Faith enforced

[Khalaf]

^^^ Here’s a good source on Islamic Law for the gallery.

 

 

Caano I tried to reason man, but like before u wont answer a simple question. Anything outside the quran/limited number of hadiths should be debated you say, perhaps like if it is halal/haram and morally right to give 5 year olds homo books. Sure thing man.

[Caano Geel]

Khalaf,

Sorry if you felt i didn't answer the question earlier. You asked:

 

"Shariah is the Law of Allah. Caano Geel do u prefer the laws of England, (US systems ect) over Shariah? I am not talkin about talibans ect, but the idea of Shariah itself vs the idea of other systems?"

 

I believe that you have to be careful before you bestow such unquestionable authority on something. For me, you can only make that statement if and only if every word in the sharia is also in the quran. Since the sharia *also* includes rulings not directly in the quran, it is not the direct word of allah, do you disagree?

 

If that wasn't the case, then any development/debate on islamic law would of ended when the quran was compiled. Since everything would of been covered and codified.

 

As i said before, to me at least, there is nothing wrong with a system inspired by a religion, so long as it can be applied equally and fairly. Hence the ideal of the sharia, in providing for the wellbeing of all is no different to that of any other system of laws which aims for the same target, Its still simply an ideal. And still the problem again is in the how's and who's.

 

p.s.

Don't worry, you can put the mud down, it still doesn't hurt me to be reminded that i think its none of my concern if some faarax wants another, and i'd still be happy to defend and support their right to be treated equally in this world. But a question do you need a codified set of laws telling you xallaals and xaraams to be able to tell a right from wrong?

[N.O.R.F]

Oh My!

 

I see we have gone for quantity rather than quality.

 

It is evident that the naysayers are basing their arguments on the basis that the Khalifaat is not achievable in today’s world. This is but an assumption based on assumptions by others whose opinions are treated as superior (the ‘enlightened’ westerners) that we must listen to and be considered ‘progressive’ and ‘modern’. To these guys (CG, ND and JB) it is a mystery as to why we long for Sharia to be applied correctly over all Muslim lands since we are all western bred and should be thankful for secularism as Naden implied.

 

CG

 

You seem a tad confused, I provided you with a link for you to read up on the basics of Sharia and how it should be applied but you then go off on a tangent and talk about voting governments out if it fails its people while at the same ignoring (or are in denial) the fact that Khalifs are voted in themselves and guess what? By the people! So there goes your ‘freedom to elect’ argument. Having said that Labour is yet to be voted out and it looks like they will stay there for a lot longer.

 

Your comments on previous dynasties and how they gained from their rule can easily be equated with a certain Mr Bush junior and a Mr Donald Rumsfeld who were also elected in the way you clearly advocate for. A simplistic argument which deviates away from the core subject being discussed which is that of Sharia Laws Vs Secular Laws (note we are talking about the laws and how they are applied here and not history). But hey I know it’s hard for your not to stay on subject without deliberately falsifying information in the hope of gaining an advantage. Either that or you really need to read up some! Have you read any false statements from me regarding secular laws?

 

Secular Laws allowed for a convicted paedophile to be released early only for him to return to his old stomping grounds, enter a home to talk to an old school friend only for him to snatch her 3 year old daughter when she turned her back. What ensued? Sexual abuse on the 3 year old, a car chase, a manhunt and permanent damage to the little girl’s private parts. What will you do? Vote off the judge who allowed him out or the government? Ahh that’s right, your voice will make no difference and it will happen again tomorrow.

 

Maybe you are prepared to forgive paedophiles after three years in prison, rapists and murderers but we, the ‘backward’ strangers, are not!

 

What about your kid’s inheritance when you become a millionaire? Are you OK with the government taking 40% of it and for your kids to fight over the remainder since you didn’t write a will (or even if you did)? Or would you prefer their inheritance to be without any tax and already apportioned to them avoiding any disputes which may disintegrate your kids when you pass away?

 

Time to man-up and step up a few weight classes my friend. You will need to pack a bit more of a punch.

 

Naden

 

You seem to be only regurgitating what CG says.

 

Your comment on young secular raised people who want a return to the past being a mystery needs expanding. At the moment its just another attempt at ‘I’m more progressive than them because I’ve been ‘told’ secularism is the way forward’ malarkey.

 

You say there is no proof that some of the Khalifs were just but fail to give us anything on whether they were not. What is this? Selective inclination? Again, doesn’t hold much weight.

 

You state a secular government is the best environment for a believer but the same secular governments are doing things contrary to what believers want. Are you going to tell that to Muslim schoolgirls in France/Turkey who cannot practice their faith due to the very same secular laws you are advocating for? What about the Muslim woman divorcees who have to fight in secular courts to get what they should be entitled to when Islam and Sharia gave them those rights as soon they got married?

 

Same as CG, pack a punch!

[Naden]

Northerner, nice try.

 

You say there is no proof that some of the Khalifs were just but fail to give us anything on whether they were not. What is this? Selective inclination? Again, doesn’t hold much weight.

I would suggest that you consult with some primary sources (if able in Arabic), or even Wikipedia. Research names including Mu'awiah and Yazid and Haggag and Saeed Ibn El-Aas and those are in the first decades following the death of the nabi(csw) and only in the Ummayad empire. For some of these khalifas and their henchmen, it is not about justice but mass killings. It's absurd to claim that these men were beyond reproach simply because of their proximity to the revelation or else we walk into the dangerous territory of deifying people who have all human faults of power-hunger and greed. No one can claim that they committed crimes of injustice as a group; similarly, no can can make carpet claims like an earlier fellow screaming about few minor errors committed by them as group.

 

Why is this even an issue if it were not for a nostalgic cry for a better time? The people who lived then would say otherwise. Any historical analysis takes the individual, examines their decisions and actions in light of the political and social times and avoids passing judgments with today's standards.

 

Furthermore, I said a secular enovironemnt CAN be the best environment for a believer as it affords freedom of worship. Millions of muslims in the Western world can attest to that. They will never be completely just and human rights laws have a long way to go, for muslims and nonmuslims alike.

 

Are you going to tell that to Muslim schoolgirls in France/Turkey who cannot practice their faith due to the very same secular laws you are advocating for?

These laws are opposed by many, including nonmuslims, as they trample on human rights. They are changeable (as a future politician lusting after the large muslim vote will tell you), open to protests and can be overturned through civil rights suits.

 

What about the Muslim woman divorcees who have to fight in secular courts to get what they should be entitled to when Islam and Sharia gave them those rights as soon they got married?

Islam and sharia do not give rights, people and courts do. Are you referring to Muslim women in the Western world or in the Muslim world? As someone who follows civic/personal rights issues in the Arab world, it is enlightening to glance at court cases in some Muslim countries with constitutions deferring to the faith. In Egypt alone, thousands are denied their financial and custody rights in exchange for a divorce. Sure, the usual wails about Muslim law being tainted by Muslims will arise. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Caano Geel]

North,

There is no superiority complex here, just an argument on ideals, hence no need for punches, words will do. The problem is this, it seems you've walked yourself into a trap.

 

The voted Khalif is the curiosity, let me tell you why. First lets make one of two conjectures about the nature of sharia law, assume either that: (I) Its a fool proof set of divinely ordained constructs, laid down perfect and do not need any messy and quarrelsome interpretations, they just are. Or (II) Sharia gives a set of ideal guidelines which require some work from the people that apply them, for example, they may need to be interpreted to gauge their true intention, suitability and application.

 

These are two extremes anything in the middle would say that some laws are divine and others are not, and so would land in the second category of ideals that require work, since at the very least we would obviously need to part the divine from the human.

 

Now the problem is that in the first case, since everything is laid down and obviously why would you need some one to propose or arbitrate how to apply it. At the very most you would only need an enforcer to curtail deviations. The problem here is that there is no need for a khalif, at that an elected one. Since everything is plain and obvious from the go and there cannot be any deviations on what is obvious, what would you be voting for? what is there to select between -- unless obviously the job description of the khalif is now that of an enforcer.

 

In the second case, the situation would of conceded that there are some opinions that are more worthwhile/valid than others. As such, if those that choose are the people governed rather than an elite, you would need to introduce argumentation and discourse to the process, where everything is relative to what the population considers important for them and those making the most persuasive arguments attain the vote and power. Otherwise what would be the point of voting.

 

The problem here is that you've just recreated the modern political machine i.e. everyone has a say - and at that, in the words of xiin "dare i say it" a democratic process (careful, I can see you wincing behind the screen there) - ask your self how is it any different - aside from the fact your now using an arabic name.

 

There is another problem here too. The population is faced with having to choose between "persuasive arguments", how do you make sure these are consistent with a 'sharia' that is open to discussion? Would you have them approved and vetted first, possibly by a Majlis that would decide what are valid subjects for people to able to discuss? would they also be elected or just appointed .. You can see where this goes, the buck must stop somewhere, either everything is up for selection or nothing is.

 

 

Next we come to the peodophile and rapist tale... I don't really want to lower the argument to this but it must buried. What your doing there is commonly known as the "politics of fear", is hollow and repetitive.

 

It is the argument that says women in xijabs represent the segregation that creates the next suicide bombers, so we'll ban the xijab. Remember the French case you were so fond of ... they used the same argument. Its the same argument that is used to justify the large number of 'random' searches i somehow attract when ever I fly... You get votes when you scare people, not policies and at that nothing beyond the draconian with no foresight.

 

The problems of crime are nothing new, there is no crime that hasn't been committed repeatedly from the moment its feasibility was sussed. So yes, my voice is no different, sadly it happened yesterday and it will happen tomorrow and with all due sympathy for victims of such horrendous crimes, i don't think your backward, but if you read any research on crime i think you will find that the effective solutions are not just punishment but prevention, restoration, accountability and treatment.

 

Btw, being in tax break heaven, you may have forgotten that tax laws are always a voters fav. subject .

 

Now, with regard to your resentment of your past, I'm sure you suffered under the laws that educated you with such impeccable English. I'm sure that they gave you no opportunity to advance yourself, and blocked your every avenue to worship and practice your faith as you saw fit. You really must of suffered brother.

 

p.s. Turkey's government is a very thin veil over a military dictatorship. The system that Ataturk setup was specifically designed to suppress any outward religion for fear that it may hinder a weird notion of 'modernity', not, to provide an open forum for ideas and debate. And France is Xenophobic, they hated and feared the jews before the muslims arrived there and now they have just transplanted their phobias and prejudices to the muslims, namely the Algerians and Moroccans and if you've ever been there, you would see that its just plain racism. Having said that, the law says that it "applies" (deliberate quotes) to skull caps and visible crosses too..

 

one last thing.

You have made no distiction between sharia and khalifet - which is why i have assumed that one implies the other for you here. They are not so tightly coupled, khalifets have existed without Sharia in the past.

[Khalaf]

Caano thanks man I was curious in what you thought about shariah since your previous stances have never been clear, and you answered it with that shariah: “is no different to that of any other system of laws”. The Quran, Sunnah, and consensus of the ulama is no different for example then the constitution of the founding fathers of America since they according to your view “aim for the same target”. Taan laabad, you would defend homosexuality as a “right” even though the Quran clearly condemns this act. I guess u know where I am going with this, but I was only curious and ask the gallery and you: can one be muslim while holding those views? Its not my bidness to each their way but just curious what you and others think about that.

 

“But a question do you need a codified set of laws telling you xallaals and xaraams to be able to tell a right from wrong?”

 

^^^What is the reason of Messengers? What is point of the Quran as a Book of guideness? What is the point of being Muslim if we do not do what is xalaal and keep away from what is haram?

[N.O.R.F]

Naden

 

The first part of your last post is not what I referred to earlier as the ‘early’ Caliphs. The first four Caliphs where the ‘early’ rightly guided Caliphs (Al-Khulafa-ur-Rashidun). These are the one’s, namely Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra), who I had in mind. They lived simple and righteous lives and strove hard for the religion of Allah. Their justice was impartial, their treatment of others was kind, and they were at one with the people. After these four, the later Caliphs assumed the manners of kings and emperors and the true spirit of equality of ruler and ruled diminished to a considerable extent in the political life of Muslims. Having said that I admit I don’t know enough about the latter Caliphs to be able to make any informed comments and I’m sure we agree that the first four Caliphs were indeed just and rightly guided.

 

So, looking at today’s corrupt practices by all governments, why can I not long for such a period to return? A period of justice for all which will lead to greater things like unity among Muslims. You can call it nostalgia and play the ‘it wont work/we have progressed’ line all you like but the crux of the matter is secularism has nothing on Sharia when applied correctly as per the four rightly guided Caliphs.

 

Furthermore, I said a secular enovironemnt CAN be the best environment for a believer as it affords freedom of worship. Millions of muslims in the Western world can attest to that. They will never be completely just and human rights laws have a long way to go, for muslims and nonmuslims alike.

Freedom of worship has always been present within Sharia and non-Muslims can practice their religions. If the Sharia is followed correctly, they will always be completely just unlike secular laws which change when what the govnt sees as a threat needs to be tackled ie ‘too many little Hijaabis in France threatens our secular values’.

 

These laws are opposed by many, including nonmuslims, as they trample on human rights. They are changeable (as a future politician lusting after the large muslim vote will tell you), open to protests and can be overturned through civil rights suits.

So they tell us. Why would one advocate for laws which can be chopped and changed to suit ‘the times’ or to make a gain? Does that not make it a redundant system when it’s minorities are the target or the groups with the least financial/political clout? Today’s political scenaria, which I’m sure you will agree with, is all about big bucks. The highest bidder wins not to mention the misinformation used to malign those who are targets of such desired policy shifts through the bidding process. What a system!

 

Islam and sharia do not give rights, people and courts do. Are you referring to Muslim women in the Western world or in the Muslim world? As someone who follows civic/personal rights issues in the Arab world, it is enlightening to glance at court cases in some Muslim countries with constitutions deferring to the faith. In Egypt alone, thousands are denied their financial and custody rights in exchange for a divorce. Sure, the usual wails about Muslim law being tainted by Muslims will arise. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are obviously, like CG, hanging onto the examples of the same corrupt regimes/processes which I have already spoken against and stated their lack of Sharia compliance to further your argument. Its not about having my cake and eating it (nice way of covering your behind by the way). Rather, your denial that Sharia Law (the correct and proper Sharia Law and NOT the one used by the same corrupt regimes you keep referring to in your comments) is superior to the secular laws you are advocating for. I’m sure you are well aware of the rights of women when they marry in Islam but hey I guess it would be detrimental to your stance if you stated it.

[Legend of Zu]

To the debators here, While I am admiring the civility of your debates as well as how you maintaining the flow of the debate, I do beleive you need a moderator or at least you would need to understand how each of you defines what they are discussing.

 

Saying that, I will start with this question: -

In your own way or in the actual definition of the sharia in the Islamic text, can any of you define what the Sharia Law is?...I am talking to the debators here [those who would like join to this debate can start with the definition of Sharia Law as asked above]

 

Perhaps you [the readers] are asking why in the world am I asking a question of wich the answer is not only well known but even a non beleiver can articulate it to a Texan Ranger [Chuck Norris] as good as G Bush can pronounce Al-Kayda ....Does this mean I have to state my reason for the question or I am falling into the trap where I am taking the reader for granted or even for a fool? but since I am an aspiring Ngonge wanna-be I will state it anyway

 

The reason is simple I see some of us are confusing governance/admin of laws with creating laws or even to certain extent they do not understand the Sharia law is derived from the Quran and the Sunnah and it is based on one's understanding of the two sources aforementioned.

 

Some of you do really need to reflect on how they define Sharia Law

 

On the other hand, you can't help but see that some are equating regimes to the rule of law whilst the rule is correct a regime could be bypassing these rules, no? regardless of the source of the rules they are defying!

 

Altho I have hinted my definition [more like my understaing of it] of Sharia Law I would come on a later date to define it properly. In the meantime I would like our resident debators to define it. Then I am be fully engaged!!!

 

Cheers

[N.O.R.F]

^^ Time is an issue with regard to your questions ya LOZ.

 

CG

 

Your first four or five paragraphs are neither here nor there and most of those questions can be answered through (again) some reading up on Sharia and the how it was applied by the early Khaliphs (first four Khaliphs). I don’t have the time to provide you with info that can be easily looked up by yourself.

 

As to your concerns of whether the people have a voice to express their opinions in a manner befitting and ensuring equality, I have already given you the answer in the affirmative. It is down to you to either disprove it or accept it. Again, the information is out there for you to make that judgement.

 

So you think I may be ‘re-creating’ the modern political system if there are similarities in terms of people having the right to speak? Maybe, just maybe ya CG, the modern political system you talk of and advocate for have major influences (the influences of equality etc) from Muslims who applied the Sharia in Islamic countries? I don’t remember hearing Queen Victory listening to anyone’s grievances in our history lessons. Visit the London dungeon and see her ‘majlis’. You obviously have something ingrained in your mind which says secularism is the best system complete with a belief of it being the first system in the world ever! News is its probably less than 200 hundred years old and the Sharia is some 1200 year older. If any ‘re-creating’ is going on, then I’m afraid its secularism. Who was free to practice other religions before secularism hit Europe? You either practiced Christianity or not and the Jews were persecuted so where did they get this notion of giving people freedom to practice religion? Did it come from an observation of the practice within Islamic countries by any chance???? Not saying its fact but it is possible.

 

The paedophile case I used as an example, was to illustrate my belief that the laws of Islam are superior to that secularism where by the punishment would be the deterrent rather than a 3-year jail term with parole. Call it scare mongering all you want as that’s an easy option for you to do. I will await any secular laws you believe are superior to the laws in Sharia. That’s what this is all about at the end of the day. One set of laws Vs another.

 

The tax laws are a voter’s favourite subject but the same voter has been complaining about the council tax increases every year for god knows how long. Has anything changed? Will any new govnt change it ie lower it? A big phat NO me thinks.

 

The laws that educated me and gave me that education for free are of course appreciated. But how exactly are those laws different to the laws in the UAE for instance where people (nationals) get free education? Are you implying that living under Sharia doesn’t entitle one to free education? Or is it just a ‘show appreciation to the secular UK where you got educated’? The latter is rather a cry for help.

 

France does apply the laws to skullcaps and crosses but how many of them do you see in France? If you see a Jew in France I’ll reimburse the cost of your holiday saxib and crosses are few and far between in an ultra secular country. The main reason was the very visible Hijaabi presence which had crept into France and French society. I have been to the place and those Parisian suburbs are a far cry from the lavish touristy spots.

 

In this instance Sharia and Khalifaat are related to the time of the four rightly guided Khaliphs.