What exactly is Shariah Law that Muslims want in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere?
According to “A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM” BY Gordon D. Newby, “The term refers to God’s law in its divine and revealed sense. This is related to FIGH, which is the human process of understanding and implementing the law. Commentators have argued that the aggregate of all sources by which we know God’s law is but a small part of the Shari’ah, which, like God, is unknowable and must be accepted. When the word is used synonymously with figh, it refers to the entirety of Islamic Law, often in its actual, historical, and potential senses. Following the original meaning of the Arabic word, it is said to be the source from which all properly Islamic behaviors derive.”
But one may add to the question: Why do Muslims insist on having the shariah in Europe and North America? Aren’t our laws fair enough to them?
It is the opinion of much of the West that the common laws in Europe and North America are fair to everyone—when they are enforced, of course. Shariah law, on the other hand may be popular with Muslims, but is not exactly popular with women and non-Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in her book Infidel, and here, provides some insight into the problem women would have with the Shariah. While many Muslims, including women themselves, proclaim Islam to treat women equally with men, there are many arguments to the contrary. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggests, if not many women vote against it, it is because the husband will not allow them out of the house to make their marks—if the husbands or anyone even told them about the vote.
The inequity of the shariah toward non-Muslims is very striking. In Europe and North America, where Europeans and others do not pay the jizya tax (a special tax paid by non-Muslims to the Muslim state), the non-Muslims are not protected by the law. As it stands, the Muslim can charge a non-Muslim, but the non-Muslim cannot provide a defense—nor can a non—Muslim charge a Muslim in court. Reason: unless the non-Muslim is in a protected class (Dhimmi) he has no standing in court.
Another issue that Europeans and Americans would have with the shariah is the matter of felonies. Certain crimes are crimes against Allah and the punishment is usually swift and deadly. But crimes against other people can be left to the “other people” to retaliate in kind. Kill my brother and I kill you—or your brother. In the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “Reliance of the Traveller” pages 582 – 584, o1.0 – o.1.2(5), the law quotes the Prophet’s lawful opinion: “The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to be shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.”
o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A. If the person wishes to take it) [note: the victimized person can choose indemnity instead—and there are rules for the amounts allowed for the crime].
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(1) A child or insane person
(2) A Muslim for killing a non-Muslim.
(3) A Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state [Dhimmi] for killing an apostate from Islam. [a note added to this subparagraph states: “killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences.”]
(4) A father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring).
(5) Nor is retaliation permissible to a descendent for his ancestor’s killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
One would hope that any European or North American knowing what the law is—and we are guaranteed almost that very few people know what this law is, except those pushing for it—would not have to deliberate more than two seconds to give a loud and clear answer: NO!
______________________________________________________________
Do all Muslim women dress in black and white?
Muslim women must wear conservative apparel that covers up whatever their husbands or family or community feels should be covered up--normally. However, some women for whatever reasons are happier to cover up more than what is demanded by their own communities. Some communities that are similar to the Taliban, command black and white and consider anything else is sinful. However, other communities, including some in modern Iran communities. Here is a link to modern Iran clothing.
On the other hand, how about someone in a burqa outraged by another that has everything covered but the face. Click here. And here is the Abaya, a different kind of chador--here. Modern U.S. and European Muslim outfits--colorful.
In some Muslim countries, if a woman's dress in not sufficiently conservative, she could be whipped on the spot and sent home. In other Muslim countries, there is nothing wrong with a simple business suit or fashionable dress. Some folks believe that men have no will power and women who do not dress to cover their assets may contribute to major sinning. I guess that means we cannot expect a Hooter's in Riyadh any too soon.
HJS
According to “A CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM” BY Gordon D. Newby, “The term refers to God’s law in its divine and revealed sense. This is related to FIGH, which is the human process of understanding and implementing the law. Commentators have argued that the aggregate of all sources by which we know God’s law is but a small part of the Shari’ah, which, like God, is unknowable and must be accepted. When the word is used synonymously with figh, it refers to the entirety of Islamic Law, often in its actual, historical, and potential senses. Following the original meaning of the Arabic word, it is said to be the source from which all properly Islamic behaviors derive.”
But one may add to the question: Why do Muslims insist on having the shariah in Europe and North America? Aren’t our laws fair enough to them?
It is the opinion of much of the West that the common laws in Europe and North America are fair to everyone—when they are enforced, of course. Shariah law, on the other hand may be popular with Muslims, but is not exactly popular with women and non-Muslims. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in her book Infidel, and here, provides some insight into the problem women would have with the Shariah. While many Muslims, including women themselves, proclaim Islam to treat women equally with men, there are many arguments to the contrary. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggests, if not many women vote against it, it is because the husband will not allow them out of the house to make their marks—if the husbands or anyone even told them about the vote.
The inequity of the shariah toward non-Muslims is very striking. In Europe and North America, where Europeans and others do not pay the jizya tax (a special tax paid by non-Muslims to the Muslim state), the non-Muslims are not protected by the law. As it stands, the Muslim can charge a non-Muslim, but the non-Muslim cannot provide a defense—nor can a non—Muslim charge a Muslim in court. Reason: unless the non-Muslim is in a protected class (Dhimmi) he has no standing in court.
Another issue that Europeans and Americans would have with the shariah is the matter of felonies. Certain crimes are crimes against Allah and the punishment is usually swift and deadly. But crimes against other people can be left to the “other people” to retaliate in kind. Kill my brother and I kill you—or your brother. In the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, “Reliance of the Traveller” pages 582 – 584, o1.0 – o.1.2(5), the law quotes the Prophet’s lawful opinion: “The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to be shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.”
o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A. If the person wishes to take it) [note: the victimized person can choose indemnity instead—and there are rules for the amounts allowed for the crime].
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(1) A child or insane person
(2) A Muslim for killing a non-Muslim.
(3) A Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state [Dhimmi] for killing an apostate from Islam. [a note added to this subparagraph states: “killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences.”]
(4) A father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring).
(5) Nor is retaliation permissible to a descendent for his ancestor’s killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
One would hope that any European or North American knowing what the law is—and we are guaranteed almost that very few people know what this law is, except those pushing for it—would not have to deliberate more than two seconds to give a loud and clear answer: NO!
______________________________________________________________
Do all Muslim women dress in black and white?
Muslim women must wear conservative apparel that covers up whatever their husbands or family or community feels should be covered up--normally. However, some women for whatever reasons are happier to cover up more than what is demanded by their own communities. Some communities that are similar to the Taliban, command black and white and consider anything else is sinful. However, other communities, including some in modern Iran communities. Here is a link to modern Iran clothing.
On the other hand, how about someone in a burqa outraged by another that has everything covered but the face. Click here. And here is the Abaya, a different kind of chador--here. Modern U.S. and European Muslim outfits--colorful.
In some Muslim countries, if a woman's dress in not sufficiently conservative, she could be whipped on the spot and sent home. In other Muslim countries, there is nothing wrong with a simple business suit or fashionable dress. Some folks believe that men have no will power and women who do not dress to cover their assets may contribute to major sinning. I guess that means we cannot expect a Hooter's in Riyadh any too soon.
HJS
2 comments:
Harry,
Your knowledge of Islam and the effects of Islam are amazing. You are opening the eyes of many on this subject. Keep up the great work!
I appreciate the encouragement. Both political parties, the administration, and the elite media have abrogated their responsibility to the people of the United States with regard to keeping everyone informed of information important to them. FDR said “All we have to fear is fear itself.” In this day and age, we cannot say even that, because we are not told about the wolves at both doors: loss of sovereignty and major war with a part of Islam that is not radical per se, but in full accord with the principles laid down centuries ago. We must know these principles even if we don't want to. hjs
Post a Comment