Dear stui and mr absolute so as you think you know sam pretty well what is her opinion on this issue, bearing in mind the last paragraph of the post she sent to Geoff. Now for the record, i have a sister, who does not follow islam anymore. She seems to be ok, and not one member of my family is out to kill her.. I have told the story to michael who has asked this one before I imagine that sam has similar experiences with people close to her. It is quite amusing how we have so many experts in islam on this forum, and like you say Mr absolute, people in read what they want to read ############ take care zak
Hi Sam, And yet not so obvious. Numerous average everyday Ahmeds - Ghost among them - insist that the West has no right to meddle in the affairs of islamic legality; and where else, at present, does pressure for reform come these days? How is one to proceed with such "updating"? Impact on what? Where is the good in forcing a woman who has been assaulted to obtain four witnesses? And where would such individuals be found? You might argue that this is felony law, and therefore of notable "impact", but this is an evidentiary element, not one of punishment, lest we consider the charge of "illegal sexual relations" which invariably follows the failure of such proof. Well, therein the problem then. I appreciate that you recognize the issue - indeed, I am glad of it - but I am concerned that such changes are ever possible when cartoons throw people into a stamping rage. And - like economists - for every one who sayeth "nay, nay" another sayeth "yea, verily". Al-Azhar University itself - bastion of islamic thought for a vast proportion of all islam - does not seem critically preoccupied with the recognition of human rights or, even, of the recognition of Jewish people as human, if one may judge the words of its founder (and then, his reiteration last year of those words, and expansion on them). Ditto the Ayatollah. What then ought we poor kufr make of the ummah itself? Well, all said and done there seems to be little doubt of the consensus, say, of the four major islamic schools of jurisprudence on the appropriate punishment of apostacy, for instance: death. Again: I'm certain that these rules could be used in some tolerant and meaningfully humane manner. The problem is merely that they never seem to have been. The core of islam is still the perfection of islam, and the tafsir of those deemed too deviant. I beg to differ. It is used - directly or in well-similar derivatives - in several islamic nations including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Is there any islamic nation in the world that expressly permits apostacy, for example? The greatest freedom of association one can have is to leave association. Why is this nowhere and never protected by islamic governments? This is an old argument - that no state today is islamic - and harks back to the rub "When true Communism is obtained, the state will crumble away", which is pure hogwash. What other enabling factors are there in sharia which would somehow vitiate the punishments, or vindicate the whole? I am concerned with core freedoms of choice, and if sharia cannot provide such freedoms - and apparently it cannot - what am I likely to care about non-felony issues? But many muslims - indeed, nearly a majority if ghost will permit us the benefit of using opinion polls - want sharia in Britain, or want Britain to become an islamic country. What then for the laws of the state? Wither then our constitutions? After all, the true Believer will say they are not written by this mythical Allah. Why then would they be respected? And of course, I strongly believe that Islamic scholars should receive modern legal training as well as training in Islamic jurisprudence and be in step with the societal norms for human rights. Well, I regret to say that numerous scholars, nearly sixty world governments and the orginator of all islam - Mohammed - appear to disagree with you. It is narrated in al-Buhkari: "If a man leaves religion, kill him." [Mohammed]. This would appear, prima facie, to be fairly categorical. I wish you well in your efforts to change it. Salutations, Geoff
I doubt Ghost means the Hudud laws, which favor physical punishment. Like I said there are a whole lot of social issues (e.g. distribution of charity), which do not really affect legalities in Western countries. If you remember, I gave you links before showing similar practices in non-Muslims in India. And it was in just 1991 that the UK made rape in marriage punishable by law. Patriarchial societies are all based on control of women, which is why I strongly believe that only the education of women can move Islam forward. Again, you should know that local imams (who are known to the people) can have a lot of power in Islam since it lacks any official religious hierarchy and that anyone who can read or has memorised a Quran can become an imam. No other qualification is required, since the post chiefly involves leading the congregation in prayer and some basic administration of mosques. From my own experience of imams in Bombay, I would believe that few have any training even in Islamic jurisprudence. So local conflicts are not representative of any international reaction and are probably more politically motivated than religious in nature. Like I said, the four schools of Sunni Muslims as well as the Shiite school work closely together and they are looking to resolve this problem. Pakistan is already trying to change the Hudud laws in the midst of strong opposition from militant factions who have gained control since the cold war. Again, as I said, in a country run by a dictatorial government or even one based on religious jurisprudence, it is not politically feasible to encourage dissent, even religious dissent. It is moreover unfortunate that such factions gain funding from those who are unstintingly supported by democratic regimes. Of course core freedom of rights is what we are all concerned about. Since sharia is used predominantly by the people in social matters (and not the government) it is the small fraction of legal punishments that need to be updated, which is what the entire focus of this discussion is. Again, when Muslims talk of sharia, it is the religious and social aspects they refer to since they constitute the main body of the sharia, and not the hudud laws, which are a small fraction. And these are not incompatible with Western democratic principles and would not come under legal purview. I doubt they are fighting for the right to have their hands cut off in the event of being caught in a burglary. Not really. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8831 Always a pleasure, Sam
I would similarly be opposed to any such law in India, or anywhere else. What is their perogative for the law? I agree that education of women is always and everywhere a good thing; I do draw special attention to Quranic injunctions about four witnesses as being especially dangerous. Perhaps, and yet I wonder. Efforts at properly institutionalizing islamic thought have not met with humanitarian zeal, if we are to take al-Azhar in Egypt as an example. I have noted the efforts in Pakistan, but wherein are you saying that the schools of islamic jurisprudence are looking to 'resolve' this problem? I have heard of no sweeping effort that would, contrarily, make it legal to leave islam in any school. But it is clearly not 'dissent'. Would a Christian Pakistan still be Pakistan? Of course. How about a Jewish Iran? Why not? I appreciate that these leaders consider it dissent, but from where do they get such an opinion? The Quran and the sayings of Mohammed. Western democracies were not propping up dictatorships 300, 400, 1000 years ago - and yet these penalties do not appear to have changed. Was the penalty any different in the much-vaunted "Golden Age of Islamic Tolerance"? No. I imagine not; but then again, the residents of the ummah seem quite unperturbed by such legalistics. Indeed, the reaction to the West's denunciation of the sentence of death on the recent Pakistani apostate was one of surprise: there seemed to be no such appreciation of the separation of huddud from societal concern. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8831 Sorry but I couldn't get the link to work. Could you post the article here? And to you, Geoff
Hi Geoff here is the article, I'll get back on the rest of the post: Muslim scholars ban killings in name of Islam 7/7/2005 12:00:00 PM GMT Muslim scholars meeting in a three-day conference in Amman banned killings in the name of Islam Leading Muslim scholars meeting in a three-day conference in Amman banned killing in the name of Islam and urged respect for other opinions in the Muslim world. "We condemn the principle of accusations of apostasy and the legalization of the assassination of Muslims for religious reasons," the 180 scholars said Wednesday at the end of the first International Islamic Conference in Jordan. The statement was based on religious edicts, or fatwas, issued by Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the highest Muslim Sunni authority, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Shiite leader based in Iraq, and Egypt's Mufti, Sheikh Ali Jumma, as well as other senior leaders in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan. At the beginning of the conference, Jordan's King Abdullah II denounced all kinds of religious extremism. He also urged Muslim states to harmonize their schools of jurisprudence. "Divisions within the global Islamic community, acts of violence and terrorism and accusations of apostasy and the killing of Muslims in the name of Islam violate the spirit of Islam," he said in an address Monday. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8831
