I have formed the view that a lot of Muslims living in the west would like to be governed by sharia law. In fact I seem to recall calls from some Muslims in the UK to be allowed to govern themselves by sharia law. Watching TV this morning and saw a report of the edict issued by the SAWT valley Taliban to judges and lawyers ordering them not to attend court telling them there is no place for them in sharia law (see above link) and I wondered how it would work in a non-tribal society. I can see that the SWAT area (apart from cell phones and kalashnikovs) looks and probably functions pretty much as it did in 7C Mecca and because of that it may be possible to function with sharia law but could it really work in a 21st century society? It starts by stopping the current legal structure (courts, judges etc) because now the local Imam is the judge. Next you scrap the ministry of the interior because the police service or whatever replaces it comes under the direction of the local imam. Now justice is dispensed according to the local Imams interpretation of the sharia law. I can’t believe that any educated 21st century person would want to live under such a nebulous, unstructured and unjust regime. I can’t believe that any educated female Muslim would want to live under a regime that would deny them all the freedoms they enjoy outside of such a system. If there’s anyone out there that would like to live under such a regime I’d love to hear your reasons.
An Islamic State is not a theocracy. It is more akin to giving the Qu'ran the status of an unchangeable constitution. The rulers in an Islamic state need not be clerics.
The reality is that there are no (or very few) real Islamic states in the Muslim world. There are many reasons for this IMHO, one of them appears to be that too few Muslims actually want to be ruled by Islamic law? Or at the very least there seems to be disagreement on what exactly is Islamic law. The states that do claim to be Islamic are generally rejected as not practising "true" Islam by a majority of Muslims.
I have formed the view that a lot of Muslims living in the west would like to be governed by sharia law. In fact I seem to recall calls from some Muslims in the UK to be allowed to govern themselves by sharia law. Watching TV this morning and saw a report of the edict issued by the SAWT valley Taliban to judges and lawyers ordering them not to attend court telling them there is no place for them in sharia law (see above link) and I wondered how it would work in a non-tribal society. I can see that the SWAT area (apart from cell phones and kalashnikovs) looks and probably functions pretty much as it did in 7C Mecca and because of that it may be possible to function with sharia law but could it really work in a 21st century society? It starts by stopping the current legal structure (courts, judges etc) because now the local Imam is the judge. Next you scrap the ministry of the interior because the police service or whatever replaces it comes under the direction of the local imam. Now justice is dispensed according to the local Imams interpretation of the sharia law. I can’t believe that any educated 21st century person would want to live under such a nebulous, unstructured and unjust regime. I can’t believe that any educated female Muslim would want to live under a regime that would deny them all the freedoms they enjoy outside of such a system. If there’s anyone out there that would like to live under such a regime I’d love to hear your reasons.
No, absolutely not - I honestly can't see where anyone could take offence at what I have said in this thread!!
perhaps you forgot what you wrote?
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
No, absolutely not - I honestly can't see where anyone could take offence at what I have said in this thread!!
Ehm. It's like walking into a Workers International meeting and telling them that Socialism is unjust and oppressive and that they must be idiots for wanting it .
An Islamic State is not a theocracy. It is more akin to giving the Qu'ran the status of an unchangeable constitution. The rulers in an Islamic state need not be clerics.
The reality is that there are no (or very few) real Islamic states in the Muslim world. There are many reasons for this IMHO, one of them appears to be that too few Muslims actually want to be ruled by Islamic law? Or at the very least there seems to be disagreement on what exactly is Islamic law. The states that do claim to be Islamic are generally rejected as not practising "true" Islam by a majority of Muslims.
Hey
I think you should read this since it'll clear your misunderstanding;
The Role of Colonization on the Political System of the Muslim World (today):
Sura 60, verse 12: “O Prophet! Whenever believing women come unto thee to pledge their allegiance to thee… then accept their pledge of allegiance.”
OT: Sharia would benefit the UK but since we cannot even discuss this concept in a civilised manner (see archbishop of canterbury fiasco), then forget it.
Until the wider community gathers the appropriate understanding of sharia, then it should not be implemented in the UK (even if that condition was met, sharia law is for ISLAMIC STATES ONLY [to the reader: if you remember anything about this post, please let it be the previous 3 words in caps outside the brackets!] ---> UK is not an islamic state [also important to note!]).
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
women are not intelectually deficient especially in terms of memory, no practical data, such us university and college attendance attendance, scholarships, suggest this.
Are 8 female witnesses also required in cases of adultery?
Yup. Nothing in Islam prevents women from being heads of state i.e. there is no law banning them from that position.
Bukhari reports on the authority of Abu Bakrah that he said: Allah has given me the privilege of a word which I heard from the Messenger of Allah during the days of [the battle of] Al-Jamal, when I was about to join the people of Al-Jamal and fight with them: When the Messenger of Allah heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes (Qisra), he said: ‘People who appoint a woman as their leader will never succeed’. (Bukhari, No: 4425)
It goes abck to the point that it's not only about men.
That's according to your short sightedness and limited views, not according to the Islamic teachings. Do you ever hear a sister on the forum making a big fuss about these issues?
Yes, all of the above. And most of all I am bothered by the quranic notion that all women are the same, that none is able to defend herself, that each one is bothered by men with a diseased heart and of course that man's marital wishes about the rebeliosity of his wife(s) come before their rights.
As I said, how many women complain about rape, abuse, and other forms of physical attacks?
Who is naturally there to protect them? It's the men of their familes, this doens't make men any better then women nor does it take any rights away from them. A woman giving birth doesn't make her any better then a man, so a man protecting a woman doesn't mean they are better then them.
There are biological differences but that doesn't mean a man is an inherently better caretaker or that women are better at parenting and worse at keeping bills and finances.
Quran in my opinion underestimats women and is overly protective, making husbands take care of all importan things, which btw I find discriminatory against my own gender!
So I don't find the Islamic system particulary just.
Oh how Islamic history and the Qur'an will prove you utterly wrong.
Make your judgement after knowing how women in Islam have excelled the men in knowledge and virtue. Some of the greatest scholars of the past such as Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi studied under woman, Ibn Hajar asqalani and many others. You may not know these names but these are just some of the greatest figures of Islamic history who wrote in their books the biographies of their teachers and some had up to 80 women teachers who even gave them certifications to teach certain subjects who they themselves were unqualified in.
Muslim woman played an important role side by side with men and were handed the greatest religious responsibilities and have played an integral part in reforming society. They raised scholars and were scholars themselves, they were given authority over men in religious affairs and at the heart of all of this was the teachings of the Qur'an.
By my earlier reply no one said women are worse at bill keeping rather what I said was men are Islamically obliged to spend money on their women. Nor am I saying that men cannot do a good job raising children, rather I said women are known to have the patience and compassion to raise children better then men, generally.
Tell me, why does it only matter what men want in their wives? What about women? You think women are ok with their men having multiple wives? You seem to think no man is and most women are. Now, I am told a wife can divorce her husband if she doesn't want him to marry another though I'm not sure about that, so why not make the same option for women? If the husban were incomplicit with her wife's wishes, he could simply leave. Of course, provided both spouses get an equal share of the inheritence.
The last part really made em thinking. We apparently live in a chavinistc society where a woman sleeping with several men is called a wohre and there's not a single really pejorative word for a man sleeping with several women.
Learn the Islamic teachings and understand them before speaking about them because you don't really seem to know what your talking about.
And verily for everything that a slave loses there is a substitute, but the one who loses Allah will never find anything to replace Him.” [Related by Ibn al-Qayyim in ad-Dâ' wad-Dawâ Fasl 49]
There are many ‘Muslim’ countries yet there are few Muslim countries that use the sharia law as the sole governing body of laws, there’s got to be a reason for that?
I can think of only two countries/provinces, possibly three that use the sharia law as the sole governing body of laws, Iran, Saudi (not sure) and the Taliban areas. And, from what I can see, these three countries operate their own (and different) interpretation of the law.
Below are a few judgements from sharia courts
“In 2002, a Nigerian Sharia court sentenced Amina Lawal to be stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock; in contrast, the man named as the father denied responsibility, and as a result, the court dropped charges against him.
“In another case, teenager Bariya Magazu asserted that she was raped by three men and became pregnant as a result. Because she had sex outside of marriage, a Sharia court sentenced her to one hundred lashes, even though seven people corroborated her story. The men accused of the rape received no punishment.
“The extreme bias against women is apparent in sentences of adultery or fornication under Sharia. A woman is convicted simply by becoming pregnant, but a man is not condemned unless four people can testify that they witnessed the normally private acts of adultery or fornication.
“Countries such as Nigeria impose flogging, stoning, or severing off a hand ... all of which are deterrent punishments for serious crimes mentioned in the (Koran).”
There are
Tehran, Dec. 26 – Iranian press have reported the public execution of at least four women in the past year, with at least 14 more to be publicly hanged or stoned to death. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.ph...k=view&id=1088
An Iranian woman faces being stoned to death for having an affair with a married man. Mother- of- two Mokarrameh Ebrahimi has spent the last 11 years in jail for adultery with Jafa Kiani (and what happened to Jafa??) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-adultery.html
So I ask again, can a female here tell me why they would prefer to live under a regime that operates the sharia law which clearly treats women badly.
To Establish Sharia Law, requires striving in the Path of Allah swt. These countries whom your mentioning are countries that solely do not depend on the Quran and Sunnah in many areas. They are just like that Taghut(Idol) regimes of the Arab world which has infected the Muslim world with this idea of Nationalism instead of Muslim. Do we accept Saudi Arabia as a true Islamic state, No, Nigeria? No, Iran? Definitely No. And the evidences are plentiful.
In Saudi Arabia, their implementation of Sharia does not reach the knuckles or hands of the princes or kings even for a great treachery. In regards to Iran, the land of those who curse and reject aspects of Quran and the Sahaba, any Muslim who is Ahul Sunnah wa Jamaat will reject them.
So therefore, when you state Islamic countries, you have no clue what your talking about. You have to be a Muslim to understand the true concept of implementation and carrying that through Fi Sabilillah to establish the Sharia. No Kafir can do this, and if your Agnostic then you are a Kaffir, because you heard about the message of Islam, yet you reject it. So there would be no point explaining any distinctive or points in this matter to you.
However if you are a Muslim, then we can discuss the matter..
In regards to your comment "clearly treats women bad", the true implementation of Sharia will not treat women bad, is this going to lead to a debate? If so you better get your wikipedia pages ready..
I Do not Support any Extremist or Fundamentalist Groups, We should all strive for a Democratic State in which Free Thought can be Expressed!
women are not intelectually deficient especially in terms of memory, no practical data, such us university and college attendance attendance, scholarships, suggest this.
Are 8 female witnesses also required in cases of adultery?
Re-read akulion's post on that thread - it explains why in relation to business matters and not in general.
No, 8 female witnesses are not needed. I already said at the beginning it's two vs 1 on business matters only (even then it's up to the judge [who may also be female] in the courtroom anyway since the judge has a lot of power in an Islamic court!)
Bukhari reports on the authority of Abu Bakrah that he said: Allah has given me the privilege of a word which I heard from the Messenger of Allah during the days of [the battle of] Al-Jamal, when I was about to join the people of Al-Jamal and fight with them: When the Messenger of Allah heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes (Qisra), he said: ‘People who appoint a woman as their leader will never succeed’. (Bukhari, No: 4425)
There's more to it than that. You'll have to consult either an imaam or scholar though. Hadith require (years of) expertise in the field - something that I do not have .
But, even if that is so (i.e women are not allowed a position of head of state under Islam) can you name me one successful female head of state in the west today? The latest one was margaret thatcher - years back and only ever occured once throughout the western political history (she served a lot of years but only one female head of state in either of the two 'modern' countries).
So the point is moot anyway; it doesn't occur in the western world so the ladies are not missing out on much in an Islamic state.
This coupled with the fact that Islam sees men as the ones with responsibility (head of the house), plus the impracticalities of it - say the head of state goes on maternity leave (or is heavily pregnant, or is on her periods, or is in a state of pms etc) - you really going to trust her to govern a country in that state? (note, I have no problem in who does what, but there are practical reasons for all the rulings in Islam - if you're unwilling to accept that, this discussion is entirely pointless)
The Islamic system (where there does exist boundaries --- for a practical reasons and not arbitrary!) is fundemntally different to the UK/US (where the emphasis in those respective countries is anyone can do anything - the american dream and whatnot [which in practical terms is utter bs])
It's not clear whether women will get hoors.
Don't matter, we're not dealing with who gets what in heaven anyway (we can continue this particular issue in a more appropriate thread). We got side tracked and the point was to direct you into that thread (or something similar) and carry on the discussion there.
Allegiance automatically means voting rights?
Read into it what you want.
Fact is, women had the right to vote in the Islamic world (1400 years back), long before both the US and the UK (around 100 years ago...).
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Personally I'm looking forward to a modern Muslim state trying to implement Sha'ria law. I'm guessing there are ways to implement Islamic laws with a degree of moderation that would make it compatible with modern society. It would be a magnificent experiment and we could finally see if it is a feasible system for a modern and economically developed country. Only problem I see if that there aren't any truly developed rich Muslim countries yet, although I suppose, say, Turkey comes fairly close?
I mean, pointing to the Taliban, the SWAT area in Pakistan or Somalia is somewhat unfair. These are dirt-poor, undeveloped, tribal countries which lack the physical, political and bureaucratic infrastructure that modern countries have. Their implementation of Sha'ria is bound to be completely different from what it would be if it were implemented in a rich and developed country. Finally we would be able to get some real answers on the feasibility and desirability of such a system.
Would it last? Would it really bring social justice? Or would it cause the economy to collapse and lead to totalitarianism? So many questions! I would pay for that!
I found the below examples of inequality whilst trying to find what the sharia says with regards to who gets the children and the division of wealth upon divorce.
Wife cannot divorce husband without a ‘reason of the sharia.’ http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/488/divorce
But (I believe) a husband can divorce his wife any time for any or no reason!
The reason why the husband is regarded as superior and is given the role of qawwaam (protector and maintainer) http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/43252/
So what does the sharia says with regards to who gets the children and the division of wealth upon divorce?
Personally I'm looking forward to a modern Muslim state trying to implement Sha'ria law.
Me too; as I said none of the Muslim countries are rushing to adopt it, there must be a reason.
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
I mean, pointing to the Taliban, the SWAT area in Pakistan or Somalia is somewhat unfair. These are dirt-poor, undeveloped, tribal countries which lack the physical, political and bureaucratic infrastructure that modern countries have. Their implementation of Sha'ria is bound to be completely different from what it would be if it were implemented in a rich and developed country!
Surely there is only one sharia law and only one true version of it and that must be the same for every country and evry people?
Interesting link! Thanks. Of course Imperialism played a significant role, but I can't say I find it very convincing. It also doesn't explain why the pre-colonization "Islamic political and economic systems" were so ineffective at thwarting European ambitions.
There are plenty of Muslim countries that have the opportunity to completely revamp their political and judicial system along Islamic lines and yet are apparently choosing to not do so (thinking of countries like Malaysia, Indonesia or Turkey). But we'll see, maybe as the effects of the European imperialist age wear off there will be a move towards Islamic rule.
Surely there is only one sharia law and only one true version of it and that must be the same for every country and evry people?
Pfft, that is just fundamentalist religious propaganda is you ask me. Any political system will need to adapt itself to the culture, economic system and level of development of the host country.
Of course, the real danger is the same as with "communism". It is that all actual implementations of an Islamic state will be rejected by significant Muslim groups as "unauthentic" because none of the implementations is exactly like the ideal-typical Utopian Islamic state as they romanticized it to be at the time of Muhammed. We'll end up with a never ending and faith-based argument that implementation X, Y or Z "wasn't the real Islam" and that we have to try again.
Re-read akulion's post on that thread - it explains why in relation to business matters and not in general.
No, 8 female witnesses are not needed. I already said at the beginning it's two vs 1 on business matters only (even then it's up to the judge [who may also be female] in the courtroom anyway since the judge has a lot of power in an Islamic court!)
Could you rpovide evidence that it's for business matters only.
Akulion's post shows a difference in the brain, what I said is that there is no conclusive practical evidence that women are intelectually defficient. Women can acheieve the same results as men, can memorize the same aount of data as men etc.
Compare this to other races. Some races may posses a different or a smaller brain but given the same upbringing as for isnatnce a British citizen, they should achieve the same results.
But, even if that is so (i.e women are not allowed a position of head of state under Islam) can you name me one successful female head of state in the west today? The latest one was margaret thatcher - years back and only ever occured once throughout the western political history (she served a lot of years but only one female head of state in either of the two 'modern' countries).
So the point is moot anyway; it doesn't occur in the western world so the ladies are not missing out on much in an Islamic state.
This coupled with the fact that Islam sees men as the ones with responsibility (head of the house), plus the impracticalities of it - say the head of state goes on maternity leave (or is heavily pregnant, or is on her periods, or is in a state of pms etc) - you really going to trust her to govern a country in that state? (note, I have no problem in who does what, but there are practical reasons for all the rulings in Islam - if you're unwilling to accept that, this discussion is entirely pointless)
You're terribly misinformed. There have been female heads of state in Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, Israel, Bangladesh to name a few. What about queen Elizabeth I and queen Victoria? Were the eras they ruled in the most prosperous in the entire history of the British Isles?
the practical reasons you mentioned, apart from pregnancy, but we could rpevent that with mandatory birth control for female leaders, are not a sufficient reason to abn them from being heads of states.
The Islamic system (where there does exist boundaries --- for a practical reasons and not arbitrary!) is fundemntally different to the UK/US (where the emphasis in those respective countries is anyone can do anything - the american dream and whatnot [which in practical terms is utter bs])
Why is it bs?
Fact is, women had the right to vote in the Islamic world (1400 years back), long before both the US and the UK (around 100 years ago...).
...
Wife cannot divorce husband without a ‘reason of the sharia.’ http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/488/divorce
But (I believe) a husband can divorce his wife any time for any or no reason!
Nope. Man cannot divorce wife for ''no reason''. It wouldn't fly in an Islamic court.
So what does the sharia says with regards to who gets the children and the division of wealth upon divorce?
That's up to the Judge.
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Me too; as I said none of the Muslim countries are rushing to adopt it, there must be a reason.
Plenty:
* Noone can agree on who should represent as a caliph (prerequisit for sharia) cus everyone is sticking with their own sects.
* Most countries are fine playing halfy-salafis: oh sure you cannot eat pork but that won't stop me opening a brothel or pub! (hypocritical)
* Mucho corruption. Pakistan has been corrupt since day one. Afghanistan keeps getting attacked (everytime it tries to be Islamic it causes outrage), same with palestine (though, they just get bombed). Saudi? Pssha they make up their own rules.
Surely there is only one sharia law and only one true version of it and that must be the same for every country and evry people?
That is the ideal and with a caliphate (essentially, moderators of an Islamic state) can be achieved. Until then, you will get halfy-salafis or psuedo islamic/hybrid versions of sharia.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
I have a feeling some elements of Shari'a would be in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such it would not really 'mesh' well with the 21st century.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks