Use of Sharia law in a non-muslim country

I thought I would just clear this, the Tunisian courts which ruled against polygamy are not Shria courts. The courts in Tunisia are as secular as courts in any western country.

As far as the point regarding different interpretation of Shria laws, its a fact that laws are meant to be interpreted differently in different times, but in Shria they can not go against the basic tenants which are already fixed by Quran and Sunnah.

So no Shria court can stop polygamy since the Quran has already set rules for that. They (courts) can argue about the rules but can not make haram something which Allah has allowed. That’s the very nature how Islamic courts worked untill 1924.

The Dar-Al-Harb govt can have as many interpretations of Shria, until and unless they are not against Quran and Sunnah.

By the way majority muslim population countries should be ashamed of this Canadian gesture.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
This is actually very forward thinking on Canadian’s part. So long as they keep it to resolving non-criminal disputes, it should be OK. Civil cases are settled in various ways in many other countries, so Shariah is just one additional way to settle non-criminal disputes. In my family, we flip a coin to settle our issues. Heads you win, tails he loses. Jazakallah for sharing.

One positive outcome may be that Ahmadi Canadians might bring forth their disputes with other Muslims in a Shariah court. I don’t think that Pakistani constitution that declares Ahmadis as non-Mulsims applies in Canada.
[/QUOTE]

qadiyanis r non muslims...and tht rule have been accepted in every muslim country...so qadiyanis must must must be treat as non muslim...and 1 of all this is courts will be running according to shariah,then how u expect them to settle ur disputes,is not tht??.....infact qadiyanis even dont have those rights tht non muslims have.....remember any 1 who talks against prophet and not accepts prophet as a last prophet will not be a mslim and infact if a muslim turns into qadiyani,according to shariah he will be arrested and will not discharge till he accepts islam again....even paki rules say to discourage qadiyanis......may ALLAH allow us to be on right path AMEEN

and may allah help you with your composition. amen.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chalna: *

wowow how easily u ignore the facts..impressive...did u ever read history of muslims???did u??...its time for me to laugh on u on u for bold lie abt shariah and islamic history....i will not go in details beac if i reply then it will take me quite a time to understand u islamic history.....so sorry to say ur comments r totally wrong..wht u want more prove tht when islamic laws were there,muslims were ruling and the time laws went out of hands,muslims destructed by diff powers..u betta need to read some abt islamic history....shariah laws is the reason of making society sinless and spreads education...huh...come join the real facts....
[/QUOTE]

No facts, no logic just saying u r wrong. Nothing else. Your posts are not worth reading let alone responding.

Chalna bhai, before saying hmm and hmm no need to mishandle history. Anything not according to your choice in history, you will immediately blame the writer.
I do not want to argue if Islamic laws and Sharia are really the best system. Show something in practice; can name any ideal country out of so many Islamic states?

Arvindji, donot mind, if I have responded him, next time will be careful.

^^

Anjan,

Unless more of the guppies counter people like chalna, they will force their views on the slient majority which may not approve their views but won't open their mouths. Yous commnets are appreciated.

BTW where the hell is Mmughal when we need him? Kumbakt kahan chuppa hain?

Anachronistic laws for another age made for another part of the world to keep the unrefined folks in control. They have no bearing on the rest of the world even contemporary civilizations of that time. Be it the chinese, Indian, meso american, whatever.... Shariah worjed best in the desert because the people living their were the most backward in terms of knowledge at that time. It brought them in line through fear not knowledge, something the eatern cultures already had.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
Your posts are not worth reading let alone responding.
[/QUOTE]

You said it best here. I would think that half the Guppies who you want to stand up to the likes of Chalna are thinking along the lines of your words that I have quoted here.

I love it when Hindus shed light on Islamic shria laws with such a passion. Matty, you are over doing it with this word "Anachronistic".

Shria was working perfectly for muslim in every aspect of life until we had the influx of these western secular laws on muslim governments. For 1,345 years, muslim lived under these laws known as Shria. So go read your history books again.

I agree withyou Minime bhaijaan. Sharia is great for the people of arabia. Form a mindset perspective, they haven't changed even ater a 1000 years of knoeldge being thursted down upon them. Lost cause....

It is a quite silly for the people of China. Nome sayn!

Times change, people change, laws need to change. Civilizations come and go, unless you evolve you will remain crying for some bygone ideal which has no place in the modern world.

Minime Bhaijan, when was there ever Shariah in what is now Pakistan? I think you are confusing Ottoman rule with Islamic rule. True there were Khalifas, but since when in Shariah is there a concept of Sultan? But if your definition of Shariah is that as long as the rulers are Muslim, it must be Shariah, then you are right. Ottoman rule collapsed because of their own stupidity and not because of the West. Every Arab who has ever been ruled by them hates Turks with vengeance. I don’t know why we Pakistanis put Ottoman on a pedestal, even though we were never ruled by them? Saudi Arabia has committed itself to destroyed not only any little mention of the Ottoman in their books, but also to raze any buildings/structures that may remind them of it.

All those who want to inflict sharia on everybody including non-muslims in North America, just answer me one question. Why did canadian muslim council who is promoting sharia in Ontario for non-criminal disputes between consenting muslims, why are they not asking to use sharia for criminal disputes also? I tell you why chalna, they are afraid that their 15 saalka baccha Salim goes and shoplifts something, they don't want his hand to be cut off. Bottomline, they are giving their opinion about sharia by excluding criminal disputes from its juridiction.

If sharia was such a prefect legal code, how many muslim countries are using it for criminal cases?

Just a brief history, before the British came and established courts in India, all the civil and criminal cases were dealt under the courts established by the local governors who appointed Qaziz in each court. From petty crimes to mutiny and financial frauds all these cases were heard in Islamic courts. That was the case in Neshapur, Samerkund, Baghdad, Istanbul, Cairo, Mandano, Malaya, AKka and in Rabat as well. The thief in Baghdad had his hands chopped off but in Cairo he was bared from the city. The women in Damascus can ask for Khula in the court and a man can give divorce to his wife in Khartoum. These are different interpretation of the law, but the same law based on Quran and sunnah. This is what Shria is, a system belonging to Muslim for providing justice to the masses, based on Quran and Sunnah.

Now the sultan can use the Qaziz to quell the opposition, but aren’t modern secular leaders do that as well, using their enforcement agencies to shut the opposition, we never cry that the whole system is wrong. Yes there are people who misuse the law, and yes we had muslims who misused islamic court system to there benefit as well, that doesn’t make the law wrong. The sultans were the reasons that an alien system was imposed on muslims, and its saddening that Musims have forgotten all this in just merely 80 years.

Sir ji, when my great grand father (In Gurdaspur Indian Punjab 1921) died, he left two wives and five children. All the wealth he had was distributed among his children according to what is prescribed in Quran and Sunnah, by a local qazi who set in a mosque. At that time the courts had stopped recognizing Islamic laws for inheritance. In today’s Pakistan, you can go to any court and by pass these Inheritance laws, this is just one example what occurs when Islamic laws are not enforced in a Muslim society. The modern secular system had done great disservice to the Islamic way of living.

The form of government in Islamic Shria is widely debatable; Khilfah is just one interpretation of Islamic governing. Its part of Islamic Shria as well, but that’s totally a different subject.

And Mawlana Arvind, pleaseeeee, read Interpretation. Shria is was not developed in a vacuum.

^ exactly Minime yaar, it was a stupid system. A system that kept the wealth and power in tht hands of a ruling minority though anachronistic laws made for camel sniffers. India before the british came was a rich country, but INdians were poor. That is because of the stupid shariah system used by the mughals.

IN INdia now, there is no need for the muslims to have a separate civil law. It is silly...innit.

Minime,

Here is what your illustriuos leader Musharraf thinks of sharia:

February 11, 2004

Pakistan's Musharraf wants debate on Islamic laws

Here is the difficulty: Musharraf wants to examine Sharia law, particularly laws regarding rape (which I discuss at length in Islam Unveiled) in the light of "chivalry," but for millions of Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere, it is the law of Allah. It is not to be judged or revised -- an idea that bodes ill for non-Muslims and women in Sharia societies. From Reuters, with thanks to Nicolei:

Traditional Islamic laws that require multiple witnesses to prove a rape case or permit the stoning of adulterers must be put up for debate, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said on Tuesday.

Addressing a summit of first ladies of 17 Asian countries, Musharraf said he was aware the "Hudood Ordinances" introduced during the Islamic dictatorship of the late General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979 were a "very touchy and thorny issue".

"But there is no doubt in my mind that it should be open to any debate," he said. "Why should we shy away from even discussing it?"

Appealing to Pakistani men to be "chivalrous", he added: "We must discuss it."

Powerful Islamic groups have vowed to resist attempts to change the laws opposed by secular political parties and civil rights and women's groups, who say rape and other violent crimes against women have soared since they were passed.

One of the most controversial provisions of the laws states that a woman must have four pious male Muslim witnesses to prove a rape, or face a charge of adultery herself. Men and women found guilty of adultery face stoning to death or 100 lashes.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) says the incidence of rape could be higher than the one every two hours reported in the local media.

But the HRCP estimates only a tiny percentage of cases ever go to court either because of the difficulty in proving a crime under Hudood Laws, the social stigma attached to rape, or the use of force by influential people to cover up such incidents.

Of the cases that do reach a lower court, fewer than half lead to prosecution, said commission member Afrasiab Khattack.

"Because of the strict requirement of evidence in Hudood cases, it is very rare that the accused gets convicted," said Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, a women's rights activist and secretary general of the Human Rights Society of Pakistan.

Musharraf stopped short of endorsing a government-appointed commission's recommendations for repeal of the laws, but looked to be preparing the ground for such a move by urging a debate.

Musharraf, who has taken a tough stance against Islamic militants since taking power in a 1999 coup, said there was a need to examine what Islam's holy book, the Koran, and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, said on the issue.

"The question is of correct interpretation of the Koran and Sunnah," he said.

The National Commission on the Status of Women, chaired by a former judge, recommended in September that the ordinances be repealed, but parliament has yet to take up the issue.

Successive governments have failed to change the ordinances given stiff opposition from Islamist groups, traditional allies of the military which Musharraf heads.

In his speech, Musharraf also urged Pakistanis to change their attitude towards honour killings, in which male relatives kill women deemed to have offended family honour by marrying without consent or bringing an inadequate dowry.

Musharraf said people in authority who were supposed to deal with the issue had a "negative mindset".

"I would like to urge these people, urge the population of Pakistan, all those who are in a position of authority to try cases, appear as witnesses, to deal with these cases," he said.

Musharraf said it was important for Pakistanis to demonstrate civilised behaviour, "to show we are a tolerant, progressive, educated society".

So Mush thinks that sharia has to be revised in Pakistan to make Pakistan a tolerant, progressive and educated society. Methinks Mush is implying that sharia is the opposite of what he wants Pakistan to be.

Sharia has failed across the muslim world because it belongs to the 7 th century. But be my guest if you want to apply in Ontario between consenting muslims but don't ask me to abide by it.

Yes, It might be Stupid for non muslims, but not for Muslims. Nobody wants Shria for non muslims. The Hindus can cry faoul against the Moughlas same as the Algerians can against the French. It has nothing to do with Shria.

Arvinds get over with this, its not the whole Shria its just one aspect and it has to be revised to provide stiff justice to the culprit, this is what Shria is for.

By god we have an agreement. Musls should engage in shariah but when legal implications involve non-muslims, then secular laws should be applied. Or muslims should only del with muslims. OPen call for mass immigration to Saudi. :jhanda:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
Yes, It might be Stupid for non muslims, but not for Muslims. Nobody wants Shria for non muslims. The Hindus can cry faoul against the Moughlas same as the Algerians can against the French. It has nothing to do with Shria.

Arvinds get over with this, its not the whole Shria its just one aspect and it has to be revised to provide stiff justice to the culprit, this is what Shria is for.
[/QUOTE]

Mini me ignore the indians there version of history is full of all the hindus was wiped out and forced to convert to islam under the sword.

The non muslims can also complain about sharia how much they want let them, they do not complain when capitalist system in the US which executes people by gas, electrocution, lethal injection, shooting etc but when you mention sharia they start campaign that sharia is barbaric the only thing they can think of is media slogans like taleban do this and saudi cut peoples heads off if thats what they think sharia is then they have no clue!

In an islamic state all the people muslim or not are subject to the law of that state, just like people in the US muslim or not are subject to the law of the state.

as for musharaff he is not exactly muslims best freind is he, the system in pakistan is secular how can you implement an islamic system in a secualr system its like rowing a boat in 2 different directions your going no where. The problems in pakistan are direct result of the system in place how can you blame islam when the system is not!

As for someone making statement sharia is a failure they wish it was, but fact is every muslims wants it back because what they have today capitalism is a complete disaster and a failure. Islam is not for 7th century it is for all times this not windows 98 because islam does not need no upgrade!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
I agree withyou Minime bhaijaan. Sharia is great for the people of arabia. Form a mindset perspective, they haven't changed even ater a 1000 years of knoeldge being thursted down upon them. Lost cause....
[/QUOTE]

Who said the Arabs are living independent instead of being ruled by Foreign Puppet governments? These govenments believe there's no need for Arabs to work but just live off the Oil production.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *No facts, no logic just saying u r wrong. Nothing else. Your posts are not worth reading let alone responding.
[/QUOTE]

What good has the oldest religion on Earth, Hinduism, which goes back to atleast 10,000 years, bring to the World except the Class systems which discriminates and prejudices against anyone seen poor.