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
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: 29 August 2010 at 9:09am
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

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.
Thanks for a candid and thoughtful discussion.  Let's both hope that peace, mustual respect and efforts at development prevail in international and interreligious relations.
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: 29 August 2010 at 10:26am
Originally posted by peacemaker peacemaker wrote:

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

The fact is Visigothic Catholic Spain was invaded, conquered and submitted to Muslim rule in the early 8th c.  Certainly the situation improved under the Umayyad Emirate beginning around 756 AD.  Still, it was not for Islamic forces to invade and conquer in the first place.  Hence the Reconquista.  The expansionist (in the military sense) policies of early Islam are revealed in the vast Christian territories the were invaded, the constant atacks on Constantinople beginning 40 some years after the death of Mohammed, and the fact that due to these policies by the end of the 11th century 2/3 of what were once Christain lands were taken over by Muslims.
If Islam is to grow in credence, this type of expansionism into territories not their own has to be acknowledged and renounced--not rationalized.  Pope John Paul II did so for Christian misdeeds of the past and I stand with him in that.  Can Islam do the same?

Edited by fool4JC - 29 August 2010 at 10:48am
Back to Top
abuayisha View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 October 1999
Status: Offline
Points: 4968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote abuayisha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 August 2010 at 4:26pm
Thanks for a candid and thoughtful discussion.  Let's both hope that peace, mustual respect and efforts at development prevail in international and interreligious relations.
 
Oh Allah! Let it be so.
Back to Top
malucy View Drop Down
Starter
Starter
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote malucy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 August 2010 at 5:45pm

As a english speaking non-muslim that recently started reading/studying quran, Quran Explorer is an EXCELLENT resource.  I would recommend this to anyone that has a desire and willing to learn.

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: 30 August 2010 at 10:24am
Originally posted by fool4JC fool4JC wrote:

Originally posted by peacemaker peacemaker wrote:

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

The fact is Visigothic Catholic Spain was invaded, conquered and submitted to Muslim rule in the early 8th c.  Certainly the situation improved under the Umayyad Emirate beginning around 756 AD.  Still, it was not for Islamic forces to invade and conquer in the first place.  Hence the Reconquista.  The expansionist (in the military sense) policies of early Islam are revealed in the vast Christian territories the were invaded, the constant atacks on Constantinople beginning 40 some years after the death of Mohammed, and the fact that due to these policies by the end of the 11th century 2/3 of what were once Christain lands were taken over by Muslims.
If Islam is to grow in credence, this type of expansionism into territories not their own has to be acknowledged and renounced--not rationalized.  Pope John Paul II did so for Christian misdeeds of the past and I stand with him in that.  Can Islam do the same?
 

As I said earlier, the context and background of invasion and its aftereffects requires a separate thread. Briefly speaking, the minorities, such as Jews, who lived in the Visigothic kingdom, suffered enormous religious persecution. And they enjoyed full religious liberty in Muslim Spain to practice their faith as they wished.

A Shared Golden Age

Generally speaking, many battles in the early periods occurred to thwart the threat of vast and mighty Roman and Persian empires. From Islamic standpoint, these were valid because of inherent dire need of survival. Islam allows one to defend one’s faith, family, country and property.

However, if there ever has been any wrong act of unjustified aggression, it is the fault of those involved therein. Islam is innocent as it doesn’t preach aggression. Hence, Islam owes no apology to anyone.   

Yes, there is always room for Christians and Muslims to reconcile and appreciate our common values. We have so much to share and learn from.

Peace

Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
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: 30 August 2010 at 12:43pm
Originally posted by peacemaker peacemaker wrote:

Originally posted by fool4JC fool4JC wrote:

Originally posted by peacemaker peacemaker wrote:

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

The fact is Visigothic Catholic Spain was invaded, conquered and submitted to Muslim rule in the early 8th c.  Certainly the situation improved under the Umayyad Emirate beginning around 756 AD.  Still, it was not for Islamic forces to invade and conquer in the first place.  Hence the Reconquista.  The expansionist (in the military sense) policies of early Islam are revealed in the vast Christian territories the were invaded, the constant atacks on Constantinople beginning 40 some years after the death of Mohammed, and the fact that due to these policies by the end of the 11th century 2/3 of what were once Christain lands were taken over by Muslims.
If Islam is to grow in credence, this type of expansionism into territories not their own has to be acknowledged and renounced--not rationalized.  Pope John Paul II did so for Christian misdeeds of the past and I stand with him in that.  Can Islam do the same?
 

As I said earlier, the context and background of invasion and its aftereffects requires a separate thread. Briefly speaking, the minorities, such as Jews, who lived in the Visigothic kingdom, suffered enormous religious persecution. And they enjoyed full religious liberty in Muslim Spain to practice their faith as they wished.

A Shared Golden Age

Generally speaking, many battles in the early periods occurred to thwart the threat of vast and mighty Roman and Persian empires. From Islamic standpoint, these were valid because of inherent dire need of survival. Islam allows one to defend one’s faith, family, country and property.

However, if there ever has been any wrong act of unjustified aggression, it is the fault of those involved therein. Islam is innocent as it doesn’t preach aggression. Hence, Islam owes no apology to anyone.   

Yes, there is always room for Christians and Muslims to reconcile and appreciate our common values. We have so much to share and learn from.

Peace

Thanks for the candid and honest answers.
 
Fair enough.  Likewise, Catholicism does not teach aggression and as such it owes no apology.  John Paul II has, however, been willing to admit that some individuals have in fact not acted according to Christian principles and he has renounced that behavior.  I agree with him.
 
With the beginning of the school year I many be delayed, but I will get a thread up on early Islamic conquests of Christian lands; what constitutes a real and actual threat versus a pretext for invasion; the involvement of the early caliphs in the process; what threat a Christian kingdom 1000s of miles from the Islamic homeland could have posed; what Muslim scholars and historians have acknowledged, etc.
 
The bottom line is, like you, I aim at reconciliation, finding common ground, and mutual enrichment as a result of frank and truthful discussion.


Edited by fool4JC - 30 August 2010 at 2:45pm
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: 31 August 2010 at 2:30am
I suggest you read a book, "Islam in Focus" by Hammudah Abdalati. It addresses all your concerns. It also includes the historical fact that the Romans sanctioned war against Islam.
 
Let us leave it here. When you get back, I hope that many here would be willing to engage in an educated discussion.
 
May Allah guide us all.
 
 
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13
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.