IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islam for non-Muslims
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sharia Law
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Sharia Law

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Divya_Mohammed View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 14 July 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Divya_Mohammed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2010 at 12:17am
Assalam Alaikum
 
I recently came across a website www.ekabakti.com from Malayasia and downloaded a programme called Muslim Explorer. This provides complete Arabic Text of the Holy Koran and authentic translations in English (around 7 translations for each aayat), besides 6 most-popular Hadith with translation as well.
 
The programme is free to download and works fine on XP & Vista platform. All interested may take benefit.
 
Allah Hafiz
 
DIVYA MOHAMMED IYER
MUMBAI, INDIA


Edited by Divya_Mohammed - 26 August 2010 at 12:18am
Back to Top
abuayisha View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 October 1999
Status: Offline
Points: 4976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuayisha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2010 at 9:22am

1.  Is there a published/promulgated collection of agreed upon laws that are considered authoritative and binding on Muslims in general?  For example, there is a promulgated code of laws and court precedents that are a matter of public record which is binding law in America.  Analogously, there is a code of canon law in the Catholic Church that is binding and a matter of public record.

 

Yes, Shariah is essentially canon law, where Allah or His Prophet clearly states an injunction all Muslims would be obliged to follow.  For example Muslims are now fasting the month of Ramadan and in the Quran Allah says;

“Strictly observe the fast till nightfall” (Surah 2 Ayat 187)

"...And it is better for you that ye fast, if ye only knew." (Q 2:184)

"So whoever of you is present in the month, let him fast”. (Surah II.185)

“And that ye fast is better for you, if you did but know.” (Surah 2 Ayat 184)
"...whoever witnesses the Month of Ramadan should fast through it..." Q (2:185)

"O believers! You prescribed the Fasting (Al- Siyam) as it was prescribed for those before you, and you achieve piety" (Surah II. 183)

All scholars would therefore agree Muslims must fast during this month unless sick, pregnant or traveling, etc., which are excuses given in other texts of Quran and Sunnah.
 

While I am sure that there is a consensus of some (perhaps a majority of) Muslim scholars that terrorism and military conquest are not valid means of spreading Islam, if a particular scholar or another consensus affirmed that they are valid means,  would that make them legitimate?

 

I define “terrorism” as premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to  intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population.  Innocent noncombatants are deliberately targeted as a matter of strategy.

Well there is no doubt in my mind what you have articulated above is the fiqh position of Al Qaeda and its followers, and yes they believe what they are doing is legitimate.  Saudi Arabia has opened several prison camp schools in an effort to re-educate those found to have this extreme and dangerous legal position.  Sadly it exists, but indeed it's a fringe position having no widespread legitimacy.
Back to Top
fool4JC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 August 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fool4JC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2010 at 11:06am
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

1.  Is there a published/promulgated collection of agreed upon laws that are considered authoritative and binding on Muslims in general?  For example, there is a promulgated code of laws and court precedents that are a matter of public record which is binding law in America.  Analogously, there is a code of canon law in the Catholic Church that is binding and a matter of public record.

 

Yes, Shariah is essentially canon law, where Allah or His Prophet clearly states an injunction all Muslims would be obliged to follow.  For example Muslims are now fasting the month of Ramadan and in the Quran Allah says;

“Strictly observe the fast till nightfall” (Surah 2 Ayat 187)

"...And it is better for you that ye fast, if ye only knew." (Q 2:184)

"So whoever of you is present in the month, let him fast”. (Surah II.185)

“And that ye fast is better for you, if you did but know.” (Surah 2 Ayat 184)
"...whoever witnesses the Month of Ramadan should fast through it..." Q (2:185)

"O believers! You prescribed the Fasting (Al- Siyam) as it was prescribed for those before you, and you achieve piety" (Surah II. 183)

All scholars would therefore agree Muslims must fast during this month unless sick, pregnant or traveling, etc., which are excuses given in other texts of Quran and Sunnah.
 

While I am sure that there is a consensus of some (perhaps a majority of) Muslim scholars that terrorism and military conquest are not valid means of spreading Islam, if a particular scholar or another consensus affirmed that they are valid means,  would that make them legitimate?

 

I define “terrorism” as premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to  intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population.  Innocent noncombatants are deliberately targeted as a matter of strategy.

Well there is no doubt in my mind what you have articulated above is the fiqh position of Al Qaeda and its followers, and yes they believe what they are doing is legitimate.  Saudi Arabia has opened several prison camp schools in an effort to re-educate those found to have this extreme and dangerous legal position.  Sadly it exists, but indeed it's a fringe position having no widespread legitimacy.

Thank you for a thorough and informative answer.

 

I included in my question "military conquest" (in addition to terrorism) as a means of spreading Islam, e.g, the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.

 

Is that considered in Sharia Law a legitimate means of spreading Islam?

Back to Top
peacemaker View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote peacemaker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2010 at 2:21pm
Originally posted by fool4JC fool4JC wrote:

Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

1.  Is there a published/promulgated collection of agreed upon laws that are considered authoritative and binding on Muslims in general?  For example, there is a promulgated code of laws and court precedents that are a matter of public record which is binding law in America.  Analogously, there is a code of canon law in the Catholic Church that is binding and a matter of public record.

 

Yes, Shariah is essentially canon law, where Allah or His Prophet clearly states an injunction all Muslims would be obliged to follow.  For example Muslims are now fasting the month of Ramadan and in the Quran Allah says;

“Strictly observe the fast till nightfall” (Surah 2 Ayat 187)

"...And it is better for you that ye fast, if ye only knew." (Q 2:184)

"So whoever of you is present in the month, let him fast”. (Surah II.185)

“And that ye fast is better for you, if you did but know.” (Surah 2 Ayat 184)
"...whoever witnesses the Month of Ramadan should fast through it..." Q (2:185)

"O believers! You prescribed the Fasting (Al- Siyam) as it was prescribed for those before you, and you achieve piety" (Surah II. 183)

All scholars would therefore agree Muslims must fast during this month unless sick, pregnant or traveling, etc., which are excuses given in other texts of Quran and Sunnah.
 

While I am sure that there is a consensus of some (perhaps a majority of) Muslim scholars that terrorism and military conquest are not valid means of spreading Islam, if a particular scholar or another consensus affirmed that they are valid means,  would that make them legitimate?

 

I define “terrorism” as premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to  intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population.  Innocent noncombatants are deliberately targeted as a matter of strategy.

Well there is no doubt in my mind what you have articulated above is the fiqh position of Al Qaeda and its followers, and yes they believe what they are doing is legitimate.  Saudi Arabia has opened several prison camp schools in an effort to re-educate those found to have this extreme and dangerous legal position.  Sadly it exists, but indeed it's a fringe position having no widespread legitimacy.

Thank you for a thorough and informative answer.

 

I included in my question "military conquest" (in addition to terrorism) as a means of spreading Islam, e.g, the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.

 

Is that considered in Sharia Law a legitimate means of spreading Islam?

 
Hello fool4JC,
 

In Islam, there is no compulsion in religion:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

Qur’an 2:256

 
The historical aspect of Muslim Spain, such as why the battle took place and then what were the consequent effects, requires a separate thread. I have included a related link in the following thread:

A Shared Golden Age

Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
Back to Top
peacemaker View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 29 December 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote peacemaker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2010 at 2:27pm

Here is a link that explains about Islamic Shariah. You may include this in further reading: 

Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
Back to Top
abuayisha View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 October 1999
Status: Offline
Points: 4976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuayisha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2010 at 6:12pm

I included in my question "military conquest" (in addition to terrorism) as a means of spreading Islam, e.g, the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.

 

Is that considered in Sharia Law a legitimate means of spreading Islam?

 

Well, unfortunately I haven’t a clear and factual account of circumstances surrounding this invasion, however much of “military conquest” would fall under fiqh, and there must be a Muslim ruler (Caliphate) present.  Unlike what exist today where you have Muslim nation-states.  Sharia seeks to protect borders, keep the Arabian Peninsula free, and secure the rights of people to hear the word of Islam.  As already mentioned, there is no compulsion in religion, therefore once hearing the message of Islam people are not forced to accept Islam or die.  Sharia does not obligate Muslims to fight non-Muslims simply because of their disbelief.  Jihad is not a fight against the whole world, and in contemporary times without the presents of a single Muslim ruler it is defensive in nature at best.

Back to Top
fool4JC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 August 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fool4JC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 August 2010 at 2:41pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

I included in my question "military conquest" (in addition to terrorism) as a means of spreading Islam, e.g, the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.

 

Is that considered in Sharia Law a legitimate means of spreading Islam?

 

Well, unfortunately I haven’t a clear and factual account of circumstances surrounding this invasion, however much of “military conquest” would fall under fiqh, and there must be a Muslim ruler (Caliphate) present.  Unlike what exist today where you have Muslim nation-states.  Sharia seeks to protect borders, keep the Arabian Peninsula free, and secure the rights of people to hear the word of Islam.  As already mentioned, there is no compulsion in religion, therefore once hearing the message of Islam people are not forced to accept Islam or die.  Sharia does not obligate Muslims to fight non-Muslims simply because of their disbelief.  Jihad is not a fight against the whole world, and in contemporary times without the presents of a single Muslim ruler it is defensive in nature at best.

(1) So if there were a single Muslim ruler, jihad could be offensive in nature with respect to surrounding cultures and/or nation-states?  This does seem to be the case in the first 150 years of Islamic history.

 

(2) If a single Muslim ruler were to arise again, would offensive jihad be legitimate against surrounding cultures and/or nation-states again?

 

(3) With respect to the conquest of Christian lands, while Christians were not forced to accept Islam or die, they did live in a vastly inferior position under the newly established Muslim government in the lands that were once their own.  Depending on the ruler’s whim, they had to pay a special tax; could not spread their faith by preaching; often had to wear humiliating signs on their clothing; endured severe restrictions on public expressions of their faith, construction of churches; etc. Would this practice continue?



Edited by fool4JC - 28 August 2010 at 7:30pm
Back to Top
abuayisha View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 October 1999
Status: Offline
Points: 4976
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuayisha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 August 2010 at 7:11am
Well my personal feeling is we have seen the last of the Caliphate, and are awaiting the return of Christ, where a just rule will prevail on earth.  Mullah Omar in Afghanistan was declared "Ruler of the Muslims" however this declaration was all but ignored throughout the Muslim world.  Anyway, yes, if there were a Caliphate offensive jihad would become permissible.  We can both speculate concerning its form and expression, but again, I don't believe it will return as we knew it before.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.