Idyllic

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?

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Plan9

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.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Idyllic

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?

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

ring

Idyllic:

Here is a thread you may find enlightening.

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

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Pearl Trade

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.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

mqa

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.

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

powerclown

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

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

mqa

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.

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Seaver

Islam 2: Qu'aranic Boogaloo

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

The_Jazz

The troll. Don't feed it.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Charlatan

Win!

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

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

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Baraka_Guru

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

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

powerclown

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.

Shadowex3

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.

__________________

Idyllic

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?

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

dlish

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

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Willravel

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?

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Willravel

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.

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Willravel

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.

Seaver

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).

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Shadowex3

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.

__________________

Plan9

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

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

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?

Idyllic

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.

__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does

p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes.

Seaver

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.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

dlish

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

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

dlish

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.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy