Print Page | Close Window

Sharia Law

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=17314
Printed Date: 20 August 2019 at 12:27pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Sharia Law
Posted By: fool4JC
Subject: Sharia Law
Date Posted: 23 August 2010 at 9:26am
What are the documentary sources of Sharia Law?
 
Where can they be found?  Are they published?
 
Who are the contemporary authentic and/or authoritative interpreters of Sharia Law as found in its documentary sources?



Replies:
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 23 August 2010 at 11:23am
Welcome,

I do not have the sources but do you speak / read Arabic? 

I am sure others will be giving you more info,...


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


Posted By: fool4JC
Date Posted: 23 August 2010 at 12:28pm
Sadly, I have no knowledge of Arabic.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 23 August 2010 at 12:36pm
The sources of sharia are Quran and Sunnah.  Books of sunnah are;
Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.
 
Books of Fiqh are: Shafi, Hanifi, Maliki and Hanifi.  The major scholars of fiqh now living are many.


Posted By: fool4JC
Date Posted: 23 August 2010 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

The sources of sharia are Quran and Sunnah.  Books of sunnah are;
Bukhari, Muslim, Nasai, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah.
 
Books of Fiqh are: Shafi, Hanifi, Maliki and Hanifi.  The major scholars of fiqh now living are many.
Thank you.
 
If I am not mistaken, the Sunnah are the practices of the Prophet recorded in writing.  Where are these books of the Sunnah that you list available in English?  Are summaries with references available?
 
What does "Fiqh" mean?  What are the books of the Fiqh?
 
Are, then, the scholars of fiqh the contemporary authoritative and/or authentic interpreters of Sharia law?
 
Is a single consensus arrived at by them collectively?  Or is any legal opinion of a scholar an acceptable interpretation of Sharia Law?


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 24 August 2010 at 3:04am
Hi,

From my limited knowledge
Fiqh = science of the law  or Islamic Law

There are different areas like say the Fiqh of medicine, marriage, prayer, etc.

It is a good question you ask about understanding of Fiqh. #1 you have to have knowledge- expertise in Arabic grammar. #2 you have to have training and long-term study to be wildly regarded.

Yes scholars of today can give opinions.. like say, can Muslims use computers.. that was not something 1000 years ago they dealt with. The science behind it is that the way to arrive at the conclusions is consistent with the past. And any opinion that is to be "accepted" must have the arguments / proof behind it.

its like in the past to get have, say a paper approved or legitimate you need the sources to back you up.. similar.

There is not only a science in the actual study of the Hadith and Sunnah, but also the methodologies of the discussion itself. 
For some man things there is consensus.. like we should pray, fast etc. Others there are differences that are accepted as well in other areas.

If you want an idea.. go to the page on DarUsSalaam Publishers and you can see there are books on specific Fiqh.

 




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


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 August 2010 at 7:45am
If I am not mistaken, the Sunnah are the practices of the Prophet recorded in writing.  Where are these books of the Sunnah that you list available in English?  Are summaries with references available?
The two classic and famous books, Bukhari and Muslim, can be found at online bookstores in English.
 
What does "Fiqh" mean?
Basically laws derived from Sharia
 
  What are the books of the Fiqh?
A scholars discussion of laws pertaining to such matters as purification, prayer, fasting, zakat, and hajj, therefore many books of fiqh exist - some classic and well know and others not so well known.
 
Are, then, the scholars of fiqh the contemporary authoritative and/or authentic interpreters of Sharia law?
There is much debate on this issue.
 
Is a single consensus arrived at by them collectively?
With respect to Sharia most often there is, but rarely in fiqh.
 
  Or is any legal opinion of a scholar an acceptable interpretation of Sharia Law?
Wide debate on this question.


Posted By: fool4JC
Date Posted: 25 August 2010 at 3:54am

Thanks for your answer.

 

As a non-Muslim two things are of interest to me.

 

Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

Are, then, the scholars of fiqh the contemporary authoritative and/or authentic interpreters of Sharia law?

There is much debate on this issue.

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.

 

Quote Or is any legal opinion of a scholar an acceptable interpretation of Sharia Law?

Wide debate on this question.

 

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.

 

“Military conquest” is self-explanatory.  An example would be the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of  Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.



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


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 26 August 2010 at 9:22am

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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


Posted By: fool4JC
Date Posted: 26 August 2010 at 11:06am
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Thank you for a thorough and informative answer.

 

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

 

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



Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 2:21pm
Originally posted by fool4JC fool4JC wrote:

Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Thank you for a thorough and informative answer.

 

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

 

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

 
Hello fool4JC,
 

In Islam, there is no compulsion in religion:

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

Qur’an 2:256

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm
 
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 http://whyislam.org/ASharedGoldenAge/tabid/352/Default.aspx - related link in the following thread:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 -



-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13


Posted By: peacemaker
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 2:27pm

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

http://whyislam.org/SocialTies/IslamicShariah/tabid/346/Default.aspx - http://whyislam.org/SocialTies/IslamicShariah/tabid/346/Default.aspx


-------------
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Qur'an 55:13


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 27 August 2010 at 6:12pm

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

 

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

 

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



Posted By: fool4JC
Date Posted: 28 August 2010 at 2:41pm
Originally posted by abuayisha abuayisha wrote:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 29 August 2010 at 7:11am
Well my personal feeling is we have seen the last of the Caliphate, and are awaiting the return of Christ, where a just rule will prevail on earth.  Mullah Omar in Afghanistan was declared "Ruler of the Muslims" however this declaration was all but ignored throughout the Muslim world.  Anyway, yes, if there were a Caliphate offensive jihad would become permissible.  We can both speculate concerning its form and expression, but again, I don't believe it will return as we knew it before.


Posted By: fool4JC
Date 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.


Posted By: fool4JC
Date 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

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm
 
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 http://whyislam.org/ASharedGoldenAge/tabid/352/Default.aspx - related link in the following thread:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 -

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?


Posted By: abuayisha
Date 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.


Posted By: malucy
Date 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.



Posted By: peacemaker
Date 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

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm
 
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 http://whyislam.org/ASharedGoldenAge/tabid/352/Default.aspx - related link in the following thread:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 -

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.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 - 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


Posted By: fool4JC
Date 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

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/2.htm
 
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 http://whyislam.org/ASharedGoldenAge/tabid/352/Default.aspx - related link in the following thread:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 -

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.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17341 - 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.


Posted By: peacemaker
Date 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



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