How Islamic Law Can Work

ASTORIA,
thanks so much for the response. i wish all muslims were as nuanced as you in terms of picking and choosing the good verses. i can see how easy it is to make islam look bad, and i think it takes a lot of effort to make it look good.

let's not even pretend there is gender equality in islam (or judaism or christianity). the best we can say is gender roles are "different". it may be possible to somehow say women are respected. (i'm still having trouble with that, given the texts and my, admittedly western, understanding of life for women in islamic countries). as far as tolerance of non-muslims, probably the best verses you could find would say something like "don't kill them". i don't think there are verses exhorting muslims to treat non-muslims (dhimmis) as well as they are to treat muslims. there's still an element of exceptionalism.

I saw you asked for some verses on social and gender equity- hope this helps

“…There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

“To you be your religion, to me be mine.”

Verse 177 of Surat Al Baqarah:

“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness (the quality of ) the one who believes in God and the Last Day and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; who spends of his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, to the needy, to the wayfarer, to those who ask and for the freeing of slaves; and who is steadfast in prayers, and gives Zakah (Alms); and those who fulfill their covenants which they made; and who are patient and perseverant in poverty and ailment and throughout all periods of fighting. Such are the people of truth, the pious.”

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

Each human being shall face the consequences of his or
her deeds. And their Lord has accepted of them and
answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost
the work of any of you, be he/she male or
female: you are members one of another... (Quran 3:1 95)

If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female,
and have faith, they will enter paradise and not the least
injustice will be done to them. (Quran 4:124)

For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women,
for devout men and women, for true men and women, for
men and women who are patient and constant, for men and
women who humble themselves, for men and women who
give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny
themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity,
and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise
for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.
(Quran 33:35)

One Day you shall see the believing men and the believing
women, how their Light runs forward before them and by
their right hands. (Their greeting will be): "Good News for
you this Day! Gardens beneath which flow rivers! To dwell
therein forever! This is indeed the highest Achievement!"
(Quran 57:1 2)

Peace, VICTORIA

Hi Walter, I will answer to the best of my limited ability. And may ALLAH forgive me if I relate anything incorrect.
The Qur'an was not compiled in a chronological order.
So there isn't a linear progression of stories building upon the past ones, like occurs in the bible.
Some of the suras(books) were written for the time in which they were revealed- and refer to specific historical events and peoples. These are the verses which usually seem to give people problems.
They include instructions for the young Muslim community, and things that were happening then.
The misunderstandings arise, when someone without a base knowledge of the backstory which frames the events- interprets them to mean an all encompassing instruction for all people for all time.
When they are really targeted to a certain person ,or peoples, or known event.
I will give you an example.
The Prophet(pbuh) was receiving instructions and passing them on as they occurred. All the while guiding his new community to a different standard of behavior than their own society dictated.
In pre-Islamic Arabia, the people were very predisposed to drinking alcohol.
So, first it was revealed in the Qur'an as a criticism of alcohol- there may be some tiny good in a thing- but a large amount of bad- so avoid it.
Amd ALLAH knows best what this struggling new community would be able to bear.
Later, after 15 years, a new revelation occurred which banned alcohol completely.
By this point, the new community was gaining a bit of cohesion, and were praying regularly.
And no Muslim may pray while intoxicated.
Since the 5 proscribed prayers start at dawn, and end well after sunset, they are distributed throughout the enitre day- and there is no time to get drunk, and sober up again in time to pray!
So, it was a gradual process, that did not abrogate or negate the former.
The former was only for that short specific period of time.
Not for all people for all time.
But the start of a gradual leveling off period to lead into the instruction that would have been to difficult for the people to accept at that point in their beleaguered and persecuted weakened state.

So, you see, it is not an abrogation- a contradiction or changing of the god's 'mind' or command.
That doesn't happen.

I hope you accept this in the spirit of mutual respect and desire to share truth as it was given.
Peace, Victoria

justillthen /walter-in-fallschurch

There begins many new threads and discussion about different issues and thus instead of converging our thoughts, they diverge.

God - Prophets - Revelations - morality and immorality, these are the topics upon which philosophers , reformers and the theologians have written since centuries.

In brief what I can suggest is, strive for truth and practically experience the inner vision by walking in this way, rather than to be a critic of things about which our knowledge and experience is shallow.

Know thy-self, Know thy Lord and serve the mankind.

shark2,
are you muslim? if so, what do you think of the "doctrine of abrogation" (that a leter verse in the koran supersedes an earlier verse if there is an apparent contradiction)?

i understand there are some muslims who think it's a valid idea and others who don't.

Hello shark2,

We may debate what state of consciousness is required to be a Prophet, but we can not say. The realm of Prophets is foggy at best. Perhaps one of the chief requirements is charisma so to gain the following. Doubtless there are innumerable holy men and women who never get an audience. Doubtless there are many that are frauds.

As per sin, like morality it is in my view mutable, not immutable. I do not believe in an unchanging morality. We may attempt to superimpose absolutes on morality and life in general but I do not find that it sticks in the manifest world.

"A life spent in piety creates a different mental vision that otherwise. you cannot you see the next horizon without experience something - this personal feeling is like a journey."

I am in agreement.

justillthen /walter-in-fallschurch

I do agree with you that most of the muslim countries are under dictatorship and the house of muslims is not in order.

Own thinking or sub-conscious loaded by past experience or observations is not enough to guide a person and do not become a source of what is revealed to a Prophet.
Conscience too is different for all of us.
A habitual thief's conscience do not create any remorse or in certain societies a sin is not taken as a sin.

A life spent in piety creates a different mental vision that otherwise. you cannot you see the next horizon without experience something - this personal feeling is like a journey.

Reveleation of Prophets is directed and is not a result of any personal excellence or happen by shining mental faculties.

Hello Shark2,

"Then the gist of your argument is, that Islam is a religion which believes in jihad based on faith, which is based on revealations in the shape of Quran."

I am not versed in Islam enough to argue it's beliefs.

" My questions is well! either one should believe on the revealations or his own intellectual conjectures."

OK. I do not have that degree of opposition in my beliefs, I suppose, but if I were to make a choice I would believe both with great reservation. In the end though I would go with my own conscience. I understand conscience is different (to me!) than your "intellectual conjectures".

"Then how about the limits of our intellect?
inconclusiveness of our knowledge?."

Limited and inconclusive.

Yes, I would have to agree that colonization is still out there, though in a altered form. But those tendencies have been with humans and with civilization for millennia. Religious and non-religious killing, killing of innocents, clandestine operations, puppet governments, torture, stealing of land and resources.... Any civilization and any culture have these blights.

I am not a supporter of the Iraq war. It was unjustified, to me, and a badge of shame. I regret that the American government acted in this way as well as other injustices, and I am ashamed for it. Greater shame was that the American people, for a time at least, generally believed in this war as necessary and justified.

"f you see once again the imiges of Abu Graib to recover your memory then hopfully one expect to set your own house in order."

One can hope, and I do hope. This new Administration moves forward with Hope as one of it's mottos. I agree with that.

That said, it is my hope also that the good Muslim peoples that populate many majority Muslim countries set their own houses in order. It is no secret that many of the most corrupt governments in the world are Muslim run. It can be of no degree of pride for the people governed or for the Islamic faith that corruption is the standard by which it's leaders measure their success.

Salaam

Hello walter-in-fallschurch,

I am sorry to leave you hanging for a while. Been busy and need to get back to it soon.

Do not take the term 'bigot' too strongly, if it does not fit for you. You seem to be one that considers issues and rethinks things when new perspectives present themselves. That is commendable alone.

Personally I am happy and thankful to be born in America. But it also brings along some very real handicaps, if one looks with clear eyes. Like being born into wealth, one can come to expect to be served, for instance, instead of serving...

I question a number of things. One is "what is fortunate and what a misfortune". The answer may be different if we judge by the body or by the psyche/spirit/soul. I also question the assumptions that I automatically make. One example of yours was the generalization of grenade launcher toting Palestinian. It is easy to type someone, particularly when that someone is an unknown, non-personalized generalization. It then becomes so easy to hate those bas stard evil hearted infidel muslims, they are all terrorist sons of who res.

Of course that is not true for the majority of the populations any more than it is true that most Americans are gun toting PBR popping Hummer driving sexual predators.

We are judging a billion people based on the actions of a relative few, (considering the billion!), and our own ignorance of their worlds. Misinformation is rampant, and yet many otherwise (assumably!) intelligent and rational Americans take it as truth.

I am hopeful, again, that this chaos is a natural aspect of evolution of consciousness, in the muslim world as well as in the western one.

shark2,
on your point 1:
muhammad MAY have been "honest", maybe, and he probably did THINK he was recieving revelations from god, but i don't think he actually was receiving revelations. people in the old days used to believe a lot of crazy things about witches and ghosts and other superstitious things to explain things about the natural world they didn't understand.

also, i don't trust that people accurately wrote down what happened. eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. (this applies to all judeochrislamic scripture.)

on point 2:
you are describing man's attempt to explain the unexplained. as far as the natural world (creation stories, floods, volcanos etc...) scripture is the ancients' taking guesses at geology, biology, astronomy and so on. they got a lot of things wrong in these realms. the earth is not 6000 yrs old etc...

as far as the "spiritual world" that's anybody's guess.

on point 3:
we all want there to be "more"...some thing else out there...and to be connected to it. i don't see any evidence in scripture that the ancients' revelations were any better than ours today.

continued

Qouted:
What Revelation Does
On the Qur'anic principle that in this world everything has been created in pairs Revelation is a pair for the human faculty of Reasoning. A natural corollary of this is that the relationship between the two should be complementary. A slight analysis shows that Revelation has been perfectly designed to complement the human mind; we see that:

Revelation has nothing to do in spheres where the mind itself is fully capable of getting to and uncovering the correct results.

In those circles where the mind is fully capable of getting to the correct results but refuses to do so due to emotions, prejudices and other hindrances, Revelation only guides the mind to the right way of thinking.

In areas where the mind is incapable of getting to the correct results on its own, but is capable of understanding them if someone points them out (what we have called 'First Limitation'), Revelation not only presents the conclusions but also substantiates them thoroughly.

Revelation (Qur'an) addresses the Reasoning faculty alone, and rather than imposing anything on the persons addressed, convinces them by its arguments.

He giveth wisdom unto whom he will, and he unto whom wisdom is given, he truly hath received abundant good. But none will grasp the message except men of prudence. [2:269]

Behold in the creation of the heavens and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of prudence. [3:190]

[This is] a scripture that We have revealed unto thee full of blessing that they many ponder over its verses and the prudent ones may thereby be reminded.' [38:29]

[The Book of Moses, Torah, was] a guide and a reminder for men of prudence. [40:54]

In condemnation of those who do not use their minds; the Qur'an says:

Most certainly the worst of animals in Allah's sight are the deaf, the dumb who do not use their brains.' [8:22]

walter-in-fallschurch
1.Prophet Muhammad PBUH lived for 40 years in his people before, he invited them to the divine call. He was most honest person to believe, that's why when he preached he asked them to testify how they found him.And they replied honest and trustworthy. and I Quote
"2.A Priori Information relates to the knowledge which is not learned through sense experience but which is innate and inborn in an individual.

The idea of 'A Priori' is not new in philosophic literature. It is referred to though in a slightly different sense, even by Socrates, Platoand Aristotle. Aristotle refers to it as the 'Divine Spark."

"Aristotle (384-322 BC) as its representative. According to him, it is necessary for the human race that those facts which the human mind cannot discover on its own, be revealed upon it. After the Renaissance, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 AD) and John Locke (1632-1704 AD) also advocated views similar to Aristotle's. In the nineteenth chapter of his 'An Essay on Human Understanding', Locke says that there are some things which the mind cannot discover on its own, and that they are revealed upon man. According to him, God should and does guide man in these matters. He further states that Revelation cannot be contradictory to human reasoning; it actually 'enlarges' the mind and improve its capabilities."

3. Lastly any person can develop his mental faculties to an extent where truth began to reveal itself upon him.

shark2,
you said,

"We have much strong reasons to believe in the revealations of God's laws through His prophets."

what are a few of these reasons? could you list a few? and maybe why you find these reasons compelling?

justillthen

Then the gist of your argument is, that Islam is a religion which believes in jihad based on faith, which is based on revealations in the shape of Quran.

My questions is well! either one should believe on the revealations or his own intellectual conjectures.

Then how about the limits of our intellect?
inconclusiveness of our knowledge?.

After all what is this hypocracy that what we do with great cleaverness,so we oversight it. Still colonisation is there, only its shape has changed, still many non-religious killings are carried by great brutality by cladinstine operations. still the puppet govts are supported by the rulers of people who claim "intellectual enlightment".

We have much strong reasons to believe in the revealations of God's laws through His prophets. Fisrt we have to decide this matter then only we can talk whether such laws are brutual or not.

Can you give me a good justification for the killings of thousands and thousands of Iraqis in a recent war. Can you give we justification for 4000 air attacks which has crippled the minds of innocent children for ever.
If you see once again the imiges of Abu Graib to recover your memory then hopfully one expect to set your own house in order.

MODERATOR/WEBMASTER,
if the comments went the other way you could scroll down through them better, and this sequence of posts i did would make sense...

oops...
i meant "i don't think (i could be wrong here) JEWS/ISRAEL use human shields. that appears to be a muslim tactic - and a western medeival tactic."

as far as indians and guns and bombs...you got me there...what can i say...we took their land and aren't giving it back. but they are free to participate fully with whatever religion in the "occupiers" society. and i would say that we really really TRY to use our power for what i'll arrogantly call "the good". i despise bush and what he's done for our relations with muslims, but i think he meant well...

MODERATOR/WEBMASTER: i wish these comments were displayed sequentually, so new comments are at the end, so they flow into each other. thanks.

justillthen,
as far as generalizing about palestinians, of course most palestinians don't hide rocket launchers - but the ones who do are muslim. i don't think (i could be wrong here) use human shields. that appears to be a muslim tactic - and a western medeival tactic. i think israel takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties, whereas that's pretty much the game plan for muslims/palestinians.

what is disappointing for me is those "moderate muslims" - the "good ones", the ones w/o rocket launchers - is how quit they've been. for me the whole thing started on 9-11. i was naive, and so truely shocked that they bombed us. i didn't know who osama bin laden was. right after 9-11 (while the only people who were celebrating were muslims), i had hope as i saw MOST MUSLIMS join in the global outpouring of sympathy for us. it was a magical moment, i thought, when the whole world felt sorry for US. imagine that! we've totally blown it since then, but so have "moderate muslims". they should be mad - at the osama bin ladens of the world.

justillthen,
i can't get over that "bigot" thing, so i feel i have to explain. maybe i'll just dig a deepr hole...

i didn't mean to imply it's a shame to be born "muslim" - as opposed to not being born at all... but i stand by the idea that if you're going to be born you're "luckier" if you're born in the u.s. than in any muslim country - especially if you're a girl.

if only there were some objective metric to quantify how happy people are with where they were born. how 'bout immigration? i don't have any hard numbers but i bet you a dollar there are more people migrating out of "muslim countries" than migrating into them. i would even say most people moving into muslim countries are refugees from some other muslim country. (the very fact that we can say "muslism country" is "backward" - it's a shame. a country must be secular for true freedom of religion to exist.) i'd be willing to bet another dollar there are more people with the misfortune of being born muslim migrating to the u.s. than people born in the u.s. are migrating to muslim countries.

Hello again Walter-in-Fallschurch,

Thank you. I enjoy the discussion as well.

Seems we hit a nerve. I am not discrediting the fortune of being born into a society that professes, (and usually practices!), freedom and liberty. It is a beautiful thing. But your comments have belied, to me, a prejudice and bigotry and that is what I commented on. We in fact do not know that it is a form of fortune for those born into an islamic world to be so born. It is a judgment that it is a shame to be so born.

You said: "i DO consider myself extremely fortunate to have been born and raised in a non-islamic society, with non-islamic values." It seems to be Islam here that is the issue. Yet there are many muslims that are at peace with their faith and their identity. We, as westerners, tend to judge them and their cultures in a very negative light, thinking ourselves enlightened. We do live in a superior governmental system I believe but we display arrogance and intolerance, so how far along are we?

"if the fact that i think palestinians have WORSE morals for hiding rocket launchers in people's homes..."

Your generalizations here discredit your assessment. You will not find rocket launchers in the homes of but a tiny fraction of Palestinian homes, but you judge the morality of all of them on those few who are more aptly called Palestinian insurgents or terrorists. One suicide bomber colors the whole people for you? That a rocket launcher is stashed makes all Palestinians morally decrepit?

We could go into the moral value of an occupied peoples to fight for the land that they consider taken from them by an occupier. No need in the moment. It usually fails, as power and might are the winning arguments. A few rocket launchers and some dozens in deaths make for a terrorist. A dozen cruise missles and some tens of thousands make for an empire...

Native Americans can attest.

:-)

In peace!

justillthen,
thanks for the comments and this is a very interesting, fun, discussion.

you said,
"You make a huge assumption here, and a huge judgment, that people born into the "Islamic world are lack fortune. You do not know them, their reasons for existence, their fates... You expose your arrogance here, and bigotry."

i DO consider myself extremely fortunate to have been born and raised in a non-islamic society, with non-islamic values. if the fact that i think the enlightenment values of freedom of religion, government by consent, and separation of church and state are BETTER THAN (not just different, but BETTER than) religious intolerance, divine succession/monarchy, dhimmitude, sharia, misogyny, arranged marriages, honor killings and so on...well, then call me arrogant and bigoted.

if the fact that i think palestinians have WORSE morals for hiding rocket launchers in people's homes while INTENTIONALLY targeting israeli civilians, then call me arrogant and bigoted.

if the fact that i think i can guess that next "suicide" (should be "religious homocide") bomber will be muslim makes me arrogant and bigoted, well, then so be it.

it hurts me to be called "bigoted" because i hate bigotry. in my dealings with any individual, i always give the individual the respect any human deserves and that i would want accorded to me.

the charge of "arrogance" bothers me less, and here i suppose it is justified, becuse yes, i DO think my freedoms resulting from living in america are the product of a BETTER system of values than those governing the "islamic world".

Hello walter-in-fallschurch,

"that is my great hope. it would be great if islamic scholars could somehow twist the words of the koran to allow true compassion, tolerance etc... it would require truly olympian interpretive gymnastics."

I do not know enough to agree with that level of difficulty. I have read parts of the Quran and some have been much like the OT and some have been quite beautiful. I do not have the perception, shared by many in America, that the Quran is a purely violent and intolerant work. I think that belief comes from ignorance, not fact.

"maybe the revolution has to come from the regular work-a-day people - the ordinary people who by misfortune of birth were born into the "islamic world" - who have finally had enough of all the oppression required by islam."

You make a huge assumption here, and a huge judgment, that people born into the "Islamic world are lack fortune. You do not know them, their reasons for existence, their fates... You expose your arrogance here, and bigotry.

I do not think that in these times we are likely to see new prophets be born, but who knows. My best hope is that Muslims will work out inside their own faiths what is true for them. Violent fundamentalism will be seen as what it is, and not as a true form of the faith, and the oppressed majority of muslims will gain enough courage and momentum to force a change of tide. Peaceful Islam will be reborn.

Hello shark2,

"The answer is simple - Reaction of the people on oppression by their own rulers and aggression by the foreign powers."

I hear your reply, but I do not think it so simple. You would like to paint the cause for militancy an oppression of the people, and I am sure that plays a strong role. But one form of oppression is often replaced by another. Do you think that the Algerian government is not repressive? Is the current Saudi Regime not repressive? They oversee Mecca. Do you think that Hamas and Hezbollah are violent only because they claim to be fighting oppression?

There are many regimes that are functionally Islamic. At least those that are aligned with Islamic principles seem to have no problem expressing their aggression. Indeed, aggression APPEARS to be a fundamental way that they express their devotion to that faith.

How is it explained otherwise that one of the highest honors is deemed to be suicide as a martyr? That killing the infidel in jihad is a pinnacle of religious expression?

Islam is perceived to be a violent and bloody religion because much of how it is expressed is violent and bloody.

I do not question that there has been a lot of oppression in the islamic world. But much of it comes from inside it's own ranks as well as from foreign powers. And the age of colonialism is essentially over. The world would receive happily the face of islam that you say is the true one, but appears to be closeted far to much. That Islam is a peaceful, compassionate and loving religion would be a revelation to outside observers. It is hard to see that beauty when what is in the face is violence and intolerance.
In your list you forget the palestinians and what happened in Algeria.

In all circumstances the people were denied their right of freedom to choose the way they want to live.

Al-Qaeda was a reaction by the once ally of CIA, Osama Bin Laden against the foreign troops on Saudi Arabia soil.
Iranian rev was reaction of oppression of Shah while the US remain supporting the Shah. and likewise the other issues.

Whenb we saw a civil war in Algeria - Did the rulers bowed before the democratic will of the people by handing over the govt to FIF, and what the foreign powers did? they backed the of oppression."

justillthen,

you said,
"Islam has been here for 1300 years. At 1300 years Christianity was just heading into the Inquisition and aiming for the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment. Who is to say that Islam is not on the edge of a Rebirth?"

that is my great hope. it would be great if islamic scholars could somehow twist the words of the koran to allow true compassion, tolerance etc... it would require truly olympian interpretive gymnastics.

maybe the revolution has to come from the regular work-a-day people - the ordinary people who by misfortune of birth were born into the "islamic world" - who have finally had enough of all the oppression required by islam. i'm not sure how that would work given islamic scripture.

the best hope would be for a new prophet to come along and "update" the koran, sort of like jesus did with the ancient jewish texts.

unfortunately, i think all these scenerios are unlikely...

Justillthen

You asked 771979:

"One of the obvious questions that come up for me is simple. If Islam is truly about "love, peace, harmony, equality, justice, righteousness, humility, intellectual development, creative thinking and not militancy...", then why is it that it's manifestation, from the Taliban and Al Qaida and Saddam to Somalia and Libya and the Saudi regime, appears to be contrary to love, peace and harmony?"

The answer is simple - Reaction of the people on oppression by their own rulers and aggression by the foreign powers.

In your list you forget the palestinians and what happened in Algeria.

In all circumstances the people were denied their right of freedom to choose the way they want to live.

Al-Qaeda was a reaction by the once ally of CIA, Osama Bin Laden against the foreign troops on Saudi Arabia soil.
Iranian rev was reaction of oppression of Shah while the US remain supporting the Shah. and likewise the other issues.

Whenb we saw a civil war in Algeria - Did the rulers bowed before the democratic will of the people by handing over the govt to FIF, and what the foreign powers did? they backed the oppression.

WalterIFC,

"re: incarceration/amputation:"

I am not focused solely on three strikes and life imprisonment, but that IS a real possibility in some states. To me that IS inhumane.

Yet the point was to compare ways. It is indeed difficult to do so with any equitability as the cultures are so different. This difference can not be overlooked while maintaining the correct perspective to judge appropriately. It may be easy for us, with our cultural, social and religious conditioning, to view others as backward and barbaric. By our standards they seem to be. But by their own, they are not. And from their perspective and conditioning they may view us baffled and confused, unable to understand how we could do what we do.

In the west and particularly in America there is a pompous and arrogant attitude that believes itself to be the best and most benevolent and advanced society.

One only has to look around to see the dirty laundry everywhere. So, it serves to view with compassion even that which we easily judge.

Hello Walter-in-Fallschurch,

I will contemplate your perception of the NT vs. the OT and Quran. On first thought I may well agree. Indeed it is one of the reasons that I enjoy much of the NT and dislike much of the OT.

I take the view that Islam is going through it's own growth pains as it seeks it's own era of Enlightenment. The issue that the Quran is political or a structure for governance and social interactions is valid enough, but I do not think it segregates it from the process that Christian based governments have gone through. There have been centuries in Christian based governments where it could not be fathomed a separation of church and state. The two were inseperable, a Christian king and a Christian priest at his left ear.

Islam has been here for 1300 years. At 1300 years Christianity was just heading into the Inquisition and aiming for the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment. Who is to say that Islam is not on the edge of a Rebirth?

justillthen,
re:why won't god heal amputees?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=channel

Hi Justill and Walter, good comments.
Concerning your question Justill, I wouldn’t say I seek to impose Western values on what civilized society means, however, I do find find amputation extreme and not effective in protecting society. The pure symbolic righteousness you are talking about may have been reasonable 2000 years ago, but completely anachronic today.

To the point: Even if amputation would deter theft more efficiently, what then? Electric shock or other types of physical torture may be applied if found it decreased the rate of theft. The fact of physical torture, more “cruelty”, makes the alternative not civilized.
I guess more civilized would be to work on more awareness and on prevention rather than using fear as a deterrent. But there has to be a consequence, so I guess the implementation of this is what makes a more civilized society.

Therefore, America is not among the most civilized societies and I do agree America has a huge problem concerning this issue. Third felony leading to life sentence is cruel, no compassion there, and no hope of reinsertion into society either. The belief that stricter sentences are the solution is a big part of what got us into this. This has to change.

justillthen,

re: incarceration/amputation:
you have focused on the "three strikes" thing and assumed a life sentence. our judicial system is a little more nuanced than that - and certainly more nuanced than "above elbow" or "below elbow". either of those IS a life sentence... (google "why won't god heal amputees?") with jail, there can be varying lengths of sentences and varying degrees of confinement and so on.

i understand the appealing simplicity of amputation for theft, but i just think (maybe "feel", actually) that it's barbaric and we can do better.

justillthen,
do you disagree with my characterization of the koran and OT as religious/political and the NT as merely religious? (i'm talking here about the texts themselves - not how they've been used by adherents.)

christians DO embrace the history of the OT (some take it literally and others figuratively), but as you hinted at, they kind of pick and choose among the "laws". christians can eat what they want and groom themselves how they want without offending yahweh, but they still try to follow the 10 commandments (the ex20 and deut5 ones - not so much the ex34 ones).

and yes, christians are political, but not with any scriptural justification. they have indeed tried to IMPOSE their religion on others. that's just the good ol' human nature impulse to make everyone be like you. (have you read martin luther's "on the jews and their lies"? if not, google it - it's shocking.) the big difference between christianity as practiced today and islam is that christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming through the enlightenment. thanks to voltaire, hobbes, locke, hume et.al., "no other gods" is no longer acceptable government policy. i think this was only possible because christianity is not inherently political.

this troubles me with regard to the "muslim problem". i can't quite imagine a way to disentangle muslim religion from the politics of a society with muslims in it. they can't fathom separation of church and state. i think that to "be true to their religion" they would have to insist on (fight to impose) a "muslim government" for everyone. it's very depressing.

my mother grew up in iran (eastern orthodox), and i lived in afghanistan from 1969-1973 as the son of a diplomat. i remember it very fondly. i'm sure my exposure was somewhat sheltered, but it was my impression that afghans liked us, and they were very warm and welcoming and extremely polite - so i guess some form of ok existence is possible in an "islamic country", but it can never be a truly free existence.

i'll have to think about the incarceration /amputation thing a bit more.

Hello Walter-in-Fallschurch,

I find it interesting your perception of the Quran and OT as political works while the NT is a (?) more simply religious work. Curious.

In the end it may make small difference. Throughout history the NT has been viewed as the Word of God by adherents and seen as a virtual commandment for the way to live life. It has been used as the basis from which to form laws, and as it has been coupled with the OT by virtually all christian denominations the OT became the basis for laws in Christian dominated governments. The NT therefore was a de facto manuscript for government. Lacking the easily discernable laws of the OT, the elder were preserved when it was convenient.

More to the point, Christians are political. Christs' message of fixity on the Father and shunning the trappings of mortal existence while living Love and
Compassion are often lost in, well, mortal existence.

But I agree with you fully on the wisdom of the Founders in opting against a state Deity or Religion. Christianity is healthier, as are the populace, by this choice.

In terms of the humanity of incarceration, one would have to consider, among other effects, that incarceration injects our probably non-violent thief into a society where anal rape is a daily occurrence. If this is a three strikes, non violent thief his penalty might well include a life of forced sodomy and beatings in a very brutal all male society of criminals.

Prison guards make no attempt to intervene in these 'encounters', in my understanding. Some have been known to say they believe that 'the penalty fits the crime' and 'if they didn't want to be in prison they shouldn't have done the crime'.

Some crimes don't fit the punishment, and the punishment just perpetrates the pain that brought about crime.

I question your perception of our 'humane' punishment, when seen through this lens.

justillthen,
i understand your point about how given the real conditions on the ground in most (all?) "islamic" countries, "enlightened" sharia may have to be the way to go. because the koran is a political as well as religious document, politics and religion cannot be separated in "islamic countries."

the koran/hadith are political in that they prescribe rules for society - just like the old testament does. jewish and muslim scripture was written by those in power (priests) seeking to perpetuate their power.

the new testament on the other hand was written by people being oppressed. it is from the point of view of ordinary citizens living in roman-controlled land. therefore it seeks to distance itself from government (render unto caeser...render unto god...). the "rules" are for christians only, not society at large - there's no verse that says anything like "go kill people who don't follow these rules" (sentiments present in both the koran and the old testament). admittedly, over the centuries governments have co-opted christianity and used it to oppress people, but christian scripture itself is not inherently political.

thank god for thomas jefferson and james madison who somehow convinced the smaller-minded founders (who wanted to make jesus our national deity) NOT to make america a christian nation.

america's high percentage of practicing christians shows how the separation has been good for christianity. it turns out a religion is healthier if NOT shoved down the throats of the people.

as to whether incarceration is more humane than amputation, i would say yes. as to whether it is a more effective deterrent, i don't know.

walter-in-fallschurch,

My point is that it MAY be an effective and consequential penalty that COULD serve to deter the crime at it's root, (a pun?), while serving the society. In that it might indeed effectively cut down on the crime, (a pun?), and be compassionate toward society as well as the criminal.

In some states in America a third felony has led to a mandantory LIFE SENTENCE. Do you consider that more compassionate, or less? Though one may think that the criminal element at least is off the streets, criminal networks operating from prison have rattled conventional reasoning. The expense to the state for a life term for one inmate is huge. One life that will not rehabilitate, as society has turned it's back on that person.

Theft has been the third offense for many lifers now incarcerated. What is more compassionate?

i suppose an example of the compassionate nuanced sophisticated application of sharia might be to adapt the rules to allow the chopping-off of the right hand if the criminal is left handed....

A comment to readers, and in particular to walter-in-fallschurch and Bios,

Regarding 771979's description of hand amputations for thieves under Shariah law.

I understand the perspective that amputation for theft may have "no place in today's civilized society", but what is that civilized society? There is no singular uber-society, there are many societies with their own organic ways of being. Do you seek to impose purely Western values on what "civilized society" means?

To the point: Does the punishment affect the rate of theft? Does it deter theft? There is, to the honest mind, a pure symbolic righteousness to taking the hand that stole. Is that punishment, (especially if true that amputation comes after the third offense), inhumane?

In the west, the punishment for theft is usually incarceration for some extended period as an inmate of the state in a penal institution. Does that better deter the crime? Is civilized society more or less effective in protecting civilized society?

Hello 771979,

This is interesting, your post. My first reaction was the assumption that you defend your religion with the belief that all others are false and degraded. I am sure that is still true, but there is much value in what you write. I am not a believer in the absolutes that you and some of your Abrahamic bretheren hold. All these religions are far too restrictive to the Unlimited and Unknowable that brought this world into being.

That said, again, you leave me with much to contemplate. That is a fine thing. Thank you.

One of the obvious questions that come up for me is simple. If Islam is truly about "love, peace, harmony, equality, justice, righteousness, humility, intellectual development, creative thinking and not militancy...", then why is it that it's manifestation, from the Taliban and Al Qaida and Saddam to Somalia and Libya and the Saudi regime, appears to be contrary to love, peace and harmony?

77...,
Your description of Shariah law and the amputation of a thief’s left hand is perfectly anachronic, it has no place in today’s civilized society.

You go on and mention there is a complex sentencing process. Is this supposed to be considered complex & flexible because the hand can be amputated at different places??

Further, the fact that religion is absolute and unchangeable and has to be followed in its entirety by the Shariah is contrary and completely dismisses the flexibility you are trying to pin on the Shariah.

Rednova,
You can’t blame Western colonialism for Muslims’ misfortune. A country is shaped by its own people and at the end of the day every country is what it is because of the people that make it up. The scenario is definitely complex but I think this is the bottom line.

Shariah can be very sophisticated, as can be other documents on law, however, it might be useless, considering not even the average Muslim understands it.

And if I ask, where is the proof that justice is the supreme objective of the Shariah, what will the answer be?

In comparison, secular countries (or less religious, if you prefer) like Canada, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. can really brag about having justice, taking care of the poor (regardless of their religion), having relatively peaceful societies, tolerance, etc.

The proof is there, religion has to fade away for a better society to exist.

wmarkw wrote:

"They're here largely because they didn't want to live in their backward homelands."

And what is the basis of the backwardness? Sharia. Why would anybody go to the trouble of leaving a backward country...and then drag along the vary underpinning of that backwardness?

771979,
you had me going there for a while, thinking there might be a way to "modernize" sharia - then you started talking about WHERE to cut off the offending appendage. LOL... sorry, it just sounds like monty python or something.

"but if the sentence is pronounced; it creates a great dilemma for the qazi (judge)whether to amputate the hand below the elbow or above depending upon thief's previous crimes and warning. It is a very complex and not a simple process when passing sentences on the criminals."

oh my gosh! hilarious. see it's subtle and nuanced?

Islam adapts itself to changing time but the original spirit of Islamic injunctions remains unaffected. Islam preaches love, peace, harmony, equality, justice, righteousness, humility, intellectual development, creative thinking and not militancy as I have always said and will always say so.

Prophet Mohammed (pubh) despite being persecuted abused and insulted never resorted to violence against his persecutors in Mecca and always said, “Those who speak of Sharia Law should determine objectively and subjectively state of affairs in a given situation and then seek guidance from the Quran in the verses revealed in similar circumstances and Hadith. Prophet Mohammed (SAW) used to tell the adherents to make your’Deen’ easy to follow and practice and do no make it a burden to carry. It is the only way that the message of Islam can reach every corner of the globe and not by violence or through rigidity.

The religion (Deen) and law (Shariah) are the two components of Islam: out of which Deen is absolute and unchangeable and has to be followed in its entirety but the Shariah can on occasions adjust itself to changing times and circumstances but its application must never dither from the Islamic parameters. Sharia is flexible and not rigid as portrayed by anti-Islamic Western media and also because some silly Taliban think so too. Take for instance punishments: Islam does not only insist on awarding punishment to criminals for various offences but its aim is to cultivate and encourage a sort of atmosphere where no crimes are committed and emphasises on eliminating root causes so that crimes do no take place. Where Sharia law and punishment is still practiced; not many people are seen with left hand amputated for stealing because the punishment itself is a great deterrent to prevent the crime. Any way, law is very elaborate: a thief if caught red handed is lightly punished and warned on the first offence but on the third time, if caught red handed and evidence is produced by three trustworthy and reliable members of the society; his left hand should be amputated on the discretion of the qazi(judge) but if the sentence is pronounced; it creates a great dilemma for the qazi (judge)whether to amputate the hand below the elbow or above depending upon thief's previous crimes and warning. It is a very complex and not a simple process when passing sentences on the criminals. But justice must be done to the victim and every opportunity should be given to the criminal to prove his/her innocence in the defence.

In the domain of judiciary, equality of all men and women is law, in which even the head of state is not exempt from his subjects and is answerable to them. Saqib Khan

Hello Feisal Abdul Rauf,

Thank you for what you write here. I appreciate the insight. I cannot say that I am won over by the rationalizations or comparisons, but they are reasonable enough.

I can easily understand that I am biased by the information and news that is available to me or surrounds me. I am thankful, on that count, that I live in a more open society where varying opinions and perspectives are tolerated. I can easily engage my mind and heart into contrary points and learn by that engagement.

I regret that this freedom of information, perspective, and insight is unavailable in far too much of the world at this time. It is unfortunate that censuring is widespread in much of the middle eastern Islamic countries.

Your concepts of Sharia Law are interesting. News outlets in the west often only run articles on Sharia Law that are of the more brutal and, (to me), religiously and sexually discriminating laws and punishments that have become the symbols of harsh intolerance for the western consciousness. Stoning to death of the 'adulterous' women, having just given birth to their bastard child, as the poster girl of brutal and intolerant sexual mores, for example, (with the 'accused' impregnator escaping punishment, of course).

From my perspective, these laws most certainly are due to be "updated" to the current century. I agree with this point of yours. My question becomes what do you think are the probabilities that Sharia Law is edited and updated by Islamic authorities? I would venture the guess that it is highly unlikely to be acted on by radical wings of Islam, vested in a resurgence of Islam throughout the world, as the Taliban is. Their version of Islam has Sharia Law as a centerpiece to their movement. Radicalism is on the upswing in Islam. How does it get revised? The imams of Iran, of Saudi Arabia? How is change implemented?

Feisal Abdul Rauf,

continued:
You write: "Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah."

This seems a bit unclear. Reading between the lines, and lines that you later write, I might conclude that you are saying that muslim countries have inherently unfair penal codes for the modern era, (if they ever were 'fair'), and that they also have imbalanced governments with little or none of the oversight that is essential to maintain integrity and buffer against abuse. In other words, these governments are rife with corruption. By extension then, if these assumptions are true and if your assertion that the religious imperatives of Islam are about justice and fairness, then these governments are contra-Islamic and go against the faith.

Is this true?

I do not know the Shariah laws and so cannot make a reasoned judgment. As I said, I am biased by the information, (and lack of it), that is available to me. In the West Shariah law is a symbol of a mideval consciousness, backward and brutal and uncompassionate, lacking any enlightenment. This could easily be a prejudice, but I am sure that it will take some more dramatic alteration for it to become understood and accepted in the west.

Hello Feisal Abdul Rauf,

Thank you for what you write here. I appreciate the insight. I cannot say that I am won over by the rationalizations or comparisons, but they are reasonable enough.

I can easily understand that I am biased by the information and news that is available to me or surrounds me. I am thankful, on that count, that I live in a more open society where varying opinions and perspectives are tolerated. I can easily engage my mind and heart into contrary points and learn by that engagement.

I regret that this freedom of information, perspective, and insight is unavailable in far too much of the world at this time. It is unfortunate that censuring is widespread in much of the middle eastern Islamic countries.

Your concepts of Sharia Law are interesting. News outlets in the west often only run articles on Sharia Law that are of the more brutal and, (to me), religiously and sexually discriminating laws and punishments that have become the symbols of harsh intolerance for the western consciousness. Stoning to death of the 'adulterous' women, having just given birth to their bastard child, as the poster girl of brutal and intolerant sexual mores, for example, (with the 'accused' impregnator escaping punishment, of course).

From my perspective, these laws most certainly are due to be "updated" to the current century. I agree with this point of yours. My question becomes what do you think are the probabilities that Sharia Law is edited and updated by Islamic authorities? I would venture the guess that it is highly unlikely to be acted on by radical wings of Islam, vested in a resurgence of Islam throughout the world, as the Taliban is. Their version of Islam has Sharia Law as a centerpiece to their movement. Radicalism is on the upswing in Islam. How does it get revised? The imams of Iran, of Saudi Arabia? How is change implemented?

You write: "Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah."

This seems a bit unclear. Reading between the lines, and lines that you later write, I might conclude that yo

WmarkW,

"It is true that even educated, solidly-middle class Muslims are more of a threat than other solidly middle-class Americans (witness the Egyptian who shot up the LAX airport or the guys who tried to blow up JFK). But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian."

How do you validate this 'truth'? Every few days we have stories of the distraught worker or high schooler that heads into his created daily hell and shoots up all that he sees before being killed by SWAT or popping a lead nugget in his brain to end his pathetic suffering. I see more of a threat from homemade middle class americans than from muslim americans of the middle class. Perhaps I am wrong, but most muslims that I know would not pick up a gun for violence in this country for anything. It does not compute, to them. At least not to those that take their faith casually. Hard core fundamentalist muslims I do not know so could not say. So perhaps my take is skewed. But I do believe that there is just too much suspicion and distrust that is unwarranted.

Just as the percentage of violent criminals is small in society, it is small in the muslim communities living in America.

DrZimmern,

"Any woman who is born into the Islamic faith will get beatings,probably rapings,and extreme anxiety while living in near-slavery. Honor-deaths are commonplace..."

You exaggerate to an extreme, in the least, and propagate lies and myths of a faith that is spread across very diverse ethnic and cultural landscapes.

Any muslim woman? Where? Everywhere? In Sudan, Indonesia, Kenya, Israel, Oman, Iran, Sweden, France, North Carolina.....? They are all beaten, raped, made sex slaves to their uncles fetishes and brothers whims, are all shot when it is found out, and they are blamed for it all in the end? Like that? Are you bent?

You listen to too much alarmist news, dude. Wait, ARE you the news? You are one of the mini-propagators spreading ethno-cultural fear and loathing? You are a little Foxy, right, listen to too much CNN? You believe the latest Limbaugh rant, as if it is true?

Get real. "Honor killings" are a rarity considering the millions of muslim families. Incest is well documented in WASP families, as well as Catholic ones. Exploitation of women continues to thrive in the West quite well, thank you, as it does in the middle east as well.

Hey, I hear that 'all' blacks are ignorant and angry, 'all' Jews are elitist money-grubbers that have a right to kill any Palestinian, (cause the Palestinians are 'all' terrorists!), and the Chinese are the real threat because they 'all' want to take over the world.

Don't even get me started on the bloody Canadians.

"But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian."

Really? I doubt that very much, because the social pressure is so high in those circles. Ask them if they accept freedom for women and girls, and see what the reply is.

islam doesnot tolerate ignorance.

islam use the following in its war aganist ignorance,

1-QURAN and SUNNA
2-the justice machine(could be the sword or any attitude adjusting machine)please read ,QURAN s 57 v 25

people any way around this planet earth can compare the above to their renaissance??? or european reformation ,

*the head of the king,the entrails of the last preist and the guillotine*

mediavlism of the 21 cen still exist in the form of secularism .

look and compare the history of bagdad befor and after the tyrany of the saint /secular g bush and his secular constitution.

can the secular constitution of usa bring g bush and his twin sister blair to the justice as a war criminal and hang him up like they did to sadam?

"Islam in America?
How about they go back out the door they came in?"

Immigrant Muslims in America predominantly came here through the legal immigration process and hence have been screened and skewed toward the educated population of their native countries. They're here largely because they didn't want to live in their backward homelands.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans

It's in Europe where Muslims have about the same socio-economic standing that illegal Hispanic immigrants have in America -- they came to do the low-paying jobs few natives take anymore.

It is true that even educated, solidly-middle class Muslims are more of a threat than other solidly middle-class Americans (witness the Egyptian who shot up the LAX airport or the guys who tried to blow up JFK). But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian.

Feisal Abdul Rauf butters up to this blog's promoter by implying the "Nature's" God in Jefferson's 1776 writing, which promoter Jon Meacham has tried to have seen as Christianity ["American Gospel, God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation", 2006], is somehow similar to Rauf's asserted subversive belief in the superiority of Islamic Law over the US Constitution for adherents of Islam. The similarities of Rauf and Meacham can be perceived in their similar ways of justification. Islamic doctrine uses or at least tolerates human slavery, and the practice is alive and thriving in Islamic North Africa. [BBC News Nov. 2, 2005 by Hilary Andersson from Niger]. Achieving Islam's goal of domination over infidels is struggle (Jihad). Also, "War is deception." [Sunan Abu Dawood Book 14, Number 2631. "By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath." [Bukhari vol.7 book 67 ch.26 p.309]. Ohio State U. professor Robert C. Davis has documented how Islamic North Africans kidnapped over a million Europeans into slavery. ["Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters, White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, ISBN 1-4039-4551-9]. Like historic Islam, Episcopalians and other Protestants in the American South where Jon Meacham originated deceived by using religion, specifically the Sons of Ham in the Old Testament, in order to support the human slavery their ancestors engaged in for monetary profit. Their mutual bottom line is money and the superiority of their own kind and subverting the Constitution to achieve them.

The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added

Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/theology.htm

Islam in America?

How about they go back out the door they came in?

The only thing anyone should say to Islam is good bye and dont call us and we wont call you.

avp_65,
islamic "justice" is between muslims. there's no concept of justice toward infidels. there are different standards. this notion of violence only being sanctioned in "defense" of islam may sound valid to muslims but to the rest of us it's exceptionalism. a non-muslim's presence is considered offensive...and cause for "defense" of islam. so, it's true muslims are not to kill infidels - if infidels leave, or agree to live as dhimmis (second (or third) class citizens. that's not tolerance, it's not freedom of religion,

009.005
PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
(simply put: tolerate non-muslims if they become muslim)

009.029
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
(simply put: this is dhimmitude - don't kill non-muslims who are willing to live as second-class citizens).

"Even where permission of war has been given it has been given to defend and protect rights of the oppressed and exploited, and not for achieving power. "

In islam the oppressed and exploited are defined as the moslems. If you are not moslem, then you are defined as an oppressor and an exploiter. This is simple people. Islam is only a religion of peace for moslems. It is not a religion of peace for the unbelievers...you and I. This oppressed and exploited nonsense doesn't stand the light of day when Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are treated like dirt by the Saudis they work for...are they not exploited and oppressed? Are the Saudis not the keepers of the holiest places in Islam? Islam as a religion of peace and the sanctuary of the oppressed and exploited is BS. The Koran is BS. Sharia is BS and none of it belongs as part of US law.

Material that appears in this blog is of doubtful credibility as exemplified by a recent comment quoting from Ayaan Hirsi Ali [Magan]. The blog could have mentioned that the lady quoted from had been forced to resign from her membership as a right wing party representative in the Dutch parliament after she inadvertently admitted she had lied about getting into the Netherlands as a Somali refugee rather than her true situation as an economic immigrant from Kenya where she had lived for ten years. The right wing American Enterprize Institute for Public Policy Research later exploited the opposition to Islam causes by inviting her to the US for some kind of fellowship. In view of the previous problem with lying in official documents and material gains she derives from pronounced public opposition to Islam in general, the veracity of quotations from her publications would be subject to verification by a careful blog.

It is important to note that in Qur’an there is no concept of war of aggression and no concept of permissiveness of violence. Even where permission of war has been given it has been given to defend and protect rights of the oppressed and exploited, and not for achieving power. There is no verse in the Qur’an which permits violence for conquering territory or for achieving power. In fact war has been qualified in the Qur’an by the words fi’ sabilillah i.e. in the way of Allah. Thus a war can be fought, if at all necessary, not for any personal ambitions or for grabbing territory or not for personal animosity or for revenge but only in the way of Allah.

And what is the way of Allah? Allah’s way is of justice, Allah’s way is of protecting the rights of the poor and exploited. In fact the very first verse in the Qur’an permitting the use of violence reflects this very well. It says: “And what reason you have not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend, and grant us from Thee a helper.” (4:75) (emphasis added).

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/compassion.htm

still no answer to my simple question:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?

it should be easy, right? it's a religion of peace, right? should be chock-full of "good stuff". where is it?

And another thing...optomist doesn't say what he agrees or disagrees with vis-a-vis Sharia. He is just on a rany against people he thinks are half-wits...but since his rant has no bearing on the subject...who is really the half-wit? Maybe he thought he was on the I hate the Yankees website...who knows?

Rednova wrote:

"I completely agree with "optomist" below and disagree vehemently with the rancid, hatred of "PanhandleWilly" who does more to show his own character than the supposed flaws of the object of his hatred, presumably Shariah law."

Rednova...the truth can be quite painful. If my character is revealed as believing that government...any set of laws that restrict individual liberty...is inherently tyrannical...then I relish the revelation. Individuals agree to give up some extremes of liberty to regulate extreme behavior that is harmful to the whole. But that is a standard set by and only changed by the whole. Sharia disallows that and you know it. Sharia freely admits that the whole doesn't matter...only Allah matters. Therefore the very idea that Sharia could be the vehicle of justice in a modern society is, as you put it, hateful to me...and it should be to all truly thoughtful people. That doesn't mean I hate Moslems...but I do hate Sharia and all that it means.

From a Muslim who lived under Sharia law as per Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel".

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

The author seems to embrace religious law, and blame any shortcomings on the people enforcing it. Since ALL law is enforced by people, what he is really saying is that Muslims shouldn't be trusted with enforcement for any law.

Based on the evidence throughout the world, I would have to agree with that. Whenever placed in a position of power, Muslims have been shown lacking in the essential humanity that is the basis of Islam. Until they can demonstrate some humanity - instead of in blowing up, beheading, and flogging people - they should perhaps show a bit more humility and tolerance rather than trying to force themselves on everyone else!

Sharia Law is an oxymoron. Among other things, it incorporates inequality of Muslims and non Muslims and does not recognize freedom of religion, which is why virtually all Muslim countries do not recognize the right of Muslims to leave Islam or of other religions to be freely taught.

With all due respect to other's religious beliefs, calling Islam a peaceful religion with compromising religious leaders is a joke. Any woman who is born into the Islamic faith will get beatings,probably rapings,and extreme anxiety while living in near-slavery. Honor-deaths are commonplace (see recent New York episode) While this is happening,everyone is smiling and lieing about "the happy family" and how peaceful Islam is. Accept that in the United States? NEVER. Please stop trying to bring in a Trojan Horse.

No religion of any sort should be permitted to impose punishment in the physical realm. They can convict my soul of blasphemy, heresy or apostasy all they want but my physical body and mind is not subject to their covenants.

Rauf tries to "explain" that Sharia is what the US Constitution is all about! When Muslims are in a minority in a "democracy" like America, they immediately clamour for secularism, democracy and freedom of religion! The minute they become a majority the situation immediately reverses - autocracy, Islam as the sole religion of State and religious minorities living under sufferance and insecurity. Sharia is not an egalitarian law by a long shot. It is based on feudal principles that are firmly rooted in the 7th Century. Cruelty, mob justice and peremptory "trails" by illiterate mullahs who arrogate to themselves the sole right to interpret the Koran and the "thoughts" of Mohammad are the hallmarks of this system of "justice". The US should have nothing to do with Sharia which is a crude attempt by conservative Muslims to push this wolf in sheep's clothing on the West.

Knowing what we do about countries under Islamic laws -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example, the Sharia has no place in today's world.

Some supporters of Sharia write that it is the misinterpretation that causes problems. Do we see any signs of change? Atrocities are still committed in the name of justice. When they happen, failure of Islamic leaders to condemn them is very noticeable. If they disagree, we don't hear from them.

It is unthinkable for us to want Pope Benedict's position on condoms and family planning to be law. Majority of the Muslims, however, appear to to have no problem in accepting Sharia laws -- misinterpreted or not. Opposing Benedict or any other Christian leader is not likely to result in a call for deaths for the dissidents. But in Islamic countries such action could result in a fatwa. Perhaps that is the explanation for the silence.

How Islamic Law can Work. Take out the Islam. While we are at it, let's get rid of Yaweh, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and whatever other religious myths make rational and compassionate human life very difficult or impossible, depending on the continent on which one lives.

it is interesting to see how much better informed is much of the debate over in America - though I have to say that I find it hard to get my views on Zionism approved - in public at least.

However, as one who knows the Arab wold and who lived in the Gulf and studied Islam there is grave danger in the reasoably argued position set out in these pages.

Islam is not based on the word of God but is the word of God. It provides quite clearly that a woman's opinion or testimony is not worth as much as a man's - any mans and any woman that is. It leaves all women below even slaves and children as the only ones unable to change their status. A woman does become her husbands family and there is no protection if the man wants to end the marriage - provision yes. Protection from the act, no.

Just in passing, might your correspondents inform us please as to the fate precribed for apostates? How do they reconcile that with freedom of religion?

You see it is my belief that, along with some branches of the Jewish faith, it is not possible to be both a believer and to live as an integrated citizen in a western liberal democracy.

just as the idea that the land of Israel was given to the Jews by God so the idea that God gave laws directly to the world is not simply a matter of faith - acceptance of either requires the destruction of my rights as a person to decide for myself along with others in the context of democracy. Or do we accept that if Islam allows people to vote that the benefits of "after me, my community can do no wrong" will allow man's view to amend the word of God?

All religion is BS.

As with all religious arguments, this one ignores the real question of "Why?" Why is it that humans feel so insecure about their place in the world that they must "worship" invisible men in the sky. It is as if we were the butt of our own, sad joke.

mono1

Some of your finding are correct and i agree with them.

CNNL:

Looking your posts, one finds you are not at all a respectable person.
Hiding behind the internet provides the cowards to use abusive words, however they lose their credibility.
They are given a free hand to insult by the forum managers - is this your defination of freedom?

Hello Facistland,

Sharia is about facisism in religious clothing. Tell me anything about islam that is harmonious with religious freedom, tolerance, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, free markets, any freedom at all. No--islam means submission to facism.

in a secularistic society where they having the highest prison population in the world

the highest mental and insanity institutions population in the world

the highest women and childern abuse in the world

the highest delusional war criminal population in the world

need to be ashamed and wory about cleaning their own rot that is not only rotten their homeland but the whole world.

the best system to be imported is the SHARIA.

juchristianity failed as well as human secularism and liberalism.

For those eyes that have not seen:

The only solution is to cure all Muslims to include the Taliban) of their Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam.

The cure is free and outlined below: (and is guaranteed to work)

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to all Islamic neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for Islamic neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

These Five Easy Steps will save the world!!!

I completely agree with "optomist" below and disagree vehemently with the rancid, hatred of "PanhandleWilly" who does more to show his own character than the supposed flaws of the object of his hatred, presumably Shariah law.

In any case, I wish this piece by Dr. Rauf was a bit longer. I throughly enjoyed reading it but would have loved to see his ideas more developed.

Muslims traditionally have an amazing ability of self-criticism, introspection, and debating the merits of various laws. Over the past few hundred years this ability gradually waned through Western colonialism, plunder, and war. From the Magreb's invasion to the Center of the Empire like Turkey, Iran, Iran, Transjordan to the Dutch colonialism of South East Asia...that once dormant tradition will invevitably come back. I just think we in America had 200+ years of freedom to do just that, now a majority of these young nations will do the same if given the time.

M_Mutaaloo wrote:

"Koran is peace!"

Koran is only peace if you are a moslem. If you are not a moslem then, at best, it is a vehicle for church-sanctioned slavery and, at worst, a death sentence.

No...no Koran please...no Imams, fatwahs, jihads, veils, sharia, suras, youtube beheadings...or any other trappings of religion in US law. Take them all into your churches, mosques, synagogues, wiccan circles...whatever...I don't care...just stay out of the public domain.

It is profoundly disappointing to count myself an American among the culturally illiterate and backward halfwits who, as is so common, have not got the humility to keep from publishing their rancid, reeking, jagged, propaganda-gleaned prejudices here.

That there are no shortage of bigoted people worldwide offers little comfort in a land that proclaims itself the richest, most "developed" country on the planet.

I love it: Sharia protects liberty while ensuring a "certain amount of modesty." What a pack of lies. Liberty for all except women, non-Muslims, homosexuals. Modesty means arrest, fines, torture, murder, acid in the face for any woman who dares to assert herself in ways that offend the old, bearded horrors they call holy men. Never, ever in America. Let the barbarians have their barbaric laws. They have the right to live as the please, backward and inhumane though their lives are. But Sharia must never be allowed to take hole in a civilized country.

m_mutaaloo,
i'm not sure if the verses you quote are meant to address my question asking someone to quote me a few non-superseded "good" koranic verses. if not, ignore the following. those don't seem like the kind of "good" verses i'm looking for. those verses just indicate that islam is an offshoot of judeo-christianity. infact i would argue the "big three monotheisms" are actually one religion - which i'd call "judeochrislam". there is no doubt islam is the same kind of story-telling religion as it's predecessors. islam even uses many of the same stories (but adjusts the details for islamic consumption). furthermore, those verses are only (somewhat) "inclusive and tolerant" to other "people of the book" (jews/christians), but not anybody of any other (or no) religion.

so...still eagerly awaiting those "good" koranic verses... anyone have any they could point me to?

The problem is many Christians do not know hoe to propagate Christianity except by attacking the Koran and Muhammad. The Koran came to confirm the previous scriptures and there is nothing called Shariah law in the Koran. This was a later innovation introduced during the Abbasid Empire through whats known as the oral traditions. Most Western historians do not consider these oral traditions as authnetic but Muslims are told they are what the prophet teached. The concept of the oral traditions was initially introduced by Imam Malik about a century and a half after Muhammad and it wa slater elaborated stronger by Imam Al Shafi. After Al Shafi there was an explosion of these oral traditions. They forumlate the bulk of whats known as Shariah law.

I am a Koranist and only accept the Koran as authentic. The Koran came to confirm the Torah but condemned some of the excesses of the Jewish oral traditions as Jesus did, and confirmed the Gospel but condemned the Trinity.

If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

e are all to serve God and each scripture is authentic:

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48

Koran is peace!

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that any religious laws, whether muslim or otherwise, can work anywhere. It shows an utter lack to intellect to suggest that human being can be free under any religious laws.

asizk,
you said, "You don't need any one to quote for u:just do it yourself and read a translation of the Quran-such as that Of Abdullah Yousef Ali."

well, that's the problem i'm having: every time i start reading the koran i run into page-after-page of "slay idolators" "fight them wherever you find them". so, i'm trying to find some of the "good verses" to quote to people who denigrate islam as a whole. i'm hoping there some "good verses" in there, but i just can't find them.

and remember, i'm trying to find verses that still apply - verses that have not been superceded by subsequent verses or by the hadith.

so, please, can you point out some of the verses which as you say promote, "tolerance, harmony and especially socio-economic-political justice for all." i just can't find them in there.

The apologies for the excesses of religion go on and on. It is tiresome. Let's bluntly face facts: religion is not what it says it is, but, is what it is. It is what all its adherents say and do. No amount of apologizing, or, reference to select passages from so-called holy books, will sanitize the abrahamic religions.

Yes, we can start chopping off hands, feet,
and heads. And horse-whipping girls if they
wear too much makeup (or any). And, oh,
like Hamas in Gaza, we can finally bring
back good ole crucifixions!!! (And you
wonder why common crimes are few in
Islamic countries...) Lawdy's Great!

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com

"The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad."

Except that the US Constitution is based on government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. God doesn't enter into the argument in practice. Base all law on what you want but leave God out of it in process, interpretation and enforcement.

If SHARIA was so all fired great...how come, until the discovery of oil in your lands, did Islam lead to such a backward civilization? SHARIA itself is a criminal act because it forces all people to subscribe to Koranic teachings as a given basis for all subsequent law. All your flowery comparisons do nothing more than construct you your very own ivory tower. BS. Mr. Rauf. BS. Take your stupid book and leave.

You Christian Fundamentalists are no better. You want this to be a country based on God? If the demographics change and Moslems are the future majority...then do you still want your laws based on a majority rendition of God's teachings? Didn't think so. Keep God out of US law period...dot.

The Sharia makes a good job of making a bad name for itself. I have read parts of the Kuran and I didn't like what I read at all. Lots of violence, condemning and misinterpreted versions of the Bible. Muhammed is known for having been very ignorant. I am not a Christan, but at least Jesus (or the concept of Jesus, whatever it is) stopped the stoning of the unfaithful wife. In the Kuran, there are threats and death left and right.

Oh yes - Muhammed didn't like the habit of burying little girls alive in the sand. One good thing. He married a little girl, though - dirty man.

WmarkW,

Beisdes being very simplistic and factually wrong,your opinion shows your extreme ignornace:if you think the Quran and Hadith and work done to interpret and commnet on them is "7th-9th century Arab Literature" then you are either living ona different planet or have never read any thing about Arab Lit or Shariah.

walter-in-fallschurch,

Among other virtues and values, The Quran is about tolerance, harmony and especially socio-economic-political justice for all.

You don't need any one to quote for u:just do it yourself and read a translation of the Quran-such as that Of Abdullah Yousef Ali.

Mr. Raouf's article is simpe and clear.

Shariah is a very sophistcated,highly developed and comprehensive body of law that deals with all aspects of the life:among other issues it foucses on attending to the concerns and the guarding of the interests in the daily life of Muslims with justice as a supreme objective.

No subject has taken more time and effort from Muslims Doctors of the Law than Shariah-it is the Core of Muslim life.

Unfortunately, extreme ignorance and predijuce in the west especially after 911 gave Shariah a bad name and reduced it to "covering up women and chopping heads."

This is clear form some of simplistic comments above.

Mr.Raouf did such an excllent job in the limited space and context provided to inform us what is Shariah.

What Claptrap. Keep your religion to yourself. I have no interest in living a lifestyle that was designed for desert-dwellers a thousand years ago. Faith is personal. Laws are societal, for everyone. And it's not just Muslims, all religions have only one goal. LET"S GO BACKWARDS IN TIME! Not for me thank you.

Mr. Rauf, it is a misstatement that "The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law." Of the ten generally agreed to, four are specifically related to revealed, not natural, religion, i.e., they are to be found in scripture, not observed in nature. These four are not having any gods before me, not worshiping idols, not taking the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath. Observation of nature makes it apparent that, for example, unrestrained stealing leads to a violent society. If it is agreed that violence is to be avoided, then stealing should be avoided. This is a patent observation that is easily understood by almost anyone, regardless of their level of literacy and education. However, nothing in nature leads one to conclude that worshiping only one god is better than worshiping many. Nothing in nature provides evidence that worshiping idols leads to anti-social behavior. In short, nature does not provide evidence to support monotheism. Any connection between these four rules and the state of society is obtuse and left for religious sages to argue. There is no evidence that a particular religious system or observing strictly religious rules of conduct leads to an orderly, safe and nurturing society. Would anyone care to propose that nations requiring women to wear head coverings are more stable and safe than those that don't? Is one safer on the streets of London or Kabul? There are nations that require head coverings that are stable and safe, but there are many that aren't. This demonstrates that this rule is not necessary, i.e., it neither secures nor prevents a stable society. It, as with four of the commandments, is trivial and not necessary for societal order; therefore, at the most, only 60 percent of the commandments would be similar to rules needed to secure the health and welfare of members of a society.

mr. rauf has not answered my question - maybe he's still looking for a "good" verse or two to quote for me...

is there anyone else out there who can answer this:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?
please i would really like to know.

The sad truth is I have stopped believing there are any faithful Muslims who do actually respect human rights and the secular society. Those who do communicate with the secular society around them seem to have a double agenda. They talk smoothly to the infidels but keep a hard-as-nail intolerance hidden. Just look at this article.

Dyslexic typing...previous post should end:

that the rest of us who are not followers of Islam might also practice fairness and justice, under whatever philosophy and religion we choose to associate with.

I am saddened by the comments here. My interpretation of Mr. Rauf's comments is that he sees, and practices, an Islam having a heart that seeks fairness and justice in the law, and that the politics and culture of fallible humans has often distorted that. Sounds just like us here in the US. Let's encourage fairness and justice, and respect an Islam that does so as well. Mr. Rauf, I respect your Islam. Let us hope that it can provide an example for positive reform within Islam-and that the rest of us who are not follower of Islam might also practice fairness and justice, under whatever philosophy and religion associate with.

islam is a way of life where the sharia is not limited to the justice system but to all aspect of life.

the islamic sharia ruled on the planet earth for the last 1400 years and put on this planet earth the best example to man kind .

its just that paranoid delusional ignorant heads who do not read about islam are trying to oppose the sharia instead of bowing to the sharia ?people need to ask where it came from ?and for who?instead of running their ignorant mouth.

its so sad juchristianity is not a way of life that is why they accept human secularism as their savior ,they did the same exact thing they strangeld the last king by the entrails of the last priest ,failure in church as well as in the state as well as interstates

what is so funny ,
saint/secular g bush carried the christian bible and the secular bible where he received a couple of shoes .

his twin sister blair carried the christian bible and the magna charta bible and opened a peace foundation shop?

You are blurring the line. No country should ever be subject to a "God-given" law, since it is founded on a religious belief and basically without appeal. It is per definition not democratic.

Sharia Law does not respect the right of women oir the secular society. If humane right and Sharia law clash, which they will do soon enought the religious law must yield.

Our image of sharia law associated with the stoning of women or lashing them - and men - is unfortunately correct.

What is needed for Sharia law to work is for a society to slip into a more primitive state than what preceded Muhammed's birth. For example, the internecine strife in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet supported government created the conditions in which Sharia is better than chaos. That condition exists in Somalia now as well.

Otherwise, it is a bad fit for the modern world and the problem with Islam is the same poor congruence with the modern world. Radical Islam is a reaction to an inferiority complex brought on by the inability of the faithful to compete in the modern arena dragging all that seventh century baggage.

Mr. Rauf,

you write, Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam."

WE? I am sorry but many in the world are really not that interested in understanding Shariah law, much less encouraging Muslim countries to bring themselves up to date on it.

I think your view is quite acceptable but I truly doubt many Musim clertics would agree. Why not start on the Saudis and see how encouraged they are.

Islamic law cannot work. Any changes will be contrary to what Islam's founder, Mullah Muhammad, said or did or what the idol he created, Allah, was made to say in the Koran.

There is only one choice for Muslims. Leave Islam and eradicate Islam.

Here is an example of what Mullah Muhammad said and how it is therefore Islamic law.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.'" The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." The Prophet said, "Are you married?" The man said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, 'Take him away and stone him to death." Jabir bin 'Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death.

"In America...[t]he role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur'an and the Hadith."

Exactly.

It's bad enough when extremist wackos apply a Constitution written several centuries ago to the right to bear horrific modern-day man-killing weapons which inevitably end up in the hands of criminals like cop killer Richard Poplawski.

What Sharia insists is that everyone obey laws written thousands of years ago, when women were treated like cattle, and brutal vengeance ruled the day.

Only those exacting the brutality think that's a good idea.

This article completely dodges the very issues it purports to address and improperly compares Islam's irrational religious law to the humanistic and logical principles in the Constitution. The author also claims to speak for all Muslims, i.e. "what Muslims want..." This is both arrogant and vague.

As long as Islam insists on being not just a religion but a government and law-giver to Muslim and non-Muslim, and as long as those of us outside of it never see or hear meaningful dissent within it--I don't recall, for instance, post 9/11 any Muslim marches or protests in the US where Muslims here spoke out against the terrorists, or the current takeover bid in Pakistan--and the horrible videos that are smuggled out showing "honor killings" and other barbaric acts have not produced a clear voice, never mind action, against this conduct. But let a woman completely covered in a burkka demand to drive and have a driver's license picture taken wearing one, and the Islamic community is up in arms about "rights" (which driving is not). Ditto for having "calls to prayer" in quiet neighborhoods and threatening to kill people for drawing a likeness of your prophet (seriously? in this day and age?).
The point is that every other major culture and religion has managed to compromise and realize that it cannot impose its will on others, and that it must to some degree assimilate into a larger, more diverse culture. And yes, there will be things that offend you; but you are just going to have to live with that and realize that you also offend people. What Islam lacks is tolerance. And this article, with its nice sounding words but near zero content and specifics, is insulting to readers' intelligence. Whatever laws you want to follow, sir, CANNOT violate the laws of the land in America; if you beat women and keep them from public schools, it's not just your business. And if you find that just intolerable, then you should not be in this country. That's the worst form of hypocrisy, trying to use the freedoms of this country to undermine other people's freedom.

Unfortunately, Abdur Rauf did not actually spell out some of the concepts of Shariah and allow the reader to draw comparisons by himself, or herself.

Mr.Rauf,

I agree that Sharia law is the best law ever written anywhere in the world. And no doubt thta it is written by your mighty god. But who wants laws created 1400 years back. We are humans and need laws meant for humans. Civil laws.Even we hindus have lots of laws- much detailed than Sharia.We follow what is right. We try not to put other people in trouble or discomfort. Beheading non-believers is a easy job. One swish of sword and kaput. Making a hungry person happy, treating a sick kid, these kind of things are difficult. I am sure "Muslim Believers" have little time for this. Just take the case of pakistan- its down the drain, thanks to Islam. Its high time you consider abandoning your religion.

Be careful what you write here. Anti-Muslim statements will get you into trouble with the UN.....

anyone interested in the quran and what it says can google to 'an annotated quran'. there you will find out what really is in the quran. and everything is fine as long as you're not an infidel or a woman. it also says that a muslim must not kill another muslim. you all know how well they listen to that thought

The only solution is to cure all Muslims to include the Taliban) of their Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam.

The cure is free and outlined below: (and is guaranteed to work)

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to all Islamic neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for Islamic neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

These Five Easy Steps will save the world!!!

"The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty."

Strictly speaking, if you mean physical mosdesty, at least, 'a certain amount of modesty' actually isn't a 'principle behind American law,' ...strictly speaking, we could make the whole country clothing-optional, if we wanted.

Not that it'd ever happen, but it'd still be America if we did. It's just about social and cultural conventions.

(I can just hear the moans of disapproval about the idea, don't look at me, just making a point: I'm actually really over this dressing down thing. It's not like we can't still afford the fabric, how about some sartorial sense? :) )

Islam is in a transformation stage. Strong support should be given to muslims who advocate change in sharia according to time. Rigid interpretation of sharia which was written 300 years after prophets death by a non arab Bukhari,is the cause of all evil in Islamic society today. five pillars of Islam is based on a hadith fom Abuhurairah who claims that Jibril came in the human form and revealed to Prophet. Based on this hadith muslims lost their moral values and became duty bound.

He was prophets companion only for three years and narrated 5376 hadiths. But Omer who was prophets companion for twentione years narrated only fifty hadiths. More comprehensive research has to be done on hadiths.

QURAN SAYS

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety (muhaimin alayhi): so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; S. 5:48 Y. Ali

Raouf pontificates thus:
“The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.”

The ethics in Islam have nothing to do with fairness and justice. The Islamic ethics considers right what their prophet said is right and wrong what he said was wrong. It has no philosophical justification or a universal standard such as the Golden Rule. Treating women and religious minorities as inferior is sanctioned in Sharia and you cannot convince me that it is fair or just. Morality and penal codes do evolve with time and place yet are mainly derived from ethics which is static. Stealing is universally considered as ethically wrong, yet how thieves are looked upon (morality) and treated (penal codes) by different societies at different times vary from a warning to chopping off the hand(s)

"Islamic law can't work in the same way as Christian law or Jewish law or Buddhist law can't work. Because everybody isn't (and will never be) a [religion], [religion]'s faith-based prescriptions have no basis on those who don't share that faith. Thus, for universal effect, we (should) base our laws on reason and democracy."

Thank you! We need religious laws like we need a hole in the head.

feisal,
sorry i misspelled your name last time, but still,
i ask this question in all seriousness: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?

please i would really like to know.

frankbd,
nice/awful video...

my favorite/least favorite line was "but in matters of religion we are expert"... sheesh....

hsnkhwj says about the Taliban: "Such people are a disgrace to Islam."

The Taliban are Islam, they are educated in Koran and Sunnah, Khwaja sahib, Islam is a disgrace to humans. Lets remove this cult form the face of the planet.

Arif

Your argument is that Shariah law parallels current US Constitutional interperatations. I agree.

However, 200 years ago, didn't bring any divine illusions to the constitution. Their talk of a Creator wasn't so much a part of religious theology as it was an acknowledgement of "somehow we exist." Most argued that religion prevents progress. Currently the US isn't inline with the forefather's original conception. Currently, there is a lot of similarity between what you propose and what is in the US.

The freedom to exercise whatever religion you want in the US is granted to preserve _individual liberty_. It was never inteded to be an aguement for allowing _any religion_ to take stronghold in our government.
Both what you propose and what is transpiring in the US are abominations and prevent progress.

Muslim scholar Zakir Naik is asked why some Muslim countries don't allow building houses of worship of other faiths, while Muslims are allowed to build mosques in London and Paris. His answer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ

We don't allow people to preach other faiths for the same reason we don't hire math teachers who think 2+2=6. We know for sure that Islam is the only true religion because Sura 3:85 says that God will never accept any religion besides Islam. How can we allow building churches or temples when we know their religion and worship is wrong.

Naik isn't some far-out Saudi, Afghani Taliban or Iranian. He's a medical doctor from Mumbai, India. If this is non-extremist Islam, it has no business being anyone's law.

Islamic law can't work in the same way as Christian law or Jewish law or Buddhist law can't work. Because everybody isn't (and will never be) a [religion], [religion]'s faith-based prescriptions have no basis on those who don't share that faith. Thus, for universal effect, we (should) base our laws on reason and democracy.

What a bunch of nonsense! Jews, Christians and Muslims have contributed to more violence in the world and more nonsense over the largest period of history than any other ideology or regime. And yes, I will include Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Religion keeps us from moving forward into a world of reason and humanity. Sharia law is like the statements of America's founding fathers? Why that's just plain silly. The likes of Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, et. al. would have laughed at that statement. They were at best deistic "believers." We all know this simply by what they have written.

Of course, it can be argued that the "Christian" nation of Amerika (sic) is indeed like that of any violent theocracy. All three of the so-called great religions have survived through oppression as well as indoctrination and the dependable ability of humans to live with contradiction and hypocrisy. Does this mean that we must continue in this path of self-destruction? This is what happens when we keep going back to religion, that is, the kind that we actually take seriously. Now, the majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims do not abide by their so-called holy books' laws and proscriptions. Look around you, it just isn't so. As the world secularizes the more sensible of these cultic conclaves bust out and revise their theologies and practices. That is the truth.

Great leaders don't always go along with what the superstitious sheeple believe;

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Thomas Jefferson. in a letter to John Adams. April 11,1823.
Quoted in "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. Ulysses Press. 2006

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition, Christianity, one redeeming feature.
They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

Thomas Jefferson. in a letter to Dr Woods.
Quoted in "Atheist Universe" by David Mills

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation, and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

Abraham Lincoln

Sir -

You state "The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty."

The basis of American secular law is equality before the law - Shariah law is fundamentally contrary to the precept of equality before the law, as any law that is agreement with Shariah would 1) value the testimony of a women less than a man 2) accord inheritance rights that favor male progency 3) and permit "modestly" laws that restrict the liberty, activity and choice of women.

On one hand you're calling Sharia law the God's law, and on another you're calling Muslim countries to revise them.

1. How can anyone revise God's law?
2. Who gives authority to Muslim countries so they can revise them?

Your article does not solve any problems instead it is just trying to bring so called Sharia laws parallel to American constitution, which is a gross mistake.

Chops2

God’s laws are actually very consistent.

Jesus also makes it clear that his church has no business running a government.

Any faith that says anything different is not of God.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

religious law is not "gods law", its men interpreting it however they want for earthly power.

Its why we developed common law, cause "gods law" was so utterly inconsistent as to be ludicrous and so obviously man made, or at least man interpreted.

please dont let this happen in America.

fiesal abdul rauf,
i ask this question in all seriousness: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?

wileysnakeskins,
in your posts you seem to be opposed to islamic laws governing a country because you see them as emanating from a "false" god. presumably, you contrast this with the "true god" of christianity. that's just a matter of opinion. most people in the world are of the opinion that you're wrong about that. in fact most people in the world think most other people in the world are wrong about whatever god they consider to be the true god (since no one religion is believed by over 1/2 the people on earth). this is funny/tragic from the perspective of a disinterested observer. since all religions' (i know of) claims about god and the nature of the universe are different, then, logically, there can only be ONE true religion that has EVER existed in the history of the world. maybe is was baalism. maybe the ancient babylonians or egyptians had it right. who knows, it could be some obscure polynesian coconut-tree god. hopefully it wasn't the maya (who predict the apocalypse in 2012).

anyway, it amuses me how people are so perceptive in discerning that OTHER religions are false, but can't see the same things in their own religion. i believe even jesus warned of this "blindness" in matthew 7 and luke 6.

wileysnakeskins,
you said, "Every bit of the United States of America's foundation is based on biblical principles and it has worked out pretty good so far."

well, the fact is that while many founders wanted that to be the case, jefferson and madison did not let that happen. where the 1st commandment says, "no other gods", the 1st ammendment says, "all gods welcome". i'm curious as to which "biblical principles" you're thinking of when you say we're founded on biblical principles. circumcision? animal sacrifice? polygamy? women are possessions (valued above "cattle", but below "house" according to 9th and/or 10th commandment - depending on whose version of the commandments you go by)?

upon closer inspection it turns out america is founded on the hard-earned humanist principles of the enlightenment: tolerance, fairness, equality, self-determination, one-man-one-vote. maybe these and "love your neighbor" are what you're thinking of when you say "biblical principles", but these are not religious principles.

during the revolutionary war the various states adopted temporary constitutions. some states were "protestant": a profession of belief in jesus as one's savior was required for election to public office. other states thought they were being inclusive by including catholics or anglicans or some other christian sect in their protections/requirements for office. this is what makes jefferson's and madison's DISESTABLISHMENT of ANY religion all the more spectacular.

the declaration of independence is not our founding legal document - that would be the constitution. nonetheless, the "nature's god" mentioned in the declaration of independence is decidedly NOT the god of abraham - infact it's what followers of yahweh/jesus/allah would call a PAGAN god.

the united states is noteworthy in the history of nations because it is the first country NOT to select a national deity. you cannot say that "nature’s god" and "creator" are code words for "christ" either. jefferson and madison also wrote the virginia statute for religious freedom. in his autobiography, jefferson recalled, "where the preamble [to the Statue] declares that coercion is 'a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,' an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'jesus christ,' so that it should read, 'a departure from the plan of jesus christ, the holy author of our religion.' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the jew and the gentile, the christian and mahometan, the hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Wileysnakeskins: You wrote: "Every bit of the United States of America's foundation is based on biblical principles and it has worked out pretty good so far."

Would you care to share with us where Jesus or Moses or any other leader in the Bible was democratically elected?

During the Cheney years, America was damn near theocratized by the Abrahamic law of the "religious" right. The result was intolerance, torture, erosion of the Constitution and more take from the poor and give to the rich. "Religious" people should go pose, primp, pray and pretend with their own on their holy days and stay of of any government that strives for democracy - religious bullying and democracy are mutually exclusive.

You quote the Constitution selectively. Sharia Law is completely opposite to the US Constitution. It states that religious law has the right to execute, maim and torture people. It claims a right to cruel and inhuman punishment. It states that Islam, not the individual, is to be protected at all cost. No where in Shiria Law is there mention of human rights. Your comparison of Sharia Law to the US Constitution is sickening and completely wrong.

Even now Muslims are fighting the Taliban and their interpretation of Sharia Law. Pretending a cruel religiously based fascist law is akin to the US Constitution is laughable. In the US, where education has enlightened people, you just sound like a fool. Peddle your trickery to the less educated where it seems to be accepted.

Mr. Rauf writes:
"Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam."

Where is this "root of Islam"?

Every other religion and political system has done a better job of creating "fairness and justice" in their society than Islam.

Please stop being an apologist for terrorists and murderers.

Dear Mr. Rauf:

" The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, the declaration said that, but since then America has come a long way, not only are men endowed, so are women. It appears that does not hold true in the Islamic world, at least not from what I see and read.

Religions, man-made (not prophetic, unless you believe in such nonsense) have one thing in common. That is to hold people hostage to some otherworldly power they do not understand, particularly in countries where illiteracy abounds and women are viewed as chattle with little more worth (if any) than the sheep their husbands own.

The Taliban and their ilk in other Islamic countries need to be exposed for what they are. Little, old, bearded men who have no power other than what the Q'ran gives them. In other words, little Hitlers with longer beards.

I am sorry this comparison to the Declaration of Independence is nonsense. The only thing the Declaration of Independence's support of natural universal human rights can be compared to is the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The universal human truths that all men are created equal and inalienable human rights of equality and liberty -- is not dependent on any religion -- but on UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. What a shame no one seems to grasp this in Washington DC - try reading them...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

As to gevernment run by religious rules. No, but bsased on religious principles yes. Every bit of the United States of America's foundation is based on biblical principles and it has worked out pretty good so far. Sharia law is a completely different matter in it's barbaric punishments and restrictive rules. For a country to be ruled under sharia law; you have in the end a government ruled by fear, held in place by fear and birthing more and more fear. Nothing in the Taliban controled areas in Afganistan and Pakistan is truly what the people want; if you say anything against the laws, you are beaten, maimed or in most cases just killed; no trial, no logic, just murder if there is any questioning of the rule. NO false religious law can have nothing to do with running a country or government and sharia law is clearly a false religious law. It's absolutely no different than the rule of law hitler and his mien kaumph instituted in Germany and all the lands he conquered. Real religious principles can guide, NOT control the thinking up of laws, constitutions and legislation but not control it.

I'm convinced that there is absolutely no need to update or reform islam. From my reading of the life of mohammed, the koran, hadith and all the examples of how mohammed lived and what he did, that islam is no more a religion than hitler's mien kaumph is the koran, hadith or bible. mohammed never performed a miracle, NOT once in his entire lifetime and each and every revelation he had were in response to a follower or family member's questioning an act or teaching he was putting forth. You want to child molest a 6 year old girl so you cover it with marraige, but then when you are questioned by the little girls' relative, you have a revelation that allah, your false god says it's ok. You say there is no compultion to islam, but then when you move from Mecca where the majority Christians and Jews refuse to believe you are a prophet of god and who, you were afraid of because you were weak in numbers. You arrive in medina and after you have gained followers and strength as a warlord, you begin having revelations as to the evil and vileness of those same Christians and Jews who literally ran you out of mecca with their mistrust and unbelief in your prophethood. You have revelations where you force conversion, force them to pay tax for their safety or kill them as unbelievers. You have designs to rule the world through your revelations from your false god and base it all on the plagerism you performed on the Jews and Christian's bible and books. False religions don't need reformation, hitler nor his mien kaumph didn't need updating or revision, he needed like islam and it's barbaric sharia law eradication.

Feisal Abdul Rauf

You wrote, "But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."".

What might be "important to understand" is that despite the fact that Mohammed was deceived by satan is also the fact that one of the founding principles of this country is the seperation of church and state, mosque and state, temple and state,... .

As I have said before, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Jesus is God-Incarnate, He is not some second-rate prophet.

We are all equal in God's Eyes and prophets are either true or false prophets, true prophets have different "jobs" to do but one is not better than another.

No one has the right to try and cram God, or their conception thereof, down anyone else's throat, not even God does that so why should we even try to do that.

You wrote, "What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad."

In other words, what you are saying is that Muslims want everyone one else to follow what they feel that they should follow, I really do not know but I do not think that all Muslims agree with you on that.

If someone thinks that something is wrong then maybe they shouldn't do it, if someone needs a law to not do what they think is wrong, I feel sorry for them.

Following God is following God or whatever your conception of God is, it is not telling or coercing others to follow God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Feisal Abdul Rauf

...but, you didnt address the question.

"Should any nation be governed by religious rules?"

You just "beat around the bush" like a politican.

:p

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Remember the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan statutes of Buddha under their version of Sharia Law that it is forbidden in Islam to draw human figure for it might lead to idol worship? But this notion is in direct conflict with the Islamic view "to you your faith, to me mine". Islam prohibits imposition of views on other religions.

By destroying the statutes of Buddha they broke Islamic law. If Muslims are against idol worship, it is their prerogative but they should not impose their view on people of other faiths.

The Taliban are semi-literate ignorant people. They missed the opportunity to develop tourism at Bamiyan. Imagine thousands of Buddhists and other tourists would have come there, stayed in hotels, eaten food there etc. etc. As a result, hundreds or even possibly thousands of Muslims could find jobs there.

After all Egypt has the biggest source of revenue from tourism--tourism generated by pre-Islamic Egyptian culture.

This is why I call Taliban bunch of semi-literate or illiterate people who have no problems growing poppy (drugs that are strictly prohibited under Sharia law)but were enthusiastic about destroying the statutes of Buddha. They have no plans to to find avenues to feed their population.

Such people are a disgrace to Islam.

"What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad."

What you really need to do is stop thinking that the will of the creator of the universe is contained in 7-9th century Arab literature.

If someone from another culture claimed the things Muslims do about the Quran and Hadith, you might respect their right to keep their beliefs in private, but would object strenuously to using them as the basis of law.