| The author of this article uses an interesting sentence, Sharia is not imposed but chosen by the people. Sean Hannity interprets as "killing the infidels, stoning the women to death and Jihad against the west" which is not true. It's the misapplication of justice emebedded in Sharia law that is the problem, indeed, statistically, we need to do reasearch if the number of deaths through misaaplication of the Sharia law equal the number of deaths in the west through misapplication of the laws. - Mike Ghouse | |||||
By: Ryan Bennett 29/12/2011 Sharia law, a religiously based approach to legislation, is a scary term for many of us in the US. We often associate it with a conservative, oppressive, and perhaps brutal form of governance that subjugates the rights of the people. We have also typically been apprehensive about Islamist organisations, instead deciding to support totalitarian, secular leaders, in part because of our Islamophobia. But in reality, can't we ask ourselves: "What do we really know about Islam and Sharia?" Sharia translates literally as the "way" or "path". The structure of Sharia law is very similar to Western ideologies of governance originating in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Consider how our fundamental basis for ethics and morals with respect to equal justice is rooted in the Ten Commandments. For the Islamist politicians who advocate it, and for the citizens who call for it, implementing Sharia law means establishing a legal system in which God's law sets the ground rules. We should be able to easily understand this dynamic. Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya's National Transitional Council Minister of Justice and Human Rights, told the UN Human Rights Council: "We have called on the revolutionaries to treat prisoners according to Islamic Sharia and international law." [1] Many here in the US would think this contradictory-an archaic, barbaric process pitted with a modern, consensus-driven one. But it is not so. The reason that al-Alagi uses the word Sharia is because to him, a Muslim, it means that all human rights will be respected. Sharia represents the idea that all human beings and governments are subject to equal justice under the same law. Accordingly, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s chairman Mustafa Abdul-Jalil proclaims that "…we will not accept any extremist ideology…" and that "We seek a state of law, prosperity and one where Sharia is the main source of legislation…" [2] he is being genuinely consistent. Most proponents of Sharia law aren't literally seeking the adoption of a comprehensive legal code based on religion. In fact, throughout the history of Islam, no such system has ever existed. One of the key reasons that Sharia-platformed Islamist political parties have enjoyed such popularity in the Middle East is because Muslim populations know that Sharia law creates equilibrium among elected officials; within a democratic atmosphere, this guarantees the people's legal rights. Both of these ideals have been almost non-existent for the past several decades in many Middle Eastern countries. Moreover, we must also take into account that Islam's roots lie unfathomably deep within the culture and society of the Arab world. Furthermore, across every nation in the region, Islamic law has always served as the core for governance. So, how can a nation or government be truly democratic if it ignores the voices of the people who desire the transparency, framework, and legitimacy that Sharia law creates? Sharia law will not be imposed upon these Arab Spring countries or their people, it will be chosen by them. And despite popular assumption, Islam has always been a faith highly compatible with democracy. Traditionally, it calls for the restriction of the power of an executive authority by an elected assembly of legal advisers. These advisers decide on legislature through the consensus of the community, thus checking the power of the ruler and representing the voice of the people. Both Islamic and secular parties share the goal of building free nations with the equal human rights implicit in Sharia law. So if we are to support this Arab Spring, along with the humanitarian and democratic causes that these Middle Eastern populations are fighting for, we must realise that this movement is the result of governmental leadership that neglects Sharia. Look at the countries where the Arab Spring has taken hold-all, nations whose rulers have governed as though they were above the law, with no checks or balances. In a few years we may look at a map and see these Middle Eastern countries as not only Islamic, but also as welcoming and democratic nations. We have to understand that Sharia law is essentially an ethical groundwork for governance, not a direct set of codes and prohibitions. And we can be optimistic that a progressive rather than a conservative approach will be realised because it is the women and youths who are leading these revolutions. That change is something to be excited about. The writer is a Research Assistant for Democracy Transition in Libya. He is a graduate student at Missouri State University, USA. He can be reached at: RyanJSBennett@Hotmail.com Source: The Tripoli Post Courtesy: New age Islam |
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why Sharia Law is a scary term for many of us in the US?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.
By SCOTT SHANE
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/politics/in-shariah-gingrich-sees-mortal-threat-to-us.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24
Published: December 21, 2011
WASHINGTON — Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.
“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. “I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”
Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a “stealth jihad” that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.
“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration’s language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. “The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, “the path to the watering place”) is a central concept in Islam. It is God’s law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
“In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion.”
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam.”
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States “takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah “must be resisted across the United States,” endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: “We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen.” He immediately added, “People of all faiths are welcome in this country.”
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, “America at Risk,” that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, “This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.”)
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for “separation of mosque and state,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich’s support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was “propaganda for jihadists,” offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”
“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”
Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.
But to Mr. Gingrich, whose campaign did not respond to a request for comment, the administration’s language smacks of the willful blindness of an earlier era. “The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Shariah (literally, “the path to the watering place”) is a central concept in Islam. It is God’s law, as derived from the Koran and the example of the Prophet Muhammad, and has far wider application than secular law. It is popularly associated with its most extreme application in societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban, including chopping off a hand as punishment for thievery.
But it has always been subject to interpretation by religious authorities, so its application has varied over time and geography, said Bernard G. Weiss, professor emeritus at the University of Utah and an authority on Islamic law.
“In the hands of terrorists, Shariah can be developed into a highly threatening, militant notion,” Professor Weiss said. “In the hands of a contemporary Muslim thinker writing in the journal Religion and Law, Shariah becomes an essentially pacifist notion.”
The Arab Spring has set off a lively political and scholarly debate over the growing power of Islamists in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. But those are all overwhelmingly Muslim countries. The idea that Shariah poses a danger in the United States, where the census pegs Muslims as less than 1 percent of the population, strikes many scholars as quixotic.
Even within that 1 percent, most American Muslims have no enthusiasm for replacing federal and state law with Shariah, as some conservatives fear, let alone adopting such ancient prescriptions as stoning for adulterers, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington, who spent a year traveling the United States and interviewing Muslims for his 2010 book “Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam.”
The notion of a threat from Shariah to the United States “takes your breath away, it’s so absurd,” Dr. Ahmed said. He sees political demagoguery in the anti-Shariah campaign, which fueled rallies against mosques in the last two years from Manhattan to Tennessee.
All of the Republican presidential candidates have been asked about the supposed threat from Shariah. Representative Michele Bachmann told the conservative Family Research Council in a November speech that Shariah “must be resisted across the United States,” endorsing moves by several states to prohibit judges from considering Shariah.
Mitt Romney said in a June debate: “We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen.” He immediately added, “People of all faiths are welcome in this country.”
For Mr. Gingrich, concern about Shariah has been a far more prominent theme. He and his wife, Callista, produced and narrated a 2010 film on the threat from radical Islam, “America at Risk,” that discusses the danger of both terrorism and Shariah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds. (Mrs. Gingrich does say, at one point, “This is not a battle with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful.”)
One Muslim activist who is shown in the film calling for “separation of mosque and state,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, said he appreciated Mr. Gingrich’s support in an ideological contest with large Muslim advocacy groups in the United States that he believes have an Islamist slant.
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was “propaganda for jihadists,” offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”
Newt Gingrich…History of Anti-Islam Slurs
Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:56
“I believe Shari`ah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States," Gingrich said
CAIRO – Seen as the front-runner to challenge incumbent president Barack Obama in next year's presidential elections, US Republican president hopeful Newt Gingrich has a history of anti-Islam slurs, who sees Shari`ah a mortal threat to the United States.
“I believe Shari`ah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010and cited by The New York Times.
“I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”
The former speaker of the House of Representatives in the mid-1990s believes in the theory that advocates of Shari`ah are radical Islamists.
"Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Gingrich said in the speech.
"But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shari`ah."
In 2010, Gingrich and his wife produced and narrated a film, "America at Risk", about what they say the threat of "radical Islam".
In the film, they discuss what they say the danger of terrorism and Shari`ah against a lurid background of terrorist bombings, bloody victims, wailing sirens and chanting Muslim crowds.
Gingrich had once called for a ban on all mosques near Ground Zero "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
Shari`ah has come under scrutiny recently in the US, with right-wing campaigners and politicians questioning its role and operating system.
Lawmakers in at least 15 states have introduced proposals forbidding local judges from considering Shari`ah when rendering verdicts on issues of divorces and marital disputes.
In Islam, Shari`ah govern issues in Muslims’ lives from daily prayers to fasting and from to inheritance and marital cases to financial disputes.
The Islamic rulings, however, do not apply on non-Muslims, even if in a dispute with non-Muslims.
Gingrich has also been critical of president Obama's refusal to label terrorism as "Islamic" or "jihadist".
“The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union,” Gingrich said.
Administration officials say that labels smear the entire Islamic faith with terrorism.
Gingrich was the front-runner in the Republican race recently, just ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
However, Gingrich's lead has evaporated in national polls amid a barrage of Romney television ads that have cited, among other things, the ethics charges Gingrich faced as House speaker.
Gingrich, who had a reputation in Washington for counter-punching when criticized, has fired back at Romney on occasion, but vowed to continue running a positive campaign.
Gingrich's anti-Islam slurs are not the first by Republican presidential aspirants.
Former candidate Herman Cain had said that he would not appoint a Muslim in his administration.
Cain, who withdrew from the race for the White House, later modified his position by calling for an unconstitutional "loyalty" oath for Muslim appointees.
Republican aspirant Rick Santorum had also describes Islamic Shari`ah as "an existential threat" to America.
US Muslims have been sensing a growing hostility following a hearing presented by Republican representative Peter King on what he described as “radicalization” of US Muslims.
Recently, a Republican Missouri lawmaker described Islam as a disease like polio while another Alaska Rep. branded Muslims as ‘occupiers’ of American neighborhoods.
A US survey has revealed that the majority of Americans know very little about Muslims and their faith.
Courtesy - http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/455097-newt-gingrichhistory-of-anti-islam-slurs.html
Educating Americans About Shari`ah
CAIRO – Trying to counter a growing hostile sentiments in the United States, a leading Islamic group has launched a campaign to clear long-held misconceptions about Shari`ah.
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) campaign "will educate the American public on the definition and place of Shari’ah in Islam," president Zahid Bukhari said in a statement on its website.
Themed "Understanding Shari`ah", the campaign, launched during the 36th ICNA annual convention in Connecticut, also aims to clear stereotypes about Islam and Muslims.
"Our campaign will also counter Islamophobia that is fostered and spread by groups who hide behind the false guise of an anti-Shari`ah movement," Bukhari said.
Under the initiative, an online portal will be developed to support efforts aiming to shed light on religious freedoms under Shari`ah.
US Muslims will also be mobilized as part of the initiative to better explain Shari`ah.
ICNA is also planning to partner with various faith and civic organizations to reach this goal.
The initiative comes against the backdrop of several attempts to ban Shari`ah in several US states.
Lawmakers in at least 13 states have introduced proposals forbidding local judges from considering Shari`ah when rendering verdicts on issues of divorces and marital disputes.
Last November, a federal court blocked constitutional amendments that would have prohibited the use of Shari`ah in Oklahoma.
In Islam, Shari`ah governs all issues in Muslims’ lives from daily prayers to fasting and from, marriage and inheritance to financial disputes.
The Islamic rulings, however, do not apply on non-Muslims, even if in a dispute with non-Muslims.
Back to School
ICNA convention also saw the launch of a two-month initiative to help poor families.
The Back to School Giveaway is necessary because "it's part of our duty to help our society,” Mahmood Aijazi, national director of the Back to School Giveaway campaign, said.
“We need to go out, reach out to others and give back to our communities."
The initiative will feature of a series of free school supply giveaways in low-income areas in the upcoming holy fasting month of Ramadan.
Previously hosted in New York, New Jersey and Washington, the initiative is now expanding to the states of Houston, Chicago and Southern California.
Aijazi said he hopes more cities will follow ICNA's lead and host giveaways in their respective areas.
The three-day ICNA convention, held last week, was attended by a record 18,900 people.
Convention-goers benefited from nearly 80 sessions by over 100 prominent scholars, leaders and activists from across the country and around the world.
Courtesy:
Courtesy:
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
We applaud Pastor Steve Odam of Murfreesboro’s central Christian Church for speaking up. Indeed the evil purists in a society when no one speaks up against unjust men and women.
However, let me add that Muslims do not take their pledge to Sharia Law, Sharia in its simplicity is guidance manual to create just societies, and it is human to err, except three Muslim majority nation, no other nation is bent on stoning the adulterer to death or hanging the apostate… because it is not in the Quraan. What those three out of 56 Muslims majority nations practice is a cultural and not religious. Just as most of the western states do not have capital punishment, we in the United States do, still carry that primitive practices, it is our culture and not a western value. You can learn more about Sharia at www.Sharialaws.com or directly at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-in-one-gulp.html
However, let me add that Muslims do not take their pledge to Sharia Law, Sharia in its simplicity is guidance manual to create just societies, and it is human to err, except three Muslim majority nation, no other nation is bent on stoning the adulterer to death or hanging the apostate… because it is not in the Quraan. What those three out of 56 Muslims majority nations practice is a cultural and not religious. Just as most of the western states do not have capital punishment, we in the United States do, still carry that primitive practices, it is our culture and not a western value. You can learn more about Sharia at www.Sharialaws.com or directly at http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2011/07/sharia-in-one-gulp.html
The Quraan says one must be loyal to God, the prophet’s wisdom and the elected leaders with a caveat that the rulers must be just, if not you must speak out against injustice. Islam is pure common sense.
Mike Ghouse for a cohesive America
GUEST COLUMN: Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
GUEST COLUMN: Christians, Muslims share ideas on loyalties
Lately I've read many times and in many places that a Muslim's first loyalty is to Shariah law, as for example in Marshall Boates' letter to the editor (The DNJ, Dec. 7): "The Muslims' first pledge is to Shariah law. All other authority is subordinate to Shariah law. Therefore Muslims cannot be allowed to defend our country because it is not their highest authority."
I would guess that many if not most of those who make statements like this are church-going Christians. Which puzzles me because they seem not to have thought of equally absolute statements like the apostle Peter's "We must obey God rather than men," when sanctioned by the "council" (local government in Jerusalem) for evangelizing. Christians have ever since referenced this and other similar statements and the history of subsequent encounters with imperial government in the Roman Empire. Repeatedly, in various sporadic persecutions by Roman government, Christians were given the opportunity to acknowledge the government's role as "highest authority." Repeatedly, Christians gave up their lives rather than do so. Religious allegiance has always been a part of the history of the West and Christians have sometimes been pressed to violate their ethics or beliefs by an inordinately dominant government.
These two religions' claim to have a higher authority than government should be seen as a salutary thing, not a problem. They are, while not identical, at least analogous to one another. Christians who understand their faith know implicitly that we hold allegiance to our country and its government only at arm's length, so to speak. It is a secondary allegiance at best. God is our first allegiance, and we may not sacrifice that loyalty on the altar of convenience. Fortunately, in a well run representative republic, there are seldom occasions when a Christian is absolutely pressed to the wall of sacrificing allegiance to God in favor of government or facing the consequences.
Different Christians see the religious/governmental conflicts differently, and it is out of the pacifist heritage against all forms of violence and war that the traditions of affording citizens the opportunity to register as Conscientious Objectors originates.
Certainly Muslims have a higher allegiance than government. The problem lately has come from the misreading by certain Muslims of what that requires them to do when different allegiances clash. There is this aspect to the Islamic tradition, but it is by no means monolithic.
There are thousands of American Muslims who serve in the Armed Forces well and honorably. Rather than the rather simpleminded tactic of excluding service based on one's religion, it may well behoove the Department of Defense to be more attentive to statements like those made by Maj. Nidal Hasan prior to his murderous attacks on service members at Ft. Hood. This is simply common sense, such as the current administration has occasionally demonstrated when attacking terrorists and their leaders in recent events in Pakistan and Yemen for example.
The Christian and Islamic tradition re: Church/State relations are not identical, of course. But, we hold in common, with Jews also, the notion that God is Almighty, and to him alone belongs ultimate authority over the affairs of all. How this is sometimes put into practice reflects our different theologies and traditions. But it is not, in this country anyway, a basis for blanket exclusion from military service based on religion.
Steven Odom is the pastor of Central Christian Church in Murfreesboro and a former community member of The DNJ's Editorial Board.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Anti-Shariah conference at Madison church spurs vigil
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111113/NEWS/311130052/Anti-Shariah-conference-Madison-church-spurs-vigil
A Colorado-based ministries group is planning to hold a vigil outside Cornerstone Church in Madison during morning services today in response to the Constitution or Sharia conference held there Friday.
In a letter to Cornerstone pastor Maury Davis dated Nov. 5, Charles E. Carlson of Project Strait Gate urged the church to cancel the conference.
“The lead speakers are inflammatory, anti-islamic racists, who engender, if not openly advocate, war in Iran,” Carlson wrote. “This program is not about ‘Shariah’ law or ‘Jihad,’ as is its pretext, it is about war. … One or more hotels have canceled the event with good reason, and you have picked it up out of the gutter.”
The letter also encouraged Cornerstone members to meet with the group outside the church. Promises of a large sign reading, “WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?” being displayed at the vigil also were made.
According to its website, Strait Gate is an action program started by We Hold These Truths, a volunteer-led organization formed in 1996. The purpose of both groups, according to the site, is to reach out to “lost sheep” within the church who don’t know they’re “lost.”
Project Strait Gate also focuses on war and its causes. It has confronted more than 50 megachurches, the site says.
About 500 people attended the Shariah law conference Friday
It is important to understand the basics of Sharia, how it was formulated and how we can fix it.
1. Genesis of Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html
2. Fixing Sharia Law http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2014/01/fixing-sharia-laws.html
It is important to understand the basics of Sharia, how it was formulated and how we can fix it.
1. Genesis of Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html
2. Fixing Sharia Law http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2014/01/fixing-sharia-laws.html
Friday, October 28, 2011
Examples of Sharia Law
Please note that I have posted many articles on Sharia on this blog, the intent is for the reader to see different points of view. I am not endorsing any article but my own “Basics of Sharia” listed on the left panel. As a Muslim it is obligatory for me to find the truth and not blindly believe in anything out there in the market.
It is important to understand the basics of Sharia, how it was formulated and how we can fix it.
1. Genesis of Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html
2. Fixing Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2014/01/fixing-sharia-laws.html
The writer of the following article Hasan Mahmud is on the advisory board of World Muslim congress as I am. We have different points of view and both will be published, as an organization we have to practice diversity within and learn to respect the other point of view.
A new paradigm is in the making in setting the new standards for organizations. Prophet Muhammad in his last sermon said something to this effect, I am leaving this book to you for you to read and understand. Mind you he did not assign a clergy or anyone to interpret the book for us, because only you, you alone are accountable for the good and bad you do and it is your personal responsibility to find the truth. Tough but that is the truth.
Men have always turned things to their advantage, even willing to mistinterpet the Qur'an and pass it on as God's word.
My personal view is shaped by seeing the world as one unit, and I am a part of that universe, with fellow beings and matter that are connected to together in balance and my role (and your role) is to preserve that balance. Islam is about justness and fairness, it is about creating cohesive societies where no human has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. Islam - i.e, submission to a coherent well functioning system that God intended. God is not your, mine or any one's. God is a system that permeates through us all. God is the balance that keeps us together, and what is around us in balance. If we mess the balance and we have to fix it - for the ultimate good of all of us.
Some of the examples are ridiculous but are cultural, and passed out as religious. This congruence in practice and the faith is common in all faiths, including yours be it Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or any faith. Things will change, as they have over the last ten years that I have observed.
Mike Ghouse
Committed to building cohesive societies
www.Mikeghouse.net
It is important to understand the basics of Sharia, how it was formulated and how we can fix it.
1. Genesis of Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html
2. Fixing Sharia Law - http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2014/01/fixing-sharia-laws.html
The writer of the following article Hasan Mahmud is on the advisory board of World Muslim congress as I am. We have different points of view and both will be published, as an organization we have to practice diversity within and learn to respect the other point of view.
A new paradigm is in the making in setting the new standards for organizations. Prophet Muhammad in his last sermon said something to this effect, I am leaving this book to you for you to read and understand. Mind you he did not assign a clergy or anyone to interpret the book for us, because only you, you alone are accountable for the good and bad you do and it is your personal responsibility to find the truth. Tough but that is the truth.
Men have always turned things to their advantage, even willing to mistinterpet the Qur'an and pass it on as God's word.
My personal view is shaped by seeing the world as one unit, and I am a part of that universe, with fellow beings and matter that are connected to together in balance and my role (and your role) is to preserve that balance. Islam is about justness and fairness, it is about creating cohesive societies where no human has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. Islam - i.e, submission to a coherent well functioning system that God intended. God is not your, mine or any one's. God is a system that permeates through us all. God is the balance that keeps us together, and what is around us in balance. If we mess the balance and we have to fix it - for the ultimate good of all of us.
Some of the examples are ridiculous but are cultural, and passed out as religious. This congruence in practice and the faith is common in all faiths, including yours be it Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or any faith. Things will change, as they have over the last ten years that I have observed.
Mike Ghouse
Committed to building cohesive societies
www.Mikeghouse.net
# # #
Examples of Sharia Law
By Hasan Mahmud
By Hasan Mahmud
Man is a very devious creature. I would say it is almost axiomatic. I am sure the Good Lord never intended for this to happen. But then he often grows too big for his shoes. In the quest for power over his fellow man, he is capable of going to great lengths to lord it over his peers, especially so when it comes to women. Oh! How he loves to tyrannize women! To make it look authentic he will quote the scriptures and if he cannot find any law in the scriptures to support his argument, he will formulate his own! And he will do it so seamlessly as to be almost indistinguishable from the real, that only a scholar will find the tell-tale marks of tampering.
A rough parallel could be drawn from everyday office work. Suppose we have a document in which we white-out a word, a sentence or perhaps a whole paragraph and type something in the same font over it and then photocopy this document. Scrutinizing this photocopy, even the most expert eye cannot detect the deception unless the original is consulted where proof of the tampering will be evident. I told you that sometimes man is too clever for his own good! He can create something out of thin air almost, so to say. In other words, he will spin an entire sherwani from whole cloth, if you get my meaning! To support my assertion I shall endeavor to quote a few examples from our venerable Sharia Laws.
A rough parallel could be drawn from everyday office work. Suppose we have a document in which we white-out a word, a sentence or perhaps a whole paragraph and type something in the same font over it and then photocopy this document. Scrutinizing this photocopy, even the most expert eye cannot detect the deception unless the original is consulted where proof of the tampering will be evident. I told you that sometimes man is too clever for his own good! He can create something out of thin air almost, so to say. In other words, he will spin an entire sherwani from whole cloth, if you get my meaning! To support my assertion I shall endeavor to quote a few examples from our venerable Sharia Laws.
Before I go to the examples proper, I would like to present the following example from my own pharmaceutical industry as something to ponder over allegorically speaking!
Suppose a medicine is marketed by a venerable pharmaceutical giant, as a panacea for all kinds of headaches. Experience nonetheless, shows that whether it does or does not cure headaches it definitely rather upsets the stomach! What are people to do with such a medicine? This is the case with many Sharia laws as well. Most of the Sharia-supporters never read or explore the sources of these laws, and nearly no article either supporting or opposing Sharia law quote the laws. Now, let the laws from the most authentic sources tell us what they are. Once Muslims know what these laws are, it would be easier to convince them to replace these laws by secular laws, which are indeed in accordance with the principles laid down by Quran and Prophet.
THIS BLUE PRITN BELOW GOES TO THE CHAPTER ON SHARIA LAW.
Please note that Hudood, Diyat and Qisas cases are derived from the Quran and Prophet.
A. Hudood cases are (1) Theft, (2) Robbery and Tyranny against State, (3) Adultery /Fornication, (4) Defamation, (5) Drinking and (7) Apostasy. Some sources also include “Running away from the battle field of Jihad” in Hudood.
B. Opinions vary about laws of blood-money and retaliation for intentional and unintentional murder and bodily harm, Diyat and Qisas. In general (A) Diyat is money paid to victim’s family to get pardon (Nisa 92 – 93) and (B) Qisas is equal retaliation on the criminal (Mayedah 35).
C. All other laws fall into Tazi’r section. Minor differences are noted among different schools of law, e.g. Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbli and Jaafri (Shiite law).
These quotes bellow are from the world’s most authentic past and present sources, namely: -
(A) Umdat Al Salik, (Reliance of a Traveller) by Imam Shafi’i, translated by Nu Ha Mim Keller. Al Azhar University of Egypt authenticated this book.
(B) al-Hidaya: A Classical Manual of Hanafi Law translated by Charles Hamilton. This book is
(C) Islamic Laws – the Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Shiites – published in 1994
(D) Codified Islamic Law – 3 Volumes compiled by a committee of six scholars, published by Islamic Foundation Bangladesh in 1995.
(E) The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence – By Dr. Hashim Kamali.
(F) Text of Pakistan’s current Hudood Ordinance.
(G) Penal Law of Islam – Qazi publications 1979
(H) Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi - 1997
(I) Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World - Dr. Tahir Mahmood, Institute of Objective
(J) Quranic Law and Punishments (?) - Principal, Lahore University Law department.
(K) Women, the Family and Divorce Laws in Islamic History – Amira Azhary Sonbol.
(L) Dween Ki Baatne - Maolana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, translation published in 1997
Following are some of the Sharia Laws which I give forth as examples:
1. Denying “Scholarly consensus” about Sharia laws turns a Muslim to an apostate.[i]
2. Criminals of genocide, mass-rape, looting etc (Hiraba) will not be punished if they repent.[ii]
3. The Head of Islamic State cannot be charged in Hudood cases.[iii]
4. Proof of adultery and rape liable to Hudood shall be one of the following namely
(1) Either confession of the accused), or, (2) At least four Muslim adult male
witnesses give evidence as eyewitnesses.[iv]
5. Men can marry and keep up to four wives at one time.[v]
6. Men can divorce wives instantly; in such case she gets no maintenance.[vi]
7. A wife, if divorced in a regular manner in the course of two to three months gets maintenance only for maximum of 3 months.[vii]
8. To remarry the previous husband a divorced wife must marry another person, have sex with
him and get divorced by him voluntarily. (Often the husband pronounces “Divorce”
in a fit of anger and the Sharia Court forces the wife to marry a stranger, have sex with himand get voluntary divorce from him to remarry the previous husband).[viii]
9. The only way for a wife to get divorce is to convince the Sharia Court that will negotiate with
the husband who often puts a monetary price for his approval. Without this, the woman
cannot marry again.[ix]10. Women’s testimony is not accepted in Hudood cases.[x]
11. Evidence of a slave, female singer or a person of low-respect (street-sweeper, bath house
attendant etc) is not admissible.[xi]
12. Husbands are obliged to provide only food, clothes and accommodation to wives. Anything
else including doctor’s fees, medicines etc is a charity to her. A rebellious wife does not
get anything.[xii]
13. Adoption is not allowed in Sharia.[xiii]
14. Custody of kids goes to the mother provided she prays and does not marry a stranger
No such
No such
15. A mother with custody of kids cannot go to distant places without permission of the father.[xv]
16. A Muslim man is allowed to beat his disobedient wife or wives.[xvi]
17. A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at any given time. He is also allowed to divorce
18. Women inherit only half of what men do.[xviii]
19. Women’s testimony in Business transactions is worth half of men’s.[xix]
20. Women cannot be Bride’s guardians.[xx]
21. Women’s Blood Money is half of men’s.[xxi]
22. The murderer has to pay blood money or compensation if the family members want it, as follows: [xxii]
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman”
23. If the victim has son/s and daughter/s, then daughters cannot pardon the killer.[xxiii]
24. If a rapist cannot be punished, he has to pay bride-money without marrying (no other
punishment is suggested).[xxiv]
25. A Muslim shall not be put to death for murdering an unbeliever.[xxv]
26. Women’s witness is not accepted in Hudood cases.[xxvi]
27. Women judges are not allowed in Hudood cases. [xxvii]
28. The Presiding Officer of the court shall be a Muslim. In the cases where the accused is a non-
29. Testimony of a non-Muslim for false accusation is inadmissible. If s/he later becomes a Muslim, her/his evidence is then admissible. XXXX ADD REFERENCE
30. No retaliation for parents and grandparents for killing their offsprings. [xxix]
31. The husband is not obliged to pay for his wife’s cosmetics, doctors fees, the purchase of medicine for her, and similar expenses.[xxx]
32. No reason is required to divorce one’s wife.[xxxi]
33. It is recommended for a woman to wear a covering over her head (khimar), a full-length shift, and a heavy slip under it that does not cling to the body.[xxxii]
34. A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis, as at m2.8 ibid) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation. It is unlawful for women to be alone with a marriageable man. [xxxiii]
35. In Shiite law a man can marry a woman for a fixed time from few seconds to several
years.[xxxiv] Rich men from the Middle East travel to Southern India to take advantage of
this law on poor women, so do rich Iranian men with their women. The suffering of
those women and children born out of this practice is beyond comprehension.
36. If a woman claims to be having her period but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful
for him to have sexual intercourse with her.[xxxv]
37. The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians (if they don’t become
Muslims or pay Jiziya tax) and the war continues.[xxxvi]
38. Being unyielding towards the unbelievers, hard against them and detesting them …..is a
decree of Allah. [xxxvii]
Mere review of these laws illustrates the inherent injustice in them. Any effort made to justify them in the name of religion is the works of motivated men to perpetuate oppression of women and other disadvantaged class of people. These laws are not derived from the Quran, if anything; Quran has been misinterpreted to support these laws. It is obvious that these laws cannot serve justice. That is why the claim of radical Islamists that Sharia laws had served justice in the past is totally unfounded, as shown in another chapter.
It is a matter of the legacy of patriarchal attitude of human history in general. I submit below a short list of Hadiths (Prophet’s Examples) that amply demonstrates this attitude and what we have been saying all along, namely, the supercilious and brow-beating attitude of a patriarchal society towards its own women! Many of the Sharia laws are created based on these and other similar corrupt documents.
1. Wife must shave her pubic hair if husband returns home at night after a long journey.[xxxviii]
2. A man will not be asked in hereafter as to why he beat his wife.[xxxix]
3. If a woman is to prostrate to another person (besides Allah) it will be her husband.[xl]
4. Women can visit mosques but must not wear perfume. [xli]
5. A divorced woman must marry another man and must intercourse before she can remarry her former husband.[xlii]
6. Majority of women are in hell.[xliii].
7. One must seek Allah's refuge from women, slaves and camels.[xliv]
8. If a woman abandons her husband’s bed for the night then the angels curse her until morning. [xlv]
9. Prayer is annulled by a passing woman, dog and a monkey.[xlvi]
10. A woman enters slavery of her husband in marriage.[xlvii]
11. A woman is like a rib---that is why she has the crookedness.[xlviii]
12. Nothing is more harmful to men than women.[xlix]
13. A woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil; so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife and have intercourse with her. [l]
14. The house, the wife and the horse are bad luck.[li]
15. Women are more harmful to men than anything else.[lii]
16. Because of Eve women are unfaithful towards their husbands. [liii]
17. A husband should not tell his wife secrets, amount of property…etc. no musical instruments for her. [liv]
18. Women should beg a man not to divorce her.[lv]
19. Marriage gives the man the right to enjoy a woman's “private parts”.[lvi]
20. There is no maintenance allowance or lodging for the wife who has been given an irrevocable divorce.[lvii]
21. Some Jihadis had sex with the captive women in the presence of their husbands and some were reluctant to do so.[lviii]
22. One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated after she becomes a captive.[lix]
23. Companion of the Prophet had sex with booty captive women. [lx]
24. Some Jihadis practiced coitus interruption with captive women.[lxi]
25. A woman can’t travel a day’s journey without her mahram. [lxii]
26. Menstruation is a defect in women for they cannot fast and pray during their periods.[lxiii]
27. People ruled by a woman will never be successful.[lxiv]
28. Muhammad has no concern for a woman who cries loudly, shaves her hair and tears her clothes in bereavement. [lxv]
To undo the wrongdoings of centuries, is a daunting task and obviously cannot be undertaken overnight. But we have to start somewhere. The cat has to be belled surely?
To all the aye sayers and the nay sayers to Sharia Law, I humbly suggest that they do it with full knowledge. Read up on the laws and ponder over them. That, for the nonce may aid in loosening some tough mental knots, paving the way for a just and peaceful society, Inshallah!
Please do read the Genesis of Sharia after reading this piece- http://sharialaws.blogspot.com/2013/02/genesis-of-sharia-law.html
[i] Shafi law# o8.7.7
[ii] Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 - law#13
[iii] (a) Hanafi Law Hedaya page 188, (b) Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 Law# 914C
[iv] (a) Shafi’i Law # o.24.9, (b) Text of Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinances#7 of 1979 amended by 8B of 1980,
(c) Qura’an translated by Muhiuddin Khan, pages –239 and 928 (Tafsir- explanation section)
[v] All Sharia schools
[vi] (a) Hanafi Law –Page 81 and 523, (b) Shafi’i Law# n3.2, n3.5 (Instant but not under compulsion), (c) Deen Ki Bnate
- Maolana Ashraf Ali Thanvi- page 254 Law 1537, 1538, 1546 and 2555, (d) Website - Sunnipath.com
[vii] (a) Hanafi Law-Page 145, (b) Shafi’i Law- Page 546 Law#m.11.10.3
[viii] (a) Islamic Laws – Grand Ayatollah Sistani – page 469 Law# 2536, (b) Hanafi Law –Page 15, (c) Shafi’i
Law - Page 673 Law# P.29.1, (d) Maksudul Mumeneen – page 231, (e) Deen Ki Bnate – Maolana
Ashraf Ali Thanvi page 252 Law# 1543 – (2)
[ix] (a) Hanafi Law –Page 112, (b) Shafi’i Law# n.5.0, n7-7& w-52-1-253-255, (c)Sharia the Islamic Law- Dr. Abdur
Rahman Doi - page 192.
[x] (a) Hanafi Law-Page 353, (b) Shafi’i Law- page 638 Law#o.24.9, (c) Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim
World –page 251, (d) Tafsir of Translation of the Qura’an by Muhiuddin Khan page 239, (e)
Penal Law of Islam – page 44, 45 (Quote - “The evidence of women is originally inadmissible on
account of their weakness of understanding, their want of memory and incapacity of governing” –
Unquote)
[xi] (a) Hanafi Law –Page 361, (b) Shafi’i Law- page 636 Law#o.24.3.3
[xii] (a) Hanafi Law-Page 140, (b) Shafi’i Law- Page 544 Law#m.11.4, (c) Tafsir of Translation of the
Qura’an by Muhiuddin Khan page 867.
[xiii] (a) Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi – page 463, (b) all Sharia books
[xiv](a) Shafi’i Law- Page 550 Law#m.13.0, (b) Hanafi Law-Page 138-139
[xv] (a) Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 Law# 405, (b) Iranian Law
[xvi] (a) Shafi’i Law# m.10.12 Page-541 & o.17.4 Page 619, (b) All Sharia schools
[xvii] (a) Hanafi Law- Page 31, (b) Sharia the Islamic Law – Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi - page 147 etc.
[xviii] All schools of Sharia Law
[xix] (a) Shafi’i Law- Page 637 Law#o.24.7, (b) Hanafi Law-Page 352
[xx] (a) Hanafi Law-Page 138-139, (b) Shafi’i Law# m.3.4.1- page 518)
[xxi] (a) Shafi’i Law# o4.9
[xxiv] (a) Shafi’i Law #m.8.10 page 535, (b) Codified Islamic Law
[xxv] Penal Law of Islam – page 149, Shafi law # o1.2, o2.2
[xxvi] (a) Shafi law 0.24.9, (b) Hanafi law page 176, (c) Codified Islamic Law Vol 1 # 133 and (d) Vol 2 # 554,
(e) The penal Law of Islam page 44 and (f) Quranic Tafsir (Bangla) of Muhiuddin Khan Pages 239, 928.
[xxviii] (a) “Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World”-Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi – Pages-
251, 445 and 448, (b) Tafsir of the Qura’an, translated by Muhiuddin Khan, page – 928 (Check ADD PENAL LAW OF ISLAM)
[xxxvi] Shafi’ law o9.8
[xxxvii] Shafi law #w59.2
[liv] Page 675 - A Dictionary of Islam, 1994 by T.P Hughes; Publisher Kazi Publications, Inc. 3023-27 West
Belmont Avenue, Chicago, IL 60618
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)