Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Ten Facts About Sharia Law (Islamic Law)

Recommended Posts

 

Proof, please.

 

yes of course, there is allways proof for stuff we believe and do.

 

beacuse Sharia is based on Islamic laws, quran and hadith from prophet Muhamed

 

On the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah say, “Whoever of you sees an evil must then change it with his hand. If he is not able to do so, then [he must change it ] with his tongue. And if he is not able to do so, then [he must change it] with his heart. And that is the slightest [effect of] faith.” (Recorded in Muslim)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Should I post a video about the Easter Bunny or how Scientology keeps tabs on their members? Is it relevant? Did the Taliban have a state integrating Sharia?

You cannot answer: I don't know and then claim there is no Sharia based state.

Yes or no?

 

i said i dont know, maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i said i dont know, maybe

 

You said earlier: "No. There is no country on earth which implements the Shari'ah, rather they implement man made systems which do not derive from Islam."

 

You also said: "sharia state does not allow anyone to buy or sell alcohol in Islamic state. yes sharia laws even apply to non-muslims. You can not sell drugs and alcohol in Islamic state and to expect that Islamic state does not forbid you that, just beacuse you are non-muslims."

 

I asked for proof for this. You did not provide proof, but a nebulous sentence about someone saying somebody said something to someone whom he knew and who said to someone else ...... This is not proof. This is an indication or a saying, a hadith. Whether it is deemed authentic or not is irrelevant, it is hearsay, not proof or evidence.

 

So all you are doing is making stuff up and adding your personal spin. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said earlier: "No. There is no country on earth which implements the Shari'ah, rather they implement man made systems which do not derive from Islam."

 

You also said: "sharia state does not allow anyone to buy or sell alcohol in Islamic state. yes sharia laws even apply to non-muslims. You can not sell drugs and alcohol in Islamic state and to expect that Islamic state does not forbid you that, just beacuse you are non-muslims."

 

I asked for proof for this. You did not provide proof, but a nebulous sentence about someone saying somebody said something to someone whom he knew and who said to someone else ...... This is not proof. This is an indication or a saying, a hadith. Whether it is deemed authentic or not is irrelevant, it is hearsay, not proof or evidence.

 

So all you are doing is making stuff up and adding your personal spin. Sad.

 

i have never seen right now a sharia state aty this moment, but if Afghanistan was real sharia state during talibans, i dont know, beacuse i have never studied how they lived and what they do.

 

but right now i can not find any real Islamic sharia state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never seen right now a sharia state aty this moment, but if Afghanistan was real sharia state during talibans, i dont know, beacuse i have never studied how they lived and what they do.

 

but right now i can not find any real Islamic sharia state.

 

So you don't know what happened just a few years ago!

 

Can you at least provide definition of an Islamic sharia state? I have asked you before, but you could not answer (Go and define Shariah in its entirety and then show where I am wrong. Don't just make claims without any proof).

Surely the selling of alcohol to non-Muslim expats is not the only criteria! But that's the only one you managed to come up with so far. Which was also wrong as your claim that alcohol was sold in shopping centres was a lie.

 

Also: why does Nigeria claim to have implemented Shariah in 12/24 states?

Why does Pakistan claim it has implemented Shariah is several districts?

Why does Somalia claim it has implemented Shariah?

Why does Indonesia claim it has implemented Shariah in at least one region?

Why does Malaysia claim it has hotels governed by Shariah?

 

Oh dear, so many lies and deceptions and half-truths and misunderstandings. You can't just go and claim anything you would like to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't know what happened just a few years ago!

 

Can you at least provide definition of an Islamic sharia state? I have asked you before, but you could not answer (Go and define Shariah in its entirety and then show where I am wrong. Don't just make claims without any proof).

Surely the selling of alcohol to non-Muslim expats is not the only criteria! But that's the only one you managed to come up with so far. Which was also wrong as your claim that alcohol was sold in shopping centres was a lie.

 

Also: why does Nigeria claim to have implemented Shariah in 12/24 states?

Why does Pakistan claim it has implemented Shariah is several districts?

Why does Somalia claim it has implemented Shariah?

Why does Indonesia claim it has implemented Shariah in at least one region?

Why does Malaysia claim it has hotels governed by Shariah?

 

Oh dear, so many lies and deceptions and half-truths and misunderstandings. You can't just go and claim anything you would like to be true.

 

 

Can you at least provide definition of an Islamic sharia state?

 

state wich is based on quran and hadith from prophet Muhammed. and there most be democratic election among muslim politicians, so muslims people can vote for the one who shall represent them ( and i mean) in these elections it is not allowed for non-islamic parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

state wich is based on quran and hadith from prophet Muhammed. and there most be democratic election among muslim politicians, so muslims people can vote for the one who shall represent them ( and i mean) in these elections it is not allowed for non-islamic parties.

 

There doesn't necessarily have to be elections. No elections were held for Abu Bakr(ra). Then Abu Bakr(ra) appointed Umar(ra) before he died. Then Umar(ra) appointed a council of six men to choose. And also, in Islam we don't give power to people who ask for it. So how would political parties work? The whole democratic system has its pros and cons but at the end of the day we don't need it. Obviously there's nothing to say elections are not allowed but IMO they're over rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

state wich is based on quran and hadith from prophet Muhammed. and there most be democratic election among muslim politicians, so muslims people can vote for the one who shall represent them ( and i mean) in these elections it is not allowed for non-islamic parties.

 

Elections? Why am I constantly told that elections and democracy are un-Islamic?

And in your definition there is no jurisprudence? Where can a woman go if her husband withholds the dowry after he divorces her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elections? Why am I constantly told that elections and democracy are un-Islamic?

And in your definition there is no jurisprudence? Where can a woman go if her husband withholds the dowry after he divorces her?

 

Elections are not un-Islamic. Secondly, if you want to learn about the Islamic political system and its institutions, etc go learn from some Islamic University or some scholar. We don't have all the knowledge as we are just laymen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elections are not un-Islamic. Secondly, if you want to learn about the Islamic political system and its institutions, etc go learn from some Islamic University or some scholar. We don't have all the knowledge as we are just laymen.

 

Well, I wish you knew more about your own religion, its rules and rituals.

And if you don't know anything, why do make absolute statements? Why don't you learn and become an expert at something?

 

Here's an opinion on voting, democracy and elections in Islam:

 

 

Praise be to Allaah.

This is a matter concerning which rulings may differ according to different circumstances in different times and places. There is no absolute ruling that covers all situations, both real and hypothetical.

In some cases it is wrong to vote, such as when the matter will have no effect on the Muslims, or when the Muslims have no effect on the outcome of the vote. In this case voting or not voting is all the same. The same applies in cases where all the candidates are equally evil or where they all have the same attitude towards Muslims…

It may be the case that the interests of Islam require Muslims to vote so as to ward off the greater evil and to reduce harmful effects, such as where two candidates may be non-Muslims but one of them is less hostile towards Muslims than the other, and Muslims’ votes will have an impact on the outcome of the election. In such cases there is nothing wrong with Muslims casting their votes in favour of the less evil candidate.

In any case, this is the matter of ijtihaad based on the principle of weighing up the pros and cons, what is in the interests of Islam and what is detrimental. With regard to this matter, we have to refer to the people of knowledge who understand this principle. We should put the question to them, explaining in detail the circumstances and laws in the country where the Muslim community is living, the state of the candidates, the importance of the vote, the likely benefits, and so on.

No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

 

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/3062

 

Here's a more detailed one, which in the end shows that - as is the case for so many things in Islam - it is up to individual interpretation:

 

 

Praise be to Allaah.

This issue is one that is subject to ijtihaad. And we must weigh up the interests and benefits that we hope the Muslims may attain from this participation and the harm that may result from it.

If the benefits outweigh the harms, then it is permissible to take part, but if the harms outweigh the benefits, then it is not permissible to take part.

Based on this, the ruling differs depending on the country, the system of voting and the people involved. Taking part may be beneficial to the Muslims in one country, and not in another. The same applies to individuals.

The Fiqh Council has issued a statement on this issue: Participation of Muslims in elections with non-Muslims, the text of which is as follows:

Praise be to Allaah alone, and blessings and peace be upon the one after whom there is no Prophet, our Prophet Muhammad, and his family and companions.

The Islamic Fiqh Council in its nineteenth session, which was held in the headquarters of the Muslim World League in Makkah al-Mukarramah between 22 and 27 Shawwaal 1428 AH (3 to 8 November 2007 CE) has examined the issue of “Participation of Muslims in elections with non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries.” This is one of the topics on which discussion was deferred in the sixteenth conference which was held between 21 and 26 Shawwaal 1422 AH in order that it may be examined more thoroughly.

After listening to the research that was presented and the discussions concerning it, the Council has determined the following:

 

1. Muslim participation in elections with non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country is one of the shar’i political matters in which the ruling is determined in the light of weighing up the pros and cons, and fatwas concerning it differ according to time, place and circumstances.

 

2. it is permissible for a Muslim who enjoys the rights of citizenship in a non-Muslim country to take part in elections and the like because it is more likely that his participation will bring benefits such as presenting a true picture of Islam, defending Muslim issues in that country, supporting the rights of religious and other minorities, strengthening their role in circles of influence, and cooperating with reasonable, fair-minded people on a basis of truth and justice. That should be in accordance with the following guidelines:

(i) The Muslim participants should intend thereby to serve the interests of the Muslims and ward off evil and harm from them.

(ii) The Muslim participants should think it most likely that their participation will have positive effects that will benefit the Muslims in that country, such as supporting their position, conveying their requests to the decision makers and those who are in charge of the country, and protecting their religious and worldly interests.

(iii) The Muslim’s participation in these elections should not lead to him neglecting his religious duties.

And Allaah is the source of strength. May Allaah send blessing and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

http://www.themwl.org/Fatwa/default.aspx?d=1&cidi=167&l=AR&cid=17

For more information please see the answers to questions no. 3062 and 107166. And Allaah knows best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wish you knew more about your own religion, its rules and rituals.

And if you don't know anything, why do make absolute statements? Why don't you learn and become an expert at something?

 

Look, I'm not trying to be rude but are you stupid? Whats it to you whatever I do with my life? Why don't you go learn the laws and constitution of the US and become a judge? You wish I knew more about my religion? Why? So I can answer questions by a nobody on some online forum? Then you assume that I don't know anything? Do you even think before you post?

 

Here's an opinion on voting, democracy and elections in Islam:

 

How is what you posted different to what I said? I said elections are not un-Islamic.

 

Also when I say elections I am talking about electing leaders in an Islamic State. However, voting in a non-Muslim country under secular and non-Islamic rule such as democracy and for a non-Islamic government is a different issue altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not trying to be rude but are you stupid? Whats it to you whatever I do with my life? Why don't you go learn the laws and constitution of the US and become a judge? You wish I knew more about my religion? Why? So I can answer questions by a nobody on some online forum? Then you assume that I don't know anything? Do you even think before you post?

 

 

 

How is what you posted different to what I said? I said elections are not un-Islamic.

 

Also when I say elections I am talking about electing leaders in an Islamic State. However, voting in a non-Muslim country under secular and non-Islamic rule such as democracy and for a non-Islamic government is a different issue altogether.

 

Oh dear! Think, man! You say you don't know anything and your are all laymen and then? You categorically state:

 

"elections are not un-Islamic."

 

An al-Shabab leader in Somalia said elections were un-Islamic and called democracy "the devil's principles".

 

In al-Musannaf by 'Abd al-Razzaq bin Humam, three traditions are recorded that reveal Hadhrat 'Umar's view of how amir (leader) should be chosen and what to do with a person who imposes his rule over Muslims by force or political intrigue.

 

Yes, I must be stupid for thinking that someone who declares something as being correct at the same time says he knows nothing.

 

What is an Islamic State?

Is voting in a non-Muslim, democratic, secular country un-Islamic?

And YOU are the one asking ME whether I think before posting? Oh boy!

 

And anyway: how do you know I am not a judge? You don't. :)

You are just ignorant about most things in life and think you have sufficient reason to talk down at people from a dizzy height. Grow up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alsalamo alykom, brother

There doesn't necessarily have to be elections. No elections were held for Abu Bakr(ra).

 

as i know, what happened in "sakifat bani Sa'adah" when the Muhagereen and Ansaar discussed how and who to rule the Muslem nation, during which many were been appointed to be the Khaleefah and Omar chose Abu-Bakr as the best one to be, with enough proofs, all of the Moslems "accepted" Abubaker........it could be a form of "candidates", "proofs" and "election

 

Then Umar(ra) appointed a council of six men to choose.

 

i believe no, Omar appointed 6 names for the Muslems to choose among them, and the Muslems chose Othman r.a

 

And also, in Islam we don't give power to people who ask for it. So how would political parties work?

 

mostly in this case the individual don't nominate himself, or ask for it, BUT, the party appoint him, and then the Muslems choose,

in another hadeeth in imam Muslem and others, the prophet pbuh said "my nation,the Muslems, will not gather on bad thing "Dhalalah"....." which gives an advantage to the elections.

 

Allah knows best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alsalamo alykom, brother

 

Walaikumsalam

 

as i know, what happened in "sakifat bani Sa'adah" when the Muhagereen and Ansaar discussed how and who to rule the Muslem nation, during which many were been appointed to be the Khaleefah and Omar chose Abu-Bakr as the best one to be, with enough proofs, all of the Moslems "accepted" Abubaker........it could be a form of "candidates", "proofs" and "election

 

Well, it was only the leaders of al-Ansar and some of the Muhajireen that choose Abu Bakr(ra). Then the next day people gave bay'ah to Abu Bakr in the Masjid. But it wasn't that every single citizen choose Abu Bakr(ra).

 

i believe no, Omar appointed 6 names for the Muslems to choose among them, and the Muslems chose Othman r.a

 

 

 

Uthman ibn Affan, the third caliph, was chosen by a council meeting in Medina, in northwestern Arabia, in AH 23 (643/644).[1]

The second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, was stabbed by an angry Persian slave named Feroz. Mindful of the tumults that had occurred after the death of Muhammad (see Succession to Muhammad), on his deathbed Umar appointed a committee of six men, to choose a new leader.

 

He wished this consultation, or shura, to survive the strictest criticism. The six men were:

Umar's expectation seems to have been that the group should choose one among themselves who would be acceptable to all.

Talha was absent and did not reach Medina until after the decision had been made. The choice of a new ruler for the new Islamic empire fell to five men.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ction_of_Uthman

 

 

If you want I can bring you more evidence of how only this council of six choose Uthman and not the general population.

 

 

 

mostly in this case the individual don't nominate himself, or ask for it, BUT, the party appoint him, and then the Muslems choose,

in another hadeeth in imam Muslem and others, the prophet pbuh said "my nation,the Muslems, will not gather on bad thing "Dhalalah"....." which gives an advantage to the elections.

 

Allah knows best

 

But brother was there any 'party'? did the Sahaba(ra) belong to any political party? In our 1400 years of history until the fall of the Ottoman Empire were there EVER any elections held where the population went to polling booths to vote for candidates who were seeking power?

 

The first four khulafah were chosen by different means and then after that it basically became kingship where the son would inherit the throne after the king died. But again elections are not haram but they never took place in the sense that the whole population of the Empire goes to polling booths. But of course shura is needed to choose a leader and in an Islamic State there would be shura where the ummah would come together and decide but it doesn't have to be through elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanting to know more about the lives of Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar bin Khattab(ra) can download:

 

 

Abu Bakr al Siddiq : His Life and Times

 

Umar Ibn Alkhataab - His Life and Times

 

 

From here: http://kalamullah.co...r-alawlaki.html

 

This also talks about how they were appointed as Khulafah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we see is that there is no such thing as a definition for Shariah which is accepted by everyone.

 

With my little joke I also showed that there is no set and agreed upon definition of what an Islamic state is. All these terms are subject to interpretation and changing circumstances.

 

Just like concepts of morality and sin, we adapt them to a common set of 3 or 4 easily defined processes and anything after that is open.

 

Any system of human co-existence, whether religious or political, has always had pros and cons. And just like everybody has a different understanding of socialism or communism, the same is true for religion based systems such as Shariah. So blowing the trumpet of any one particular system is futile and bound to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we see is that there is no such thing as a definition for Shariah which is accepted by everyone.

 

With my little joke I also showed that there is no set and agreed upon definition of what an Islamic state is. All these terms are subject to interpretation and changing circumstances.

 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

Hahaha, and you have?

 

Well then, define the Islamic state and Shariah which every Muslim (all 1.5 bn) will agree with. You can't, why not face the truth?

 

You, a layman, said you have no idea what you are talking about and I have quoted scholars saying the opposite of each other. And YOU, you of all people, knows what you are talking about and can provide what nobody else can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha, and you have?

 

Well then, define the Islamic state and Shariah which every Muslim (all 1.5 bn) will agree with. You can't, why not face the truth?

 

islamic state is based on quran and hadith, and there most be Islamic elections, among muslims who is most suitable to lead the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

islamic state is based on quran and hadith, and there most be Islamic elections, among muslims who is most suitable to lead the country.

 

I'm done with you. Your last post on this topic here too also shows there is no rational and intelligent discussion possible with you. I really tried, but it is futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm done with you. Your last post on this topic here too also shows there is no rational and intelligent discussion possible with you. I really tried, but it is futile.

 

i also really tried with you, but it is futile.

 

you can believe or not believe, i believe what i want to believe,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. The 'Jiziyaa' (Non-muslim tax) is lower than the 'Zakat' (Muslim tax).

 

The Jizyaa, a tax for non-muslim citizens of the state, is lower than the Muslim tax - Zakat (Obligatory upon all muslims).

 

If this was really as great as it sounds, and if Muslims were really prepared to live by this, we could give it a test run in the west before we even implement shariah.

 

So lets have a Muslim only vote: How many Muslims vote for a higher tax rate on Muslims than non-Muslims to be implemented in the west immediately to give Muslims an opportunity to live up to even one of the ridiculous standards they claim they will uphold if shariah be implemented.

 

Please indicate that you are Muslim and whether you vote for or against below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was really as great as it sounds, and if Muslims were really prepared to live by this, we could give it a test run in the west before we even implement shariah.

 

This is a part of Shariah. So saying we will only follow a part by ignoring others will be bad for Muslim. It's a whole package. You will have to give a test run of the whole package.

So lets have a Muslim only vote: How many Muslims vote for a higher tax rate on Muslims than non-Muslims to be implemented in the west immediately to give Muslims an opportunity to live up to even one of the ridiculous standards they claim they will uphold if shariah be implemented.

 

Care to explain this underlined part? Why are they Ridiculous? What criteria you use in deciding them as ridiculous or not ridiculous?

Please indicate that you are Muslim and whether you vote for or against below.

 

I vote hundred percent for if you apply Sharia in every aspect of life in the West for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a part of Shariah. So saying we will only follow a part by ignoring others will be bad for Muslim. It's a whole package. You will have to give a test run of the whole package.

 

Think about it like this though. Given the massive opposition to the imposition of shariah in the west. It's implementation would be an elephant of a task. The way to eat an elephant is one spoonful at a time. Thus if you implemented one step of the shariah you would be one step closer to the ultimate goal. Why are you opposed to being one step closer to your own aim?

 

 

Care to explain this underlined part? Why are they Ridiculous? What criteria you use in deciding them as ridiculous or not ridiculous?

They are ridiculous because in the context of a pluralistic society such as Australia where I live (one part of the west), to introduce a law which discriminates against a person on the basis of their faith is just driving in the thin end of the wedge that it is okay to treat people at a disadvantage on the basis of their religion. I wouldn't want that for a Muslim and I wouldn't want it for myself either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it like this though. Given the massive opposition to the imposition of shariah in the west. It's implementation would be an elephant of a task. The way to eat an elephant is one spoonful at a time. Thus if you implemented one step of the shariah you would be one step closer to the ultimate goal. Why are you opposed to being one step closer to your own aim?

 

As it has been stated earlier here that Sharia is a whole package. Applying only a part is not such a good news for Muslims. Anyway, It's Fard (Obligatory) for every Muslim to pay Zakat. So, even after paying equal tax in the West, a Muslim will have to pay Zakat as well. In each and every secular country they will have to pay that additional Zakat amount too based on the religious teaching.

 

 

They are ridiculous because in the context of a pluralistic society such as Australia where I live (one part of the west), to introduce a law which discriminates against a person on the basis of their faith is just driving in the thin end of the wedge that it is okay to treat people at a disadvantage on the basis of their religion. I wouldn't want that for a Muslim and I wouldn't want it for myself either.

 

This looks like a classical rant on Shariah. If any discussion is to take place, It must be constructive. So, next time if there is some involvement of Qur'an, Hadith and other Islamic sources in the posts, we can probably start a good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×