Non-Muslims and Shariah

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah


There seems to be a plethora of opinion being presented as fact.

[quote]
I know of no single person who takes Islam seriously on the one hand, and thinks that in NO way shape or form religion should influence how a state is run, or how laws are implemented.
[/quote]
No one is suggesting that Islam would in NO way shape or influence how the state is run. Islam is so deeply embedded in the culture of its followers that it would and does have an influence. That is a far cry from saying the way shariah is being practiced in parts of Nigeria is following Islam or in any way anything but barabric.

[quote]
Shrugs...systems of governance that incorporated Islam were hardly theocratic; again this is speaking from the experiences of a particular civilization, where there was a set Chruch that was competing with states for power.
[/quote]
Theocracy was probably the wrong word. Let's say religious states or states that incorporated and tried to implement and practice their interpretation of "divine law" or based their reason to exist on religion. Dustbin of history. The failed states today that try to implement something close to it is futher proof.

[quote]
Well no big deal, as whatever system is currently in place is hardly functioning either.
[/quote]
How and why would a system that failed be re-instated? Especially with all the reasons I list that make it less likely due to modernization, secularization and human rights that have become expected today.

[quote]
This little thing called democracy is systematically side-stepped whenever people who disagree with the major power broker in the world come close to power. With the so-called champion of democracy's full blessing. Spare me.
[/quote]
The world has gone from a handful of democracies to over 100 in the past 100 years. The US isn't the only country that practices democracy or defines its meaning. It just happened to have led the world in that direction. Muslim countries have been the slowest to jump on that train, but the train is moving in that direction and all nations will have to get on eventually.

[quote]
What is in place already is infused with Shariah. It's simply in a state of denial...and so is more dysfunctional as a result. The competing forms of governance simply don't translate well...so we have capitlistic totalitarianism of Asia replacing Western liberalism.
[/quote]
Islam influences governments, no doubt, we agree. But this kind of silly shariah where Muslims and non-Muslims are treated and taxed differently and Muslims are the chosen ones of the state is just plain BS. Muslim countries that go down that path are doomed.

[quote]
This makes no sense; if anything Muslim experiments with secularism have been abysmal disasters, nothing short of continuing colonial legacies. We see this in Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and so on.
[/quote]
With Muslims emmigrating to western countries in record numbers and with the advent of mass communication, Muslims are exposed and living in more secular societies.

[quote]
Don't think there needs to be, and indeed wherever there is disagreement it's over a handful of things. It's simply laughable to suggest that for the most part, a consensus can't be reached. It simply requires a culture to engage the subject; and that takes only a small amount of time to foster.
[/quote]
Before you start enacting draconian measures like stoning adulterers and dismembering thieves, please re-think these small differences in opinoin re: shariah.

[quote]
Then there is Saudi, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt (all implement Shariah to some degree) etc. where MUSLIMS for the most part don't really care about the nature of the law or how it's implemented. Minus corruption, et. all...but then, that's an admitted problem not a facet of the system.
[/quote]
And there is no consensus among them either. Should women be allowed out w/o a man? Does she have to cover up in a potato sack before she leaves the house lest she be arrested? Are non-Muslims allowed to have places of worship or serve in the government? These are huge issues, brushing them under the rug as insignificant is intellectualy dishonest.

[quote]
We have problems; inter-sect, inter-racial...Shariah ain't one of them. Only Islam-haters who reduce Shariah to a few issues have a problem with it. If one hates Shariah law as a concept (regardless of any particular interpretation) without suggesting an alternative, i.e. want to abolish it...then yeah, they hate Islam. Period. Again, it's the idea of Shariah in it's most abstract...not any particular form.
[/quote]
It's not Islam haters, it's haters of religious governments that try to impose their interpretation of religion on all. I admittedly fall in that camp, no matter what religion is being forcred down the throats of all.

[quote]
The point was, only an idiotic Muslim would put priority of care with what a non-Muslim thinks about the subject.
[/quote]
And only an idiotic non-Muslim would think that a world-wide Islamic state with draconian shariah law is not a threat to the whole world.

22

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

:salam:

Oh boy since we are not going to get far lets rekindle an old discussion here then. Salaat.

I know you believe it is not a set of ritual incantations as most muslims believe and perform. Given that you follow a different translation of the Quran and use the new translation to prove that salaat is not the ritual form of worship and all history is wrong then we need to leverage history here to prove or disprove the point.

Quran is not a live and present day scriptural document. It was revealed in our history and not today. Islam was formed in history (1400 years ago) and not today. So my first argument would be we cannot throw our history in the dustbin and re-write a new history for ourselves to prove that the new translation of the Quran that you follow (with different meanings of words) is correct. We need to go back in history to figure out what it meant not what we think it does now. Do you agree with that much? Is that a fair way to approach this difference of opinion to you.

23

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

Ok, brother, but then please first retract the statement that I used a “new translation” … as I had demonstrated to you, I had used Yousuf Ali’s translation for sake of argument.

24

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

Ok, retracted. So we will use the Yusuf Ali translation for our reference throughout the discussion when we need to quote from the Quran.

So if you agree with my previous points then then next thing that makes sense would be to historically prove that the Prophet SAW never prayed and companions and followers never prayed and this concept was introduced later on. Historically there is not a single document that exists to suggest that Salah was introduced later on and not in the early years when Quran was being revealed, or when the Caliphates existed or in later generations. Every single historical document or evidence we have says prayer has been there ever since. What I would like to see is one historical reference from muslim historians who objected to this in the earliest of times. Many of the recent people who say or have converging POV as yours disregard history and do not associate Quran with its history but try to define there own. What I am looking for is a contradiction somewhere in our history about the ritual worship from the first 3 generations.

25

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

Casting the first stone, as it were?

[quote]

No one is suggesting that Islam would in NO way shape or influence how the state is run. Islam is so deeply embedded in the culture of its followers that it would and does have an influence. That is a far cry from saying the way shariah is being practiced in parts of Nigeria is following Islam or in any way anything but barabric.

[/quote]

It's flawed in its various manifestations. But in no way shape or form any more barbaric than a system that gives preference to corporations or oligarchs, or allows partial birth abortions, or denies workers rights, and so on and so on. Anyone can pick up on a flaw with any system and run with it.

[quote]

Theocracy was probably the wrong word. Let's say religious states or states that incorporated and tried to implement and practice their interpretation of "divine law" or based their reason to exist on religion.

[/quote]

Flawed argument, as in this case religion is just another ideology. To say that states that doggedly stick to any one ideology will eventually fall is a universal truth. No doubt it will apply to Iran...or Pakistan...as it did to the Soviets...and one day, too, America.

[quote]

How and why would a system that failed be re-instated?

[/quote]

I dunno...why did democracy make a come-back?

[quote]

Especially with all the reasons I list that make it less likely due to modernization, secularization and human rights that have become expected today.

[/quote]

They're all orthogonal to each other.

[quote]

The world has gone from a handful of democracies to over 100 in the past 100 years.

[/quote]

Poltical pundits in the heartland of democracy are far from impressed; to the extent that the term "illiberal" democracy is being used as a pejorative term (perhaps setting up furture pretexts to invade nations that are in fact democractic...something democracies apparently never do to each other).

What's happening is a move away from Soveit-style oligarchies to a more inclusive (at least at the municipal level) model of governance. But the democracies that do exist typically fail to meet Western criteria of what a "real" democracy is.

[quote]

And there is no consensus among them either. Should women be allowed out w/o a man? Does she have to cover up in a potato sack before she leaves the house lest she be arrested? Are non-Muslims allowed to have places of worship or serve in the government? These are huge issues, brushing them under the rug as insignificant is intellectualy dishonest.

[/quote]

Oh rubbish. They ARE insignificant at an academic level; and one needs to look at the URBANIZED centers in these countries and they will see a remarkable similarity. Constantly invoking Saudi and Nigeria is what is intellectually dishonest.

[quote]

It's not Islam haters, it's haters of religious governments that try to impose their interpretation of religion on all.

[/quote]

All ideology is imposed; people can either play in the system or can subvert it. If a class of ideologies is suggested by a religion, if not mandated, and if one takes issue with that (in fact, hates it), then they do in fact take issue (or hate) the religion itself. There's no comfy, wishy washy neutral area here.

[quote]

And only an idiotic non-Muslim would think that a world-wide Islamic state with draconian shariah law is not a threat to the whole world.
[/quote]

If such a state existed, then it could only be a threat to the whole world if the world threatened it directlly. And quite frankly, this is what your position is.

Not to mention, this doesn't even begin to address the point to which it was meant to rebuke.

I want to flirt with........
26

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah


Could also mean there was an inquisition where all records expect the "official record" were burnt/destroyed... things like these are not uncommon. Christian history is rewritten too, and so is the Jewish or any other history. The only thing I can stand by is the Quran, but not anything more as far as authenticity is concerned.


I agree, and I never said there was no "prayer" ... I said Salaat does not mean prayer, but is a more general term that also encompasses prayer. I however cannot accept that ritual prayer we practice today is the "salaat" of the Quran.

Indeed, very correct and I agree with your perspective, however, I believe there may be an alternate explanation. And I know you will say that we have derailed in our discussion but I do not have a direct answer for you. Our previous discussion was quite detailed and we held on to our views even after that, so this may be no different. I will hence make it brief...

From all non-muslim sources, it is observed that the word Muslim, Quran, and Allah does not appear in Umayyad documents or coinage until as late as 72AH (i.e. post Sufianid). Moreover, we see that many Umayyad "mosques" constructed quite later from the time of the prophet seem to point not to Mecca (i.e. the supposed Qiblah), but to somewhere south of Jerusalem (the ragion that is recignized as Nabataean capital region, i.e. Hejra/Petra) ... This is also the original home of the deities, Allat/Uzza and DhuSharaa, that were pagan deities. Now how would Arabs, after embracing Islam, would point not to the Islamic holy of holies: Mecca (if it existed), but to Northern Arabia. Recall that trading and even sea-faring among Arabs was done long before the advent of Islam so they were experts in direction and navigation. Why are they pointing to pagan origins for the "congregational prayers"?

For them it is said they did build structures for prayers and were called "midzgitha" by one of the manuscripts I have seen referenced. However, almost always the quarters of the "general" were connected/attached to this structure, which could also imply it was used for office/administration as well. Could this be the lost legacy of the Masjid (an institution of obedience) that was turned by the Umayyads/Hagaraeans into no more than a prayer hall overtime? I have no other way of looking at it.

Secondly, there seems to be a strong Jewish/muhaggaraye alliance well into the Marwanid Umayyad dynasty. Yes muhaggaray - those who did the hjra is what the Umayyads were called by the christians and the Jews, which is wierd isn't it? Why aren't they being called Arabs, or Hijaazis or Muslims, but rather MUHAAJIREEN? Is this enough detachment of historic consistancy for you?

I want to flirt with........
I want to flirt with........
27

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah


My point is the whole idea behind somebody's interpretation of a religion should be applied across a whole nation is fatally flawed from the onset. The details really don't matter.

[quote]
Flawed argument, as in this case religion is just another ideology. To say that states that doggedly stick to any one ideology will eventually fall is a universal truth. No doubt it will apply to Iran...or Pakistan...as it did to the Soviets...and one day, too, America.
[/quote]
The world has moved away from ideologies such as facism, totalinarism, communism and religious states. It has been a natrual progression of mankind as he has developed and become more educated.

[quote]
I dunno...why did democracy make a come-back?
[/quote]
Because it's right. Because human rights, human dignity and freedom of choice are God given rights that will never go out of style.

[quote]
Poltical pundits in the heartland of democracy are far from impressed; to the extent that the term "illiberal" democracy is being used as a pejorative term (perhaps setting up furture pretexts to invade nations that are in fact democractic...something democracies apparently never do to each other).

What's happening is a move away from Soveit-style oligarchies to a more inclusive (at least at the municipal level) model of governance. But the democracies that do exist typically fail to meet Western criteria of what a "real" democracy is.
[/quote]
Sure they do, but the movement is in the right direction. The move away from religious states has been happening for centuries.

[quote]
Oh rubbish. They ARE insignificant at an academic level; and one needs to look at the URBANIZED centers in these countries and they will see a remarkable similarity. Constantly invoking Saudi and Nigeria is what is intellectually dishonest.
[/quote]
Ok, should I include the Taliban? Iran? These are the 4 recent examples of a central government trying to implement shariah law, what else do we have to go by? Sorry, but no one is considering Pakistan, Indonesia or Dubai when referring to modern day implmentation of shariah law. These 4 hidieous examples are reason enough for me to determine there is no consensus on shariah law and are totally subjective. These aren't "God's laws" by any stretch.

[quote]
All ideology is imposed; people can either play in the system or can subvert it. If a class of ideologies is suggested by a religion, if not mandated, and if one takes issue with that (in fact, hates it), then they do in fact take issue (or hate) the religion itself. There's no comfy, wishy washy neutral area here.
[/quote]
In a democracy it is not imposed. No one is required to follow the rules of a religion. Or should I say the rules of what people have interepreted from a religion. That is a major distinction. Something as personal, subjective and important as religion should be left up to the individual. The US was mainly founded on this principle and the separation of religion and state is the underlying principle. It was never more apparent how correct that was as the recent example of Christian fundos influencing this administration.

[quote]
If such a state existed, then it could only be a threat to the whole world if the world threatened it directlly. And quite frankly, this is what your position is.
[/quote]
Such a state would be diametrically opposed to the rest of the world. And the Islamic state from the begininng did not wait for others to attack before conquering a good part of the globe.

[quote]
Not to mention, this doesn't even begin to address the point to which it was meant to rebuke.
[/quote]
You are right. Thanks for allowing me another chance to rebutt... only an idiotic Muslim would think that rational, intelligent non-Muslims could not have some insight on this subject. America was founded 400 years ago to escape such persecution that comes with a religious state.

28

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

There is no record of such an inquisition to any ruler in our history. Nor can I see a motivation for it either. There should be some disagreement over the fundamental belief and the one the ruler of such a time wants to propagate in order for such an inquisition to happen. There is no historical evidence of this either. Even non-muslim literature has no evidence and it would very little cerdibility as non-muslims were not in the central cities of the muslim governement at that time nor could they have been in positions for such things. So this is just an assumption to support an assumption with no real historical grounds in muslim or non-muslim literature. We have literature that tells us about the stance of many scholars of their times against injustices or ideological differences with their rulers and how could such a thing not exist anywhere. So this is just dreaming up history not actual history.

So far every historical document extant refers to Salat as we know it today. I cannot see how it could be changed on such a large scale. And there is no name associated with such a change either. The companions lived long enough to see different rules.

This is what I was saying you cannot support your POV with muslim references and leveraging non-muslim references to define Islam is highly unreasonable and holds no ground. The words are in the Quran why would I need to look at Umayyad documents (please also provide references to which documents these are and what content they discuss).

Please also provide reference on which Umayyad mosques do not point to Makkah.

29

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

like I said, we cannot agree on this... if I provide you references from the Quran (even when I had used Yousuf Ali's translation), and point to inconsistancies in the hadith, and references of invented stories that are based on earlier mythological stories, you say that I have twisted the interpretation, and if I use non-muslim references, you say they don't hold ground. So let's not bother arguing over this brother. Let fantasies be fantasies, be it any side.

30

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

You mean like democracy, or notions of freedom...or any other aspect of law? This is a non-starter of an argument.

What is required is buy-in into a process. It's not easy; certainly wasn't for the West. But it won't be ONE person's concept...it will be the emergent result from a sanctioned body or bodies.

That's how it works.

[quote]

The world has moved away from ideologies such as facism, totalinarism, communism and religious states.

[/quote]

Well, no not really. They may have moved away from economic models that typically went hand-in-hand with such ideologies, but they exist nonetheless.

[quote]

Because it's right. Because human rights, human dignity and freedom of choice are God given rights that will never go out of style.

[/quote]

Come on now, don't tell me youre incapable of objective reasoning. These are strictly Western notions as far as it matters.

[quote]

Sorry, but no one is considering Pakistan, Indonesia or Dubai when referring to modern day implmentation of shariah law.

[/quote]

Why, because it doesn't suit your argument? The point is, they have integrated Shariah. Deal with it.

Subjective? Sure. That's not the point, as it's a best-effort thing....

[quote]

Or should I say the rules of what people have interepreted from a religion.

[/quote]

No...but they're more than willing to follow rules....derived from..what? Special interests I suppose.

[quote]

Something as personal, subjective and important as religion should be left up to the individual.

[/quote]

Some parts, sure. But when religion mandates a set of laws, such things are no more an individual choice than secular laws.

This isn't an issue of choice. Laws never are.

[quote]

The US was mainly founded on this principle and the separation of religion and state is the underlying principle. It was never more apparent how correct that was as the recent example of Christian fundos influencing this administration.

[/quote]

On the contrary, the Fundos were influenced by the neo-cons...not the other way around. I'm not getting warm and fuzzies 'cuz America is a secular state. It's still dangerous, and quite frankly openly threatens all those around it if they do not make themselves suberviant.

[quote]

Such a state would be diametrically opposed to the rest of the world. And the Islamic state from the begininng did not wait for others to attack before conquering a good part of the globe.

[/quote]

Oh spare me...this is EXACTLY what other empires and nations were donig at the same time. Why this selective memory? It was what any good leader did at the time. Yes, Islam went through a rather primitive form of imperialism. Who didn't? Spare us.

[quote]

You are right. Thanks for allowing me another chance to rebutt... only an idiotic Muslim would think that rational, intelligent non-Muslims could not have some insight on this subject. America was founded 400 years ago to escape such persecution that comes with a religious state.
[/quote]

Of course they can't, they're disinterested and as far as their concerned the solution lies in THEIR way. Naturally they have nothing to offer, except in terms of technical implementation divorced from any ideological facet.

I want to flirt with........
31

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

We can gain more understanding of each other POV. Let us keep non-muslim references out of the discussion since they carry little weightage.

Please go ahead and quote from the Quran first then we can move on to inconsistencies within the ahadith. There is no other historical literature that explains the Quran except ahadith and history of the arabs.

Non-muslim references have no connection or direct connection within anything in the Quran. Let us start with Yusuf Ali's translations.

32

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

My goodness you’re a useless bunch…

Look at you going off topic…

Never minds… Mods taala laga do. :devil:

33

Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah

Shariah will be functional as soon as a muslim scientist perfects the flux capacitor-based time machine.... it will be preceeded by Shaaitan donning a pair of ice skates, cats & dogs living together, pipes dreaming etc...