Ok, perhaps this is nothing new, but, as the old saying goes, repetita iuvant:
Islam is far more than a religion; it is a complete culture which includes a political system and legal code, known as Sharia law. Sharia law is based upon the Qu’ran and the Sunna, which is comprised of the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his Traditions). Sharia law covers traditional legal matters such as contracts, wills, criminal law and punishment. However, it also sets rules for conducting all the minutiae of day-to-day life, from every detail of religious behavior to all the mundane tidbits of family life.
Sharia law represents a threat to our civilization far more dangerous than the traditional idea of jihad. Only under Sharia law can Muslims practice “pure” Islam; therefore Muslims will strive to establish Sharia law in any country they inhabit. Our Constitution is an obstacle to pure Islam, as such cannot be practiced in America while it exists. According to Islam, there is no actual knowledge outside of the Qu’ran, the Sira, and the Hadith, and only laws based upon these books are “true” laws. The U.S. Constitution, because it’s man-made law, is inferior to Sharia.
Our Western legal system is based in large part upon the Golden Rule, which mandates equal treatment for all people. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – to Westerners this means ALL others, regardless of gender, race, or age. This type of ethical system is unitary because there is one rule which determines the code of conduct, and is based upon critical thought.
Sharia law, by contrast, is based on the dualistic ethics of Islam. One set of rules exists for Muslims while there is another set for kafirs (non-believers). Further dualism of Sharia law is illustrated by the fact that there are two different codes of law for men and women. Because it is based upon the teachings of Islam, Sharia law is the product of authoritative thought rather than critical thought. Its’ absolute truth is discovered by reference to the authoritative texts of Islam. Sharia cannot change – it is utterly inflexible – because the foundational texts cannot change. Accordingly, then, all people in the world, all governments of the world, must adapt to Sharia.
According to wikipedia regarding stoning under Islamic law as a punishment for adultery, it isn't even mentioned in the Koran. Some Muslim scholars are of the opinion that stoning to death is not an Islamic law.
ReplyDeleteThere are other such aspects such as obliging women to wear the mobile-prison burka and depriving them the right of education, amongst other rights for which apparently there is also no basis of reference to be found in the Koran.
Originally the burka was used as a protection against desert sand-storms. It was also favoured as a means of dissuading marauders from carrying of women, as it was almost impossible to discern between the old and the young wearers of the full covering garment. Its origin dates dates back from before Islam. This is also why it's thought that women who insist on wearing the burka, or whose husbands oblige them to wear it in Europe, do so more for political reasons than for any other motive.
http://mirino-viewfinder.blogspot.com/2009/10/identite.html
Radical (ultra-rigourous) Islamic interpretations are not necessarily founded on true Koranic law and seem to evolve according to particular political objectives. These also determine terrorist activities which, understandably, are totally forbidden according to the Koran.
You didn't answer the question you used to title your post! What is Sharia Law All About? Do you even know? Have you read any of it or are you just spouting an uninformed political opion?
ReplyDeleteMaybe before you say certain things about Islam, Sharia or anything else you should actually do some real research on it and not just repeat was you heard on Fox News.
@Lauren Sheil:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your “straightforward” comment (so to speak). It’s much appreciated because it gives me the opportunity to clarify some important points (again, repetita iuvant!). Of course I usually try to get informed about the subjects I want to write about (a half-dozen books, and hundreds of articles on this specific topic). For example I have read Bernard Lewis’ excellent What Went Wrong (Lewis is, as you certainly know, a renowned authority and a towering figure among experts on the culture and religion of the Muslim world).
In an Islamic state, he says, there is in principle no law other than the shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam. In the traditional order the only lawyers were the Ulema, the doctors of the Holy law, at once jurists and theologians (Sharia is the summa of the Quran, the Hadith, which are the statements of Mohammed, and other sources such as the Ishma, which is the consensus of all Ulema). Of course there were reforms in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the needs of commercial and other contacts with Europe led to the enactment of new laws, modeled on those of Europe—commercial, civil, criminal, and finally constitutional. But, according to Lewis, the cumulative effect of reform and modernization was, paradoxically, not to increase freedom but to reinforce autocracy (of course debates on the nature, interpretation, reform, and application of Sharia lie at the core of all Islamist revivalist ideologies and movements and Sharia has become one of the most controversial and politicized concepts in Muslim-majority countries today).
(to be continued)
Furthermore, it’s interesting to note that while Westerners have become accustomed to think of good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty, in Middle-Eastern usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. In the Muslim world, in other words, the converse of tyranny was not liberty but justice. And justice, in this context, meant essentially two things, that the ruler was there by right and not by usurpation, and that he governed according to God’s law. That’s why, I guess, in 2001, German-based Turkish organization Mili Gorus, which has over 200,000 members, said in its August 2001 Gazete, “A religious Muslim is also at the same time an advocate for Sharia. The state, the media, the courts have no right to intervene. The allegiance of a Muslim to Sharia cannot be questioned.”
ReplyDeleteThe Quran, as you know, is Saudi Arabia’s constitution. What position does the Quran or this constitution take toward non-Muslims? Quite simply, all residents who live in Saudi Arabia are subjected to the law of Sharia, and you cannot object because it is tantamount to objecting to Islam. Upon arrival at the airport you are informed immediately that you are to abide by the strict Islamic laws. For instance, you cannot eat outside or in public during Ramadan. You can only eat in secret. So you have to observe the fast even if you are not Muslim because that is the law. It is forbidden to have Bibles, religious images and rosaries; if they are detected at the airport they are immediately confiscated. They say that Christians can pray privately but what does private mean? Does it mean alone or with your family? When more than two, or a group of families, are praying together in the privacy of their home the religious police can come in and intervene and arrest them. What happens to the Christian that is caught with a rosary in their pocket or wearing a cross? Well, if it is in a pocket nobody can see it. If, however you are seen wearing a cross, any Muslim—and not just the police—can take it away. You will be arrested and risk expulsion from the kingdom. They will haul you to prison and after a few days you will be issued an exit visa. It will be over for you. All public manifestation of any faith other than Islam is punishable. They do know that the Americans, French and Italians celebrate the Mass for Christmas and Easter inside the embassies but because the embassy is extra-territorial, the law does not apply. The police, however, are around to monitor (in other Islamic countries Friday is a holiday so Mass as a community is allowed, but not on Sunday because Sunday is considered a working day). There are no churches, synagogues or temples in the kingdom. All manifestations of other faiths are prohibited (read the interview Professor Camille Eid—a journalist, author, professor at the University of Milan and expert on the Churches of the Middle East—gave to Zenit.org only a few days ago).
The above would be enough for me to conclude that I don’t like or appreciate the Sharia Law at all. But, unfortunately, there is much, much more to say on this subject—and on how Muslims sacrifice their basic human rights to obey the archaic and brutal laws handed down to their prophet centuries ago—and I will be saying it as I have opportunity for the edification, spiritual instruction and welfare of my readers here, including you, whenever and wherever you might need it—which I doubt because you seem very well-read in this subject…