S
Sister_Amy
Guest
My teacher considers the end of an Islamic state to be the end of the last nation which a khalifa, so at the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
- Status
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Is an Islamic state a country that abides fully by the shari’ah? Maybe, maybe not.
The Shari’ah can exist without an Islamic state. Muslims abide by shari’ah whether or not they live in an Islamic state. For example, marriage contracts are according to Shari’ah, even in non-Muslim countries, each party’s rights guaranteed according to Islamic Law in the contract.
R
rikkk1958
Guest
I am trying to analyze the Islam that Sister Amy is talking in her posts and it seems to me she is defining Islam not the Islam the world know in general. I find her answers to the extreme side of Islam as something that the world has to accept because in her own opinion if people abide by it it will be a good thing for the society and the country. The good thing is I think she lives in a free society today and I wonder if she agrees to wear burkas, not to get educated, subjected to beating by husbands, etc. I do’t know if she wants to live in a real Islamic State if that is the case. Is she willing to live under Muhammed Omar if he will take over Afghanistan again?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
The Shari’ah is instituted to protect 5 things:
a person’s life, lineage, property, intellect, and religion.
It’s not that a person is protected from unruly behavior–think about the purpose of the law in the country where you live. Is it alright for someone to just choose a woman he finds attractive and rape her at will? Is that allowed or is there some law against it, to protect her? Shari’ah is Law, to protect people. Just like the law of any other country, but Muslims have a law based on revelation from God.
I
inJESUS
Guest
so the Ottoman Empire is seen as a 100% sharia guided empire?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Let’s be real here, for a minute, okay? I really do believe Shari’ah is beautiful–the more I study it and the more I understand of it, the more I absolutely love it. What you described has nothing to do with Shari’ah except gross violations of it.
Given the choice to live under Shari’ah, would I? In a heartbeat. I do think it is good for the country, for the society, for the people.
But then you mentioned burkas. Burkas, man, WTH? Where did you pull that out of Shari’ah? Nothing there on burkas. You pulled that out of Afghanistan instead–please don’t tell me you believe that Afghanistan is a bastion of Islam, can’t the whole world see what a corrupt and deeply troubled nation it is? Burkas, good grief.
What Muslim women, like myself, do wear is clothes which are full-coverage and loose-fitting, including a headscarf. And do I agree to wear that? Even in the SE United States yes! Of course I wear that and have no problem with it.
Then you said “not to get educated!” WHAT? According to Islam, it is OBLIGATORY for both MEN AND WOMEN to get educated. Both! Islam encourages women to pursue their education, more than any other religion I’ve ever heard of. Again you’re pulling an ignorant stereotype out of that hat and assuming it’s realistic, when in fact your mistaken assumption is the opposite of the teachings of Islam.
And then you said “subjected to beating by husbands.” And that’s just crossing the line. If a man abuses his wife in Islam he is committing a very gross sin. Period.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
R
rikkk1958
Guest
I have a questions for Sister Amy and perhaps she already answered some but I do wish she will respond again:
- What fascinates you with Muhammed, and his teachings?
- Do you think that the Quran is a better book than the Bible? Why?
- Educated people have a problem with teachings of Islam because first of all based on Muhammed’s personality and background, the supposed revelation he invented were not in sync with the Book he said should be a guide for teaching and correction. His revelations in the first place were not witnessed and him alone had the guts to tell them to others. He is an Arab whose animosity with the Jews are irreconcilable because of Ishmael and Isaac. He praised the people of the book but then wanted to kill them if they won’t believe. He also waged war with them. Why then wage war with the people of the book if you have praised them and called their book worthy for teachings and corrections?
- For Muslims, Muhammed should always be revered more than Jesus Christ. How can you revere somebody over Jesus when you can clearly read the story of Jesus that He is more than Muhammed?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ok. I am fine with that.
So, since Christianity does not have a code of law inherent in it, we are forced to live under your law. We would be enslaved by a legal code.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
NO WAY!
Christianity does have a code of law inherent in it. Christians are urged in the Qur’an to judge based on the Gospel. The Gospel itself is not the law, but ought to be the source of the law.
No way would Christians be forced under Islamic law–the point is exactly the opposite.
R
ralphinal
Guest
If you read the Gospel, there is nothing in there about legal and illegal, or what penalties are for what offences. We are told that only God can judge sins, so we are not to do so. Christianity is about personal choice, not soceity forcing people to live a certain way.
OUr sin is between us and God. No judge can kill me for a sin. Now, if that sin violates secular law, that is different.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
If you read the Gospel, I think you’ll find quite a bit of legal theory.
If not, then Christians would never have been able to form lawful societies.
It’s fascinating to me though that you seem to think that you have to have a secular instead of a religious law. Amusing I suppose, more than fascinating.
LOL
R
ralphinal
Guest
Not true. Sho me one example in the New Testament where something is said to be a crime and there is a punishment with it.
We can base some of our law on the Old Testament, true enough, but in order to have a code of law, you need two things. FIrst, you need a list of crimes. Second, you need punishments assigned to those crimes. Neither is present in the NT.
It is amazing to me that you think that you must have religious law. It is also dangerous.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I said there was legal theory in the new testament. Not a legal code. Here’s some food for thought anyway: Jesus was a Jew, and he follow Jewish Law. Was that secular law? Or religious law?
Something else to think about: isn’t law a necessary part of any advanced/civilized society?
Why shouldn’t law come from God, instead being an institution of only men? Why do you think a law based on principles revealed by God is dangerous? Do you prefer a law based on the desires of men?
R
ralphinal
Guest
They had both kinds of laws, and the Jewish laws were both individual and soceitial. However, the actual law of the land was Roman.
Yep, but that does not mean that religious rules must be enforced with the penalty of death
I do think that we should base our laws on God’s. However, I also think that Jesus was right when he said that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. Islam DOES call for death for some sins and not others. That is reality. You can say what you want about justice, but killing a woman who cheated on her husband is not acceptable to God.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Was Jesus, or wasn’t he, a student of the Jewish law?
Why should secular rules be enforced with the penalty of death?
Judaism also DOES call for death for some sins and not others. In fact, in the example you cite (if it is even authentic), you have to realize that the trial wasn’t even fair. How could a woman be caught in the act of adultery without the man being caught as well? So there was already injustice present, that her partner was not also accused. Jesus did not say that the penalty for her sin is not death, just that she was being charged in an unjust fashion.
If killing a man who cheated on his wife (or a woman who cheated on her husband) were not acceptable to God, then God would not have commanded death. And he did. You can look in your own Bible.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Yes, but he came that the law might be fulfilled
I would argue that they should not.
But that is not the issue raised by Jesus. Not once did he say that she was being treated unfairly.
True, however, why must we assume that God wanted this for all time? Isn’t it possible that he wanted us to eventually get to the point where we forgave others and not killed them?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Oops… my bad. I missed your post reading through before… sorry. I’ll try to answer you now inshaaAllaah.
I’m gonna answer this one first. I read the Qur’an objectively a few years ago–I didn’t consider it to be the word of God at the time, I simply read it out of curiosity. And reading it simply transformed my faith–I believed in God already, but through the Qur’an I loved God, wanted to thank Him for all the blessings in my life which until then I hadn’t even seemed to notice, and I wanted to worship Him, to know how to follow His teachings in the best way. It’s not at all the same as the Bible, but one reading changed the way I viewed life, faith, the world; it was so powerful, unlike any of the Bible reading I had done before. And as a Muslim, I believe that the Qur’an is actually the Word of God revealed, something that the Bible isn’t, and that it has been entirely preserved. Simply reading it convinced me of this.
The only reason I believe Muhammad, the only reason I have an ounce of faith in him as a prophet, or in his teachings, is because of the Qur’an. Because of the Qur’an, and my faith in God which is tied also to the Qur’an, I trust that Muhammad was a messenger of God.
Well first of all, I consider myself to be educated but I don’t have a problem with the teachings of Islam. And I find the revelation of the Qur’an to be perfect in the way it confirms and affirms what came before it. It wasn’t the Bible that the Qur’an calls a guide and correction–the guide is the Qur’an, the correction is the Qur’an. The Bible is what it corrects!
I also never found Muhammad to have an animosity towards Jews in general. I see him as a leader who had to fight to protect his people and his mission against aggressors.
I don’t understand what you mean that Jesus was more than Muhammad. As a Muslim, I love all God’s messengers, and I try to abide by their teachings, which are teachings from God. So I will follow the best preserved of those teachings, those in Islam. My belief is that Jesus did not teach anything different than what Muhammad taught–so anything you read which says otherwise is mistaken, in my view.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
But the law still exists, and shouldn’t people still have to follow it?
I get the impression it is only the death penalty which bothers you, and not other forms of law enforcement–is that correct?
Does he say that she is being treated fairly? I mean, the conclusion I gave you is obvious to me. The conclusion I think people have instead is actually obtuse.
But we still need laws, don’t we?
If someone stole my car, I wouldn’t appreciate a judge who told me that he **forgave **the thief, or that I should forgive him. Would you?
R
ralphinal
Guest
Yes and no. SOme of the laws are no longer needed, some are
Not exactly. I do not like the death penalty. I also do not like torture, brutal forms of punishment that lend themselves to blood-lust, or other such garbage.
He did not say either way. Adultry is a bad thing, but why would it be a capitol offence?
Yep. However, some laws are more harmful than helpful
Ah, but you should forgive them. There is no reason that there should not be punishments. THat is not my point. My point is that MERCY should temper justice. Otherwise, you have vengence.
Let us take the classic example of the theif in SA who has is hand cut off. For the rest of his life, everyone knows that he was a thief. Do you think that he is treated better or worse than if he had to spend a few months in jail? What life awaits him?
- Status