Law in Islamic world - and its affects on outsiders

format_quote Originally Posted by al-Izaaree

everything you said is agreed, but if the shriah is negated by a people on the premise of being a monarch, then all of the khulafaa whom the ummah has attested to their being khulafa of islam are non shar'i, all of them outisdie fo the khulfa rashideen. that means the umayyads, abbasi, and uthmaani khulafa are kufr systems in oppositon to shariah on the mere basis of it being a monarchy.

secondly, this is a major misconception in Islam. there is no textual basis AT ALL that monarchy is not a part of Islam. Infact the only textual reality that speaks on the subject is actually affirming it.

the prophet alaihi salatu wa salaam said

"there will be rightly guided caliphs and that will remin for about 30 (years), and then there wil be kingships (i.e. monarcy) and that will remain for however long Allah wishes for it to remain, and then there will be tyrant rulers, and that will remain for whoever long Allah wishes for it to remain, and then there will be rightly guided rulers"

This is the only textual source that even speaks about monarchism, and as it is evidently demonstrated, it does disapprove of it, it just merely mentions that the this reality (of monarchism) will definately occur in our ummah. Of coursethe preferred state is the state of the khulafa ar-rashidoon.

salamu alaikum

akhi

I don't think I understand what you were trying to convey to me in your post?
There are many un-islamic things that occur in Saudi Arabia -- need not be mentioned.
I don't from observation believe they are following shari3a-- only in some aspects where it pleases them..
and indeed a monarchy will occur in the umma as mentioned in hadith, as well as other tyrannical totalitarian rule.. we can only hope to establish a khilafah rashida.. but only Allah swt knows of when we are deserving of that system!

in other words these Saudi playboy rulers are our khulaifah

brilliant deduction!
next someone will come along and tell us that this "lovely pious" family had no hand in demise of Usmani khilafat either

or that they do not squander country's wealth on fake contracts (to receive kickbacks)

or instead of having their own defence industries they don't hire mercenaries for its defence (mostly against its own population)

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

Thats true about 80 years ago. Then we threw off lots of Religious based laws. We only threw Blasphemy out this year!
Amazing how long it takes for reason to filter into a society when the Church opposes it.

actually it was true from the 1880s until the early 1970s...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4bx...um=1&ct=result

there is no 'reason' in deviance.. your society is simply wishy washy and subject to the whims of queers -- my personal fav though has always been how long the west enjoyed being 'civilized' oh, thirty years or less if at all? yet have the temerity to dictate to others how their laws are backwards and uncivilized..

give me a break mac!

format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

actually it was true from the 1880s until the early 1970s...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4bx...um=1&ct=result

there is no 'reason' in deviance.. your society is simply wishy washy and subject to the whims of queers -- my personal fav though has always been how long the west enjoyed being 'civilized' oh, thirty years or less if at all? yet have the temerity to dictate to others how their laws are backwards and uncivilized..

give me a break mac!

The democracy that we have nowadays in western Europe lasts at least since 1918. Equality under law, free elections, freedom of thoughts, the right to own personal property.
The peasants got personal freedom and land owning during the XIX century. Since 1848-49 most european countries had parliaments, at least in each states.
It was all preluded by hundred years of european history, which has mistakes and tyranny and no one doubts it. The difference is that democracy could have chance to begin here, not in other places of the world.
Living in London, New York or Paris it is easy to criticize democracy, while we all benefit from it. The critics just dont sound honestly.
As for the homosexual marriages, in my opinion, it is a sign that democracy makes mistakes.

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

.I have copied a newspaper report of an Australian woman being mistreated by her husband and by Islamic law in Saudi Arabia , how can Shariah and /or Islamic law be defended and promoted when these terrible examples are so prevalent.and the unfairness to females so self evident .One would have thought that any muslims lucky enough to escape to a 1st World country would be glad to be shot of such a legal system and embrace a modern humane legal system .

FRom. NEWS >COM >AU ....
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...16-421,00.html
Woman faces arrest for exposing her face
By Miles Kemp
September 20, 2008 02:34am ( Article from: Send this article: Print Email )
AN Adelaide woman trapped in Saudi Arabia says she has been threatened with arrest for exposing her face to a male neighbour in front of her children.
Almost two months after the Foreign Affairs Department said it could not ensure the Australian citizen got out of the country with her four children, she says it has now refused her sanctuary in the consulate and she expects to be arrested today.
The mother of four, who cannot be named because she fears for her safety, contacted The Advertiser from Riyadh yesterday and said Saudi police had threatened to arrest her.
"I am in a very difficult situation here and I have been told now I am going to be arrested because I exposed my face in front of a male neighbour," she said.

The family stays trapped in Saudi Arabia because the woman's ex-husband, also an Australian citizen, has taken their passports and applied for custody in a Saudi court following an acrimonious divorce.
After publicity in July, DFAT agreed to issue passports to the woman and her children on the condition Saudi authorities gave her an exit visa.
The woman said she had also been denied protective shelter in the Australian consulate, despite being the successful applicant for a job there.
In a written statement, a DFAT spokesman said the consulate could not be used to shelter Australians from the local laws.
He said one of the woman's children had been issued an Australian passport but not the other three.
"Australian consular staff at the Australian Embassy in Riyadh will continue to meet the woman's consular needs to the maximum extent possible," the statement said.
Share this article

You make it sound like we've all 'escaped' from a backward country or something. What about all the Muslims who believe in a true Islamic state who've been bought up in this so called 'First world country' because they're fed up with the justice system and what not..
Also, you're implying that Saudi Arabia has a truly Islamic State? Who are you kidding?
Is this article actually true though?
Kindly cite other sources if that's the case.

In all fairness, the situation this person is in has more to do with the DFAT than Saudi's laws (so I think your title is rather misleading!). Though, I should say that I personally disagree with the interpretation of a lot of saudi's islamic laws (partly because they lack common sense!)

Also, I find this following statement very insulting:

..Compassion compassion where is the compassion no one seems to have any compassion for the women and her children , some think it is hilarious and some think it is her fault , so if you can't do the time don't do the crime as the old lags would say say.

Honestly, do you realise what goes on in this world? How am I suppose worry about her when I am worrying about people who are being slaughtered all over the world?! Let me examplify and simplify it for you: Person A is bleeding all over after having being brutalised and raped. Person B has gone through a divorce....who needs compassion? Person A!

It's a matter of priorities; yes this person got screwed over by a system - so have a lot of people. But, she is alive and well - unfortunately there are plenty of people in this world who are far from that status - my compassion (and thus my aid) comes to those people first.

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

as the old lags would say .

The above comment was not meant to be insulting but rather a reinforcement of a catchcry that is common to most of the religions of the world ...

Perhaps the Atheist approach as you suggest is best, by way of lenin/xedong/Hoxa/Saloth sar/Sung I1
million slaughtered en masse without batting an eye lash!

cheers

Compassion does not equate with letting people off the hook when they break the law.

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

who mentioned atheism; i was talking about the compassion as practiced by the worlds religions

what is the alternative to world religion in your book?

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

....

The above comment was not meant to be insulting but rather a reinforcement of a catchcry that is common to most of the religions of the world ...

I don't understand what you mean. Are you somehow insinuating muslims (or rather, theists) are not showing compassion to this person? Of course we show compassion (we're human beings - not bloody ewoks from the planet endor!) - it's just that when compared to people (our muslim brothers and sisters no less!) who are being killed/raped/brutalised etc, this particular woman's situation is pretty well off, all things considered!

And forgive me if this post sounds cold, but quite frankly there are far greater examples of where compassion is needed and am baffled as to why you chose to pick on a divorce case....maybe its because you don't like Islam and want to somehow find and enlighten us all with a hypocritical teaching of Islam, which then proves to be ironic (after someone refutes you) since you fail to understand basic Islamic principles but decide to jump into ''hot topics'' such as sharia law!

Judging by your initial post and some before it, I do believe you fit the aformentioned category (you know, your run of the mill anti-islamic crusader bent on spreading the truth that Islam bites....). In which case, please gather a basic understanding of Islam before you run your mouth off about how bad it is or how it is disrespectful etc etc. You are on an Islamic resource site, afterall - It'd be terribly ironic if you were to leave here without having gained any information about the religion!

Now now...let's remember to follow our prophet's example in dealing with other people with the best of manners Insha'Allah.

doorster,

Akhee I didn't really understand the meaning of your post, but I apologise for any offence that I may have caused.

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

doorster,

Akhee I didn't really understand the meaning of your post, but I apologise for any offence that I may have caused.

Wa alaikum Salaam

I am sorry for the confusion, but I was frustrated with thread starter and was glad that members were being firm with him, but when you came up with "

Now now...let's remember to follow our prophet's example in dealing with other people

I thought here we go again, i.e no matter what rubbish allegations trolls come up with, there is a hardcore of members (some LIStaff too) who constantly apologise and waste time on them, 2 or 3 nazis have been here for years and they are still treated as if they have just come to seek clarification of some sort

Oh, just to add, the title of the thread is misleading, because even if this had been islamic law, this woman is not an "outsider". She is a resident of this country and by living there she is agreeing to uphold its laws, no matter how ridiculous or pointless she may see them as.

what we know from the mystery article
1-arrest for exposing her face to a male neighbour in front of her children. ( from what we know and those of us who have lived there, women go with their face uncovered at all times) unless they choose to be niqabis
2-refused her sanctuary in the consulate and she expects to be arrested today( I assume that, it is the consulate of her own mother land that refused her) which is another oddity indeed
3-threatened to arrest her ( seems immanent but never actually takes place)
4- woman's ex-husband, also an Australian citizen, has taken their passports and applied for custody in a Saudi court following an acrimonious divorce. ( details of divorce and why its acrimonious from HER FELLOW AUSTRLIAN and HUSBAND) seem to be withheld.

Can you spot what is wrong here? It isn't missing compassion.. it is missing details from the article.. unless of course 'exposing her face' is a hypocorism for something else?.. which would probably explain a lot..
like why she is to be arrested for a ridiculous act?
why her consulate won't grant her sanctuary?
why her husband is taking custody of the kids?
and why their divorce is acrimonious?..

that is how you should approach an article, so you can keep your wits about you, and not be subject to the emotional delivery of every Tom, Dick and Harry.. although I am personally partial to the speech of Tom

cheers