Kinda off-topic a bit here, but...
reply to post by BO XIAN
Originally posted by BO XIAN
Folks who rant and spew about such things not being in the Hadiths or the Koran are just ignorant of the facts, imho. When one adds such sources as
the esteemed law volume, the case becomes even more horrific.
However, IIRC, Muhammed himself--perhaps in the Hadiths? . . . said something about how right it was to kill one's children at will.
But they're not. And he did not. And as for it being an "esteemed law book"...
reply to post by loOranks
Originally posted by loOranks
Maybe you are not familiar with Shariah law, and the ruling "Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law". The book of law is It
is certified by Al-Azhar University as a translation that "corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox
Actually, it mentions (and you even quote it saying so) that it is of the Shafi'i madhab, so it wouldn't be the the whole sunni community, and
considering this was a book written in the 14th century, it'd be a bit like pointing out the major role St. Augustine played in the formation of
Christian doctrine, and how he's considered almost universally as one of the greatest Christian thinkers ever, and then pointing to his views on Jews
(they should be oppressed and subjugated as proof of Christianity's superiority) and women (that they were intellectually and morally inferior and
existed to serve men, and if they weren't properly subjugated, would lead men to sin) and claiming that it is something all christians agree with.
It kinda tires me to have to keep explaining this, (perhaps you will peruse a thread I authored on this subject
"The Shariah Conspiracy
"), but it does seem to be a major misconception here and
elsewhere where this subject comes up. So to clarify:
"Shariah Law" isn't this monolithic singular set of fixed rules and laws that are in "Black and White" and "According to the manual"
No two people on the earth will probably agree on all aspects of all law in accordance to Islam. In fact, the book you referenced was a manual of the
"Shafi'i madhab", meaning the school of interpretation of the law derived from the teachings of Imam Shafi'i (although he didn't start it). Other such
schools of interpretation for example, could be Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'fari, Zaidi, Ibadi, Zahiri, Ismaili, Jariri, Laythi, Awza'i,
Thawri, Salafi, Ahle Hadith, etc., each with their own opinion on a certain matter (many times contradicting one another, sometimes the same), with
giving a different reasoning for their opinion, and emphasis on a different style of reaching that reasoning, yet all claiming to be derived from the
scripture in some way. A muslim could follow one of these schools of thought, or follow some of their rulings on specific matters, but not on others,
or not follow them at all. They're not scriptural at all, but claim to be derived or interpreted from scripture.
So compounded to the fairly backward approach to law in general taken in Saudi Arabia (certainly not indicative of muslims or Islam or the Shafi'i or
even Salafi school of thought in general), and adding the judge who decided on this case may have been a follower of the Shafi'i school of thought, or
a follower of that particular opinion of the Shafi'i school of thought, it is depressing (but unfortunately not unexpected) the ruling that came out,
but it isn't some sort of tenet of SHARIA LAW™.
Again, apologies for the slightly off-topic rant.
edit on 6-2-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by
babloyi because: (no reason given)