MuslimCONVERT
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
an article I wrote a while back...
WESTERN GOVERNMENTS SUCCESFUL?
Before starting out a blog clarifying the misconceptions in regards to Shar'ia [Islamic law], I must first state what is and is not Shari'a. And before even getting into that, I must inform the reader as to what are the correct Muslim feelings about Shari'a.
A Muslim, if they are practicing and knowledgeable, knows that Shari'a is the perfect form of government. This sounds proposterous when we look to so-called Muslim countries and view the backward societies and governments that rule the Muslim world en tota. How can we claim, in the face of succesful Western Governments, that Shari'a is truly the best form of government?
First, the question begs to be asked, are Western Governments succesful? With soaring fuel and food prices, endless wars, and an environment that is now acting as an immune system to our planet dead-set on erradicating the virus known as humanity, [here I am speaking of the global warming threat, and various other environmental cataclysms] all thanks to, in one way or another, democracy which inevitably led to corporatism/capitalism, we see that in fact, man-made Western governments have failed in many regards. All that is left to offer from these corrupt, dysfunctional systems is individual freedoms and the allowance of the "persuit" of happiness, and this very persuit often leads to unhappiness since happiness is so rarely obtained, and when obtained, is fleeting. I could, of course, write volumes about the failure of democracy and capitalism alone, particularly in the realm of the spiritual aspect which is totally absent in such a system, as is the concept of human brotherhood, -but alas, this is a blog, and not a non-fiction novel. Suffice it to say, Democracy/Capitalism/Corporatism have failed us all, and the situation will, I surmise, only continue to worsen in the coming years/decades.
SHARI'A SUCCESFUL?
Now, moving on, we might well and reasonably ask, did Shari'a do much better? Well, firstly, Shari'a is what led to modern society. Sadly, few non-Muslims know that the rapid advancements in science, mathematics, medicine, and philosophy in the past 200 years are all due wholly or in part to the longest living flourishing empire in history that existed before those 200 years, the Muslim empire, which lasted, in one part of the Muslim world or the other, for roughly 1200 years! It was Muslims who, for example, perserved the works of the greek philosphers and logicians, Aristotle, Plato, etc. whilst Europe considered them heresies. It was Muslim astronomers who first discovered sunspots, who named and located the majority of the stars in our solar system [and in fact, a great many of them still bare the Arabic names], Observatories bloomed in the Muslim world, and under the leadership of Caliph al-Ma'mun, the circumference of the earth was measured. A great number of Arabic books from the time of the Muslim empire detail the ebb and flow of the tides, dawn, twilight, rainbows, halo's, and even the orbits of the sun and moon.
Even in botany, that is the study of plant life and vegetation, Muslims were way ahead of the rest of the world, and in fact, most of the modern methods of agriculture are thanks to what Muslims discovered in the field of botany. Ad-Dinawari, a Muslim botanist, wrote volumes on not only the outer appearance of plants, but the alimentary, medicinal, and other properties therein.
And, for 1200 years, the Muslim studies into the field of medicine was so profound and accurate, that the works of Muslim medical researchers such as Razi, ibn Sina, and Abul-Qasim are studied in colleges and universities in the West to this day. In fact, Muslims were the first to diagnose and treat many diseases that were unrecognized at the time, such as diabetes and hypothyroidism.
WHY THE DECLINE OF SHARI'A?
But, the obvious question arises from this: What happened? If Shari'a is so perfect, why did it fail? -Well, the answer, simply, is that Shari'a didn't fail. People did. It has always been an inherent part of Islamic eschatology that Allah [swt], or, God, to our non-Arabic readers, willed for Islamic civilization that it have ups and downs, moments of extreme success, and also moments of weakness and rule under tyrannical leaders and outside forces. -The moments of weakness, the Qu'ran teaches, comes from Muslims who suddenly lapse in their remembrance of Allah [swt], who stop speaking out against vice and corruption, who leave off of struggling against evil, and become more concerned with the life of this world, rather than that of the hereafter. In fact, there is a lengthy Hadith [tradition from the life of the Prophet Muhammad] in which a companion, Hudayfah ibn Al-Yaman, asked the Prophet [saas] if there would be bad times [fitaan] after the present good times [this was at a time toward the end of Muhammad's sallilaahuw alehy wa salaam's life, when Islam was a strong force in Arabia], and he replied in the affirmative. So Hudayfah [raa] asked, would there be good times after that? And Muhammad [saas] replied, again, in the affirmative, and so it went until the Prophet [saas] started describing the signs of the day of judgement.
So, Muslims have never believed that the good times of Shari'a were permanent. One could say, it has never been a part of Shari'a to believe that Shari'a would exist on earth forever... because while Islam is perfect, including it's laws, people are not. And even though, thanks to Shari'a, the world has flourished, and Muslims contributed almost wholly to that unbeknownst to most non-Muslims, it, like the ebb and flow of the tides discovered by Muslims, has it's highs and it's lows. -And this is solely due to the imperfection of man, and not Allah [swt] as the Qu'ran says:
Anything good that happens to you is from Allah, and anything bad that happens to you is from yourself. We [God, using the Royal 'We' or Plural of respect] have sent thee [Prophet Muhammad] as a messenger to the people, and Allah suffices as witness. [4:79]
The point is, Shari'a, when it was in full practice, was indeed succesful, and was in fact the most succesful government that has existed on earth to date.
So, how did people, or more specifically, Muslims, fail? To put is succintly, Shari'a was replaced by un-elected monarchies, and the monarchies were replaced, around the time of the first world war, by pro-western leaders who desired to copy the U.S. and Britain rather than establish Shari'a, [Kamal Ataturk in Turkey is the best example of this], and, after that, a series of brutal dictators, usually installed at the hands of other more powerful countries, which rule in the name of Islam, but are the farthest thing from Islamic teachings on how a ruler is chosen, and how they should rule/behave, etc.
WHAT SHARI'A IS NOT:
Before we can discuss Shari'a, we must first explain what Shari'a isn't. I once heard a man speaking about Islamic law, and he was amused and disheartened to see an American newspaper with a picture of a man being lashed in Pakistan. The caption underneath the photo read: ISLAMIC JUSTICE. This, the speaker said, was a rather interesting conclusion to draw considering the fact that Pakistan hasn't had Shari'a on it's books since it's creation in 1948. The only law to have ever existed in Pakistan is the British law. -That's not to say that Islam doesn't call for a whipping/lashing for certain crimes, but the heart of the matter is whether or not it was ISLAMIC JUSTICE or BRITISH JUSTICE, or, what is even more likely, an act of vigilantism, which is condemned in Shari'a.
The point I'm making is, our press likes to talk about the so-called Muslim world. Using this title "Muslim world" creates the false conclusion that everything that goes on there, in this fictitious creation known as the Muslim world, is Islamic, and it represents what Muslims think, feel, and desire as a whole, and all of this is supported by the religion of Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, most Muslims will tell you that in a great deal of these countries, it is harder to be a good Muslim than anywhere else on earth. Good Muslims are thrown in jail in droves in most of the Muslim world, for any list of crimes including but not limited to: Speaking out against secularist dictators, praying in the mosque too much, refusing to spy on their fellow Muslims, pointing out un-Islamic actions in others, pointing out un-Islamic actions in the governments, speaking publically about Islam, writing about Islam, etc. etc. -It should be made clear that this fairy tale invention "The Muslim World" is more often than not, a place where it is almost impossible to be a Muslim.
So, when someone sees, for example, a headline that talks about the "religious police" in Saudi Arabia, beating a man and a woman to death because they were driving around in a car in public, and they were not married, I simply ask one thing to those who would say this is Shari'a... bring me one single statement from the Qu'ran, or one single statement of the Prophet Muhammad [saas] that condones or enjoins "religious police" of any kind, or indicates that it is ok to beat anyone to death, much less a man and a woman who are merely "seen together." You will not be able to find it. But what you will find is what is supposed to happen to murderers under Shari'a, that is people who kill other people not in self-defense or in a time of war, and you will see that, in fact, those so-called "religious police" are the ones who should be killed.
We also hear tales of raped girls being imprisoned while their rapists go free, even though a woman was raped during the life of Muhammad [saas] and he ordered that the rapist be stoned to death publically. [This is based on a Hadith related by Abu Dawud.] -so why is the Muslim world imprisoning raped women, and letting rapists walk around without a scratch on them?
Obviously, I could spend a lot of time clearing up misconceptions about Shari'a, showing tons of things that have been reported in the West about Islamic law, and then explaining why these things are, in fact, not Shari'a at all and have nothing to do with Islam...and providing proof for each of my claims, but instead I will list several things that Shari'a is against, and if anyone wants proof that Shari'a is against a certain thing that I mention, we can discuss it in the comment section or in private messages. So, what Shari'a DOES NOT support: Suicide bombing, rape, terrorism, vigilantism, killing of all non-Muslims, military coups, oppression of women, human rights violations, killing of someone just because they leave Islam, prohibition of Music/the arts, torture, killing of innocents, etc. etc.
A CLOSER LOOK AT CONTROVERSIAL LAWS:
Stoning: It is true that for certain offenses, Islam prescribes stoning to death. This is unfathomable to most secularists and many Christians. However, when looked at in it's societal and practical context, and when we also take into consideration the reasoning behind such laws, we see that those who would condemn Shari'a for this aspect are making much ado about nothing.
In Shari'a, there are three offenses for which one may be stoned to death. That is, rape, adultery [that is sexual intercourse with a married person, or yourself being married and having sexual intercourse with someone other than your spouse], and according to some interpretations of Islamic law, homosexuality. Even some Muslims may be shocked to know that this is indeed the case.
So, how to rectify this with those who would say this is barbaric, outdated, inhumane, ungodly, etc? Simply pointing out some facts about this law will do. For example, in order for the prescribed punishment of stoning to death to be enacted, one of two things must happen: (1). The accused confesses. -Yet even if one were to confess to one of the three crimes, Rape, Adultery, or Homosexuality, it is, under Shari'a, the duty of the judge hearing the case to encourage the defendant to recant their confession. This is what the Prophet Muhammad [saas] used to do. (2). 4 reliable witnesses witnessed the actual act. That means, it isn't enough to see a married man leaving the house of a woman who isn't his wife... it isn't enough to even see them putting their clothes on in a room together... 4 witnesses must witness the actual physical act of sex occuring between those accused of adultery... The same is true of homosexuality... Rape, however, the woman's testimony alone is enough, provided she is found to be a reliable witness, and other evidences can be/should be taken into account.
It becomes obvious, when this fact is noted, that stoning to death is not something which, if practiced correctly, is simply men judging men in the name of God... rather it is a practical law, prescribed against moral crimes, and the punishment is set, not because it should be used as a form of Hitler-like extirmination against the "wicked" -but rather it is meant to play on the sub-conscious of those who would commit such open indeceny which is detrimental to the well-being of society. It is not meant to instill fear of men into the hearts of sinners, but rather to demonstrate how horrendous these crimes, -rape, adultery, and homosexuality- actually are in the eyes of the Creator, and how seriously they should be taken.
Christians may object, citing the passage of the New Testament, where Christ saves the adulteress from being stoned, reportedly saying "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Yet, the New international Version of the Bible includes a footnote to this entire passage, that is, John 8:1-11. It states that these verses are not found in any of the ancient manuscripts of the gospel of John. In other words, the entire story is a pious fraud inserted in the text at a considerably later date than it's authorship, -no doubt with good intention- but even so it cannot be the rational basis for an opinion against Islam considering this fact. The Bible does, however, contain verses enjoining stoning for adulterers and homosexuals, and, as far as is known, these verses have been in the Bible for all times. [see Duet. 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:13]
Cutting off the hands of thieves: Again, it is true that cutting off the hands of theives is an authentic law under Shari'a. But when we look to theft, robberies, and shoplifting rates in the United States, and the epidimec proportions this has reached, and compare that to it's virtually non-existent proportions in countries which practice this aspect of Shari'a, we see the logical approach behnd such a law. A thieving criminal will certainly think twice if he risks losing his hand for his crime, moreso than if all he were facing was a night in jail and/or a minimal fine.
Furthermore, it must, as with all things, go through the Islamic legal system. The accused under Islamic law has the right to defend himself in court before a judge just as in Western law, and there actually exists, in Shari'a, a verdict that doesn't exist in Western law... an ultimately more compassionate and beautiful verdict. In Western law, the court only allows for two possible outcomes... the accused is guilty or innocent. But under Shari'a, the accused may be innocent while his community is guilty. For example, if the evidence produced shows that a man stole because he was hungry, then Shari'a claims it was his right to steal from the community, because his fellow man didn't feed him. Motives in Western law are only used to prove guilt, whereas in Shari'a motives are used to prove either guilt or innocence.
Death for leaving Islam: The final issue I wish to address is the misunderstanding that Islam calls for capital punishment against apostates. [Those who have abandoned Islam.] This misunderstanding arises from a hadith [saying of Muhammad's sallilahu aleyhe wa'salaam] in which he said: The blood of a Muslim is not lawful (cannot be lawfully shed) unless he belongs to one of three classes: A married man who is an adulterer, a life for a life (for murder), or one who has deserted his religion whereby abandoning the community. [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim], and another Hadith which says, Whoever abandons his religion, kill him. The first Hadith we will deal with in a moment. First let us examine the second one. This Hadith, "Whoever abandons his religion, kill him" ~while I have forgotten what Hadith collection it's from, I know it was studied by S.A. Rahman, former Shari'a judge of Pakistan, and he issued a fatwa saying that it cannot be used in Shari'a because it is of it's problems with Isnad [i.e. it is of unknown origin.] In fact there are a plethora of scholars, well-known, throughout history who have made their misgivings about this supposed hadith known. They include but are not limited to:
Ibrahim al Nakhai and Sufyan al Thawri (both held the view that "apostate should be re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death"), the renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi ("apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment"), Malaki jurist al Baji ("apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty") and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al Ili and Ismail al Badawi (apostasy to be punishable by death has to be "political in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam"), Mahmud Shaltut ("apostasy carries no temporal penalty"), Mahmassani ("death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community"). Selim el Awa raised a very rational argument that if the hadith "whoever renounces his religion shall be killed" is literally applied it would be applicable also "to Christians, who convert to Judaism and vice versa" which "manifestly fall outside the intention" of the hadith.
In regard to the first Hadith, The blood of a Muslim is not lawful (cannot be lawfully shed) unless he belongs to one of three classes: A married man who is an adulterer, a life for a life (for murder), or one who is deserted his religion whereby abandoning the community. [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim] -This Hadith is a valid one, but it requires more interpretation. Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah, one of the most respected scholars in the history of Islam, commented on this Hadith, the following: The crime referred to in the hadith is a question of high treason (against the authentic Islamic state) and not that of apostasy (merely abandoning Islam.) [Al Sarim Al Maslul. p 52. Quoted in 'Freedom of Expression in Islam', p 96]
The point is, what is implied in the Hadith? Consider the wording: "deserted his religion WHEREBY abandoning the community"...This statement was made at a time when the Muslim world was surrounded by enemies. To leave the Muslim community was to become a supporter of those who sought to kill Muslims. -Also, at the time this statement was made by our beloved Prophet Muhammad [saas], when someone entered into Islam, they also gave what is known as baya to the Islamic state. That is, a pledge of allegience or loyalty. Thus, to abondon or renounce that baya by leaving the community was in fact, high treason.
Thus, the death sentence for supposedly abandoning Islam is non-existent. Death can only be pronounced on traitors to an authentic Islamic state, after they have sworn allegience to that state. Since there is no authentic Islamic state anywhere on earth right now, there is no excuse for any one to be killed under this law.
One may object to the killing of those who commit treason, but this offense has been recognized as meriting death by most peoples and nations since time immemorial, up to and including the present age where it is still something that merits capital punishment even in Western law. One of America's most celebrated presidents, Andrew Jackson, shot a man to death on the very lawn of the White house for treason, and this uncouth barbarian by some peoples standards, graces our 20 dollar bill.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this writing has been to clarify what exactly Islamic law is...I have intended to resolve misconceptions about it, while also mentioning much of it's beauty and what benefit it has been to humanity in the past. It is a law which Muslims believe came straight from heaven, from the very will of God in order to create a just and fair society for humanity, a society which restrains us from harm and evil. A society in which the needs of that society as a whole, not only the individual, are taken into account, and in which the spirit or soul of man is also nourished and protected.
Imagine a world where God's rights are also considered, ~not just the rights of those who would blaspheme Him, where the spiritual well-being and mental health of it's citizens are held in high regard and esteem, -this is Shari'a. Shari'a, a word which comes from a root word, meaning, "neverending spring or well", and also has implied meanings of "the way" or "path." A never-ending spring of glistening, beautiful knowledge, rights, protections, and rules, which provide a clear and easy "path" to human success and peace.
In writing on something as vast as Shari'a, it is impossible to include every single point I wished to make, and it is impossible to give it the time it deserves, because I could write volumes on this subject, as many scholars in the past have done and continue to do, [perhaps another reason it is a "never-ending spring"]. -Therefore, if there are any points you would like to make, questions you would like to ask, or other things you want to discuss concerning Shari'a, feel free to bring up these issues below.
SHARI'A: BARBARIC? OPPRESSIVE?
A closer look...
A closer look...
WESTERN GOVERNMENTS SUCCESFUL?
Before starting out a blog clarifying the misconceptions in regards to Shar'ia [Islamic law], I must first state what is and is not Shari'a. And before even getting into that, I must inform the reader as to what are the correct Muslim feelings about Shari'a.
A Muslim, if they are practicing and knowledgeable, knows that Shari'a is the perfect form of government. This sounds proposterous when we look to so-called Muslim countries and view the backward societies and governments that rule the Muslim world en tota. How can we claim, in the face of succesful Western Governments, that Shari'a is truly the best form of government?
First, the question begs to be asked, are Western Governments succesful? With soaring fuel and food prices, endless wars, and an environment that is now acting as an immune system to our planet dead-set on erradicating the virus known as humanity, [here I am speaking of the global warming threat, and various other environmental cataclysms] all thanks to, in one way or another, democracy which inevitably led to corporatism/capitalism, we see that in fact, man-made Western governments have failed in many regards. All that is left to offer from these corrupt, dysfunctional systems is individual freedoms and the allowance of the "persuit" of happiness, and this very persuit often leads to unhappiness since happiness is so rarely obtained, and when obtained, is fleeting. I could, of course, write volumes about the failure of democracy and capitalism alone, particularly in the realm of the spiritual aspect which is totally absent in such a system, as is the concept of human brotherhood, -but alas, this is a blog, and not a non-fiction novel. Suffice it to say, Democracy/Capitalism/Corporatism have failed us all, and the situation will, I surmise, only continue to worsen in the coming years/decades.
SHARI'A SUCCESFUL?
Now, moving on, we might well and reasonably ask, did Shari'a do much better? Well, firstly, Shari'a is what led to modern society. Sadly, few non-Muslims know that the rapid advancements in science, mathematics, medicine, and philosophy in the past 200 years are all due wholly or in part to the longest living flourishing empire in history that existed before those 200 years, the Muslim empire, which lasted, in one part of the Muslim world or the other, for roughly 1200 years! It was Muslims who, for example, perserved the works of the greek philosphers and logicians, Aristotle, Plato, etc. whilst Europe considered them heresies. It was Muslim astronomers who first discovered sunspots, who named and located the majority of the stars in our solar system [and in fact, a great many of them still bare the Arabic names], Observatories bloomed in the Muslim world, and under the leadership of Caliph al-Ma'mun, the circumference of the earth was measured. A great number of Arabic books from the time of the Muslim empire detail the ebb and flow of the tides, dawn, twilight, rainbows, halo's, and even the orbits of the sun and moon.
Even in botany, that is the study of plant life and vegetation, Muslims were way ahead of the rest of the world, and in fact, most of the modern methods of agriculture are thanks to what Muslims discovered in the field of botany. Ad-Dinawari, a Muslim botanist, wrote volumes on not only the outer appearance of plants, but the alimentary, medicinal, and other properties therein.
And, for 1200 years, the Muslim studies into the field of medicine was so profound and accurate, that the works of Muslim medical researchers such as Razi, ibn Sina, and Abul-Qasim are studied in colleges and universities in the West to this day. In fact, Muslims were the first to diagnose and treat many diseases that were unrecognized at the time, such as diabetes and hypothyroidism.
WHY THE DECLINE OF SHARI'A?
But, the obvious question arises from this: What happened? If Shari'a is so perfect, why did it fail? -Well, the answer, simply, is that Shari'a didn't fail. People did. It has always been an inherent part of Islamic eschatology that Allah [swt], or, God, to our non-Arabic readers, willed for Islamic civilization that it have ups and downs, moments of extreme success, and also moments of weakness and rule under tyrannical leaders and outside forces. -The moments of weakness, the Qu'ran teaches, comes from Muslims who suddenly lapse in their remembrance of Allah [swt], who stop speaking out against vice and corruption, who leave off of struggling against evil, and become more concerned with the life of this world, rather than that of the hereafter. In fact, there is a lengthy Hadith [tradition from the life of the Prophet Muhammad] in which a companion, Hudayfah ibn Al-Yaman, asked the Prophet [saas] if there would be bad times [fitaan] after the present good times [this was at a time toward the end of Muhammad's sallilaahuw alehy wa salaam's life, when Islam was a strong force in Arabia], and he replied in the affirmative. So Hudayfah [raa] asked, would there be good times after that? And Muhammad [saas] replied, again, in the affirmative, and so it went until the Prophet [saas] started describing the signs of the day of judgement.
So, Muslims have never believed that the good times of Shari'a were permanent. One could say, it has never been a part of Shari'a to believe that Shari'a would exist on earth forever... because while Islam is perfect, including it's laws, people are not. And even though, thanks to Shari'a, the world has flourished, and Muslims contributed almost wholly to that unbeknownst to most non-Muslims, it, like the ebb and flow of the tides discovered by Muslims, has it's highs and it's lows. -And this is solely due to the imperfection of man, and not Allah [swt] as the Qu'ran says:
Anything good that happens to you is from Allah, and anything bad that happens to you is from yourself. We [God, using the Royal 'We' or Plural of respect] have sent thee [Prophet Muhammad] as a messenger to the people, and Allah suffices as witness. [4:79]
The point is, Shari'a, when it was in full practice, was indeed succesful, and was in fact the most succesful government that has existed on earth to date.
So, how did people, or more specifically, Muslims, fail? To put is succintly, Shari'a was replaced by un-elected monarchies, and the monarchies were replaced, around the time of the first world war, by pro-western leaders who desired to copy the U.S. and Britain rather than establish Shari'a, [Kamal Ataturk in Turkey is the best example of this], and, after that, a series of brutal dictators, usually installed at the hands of other more powerful countries, which rule in the name of Islam, but are the farthest thing from Islamic teachings on how a ruler is chosen, and how they should rule/behave, etc.
WHAT SHARI'A IS NOT:
Before we can discuss Shari'a, we must first explain what Shari'a isn't. I once heard a man speaking about Islamic law, and he was amused and disheartened to see an American newspaper with a picture of a man being lashed in Pakistan. The caption underneath the photo read: ISLAMIC JUSTICE. This, the speaker said, was a rather interesting conclusion to draw considering the fact that Pakistan hasn't had Shari'a on it's books since it's creation in 1948. The only law to have ever existed in Pakistan is the British law. -That's not to say that Islam doesn't call for a whipping/lashing for certain crimes, but the heart of the matter is whether or not it was ISLAMIC JUSTICE or BRITISH JUSTICE, or, what is even more likely, an act of vigilantism, which is condemned in Shari'a.
The point I'm making is, our press likes to talk about the so-called Muslim world. Using this title "Muslim world" creates the false conclusion that everything that goes on there, in this fictitious creation known as the Muslim world, is Islamic, and it represents what Muslims think, feel, and desire as a whole, and all of this is supported by the religion of Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, most Muslims will tell you that in a great deal of these countries, it is harder to be a good Muslim than anywhere else on earth. Good Muslims are thrown in jail in droves in most of the Muslim world, for any list of crimes including but not limited to: Speaking out against secularist dictators, praying in the mosque too much, refusing to spy on their fellow Muslims, pointing out un-Islamic actions in others, pointing out un-Islamic actions in the governments, speaking publically about Islam, writing about Islam, etc. etc. -It should be made clear that this fairy tale invention "The Muslim World" is more often than not, a place where it is almost impossible to be a Muslim.
So, when someone sees, for example, a headline that talks about the "religious police" in Saudi Arabia, beating a man and a woman to death because they were driving around in a car in public, and they were not married, I simply ask one thing to those who would say this is Shari'a... bring me one single statement from the Qu'ran, or one single statement of the Prophet Muhammad [saas] that condones or enjoins "religious police" of any kind, or indicates that it is ok to beat anyone to death, much less a man and a woman who are merely "seen together." You will not be able to find it. But what you will find is what is supposed to happen to murderers under Shari'a, that is people who kill other people not in self-defense or in a time of war, and you will see that, in fact, those so-called "religious police" are the ones who should be killed.
We also hear tales of raped girls being imprisoned while their rapists go free, even though a woman was raped during the life of Muhammad [saas] and he ordered that the rapist be stoned to death publically. [This is based on a Hadith related by Abu Dawud.] -so why is the Muslim world imprisoning raped women, and letting rapists walk around without a scratch on them?
Obviously, I could spend a lot of time clearing up misconceptions about Shari'a, showing tons of things that have been reported in the West about Islamic law, and then explaining why these things are, in fact, not Shari'a at all and have nothing to do with Islam...and providing proof for each of my claims, but instead I will list several things that Shari'a is against, and if anyone wants proof that Shari'a is against a certain thing that I mention, we can discuss it in the comment section or in private messages. So, what Shari'a DOES NOT support: Suicide bombing, rape, terrorism, vigilantism, killing of all non-Muslims, military coups, oppression of women, human rights violations, killing of someone just because they leave Islam, prohibition of Music/the arts, torture, killing of innocents, etc. etc.
A CLOSER LOOK AT CONTROVERSIAL LAWS:
Stoning: It is true that for certain offenses, Islam prescribes stoning to death. This is unfathomable to most secularists and many Christians. However, when looked at in it's societal and practical context, and when we also take into consideration the reasoning behind such laws, we see that those who would condemn Shari'a for this aspect are making much ado about nothing.
In Shari'a, there are three offenses for which one may be stoned to death. That is, rape, adultery [that is sexual intercourse with a married person, or yourself being married and having sexual intercourse with someone other than your spouse], and according to some interpretations of Islamic law, homosexuality. Even some Muslims may be shocked to know that this is indeed the case.
So, how to rectify this with those who would say this is barbaric, outdated, inhumane, ungodly, etc? Simply pointing out some facts about this law will do. For example, in order for the prescribed punishment of stoning to death to be enacted, one of two things must happen: (1). The accused confesses. -Yet even if one were to confess to one of the three crimes, Rape, Adultery, or Homosexuality, it is, under Shari'a, the duty of the judge hearing the case to encourage the defendant to recant their confession. This is what the Prophet Muhammad [saas] used to do. (2). 4 reliable witnesses witnessed the actual act. That means, it isn't enough to see a married man leaving the house of a woman who isn't his wife... it isn't enough to even see them putting their clothes on in a room together... 4 witnesses must witness the actual physical act of sex occuring between those accused of adultery... The same is true of homosexuality... Rape, however, the woman's testimony alone is enough, provided she is found to be a reliable witness, and other evidences can be/should be taken into account.
It becomes obvious, when this fact is noted, that stoning to death is not something which, if practiced correctly, is simply men judging men in the name of God... rather it is a practical law, prescribed against moral crimes, and the punishment is set, not because it should be used as a form of Hitler-like extirmination against the "wicked" -but rather it is meant to play on the sub-conscious of those who would commit such open indeceny which is detrimental to the well-being of society. It is not meant to instill fear of men into the hearts of sinners, but rather to demonstrate how horrendous these crimes, -rape, adultery, and homosexuality- actually are in the eyes of the Creator, and how seriously they should be taken.
Christians may object, citing the passage of the New Testament, where Christ saves the adulteress from being stoned, reportedly saying "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Yet, the New international Version of the Bible includes a footnote to this entire passage, that is, John 8:1-11. It states that these verses are not found in any of the ancient manuscripts of the gospel of John. In other words, the entire story is a pious fraud inserted in the text at a considerably later date than it's authorship, -no doubt with good intention- but even so it cannot be the rational basis for an opinion against Islam considering this fact. The Bible does, however, contain verses enjoining stoning for adulterers and homosexuals, and, as far as is known, these verses have been in the Bible for all times. [see Duet. 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:13]
Cutting off the hands of thieves: Again, it is true that cutting off the hands of theives is an authentic law under Shari'a. But when we look to theft, robberies, and shoplifting rates in the United States, and the epidimec proportions this has reached, and compare that to it's virtually non-existent proportions in countries which practice this aspect of Shari'a, we see the logical approach behnd such a law. A thieving criminal will certainly think twice if he risks losing his hand for his crime, moreso than if all he were facing was a night in jail and/or a minimal fine.
Furthermore, it must, as with all things, go through the Islamic legal system. The accused under Islamic law has the right to defend himself in court before a judge just as in Western law, and there actually exists, in Shari'a, a verdict that doesn't exist in Western law... an ultimately more compassionate and beautiful verdict. In Western law, the court only allows for two possible outcomes... the accused is guilty or innocent. But under Shari'a, the accused may be innocent while his community is guilty. For example, if the evidence produced shows that a man stole because he was hungry, then Shari'a claims it was his right to steal from the community, because his fellow man didn't feed him. Motives in Western law are only used to prove guilt, whereas in Shari'a motives are used to prove either guilt or innocence.
Death for leaving Islam: The final issue I wish to address is the misunderstanding that Islam calls for capital punishment against apostates. [Those who have abandoned Islam.] This misunderstanding arises from a hadith [saying of Muhammad's sallilahu aleyhe wa'salaam] in which he said: The blood of a Muslim is not lawful (cannot be lawfully shed) unless he belongs to one of three classes: A married man who is an adulterer, a life for a life (for murder), or one who has deserted his religion whereby abandoning the community. [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim], and another Hadith which says, Whoever abandons his religion, kill him. The first Hadith we will deal with in a moment. First let us examine the second one. This Hadith, "Whoever abandons his religion, kill him" ~while I have forgotten what Hadith collection it's from, I know it was studied by S.A. Rahman, former Shari'a judge of Pakistan, and he issued a fatwa saying that it cannot be used in Shari'a because it is of it's problems with Isnad [i.e. it is of unknown origin.] In fact there are a plethora of scholars, well-known, throughout history who have made their misgivings about this supposed hadith known. They include but are not limited to:
Ibrahim al Nakhai and Sufyan al Thawri (both held the view that "apostate should be re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death"), the renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi ("apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment"), Malaki jurist al Baji ("apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty") and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al Ili and Ismail al Badawi (apostasy to be punishable by death has to be "political in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam"), Mahmud Shaltut ("apostasy carries no temporal penalty"), Mahmassani ("death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community"). Selim el Awa raised a very rational argument that if the hadith "whoever renounces his religion shall be killed" is literally applied it would be applicable also "to Christians, who convert to Judaism and vice versa" which "manifestly fall outside the intention" of the hadith.
In regard to the first Hadith, The blood of a Muslim is not lawful (cannot be lawfully shed) unless he belongs to one of three classes: A married man who is an adulterer, a life for a life (for murder), or one who is deserted his religion whereby abandoning the community. [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim] -This Hadith is a valid one, but it requires more interpretation. Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah, one of the most respected scholars in the history of Islam, commented on this Hadith, the following: The crime referred to in the hadith is a question of high treason (against the authentic Islamic state) and not that of apostasy (merely abandoning Islam.) [Al Sarim Al Maslul. p 52. Quoted in 'Freedom of Expression in Islam', p 96]
The point is, what is implied in the Hadith? Consider the wording: "deserted his religion WHEREBY abandoning the community"...This statement was made at a time when the Muslim world was surrounded by enemies. To leave the Muslim community was to become a supporter of those who sought to kill Muslims. -Also, at the time this statement was made by our beloved Prophet Muhammad [saas], when someone entered into Islam, they also gave what is known as baya to the Islamic state. That is, a pledge of allegience or loyalty. Thus, to abondon or renounce that baya by leaving the community was in fact, high treason.
Thus, the death sentence for supposedly abandoning Islam is non-existent. Death can only be pronounced on traitors to an authentic Islamic state, after they have sworn allegience to that state. Since there is no authentic Islamic state anywhere on earth right now, there is no excuse for any one to be killed under this law.
One may object to the killing of those who commit treason, but this offense has been recognized as meriting death by most peoples and nations since time immemorial, up to and including the present age where it is still something that merits capital punishment even in Western law. One of America's most celebrated presidents, Andrew Jackson, shot a man to death on the very lawn of the White house for treason, and this uncouth barbarian by some peoples standards, graces our 20 dollar bill.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this writing has been to clarify what exactly Islamic law is...I have intended to resolve misconceptions about it, while also mentioning much of it's beauty and what benefit it has been to humanity in the past. It is a law which Muslims believe came straight from heaven, from the very will of God in order to create a just and fair society for humanity, a society which restrains us from harm and evil. A society in which the needs of that society as a whole, not only the individual, are taken into account, and in which the spirit or soul of man is also nourished and protected.
Imagine a world where God's rights are also considered, ~not just the rights of those who would blaspheme Him, where the spiritual well-being and mental health of it's citizens are held in high regard and esteem, -this is Shari'a. Shari'a, a word which comes from a root word, meaning, "neverending spring or well", and also has implied meanings of "the way" or "path." A never-ending spring of glistening, beautiful knowledge, rights, protections, and rules, which provide a clear and easy "path" to human success and peace.
In writing on something as vast as Shari'a, it is impossible to include every single point I wished to make, and it is impossible to give it the time it deserves, because I could write volumes on this subject, as many scholars in the past have done and continue to do, [perhaps another reason it is a "never-ending spring"]. -Therefore, if there are any points you would like to make, questions you would like to ask, or other things you want to discuss concerning Shari'a, feel free to bring up these issues below.
