Dr Williams wants some aspects of Sharia law with in the UK legal system.

[(Q)]

Astonishing as it may seem, many Muslims are also clueless about the religion they follow.

No way!

[S.A.M.]

Everyone is a critic

/grumbles

[Myles]

Umm Jordan is an Islamic country. They have a sharia court.

Mu understanding is that the King has the last word and that the law is essentially the same as in most Western countries. Jordan looks to the West which makes sense if you look at where their rulers were educated. There may be some sharia influence but, if there is ,I cannot imaginre it would promote the equality of women.

[S.A.M.]

Mu understanding is that the King has the last word and that the law is essentially the same as in most Western countries. Jordan looks to the West which makes sense if you look at where their rulers were educated.

Which should tell you just exactly what sharia is, ie whatever it is determined to be in any Islamic society by the ruler/government

[Myles]

So what determines what part of sharia is codified as law?

I couldn't care less as long as it is confined to Muslim countries, where it belongs. Any attempt tyo introduce it into a country which has fought tooth and nail to rid itself of the shackles of superstition is an affront to our society.

Muslims decided to come here and have children here. That is not a problem as we are a tolerant society. But wanting to introduce an alien system of jurisprudence is an entirtely a different matter.

[S.A.M.]

I couldn't care less as long as it is confined to Muslim countries, where it belongs. Any attempt tyo introduce it into a country which has fought tooth and nail to rid itself of the shackles of superstition is an affront to our society.

Muslims decided to come here and have children here. That is not a problem as we are a tolerant society. But wanting to introduce an alien system of jurisprudence is an entirtely a different matter.

It doesn't matter what you think. You have the choice of fly by night imams abusing their privileges or a legal system open to scrutiny. The fact that Muslims in the UK are adopting the hijab while those in Jordan are shedding it should be an indication of which is better.

[Myles]

uh-uh, that is what most people think, except those who actually look into it.

Only core principles are derived from the Quran and Hadith

What is written down as sharia is based on usul al fiqh, or the rules of jurisprudence



Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Quran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims."

One sees traces of many non-Muslim juridical systems in the Sharia, such as Old Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, law from the conquered countries, Roman law and Jewish law.

Fiqh is the science of Sharia, and is sometimes used as synonymous with it. Fiqh is collected in a number of books which are studied by students and used by the ulama. These books are studied and interpreted according to rules found in school, madhhab, the student or learned man belongs to.

But most people belonging to the ulama cannot interpret freely the fiqh- books, this is a right reserved for the mufti, who can issue fatwas, 'legal opinions'.

According to the Usul al-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:

1. The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and hadiths;
2. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
3. It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
4. It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

wiki.

That all sounds fine and dandy but can you explain why the penalty for apostacy, the right to think for onself, is death. And how about adultery and homosexuality ?

[S.A.M.]

That all sounds fine and dandy but can you explain why the penalty for apostacy, the right to think for onself, is death. And how about adultery and homosexuality ?

Again, more adaptations from other cultures. Zina requires four witnesses which makes it practically unprosecutable except as solicitation.

Death for apsotacy is based on laws created under certain political regimes and has nothing to do with religion, homosexuality is from rejecting the Jewish interpretation of the story of Lot and adopting the Christian one. Also from Arabs being demonised as sodomites, which made them fall to the other end of the extreme.

edit:

Classical Hanafi doctrine holds that the capital punishment of the apostate serves mainly political aims. I quote two famous Hanafi jurists from Central Asia on this matter. The first is the eleventh-century Transoxanian jurist Sarakhsi, one of the major authorities of the Hanafi school. He says:

The change of religion and the original form of unbelief
belong to the most abominable of crimes. But [their judgment]
is a matter between God and his servant and the punishment
[of this crime] is postponed until the hereafter.
The measures advanced in this base world [and which thus
precede God's judgment] are matters of political expediency
[siyasat mashru'a] ordained by the law in order to protect
human interests" (Sarakhsi, n.d., vol. 10: 110).

In the same vein, the twelfth-century Hanafi jurist Marghinani, whose book al-Hidaya exerted a lasting influence on the Hanafi jurists of the Near East, states his position with the following words:

In principle, punishments are postponed to the hereafter
and the fact that they are advanced [so that they precede
the hereafter] violates the sense of probation [as the sense
of human life in this world]. One deviates from this principle
in order to defy a present evil and that is warfare
[against the Muslims] ('Ayni, vol. VI: 702-703). (2)

Both authors argue that the apostate's punishment is not clue to his belief but to the military and political danger that this belief may cause.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...110737774/pg_4

[Myles]

Again, more adaptations from other cultures. Zina requires four witnesses which makes it practically unprosecutable except as solicitation.

Death for apsotacy is based on laws created under certain political regimes and has nothing to do with religion, homosexuality is from rejecting the Jewish interpretation of the story of Lot and adopting the Christian one. Also from Arabs being demonised as sodomites, which made them fall to the other end of the extreme.

edit:

A couple of nights ago I saw two Egyptian being in terviewed in a tv documentary, They had decided to become Christian , as a result of which they were subjected to all sorts of threats, including death. From what you say, this has nothing to do with religion. How do you explain the prevalence of such despicable behaviour in MUslim countries. The bottom line seems to be that Muslims are not Muslims wherever one finds them,

[S.A.M.]

A couple of nights ago I saw two Egyptian being in terviewed in a tv documentary, They had decided to become Christian , as a result of which they were subjected to all sorts of threats, including death. From what you say, this has nothing to do with religion. How do you explain the prevalence of such despicable behaviour in MUslim countries. The bottom line seems to be that Muslims are not Muslims wherever one finds them,

You'll probably find the same behaviour in any place where education is not a priority. Try going to redneck USA and becoming an atheist.

[Ghost_007]

You may be in favour of barbarism; we have outgrown it. You agree that if a thief steals goods above a certain value his hand should be amputated. Do you think the stolen goods should be valued at their ex-factory price, their wholsele price or their retail value. Should we allow for flutuations in our currency when working out the value of imported goods ?

I’ll tell you what is barbaric: protecting murderers, terrorists, professional criminals, drug traffickers, paedophiles and punishing innocent people. The whole legal system favours the criminal, victims do not have a voice, the whole system ignores their fears and worries, I think that is pretty sick and barbaric. Seriously, this is probably the best time in history to be a criminal – this is the criminal’s paradise! Do you actually think criminals have any fear of the law here? I know people that have lived a life crime both here (the West) and in countries out of Europe, which do you think they prefer?

And now you are playing that worn out card of the religious. The sharia means lots of things to different people. Can you explain why that is so? And at the same time , who you think is right and who wrong and for what reasons. With differing interpretations, they can't all be right, can they ?

Yes, Shariah law means lots of different things to different people. There are those that immediately think of beheadings and floggings when Shariah law is mentioned, this is often just a prejudiced or misleading position held by those with very little understanding of Shariah law.

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society.

Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires.

Sorry for veering off topic.

Can you explain why that is so? And at the same time , who you think is right and who wrong and for what reasons. With differing interpretations, they can't all be right, can they ?

There are different opinions amongst scholars, however I cannot say who is right and wrong. Islam is not black and white, there could be many different scholars Worldwide with traditional scholarships however they could have slightly different opinions, views (individual differences) etc. there is nothing wrong with that, Islam embraces these differences.

[Myles]

You'll probably find the same behaviour in any place where education is not a priority. Try going to redneck USA and becoming an atheist.

That's beside the point. I think rednecks are uneducated disgusting people. I believe there are such types everywhere. Here in the UK we have racists who have their little parades, shouting about England for the English. Fortunately most people see them for what they are; ignorant bigots . Also, its an offence to incite others to racial hatred, so they have to be very circumspect or they find themselves in court.

None of that excuses what was happening in Egypt. I was very surprised as I regarded Egypt as leaning towards secularity because of womens' casual dress, nightclubs and so on.

[Michael]

You don't think there should be Jewish courts, or x courts?

Who cares what you think?

I vote and that`s that. Looks like for the most part people agree with me.

A few Liberal acedemics visiting from Britian (these are the people who usually support this sort of thing) were talking openly about how enough is enough. Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.


Watch for the backlash in Europe.

[Michael]

50pc said interracial relations were worsening

interracial ??? Muslim is not a race.

[John99]

This will not be too bad. If you feel you would be treated better in Sharia court then all you have to do is convert.

[iceaura]

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society.

I don't, and I note that societies adopting this version of "best" seem to bear out my negative judgment.

Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires.

You make sharia law sound like the Mafia code.

I thought the Russians brought better order to Afghanistan, and no less stability, than the Taliban.

Is it your contention that the Russians should have brought more fear ?

[Kadark]

I like the interpretation of Shariah by the Salafis, even if it isn't perfect.

I will add that most people don't know what the hell Shariah even is, meaning it isn't ready to be established as a complete source of law.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Ghost_007;1745314]I’ll tell you what is barbaric: protecting murderers, terrorists, professional criminals, drug traffickers, paedophiles and punishing innocent people. The whole legal system favours the criminal, victims do not have a voice, the whole system ignores their fears and worries, I think that is pretty sick and barbaric. Seriously, this is probably the best time in history to be a criminal – this is the criminal’s paradise! Do you actually think criminals have any fear of the law here? I know people that have lived a life crime both here (the West) and in countries out of Europe, which do you think they prefer?




Yes, Shariah law means lots of different things to different people. There are those that immediately think of beheadings and floggings when Shariah law is mentioned, this is often just a prejudiced or misleading position held by those with very little understanding of Shariah law.

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society.

Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires.

Sorry for veering off topic.




There are different opinions amongst scholars, however I cannot say who is right and wrong. Islam is not black and white, there could be many different scholars Worldwide with traditional scholarships however they could have slightly different opinions, views (individual differences) etc. there is nothing wrong with that, Islam embraces these differences.


There is a lot wrong with it if you are on the receiving end of a subjective judgement made by a so-called scholar. Who would not prefer a law which is codified and under which everyone is equal. Shari cannot stand comparison with this as it is largely a matter of interpretation.

[Myles]

Which should tell you just exactly what sharia is, ie whatever it is determined to be in any Islamic society by the ruler/government

Yes but it cannot claim to be other than a series of rules or guidelines open to subjective interpretation. I have no quarrel with that as long as it is not referred to as law.

[Arsalan]

Its time like these that peoples ignorance shows its ugly face again. You do know that Sharia courts have been active, legally, in the UK for over 30 years right? You also know that law in the UK, where I am studying it, is not as clear cut as you want to paint it right? There are various degrees of interpretations on various cases and rulings handed out by variuos judges in the courts and House of Lords. Saying that Sharia does not stand in comparison because it is down to interpretation is very wrong. Rape was not defined in a marriage until the case of R v R in 91 iirc. And so there are many where the various interpretations of the judges presiding over the cases vary.

Shariah law as practiced in some instances in Saudiland is unislamic and is only given the cover of Shariah Law while it in fact just a brutal dictatorial regime oppressing any dissidents. Shariah Law is harsh on crime, hence the crime rate being low in countries practising it. Most people forget that the core of Sharia is the Quran. Anything against the Quranic teachings is automatically unislamic and not allowed in Sharia. But then again, torture is illegal according to US law and guess what happens to "terrorist suspects"