Faith enforced

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by Thierry:

The guy asked you a simple question since the governing law in a Muslim country is Islam should the masses be governed by it.

 

What is this nonsense about justice or no justice? I live in Britain and I frankly think most of their legal rulings are absurd and unjust; (detaining people for 28 without any charge) does that give me a reason to oppose the law.

 

Similar in nations governed by Shariah law since they have their rulings and Jurisprudence which I personally think if adhered to properly is the most just rule of law in the world even for non Muslim.

If it is crime for a Muslim to apostate publicly in Malaysia then the women knew of the law before she decided to go public.

 

The funny thing is as soon people see something they personally don’t like in Islam the finger pointing starts mainly to the “fat rich Arabs”. Apparently these people are the root of all evil ignoring the basic fundamentals of Islam as a faith for all and not for a selected few.

Ps: The Arab leadership of Islam ended with the fall of the Abbasid dynasty almost a thousand year ago

The Sheria gives full rights for non-Muslims to practice their religion. Secular Laws in France do not do the same for the Hijaabi sisters. Yet they are focusing on the misuse of power by Muslim rulers and calling it Sharia with cleverly written articles which, if one is not careful, looks believable (ala the article in this thread).

 

I wonder if we can compare the rights of individuals in Sharia Law Vs Secular Laws. Too teams as such. It will require some research but its doable.

 

Any challengers?

[Caano Geel]

Theiry,

I agree with you on the 28 day ruling, and signed the petition against it (which made a difference since the original proposal was 90 days) but the fight is not over. And yes it does give you a reason to oppose it, being a secular law it also gives you the tools to do so in the form of argumentation, petition and a vote. But lets come back to the facts on the ground.

 

I remember that the first mass rally against the afghanistan campaign coincided with the first day of ramadam, and the police had cordoned off Trafalgar sq. for us, we prayed with thousands of other muslims surrounded by the symbols of the government we were protesting against, food and drink was provided courtesy of westminster council and local mosques, when the ducca was said, the whole square muslims and non-muslims alike said 'Aamiin' with us.

 

So please, before we next boost of the superiority of this over over that, ask why the city you live in has one the most diverse and dynamic muslim communities in the world and why it has become a home for so many exiles - surely it can't because they all like the taste of the hard water.

 

Sharia or any other law is meant to provide a fair and yes *just* protocol of conduct for a population. If its not doing that, its failing. So lets not develop a name-cult over the word "sharia" and start defending something just because it happens to use the word. It no better than the 28 ruling that vexes you so much.

 

norf,

wrt " Is this in accordance with Sharia? "

If sharia is based on Islam, where in the quran does it say that you have no choice over your faith?

[N.O.R.F]

CG,

 

If sharia is based on Islam, where in the quran does it say that you have no choice over your faith?

Nowhere, but when did i say it did?

 

Now.

 

Not one govnt is currently practicing Sharia Law. Selectively yes but not 100% and with much hypocracy. One cannot compare these regimes who say they are Sharia compliant with that of a secular nation allowing you to protest and giving you food and drink while doing so.

 

Compare the Sharia of the times of the just Caliphs to todays secular UK laws and we may have something to chew on.

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by Northerner:

Compare the Sharia of the times of the just Caliphs to todays secular UK laws and we may have something to chew on.

I would love to, but sadly my time-machine is out of action right now.

Anyhow, while that remains the case, have we found a way to identify the just people that will practice the just law yet?

 

p.s.

You didn't say that people could not choose their faith, but if your still defending that Malay courts ruling, your defending a law that does say that, and in agreeing with them, your also saying it.

[N.O.R.F]

^^An abbundance. Sadly it will mean many losing their riches and those who have much to lose are determined through means contrary to their deen to hang on to it.

 

ps I'm not defending the Malay court ruling if their actions are defined as 'coercion' into keeping one a Muslim (which i think it is). This is contrary to Sharia.

 

pps these are my opinions only

[Caano Geel]

^ right and if i dont agree with them?

[N.O.R.F]

^^If you dont agree with a ruler who wishes to abide by the tenets of his faith in relation to those he is ruling over then I'm afraid you will just have to go to the majlis and air your views

[Caano Geel]

My point is with the definition of to "abide by the tenets of his faith". Since any Majlis will be there to arbitrate on an interpretation of what has been defined.

 

Now if we go to "tenants" there are only 5 basic pillars, and a handful of *direct* rulings mentioned in the sunnah and quran. Beyond that we come to the interpretation of the scholars, the ulema.

 

So, whose interpretation is valid, under what circumstance, how is it ratified and how does it get updated/evolve (or maybe it doesn't need to!) and what constitutes to valid argument against it.

 

Remember, since people are too dump to know what is good for them, we can't go back letting people decide on consensus, otherwise we will be going back to the evidently evil "secular" law.

[N.O.R.F]

^^I had a feeling you would prefer mass demonstrations as apposed to direct talks!

 

So, whose interpretation is valid, under what circumstance, how is it ratified and how does it get updated/evolve (or maybe it doesn't need to!) and what constitutes to valid argument against it.

A consensus amongst the scholars is obviously going to provide the ‘interpretational’ framework. The same process (a consensus) will be used for any necessary ‘updates’. The scholars would have already ironed any arguments against any points. If you wish to challenge the scholars then you will need to go to the Majlis rather than walk the streets with a placard in a vain hope of getting noticed let alone any discourse or getting things changed.

 

Since you are willing to trust politicians to do things for you or your cause based on the right to protest, why are you not willing to do the same for learned scholars based on your right to go to the Majlis?

[Caano Geel]

a major difference saaxiib, you can vote out the politicians you vote in, along with their policies.

If you are fond of the silent population and autocratic and learned theocracy, there are a few next door in the KSA, Israel and Iran.. I hear they are doing wondrous things for the word progress. .. or are we still time-traveling?

[N.O.R.F]

^^Yeah right. Will voting Labour out tomorrow and installing the Tories mean a withdrawal from Iraq? Or shall we wait for the Respect party to become a prominent force? Give me a break please.

 

I'm beginning to think your distorted comments on Sharia are done on purpose just to malign it. You are well aware (and I’ve already stated) that no nation is currently fully applying Sharia law but you keep referring to its shortcomings based on examples I’ve already stated against!

 

Wassup? Scared if you actually read up on Sharia and how it was applied before its corruption may actually make you agree with it?

 

Cut the 'ignorant' tag please!

[N.O.R.F]

Some homework

[N.O.R.F]

Some homework

[Caano Geel]

North, thank you for the link, luckily you don't need to educate me on what a Khaliphate is via a brand new second hand pass me down of regurgitated words.

 

Religious Jurisprudence such as Sharia is not on trail here, there is nothing wrong with the notion, the question is what goes in it, who decides and how... and since we've moved from Ms Joy, and on to this topic, i'm wont be using the 'ignorant tag', i'll be telling you that you don't know what your talking about.

 

You are clinging onto what are worthwhile ideals, but which can sadly only ever be installed in either a completely homogeneous society or under the personality cult of a charismatic leadership or under a dynastic type rule were a single interest point is propagated - otherwise you have deal with a heterogeneous society where the views of its members (god forbid) may change - sadly the first one doesn't exist, the second is called a cult, and the third is a monarchy, khaliphate or a plutocracy, and none likes to share power. Power and rule always stay in the system. Wanna prove me wrong, tell me about the social mobility of a khalif.

 

What really intrigues me is the way that when you reference classic islamic civilisations like the Umayyads and Abbasid dynasties you are able to separate their political motives from their actions, as though they gained nothing from their position and their decisions or laws were inconsequential to their power and only benevolence was the overriding incentive behind their admirable expansions and advancements. This relegation of history to 'conventional wisdom' with only ethereal gains is not just deluded, but wrong and troubling.

 

Talking of deluded, lets take this wacky idea of a *democracy* on shall we and apply it to the example you cited.

If labour is voted out tomorrow *based on* the Blair governments Iraq campaign, then by definition yes, the war would end. Because people would be voting *against* the war and only those parties against the war would be able to attract significant votes. Therefore, its not about taking down a government, but convincing the population of your ideas and ideals.

 

Having said that, labour has already lost a significant number of seats and support due to its warmongering. If this was not the case, then, there would be no capital to be gained when politicians from other camps or the media harass labour with the latest death tolls and government ministers would not be up there week in and week inventing new ways to scare the population into believing more Iraqi's need killing - it simply wouldn't be done since it would be a waste of time. Sadly with regard to the current situation, the millage gained from preaching the devastation caused in iraq, is negligible compared to that gained from scaring people with the (thankfully) dismally small chance that they might be victim of some terrorist attack.

 

For recent examples of the public turning against a british governments war, look at the collapse of Anthony Aden government after the Suez campaign. Or america's response to the vietnam body bags -(incidentally also the reason why there is still a partial ban on showing americans returning in coffins there). Or closer to home, the effect lack of popular credibility has on the TFG with regard to the funding and support it receives from everyone except the americans. So sadly, the theory works and in practice, it needs the people to make the arguments and to convey the ideas.

 

In short, if you just want to be ruled without any thought on your part, we'd be happy to oblige.

[Naden]

This relegation of history to 'conventional wisdom' with only ethereal gains is not just deluded, but wrong and troubling.

CG, what is even more troubling is the number of young people reared and bred in so-called secular laws handing over their brain to these new calls for a return to the past. Impoverished and hopeless youth in the muslim world, their future cannibalized by a parasitic upperclass, are rightly drawn to this utopic return of a khalifa who will do justice by them. How the wealthy, western-bred ones subscribe to this is a mystery.

 

There is no proof that those termed khalifas (a political position that has nothing to do with the faith) or sahabas were any more just as a group than others who are nonkhalifa/nonsahaba. Save for a few direct laws (mostly concerned with personal/civic rights such as marriage, divorce, inheritance), there is no reason to believe that what is termed sharia as a whole is a God ordained system of governace.

 

Northerner claims that there is no nation is currently fully applying Sharia law . A question would be what is stopping them? The books are there, the muftis and their majlis are there, and the military resources are there as well. Why isn't the KSA enforcing this full version after 1400 years of practice?

 

If the courts forcing this woman to remain Muslim by name are following the sharia, then their brand of sharia is not following the quran as it gives freedom of belief. Corollaries and exceptions imagined by religious writers over the centuries, notwithstanding. She chooses not to be a muslim any longer and does not want muslim laws to apply to her. If she is transgressing by so doing, then she's not transgressing against the Malay courts or the 80 youth groups because as the quran says again, people only take responsibility for their sins.