U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2015, 10:54 AM
 
1,601 posts, read 751,221 times
Reputation: 435

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Much of it is in the eyes of the beholder.

I for one find incarceration to be a very cruel punishment, depriving a person of privacy and freedom, caged like a captive beast in a compound filled with the dirges of humanity. Little is gained, the incarcerated make no cotribution or restitution for their crimes, often innocent family members also suffer by the loss. Our prison system has become a major industry and we have the largest prison population in the world, with no indication of crime reduction. but I am not advocating any state or nation abandon their system of Criminal Jurisprudence. A nation should have the right to utilize the legal system the majority agrees with.

while amputation for theft is very drastic and quite reprehensible, it should also be known that under Sharia is is not used for a first time offens, it is not to be used for the theft of necessities such as food or clothing, the theft must be the personal property of a non-relative, it must exceed a certain value, the owner must have had it in a secure location and not in public view, the theft must be witnessed, the theif must have made a finacial gain and must have been given an opportunity to make full restitution and refused to do so. It is not a punishment likely to be used if actual Shariah under one of the 4 madhabs is followed.
I'm ignoring your first paragraph, which is a red herring.

You say "amputation for theft is very drastic and quite reprehensible" and then go on to defend it.

The issue here isn't simply that "A group representing Muslim physicians has defied the Health Ministry and Malaysian Medical Association on the hudud issue, saying that its members will amputate limbs"

We are discussing Muslim doctors and how frightening it is that there are many in the USA and what horrors some of them have done. If you think doctors should be putting Shariah Law above the Hippocratic Oath and inflicting this kind of "drastic and quite reprehensible" punishment, that's your moral code. I will have none of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2015, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,279,617 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by juju33312 View Post
I'm ignoring your first paragraph, which is a red herring.

You say "amputation for theft is very drastic and quite reprehensible" and then go on to defend it.

The issue here isn't simply that "A group representing Muslim physicians has defied the Health Ministry and Malaysian Medical Association on the hudud issue, saying that its members will amputate limbs"

We are discussing Muslim doctors and how frightening it is that there are many in the USA and what horrors some of them have done. If you think doctors should be putting Shariah Law above the Hippocratic Oath and inflicting this kind of "drastic and quite reprehensible" punishment, that's your moral code. I will have none of it.
I am not defending nor condemning it, I am stating what it actually is under Shariah.

All Muslims, including Muslim doctors, are obligates by Islam to obey all the laws of the nation they live in, if they can not do so they have an Islamic duty to leave the nation.

the US and most Islamic Nations are not under Shariah law. An individual is not to enforce Shariah on their own. It is a complete legal system that requires, courts, lawyers, fair trials and judges. Under the Hanafi Madhab of Shariah a Judge is to first find reason to dismiss the charges, if that can not be justified he must find justification to impose the lightest sentence possible. The purpose of Shariah is not to punish the quilty but to find restitution for the injured. That should be a judges main concern. I forgot which Shariah scholar said this but one of the formers of Shariah stated "If a judge sentences more than one person to death, during his entire career, he has abused his powers as a judge."
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
I am not defending nor condemning it, I am stating what it actually is under Shariah.

All Muslims, including Muslim doctors, are obligated by Islam to obey all the laws of the nation they live in, if they can not do so they have an Islamic duty to leave the nation.
You got the above wrong.


1. All citizens, including Muslim doctors, are obligated by a country's laws to obey all the laws of the nation they live in, if they can not do so they have an citizen duty to leave the nation.


2. All Muslims, including Muslim doctors, are obligated by Islam to obey all the laws of the Quran they live by, if they can not do so they have an human duty to leave Islam.


As you can see there is an obvious conflict between obeying the country's law or Islamic Law.


A Muslim has entered into a covenant [spiritual agreement or contract] with Allah in accordance with terms and conditions that are stipulated in the Quran [MGA-610] and no where else.
There are no provisions for absolute obedience to earthly [secular] laws in the Quran, therefore for a Muslim, Islamic Laws [in accordance with Quran-MGA-610] must prevail over the Law of a Nation [even if it is an Islamic Nation].


If a Muslim is a minority, there are provisions for him/her to be patient, do his best, compromise certain aspects of Islamic Laws and pretend to comply with the Nation's Law but s/he must always be mindful that Islamic Law is superior and wait for the day Allah will enable Islam to dominate in his circumstances.


The fact that Islam and Shariah insist Islamic Law must prevail over one's country's Law is immoral. This is why we have so much violence and issues with Muslims trying to establish Shariah Laws wherever they are.
Point is what is so great about Shariah Law which is extracted from secondary sources [AHadith] which authority should originate from the Quran [God's word and perfected book] and from a God that do not exists.
Because there is no God, Shariah Law can only be from emotional and psychological grounds and such basis should be the last thing that can authority for any Laws to be imposed on any human in this modern era.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,279,617 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
You got the above wrong.


1. All citizens, including Muslim doctors, are obligated by a country's laws to obey all the laws of the nation they live in, if they can not do so they have an citizen duty to leave the nation.


2. All Muslims, including Muslim doctors, are obligated by Islam to obey all the laws of the Quran they live by, if they can not do so they have an human duty to leave Islam.


As you can see there is an obvious conflict between obeying the country's law or Islamic Law.


A Muslim has entered into a covenant [spiritual agreement or contract] with Allah in accordance with terms and conditions that are stipulated in the Quran [MGA-610] and no where else.
There are no provisions for absolute obedience to earthly [secular] laws in the Quran, therefore for a Muslim, Islamic Laws [in accordance with Quran-MGA-610] must prevail over the Law of a Nation [even if it is an Islamic Nation].


If a Muslim is a minority, there are provisions for him/her to be patient, do his best, compromise certain aspects of Islamic Laws and pretend to comply with the Nation's Law but s/he must always be mindful that Islamic Law is superior and wait for the day Allah will enable Islam to dominate in his circumstances.


The fact that Islam and Shariah insist Islamic Law must prevail over one's country's Law is immoral. This is why we have so much violence and issues with Muslims trying to establish Shariah Laws wherever they are.
Point is what is so great about Shariah Law which is extracted from secondary sources [AHadith] which authority should originate from the Quran [God's word and perfected book] and from a God that do not exists.
Because there is no God, Shariah Law can only be from emotional and psychological grounds and such basis should be the last thing that can authority for any Laws to be imposed on any human in this modern era.

Actually Shariah comes from several soursces not Just the Qur'an and Ahadith and not all from Islam

In the Hanafi the Sources in order of importance are:

Qur'an
Sunnah
Consensus of Scholars
Logic
Local Needs
Local Traditions.

Many probably most scholars of islamic Jurisprudence agree that the Criminal code in shariah never developed and are still in the formulative stage and should not be Used.

While most Islamic Nations use some form of Shariah civil law few have ever used Shariah Criminal law.

On the other hand the Civil codes are very well formulated, but can only be used among consenting, Muslim adults.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
Actually Shariah comes from several soursces not Just the Qur'an and Ahadith and not all from Islam
If you construct the Shariah from sources other than from within the ambit of the Quran-MGA-610, you are defying Allah and creating your own form of Islam which is a sin.

Quote:
In the Hanafi the Sources in order of importance are:

Qur'an
Sunnah
Consensus of Scholars
Logic
Local Needs
Local Traditions.

Many probably most scholars of islamic Jurisprudence agree that the Criminal code in shariah never developed and are still in the formulative stage and should not be Used.

While most Islamic Nations use some form of Shariah civil law few have ever used Shariah Criminal law.

On the other hand the Civil codes are very well formulated, but can only be used among consenting, Muslim adults.
In principle [note principle] the Quran [MGA-610] is the primary authority of Islam and its way of life.
Therefore the Sharia in principle must conform to whatever principles are in the Quran and no where else.
Now if Scholars arrived at consensus based on logic, analogy, local needs, local traditions, and whatever, the Sharia law must still conform to whatever principles are in the Quran and no where else. This is because the Quran is the only source of Allah ordinations and final arbiter of whatever is Islamic.


For example if due to local needs, some Scholars introduced 'love your enemies' as a maxim, rule or Law, that is not permissible because such a maxim do not comply with any principles the Quran.
It is the same if 'pork, alcohol, gambling, interest is allowed. Such can never be allowed as Sharia Law [fard?] because they defy what is in the Quran.
Hope you understand this principle? Agree?


The above principle should apply to the Sunnah. The Sunnah [however it is arrive at] is only valid [wajib] if it comply with the principles in the Quran, i.e. God words.


Since the above is the principle of how the Sunnah should work, many of the existing Sunnahs in the various Ahadith cannot be wajib.
For example, the stoning to death law for adultery cannot be wajib because it is not represented in the Quran at all.
The growing of beard by men cannot be wajib because it is not stated in the Quran.


Note my point on 'obeying' the Messenger [the warner, conveyer]. 'Obeying' the messenger for the matters of Islam must be within the ambit of the Quran.
Any sayings and acts by Muhammad outside the ambit of the Quran is fard.


Anything that is claimed to be Islamic but it is outside the ambit of the Quran [MGA-610] that would tantamount to corruption of the texts just as Muhammad was accusing the Jews and Christians of doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2015, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
10,732 posts, read 31,784,257 times
Reputation: 6774
I am not a muslim but I don't know that I can identify what I am.

Having said that I wish everyone would just back off and allow others to follow the religion of their conscience and stop with the self absorbed idea that YOU and only you have THE answer for everyone and they must follow YOU and YOUR religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2015, 12:23 AM
 
4,413 posts, read 1,640,943 times
Reputation: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
I am not a muslim but I don't know that I can identify what I am.

Having said that I wish everyone would just back off and allow others to follow the religion of their conscience and stop with the self absorbed idea that YOU and only you have THE answer for everyone and they must follow YOU and YOUR religion.
I am a Muslim, and I 100% agree.
We all have intelligence. If we wanted to find God or Religion we will do our own research and find our own answers.

No need of a person A telling person B to follow a certain faith or my faith is better than yours.

Let everyone make their own choices based on free will. Live and let live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2015, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,279,617 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
I am not a muslim but I don't know that I can identify what I am.

Having said that I wish everyone would just back off and allow others to follow the religion of their conscience and stop with the self absorbed idea that YOU and only you have THE answer for everyone and they must follow YOU and YOUR religion.
I am another Muslim who agrees with you 100%
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2015, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
I am a Muslim, and I 100% agree.
We all have intelligence. If we wanted to find God or Religion we will do our own research and find our own answers.

No need of a person A telling person B to follow a certain faith or my faith is better than yours.

Let everyone make their own choices based on free will. Live and let live.
You cannot be that ignorant of your Quran when you decide to post the above bolded statement?


Here is what your Allah said.

9:33. He [Allah] it is who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion [wadeeni] of Truth, that He may cause it [Islam] to prevail over all religion [alddeeni], however much the idolaters [infidels] may be averse.
There are many verses similar to the above that present the Muslims with a sense of false arrogance in thinking Islam and Muslims are superior over everyone and their religions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2015, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,279,617 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
If you construct the Shariah from sources other than from within the ambit of the Quran-MGA-610, you are defying Allah and creating your own form of Islam which is a sin.

In principle [note principle] the Quran [MGA-610] is the primary authority of Islam and its way of life.
Therefore the Sharia in principle must conform to whatever principles are in the Quran and no where else.
Now if Scholars arrived at consensus based on logic, analogy, local needs, local traditions, and whatever, the Sharia law must still conform to whatever principles are in the Quran and no where else. This is because the Quran is the only source of Allah ordinations and final arbiter of whatever is Islamic.


For example if due to local needs, some Scholars introduced 'love your enemies' as a maxim, rule or Law, that is not permissible because such a maxim do not comply with any principles the Quran.
It is the same if 'pork, alcohol, gambling, interest is allowed. Such can never be allowed as Sharia Law [fard?] because they defy what is in the Quran.
Hope you understand this principle? Agree?


The above principle should apply to the Sunnah. The Sunnah [however it is arrive at] is only valid [wajib] if it comply with the principles in the Quran, i.e. God words.


Since the above is the principle of how the Sunnah should work, many of the existing Sunnahs in the various Ahadith cannot be wajib.
For example, the stoning to death law for adultery cannot be wajib because it is not represented in the Quran at all.
The growing of beard by men cannot be wajib because it is not stated in the Quran.


Note my point on 'obeying' the Messenger [the warner, conveyer]. 'Obeying' the messenger for the matters of Islam must be within the ambit of the Quran.
Any sayings and acts by Muhammad outside the ambit of the Quran is fard.


Anything that is claimed to be Islamic but it is outside the ambit of the Quran [MGA-610] that would tantamount to corruption of the texts just as Muhammad was accusing the Jews and Christians of doing.
Sharia came about because the Qur'an is not an instruction manual. It requires the use of reason and thinking. The Madhabs (sharia) developed as a means of relating concepts of order to the physical world.

there are conditions under which it is permissible to do things not covered in the Qur'an. For example it would be permissible to drink alcohol if it was the only way to sustain life. For instance if one was on a life raft in the ocean and the only fluid on the raft was wine. It is permissible to to drink the least amount that will sustain your life. Same goes if one were starving and the only available food was pork. It is permissible to eat the smallest amount needed to stay alive.

the Qur'an is not a hard and fast book of do and don't. It is an error to see every Ayyat as being an absolute command.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top