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.
based on that alone, 'barbaric' muslims would be much much more than 20%.
afterall mixing politics and religion is barbaric.
This is purely a western conception of the world due to their unique history and their problems with mixing their religion with Governance. Most notably the problem was that the Pope commanded eminent domain over the world (but practically only over the Christian world) and thereafter demanded the every King bow and kiss his hand in allegiance. Some did, some did not, a Protestant reformation happened and a whole lot of bloodshed occurred thereafter. After royally losing the battle for eminent domain, the Church decided to let go of the issue and the modern secular nation state was born... Every King made up his own law and his nation was determined over what land he could control, official borders were determined for the first time...and secularism started to spread.
These events didn't happen in the Muslim world and truly it was the introduction of secularism and the European modeled nation-state which entirely screwed up the region. Late in their tenure, the Ottoman's seeked to "modernize" and "westernize" their institutions, not for benevolent reasons but because the Shari'a was too restrictive on what a ruler could and could not do...so secularism was their answer.
ISIS is claiming to have executed those Christians.
The vast majority of us disagree with ISIS and what most of us follow as Islam has very little resemblance to what ISIS calls Islam
.
The only thing all Muslims agree upon is that to be Muslim one must believe there is only one God(swt) and Muhammad(saws) is the messenger of God(swt)
What makes you believe that actual Sharia that follows one of the 4 recognized madhabs is Barbaric.
What would be the result of a poll in tthe USA asking people if they wanted Christian Criminal Law?
How many American;s believe American law is based on Christianity?
every theocracy in history had symptoms of barbarism. what makes you believe those so called 'madhabs' are any different? theory is one thing, reality is another.
every theocracy in history had symptoms of barbarism. what makes you believe those so called 'madhabs' are any different? theory is one thing, reality is another.
As there were situations not fully covered in religion, the Madhabs of Islamic Jurisprudence evolved, They are among the earliest Law Schools. These are the schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)
They re a very complex set of laws and deal with Religious, Criminal and Civil law. They are among the oldest set of laws in history and one of the earliest law codes that gave power to the populace.
While the 4 madhabs are similar, they are not identical and provide a level of flexibility related to local culture and new developments. they are somewhat dynamic and not static.
Generally speaking they set the framework based upon:
Qur'an
Sunnah
Consensus
Analogical Deduction
Juristic Preference
Public Interest
Necessity
Surprisingly the development of Western Law notably in the UK and USA has considerable resemblance to the 4 Madhabs.
An in depth study of even one of the Madhabs requires much more knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence than I have.
A very minimal understanding of the 4 madhabs can be found in these links:
A quote from what I find to be an excellent study of the origins of Shariah
Historical perspective
Quote:
The Islamic schools of thoughts were developed as a natural evolution in the Umayyad time (661-750) when Judges were sent by the Central Government to the newly acquired territories of the Muslim Empire. These Qadhis faced totally new environment and new issues to deal with in these new territories. They tried to base their decisions on Quran and act according to Sunnah. When they could not relate a clear evidence about a specific case in both these resources, they had to judge cases as per their Jurisprudential abilities. This usually included considerations of what was customary in that area. This practice was later known as ‘Opinion or Analogical Reasoning’ (Ra’y and Qiyas)..
As there were situations not fully covered in religion, the Madhabs of Islamic Jurisprudence evolved, They are among the earliest Law Schools. These are the schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)
They re a very complex set of laws and deal with Religious, Criminal and Civil law. They are among the oldest set of laws in history and one of the earliest law codes that gave power to the populace.
While the 4 madhabs are similar, they are not identical and provide a level of flexibility related to local culture and new developments. they are somewhat dynamic and not static.
Generally speaking they set the framework based upon:
Qur'an
Sunnah
Consensus
Analogical Deduction
Juristic Preference
Public Interest
Necessity
Surprisingly the development of Western Law notably in the UK and USA has considerable resemblance to the 4 Madhabs.
An in depth study of even one of the Madhabs requires much more knowledge of Islamic Jurisprudence than I have.
A very minimal understanding of the 4 madhabs can be found in these links:
I'll agree with Woodrow here and note that Muslim rulers whom wanted to become tyrants universally strove to become to secular. For the most part we had very good leadership throughout our history but when one wanted to become tyrannical to either the Muslims or even minorities, the leadership would either ignore the Shari'a...distort the Shari'a...or seek to "modernize" the law as was the case with the Ottoman's.
I'll agree with Woodrow here and note that Muslim rulers whom wanted to become tyrants universally strove to become to secular. For the most part we had very good leadership throughout our history but when one wanted to become tyrannical to either the Muslims or even minorities, the leadership would either ignore the Shari'a...distort the Shari'a...or seek to "modernize" the law as was the case with the Ottoman's.
I agree
Sharia should never be something to be feared, when it is properly followed.
The problems occur when tyrants introduce their own laws and call them Sharia
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.
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.
