Sharai Law

format_quote Originally Posted by Clover

Here are some questions I have about it:

1. What is it?

In a nutshell, the Law of Allah covering each and every aspect in ones life.

2. Does it oppress Non-Abrahamic Religious Followers? (I was told, on a Christian site, by a Christian who claims to have read the Quran, Hadiths and whatever the other thing is, and he seems to see himself as a expert on it, that it oppresses people, and especially those of non-abrahamic religious origin) Yes, I know, he is a Christian and might be just bashing Islam, but I am just trying to help learn of Islam, and at the moment, I am trying to help defend it on a Christian site, and I am about to give up, cause I have so little knowledge, I can't keep up with all the accusations.

In Islam, oppression is considered darkness. Allah commands us to be just whether we are dealing with non-muslims or animals. No one is oppressed due to their faith or anything else for that matter. I can answer this question in much more detail and I will do so in my next post(s).

“The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and rebel in the earth without justification; for such there will be a painful torment”

[Qur'an 42:42]

Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition. [Qur'an 16:90]

3. Don't Non-Muslims have to pay a tax for living in a Muslim Nation?

In brief, yes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Clover

Here are some questions I have about it:

1. What is it?

Islamic form of law; comprised of Quranic and Sunnah teachings

2. Does it oppress Non-Abrahamic Religious Followers?

Absolutely not. It is actually easier for non-muslims to live in a sharia state than muslims for the following reasons:

* non-muslims pay LESS TAXES in a sharia state (see answer to Q3)

* non-muslims are exempt from the harsh criminal punishments (death penalty, capital punishment etc)

* non-muslims are priority cases in sharia state (there are countless hadith/sunnah indicating the importance of treating dhimmis/non-muslims, one going along the lines of whosoever treats a dhimmi badly, the Prophet [saw] himself will stand in defence of that dhimmi on the day of judgement...in short that means treat your dhimmis well unless you want a one on one with the Prophet [saw])

3. Don't Non-Muslims have to pay a tax for living in a Muslim Nation?

Yes, non-muslims pay a tax like everyone else does for living in a muslim nation; however, it is actually LESS than what the muslims would have to pay AND the taxation is exempt from those non-muslims who are in the military (since that tax goes to funding the military).

3. Don't Non-Muslims have to pay a tax for living in a Muslim Nation?

salaam

Yeah but its lower then what the Muslims pay.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

Can Islamic Law be updated to a modern legal system?

Doing away with harsh punishments for Apostasy and Adultery, etc.?

When I read the Koran and studied the interrelationship with Hadith and how Islamic Law was created and interpreted, I came away with the impression that Justice was the goal. And in that time, the 7th Century, many of these Islamic ideas were probably "liberal" for their time.

I never understood why that idea was not built upon during the passage of time. Why was it instead considered the last word on the Law. The final word.

It would seem to me that the meaning of Justice is a fluid understanding and that it changes over time. If in fact Justice is what Islamic Law is about, fair Justice, then updating it would seem a necessary thing.

It is hard to discuss religion without offending people. And, I would hope that if I do offend it will be understood that it is not my wish to do so and rather it is to educate me and perhaps others will, maybe, gain some insight into me and maybe learn something too.

But, I do tend to take up subjects that are hard. Polarizing subjects. Because to gain an understanding of those subjects is to enable one to counter hatred and propaganda. And, of course to satisfy your own lingering doubts. I do not come to conclusions lightly.

These harsh punishments are the fuel in many instances for the attacks on Islam itself. A good explanation of Islamic Law can only be a good thing.

You make some good points but what you must understand about those harsh punishments:
* they require large amounts of evidence
* there first must be conviction by a judge and court system
* maximum punishment (not always given out)
* can be substituted for other ones.

Since the concept of justice is paramount to Sharia, it is very conceivable that not every adulterer, or apostate (or theif, etc) who is proven guilty will be given the maximum punishment. It is a case by case scenario.

One needs only to look into the administering of the apostacy ruling during Islam's beginning to note that out of many hundreds of apostates at that time, only 8 were actually sentenced to death.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

Can Islamic Law be updated to a modern legal system?

Doing away with harsh punishments for Apostasy and Adultery, etc.?

When I read the Koran and studied the interrelationship with Hadith and how Islamic Law was created and interpreted, I came away with the impression that Justice was the goal. And in that time, the 7th Century, many of these Islamic ideas were probably "liberal" for their time.

I never understood why that idea was not built upon during the passage of time. Why was it instead considered the last word on the Law. The final word.

These harsh punishments are the fuel in many instances for the attacks on Islam itself. A good explanation of Islamic Law can only be a good thing.

Salaam ,

Its the final word because nobody knows better than Allah.And why does capital punishment look so bad to you? Its followed in my country too for instance and we dont follow shariah.

Well yeah .. i am not one of those people who kill somebody and say god wills it .. what i am saying is for heinous crimes death penalty should be meted out so that those crimes are not committed again.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

If you can I'd appreciate you showing why those 8 were sentenced to death.

I'd like to get to know how these decisions are made.

Those 8 fell under the category of traitor. The enemies of Islam used a very sneaky method of infiltration and disruption techniques. What they would do is allow some of their members to ‘’convert’’ to Islam and then they would do get to know the leaders and military tactics of the muslims.

They would then apostate from Islam, demoralising the muslim community (and taking a few of them with) as well as give that newly found information to their respective leaders. Essentially, they were spies and thus the apostacy ruling was handed out (to those that were caught anyway).

format_quote Originally Posted by Santoku

The trouble is that it all depends on the court, doesn't it? There are plenty of instances of Sharia courts sentencing people to death on the very flimsiest of evidence.
We had that case in Afghanistan, didn't we, the man who converted to Christianity in Germany and returned home, for his sons, a bible was discovered in his luggage, he had done nothing but change faith and it was a SHARIA court who sentenced him to death.

A Pakistani Christian was in dispute with a muslim, even though he was illiterate when the Christians name was found on the page of a Qu'ran nailed to the ddor of a mosque it was a Sharia court that sentenced him to death.

1) Afghanistan practices a very dogmatic form of Sharia
2) yes it does depend on the court, which is why a caliphate is needed to ensure this kind of stupidity doesn't happen in so called muslim countries
3) As I have illustrated above, the apostacy ruling is very different to what most people actually think it is. So you can imagine just how accurate the rest of the implentation of sharia (for criminal law) is across the globe…

P.s: For more info on Apostacy, please use the search function. Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Santoku

I have checked and it is defined (on the first ten websites muslim and othrewise as one who voluntarily leaves a religion)

...and then proceeds to fight against the state.

Re 2) And if the Caliph is also dogmatic?

You are so negative. The caliphate is made of very well-learned/educated scholars who by definition would not be dogmatic.

Re 1.
There certainly seems to be enough output from scholars etc. to suggest that it is not that unusul an attitude. he ones who speak out against itseem to be the ones who are more "politically aware"

Well, like I told mike in the last post, only 8 apostates (as far as I know anyway) were given the death penalty during the Prophet's time. That's the example we should be following - not the standard of today''s interpretation of sharia (where a caliphate does not exist)

I seem to remember a hadith:-
Ikrimah relates that some apostates were brought to the Khalifa Ali, and he burnt them alive; but Ibn Abbas heard of it and said that the Khalifa had not acted rightly, for the Prophet had said "Punish not with God's punishment (i.e., fire), but whosoever changes his religion, kill him with the sword."
Seems fairly set to me.

Never heard of that one. Can you please relay the hadith and book number?

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

Can Islamic Law be updated to a modern legal system?
Doing away with harsh punishments for Apostasy and Adultery, etc.?

NO

Why should it update itself? What evidence do you have the modern system is better? What evidence do you have that you have improve your modern system for better? What is your criteria for such a judgment?

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

I never understood why that idea was not built upon during the passage of time. Why was it instead considered the last word on the Law. The final word.

because Islam is not a software which needs changes and updates time after time. The definiton and concept of justice does not change with time or changes in envirnment. This is a false methodology propagated liberlists to corrupt people's natural belief. It is leading us to nothing but destruction.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mike3449

It would seem to me that the meaning of Justice is a fluid understanding and that it changes over time. If in fact Justice is what Islamic Law is about, fair Justice, then updating it would seem a necessary thing.

like mentioned above, the definition/meaning of justice does not change over time. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of the time period we live in. People are not evolving into higher human breed aka super humans that understanding of justice need to change. As far implication of justice, that is a different story.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

...and then proceeds to fight against the state.

akhee, may Allah preserve you, that is never a condition defined by the Shari'ah as some of temporary scholars and dai'is claim. Apostasy itself is a treason and an apostate is put to death if his apostasy becomes public and he does not repent after given da'wah (unless he flees to a kafir land).

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

Never heard of that one. Can you please relay the hadith and book number?

this hadith has been narrated in sahih al-bukhari.

format_quote Originally Posted by Islamicilife

akhee, may Allah preserve you, that is never a condition defined by the Shari'ah as some of temporary scholars and dai'is claim. Apostasy itself is a treason and an apostate is put to death if his apostasy becomes public and he does not repent after given da'wah (unless he flees to a kafir land).

And proceeds to commit treason. It's not as simple as apostacising from Islam. But, what certain scholars may say is lump the two together i.e apostacising and commiting treason are (always) one and the same. I am of the opinion that there is a difference between the two because otherwise we are oversimplicising this law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Santoku

No, there was no mention of fighting against the state, just leaving the reiligion. I assume we are speaking English and are not going into the Islamic redefinitions of words to mean something else when it is convenient..

Listen to what I am telling you: the apostacy ruling should only Islamically be applied to those who leave the religion and then attack/commit treason against the Islamic state. If you still are not convinced, please see these links on apostacy:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#28
Islam and Apostasy
Crime and Punishment in Islam

I am not negative I am cautious, when the priests rule even a thought that their rule is wrong is banned, this has been shown time and again. In your religion as well as Christianity. And well educated scholars tend to be the most dogmatic, because they have learned the religion and the laws better than anyone else they will know it better than anyone else and as a result they will be right rather than someone who does not know the laws as well as they do.

You really need to do some reading up on caliphates. I suggest you purchase the book on sharia that is linked in my sig. I don't have time to explain the basics of sharia and/or caliphates.

Only eight listed, but perhaps the others were not.

Or perhaps they were. WHo knows? Noone, so deal with what you have and leave it be.

I'll have a look although it came from an Islamic website, which stated that there was no specific punishment mentioned in the Qu'ran for apostacy so the hadith had to be the source for the tratment of apostates.

Ok.

format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98

If an American went to work in the Pentagon, steals documents and sells them to the enemy – that is treason.

If a foreigner, enters the Pentagon, steals documents and tries to take them to his home country. Essentially this is spying.

The 2 are quite different. The charges in a court are quite different.

I don't see how the latter part of your example fits in with any of what I said. Now if that foreigner had pledged his/her alliegance to the US (i.e became a US citizen), had become VP (or a member of the pentagon) and then stole documents etc, that would parallel my example and that guy would be comitting treason.

Yes. Essentially they were spies. But the west doesn’t see them charged with spying. Nor were they charged with treason. The west sees they were charged with apostacy.

-

I don't care what you see it as. I'm telling you what it is: if you and the rest of the western world see it as being charged with apostacy (and not treason), then you can only blame your own ignorance. Don't cry Islam is unfair when you guys practice the same thing.