Will Sharia Law ever work in Britain?

[Cabdullahi]

Will sharia law ever work in britain
Cast your votes

[Cabdullahi]

cmon ppl VOTE

[snakelegs]

i voted no. it would only work if britian became 100% muslim.

[Cabdullahi]

fair enough brother atleast u gave an opinion

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[wilberhum]

i voted no. it would only work if britian became 100% muslim.

They can't even get Sharia law to work in Islamic countries. :-\

['Abd-al Latif]

They can't even get Sharia law to work in Islamic countries. :-\

Too many tyrant leaders who are only looking out for themselves and they give out the impression that they are acting upon "Islamic Law". Majorty, maybe all leaders, are not implimenting sharia law. There is no one place in the world where the islamic law is being up held in its entirety. The only place that comes closest is Saudi Arabia...but to me even Arabia seems somewhat involved in politics.

Read history and you will see what the islamic law truly is, nothing to the slighest what the tyrants of today are making islamic law seem like.

[crayon]

I voted in this poll both yesterday and today... but there were less voters today.. and some comments made by people are gone.. strange.

To answer the question, I sincerely doubt it. I think it would only work if two conditions were fulfilled. First, to be in a country where the majority (and by that i don't mean 50%, i mean 80 or 90%) was muslim, and the other is that the non muslims must actually understand islam and shariah. Neither of those exist today in britain or anywhere else, so I don't see it happening.

[KAding]

Why is the title of this thread "It feels like life imprisonment"?

Are you equating Sharia law with life imprisonment?

[guyabano]

Ok, my 3rd try after Forum Data Base Error:

I voted NO !

Peace

[Ebtisweetsam]

Will sharia law ever work in britain
Cast your votes

I voted no, but it might work in Australia, cos were a fair dinkum free society! :D

[Annie]

Salams muslims do not want to implement the shariah law, however they want the goverment to cater foe they needs by using Shariah law.For example islamic loans.I hope u understand what i mean.
wasalam

[Muezzin]

Changed the title to something a bit clearer. As the other one was as confusing as a giant in a yoghurt pot.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

it wont ever really be fully implemented without a khalifa...

right?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Will it work in britain? Yeah.

Will there be hostility towards it (if it is introduced) Hell yeah - there's hostility towards an archbishop for merely mentioning sharia, so you can betcha there will be hostility if it is introduced.

Will it be introduced? Probably not - most mps have expressed their concern over the matter, especially in the recent days, and have said no sharia. Which, honestly is fine as far as I am concerned. We first need to get our fellow muslim brothers and sisters obeying Islam properly before we even attempt sharia law in the UK.

[Cognescenti]

:sl:
Will it work in britain? Yeah.

Will there be hostility towards it (if it is introduced) Hell yeah - there's hostility towards an archbishop for merely mentioning sharia, so you can betcha there will be hostility if it is introduced.

Will it be introduced? Probably not - most mps have expressed their concern over the matter, especially in the recent days, and have said no sharia. Which, honestly is fine as far as I am concerned. We first need to get our fellow muslim brothers and sisters obeying Islam properly before we even attempt sharia law in the UK.

Very sensible summary, sir. I dare say it was brilliant, because that is essentially what I said in my post which has....hey wait a minute...what happened to my post????

Perhaps it was the historical reference to the London Blitz? St. Patrick? Maybe the forum just ate it? Anyway, I agree with aamirsaab.

[Woodrow]

Sharia law will only work if there is a truly Islamic nation under a legitimate Khalifah. The UK does not have that.

The question is a bit ambiguous. Can it work in the UK at some time in the future? Not, if the UK is the same as it is today. Can the UK ever be 100% Muslim? That is possible, but not anytime in the foreseeable future.

I voted no. Based on what the UK is today and for what it appears that it will be in the near future.

[Trumble]

It doesn't help that the Archbishop was very unclear on what he actually meant. He certainly wasn't suggesting the country as a whole adopt any parts Sharia law and I certainly got the idea he was suggesting some sort of 'opt in' alternative for muslims in regard various aspects of law should they so wish.. be he has since denied any suggestion of 'parallel' systems.

Any idea of Sharia being introduced generally in the UK is, of course, nonsense barring a highly implausible change in the religious demographics sometime in the future. I personally would sincerely hope it never is; there are elements that betray their 7th century origin far too clearly IMHO.

[Muezzin]

For any law to be work, it has to be respected by the population. Not liked, necessarily. But hey, it doesn't hurt if it is - because if people like something, they want it, they demand it.

I just don't see much of a demand for Sharia in Britain at the moment.

[krypton6]

They can't even get Sharia law to work in Islamic countries. :-\

What Islamic countries?

[S_87]

the way britain is now- no

shariah law is a fair system and one that does not discriminate between rich and poor, influential and not so influential, muslim and non muslim, or racially.
so long as there is bribery and corruption amongst the leaders and people in charge....

[AvarAllahNoor]

I'm surprised, the majority say no!

[Heera Singh]

where can I find the entire Sharia Law (its beliefs, the punishments, everything) online?

[The Ruler]

:sl:

Though I'd like to see the results of a trial (regardless of the outcome of it being obvious), the "YES" was slightly too bold.

So no.

:w:

['Abd-al Latif]

I'm surprised, the majority say no!

Most probably because most of the ones who voted r non-muslim.

[wilberhum]

What Islamic countries?

Oh ya, that's right. There are only Muslim countries.

Strange, Muslim countries don't even want to be an Islamic country and some clowns think the UK should become an Islamic country. da :playing:

[krypton6]

^ Every single muslim wants his country to be ruled islamically and according to the sharia. Were it not for your country this wish would be the reality.

[Whatsthepoint]

It would be interesting to see what percentage of British muslims wants shariah to be implemented in Britain. My guess is the numbers aren't that high...

[Noora]

gee funny how things get taken out of proportion..from changes to some parts of shariah law for muslims, to shariah law in UK...talk about misreading things....

[truemuslim]

lol sis ^

[Whatsthepoint]

I'm not quite sure what the thread starter meant with shariah..
I do think muslims could solve some of their financial, marital etc disputes based on the sahriah law, as long as it doesn't go against the british legislation.
I do not think Britain could become an islamic state, that is a state with shariah laws for all its citizents, unless of course the number of religious muslims reaches 90-100% of the population.

[Amadeus85]

That archbishop wanted to help muslims I guess, but at the end we see now Brittish media and politicians talking "no to islamic law in UK".So archbishop didnt achieve his aim.

[truemuslim]

what harm wud it do to them?

[Noora]

It was only suggested for muslims, i dont think muslims would even ask for the UK to be governed by shariah law as its clear that UK has diverse backgrounds and religions. I think the archibishop was trying to help muslims in ensuring that their personal issues are solved amicably within the shariah law, only parts of it, so if you are not a muslim, everything stays the same. How this has turned to UK SHARIAH LAW, is obviously propaganda from the media and we all know all you have to do these days is mention ISLAM and people will fight it no matter what the topic is...Whats worse is when muslims put up a thread like this, that is in no way related to the real topic....

[sur]

i voted no. it would only work if britian became 100% muslim.

agree.
BUT, instead of 100% i'd say "Majority".

[Whatsthepoint]

agree.
BUT, instead of 100% i'd say "Majority".

>50% majority?

[truemuslim]

51% ..majority

[Whatsthepoint]

51% ..majority

Do you expect the 49% of the population to just submit??

[truemuslim]

what wud sharia do to them no one is forcing them to do it too just let the ppl do what they religion is and u do wat ur religion is...


and no. i was kiddin but they shud just do what they want not everyone do one thing or the other...

:w:

[Whatsthepoint]

what wud sharia do to them no one is forcing them to do it too just let the ppl do what they religion is and u do wat ur religion is...

and no. i was kiddin but they shud just do what they want not everyone do one thing or the other...

:w:

I thought ypu meant shariah should be imposed on the entire popualtion, if muslims were the majority. I think that's what sur meant..
Waht do you think about that?

[truemuslim]

no i didnt mean that... i dunt agree with him tho, muslims shud do sharia, and non-muslims do...um..what they do..

[NoWingedAngel]

^ Every single muslim wants his country to be ruled islamically and according to the sharia. Were it not for your country this wish would be the reality.

The United States is just a little over 200 years old.

Fail.

[BlackMamba]

I dont think it would work in UK or America or any western country because not even Saudi Arabia is following Sharia the correct way so what would be the condition in a non-muslim country?

[Isambard]

Short answer is no.

Long-answer, no, it wouldnt work ANYWHERE. Simply put, "Full Shariah law" maybe ordained by Allah, but that does you little good when your country explodes from inflation run amok.

This of course is not even addressing the political issues...

[Gator]

shariah law is a fair system and one that does not discriminate between rich and poor, influential and not so influential, muslim and non muslim, or racially.
so long as there is bribery and corruption amongst the leaders and people in charge....

Oh, so the answer is never.

Thanks.

[wilberhum]

^ Every single muslim wants his country to be ruled islamically and according to the sharia. Were it not for your country this wish would be the reality.

There is almost nothing "very single muslim wants". :hmm:

It seams that every time you post, you make up stuff. :giggling::giggling:

[guyabano]

^ Every single muslim wants his country to be ruled islamically and according to the sharia. Were it not for your country this wish would be the reality.

Sorry to contradict you, but not EVERY Muslim want that. One of my good friends is an Muslim from Iran (and he make very tasty Kebabs btw.) and he would no way have sharia in our country.

You globalize too much and you would be surprised how few muslims will be with you on this one.

Peace

[wilberhum]

agree.
BUT, instead of 100% i'd say "Majority".

Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim and it isn't Islamic enough. :hmm:
Can't you see the Queen in the latest fashion from Omar the tent maker? :hiding:

[wilberhum]

the way britain is now- no

shariah law is a fair system and one that does not discriminate between rich and poor, influential and not so influential, muslim and non muslim, or racially.
so long as there is bribery and corruption amongst the leaders and people in charge....

No discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim? :skeleton:
Either you have taken far too many Blue Pills or you know very little about Sharia Law. :?

[wilberhum]

where can I find the entire Sharia Law (its beliefs, the punishments, everything) online?

No place. It takes years if study to understand "god's laws". :playing:
Another proof that "Life is a Test". :hmm:

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim and it isn't Islamic enough. :hmm:
Can't you see the Queen in the latest fashion from Omar the tent maker? :hiding:

Saudi is run by a king. I'm sure you can see how that is not Islamic :) It's an example of irony though, and a funny one at that.

No place. It takes years if study to understand "god's laws". :playing:
Another proof that "Life is a Test". :hmm:

Actually there is a place. You can start by a) reading the Quran and B) reading the sunnah and hadith of the Prophet. A bonus is common sense too.

Simple really.

[Muezzin]

No place. It takes years if study to understand "god's laws". :playing:
Another proof that "Life is a Test". :hmm:

It takes years of study to understand man's laws.

Another proof that law degrees are crap?

Come on, don't argue using strawmen, it doesn't become you.

[S_87]

^ Every single muslim wants his country to be ruled islamically and according to the sharia. Were it not for your country this wish would be the reality.

actually no they dont...

No discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim?
Either you have taken far too many Blue Pills or you know very little about Sharia Law.

it is you that know very little about shariah law wilberhum. under islamic law muslims and non muslims are treated equally. the ruler is equal to others. heres an example of shariah law. :)

Once, a dispute arouse between Ali bin Ali Talib, when he was the Caliph, and a Jewish man who went to Judge Shuray al-Kindi. Shuray tells the details of what happened:

“Ali found he was missing a suit of mail, so he went back to Kufa and found it in the hands of a Jewish man who was selling it in the market. He said, ‘O Jew! That suit of mail is mine! I did not give it away or sell it!’

The Jew responded ‘It is mine. It is in my possession.’

Ali said, ‘We will have the judge rule on this for us.’

So they came to me and Ali sat next to me and said, ‘That suit of mail is mine; I did not give it away or sell it.’

The Jew sat in front of me and said, ‘That is my suit of mail. It is in my possession.’

I asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, do you have any proof?’

‘Yes,’ Ali said. ‘My son Hasan and Qanbar can testify that it is my suit of mail.’

I said, ‘Commander of the Faithful, the testimony of a son in his father’s favor is not admissible in court.’

Ali exclaimed, ‘How Perfect is God! You cannot accept the testimony of a man who has been promised Paradise? I heard the Messenger of God saying that Hasan and Husain are the princes of the youth in Paradise.’

The Jewish man said, ‘The Commander of the Faithful takes me before his own judge and the judge rules in my favor against him! I bear witness that no one deserves worship except God and that Muhammad is His Messenger [the Jewish man accepted Islam], and that the suit of armor is yours, Commander of the Faithful. You dropped it at night and I found it.’
Tirmidhi

[krypton6]

Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim and it isn't Islamic enough. :hmm:

It isnt ruled islamically because of your country who have removed the democratic leaders that they used to have and then replaced them with your own men who will do anything that you tell them to do.

Every muslim wants the sharia, if you dont want the sharia how can you call yourself a muslim? It seems that every post you make is pure bull****!

[krypton6]

actually no they dont...

So living in a society with more than 90% muslims and where the leader is a responsible muslim, would you not want the sharia then? How can you see yourself as a muslim if you dont want the sharia?

[crayon]

So living in a society with more than 90% muslims and where the leader is a responsible muslim, would you not want the sharia then? How can you see yourself as a muslim if you dont want the sharia?

She doesn't have to be talking about herself, brother. And even if she is, that's her opinion, it's not our place to judge.

[Uthman]

Will Sharia Law ever work in Britain?

Indeed.

When pigs fly.



Sorry. I've just been waiting to use that line for ages.

[S_87]

So living in a society with more than 90% muslims and where the leader is a responsible muslim, would you not want the sharia then? How can you see yourself as a muslim if you dont want the sharia?

good question. were you asking me or in general?

because if the majority of people wanted shariah they would be implementing what is fardh on them. society would not be corrupt because they themselves will be following what they want. but do we see that? no.

it no use saying shariah shariah when the kilaphate comes we'll implement shariah! lets fix ourselves first...

[Isambard]

it is you that know very little about shariah law wilberhum. under islamic law muslims and non muslims are treated equally. the ruler is equal to others. heres an example of shariah law. :)

Is this why non-muslims have no political rights under a shariah system? I guess black American had nothing to complain then back in the day. Ditto for women.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

it no use saying shariah shariah when the kilaphate comes we'll implement shariah! lets fix ourselves first...

i think you misunderstood the question

How can you see yourself as a muslim if you dont want the sharia?

his saying how can you see yourself as a muslim if you DONT WANT the shariah. If you dont desire it, if you dont have that yearning inside to live in a state ruled by the rulings given by Allah subhana wa ta'ala.

now i know that everyone should fix up, but what kinda muslim dont want sharia? sounds like progressives to me...


Assalamu Alaikum

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Is this why non-muslims have no political rights under a shariah system? I guess black American had nothing to complain then back in the day. Ditto for women.

you get what we get. You will be treated equally, commit a crime then expect punishment. Be good and we leave you alone and take care of you if your in need.

[S_87]

Is this why non-muslims have no political rights under a shariah system? I guess black American had nothing to complain then back in the day. Ditto for women.

tell me what you mean by rights and ill get back at you for it....

women were liberated by islam :) whilst western women have only recently got rights to work, get inheritence, keep her own money, choose her own husband etc women were given all of that through islam....

[Isambard]

tell me what you mean by rights and ill get back at you for it....

women were liberated by islam :) whilst western women have only recently got rights to work, get inheritence, keep her own money, choose her own husband etc women were given all of that through islam....

Political rights. Non-muslims would have none.

A shame women are still considered second class citizens in many muslim countires today isnt it?

The west granted women full negative rights. Something islam still hasnt gotten around too.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Political rights. Non-muslims would have none..

they wouldnt?!

[crayon]

Political rights. Non-muslims would have none.

A shame women are still considered second class citizens in many muslim countires today isnt it?

Yes, yes it is.

The west granted women full negative rights. Something islam still hasnt gotten around too.

What do you mean by negative rights?

[krypton6]

A shame women are still considered second class citizens in many muslim countires today isnt it?

Nearly all "muslim" countries are poor, when a man has to chose between who to send to school, his daughter or his son? In the middle east stepping outside the door of your house will make you vourable, so the logical is to send the boy to school because he can defend himselve better.

Were it not for the west, muslims would be rich and would have enough money to send both the boy and the girl to school.

Something islam still hasnt gotten around too.

Are you awake!? There's a big difference between Islam and muslims!

[Whatsthepoint]

Nearly all "muslim" countries are poor, when a man has to chose between who to send to school, his daughter or his son? In the middle east stepping outside the door of your house will make you vourable, so the logical is to send the boy to school because he can defend himselve better.
Were it not for the west, muslims would be rich and would have enough money to send both the boy and the girl to school.

Could you name a couple of female muslim scientists, preferably those who lived and worked during the islamic golden age.

[crayon]

Oh, and not all muslim women are as "second rate" as you think. For example, as a daughter, when it comes to paying for my university education, I'm better off than my brothers. My dad is going to pay half the amount they need for university, while he's going to pay the whole tuition for me. This is because in islam, a man is expected to support himself, while a woman is to be supported by the closest male to her, be he her dad, brother, uncle, whatever. So I'm going to uni free of charge, while my brothers aren't.

But then again, "oppressed women in islam" is a whole issue we could get into, and which people probably already have on these forums, so this isn't the place. And even if women appear to be oppressed by muslims in "muslim" countries, that doesn't mean that's what islam says.

Peace out.

[Isambard]

What do you mean by negative rights?

Well, off the top of my head, a woman is free from being beaten under secular law, no matter how "lightly" it may be.

To kypton, this is an Islamic issue, not just a muslim one.

[krypton6]

Could you name a couple of female muslim scientists, preferably those who lived and worked during the islamic golden age.

As far as I know muslim men were responsible for the outside while woman were responsible the inside, but that had nothing to do with Islam, that was culture! Even during the islamic golden ages, people could not aford sending both boy and girl to school (not that there were any real schools), and the logical thing would be to send the boy to school because he would have to take care of his future wife and children, while the girl would be married and taken care of by another male.

As time went on the west evolved from poor to rich, but while they were evolving the east was being colonized (they still are) and robbed by the west, which explains why muslims are poor and cannot aford sending both boy and girl to school.

[Whatsthepoint]

As far as I know muslim men were responsible for the outside while woman were responsible the inside, but that had nothing to do with Islam, that was culture! Even during the islamic golden ages, people could not aford sending both boy and girl to school, and the logical thing would be to send the boy to school because he would have to take care of his future wife and children, while the girl would be married and taken care of by another male.

As time went on the west evolved from poor to rich, but while they were evolving the east was being colonized (they still are) and robbed by the west, which explains why muslims are poor and cannot aford sending both boy and girl to school.

Gender roles... Anotehr thing I dislike about Islam, no hard feelings.
You can't ahve colonialism as an excuse forever. Most of the world was colonized, yet some parts of it are quite evolved nowadays, including some muslim countries. And what about Germany or Japan? Countries totally savaged by war, forced to pay huge amounts of money to repay the damage tehy caused...are now one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

[crayon]

Well, off the top of my head, a woman is free from being beaten under secular law, no matter how "lightly" it may be.

To kypton, this is an Islamic issue, not just a muslim one.

Oh yes, western women are free from the horrific toothbrush beating, they're so lucky..:rollseyes

[wilberhum]

It isnt ruled islamically because of your country who have removed the democratic leaders that they used to have and then replaced them with your own men who will do anything that you tell them to do.
:-\ For the last 1400 years?
Every muslim wants the sharia,
You repeat that when there are Muslims on this forum who don't
if you dont want the sharia how can you call yourself a muslim? It seems that every post you make is pure bull****!
Compaired to your Moo Pow?

You really have no concept of reality.

[Isambard]

Oh yes, western women are free from the horrific toothbrush beating, they're so lucky..:rollseyes

Perhaps you should do a bit of reading before you comment. The allowance of beating has led to many cases of sever spousal beatings in the middle-east.

that couple with gender roles is evidence that Islam itself discriminates based on sex.

This of course means Islam doesnt grant rights to women, it grants privilages (which are very different) to certain groups.

[crayon]

I'm sure you've been on these forums long enough to know that islam neither advocates nor condones severe (and by severe I mean anything harder than with a tooth brush) beating. You don't need someone to tell you again. If you do, however, I'd be happy to elaborate.:)

But if you mean that by simply allowing "beating" islam has commited a grave mistake, since people are bound to go further than beating with a toothbrush, then by your logic, alcohol should be illegal, as it has caused tons of drinking related accidents, murders, rapes, etc. Am I right?

[Isambard]

I'm sure you've been on these forums long enough to know that islam neither advocates nor condones severe (and by severe I mean anything harder than with a tooth brush) beating. You don't need someone to tell you again. If you do, however, I'd be happy to elaborate.:)

But if you mean that by simply allowing "beating" islam has commited a grave mistake, since people are bound to go further than beating with a toothbrush, then by your logic, alcohol should be illegal, as it has caused tons of drinking related accidents, murders, rapes, etc. Am I right?

Islam allows beatings period. There is discrimination based on sex. Ditto for having harems.

No matter how you wish to spin it or justify it, Islam is not about rights, its about privilages.

[Mikayeel]

Alsalaamu 3alekum

I would say it will will work! I know that for sure, as for the none muslims, let the shari3a law be done for a period of time (a trial) so everyone will see that it will perfectly work!

[root]

Alsalaamu 3alekum

I would say it will will work! I know that for sure, as for the none muslims, let the shari3a law be done for a period of time (a trial) so everyone will see that it will perfectly work!

You are such a funny guy. Go figure. If it was so perfect it would be all over the Isalmic world. The last true Islamic state was Afghanistan with those Taliban. Yeah, it was perfect eh!!!!!

Besides the UK is secular, our bloody history has taught us. Religion is like homosexuality. Do whatever you like in your own home, don't impose it on us thanks.

[Uthman]

Hello Isambard,

Islam allows beatings period.

Interpretation again. The arabic word used is 'Daraba'. It can be translated in many ways including 'beat'.

When a word has so many connotations, it is important to examine it's use and application in context. In this case, within the context of Islam.

To translate 'Daraba' as 'beat', would be inconsistent and in contradiction with other Islamic beliefs and values. There are a multitude of ahadith which teach Muslims how to behave when angry and how to treat women e.t.c.

Therefore, 'beat' is not a viable translation.

More linkage: http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...e-beating.html

Note that I am speaking as far as I know, so although I believe that I am right, I accept the possibility of being wrong.

Anyway, off-topic lol.

[S_87]

Political rights. Non-muslims would have none.

A shame women are still considered second class citizens in many muslim countires today isnt it?

The west granted women full negative rights. Something islam still hasnt gotten around too.

can you give me some examples of what rights you are speaking of?

some ignorant men both in the east AND west treat women like second class citizens, to both extremes. under islamic law they do not stand a chance. which is why youve seen some people say there is no shariah country today...

[Noora]

oh yes women in the west have many rights....they are treated a first class citizens, paid the same as mens wages, not exploited as sex objects, never get beaten by men, men always take responsiblity of the women the impregnate etc etc,the list can go on and on...some people in the west are very dellusional. If women have rights in the west then give me shariah any day...

[Isambard]

oh yes women in the west have many rights....they are treated a first class citizens, paid the same as mens wages, not exploited as sex objects, never get beaten by men, men always take responsiblity of the women the impregnate etc etc,the list can go on and on...some people in the west are very dellusional. If women have rights in the west then give me shariah any day...

You have absolutely no idea how rights, nor how law works do you?

[Isambard]

can you give me some examples of what rights you are speaking of?

some ignorant men both in the east AND west treat women like second class citizens, to both extremes. under islamic law they do not stand a chance. which is why youve seen some people say there is no shariah country today...

I gave some above. As a non-muslim, I would have no say whatsoever in goverance of laws.

As a woman, you have very different privilages then men do.

[The_Prince]

You are such a funny guy. Go figure. If it was so perfect it would be all over the Isalmic world. The last true Islamic state was Afghanistan with those Taliban. Yeah, it was perfect eh!!!!!

Besides the UK is secular, our bloody history has taught us. Religion is like homosexuality. Do whatever you like in your own home, don't impose it on us thanks.

Islam doesnt say girls dont have a right to education, hence false, afghanistan wasnt a true Islamic state. i can list many other practices by the taliban which are not Islamic and not in line with a true Islamic state.

hence dont talk cr@p as you usually do and make up lies.

[Noora]

You have absolutely no idea how rights, nor how law works do you?

Actually i do i was born and lived in australia all my life..........and seen things first hand....

[Isambard]

Actually i do i was born and lived in australia all my life..........and seen things first hand....

Then perhaps you could define a right as it seems your definition differs from mine.

[Noora]

Then perhaps you could define a right as it seems your definition differs from mine.

What rights women have "on paper" and how their rights are protected are two different things. As a social worker the rights "women have in western countries sound great on paper but in reality they never happen. Social issues are huge in the west, next time i have to protect a woman whos repeatedly been bashed by her husband and has to go into hiding because the law/police cant do anything about it, i will refer her to you so that you can explain the definition of her rights....

[Isambard]

What rights women have "on paper" and how their rights are protected are two different things. As a social worker the rights "women have in western countries sound great on paper but in reality they never happen. Social issues are huge in the west, next time i have to protect a woman whos repeatedly been bashed by her husband and has to go into hiding because the law/police cant do anything about it, i will refer her to you so that you can explain the definition of her rights....

Ah so agree with me then. Im curious, what situation specifically have you encountered where a woman has to go into hiding and police are not able to hlp?

[Noora]

Ah so agree with me then. Im curious, what situation specifically have you encountered where a woman has to go into hiding and police are not able to hlp?

What part of that statement didnt you understand? The beating? If i have to explain to you issues about domestic violence and why women go into hiding because husbands threaten to kill the women, and police cant do anything about it as there arent any witnesses(verbal threats only),they will do something when they find her dead body, well whats the point..
And who said i agree with you..how about you just keep believing that the west give women their rights and respects them, i wouldnt want to shatter your perfect world..

[Cabdullahi]

the west gives women their rights but do u think the women(unbelievers) use these rights to do something beneficial nooo!
some of them leave their children behind to go have a night out simply because they feel free and in need to do wild things
They are advised to wear what they want show of ur beautiful assets do u think thats women liberation, its merely a way to degrade them but to keep them happy aswell why? because it gives them some power they feel they can attract different men it makes them feel good and that leads to alotta other **** for example the obvious illegitimate births ,infidelity and a corrupt society

[Isambard]

What part of that statement didnt you understand? The beating? If i have to explain to you issues about domestic violence and why women go into hiding because husbands threaten to kill the women, and police cant do anything about it as there arent any witnesses(verbal threats only),they will do something when they find her dead body, well whats the point..
And who said i agree with you..how about you just keep believing that the west give women their rights and respects them, i wouldnt want to shatter your perfect world..

Umm domestic violence can be reported...

Besides, in Shariah, women need x2 as many witnesses as opposed to men.

I never said the west respects said rights, I said they grant them. Which you agreed with.

Strange you should call my "world" a utopia when shariah is un-feasable on a bunch of different lvls. (Some of which Ive already covered)

[Mikayeel]

You are such a funny guy. Go figure. If it was so perfect it would be all over the Isalmic world. The last true Islamic state was Afghanistan with those Taliban. Yeah, it was perfect eh!!!!!

Besides the UK is secular, our bloody history has taught us. Religion is like homosexuality. Do whatever you like in your own home, don't impose it on us thanks.

Thanks i have always be known for my funny comments:)

This just shows that even muslims are not perfect in getting it right:( a shame really!

It shows in the way britian lives that it is very secular! Wouldn't dare argue with ur there! All those teenage pregnancy! Single mothers! Troublesome youth! Very practical:)

[krypton6]

Besides, in Shariah, women need x2 as many witnesses as opposed to men.

NO acording to the Sharia: Woman in some cases need x2 as many witnesses as opposed men, but in some other cases men need x2 as many witnesses as opposed woman! So dont make it sound as if woman acording to the Sharia are worth only half of what a man is, please spare us of your ignorancy!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Does any Muslim here on this forum actually know what the sharia law is? so us who don't know, can understand it better?

[AntiKarateKid]

The question is so vague. Do you intend to implement Sharia Law in a place which has practices antithetical to it? Allah intended the true Sharia Law, not what the Saudis do sometimes, to fit the whole world. Of course it will work AFTER the necessary changes are made. You can't drop gold in mud and expect it to shine.

[AvarAllahNoor]

The question is so vague. Do you intend to implement Sharia Law in a place which has practices antithetical to it? Allah intended the true Sharia Law, not what the Saudis do sometimes, to fit the whole world. Of course it will work AFTER the necessary changes are made. You can't drop gold in mud and expect it to shine.

Depends on how weak the mud is...

So is there not a single country which implements it? Is there any source available to make clear what it covers?

[qassy!]

No it wont work

Anyone who wants sharia law in the United Kingdom should pack there bags are move out, its not a muslim country. Live in United Kingdom with there laws or move out!

[qassy!]

All those teenage pregnancy! Single mothers! Troublesome youth! Very practical:)

its not everyone in the UK you know......

[barney]

Quassys post is eye bleedingly big, but eyebleedingly true.

I would point out to muslims outside the United Kingdom to ask themselves if a Very Very Senior imam was to publicly say "Adopting Christian or secular Laws in Iran is unavoidable" What would his status be the following week?
Involved in a debate on it?
Forced to Apologise?
Forced to resign?
Vanished in a dark prison?
Blown to peices or Shot?

[qassy!]

Quassys post is eye bleedingly big, but eyebleedingly true.

lol sorry - just had to get the point accross to people that it should NOT be introduced in the United Kingdom, and IF they got a problem with this country the doors are open leave.

[barney]

lol sorry - just had to get the point accross to people that it should NOT be introduced in the United Kingdom, and IF they got a problem with this country the doors are open leave.

Yups, respect and props for that m8. It has caused a fantastic debate however here in UK.

I can myself see shaira being implemented however in this fashion.
The people of the UK vote for a party who's manifesto is to bring in Shaira.

Likelyhood of that? Nil.

One other thing I disagree with Canterbury on though, He dosnt realise that Shaira is the actual law of God. You cant just choose the fluffy bits of this law or the bits that fit in with a culture. You either have it or you dont.

[Noora]

[QUOTE=Isambard;912318]Umm domestic violence can be reported


ummmmm yes it can be reported and the west protects these women all the time hence there isnt any DV in the west because the system is perfect...perfect little world really....as a social worker i am dealing with imaginery clients.....

[Noora]

lol sorry - just had to get the point accross to people that it should NOT be introduced in the United Kingdom, and IF they got a problem with this country the doors are open leave.

If you read the article properly it was suggested parts of shariah law(personal islamic issues)to accomodate muslims only as per their religion, not common law.....i dont see whats the issue is, if your not a muslim, you are not bound by it...life is business as usual....why the fuss....live and let live...

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY WANT FULL SHARIAH IN BRITIAN...I SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE....

[Uthman]

One other thing I disagree with Canterbury on though, He dosnt realise that Shaira is the actual law of God. You cant just choose the fluffy bits of this law or the bits that fit in with a culture. You either have it or you dont.

There are already Islamic courts in the UK that deal with civil issues e.g. divorce and financial matter according to the Sharia.

However, when a Muslim obtains a divorce from the Sharia council, the divorce is recognised Islamically, but not recognised by civil law. Thus, they have to go to the civil courts as well to obtain a divorce that way.

What the Archbishop was suggesting was that issues like divorce which are recognised by the Sharia council, should also be recognised by British civil law.

I can see the wisdom in that. For starters, the civil courts will be less clogged up. It would be quicker and millions of pounds worth of taxpayer's money would be saved.

People have misconstrued what the Archbishop was saying. News headlines have been misleading. Nobody is suggesting that Sharia law becomes a part of British law. It is being suggested that some laws of Sharia, applicable to Muslims should be recognised by the laws of the UK.

Linkage

[IbnAbdulHakim]

No it wont work

Anyone who wants sharia law in the United Kingdom should pack there bags are move out, its not a muslim country. Live in United Kingdom with there laws or move out!

or change it into an islamic state?

lol no really though, inshaAllaah one day the whole dunya will be a muslim state, inshaAllaah

[guyabano]

you get what we get. You will be treated equally, commit a crime then expect punishment. Be good and we leave you alone and take care of you if your in need.

Sure, that is called Utopia. If democracy would be run perfect, then no need for Sharia, but then again, this is also a wishdreaming.
As Osman said already before: When pigs can fly...

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Sure, that is called Utopia. If democracy would be run perfect, then no need for Sharia, but then again, this is also a wishdreaming.
As Osman said already before: When pigs can fly...

Peace

darn it then catapult a pig and lets get it started!

wishful thinking or whatever, one way or another things will work out!

[S_87]

I gave some above. As a non-muslim, I would have no say whatsoever in goverance of laws.

As a woman, you have very different privilages then men do.

these are flimsy excuses

[aamirsaab]

I gave some above. As a non-muslim, I would have no say whatsoever in goverance of laws.

I thought you were a nihilist :p

As a woman, you have very different privilages then men do.

Not really.

[crayon]

I'm sure you've been on these forums long enough to know that islam neither advocates nor condones severe (and by severe I mean anything harder than with a tooth brush) beating. You don't need someone to tell you again. If you do, however, I'd be happy to elaborate.:)

Islam allows beatings period. There is discrimination based on sex. Ditto for having harems.

No matter how you wish to spin it or justify it, Islam is not about rights, its about privilages.

I see that you do. It's not really going to make a difference until you forget all the stereotypes and generalizations and all the other bs the media has been feeding you, but I'll say it anyway. Miracles happen, I guess.

""According to the Qur'an the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says: "And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Ar-Rum: 21)

The Qur'an urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness. [In the event of a family dispute, the Qur'an exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects]. Allah Almighty says: “Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (An-Nisa’: 19)

It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him. But the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute among them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to batch up the rift and solve the differences.

However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

The Qur'an is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

Generally, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

It is also important to note that even this "light strike" mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help. If this disciplinary action can correct a situation and save the marriage, then one should use it."

Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and a cross-appointed faculty member in the Departments of Religious Studies and Management, adds:

"If the problem relates to the wife's behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.

Even here, that maximum measure is limited by the following:

a. It must be seen as a rare exception to the repeated exhortation of mutual respect, kindness and good treatment. Based on the Qur'an and Hadith, this measure may be used in the cases of lewdness on the part of the wife or extreme refraction and rejection of the husband's reasonable requests on a consistent basis (nushuz). Even then, other measures, such as exhortation, should be tried first.

b. As defined by Hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone's face, cause any bodily harm or even be harsh. What the Hadith qualifies as "dharban ghayra mubarrih", or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of siwak! They further qualified permissible "striking" as that which leaves no mark on the body. It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence, " or "wife battering" in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction does not imply its desirability. In several hadiths, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) discouraged this measure. Here are some of his sayings in this regard:

"Do not beat the female servants of Allah";

"Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you."

In another hadith the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?”

d. True following of the Sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who never resorted to that measure, regardless of the circumstances.

e. Islamic teachings are universal in nature. They respond to the needs and circumstances of diverse times, cultures and circumstances. Some measures may work in some cases and cultures or with certain persons but may not be effective in others. By definition, a "permissible" act is neither required, encouraged or forbidden. In fact it may be to spell out the extent of permissibility, such as in the issue at hand, rather than leaving it unrestricted or unqualified, or ignoring it all together. In the absence of strict qualifiers, persons may interpret the matter in their own way, which can lead to excesses and real abuse.

f. Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any "Muslim" can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur'an or Hadith). Such excesses and violations are to be blamed on the person(s) himself, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)."

From islam online

Will you actually read it? Will it make even a dent in your "oppressed muslim woman mentality"? Doubt it. But it doesn't hurt to try.

[Uthman]

Kudos to crayon for an excellent post above.

The tap of the Miswak is so light, it can only be symbolic to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

And even at that, it is discouraged, except as a very last resort.

No doubt, a far cry from "Islam allowed men to beat women".

[Mikayeel]

its not everyone in the UK you know......

Salam brother,

The number is just very high, ofcourse it wouldnt be every one:)

[Isambard]

these are flimsy excuses

How is having no political rights a flimsy excuse? I say put your theory to the test.

Go out side and try to lasso as many minorities and women as you can. When the ask you what the hell you are doing, tell them their political rights are stupid and that the are now your subjects becauce you are superior.

Count the number of people who punch you in the face. Respond when you are done your "survey".

[Isambard]

I thought you were a nihilist :p


Not really.

Being a nihilist doesnt mean Im stupid. Lack of political rights on the basis that someone who believes in a magical sky man is more equipped to rule is just sillyness.

And why would I enjoy laws that restrict my access favorite media forums (and not have any say mind you) because my muslim overlords cant control themselves?

I have preferences, and I really perfer a system that makes some sense to one that based on fanciful promises.

As per women having different privilages, Im sure youll agree they do. And as that was a response to the misconception of Islam granting "equal rights" to women, I think I proved my point that that isnt true.

[565]

i voted no because britain non-muslim country and i think the sharia law will have conflict with the british law. sharia laws can only work in ideal islaim states.

[Isambard]

I see that you do. It's not really going to make a difference until you forget all the stereotypes and generalizations and all the other bs the media has been feeding you, but I'll say it anyway. Miracles happen, I guess.

""According to the Qur'an the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says: "And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Ar-Rum: 21)

The Qur'an urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness. [In the event of a family dispute, the Qur'an exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects]. Allah Almighty says: “Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (An-Nisa’: 19)

It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him.

Here the gender roles I was talking about. Negating rights theory.

But the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute among them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to batch up the rift and solve the differences.

However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

The Qur'an is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)


"If the problem relates to the wife's behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.
Even here, that maximum measure is limited by the following:

<snipped from brevity>

Will you actually read it? Will it make even a dent in your "oppressed muslim woman mentality"? Doubt it. But it doesn't hurt to try.

I have read it. Thankyou for proving my point Islam doesnt recognize women's rights.

Nice attempt at a strawman though. I never said women are oppressed, I said they have no rights because of Islamic encouragement of gender roles making your original claim false.:mmokay:

[crayon]

So in your opinion having no rights is not equal to oppression?

And of course there are gender roles. Men and women are EQUAL but DIFFERENT. Which is something that is so difficult to grasp for a lot of people, for some reason. So many people have the idea that EQUAL RIGHTS=SAME ROLES.

edit to add- do you ever see parents going to school and their children going to work to provide money for the family? no. each person has their role. if both children and parents went to school, that would be stupid. if both of them worked, that would also be stupid. who you are defines your role in society.

[Cabdullahi]

I have read it. Thankyou for proving my point Islam doesnt recognize women's rights.

Nice attempt at a strawman though. I never said women are oppressed, I said they have no rights because of Islamic encouragement of gender roles making your original claim false.:mmokay:

Brother u are lost i will try and enlighten u so plz go on my original thread with the title The importance of women
ive made it easier for u by giving u the link so go an educate urself and lubricate that solid brain of urs with understanding:coolious:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...nce-women.html

[Isambard]

So in your opinion having no rights is not equal to oppression?

Oppression is a subject term which is why I dont use it.

Having no rights (as defined by rights theory) is pretty specific. Rights are universal protection from (negative rights) or universal granting of (positive rights).

The only way Islam could have gender roles and rights is for it to declare one group non-people. (which is what alot of folk who dont know what a right is typically do). Thats a far stretch for me and I see no evidence for that position aside from isolated instances that are more outliers than norms so its silly to even bring em in the analysis.

And of course there are gender roles. Men and women are EQUAL but DIFFERENT. Which is something that is so difficult to grasp for a lot of people, for some reason. So many people have the idea that EQUAL RIGHTS=SAME ROLES.

The same arguement was made to enslave and/or subject minorities. I would agree with you if we were living in a egragrian society where that sort of differentiation mattered, but thats not the case so Islamic gender roles is rather dated.

[Isambard]

Brother u are lost i will try and enlighten u so plz go on my original thread with the title The importance of women
ive made it easier for u by giving u the link so go an educate urself and lubricate that solid brain of urs with understanding:coolious:
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...nce-women.html

Recognizing women as important is very different then giving them full rights.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Being a nihilist doesnt mean Im stupid. Lack of political rights on the basis that someone who believes in a magical sky man is more equipped to rule is just sillyness.

True but a nihilist wouldn't actually give a ****. A true nihilist at least. Maybe you're semi-nihilist :) As for lack of political rights, what rights are you speaking of?

And why would I enjoy laws that restrict my access favorite media forums (and not have any say mind you) because my muslim overlords cant control themselves?

What restrictions are you talking about?

I have preferences, and I really perfer a system that makes some sense to one that based on fanciful promises.

I'm sure the following agree with you:
native americans
iraqis
afghanis
somalis
The list goes on. All promised a fanciful law system (cough democracy [where you democractically elect a dictator to ''lead'' your country for a few years] cough)

As per women having different privilages, Im sure youll agree they do. And as that was a response to the misconception of Islam granting "equal rights" to women, I think I proved my point that that isnt true.

Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam. The fact of the matter is, women do have rights just as males do. In fact, women under Islam have a greater importance than man. Take this hadith and think on it: Paradise is at your mother's feet. If you still cannot see the level of greatness a woman has under Islam, I'll dig up some more - believe me there are loads.

[crayon]

I don't understand what you mean by your second paragraph, but this discussion isn't going anywhere anyway, so I'm done.

وما نرسل المرسلين الا مبشرين ومنذرين ويجدل الذين كفروا بالبطل ليدحضوا به الحق واتخذوا ءايتى وما انذروا هزو

18:56 We only send the messengers as simply deliverers of good news, as well as warners. Those who disbelieve argue with falsehood to defeat the truth, and they take My proofs and warnings in vain.

[krypton6]

As some one else said at some point.

In a country you have a leader who leads the country, that leader can do more than what his people can. In a muslim house the man is by the logic the leader, and by the same logic the man can do more than what the woman and children can.

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!

[Uthman]

:sl:

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!

Good point!

But one must accept that men and women have biological differences. It is my belief that men in general are physically stronger than women in general. That isn't to say that women cannot lift things like men can. I just mean to say that women are generally more fragile and delicate than men (and usually a lot more afraid of breaking a nail! :okay: Joke)

With this in mind, men are given a greater degree of responsibility and are given the job of protecting the woman. A woman is seen as something very precious in Islam, which is why they are not obliged to work (although they can if they want!). On the other hand, the men do have to work to maintain their family.

I do digress...

:w:

[Noora]

aamirsaab said...
Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam.
__________________
I cant think of one muslim woman who truly believes in Islam and is committed to allah that will tell you se is treated unjustly..However you will find that there are some women who are born muslims and are not really committed and usually have an unjust husband that will say they arent treated justly and the west will latch on to these people as proof of oppression .....Its interesting that any woman who has reverted to Islam especially western reverts will tell you its the opposite...women are treated with respect....hence why they reverted...but the critics will tell you she was brain washed, like a gun was put to her head to revert to Islam...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

being treated unjustly and having islam command someone to treat another unjustly is completely different

[Amadeus85]

I would like to notice something different that you talk about here. The situation when minority wants to be ruled according to their religious rules caused more talking and discussing in media and among people than it was necesary. As some muslims here noticed, muslims want only the same rights that jews already have in UK. The strange situation is that Brittons got so scared about the Sharia in their country.In this kind of way react only people who are not certain about their own indentity.So I would risk a suggestion that the problem lays not in muslim minority in UK but in brittish majority.

[truemuslim]

wat bout the ppl born in UK ... no where else to go... ?

[Noora]

Aaron..coming from a christian..they are nice and just words...jews enjoy those rights i dont see why muslims shouldnt , esp if its only affecting them. Its not like they are asking for complete shariah law to be implemented.....i would support any religion who wanted to do the same, if it didnt affect me, as long as i can go about my business, so can they. unfortunately the media snesationalise things to see papers and im afraid even the heading of this topic is misleading to what was really proposed.
Aaron nice to know someone who isnt a muslim makes sense of the topic and can see it for what it really is...

[Noora]

true muslim....good point, so where do the brits who are born or reverted to religion go????

[Isambard]

:sl:

True but a nihilist wouldn't actually give a ****. A true nihilist at least. Maybe you're semi-nihilist :) As for lack of political rights, what rights are you speaking of?

You're confusing philosophical nihilism with political apathy. Tsk tsk^o)

What restrictions are you talking about?

lack of things that would be "unislamic". Off the top of my head, the majority of my favorite cartoons, rushdie's marvelous books, (if saudi is any indication) difficulty finding the religious texts of different religions, the good majority of my favorite graphic novels etc etc.


I'm sure the following agree with you:
native americans
iraqis
afghanis
somalis
The list goes on. All promised a fanciful law system (cough democracy [where you democractically elect a dictator to ''lead'' your country for a few years] cough)

A pretty strawman to be sure. Well pretty and awkward. ^o) You realize that what i meant was the reasoning behind it. On paper a liberal democracy makes alot of sense while on paper a Sharia states falls apart. If you want to argue from implimentation in the real world, you could compare working democracies which means Im at least partially right...compared to the 0 working shariah states:coolious:

Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam.

You really have never seen all those muslim women who wish to reform Islam? Must I really cite a list or are you just gonna pull a 'No true Scottsman' on me?

The fact of the matter is, women do have rights just as males do.

Say it with me. "Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights etc etc." Say it until you remember that gender assignments and rights are mutually exclusive unless you call on a non-person.

In fact, women under Islam have a greater importance than man. Take this hadith and think on it: Paradise is at your mother's feet. If you still cannot see the level of greatness a woman has under Islam, I'll dig up some more - believe me there are loads.

^^Ty for proving my point.

[Isambard]

As some one else said at some point.

In a country you have a leader who leads the country, that leader can do more than what his people can. In a muslim house the man is by the logic the leader, and by the same logic the man can do more than what the woman and children can.

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!

Thats good reasoning if you are working on a farm. Not so good reasoning if you sit in front of a computer pushing away at keys for 8hrs.

[Intisar]

As per women having different privilages, Im sure youll agree they do. And as that was a response to the misconception of Islam granting "equal rights" to women, I think I proved my point that that isnt true.

In Islaam, the importance of women is stressed so much that it's unbelievable that you would make such a statement. You are to appreciate your mother 3 times more than your father, she's your ticket to heaven, and you complete half your deen by marrying one.

The only misconception there is about women in Islaam is the fact that you think that we have less rights than men. I think you've been too influenced by FOXNews and mainstream media in general. Do a little research for yourself and you'll see just how ridiculous your statement sounds.

[Isambard]

In Islaam, the importance of women is stressed so much that it's unbelievable that you would make such a statement. You are to appreciate your mother 3 times more than your father, she's your ticket to heaven, and you complete half your deen by marrying one.

The only misconception there is about women in Islaam is the fact that you think that we have less rights than men. I think you've been too influenced by FOXNews and mainstream media in general. Do a little research for yourself and you'll see just how ridiculous your statement sounds.

Ive already covered this. What you describe is not a right(s).

Respect =/ having rights. This should be obvious whenever you see someone who is extremely unpopular and a douche being aloud to continue because his/her universal rights are the same as mine even though noone respects this person. Thats what makes it a right, not a privilage.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

lack of things that would be "unislamic". Off the top of my head, the majority of my favorite cartoons, rushdie's marvelous books, (if saudi is any indication) difficulty finding the religious texts of different religions, the good majority of my favorite graphic novels etc etc.

And where does it say in any sharia law that any of the items in your list would be banned? I've said it many times before, common sense runs through the laws of sharia. What you've clearly read about sharia law is rubbish.

A pretty strawman to be sure. Well pretty and awkward. You realize that what i meant was the reasoning behind it. On paper a liberal democracy makes alot of sense while on paper a Sharia states falls apart.

On paper, sharia doesn't fall apart. People are stupid so they won't understand the sheer awesomeness of sharia.

If you want to argue from implimentation in the real world, you could compare working democracies which means Im at least partially right...compared to the 0 working shariah states

The lack of sharia states is due to corruption and dogmatism. If people used their God-given common sense, they'd be able to carry out sharia properly. Democracy only works because it's an illusion of power to the masses and no responsbility. In reality the masses have no power - the leader has all the power and all the responsibility. In short, what democracy promises on face value, it fails to achieve. But since people are stupid, it works. It's like dangling Haribo infront of a child just so they come towards you. Then you give it to them and they find out it's really Porridge instead.

You really have never seen all those muslim women who wish to reform Islam? Must I really cite a list or are you just gonna pull a 'No true Scottsman' on me?

The ones who wish to reform Islam don't understand a thing about it in the first place - they've grown up with some dogmatic version of it (illustrated by their parental figures and surrounding environments) and have not actually studied the history of sharia law and the importance of both male and female genders. In fact, if you've studied Islam and the Prophet properly, you'll see the correct interpretation of sharia law and how it stopped slavery, gave women rights (more than any other methodology at that time) and enhanced the importance of both genders.

Say it with me. "Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights etc etc." Say it until you remember that gender assignments and rights are mutually exclusive unless you call on a non-person.

What gender roles? There aren't any in Islam other than the core values that seperate the two in the first place (one gives birth, one doesn't, one is female and one is male etc)

Ty for proving my point

I stated the importance of a female. The rights for both male and female are the same - both are free to live, to divorce, to marry, to be educated, to practice their religion and so on and so forth.

[Trumble]

Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft. In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read. Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent. Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.

The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih's conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her. Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.

BBC

No thanks. I don't think any further comment is really necessary, is it?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Trumble, that article has everything to do with saudi and nothing to do with Sharia law. Unfortunately, the muslim-run countries today do not practice sharia law properly hence we get injustice in the name of God which is ironic, stupid and wrong. I'm getting tired of saying this and I'm pretty sure some are getting tired of hearing it so I'll make it even simpler: Islam requires common sense to understand. It is a simple as that.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft. In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read. Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent. Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.

The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih's conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her. Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.

BBC

No thanks. I don't think any further comment is really necessary, is it?

your trying to say the witness system is flawed?

but how many of you actually understand the witness system?!

first look at the gravity of giving false witness:

It was narrated that Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Shall I not tell you of the greatest of major sins?” We said, “Yes indeed, O Messenger of Allaah.” He said, “Associating others with Allaah (shirk) and disobedience towards parents.” He was reclining, but then he sat up and said, “And false speech and false witness, and false speech and false witness,” and he kept on saying it until I thought he would never stop.

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5631; Muslim, 87).

secondly There is no expiation for false witness apart from repentance and restoring people’s rights, if that false testimony resulted in depriving others of what was rightfully theirs.

The judge or qaadi has the right to impose whatever punishment he sees fit for the one who bore false witness.


thirdly in the end everything can be manipulated as can forensic science by the ones who conduct the tests etc etc, we leave the final justice to judgement day. In this life we strive for what we can.

[Skavau]

Are you awake!? There's a big difference between Islam and muslims!

In reality, Islam is only what Muslims are.

I'm sure you've been on these forums long enough to know that islam neither advocates nor condones severe (and by severe I mean anything harder than with a tooth brush) beating. You don't need someone to tell you again. If you do, however, I'd be happy to elaborate.

I've read the description of women being beaten from some Muslims. At best it is patronising towards women and implies they are child-like needing to be disciplined - at worse it implies abuse and possession.

Why does the 'beating' rule not go to males either? Moreover, how can you 'beat the sense' into a woman?

oh yes women in the west have many rights....they are treated a first class citizens, paid the same as mens wages, not exploited as sex objects, never get beaten by men, men always take responsiblity of the women the impregnate etc etc,the list can go on and on...some people in the west are very dellusional. If women have rights in the west then give me shariah any day...

This makes no sense. Do you know the concept of rights?

Women are treated the same as men, generally. There are unlawful inequalities which exist such as courts favouring women, some employers and industries favouring women. There are also other inequalities such as the pay issues as you highlighted favouring men.

I do not disagree that there is imperfection in how equality is applied. But that is a very human thing.

the west gives women their rights but do u think the women(unbelievers) use these rights to do something beneficial nooo!
some of them leave their children behind to go have a night out simply because they feel free and in need to do wild things

What you describe is not a 'western' problem, but more of a problem of humanity itself. Moreover, not all women do something as you describe - so what is your complaint?

They are advised to wear what they want show of ur beautiful assets do u think thats women liberation, its merely a way to degrade them but to keep them happy aswell why?

It is quite telling when your world view dictates that personal liberty is in fact, oppression. So far I see your logic as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

The tap of the Miswak is so light, it can only be symbolic to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

And even at that, it is discouraged, except as a very last resort.

No doubt, a far cry from "Islam allowed men to beat women".

The principle, at least for me is far more important than the severity. How does it work? Your description implies an inherent childlike attitude of women that can be 'disciplined'. I find this extremely patronising to women and wonder what it is supposed to actually achieve. Why is it not also applied for men and how do you 'hit (or 'tap') the sense' into someone?

So in your opinion having no rights is not equal to oppression?

Uhm.

If you have no rights, then you are liable to any kind of oppression. The very reason we even have rights is to prevent oppression. You need to understand the purpose of rights here.

[Isambard]

:sl:

And where does it say in any sharia law that any of the items in your list would be banned? I've said it many times before, common sense runs through the laws of sharia. What you've clearly read about sharia law is rubbish.

Correct me Im wrong, but Islam and shariah are frequently cited to be preventative arnt they? Now how many muslims do you believe would allow what I described above if they cant even handle some cartoons and books theyve never bothered to read?:skeleton:

On paper, sharia doesn't fall apart. People are stupid so they won't understand the sheer awesomeness of sharia.

It does actually. Economically and politically. Stripping political rights of groups only tends to work if you are pushig to heavily industrialize your country. Which is impossible to do effectively with the mass social programs shariah allegably promises. This coupled that there is no breaks (interest rates).

So on the one hand you have second class citizens based entirely on faith and not any type of merit system, on the other you have no way to improve your economy w/o having it implode.

To give you an amusing history lesson, when the french socialist and communists got into power (80 I believe?) they tried to enact an ambitious plan than resembles the promises of shariah (except it actually makes sense). Despite their efforts, the keynesian model is dated. Wanna take a guess how long before they had to retract their plans? Ill give you a hint, its one 12th of a year.

Give the above of mentioned, there is no reason to believe a "true" shariah state would last a week. Unless of course you are into fantasy :D


The lack of sharia states is due to corruption and dogmatism. If people used their God-given common sense, they'd be able to carry out sharia properly.

Strange a god given governing and economic system be so flawed eh?^o) Seems its impossible to take off the ground when other man-made models have advanced humanity to heavily.

Democracy only works because it's an illusion of power to the masses and no responsbility. In reality the masses have no power - the leader has all the power and all the responsibility.

What are you talking about? Responsibility in a democracy comes in the form of economic and political consequence to their leader's actions. This directly influences standard of living, social programs etc etc.

And what are you referring to when you mean its an illusion? Quite a few countries have switches in parties and policies directly related the feelings of thepeople. Or are we ignoring 100yrs history?^o)

In short, what democracy promises on face value, it fails to achieve. But since people are stupid, it works. It's like dangling Haribo infront of a child just so they come towards you. Then you give it to them and they find out it's really Porridge instead.

It works cause its stupid eh? So if shariah is failing agaisnt that, what does that tell us about shariah?:thankyou:

The ones who wish to reform Islam don't understand a thing about it in the first place - they've grown up with some dogmatic version of it (illustrated by their parental figures and surrounding environments) and have not actually studied the history of sharia law and the importance of both male and female genders.

O I so called it! No true scottsman:D:D

In fact, if you've studied Islam and the Prophet properly, you'll see the correct interpretation of sharia law and how it stopped slavery, gave women rights (more than any other methodology at that time) and enhanced the importance of both genders.

Why do you say it stopped slavery? The Ottoman empire dabled in the slave trade for a very longtime and no where in shariah does it say you must free all your slaves or that slavery is bad.

Noone is disputing that it gave women generally progressive rights for its time The arguement from the get-go was that Islam never got around to giving women full-rights

What gender roles? There aren't any in Islam other than the core values that seperate the two in the first place (one gives birth, one doesn't, one is female and one is male etc)

So where does a man being able to hit a woman, or the woman having to submit to the husband play into all this?

I stated the importance of a female. The rights for both male and female are the same - both are free to live, to divorce, to marry, to be educated, to practice their religion and so on and so forth.

I got a sneaking suspicion you havent looked the Qur'an and hadiths. :skeleton:

Im starting to feel like this is going in circles. Folks please read what I write before you respond. And redactions in history, economics and political theory doesnt hlp your arguements any. Learn what rights are, stop using it as a buzzword.:exhausted

[Uthman]

Hello Skavau,

Thank you for your post. :)

The tap of the Miswak is so light, it can only be symbolic to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

And even at that, it is discouraged, except as a very last resort.

No doubt, a far cry from "Islam allowed men to beat women".

The principle, at least for me is far more important than the severity. How does it work? Your description implies an inherent childlike attitude of women that can be 'disciplined'. I find this extremely patronising to women and wonder what it is supposed to actually achieve. Why is it not also applied for men and how do you 'hit (or 'tap') the sense' into someone?

Presumably coming from a place where there is a different World-view than that presented by Islam, it is understandable why you would be confused about something like this.

In order to answer your question, some background knowledge about gender roles in Islam is required. As you may be aware, men are given greater responsibility than women in Islam and are given the task of being the protectors of women. This protection is inclusive of everything - physical protection, psychological protection, financial protection e.t.c.

In return for this, women in Islam are expected to be obedient to their husbands.

I would like to quote a section from Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) last sermon:

"O People! it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

In case you're interested, the full sermon can be found here. It's beautiful.

Now, it must be noted that a husband who is a Muslim would never ask his wife to do anything unreasonable. To do so would be in violation of the teachings of Islam, and in any instance where a husband does ask their wife to do something that violates Islam's teachings, he must not be obeyed. It must also be noted that if ever a relationship between a husband and wife becomes abusive, she has every right to divorce him.

However, on occasion, a wife might disobey her husband when he is not asking her to do anything unreasonable, or a wife might display ill-conduct in some other way. In such instances, it is now the wife who is violating the teachings of Islam. Since it is the duty of the husband to protect his wife, it falls under his responsibility to also protect her from Allah's wrath. Islam thereby lays out a specific methodology for how to go about doing this.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance &#226;€“ [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.

~ (Qur'an - An-Nisaa (The Women), Verse 34)

With regards to the part above which says 'strike them', I hope the correct translation/interpretation of this has already become clear earlier on in the thread.

Of course, a resolution would be achieved in most cases at the advisory stage. However, if ill conduct persists after this, then still the husband is not permitted to lay a finger on the woman. Instead, he is told to 'forsake them in bed'. It is a way of negatively reinforcing her behaviour. It is very likely that a resolution would be reached at this stage, if not the first. However, if ill conduct continues to persist, then a light, symbolic tap is to be used to demonstrate how serious the situation has become, such as to warrant the husband to have had to physically touch her in this manner, which is something quite out of the ordinary. It's not something that is commonplace at all. Remember, the husband has a religious duty to prevent his wife from disobeying Allah's rules. This is as far as a husband can go to fulfil this duty.

Under no circumstances whatsoever does Islam permit a husband to ever physically abuse his wife. If ever such an incident occurs this is something very serious. Where all possible reconciliatory steps have been taken (and failed), then the best course of action will probably be a divorce.

Regards

[Uthman]

Hello again,

In reality, Islam is only what Muslims are.

Can you please expand a little on this statement? I'm not sure I know what you mean by it.

Thanks. :)

Regards

[Skavau]

In order to answer your question, some background knowledge about gender roles in Islam is required. As you may be aware, men are given greater responsibility than women in Islam and are given the task of being the protectors of women. This protection is inclusive of everything - physical protection, psychological protection, financial protection e.t.c.

In return for this, women in Islam are expected to be obedient to their husbands.

Total, unquestioning obedience?

Now, it must be noted that a husband who is a Muslim would never ask his wife to do anything unreasonable. To do so would be in violation of the teachings of Islam

Assuming that is true - your assertion is not credible in reality. There are Muslims that may be irrational, make bad judgments or be plain horrible. So how do you know this?

And how does an obedient wife who may not know better differentiate between a 'rational' or 'irrational' command as per Islam?

Of course, a resolution would be achieved in most cases at the advisory stage. However, if ill conduct persists after this, then still the husband is not permitted to lay a finger on the woman. Instead, he is told to 'forsake them in bed'. It is a way of negatively reinforcing her behaviour. It is very likely that a resolution would be reached at this stage, if not the first. However, if ill conduct continues to persist, then a light, symbolic tap is to be used to demonstrate how serious the situation has become, such as to warrant the husband to have had to physically touch her in this manner, which is something quite out of the ordinary. It's not something that is commonplace at all. Remember, the husband has a religious duty to prevent his wife from disobeying Allah's rules. This is as far as a husband can go to fulfil this duty.

This is the patronising part. I cannot help but see it as viewing a wife as an insolent child. What if the man is being irrational and the wife is disobeying an irrational command, but because of his irrationality he cannot see that? I'm sorry if you don't accept that or understand my viewpoint, but it is sincere.

[aamirsaab]

ICorrect me Im wrong, but Islam and shariah are frequently cited to be preventative arnt they? Now how many muslims do you believe would allow what I described above if they cant even handle some cartoons and books theyve never bothered to read?

You are confusing muslims and Islam.

It does actually. Economically and politically. Stripping political rights of groups only tends to work if you are pushig to heavily industrialize your country. Which is impossible to do effectively with the mass social programs shariah allegably promises. This coupled that there is no breaks (interest rates).

So on the one hand you have second class citizens based entirely on faith and not any type of merit system, on the other you have no way to improve your economy w/o having it implode.

Ri'ba aka usury (a form of extortianate interest) is not allowed. Fa'eda aka interest is. Just found that out actually :).

Strange a god given governing and economic system be so flawed eh? Seems its impossible to take off the ground when other man-made models have advanced humanity to heavily.

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.

And what are you referring to when you mean its an illusion? Quite a few countries have switches in parties and policies directly related the feelings of thepeople. Or are we ignoring 100yrs history?

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

It works cause its stupid eh? So if shariah is failing agaisnt that, what does that tell us about shariah?

It works because humans don't want the responsibility but do want power (hence I called them stupid). Promise them a system which has that tagline and they will take it hook, line and sinker.

O I so called it! No true scottsman

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Why do you say it stopped slavery? The Ottoman empire dabled in the slave trade for a very longtime and no where in shariah does it say you must free all your slaves or that slavery is bad.

It wasn't immediate stoppage to slavery but a gradual process (similar to the method of alcohol prohibition) - God knew that if there was to be an immediate halt to slavery it would be met with criticism and noone would obey it. As such it went through gradual stages, with the initial being that they were treated as actual humans (and therefore had rights which at the time was unheard of)

Noone is disputing that it gave women generally progressive rights for its time The arguement from the get-go was that Islam never got around to giving women full-rights

What full-right? They have all the rights a man does.

So where does a man being able to hit a woman, or the woman having to submit to the husband play into all this?

Both of those points have been refuted countless times. For the second one, If it is in cases where the husband is an arrogant douche, the woman is free to divorce him. As I stated before, common sense.

I got a sneaking suspicion you havent looked the Qur'an and hadiths.

Oh ho ho no you did not just say that. Seriously, when non-muslims whip that around it's really a bad move.

Im starting to feel like this is going in circles. Folks please read what I write before you respond. And redactions in history, economics and political theory doesnt hlp your arguements any. Learn what rights are, stop using it as a buzzword.

Want some links on womens rights in Islam? page 1

page 2

Any misconceptions you most likely have are covered in those links.

Slavery is discussed here

If by those links you still don't get it, I'll continue the conversation. Otherwise, there is no point.

[nevesirth]

i voted no. it would only work if britian became 100% muslim.

gotta gree with u, unless britain besame 100% or majority muslim

[Trumble]

your trying to say the witness system is flawed?

No. I'm trying to say that I wouldn't want to live in a country where people are sentenced to death for 'witchcraft'. It doesn't matter which religion the "religious police" are supposed to represent; Christianity was hardly innocent of such nonsense in the past either ... but it's been a long time since Salem and Matthew Hopkins. It goes without saying that any witness system that can convict a person of a crime that has no objective reality must be flawed.

:sl:
Trumble, that article has everything to do with saudi and nothing to do with Sharia law. Unfortunately, the muslim-run countries today do not practice sharia law properly hence we get injustice in the name of God which is ironic, stupid and wrong.

That's fine as far as it goes but in practice it all comes down to perception. Most non-muslims in Britain, for example, would hardly make that distinction and can hardly be expected to. Their reaction whenever 'Sharia Law' is mentioned is therefore predictable and it's up to the muslim world to get its own house in order. If the Saudis are practicing such as distorted form of Sharia law where are the protests, demonstrations and dipomatic exchanges in and from other principally muslim nations? Silence is seen as acceptance.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.

Is that true? Has shariah never actually been implemented since the death of the Prophet (pbuh)?

If that really is the case, I can't see it working anywhere, let alone in Britain.

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

Yep - I agree with you on this one. The great majority of UK citizens opposed Britain's involvement in the Iraq war (and a million of them formed the largest protest in British history over it) but that still didn't stop Blair joining GWB. People-power? Yeah, right!

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

No Britain could never be ruled by Sharia law. Brittain has learned its lesson already regarding theocracy. Its a bad idea and England has the experience with its Christian history to know that.

[Keltoi]

The democracy practiced in the West is not pure democracy, and was never intended to be. Frankly I'm glad, since the "will of the people" is often misguided and ignorant.

I think if Sharia Law is ever implemented it would have to be done in a 100&#37; Muslim population, and be a neutral state, meaning people choose to be there for religious and cultural reasons. That way no segment of society will be discontented.

[hamzahm]

Peace to all following the GUIDANCE of al-Quran and Sunnah

Respected Muslims

Shariah law will NEVER work anywhere in the world until it is adopted and implemented WHOLLY according the ALLAH'S DIVINE DICTATES.

One can't tke a part of the Sharaih and mix it with th Kaafir Tawaagheeti System. Whoever does this is a MUSHRIK because he is partnering Kuffar systems with Islamic systems by following his vain desires. You can't say you believe in ALLAH and the last day, then take man made laws and mix it with ALLAH's Pure Divine LAws. This is sharing in ALLAH exclusive domain of legislature and rulership.

Please be careful with this ...

And only ALLAH knows BEST!
hmz

[Gator]

Interesting article the Rev's remarks and using religious based arbitration in the US.

February 17, 2008
When God and the Law Don’t Square
By ADAM LIPTAK
A PRETTY good way to generate an outcry, as the archbishop of Canterbury learned in Britain recently, is to say that a Western legal system should make room for Shariah, or Islamic law. When the archbishop, spiritual leader of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, commented in a radio interview that such an accommodation was “unavoidable,” critics conjured images of stonings and maimings, overwhelming his more modest point.

The archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, did not propose importing Shariah into the criminal law and was referring mostly to divorces in which both sides have agreed to abide by the judgment of a religious tribunal. His proposal was groundbreaking only in extending to Islamic tribunals in Britain a role that Jewish and Christian ones have long played in the judicial systems of secular societies. Courts in the United States have endorsed all three kinds of tribunals.

In 2003, for instance, a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court. In 2005, the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, which uses Biblical teachings to settle disputes. And state courts routinely enforce the decisions made by a Jewish court, known as a bet din, in commercial and family law cases.

Link to full article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/we...=1&oref=slogin

Thanks.

[Isambard]

You are confusing muslims and Islam.

Then is there any sort of logic behind Islam?

Ri'ba aka usury (a form of extortianate interest) is not allowed. Fa'eda aka interest is. Just found that out actually :).

Never heard of that before. Mind giving me a link where I could get more info?

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.


Yeah, needing a prophet from God for a political system to work esp. when no more prophets are suppose show up seems like a pretty big inherent flaw to me:okay:

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

Again, depends what country and which time period you are referring to.

It works because humans don't want the responsibility but do want power (hence I called them stupid). Promise them a system which has that tagline and they will take it hook, line and sinker.

Shariah promises alot more and Id say in general more folks like the sound of it as opposed to a liberal democracy. Yet shariah still fails to materialize in any meaningful way.

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Ignoring the shifting of the goal post, appeal to numbers certainly isnt a good strategy when it comes this sorta thing. Why? Well minus the shi'a (who I have a feeling you wouldnt call true muslims). Minus, the extreme fundies, Minus the Islamic reformists, Minus the apathetic, Minus the closest deists, Minus those who know almost nothing about islam yet call themselves muslims.

Now look at the women reformers in Islam, it isnt a few hundred, they have a few thousand. They tend to have really big rallys round these parts.

It wasn't immediate stoppage to slavery but a gradual process (similar to the method of alcohol prohibition) - God knew that if there was to be an immediate halt to slavery it would be met with criticism and noone would obey it. As such it went through gradual stages, with the initial being that they were treated as actual humans (and therefore had rights which at the time was unheard of)

So God is afraid of what people might say? Seems like a cowardly God to me. He also didnt seem to care too much in regards to his other rules. There is also the fun fact the Muslim countries were indeed the last the abolish slavery.

What full-right? They have all the rights a man does.



"In Islam, the sexes are considered equal before God. At the same time, Islamic law and practice recognize differences between sexes, resulting in different rights and obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_Islam

Both of those points have been refuted countless times. For the second one, If it is in cases where the husband is an arrogant douche, the woman is free to divorce him. As I stated before, common sense.

Refuted means its not true and Im operating under a misconception. Noone has done as such. Gender roles exist. If that sounds bad to you then switch religions

Oh ho ho no you did not just say that. Seriously, when non-muslims whip that around it's really a bad move.

I wouldnt have to whip it out if you kept claiming falsehoods about the Qur'an and hadiths:rolleyes:

Want some links on womens rights in Islam? page 1

page 2

Any misconceptions you most likely have are covered in those links.

Slavery is discussed here

If by those links you still don't get it, I'll continue the conversation. Otherwise, there is no point.

You seek to strawman me in the first article. I never said Women were oppressed or liberated under Islam. I said universal rights do not go hand in hand with Islam which I have yet to see evidence for.

As per slavery, redacting history does little to sway me.

Theres no point if you dont bother to look up what rights are, which is what ive been saying over and over. Argueing from ignorance doesnt make you right, especially when its agaisnt someone who understands the issues at hand.

[Uthman]

I reckon the reason that the reason the correct Shari'ah has not been implemented anywhere in it's entirety in a very long time is down to two key factors.

• Lack of knowledge and understanding.
• Lack of support.

Each factor has it's own underlying reasons. Both factors are linked.

[Uthman]

I really shouldn't post things like that when I don't the time to back up my claims. :hmm:

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Long post.

If the Saudis are practicing such as distorted form of Sharia law where are the protests, demonstrations and dipomatic exchanges in and from other principally muslim nations? Silence is seen as acceptance.

Indeed. It shows how far muslims have fallen without a Prophet to guide them. Once a great and powerful group is now shattered into many broken pieces.

Greetings,


Is that true? Has shariah never actually been implemented since the death of the Prophet (pbuh)?

If that really is the case, I can't see it working anywhere, let alone in Britain.

It has been implimented in terms of the law. But I'm not sure if there is a caliphate running in saudi, nigeria or afhganistan (main countries where sharia law seems to be implimented). However, all three suffer from dogmatism and lack common sense. Though in Nigeria's case it is different since there are two seperate law systems running together (thus causing confusion)

Then is there any sort of logic behind Islam?

Yes. Plenty. I'll give several examples:
That which is haram is so because it is harmful to do e.g. drink alcohol, eating pork (because only 98% of their uri remains in their body and only 2% is let out - thus you are essentially eating pig crap which is bad for you).

Never heard of that before. Mind giving me a link where I could get more info?

Here we go click me

Yeah, needing a prophet from God for a political system to work esp. when no more prophets are suppose show up seems like a pretty big inherent flaw to me

God recognised this and hence we have the hadith and sunnah. By acting upon those we are able to replicate (in terms of actions) the teachings of the Prophet and thus carry out sharia. A group of those who are in that path are usually named the caliphate. As of today, I don't think there is an existing caliphate and so technically sharia law is not actually in place.

Again, depends what country and which time period you are referring to.

UK, Pre-Iraq war. Million man march. No effect on war. However, I do believe the Greeks interpretation of democracy was the ideal - every decision the ruling government was to make was voted by the people.

Shariah promises alot more and Id say in general more folks like the sound of it as opposed to a liberal democracy. Yet shariah still fails to materialize in any meaningful way.

It fails to materialize because it relies on a caliphate (or islamic state) .

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Ignoring the shifting of the goal post, appeal to numbers certainly isnt a good strategy when it comes this sorta thing. Why? Well minus the shi'a (who I have a feeling you wouldnt call true muslims). Minus, the extreme fundies, Minus the Islamic reformists, Minus the apathetic, Minus the closest deists, Minus those who know almost nothing about islam yet call themselves muslims. Now look at the women reformers in Islam, it isnt a few hundred, they have a few thousand. They tend to have really big rallys round these parts.

True muslim or not, the amount of women calling for reforms in Islam is insignificant on a face level. Even if you were to go deeper you'd find what I explained before: their understanding is warped. Now I don't mind muslims not doing what Islam tells them to do, but if they then go around and say ''Oh we want a reform in Islam'' then how can you expect that to be representative of Islam?

So God is afraid of what people might say? Seems like a cowardly God to me. He also didnt seem to care too much in regards to his other rules. There is also the fun fact the Muslim countries were indeed the last the abolish slavery.

God was doing it for the benefit of mankind. Had he demanded slavery be abolished imediately it would not have had the desired effect: abolishment of slavery. It's the same with abolishing anything: Smokers don't go cold turkey in one night because it is too difficult and too much for them to ask. Similarly, since slavery was so common at that time asking for it to be immediately halted would not have worked.

"In Islam, the sexes are considered equal before God. At the same time, Islamic law and practice recognize differences between sexes, resulting in different rights and obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_Islam

Ah the great info site that is wikipedia....Ok

Refuted means its not true and Im operating under a misconception. Noone has done as such. Gender roles exist. If that sounds bad to you then switch religions

Certain gender roles exist. From the wiki link, it's two for the female. A whopping world-stopping two. Both of which are core roles anyway (meaning that's their core function to begin with). Unlike certain cultural barriers, Islam also gives women the same rights. Those gender roles already exist - Islam just reinforced them and said ''Hey you've also got rights''.

I wouldnt have to whip it out if you kept claiming falsehoods about the Qur'an and hadiths

I wasn't claiming falsehoods. I claimed the truth and nothing but. You decided to drop in the standard non-muslim special supreme: ''err have you read the Quran?!'' To which I say yes I have. Have you? Or better yet, have you understood the first few words? If not, do not attempt to debate the Quran and hadith with a muslim on a muslim forum.

You seek to strawman me in the first article. I never said Women were oppressed or liberated under Islam. I said universal rights do not go hand in hand with Islam which I have yet to see evidence for.

Check the Prophet's history and you'll see the rights. Unfortunately, it is common nowadays to see oppression to womens (yes I do admit this) but this is not because of Islam. It's because of stupid muslims who have too much power and little sense. And those women who want a reform in Islam do so because of those corrupted muslim leaders. So it is not Islam's fault but the fault of muslims.

As per slavery, redacting history does little to sway me.

My aim was to offer an explanation not to sway you or convert you with my awesomeness. As far as I am concerned I did what I set out to do.

Theres no point if you dont bother to look up what rights are, which is what ive been saying over and over. Argueing from ignorance doesnt make you right, especially when its agaisnt someone who understands the issues at hand.

And I keep saying ''what rights'' but you don't actually answer it. You gave something about certain women who want a reform in Islam (which was a reply to my statement I know this) and I've gone over it many times, even giving you links to explain and add further reading for you. And then you say ''oh don't give me a history lesson''. I'm telling you how it was and how it should be under Islam and sharia law.

[Isambard]

:sl:
Yes. Plenty. I'll give several examples:
That which is haram is so because it is harmful to do e.g. drink alcohol, eating pork (because only 98% of their uri remains in their body and only 2% is let out - thus you are essentially eating pig crap which is bad for you).

Sounds preventative to me. Nothing about moderation. Still, this fails to make sense of rulings on music or dress codes or witchraft etc.

Here we go click me

Interesting Ill comeback to this when I get a chance :D

God recognised this and hence we have the hadith and sunnah. By acting upon those we are able to replicate (in terms of actions) the teachings of the Prophet and thus carry out sharia. A group of those who are in that path are usually named the caliphate. As of today, I don't think there is an existing caliphate and so technically sharia law is not actually in place.

So you need someone who is comparable to Muhammed? Does this include Gibreel whispering in his ear as well?

UK, Pre-Iraq war. Million man march. No effect on war. However, I do believe the Greeks interpretation of democracy was the ideal - every decision the ruling government was to make was voted by the people.

Uk has a shadey electoral system. That doesnt have to do with a liberal democracy persay simply a political monopoly on a centralist position for the labour party. Switiching to a Canadian, French or german model would be better IMHO.

Things with the anti-war protests has to do with political apathy and not (typically) with some secret service dedicated to changing polls.

Athenian democracy is hardly something to be praised as it was so successful in monopolizing sufferage on whoever the already enfrancaised de-clared a "person". The majority of the population was excluded from political considerations.
It fails to materialize because it relies on a caliphate (or islamic state) .

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Do you have the numbers saying its less than a percent?

True muslim or not, the amount of women calling for reforms in Islam is insignificant on a face level. Even if you were to go deeper you'd find what I explained before: their understanding is warped. Now I don't mind muslims not doing what Islam tells them to do, but if they then go around and say ''Oh we want a reform in Islam'' then how can you expect that to be representative of Islam?

Its not so insignificant when you consider how many "true muslims" (one that agree with your theological position) are. Discount all the groups Ive mentioned. How large is the muslim populace now? Compare that to the pop. of muslim reformers, what is the ratio?

God was doing it for the benefit of mankind. Had he demanded slavery be abolished imediately it would not have had the desired effect: abolishment of slavery. It's the same with abolishing anything: Smokers don't go cold turkey in one night because it is too difficult and too much for them to ask. Similarly, since slavery was so common at that time asking for it to be immediately halted would not have worked.

So Allah can split the moon, flood the Earth, send prophets to all corners of the Earth, and make predictions about the future. Yet when it came to slavery, he's afraid about what people think? Why didnt this fear seep in when Muhammed was commanded to get rid of all the idols? Or when the early Muhammed followers suffered great hardships from the Meccans?

I guess God ran out of mana potions to miracle his way eh?:okay:

Ah the great info site that is wikipedia....Ok

That it is. Gives good summeries. Or is there something you contest?

Certain gender roles exist. From the wiki link, it's two for the female. A whopping world-stopping two. Both of which are core roles anyway (meaning that's their core function to begin with). Unlike certain cultural barriers, Islam also gives women the same rights. Those gender roles already exist - Islam just reinforced them and said ''Hey you've also got rights''.

Nothing like playing down the numbers eh? Well I can do it too. "Hittler was a great man who lifted the german spirit, built all sorts of infastructure, boosted Germay's economy and made it powerful once again. His ONE problem was with jews..."

Then you have the same problem as with slavery. Was Allah too weak to take on tradition?

I wasn't claiming falsehoods. I claimed the truth and nothing but. You decided to drop in the standard non-muslim special supreme: ''err have you read the Quran?!'' To which I say yes I have. Have you? Or better yet, have you understood the first few words? If not, do not attempt to debate the Quran and hadith with a muslim on a muslim forum.

What truths are these? You seemed to change your position with every posting while mine remains the same.

Islam and equal rights are mutually exclusive
Non-muslims are second class citizens under a Sharia state.

Check the Prophet's history and you'll see the rights. Unfortunately, it is common nowadays to see oppression to womens (yes I do admit this) but this is not because of Islam. It's because of stupid muslims who have too much power and little sense. And those women who want a reform in Islam do so because of those corrupted muslim leaders. So it is not Islam's fault but the fault of muslims.

I see nothing like equal or universal rights under Islam or Muhammed's history.

And I keep saying ''what rights'' but you don't actually answer it. You gave something about certain women who want a reform in Islam (which was a reply to my statement I know this) and I've gone over it many times, even giving you links to explain and add further reading for you. And then you say ''oh don't give me a history lesson''. I'm telling you how it was and how it should be under Islam and sharia law.

^^Ive explained it oooo about 5-6 times now. Equal rights, that is the exact same rights that apply to men applies to women IN ALL THINGS.
Gender roles make any claims to equal or universal rights a contradiction.

As per non0muslims, lack of political rights is pretty self-explanitory.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I'm going to deal with just this one comment. The others can be dealt with at another time and another thread.

^^Ive explained it oooo about 5-6 times now. Equal rights, that is the exact same rights that apply to men applies to women IN ALL THINGS.
Gender roles make any claims to equal or universal rights a contradiction.

Ok equal rights it is. As you may have known male and female have substantial differences - genetically, psychologically, physiologically, psychosocially and even neurologically. Thus, inherintly the genders are not equal. To therefore have a law system that would provide both genders the exact same rights would ironically end up being the polar opposite of equality since the two genders are so different - to treat them both exactly the same way would create inequality.

Sharia addresses this by saying that yes you are different and as such this is reflected in the laws. To give an example; if both male and female were to be legally given the same amount of time off work for paternity then this would result in no food/resources for the family since neither of the two members is not working and thus not bringing any of the food in! Yet some people have become so adamant about their ''rights'' that this core point is being removed (at least in the UK). Now, obviously I'm not saying that you cannot spend time with your family. Absolutely not; I regard and Islam regards family as being a very important aspect of life that should be cherished whenever possible - but at the same time it should not be to an extent where you are not bringing home the resources for your family.

The whole point of this argument is to disntinguish the core values that need to be addressed and the only way to do so is to have a slightly different ruling for both gender. This is a neccessary innequality for mankind to propogate and Islam has addressed it. Therefore, yes you can say that there/is no true equal rights in Islam, where both genders have exactly the same laws. But, this is only because the core gender values have an equal importance (for propogation of mankind - it fits bang in there with psychology's evolutionary theories) and so there must not be confliction otherwise you would create true innequality!

To summarise; Islam addresses the fact that both genders are not the same and therefore there can never be a system that will treat them both equally because of that - it's actually not possible for that type of system to occur since by doing so you'd negate the differences between the two genders and end up being unfair even though you'd be giving the same rights to both of them. What Islam does give, however is balance and fairness among both genders and that is why :
* it has lasted 1400 or so years
* at least 20,000 females convert to Islam annually.
* the Islamic population outnumbers all other religions by millions.

As per non0muslims, lack of political rights is pretty self-explanitory.

I haven't any time left to discuss this properly. However, I shall leave you with some reading in regards to non-muslims in a sharia state.

[snakelegs]

:sl:
Here we go click me

this was a very interesting article. it is the first time i have seen a distinction made between interest (fa'eda) and usury (reba).
because of the nature of that website (ahem), i am wondering if this reflects the mainstream muslim view.
i am really curious because this contradicts everything i've read so far.
thanks!

[aamirsaab]

this was a very interesting article. it is the first time i have seen a distinction made between interest (fa'eda) and usury (reba).
because of the nature of that website (ahem), i am wondering if this reflects the mainstream muslim view.
i am really curious because this contradicts everything i've read so far.
thanks!

I think it does reflect the mainstream view as it would explain how there are halaal banks. I was doing some research on it just now and the distinction between riba and fa'eda is this:
riba - charging for loans where the longer you take to pay the more you have to (so the % increases over time). With fa'eda, this does not occur.

Well, that's what I have read so far...

[snakelegs]

this is really interesting. so you think the following is accurate?
"Earning interest and paying interest is perfectly acceptable, as the Quran has not prohibited interest. Interest is an essential component of the financial aspect of an individual or an organization. Individuals may need to save money in a bank, may carry a credit card for convenience, or may borrow and pay interest for an automobile or to own a house. Borrowing money and thus paying interest for business loans is an essential component for business and organizations. Thus paying interest, as long as it is not considered excessive by the standard of the day and community, to a credit card company, to a financial institution for a loan of any kind (business, car, house mortgage) is allowed and perfectly legal from a Quranic point of view. Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine."

[aamirsaab]

...Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine."

Only this part I am not sure of. I'd have to ask an Imaam or scholar, since I'm not 100% sure.

[snakelegs]

Only this part I am not sure of. I'd have to ask an Imaam or scholar, since I'm not 100% sure.

hmmm. now i am really curious!

[Muezzin]

Argueing from ignorance doesnt make you right, especially when its agaisnt someone who understands the issues at hand.

Right back atcha. ;)

Ah, lighten up people. Everyone should stop getting their knickers in a twist about hypotheticals, and start eating more candy floss.

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

I voted NO. The reason being is that then the British Law would have to accept laws of the other religions.

I really don't think that majority of the British citizens would agree and there would probably be riots or protests plus the media made had a field day with this issue and many people follow the media and as other Members have written before, this country needs to learn about Islam first. The TRUE concept of Islam.

Peace to all

[Ebtisweetsam]

Changed the title to something a bit clearer. As the other one was as confusing as a giant in a yoghurt pot.

A Giant in a yoghurt pot is not confusing? :hmm::D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

the Islamic population outnumbers all other religions by millions.

Are you sure about this? There are more Christians than Muslims according to every statistic I've seen.

Like here, for example.

However, the only thing more slippery than a statistic is a religious statistic, of course.

Peace

[BlackMamba]

^Ya Christians do outnumber Muslims at the time. But Islam is the fastest growing and A LOT of Christians do not even practice their religion at all. I kno there are plenty of Muslims like that, but I think the percentage of Muslims going to Mosque is higher that the percentage of Christians going to Church.

[Uthman]

^Ya Christians do outnumber Muslims at the time. But Islam is the fastest growing and A LOT of Christians do not even practice their religion at all. I kno there are plenty of Muslims like that, but I think the percentage of Muslims going to Mosque is higher that the percentage of Christians going to Church.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-religion.html

[Cognescenti]

Guys;

When y'all take over Europe, from a strictly aesthetic standpoint, please do not put minarettes on St Paul's or Chartres.

[Cabdullahi]

Guys;

When y'all take over Europe, from a strictly aesthetic standpoint, please do not put minarettes on St Paul's or Chartres.

There is nothing to be scared of,You will live a peacful life,crime rates will drop,we will put clothing on the women so that sexaul assault will drop,we'll close night clubs and lessen the intermingling of of opp sexes and many other things to keep the west clean and wash of the dirt that they struggled to wash of in the years.

It may sound that we are restricting u but no! it is for the better the society will be better think of it being this way A mother wants the best for her child and she prevents her child from eating unhealthy food or candy that will rot their teeth the child is being told not to eat it! but the child is confused,why should i stop it ,it tastes good but the child doesnt know the consequences that will arise later

[wilberhum]

There is nothing to be scared of, because it will never happen.

[Whatsthepoint]

There is nothing to be scared of, because it will never happen.

Hopefully..:hmm:

[Skavau]

There is nothing to be scared of,You will live a peacful life,crime rates will drop,we will put clothing on the women so that sexaul assault will drop,we'll close night clubs and lessen the intermingling of of opp sexes and many other things to keep the west clean and wash of the dirt that they struggled to wash of in the years.

It may sound that we are restricting u but no! it is for the better the society will be better think of it being this way A mother wants the best for her child and she prevents her child from eating unhealthy food or candy that will rot their teeth the child is being told not to eat it! but the child is confused,why should i stop it ,it tastes good but the child doesnt know the consequences that will arise later

Ah.

A benevolent fascist! An all-loving totalitarian? Irrespectively, I can't help but feel completely patronised by all of the above. Your ideal society ignores human choice and lacks respect for able-minded adults capable of making their own decisions.

What if I want to intermingle with the opposite gender? What if I want to go to a nightclub?

[Muezzin]

Ah.

A benevolent fascist! An all-loving totalitarian? Irrespectively, I can't help but feel completely patronised by all of the above. Your ideal society ignores human choice and lacks respect for able-minded adults capable of making their own decisions.

What if I want to intermingle with the opposite gender? What if I want to go to a nightclub?

What if somebody wants to do the jiggy with a five year old? What if somebody wants to view pictures of others doing said jiggy with five year olds?

I don't want to do that as it's wrong and disgusting. On the other hand, I wouldn't call a society which bans it oppressive.

Decency depends on your point of view.

[Keltoi]

What if somebody wants to do the jiggy with a five year old? What if somebody wants to view pictures of others doing said jiggy with five year olds?

I don't want to do that as it's wrong and disgusting. On the other hand, I wouldn't call a society which bans it oppressive.

Decency depends on your point of view.

Which would be illegal in any civilized society regardless of religious doctrine of course....

* I think the point is that a theocracy puts limits on personal freedoms that a non-theist(secular democrats included) would find restrictive and fascist.

[Muezzin]

Which would be illegal in any civilized society regardless of religious doctrine of course....

* I think the point is that a theocracy puts limits on personal freedoms that a non-theist(secular democrats included) would find restrictive and fascist.

Point taken. I was just feeling a little twisted. I'm sure nudists (or 'naturists' or whatever the heck they call themselves :p) feel somewhat restricted in just about any civilised society. Again, point of view.

[guyabano]

Point taken. I was just feeling a little twisted. I'm sure nudists (or 'naturists' or whatever the heck they call themselves :p) feel somewhat restricted in just about any civilised society. Again, point of view.

Nudists also don't do that in public. They do that in enclosured areas far away from public curiosity. In that case, I see no harm on that. They don't offend anybody. Of course, if they would go public, they would be arrested immediately, sharia or not.

[AvarAllahNoor]

I asked in another thread and 'Amirsaab' kindly answered. I asked ''Would adulterers be stoned to death?'' and he said yes, this barbaric practice would take place here? and you'd feel at home with it would you? has anybody who agrees seen it take place? has anybody seen it on youtube? I have, and I have a strong stomach to endure it. I'd like to know those that gree if they can endure watching it??

[Amadeus85]

I also wanna ask what happens with a child born from outside marriage affair,who is called often as "ba@#$%d" ?

[aamirsaab]

I asked in another thread and 'Amirsaab' kindly answered. I asked ''Would adulterers be stoned to death?'' and he said yes, this barbaric practice would take place here? and you'd feel at home with it would you? has anybody who agrees seen it take place? has anybody seen it on youtube? I have, and I have a strong stomach to endure it. I'd like to know those that gree if they can endure watching it??

The ruling for adultery is a lot more complex. First of all it requires 4 witnesses for it to even get into the courtroom (for some weird reason, certain muslim countries get this wrong and think adultery means rape....which makes everyone else think that muslims are prats).
Secondly, the matter has to be dealt with via the usual court proceedings - it cannot be carried out by police or martial law etc.
Thirdly, the stonning is maximum sentence - and because it carries such a harsh sentence, 4 witnesses are required. It's hard enough to get 1 witness for adultery, let alone 4!

Unfortunately, as I have stated on this thread before, many muslim countries do not impliment sharia law properly (probably because of the lack of a caliphate!) and so we get some really stupid cases.

I gave you a short (and hypothetical) answer in that other thread because I wouldn't have been able to explain it properly in that thread without derailing it. Since this one was still open I thought we might as well do it here.


Edit:

I also wanna ask what happens with a child born from outside marriage affair,who is called often as "ba@#$%d" ?

I don't know what you mean actually. The child should certainly not be outcasted (from the community) since we do not believe in original sin. If you are referring to custodial related stuff then I do not know. I haven't heard of a specific ruling on this actually but I guess it depends on what you mean. Could you clarify the question a bit, please?


p.s; Azy (and several others) and I previously had a conversation but the posts were lost during a forum crash. Just thought I'd let you people know.

[Amadeus85]

I don't know what you mean actually. The child should certainly not be outcasted (from the community) since we do not believe in original sin. If you are referring to custodial related stuff then I do not know. I haven't heard of a specific ruling on this actually but I guess it depends on what you mean. Could you clarify the question a bit, please?

I was talking about this with my muslim friend some time ago. The imagined situation is like this- man has an affair with a woman. Both are in other marriages. And from this affair a child is born. Some people call it "b@#$%d" child. What would happen to this child in real islamic state?

[Pygoscelis]

I suspect they'd stone the child too.

By the way, isn't it time to upgrade your methods of capital punishment? I mean stoning is more than a little out dated, no? At least move on to the guillotine.

[Nawal89]

I suspect they'd stone the child too.

By the way, isn't it time to upgrade your methods of capital punishment? I mean stoning is more than a little out dated, no? At least move on to the guillotine.

The child in this case is innocent. Please stop thinking the worst. In islam we do not carry the sin of others.

back to topic:
I dont see sharia law working there. Islam has to be in the peoples heart first before any sharia law can be established.

[aamirsaab]

I was talking about this with my muslim friend some time ago. The imagined situation is like this- man has an affair with a woman. Both are in other marriages. And from this affair a child is born. Some people call it "b@#$%d" child. What would happen to this child in real islamic state?

The child would receive no punishment - he/she hasn't commited a crime. The parents would be the ones taken into a court proceeding. This being said, human beings are nasty pieces of work and would most certainly insult that child. Under sharia law however, there is no punishment for victims - it's only criminals who are punished.

I'll do a mini essay on sharia punishments, explaining why they are so harsh. Hopefully it will be of some use. I should have it up by the weekend.

[crayon]

I suspect they'd stone the child too.

Hilarious.
(hilarious translates to pathetic, btw)

Nothing would happen to the child. Why on earth would it, he did nothing wrong?

[Snowflake]

:sl:
Will it work in britain? Yeah.
We first need to get our fellow muslim brothers and sisters obeying Islam properly before we even attempt sharia law in the UK.

I agree. If muslims aren't practicing, shariah law will fail since it will hold no value for them and they will simply turn to exisiting state law, esp. when it comes to having their hands chopped off for stealing.


asalam alaikum wr wb.

[S1aveofA11ah]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm a little surprised at those Muslims saying it won't work. I'm taking a logical view of Islam being a religion for all times and places. Using that thinking then why would not the perfect law of the perfect religion work in the UK?. I'm not saying it would enter here overnight - far from it. However take Spain as an example - not sure how much Shariah was there but it was under Muslim rule once. Seems like a little bit of a silly question with all due respect. Its Allah's Law (The Shariah) and Allah's Earth if He wants it to work here it will.

[aamirsaab]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm a little surprised at those Muslims saying it won't work. I'm taking a logical view of Islam being a religion for all times and places. Using that thinking then why would not the perfect law of the perfect religion work in the UK?. I'm not saying it would enter here overnight - far from it. However take Spain as an example - not sure how much Shariah was there but it was under Muslim rule once. Seems like a little bit of a silly question with all due respect. Its Allah's Law (The Shariah) and Allah's Earth if He wants it to work here it will.

The difficulty is getting true sharia law (with a caliphate) implimented. Until society's perception of sharia changes, this is not going to happen any time soon.

[Whatsthepoint]

I have a coiple of questions:
1. What is the punsihment for aduletry if only 1 witness is provided. does it change with the number of witnesses? Is it harsher, when there's 2 or 3?
2. What happens if there are no witnesses?
3. Whats the penalty if one of the parties admits to comminting aduletry. What ahppens if both parties admit?

4. I asked this qurstion before but didn't get a proper reply.
How is evidence other than eyewitnessing treated? Does photographic or forensic evidence count? To what extent? If adultery was proven beyond reasonable doubt using such evidence, however not providing a single witness, would the adulterers still be punished or even stoned to death?

[Abdul Fattah]

I voted no, I think shariah is great for a country with at least a majority of muslims. Otherwise it would create to many insurgencies. Take a simple rule the prohibition of selling/buynig/consuming alcohol would be greatly protested against. Britain just isn't ready for it at this point :)

[aamirsaab]

I have a coiple of questions:
1. What is the punsihment for aduletry if only 1 witness is provided. does it change with the number of witnesses? Is it harsher, when there's 2 or 3?
2. What happens if there are no witnesses?

It requires 4 witnesses for it even to get into court. This is to prevent someone from calling another an adulterer and going straight to court to have him/her stoned (i.e a witchhunt).

The amount of witnesses doesn't directly affect the punishment. The punishment will reflect the severity of the case, in majority of the cases. For instance if a man is on trial for adultery and his crime is say intercourse with different woman (that are unlawful to him and hence it can be called adultery) then (depending on the judge) he'd get the stoning punishment. If say it was merely a kiss on the lips with another woman (other than his wife or anyone that would actually fit under the adultery umbrella) then he would have a less harsher sentence. It really depends on the case and the judge - which is actually just the same with the UK courts work.

3. Whats the penalty if one of the parties admits to comminting aduletry.

I don't actually know - I have yet to hear of a case such as this. I guess it would depend on the case and judge though.

What ahppens if both parties admit?

Not 100% sure. I think they'd have to be treated as a seperate case. I haven't read a specific ruling for that specific case - it'd therefore most likely depend on the scenario and judge's discretion.

4. I asked this qurstion before but didn't get a proper reply.
How is evidence other than eyewitnessing treated? Does photographic or forensic evidence count? To what extent?...

As I said, 4 witnesses is a must for it to get into court - otherwise the judge can (and probably will) throw it out. The rest of the stuff would all count but a must is 4 witnesses for the process to even begin.

If adultery was proven beyond reasonable doubt using such evidence, however not providing a single witness, would the adulterers still be punished or even stoned to death?

In a hypothetical case (where no witnesses are available), yes a punishment would still apply if it was proven using those methods - but this is rather an extreme case and would depend on the judge. Overall, the whole point of that ruling on adultery is to punish the criminal and prevent it from happening again - the importance is dealing with the crime and any help or aid to this is more than welcome.

[Whatsthepoint]

As I said, 4 witnesses is a must for it to get into court - otherwise the judge can (and probably will) throw it out. The rest of the stuff would all count but a must is 4 witnesses for the process to even begin.
In a hypothetical case (where no witnesses are available), yes a punishment would still apply if it was proven using those methods - but this is rather an extreme case and would depend on the judge. Overall, the whole point of that ruling on adultery is to punish the criminal and prevent it from happening again - the importance is dealing with the crime and any help or aid to this is more than welcome.

If 4 witnesses are required to get to court, no evidence matters. Can a judge call a trial knowing there aren't any witnesses?

[aamirsaab]

If 4 witnesses are required to get to court, no evidence matters.

Evidence still has to be presented. It's not just: ''oh I have 4 witnesses that you cheated on your wife, it's time to get stoned''. It still goes on as a normal court proceeding. You still have to prove it to the judge. 4 witnesses just helps the victim's side (basically acting as a handicap for the defence team). It also prevents people going on witch hunts as I said in the previous post.

Can a judge call a trial knowing there aren't any witnesses?

Depends on the case really. I know I said before that it requires 4 witnesses but it does actually depend on the case.

[S1aveofA11ah]

If 4 witnesses are required to get to court, no evidence matters. Can a judge call a trial knowing there aren't any witnesses?

Whatsthepoint - you've steered way off topic going into very specific rules requiring knowledge of scholars to comment on it. The topic was general about Shariah working in the UK - not the rules on punishment etc. --- just a reminder (not a jab at you) --- almost all do it mate...

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

Evidence still has to be presented. It's not just: ''oh I have 4 witnesses that you cheated on your wife, it's time to get stoned''. It still goes on as a normal court proceeding. You still have to prove it to the judge. 4 witnesses just helps the victim's side (basically acting as a handicap for the defence team). It also prevents people going on witch hunts as I said in the previous post.

That's not what I meant. What I meant is that if one needs to provide 4 witnesses in order to get their case to court, and fails to do so, all the evidence one may have is useless. I still not sure whether this is the case, so I asked the question about a judge.

Depends on the case really. I know I said before that it requires 4 witnesses but it does actually depend on the case.

How exactly? Can the court view the evidence and call the trial afterwards?

[Whatsthepoint]

Whatsthepoint - you've steered way off topic going into very specific rules requiring knowledge of scholars to comment on it. The topic was general about Shariah working in the UK - not the rules on punishment etc. --- just a reminder (not a jab at you) --- almost all do it mate...

The last 2 pages are almsot entirely dedicated to stoning, so I thought I'd join the debate..

[aamirsaab]

That's not what I meant. What I meant is that if one needs to provide 4 witnesses in order to get their case to court, and fails to do so, all the evidence one may have is useless. I still not sure whether this is the case, so I asked the question about a judge.

I guess therefore it'd have to be upto the Judge's discretion. But not 100% sure.

How exactly? Can the court view the evidence and call the trial afterwards?

To be honest, I don't know. I'll try and find some stuff on it though because it is a very good point. I'll probably have to consult an imaam about it cus I cannot for the life of me find those specifics on the internet. Maybe there's a book at home or on ebay etc.

Here is an interesting piece from wiki:
''In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery. In addition, there are several conditions related to the person who commits it that must be met. One of the difficult ones is that the punishment cannot be enforced unless there is a confession of the person, or four male eyewitnesses who each saw the act being committed. All of these must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority[100] For unmarried men and women, the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an and hadith is 100 lashes.[101]

Similarly, under Sharia a woman who is accused of adultery cannot be punished unless there are four male eyewitnesses to prove she did commit adultery.[citation needed] The "four witness" standard comes from the Qur'an itself, a revelation Muhammad announced in response to accusations of adultery leveled at his wife, Aisha: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah."[Qur'an 24:13]''

Edit: I just orderd a sharia law text book off ebay. Hopefully it will help with the many questions that you folk and certainly myself have on the matter!

[barrio79]

I voted no, but it might work in Australia, cos were a fair dinkum free society! :D

yeah you rtight but only in Sydney the rest would want to stay british

[Afifa]

:sl:
one things for sure if it was wrking here it would be one better place than it is now

[sharknet]

aamirsaab said...
Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam.
__________________
I cant think of one muslim woman who truly believes in Islam and is committed to allah that will tell you se is treated unjustly..However you will find that there are some women who are born muslims and are not really committed and usually have an unjust husband that will say they arent treated justly and the west will latch on to these people as proof of oppression .....Its interesting that any woman who has reverted to Islam especially western reverts will tell you its the opposite...women are treated with respect....hence why they reverted...but the critics will tell you she was brain washed, like a gun was put to her head to revert to Islam...

here is a newspaper report that might help

Education to counter honour killings



June 14, 2008
Advertisement

LONDON: Lessons about "honour" killings and forced marriage should be a statutory requirement in British schools and become a compulsory part of the sex and relationships curriculum, MPs say.

A report from the House of Commons home affairs select committee said education on the issues seemed to be "at best variable, and at worst non-existent", with some schools apparently resistant to discussing them for fear of offending parents.

It said there was evidence to suggest children were in danger of being removed from school or further education and forced into marriage.

Other recommendations include a specialised victim protection program, similar to witness protection, for women fleeing such violence and refusing visa applications for the prospective spouses of reluctant brides or bridegrooms.

The committee acknowledged significant steps had been taken to stop domestic and honour-based violence; however, it criticised the British Government's focus on the criminal justice system.

The committee's chairman, Keith Vaz, said: "We are still failing victims in different ways: through a shortage of refuge space; through the ignorance or disbelief of professionals; or by allowing the continued abuse of some of those forced into marriage by granting visas to their spouses."

There needed to be a shift in focus towards education, prevention and early intervention, he said. "We educate our young people about the dangers of drugs or road safety but not, it seems, about domestic and honour-based violence and forced marriage, which will affect a quarter of all women in their lifetime and many men, too."

Posters and other publicity material should be routinely sent out to schools rather than waiting for a specific request from teachers, the report said.

The MPs also suggested there should be a public education campaign about domestic violence, along the lines of a road safety campaign, and that doctors and nurses undergo training in identifying victims of domestic violence.

[crayon]

here is a newspaper report that might help

Education to counter honour killings



June 14, 2008
Advertisement

LONDON: Lessons about "honour" killings and forced marriage should be a statutory requirement in British schools and become a compulsory part of the sex and relationships curriculum, MPs say.

A report from the House of Commons home affairs select committee said education on the issues seemed to be "at best variable, and at worst non-existent", with some schools apparently resistant to discussing them for fear of offending parents.

It said there was evidence to suggest children were in danger of being removed from school or further education and forced into marriage.

Other recommendations include a specialised victim protection program, similar to witness protection, for women fleeing such violence and refusing visa applications for the prospective spouses of reluctant brides or bridegrooms.

The committee acknowledged significant steps had been taken to stop domestic and honour-based violence; however, it criticised the British Government's focus on the criminal justice system.

The committee's chairman, Keith Vaz, said: "We are still failing victims in different ways: through a shortage of refuge space; through the ignorance or disbelief of professionals; or by allowing the continued abuse of some of those forced into marriage by granting visas to their spouses."

There needed to be a shift in focus towards education, prevention and early intervention, he said. "We educate our young people about the dangers of drugs or road safety but not, it seems, about domestic and honour-based violence and forced marriage, which will affect a quarter of all women in their lifetime and many men, too."

Posters and other publicity material should be routinely sent out to schools rather than waiting for a specific request from teachers, the report said.

The MPs also suggested there should be a public education campaign about domestic violence, along the lines of a road safety campaign, and that doctors and nurses undergo training in identifying victims of domestic violence.

That's culture, NOT islam.

[barrio79]

That's culture, NOT islam.

How come all those religious lessons and teachings and lifestyle choices never have an uplifting effect on the cultural practices in areas where cultural practices are acknowledged as inhuman but are somehow completely divorced from the educational values being inculcated by the religious authorities.

eg. When a local court of law condemns a women to death by stoning or sanctions an honour killing are they doing it from a cultural perspective or a religious perspective and how would sharia law affect these sorts of judgments

[crayon]

There's a big difference between the stoning of adulterers and honor killing.
To see islam's perspective on honor killing, see here: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543392

As for stoning adulterers, as aamirsaab stated, it is only done when 4 witnesses are provided (witnesses of the actual act), the matter goes through a proper court, they are found guilty, etc. It's not like: "oh hey, those 2 people are kissing, omg, let me go throw rocks at them!"

"How come all those religious lessons and teachings and lifestyle choices never have an uplifting effect on the cultural practices"

The answer to that is that people are simply not following their religion anymore. If people did actually act in the way Allah and the prophet :arabic5: commanded us to, we wouldn't have "honor killings". And anyway, the only people that do practice honor killings are uneducated nonreligious people who don't even stop for a moment to think it may be wrong to kill your own daughter. In other words, idiots.

edit- oh, and btw, if someone did commit an honor killing in a real islamic state with real shariah practiced, they would be charged with murder.

[Al-Zaara]

There was something on TV I saw a few weeks back.
It showed that the Shariah Law can implemented in Canada. I'm not sure but I think it was that you can use the Shariah Law (only Muslims) instead of the State Law.. Does anyone know something more about this?

[Snowflake]

asalam alaikum wr wb,

There was something on TV I saw a few weeks back.
It showed that the Shariah Law can implemented in Canada. I'm not sure but I think it was that you can use the Shariah Law (only Muslims) instead of the State Law.. Does anyone know something more about this?

In 1991, Ontario was looking for ways to ease the burdens of a backlogged court system. So the province changed its Arbitration Act to allow "faith-based arbitration" – a system where Muslims, Jews, Catholics and members of other faiths could use the guiding principles of their religions to settle family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritances outside the court system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/is...ariah-law.html


wa alaikum asalam wr wb

[Al-Zaara]

^ Thank you! That was what I was looking for. :D

[Snowflake]

asalam alaikum wr wb,

my pleasure :D I'm going to read it later. Sounds v. interesting.

wa alaikum asalam

[barrio79]

There's a big difference between the stoning of adulterers and honor killing.
To see islam's perspective on honor killing, see here: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543392

As for stoning adulterers, as aamirsaab stated, it is only done when 4 witnesses are provided (witnesses of the actual act), the matter goes through a proper court, they are found guilty, etc. It's not like: "oh hey, those 2 people are kissing, omg, let me go throw rocks at them!"

"How come all those religious lessons and teachings and lifestyle choices never have an uplifting effect on the cultural practices"

The answer to that is that people are simply not following their religion anymore. If people did actually act in the way Allah and the prophet :arabic5: commanded us to, we wouldn't have "honor killings". And anyway, the only people that do practice honor killings are uneducated nonreligious people who don't even stop for a moment to think it may be wrong to kill your own daughter. In other words, idiots.

edit- oh, and btw, if someone did commit an honor killing in a real islamic state with real shariah practiced, they would be charged with murder.

There is little difference in Stoning of Adulterers and honor killings , both are acts of barbarism carried out by a fanatical culture and could only be looked upon as abhorrent by any civilised court or society. Its hard to believe that religious scholars would not see it this way and condemn such acts and use their teaching forums to educate their communities away from these sorts of practices .

As far as I am aware the only country that has tried to prosecute perpetrators of honour killings as murderers through the civil courts is Great Britain.

[aamirsaab]

There is little difference in Stoning of Adulterers and honor killings , both are acts of barbarism carried out by a fanatical culture and could only be looked upon as abhorrent by any civilised court or society. Its hard to believe that religious scholars would not see it this way and condemn such acts and use their teaching forums to educate their communities away from these sorts of practices .

As far as I am aware the only country that has tried to prosecute perpetrators of honour killings as murderers through the civil courts is Great Britain.

Still waiting for my sharia text book to come in ze post. Hopefully it will clarify the adultery issues. At the very least, it will help me explain it to you.

[crayon]

There is little difference in Stoning of Adulterers and honor killings , both are acts of barbarism carried out by a fanatical culture and could only be looked upon as abhorrent by any civilised court or society.

I disagree, there's a huge difference between the law being carried out and taking that law into your own hands.


As far as I am aware the only country that has tried to prosecute perpetrators of honour killings as murderers through the civil courts is Great Britain.

That's because no true islamic state exists in the present day.:)

This debate could go back and forth for days, and we just wouldn't get anywhere new.... I'll leave it to aamirsaab from here..

[starlight777]

i don't know as a christian why should i obey sharia law?

[Mr. Baldy]

salaam...

Will Sharia law work? well yes, sharia law does work.

Will it work in Britain? ummm... why would you want to implement Sharia law in Britain?

Britain is a non-muslim country which isn't here to accomodate the whims and desires of Muslims. Muslim countries however, are a different concern. Sharia law works (why/how it works is a different topic) and the place to implement Sharia law is a country and a climate where the feeling amongst Muslims is just right, i.e a Muslim country. We don't need to be looking to create a Sharia state in Britain, but rather in the Muslim world.

So your question/hypothesis is really irrelevant (all you non-Muslim brits can breathe a sigh of relief, we wont be chopping your hands any time soon)

[Muhammad]

:sl: and Greetings,

This is a good article on this issue:

http://www.islam21c.com/british-affa...al-system.html

Haitham Al-Haddad

...the act of opting for the Shari’ah is so ingrained in Muslim culture that it is clearly manifested even in Muslims who observe only the mildest of Islamic practices...

The incredulous debate about Shari’ah and its implementation in Britain followed the release of a number of reports that have concluded that many Muslims would like to see Shari’ah implemented in the UK. I would like to draw the attention of all Muslims and non-Muslims to a few issues concerning this topic.

From the onset it should be understood that Shari’ah in its general form is synonymous to Islam. Once this is understood, we can realise that there are many parts of Shari’ah i.e., Islam, that have already been implemented in the UK. Furthermore, in terms of recognition, it is also common knowledge that Sharia compliant financial institutions have been recognised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).


Moreover, it should be made clear that Muslims are not asking for all of the aspects of Shari’ah to be implemented in the UK, as we do not believe this is an Islamic state, and thus, all that we request of the government is that Muslim personal law be embedded or integrated within the national legal framework. In addition to this, we only expect shari’ah to be applied to proceedings in which Muslims opt for an Islamic solution to their disputes. In other words this is no more than a system of arbitration which is an extremely beneficial method of dissolving disputes among Muslims, while at the same time alleviating the burden that these respective disputes have on judicial institutions such as public courts.

It should be emphasised that it is an essential part of a Muslim’s code of conduct to refer all disputes to the Qur’an, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the legacy of Muslim scholars. It is not accepted of any Muslim, who, having the capability to do so then chooses not to. Allah The Most High states in the Quran, ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ [33:36] To that extent, we find that Allah states, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers (i.e., disbelievers of a lesser degree as they do not act upon Allah’s laws).’ [5:44] And ‘Have you not seen those (Hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the taghut (false judges) while they have been ordered to reject them. But the devil wishes to lead them far astray. And when it is said to the “come to what Allah has sent down and the Messenger”, you see the Hypocrites turn away from you with aversion.’ [4:60-61]. Accordingly, scholars have agreed that it is an act of disbelief to refuse to refer to Shari’ah (Islam) while being able to do so. Therefore, supporting the call to have Muslim personal law recognized by the British judicial system is in itself an Islamic obligation and a basis of faith.


The act of opting for the Shari’ah is so ingrained in Muslim culture that it is clearly manifested even in Muslims who observe only the mildest of Islamic practices, yet turn to the Shari’ah in matters of divorce, khula’ (divorce by abdication), and inheritance. For example, a woman who has received an uncertain irrevocable divorce from her husband does not accept her return unless the permission of a reputable Imam is granted, thus, we would like to emphasise that the recognition of Islamic personal law by the British Judicial system is mainly going to improve the welfare of Muslim women in the UK. At the Islamic Shari’ah Council, we have encountered many women who are left in a state of limbo for years without being able to remarry as they could not obtain a divorce. It is a simple fact that Muslims do not and will not practically accept marriage dissolution by any non-Islamic judicial body, thus, the presence of Islamic bodies that judge in such matters and end the suffering of these women is an integral part of the welfare of any society. Social cohesion can only be achieved when the essential social needs of all aspects of society are fulfilled in a way in which no harm is caused to others. Therefore it is reasonable to see that many non-Muslim intellectuals such as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have recognised this need, whereas some Muslims have aligned with many other non-Muslims in the prejudice and extremism currently displayed, exaggerating claims without fully comprehending the issue at hand.


The criticism that the implementation of shari’ah in the UK fuels the notion of separatism is extremely contradictory. Muslims are not asking for a complete Islamic system to run alongside British law, but rather that the British judicial system accommodate minor changes in specific Acts. There have already been a number of changes in some of these Acts to accommodate Jewish, Hindu and Sikh personal law. Additionally, we must accept that there are already a number of laws incorporated into British law which have already effectively been drawn for shari’ah. Examples include Halal meat and food which requires alternative regulations (to that of British law) for slaughtering and processing afterwards. It also requires specific arrangements in regards to catering for Muslims in schools and universities. There were some difficulties encountered to accommodate this essential need for Muslims, yet once overcome the result was an effective system which facilitated the integration of Muslims and overall wellbeing and satisfaction. We should remember that Jews also have their own system of producing kosher meat, and thus the facilitation of ease for religious minorities makes the British legal system superior to many other non-Islamic legal systems.


The row that took place in reaction to comments made by Dr Rowan Williams uncovered the stark reality of many western values. It was shocking to see the amount of criticism made against the Archbishop, where ironically Muslims are usually accused of intolerance when criticising the defamation of their prophet and religion. Another fallacy which has been revealed is that many members of Britain’s ‘liberal’ society are at heart right-wing radicals who hold in contempt any peaceful and civilised call for acceptance, although it is usually claimed that Muslims attempt to impose their views on others. Yet contradictorily, we notice that many of these same individuals pay no mind to the illegal British and American invasion and occupation of foreign countries while shedding the innocent blood of its population and destroying its infrastructure in order to enforce their "shari’ah".


In the spirit of cooperation we ask all individuals and organisations who are in favour of retaining family values, facilitating minority rights and wellbeing to support our call.

[Muslim Knight]

I could only think the way to incorporate Shariah laws into British Common Law is to have more Muslim legislators inside British Parliament. Which means more political participation by Muslims. Is there any other way? Can we bring more Muslims into political fray by ballot box? With rising Islamophobia can these Muslims gain the support needed?

[snakelegs]

according to this article, shariah already exists in uk for certain civil cases.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,542811.story

[Uthman]

Hello Snakelegs,

According to the article that you posted, divorces obtained through the Shar'iah courts are still not recognised by British law and so divorcees are still required to go through the civil courts as well. Am I right?

[aamirsaab]

...Its hard to believe that religious scholars would not see it this way and condemn such acts and use their teaching forums to educate their communities away from these sorts of practices .

The stoning punishment for adultery only applies to muslims. The judge in an adultery trial has to be convinced that the accused has committed the crime. If there is a single shred of doubt in the judge's mind that the accused is innocent, then the stoning punishment isn't applied. It is therefore entirely upto the Judge - he/she has ultimate power in this case and should technically speaking be on the perpetrator's side.

The reason for such a harsh punishment is that adultery it creates breakdowns in society and lack of marriage often leads to seperation. If there is a child involved then obviously this can be detrimental. I should note that divorce rates are much higher in the western world too (which correlates with the lack of marriages....clearly there is a link between the two!).

The possibility of abortion [which is also haram/unlwaful] is therefore more likely. This can be seen especially in UK's recent history of teenage pregnancies and abortions - just 3 days ago reports of teenage abortions (younger than 14!) was at an all time high. Clearly, the need for a punishment for adulterey IS required.

If you have any more questions regarding sharia law, please ask them on this thread and I shall do my best to answer them. Thanks.

Edit: with regards to witnesses - though they do play a vitally important role in the court, they are not as I previously stated a pre-requisite for a trial. If there is sufficient evidence (such as dna, cctv etc etc) to prove the accused is guilty (beyond ANY doubt as opposed to reasonable doubt) then, and only then is the hadd punishment (aka stoning, cutting of limbs etc) allowed.

[snakelegs]

Hello Snakelegs,

According to the article that you posted, divorces obtained through the Shar'iah courts are still not recognised by British law and so divorcees are still required to go through the civil courts as well. Am I right?

yes, you're right. a civil decree is still required. so it is limited.

[Uthman]

yes, you're right. a civil decree is still required. so it is limited.

Unlike the Beth Din courts operating for the Jews in Britain!

[Amadeus85]

Unlike the Beth Din courts operating for the Jews in Britain!

There are much less jews than muslims.

[Uthman]

The view from inside a Sharia court

Religious courts already in use

Incorporating Sharia into legal systems

[Uthman]

Hi Aaron,

There are much less jews than muslims.

What's your point? I'm a little slow... :-[

Regards

[snakelegs]

Unlike the Beth Din courts operating for the Jews in Britain!

the beth din can over ride british civil law - are you sure????
it seems that the muslims should have whatever the jews have. same principle.

[snakelegs]

There are much less jews than muslims.

that would seem like all the more reason.

[Amadeus85]

that would seem like all the more reason.

There are 300 thousands Jews in England. Among them only 18% are orthodox who obey all the rules.
There is difference when special religious rights are given to few thousands of people and to 2 million people.
Of course this is just my point and Brittish problem.

[Uthman]

the beth din can over ride british civil law - are you sure????

I'm fairly certain that a divorce (for example) obtained via the Beth Din courts are recognised by civil law, meaning that they don't have to go through civil courts as well.

[Cabdullahi]

AYE! who's brought this thread back up?

[Eliphaz]

Absolutely not. Even Muslims themselves are embarrassed about many aspects of Shariah law let alone most non Muslims who are dismayed that these laws are still being implemented in the world today.

I would say that the closest we will get is Shariah-compliant banking, and even this is just a clever way for banks to gain more customers as opposed to anyone 'seeing the light' of Shariah.

[جوري]

you shouldn't speak for Muslims if you are not one!

[S<Chowdhury]

AYE! who's brought this thread back up?

Bro that was me i had to vote on this ;D.........

[Eliphaz]

you shouldn't speak for Muslims if you are not one!

Considering most of my family and friends are Muslims (yes, I still have respect for Muslims, contrary to what you may think based on my opinions of Islam) and the many other Muslims I have met and often have these sorts of discussions with, I feel that, yes, I can offer a general opinion based upon my own observations. Can you prove me wrong?

[Life_Is_Short]

It can't work unless people change. :-\

[جوري]

Considering most of my family and friends are Muslims (yes, I still have respect for Muslims, contrary to what you may think based on my opinions of Islam) and the many other Muslims I have met and often have these sorts of discussions with, I feel that, yes, I can offer a general opinion based upon my own observations. Can you prove me wrong?

your observations? exactly what am I working with your subjective opinion?

[Supreme]

Well, it can't even work in Muslim countries...

[Life_Is_Short]

Well, it can't even work in Muslim countries...

Really, what makes you say that?

[Banu_Hashim]

Britain isn't an Islamic State, so Shariah will be hard, as a working system, to implement. A whole load of things need to change in Britain for a true version of the Shariah, the law of Allah Subhaanahu wa ta'aala to be used.

I hate how the media has denoted a negative sound to the word "Shariah"... when infact it's a liberation for corrupted society and preservation of a healthy society :imsad

[Supreme]

Really, what makes you say that?

Oh I dunno, maybe it's the fact that a handful of countries in the Islamic world actually implement it- and even then, I have people telling me the Saudis aren't actually doing it 'right' after all. Then you have civil wars in Muslim majority countries, where the population, despite being Muslim, doesn't want Sharia- Sudan and Somalia, for example.

Now, seeing as there are only about two or three countries in the Muslim world (made up of dozens of countries) who actually implement Sharia, and even then it isn't done properly, what chance does Sharia stand in a Muslim minority country? It would commit suicide from the word 'go'.

[Eliphaz]

your observations? exactly what am I working with your subjective opinion?

I could suggest several things but instead I will simply say, accept it for what is is, an opinion. I wonder how many such 'opinions' will be allowed under Shariah Law or maybe that is why you are so interested in getting it implemented?

Britain isn't an Islamic State, so Shariah will be hard, as a working system, to implement. A whole load of things need to change in Britain for a true version of the Shariah, the law of Allah Subhaanahu wa ta'aala to be used.

I hate how the media has denoted a negative sound to the word "Shariah"... when infact it's a liberation for corrupted society and preservation of a healthy society :imsad

If by "healthy society" you mean one ruled by fear and one in which people of different faiths are not treated equally, then I suppose you are right.

[جوري]

I could suggest several things but instead I will simply say, accept it for what is is, an opinion. I wonder how many such 'opinions' will be allowed under Shariah Law or maybe that is why you are so interested in getting it implemented?

1-accept your opinion at face value? No thanks, least of which after familiarizing myself with your writing!
2- From which esteemed university did you graduate with a degree in Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence as to pass us this new fatwa on 'opinions'?

funny stuff as usual!

[Banu_Hashim]

If by "healthy society" you mean one ruled by fear and one in which people of different faiths are not treated equally, then I suppose you are right.

No, and your ignorance is too high to warrant an explanation. Educate yourself in Islamic Jurisprudence and you will find everything you just said is wrong. There is no fear, and people of different faiths are in fact protected by Islamic Law. The justice of Shariah to anyone with even an ounce of aql (rationality) is apparent.

[CosmicPathos]

Considering most of my family and friends are Muslims (yes, I still have respect for Muslims, contrary to what you may think based on my opinions of Islam) and the many other Muslims I have met and often have these sorts of discussions with, I feel that, yes, I can offer a general opinion based upon my own observations. Can you prove me wrong?

Having few scientist friends and family members do not make one a scientist or an expert on science. So is what you just said regarding Islam. Are you really that insane? Maybe that explains your current belief system.

[CosmicPathos]

Well, it can't even work in Muslim countries...

It worked when Prophet or his companions implemented it.

[Supreme]

It worked when Prophet or his companions implemented it.

...in case you hadn't noticed, the Prophet and his companions aren't around anymore to implement it.

[Banu_Hashim]

...in case you hadn't noticed, the Prophet and his companions aren't around anymore to implement it.

...in case you hadn't noticed, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions left the Qur'an and Sunnah and their example to implement it.

[Skavau]

...in case you hadn't noticed, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions left the Qur'an and Sunnah and their example to implement it.

Sharia Law appears to often be presented by Muslims as an utopian ideal. That it is something that can only be proposed much less implemented in a state where the population is in complete compliance and agreement with such a proposal. Now with this in mind, is the statement that Sharia Law is unlikely or impropable on a practical level that inaccurate? Utopian Ideals are always wonderful to listen to but deep down they remain much less than that.

[Eliphaz]

1-accept your opinion at face value? No thanks, least of which after familiarizing myself with your writing!
2- From which esteemed university did you graduate with a degree in Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence as to pass us this new fatwa on 'opinions'?

funny stuff as usual!

Always a pleasure Skye. I love how anyone has to be an expert in 'X' to even express an opinion on 'X' when it comes to Islamic matters! Thanks, but I would rather not waste my life studying Islamic Law. But as usual you have not answered my question and instead appeal to ridicule - do you want Shariah law because it means that any opinion on Islam other than yours would be punishable by death?

No, and your ignorance is too high to warrant an explanation. Educate yourself in Islamic Jurisprudence and you will find everything you just said is wrong. There is no fear, and people of different faiths are in fact protected by Islamic Law. The justice of Shariah to anyone with even an ounce of aql (rationality) is apparent.

Again, appeal to ridicule! As you are such an expert explain to me how Dhimmis have equal rights if they cannot openly display their religious beliefs (crosses, etc) and cannot openly preach their faith as people can in the U.K. at the moment?

Having few scientist friends and family members do not make one a scientist or an expert on science. So is what you just said regarding Islam. Are you really that insane? Maybe that explains your current belief system.

I spoke on Muslims not Islam, and this was an opinion. As you say, 'do not judge Islam by Muslims'. Muslims in the U.K., in my opinion do not by and large want Shariah law, they are happy under British Law.

For all the above people:

Opinion: a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"

:D

[Amadeus85]

I have different questions to Englishmen, Brittons - How you think, how long will UK last as european,white majority country?

- 30 years, 50 years, 100 years?
- you dont care about it?

[Italianguy]

I have different questions to Englishmen, Brittons - How you think, how long will UK last as european,white majority country?

- 30 years, 50 years, 100 years?
- you dont care about it?

Less than 50! We cross breeds will take over the world one day, whites will be a minority, if not gone altogether to history books. They will be in schools in 100 years saying "MOMMY i saw a picture of a white person today..weirdddddd"

[Eliphaz]

I have different questions to Englishmen, Brittons - How you think, how long will UK last as european,white majority country?

- 30 years, 50 years, 100 years?
- you dont care about it?

Being from a mixed English/Pakistani background and proud of that, I'd have to say I don't really care. I accept people of all ethnic backgrounds equally and that is what makes the world such a vibrant place to live.

I think the real question is, how long will Islam survive in the U.K? Mosques are becoming more empty, the younger Muslims are becoming more interested in leading a 'Western' lifestyle and adhering to 'Western' values. To talk about Shariah is therefore quite humorous at this point.

[Italianguy]

Being from a mixed English/Pakistani background and proud of that, I'd have to say I don't really care. I accept people of all ethnic backgrounds equally and that is what makes the world such a vibrant place to live.

I think the real question is, how long will Islam survive in the U.K? Mosques are becoming more empty, the younger Muslims are becoming more interested in leading a 'Western' lifestyle and adhering to 'Western' values. To talk about Shariah is therefore quite humorous at this point.

Those are some bold words my friend.

[Eliphaz]

Those are some bold words my friend.

Just calling it like I see it.