|
||||||||||
|
|
How Islamic Law Can Work By Feisal Abdul Rauf Chairman of the How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics in northwest
We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe. But it is important that we understand what is meant by
Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what
we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and
Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah. In The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter. Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam. By Feisal Abdul Rauf | April 23, 2009; 8:16 AM ET Comments Please report offensive comments below. i suppose an example of the compassionate nuanced sophisticated application of sharia might be to adapt the rules to allow the chopping-off of the right hand if the criminal is left handed.... Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 29, 2009 10:49 AM Report Offensive Comment A comment to readers, and in particular to walter-in-fallschurch and Bios, Regarding 771979's description of hand amputations for thieves under Shariah law. I understand the perspective that amputation for theft may have "no place in today's civilized society", but what is that civilized society? There is no singular uber-society, there are many societies with their own organic ways of being. Do you seek to impose purely Western values on what "civilized society" means? To the point: Does the punishment affect the rate of theft? Does it deter theft? There is, to the honest mind, a pure symbolic righteousness to taking the hand that stole. Is that punishment, (especially if true that amputation comes after the third offense), inhumane? In the west, the punishment for theft is usually incarceration for some extended period as an inmate of the state in a penal institution. Does that better deter the crime? Is civilized society more or less effective in protecting civilized society? Posted by: justillthen | April 29, 2009 1:50 AM Report Offensive Comment Hello 771979, This is interesting, your post. My first reaction was the assumption that you defend your religion with the belief that all others are false and degraded. I am sure that is still true, but there is much value in what you write. I am not a believer in the absolutes that you and some of your Abrahamic bretheren hold. All these religions are far too restrictive to the Unlimited and Unknowable that brought this world into being. That said, again, you leave me with much to contemplate. That is a fine thing. Thank you. One of the obvious questions that come up for me is simple.
If Islam is truly about "love, peace, harmony, equality, justice,
righteousness, humility, intellectual development, creative thinking and not
militancy...", then why is it that it's manifestation, from the Taliban
and Al Qaida and Saddam to Posted by: justillthen | April 29, 2009 1:29 AM Report Offensive Comment 77..., Your description of Shariah law and the amputation of a thief’s left hand is perfectly anachronic, it has no place in today’s civilized society. You go on and mention there is a complex sentencing process. Is this supposed to be considered complex & flexible because the hand can be amputated at different places?? Further, the fact that religion is absolute and unchangeable and has to be followed in its entirety by the Shariah is contrary and completely dismisses the flexibility you are trying to pin on the Shariah. Posted by: Bios | April 29, 2009 12:51 AM Report Offensive Comment Rednova, You can’t blame Western colonialism for Muslims’ misfortune. A country is shaped by its own people and at the end of the day every country is what it is because of the people that make it up. The scenario is definitely complex but I think this is the bottom line. Posted by: Bios | April 29, 2009 12:44 AM Report Offensive Comment Shariah can be very sophisticated, as can be other documents on law, however, it might be useless, considering not even the average Muslim understands it. And if I ask, where is the proof that justice is the supreme objective of the Shariah, what will the answer be? In comparison, secular countries (or less religious, if you prefer) like Canada, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. can really brag about having justice, taking care of the poor (regardless of their religion), having relatively peaceful societies, tolerance, etc. The proof is there, religion has to fade away for a better society to exist. Posted by: Bios | April 29, 2009 12:43 AM Report Offensive Comment wmarkw wrote: "They're here largely because they didn't want to live in their backward homelands." And what is the basis of the backwardness? Sharia. Why would anybody go to the trouble of leaving a backward country...and then drag along the vary underpinning of that backwardness? Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 28, 2009 9:30 PM Report Offensive Comment 771979, you had me going there for a while, thinking there might be a way to "modernize" sharia - then you started talking about WHERE to cut off the offending appendage. LOL... sorry, it just sounds like monty python or something. Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 28, 2009 7:32 PM Report Offensive Comment "but if the sentence is pronounced; it creates a great dilemma for the qazi (judge)whether to amputate the hand below the elbow or above depending upon thief's previous crimes and warning. It is a very complex and not a simple process when passing sentences on the criminals." oh my gosh! hilarious. see it's subtle and nuanced? Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 28, 2009 7:28 PM Report Offensive Comment Islam adapts itself to changing time but the original spirit of Islamic injunctions remains unaffected. Islam preaches love, peace, harmony, equality, justice, righteousness, humility, intellectual development, creative thinking and not militancy as I have always said and will always say so. Prophet Mohammed (pubh) despite being persecuted abused and
insulted never resorted to violence against his persecutors in The religion (Deen) and law (Shariah) are the two components of Islam: out of which Deen is absolute and unchangeable and has to be followed in its entirety but the Shariah can on occasions adjust itself to changing times and circumstances but its application must never dither from the Islamic parameters. Sharia is flexible and not rigid as portrayed by anti-Islamic Western media and also because some silly Taliban think so too. Take for instance punishments: Islam does not only insist on awarding punishment to criminals for various offences but its aim is to cultivate and encourage a sort of atmosphere where no crimes are committed and emphasises on eliminating root causes so that crimes do no take place. Where Sharia law and punishment is still practiced; not many people are seen with left hand amputated for stealing because the punishment itself is a great deterrent to prevent the crime. Any way, law is very elaborate: a thief if caught red handed is lightly punished and warned on the first offence but on the third time, if caught red handed and evidence is produced by three trustworthy and reliable members of the society; his left hand should be amputated on the discretion of the qazi(judge) but if the sentence is pronounced; it creates a great dilemma for the qazi (judge)whether to amputate the hand below the elbow or above depending upon thief's previous crimes and warning. It is a very complex and not a simple process when passing sentences on the criminals. But justice must be done to the victim and every opportunity should be given to the criminal to prove his/her innocence in the defence. In the domain of judiciary, equality of all men and women is law, in which even the head of state is not exempt from his subjects and is answerable to them. Saqib Khan Posted by: 771979 | April 28, 2009 6:22 PM Report Offensive Comment Hello Feisal Abdul Rauf, Thank you for what you write here. I appreciate the insight. I cannot say that I am won over by the rationalizations or comparisons, but they are reasonable enough. I can easily understand that I am biased by the information and news that is available to me or surrounds me. I am thankful, on that count, that I live in a more open society where varying opinions and perspectives are tolerated. I can easily engage my mind and heart into contrary points and learn by that engagement. I regret that this freedom of information, perspective, and insight is unavailable in far too much of the world at this time. It is unfortunate that censuring is widespread in much of the middle eastern Islamic countries. Your concepts of Sharia Law are interesting. News outlets in the west often only run articles on Sharia Law that are of the more brutal and, (to me), religiously and sexually discriminating laws and punishments that have become the symbols of harsh intolerance for the western consciousness. Stoning to death of the 'adulterous' women, having just given birth to their bastard child, as the poster girl of brutal and intolerant sexual mores, for example, (with the 'accused' impregnator escaping punishment, of course). From my perspective, these laws most certainly are due to be
"updated" to the current century. I agree with this point of yours.
My question becomes what do you think are the probabilities that Sharia Law is
edited and updated by Islamic authorities? I would venture the guess that it is
highly unlikely to be acted on by radical wings of Islam, vested in a
resurgence of Islam throughout the world, as the Taliban is. Their version of
Islam has Sharia Law as a centerpiece to their movement. Radicalism is on the
upswing in Islam. How does it get revised? The imams of Posted by: justillthen | April 28, 2009 3:15 PM Report Offensive Comment Feisal Abdul Rauf, continued: You write: "Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah." This seems a bit unclear. Reading between the lines, and lines that you later write, I might conclude that you are saying that muslim countries have inherently unfair penal codes for the modern era, (if they ever were 'fair'), and that they also have imbalanced governments with little or none of the oversight that is essential to maintain integrity and buffer against abuse. In other words, these governments are rife with corruption. By extension then, if these assumptions are true and if your assertion that the religious imperatives of Islam are about justice and fairness, then these governments are contra-Islamic and go against the faith. Is this true? I do not know the Shariah laws and so cannot make a reasoned
judgment. As I said, I am biased by the information, (and lack of it), that is
available to me. In the Posted by: justillthen | April 28, 2009 3:13 PM Report Offensive Comment Hello Feisal Abdul Rauf, Thank you for what you write here. I appreciate the insight. I cannot say that I am won over by the rationalizations or comparisons, but they are reasonable enough. I can easily understand that I am biased by the information and news that is available to me or surrounds me. I am thankful, on that count, that I live in a more open society where varying opinions and perspectives are tolerated. I can easily engage my mind and heart into contrary points and learn by that engagement. I regret that this freedom of information, perspective, and insight is unavailable in far too much of the world at this time. It is unfortunate that censuring is widespread in much of the middle eastern Islamic countries. Your concepts of Sharia Law are interesting. News outlets in the west often only run articles on Sharia Law that are of the more brutal and, (to me), religiously and sexually discriminating laws and punishments that have become the symbols of harsh intolerance for the western consciousness. Stoning to death of the 'adulterous' women, having just given birth to their bastard child, as the poster girl of brutal and intolerant sexual mores, for example, (with the 'accused' impregnator escaping punishment, of course). From my perspective, these laws most certainly are due to be
"updated" to the current century. I agree with this point of yours.
My question becomes what do you think are the probabilities that Sharia Law is
edited and updated by Islamic authorities? I would venture the guess that it is
highly unlikely to be acted on by radical wings of Islam, vested in a
resurgence of Islam throughout the world, as the Taliban is. Their version of
Islam has Sharia Law as a centerpiece to their movement. Radicalism is on the
upswing in Islam. How does it get revised? The imams of You write: "Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah." This seems a bit unclear. Posted by: justillthen | April 28, 2009 2:56 PM Report Offensive Comment WmarkW, "It is true that even educated, solidly-middle class Muslims are more of a threat than other solidly middle-class Americans (witness the Egyptian who shot up the LAX airport or the guys who tried to blow up JFK). But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian." How do you validate this 'truth'? Every few days we have stories of the distraught worker or high schooler that heads into his created daily hell and shoots up all that he sees before being killed by SWAT or popping a lead nugget in his brain to end his pathetic suffering. I see more of a threat from homemade middle class americans than from muslim americans of the middle class. Perhaps I am wrong, but most muslims that I know would not pick up a gun for violence in this country for anything. It does not compute, to them. At least not to those that take their faith casually. Hard core fundamentalist muslims I do not know so could not say. So perhaps my take is skewed. But I do believe that there is just too much suspicion and distrust that is unwarranted. Just as the percentage of violent criminals is small in
society, it is small in the muslim communities living in Posted by: justillthen | April 28, 2009 2:16 PM Report Offensive Comment DrZimmern, "Any woman who is born into the Islamic faith will get beatings,probably rapings,and extreme anxiety while living in near-slavery. Honor-deaths are commonplace..." You exaggerate to an extreme, in the least, and propagate lies and myths of a faith that is spread across very diverse ethnic and cultural landscapes. Any muslim woman? Where? Everywhere? In You listen to too much alarmist news, dude. Wait, ARE you the news? You are one of the mini-propagators spreading ethno-cultural fear and loathing? You are a little Foxy, right, listen to too much CNN? You believe the latest Limbaugh rant, as if it is true? Get real. "Honor killings" are a rarity considering the millions of muslim families. Incest is well documented in WASP families, as well as Catholic ones. Exploitation of women continues to thrive in the West quite well, thank you, as it does in the middle east as well. Hey, I hear that 'all' blacks are ignorant and angry, 'all' Jews are elitist money-grubbers that have a right to kill any Palestinian, (cause the Palestinians are 'all' terrorists!), and the Chinese are the real threat because they 'all' want to take over the world. Don't even get me started on the bloody Canadians. Posted by: justillthen | April 28, 2009 2:04 PM Report Offensive Comment "But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian." Really? I doubt that very much, because the social pressure is so high in those circles. Ask them if they accept freedom for women and girls, and see what the reply is. Posted by: asoders22 | April 28, 2009 12:56 PM Report Offensive Comment islam doesnot tolerate ignorance. islam use the following in its war aganist ignorance, 1-QURAN and SUNNA 2-the justice machine(could be the sword or any attitude adjusting machine)please read ,QURAN s 57 v 25 people any way around this planet earth can compare the above to their renaissance??? or european reformation , *the head of the king,the entrails of the last preist and the guillotine* mediavlism of the 21 cen still exist in the form of secularism . look and compare the history of bagdad befor and after the tyrany of the saint /secular g bush and his secular constitution. can the secular constitution of Posted by: mono1 | April 28, 2009 11:46 AM Report Offensive Comment "Islam in How about they go back out the door they came in?" Immigrant Muslims in http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans It's in Europe where Muslims have about the same
socio-economic standing that illegal Hispanic immigrants have in It is true that even educated, solidly-middle class Muslims are more of a threat than other solidly middle-class Americans (witness the Egyptian who shot up the LAX airport or the guys who tried to blow up JFK). But to many of them, Islam is no bigger part of their lives than religion is to the average Episcopalian. Posted by: WmarkW | April 28, 2009 7:16 AM Report Offensive Comment Feisal Abdul Rauf butters up to this blog's promoter by
implying the "Nature's" God in Jefferson's 1776 writing, which
promoter Jon Meacham has tried to have seen as Christianity ["American
Gospel, God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation", 2006], is
somehow similar to Rauf's asserted subversive belief in the superiority of
Islamic Law over the US Constitution for adherents of Islam. The similarities
of Rauf and Meacham can be perceived in their similar ways of justification.
Islamic doctrine uses or at least tolerates human slavery, and the practice is
alive and thriving in Islamic North Africa. [BBC News Nov. 2, 2005 by Hilary
Andersson from Posted by: reformthesystem | April 28, 2009 4:02 AM Report Offensive Comment The Qur’an does not permit use of violence as a norm at all. All the verses involving permission to use violence is preceded by the words “if they commit violence against you….”. Thus we find in verse 2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors.” (emphasis added Qur’an calls upon Muslims, “O you who believe, enter into complete peace and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Surely he is your open enemy.” (2:208) Entering into complete peace here means entering into peace whole-heartedly. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/theology.htm Posted by: avp_65 | April 27, 2009 11:30 PM Report Offensive Comment Islam in How about they go back out the door they came in? The only thing anyone should say to Islam is good bye and dont call us and we wont call you. Posted by: RedHogg | April 27, 2009 9:53 PM Report Offensive Comment avp_65, islamic "justice" is between muslims. there's no concept of justice toward infidels. there are different standards. this notion of violence only being sanctioned in "defense" of islam may sound valid to muslims but to the rest of us it's exceptionalism. a non-muslim's presence is considered offensive...and cause for "defense" of islam. so, it's true muslims are not to kill infidels - if infidels leave, or agree to live as dhimmis (second (or third) class citizens. that's not tolerance, it's not freedom of religion, 009.005 PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (simply put: tolerate non-muslims if they become muslim) 009.029 PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (simply put: this is dhimmitude - don't kill non-muslims who are willing to live as second-class citizens). Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 27, 2009 8:28 PM Report Offensive Comment "Even where permission of war has been given it has been given to defend and protect rights of the oppressed and exploited, and not for achieving power. " In islam the oppressed and exploited are defined as the
moslems. If you are not moslem, then you are defined as an oppressor and an
exploiter. This is simple people. Islam is only a religion of peace for
moslems. It is not a religion of peace for the unbelievers...you and I. This
oppressed and exploited nonsense doesn't stand the light of day when Pakistanis
and Bangladeshis are treated like dirt by the Saudis they work for...are they
not exploited and oppressed? Are the Saudis not the keepers of the holiest
places in Islam? Islam as a religion of peace and the sanctuary of the oppressed
and exploited is BS. The Koran is BS. Sharia is BS and none of it belongs as
part of Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 27, 2009 7:37 PM Report Offensive Comment Material that appears in this blog is of doubtful
credibility as exemplified by a recent comment quoting from Ayaan Hirsi Ali
[Magan]. The blog could have mentioned that the lady quoted from had been
forced to resign from her membership as a right wing party representative in
the Dutch parliament after she inadvertently admitted she had lied about
getting into the Netherlands as a Somali refugee rather than her true situation
as an economic immigrant from Kenya where she had lived for ten years. The
right wing American Enterprize Institute for Public Policy Research later
exploited the opposition to Islam causes by inviting her to the Posted by: reformthesystem | April 27, 2009 5:46 PM Report Offensive Comment It is important to note that in Qur’an there is no concept of war of aggression and no concept of permissiveness of violence. Even where permission of war has been given it has been given to defend and protect rights of the oppressed and exploited, and not for achieving power. There is no verse in the Qur’an which permits violence for conquering territory or for achieving power. In fact war has been qualified in the Qur’an by the words fi’ sabilillah i.e. in the way of Allah. Thus a war can be fought, if at all necessary, not for any personal ambitions or for grabbing territory or not for personal animosity or for revenge but only in the way of Allah. And what is the way of Allah? Allah’s way is of justice, Allah’s way is of protecting the rights of the poor and exploited. In fact the very first verse in the Qur’an permitting the use of violence reflects this very well. It says: “And what reason you have not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, who say: Our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend, and grant us from Thee a helper.” (4:75) (emphasis added). http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rtavakol/engineer/compassion.htm Posted by: avp_65 | April 27, 2009 5:07 PM Report Offensive Comment still no answer to my simple question: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...? it should be easy, right? it's a religion of peace, right? should be chock-full of "good stuff". where is it? Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 27, 2009 4:51 PM Report Offensive Comment And another thing...optomist doesn't say what he agrees or disagrees with vis-a-vis Sharia. He is just on a rany against people he thinks are half-wits...but since his rant has no bearing on the subject...who is really the half-wit? Maybe he thought he was on the I hate the Yankees website...who knows? Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 27, 2009 4:49 PM Report Offensive Comment Rednova wrote: "I completely agree with "optomist" below and disagree vehemently with the rancid, hatred of "PanhandleWilly" who does more to show his own character than the supposed flaws of the object of his hatred, presumably Shariah law." Rednova...the truth can be quite painful. If my character is revealed as believing that government...any set of laws that restrict individual liberty...is inherently tyrannical...then I relish the revelation. Individuals agree to give up some extremes of liberty to regulate extreme behavior that is harmful to the whole. But that is a standard set by and only changed by the whole. Sharia disallows that and you know it. Sharia freely admits that the whole doesn't matter...only Allah matters. Therefore the very idea that Sharia could be the vehicle of justice in a modern society is, as you put it, hateful to me...and it should be to all truly thoughtful people. That doesn't mean I hate Moslems...but I do hate Sharia and all that it means. Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 27, 2009 4:45 PM Report Offensive Comment From a Muslim who lived under Sharia law as per Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel". "Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born
into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical
imams in ref: four excerpts: p. 47 paperback issue: "Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!" p.68: "The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race." p.309 "Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls
were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in p. 347 "The kind on thinking I saw in Posted by: CCNL | April 27, 2009 2:54 PM Report Offensive Comment The author seems to embrace religious law, and blame any shortcomings on the people enforcing it. Since ALL law is enforced by people, what he is really saying is that Muslims shouldn't be trusted with enforcement for any law. Based on the evidence throughout the world, I would have to agree with that. Whenever placed in a position of power, Muslims have been shown lacking in the essential humanity that is the basis of Islam. Until they can demonstrate some humanity - instead of in blowing up, beheading, and flogging people - they should perhaps show a bit more humility and tolerance rather than trying to force themselves on everyone else! Posted by: AlibiFarmer | April 27, 2009 2:05 PM Report Offensive Comment Sharia Law is an oxymoron. Among other things, it incorporates inequality of Muslims and non Muslims and does not recognize freedom of religion, which is why virtually all Muslim countries do not recognize the right of Muslims to leave Islam or of other religions to be freely taught. Posted by: FamillePetersen | April 27, 2009 1:49 PM Report Offensive Comment With all due respect to other's religious beliefs, calling
Islam a peaceful religion with compromising religious leaders is a joke. Any
woman who is born into the Islamic faith will get beatings,probably rapings,and
extreme anxiety while living in near-slavery. Honor-deaths are commonplace (see
recent Posted by: drzimmern | April 27, 2009 1:48 PM Report Offensive Comment No religion of any sort should be permitted to impose punishment in the physical realm. They can convict my soul of blasphemy, heresy or apostasy all they want but my physical body and mind is not subject to their covenants. Posted by: giff | April 27, 2009 12:51 PM Report Offensive Comment Rauf tries to "explain" that Sharia is what the US
Constitution is all about! When Muslims are in a minority in a
"democracy" like Posted by: padmanabhan40 | April 27, 2009 12:37 PM Report Offensive Comment Knowing what we do about countries under Islamic laws -- Some supporters of Sharia write that it is the misinterpretation that causes problems. Do we see any signs of change? Atrocities are still committed in the name of justice. When they happen, failure of Islamic leaders to condemn them is very noticeable. If they disagree, we don't hear from them. It is unthinkable for us to want Pope Benedict's position on condoms and family planning to be law. Majority of the Muslims, however, appear to to have no problem in accepting Sharia laws -- misinterpreted or not. Opposing Benedict or any other Christian leader is not likely to result in a call for deaths for the dissidents. But in Islamic countries such action could result in a fatwa. Perhaps that is the explanation for the silence. Posted by: probashi | April 27, 2009 11:24 AM Report Offensive Comment How Islamic Law can Work. Take out the Islam. While we are at it, let's get rid of Yaweh, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and whatever other religious myths make rational and compassionate human life very difficult or impossible, depending on the continent on which one lives. Posted by: elwoll | April 27, 2009 10:57 AM Report Offensive Comment it is interesting to see how much better informed is much of the debate over in America - though I have to say that I find it hard to get my views on Zionism approved - in public at least. However, as one who knows the Arab wold and who lived in the Gulf and studied Islam there is grave danger in the reasoably argued position set out in these pages. Islam is not based on the word of God but is the word of God. It provides quite clearly that a woman's opinion or testimony is not worth as much as a man's - any mans and any woman that is. It leaves all women below even slaves and children as the only ones unable to change their status. A woman does become her husbands family and there is no protection if the man wants to end the marriage - provision yes. Protection from the act, no. Just in passing, might your correspondents inform us please as to the fate precribed for apostates? How do they reconcile that with freedom of religion? You see it is my belief that, along with some branches of the Jewish faith, it is not possible to be both a believer and to live as an integrated citizen in a western liberal democracy. just as the idea that the Posted by: WAKCoe | April 27, 2009 10:30 AM Report Offensive Comment All religion is BS. Posted by: adrienne_najjar | April 27, 2009 9:47 AM Report Offensive Comment As with all religious arguments, this one ignores the real question of "Why?" Why is it that humans feel so insecure about their place in the world that they must "worship" invisible men in the sky. It is as if we were the butt of our own, sad joke. Posted by: fan1 | April 27, 2009 7:27 AM Report Offensive Comment mono1 Some of your finding are correct and i agree with them. Posted by: shark2 | April 27, 2009 3:14 AM Report Offensive Comment CNNL: Looking your posts, one finds you are not at all a respectable person. Hiding behind the internet provides the cowards to use abusive words, however they lose their credibility. They are given a free hand to insult by the forum managers - is this your defination of freedom? Posted by: shark2 | April 27, 2009 3:13 AM Report Offensive Comment Hello Facistland, Sharia is about facisism in religious clothing. Tell me anything about islam that is harmonious with religious freedom, tolerance, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, free markets, any freedom at all. No--islam means submission to facism. Posted by: potatotrader | April 27, 2009 3:02 AM Report Offensive Comment in a secularistic society where they having the highest prison population in the world the highest mental and insanity institutions population in the world the highest women and childern abuse in the world the highest delusional war criminal population in the world need to be ashamed and wory about cleaning their own rot that is not only rotten their homeland but the whole world. the best system to be imported is the SHARIA. juchristianity failed as well as human secularism and liberalism. Posted by: mono1 | April 27, 2009 12:20 AM Report Offensive Comment For those eyes that have not seen: The only solution is to cure all Muslims to include the Taliban) of their Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam. The cure is free and outlined below: (and is guaranteed to work) Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs. "1. Belief in Allah" aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to all Islamic neurons. "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence." Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist". "3. To believe in the existence of angels." A major item for Islamic neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented. "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore." Another major item to delete. There are no books written in
the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no
angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers. Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future. "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone." Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers. These Five Easy Steps will save the world!!! Posted by: CCNL | April 26, 2009 11:55 PM Report Offensive Comment I completely agree with "optomist" below and disagree vehemently with the rancid, hatred of "PanhandleWilly" who does more to show his own character than the supposed flaws of the object of his hatred, presumably Shariah law. In any case, I wish this piece by Dr. Rauf was a bit longer. I throughly enjoyed reading it but would have loved to see his ideas more developed. Muslims traditionally have an amazing ability of
self-criticism, introspection, and debating the merits of various laws. Over
the past few hundred years this ability gradually waned through Western
colonialism, plunder, and war. From the Magreb's invasion to the Center of the
Empire like Turkey, Iran, Iran, Transjordan to the Dutch colonialism of South
East Asia...that once dormant tradition will invevitably come back. I just
think we in Posted by: rednova | April 26, 2009 11:14 PM Report Offensive Comment M_Mutaaloo wrote: "Koran is peace!" Koran is only peace if you are a moslem. If you are not a moslem then, at best, it is a vehicle for church-sanctioned slavery and, at worst, a death sentence. No...no Koran please...no Imams, fatwahs, jihads, veils, sharia, suras, youtube beheadings...or any other trappings of religion in US law. Take them all into your churches, mosques, synagogues, wiccan circles...whatever...I don't care...just stay out of the public domain. Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 26, 2009 8:42 PM Report Offensive Comment It is profoundly disappointing to count myself an American among the culturally illiterate and backward halfwits who, as is so common, have not got the humility to keep from publishing their rancid, reeking, jagged, propaganda-gleaned prejudices here. That there are no shortage of bigoted people worldwide offers little comfort in a land that proclaims itself the richest, most "developed" country on the planet. Posted by: optimist3 | April 26, 2009 7:33 PM Report Offensive Comment I love it: Sharia protects liberty while ensuring a
"certain amount of modesty." What a pack of lies. Posted by: telesonic | April 26, 2009 6:49 PM Report Offensive Comment m_mutaaloo, i'm not sure if the verses you quote are meant to address my question asking someone to quote me a few non-superseded "good" koranic verses. if not, ignore the following. those don't seem like the kind of "good" verses i'm looking for. those verses just indicate that islam is an offshoot of judeo-christianity. infact i would argue the "big three monotheisms" are actually one religion - which i'd call "judeochrislam". there is no doubt islam is the same kind of story-telling religion as it's predecessors. islam even uses many of the same stories (but adjusts the details for islamic consumption). furthermore, those verses are only (somewhat) "inclusive and tolerant" to other "people of the book" (jews/christians), but not anybody of any other (or no) religion. so...still eagerly awaiting those "good" koranic verses... anyone have any they could point me to? Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 26, 2009 5:37 PM Report Offensive Comment The problem is many Christians do not know hoe to propagate Christianity except by attacking the Koran and Muhammad. The Koran came to confirm the previous scriptures and there is nothing called Shariah law in the Koran. This was a later innovation introduced during the Abbasid Empire through whats known as the oral traditions. Most Western historians do not consider these oral traditions as authnetic but Muslims are told they are what the prophet teached. The concept of the oral traditions was initially introduced by Imam Malik about a century and a half after Muhammad and it wa slater elaborated stronger by Imam Al Shafi. After Al Shafi there was an explosion of these oral traditions. They forumlate the bulk of whats known as Shariah law. I am a Koranist and only accept the Koran as authentic. The Koran came to confirm the Torah but condemned some of the excesses of the Jewish oral traditions as Jesus did, and confirmed the Gospel but condemned the Trinity. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69) Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47) But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43) e are all to serve God and each scripture is authentic: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48 Koran is peace! Posted by: M_MUTAAL00 | April 26, 2009 3:48 PM Report Offensive Comment It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that any religious laws, whether muslim or otherwise, can work anywhere. It shows an utter lack to intellect to suggest that human being can be free under any religious laws. Posted by: kevin1231 | April 26, 2009 3:36 PM Report Offensive Comment asizk, you said, "You don't need any one to quote for u:just do it yourself and read a translation of the Quran-such as that Of Abdullah Yousef Ali." well, that's the problem i'm having: every time i start reading the koran i run into page-after-page of "slay idolators" "fight them wherever you find them". so, i'm trying to find some of the "good verses" to quote to people who denigrate islam as a whole. i'm hoping there some "good verses" in there, but i just can't find them. and remember, i'm trying to find verses that still apply - verses that have not been superceded by subsequent verses or by the hadith. so, please, can you point out some of the verses which as you say promote, "tolerance, harmony and especially socio-economic-political justice for all." i just can't find them in there. Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 26, 2009 2:14 PM Report Offensive Comment The apologies for the excesses of religion go on and on. It is tiresome. Let's bluntly face facts: religion is not what it says it is, but, is what it is. It is what all its adherents say and do. No amount of apologizing, or, reference to select passages from so-called holy books, will sanitize the abrahamic religions. Posted by: vinceporter | April 26, 2009 12:26 PM Report Offensive Comment Yes, we can start chopping off hands, feet, and heads. And horse-whipping girls if they wear too much makeup (or any). And, oh, like Hamas in back good ole crucifixions!!! (And you wonder why common crimes are few in Islamic countries...) Lawdy's Great! S D Rodrian http://sdrodrian.com Posted by: sdr1 | April 26, 2009 12:00 PM Report Offensive Comment "The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad." Except that the US Constitution is based on government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE. God doesn't enter into the argument in practice. Base all law on what you want but leave God out of it in process, interpretation and enforcement. If SHARIA was so all fired great...how come, until the discovery of oil in your lands, did Islam lead to such a backward civilization? SHARIA itself is a criminal act because it forces all people to subscribe to Koranic teachings as a given basis for all subsequent law. All your flowery comparisons do nothing more than construct you your very own ivory tower. BS. Mr. Rauf. BS. Take your stupid book and leave. You Christian Fundamentalists are no better. You want this
to be a country based on God? If the demographics change and Moslems are the
future majority...then do you still want your laws based on a majority
rendition of God's teachings? Didn't think so. Keep God out of Posted by: PanhandleWilly | April 26, 2009 11:37 AM Report Offensive Comment The Sharia makes a good job of making a bad name for itself. I have read parts of the Kuran and I didn't like what I read at all. Lots of violence, condemning and misinterpreted versions of the Bible. Muhammed is known for having been very ignorant. I am not a Christan, but at least Jesus (or the concept of Jesus, whatever it is) stopped the stoning of the unfaithful wife. In the Kuran, there are threats and death left and right. Oh yes - Muhammed didn't like the habit of burying little girls alive in the sand. One good thing. He married a little girl, though - dirty man. Posted by: asoders22 | April 26, 2009 11:33 AM Report Offensive Comment WmarkW, Beisdes being very simplistic and factually wrong,your opinion shows your extreme ignornace:if you think the Quran and Hadith and work done to interpret and commnet on them is "7th-9th century Arab Literature" then you are either living ona different planet or have never read any thing about Arab Lit or Shariah. Posted by: asizk | April 26, 2009 11:25 AM Report Offensive Comment walter-in-fallschurch, Among other virtues and values, The Quran is about tolerance, harmony and especially socio-economic-political justice for all. You don't need any one to quote for u:just do it yourself and read a translation of the Quran-such as that Of Abdullah Yousef Ali. Mr. Raouf's article is simpe and clear. Shariah is a very sophistcated,highly developed and comprehensive body of law that deals with all aspects of the life:among other issues it foucses on attending to the concerns and the guarding of the interests in the daily life of Muslims with justice as a supreme objective. No subject has taken more time and effort from Muslims Doctors of the Law than Shariah-it is the Core of Muslim life. Unfortunately, extreme ignorance and predijuce in the west especially after 911 gave Shariah a bad name and reduced it to "covering up women and chopping heads." This is clear form some of simplistic comments above. Mr.Raouf did such an excllent job in the limited space and context provided to inform us what is Shariah. Posted by: asizk | April 26, 2009 11:20 AM Report Offensive Comment What Claptrap. Keep your religion to yourself. I have no interest in living a lifestyle that was designed for desert-dwellers a thousand years ago. Faith is personal. Laws are societal, for everyone. And it's not just Muslims, all religions have only one goal. LET"S GO BACKWARDS IN TIME! Not for me thank you. Posted by: steve82 | April 26, 2009 11:03 AM Report Offensive Comment Mr. Rauf, it is a misstatement that "The principles
behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law." Of the ten generally
agreed to, four are specifically related to revealed, not natural, religion,
i.e., they are to be found in scripture, not observed in nature. These four are
not having any gods before me, not worshiping idols, not taking the Lord's name
in vain, and observing the Sabbath. Observation of nature makes it apparent
that, for example, unrestrained stealing leads to a violent society. If it is
agreed that violence is to be avoided, then stealing should be avoided. This is
a patent observation that is easily understood by almost anyone, regardless of
their level of literacy and education. However, nothing in nature leads one to
conclude that worshiping only one god is better than worshiping many. Nothing
in nature provides evidence that worshiping idols leads to anti-social
behavior. In short, nature does not provide evidence to support monotheism. Any
connection between these four rules and the state of society is obtuse and left
for religious sages to argue. There is no evidence that a particular religious
system or observing strictly religious rules of conduct leads to an orderly,
safe and nurturing society. Would anyone care to propose that nations requiring
women to wear head coverings are more stable and safe than those that don't? Is
one safer on the streets of Posted by: csintala79 | April 26, 2009 10:32 AM Report Offensive Comment mr. rauf has not answered my question - maybe he's still looking for a "good" verse or two to quote for me... is there anyone else out there who can answer this: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...? please i would really like to know. Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 26, 2009 10:23 AM Report Offensive Comment The sad truth is I have stopped believing there are any faithful Muslims who do actually respect human rights and the secular society. Those who do communicate with the secular society around them seem to have a double agenda. They talk smoothly to the infidels but keep a hard-as-nail intolerance hidden. Just look at this article. Posted by: asoders22 | April 26, 2009 9:15 AM Report Offensive Comment Dyslexic typing...previous post should end: that the rest of us who are not followers of Islam might also practice fairness and justice, under whatever philosophy and religion we choose to associate with. Posted by: jlh6789 | April 26, 2009 9:14 AM Report Offensive Comment I am saddened by the comments here. My interpretation of Mr.
Rauf's comments is that he sees, and practices, an Islam having a heart that
seeks fairness and justice in the law, and that the politics and culture of
fallible humans has often distorted that. Sounds just like us here in the Posted by: jlh6789 | April 26, 2009 9:12 AM Report Offensive Comment islam is a way of life where the sharia is not limited to the justice system but to all aspect of life. the islamic sharia ruled on the planet earth for the last 1400 years and put on this planet earth the best example to man kind . its just that paranoid delusional ignorant heads who do not read about islam are trying to oppose the sharia instead of bowing to the sharia ?people need to ask where it came from ?and for who?instead of running their ignorant mouth. its so sad juchristianity is not a way of life that is why they accept human secularism as their savior ,they did the same exact thing they strangeld the last king by the entrails of the last priest ,failure in church as well as in the state as well as interstates what is so funny , saint/secular g bush carried the christian bible and the secular bible where he received a couple of shoes . his twin sister blair carried the christian bible and the magna charta bible and opened a peace foundation shop? Posted by: mono1 | April 26, 2009 9:04 AM Report Offensive Comment You are blurring the line. No country should ever be subject to a "God-given" law, since it is founded on a religious belief and basically without appeal. It is per definition not democratic. Sharia Law does not respect the right of women oir the secular society. If humane right and Sharia law clash, which they will do soon enought the religious law must yield. Our image of sharia law associated with the stoning of women or lashing them - and men - is unfortunately correct. Posted by: asoders22 | April 26, 2009 9:03 AM Report Offensive Comment What is needed for Sharia law to work is for a society to
slip into a more primitive state than what preceded Muhammed's birth. For
example, the internecine strife in Otherwise, it is a bad fit for the modern world and the problem with Islam is the same poor congruence with the modern world. Radical Islam is a reaction to an inferiority complex brought on by the inability of the faithful to compete in the modern arena dragging all that seventh century baggage. Posted by: edbyronadams | April 26, 2009 8:16 AM Report Offensive Comment Mr. Rauf, you write, Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam." WE? I am sorry but many in the world are really not that interested in understanding Shariah law, much less encouraging Muslim countries to bring themselves up to date on it. I think your view is quite acceptable but I truly doubt many Musim clertics would agree. Why not start on the Saudis and see how encouraged they are. Posted by: rannrann | April 26, 2009 8:08 AM Report Offensive Comment Islamic law cannot work. Any changes will be contrary to what Islam's founder, Mullah Muhammad, said or did or what the idol he created, Allah, was made to say in the Koran. There is only one choice for Muslims. Leave Islam and eradicate Islam. Here is an example of what Mullah Muhammad said and how it is therefore Islamic law. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 806: Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque, and he called him, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.'" The Prophet turned his face to the other side, but that man repeated his statement four times, and after he bore witness against himself four times, the Prophet called him, saying, "Are you mad?" The man said, "No." The Prophet said, "Are you married?" The man said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, 'Take him away and stone him to death." Jabir bin 'Abdullah said: I was among the ones who participated in stoning him and we stoned him at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but we over took him at Al-Harra and stoned him to death. Posted by: jailkkhosla | April 26, 2009 8:02 AM Report Offensive Comment "In Exactly. It's bad enough when extremist wackos apply a Constitution written several centuries ago to the right to bear horrific modern-day man-killing weapons which inevitably end up in the hands of criminals like cop killer Richard Poplawski. What Sharia insists is that everyone obey laws written thousands of years ago, when women were treated like cattle, and brutal vengeance ruled the day. Only those exacting the brutality think that's a good idea. Posted by: dgblues | April 26, 2009 8:00 AM Report Offensive Comment This article completely dodges the very issues it purports to address and improperly compares Islam's irrational religious law to the humanistic and logical principles in the Constitution. The author also claims to speak for all Muslims, i.e. "what Muslims want..." This is both arrogant and vague. As long as Islam insists on being not just a religion but a government and law-giver to Muslim and non-Muslim, and as long as those of us outside of it never see or hear meaningful dissent within it--I don't recall, for instance, post 9/11 any Muslim marches or protests in the US where Muslims here spoke out against the terrorists, or the current takeover bid in Pakistan--and the horrible videos that are smuggled out showing "honor killings" and other barbaric acts have not produced a clear voice, never mind action, against this conduct. But let a woman completely covered in a burkka demand to drive and have a driver's license picture taken wearing one, and the Islamic community is up in arms about "rights" (which driving is not). Ditto for having "calls to prayer" in quiet neighborhoods and threatening to kill people for drawing a likeness of your prophet (seriously? in this day and age?). The point is that every other major culture and religion has
managed to compromise and realize that it cannot impose its will on others, and
that it must to some degree assimilate into a larger, more diverse culture. And
yes, there will be things that offend you; but you are just going to have to
live with that and realize that you also offend people. What Islam lacks is
tolerance. And this article, with its nice sounding words but near zero content
and specifics, is insulting to readers' intelligence. Whatever laws you want to
follow, sir, CANNOT violate the laws of the land in Posted by: aphor | April 26, 2009 7:37 AM Report Offensive Comment Unfortunately, Abdur Rauf did not actually spell out some of the concepts of Shariah and allow the reader to draw comparisons by himself, or herself. Posted by: Usama1 | April 26, 2009 6:00 AM Report Offensive Comment Mr.Rauf, I agree that Sharia law is the best law ever written
anywhere in the world. And no doubt thta it is written by your mighty god. But
who wants laws created 1400 years back. We are humans and need laws meant for
humans. Civil laws.Even we hindus have lots of laws- much detailed than
Sharia.We follow what is right. We try not to put other people in trouble or
discomfort. Beheading non-believers is a easy job. One swish of sword and
kaput. Making a hungry person happy, treating a sick kid, these kind of things
are difficult. I am sure "Muslim Believers" have little time for
this. Just take the case of Posted by: rksingh1987 | April 26, 2009 3:10 AM Report Offensive Comment Be careful what you write here. Anti-Muslim statements will get you into trouble with the UN..... Posted by: drees1956 | April 26, 2009 1:47 AM Report Offensive Comment anyone interested in the quran and what it says can google to 'an annotated quran'. there you will find out what really is in the quran. and everything is fine as long as you're not an infidel or a woman. it also says that a muslim must not kill another muslim. you all know how well they listen to that thought Posted by: dibick99 | April 25, 2009 11:57 PM Report Offensive Comment The only solution is to cure all Muslims to include the Taliban) of their Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam. The cure is free and outlined below: (and is guaranteed to work) Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs. "1. Belief in Allah" "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to all Islamic neurons. "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence." Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist". "3. To believe in the existence of angels." A major item for Islamic neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented. "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore." Another major item to delete. There are no books written in
the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no
angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers. Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future. "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone." Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers. These Five Easy Steps will save the world!!! Posted by: CCNL | April 25, 2009 3:51 PM Report Offensive Comment "The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty." Strictly speaking, if you mean physical mosdesty, at least, 'a certain amount of modesty' actually isn't a 'principle behind American law,' ...strictly speaking, we could make the whole country clothing-optional, if we wanted. Not that it'd ever happen, but it'd still be (I can just hear the moans of disapproval about the idea, don't look at me, just making a point: I'm actually really over this dressing down thing. It's not like we can't still afford the fabric, how about some sartorial sense? :) ) Posted by: Paganplace | April 25, 2009 12:35 PM Report Offensive Comment Islam is in a transformation stage. Strong support should be given to muslims who advocate change in sharia according to time. Rigid interpretation of sharia which was written 300 years after prophets death by a non arab Bukhari,is the cause of all evil in Islamic society today. five pillars of Islam is based on a hadith fom Abuhurairah who claims that Jibril came in the human form and revealed to Prophet. Based on this hadith muslims lost their moral values and became duty bound. He was prophets companion only for three years and narrated 5376 hadiths. But Omer who was prophets companion for twentione years narrated only fifty hadiths. More comprehensive research has to be done on hadiths. QURAN SAYS To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety (muhaimin alayhi): so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; S. 5:48 Y. Ali Posted by: avp_65 | April 25, 2009 11:54 AM Report Offensive Comment Raouf pontificates thus: “The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.” The ethics in Islam have nothing to do with fairness and justice. The Islamic ethics considers right what their prophet said is right and wrong what he said was wrong. It has no philosophical justification or a universal standard such as the Golden Rule. Treating women and religious minorities as inferior is sanctioned in Sharia and you cannot convince me that it is fair or just. Morality and penal codes do evolve with time and place yet are mainly derived from ethics which is static. Stealing is universally considered as ethically wrong, yet how thieves are looked upon (morality) and treated (penal codes) by different societies at different times vary from a warning to chopping off the hand(s) Posted by: abhab | April 25, 2009 2:15 AM Report Offensive Comment "Islamic law can't work in the same way as Christian law or Jewish law or Buddhist law can't work. Because everybody isn't (and will never be) a [religion], [religion]'s faith-based prescriptions have no basis on those who don't share that faith. Thus, for universal effect, we (should) base our laws on reason and democracy." Thank you! We need religious laws like we need a hole in the head. Posted by: Gaby1 | April 25, 2009 12:38 AM Report Offensive Comment feisal, sorry i misspelled your name last time, but still, i ask this question in all seriousness: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...? please i would really like to know. Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 24, 2009 11:30 PM Report Offensive Comment frankbd, nice/awful video... my favorite/least favorite line was "but in matters of religion we are expert"... sheesh.... Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 24, 2009 11:26 PM Report Offensive Comment hsnkhwj says about the Taliban: "Such people are a disgrace to Islam." The Taliban are Islam, they are educated in Koran and Sunnah, Khwaja sahib, Islam is a disgrace to humans. Lets remove this cult form the face of the planet. Arif Posted by: Arif2 | April 24, 2009 9:11 PM Report Offensive Comment Your argument is that Shariah law parallels current US Constitutional interperatations. I agree. However, 200 years ago, didn't bring any divine illusions to
the constitution. Their talk of a Creator wasn't so much a part of religious
theology as it was an acknowledgement of "somehow we exist." Most
argued that religion prevents progress. Currently the The freedom to exercise whatever religion you want in the Both what you propose and what is transpiring in the Posted by: beerkinrobbins | April 24, 2009 9:00 PM Report Offensive Comment Muslim scholar Zakir Naik is asked why some Muslim countries
don't allow building houses of worship of other faiths, while Muslims are
allowed to build mosques in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ We don't allow people to preach other faiths for the same reason we don't hire math teachers who think 2+2=6. We know for sure that Islam is the only true religion because Sura 3:85 says that God will never accept any religion besides Islam. How can we allow building churches or temples when we know their religion and worship is wrong. Naik isn't some far-out Saudi, Afghani Taliban or Iranian.
He's a medical doctor from Posted by: frankbd | April 24, 2009 8:44 PM Report Offensive Comment Islamic law can't work in the same way as Christian law or Jewish law or Buddhist law can't work. Because everybody isn't (and will never be) a [religion], [religion]'s faith-based prescriptions have no basis on those who don't share that faith. Thus, for universal effect, we (should) base our laws on reason and democracy. Posted by: DavidBarron | April 24, 2009 6:18 PM Report Offensive Comment What a bunch of nonsense! Jews, Christians and Muslims have
contributed to more violence in the world and more nonsense over the largest
period of history than any other ideology or regime. And yes, I will include
Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Religion keeps us from moving forward into a world
of reason and humanity. Sharia law is like the statements of Of course, it can be argued that the "Christian" nation of Amerika (sic) is indeed like that of any violent theocracy. All three of the so-called great religions have survived through oppression as well as indoctrination and the dependable ability of humans to live with contradiction and hypocrisy. Does this mean that we must continue in this path of self-destruction? This is what happens when we keep going back to religion, that is, the kind that we actually take seriously. Now, the majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims do not abide by their so-called holy books' laws and proscriptions. Look around you, it just isn't so. As the world secularizes the more sensible of these cultic conclaves bust out and revise their theologies and practices. That is the truth. Posted by: gwymer | April 24, 2009 4:50 PM Report Offensive Comment Great leaders don't always go along with what the superstitious sheeple believe; "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson. in a letter to John Adams. April 11,1823. Quoted in "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. Ulysses Press. 2006 "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition, Christianity, one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson. in a letter to Dr Woods. Quoted in "Atheist Universe" by David Mills "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation, and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Abraham Lincoln Posted by: colinnicholas | April 24, 2009 4:47 PM Report Offensive Comment Sir - You state "The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty." The basis of American secular law is equality before the law - Shariah law is fundamentally contrary to the precept of equality before the law, as any law that is agreement with Shariah would 1) value the testimony of a women less than a man 2) accord inheritance rights that favor male progency 3) and permit "modestly" laws that restrict the liberty, activity and choice of women. Posted by: RxMx | April 24, 2009 4:23 PM Report Offensive Comment On one hand you're calling Sharia law the God's law, and on another you're calling Muslim countries to revise them. 1. How can anyone revise God's law? 2. Who gives authority to Muslim countries so they can revise them? Your article does not solve any problems instead it is just trying to bring so called Sharia laws parallel to American constitution, which is a gross mistake. Posted by: i48998 | April 24, 2009 3:58 PM Report Offensive Comment Chops2 God’s laws are actually very consistent. Jesus also makes it clear that his church has no business running a government. Any faith that says anything different is not of God. Mark Always seek the truth. Posted by: volkmare | April 24, 2009 2:44 PM Report Offensive Comment religious law is not "gods law", its men interpreting it however they want for earthly power. Its why we developed common law, cause "gods law" was so utterly inconsistent as to be ludicrous and so obviously man made, or at least man interpreted. please dont let this happen in Posted by: Chops2 | April 24, 2009 12:50 PM Report Offensive Comment fiesal abdul rauf, i ask this question in all seriousness: are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...? Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 24, 2009 11:35 AM Report Offensive Comment wileysnakeskins, in your posts you seem to be opposed to islamic laws governing a country because you see them as emanating from a "false" god. presumably, you contrast this with the "true god" of christianity. that's just a matter of opinion. most people in the world are of the opinion that you're wrong about that. in fact most people in the world think most other people in the world are wrong about whatever god they consider to be the true god (since no one religion is believed by over 1/2 the people on earth). this is funny/tragic from the perspective of a disinterested observer. since all religions' (i know of) claims about god and the nature of the universe are different, then, logically, there can only be ONE true religion that has EVER existed in the history of the world. maybe is was baalism. maybe the ancient babylonians or egyptians had it right. who knows, it could be some obscure polynesian coconut-tree god. hopefully it wasn't the maya (who predict the apocalypse in 2012). anyway, it amuses me how people are so perceptive in discerning that OTHER religions are false, but can't see the same things in their own religion. i believe even jesus warned of this "blindness" in matthew 7 and luke 6. Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 24, 2009 11:23 AM Report Offensive Comment wileysnakeskins, you said, "Every bit of the well, the fact is that while many founders wanted that to be
the case, jefferson and upon closer inspection it turns out during the revolutionary war the various states adopted temporary constitutions. some states were "protestant": a profession of belief in jesus as one's savior was required for election to public office. other states thought they were being inclusive by including catholics or anglicans or some other christian sect in their protections/requirements for office. this is what makes jefferson's and madison's DISESTABLISHMENT of ANY religion all the more spectacular. the declaration of independence is not our founding legal document - that would be the constitution. nonetheless, the "nature's god" mentioned in the declaration of independence is decidedly NOT the god of abraham - infact it's what followers of yahweh/jesus/allah would call a PAGAN god. the Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | April 24, 2009 9:57 AM Report Offensive Comment Wileysnakeskins: You wrote: "Every bit of the Would you care to share with us where Jesus or Moses or any other leader in the Bible was democratically elected? Posted by: ThorsChild | April 24, 2009 9:21 AM Report Offensive Comment During the Cheney years, Posted by: coloradodog | April 24, 2009 8:41 AM Report Offensive Comment You quote the Constitution selectively. Sharia Law is completely opposite to the US Constitution. It states that religious law has the right to execute, maim and torture people. It claims a right to cruel and inhuman punishment. It states that Islam, not the individual, is to be protected at all cost. No where in Shiria Law is there mention of human rights. Your comparison of Sharia Law to the US Constitution is sickening and completely wrong. Even now Muslims are fighting the Taliban and their
interpretation of Sharia Law. Pretending a cruel religiously based fascist law is
akin to the US Constitution is laughable. In the Posted by: bevjims1 | April 24, 2009 8:20 AM Report Offensive Comment Mr. Rauf writes: "Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam." Where is this "root of Islam"? Every other religion and political system has done a better job of creating "fairness and justice" in their society than Islam. Please stop being an apologist for terrorists and murderers. Posted by: clearthinking1 | April 24, 2009 2:45 AM Report Offensive Comment Dear Mr. Rauf: " The Declaration says "men are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Yes, the declaration said that, but since then Religions, man-made (not prophetic, unless you believe in such nonsense) have one thing in common. That is to hold people hostage to some otherworldly power they do not understand, particularly in countries where illiteracy abounds and women are viewed as chattle with little more worth (if any) than the sheep their husbands own. The Taliban and their ilk in other Islamic countries need to be exposed for what they are. Little, old, bearded men who have no power other than what the Q'ran gives them. In other words, little Hitlers with longer beards. Posted by: Gaby1 | April 23, 2009 11:36 PM Report Offensive Comment I am sorry this comparison to the Declaration of Independence
is nonsense. The only thing the Declaration of Independence's support of
natural universal human rights can be compared to is the United Nations'
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The universal human truths that
all men are created equal and inalienable human rights of equality and liberty
-- is not dependent on any religion -- but on UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. What a
shame no one seems to grasp this in http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Posted by: jeff-in-dc | April 23, 2009 11:02 PM Report Offensive Comment As to gevernment run by religious rules. No, but bsased on
religious principles yes. Every bit of the Posted by: wileysnakeskins | April 23, 2009 10:17 PM Report Offensive Comment I'm convinced that there is absolutely no need to update or
reform islam. From my reading of the life of mohammed, the koran, hadith and
all the examples of how mohammed lived and what he did, that islam is no more a
religion than hitler's mien kaumph is the koran, hadith or bible. mohammed
never performed a miracle, NOT once in his entire lifetime and each and every
revelation he had were in response to a follower or family member's questioning
an act or teaching he was putting forth. You want to child molest a 6 year old
girl so you cover it with marraige, but then when you are questioned by the
little girls' relative, you have a revelation that allah, your false god says
it's ok. You say there is no compultion to islam, but then when you move from Posted by: wileysnakeskins | April 23, 2009 10:07 PM Report Offensive Comment Feisal Abdul Rauf You wrote, "But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."". What might be "important to understand" is that despite the fact that Mohammed was deceived by satan is also the fact that one of the founding principles of this country is the seperation of church and state, mosque and state, temple and state,... . As I have said before, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows. Jesus is God-Incarnate, He is not some second-rate prophet. We are all equal in God's Eyes and prophets are either true or false prophets, true prophets have different "jobs" to do but one is not better than another. No one has the right to try and cram God, or their conception thereof, down anyone else's throat, not even God does that so why should we even try to do that. You wrote, "What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad." In other words, what you are saying is that Muslims want everyone one else to follow what they feel that they should follow, I really do not know but I do not think that all Muslims agree with you on that. If someone thinks that something is wrong then maybe they shouldn't do it, if someone needs a law to not do what they think is wrong, I feel sorry for them. Following God is following God or whatever your conception of God is, it is not telling or coercing others to follow God. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum. Posted by: ThomasBaum | April 23, 2009 6:15 PM Report Offensive Comment Feisal Abdul Rauf ...but, you didnt address the question. "Should any nation be governed by religious rules?" You just "beat around the bush" like a politican. :p Mark Always seek the truth. Posted by: volkmare | April 23, 2009 2:32 PM Report Offensive Comment Remember the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan statutes of Buddha under their version of Sharia Law that it is forbidden in Islam to draw human figure for it might lead to idol worship? But this notion is in direct conflict with the Islamic view "to you your faith, to me mine". Islam prohibits imposition of views on other religions. By destroying the statutes of Buddha they broke Islamic law. If Muslims are against idol worship, it is their prerogative but they should not impose their view on people of other faiths. The Taliban are semi-literate ignorant people. They missed the opportunity to develop tourism at Bamiyan. Imagine thousands of Buddhists and other tourists would have come there, stayed in hotels, eaten food there etc. etc. As a result, hundreds or even possibly thousands of Muslims could find jobs there. After all This is why I call Taliban bunch of semi-literate or illiterate people who have no problems growing poppy (drugs that are strictly prohibited under Sharia law)but were enthusiastic about destroying the statutes of Buddha. They have no plans to to find avenues to feed their population. Such people are a disgrace to Islam. Posted by: hsnkhwj | April 23, 2009 1:48 PM Report Offensive Comment "What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad." What you really need to do is stop thinking that the will of the creator of the universe is contained in 7-9th century Arab literature. If someone from another culture claimed the things Muslims do about the Quran and Hadith, you might respect their right to keep their beliefs in private, but would object strenuously to using them as the basis of law. Posted by: WmarkW | April 23, 2009 12:43 PM Report Offensive Comment Post a CommentDear Readers: We now require commenters to register at washingtonpost.com and sign in before posting. Your MyPost User ID, which you'll be asked to choose if you haven't done so already, will be displayed with your comment. We hope this will encourage more topical, spam-free, and respectful discussions. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions, and click here to comment. Comments:
© 2009 The Washington Post Company http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/feisal_abdul_rauf/2009/04/time_to_update_islamic_law.html |
|||||||||
