Islamic Sharia law, Gods law or just barbaric law

by barry 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Carmel

  Sad,, could you give me an example of "genuine" Islam? To the extent we know of "genuine" Christianity, we know a little more about Islam if for no other reason than a factor of recency. Much of Islamic society that we consider a reflection of the teachings of Muhammed have been corrupted, IMHO. I can't condem the origins of either faith, only what has happened to them as a matter of time and human nature. carmel
• 

  greendawn

  The Moslems represent a regression over what Christianity achieved by the annulment of the Mosaic law. The Moslems produced a law that is worse than the Mosaic law.
  
  They are just as legalistic as the Jews were in the days of Jesus and their sharia is very savage, medieval and clearly obsolete in our modern enlightened world. Stoning people to death and mutilating them is not for our times.
• 

  Sad emo

  Hi Carmel,

  I think that the radical 'Islam' has taken similar paths to radical 'Christianity' - often by selective use and misinterpretation of texts and ignoring the context. Also, I agree, there are local cultural corruptions which have appeared. The heart of Islam (believe it or not!) is the same as the 'Golden Rule' of Christianity - love God and love your neighbour as yourself. With both, as soon as the 'rules' in a book become written in stone, they are open to abuse because they lose the spirit in which they were written. The word without the spirit is dead.

  I'll list a few examples of misinterpretations that I learnt:

  Wife beating (as outlined in the linked article) - ignores the other hadith about a man going to Muhammad and asking how harshly he should beat his wife. The prophet picked up a feather and hit the man with it, saying 'this hard' - effective interpretation - don't!

  Hostages - are to be treated well and not killed, they are only to be taken for ransom (By showing them kindness, they may convert). It horrifies me to see what some have been subjected to in the name of Islam.

  Suicide bombers - ignore the higher law that suicide is forbidden, a Muslim should view his body as a gift from Allah to be taken good care of, not to be blown to pieces. This is the same ethic behind the prohibition of things such as alcohol, smoking, tatooing and body piercing. Also forbidden is attacking unarmed people - don't attack them unless they are coming at you (ie self-defence) so a suicide bomber is also murdering innocent people. They also aren't allowed to destroy buildings/property etc unnecessarily. In effect, the suicide bomber is breaking the spirit of the entire 'battle code' outlined in the Quran

  Forced arranged marriage is not allowed either, such a marriage is not classed as legitimate - it was wonderful to see the look of relief and joy on the girls' faces in the class when the teacher said this, as the majority were from Pakistani families where forced arranged marriage is the norm - what a liberating thing for them to hear

  Modest dress is prescribed in Islam - not necessarily the head to foot covering, or even a hijab - the description given by Muhammad was the dress code of his time and culture. I actually attended classes in a long sleeved, loose fitting sweater and jeans and was told that my clothing fitted the Islamic code - it was modest.

  Waiting to get flamed for my defence of Islam now...
• 

  stillajwexelder

  ALL TOTAL BULLSHIT.

  ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE.

  IT WAS STARETD BY A PEACFUL MAN

  It was spread by word of mouth and not the sword.

  There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet. Anybody who does not think so is very welcome anywhere in the Islamic world.

  We look forward to all non-muslims visiting Mecca so you can witness for yourself what a peacful religion we are.

  Islam is looking forward to multi-faith participation in Saudi Arabia. We look forward to Christian Churces, Jewish Synagogues and Hindu temples being built there shortly.
• 

  Carmel

  Sad, I could have sited the same as you so adequately related. I see the same spiritual teachings forming the basis of all the western and eastern faiths, Islam included. carmel
• 

  greendawn

  I would like to see the time when the Saudis will allow a church to be built in their country, they don't even allow any Bibles and crucifixes. There are lots of mosques in Europe but not a single church in Saudi Arabia.
  
  And even the Saudis terminated Christian religious services in the American embassy in the 1990's. Do they deserve religious freedom in Europe and America? Of course not.
• 

  Sad emo

  Thanks Carmel - I'm glad to know I wasn't just being strung along by one sole nice Muslim teacher!

  Greendawn - perhaps you miss one point I wrote earlier:

  there is NO true 'Islamic State' on the earth today - not even Saudi Arabia.

  This was a Muslim who said this - under a true Islamic state, Christians would be allowed freedom of worship. No they wouldn't be allowed to openly preach and convert under Islam, but they would certainly, as 'People of the Book' be allowed freedom of worship.
• 

  Abaddon

  Barry

  Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a discussion about the unspeakable without lowering ourselves to the same level?

  I hope Merry posts here shes got some explaining to do, maybe she willl place a fatwa on me.

  Yeah, nice one Barry, and I suppose someone saying you will take out a contract on anyone who disagrees with you makes their argument a good one?

  So, let's see what we are going on about;

  Traditional Islam has some horrible laws and can behave in a beastly manner towards people. Oh, hang on, I meant to say "Christianity'.

  Well, no, I didn't, I'm just making an obvious point.

  All the distaste and disgust about Islamic Law can be applied to the Bible for exactly the same reasons, although I don't remember Sharia Law specifying death as a punishment for not wearing a tasseled fringe...

  Now, most Bible followers today would get stoned before they stoned someone.

  But three or four generations ago Christian nations treated women like chattel, children as having no rights of their own, and viewed other religions as primitive savagery, and people of non-European races as inferior. Hell, the UK went to war with China to force China to allow the import of Opium!! A few more generations further back and we kept slaves and disemboweled or burnt people as punishments.

  Many parts of the Islamic world are at a stage of social development our part of the world was back in the generations I'm talking about.

  Mobile phones and cars and Nike do not change a culture over night.

  Do you imagine a Victorian gentleman with slaves, a wife he could legally beat, and the habit of patronising a child brothel thought that he was evil and uncivilised? Of course not! He was a god-fearing respectable member of society!

  Do you think a quick chat, and a Nokia and a Mercedes would convince him that slavery was wrong, that women should own their own property and vote, and that children should be protected?

  No, of course not, his cultural prejudices would run far deeper than that.

  And so it is today in some parts of the Islamic world; it's a few generations behind ours in its sociological development. Unlike the Christian world, no credible secularist movement has reached ascendancy - a few countries like Turkey and Tunisia are trying, and others lag far behind.

  Just as it was in Victorian times, some people in the Islamic world do not subscribe to the more brutal beliefs and punishments their societies have. Just as in the Christian world they work from within to overcome it.

  And not one word of the Bible has changed whilst the Christian world became secular. And not one word of the Qu'ran shall change when the Islamic world becomes secular.

  Because it isn't about religion, it is all about culture; as volubly shown by seeing how Christianity is expressed differently by different cultures and how Islam also is expressed differently by different cultures - both today and over time.

  You can view Islam as different in nature if you want, but I would be interested in seeing you dismiss the points of similarity with our own society in the past and the likely future trends for Islam our own society has already experienced.
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  I hope Merry posts here shes got some explaining to do, maybe she willl place a fatwa on me.

  "...you got some 'splaining to do!" LOL

  Sad emo and Abaddon expressed some important points on what you posted, Barry. No answer? Perhaps you are as busy now as I have been.

  Sorry I'm late to your "bash." As I mentioned in PM, I am not ignoring your topic, I just didn't have time to address it yet. I was able to read the article at the link you posted, but not everything it referenced. I am a little confused as to why the author would approach this subject as something that would be bad for all societies when shari'ah is only meant for Muslim majority societies, and I also found no well-devoloped argument or proofs that these would be bad for Muslim society. Sure, it seems obvious why some Muslims and non-Muslims would not want to live under shari'ah (just as it is obvious why children often don't want to live by their parents' rules), but does it necessarily follow that these are actually bad for society?

  I have been a Muslim for just a touch over 1 year now and still have much to explore and learn. One of the things I learned early on, however, is that many complaints against Islam are based on misinformation, disinformation, or plain old human error and imperfection--"yours, mine and ours." I have a few friends in various "Muslim" countries, and not one of them claims that their society is pure or even can be perfect, and most of them complain that their government does not express Islamic law and values correctly. There are also complaints that everytime an attempt is made to establish or reform an Islamic government, the US interferes.

  Here is one article in defense of shari'ah-- http://www.shariah.net/sharia-punishments/ I will quote 3 sections below:

  Mercy and Leniency

  Having prescribed punishments and imposed strict and meticulous, though not impossible, conditions of evidence, Islam has built in a whole range of principles and precepts which reflect not a frenzied desire to flog and stone but a compassionate urge to avoid and eschew. Islam does not allow either the state or individuals to spy upon people unless well founded suspicion exists that a crime is being committed or a fellow human being's rights or interests are in jeopardy. Nor is it obligatory to report every crime. Where possible, settlements outside court are preferred. The punishment is swiftly over; the guilty person and his or her family do not have to live with the kind of lengthy public stigma that they would have had to endure in the case of a prison sentence at the end of a trial. The imposition of divinely prescribed hudud enhances, not diminishes, the individual's dignity and stature in society and before God.

  Alleged Cruelty

  As to the alleged cruelty of physical penalties, one wonders if to deprive a person of his or her freedom (the most precious and valuable possession), the right to act and continue to make moral choices, the right to live with a family (to work for and support them) is not more cruel. Indeed, a prison term can inflict untold misery on innocent people whose lives are intertwined with the life of the prisoner. Prison becomes a school for hardening criminal behavior and a breeding ground for recidivism. Why should it be considered more cruel for a person found drug trafficking to be given ten lashes than to be sent to languish in prison for, say, ten years.

  Reform Syndrome

  Why does Islam want to punish and not reform? The question is fallacious, for in Islam, every institution of society is value-oriented and owes a responsibility towards the moral development of every person from the cradle to the grave. Reform is, therefore, a pre-crime responsibility and not a post-crime syndrome and nightmare. Islam makes every effort to ensure that inducement to commit crime is minimal. Once the crime is committed, the best place for reform is in the family and in the society where a criminal is to live after punishment, not in a prison where every inmate is a criminal; unless, of course, a society considers itself to be more corrupt and less competent to effect reform than a jail! Against this, the "modern, enlightened"? approach is to provide every inducement to crime by building a society based on conspicuous consumption; to make society, education, and every other institution "value free"? and then to try to reform a criminal by segregating the person and keeping him or her in a prison.

  Also, as to how shari'ah is for Islamic societies and not all societies:

  Most importantly, punishments are only a part of a vastly larger, integrated whole. They can neither be properly understood nor successfully or justifiably implemented in isolation. First, law is not the main, or even major, vehicle in the total framework for the reinforcement of morality; it is the individual's belief, the individual's God-consciousness and taqwaâ, that inherent and innate quality which makes one want to refrain from what displeases God and do what pleases Him. Second, justice is a positive ideal which permeates and dominates the entire life of the community, it is not merely an institutionalized means of inflicting punishment. Third, and consequently, a whole environment is established where to do right is encouraged, facilitated, and found easy, while to do wrong is discouraged, inhibited, and found difficult. All men and women are enjoined, as their foremost duty, to aid, exhort, and commend each other to do good and to avoid evil.

  The article you linked to ends with this:

  The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.

  Well, of course Islamic countries have their share of problems and Islamic punishments do not work entirely. I am sure the majority of Muslims who want to live under shari'ah in their own countries would agree with you. Each side (shari'ah versus secular) can critique the imperfections of the other to death, but Muslims still have a right and a duty to live by the laws of their religion as best they can.

  ~Merry
• 

  Abaddon

  Merry

  Barry seems to prefer being able to voice negative opinions unopposed, if his sudden silence is anything to go by.

  How are you? I hope all is well with you.

  I think we can dispense with Apologetics for Sharia Law; I am opposed to a law system that utilises capital punishment and institutionalises misogyny on grounds of human rights, and find it rather offensive that without any substansive proof what-so-ever human opinion and tradition are asserted to be "god's law".

  Such arguments may placate you, but as a humanist why should I find them of any relevence? Your protestations as to how equal you may or may not feel don't change my opinion, any more than a slave telling me what a good master he had would convince me slavery was okay. The slave may feel better off, protected. But from my view point he's a slave and his argument doesn't change that.

  Should I 'let' Northern Afican Muslims circumsize their daughters as they believe it is god's law? Should I 'let' people from the 'Children of God' cult have sex with children because they believe it is god's law? Should I 'let' fundamental Christians distort science to restrict school curricilums because they believe it is god's law?

  If the answer to the above is 'no', as it obviously is, why should I 'let' Muslims enforce a law system that violates human rights just because they say it is god's law?

  But you know yourself that a Muslim in one place can practice a form of Islam substansively different from another somewhere else. Whilst you know intellectually that it is a morass, a fog of human interpretation and cultural leanings (rather than monolithic observance of God's Law without variation) you quite literally avoid thinking about this.

  Last time when we were discussing the veil I saw a similar tendancy. You simultaneously feel that the veil is god's law, but will not criticise other Muslim women who don't wear it. If I recall correctly you don't even get into the argument the veil is a cultural thing, despite the masses of evidence from the Muslim world and from areas where for centuries Muslim, Jewish and Christian women living side-by-side were veiled. You simply make apolgisms for following a traditional regional clothing code.

  Since we last discussed things I spent a delightful week in Egypt. The people are friendly and kind, easy to talk to. And then a waiter runs off to show you a photo of his 14 year-old wife...

  Of course, he's no more a pedophile than Jerry Lee Lewis, or other Americans marrying distastfully young girls when the law still allowed it. But it is a bit shocking.

  You have the luxery of taking on what you like of a religion in an environment where there are no negative consqunces if you turn away and do your own thing.

  To thus make apologisms for Sharia is a little too easy for you to make it palitable for me. To wear a veil when here is no Qu'ranic basis for it rather than showing someone can live a life as a unveiled female Muslim and thus maybe in your small way help Muslim women who don't have your freedom get closer to getting those freedoms is likewise somehow distasteful.

  You strike me as a nice person, but I just can't agree with you actions and thoughts in this respect.

  Muslims still have a right and a duty to live by the laws of their religion as best they can

  But whose definiton of Islamic Law Merry? You keep hiding from the fact that there is no single indisputable definiton of this, and thus in your rush to have god as you'd like him do nothing more than worship man-made laws.