidal behavior
of Mohammed himself in wiping out the entire Jewish population of the Arabian
Peninsula.
• “And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the
Sabbath, as we said to them: Be as apes, despised and hated.” (Q 2:65)
31
• “And you will most certainly find them [the Jews] the greediest of men for life,
greedier than even those who are polytheists…” (Q 2:96)
• “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; for
they are friends but of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a
friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
(Q 5:51)
• “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden
which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion
of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until
they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Q
9:29)
11. Jihad: Jihad is warfare to spread Islam:
• “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer
them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…” (Q 9:5)
• “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, not hold that forbidden
by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from
among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission
and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29)
• “So fight them until there is no more fitna and all submit to the religion of Allah
alone.” (Q 8:39)
• “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god
but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the
prayer, and pay the zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions
from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning
is with Allah” (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim – agreed upon – as cited in
‘Umdat al-Salik o9.1 Jihad)
• “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived
from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” (‘Umdat
al-Salik, o9.0, Jihad)
• “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or
incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so
that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who
study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole
world….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against
war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as
they would kill you all!
• “Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the
unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword
and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims]
overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill
32
you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says:
Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the
sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is
the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are
hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging
Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion
that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make
such a claim.” (Ayatollah Khomeini as quoted by Amir Taheri.70)
12. Lying/Taqiyya: It is permissible for a Muslim to lie, especially to non-Muslims, to
safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam.
• “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and
whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed
fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is
the final return.” (Q 3:28)
• “‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who
in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case,
such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but
never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse
them.’” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 2, 141)
• “Mohammed said, ‘War is deceit.’” (Bukhari vol.4:267 and 269)
• “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or
saying good things, is not a liar.” (Bukhari vol.3:857 p.533)
13. Slander/Blasphemy: In shariah, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim:
“… The reality of tale-bearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something
confidential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he
notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevent disobedience.”
(‘Umdat al-Salik, r3.1)
14. Underage Marriage: Islamic doctrine permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls.
There is no minimum age for a marriage contract and consummation may take place
when the girl is age eight or nine.
• “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses [periods],
for them the 'Iddah [prescribed period before divorce is final], if you have
doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses
[(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months
likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they
are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until
they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to
Him, He will make his matter easy for him.” (Q 65:4)
33
• “Aisha narrated: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained
with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, Book 62,
Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)“They may not have menstruated as
yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in
the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which,
though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a
woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is,
three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
• “Here, one should bear in mind the fact that, according to the explanations given
in the Qur'an, the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women
with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waitingperiod
in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-
Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have
not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away
the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage
with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the
Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, Towards Understanding
the Qur’an, volume 5, p. 620, note 13)
15. Zakat: the obligation for Muslims to pay zakat arises out of Qur’an Verse 9:60 and
is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Zakat may be given only to Muslims, never to non-
Muslims.
• Zakat is for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the
(funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for
those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is
it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (Q 9:60) “Of
their goods take alms so that thou mightiest purify and sanctify them....” (Q
9:103) “Zakat is obligatory: (a) for every free Muslim and (b) who has possessed
a zakat-payable amount [the minimum that necessitates zakat] (‘Umdat
al-Salik, h1.1)
• According to shariah, there are eight categories of recipients for Zakat: The
poor; Those short of money; Zakat workers (those whose job it is to collect the
zakat); Those whose hearts are to be reconciled; Those purchasing their freedom;
Those in debt; Those fighting for Allah (Jihad); Travelers needing money
(‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.7-h8.18)
• “It is not permissible to give Zakat to a non-Muslim…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.24)

I'm trying to understand your post. Are you suggesting these quotes have any possibility of being enacted here? If so I could easily point to the MUCH more powerful Christian Conservative political power, and then list off any of hundreds of laws under Leviticus which are completely ignored by all modern Christians.

Have a blended thread shirt? Death
Ever disregard a parent's command? Death
Ever eat lobster/crab/shrimp? Death
Ever eat pork? Death
Ever work a job on Sunday? Death
Ever mow your lawn on Sunday? Death

I could go on...

I guarantee that all of the horrendous acts that have been carried out in the name of a particular religious philosophy have been either matched or surpassed in their reprehensibility by the acts of people claiming "this is the only way to keep ourselves safe".

i'd like to clarify that i only skimmed through the usual points that are produced when it comes to shariah. I dont really have the time right now to respond to all of these points since im at work, but many of the points are factually incorrect, inaccurate, misleading or out of context.

to name a few, genital mutilation, marital rape, associations sheikhs to islamic groups, hadd punishments, zakat, bringing islamic law into the 20th century etc....i could go on, but all of these are inaccurate represntations of applied islamic law. the post shows the rigidity of shariah but fails to show any flexibility.it's aloso quite easy to open up any religious text and pull out an excerpt which makes the other look like a monster. it really is.

So in other words you're claiming No True Scottsman on the scale of nearly an entire religion?

no, what im saying is a lot of what was in the article is not true or misleading, which isnt surprising. And those are only the bits i read.

First, I would like to state that the thread is asking for opinions on Sharia, and I posted a quote which I generally agree with. I think Sharia as it is written in the Koran is still alive and well, despite attempts to say "That was a long time ago...." For instance, see Saudi Arabia, many gulf states, Iran, and the Sharia practicing parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan for examples of this institution still in existance, excepted by the local people, and it's punishments carried out (cutting off hands for thievery, execution for adultery, 'reasonable' things like that). For the expansion of Sharia see Great Britain the the Sharia courts established for muslims....IMHO this provides for 2 standards of justice within one nation: One for Non Muslims, the other for Muslims.

I am not suggesting Sharia is going to be enacted here, at least not for a while. I think it is a good possibility somewhere down the line though as Islam is simply a more competitive religion than Christianity and will likely continue to spread rapidly. I do understand why many consider it to be such a threat because at face value Sharia cannot exist along side the constitution (dual standards, etc), other religions (if they are weaker than the muslims), or any political system other than Islam.

In the Bible the New Testament is relatively peaceful and supplants the Old Testament and the Book of Leviticus. In the Koran the more peaceful books (from when Mohammad was still leading a relatively week 'cult') are supplanted by the more recent and warlike books (where Mohammad is now strong and warring). Also, the central figure in the christianity is not sleeping with 9 year old girls, cutting the heads off non believers or advocating the destruction of all other religions....He is teaching to turn the other cheek, and to live in peace.

I am sure there are factual mistakes in the quoted passage I included in my previous post. I would genuinely appreciate someone who is able to point out where I am going wrong, and where I am correct. I have my personal experiences, what I have been taught, the news, and discussions with practicing muslims to draw from, but my world view is limited to what I know.