Sharia Law?

Question

Im a little confused by the Sharia Law in Islam. Ive seen heated debate (Well, damn near fist fights) about these laws. For example, one conservative Imam and a more liberal Muslim were arguing that this girl, who wanted to be a fashion designer. The conservative chap wanted her to be punished as it is, apparently, an offence to draw human features. The other was arguing for a more relaxed interpretation. My points are: 1. how can there be understanding (and therefore peace) between the West and Islam if there can be no understanding or consensus between Muslims over Sharia Law? Two, how can Muslims integrate with western civilisations if what we consider normal is sacrilegious to certain elements of Islam?

Answer 1

I think it's fair to say that Christianity has the same issues. On the one hand, you have your basic Prebyterian-types - not overly zealous, nice people, pretty middle of the road. Then you have the fringe elements like LDS and JW - groups that SOME Christians would say are not really Christian at all. Then you have the more conservative groups - Catholics & Anglicans - and the nutters like Warren Jeffs' crew and Fred Phelps' band of thugs. If we were to have a theocracy in America, these factions could very quickly become seriously problematic. I mean, some small town in east Podunk, Utha elects a Warren Jeffs and suddenly women have no rights there, etc. It's all based primarily on the same Bible, but the interpretations vary WIDELY.

The same is true for Shairia Law. On the one hand, some scholars will tell you that it was designed primarily to protect women from being made 2nd class citizens by patriarchy, but in the hands of governments, the very rules that were meant to protect them have become bastardized and are now opressing them. For instance, in order to prove a woman had sex outside of marriage, there must be 4 witnesses who saw the actual penetration WITHOUT INVADING THE PRIVACY OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. So basically, they would have to do it in the streets in order for it to be punishable, other wise, they say "it is not for us to talk of," meaning "keep your nose out of other people's business. But then the governments have applied the 4 witness rule to rape. Obviously, no one rapes someone in plain sight, so there is no proof. That was not the intent of the Law, from my understanding.

Have I helped at all? I am not a Muslim, so please keep that in mind... most of my information came from an article someone posted on a question I asked about Sharia Law.

Bright Blessings!

Answer 2

Any variety of law be it sharia, napoleonic, etc puts everything up for debate (argument) that's what law is about. All law relies on basic common sense and a fair and moral approach which hopefully - for both the accused and the wronged - should be open, realistic, and balanced.

The example of the debate about a young girl that you use in your question (fingers crossed for "her" it is a just an "example") might be seen as focussing not on sharia law, as such, but on the closed, unrealistic, and unbalanced views of a minority religious opinion. These can be found inside any faith group and also any poorly managed jurisdiction. The European Court of Justice and US Supreme Court are examples of the need for a balancing weight in judicial systems.

Your explanation of the reasons behind your question actually focus on interpretation of faith rather than on law as such. I feel sure (I don't pray because I favour belief in mankind, and its common and case law, rather than in a god) that we will overcome such extremists views.

Because of the way things have gone - and remember the doing has been done by our democratically elected representatives - we are facing a situation which, it seems to me, encourages extremism rather than moderate open debate.

We need to move back from confrontation and learn from history i.e. the mistakes mankind has made. I hope and trust that the majority in the groups (religious, political, other interest) out there have a moderate majority who will come through with common sense, and the open and helpful celebration of diversity, that we need.

I remain optimistic and hope more people will bang this drum.

Answer 3

I see the same thing happening on a smaller scale here in the Midwest. There is a fairly large population of Ahmish and Mennonite Christians who have the same central philosophy ("technology is the work of the Devil") but they disagree as to which inventions are considered to be OK. For example, the Ahmish will NOT use electricity ,or gasoline powered machines, but the Mennonites will. I've never seen or heard about them trying to bomb or kill each other, but they live in distinctly different communities by choice. Conservative Muslims "cannot" FULLY integrate with modern western society, just as the Ahmish "cannot", but the two cultures CAN live side by side. I hope this follows your line of reasoning.

Peace

Answer 4

Sharia is a shifting, changing and bobbing up jurisprudence. that is not static nor inflexible. we've the thought that's stated as "ijtihad" which permits the translation of Sharia regulations to be at par with cutting-edge circumstances. even nevertheless the Qur'an and Hadith are the significant source of the Sharia and function not been replaced nor altered, the interpretations on a thank you to evolve those teachings on diverse putting and time are continuously shifting via fact even nevertheless the character of guy does not exchange, the circumstances of his atmosphere which could influence him do. So concerning DNA and different cutting-edge strategies of crime investigations, they're standard in Sharia courts. the challenge is, a number of our Judges in Sharia courts are actually not knowledgeable interior the technological expertise that we call technological expertise yet quite immersed in theological training. So how can a choose settle for a ability or something he does not understand? concerning Pakistan, that's an Islamic u . s . a . yet not decrease than Sharia. Rape is a capital punishment in Islam. a girl's testimony is sufficient to check out and invite conviction for the rapist. yet a guy's testimony against his spouse's adulterous affair isn't standard except supported by ability of four eye-witnesses. So the place on the earth might somebody locate 4 eye-witnesses to an adultery? The presumption of innocence is often the commencing place of Sharia. The accuser has the burden of evidence to tutor that the accused is responsible and not any different way around. so which you spot, if Sharia is nicely- studied and carried out; it brings gender equality and peace to the community. the only challenge is that maximum Muslim international locations have severe illetracy value. that's painful to admit that maximum Muslims have become hearers and followers not thinkers and analyzers. via fact of this Sharia is so misunderstood via fact people who declare to be experts on it are in particular confusing their tribal and cultural practices with that of real SHARIA.

Answer 5

We like to tell ourselves that people are all the same, and in some ways we are, but in some ways we are very different. The liberal Muslim you cite is, unfortunately, in the minority within Islam. Even Muslims living in Western countries are perpetuating the medieval thinking that prevails in their homelands. Ultimately the two civilizations cannot be reconciled until the Muslim world joins the 21st Century, or at least the 20th.

As to interpretation of Sharia, it's just like it is in any religion. They claim to possess the ultimate truth but can't even agree amongst themselves as to what that truth is. That speaks volumes about scriptural religion.

Answer 6

There cannot be integration. They can only co-exist in their own communities. It is shocking how they still keep their women down and use the religion to sanction it. I heard a Muslim woman talking about how her religion gave her the freedom to do her job here as a bus driver. Did she not realise that it is only because she is living here that she can do it? If she was living under Sharia law she wouldn't even be able to drive a car. Just read the passages from the Koran that Brinlarrr has put in his answer and tell me why we allow this hatred to be preached against us. The only Muslims who can integrate are the ones who are not very religious.

Answer 7

Is it any different in other religions?

The Anglican church has split over gay priests. The Baptist church have those who feel women are under the control of their husbands, etc.,. (And I hear Billy Graham's daughter is much better speaker than her brother, Franklin, yet she is a woman and cannot be a moister). I can go on and on in this list.

The temperament of the Westerner is calmer and quieter. So we do not hear so much about it. Give Islam time-------they are just beginning. And, as many of their countries are under strict Islamic governments-it is a long road ahead.

Answer 8

Ok this is a hard one:
The Shariah is the strict Islamic Law. some people take it to the extream more then they should and others dont.

One thing to remember is you cant judge another Muslim by thier deeds you can only make them aware of thier short cominings in a respectful way and leave it at that. (along with backings from the Quran and Sunnah)

If she wants to be a designer, she can be. She cant show revieling figures or things like that. Muslims who dont live i the west do not understand the culture that is over here and vise versa for Muslims in the East.

What both must realize Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Muslim state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.


Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not a Muslim state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.


Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmizi).


The above Hadith is general, in that it does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim lands, although the understanding of the scholars is that it generally applies to Muslim lands.


Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar).


Those who are of the view that it is not necessary to obey the laws of the land unless it is ruled by a proper Islamic governance system, usually say that these laws are non-Islamic and man made, and one is only obliged to abide by the laws of Allah!


In reality, this is a very immature understanding of Islam, for even an Islamic Khilafa government would implement laws that are the creation of their own minds and Ijtihad. If an Islamic government sees the need to implement a certain law, then it has the full jurisdiction to do so, even if it is not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah. All the scholars unanimously agree that, if a Islamic government decides to implement a law for the benefit of the country and its citizens, then there is nothing wrong in doing so, as long as it does not contradict Shariah, and this law will be binding upon every citizen of that country, even if it was not made obligatory by Shariah initially. Therefore, the laws which an Islamic Khilafa government will set down will also be “man made laws”, and binding upon all the citizens.

Answer 9

well its OK for a Muslim woman to be a fashion designer but she cant design revealing clothing(i.e bikinis).so there has to be a balance there

iam neither on the right or left of islam.iam a moderate

Answer 10

I cant ever see intigration working......if muslims want to live by a law we dont have, then they should go to a country that already lives by that law.
If i want a pizza i would go to the pizza shop,not to the kebab shop and demand they start making pizza...