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.
Me too; as I said none of the Muslim countries are rushing to adopt it, there must be a reason.
To be honest, I think it because a large proportion of Muslims are what people here call "Munafiq" or, to use an American phrase, MINO (Muslim in Name Only). Those who oppose Sha'ria law in Muslim-majority countries are mostly I think so called "secular Muslims", so non-practising Muslims. I believe there are a lot more of those than you'd think from looking at the statistics.
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.
Absolutely, but that only goes to show the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in reality isn't all that "Universal", doesn't it . Lets not forget that this declaration was signed at the height of European/Western dominance.
Absolutely, but that only goes to show the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in reality isn't all that "Universal", doesn't it . Lets not forget that this declaration was signed at the height of European/Western dominance.
Maybe not Universal in the truest sense, but 192 of the 203 existing states are members of the United Nations and as such I would imagine they're expected to uphold the rules.
Whether there was 'Western' dominance or not, are we expected to believe that to Muslims this is more important than the authority of almighty God?
Divorce: Under sharia, the husband has the unilateral right to divorce his wife without cause. He can accomplish this by uttering the phrase "I divorce you" three times over the course of three months. If he does divorce her, he must pay her a sum of money agreed to before the wedding in the marriage contract and permit her to keep her dowry, Powers says. Classicalsharia lays out very limited conditions under which a woman can divorce a man--he must be infertile at the time of marriage; insane; or have leprosy or another contagious skin disease. Most Islamic nations, including Egypt and Iran, now allow women to sue for divorce for many other reasons, including the failure to provide financial support.
Custody: In a divorce, the children traditionally belong to the father, but the mother has the right to care for them while they are young, Powers says. The age at which a mother loses custody differs from nation to nation. In Iran, the mother's custody ends at seven for boys and girls; in Pakistan, it's seven for boys and puberty for girls. Many nations, however, allow courts to extend the mother's custody if it is deemed in the child's interest.
Still trying to find out how the wealth is divided on divorce, this article seems to be saying that it's divided according to the pre-nup?
Maybe not Universal in the truest sense, but 192 of the 203 existing states are members of the United Nations and as such I would imagine they're expected to uphold the rules.
Whether there was 'Western' dominance or not, are we expected to believe that to Muslims this is more important than the authority of almighty God?
I suspect it would differ from Muslim to Muslim. Like it has been pointed out, most Muslim states are not Islamic states, so whether they have or haven't signed this declaration might not actually tell us much about its compatibility with Islam. But it does seem to me that there are at least a couple of articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that directly contradict Islam.
<snip>
To sum up what these organizations promote: it is that man should be able to do whatever he wants, no matter how perverse. They support lesbians, homosexuals and bisexuals, and religious deviance. They regard it as a human right to disbelieve in whatever religions one wants and to express one’s opinion – even about the Prophets – without any fear or shame, and they also support the liberation of woman from the control of her father, husband or religion.
<snip>
Maybe some Muslims here could comment on whether the the UDHR can be compatible with Islam? Clearly this sheik doesn't think so. But I'm not sure how representative he is.
He does seem to have a point though with Article 18 (freedom to change religion) and Article 2 (no discrimination based on religion).
men divorcing without reason and custody 'traditionally' belonging to the father, these are not part of the religion, but part of the traditions and cultures where muslims live/d.
the UDHR is quite 'compatible' with Islam, whatever compatible means. and we are not supposed to have a religious caste, so it doesn't matter what sheikh/mullah etc said, as in we don't acknowledge such positions as authoritative, only the qur'an and the prophet's implementation of it are Islam, any other is what people understood and said about it, but not synonymous with it.
as for abu bakrah and the alleged hadeeth of his:no people shall etc, abu bakrah didn't want to join our mother Ai'shah's army so he said that. itis not correct to use it even if the prophet had said it, it was said on a particular occasion, not to mention that several of the most respected sahabah did infarct join her, they didn't know the prophet's edict on such matters?
he is not one of the prominent companions of the prophet anyway, so it doesn't matter either way.
I see that this is turning into a fest for throwing allegations and what have you, copying and pasting are quite easy, if you want to know what Islam says about read the qur'an, study the hadeeth and have some knowledge about the different sects and opinions that arose, projecting one or two sects or some tribal code of conduct as Islam itself are indicators that you are not even trying,,
men divorcing without reason and custody 'traditionally' belonging to the father, these are not part of the religion, but part of the traditions and cultures where muslims live/d.
the UDHR is quite 'compatible' with Islam, whatever compatible means. and we are not supposed to have a religious caste, so it doesn't matter what sheikh/mullah etc said, as in we don't aknowledge such positions as authoritative, only the qur'an and the prophet's implementation of it are Islam, any other is what people understood and said about it, but not synonymous with it.
as for abu bakrah and the alleged hadeeth of his:no people shall etc, abu bakrah didn't want to join our mother Ai'shah's army, neither did he want to join Ali, so he said that. he is neither one of the prominent companions of the prophet, so it doesn't matter either way.
if you want to know what Islam says about read the qur'an, study the hadeeth and have some knowledge about the different sects and opinions that arose, projecting one or two sects or some tribal code of conduct as Islam itself are indicators that you are not even trying,,
first of all sahria it self is a diverse system of rule. Clearly in Islamic history different schools of thought developed trying to implement sharia.
The muslims themselves have to stop going to other systems and actually invest time and effort with the right intentions to figure out how Islamic law should fit wih Fiqh.
the UDHR is quite 'compatible' with Islam, whatever compatible means. and we are not supposed to have a religious caste, so it doesn't matter what sheikh/mullah etc said, as in we don't acknowledge such positions as authoritative, only the qur'an and the prophet's implementation of it are Islam, any other is what people understood and said about it, but not synonymous with it.
Interesting. Who would interpret Islamic law in your opinion? Or rather who would 'acknowledge as authoritative' positions taken by scholars?
Is this where democracy has a place in an Islamic state? If you want to base law on it you'll have to make a collective decision on what is 'authoritative' after all. Should it be the collective of Muslims that decide what interpretations of Islam to 'acknowledge'? It seems that is what you are implying when you say "if we don't acknowledge such positions as authoritative". Is 'we' all Muslims?
Or do you simply not accept that Islam needs 'interpretation'?
everyone interprets, the collective will of the ummah is indeed what decides, bravo for noticing
everyone interpreted before and colored islam as their own culture etc, we have a duty to re-interpret and remove any and all insertions.
everyone interprets, the collective will of the ummah is indeed what decides, bravo for noticing
everyone interpreted before and colored islam as their own culture etc, we have a duty to re-interpret and remove any and all insertions.
May I forward to you a question from the wise Osman, which he asked me several weeks ago:
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Would you agree that it is essential to have a sound knowledge of Qur'anic Arabic and to have studied in detail Prophet Muhammad's life (for context) before deciding that you can interpret the Qur'an?
In other words, is it reasonable to expect from a 'laymen' (read:non-scholar) to truly understand Islam and the message of the Prophet?
Could you rpovide evidence that it's for business matters only...
Sura 2, verse 282. It's a long verse so I haven't pasted it here.
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?
First off, I was being hypothetical in relation to if women are truly not allowed as head of state. Secondly, I said Modern day western countries (by this I meant uk and us...).
the practical reasons you mentioned, apart from pregnancy, but we could rpevent that with mandatory birth control for female leaders,
Wouldn't that be preventing women from doing something tho? I.e they'd be forced to sacrifice that aspect in order to lead?
are not a sufficient reason to abn them from being heads of states.
Perhaps but they were just my opinions on the matter anyway - not the Islamic perspective.
Why is it bs?
Sex changes (seriously, why?!), alcohol abuse, abortion, divorce rates, knife crime, gang wars, general breakdown of social norms - all simply because it's ''my right!''. Mainly to do with ethics but they all have an impact on society because they are NOT practical. Not every single thing is impractical but generally those that differ between the two systems tend not be practical.
format_quote Originally Posted by Azy
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.
In terms of criminal law, yes (though some would argue that the punishment in those cases could be adapted to suit the social norms i.e. no capital punishment). In terms of everything else, however, it's fair game .
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)
May I forward to you a question from the wise Osman, which he asked me several weeks ago:
In other words, is it reasonable to expect from a 'laymen' (read:non-scholar) to truly understand Islam and the message of the Prophet?
it is expected that all will try to learn and understand, Islam is not so complicated, any claims as such-only scholars allowed to understand- are claims to occult knowledge, or special understanding only they are granted, as you can see this is not in agreement with the general premise of Islam being the final religion for all mankind.
I'm not a scholar, as in it is not my job, nor have I spent most of my time on religious studies although I have spent much time and effort, still I can reach my own conclusions about much of what is called fiqh and tafseer/interpretation as well as the earlier history of islam, there is a plethora of views and studies out there, and anyone sincerely trying to learn, will be able to do so without any help from scholars and the like.
most of the qur'an is open to interpretation, with the exception of verses such as:"Say: He, Allah, is One. Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten; And none is like Him".
in this case the meaning is pretty straight forward, but the general instructions that could be concluded are left to us, only the tradition of acceptance has been somewhat undermined now as before for-mostly- political ends.
for example the view that democracy per se is somehow against Islam, as well as the general low status of women and so on, these are the products not of the religion, this is quite clear to any who would bother enough to actually look at what the qur'an says about such matters, as well as how the prophet implemented it, but what happens is that some evidence that seems too dangerous is discarded, as some times happens the sects/mathahib differ on some opinion, then start bringing equally valid yet equally contradictory 'evidence',,
as I said none of the Muslim countries are rushing to adopt it, there must be a reason.
In addition to what aamirsaab said, I can also say that from an economic perspective, the Shari'ah is probably too ethical for their liking since it forbids 'Riba (usury/interest). For Saudi Arabia, Shari'ah would also mean having to get rid of their monarchy.
Regards
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
There are 53 posts in this thread from male members and 1 post from a female member, what does that tell us? Is it likely that female members are frightened to speak out against an aspect of Islam that they would prefer to ignore in the hope that it won't come there way?
I still haven't had an answer to my question on what sharia says about how the assets/wealth/salary/pension is divided on divorce; my wife knows exactly what she's entitled to, do the sisters here not know what they're are entitled to if they divorce?
There are 53 posts in this thread from male members and 1 post from a female member, what does that tell us? Is it likely that female members are frightened to speak out against an aspect of Islam that they would prefer to ignore in the hope that it won't come there way?
I still haven't had an answer to my question on what sharia says about how the assets/wealth/salary/pension is divided on divorce; my wife knows exactly what she's entitled to, do the sisters here not know what they're are entitled to if they divorce?
You like to make a lot of assumptions, don't you? Perhaps what is more likely, is that the number of males who are active in the World Affairs section outnumber the females?
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.
What real Muslim, male or female, would not want to live under true Sharee'ah? This statement of yours seems to suggest that 'educated female Muslim[s]' would rather live under man-made democratic laws than under the Laws of Allaah Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala. The very fact that these women are Muslim, would necessitate that they believe the Laws of Allaah are perfect and are far superior to any other Law. Islaam itself means to yield to Allaah with submission, and to submit to Him with Tawheed (Islaamic monotheism). And from Tawheed is to believe that Allaah's Laws are superior to any other Law, and He alone has the right to rule.
So YES, as an 'educated female Muslim', I would love to live in a society that is being governed by the Laws of Allaah, and would prefer anything closer to that than Western Democracy.
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
. Lets not forget that this declaration was signed at the height of European/Western dominance.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks