ARE SHARIAH LAWS ANTI-ALLAH ?

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

You see the reason why you people fail to understand the wisdom of Shariah laws is because of your very low intelligence, your ignorance of the Quran & Sunnah (apart from a few ayahs which you have come across by reading the books of christian missionaries) and the islamic history. I'll tell you why. You say that, with the meaning of "there is no difference between shariah and what the muslims are implementing in their societies, therefore the Shariah laws must be revised."

Answer: There is huge difference between Shariah and whether people implement it or not. Consider the case of divorce. For e.g. a woman in pakistan seeks divorce through a judge, and her husband kills her as a result of it (we condemn this.) So now consider if this law, as you request is changed so that the woman can also divorce her husband by saying it three times. So now is this going to prevent her husband from killing her. I think not, rather he will be more determind to kill her. So what will prevent him. The fear of being given the death sentence (Uh.. an Islaamic law.) Whereas the so called 'humane' law of putting him in prison for years (see figures below), even if that, is much less likely to restrain him.

As requested earlier, I will briefly list some of the laws of Shariah which show Allah's Mercy & Compassion.

  1. Collection of the obligatory Zakaah(one of the five pillars) from the rich and given to the poor.
  2. An obligation upon the man to provide for his wife & children.
  3. The Hajj - an obligation only upon those who have the means to do it.
  4. Forbiddance of Ribaa (interest) based loans. Well.. you can see the results for yourself as Wold Bank and the IMF are busy round the clock bleeding dry the poorer countries.
  5. Forbiddance of killing your daughters. What was the reason for revelation of these verses : the pagan arabs who killed their newly born daughters. Reason for killing: fear of poverty. Is this happening today: Yes. By whom: by the 'champions of freedom, democracy and human rights' (USA & UN), through the UN population control program. Method: kill your children before they are born. Reason: fear of poverty (not enough resources left).('Oh.. are you goining to re-interpret the Shariah to reflect the current method of killing the children?')

TYPICAL RESPONSE FROM A 'MODERNIST MUSLIM': "Well.. you see the Shariah laws have to reflect the time and place and the USA led UN is the authority today. Therefore the Shariah laws must be re-interpreted in order to comply with their laws. Anyway that forbiddance only applied to the pagan arabs. Oh.. and it's only referring to children who have already been born. Therefore the new shariah ruling is, 'KILL your children if you fear they will use too much of the world's resources.' But it has to be done before they are born, because it's very inhumane to do it afterwards. Well if that's not enough time for you to decide.. Sorry but you just happen to be in the wrong time frame. Of course in a few years time, this law will be changed again to allow you more time to decide after they are born, to asses whether they really are using up too much resources."

By the way if anyone is looking for alternative to Shariah laws, then look no further than the USA. Our tried & tested laws are the most up to date, reflecting the changing societies and times, through a process of continuously assesing and re-assesing by spending billions of dollars, using the most upto date methods & techniques. Still not sure.. just look at what we have managed to achieve in the last forty years.

1960...
160 violent crimes per 100,000 persons.
1,620 property crimes per 100,000 persons.
1997...
611 violent crimes per 100,000 persons.
4,312 property crimes per 100,000 persons.
Note: 1997 is the latest year for which complete data is available from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Violent crimes include Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaugher, Forcible Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault. Property crimes include Burglary, Larceny-Theft and Motor Vehicle Theft.

Median time served for murder in the United States... 5.5 years
Median time served for rape...3 years
Median time served for robbery...2.25 years
Median time served for assault...1.25 years
Everyday 14 people are murdered, 48 women raped and 578 people are robbed by persons who have been caught, convicted, and subsequently released on probation or parole.
30% of all murders are committed by persons on probation or parole.
Of the 3.7 million convicted felons in the U.S., 3.2 million are on probation or parole.

Hey, we guarantee to do better for you, or we will give you back every cent.

Look we're even going to give you a free tip, so you can try for youself before you start dishing out your dollars.

Requirement: increase in rape of women, sexual assaults and harrasment of women
Method: It not easy but it can be done, just follow the guidlines.
1. Expose your people to the latest fashion shows in the western world. This will bring out half-naked women on to your streets.
2. Legalise pornography and sexually explicit films.
Result: Just sit back and watch the figures go sky high.

[This message has been edited by salafi (edited June 22, 2000).]

22

Salafi,

In Pakistan there are 3 rapes committed per day and that is the reported number.

A woman can't press charges because she needs 4 male adult muslims witnesses to press charges.

If the woman did press charge and couldn't provide the reqd. witness then she, herself, is suspected of encouraging fornication. The jails are overflowing with victims of the zina laws.

So, being of 'low intelligence' that I am, as per you; could you pls show me how this sharia'h works in Saudia; the pisspot of the wahabiyas. I am sure the 'most intelligent' Saudias have got the Sharia'h perfected like Masooma is describing! Go ahead, showcase the sharia'h laws as it works in Saudia Arabia, please!

23

Faceup, instead of telling me to read entire threads, please just copy and paste the stuff that you think is relevant in proving your point.

24

Indeed all praises are due to Allah, we seek His help, ask for His forgiveness and seek His guidance.

As expected the above article seems to have struck at some sensitive nerves. How did I know that. Well Allah says "We fling the truth against the falsehood and it(truth) smashes it's(falsehood) brains out."(21:18)

And certainly it seems to have left your brain confused and dazed as you made a few blunders in your response. You seem to have been confused with the number of witnesses required for rape with adultery.

Logical, I have to thankyou for supporting my argument that Shariah laws are not currently implemented anywhere in their totality including Saudia, since most of their banking system is based on Ribaa(interest which is forbidden). If it's the actual laws of Shariah that you are against, then know my friend that we will continue to destroy each and every one of your arguments(ones that are worthy of being refuted, most of them are just foolish and bragged again and again). If you are not against the Shariah laws but the way they are implemnted, then join us in demanding their implementation.

Anyway since you mentioned Saudia and rape, then read the ruling of one of the Scholars of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Muhammad S. al-Munajjid.

Question to the Shaikh: Does a woman have to defend herself if someone wants to rape her, and is she allowed to use a weapon for that purpose?

The Shaikh answers: Praise be to Allaah.

A woman who is being forced to commit zinaa [unlawful sexual activity] is obliged to defend herself and should not give in even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self-defence is waajib (obligatory), and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into zinaa. Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Hibbaan reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Whoever is killed defending his property is a shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed defending himself is a shaheed, whoever is killed defending his religion is a shaheed, and whoever is killed defending his family is a shaheed. In the commentary on this hadeeth it says: whoever is killed defending his family is a shaheed refers to the one who defends the honour of his wife and female relatives.

If a man is obliged to defend his wife and fight off the one who wants to rape her, even if this leads to his own death, then this obligation applies even more to the woman herself, who must defend herself and not give in to the aggressor who wants to violate her honour, even if she is killed, because if she is killed she will also be a shaheedah, just as her husband will be a shaheed if he was killed defending her honour. Shahaadah (martyrdom, the status of shaheed) is a high status which is only achieved by the one who dies in the way of obedience to Allaah and that which He loves, which indicates that Allaah loves this kind of defence, a man’s fighting to defend his wife’s honour and a woman’s fighting to defend herself. But if she is unable to defend herself, and the evil aggressor overpowers her and rapes her by force, then she should not be subjected to any punishment (hadd or ta’zeer); rather, the punishment should be carried out on the evil aggressor.

......and the Shaikhs answer continues by giving relevant examples from the time of the companions and the early generations.

A personal message to women in the west: if you are thinking of doing what is mentioned in the above ruling to a would be rapist, then certainly you have every right do so. But be careful, if you offer any resistance and the rapist gets hurt, you may be sued by the rapist and end up spending most of your life in prison.

So much for the protection of women....as you people claim.

You seem to have deviated from your initial post which only talked about the actual laws of Shariah. Looks as though though the CIA didn't do a very good job in teaching you art of deception & refutation, did they. Anyway I'll give you a tip, I mean what are friends for... right!: next time you are trying to refute the Shariah, claim that since the british were in India which had many muslims, they british laws are influenced by the age old Shariah laws. Therefore all the problems of crime and law in Britain are because of the Shariah.

I hope what I have said here and above is sufficient against the deception and lies of these people against the Shariah. If anyone still has any doubts, please let me know and I will try and help. As for logical, faceup and your likes, then carry on with your shouting and screaming as you will deceive and fool only yourselves.

25

Salafi
So, now Saudia is NOT ruled by shariah and, you'll say that culture & traditions are NOT influenced by Islam/Sharia's! And, my momma wears Army boots!

Saudi Arabia's legal system is based on Sharia'h and that includes banking & commerce which is governed by a special committee of jurists.

I mean you can shout as much as you want and that is only for the sound affect; because the Sharia'h as it stands at present VIOLATES every laws on Human Decency & Dignity!

Afghanistan is also governed by Sharia'h based on Saudia concept; and, so is Iran but on slightly different Sharia'h. Nigeria has been slowly adopting Sharia'h laws to govern itself.!

So, if you have a brain, I suggest you use it before opening your mouth and trying to project Sharia'h or Orthodox Islam in ways that it is not!

Islam's only hope lies in either (i)adopting secular laws or(ii) revising 7th century sharia'h laws to reflect time & place.

26

Hey logical,
Does your momma really wear Army boots? and what brand are they? CIA?

As I said earlier Saudi Arabia does not implement Shariah in it's totality. Yes Saudi Arabia has a committe of jurists, but you will find that, some of their rulings are clearly not implemented, which can not be called part of Shariah, but rather it is KUFR(e.g. Ribaa).

As for taliban, Iran and Nigeria, I am not aware of their judicial system. But I pray that they implement the Shariah comprhensively as quickly as possible.

I don't know what is meant by "showcase the Shariah laws as it works in Saudi Arabia". If you mean by that they are not in accordance with the western laws of sending criminals on holidays (this has happened in Britain) then of course not and all the praises are due to Allah. If you mean that the hand of the thief is cut off, and the murderer is executed, the adulterer is stoned to death, amongst the other laws of Shariah, then certainly that is true. And we praise and praise Allah and pray that this spreads from the east to the west.

And you say "you can shout as much you want and that is only for the sound effect".

Well, you see... if you roll back and look at your postings, you will see that they are simply a listing of the Shariah laws(some incorrect) and followed by "they contravene every humanitarian law" without explaining how and their alternatives and their effectiveness in society. Whereas I have taken a few laws from the Shariah clearly explained how they are superior to your alternative western & UN laws(e.g. abortion, encouragement of rape because of negligible punishment, etc.).

It seems you have nothing left to say except listing the laws of Shariah and claiming the are against human decency. Your example seems to be that of King Namrood (with regards to trying to refute the argument of Ibraheem (as)). Ever heard of it. Read the second surah verse 258.

When Ibraheem(as) went to Namrood and said to him, "It is my Lord who gives life and death. He(Namrood) said "I give life and cause death."
So the stupid tyrant said that he too could give life and death - meaning that he killed whom he pleased and spared whom he pleased. This answer of his was merely a pretence and a means of fooling the ignorant and was a way of avoiding the question, since what Ibraheem referred to was the fact that his Lord created mankind, animals and plants and gave them life and brought them into existence from nothing. So when Ibraheem(as) saw that he tried to create a pretence to evade the issue, which might fool some of the ignorant and common folk, he then said, as a means of showing the futility of what his saying entailed, that if you are as you claim, then
"Allah causes the sun to rise from the east, so if you are truthful then cause it to rise from the west. So the unbeliever was dumbfounded."
So the unbeliever was left dumbfounded and at loss for words. His argument was overthrown, he was silenced, struck dumb and falsehood was rendered futile as is alway the case.

27

salafi,

Quote:
"Does your momma really wear Army boots?"

Religion, or any other discussion kay liye, "MAA" ki INSULT karnay kee koyee zaroorat nahiN hai!!!!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Dehatan (edited June 23, 2000).]

28

Salafi,

That was ALL for sound affect wasn't it? It didn't even sound good; too much static.

Anyways, if you want to believe that the 7th century laws are practical and were parachuted down from heaven by Allah then go ahead. I shall be right in the front line to blast its inequity unless they are re-aligned to reflect place & time.

Good Luck with those sound affects!

29

[quote]
Originally posted by salafi:
**
The Shaikh answers: Praise be to Allaah.

A woman who is being forced to commit zinaa [unlawful sexual activity] is obliged to defend herself and should not give in even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self-defence is waajib (obligatory), and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into zinaa.
**
[/quote]

Salafi, don't you see that when they say that self-defense is "obligatory," then that means that the woman MUST defend herself with violence? If she cannot prove that she attempted to defend herself (i.e. with wounds that she has suffered) then her claim of rape will not be accepted. Defending oneself with violence could likely lead to the woman being seriously hurt or killed. If a woman decides to save her life by not fighting back, then the Saudi courts would say it wasn't rape, because she let him do it.

She sheik says she "should not give in even if she kills the man." So she shouldn't give in until he dies? I wonder who would die first, her or him?

Zara

30

Zaraatif, the purpose of the Shaikhs ruling was to show that a woman can kill a rapist and not be at fault. This is why I omitted most of it. The full ruling is listed below again. By the way if you don't know how the Saudi courts will judge, then don't start making assumptions, ask the Saudi judges first. How would you like it if I started telling everyone things about you which are not true.

Does a woman have to defend herself if someone wants to rape her, and is she allowed to use a weapon for that purpose?

Praise be to Allaah.

A woman who is being forced to commit zinaa [unlawful sexual activity] is obliged to defend herself and should not give in even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self-defence is waajib (obligatory), and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into zinaa. Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Hibbaan reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever is killed defending his property is a shaheed (martyr), whoever is killed defending himself is a shaheed, whoever is killed defending his religion is a shaheed, and whoever is killed defending his family is a shaheed.” In the commentary on this hadeeth it says: “whoever is killed defending his family is a shaheed” refers to the one who defends the honour of his wife and female relatives.

If a man is obliged to defend his wife and fight off the one who wants to rape her – even if this leads to his own death – then this obligation applies even more to the woman herself, who must defend herself and not give in to the aggressor who wants to violate her honour, even if she is killed, because if she is killed she will also be a shaheedah, just as her husband will be a shaheed if he was killed defending her honour. Shahaadah (martyrdom, the status of shaheed) is a high status which is only achieved by the one who dies in the way of obedience to Allaah and that which He loves, which indicates that Allaah loves this kind of defence, a man’s fighting to defend his wife’s honour and a woman’s fighting to defend herself. But if she is unable to defend herself, and the evil aggressor overpowers her and rapes her by force, then she should not be subjected to any punishment (hadd or ta’zeer); rather, the punishment should be carried out on the evil aggressor.

It says in al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali: “Concerning a woman who was pursued by a man, and she killed him to protect herself, Ahmad said: ‘If she knew that he wanted [to rape] her, and she killed him to protect herself, then she is not at fault.’ Ahmad mentioned the hadeeth which al-Zuhri reported from al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, from ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr, in which it said that a man had visitors from [the tribe of] Hudhayl, and he wanted [to rape] a woman, so she threw a rock at him and killed him. ‘Umar said, ‘By Allaah, there is no diyah for him ever’ i.e., she did not have to pay the ‘blood money’ for him. If it is permissible to defend one's money, which one can give away, then a woman defending and protecting herself and her honour which cannot be given away, is clearly more permissible than a man defending his money. If this is clear, then she is obliged to defend herself if she can, because letting someone overpower her [rape her] is haraam, and by not defending herself, she lets him overpower her.” [al-Mughni, 8/331]

And Allaah knows best. Al-Mufassal fi Ahkaam al-Mar’ah, 5/42-43.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah, 18: “(Section) … A woman who had committed zinaa was brought to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him), and he asked her about it and she admitted it, so he commanded that she should be stoned. ‘Ali said: ‘Maybe she had a reason.’ So he said to her, ‘What made you do that?’ She said, ‘I had a partner who shared livestock with me; his camels had water and milk, and mine had none. I got thirsty, so I asked him to give me something to drink, but he refused unless I let him have his way with me. I refused three times, but I was so thirsty that I thought I was going to die, so I gave him what he wanted, and he gave me something to drink.’ ‘Ali said: ‘Allaahu akbar! “… But if one is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then there is no sin on him. Truly Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [al-Baqarah 2:173 – interpretation of the meaning].’”

In Sunan al-Bayhaqi it says: “From Abu ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Sulami, who said: ‘A woman was brought to ‘Umar who had been extremely thirsty, and had passed by a shepherd and asked him to give her something to drink; he had refused to give her something to drink unless she let him have his way with her. ‘Umar] consulted with the people as to whether he should have her stoned. ‘Ali said, ‘She was forced to do it. I think you should let her go.’ So he did so. I say: this is what should be done. If a woman is in desperate need of food and drink from a man, which he will not give her unless she lets him have his way with her, and she is scared that she will die without them, so she lets him have his way with her, then she is not to be punished. If it were asked, is it permissible for her in this situation to let him have his way with her, or does she have to suffer [her hunger and thirst] with patience, even if she dies? The answer is that her case is like that of a woman who is forced to commit zinaa, to whom it is said, ‘Either you let me have my way with you, or I will kill you.’ The woman who is forced to do this should not be punished; she can save herself from being killed in this manner, but if she bears it (i.e., being killed) with sabr (patience), this is better for her. (But she does not have to put up with with being killed). And Allaah knows best.”

31

Salafi,
Those Hadiths which you added this time prove nothing about Shariah or Saudi Arabia. I have read before in other places that under such laws a woman has to prove that she violently resisted rape in order to have the incident not seen as zina.
Zara

32

If you were to ponder over what was actually stated in the narrations, then you will realize that is not the case.

If the woman let the man have his way, because she was thirsty, then how about if she feared death. Where is it mentioned in the narrations that Ali or Umar, sought to see evidence of wounds that she suffered. Rather they took her statement as an evidence.

Yes! you may have read it in the propaganda books of the christian missionaries or heard it on Zionist run media in the USA.

33

Salafi, I am talking about the words of the Saudi cleric that you quoted, not the Hadith.

And even in the case of those Hadith, the woman must prove that it was a choice between rape or death. Nice choice. And the first hadith that you quoted, "in in al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali," the idea is identical to what the Saudi cleric said:

"she is obliged to defend herself if she can, because letting someone overpower her [rape her] is haraam, and by not defending herself, she lets him overpower her.”

About Christian media, have you ever seen the Saudi media reporting on the injustice in their country? Actually, what I have read was in books, written both by westerners and by Muslims. Not all Muslims see Saudi Arabia as heaven on earth. My friend's parents just came back from there. They said that women are treated like another species.

Zara

34

Furthermore, if you think that a woman in a Western country would be jailed for hurting or even killing a rapist, you are mistaken. If you read this, it must have been in the Saudi media. In the US, you are even able to kill burglars when you are defending your property.

Zara

35

Salafi,

what happened, ya'ar? If "this Shaykh" of yours is preaching that "woman should Defend herself is to incite more violence against her". The correct way that the Shaikh should be recommending is that the laws should be able to PROTECT ONE & ALL.

Zara explains it beautifully:
"that self-defense is "obligatory," then that means that the woman MUST defend herself with violence? If she cannot prove that she attempted to defend herself (i.e. with wounds that she has suffered) then her claim of rape will not be accepted. Defending oneself with violence could likely lead to the woman being seriously hurt or killed. If a woman decides to save her life by not fighting back, then the Saudi courts would say it wasn't rape, because she let him do it."

Stop being defensive and skirting the issue by quoting voluminously from the holy texts. Accept the fact that the Sharia'h laws are FLAWED and should be fixed; that is what IJTHEHAD is all about!

36

Shaikh zara zara zara zaraatif,
I eagerly await the publication of your new translation and commentry of the Qur'an. And please, can I be your student, so I can be elightened by your vast knowledge of the sciences of the qur'an, hadith and fiqh. Oh.. and I've heard so many stories about your teacher (Shaikh al-Iblees (satan)). You're a good girl, because it looks as though from all your statements on this forum, you have not deviated in the slightest from the orders of your teacher.

Anyway, I thought I'll help you out in your re-interpretation of the Qur'an. Perform the following steps.
1. Import the entire text of the Quran in to Microsoft Word 2000
2. Go to EDIT and choose REPLACE
3. Type 'permissible' in the first text box and 'impermissible' in the second. This will make everything that is lawful into unlawful
4. perform the above two steps again, but the words the other way round. This will make everything that is unlawful in lawful
5. Then just go to FILE and select PRINT
6. As simple as that (you said it was easy)

Oh! and don't forget to put a patent on the name of you new religion 'zaratarians'

Anyway, it looks from they way you are talking, is that the copy of the Qur'an which you keep on referring to is the 'CIA Handbook' with Qur'an written on the front.

But before you do what I have written above, reading the following hadith reported in at-tirmidhee. "The Messenger(saw) recited to Adiyy bin Hatim (who was a christian before embracing Islamm) Allah's words:
'They (the christians and jews) have taken their rabbis and monks - as well as the Messiah, son of Mary - as lords besides Allah, although they had been commanded to worship none but the One God...' (9:31)
Upon hearing this Adiyy responded 'But we did not worship them'. The Messenger(saw) asked him 'Did they not make lawful for you that which Allah had prohibited, and you (obeyed them and) took it as lawful? And (did they not) make prohibited for you that which is permissible, and you (obeyed them and) accepted it as prohibited? He replied 'Yes! indeed' The Messenger(saw) concluded 'This then is worshipping them.'"

And about the rape thing try reading the whole article. Here's the last part:
The answer is that her case is like that of a woman who is forced to commit zinaa, to whom it is said, ‘Either you let me have my way with you, or I will kill you.’ The woman who is forced to do this should not be punished; she can save herself from being killed in this manner, but if she bears it (i.e., being killed) with sabr (patience), this is better for her. (But she does not have to put up with being killed). And Allaah knows best.”

This obligation is nothing to do with how the Saudi courts will judge her. Just like asking Allah for forgiveness for a sin is an obligation, but if we don't, it doesn't mean the Saudi courts will hold it against us and punish us for not asking Allah for forgiveness. Anyway, you say that's what the saudis WILL do, but the fact is that they don't. Your example seems to be that of dog that keeps on chasing it's own tail.

37

Salafi,

I am very grateful for the new found respect which you are showing me!

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smile.gif

Please be sure that if I choose to do a new translation of the Quran in the manner that you describe above, you would be the person that I would give a copy. However, in this thread, we have been discussing the Shariah, and not the Quran. The Quran is a completed text that will never be rewritten or changed, unlike the Shariah, which should be.

Zara zara zara zara zaraatif

38

Yeah, show me the difference between the Qur'an and Shariah, Give me examples of laws that you can re-interpret from the Qur'an. Back them up with the Qur'an and Sunnah, not the Readers Digest. How do you think that the previously quoted hadith from ibn Adiyy about the christians worshipping their rabbis and monks is different to what you are doing.

To show that not following the ruling of Rasoolullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) when a dispute occurs is a sign of hypocrisy, Allah (subhaanahu wa taaalaa) says:

"They say, We believe in Allah and in the apostle, and we obey; but even after that, some of them turn away; they are not (really) Believers. When they are summoned to Allah and His apostle, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come)....The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey"; it is such as these that will attain felicity." [Qur’aan 24:47-51]

and the hadith below:

Reported by ibn Adiyy: The Messenger(saw) said "This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation - they will expel from it the alterations made by those going beyond bounds, the false claims of the liars, and the false interpretations of the ignorant."

Who do you think this hadith is referring to?
Yes! the likes ofyou, Zaraatif and I declare that you specifically fit into all three categories.

I'll leave you with this statement to ponder over.
"Every crazed fool has put himself forward to teach,
Dull witted, yet claiming to be a scholar and a teacher,
So it is befitting that the people of knowledge should quote,
The ancient poem, famous and quoted in every sitting:
The sheep has become so weak and thin that its kidneys are visible,
Such that every poor ignorant person would pass it by.’

[This message has been edited by salafi (edited June 25, 2000).]

39

Did the 4 sunni theologians/Imams did the Prophet(saw) any justice when they established their 4 school of thoughts that included the Shariah. The prophet (s) clearly said that heaven lies at the feet of the mother and, this was stated by Masooma in her thread; is this havenly state for mothers reflected in the present sharia'h re: women:
1) Rape against woman can only be proven if there are FOUR adult muslim male witnesses. A female's testimony is not even taken as half-value in the case of capital crimes. If the case is unproven, the woman can be charged with fornication which carries the death penalty.

2) Man can have up to four wives and could divorce (Talaq) her by simply mentioning the word: “Talaq, Talaq, Talaq” or, alternatively follow the more prescribed way by ponouncing "Talaq" on three separate occasions. This is a less hasty form of divorce and so is more preferred.

3) While, a woman on the other hand, if she is uneducated, poor & helpless, may never be able to even suggest divorce.

4) In business transactions, women’s word is half of a man or, 2 males would be required to witness a contract or business transaction where a woman is involved.

5) Islamic laws of inheritance, similarly, discriminates against females and widows. A male child receives more than her mother and her sister.

6) In some Islamic countries, a woman doesn’t even have the right to vote. She is restricted only to certain jobs and restricted from any public office.

The open Ijthehad which allowed the sunnis to establish various school of thoughts would have also solved any problems vis-a-vis revisions of sharia'h deemed oppressive. Rather, the ulemas Did away with open Ijthehad and froze everything for all eternity revolving around the 4 sunni school of thoughts.

QUESTIONS:
1)I am curious to know how the Ottaman Caliphate would have handled the questions of revisions. Could someone pls shed light on this!

2) I would also like to know from the shias, 12'er, specially Masooma, as to how their Imam Mehdi, if present, would have handled aspects of revisions to Shariah.

Thank you.

40

Since you asked for a specific example, I will quote one that I posted earlier in this thread:

[quote]
Originally posted by zaraatif:
** As far as I understand it, one of the ways that Shariah goes wrong is, whenever there is some room for interpretation, it interprets in favor of men, and against women (there are other biases as well). For example, there are clear statements in the Quran saying that a man can have a divorce, thus men are granted this right in Shariah. There is also a place where it says something like, "Do not hold your women in marriage against their will, in order to inflict hardship on them." This could EASILY have been interpreted to mean that women also have the right to get out of an oppressive marriage. However, the men who made the Shariah chose to make laws that only men have the absolute right to divorce.

Further, God says that he abhors divorce, and then it should be avoided at all costs, however, the Shariah puts absolutely no restriction on divorce for men. It's as easy as saying one phrase three times. If Shariah had been made with the interests of women in mind, there would have been SOME sort of process to curb the practice of divorce on demand by men. **
[/quote]

Thus, under Shariah, divorce is too easy for men, and too difficult for women. You asked me what I would change, well, these are some changes I would make. I can give more suggestions, if you are interested.

Zara