Warms up your heart, doesn’t it?
MOGADISHU, Somalia - A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.
Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses.
To all those idiots out there supporting al-Qaeda, this is the kind of shit you’re going to end up with if they ever get to rule your neighborhood.
I understand you may have your own “kinder” interpretation of Sharia, but the kind featured above is precisely what they’ll be busy shoving down our throats. I’m sure you’d love to see your daughters or sisters go through similar “holy” trials if they too get raped and can’t produce four witnesses to confirm that the crime took place, right?
Disgusting.
For the zillionth time, Sharia is NOT holy, and never will be. I speak in practical terms, because Sharia’s enforcement requires an initial interpretation of religious scriptures - both activities ultimately being the product of fallible humans, people just like you and me.
So please dear Muslims, don’t fear criticizing Sharia. Go ahead. Feel free to tear it apart where appropriate if you wish to do so, and if anyone pushes the “hey, how dare you criticize God’s law?” argument in your face, you know what to do.
Even God’s laws or so-called laws require interpretation, something which is inevitably exercised by imperfect, fallible bearded men (rarely women in case you haven’t noticed), many of whom are just power-hungry morons who hide behind a veil of piety to shield themselves from criticism.
Cool?
Now excuse me while I go and continue puking.
UPDATE: There are a number of legitimate questions from fellow (albeit traditionalist) Muslims which have popped up in the comments section. While I responded in a comment, I thought it would be better if I added it here in the post to make it more visible.
H.A. and Ahmad al-Safawi,
Salam guys.
Please allow me to clarify a number of points and explain why I still gladly stand by what I have mentioned above (even though it is emotionally charged due to my frustration at the time of writing).
I think we both see Sharia and define it differently.
When I speak of Sharia, I do NOT speak of the abstract ideal of “true” Islamic Sharia we aspire towards, and which is inspired by the Quran and Sunnah.
To me it’s irrelevant and beyond criticism because it doesn’t exist in our physical day to day reality.
All Muslim scholars differ on a number of issues concerning Sharia.
There is no solid and real consensus for one “true” Sharia.
For a quick example, look at what al-Qaradawi, Tarqi Ramadan and Reza Aslan have to say about the issue of stoning.
There’s no agreement, and in fact, only very different opinions.
Heck, just look at the school of thoughts - Hanbali, Shafi, etc.
When I talk about Sharia, I talk about that which exists and affects us in our everyday lives.
I talk about the Sharia which is practiced and promoted by Muslims, whether it’s in a more sophisticated form like yours, or the barbaric form in the story above.
This Sharia I speak of (including the Maliki, Hanbali etc. and Shia versions) is what I propose Muslims should NEVER accept with unexamined faith.
It is the product of *MEN’S* interpretations and *MEN’S* implementations.
It is also INCREASINGLY the cause of much pain in the Muslim world today.
It should be critiqued and torn down where appropriate.
It should be re-interpreted for today’s context of the 21st century.
Don’t get me wrong. Admittedly there are important things about Sharia.
I am NOT saying Sharia is evil. That would be an oversimplification and untrue.
For example, eating halal food, the amount of zakat (charity) we should pay etc. are all aspects of Sharia which are important for Muslims.
BUT…
… those things have little consequence at the political level. That’s why I don’t bother much with them here.
Things like dhimma status, freedom of speech, huddud laws, stoning etc. have MAJOR consequences at the political level and THAT is where the mixing of Sharia and politics becomes a recipe for disaster.
Belief in Islam and Sharia in such a situation doesn’t become one out of honest conviction, but rather oppression and coercion.
Look at what al-Turabi has done to Sudan. Look at the Iranian regime. Look at Hamas. Look at all the Islamists (and even many Traditionalists) and how they hide behind something supposedly “holy” to shield themselves from criticism.
Sharia, whether being exploited politically or not (something subjective anyways) is NOT beyond criticism.
It is NOT holy and will NEVER be. It must inevitably be interpreted and implemented by fallible MEN every single time it’s brought into our lives.
Like I said, the ideal “true” Utopian Sharia is something abstract and I’m not bothered with it.
It’s in our minds and hearts.
I’m bothered with the Sharia we in the Muslim world live and breath everyday, and the Sharia many Muslims WISH to make others (along with themselves) experience.
It is my wish to see more Muslims unafraid of looking at it critically.
So, while I regret the harsh tone I used in this post, I still solidly stand by what I have said.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
How on earth could an unmarried 13-year old girl commit adultery?
You really shouldn’t put such articles in the “Islam” category. Stoning a child in front of a thousand spectators is, if anything, a pagan ritual. Those people are not interpreting Islam, they are advocating barbarism.
Islam is about laws. There is no law that condemns a little girl to death for being raped or for a crime she couldn’t commit like adultery. There never has been such a law.
What about a “paganism” category?
I know you are worried about accusing fellow Muslims of apostasy, but honestly, sometimes it is more than clear.
I semi-agree with AB…but Islam…at this point in history, is the most tolerant of this kind of thing. Can you blame Islam…well not really. Can you blame a reasonable section of Islamic leadership…yes I think you can.
There is nothing inherently evil in Muslims…or rocks worshipers or whatever…but the leading organisms within Islam don’t seem to be making much noise over this type of thing.
“I know you are worried about accusing fellow Muslims of apostasy”
You’re right Andrew, that’s one reason, but I have another more important one.
You see, from my understanding of Islam, I know well that what those butchers did is clearly against the complex system of Sharia but it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter because to THEM, this is what God demands. And believe me, there is quite a scary number of heinously disgusting so-called Islamic scholars out there in this world who condone this type of shit.
However, that’s not even the core issue.
The Traditionalist interpretation of Islam (which is pretty much mainstream) DOES mandate stoning if the complex requirements are met.
As far as Traditionalism is concerned, the above is against it NOT because it sees stoning ITSELF as something repulsive and unfit for today’s context, but MERELY because the punishment was implemented after a simplistic approach to Sharia.
THAT’S the core issue that boils my blood. Many aspects of Traditionalism itself (not “radical Islam,” “extremism,” “Wahhabism,” etc.) need to be torn into pieces and discarded into a dustbin - those mainly being violent jihad, dhimma status for un-believers and treatment of women.
This won’t be possible until the myth proclaiming Sharia to be “holy” and “from God” is utterly demolished in the minds of enough Muslims.
Wow. Thanks for posting your thoughts and perspective. Stunned.
“It doesn’t matter because to THEM, this is what God demands.”
Just one more reason to make it clear that their “god” is not Allah.
“The Traditionalist interpretation of Islam (which is pretty much mainstream) DOES mandate stoning if the complex requirements are met.”
Judaism has some pretty rough punishments and the traditional approach is to ignore them because we as human beings do not have the total knowledge needed to make such judgments.
Islam, if we count those barbarians as Muslims, has a problem with people elevating themselves to the status of god. They make decisions G-d ought to make (and apparently doesn’t).
We human beings are allowed to punish crimes done against man (I am sure), but we are not allowed to punish crimes against G-d (unless we believe He is incapable of doing so Himself, which would mean doubting His powers).
Also, while I can believe that traditionalist Islam has all sorts of cruel and unusual punishments and other practices that shouldn’t exist, I don’t think those punishments were applied to people who were obviously innocent.
An unmarried girl CANNOT commit adultery.
The fact that she was raped by the guy should also be a hint that it wasn’t adultery.
This is totally wrong,immoral and UnIslamic. Someone need to tell these cruel and their brainwashed people that they are not practising Islam. It is time for devout, intellectuals and moderate muslims save Islam from these criminals.
There was an article where her father was shocked to find out that these people did not follow the culture and the traditions of the elders in Somalia where every father is responsible for his family and instead followed their way of imposing laws. In Somali traditions no one can go over the father and do things that are against the customs and traditions of the local people.
We need more interfaith dialogue for peace so that these criminals are smoked out of their dream land horror holes.
It is sad and shocking to say the least and against the conscious of humanity.
Lulu, that’s pretty much what I thought of the situation.
Seeing how the father views the situation is is obvious to me that those so-called extremists openly go against traditions.
Drima-
Back to culture and traditions…
I don’t give a flying fuck about either one…I care about how people behave…
Nowhere can this behavior be justified…no way…no how…It was murder…period. This little girl has Divine Rights and yes we can aruge about what those are and what the true Universal Laws and Truths are…but why fool around and call this anything other than what it is…murder…And like the very religious people you and I dislike Drima…they fiddled with the rules until they could come up with some justification for their act.
I am still a religious guy…but I am once again growing further and further from those who claim themselves to be our leaders…fuck ‘em…they are flawed, fallible at best…some are sincere and seek good…others are garbage…but they are merely humans…
“To all those idiots out there supporting al-Qaeda, this is the kind of shit you’re going to end up”
That sounds encouraging. Thanks to this incident, any member of al-Qaeda now knows that he can demand sex with any female, pointing out that if she makes any public protest she will be accused of adultery and executed. A license to rape is always a draw for animals and barbarians.
>“The Traditionalist interpretation of Islam (which is pretty much mainstream) DOES mandate stoning if the complex requirements are met.”
(My comment got cut in half.)
It seems that all that’s required are a few bloodthirsty bearded guys willing to do it. Internet is full of similar stories from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. The sharia pestilence is now spreading to traditionally Christian and Buddhist countries with the arrival of immigrants. Now there are sharia courts in the UK.
Same old, same old…. religious people giving religion a bad name.. people who abuse religion thus, make me wanna wipe my @$$ with a “Holy Book”
Drima, I said it b4: you too sane 4 Islam, better declare yourself apostate ,, (just kidding)
She was murdered because of Surah Al Nur 24:4 in the Quran which establishes this punishment. In case you don’t know this verse was “revealed” to Mohammad after his favorite child-wife was accused of improper behavior after the attack, murder and plunder of the Banu al-Mustaliq by Mohammad. What happened was that Aisha had wandered off and left behind and was found by a young man and brought back a day later. This caused gossip so Mohammud needed a solution. Guess what? Allah “revealed” this verse which says there must be 4 male witnesses to prove a “chase” woman committed any sinful act (zina) of a sexual nature and sets penalties for false witness. Thus proving rape is almost impossible unless the man confesses. The verse has nothing to do with adultery (that is in another book). The problem is the verse is vague and arbitrary so an acccusation of rape without witnesses is taken as an admission of zina and the woman dies. Allah hates little girls. Kactuz
Wouldn’t that sura make it very difficult to stone a woman?
joihn on November 5th, 2008 6:17 pm
She was murdered because of Surah Al Nur 24:4 in the Quran which establishes this punishment . . . Thus proving rape is almost impossible unless the man confesses. The verse has nothing to do with adultery (that is in another book). The problem is the verse is vague and arbitrary so an acccusation of rape without witnesses is taken as an admission of zina and the woman dies. Allah hates little girls. Kactuz
************************
There is nothing particularly vague about this verse. Basically in this verse Allah gives little girls a free license to engage in promiscuous sexual activities as long as little girls can ensure that that an orgy does not involve more than three male participants. In addition Allah sets tough penalties for false witnesses (means one should prove that he is not a false one) to discourage any witnesses to come forward altogether. However, given the current state of affairs I would agree that the promise of a huge sexual revolution contained in the Koran is yet to be fully realized. Maybe that’s a task for the young generation: Drima and co.
LOL, I love your interpretation, ya NB… ever considered converting and taking up a career in Islamic theology?
Ya rakun
If anything my sympathies are more with the Shia version of Islam. But providing spiritual guidance to Sunnies is quite like trying to shepherd a bunch of cats using the words of Nizo. The Sunnies are unruly and disorganized characters, everybody is trying to push it his way. There will be always somebody declaring Jihad on somebody or even issuing death fatwas on the spiritual teacher himself. Other nuts would be blowing up buses, yet another idiots would spend all their free time on flight simulators. The world may be hungry for spiritual guidance, but at the current state of affairs I am not ready to waste even one minute of my precious time on doing it.
“(4) Those who accuse chaste women, and cannot produce four witnesses, you shall lash them with eighty lashes. And never accept their testimony, for they are evildoers,”
For those who wanted to see the verse that’s talked about, it’s up there. Now notice, it says nothing about the girl that is raped it speaks of those who ACCUSE a chaste woman of doing something known to be wrong (fornication, adultery, etc.) with no evidence or witnesses to back them up. So apologies but I really don’t get how the above comments managed to bring about a different meaning. The verse is actually PROTECTING the women from false accusations against them, as was the case with Aisha (r.a.)
The whole translation of the Surah may be found here:
http://www.jannah.org/qurantrans/quran24.html
It actually clarifies other aspects to this issue so check it out.
And there is no “kinder” interpretation of Shari’ah. There’s the right interpretation and the wrong one. The one featured here, and practiced by Al-Qaeda who apparently had ties with these executioners, is wrong.
Also please be reminded that “Somalia is among the world’s most violent and impoverished countries. The nation of some 8 million people has not had a functioning government since warlords overthrew a dictator in 1991 then turned on each other.”
Meaning in a country so war torn, why should this land be taken as an example of a place that practices the true Sharia? It’s obvious everyone at the moment is looking for power, money, etc. Sharia is defined by being about justice as all Muslim scholars would agree. This is clearly not a land where a lot of that happens so to single this place out as if it’s to be some sort of beacon for Islamic Sharia is seriously….incorrect, pretty much. In fact there really is no place in the world today that uses the real Sharia due to greed and power being the things that make the world go around now. Muslim countries and Islamic countries are different things. One means most of the people claim to be Muslim (by name, birth, practice, etc.) and the other means that they follow the rulings of Islam. Only the former is seen today.
And the punishment inflicted on this poor sister is not even about her rape. “The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.”
When she claimed rape, they twisted it back onto her by claiming that she was an adulterer and used their own rulings to decide that she should be stoned to death. What should have happened, if we’re talking Sharia, is that the person(s) who raped her should have been stoned to death as that is the punishment according to Sharia for one who commits this crime.
There is no punishment in Islam for the victim as THAT would be barbaric.
So just a request, before trying to “pick apart” the Sharia, make the distinctions between what should occur and what does occur.
H.A.: In the ideal world the sharia courts would all act the same. This is clearly not the case. A law system which is so frequently misinterpreted is a flawed system. Don’t you agree?
I once happened to read a debate between several Muslims about this and there was one person there who claimed that even four witnesses are not enough. He was arguing that all four witnesses should be witnesses to sexual intercourse itself. In fact, his argument was quite convincing and he was quoting texts that others did not dispute so much. The idea was that even to surprise a couple lying naked in a bed is not enough. If all four witnesses did not see the sexual act itself, their testimony does not account. In fact, he said that the idea was rather to make stoning for adultery technically impossible. It was not meant as encouragement for spying after each other and putting people to death by stoning them.
Salam H.A.,
“And there is no “kinder” interpretation of Shari’ah. There’s the right interpretation and the wrong one. The one featured here, and practiced by Al-Qaeda who apparently had ties with these executioners, is wrong.”
I’m glad we are on the same page about the heinous and incorrect implementation of Sharia displayed in the article.
However, I disagree about there being “wrong” and “correct” Sharia. I know what you mean, but even when it comes to the “correct” Sharia, there is still no real consensus.
In fact, I can easily point out a number of major Islamic scholars, each of whom will have a different opinion on the matter of stoning.
Nobody, brings up a good example of an alternative interpretation.
My main argument in this post is that ultimately, it all comes down to interpretations of *men* and the implementations of *men* … fallible *men*
Hence, Sharia, even that which you claim to be “correct” is open to questioning and should be critiqued.
“So just a request, before trying to “pick apart” the Sharia, make the distinctions between what should occur and what does occur.”
I did, right here in the comments section. I made a distinction between the barbarism of al-Qaeda’s sick friends, and the approach of Traditional Islam, which is clearly in opposition of the above unfortunate incident.
Still though, you seem to imply that I can’t make a proposition to pick apart Sharia when it’s implemented in the way it “should occur” and to that I ask, why not?
Don’t get me wrong H.A., I welcome your kind of interpretations as they move us Muslims in the right direction. I simply differ with you, on what seems like your reverence of Sharia in general.
God’s law or not, fallible *men* are the ones who interpret it. Hence it should be heavily scrutinized especially given it’s proven tendency to be terribly abused by power-hungry people.
Separation of religion and state please.
Heh. It doesn’t matter what the law says. The barbarians have a healthy sense of humor, is all. How much more amusing to stone the rape victim than the rapists!
The irony is palpable.
Moreover, the law by itself is… well, irrelevant. If in the culture of the judges the woman is guilty and evil by definition, results are quite expected.
“However, I disagree about there being “wrong” and “correct” Sharia. I know what you mean, but even when it comes to the “correct” Sharia, there is still no real consensus.
In fact, I can easily point out a number of major Islamic scholars, each of whom will have a different opinion on the matter of stoning.”
You are absolutely right in this matter. Different scholars say different things but in Sharia you don’t get to pick and choose who you want to listen to. You are supposed to get a consensus from them or at the very least see what the majority think and take into account what everyone’s proofs are for their opinions before you decide to act. Crimes that result in the execution of someone or involve capital punishment are all to be looked through carefully, as was the situation during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.) Islam does not allow ANYONE just jump up and decide to stone someone to DEATH.
“My main argument in this post is that ultimately, it all comes down to interpretations of *men* and the implementations of *men* … fallible *men*”
Yes you are right. Today, fallible men interpret it. But Sharia comes from the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.) If you believe that Muhammed was indeed a Prophet, if you believe that the Quran is the real word of God, then you believe in the Sharia. Why? It’s derived from the Book and from the actions and words of the Prophet. These scholars today didn’t make it up. They are required to do the best they can with the implementation. You NEVER take one scholar’s opinion on a matter. You do as I stated before, keep looking. Why? Because they ARE fallible men. The Sharia came from one that Muslims believe was INfallible. Naturally it’s going to be a different situation 1400+ years after him but the sources of Sharia are not. You can still derive meanings from the past that can still work in situations today, in the 21st century.
But if we need to critique, we must critique those that try to implement it. In fact, we should critique them until we can’t anymore. If then we believe them to actually be intelligent, learned scholars then we can try to see what their rulings are.
And what I meant by making the distinction was a request for you to look up what Sharia would call for in that situation and then use it as a reference in the future. Forgive me, but it seemed like you were a bit quick to jump on the “THIS IS THE EVIL SHARIA” train. Maybe you were emotional when posting the entry or whatever but I’m just asking you to be a bit more careful when discussing such sensitive situations.
H.A. said: You can still derive meanings from the past that can still work in situations today, in the 21st century.
That sounds pretty desperate! In other words, let’s tweak it this way and that and it can STILL WORK in the 21st century. Sending mail using pigeons can still work in the 21st century, too. But does it make any sense when we have e-mail? Meanwhile, innocent girls die a horrible death. Shame on all who believe they are doing God’s work by using this antiquated set of laws.
“My main argument in this post is that ultimately, it all comes down to interpretations of *men* and the implementations of *men* … fallible *men*”
And that is true for both senses of the word *men*. That’s why it is always *women* who get it in the neck.
“That sounds pretty desperate! In other words, let’s tweak it this way and that and it can STILL WORK in the 21st century. Sending mail using pigeons can still work in the 21st century, too. But does it make any sense when we have e-mail? Meanwhile, innocent girls die a horrible death. Shame on all who believe they are doing God’s work by using this antiquated set of laws.”
No it’s not. Obviously there’s technology today that was never even dreamt of back then. Meaning for example the internet porn, is it allowed even though the woman/man isn’t in the room or not?
You can find the verses in the Quran that say,
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts). That is purer for them”
[al-Noor 24:30]
And
“Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allaah)”
[al-Isra’ 17:36]
Therefore leading to the conclusion that it would indeed be wrong to do so.
This is how the scholars do it. There’s no tweaking involved. Just look at the meanings and extract the resulting ruling.
I’ve never heard of email being prohibited. It’s just faster mail so there was never a dispute about whether or not it should be allowed.
…I’ve never heard of email being prohibited. It’s just faster mail so there was never a dispute about whether or not it should be allowed…
You know, I hope, that we are not discussing e-mail. I used it to merely illustrate the antediluvian thinking behind most of the sharia laws. If you are looking for moral precepts, the Koran will provide you with a compass. There you’ll find a guidance whether to watch porn or not. High morals should be a personal achievement. Forcing them on others by the means of law, especially such a harsh law that involves stoning to death, is against human rights. If someone displeases Allah, let Allah deal with it posthumously. That’s all I have to say on the subject.
“You know, I hope, that we are not discussing e-mail. I used it to merely illustrate the antediluvian thinking behind most of the sharia laws.”
LoL. We really are not discussing email. The analogy you used was discussing something that made something else obsolete (carrier pigeons) but nothing has made Sharia obsolete to this day. Because of sharia,for example, the rape rates in the Muslim (not Islamic) countries are much lower than those of the “modernized” countries. In fact here’s a list so you can compare: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Here are the murder rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Mind you these countries on the bottom follow only a BIT of Sharia law. As you can see, it actually works quite well.
“Forcing them on others by the means of law, especially such a harsh law that involves stoning to death, is against human rights.”
What is being forced? Stoning to death is not done on a regular basis. It’s only done when someone is deserving of punishment i.e. a man who rapes a young girl, one who murders for the thrill of it, etc. The harsh punishments are also meant to keep people from doing the crimes that warrant them. I’d rather have someone decide against raping or murdering someone out of the fear of the punishment they’re likely to receive than to have them do it. And many people have agreed throughout time that death of the offender is by no means equal to the turmoil the victim and the victim’s families live through even way after the crime. I believe some have even called the death of the criminal the “easy way out.”
“If someone displeases Allah, let Allah deal with it posthumously. That’s all I have to say on the subject.”
This is agreed upon as well in some cases but if everyone were to be punished after death, wouldn’t there be a whole lot more corruption? Everyone would do as they please and go “Hey, I’ll just get punished later.” This could lead to people not taking the religion as seriously as they should and becoming absolutely hedonistic. “Play now, punish later.” Every land needs laws even in this world.
But here’s another thing about it: the belief is that if one is punished for a crime in this world, chances are very likely that they won’t have to pay for it in the next. We believe that Allah is ALL powerful and can do as He pleases (punish and protect, etc.) So when one does something that displeases Allah, it’s actually better for them to be punished here in this life because in the next, their punisher is their Lord, the All Mighty. Death in this life is a small price to pay in comparison to what He can do.
“here’s a list so you can compare”
That is all nice and fine, but is it useful data?
I can imagine that many women in Saudi Arabia and other nice countries like it would not report a rape out of fear of being punished for being raped. I am sure that women in Germany simply don’t have to that same fear.
And as far as I know the UK and US count different cases for the murder statistics. In the US every unexplained death is a “murder” and becomes part of the stats, in the UK only those unexplained deaths that are associated with a murder trial are considered “murder” for statistical purposes.
Finally Saudi Arabia and the US have different population densities. Perhaps people commit fewer murders in the desert than in Harlem because there is fewer people who go on your nerves? I useful statistic MIGHT be (if the numbers were obtained in the same way) if you took a Saudi Arabian city and compared it to an American city of the same size and population density. That would show us if Sharia “works”.
What the statistics tell me is that Sharia makes women afraid to admit that they have been raped.
Those enforcing Sharia will have to pay for that after their death. And yes, I do think that making them pay in this life would would reduce corruption.
I have heard that some doubts remain about the age of the girl being stoned. Not all sources agree that is was a 13-year old girl, other sources states that she was an adult woman. God knows best.
In any case, before this penalty can be given according to the Sharia, certain conditions need to be fulfilled.
Drima, if i write about what you just stated over in my blog, would you care do involve yourself in a serious discussion about it? As muslims, we should indeed fear God, and as such, what he ordains for us is not something to be taken lightly, and i believe that expressing such bombastic statements as you just did requires the will to defend it afterwards. Do you agree with me?
“In fact, I can easily point out a number of major Islamic scholars, each of whom will have a different opinion on the matter of stoning.”
- Who are these?
H.A. and Ahmad al-Safawi,
Salam guys.
Please allow me to clarify a number of points and explain why I still gladly stand by what I have mentioned above (even though it is emotionally charged due to my frustration at the time of writing).
I think we both see Sharia and define it differently.
When I speak of Sharia, I do NOT speak of the abstract ideal of “true” Islamic Sharia we aspire towards, and which is inspired by the Quran and Sunnah.
To me it’s irrelevant and beyond criticism because it doesn’t exist in our physical day to day reality.
All Muslim scholars differ on a number of issues concerning Sharia.
There is no solid and real consensus for one “true” Sharia.
For a quick example, look at what al-Qaradawi, Tarqi Ramadan and Reza Aslan have to say about the issue of stoning.
There’s no agreement, and in fact, only very different opinions.
Heck, just look at the school of thoughts - Hanbali, Shafi, etc.
When I talk about Sharia, I talk about that which exists and affects us in our everyday lives.
I talk about the Sharia which is practiced and promoted by Muslims, whether it’s in a more sophisticated form like yours, or the barbaric form in the story above.
This Sharia I speak of (including the Maliki, Hanbali etc. and Shia versions) is what I propose Muslims should NEVER accept with unexamined faith.
It is the product of *MEN’S* interpretations and *MEN’S* implementations.
It is also INCREASINGLY the cause of much pain in the Muslim world today.
It should be critiqued and torn down where appropriate.
It should be re-interpreted for today’s context of the 21st century.
Don’t get me wrong. Admittedly there are important things about Sharia.
I am NOT saying Sharia is evil. That would be an oversimplification and untrue.
For example, eating halal food, the amount of zakat (charity) we should pay etc. are all aspects of Sharia which are important for Muslims.
BUT…
… those things have little consequence at the political level. That’s why I don’t bother much with them here.
Things like dhimma status, freedom of speech, huddud laws, stoning etc. have MAJOR consequences at the political level and THAT is where the mixing of Sharia and politics becomes a recipe for disaster.
Belief in Islam and Sharia doesn’t become one out of honest conviction, but rather oppression and coercion.
Look at what al-Turabi has done to Sudan. Look at the Iranian regime. Look at Hamas. Look at all the Islamists (and even many Traditionalists) and how they hide behind something supposedly “holy” to shield themselves from criticism.
Sharia, whether being exploited politically or not (something subjective anyways) is NOT something beyond criticism.
It is NOT holy and will NEVER be. It must inevitably be interpreted and implemented by fallible MEN every single time it’s brought into our lives.
Like I said, the ideal “true” Utopian Sharia is something abstract and I’m not bothered with it.
It’s in our minds and hearts.
I’m bothered with the Sharia we in the Muslim world live and breath everyday, and the Sharia many Muslims WISH to make others (along with themselves) experience.
It is my wish to see more Muslims unafraid of looking at it critically.
So, while I regret the harsh tone I used in this post, I still solidly stand by what I have said.
Salam all,
Drima, this touches on the discussions we’ve had previously in the past.
In this case, I’m sure you’d guess I agree with H.A.
Something which might be worth considering is the importance of the environment (be it political, economical, social and above all religious) in which Sharia laws would be derived.
Surely having a true Islamic environment (governing the areas I mentioned above) would make it more likely that ‘true’ Sharia will be implemented.
As for those you described who use something ‘holy’ as a shield, they have had their fair share of critics who could clearly see their application of Islam was just not true to our religion. We, unfortunately, live in an environment which permits them to rise to powerful and influential positions (e.g. lack of education, post-WW2 geography, etc.)
Just because they exploited the concept of Sharia and an environment which makes it difficult to implement the right type of Sharia, doesn’t make Sharia wrong.
Hope I’m making sense. Its quite late and feeling the after-effects of lack of sleep!
To Andrew Brehm,
You may actually be correct in some of your points BUT who is to say that there aren’t thousands or hundreds of thousands of females in the West who aren’t reporting the crimes either? Not every women in the world will report the crime. That’s just a fact.
“What the statistics tell me is that Sharia makes women afraid to admit that they have been raped.”
But why would you assume that women just get raped regularly and shut up about it? Arab women as I’ve known them to be, tend to not take a whole lot of bull so I highly doubt it. Even if this were the case, do you really believe that after decades of it going on, they’d ALL be silent? It would have been heard about by now.
But even so, the Sharia, as stated before, does NOT punish the victim so they would have absolutely no reason to not report it. This practice in fact ENCOURAGES the woman to report it as soon as possible. Personally, I believe the statistics to be at the very least, pretty accurate. Not exactly accurate because of the reasons you have stated before but I do believe it is less likely for a woman to be raped over there. Call me biased but that’s just me.
By the way, I am not that great a fan of Saudia Arabia. I disagree with many things done over there. I am merely using them as an example.
And Br. Drima,
I see what you’re saying but I just wish you could differentiate more between the “Utopian” or “True Sharia” as you call it and the one that’s played around with today. Mainly because I see that you do have quite a bit of influence around here and I don’t wish for anyone to be confused about the religion. It’s been through enough these past years.
Maybe give it a different name….. “the psuedo-sharia” would be nice…
Hiya Drima,
I’m a bit late on the scene here, and since I consider myself to be pretty much agnostic these days much of what I say is probably negated by that, BUT I just thought I’d add my personal view on this issue.
You probably know by now how I feel about Sharia, which is that in all its forms, even the ‘utopian’ kind, Sharia is pretty much rubbish. This was my stand even when I was still a believing Muslim. Why? Well even if it is ‘derived’ from the Qur’an (forget about the Sunnah, I’ll deal with that in a bit), the people who did the deriving are still fallible men, so who’s to say the derivation process itself was foolproof?
Sorry, I’m not buying that those guys got it right. They would still have derived Sharia according to their own personal interpretations and biases. Plus I don’t recall God saying anywhere “Hey feel free to arbitrarily derive a legal system from my Holy Book and impose it onto all those born Muslim everywhere in the world, for all time.” Oh no, those fallible men decided to do that all on their own.
And I don’t even bother to debate the Sunnah or Hadith anymore. Hadith is the ultimate manifestation of Chinese Whispers…you have absolutely no way of verifying whether what someone said happened actually did happen. It’s nothing more than oral history, and oral history is, again, fallible. So in my opinion deriving something from the Hadith and implementing it as a legal ruling in the real world is plainly insane.
Sorry if my comments come across as a bit harsh, but as someone who’s been forced to live under a ‘mild’ version of Sharia all my life, I don’t have much appreciation for it at all.
“even if it is ‘derived’ from the Qur’an (forget about the Sunnah, I’ll deal with that in a bit), the people who did the deriving are still fallible men,”
Ah, thank you Sheema. Hence my remark “Sharia is NOT holy and NEVER will be”
“Why? Well even if it is ‘derived’ from the Qur’an (forget about the Sunnah, I’ll deal with that in a bit), the people who did the deriving are still fallible men, so who’s to say the derivation process itself was foolproof?”
I just don’t get why there’s always this jump from the Quran (or Allah) to these fallible men. What about the man in between who was the first to explain and implement the Sharia? Why are we all so quick to jump to the conclusion that all these people who derived the laws from the book were only in it for their gain. We’d all be ready to believe that Ghandi was a selfless man who did things to teach the world for the better, yet the companions of the man we believe to have been the most infallible human being to be these evil, agenda having creatures.
Sheema, this may not apply to you or anyone else if you do not believe in Muhammed (p.b.u.h.). But to those of us who do, can I ask why the picture is painted so?
“It’s nothing more than oral history, and oral history is, again, fallible.”
And for clarification purposes only, it is not purely oral. The hadiths, like the Quran, have not only been narrated but written throughout time, as far back as the seventh century A.D.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html
And contrary to what may be believed, there IS a process to authenticating a hadith. Here for those who wish to see it. Mind you these are the basics:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/brief1/
Hi H.A.,
Let me just say that I do respect your attempts to justify Sharia, because I was once in that position myself. Just a few quick responses to your points:
1) I don’t believe Islam ever taught that Muhammad was infallible - that should be reserved for God alone - but I believe this is a misconception that’s been taught to Muslims through the ages. I don’t know who started it but it’s a bit akin to idol worship. Regardless, even if he WAS infallible, it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of what he practised was meant for his time and culture - it doesn’t necessarily translate well to the rest of us. Unfortunately many Sharia scholars have failed to understand this crucial point. This is not to say that they’re evil or have an agenda, H.A. - simply fallible, like you and me.
2)Yes hadiths have been written down through time, AFTER the initial verbal transmission. Again, everything is ultimately derived from oral history. And note that they are only BELIEVED to date from a certain time - there’s no way of verifying whether that’s true or not. And who’s to say nothing was changed or lost during the transcribing process? For personal belief this is fine, but for devising a legal system to be forced upon entire communities is a different thing altogether.
3) Authentication of hadith, again, is carried out by fallible men, and sometimes they can’t even reach a consensus on that either. So as far as I’m concerned that doesn’t legitimise anything at all.
The latest from another “sharia court”:
Raouf Amin el-Arabi, a doctor who has been serving the Saudi royal family for about 20 years, was convicted last year of giving a patient the wrong medication. Egyptian newspapers reported that he was accused of driving a Saudi princess “to addiction.”
He initially was sentenced to seven years in prison and 700 lashes, but when he appealed two months ago, the judge not only upheld the conviction, but more than doubled the penalty to 15 years in prison and 1,500 lashes.
Family members, friends and colleagues gathered at the headquarters of Egypt’s doctors’ union in downtown Cairo and urged Saudi King Abdullah to pardon el-Arabi.
“My children want their father to return swiftly and safely,” the doctor’s wife Fathiya el-Hindawi told the Associated Press. “I hope the king will give them back their smiles.”
She maintained her 53-year-old husband was innocent and feared he would die if given the full penalty.
“1,500 lashes is unprecedented in the history of Islam,” read one banners carried by protesters. “Who is responsible for the humiliation of our doctors abroad?” read another.
I expect that H.A. will rush to explain that it was just another misinterpretation of the sharia law. It is interesting that the holy ground of Saudi Arabia, where everything should be super perfect, is home to the most revolting miscarriages of justice.
You’ve done it again Sheema.
Thanks for speaking what’s pretty much on my mind too.
Eva, while the holiest city for Muslims is in Saudi Arabia, the system of Sharia practiced is mostly a system of repulsive cultural practices mixed with religion, and perceived as religious.
Either way, it’s disgusting what Wahhabism is doing there and to the world.
“But why would you assume that women just get raped regularly and shut up about it? Arab women as I’ve known them to be, tend to not take a whole lot of bull so I highly doubt it.”
As far as I know Muslim women in the west are less likely to report rape than Christian women. I don’t believe they suddenly “lost” the custom of standing up for themselves when they moved to the west.
“I don’t believe Islam ever taught that Muhammad was infallible - that should be reserved for God alone - but I believe this is a misconception that’s been taught to Muslims through the ages. I don’t know who started it but it’s a bit akin to idol worship.”
Precisely. And idol worship is one of the most dangerous sins, as we have been shown again and again.
“Either way, it’s disgusting what Wahhabism is doing there and to the world.”
Wahabis are heretics.
Do you think a Jew could move to Medina and live there and live his religion like Muhammed’s constitution for Medina once stipulated? Which law is the highest law in Saudi Arabia? Muhammed’s or Saud’s?
Drima:
First of all, i have not read all the comments since my last one. When reading this comment, please take this into consideration.
I would like to repeat my question, since i cannot seem to find a direct answer in your comment:
Drima, if i write about what you just stated over in my blog, would you care do involve yourself in a serious discussion about it?
You are making a major error here, Drima. First of all, you classify Reza Aslan (who is he?) and Tariq Ramadan as “major Muslim scholars”, which they are not and never was. You should distinguise between scholars (3lama2) and preachers, these are not 3olama2, neither is Amr Khaled or his likes, no one in the learned muslim circles disagree on this, not even Amr Khaled himself. By taking these preachers and elevating them to the level of the 3olama2, you can proove disagreement about everything - even Tawheed. When one speaks about the concensus of the scholars, these are not taking into consideration. Please keep this in mind.
Second, you attribute difference of opinion regarding the Shari’ah according to the four Mazhabs. Allow me to clarify that none of these schools disagree about the issues that you so heavily critisized, in fact they unanimously agree. The disagreement between these schools lies only in details in fiqh, for example, should one place his hands above or below his navel while praying? Should one double the Iqamah as one does with the Adhan or not? etc.
I would like to have this question of mine answered. If you like, i can point out where i disagree with you over here, the important part in my question is that i would like to to engage yourself seriously. If you don’t do this, none of us will move anywere with this discussion, and we might as well stop here.
Andrew Brehm:
Yet again, you display a gross ignorance about Islamic Law…
“Yet again, you display a gross ignorance about Islamic Law…”
You meant to say “yet again, I feel compelled to disagree with you”, probably for the sake of disagreement too.
I didn’t even make statements about Islamic law or how to interpret it up there. But you have arrived at the conclusion that I am wrong about it and ignorant.
Aren’t you sick of playing that game and don’t you feel that it might be wrong to be so arrogant as to use the phrase “yet again” in combination with an unwarranted insult?
We have had disagreements, just as you have disagreements with some Islamic scholars that I agree with. But to conclude from that that _I_ am “ignorant” and you are not is folly.
I think to call Shariah or any interpretation of it “Islamic law” one would have to prove that it indeed comes from G-d, and not just that other people have thought so in the past.
G-d is presumably powerful enough to enforce whatever law he feels we forgot to enforce.
I also think that the reason we put murderers and thieves in prison is not to punish them (that is G-d’s prerogative and will happen whether we build prisons or not) but to stop them from murdering or thieving again. We do not have the right to punish, only G-d does. But we do have the right to protect ourselves and each other.
Similarly, the death penalty should not be used as punishment but only to protect the world against particularly dangerous criminals with many powerful allies. We do not have the right to take lives. Only G-d does.
Andrew
(Again “ignorant” when it comes to Islamic law, but showing respect for G-d and His children that “Islamic” law forgets to show.)
Well in fact you did right here:
“Do you think a Jew could move to Medina and live there and live his religion like Muhammed’s constitution for Medina once stipulated? Which law is the highest law in Saudi Arabia? Muhammed’s or Saud’s?”
- That IS making a statement about Islamic law, since you claim that the law of Muhammad (saws) gives jews right to live in Madinah, whilst the laws of Ibn Saud does not.
“Aren’t you sick of playing that game and don’t you feel that it might be wrong to be so arrogant as to use the phrase “yet again” in combination with an unwarranted insult?”
- Ignorance is not an insult. It is not even a disgrace, only if it is not admitted. We are all ignorant. So ask the people of Dhikr if you do not know! (Quranic quote).
By “yet again”, you know what i refer to, and as such, i will not bother going into details with it. All i want you to do is reflect.
My intention was originally to let my above comment to you stand alone, making you search for information about what you just was stating, and thus realizing by yourself that it’s completely wrong. However, as you do not show any sign of caring to remove misleading information from your tongue, i will provide you with information about the subject. So be brave and pay attention.
First of all, you declare salafi’s (they like to be called salafi’s so i will refer to them as such) heretics, and then support the idea that believing in Muhammad’s (pbuh) infabillity is akin to idol-worship, which is in fact a salafi innovation that was not known except amongst the Salafi’s and their precedessors among the muslim scholars! To me, this seems like yet another of the gross misunderstadings about Salafism that is dominant among non-muslims and many secular muslims. They seem to believe that Salafism is ultra-conservatism and extremism per definition. This notion is far from the truth. While the salafis indeed held a very litteral approach to the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah (similar but not identical to some of the early Hanbali’s), they are just another islamic school of thought - just like Orthodox Sunnism and Mainstream Shiism (Ja’fari). It can be said that Salafism is in fact an interpretation of Sunni Islam, but i prefer to label them as a kind of Reformist Sunnites, in opposition to the Orthodox Sunnites. As such, you can find extremist salafis - just like among the sunnites and the shiites - moderate salafis and even secular salafis. As salafism remains dominant in the Arab Middle East, many secular arabs who remains muslim in their faith hold salafi beliefs, just as many turkish secularists who remain muslims hold orthodox or even sufi beliefs with regards to islamic theology.
Signs of salafism can even be found in people like Naser Khader, a controversial danish PM and self-proclaimed “ultra-light” muslim. He wrote a book called “Ære og Skam” (Honour and Shame) in which he tries to explain Islam to his fellow non-muslim danish citizens. Aside from a lot of statements in the very same book that according to many muslims is heresy if not apostasy, he gives a clear notion that he’s approach to Islamic theology is more salafi than it is orthodox.
Like a protestant can be staunchly fanatic in his religion, he can also be a moderate. The same with many other christian sects, and the same with Salafis.
Of course, as Salafi’s - NOT unlike the Orthodox Sunnites and the Shiites - believe in the absolute validity of the Shari’ah, one can ask himself if a secularist who oppose the Shari’ah can still remain a salafi? Indeed, this is a valid question, but is just as valid with regards to Orthodox Sunni secularists and shia ones.
With regards to this statement of yours:
“Do you think a Jew could move to Medina and live there and live his religion like Muhammed’s constitution for Medina once stipulated? Which law is the highest law in Saudi Arabia? Muhammed’s or Saud’s?”
I say:
It is well-known that Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) signed an agreement with the jews, allowing them to live in Madinah. When jews no longer are allowed to live in Madinah, you simply assume that this is an innovation carried out by Ibn Saud. However, the jews were in fact expelled from Arabia as early as in Umar’s (May Allah be pleased with him) time as a caliph. Imam Malik (May Allah be pleased with him) narrates in his Muwatta that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that two religions shall never co-exist in Arabia. And that when it came to the knowledge of Umar (ra) that the Prophet said so, he began a search to verify this saying, and when it was verified, he expelled the jews from their settlements in Arabia. As the jews in Fadak once concluded an agreement with the Prophet (pbuh) that they could hold half of the land in Fadak, Umar (ra) gave them the value of half of the land in gold and silver etc, and expelled them.
So on the contrary, this prohibition is derived from a saying of Muhammad (saws) and Umar’s (ra) ruling upon it, which stands fine in line with the Prophets (saws) saying: “Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided caliphs”.
Ibn Saud (i’m supposing you are referring to Muhammad ibn Saud or King Abdulaziz ibn Saud, as the man named “Saud” was just a tribal leader in Najd) has nothing to do with this prohibition.
And the doctrine that we are “children of God” is not something i want you to ascribe to our islamic faith. In Islam, man is a servant for God. Restrictively.
Disclaimer: I do not adhere to Salafism in any way, i am an orthodox sunni-muslim who oppose many aspects of Salafism. But right should be right.
No, Ahmad, accusing someone of ignorance IS an insult, namely when it is done over disagreement.
There are Muslim scholars that I agree with and Muslim scholars I disagree with. The fact that you and I agree with different scholars doesn’t make me “ignorant”. THAT was the insult.
It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has different laws than Muhammed enforced. It has nothing to do with land bought or sold. I am not saying that Jews OWN parts of Medina, I am saying that Jews have an ancient right to LIVE in Medina. That was the case under Muhammed and isn’t the case now. Clearly Saudi law supersedes Islamic law in their view. I didn’t say that was a particular Wahabi innovation.
“And the doctrine that we are “children of God” is not something i want you to ascribe to our islamic faith. In Islam, man is a servant for God. Restrictively.”
First of all, I _didn’t_ ascribe the concept to whatever you call Islam. I said that I see it that way.
To me G-d is our father and king.
And yes, I do think that assumptions of infallibility are dangerously close to idol worship. And I believe that Muhammed agreed with me which is why he kept telling people that people must only worship G-d. The _ONLY_ perfect entity is G-d.
If (what you call) Islam sees it differently, that again doesn’t demonstrate my ignorance but perhaps your arrogance.
Also note that I do not accept that you speak of Islam. You and I both speak for ourself. It is for G-d alone to decide which of our views is “Islam” (submission to His will). _I_ am not afraid of His decision and hence don’t feel the need to convince people that my view must not be doubted in this life.
“No, Ahmad, accusing someone of ignorance IS an insult, namely when it is done over disagreement.”
- It is not a matter of disagreement here, it is a matter of fact. It is a matter of you taking half the story and derive rulings from it, when you ignore the rest of the story.
“It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has different laws than Muhammed enforced”
- That is indeed a fact, but not in this case. Just another assumption of yours.
” I am not saying that Jews OWN parts of Medina, I am saying that Jews have an ancient right to LIVE in Medina. That was the case under Muhammed and isn’t the case now.”
- Man did you even READ what i was writing or what?
“And yes, I do think that assumptions of infallibility are dangerously close to idol worship”
- A salafi innovation. Both the Orthodox Sunnites and the Shiites disagree with you on this.
Infabillity of the Prophet (saw) is not close to idol worship, since the Prophet (saw) is infallible by the grace of God. He is infallible so that he can serve as a reference for us on how to worship the Creator.
Among muslims, this argumentation of yours is found only among salafis and perhaps about the new-age movement among certain “muslims”, such as Rashad Khalifa’s movement.
“First of all, I _didn’t_ ascribe the concept to whatever you call Islam. I said that I see it that way.
…
…
If (what you call) Islam sees it differently, that again doesn’t demonstrate my ignorance but perhaps your arrogance.
Also note that I do not accept that you speak of Islam. You and I both speak for ourself. It is for G-d alone to decide which of our views is “Islam” (submission to His will). _I_ am not afraid of His decision and hence don’t feel the need to convince people that my view must not be doubted in this life.”
- Keep saying that, as long as you do not ascribe anything to my religion, its fine with me.
“It is not a matter of disagreement here, it is a matter of fact.”
That is another matter of disagreement.
You are arrogant enough to claim that your particular view is not only more Islamic than other views but also the only Islamic view.
That is despite the fact that many Islamic scholars disagree with you.
FACT is that current Saudi law is different from Muhammed’s law.
And it seems to me like most of the things now taken for granted by Muslims are not statements taken from the Quran but statements assigned to Muhammed long after his death.
What, apart from your claim that I am ignorant if I don’t, would compel me to believe that what people claim Muhammed said were really his words, let alone messages from G-d?
I do believe that if the Quran is the word of G-d, it would certainly tell us all those things that are so super-important and not have us rely on second-hand stories about what a prophet might or might not have said.
If you find a statement in the Quran supporting your views, that’s fine with me. But if your argument regarding what is Islam and what is not relies on information not found in the Quran, I respectfully decline to be called “ignorant” for disagreeing with you.
Drima, did you just delete my last message or did i just forget to hit “submit”? If you did, please tell me what i said that was wrong so that i can refrain from saying it again.
Andrew:
“No, Ahmad, accusing someone of ignorance IS an insult, namely when it is done over disagreement.”
- Well i apologize then, but i will maintain that it was not done over disagreement but over facts - you claimed something to be from the law of Ibn Sa’ud and not from the law of Muhammad, even through history states otherwise. Such is ignorance, and i apologize if its an insult, but i cannot really find other words for it.
“It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has different laws than Muhammed enforced.”
- Indeed.
“It has nothing to do with land bought or sold.”
- Who said that? They were expelled by the rightly guided caliph of the muslims, a ruling based on a saying of the Prophet (saws).
” I am not saying that Jews OWN parts of Medina, I am saying that Jews have an ancient right to LIVE in Medina. That was the case under Muhammed and isn’t the case now. Clearly Saudi law supersedes Islamic law in their view. ”
- Right here, you state that jews according to Islamic Law have a right to live in Madinah. That is not the case, and is a result of picking up some historical evidence while leaving out others just because they do not suit your view. Read my last post. If you like the exact reference from the Muwatta (which is in fact a book on islamic law based on hadith, a fiqh-work and a hadith-collection), then let me know.
“First of all, I _didn’t_ ascribe the concept to whatever you call Islam. I said that I see it that way.”
- Islam is the teaching of Muhammad (saws) and the Prophets before him (as) as taught by the Quran and the Sunnah. Thats what i call Islam. And as long as you dont ascribe that concept to this belief, then keep on saying whatever you like. Does’nt bother me at all.
“To me G-d is our father and king.”
- You have the right to believe that.
“And yes, I do think that assumptions of infallibility are dangerously close to idol worship.”
- Like i said, that is a salafi innovation. Both Sunni and Shia agree that the Prophet (saw) was indeed infallible, and even Salafi’s believe that the Prophet (saws) were infallible in conveying the message.
The need for the Prophets (saws) infabillity is clear and has nothing to do with idol worship, and is in fact quite different from the infabillity of the Almighty. The Prophet’s (saws) manners had to be free from error and mistake, because he is the last Prophet (saws) who serves as an example for mankind for eternity. And with regards to conveying Gods message, there is absolute consensus among the muslims that the Prophet (saws) was infallible in this matter - if he was not, then the whole revelation would require another Prophet to provide us with the correct message, as this one is mixed with mistakes. And the Quran explicitly states that Muhammad (saws) is the last Prophet.
Claiming the Prophets (saw) infabillity is only idol-worship if one likens it to the infabillity of the creator. Attributes being identical in name does not mean that they are identical in nature. For example, man hear and see - so does the Almighty according to the Qur’an, where he describes himself “vision” and “hearing” (Al-Sami’ al-Basir = The Hearing, The Seeing). In an authentic hadith, it is mentioned that Allah Almighty created Adam (as) in his own Surah (image, form), understood by sunnis (as stated by Ibn Hajar in his sharh) to mean that mankind share some attributes of the almighty, like hearing and vision, without these being similar in nature to the vision and the sight of the creator. Is it then also idol-worship to say that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) was hearing and seeing, because this is an attribute that Allah (tt) ascribes to himself?
“Also note that I do not accept that you speak of Islam. You and I both speak for ourself. ”
- You are free to disagree with me in any matter.
“_I_ am not afraid of His decision ”
- Fearing God is called “taqwa” in Islam, and Allah orders mankind to do just that many times in the Quran.
If you are a jew or a christian or even a zartosht, feel free to view that your religion is the truth, by i honestly do not see the need of ascribing the word “Islam” to it (although the meaning of the word might fit). After all, the jews call themself jews, christians call themself christians and so forth, why claim their beliefs in a name already being used by another religion?
I could then also call myself a “christian”, because i accept the message of the Christ (Isa bin Maryam peace be upon him), which will only cause confusion and nothing else.
Sorry, ignore the last message of mine. My reply and Andrew Brehms counter-reply were absent. Sorry guys, that did indeed only cause confusion
“That is despite the fact that many Islamic scholars disagree with you”
- Well…….. With regards to the like of Abdul-Hadi Palazzi (who is pretty much unknown and who seemlingly stands in opposition to the rest of the muslim scholars), Irshad Manji (dont get me started) and Rashad Khalifa, i simply do not see them as muslim scholars apart from Abdul-Hadi Palazzi whom i have not yet found enough reliable information.
Like a jew would not recognize the Neturei Karta or other lone opinions as being a genuine matter of disagreement inside judaism, neither do i see this as a matter of disagreement.
What is worse - FAR WORSE! - is that you assign yourself to the likes of Rashad Khalifa (who was declared an apostate for claiming prophethood as far as i have heard) who denies an integral part of Islam, the Sunnah, in favor of a Quran-Only view, and then stick to issues found only in Hadith! The constitution of Madinah is not in the Quran, it is in the hadith! And yet you refuse to accept another narration on this particular matter, because it is not in the Quran. Well if you believe only in the Quran, why write line after line about the constitution of Madinah in the first place then? Is this because you only accept ahadith when they suit you?
You are right. This is not ignorance. This is something else, which i will not mention out of sincere respect for you.
“FACT is that current Saudi law is different from Muhammed’s law.”
- Indeed.
“You are arrogant enough to claim that your particular view is not only more Islamic than other views but also the only Islamic view.”
- Well, a saying by the Prophet of Islam, ruled upon by the rightly guided caliph Umar al-Farooq (do you know the meaning of Farooq and why i was called that?)….
Perhaps the notion that ‘Umar (ra) acted upon it is also not something that should be taken seriously according to you, given the fact that it is based on oral traditions. I think that you however earlier, over at my blog, argued about something based on ‘Umars (ra) rulings… Wonder where you get that from? Did you meet him in person?
“I do believe that if the Quran is the word of G-d, it would certainly tell us all those things that are so super-important and not have us rely on second-hand stories about what a prophet might or might not have said.”
- That is a whole other discussion, and is in fact a statement that have been refuted a millions of time. If you like, i can direct you to some of these refutations, but right now, i want to stay at topic. Sorry.
Andrew
You are so stubbornly insisting on the Jewish right to live in Saudi Arabia, but as a matter of fact I think you are the only Jew I know who wants to live there. Leave Saudi Arabia to the Arabs, we don’t need it.
Incidentally I used to work for one Israeli company that was selling security equipment right for their biggest oil field, they called it Ghawar I think. And there was a constant headache because of the travel ban. The only people who could easily get there were our dealers from UAE who could not properly support even a computer mouse let alone digital surveillance appliances. We had a few Israelis though holding a second passport and those did go there and they found nothing particularly exciting about that country, No one asked to be sent there for the second time.
I asked:
“do you know the meaning of Farooq and why i was called that?)….”
What i meant was:
And why HE was called that?
Sorry about that.
With regards to Saudi Arabia, i should mention that i’ve visited the country before, and i can say that only the holy sites make the country special to me, there is sooo much that i dislike about that country, especially the government.
Okay, I know nothing about what I have patiently tried to read, and then ultimately scrolled down to offer my thoughts. All I can think about, and did so in the middle of the night last night, is my understanding, through the media, of what happened to this girl. She is raped by three men, then when her parents dare to protest to the authorities, she is charged with adultery. Then, stoned to death. I tried to imagine that: rock after rock, breaking her nose, a small crack in her skull, then finally enough rocks until her head is broken down to a pulp. I wonder if the rock throwers wished they could have given her a “go” before murdering her. I have always felt sorry for women in those countries, forced to wear all that gear. Now I know, they are smart; if someone sees the slightest inkling of a feminine body, they might be raped, then charged with adultery, then rightly stoned to death. I’d have to say, again, I am not informed about sharia law. I see a truly barbaric system towards woman, and am thankful I don’t live there, but sorry for the women that do. That poor girl; what a life she had. I hope it was good before the end.
All the crap above about what the holy book says or doesn’t say is a pack of academic breast-beating. You have lost the plot. The bottom line is that a little girl was stoned to death. THAT IS WHAT HAS STOP. Instead of Bush worrying about who’s got his oil, let’s ALL worry about dragging these assholes into at least the 20th century.
“All the crap above about what the holy book says or doesn’t say is a pack of academic breast-beating”
I dont think the discussion qualifies as ACADEMIC, as it is not based on scientific methods.
It’s a religious discussion and it reminds me of the medieval discussion in Europe among “scolars”: How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
Unfortunately the results of this kind of discussions influence the lives of a lot of people, who have to submit to the nutty conclusions.
David:
“All the crap above about what the holy book says or doesn’t say is a pack of academic breast-beating. You have lost the plot. The bottom line is that a little girl was stoned to death. THAT IS WHAT HAS STOP. Instead of Bush worrying about who’s got his oil, let’s ALL worry about dragging these assholes into at least the 20th century.”
- I disagree with you on that. If someone wants to analyze a certain practice, one has to know the origin of it. If it is a genuine islamic obligation, then outlawing it with force on a world-wide basis could be seen as an attack on the freedom of religion. That is matters that simply HAS to be discussed when dealing with such a matter. For a non-religious person who does not care about any holy book, but who however respect human rights, such a matter is not to be taken lightly, although i do admit that i have experienced extremism under the name of “secularism”.
I am not the non-religious person mentioned, just in case
“I dont think the discussion qualifies as ACADEMIC, as it is not based on scientific methods.
It’s a religious discussion and it reminds me of the medieval discussion in Europe among “scolars”: How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?”
- Danish, right? I’m almost 100% certain that you are
I agree that it is not academic and that it is not aimed to be, it is a religious discussion between two people who (i believe) both see themselves as religious persons.
“Unfortunately the results of this kind of discussions influence the lives of a lot of people, who have to submit to the nutty conclusions.”
- Who HAVE to submit? If you refer to the discussion between me and Andrew Brehm, i might ask you which people has to submit to the laws about jews living in Madinah? Jews who want to live in Madinah? Like Nobody stated, these are vert few. We also discussion matters like the infabillity of the Prophet and so forth, tell my which people has to submit to what i brought forward or what Andrew brought forward?
I recommend you to read the history of the theological disputes in Islam and to see how it influenced the muslim world. You portray it as being similar to that of Medieval Europe, but in fact it was much more enriching for the muslim world at its time. If you really are danish (and you better be! :P), i can direct you to some danish academical experts on this subject.
This seems like another of the secularist anti-religious statements. I have written an article about Denmark and its alleged xenophobia, i hope that you will read it with an open mind.
Leave a Comment