ARE SHARIAH LAWS ANTI-ALLAH ?

as for you wowyi, then you ought to read my earlier responses and you will find your answers. No, we are defending someone who does not implement the Shariah. If a woman doesn't know the ruling of divorce in any society, then she won't get a divorce. She won't get a divorce, a woman un-educated and poor and helpless can be any community in the world.

As for you zaraatif, then example you have stated only shows your ignorance and how little you know about the basics of religion. No one today or in the history of Islaam has interpreted the verse they way you have. I think you have a very low IQ level. The command in the ayah, is specifically an admonishment for men. Women do have the right to get out of an oppressive marriage, but it can not be deduced from this specific ayah. Please to do not confuse, what happens in your society of ignorance which is going backwards(people before islam, used to come out more naked than you people do and homosexuality is nothing new) with that of the laws of Shariah.

Insha'Allah, soon I'll prepare a conclusion to this thread, exposing further your modernist cult that you belong to.

salafi,

Could you answer the points raised by wowyi and zara. If you cannot then we'll assume that you do not have the answers except 'hot air'.

To me zara, wowyi, rani, faceup, ny ahmedi are examples of what Humanity is all about and humanity has to be at the CORE of all religions.

salafi,

Could you answer the points raised by wowyi and zara. If you cannot then we'll assume that you do not have the answers except 'hot air'.

To me zara, wowyi, rani, faceup, ny ahmedi are examples of what Humanity is all about and humanity has to be at the CORE of all religions.

I've 2 suggestions:
1)I would like to see a complete re-vamp of the sharia'h laws in the spirit of Ijthehad, as they dicriminate and opporess not only muslim women but other religions and muslims as well in matters of personal choices & persuit of liberty & happiness!

2)Alternatively, adopt universal human rights code to offset the disciminations & oppression of the sharia'h laws.

Logical says

[quote]
To me zara, wowyi, rani, faceup, ny ahmedi are examples of what Humanity is all about and humanity has to be at the CORE of all religions.
[/quote]

Why do you need a religion to be a humanist? And why worry about other religions when you can't even come to terms with your own?

Atheism and shirk are not part of islam. You'll find that out when you meet your Maker. Now go out and enjoy life. It doesn't last forever.

Xtreme, Salafi and Wowyi:

Mr Xtreme writes"
"Why do you need a religion to be a humanist? And why worry about other religions when you can't even come to terms with your own?"

1)You want to know" Why do you need a religion to be a humanist?"

Well, my friend, If Islam and muslims are going to STATE adamantly: ALLAH IS REHAMAN-IR-REHIM or, Allah is most Compassionate & Merciful then, we had better be able to prove that Islam is indeed compassionate & merciful! Can you or any of your associates prove this for me?

If you are unable to prove that ALLAH IS REHMAN & RAHIM then you had better change it to: Allah is NOT Rehman & Not Rahim. This would also answer your question: "Why do you need a religion to be a humanist?"

2) You also write: "And why worry about other religions when you can't even come to terms with your own?"

You seem to be saying that maybe,I am not a muslim! And, people should ignore everything I say! My friend: I've rejected the sunni faith and consider wahabiya - heretics!

To Salafi aka BubbleBuster:
So, ran off again! At least you did not stink up the place with curses this time!

To wowyi:
I see your 2 questions have remained unanswered. Let me try. BTW, I agree that Prophet's hadith: "the heaven's lies at the feet of a mother" is NOT reflected in sharia'h!

Wowyi asks:
1)I am curious to know how the Ottaman Caliphate would have handled the questions of revisions (to sharia'h). Could someone pls shed light on this!

IMO, the Caliphate would have issued instructions to their ulemas/mujthahids to come up with a fatwa/ruling on such & such to reflect such & such in accordance with the ijthehad al-ray!

2)You also ask:"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."

IMO, the shias do not have any clear-cut ideas of what an imam can be or not be. You'll find excessive adulation for the ahle bayt in their website, that is the extent of it! If Imam Mehdi were to show up today, they would probably deal with him much the same as they dealt with the Bab of the Bahais!

There are Ismailias on this site; why not ask them?

CONCLUSION & THE FINAL DEATH BLOW TO THE MODERNIST CULT

This thread was arrogantly started with attacks upon the Shari’ah, by people who claim to be adherents to the Qur’an & Sunnah, who are better known as modernists. My purpose in entering this discussion was to show the futility of their claims, so the one who is sincerely searching for the truth is not deceived by their lies and deception. My evidence being from the creator that we claim to worship, Allah and the statements of the Messenger(saw) to show that what these people are uttering is disbelief. Also I took a few laws of the Shariah which at first seem discrimnatory, but when explained rationally, it showed clearly the perfect wisdom of Allah, e.g. the law of inheritance mentioned previously. The reason why the man recives more is because of his financial obligations which are much more than the woman’s. To explain each and every law of Shariah rationally and to prove the superiority over the western laws is not possible here, since it would require many volumes of work. And the scholars have already replied to these modernists, and their works are widely available.

These modernists claim that they believe in the Qur’an and Sunnah yet they failed to quote a single verse of the Qur’an or hadith in support of their claim, rather they continued to quote from the UN and western media. They stated all the Shariah laws, saying they are out of date, but failed to say why and what their alternative is. Their methodology is to be very vague since if they said that the cutting of the hand and stoning to death of the adulterer or barbaric and inferior to the western laws, they would clearly be declared unbelievers.

Allah says : “If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are non-believers.” (S.5:v.44)

They also failed to answer any of the questions posed or issues raised with regards to their so-called humane laws, e.g. abortion, i.e. murder of un-born babies, promoted by their progressive civilisation, since they realized that trying to defend this issue would be a lost cause. Rather each time they ignored the questions posed, and simply stated more questions. The laws of the modernists are not based upon any humanatarian morales, but upon what the majority of people agree upon. So the people used to consider abortion & homosexuality something evil, but now they accept it since that’s what the majority of the people think is right. Soon the opinion of the people will be that child-molesting and rape is acceptable, these will then become the new humane laws. They also failed to reply to the following hadith quoted previously
reported by 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.’”:

This hadith applies directly to these modernists, since they are trying to make lawful that which Allah has made lawful. Watch them make a claim that they are not trying to make anything lawful which is unlawful but only ‘changing’ the Shariah.

They use vague terms without defining them. Modernists use terms like democracy, freedom, and equality, but they do not define what they mean by them. The danger in using vague terms is that a knowledgeable person will pass over the word or concept, thinking they meant the Islamic or acceptable definition while in fact they did not, while others may believe what they are saying is true. Neither they present all of the relevant information that is available on the subject. That is, from Qur’an, sunna, etc. They only present that which will support their views. This tactic is used to avoid unliked beliefs, so they just do not mention them.

They say Ribaa/Interest is correct since the entire financial system is based upon it today, however Allah says (s.2 v. 278): “O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger.”

It is required of every Muslim that he listens to the Words of Allah when it is recited and to the Ahadeeth of the Prophet, Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam, when it is narrated. The Muslim must understand when he listens and reflect upon what the orders require of him or her. He or she must then respond by carrying out the orders, otherwise it will be an argument against him or her on the Day of Judgment. Allah says in S. Al Mu’minoon where it states

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

23:105)

“Were not My Verses recited to you, and then you used to deny them?”

And they try to make such a distinction between the Quraan which they accept is for eternity and the Shariah which they say is not as though Allah has ordered us to leave the Quraan on our top shelves and go to the UN/USA on how to live our lives and conduct our day-to-day business.

So this was just a brief description of the reality of the modernist cult and how the devil has deceived them so much. Again, these people will fail to reply to the above proofs quoted about their disbelief but rather respond with something on the lines of “that was all for sound effects, wasn’t it.” just like in the story of Ibraheem(as) mentioned previously.

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.

Salafi,

I think when you are frustrated you post these humongous posts that no one can stand to read.

Since you asked, another part of the Sharia which could be revised is the weight given to women's testimony. There is a verse in the Quran speaking of a business deal. It says that two women should be consulted in the place of one man, so that if the first forgets, the other can remind her. The idea being that women are less familiar with business affairs than men, and may have mistaken impressions.

Shariah was then set in such a way, that women's testimony is always worth have that of a man, whether or not a case is related to business. This is another instance in which the Shariah was made based on a BIASED INTERPRETATION of the Quran.

If Shariah had been written with women in mind, this one verse would not have been used to justify cutting in half the value of women's testimony in all court cases, but only in business cases. And now that women are often participants in the business world, there is no reason to put less value on her testimony in this day and age.

There has been social progess in the Muslim world in the area of slavery, why not with regard to women?

Zara

I am confused. ZaraAtif, you talked about the testimony of 2 women being equal to a man in case of financial transactions, but this does not extend to all cases.e.g. a woman witnessing a murder = a man witnessing a murder, etc. etc.

Yes,that's what it says in the Qur'an and that's what we believe.

So where's the problem? What is this Shari'ah that everyone keeps referring to like some ancient document? Please refer me to where you get your "Shari'ah"... I am not being cynical, I really do wish to discover this "Shari'ah" that I am unfamiliar with, and which seems to offend everyone!

From what I have known/read/believed what was mentioned above IS Shari'ah, so where's the contradiction?

Mahatama states:

"the testimony of 2 women being equal to a man in case of financial transactions............Yes,that's what it says in the Qur'an and that's what we believe.....So where's the problem?"

The problem/contradiction is that The Sharia'h INSTITUTIONALIZES(makes it legal) discrimination & abuse against women. The above example that you cite is only tip of the iceberg.

Let me ask you this, isn't there a hadith that states that "heaven lies at the feet of mothers". If so; then all sharia'h laws should be made to reflect this hadith.

Obviously, not too much weight is given to sayings that give equality to women; rather, laws are written that are biased against women & based on verses/sayings that are controversial, like the sura an-Nisa!

FIRST AND FOREMOST, my name is NOT MAHATAMA.
it's Taha.

I don't know how many times I have to ask this question before it registers with everyone and I get an answer:
WHAT SHARI'AH ARE YOU REFERRING TO????
where is it? show me? tell me? teach me?

Which laws have been made to discriminate against women?

I am not familiar with any in Shari'ah, maybe Pakistan has some, i wouldn't know, but we are not talking about Pak right?? only Islam.

And the Hadeeth you just qouted about Heaven being at the feet of mothers, that's not really something you can codify into laws.
It can be the basis of parent/child relationship and a source of respect for the women in society, but I don't think it's one of those that can be used in jurisprudence.
But Allah knows best.

As far as I know, Muslim women in 'Islamic times' always enjoyed a great position of honour and respect in their role as the moulders and shapers of future Muslim men and women. They essentially dictate the future of a society through thier child-rearing and education.

Again, I don't understand where is the problem? Are we saying the Shari'ah sucks, or the ppl who selectively apply it to feed personal desires suck ?

We know it's the latter that's the problem, so why are we fretting over the Shari'ah as if THAT's the problem.

Perhaps somebody would correct me?!

As-Salaamu A'alaikum.

Taha.

i think i drifted off topic.

NO, the Shair'ah DOES NOT justify/legalize the disrimination against women.

The Hadeeth you qouted is a perfect example of the balanced approach in Islam.

If the woman seems to be shortchanged in one matter (testimony is half that of a man in finances) then it is counter-balanced with a superior position in another (respect due from children and husband). And this extends to men as well: if they have greater rights in some matters, they also have greater responsibilities in others.
Generally Islam sets a higher moral standard for men than women (1) because they are the "protectors and maintainers of women" and hence in a position of great responsibility (2) women generally require less "admonishing" and warnings than men since women are psychologically superior in many respects, e.g. dealing with stress, suffering, loss, and generally more patient and 'down-to-earth' (qualities that perfectly suit her rights and duties in society).

This does not mean that men are expected to be better than woman, but that since men have the power to influence their household, they must put themselves right first and foremost. Hence, you see most admonishments in Qur'an and Sunnah addressed to men.

Back to the point: Islam is balanced in its approach to women (as in other matters), giving them certain rights not matched by men, and responsibilites accordingly.

It's a whole different story that men today who have moved away from Islam still try to impose the Islamic "restrictions" on women in the name of religion, while doing little to fix themselves. If the male is the 'enforcer' in the household (a right), he is also the 'example' before that (a responsibilty).

As-Salaamu A'alaikum,
Taha.

pls. see my new posts for some information on perhaps a "happier" note!

wa salaam,
Taha.

There are certain people on this forum who are allergic to Islam and some are to Pakistan.

Are we qualified enough to judge that Shariah laws are Anti-Allah?