It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An honest question on Shariah

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: enlightenedservantI have read about a quarter of the Qur'an and it is very interesting, it's more centered on morality and simplifying, or re simplifying Jesus message which had become pagan by Catholicism and Mohammeds Prophethood seems acceptable and apparent to me personally. Evidently the Catholic church gave specific praise of Islam at one time, for their veneration of the virgin Mary so I don't quite know what to make of that. They see her more as Isis so it's confusing.


Yeah, the Qur'an speaks very highly of her. I respect her too & see her as a strong believer and Mom/follower/friend to her great son, who we consider the Prophet Essa/Isa/Jesus. He's literally one of the four most highly revered Prophets in Islam.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservantSalaam, thank you for your post. May Allah bless you.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: enlightenedservantSalaam, thank you for your post. May Allah bless you.


Thanks. And may He bless you as well.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015




I realise this is hugely open to individual interpretation but I'd like to know the intricacies of how shariah works instead of constantly seeing one group of nutters shouting about it and another group of nutters shouting it down as a knee jerk response.


The way I understand it, the creeping movement to insert Sharia law into American communities amounts to a desire to attain the same consideration that the Jewish communities currently enjoy. They are allowed to self govern, through their religious courts, to a certain extent, without US government interference. The same with Native American Tribes that are allowed to self govern through their own courts when their members break US law, to a certain extent.

I believe that certain Muslim communities want the ability to self govern their members, through religious courts, free of US interference, to a certain extent, through their own "Shariah".

That's my understanding, I could be wrong.

Jewish Law Courts in America:
Lessons Offered to Sharia Courts by the
Beth Din of America Precedent



edit on 27-1-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You know all this talk

You were the only man who knew how to give me comfort and eased me of terrible burden .. The first one to put it in prospective that it is by no means ok to hurt someone .. you were the first one I told and no one ever cut it after

I don't know where you get the energy but all is much appreciated
edit on 27-1-2016 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

I think understanding how it came about would help you understand it better than hearing about it from the perspective of one particular sect or belief.

When Muhammad died, the Umma (sort of like the entire collective of Muslims at the time) still had questions about guidance. Think about one of the biggest differences between Islam and Christianity: the priest class. The Christians have priests and the like to interpret law and sort of make up new ones whenever they like. Muslims, on the other hand, went only by what Muhammad said, regardless of their belief in who should be the Khalifa (Sunni vs Shi'i).

Within the first few khalifa, people started asking questions that wasn't covered in the Quran. Rules, guidelines, punishments, etc. One of those khalifa (I think it was Omar) felt that, instead of making up rules like the priest class of Christians do, they need to go to the source. They gathered everybody who remembered Muhammad and started writing down every little thing people could remember him saying. This became the "Hadith" and it was very dubious in the eyes of many Muslims (even today) because they believe the Quran was all they needed.

So here's where it gets tricky. The Hadith still didn't answer everything. So the Islamic scholars (Ulama) and the Imams determined they could fill in the blanks with reason and logic, combined with the Hadith and Quran. This is how Sharia law was formed.

The reason I explain the back story is because you need to realize why it is wrong to say "Sharia law is this or that" because there is no definitive "this or that" for Sharia to be. Keep in mind the many many sects of Islam who all believe in different things in regards to succession and interpretation. Now imagine how many versions of Sharia law there is.

So, bottom line, there is no single, agreed-upon "Sharia Law". There are several sets of it and all are quite different. So as far as your question as to the merit it may offer, it offers merit mostly because it was custom tailored for very specific Muslims with very specific beliefs. Think of it like how Christians interpret their laws, with no "official" stance that is agreed on by all denominations.

I hope that helps. To any Muslims reading this, I apologize if I misspelled or mislabeled any of the concepts here.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
I've never heard of an attempt at introducing Sharia in America. American law already allows religious freedom so there is no need.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

I stopped reading while on the first paragraph.It would be nice if someone
could post without calling others nutters.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: areyousirius360

And yet, here in America we have "Beth Din of America".


The Beth Din of America is a Beth Din (Court of Jewish Law) which serves Jews throughout the United States of America.
It was founded in 1960 and reconstituted in 1994.[1] The focus of Beth Din of America is on areas of family law, Jewish divorce and personal status, as well as adjudication of financial disputes. The Beth Din is affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and is sponsored by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.[2]

The current director of the Beth Din is Rabbi Shlomo Weissmann, who succeeded Rabbi Yona Reiss in 2008.
In 2014, Dr. Michelle Friedman became the first woman on the Beth Din of America’s board of directors.
en.wikipedia.org...


Personally, I'm against any law the gives special consideration to any religion. For that reason, I feel that the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is unconstitutional.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015
I think, from what I have read, the Christian faith only concerns itself with your spiritual needs (eccept for a few minority sects) and they only ASK that you try to adhere to the teachings. Also you are free to leave Christianity with no repercussions.
Sharia on the other hand (no matter what sect or interpretation of sharia) wants to control ALL aspects of your life and in some instances DEMANDS that you comply. Don't comply and there are severe punishments. If you leave the faith you risk severe punishment. The bottom line is for sharia law "you will obey or else".



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015
I think, from what I have read, the Christian faith only concerns itself with your spiritual needs (eccept for a few minority sects) and they only ASK that you try to adhere to the teachings. Also you are free to leave Christianity with no repercussions.
Sharia on the other hand (no matter what sect or interpretation of sharia) wants to control ALL aspects of your life and in some instances DEMANDS that you comply. Don't comply and there are severe punishments. If you leave the faith you risk severe punishment. The bottom line is for sharia law "you will obey or else".



Both of those statements could be interchangeably said about one another. All Abrahamic faiths have laws they claim to only concern spiritual needs and also that attempt to control every aspect of life. All three of these religions have minority sects that believe it to be interpreted in the stoning and bloodletting fashion.

The biggest difference is cultural geography where these religions took hold. In many regions of Africa, the Christians are every bit as sick and twisted as ISIS and in many Muslim nations, Islam resembles a 1950's version of American Christianity.

It is more about custom and socio-economic conditions. Both religions equip the follower with excuses to oppress others and inflict unimaginable horror upon others and yet they can also equip the follower to spread the positives of unity and faith.

2nd amendment folks should understand it best since their mantra is all about how the gun (religion) is not at fault and, instead, it's the psycho (zealot) wielding it.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
That's because America is owned by Jews.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: windword
That's because America is owned by Jews.


LOL



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
I'm looking for specific instances of where it would progress the legislative framework of western democracy, not generalities.

An odd view to look for. May I ask why? Are you worried that Shariah will infiltrate the framework of western democracy?

Skipping over the fact that the statement shows a view of "Shariah" that isn't really grounded in reality, I'll continue with your question by replacing your use of the word "Shariah" with fiqh, or "Islamic Jurisprudence".

The fact of the matter is, "Islamic Jurisprudence" and "Western Democracy" aren't some monolithic ivory towers that are absolutely separate from each other. There are many situations today, and in history where one borrowed from the other. So looking for specific instances where one would "progress" the other seems fallacious- the very structure itself already includes it.
For examples in "Western Democracy" that borrowed heavily from "Islamic Jurisprudence", you have a whole lot of stuff relating to finances-trade, contracts, handling of money, loans, trusts, etc. Some more recent examples in this category are how some financial institutions within "Western Democracy" are incorporating concepts from "Islamic Banking".



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

That's just simply ignorant
The Catholics have priests

The Protestants don't have priests, they have the simple yet effective teachings of Christ, love God and love each other.
Jesus didn't teach a theocracy like Muhamad, Jesus did not teach world domination like Mahumad, Jesus did not expect Christianity to ever conquer the world like Muhamad did

Simple understanding of Christianity would benefit your ignorance

Problem with Muslims and sharia s you Muslims want to conquer the whole world with it, implement your faith by the sword
Funny, you can't agree between shiat and sunny

Is mutilating female children's genitals sharia?
Marrying child brides like Mahamad?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Abysha

That's just simply ignorant
The Catholics have priests

The Protestants don't have priests, they have the simple yet effective teachings of Christ, love God and love each other.
Jesus didn't teach a theocracy like Muhamad, Jesus did not teach world domination like Mahumad, Jesus did not expect Christianity to ever conquer the world like Muhamad did

Simple understanding of Christianity would benefit your ignorance

Problem with Muslims and sharia s you Muslims want to conquer the whole world with it, implement your faith by the sword
Funny, you can't agree between shiat and sunny

Is mutilating female children's genitals sharia?
Marrying child brides like Mahamad?



Hah! I'm not Muslim. I fear all Abrahamic faiths equally. That doesn't mean a girl can't enjoy reading a lot of history books on western and middle eastern culture and the ways they intertwined in the first place. You cannot tell that story without learning about the roots of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Protestants didn't even exist during the time frame I was talking about. So yes, Christianity was a religion of priest classes who arbitrated rules. Nothing I said was a blow to your religion nor was I defending Sharia. It seems like you are mostly upset that I was laying out the difference.

You can't make up your own past to fulfill your current world view. As far as converting by the sword, in that same period, the Franks (Christian crusaders) sacked Ma'arra and tricked them into surrendering. By the accounts of the Christian crusaders themselves, they boiled the adult Muslims into a soup and roasted their children on spits over fires. They weren't even interested in converting the Muslims.

That is the what life was like while these laws were still being codified into Islamic culture. To understand Sharia, you need to understand the history of the region. Educating yourself doesn't mean you have to condone it.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Priests were not introduced to Christianity till after the Roman Catholic Church took power

Jesus is the only priest

You should do a little research

I am aware of the crusades, economic wars?

You will find North Africca still had a purer Christianity untainted by the Carholics and their ruling class, so no, Protestants didn't exist till after Luther broke from the RC church, Protestants are a European church

Your blow to my religion was suggesting that Christianity had and still has a priest class
That's not accurate at all, never has been in all cases

Sorry if I butted a little hard, you seemed to tar all Christians as catholics



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Sorry if I butted a little hard, you seemed to tar all Christians as catholics


All Christians at the time were Catholics. The "church" anyway. Interestingly, the crusaders disdained the other Christians (eastern orthodox, etc) almost as much as Muslims and after they killed all the Muslims and burned all the Jews in Jerusalem, they exiled all the Christians who were living there (better than being eaten, I guess).

In any case, I understand what you are saying. I get why a Christian would be irritated by the assertion.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedymanwe mutilate boys at birth on the regular here? Not defending female circumcision in any way it is horrible, but I would not have chosen to be circumcised if given the choice. It's more pleasurable with your foreskin and that sucks for me. I'd sue if I could.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
I MEANT TO SEND THAT MESSAGE TO ABATHA SORRY



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join