What is sharia law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ewehbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The US Constitution is man-made.

But it’s based on religious laws. It’s based on the constitution of Medina, for instance. It’s based on justice.

I’m all support for proper implementation of Shari’ah, personally–but not in the US where only a tiny fraction of the population are Muslims.

What the US should do is try to uphold its own laws, the ones that demand the government treat citizens with justice, and stay away from the corruption which has been creeping lately, especially in the last 8 years.

The purpose of Shari’ah is basically to protect 5 things:

Life, Property, Lineage, Intellect, and Religion.

And for that, I think it makes a lot of sense for anyone who understands it to support it. A good friend of mine who recently obtained a 4-year degree in Shari’ah said to me that he thought people should be attracted to Islam simply because of the sheer beauty of Shari’ah. I agree with him–Shari’ah is truly beautiful.

It’s sad people are so misled about it, that they think it’s something bad.
 
Jay53 said:
Is the prohibition against women driving and going out only accompanied by an acceptable male relative part of sharia law?
Click to expand...
The prohibition against women is not part of Shari’ah. There is no legal justification for that stupid rule, which is entirely cultural and exists only in Saudi Arabia. It’s just one example of how tribalism trumps Islam in that country.

As concerns “going out only accompanied by an acceptable male relative,” that phrase doesn’t really make sense to me. A woman is not supposed to travel (a distance of some days) without being accompanied by a mahram (meaning her father, brother, husband, or full-grown son) according to most legal opinions. But going to the grocery store, to a local school, a neighbor’s house, and random stuff like that is obviously not “traveling” which as I said, is going a distance of a few days.
 
ralphinal said:
Setting aside “divine origin,” I would love to see a side by side of sharia law and US law. I think that it would be interesting to compair them and see which theory is best. Not implimentation, but theory
Click to expand...
I think you’ll find that the best parts of US Law are parts which line up and are even based on Shari’ah.
 
To say that because a person doesn’t understand Arabic therefore he doesn’t understand Shari’ah is a pretty lame cop-out for Sam to make against me. Being an Arabic speaker does not qualify him in Islamic law.

Come on, how many people speak English, but would you appoint them all as your lawyer? Or would you appoint someone as a lawyer who had actually studied the law?

And because I’ve actually been studying Shari’ah, that’s where I’m giving you my opinions from. If Sam thinks that Saudi Arabia is properly implementing Shari’ah, then he’s a fool–in the matters both of Shari’ah and Saudi Law.

While I certainly think that Saudi Arabia probably has the closest to proper implementation of Shari’ah among the Muslim countries, the fact is that the courts of the USA probably do a better job of implementing Shari’ah than Saudis and they aren’t even Muslim!
 
Sister Amy,
Can you provide us with links showing the connection between the US Constitution and the Sharia law/Constitution of Medina?

Also, as so many of the punishments perscribed in Sharia law would be seen as cruel and unusual in America, would this be a bad thing or good?
 
ralphinal said:
Sister Amy,
Can you provide us with links showing the connection between the US Constitution and the Sharia law/Constitution of Medina?
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t know of any links about it. If you google ‘Medina Constitution’ you’ll find some interesting facts about it, I think. You’ll also want to look up the Treaty of Medina which is interesting too. These documents alone refute a number of claims people make about Shari’ah or how Islam treats non-Muslims.
Also, as so many of the punishments perscribed in Sharia law would be seen as cruel and unusual in America, would this be a bad thing or good?
Click to expand...
Well, some people think that punishments in America are cruel and unusual. Torture is forbidden in Islam. But nonetheless, the punishments of Shari’ah are really only a teeny tiny part of it. It is an entire legal code, and only a few crimes are grievous enough to have punishments specifically established, while in general punishments are largely up to the rulers/courts (within limits, of course.) I found out yesterday that there’s only like 5 crimes for which the penalty is death–and there must be incontrovertible proof. Even other punishments require evidence that is very solid, and no doubt about the person’s intentions.

For example, people always make a fuss about the punishment for theft being the cutting off of a hand, right? But if the person stole something that was just sitting out, he can’t be punished. If he stole during a time of famine or drought, he couldn’t be punished. If there was any doubt he was stealing to just feed his family, he couldn’t be punished. And only if what he stole was over a certain amount would he be able to be punished. And frankly, I think that sort of a deterrent is actually a good thing, while in the West the “punishments” do practically nothing to deter crime.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Sorry I don’t know of any links about it. If you google ‘Medina Constitution’ you’ll find some interesting facts about it, I think. You’ll also want to look up the Treaty of Medina which is interesting too. These documents alone refute a number of claims people make about Shari’ah or how Islam treats non-Muslims.

Well, some people think that punishments in America are cruel and unusual. Torture is forbidden in Islam. But nonetheless, the punishments of Shari’ah are really only a teeny tiny part of it. It is an entire legal code, and only a few crimes are grievous enough to have punishments specifically established, while in general punishments are largely up to the rulers/courts (within limits, of course.) I found out yesterday that there’s only like 5 crimes for which the penalty is death–and there must be incontrovertible proof. Even other punishments require evidence that is very solid, and no doubt about the person’s intentions.

For example, people always make a fuss about the punishment for theft being the cutting off of a hand, right? But if the person stole something that was just sitting out, he can’t be punished. If he stole during a time of famine or drought, he couldn’t be punished. If there was any doubt he was stealing to just feed his family, he couldn’t be punished. And only if what he stole was over a certain amount would he be able to be punished. And frankly, I think that sort of a deterrent is actually a good thing, while in the West the “punishments” do practically nothing to deter crime.
Click to expand...
I’ll see what I can find out. I did not find any links, either, so I thought that you might.

You do know that torture is against American law, right?
 
Sister_Amy said:
Supposedly.
Click to expand...
No, it is. That is why some people went out of their way to shift prisoners around, use third party nations as interogators, and all that. Not to mention that they were looking at it as being enemy combatants captured on foreign soil…
 
ralphinal said:
No, it is. That is why some people went out of their way to shift prisoners around, use third party nations as interogators, and all that. Not to mention that they were looking at it as being enemy combatants captured on foreign soil…
Click to expand...
Are you saying that American law allows torture of enemy combatants captured on foreign soil? Because that means that torture is allowed by American Law.

In Islam, torture is forbidden in all cases.

The USA as we all know now tried very hard to get around prohibitions and tortured people anyway.
 
Booklover said:
Show us the proof:
  1. That the US Constitution is actually based on the constitution of Medina
  2. That the best parts of US laws are based on sharia
  3. What the “beauty” of sharia is
Vickie
Click to expand...
Proof? Why?

It bothers you that Medina was the first example of people of differing religions drawing up a charter to respect each other’s religions, and to work together despite differences in creed?

Did you think Americans invented freedom of religion?

Or did you think Catholics did?
 
Sister_Amy said:
Proof? Why?

It bothers you that Medina was the first example of people of differing religions drawing up a charter to respect each other’s religions, and to work together despite differences in creed?

Did you think Americans invented freedom of religion?

Or did you think Catholics did?
Click to expand...
You made the statements and cannot even back them up!:rolleyes:

Vickie
 
Sister_Amy said:
Are you saying that American law allows torture of enemy combatants captured on foreign soil? Because that means that torture is allowed by American Law.

In Islam, torture is forbidden in all cases.

The USA as we all know now tried very hard to get around prohibitions and tortured people anyway.
Click to expand...
No, US law makes no provisions about anything related to non-citizens on non-US soil. That is the technicality they were using. Add to that a third nation doing the deed, and they thought that they were scott free.

International law should have covered it, but it only applies to soldiers and representatives of governments, not terror group members
 
Sister_Amy said:
Are you saying that American law allows torture of enemy combatants captured on foreign soil? Because that means that torture is allowed by American Law.

In Islam, torture is forbidden in all cases.

The USA as we all know now tried very hard to get around prohibitions and tortured people anyway.
Click to expand...
You believe in fairytales!

Vickie
 
Actually, Booklover, let me tell you something, k?

The Muslims had gathered a small force of men to take a caravan (which was mostly their stuff anyway) while they were at war with the Quraysh. You might know that already, so you can probably accept it. The Quraysh had gathered a larger army to attack the Muslims at that time.

So the Muslims actually captured two boys who were from the caravan, at a well. And they thought the boys were from the army, and not the caravan, but when they asked them, the boys said they were from the caravan. The Muslims didn’t believe them, so they tortured them and interrogated them until the boys admitted that they were from the army.

You see, under torture, a person will say whatever the interrogator wants him to say, to get the torture to stop–that’s why it’s totally useless in interrogation!

So then the boys had admitted that they were from the army and the Muslims then took them to the Prophet Muhammad (saws), who got very angry at them. He told them that first the boys told the truth, and they (the Muslims) had beat and tortured them. But then, when the boys lied, the Muslims had stopped beating/torturing them! So wrong! Such injustice! And he scolded them for it.

That’s how we know that torture isn’t allowed in Islam.

And that is pretty much exactly what the USA is doing. Capturing alleged “enemy combatants” and torturing them.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Actually, Booklover, let me tell you something, k?

The Muslims had gathered a small force of men to take a caravan (which was mostly their stuff anyway) while they were at war with the Quraysh. You might know that already, so you can probably accept it. The Quraysh had gathered a larger army to attack the Muslims at that time.

So the Muslims actually captured two boys who were from the caravan, at a well. And they thought the boys were from the army, and not the caravan, but when they asked them, the boys said they were from the caravan. The Muslims didn’t believe them, so they tortured them and interrogated them until the boys admitted that they were from the army.

You see, under torture, a person will say whatever the interrogator wants him to say, to get the torture to stop–that’s why it’s totally useless in interrogation!

So then the boys had admitted that they were from the army and the Muslims then took them to the Prophet Muhammad (saws), who got very angry at them. He told them that first the boys told the truth, and they (the Muslims) had beat and tortured them. But then, when the boys lied, the Muslims had stopped beating/torturing them! So wrong! Such injustice! And he scolded them for it.

That’s how we know that torture isn’t allowed in Islam.

And that is pretty much exactly what the USA is doing. Capturing alleged “enemy combatants” and torturing them.
Click to expand...
Ok, I am only going to flag one thing…and only one, because the idea that torture really does not work is true…

Any man siding with al Quida or any terrorist group is not an “enemy combatant” they are an enemy. I need no trial or other information for that.
 
I was doing some research on the Constitution of Medina compaired to the US laws. It is really not even close. The concept of freedom of religion in America is different then what is allowed for here. In America, we are free from a CHurch sponsored government and from a Government sponsored faith. That is not the case in this.

According to some scholars, this was just an updated form of a previous Medinan document that allowed most of the same provisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top