Print Page | Close Window

Couple of questions

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Description: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16905
Printed Date: 22 May 2019 at 11:51pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Couple of questions
Posted By: elijah-boy
Subject: Couple of questions
Date Posted: 08 June 2010 at 7:27am
I'm curious what are regular muslim think... the only muslim guy I know was the preacher on Dundas square who was impossible to communicate with.
i was always curious if can get a straight answers to simple questions and I would appreciate if you provide your opinion.

a. would you like to implement sharia law in canada?
b. what would be your personal choice if you have to choose between religious laws of islam and the laws set by your government.

Thanks.
Elijah.



Replies:
Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 08 June 2010 at 9:10am
1> Well... you mean if we're given such a choice that is? Ummm why not. .
If you mean as in we see it as a necessity, then no. Maybe I'm not quite getting your question, lol.

2> All Islamic laws that I know off are, glory be to Almighty, beneficial to everyone invovled in any way, be it ourselves, our society, our environment, etc. I also don't see how a person can't follow both the Islamic laws and the laws set by the government?



Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 08 June 2010 at 10:53am
1.
: Ummm why not. .
--- I take it as yes. This also means you would advocate cuttings thieves hands off, not take a raped women’s word seriously as her vote is not as trustworthy as man’s vote, and justify beheadings and genital mutilations if done in the name of Islam.
:All Islamic laws that I know off are, glory be to Almighty, beneficial to everyone invovled in any way
--- I tend to disagree and I know quite a lot of people who disagree. Please give your opinion a benefit of a doubt.
:I also don't see how a person can't follow both the Islamic laws and the laws set by the government?
--- One example would be how thieves are treated and how raped women would be treated. There a strict and in my opinion inhumane laws (as described in Sharia) and there is much liberal treatment provided by the civil laws.
2.
Let me ask you a direct question, since I don’ think I received an appropriate answer. If your religious believes would come in conflict with the laws of the country you live in – what would be your choice – will you follow islam or will you abide by civil laws?
P.S. The only reason I number my messages – is to keep it structural and not to loose the conversation thread.
Thank you.
Elijah.


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 08 June 2010 at 10:35pm
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:


2. Let me ask you a direct question, since I don’ think I received an appropriate answer. If your religious believes would come in conflict with the laws of the country you live in – what would be your choice – will you follow Islam or will you abide by civil laws?
P.S. The only reason I number my messages – is to keep it structural and not to loose the conversation thread.
Thank you.
Elijah.
 Please tell me the existing law in any country that you know of that using universal value such as democratic etc. So I'll give you my attitude as a Muslim to that law based Islamic teaching. Don't just use hypothetical!!


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 6:53am
Sure, but before we get to specifics I don't see any problem with asking the question I asked. It seems to me you are simply evading the answer.
 
It is very simple and basic question - let me rephrase it so it might be a bit more clear: there are 2 sets of laws - religious law and civil law that govern the life of individual. [in our case - sharia law and civil/criminal canadian law]. If those laws come into conflict - which one one you choose as the one that take presendence?
 
[If you still refuse to answer that question I would appreciate if you explain why posing the question the way I did is deemed inappropriate to you]
 
Thank you .
Elijah.


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:42am
I'll answer your questions once I get back from school. I need to research a bit and get to know better about these laws you're talking about (I know what the Sharia law is, but when it comes to implementation, you claim its pretty rude, I'll have to first check out if that's true, which I don't really think is)

Until then hopefully someone with better knowledge of the laws and regulations will answer you.


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:44am
Salam/Peace
 
Please go specific! Hypothetical is pointless.
 
Here an example if your mom and your dad that both you love, they want to kill each other, which side will be on? This is not a real case, you will have difficulties to answer. 
 
So again please give us a real case. If you can not find a real case, that prove there is no Islamic law that not good for the betterment of humanity. Or you also can say there is no civil law that's good for betterment of humanity against Islamic value. Like in my example a good mom and a good dad will not kill each other.


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 10:29am
Elijah

Shariah law is one type of law system. Of course Muslims would choose this over others.  You have to really understand Shariah - which only a learned (hence Judge can say) A few points:

Thieving: Yes you can loose your hand. Guess what, they have a lot less theft where this law is enforced. We in the Us have tons of "leniency" and we have tons of people on prison and we have tons of repeat offenders.  "Leniency" is not decided by the state ( as is here) it is decided by the aggrieved party. Someone must decide. Here it is the state (made of people with their own agendas), in Shariah, it is those who were stolen from. It has to be someone.

Women's Testimonial: I teach self-defense and deal with the matter ALL t he time. There are many women who will not go to the police regarding a rape due to the fact there is no proof. You cannot convict a person without proof. This is true is Shariah or in the west. This is to avoid false testimony. (Something you cannot completely eliminate) but a false conviction should be avoided. Rape cases are VERY hard to prove.. "he said - she said" is often the case.


One of the reasonsyou have fewer rape cases in certain parts of the world is that in men and women do not mix, date, socialize etc. Rape is intention + opportunity.

You maybe getting rape mixed up with the accusation of zina.. unlawful relations. To PROVE zina you need 4 male witnesses. This actually protects the woman as its hard to have 4 witnesses.  And just like here,  to prove anything, to have true justice is VERY hard in this world. Many people have been falsely imprisoned and executed. People, will lie and abuse ANY system. That is why ultimately God is our judge.




-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 5:26pm
Simple fact is that man made laws are ever changing. Some things that are unlawful now were may be legal sometime ago. Somethings that are illegal now will be legal later. So man made laws are ever changing and unjust in that sense because where and when can make it lawful at one point and unlawful at others.
On the other hand, laws given to us or are made in the light of revelations sent by our maker are same for all, in 50  years, or in 500 years,  in the East, North, South and so on, no geographic boundaries can change them.

Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 5:37pm
: you claim its pretty rude
--- Politeness always brings people to ignore topics that should be otherwise discussed freely. My firm believe is that you can be frank and civilized without showing excessive politeness. Don't hold your reins, please speak up your mind freely.


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 5:54pm
SEMAR:

:Hypothetical is pointless
--- I don't consider this a hypothetical question. If you refuse to answer it on the grounds of being hypothetical then it' fine. Let's leave it then.

:Here an example if your mom and your dad that both you love, they want to kill each other, which side will be on? This is not a real case, you will have difficulties to answer
--- I find this analogy inapplicable, it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
If you are really curious about my reaction to that situation then most likely I will react like this. I'll consider them both killers and will tell them that I don't want to be parented by people who want to kill each other. But then again, I deem your analogy not acceptable to the topic we discuss.

:If you can not find a real case, that prove there is no Islamic law that not good for the betterment of humanity.
--- I disagree with that. Why you making me an expert on the muslim matters? (which I'm not). I'm doing exactly the opposite:
a. I consider you a person familiar with both - Sharia and Canadian civil/criminal laws
b. I consider you a person who is able of making a choice between 2 system of believes in the case of conflict between 2 systems
c. I ask you to formulate the result of that comparison.



Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 6:12pm
TO HAYFA:

: Of course Muslims would choose this over others
----- It was a first clear-cut answer. Thank you.

:You have to really understand Shariah
---- I spoke with a lot of people, read a lot of books and to my chagrin was not able to find a clear-cut compilation of Sharia laws on the net. One piece here, a couple there, a couple of comments from famous interpreters, and so on. If you can point me to the source on the internet that lists sharia laws as 'one-stop reference' that would be much appreciated.

:Yes you can loose your hand. Guess what, they have a lot less theft where this law is enforced.
----- We really differ on that point. I want to 'get there' using completely different means.

As to the rest, I understand where your mindset is. Thank you.

A couple of questions about your background:
How old are you?
Are you male/female?
How long you've been living in canada? (or maybe you were born here) In the case you weren't born in canada, which country you've arrived from?
I understand those questions may be considered to personal. I'd understand your reluctance to answer, but I simply treat others they way I don't mind be treated myself. I would answer those questions with no problem.


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 6:15pm
TO HASAN:

:Simple fact is that man made laws are ever changing
--- You are not answering the questions at hand and stirring the conversation away from them. I appreciate your opinion, but at this point I would like to stick to the original questions in order not to loose a thread of conversation.



Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:49pm
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

SEMAR:

:If you can not find a real case, that prove there is no Islamic law that not good for the betterment of humanity.
--- I disagree with that. Why you making me an expert on the muslim matters? (which I'm not). I'm doing exactly the opposite:
a. I consider you a person familiar with both - Sharia and Canadian civil/criminal laws
b. I consider you a person who is able of making a choice between 2 system of believes in the case of conflict between 2 systems
c. I ask you to formulate the result of that comparison.

No, I don't expect you to know about Islamic law. I just want to tell you that Islamic law will not be contradict with civil law as long as the civil law adopt "universal value" of goodness for individual or community at large.
 
Again please should be speific which verse or chapter on Canadian criminal laws you talking about.


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 June 2010 at 7:54pm
Hi Elijah,

I do not live in Canada, I live in the US, I am female. I became a Muslim 6 years ago. So I did not grow up as a Muslim.

And yes it will be hard to find a compilation. And unless you understand Arabic it will be even harder.


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 5:59am
Elijah . . .

If a Muslim lives in a non-Muslim country like Canada, where they are a minority - there is no sin upon them if they follow the law of the land. Semar explained that nicely.

Muslims have been obligated to behave as peaceful citizens of whatever land they live in,  obey their ruler , follow the laws of the land. Unless they are forced to do something by the laws/ruler that goes against their religious beliefs or fundamentally against the principles of Islam. If that happens - then their duty is not to go & revolt and create issues, but find a peaceful solution. If the government still does not listen to them or make allowances - then they should weigh their priorities and MIGRATE someplace which will allow them to live their life according to Islamic Injunctions.


If the Muslim community is big enough, then they should follow the legal procedures and try convince the government to consider their demands & concerns. There is no harm in that. After all, they are contributing, tax-paying citizens of the land.

So if Canadian Muslims or British Muslims ask the government to allow their religious law to apply to them - they have a democratic/legal right to do so. Non-Muslims needn't freak out like they are freaking out now. Those laws DON'T apply to non-Muslims. YOUR life will not be effected. Same in America - if the resident Muslim community is big enough, and is growing - then they have a right to have their concerns be addressed by the government , possibly have amendments made in laws to accommodate their beliefs.

Shariah Laws DON'T apply to non-muslims - unless a non-muslim wishes to be judged under Shariah Law. EVEN under a Muslim Government , the non-muslim minority is NOT supposed to be judged under Shariah, they have the right to be judged under their own religious law or civil law. So all non-muslims can just relax please. . . . seriously !

All the things you mentioned as being part of Shariah are mostly misconceptions, Genital Mutilation is not part of the Shariah Law. The Thief example is true. . . but when you know only half the story, you are bound to be misled.

Did you know that the punishment of stealing is not as simple as chopping off a hand? Under Shariah, the judge is supposed to look into the circumstances of the Thief. If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment !!! Only a thief who stole with the intention of greed is punished. In today's time this would mean all the big corporate thieves who steal from the public and their shareholders - knowing full well that with the money they have they can hire the best of the lawyers, spend a few years in jail - and enjoy the rest of their lives in luxury. Whilst leaving thier poor victims under mortgage, loans and poverty.

As for Rape . . . the punishment FOR the rapist under Shariah is death !!! Which is a very serious punishment . . . . a person is about to lose their life. Naturally the investigation process / proof/ evidence needs to be strong enough if we are condemning a person to death. You cannot just take one person's word and condemn the "alleged criminal" without solid evidence. I am not too sure about the details in Shariah regarding the investigation process in Rapes . . . so will not comment further. Many scholars are now considering modern investigative techniques such as DNA tests etc, so there are bound to be differing opinions.







-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 6:04pm
:TO CHRYSALIS

:Muslims have been OBLIGATED to behave as peaceful citizens of whatever land they live in, obey their ruler , follow the laws of the land. Unless they are forced to do something by the laws/ruler that goes against their religious beliefs or fundamentally against the principles of Islam. If that happens - then their duty is not to go & revolt and create issues, but find a peaceful solution. If the government still does not listen to them or make allowances - then they should weigh their priorities and MIGRATE someplace which will allow them to live their life according to Islamic Injunctions.

---- That is reasonable. It is basically saying "If you're uncomfortable with the laws of the country you're living in, consider living somewhere else where you can live the life you see as a best fit for yourself. PLEASE point me to:
a. lines in quran that say so
b. if not found in quran please specify where this information comes from.
c. If "a" is not an option but "b" is I would appreciate if you (or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed.

:So if Canadian Muslims or British Muslims ask the government to allow their religious law to apply to them - they have a democratic/legal right to do so. Non-Muslims needn't freak out like they are freaking out now. Those laws DON'T apply to non-Muslims. YOUR life will not be effected.

----- I can't take that approach. In the same vein the following can be said. Let all jews live in labour camps, somewhere outside of the visible boundaries - your life won't be affected. [This is actually happened in russia].

:All the things you mentioned as being part of Shariah are mostly misconceptions, Genital Mutilation is not part of the Shariah Law
---- You are right, I'll leave genital mutilation aside.

:Under Shariah, the judge is supposed to look into the circumstances of the Thief. If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment !!!
--- same thing, I'd appreciate quotes from the sources.








Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 10 June 2010 at 8:54pm
CHRYSALIS:

"Did you know that the punishment of stealing is not as simple as chopping off a hand? Under Shariah, the judge is supposed to look into the circumstances of the Thief. If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment !!! Only a thief who stole with the intention of greed is punished. In today's time this would mean all the big corporate thieves who steal from the public and their shareholders - knowing full well that with the money they have they can hire the best of the lawyers, spend a few years in jail - and enjoy the rest of their lives in luxury. Whilst leaving thier poor victims under mortgage, loans and poverty. "

Hayfa seems to have a completely different opinion about that:

"Thieving: Yes you can loose your hand. Guess what, they have a lot less theft where this law is enforced. We in the Us have tons of "leniency" and we have tons of people on prison and we have tons of repeat offenders. "Leniency" is not decided by the state ( as is here) it is decided by the aggrieved party. Someone must decide. Here it is the state (made of people with their own agendas), in Shariah, it is those who were stolen from. It has to be someone. "

She basically says that in Sharia, when it comes to thieving at least, the justice is handed to the aggrieved party. The decision is in the hands of who was deprived of stolen property.

To my surprise she also thinks that it would be beneficial if we start cutting hands here in United Stated. It's not only her. My roomie (from Pakistan) says the same - it's ok to cut the hands off, it significantly reduces theft.


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 12 June 2010 at 9:29am
TO EVERYBODY

below (what chrysalis wrote) - is very important part for me as it shows that islam can be reasonable. If you can provide me with the answers to the questions I asked below the it'd appreciated:
--------------------------------------------
":Muslims have been OBLIGATED to behave as peaceful citizens of whatever land they live in, obey their ruler , follow the laws of the land. Unless they are forced to do something by the laws/ruler that goes against their religious beliefs or fundamentally against the principles of Islam. If that happens - then their duty is not to go & revolt and create issues, but find a peaceful solution. If the government still does not listen to them or make allowances - then they should weigh their priorities and MIGRATE someplace which will allow them to live their life according to Islamic Injunctions.

---- That is reasonable. It is basically saying "If you're uncomfortable with the laws of the country you're living in, consider living somewhere else where you can live the life you see as a best fit for yourself. PLEASE point me to:
a. lines in quran that say so
b. if not found in quran please specify where this information comes from.
c. If "a" is not an option but "b" is I would appreciate if you (or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed. '


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:13am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

CHRYSALIS:

"Did you know that the punishment of stealing is not as simple as chopping off a hand? Under Shariah, the judge is supposed to look into the circumstances of the Thief. If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment !!! Only a thief who stole with the intention of greed is punished. In today's time this would mean all the big corporate thieves who steal from the public and their shareholders - knowing full well that with the money they have they can hire the best of the lawyers, spend a few years in jail - and enjoy the rest of their lives in luxury. Whilst leaving thier poor victims under mortgage, loans and poverty. "

Hayfa seems to have a completely different opinion about that:

"Thieving: Yes you can loose your hand. Guess what, they have a lot less theft where this law is enforced. We in the Us have tons of "leniency" and we have tons of people on prison and we have tons of repeat offenders. "Leniency" is not decided by the state ( as is here) it is decided by the aggrieved party. Someone must decide. Here it is the state (made of people with their own agendas), in Shariah, it is those who were stolen from. It has to be someone. "

She basically says that in Sharia, when it comes to thieving at least, the justice is handed to the aggrieved party. The decision is in the hands of who was deprived of stolen property.

To my surprise she also thinks that it would be beneficial if we start cutting hands here in United Stated. It's not only her. My roomie (from Pakistan) says the same - it's ok to cut the hands off, it significantly reduces theft.
The law here in Texas gives the agreived the power also in certain cases. I can go further than hand cutting and I am allowed to kill a criminal in the act of the theft. If you have a chl (concealed hangun license), you can have the option of deadily force when you are out and about away from your home and property. Personally I have no mercy for thieves and could care less if they loose a hand or their life.

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:45am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

TO EVERYBODY

below (what chrysalis wrote) - is very important part for me as it shows that islam can be reasonable. If you can provide me with the answers to the questions I asked below the it'd appreciated:
--------------------------------------------
":Muslims have been OBLIGATED to behave as peaceful citizens of whatever land they live in, obey their ruler , follow the laws of the land. Unless they are forced to do something by the laws/ruler that goes against their religious beliefs or fundamentally against the principles of Islam. If that happens - then their duty is not to go & revolt and create issues, but find a peaceful solution. If the government still does not listen to them or make allowances - then they should weigh their priorities and MIGRATE someplace which will allow them to live their life according to Islamic Injunctions.

---- That is reasonable. It is basically saying "If you're uncomfortable with the laws of the country you're living in, consider living somewhere else where you can live the life you see as a best fit for yourself. PLEASE point me to:
a. lines in quran that say so
b. if not found in quran please specify where this information comes from.
c. If "a" is not an option but "b" is I would appreciate if you (or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed. '
 
c is a complex question as it assumes in its premise that "if not a then b", then it (your reasonable solution) cannot be true, when there are cases for something to exist from B through further elaboration of a topic that A does not go into.
 
Also, you are over simplifying the issue; an over simplification that does not even exist in secular law. You also want someone to prove a negative which in the case of your request is not possible (given your wording).
 
In times of war, just as with any war even between secular nations, laws of the respective nation are not all respected by one another or necessarily maintained after one side has won and conquered the other. If a Muslim lives in the US and wishes to live under a "state" run shariah system (with Islamic judges per guidlines of Islamic law within the four schools of fiqh), then he should move to one of the many hodge podge of nations cut out of traditional Islamic lands. Creating "fitnah" for the sake of forcing a majority of non believers in a non Muslim land into such a system is not beneficial nor condoned in Islam. The problem I have with trying to create a seperate system in a country like the US for a minority Muslim community is on so many levels.
If a government in a majority of non believers passes laws that force a Muslim to act in such a way that it prevents them from following their faith, then they should move. 
 
The one important aspect of the shariah is that it can be followed in ones household that allows "portability". In other words, for a Muslim to be a believer, one does not have to reside in a Muslim majority country or be attached to some place because the essential acts that make up belief can be completed by the acts that have the home as center point. Making a migration for the sake of God that would better ones religous life is a great thing and is honored, as opposed to moving to non muslim lands and then personally delclaring war on everyone which is anti thetical to Islam.
 
Your question also assumes that small communities or individuals can declare war. A declared war for the sake of Islam can only be done by a state run system with a Caliph which has not existed since the fall of the Ottomans. As I said, the topic is much more complicated then the over simplification of your questions.
 
And no, I see no problem in cutting hands off of thieves (under certain circumstances as prescribed by the shairah). Maybe that is more merciful than getting shot. You would have to ask a thief about that.  


-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:56am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

:TO CHRYSALIS

:Muslims have been OBLIGATED to behave as peaceful citizens of whatever land they live in, obey their ruler , follow the laws of the land. Unless they are forced to do something by the laws/ruler that goes against their religious beliefs or fundamentally against the principles of Islam. If that happens - then their duty is not to go & revolt and create issues, but find a peaceful solution. If the government still does not listen to them or make allowances - then they should weigh their priorities and MIGRATE someplace which will allow them to live their life according to Islamic Injunctions.

---- That is reasonable. It is basically saying "If you're uncomfortable with the laws of the country you're living in, consider living somewhere else where you can live the life you see as a best fit for yourself. PLEASE point me to:
a. lines in quran that say so
b. if not found in quran please specify where this information comes from.
c. If "a" is not an option but "b" is I would appreciate if you (or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed.

:So if Canadian Muslims or British Muslims ask the government to allow their religious law to apply to them - they have a democratic/legal right to do so. Non-Muslims needn't freak out like they are freaking out now. Those laws DON'T apply to non-Muslims. YOUR life will not be effected.

----- I can't take that approach. In the same vein the following can be said. Let all jews live in labour camps, somewhere outside of the visible boundaries - your life won't be affected. [This is actually happened in russia].
 
 
False analogy. A government allowing a court to be established to appeal to a minority group that does not effect the majority has nothing in common with a government that establishes a law that condems a particular group with justification that the majority group is not effected. Creating a law that picks on a group by its very nature does not effect the larger group that created the law. So by all things being equal, I would say that your analogy is too far out in left field to have any meaning in the topic. 
 
Quote
:All the things you mentioned as being part of Shariah are mostly misconceptions, Genital Mutilation is not part of the Shariah Law
---- You are right, I'll leave genital mutilation aside.

:Under Shariah, the judge is supposed to look into the circumstances of the Thief. If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment !!!
--- same thing, I'd appreciate quotes from the sources.

 
 
That is a part of all four legals schools followed in Islam. It is simply a fact. I may be wrong, but I think the largest proof comes from the time of Umar (ra) who used this mode of thought which is also a source for proof for the implementation of the law. There may be an earlier incident, but I know this one incident did occur and is quoted by scholars.


-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 11:27am
ANDALUS:

:The law here in Texas gives the agreived the power also in certain cases.
--- Can you give an example of certain cases?

:I can go further than hand cutting and I am allowed to kill a criminal in the act of the theft.
--- Not sure, are you referring to Texas Laws?

:Personally I have no mercy for thieves and could care less if they loose a hand or their life.
---- Nice. Even if it is an apple on the market stand? What about your family jewel was stolen by a 5 year old, will you kill him as well? (Since you advocate that the aggrieved party has the right to carry out the sentence, then I assume you wouldn't mind carry out the sentence yourself?)

----


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:03pm
ANDALUS:

"You also want someone to prove a negative which in the case of your request is not possible (given your wording)"
--- You are right, pretty vague wording.

Let's make it simple and clear then - please specify the source where those lines (mentioned by Chrisalys) can be found.
I want to determine if it is something said in quran, or is it just Chrysalis or your) personal opinion, which is formulated like that: "If a government in a majority of non believers passes laws that force a Muslim to act in such a way that it prevents them from following their faith, then they should move."

:In times of war, just as with any war even between secular nations, laws of the respective nation are not all respected by one another or necessarily maintained after one side has won and conquered the other.
--- Nobody lives under war conditions in US or Canada at present. Let's concentrate on the topic.

:The one important aspect of the shariah is that it can be followed in ones household that allows "portability". In other words, for a Muslim to be a believer, one does not have to reside in a Muslim majority country or be attached to some place because the essential acts that make up belief can be completed by the acts that have the home as center point.
---
a. Do you need to follow sharia laws to consider yourself a believer as defined in quran?
b. Do you have an explanation as to why lots of muslims asked to introduce sharia laws in north america, but no one ever made an effort to traslate a sharia laws into english? (if you have an internet source that list what sharia laws are and lists them in english, please let me know)

: A declared war for the sake of Islam can only be done by a state run system with a Caliph which has not existed since the fall of the Ottomans.
--- Interesting.
a. Does that mean that any personal or group decision to kill some infidel for his transgressions against islam should treated as a punishable crime by islam itself?
b. I'd really appreciate if you specify the source for your statement about the declaration of war. I appreciate your personal opinions, but I also want to determine if it is something said in quran


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:19pm
:False analogy. A government allowing a court to be established to appeal to a minority group that does not effect the majority has nothing in common with a government that establishes a law that condems a particular group with justification that the majority group is not effected.

--- Agree.

:
a. "If the thief was a poor man, who had to steal to provide basics for his family, he will not be given this punishment"
b. "That is a part of all four legals schools followed in Islam. It is simply a fact. I may be wrong, but I think the largest proof comes from the time of Umar (ra) "

--- OK then.
a. Would you be able to list the crimes punishable by death in islam?
c. How islam treats homosexuals and lesbians? Is that something that is punishable? (If so then how)


Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

ANDALUS:

:The law here in Texas gives the agreived the power also in certain cases.
--- Can you give an example of certain cases?
 
Dont have to. All you need to do is stop parsing everything up. I have the right to wound or kill or allow a thief to go free. As the agreived it is in my hands. If you are unable to derive your answer from that then I am sorry but you are on your own.
 
 
Quote


:I can go further than hand cutting and I am allowed to kill a criminal in the act of the theft.
--- Not sure, are you referring to Texas Laws?
 
 
 
Are you obtuse or are you playing obtuse? I stated such that you should be able to figure out I am speaking of Texas laws.
 
You have what you need to answer your questions.
 
 
 
Quote

:Personally I have no mercy for thieves and could care less if they loose a hand or their life.
---- Nice. Even if it is an apple on the market stand? What about your family jewel was stolen by a 5 year old, will you kill him as well? (Since you advocate that the aggrieved party has the right to carry out the sentence, then I assume you wouldn't mind killing boys or girls with your own gun or hands?)

----
 
 
No "obtuse". Given that you can interpret my statement in two ways, one unreasonable and the othe reasonable, that you choose to go the unreasonable route tells me that you do not seem entirely sincere in a dialogue. Given that any reasonable person would follow the "principle of charity", with all things being equal, and assume the reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, I did state in this thread that circumstances are looked at when a thief is caught according to the shariah. If you did not read it, then you should. If you did, then get a clue. Really.


-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 1:03pm
Yeah, any law obviously looks at the circumstances and acts according it. Else how's it even a followable law.

That said,
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

---- Nice. Even if it is an apple on the market stand? What about your family jewel was stolen by a 5 year old, will you kill him as well? (Since you advocate that the aggrieved party has the right to carry out the sentence, then I assume you wouldn't mind carry out the sentence yourself?) ----

Elijah, you think a law actually would allow the right to kill a 5-year-old who would hardly have any idea what he's doing? Well, first off, the sentencing of crimes obviously acts on people who are matured enough to understand what they're doing.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 7:59pm
I agree with them. Your example of 5 year old is absurd. Children are not held accountable in the same way an adult is. Hello.. are you intentionally being absurd?

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 9:42pm
:If you are unable to derive your answer from that then I am sorry but you are on your own.

--- I did, I just couldn't believe my eyes. You ask me to believe in your inherent basic goodness and assume that you are reasonable human being and will behave accordingly, but so far I have encountered gently and intelligently speaking humans who say awful things. Hayfa advocates chopping hands off, you couldn't care less for the life of the thieves and whether they live or die, ace condones raping woman if they are behave indecently and sexually provoke other men. I have no grounds so far to assume that there is something good in place. The rest just don't take part in conversation but gladly say nice words about submitting their will to allah and learning the higher purpose of life.
I know you have different opinion, but I'll hold my own.

I just don't understand one thing - why in the midth of discussing things that cause major disagreement, everybody forgets to answer the questions i asked 3 times:
- one about the sources in quran that confirms what chrysalis and andalus was saying about muslims that should not interfere with state laws and choose to live elswhere
- the other about unavailability of sharia law in english.

Elijah.

P.S. I appreciate if somebody can answer the questions about crimes punishable by death in islam and question about lesbians and homosexuals


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 13 June 2010 at 9:51pm
ACE:

:Elijah, you think a law actually would allow the right to kill a 5-year-old who would hardly have any idea what he's doing?

--- The law says that the aggrieved party decides. Then Andalus says that he personally wouldn't care if thieves live or die. So, in simple words - the severity of the decision of the aggrieved party is basically depends on how pissed the aggrieved party is.
I'd say that Andlaus' answer seemed to me me as an answer of pretty disgruntled person - hence the questions. I agree 5-year old example is way off, but the rest I believe is not.

Again, you asked me to assume that most of the aggrieved parties are thoughtful and reasonable human beings, but that's laughable at best. We might as well abolish constitution and law systems if everybody was that thoughtful and understanding.


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 4:56am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

Hayfa advocates chopping hands off, you couldn't care less for the life of the thieves and whether they live or die, ace condones raping woman if they are behave indecently and sexually provoke other men.

^lololol. You still on to that?! Big%20smile
I swear rofl, God knows if you're actually unable to comprehend things I say or whether its just a deliberate false accusation. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if what you claimed of the other two believing turns out false as well.

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

P.S. I appreciate if somebody can answer the questions about crimes punishable by death in islam and question about lesbians and homosexuals

^Good call, I myself lack knowledge in this aspect. Looking forward to some trustable information and clearance. Smile






Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 15 June 2010 at 8:28pm

That concludes the discussion. I've asked 3 times the same questions and that simply means the answer doesn't exist. Your personal opinions will remain opinions without substantiation form the source of your faith.

I think I'll tell you what I think. I think shariaw laws and quran are cerimes against humanity. I think quran is retarded at best. I don't hate you guys or wish you bad, I just want this world to be without hateful religious dogmas, be it judaism or islam. I think it would be a better place without hands being chopped off (and I don't care if Texas laws are similary cruel), without stoning, without death sentences to homosexuals and lesbians, without muhammed who orders woman to service men sexually when they wish to have intercourse, without extermination of infidels, without honor killings, without public executions, without blaming jews for all the sins, without demonizing big satan america and small satan israel, without killings in the name of allah, without religios schools where children have to memorize quotes without questioning them, without campaigns that would send Ayan Hirshi Ali, Salman Rushdy, and dutch cartoonist to hiding in their own countries, without death threats, without hypocrytes (like you guys that make look anti-human thing seem likable, without intolerance to other systems of beleives, without woman being afraid of their sexuality, without perverted muhamed slept with aisha when she was.. you know, without taliban rule where women are caged into the dress where you can hardly breathe and where you obliterated to a household item. 
 
I was born in jewish family with a superiority complex towards anybody else in the world. I was all for the idea that people are equal, providing that I'm as a jew is "a bit more equal". It was a very nice and safe place for my personality. I could say a lot of 'pro' arguments, that were pretty convoluted (same as andalus does), and I was defending judaism vehemently as renouncing ot was renouncing my own life - but at some point I started reading what the old testament says and I felt like vomiting There was genocide, extermination of the whole countries, killings of children and woman, death sentence for homosexulas, hateful language and hatred dripping off the pages towards other people, the book of "shulhan aruh" that prescribed a way of life only for zombi-like beleivers, statements form keading jewish rabbies saying thatjewish blood is superioir and the blood of on-jewish people cannot be transfused to a sacred jewish body, phrases that if as a jew you rape a young girl she deserves to die because seduced sacred jewish spirit, that killing a non-jew is not really a crime, that arabs should be exterminated in order to restore Palestime borders, and so on.
Since then I'm not a jew. I renounce everything that has to do with this hateful religion. I refuse to be a part of it.
But you guys seem to be pretty happy with hateful religion, which makes you in my eyes accomplices to murder. Not literally of course, you won't kill anybody wih your own hands, but you wouldn't mind if somebofy else will do "what is needed".
 


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 8:57am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

That concludes the discussion. I've asked 3 times the same questions and that simply means the answer doesn't exist. Your personal opinions will remain opinions without substantiation form the source of your faith.

Hello Eiljah,

I have not been able to address your reply to me, because I have my hands full at the moment with other obligations. Was planning on responding (inshAllah) once I got the time. However during this time it appears that you have formed your own conclusions. . . although I am sure you had those opinions when you first came here. Most non-Muslims do, none of what you said was any different than the general opinion non-Muslims have. Unfortunately we muslims should also take the blame for being unaware of our own religion and not representing it in the best light. 

Hopefully we can continue the discussion and try and address some of the points you brought up.



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 10:33am
Elijah,

Clearly you came with pre-conceived notions.. we all have them. You also seem to judge US. And maybe you are young, I don't know, but you seem to let what a few people do, say or think, tell you how you should think. If you cannot see that the vast majority of the world, no matter their faith, live in peace and try to live peacefully, then you let a few dictate to you what you think.

You can go ahead and think if you believe in nothing, have no laws that utopia will exist. It does not. There are terrible people who should be punished. You think we should let all the criminals out of prison? Is that what you want, let all the child molesters, rapists to go free? That is why YOU advocate.  There should be no punishment for anyone.

Contrary to your misguided thoughts.. and lack of knowledge, no child can be punished as an adult. Hence your analogy is not even applicable. This is not part of Shariah. Just so you understand that.

If any human being kills an innocent person no matter their faith (or non faith) they will be held accountable in  front of God.

Clearly by your emotional rant you refuse to see that good and bad lives in all societies and all people. Just like when my CHRISTIAN auntie told my sister upon my mother's death (like THAT weekend) she was going to hell cause she died a Catholic. My aunt is not a bad person. I can call her misguided. 

You came in thinking Islam is bad. You judged us all.  You are no better than anything you accuse anyone else of being.





-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 11:43am
I now actually think Andalus may well have been right in saying he's not here to converse or clear his misconceptions off, rather to try and pin point Islam on various issues.

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

I just want this world to be without hateful religious dogmas, be it judaism or islam.

Awww Big%20smile Glad to see your approach is positive, but ignorance and blaming issues on a religion on assumptions won't help.
^You're somewhat a classic example of this, I'll show ya how Smile

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

I think it would be a better place without hands being chopped off

First, you make it sound like every other person's hands are chopped off. Second, if say, a serial killer has his whatever not chopped off, how the heck is that gonna make this world a better place?
And don't make me go on to some other laws and crap, where criminals are tortured so mercilessly that they wish their life be ended rather than facing the torture.


Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

without stoning, without death sentences to homosexuals and lesbians, without muhammed who orders woman to service men sexually when they wish to have intercourse, without extermination of infidels, without honor killings, without public executions, without blaming jews for all the sins, without demonizing big satan america and small satan israel, without killings in the name of allah, without religios schools where children have to memorize quotes without questioning them, without campaigns that would send Ayan Hirshi Ali, Salman Rushdy, and dutch cartoonist to hiding in their own countries, without death threats, without hypocrytes (like you guys that make look anti-human thing seem likable, without intolerance to other systems of beleives, without woman being afraid of their sexuality, without perverted muhamed slept with aisha when she was.. you know, without taliban rule where women are caged into the dress where you can hardly breathe and where you obliterated to a household item.

Here we go with the ignorance. Guess what, if anything, you're not any different from the terrorists. They out of ignorance think that blaming the religion for the violence they cause out of their own evil wants will do the trick. And people of your sorts, show an even greater essence of ignorance when they go all "hey, what kind of a religion encourages all this crap?". Puh-lease, you really have to reject your simple sense to not understand that people like these in fact have no religion. Its really ridiculous how easily you're led to believing that crap, no personal thinking involved whatsoever.

You say all this in this thread, just cuz you get the chance by many not knowing much of the Sharia law. I tried Googling and Youtubing it for personal knowledge of all this. Not so surpsrisingly, the results were negative, more so in this case, all non-Islamic sources, filled with laughable explanations and deceving implications. Seriously, if you're actually for finding out the reality, atleast go to the actual Islami sources? You don't go to a mechanical engineer when you get sick.

I do know one thing for sure though. That the Sharia law is based on the sacred sources of Islam, which is nothing but Quran. And if anything contradicts it, we readily write it off, you're pretty clear on this I suppose. Now, all what you have stated is pathetic, strictly written off by the Quran and hence Islam. Quran clearly writes off killing innocents, in the name of God or sex or whatever the hell, killing innocents is frikkin F-O-R-B-I-D-D-E-N. Regardless of what their religion is and what they've done to you. Opressing women is strictly F-O-R-B-I-D-D-E-N. Straight from the Quran. Some of that are cultural and traditional problems, not religious, IMO. Have you bothered finding it out for yourself? In fact, a couple of these things you bought in other threads were clearly told you to be false ideas of Islam, with straight quotations from the Quran. Yet you're on about them?

"without perverted muhamed slept with aisha when she was.. you know,

^That. Smile Bet ya heard it from some buddy of yours, or some people using this sad excuse to downgrade Islam, and you decided to believe it. Well first off people like those need to get a life. Second, you need to get some sense. Can always ask an explanation of this issue from a muslim who knows his religion for a change, nah?

When Aisha RA married the Prophet SAW, she did NOT go and live with him until she was old enough to have children. Might as well kick "he slept with her when she was oh-so-young" claim out the window now Big%20smile

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

I think quran is retarded at best.

^lol. Consider yourself in my position, if you see me claim a book, which I have no clue about what it says in reality, to be retarded, wouldn't you laugh? Big%20smile

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

I was born in jewish family with a superiority complex towards anybody else in the world. I was all for the idea that people are equal, providing that I'm as a jew is "a bit more equal". It was a very nice and safe place for my personality. I could say a lot of 'pro' arguments, that were pretty convoluted (same as andalus does), and I was defending judaism vehemently as renouncing ot was renouncing my own life - but at some point I started reading what the old testament says and I felt like vomiting There was genocide, extermination of the whole countries, killings of children and woman, death sentence for homosexulas, hateful language and hatred dripping off the pages towards other people, the book of "shulhan aruh" that prescribed a way of life only for zombi-like beleivers, statements form keading jewish rabbies saying thatjewish blood is superioir and the blood of on-jewish people cannot be transfused to a sacred jewish body, phrases that if as a jew you rape a young girl she deserves to die because seduced sacred jewish spirit, that killing a non-jew is not really a crime, that arabs should be exterminated in order to restore Palestime borders, and so on.

Woah... is that really true?! That's a bit shocking for me, not unexpected though.

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

Since then I'm not a jew. I renounce everything that has to do with this hateful religion. I refuse to be a part of it.
But you guys seem to be pretty happy with hateful religion, which makes you in my eyes accomplices to murder. Not literally of course, you won't kill anybody wih your own hands, but you wouldn't mind if somebofy else will do "what is needed".

Look, I totally understand how it must've felt when the religion which you'd been defending your entire life turned out nothing but mass hatred, and now I even understand the reason for your negative approach to religions, but if I were you I'd still give the other religions a chance while deciding if they're anything closer to as much as hatred as this.
Sure, Islam probably is the religion which is currently made to sound the 'scariest' worldwide. But there's obviously gotta be a reason for it. You know, in this world it just doesn't feel right that truth would be put like the way it should be put. And if anything, if I'd be for finding out the truth in today's world I'd least bit be taking the impressions of it being made into account. You did bother reading the Jewish sacred scriptures to find out the reality which is greatly appreciable, but on the other hand, did you do the same with Islam and give Quran a go? Or atleast bother looking into what the Quran says about the major issues you've bought up, such as killing innocents, honor killings, oppressing women, etc? Think about it, it really won't hurt in giving Islam a fair chance in order to know what it actually tells us, rather than going by the impressions spread by sources which are not even Islamic, or cultural/traditional customs and people who use Islam for the pathetic acts they commit.


ZOMG. Nawwwwww wall of texxttttt! Tongue




Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 16 June 2010 at 7:48pm
CHRYSALIS:
 
Them post the links that prove your point. It's a bit frustrating to post the same question in a fourth time.


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 17 June 2010 at 3:58am
If you're finally open-minded about this, then we're all ready to help ya with your proofs  Big%20smile Since Chrysalis said she's a little occuiped currently, let me have a go at it.

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

I would appreciate if you (or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed.


... مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ...... ...whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive ... (Quran 5:32)

^Lets start with this verse, it clearly speaks off against taking an innocent life.

Moving on, I'll address the verses in the Quran which talk in regard to your question.

1> One of the biggest negative impressions of Islam worldwide imply that Islam encourages the slaughter of non-believers or infidels. And often this verse is quoted to 'prove' it;

"slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191)

Ya know, the one thing you'll always need to keep in mind is, that people who have the hatred of Islam will always go to any extent in proving Islam is violent. This verse is nothing but ridiculously out of context, here's the entire verse;

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).

^See Big%20smile How clearly a verse which is discussing defense is made to sound like hatred against the non-believers by quoting the bit of part which is nothing but totally out of the context to which this verse is talking. This verse directly talks about when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.
The ONLY instance in the Quran where us muslims are allowed to even think of fighting is when attacked, other than self defense, there's no violence and injustice in Islam at all.

2> A similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.

This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community. The verse directly before this one instructs the Muslims to continue to honor treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. Then the verse continues, that those who have violated the terms of the treaty have declared war, so fight them...

Directly after this permission to fight, the same verse continues, "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them... for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The subsequent verses instruct the Muslims to grant asylum to any member of the pagan tribe/army who asks for it, and again reminds that "as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God loves the righteous."

There ya go, I've shown you how the false quotations are spread, and what actually the Quran says in those cases. Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an any support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes, or non-believers who haven't done anything to you. I assure ya, you won't find it in the Quran. Bare in mind that unlike a few religions, like the Jewish sacred scriptures you seemed to mention which appeared to have a few with some form of secrecy, Islam only has one glorious scripture, and that's the Quran. If anything contradicts it, its readily written off. Quran is the highest authority of Islam and equal to none. And its open for everyone to look into.

------------------x------------------



To finish off, the entire Islamic teachings on your subject can be summed up within these two wordings;

"It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just." (Qur'an 60:7-8)

^ The second part of the verse pretty much crystal clearly says to deal with the unbelievers, who don't oppress us, kindly and justifiably.

More questions? Smile




Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 5:34am
JazakAllah Khair Ace, you pretty much summed it up. Well Elijah, like Ace pointed out - Muslims are NOT allowed to kill anyone except when they are in war - on the battlefield, then ofcourse - you have to either kill or be killed.

The above verses talk about the battlefield, but even then - Allah says in the Qur'an that if the other party drops their weapons and asks for a truce, we should set our emotions/reasons aside and go for the truce. EVEN escort them to a place of safety !!! Which army would do that !

Islam is one of the only (or few??) religions that actually sets a code of ethics for warfare !!! before any Geneva Conventions or "POW" rules . . .  Islam laid down warfare ethics, and treatment of Prisoners. Its pretty amazing . . .  if you look at it with an open-mind I am sure even you will think it was pretty far-sighted. Although it is not related to the topic at hand, but will post the link in case you are interested:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13326&KW=prisoner+war&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13326&KW=prisoner+war&PN=2




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 6:53am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

:TO CHRYSALIS

---- That is reasonable. It is basically saying "If you're uncomfortable with the laws of the country you're living in, consider living somewhere else where you can live the life you see as a best fit for yourself. PLEASE point me to:
a. lines in quran that say so
b. if not found in quran please specify where this information comes from.
c. If "a" is not an option but "b" is I would appreciate if you
(or somebody else) can guarantee that quran dosen't say otherwise - that infidels should be considered as enemy, their laws should not be respected, and basically they should be killed.


So lets approach this one issue at a time. InshAllah everything you ask has a legitimate and valid reasoning behind it, some of the information you have is out-of-context, other is simply not true, but well like I said you cannot be blamed for it. I appreciate that you are trying to get your information straight from the source and trying to keep an open mind. I can only help with the issues I have read about or can research, so I may not be able to help you with all of your questions. However I hope that you still keep an open mind about the questions we cannot help you with.

I hope that Ace has inshAllah helped you with "Point c" by posting the Qur'anic verses that talk about the sanctity of human life. If there are still some things you wish to be clarified, pl post those.

ISSUE # 1 : Muslims having to obey the Law of the Land (whether Muslim or Not)


First of all its important to relay that most (if not all) of Islamic injunctions and laws are based on the "utilitarian principle" i.e. maxiumum possible benefit for the maximum number of people. For that reason, Islamic Law attempts to protect the society and ensure that there is peace and stability in the society. Islam does not only aim for benefit for the 'muslim' but humanity as a whole.

This is why Muslims are encouraged to be productive elements of a society and encouraged to work with society rather than against it. This includes a non-Muslim society which a Muslim may be a part of. UNLESS of course there is tyranny and injustice being meted by the society or government. In that case it becomes a religious duty of Muslims to either

1) act against it physically (do something about it)

If a Muslim is unable to do 1), they are supposed to:


2) act against it verbally (voice out their protest and make it known that they do not condone those acts and are thus not part of it)

If a Muslim is afraid to do 2) then they are at the least supposed to:

3) Detest the act within their heart

and according to Prophet Muhammad, (3) is the weakest level of Faith i.e. Imaan. But even if the Muslim cannot do 1 & 2 due to fear, circumstances etc (weakness of faith) that is the least they can do. This is based on a Hadith i.e. saying of Prophet Muhammad. Islam considers Hadith to be an authentic part of Islamic Law.

I mentioned the above points because I had to of course point out an exception when Muslims may have to go against society or break the law of the land. (for the greater good ofcourse) FYI, the above applies to both Muslim & nonmuslim societies.

In all other cases, Muslims obey the law of the land. Copy-Pasting here:

The Covenant of Security

The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers.  Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam.  The Quran commands:

And fulfill every covenant.  Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34)

The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:

It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100)

The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:

When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Citizenship (and visa) is called in Islamic legal parlance as a “covenant of security” (aqd al-aman).  For over a thousand years, Muslim scholars have rigorously affirmed the binding nature of the covenant of security.  This covenant of security can be of two types:

(1) a contractual agreement or

(2) a customary understanding.

Naturalized citizens in the United States enter into a contractual agreement with the government when they declare the oath of allegiance, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

A Muslim is obliged to keep to his word, and thus this oath is religiously binding upon him.

Natural born citizens, on the other hand, do not utter any such oath, so they fall under the second category under Islamic law.  The covenant of security is considered for them a customary understanding, in the sense that even though they did not physically say an oath or sign a document of loyalty, it is understood that there exists between the citizen and the government a covenant of security; this, i.e. customary understanding, is considered by Islamic law to be just as binding as the contractual agreement.  There is no difference between the two.

So just based upon the importance of "covenants" and "religious importance of having given our word" , Muslims have to obey the laws. There are other reasoning as well. There are numerous cases from Prophet Muhammad's time when he instructed his followers to carry out their contracts with non-Muslims. He himself fulfilled all his treaties and covenants with the non-Muslims. In fact I cannot even stress properly how important it is for a Muslim to be honest and stick to his/her "word". Hypocrisy and being a "Liar" are considered one of the worst sins and attributes a Muslim can have. I believe I read a hadith that said something like 'Lying' and 'Faith' cannot remain in a believer together.

During his time, due to persecution by the pagans, Prophet Muhammad allowed (and even encouraged) Muslims to migrate to safer lands. Muslims asked an Abyssinian Christian King for sanctuary, and integrated into the Abyssinian society as peaceful citizens.

Another example from Prophet Muhammad's Life  - the Treaty of Hudaibyah:

Why I am mentioning this:  if a Muslim State or government enters into a contract of Treaty with a non-muslim government they are to carry it through no matter what sentiments/feelings they have towards it. The Muslims of Medinah signed this Treaty with the Pagans of Meccah. One of the clauses of the treaty was:

"If a Quraysh person comes to Muhammad (i.e., after accepting Islam) without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him to them, but if one of the Muhammad’s people come to the Quraysh, he shall not be returned. "

Many Muslims felt humiliated by this clause, since it was clearly unfair. Yet they still followed it. Interestingly, a Muslim in Meccah embraced Islam, managed to escape and enter Medinah. He came to a Prophet and begged to be allowed to stay. Many Muslims wanted to keep him yet the Prophet stood by his word, even though it grieved him - and returned him to Mecca per clause. Thus even though the escapee was on Muslim soil, and in their hands - the Muslims upheld their contract to the non-muslims. (This is a very common tradition, however I do not have its reference/hadith number, if any reader does . . . please do post. JazakAllah)

Well Elijah, I hope the 'sources' and 'references' you asked for as proof helped. Will wait for you to respond with any further queries/comments before moving on with other issues.

Information taken from:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/major-nidal-hasan/ - http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/major-nidal-hasan/

Another relevant read:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1634517.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1634517.stm

Treaty of Hudaibya:
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty28.html - http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty28.html











-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 7:21am
ISSUE # 1 : Muslims having to obey the Law of the Land (whether Muslim or Not)

(Continued)

So far we looked at reasoning from the two main sources of Islamic law i.e. Qur'an & Sunnah.

Muslim Scholars and Jurists also help in formulating modern-day Islamic Policies and Laws that may not have been addressed directly in the Qur'an & Sunnah. [almost like Rabbis in Judaism, except that they (Muslim scholars) can be questioned and need to be able to back up whatever they say with proof from Qur'an & Sunnah, they are treated as fallible and their word is not set in stone. Even a common man can question their sources/logic based on fundamental sources (Qur'an & Sunnah). ]

Anyway - so this is what some Muslim Scholars have to say on the issue:

The classical Islamic jurist, Muhammad al-Shaybani (died 805 A.D.) http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=948&main_cat_id=22 - expounded :

"If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy’s front lines by deceptively pretending to be messengers of the Muslim’s ruler carrying official documents–or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines–they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority."

Salman al-Oudah, a senior religious cleric, http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=948&main_cat_id=22 - says :

"[Islamic] scholars have stated that those who enter non-Muslim countries have to adhere to their respective laws and regulations even if they entered those countries illegally, and they have no excuse for breaking those laws, since they were entrusted to abide by those laws upon entry into those countries…As long as [a Muslim] agrees to live in a non-Muslim country, he is never to rebel against the people living in his choice of residence, even it seems too hard for him to endure."


Another very good "Fatwa" or "Legal Opinion" on the matter is, recommended reading:

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18270572 - http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18270572

"Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar) "

"When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to Shariah, is considered to be a covenant, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq)."

More:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543378 - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543378

Answering the question you raised, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, states:

"We have to abide by the law of the place where we live. We are not committed to obey any law contradictory to Islam. You cannot live in a society without complying with its rules and laws. You will be forced to follow those laws. If you want to disobey the laws of that society, you will make yourself liable to penalties and punishments. That liability is against Islam."

Shedding more light on the issue, Sheikh Faisal Mawlawi, Deputy Chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, states:

"First of all, I would like to correct the question, which should be formulated as this: Is it permissible for Muslims living in the West to obey the laws that are contradictory to Islam? Muslims are obliged to abide by the Islamic laws. However, does their living in the West and submission to its laws allow them to contradict the Shari`ah rulings?

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543378#ixzz0rDNpGUif - http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543378#ixzz0rDNpGUif








-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 10:35pm
OK, seems like a lot to digest. I'l dedicate some time to it. For now quick question:
 
How quran defines the word oppression?


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 2:16am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

OK, seems like a lot to digest. I'l dedicate some time to it. For now quick question:
 
How quran defines the word oppression?


I think you should take time to digest all this before you advance into other questions. Or we will simply be jumping to and fro and confusing everyone including ourselves. Like Ace likes to say, yes it was a huge 'wall of text' - but  it was difficult to give you a better picture in just a 'brick of text'.

Take your time. No hurries.








-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: xx__Ace__xx
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:05am
Aye, the one thing I've grasped for a habit after joining here is to fire the Wall-Of-Text-lasers Tongue Most of the points are pretty explanatory I guess.

*Gets himself ready on Elijah's next question*

Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

OK, seems like a lot to digest. I'l dedicate some time to it. For now quick question:
 
How quran defines the word oppression?

You're on the right track, that's where you need to look into for what Islam actually is Big%20smile




Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 3:08am
Originally posted by xx__Ace__xx xx__Ace__xx wrote:



*Gets himself ready on Elijah's next question*



I suggest we wait till he goes through our last few posts. . . . I am sure there must be some points he may want to discuss further. Then we can move on...Smile


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 19 June 2010 at 12:29pm

CHRYSALIS:

 
:I think you should take time to digest all this before you advance into other questions
---- it is related. First quran verse that ace mentioned relates to oppression. In order to understand the verse I need to know what the term oprression means in quran. Please answer.
 
Elijah.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 1:32am
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

it is related. First quran verse that ace mentioned relates to oppression. In order to understand the verse I need to know what the term oprression means in quran. Please answer.
 
Elijah.


Quote that verse pls.












-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 20 June 2010 at 5:06am
elijah-boy:
I am interested in answering your question. But this discussion is going on for quite long. So, I want you to give me current questions. Or let me known if your initial questions are as it is.


Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 22 June 2010 at 10:14pm
CHRYSALIS:
 
Here it comes, I'd like to know what the "oppresion" means here. Same question regarding "tumulut" if you wouldn't mind
 
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).



Posted By: elijah-boy
Date Posted: 22 June 2010 at 10:18pm
ACE:
 
" that's where you need to look into for what Islam actually is"
--- not sure what you mean in this context.
 
P.S> Sorry for long pause in discussion.  I had lots of things to do in my new job.


Posted By: abuzaid
Date Posted: 24 June 2010 at 6:15pm
As in the case of any language, you will find variety of English meaning for an Arabic. Here only one word "fitnah" is used which is translated as oppression and tumult.
If you look at dictionary, it gives following meaning for the word fitnah

إِغْراء
, seduction , seducement , appeal , temptation , enticement , come-on , inveiglement , attraction
سِحْر
, spell , voodooism , witchery , sorcery , oomph , charisma , infatuation , witching , captivation , glamor , enchantment , glamour , attraction , appeal , bewitchment , charm , fascination
شَغَب , اِضْطِراب
, riot , noisiness , sedition , roar , rumpus , tumult , yelling , tumult , vociferation , noise , furore , turmoil , clatter , clamor , putsch , pother , commotion , fanfare , furor , clangor , out cry
مِحْنَة
, calamity , severe trial , gauntlet , disaster , adversity , tribulation , affliction
نَوْع مِنْ نَبَات السَّنْط
, cassie , sponge tree , sweet acacia


http://dictionary.sakhr.com/SearchResults.aspx

So, to really understand what Quran meant at this particular place, you need to see what Prophet, his companion and their followers understood from this verse.
Thus, I think what you need to discuss is that how early followers of Islam followed this verse instead of looking for dictionary meaning


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 July 2010 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by elijah-boy elijah-boy wrote:

CHRYSALIS:
 
Here it comes, I'd like to know what the "oppresion" means here. Same question regarding "tumulut" if you wouldn't mind
 
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).



Elijah,
what a beautiful verse you quote, can you find anything more Just command than that anywhere else other than the Quran for the oppressed against the oppressor?
 
You can write books about oppression but dictionary.com defines it as "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome,cruel, or unjust manner." and I think in English that will be pretty close if not exact, and I think word means what it means: that "if some entity oppress you as a people, which is to exercise authority over you in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner" what would you do in that case? what would be a Just response without you doing the same in return once the oppressor stopping from his oppression. What a beautiful and Just formula God laid out in the Quran, others can copy it, but cannot bring anything better, can they?
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 09 July 2010 at 5:48pm
Maybe Honeto was talking about the spelling of oppression as oppresion.  Just a guess.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 14 July 2010 at 9:43pm
don't tell anyone Wink

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: elisheba
Date Posted: 03 March 2011 at 6:21am
Oppression( my understanding ) is someone trying to take more power than even The Almighty takes. HE does not take away our freedom of choice...but there are people who want to take it away. Therefore I see oppressors as attempting to usurp the exclusive right of The MOST HIGH. This seems like a very great sin but I do not know the word for it.

-------------
do something to make the world a better place



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net