The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Jolthig]

I disagree, Amin. Islamic law in a secular/western country is not a good idea. I'm not sure what their constitution says (though I am aware they have a state Lutheran Church).

I don't really care what a constitution says, if there's no Shari'ah accommodations, it's messed up.

No one in here said a constitution is perfect.

That's a minority.

Well there are some mullahs and politicians in the middle east that do that. I'll cite Pakistan as an example. Other than we Ahmadis getting takfir from the mullahs there, some sects pass takfir on one another.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I don't really care what a constitution says, if there's no Shari'ah accommodations, it's messed up.

No one in here said a constitution is perfect.

Duh, they're man-made, or course they're imperfect.

[Jolthig]

No one in here said a constitution is perfect.

Duh, they're man-made, or course they're imperfect.

And because they're man-made, the conclusion is we need to bring Shariah to Sweden?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Duh, they're man-made, or course they're imperfect.

And because they're man-made, the conclusion is we need to bring Shariah to Sweden?

Yes, it should be in every country.

[Jolthig]

And because they're man-made, the conclusion is we need to bring Shariah to Sweden?

Yes, it should be in every country.

Is spiritual Shariah not enough for us, akhi?

Besides, how will that work?

[Reikoku]

And because they're man-made, the conclusion is we need to bring Shariah to Sweden?

Yes, it should be in every country.

No, it really doesn't. The vast majority of Westerners are not Muslims and do not want Sharia law.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes, it should be in every country.

Is spiritual Shariah not enough for us, akhi?

The physical law is part of the Shari'ah. There is no separation of masjid and state in Al-Islam.

Besides, how will that work?

Idk, but we have exwmples. And I think this website helps explaining.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes, it should be in every country.

No, it really doesn't. The vast majority of Westerners are not Muslims and do not want Sharia law.

Nor will they live under it. Shari'ah is only for Muslims.

[Jolthig]

Is spiritual Shariah not enough for us, akhi?

The physical law is part of the Shari'ah. There is no separation of masjid and state in Al-Islam.

Its legislation is not restricted to religious and moral codes that neglect the problems of society. Shari’ah is a comprehensive system that legislates on political, social, economic, foreign policy and judicial matters.

Are you sure about that?

This is taken from the link you gave me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The physical law is part of the Shari'ah. There is no separation of masjid and state in Al-Islam.

Its legislation is not restricted to religious and moral codes that neglect the problems of society. Shari’ah is a comprehensive system that legislates on political, social, economic, foreign policy and judicial matters.

Are you sure about that?

This is taken from the link you gave me.

Yes, I'm sure about that. And that quote proves my point.

[Jolthig]

Are you sure about that?

This is taken from the link you gave me.

Yes, I'm sure about that. And that quote proves my point.

Whoops I misread the thing. I thought for a second it said the Khalifah isn't bound to any religious law. My bad.

Still, I don't think anyone will accept that system of government anytime soon. Especially in Sweden. They're very secular people.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is spiritual Shariah not enough for us, akhi?

The physical law is part of the Shari'ah. There is no separation of masjid and state in Al-Islam.

Besides, how will that work?

Idk, but we have exwmples. And I think this website helps explaining.

You go on and on about how true Islam has to be completely theocratic, and then you wonder why "islamaphobes" start appearing.

[The Eternal Aulus]

The thing with Shari'ah is that it prettty much works on a system of judges, much like the American common law. This is in contrast to the European style civil law in which every single punishment and scenario is worked out. The framework of Shari'ah is that a couple of laws (by Quran) and scenarios (per Hadeeth) are made out and therefore it is up to the judge to make a verdict. This is why different opinions on different subjects are allowed (think of music, dancing, shaking hands and so forth by case of necessity and strictness in following per situation).

The problem arises when a group sees shari'ah as having one interpretation and therefore rejects/takfirs the verdicts of judges who held different opinions. This allows for so called ''fatwa shopping'', but there is nothing wrong with that as long its based on Quran and Hadeeth and has, in some cases,some rational reasoning (qiyaas/ Zahiris excluded).

The fact is that while all Muslims hold different opinions about legal matters, as long there is no general consensus they're all sound.

I'm also in full favor of privatized Shar'eaah courts as long the individual consents into being subscribed into one.

And God knows best.

[Frievolk]

The thing with Shari'ah is that it prettty much works on a system of judges, much like the American common law. This is in contrast to the European style civil law in which every single punishment and scenario is worked out. The framework of Shari'ah is that a couple of laws (by Quran) and scenarios (per Hadeeth) are made out and therefore it is up to the judge to make a verdict. This is why different opinions on different subjects are allowed (think of music, dancing, shaking hands and so forth by case of necessity and strictness in following per situation).

The problem arises when a group sees shari'ah as having one interpretation and therefore rejects/takfirs the verdicts of judges who held different opinions. This allows for so called ''fatwa shopping'', but there is nothing wrong with that as long its based on Quran and Hadeeth and has, in some cases,some rational reasoning (qiyaas/ Zahiris excluded).

The fact is that while all Muslims hold different opinions about legal matters, as long there is no general consensus they're all sound.

I'm also in full favor of privatized Shar'eaah courts as long the individual consents into being subscribed into one.

And God knows best.

Yeah, but God's not the one trying to make laws on earth. We are.
Quran and Hadith -that is, if you were to even accept them as a basis for your laws, which no rational person would- only give verdicts about limited scenarios. The result you get for following them is considering Showers Haraam until they become so popular you get no choice but to say "alright, they're halaal, I guess". (and yes. Back when Showers started showing up in Iran, the Ijma was that using them is haraam and doesn't clean off the 'Nijasaat')

[The Eternal Aulus]

The thing with Shari'ah is that it prettty much works on a system of judges, much like the American common law. This is in contrast to the European style civil law in which every single punishment and scenario is worked out. The framework of Shari'ah is that a couple of laws (by Quran) and scenarios (per Hadeeth) are made out and therefore it is up to the judge to make a verdict. This is why different opinions on different subjects are allowed (think of music, dancing, shaking hands and so forth by case of necessity and strictness in following per situation).

The problem arises when a group sees shari'ah as having one interpretation and therefore rejects/takfirs the verdicts of judges who held different opinions. This allows for so called ''fatwa shopping'', but there is nothing wrong with that as long its based on Quran and Hadeeth and has, in some cases,some rational reasoning (qiyaas/ Zahiris excluded).

The fact is that while all Muslims hold different opinions about legal matters, as long there is no general consensus they're all sound.

I'm also in full favor of privatized Shar'eaah courts as long the individual consents into being subscribed into one.

And God knows best.

Yeah, but God's not the one trying to make laws on earth. We are.
Quran and Hadith -that is, if you were to even accept them as a basis for your laws, which no rational person would- only give verdicts about limited scenarios. The result you get for following them is considering Showers Haraam until they become so popular you get no choice but to say "alright, they're halaal, I guess". (and yes. Back when Showers started showing up in Iran, the Ijma was that using them is haraam and doesn't clean off the 'Nijasaat')

Yes, that's true, we interpretate the books daily. Just like American judges do. That's why I said it's comparable to American common law.

I mean, if that's one verdict that's fine, but there are also verdicts condemning showers not to be haram. I mean I don't see a general consensus. But that's Shi'ism for you.

[True Alimeria]

You go on and on about how true Islam has to be completely theocratic, and then you wonder why "islamaphobes" start appearing.

Islamophobia is hatred and bigotry towards Muslims, this is a totally dumb excuse you're making to justify it (if that's what you're intending).

Anyway, being a Muslim is first and foremost part of your identity (like a label), so it has little to do with the content of the religion itself
and just like Christians we can choose how religious we want to be or not. No matter how much some Salafists or any other orthodox groups
of Muslims wanna try to discredit us and deny that we're Muslims, Muslims stay Muslims even if they are liberal or even agnostic about their faith.

[Frievolk]

Yeah, but God's not the one trying to make laws on earth. We are.
Quran and Hadith -that is, if you were to even accept them as a basis for your laws, which no rational person would- only give verdicts about limited scenarios. The result you get for following them is considering Showers Haraam until they become so popular you get no choice but to say "alright, they're halaal, I guess". (and yes. Back when Showers started showing up in Iran, the Ijma was that using them is haraam and doesn't clean off the 'Nijasaat')

Yes, that's true, we interpretate the books daily. Just like American judges do. That's why I said it's comparable to American common law.

I mean, if that's one verdict that's fine, but there are also verdicts condemning showers not to be haram. I mean I don't see a general consensus. But that's Shi'ism for you.

Fun fact, prior to the revolution and the whole "let's put a Marja as the head of state so his fatwa becomes literal law" thing in the constitution, the Hawze-elmiyye (حوزه علمیه) in Qom and the one in Najaf pretty much had a monopoly on Fataawi. That relative unity in the clergy (which isn't how Shia was supposed to function, but I digress) is kinda how we got legendary fataawi like "Showering is haraam", "women riding trains is haraam", "having trains is haraam", and "having schools is haraam" (all of which they were forced to go against when Reza Shah, and before him Amir Kabir, went nuts, of course.)

[The Eternal Aulus]

Yes, that's true, we interpretate the books daily. Just like American judges do. That's why I said it's comparable to American common law.

I mean, if that's one verdict that's fine, but there are also verdicts condemning showers not to be haram. I mean I don't see a general consensus. But that's Shi'ism for you.

Fun fact, prior to the revolution and the whole "let's put a Marja as the head of state so his fatwa becomes literal law" thing in the constitution, the Hawze-elmiyye (حوزه علمیه) in Qom and the one in Najaf pretty much had a monopoly on Fataawi. That relative unity in the clergy (which isn't how Shia was supposed to function, but I digress) is kinda how we got legendary fataawi like "Showering is haraam", "women riding trains is haraam", "having trains is haraam", and "having schools is haraam" (all of which they were forced to go against when Reza Shah, and before him Amir Kabir, went nuts, of course.)

Cheers for the information, my knowledge to Shi'ist legalism is very limited.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I'm also in full favor of privatized Shar'eaah courts as long the individual consents into being subscribed into one.

Privatized courts? Privatized prisons are bad enough, privatized courts are even worse.

Muslims stay Muslims even if they are liberal or even agnostic about their faith.

Well, they'd be hanging on by a thread at that point.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

There's a procedure to divorce.

Doesn't shariah law say a text message is sufficient procedure for a divorce as long as it's clear enough?

No

[The Eternal Aulus]

Privatized courts? Privatized prisons are bad enough, privatized courts are even worse.

Not really. They'd be voluntarily for people who want to be part of a certain set of laws. There could be different Islamic courts for everyone according to their liking, or different judges for that matter.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Privatized courts? Privatized prisons are bad enough, privatized courts are even worse.

Not really. They'd be voluntarily for people who want to be part of a certain set of laws. There could be different Islamic courts for everyone according to their liking, or different judges for that matter.

That's just set for disaster. Also, Muslims don't/shouldn't have that choice. We have to follow Shari'ah regardless of want.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Not really. They'd be voluntarily for people who want to be part of a certain set of laws. There could be different Islamic courts for everyone according to their liking, or different judges for that matter.

That's just set for disaster. Also, Muslims don't/shouldn't have that choice. We have to follow Shari'ah regardless of want.

Well, on what are those courts based you think?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's just set for disaster. Also, Muslims don't/shouldn't have that choice. We have to follow Shari'ah regardless of want.

Well, on what are those courts based you think?

Well, they're supposed to be following Shari'ah, so they'd be based on the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Jolthig]

Or just take bait at the hands of Mirza Masroor Ahmad and that's how you get close to real Shariah though it isn't physical