Kindest Regards, cyberpi!
Thank you very much for the reply. I am even more intrigued!
I do not wish to put the cart before the horse, but I feel I should address your final comment first:
For example if a scholar were to suggest to me that underwater basket weaving is unlawful then I would inquire as to why and consider it, but would probably have good reason to disagree and inform him that I consider him wrong. If he then oppresses me with it, then he is the one who has disobeyed Allah's Law per the Qur'an... which the Islamic scholar allegedly believes in.
My reactive response is that scholars are people too, and subject to being fallible. Yet, that also supports your point and impugns any fallible human (which is every living person) who deigns stand in the stead of G-d, speaking for Him. From what I can determine, I suspect we see much the same from differing vantages. In effect, it seems to me you have reached your conclusion by the letter of law, where I have reached my conclusion by spirit of intent.
Well I was just expanding on the concept and using a couple of verses from Judaism to challenge one's notion. From the gospels, if law is a matter of judgment, mercy, and faith... then God's judgment, mercy, and faith is significantly more encompassing than what people presently understand.
Again, I see this in a similar manner, but reached it by a differing route.
Judaism has its sages. Christianity less so, and few given credence approaching Scripture. I know less of Islam, but what I have learned lately implies to me that the interpretations of wise and learned Islamic scholars are deemed on a level effectively on a par with Scripture. Nevermind Mohammed did not actually say what a later interpretation teaches, nor even comes close. Because by wit and worldly wisdom the teachings of Mohammed are interpreted opposite from their intended meaning, enough *followers* will obey without question because of the charisma of a particular spiritual leader. Christianity too, has its own struggles in this vein, but no scholar or interpretation is held to the level of Scripture...save the possible exception of some very old scholars dating so far back the only Christian church was Catholic. (I am referring here to the likes and times of Thomas Aquinas, and a modest handful who preceded him, who did help shape the course of Catholicism.) Judaism has its scholars and sages too, but their application is more complex. The scholars themselves, or I would think even individual interpretations, are not accorded the level of Scripture, yet over time their mystical wisdom has left an indelible mark on the faith. At least, this is how these things are unfolding to me.
For example, consider some people who agree that underwater basket weaving is a dangerous sport around boats and agree to keep the two separate, but then a person does it anyway and someone gets hit by a boat. Then the person who went underwater basket weaving might have been a hypocrite, or maybe he forgot, or misunderstood the agreement. Lets say that someone refuses to agree on where to boat and where to permit underwater basket weaving, then that person would be for iniquity.
(*or an heretic, 
-jt3*) Lets say that a religious scholar might derive where a book says people should boat, and where people should underwater basket weave, but then the people who would do either might not personally agree to it. There is no commandment, "Thou shalt not underwater basket weave near boats", or "Thou shalt not boat near underwater basket weavers", but I submit that God's law incorporates everything that a person thinks, says, and does.
I believe I follow what you are saying, and agree, up to your conclusion; "I submit that God's law incorporates everything that a person thinks, says, and does." I'm not certain I agree with this. Perhaps in the sense that eternal laws of nature (gravity, atrophy, survival, etc.) I can agree. But typically when we speak of "G-d's law," we are speaking of a religious dictate "set in stone." I would think this to be true among all of the Abrahamic faiths. I'm not certain how to equate the Ten Commandments with the law of gravity in a practical sense, yet I think I can see and somewhat agree in a philosophical sense.
I try not to oppose one Abrahamic religion with another, but Victor writes about three of them. From Islam I would point out that the Qur'an says NOT to define things as lawful and unlawful and associate them with Allah (swt). Then what is Allah's Law? What is divine law?
You appear far more versed than I in matters of Islam.
I consider that Shariah is an unlawful institution per the Qur'an because individuals do NOT judge what is rightful and agree with each other in Faith, but instead are blindly led or oppressed to adhere to what a scholar believes is lawful or unlawful as if it were from Allah (swt). The scholars are self appointed to reside between an individual and Allah (swt) as the author of rules.
Very well, yet I suppose one could point to the excesses of the Christian church when it held a monopoly over the West. What I see of Sharia today reminds me very much of that sordid point in the history of the Christian faith. Yet, there is something too to be said for how the rise of secularism has degraded the faith, and certainly diminished the population of faithful (on a per capita basis). There is a much lesser percentage of "faithful" Christians of
any denomination now than there was during the heyday of the Dark Ages. (I am willing to concede a lot has to do with who is counting and how the count is taken.) So we struggle to walk a tightrope with blind and rabid fanaticism on one side and apathetic secularism on the other. For those whose balance isn't very good, or whose attention is drawn elsewhere, it is simply easier to chose one side or the other.
So, now I've probably done gone and rattled everybody's cages. At least it can be fairly and rightly said I am an equal opportunity critic!
