I have read several comments from muslims and non-muslims, on this forum, about shariah and almost everyone seems to think that shariah is all about chopping hands, chopping heads, and whipping etc. I think that are just the punishments and there are certain conditions that should be followed before u can punish anyone.
Is shariah all about that???
What are the major constituents of it???
Is it really implementable???
Thanks in advance.
teray rub ka tu farmaanla tuq-na-tu
Good Question. I was one of the Non-Muslims who raised the question.
As far as I understand Sharia is Muslim Personal Law.
I mean, in an 'Islamic' society by definition they are bound by Sharia.
It comes into conflict with Civilized Societies atleast in India in instances like the 'Shah Bano' case.
Shah Bano was a 60 year old Muslim Women, whose husband divorced her paying pittance as compensation citing Sharia.
you always seem to stick your beak in, who are you implying are not civilised countries (practising muslim countries)compared to who? india, USA, UK… as for what goes on in these countries it cannot be said that non islamic countries have no problems with divorce alimony, paternity testing etc etc.
why single out the shah bano case? in their situation, lack of education whatever caused the issue, who is anybody to link this incident with the dissaproval of shariah laws?
what goes on in india, brideburning, dowry demands, burning the widow with her husband, smashing her bracelets, wearing white for ever. are these not violations of human rights…
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/mad2.gif
or is it just when muslims do anything good or bad it is nit-picked and dissected
or is it just when muslims do anything good or bad it is nit-picked and dissected
<<
No not at all. It is when Muslims, Hindus or anybody does these kinda things and claim it is their RELIGION that the trouble starts.
I see that you are one more of thos epeople whose idea of debating Islam is to Drag Hinduism in
What is the Shari'ah?
The Corpus Juris of Islam!
It is an Arabic word meaning the Path to be followed. Literally it means 'the way to a watering place'. It is the path not only leading to Allah SWT, but the path believed by all Muslims to be the path shown by Allah SWT, the Creator Himself through His Messenger PBUH.
In Islam, Allah SWT alone is the Sovereign and it is He who has the right to ordain a path for the guidance of mankind. Thus it is only Shari'ah that liberates man from servitude to other than Allah SWT. This is the only reason why Muslims are obliged to strive for the implementation of that path, and that of no other.
Andhra. I hope this is not too deep for you to understand!!!
The general consensus of the sources of Shari'ah are in the following order:
The Quran: God's Word revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
The Sunnah: Practice and teachings of the Prophet.
Ijma: Consensus of those in authority.
Qiyas: Reason, logic, and opinion based upon analogy.
As far as Civilised Societies are concerned, Andhra, you really need to check your own back garden first!!!
Muslims believe they are the most civilised societies and Kafirs like you believe they are.
6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other!!!!
Get the drift!!!
Sholay, I am deeply thrilled and grateful!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
Is this Divine Sharia implemented in Pakistan?
Thanks sholay
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Another question, what muslims really mean when they say they are OK to live their live as a muslim but shariah should not be the way?
I find it very hard to believe any Muslim can live the life of a Muslim without the Shari'ah. This defeats the object.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, the Legal system is based on English Common Law with provisions to accommodate Pakistan's status as an Islamic state. It however, accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations.
Which in reality doesn't make it much different to India, as their system is also based on English Common Law, but with limited judicial review of legislative acts.
Long live British Colonialism!!!!
Point the finger where it's due, Mr Andhra!
Point the finger where it's due, Mr Andhra!
<<
Not at all Sholay Bhai!!!
Independent India or India for that matter accepted only two things from the West.
Western/English Democracy and Western Education.
We accepted English for our own convenience!!!
Also India deliberated for almost one decade aftewr independence before it came up with a Constitution!!
From 1947 - 56 India was a Dominion still.
It became a Republic in 1956.
So our Constitution is our own.
Andhra
So I presume that the following is a false Constitution, being dated 1949!!!
'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a [SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the[unity and integrity of the Nation];
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION'.
Well done!!
You are doing India great justice with your history lessons!!
1956, did you say!
Andhra
British rule in India introduced a more or less unified legal system in the continent. The quarter of a century following the takeover by the Crown, the governing of India from East India Company in 1858 was the major period of codification of law and consolidation of the court system in India.
During this period a series of Codes based on English law were enacted which were applicable throughout British India. By 1882, there was virtually complete codification of all fields of commercial, criminal and procedural law, except some aspects of personal law.
Regarding Personal Law,in order to prevail over the written law in British courts a custom must be proved to be immemorial or ancient, uniform, invariable, continuous, certain, notorious, reasonable, peaceful, obligatory and it must not be immoral to an express enactment or to public policy.
The British, with the help of local leaders like Veereshalingam Kandukuri of Andhra, Rammohan Roy of Bengal, etc., encouraged social reform and established firmly British-Indian law much against the local law, e.g., the local Indian customs prohibited divorce and widow remarriage, allowed child marriages and cultural and religious practices such as Sati of Rajasthan State (self immolation of a widowed wife in Rajasthan), but the British-Indian law allowed divorce and remarriage, prohibited child marriages, and banned the practice of Sati!
Introduction of 'stare decisis' diminished the flexibility of Brahminical Hindu law. Slowly the Brahminical law was completely ignored and dependence on the judicial precedent and legislation took over the legal system.
The fact remains that India has no single continent-wide system of caste, kinship, religion, economic activity or land tenure.
But now there is an all-India legal system, which handles local disputes in accordance with uniform Indian standards based mainly on Common Law.
And you state 1956!!
I sound more Indian than you!!
Now that's a really disgusting thought!!!
I correct myself. I was talking about creation of Andhra Pradesh.
You wereright.
Anyway my point was, British were not responsible for Indian 'Secular' laws.
We made them ourselves.
Assalamu’alaikum
ISLAMIC LAW / JURISPRUDENCE (FIQAH)
Fiqah or Sharia refers to the religious laws which guide Muslims in the practical living of their daily lives.
There are three sources of Islamic law:
[list=1]
[li] The Holy Quran. [/li][li] The practice of the Holy Prophet, which is called Sunnah. [/li][li] Hadeeth[/li][/list=a]
Explanation from some source,
Fore more, read this ISLAMIC BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS and The Essance of Islam