Category: Europe, Faith & Spirituality Topics: Christianity Views: 5347
5347
Thoughtful Discourse or Hysterical Discord over Shariah
 |
| Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams |
In a statement the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that it was grateful for the thoughtful intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in Britain today.
The statement further noted that MCB was saddened by the hysterical misrepresentations of his speech which serves only to drive a wedge between British people.
"The Archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain. His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Shariah Law and that only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights", said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the MCB.
British Muslims are not calling for creation of different legal systems, nor is the Archbishop. We do not wish to see a parallel system or a separate system of judiciary for Muslims. The Archbishop sought in his speech to explore the possibilities of an accommodation between English law and some aspects of Islamic personal law.
British Muslims would wish to seek parity with other faiths in particular the followers of the Jewish faith in the United Kingdom in facilitating choices for those who wish, as Muslims, for their personal relationships to be governed by a Shariah civil code. This legitimate aspiration requires full discussion in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance. It is worthy of note that already enshrined in English law are provisions for Islamic Shariah compliant finance which have become very popular and now enable billions of pounds of fresh investment to come into the UK.
'Our common mission to live in cohesion and harmony is better served when men of conscience and authority speak out for justice and equal opportunity. Silence is much more likely to engender prejudice, injustice and inequality. On the issue of giving individuals choice of law but only in private and personal matters, we call, as does the Archbishop, for a mature debate in an environment that reflects mutual respect.' said Dr Bari.
For information about Shariah you can read the following article.
Shariah - The Essence of Islamic Law by Dr. Robert Dickson Crane
Related Suggestions
Older Comments:
KRIS MACPHERSON FROM MALAYSIA said:
My reply to Yohan,
I am now replying to you, not out of disrespect to your faith but to present a case from the Islamic perpective. Firstly I took this long to reply was because of my busy travelling itinerary. I didn't have time to even open my lap top. Now time is permitting.
Yohan, your first attack in your post was on the Sharia. I had replied to that one. You nevertheless did not give a counter reply.
Secondly in your indirect condemnations of Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh ) you counter replied by stating that he ( pbuh ) is a redundant Prophet.
Again, I repeat that it is the integral part of the Syahadah that a Muslim affirms that there is NO GOD but ALLAH and Muhammad is HIS Messenger. How then can the Prophet ( pbuh ) be a redundant Prophet ? Where is the redundancy here ?
And you did mentioned in your last paragraph that " if I met the Prophet face to face and talk to him seeking his opinions regarding variation of contents or different interpretations of the same content, I would decide and behave accordingly.."
Look, I have never met Jesus ( Jesus - peace be upon him ) face to face and I think I never would ( not in my life time in this world unless ALLAH permits ) although I would love to meet him. But not meeting Jesus ( J-PBUH ) doesn't mean that I do not believe in him as a Prophet. Infact not meeting Jesus ( J-pbuh ) means that I love him, and his teachings as what the Quran described about him. Muslims love Jesus, they reverred him and he ( J-pbuh ) is one of the " Ulul Azmi ". Even not meeting Jesus ( J-pbuh ), I still pray for him. Even not meting Jesus ( J-pbuh ) I still look forth for his coming to this world, and again I say, if ALLAH permits, I may even meet him in my life time.
That is faith Yohan, you don't have to insist on meeting the messengers of ALLAH but one can believe in the revealation of ALLAH on them. And that is indepth in my soul and in that of all righteous Muslims.
I am now replying to you, not out of disrespect to your faith but to present a case from the Islamic perpective. Firstly I took this long to reply was because of my busy travelling itinerary. I didn't have time to even open my lap top. Now time is permitting.
Yohan, your first attack in your post was on the Sharia. I had replied to that one. You nevertheless did not give a counter reply.
Secondly in your indirect condemnations of Prophet Muhammad ( pbuh ) you counter replied by stating that he ( pbuh ) is a redundant Prophet.
Again, I repeat that it is the integral part of the Syahadah that a Muslim affirms that there is NO GOD but ALLAH and Muhammad is HIS Messenger. How then can the Prophet ( pbuh ) be a redundant Prophet ? Where is the redundancy here ?
And you did mentioned in your last paragraph that " if I met the Prophet face to face and talk to him seeking his opinions regarding variation of contents or different interpretations of the same content, I would decide and behave accordingly.."
Look, I have never met Jesus ( Jesus - peace be upon him ) face to face and I think I never would ( not in my life time in this world unless ALLAH permits ) although I would love to meet him. But not meeting Jesus ( J-PBUH ) doesn't mean that I do not believe in him as a Prophet. Infact not meeting Jesus ( J-pbuh ) means that I love him, and his teachings as what the Quran described about him. Muslims love Jesus, they reverred him and he ( J-pbuh ) is one of the " Ulul Azmi ". Even not meeting Jesus ( J-pbuh ), I still pray for him. Even not meting Jesus ( J-pbuh ) I still look forth for his coming to this world, and again I say, if ALLAH permits, I may even meet him in my life time.
That is faith Yohan, you don't have to insist on meeting the messengers of ALLAH but one can believe in the revealation of ALLAH on them. And that is indepth in my soul and in that of all righteous Muslims.
2008-03-04
ACE FROM CANADA said:
Yohan,Why did you refer to Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) as a redundant prophet?.By your logic the Jews would be justified in referring to Jesus( Esa peace be upon him) as a redundant prophet since he was reaffirming the teachings of their Prophet Moses(Peace be upon him).All the Prophets, from Adam to Muhammad were sent by Allah the ONE GOD.Their message is universally the same but they each brought additional spiritual guidance to add to their predecessors and also to correct any corrupted teachings of their predecessors.Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Moses mission were similiar in that they were not only spritual leaders but heads of state and as such Allah sent them with the Law of Equality(Shariah) so that they would be able to govern in a just and equitable manner.In one of the Gospel Jesus said "Think not that I come to abolish the Law,I am not come to abolish but to fulfil and anyone who change one jot(smallest letter in the Jewish alphabet) of the law will be called least in the Kingdom of God".This is clear evidence that Jesus upholds the shariah.Christians like yourself like to think that we Muslims are enemies of Jesus because we may say that something in the Bible is incorrect.Muslims can never be an enemy to Jesus because he is a Prophet of Allah and Allah has made it very clear that anyone who is an enemy to a Prophet of Allah is an enemy to Allah.In Islam we have the Quran which is the word of God,then we have the hadith which is the word of the Prophet Muhammad and then we have what people write about the Prophet and we jealously keep them apart never to intermix them or confuse one for the other.In Christianity all three sources are intermixed in the Bible and they are all called the word of God.The word of God should never be polluted with the word of man.
2008-02-21
YOHAN FROM BHUTAN said:
"I know well in your writing you are condemning Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ). So why don't you be outright about it so that it's easy for Muslims to know your outright condemnation of our Holy Prophet" asks Kris MacPherson
Mac Pherson, you have made a right observation that I wrote some good things about Islam {since it is associated with the name of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, Massiah Y'Shua, whom the Muslims call Issa and that Islam =
1. Issa + Aslam, (Christ is good)
2. Issa + Salaam (Christ is peace, peace to him etc.)}
I have decided not to change from this stand since both of them are biblically correct. I may have worked this out for my personal defense against the defilements from contacts to worldliness in my worldly walk. I do not want this rich, nourishing meal of our souls given from heaven to be defiled by the abundance of flies which equally devour other filth. It is on this line that I am for Islam and the Muslims and lasts so long as they do not swerve to devour other filths.
Regarding the judgment of the prophet you honor so much, it is not a personal, physical matter that I might be involved headlong against. The variance is expressed ideologically and the cause of the variation is spiritual involving maligning the established biblical doctrines. So, I do not leave my place to go fighting against a redundant prophet. I rather stay quiet in my place resisting any impositions and keeping my head pure to welcome any that turn to God with repentance.
This stand at present is due to representation of the prophet by media, Muslims' doctrinal behavior, incidences in the world in regard to the relationship between the people of the Quran and the Bible. If I met the prophet face to face in peace and talk with him seeking his opinions regarding the variation of contents or different interpretation of the same content, I would decide and behave accordingly.
Peace.
Mac Pherson, you have made a right observation that I wrote some good things about Islam {since it is associated with the name of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, Massiah Y'Shua, whom the Muslims call Issa and that Islam =
1. Issa + Aslam, (Christ is good)
2. Issa + Salaam (Christ is peace, peace to him etc.)}
I have decided not to change from this stand since both of them are biblically correct. I may have worked this out for my personal defense against the defilements from contacts to worldliness in my worldly walk. I do not want this rich, nourishing meal of our souls given from heaven to be defiled by the abundance of flies which equally devour other filth. It is on this line that I am for Islam and the Muslims and lasts so long as they do not swerve to devour other filths.
Regarding the judgment of the prophet you honor so much, it is not a personal, physical matter that I might be involved headlong against. The variance is expressed ideologically and the cause of the variation is spiritual involving maligning the established biblical doctrines. So, I do not leave my place to go fighting against a redundant prophet. I rather stay quiet in my place resisting any impositions and keeping my head pure to welcome any that turn to God with repentance.
This stand at present is due to representation of the prophet by media, Muslims' doctrinal behavior, incidences in the world in regard to the relationship between the people of the Quran and the Bible. If I met the prophet face to face in peace and talk with him seeking his opinions regarding the variation of contents or different interpretation of the same content, I would decide and behave accordingly.
Peace.
2008-02-19
KRIS MACPHERSON FROM MALAYSIA said:
Yohan Dahal,
Full of rhetorics as usual. I used to respect your ways of replying or putting forth your views, but recently your poor choice of words made me wonder what really is the kind of person you are. Why don't you be direct in your post rather than hiding behind terminologies that many knows, are referred to Muslims.
What have you read about the Shariah that made you feel competant to comment on it. Yes, it is the duty in Islam for Muslims to punish sinners but then those " hadd " punishments are only mentioned in a few verses and Chapters of the Quran. Most touches on forgiveness and mercy, fairness and justice.
Yohan, I see in many ways your condemnations of righteous Muslims, you contradicted yourselves many times. While you wrote a few good points on Islam, but in actual fact, in your conclusion you are condemning it. Let me tell you this Yohan, a person doesn't become a Muslim until he takes the syahadah, i.e. to testify that there is NO GOD but ALLAH and Muhammad is HIS messenger. I know well in your writing you are condemning Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ). So why don't you be outright about it so that it's easy for Muslims to know your outright condemnation of our Holy Prophet ( s.a.w ). And just before I conclude, while you are entitled to your own opinion ( since you are not a Muslim ) I reapeat it again, there is only one Quran for Muslims, unlike your many versions of the bible, and there is Only One GOD, ALLAH the Most Compassionate and Most Merciful, unlike your trinity. And don't you deny it.
Full of rhetorics as usual. I used to respect your ways of replying or putting forth your views, but recently your poor choice of words made me wonder what really is the kind of person you are. Why don't you be direct in your post rather than hiding behind terminologies that many knows, are referred to Muslims.
What have you read about the Shariah that made you feel competant to comment on it. Yes, it is the duty in Islam for Muslims to punish sinners but then those " hadd " punishments are only mentioned in a few verses and Chapters of the Quran. Most touches on forgiveness and mercy, fairness and justice.
Yohan, I see in many ways your condemnations of righteous Muslims, you contradicted yourselves many times. While you wrote a few good points on Islam, but in actual fact, in your conclusion you are condemning it. Let me tell you this Yohan, a person doesn't become a Muslim until he takes the syahadah, i.e. to testify that there is NO GOD but ALLAH and Muhammad is HIS messenger. I know well in your writing you are condemning Prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ). So why don't you be outright about it so that it's easy for Muslims to know your outright condemnation of our Holy Prophet ( s.a.w ). And just before I conclude, while you are entitled to your own opinion ( since you are not a Muslim ) I reapeat it again, there is only one Quran for Muslims, unlike your many versions of the bible, and there is Only One GOD, ALLAH the Most Compassionate and Most Merciful, unlike your trinity. And don't you deny it.
2008-02-17
YOHAN FROM BHUTAN said:
From the time of Adam (the father of human race) to the time of Abraham (the father of those keeping faith in one true God) there continues the existence of elderly descendants claiming common parentage but with different interest, inheriting the fallen nature of man forming the body of the beast by fulfilling its lust of killing the witnesses of truth. Of this beast the blessed Messiah mentioned that he abode not in the truth being a murderer from the beginning. So, he abode not in the truth neither goes along well with the witnesses of the truth. It is beautifully expressed in Shariah (that involves changing of the Law and the times) forbidding the testimony of Jesus Christ by encouraging it's adherents to kill His disciples, a case known to be existing in the Muslim lands at present...
Having thus eliminated the body of public witness of the Messiah in their places of origin in the Middle East, the serpent is slithering as a peaceful creature in the Europe and the Americas to clean the lands of their noisome rodents of gays, lesbians, witches along with the body of testifying Christians!
The variance exists here, and the battlefield, too. For the believers, the truth is expressed as a man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that Law is a teacher that exposes human weaknesses and leads the needy souls to the deliverer. Shariah literally amputes or kills the sinners and promotes hypocrisy to perform good deeds, as if any deed has ever delivered any doer... This is far from being near the Divine Law that leads the weak souls to the deliverer through repentance, giving human being a second chance to live with a new heart. Shariah is a religious slavery! It conforms the harshness of Sinai and not the grace of Zion where the temple stood with mediating priest!!
Having thus eliminated the body of public witness of the Messiah in their places of origin in the Middle East, the serpent is slithering as a peaceful creature in the Europe and the Americas to clean the lands of their noisome rodents of gays, lesbians, witches along with the body of testifying Christians!
The variance exists here, and the battlefield, too. For the believers, the truth is expressed as a man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that Law is a teacher that exposes human weaknesses and leads the needy souls to the deliverer. Shariah literally amputes or kills the sinners and promotes hypocrisy to perform good deeds, as if any deed has ever delivered any doer... This is far from being near the Divine Law that leads the weak souls to the deliverer through repentance, giving human being a second chance to live with a new heart. Shariah is a religious slavery! It conforms the harshness of Sinai and not the grace of Zion where the temple stood with mediating priest!!
2008-02-15
PAAGLE FROM USA said:
Imran:
"Tell that to the thousands of Palestinians whose family members you have killed and to the thousands who live in Gaza without basic human rights thanks to Israel's policy of hatred."
That is a very significant exception, as you correctly point out. I was thinking of Jews outside their homeland, but you are correct that their behviour in that one tiny sliver of land, from which they do not seek to expand, has often been atrocious. Of course, there are two sides to this debate, and Jews would be correct in noting that their lives in the land of their origin, the Middle East, were always precarious over the many centuries before Israel. Of course it was precarious in Europe as well (where they were immigrants). The difference today is that Europeans largely repent of their past behavior. The Grand Mufti of Palestine was an admirer of Hitler, and rather than repenting of this man's attrocious views, the current elected leaders of Palestine openly call for the destruction of Israel and work to achieve it through indiscriminate violence.
I am curious how "I" have killed Palestinians. I am not an Israeli citizen, nor am I even Jewish. I don't support many Isreali policies, including the effective imprisoning of Gaza and the West Bank and the construction of settlments outside the '67 borders. Do you really think simply paying my taxes as a US citizen that I am murdering Palestinians?
Before you go making equivalence statements between my distrust of Islamic law in part because of bad actions of some Muslims and the assertion that all US citizens are collectively responsible for Israeli actions, keep in mind that I'm not blaming non-radical Muslims for the actions of their co-religionists. I am simply questioning their ability and will to limit the influence of the radicals.
"Tell that to the thousands of Palestinians whose family members you have killed and to the thousands who live in Gaza without basic human rights thanks to Israel's policy of hatred."
That is a very significant exception, as you correctly point out. I was thinking of Jews outside their homeland, but you are correct that their behviour in that one tiny sliver of land, from which they do not seek to expand, has often been atrocious. Of course, there are two sides to this debate, and Jews would be correct in noting that their lives in the land of their origin, the Middle East, were always precarious over the many centuries before Israel. Of course it was precarious in Europe as well (where they were immigrants). The difference today is that Europeans largely repent of their past behavior. The Grand Mufti of Palestine was an admirer of Hitler, and rather than repenting of this man's attrocious views, the current elected leaders of Palestine openly call for the destruction of Israel and work to achieve it through indiscriminate violence.
I am curious how "I" have killed Palestinians. I am not an Israeli citizen, nor am I even Jewish. I don't support many Isreali policies, including the effective imprisoning of Gaza and the West Bank and the construction of settlments outside the '67 borders. Do you really think simply paying my taxes as a US citizen that I am murdering Palestinians?
Before you go making equivalence statements between my distrust of Islamic law in part because of bad actions of some Muslims and the assertion that all US citizens are collectively responsible for Israeli actions, keep in mind that I'm not blaming non-radical Muslims for the actions of their co-religionists. I am simply questioning their ability and will to limit the influence of the radicals.
2008-02-15
IMRAN FROM US said:
Re: In any case, I am opposed to all laws based on religion; there should be one law and only one law for any body and everybody in the country.
unquote
Define "country".
Does this apply to the poor Muslims in Gujarat, India, who have to deal with Hindu extremists everyday?
Does it apply to foreign missionaries, allowed by Indian law to preach in India?
Are you condoning the burning of a priest and children in their vehicle in India not too long ago and the anti missionary movement of extremist Hindus?
unquote
Define "country".
Does this apply to the poor Muslims in Gujarat, India, who have to deal with Hindu extremists everyday?
Does it apply to foreign missionaries, allowed by Indian law to preach in India?
Are you condoning the burning of a priest and children in their vehicle in India not too long ago and the anti missionary movement of extremist Hindus?
2008-02-13
IMRAN FROM US said:
Re: It should be noted, however, that Jews rarely make demands on the communities in which they live, and while they may hold themselves apart they do not seek to expand and dominate the local culture.
UNQUOTE
Tell that to the thousands of Palestinians whose family members you have killed and to the thousands who live in Gaza without basic human rights thanks to Israel's policy of hatred.
LOL. One need only make a statement about peace in the middle east and the shouts of "anti semite" ring out loud and clear.
Most of you forget you'll answer to GOD for your crimes against humanity.
Dr. Williams is a wise man and the issues he has raised in the past have made him many enemies....remember he's anti war too.
Now people are calling for him to step down.
Pitiful indded are those who fail to see the light and the truth because their minds are so warped.
UNQUOTE
Tell that to the thousands of Palestinians whose family members you have killed and to the thousands who live in Gaza without basic human rights thanks to Israel's policy of hatred.
LOL. One need only make a statement about peace in the middle east and the shouts of "anti semite" ring out loud and clear.
Most of you forget you'll answer to GOD for your crimes against humanity.
Dr. Williams is a wise man and the issues he has raised in the past have made him many enemies....remember he's anti war too.
Now people are calling for him to step down.
Pitiful indded are those who fail to see the light and the truth because their minds are so warped.
2008-02-13
PAAGLE FROM USA said:
Given the explicit link between religion and state in Islam, it is quite reasonable for non-Muslims to fear that any explicit state sanction of Islamicly based law will serve as a foothold for its expansion. At best this will produce further segregation/ghettoization of the Muslim community. At worst it will result in non-Muslims living under Islamic laws (likely decades ahead, but in many people's lifetime).
If individuals wish to abide by Islamic marriage customs there is nothing preventing them from drawing up a private pre-marital contract that is in accord with UK law. If there are aspects of Islamic marriage law that are not permissible in the UK, then they should remain so.
The issue of equal treatment between the small and decreasing # of UK Jews and the large growing # of UK Muslims bears looking into. The correct response would be to remove the state sanction of the Jewish courts. It should be noted, however, that Jews rarely make demands on the communities in which they live, and while they may hold themselves apart they do not seek to expand and dominate the local culture. Muslims make great demands on the non-Muslims they live among, and do seek to expand and impose their values on the local culture, just as mighty Mohammed did to the idolaters of his day (and, I ask Muslim readers, are we really any different from idolaters in your eyes?). In this light it is much easier to accomodate Jewish law than it is to accomodate Islamic law.
I don't like "slippery slope" arguments in general, but when it comes to Islam I give them great creadence. In the inner-Muslim debate over inter-communal values, the "moderates" are either not particularly moderate, or are among the biggest pansies in the world.
If individuals wish to abide by Islamic marriage customs there is nothing preventing them from drawing up a private pre-marital contract that is in accord with UK law. If there are aspects of Islamic marriage law that are not permissible in the UK, then they should remain so.
The issue of equal treatment between the small and decreasing # of UK Jews and the large growing # of UK Muslims bears looking into. The correct response would be to remove the state sanction of the Jewish courts. It should be noted, however, that Jews rarely make demands on the communities in which they live, and while they may hold themselves apart they do not seek to expand and dominate the local culture. Muslims make great demands on the non-Muslims they live among, and do seek to expand and impose their values on the local culture, just as mighty Mohammed did to the idolaters of his day (and, I ask Muslim readers, are we really any different from idolaters in your eyes?). In this light it is much easier to accomodate Jewish law than it is to accomodate Islamic law.
I don't like "slippery slope" arguments in general, but when it comes to Islam I give them great creadence. In the inner-Muslim debate over inter-communal values, the "moderates" are either not particularly moderate, or are among the biggest pansies in the world.
2008-02-12
ROMESH CHANDER FROM USA said:
Seems to me this to be a very well thought out and very well calculated move by Rowan Williams to take the debate to the extremes and hence STOP / KILL the implementation of whatever Sharia could have been implemented in UK & Europe. By forcing every daily/weekly newspaper / TV station/ to take a stand and hence oppose the move, he has essentially killed the implementation of Sharia. Remember, what happended in Canada about a year or so ago; the issue is dead in Canada; and it will die in UK/Europe soon. The governments dare not implement it lest they get overthrown at the polls by mad Englishmen/French/Germans/Dutch/Spanish & Italians.
In any case, I am opposed to all laws based on religion; there should be one law and only one law for any body and everybody in the country.
In any case, I am opposed to all laws based on religion; there should be one law and only one law for any body and everybody in the country.
2008-02-12
