PDA

View Full Version : The problem with man made laws human made constitutions and human rights is that thes



truthseeker63
03-31-2011, 10:46 AM
The problem with man made laws human made constitutions and human rights is that these things can be changed added to and taken away at anytime by human beings western governments cut funding for welfare and take welfare away from the poor people these can be taken away all these things can be taken away by kings dictators presidents politicans or prime ministers we must have a society where divine rights are respected not man made human rights which can and do change divine rights are eternal man made systems like Marxism are not eternal systems the are man made created by humans I believe we need Islamic Law the Sharia Law which is in fact Divine Law not man made law I was talking to someone and he told me that Sharia Law would not work because it is up to Interpretation by humans what do I say to that ?

The Islamic Approach:

The second point which I would like to clarify at the very outset
is that when we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that
these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by
any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the
kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same
manner in which they are conferred. The same is the case with the
rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them
when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can
openly violate them when they like. But since in Islam human rights
have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or
any government on earth has the right or authority to make any
amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the
right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are they the basic
human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and
exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are
they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind
them.

http://www.islam101.com/rights/hrM1.htm
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Little_Lion
03-31-2011, 12:13 PM
I would have to agree with your friend. It is because of the interpretations of Sharia implemented in some countries that it has such a negative perception in Western countries that it does IMHO, and is now unconstitutional or on proposal to be made unconstitutional in many states. Because of this, and because of the separation (on paper at least) of Church and State (or in this case, Mosque and State) we'll never see it here in the US.
Reply

truthseeker63
04-01-2011, 06:46 PM
What does everyone else think ?
Reply

Perseveranze
04-01-2011, 08:37 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Watch this, it seems revevant. Great talker -

Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Fivesolas
04-01-2011, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Little_Lion
I would have to agree with your friend. It is because of the interpretations of Sharia implemented in some countries that it has such a negative perception in Western countries that it does IMHO, and is now unconstitutional or on proposal to be made unconstitutional in many states. Because of this, and because of the separation (on paper at least) of Church and State (or in this case, Mosque and State) we'll never see it here in the US.
First, I would say we must define what is meant by the bad interpretations of Sharia. What are the countries that are the bad examples? What are the countries that are the good examples?

Also, it is obvious that man-made laws can be changed, added to, et. It is also obvious that that which is considered Divine law can be misinterpreted. Seems to me that the problem isn't the law, be it man made or divine, but man. This is one of the core reality that the founders of the United States recognized. They believed in the total depravity of mankind. They operated under the idea that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton.

I find it to be folly to suppose that Law, even Divine Law, has the power to amend the hearts of men. The Law of God is for certain a great deterant for evil.

The amendment to our constitution was not to keep God out of government, but to keep government from advancing any one religion, or Christian denomination. An entire legistlature may be very religious, but they must not make and pass laws that establish a religion. This said, the courts have often appealed to the common sense law of nature of man, recognized as the creation of God, for important decisions and turned to the Bible for guidence as well.

What I see happening in America is that the nation is no longer thinking of itself as the creation of God or looking to the Bible for righteous principles, but to secular political philosophies. ie., humanism, relativism, darwinism, et. As a result, we have secular-minded decisions being handed down to us from our courts, laws introduced, et. An example of this is the law being passed in California that will require the social sciences to include homosexual and transgender figures in history in the social science education curriculum. The inclusion of these people must be done in a positive light, not a negative one.

Homosexuality is contrary to both Divine Law and Natural Law. Therefore, no citizen of the United States is obligated to obey such a law, though we may suffer for such disobedience.

The Muslim may argue for the equity of the Law(s) of the Qur'an, but under the constitution of the United States, you will never see an Islamic USA. The Consititution specifically forbids the establishment of a state religion. If Sharia requires that a nation's government be united to Islam, the the Consitition of the United States would have to be done away with or the first ammendment abolished. So, I agree with you Lion, we are unlikely to see Sharia in the USA if it means the establishment of Islam as a national, state-religion.
Reply

truthseeker63
04-02-2011, 02:02 AM
The U.S. Constitution was and is Secular not Christian the Founding Fathers were Deists not Christians the United States of America was founded as a Secular Nation.

Myth: The Founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian republic.

Fact: If the Founders had wanted a Christian republic, they would have made one.


Summary

If the Founders had intended this to be a Christian Republic, they would not have separated Church and State in the constitution. Besides, many of the founders were Deists or atheists, not Christians; it would have been impossible for them to intend a Christian Republic.


Argument

The First Amendment states:
  • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
Article VI, Section 3 of the constitution also states:
  • "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
By now virtually everyone knows the argument that making the United States a Christian republic would violate the First Amendment rights of Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, agnostics, etc. But fewer people realize that it would also violate the First Amendment rights of Christians as well. Which of the 2,500 Christian denominations would we choose as the Christian orthodoxy upon which to base the republic? Seventh-day Adventists and Catholics are complete opposites to each other, and, in fact, are sworn enemies. Thus, a Christian Republic would certainly involve a small minority forcing its views on the majority.

Be that as it may, did the Founders actually intend for Christianity to play a greater role in our society than it has? Prior to the constitution, 11 of 13 states had religious qualifications for public office. These were limited to Christians only, and sometimes even Protestants only. However, the Constitutional Convention voted down such qualifications, creating the separation of church and state that we find in the First Amendment today. If this is not proof of the Founders intentions, then what is?

One should remember that the Founders lived in the 18th century, just as the horrors of the Inquisition were winding down. Anyone who overly opposed the Roman Catholic Church was arrested by the Inquisition as a heretic. They were tortured until they confessed their guilt, then handed over to the state for execution. The state, in full partnership with the church, would then prove its loyalty by carrying out the execution. Those Founders who were Christians were Protestants, and had they lived in Europe they would have been persecuted by the Inquisition. It was this identification with "heretics" that compelled them to build "a wall of separation between Church and State."

This famous phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:
  • "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." -- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
Some Christians have tried to argue that this wall is "one-way," that the state may not interfere with religion, but religion may interfere with the state. However, this is an impossibility, since by definition any control that a denomination achieves over the state will automatically become state infringement on the religious rights of others.

Besides, many of the Founders were hardly Christians. There were several Deists, most prominent among them Thomas Jefferson. Deism rejected formal or organized religion, including Christianity; it taught that people should depend on human reasoning, not revealed truths, to discern what is true in the world. Deism rejected the divinity of Jesus and ascribed his miracles and resurrection to "mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods" (Jefferson's words).

Another standout is Benjamin Franklin. The body of his work strongly suggests that he was an atheist. Like most atheist politicians since, Franklin was not so impolitic as to broadcast this fact. He sometimes evoked Providence or God in his speeches, ever mindful of his Christian audiences. But anyone familiar with Franklin's writings knows of his true philosophy towards religion.

Thus, the fact that not all the Founders were Christians, and that they actually removed a widespread Christian qualification for office in the U.S. constitution, proves that the Founders did not intend this to be a Christian republic.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-christianrepublic.htm

The Deen Show: Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles?

MuslimByChoice

Uploaded by MuslimByChoice on Jul 27, 2010
Is America a Christian Nation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_0rGbg2Zzs
The Christian Nation Myth

Farrell Till

Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers."
Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.
These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...till/myth.html
Reply

LavaDog
04-02-2011, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by truthseeker63
I believe we need Islamic Law the Sharia Law which is in fact Divine Law
I know many people and see many on this site that say they want sharia law. But how many would really make the change? Its very easy to say things like this but harder to follow through. I must admit I honestly don't think most people are willing to live in a society under sharia law.
Reply

Trumble
04-02-2011, 04:10 AM
Originally Posted by truthseeker63
The problem with man made laws human made constitutions and human rights is that these things can be changed added to and taken away at anytime by human beings western governments cut funding for welfare and take welfare away from the poor people these can be taken away all these things can be taken away by kings dictators presidents politicans or prime ministers we must have a society where divine rights are respected not man made human rights which can and do change divine rights are eternal man made systems like Marxism are not eternal systems the are man made created by humans I believe we need Islamic Law the Sharia Law which is in fact Divine Law not man made law I was talking to someone and he told me that Sharia Law would not work because it is up to Interpretation by humans what do I say to that ?
I don't see how it can possibly not need 'interpretation by humans'. Any legal system does, whatever its claimed or actual origin, as none can describe all possible circumstances that may arise to which it need be applied.
Reply

Zafran
04-02-2011, 04:52 AM
Salaam

Trumbles right sharia indeed needs to be interpreated but that doesnt mean its not going to work - It worked preety well in past for the Jurist that interpreated it then - we'll have to see how its established in the future - but the practicing muslims always try to follow the shairia anyway in any country - prayer, Zakat ramdan etc etc.

peace
Reply

Little_Lion
04-02-2011, 05:38 AM
In the US, Sharia is perceived by the general populace as the "violent and stupid ways of Islam". When people here think of Sharia, they think of stoning, lashes, prosecuting non-Muslims, death for adultery, women not being able to go anywhere without a man and getting having to get permission for everything . . . they don't think of rights of inheritance, rights of the household, rules of conflict, or the spiritual rules, because they don't understand what the Sharia of the Qur'an is, just what the media tells them it is. And they LOVE to report on "crazy fatwas", like the one on vuvuzelas, or the one that said a woman had to breast-feed her driver (that's how it was reported, yes) so that they could be in the same car together. Add to that the Tea Party telling everyone that Muslims are trying to take over the world and Americans who don't care to do their own research get paranoid, and the anti-Sharia legislation starts rolling in.
Reply

truthseeker63
04-02-2011, 10:35 AM
The Sharia will work it would be better than man made laws.
Reply

selsebil
04-02-2011, 11:00 AM
Dear Truthseeker,

Qur’an’s youth is a miracle and proves that Quran is the word of God. It preserves its freshness and youth every age as though newly revealed. In fact, the Qur’an has to have perpetual youth since as a pre-eternal address, it addresses at once all the levels of mankind in every age. And that is how it has been seen and is seen. Even, although all the centuries are different with regard to ideas and capacity, it as though looks to each particularly, and teaches it. Man’s works and laws grow old like man, they change and are changed. But the rulings and laws of the Qur’an are so firm and well-founded that they increase in strength as the centuries pass.

Of thousands of matters, we shall point out only three or four by way of example. Since the Qur’an’s principles and laws have come from pre-eternity, they shall go to post-eternity. They are not condemned to grow old and die like civilization’s laws. They are always young and strong. For example, despite all its societies for good works, all its establishments for the teaching of ethics, all its severe discipline and regulations, civilization has been unable to contest the All-Wise Qur’an on two of its matters, and has been defeated by them. These two matters are:
"Be steadfast in performing the prayers, and give zakat,"Qur’an, 2:43
and,
"God has permitted trade and forbidden usury." Qur’an, 2:275.
We shall describe them, this miraculous victory, by means of an introduction. It is like this:
As is proved in Isharat al-I‘jaz, just as the source of mankind’s revolutions is one phrase, so another phrase is the origin of all immorality.
First Phrase: “So long as I’m full, what is it to me if others die of hunger.”
Second Phrase: “You work so that I can eat.”
Yes, the upper and lower classes in human society, that is, the rich and the poor, live at peace when in equilibrium. The basis of that equilibrium is compassion and kindness in the upper classes, and respect and obedience in the lower classes. Now, the first phrase has incited the upper classes to practise oppression, immorality, and mercilessness. And just as the second has driven the lower classes to hatred, envy, and to contend the upper classes, and has negated man’s tranquillity for several centuries, so too this century, as the result of the struggle between capital and labour, it has been the cause of the momentous events of Europe well-known by all. Thus, together with all its societies for good works, all its establishments for the teaching of ethics, all its severe discipline and regulations, it could not reconcile these two classes of mankind, nor could it heal the two fearsome wounds in human life. The Qur’an, however, eradicates the first phrase with its injunction to pay zakat, and heals it. While it uproots the second phrase with its prohibition on usury and interest, and cures that. Indeed, the Qur’anic verse stands at the door of the world and declares usury and interest to be forbidden. It reads out its decree to mankind, saying: “In order to close the door of strife, close the door of usury and interest!” It forbids its students to enter it.

From: http://www.lightofquran.info/25word.htm
Reply

Muhaba
04-02-2011, 12:20 PM
the main problem with man-made laws is that humans don't know what will be good for them and what will be bad for them in the end. The only one who knows this is the All-knowing God. He knows what the long-run consequences of some law will be. humans may make a law thinking that it will be beneficial but the longrun consequences of that law are harmful. this is why only God's laws should be implemented and any law that goes against God's laws should be discarded.
Reply

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

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!