Misconceptions and quries about Islam
- Thread starter Mohsin
- Start date
Brian said:
Not at all. English Common law is older than christianity. It was already old when christianity hit the shores of Britain and it was relatively unaffected by the arrival of christianity. To claim that christianity forms a major part of English law is quite simply wrong. Christianity forms no part of English Law whatsoever. In fact, there are many non-christian countries that use English Common Law. There's even some muslim countries that use it eg Pakistan, Malaysia.
The reason all these countries are able to use it is because it is extremely versatile. It doesn't matter what the prevailing religion is in the country. Common Law is older than religion (at least christianity and islam) and it is immune to religion.
It may be true to say that certain aspects of christianity found their way into the law over the years but these things didn't form the basis of English law. The basis of English law was formed long before christianity. Any of these "christian aspects" that were made law were just add-ons. And in any case they have pretty much all been removed now or else they are still on the books but never get used (like the blasphemy laws).
Certainly not from christianity. English Common Law is immensely detailed and multi-layered - this is why religion does not affect it. Any situation you care to think of will have been covered in great detail by English Common Law a couple of thousand years ago or more. It certainly made provision for the idea of witnesses.
I should have made myself clearer. DNA testing is almost 100% reliable providing the sample hasn't been contaminated. Unfortuately it is very easy for the sample to become contaminated. It needs to be collected and stored very carefully. But assuming it hasn't been contaminated then it is as reliable a piece of evidence as you are ever going to get.
No we're not arguing the perception of islamic law we are talking about cold hard facts. Islamic law requires four witnesses to a crime, that is a fact. No strawmen. It is true that are lots of different interpretations of islam. Islam is not as monolithic as some people think, there's a lot of variety in there. But this rule of sharia is valid in all interpretations - certainly mainstream islam considers it to be necessary.
Also we are not talking about perceptions because this rule is actually applied in muslim countries around the world - I gave you the example of Pakistan requiring four witnesses to a rape before but other muslim countires use this law as well eg Egypt. So we are not talking about some woolly abstract theological principle, we are talking about something that exists in the real world right now.
Well, I'm not a muslim either but I am a lawyer (although not working as one at present). This is why sharia law bothers me. Because it is a case of religion treading on my territory. English Common Law has gradually evolved over thousands of years and is immensely complex. Sharia, on the other hand, is like a sledgehammer.
Religion should stick to religion and stay out of law. Religion has nothing to teach English Common Law that English Common Law doesn't already know. Imagine if islam stuck it's nose into medicine? Doctors would be offended because islam knows squat about medicine. I feel the same way. Islam should keep out of law because it doesn't understand it and has nothing of any value to add.
In fact, islam does stick it's nose into medicine in a minor way - there are hadith about taking honey for various ailments and so on.
Not at all. English Common law is older than christianity. It was already old when christianity hit the shores of Britain and it was relatively unaffected by the arrival of christianity. To claim that christianity forms a major part of English law is quite simply wrong. Christianity forms no part of English Law whatsoever. In fact, there are many non-christian countries that use English Common Law. There's even some muslim countries that use it eg Pakistan, Malaysia.
The reason all these countries are able to use it is because it is extremely versatile. It doesn't matter what the prevailing religion is in the country. Common Law is older than religion (at least christianity and islam) and it is immune to religion.
It may be true to say that certain aspects of christianity found their way into the law over the years but these things didn't form the basis of English law. The basis of English law was formed long before christianity. Any of these "christian aspects" that were made law were just add-ons. And in any case they have pretty much all been removed now or else they are still on the books but never get used (like the blasphemy laws).
Certainly not from christianity. English Common Law is immensely detailed and multi-layered - this is why religion does not affect it. Any situation you care to think of will have been covered in great detail by English Common Law a couple of thousand years ago or more. It certainly made provision for the idea of witnesses.
I should have made myself clearer. DNA testing is almost 100% reliable providing the sample hasn't been contaminated. Unfortuately it is very easy for the sample to become contaminated. It needs to be collected and stored very carefully. But assuming it hasn't been contaminated then it is as reliable a piece of evidence as you are ever going to get.
No we're not arguing the perception of islamic law we are talking about cold hard facts. Islamic law requires four witnesses to a crime, that is a fact. No strawmen. It is true that are lots of different interpretations of islam. Islam is not as monolithic as some people think, there's a lot of variety in there. But this rule of sharia is valid in all interpretations - certainly mainstream islam considers it to be necessary.
Also we are not talking about perceptions because this rule is actually applied in muslim countries around the world - I gave you the example of Pakistan requiring four witnesses to a rape before but other muslim countires use this law as well eg Egypt. So we are not talking about some woolly abstract theological principle, we are talking about something that exists in the real world right now.
Well, I'm not a muslim either but I am a lawyer (although not working as one at present). This is why sharia law bothers me. Because it is a case of religion treading on my territory. English Common Law has gradually evolved over thousands of years and is immensely complex. Sharia, on the other hand, is like a sledgehammer.
Religion should stick to religion and stay out of law. Religion has nothing to teach English Common Law that English Common Law doesn't already know. Imagine if islam stuck it's nose into medicine? Doctors would be offended because islam knows squat about medicine. I feel the same way. Islam should keep out of law because it doesn't understand it and has nothing of any value to add.
In fact, islam does stick it's nose into medicine in a minor way - there are hadith about taking honey for various ailments and so on.
Regard to all.
I am a Muslim, but not a lawyer. Sorry to say, I am not well versed in the Sahria law, especially the criminal law. I really wish and pray to Allah(the Almighty God) that there would be more Muslims here who are good in this topic. I cannot give you good arguments about the questions you initially posed.
About the practical example of this law, then know this, only some Muslim countries are following it completely. Pakistan is not among those as its law is a mixture of Islamic law, British law and some cultural traditions which go in several rural areas. I will stress on the practical example of Saudi Arab only when talking about the Sharia law. Now, Saudi Arab is among those countries where the crime rate is the lowest, but it follows the Sharia law completely. Some points, maybe they are not going exactly the same, but mostly, the law is there. On the other hand, you take America, it is among the countries with the highest crime rate. The following stats where mentioned in a public debate.
I will discuss your initial doubts with some people who are well versed in the Sharia law, especially the criminal law. InshAllah(by the will of Allah) I will get some satisfying answers. Also, if your intentions are to discuss and learn, the answers/arguments will satisfy. If you only want to argue and disagree, you will get nowhere.
About the one where two women are needed in place of one man for witness, that I will InshAllah(by the will of Allah) satisfy.
Two women witness are not equal to one man in all the cases. It is true mainly for the financial cases. This is also because the financial responsibility of the family lies on the shoulder of the man and not the woman. Thus, the woman need not to do any job but only if she wishes to. Also, the salery of hers is for herself alone and she may need not to spend a single penny on the family. Again, she can only do it if she wishes to. Thus, women are not regarded as experianced as men in this field and it is in this field that there are two women required in place of one man. There are several other cases when the verdict of a woman is held more stronger then the verdict of a man, and even if they disagree, the one of the woman will be given prefferance. Thus, in Islam, all rights are not the same between man and woman and the same is not necessary equitable. In Islam, all rights are equitable, each balanced by an obligation.
About the last comment, if you would read my earlier posts and the thread about miracles, you would know how deeply does Islam go when regarded with modren sciences. Also, to get a quick view, go through this link. http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php .
I am a Muslim, but not a lawyer. Sorry to say, I am not well versed in the Sahria law, especially the criminal law. I really wish and pray to Allah(the Almighty God) that there would be more Muslims here who are good in this topic. I cannot give you good arguments about the questions you initially posed.
About the practical example of this law, then know this, only some Muslim countries are following it completely. Pakistan is not among those as its law is a mixture of Islamic law, British law and some cultural traditions which go in several rural areas. I will stress on the practical example of Saudi Arab only when talking about the Sharia law. Now, Saudi Arab is among those countries where the crime rate is the lowest, but it follows the Sharia law completely. Some points, maybe they are not going exactly the same, but mostly, the law is there. On the other hand, you take America, it is among the countries with the highest crime rate. The following stats where mentioned in a public debate.
According to a report by the FBI in 1990, in the year 1990… ‘One hundred and two thousand, five hundred & fifty five women were raped’. These are only the reported cases - And the report says… ‘Only 16% of the cases were reported’. If you want those exact figure, multiply 1,02,555 with 6.25, and you get the answer - more than 6,40,000 ladies were raped in America only in 1990. And if you divide this by the number of days, divide by 365, you get a figure of One thousand, seven hundred and fifty six women are raped every day, in America, in the year 1990. And the report of 1991 says ‘Every day 'One thousand, nine hundred ladies are raped’ - And the report which came in Autumn, in 1993, it says ‘Every 1.3 minute, one woman is raped’.
Now, the Sharia law may sound odd when it is concidered theoratically, but there is something in it that by which it is keeping the crime rate low and completes the job. This is something that I do not think any English Common Law is greatly successful in.I will discuss your initial doubts with some people who are well versed in the Sharia law, especially the criminal law. InshAllah(by the will of Allah) I will get some satisfying answers. Also, if your intentions are to discuss and learn, the answers/arguments will satisfy. If you only want to argue and disagree, you will get nowhere.
About the one where two women are needed in place of one man for witness, that I will InshAllah(by the will of Allah) satisfy.
Two women witness are not equal to one man in all the cases. It is true mainly for the financial cases. This is also because the financial responsibility of the family lies on the shoulder of the man and not the woman. Thus, the woman need not to do any job but only if she wishes to. Also, the salery of hers is for herself alone and she may need not to spend a single penny on the family. Again, she can only do it if she wishes to. Thus, women are not regarded as experianced as men in this field and it is in this field that there are two women required in place of one man. There are several other cases when the verdict of a woman is held more stronger then the verdict of a man, and even if they disagree, the one of the woman will be given prefferance. Thus, in Islam, all rights are not the same between man and woman and the same is not necessary equitable. In Islam, all rights are equitable, each balanced by an obligation.
About the last comment, if you would read my earlier posts and the thread about miracles, you would know how deeply does Islam go when regarded with modren sciences. Also, to get a quick view, go through this link. http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php .
Hi Mohsin,
You are right about Pakistan - it uses a mixture of English Common Law and islamic law as well as tribal councils in the rural Northwest Frontier area. The example I gave before (about requiring four witnesses for a rape) is an example of one of the islamic laws. Incidentally, I think Musharraf wants to change this law but as things stand, it's still there.
You are also right that very few countries actually practice full on sharia law. There is Saudi, as you mentioned and then there is also northern Nigeria. Nigeria has had a few cases of "adulturous" women being sentenced to death by stoning. I think that in at least one of these cases the woman hadn't actually committed adultery, she was in fact raped but because she couldn't produce four witnesses then it was deemed to be adultery (she got pregnant by her rapist).
Now as far as I'm aware, none of these sentences have actually been carried out. They always get overturned by a higher court or the woman gets exiled or something. But still it's an example of sharia in action.
As regards the low crime rate in Saudi, I think there are a few factors you need to take into account when considering this:
First of all, there is crime in Saudi. Beheadings and amputations happen regularly. The main square in Riyadh is known locally as Chop Chop Square.
Secondly, bear in mind that Saudi is a very repressive state. They don't report their true crime figures because they want people to think that everything is rosy. Up until a year or two ago the Saudi authorities maintained that "There are no terrorists in Saudi Arabia". They tend to bury their head in the sand when it comes to these things. This isn't a reflection on islam, just on the Saudi government.
Thirdly, the population of Saudi Arabia is only 15 million and many of these people are pretty wealthy due to the oil. And Saudi Arabia is a huge country so this population is spread out. So you would expect there to not be much crime in a country with such a small, wealthy, insular population.
Fourthly, remember that I said that Saudi is a fairly repressive country. They have secret police and religious police wandering the streets. Countries like the US and the UK may have more crime but then we don't have secret police walking the streets. It's a trade off - you can reduce crime in any country if you are willing to have all your freedoms restricted and have public beheadings and secret police etc. I would rather put up with a certain level of crime and live in a free country.
Fifthly, as we have both mentioned, Pakistan has elements of sharia in their law but Karachi has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Karachi is a pretty dangerous city at the moment (in terms of crime levels).
So in summary, we don't really know for sure whether Saudi really does have a low crime rate or not because we can't trust the government figures but even if it does have a low crime rate, this isn't necessarily anything to do with sharia. It's more to do with the fact that Saudi has a small, rich, insular, well-educated population. ANY legal system would probably result in a low crime rate in a country like Saudi.
As regards the requirement of two female witnesses for every one male witness, you are right that this doesn't apply to every offence but I think you'll find it does apply to most criminal offences including rape.
In fact, in some interpretations of sharia this distinction doesn't just occur between men and women. It also occurs between muslims and non-muslims ie that in a court of law a non-muslims word is worth half that of a muslim. I presume the idea of this is that muslims are somehow more trustworthy. Well, I know a LOT of muslims and let me tell you, they aren't more trustworthy. They are exactly the same as anyone else when it comes to trustworthiness. So this rule is silly as well.
I don't really want to get into all the "science in the quran" stuff. Suffice it to say, I think it is just a case of people reading too much into things. The quran says a lot of things and if you use a liberal interpretation then you can probably make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
As regards this statement you made:
Agreed. As long as you agree to the same rule. I will learn from you as long as you likewise promise to learn from me. I don't want to argue and disagree - I want to agree. The million dollar question is, of course, what we agree on.
You are right about Pakistan - it uses a mixture of English Common Law and islamic law as well as tribal councils in the rural Northwest Frontier area. The example I gave before (about requiring four witnesses for a rape) is an example of one of the islamic laws. Incidentally, I think Musharraf wants to change this law but as things stand, it's still there.
You are also right that very few countries actually practice full on sharia law. There is Saudi, as you mentioned and then there is also northern Nigeria. Nigeria has had a few cases of "adulturous" women being sentenced to death by stoning. I think that in at least one of these cases the woman hadn't actually committed adultery, she was in fact raped but because she couldn't produce four witnesses then it was deemed to be adultery (she got pregnant by her rapist).
Now as far as I'm aware, none of these sentences have actually been carried out. They always get overturned by a higher court or the woman gets exiled or something. But still it's an example of sharia in action.
As regards the low crime rate in Saudi, I think there are a few factors you need to take into account when considering this:
First of all, there is crime in Saudi. Beheadings and amputations happen regularly. The main square in Riyadh is known locally as Chop Chop Square.
Secondly, bear in mind that Saudi is a very repressive state. They don't report their true crime figures because they want people to think that everything is rosy. Up until a year or two ago the Saudi authorities maintained that "There are no terrorists in Saudi Arabia". They tend to bury their head in the sand when it comes to these things. This isn't a reflection on islam, just on the Saudi government.
Thirdly, the population of Saudi Arabia is only 15 million and many of these people are pretty wealthy due to the oil. And Saudi Arabia is a huge country so this population is spread out. So you would expect there to not be much crime in a country with such a small, wealthy, insular population.
Fourthly, remember that I said that Saudi is a fairly repressive country. They have secret police and religious police wandering the streets. Countries like the US and the UK may have more crime but then we don't have secret police walking the streets. It's a trade off - you can reduce crime in any country if you are willing to have all your freedoms restricted and have public beheadings and secret police etc. I would rather put up with a certain level of crime and live in a free country.
Fifthly, as we have both mentioned, Pakistan has elements of sharia in their law but Karachi has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Karachi is a pretty dangerous city at the moment (in terms of crime levels).
So in summary, we don't really know for sure whether Saudi really does have a low crime rate or not because we can't trust the government figures but even if it does have a low crime rate, this isn't necessarily anything to do with sharia. It's more to do with the fact that Saudi has a small, rich, insular, well-educated population. ANY legal system would probably result in a low crime rate in a country like Saudi.
As regards the requirement of two female witnesses for every one male witness, you are right that this doesn't apply to every offence but I think you'll find it does apply to most criminal offences including rape.
In fact, in some interpretations of sharia this distinction doesn't just occur between men and women. It also occurs between muslims and non-muslims ie that in a court of law a non-muslims word is worth half that of a muslim. I presume the idea of this is that muslims are somehow more trustworthy. Well, I know a LOT of muslims and let me tell you, they aren't more trustworthy. They are exactly the same as anyone else when it comes to trustworthiness. So this rule is silly as well.
I don't really want to get into all the "science in the quran" stuff. Suffice it to say, I think it is just a case of people reading too much into things. The quran says a lot of things and if you use a liberal interpretation then you can probably make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
As regards this statement you made:
Agreed. As long as you agree to the same rule. I will learn from you as long as you likewise promise to learn from me. I don't want to argue and disagree - I want to agree. The million dollar question is, of course, what we agree on.
Science is full of theories. Are you seriously telling me that science just likes to twist things to sell? NExt time I read the science news section I'll figure it's just something being twisted to sell.samabudhi said:
Come off it - if you're going to claim that you're a lawyer then at least pretend you know something about law. Christianity has been in Britain since the first century AD. Anything remotely approaching "English Common Law" didn't come into being until well into the Norman period (ie, after 11th century AD) and long after England had been officially Christian. (There's an argument to made for Alfred in the 9th century - but, again, he was a Christian - and English Common Law as we know it didn't come into being until Henry II legislated in the 12th century).banjo said:
Now you are arguing that the principles of Christianity that entered English Law are actually more widespread than England, nothing more.banjo said:
There's a lot more to DNA testing than that - the big problems include size of sample sequenced, and the interpretation of the results - especially with the latter. The whole process involves far more subjectivity than a lot of people would realise.banjo said:
Regards banjo.
I am glad to know about your appraoch, i.e. about learning.
Now, from the points you discussed, again, I am not well versed in the Sharia criminal law and how the laws are working in many countries. From the stats you placed forward, it becomes very difficult to obsevre the full effects of this law and where it stands out. This law was successful at the early days of Islam and when the Muslims were doing good, say till about the fourteenth century. I will say that it is because they deviated from the true law that the Muslims went backwords.
The Arab nations are rich and in smaller in population, so this law is not observed as a very uniquely beneficial one. In the other nations, like Pakistan, the poverty rate is high and literacy rate is low, but still, there is no true law there. I am a Muslim, but I do not feel shy when I say that in such countries, the rich and/or powerful people tend to use the Islamic law to get there job done. Since the people are not educated there, they are often easily persuaded into accepting something because they are not towards researching it for themself. Also, the tribal council laws you talked about, they are active in Sindh as well, they tend to do the evil practice of doing unjustice with the Islamic law, alter a few according to their will and get there job done.
If you analyze this law completely, it is strict about such things, and also, it has laws which bounds the government and/or the system into many rules. Thus, if applied correctly, cases of curroptions are reduced. I think that this is among the main reasons why such nations are affraid of applying this law completely.
I am glad to know about your appraoch, i.e. about learning.
Now, from the points you discussed, again, I am not well versed in the Sharia criminal law and how the laws are working in many countries. From the stats you placed forward, it becomes very difficult to obsevre the full effects of this law and where it stands out. This law was successful at the early days of Islam and when the Muslims were doing good, say till about the fourteenth century. I will say that it is because they deviated from the true law that the Muslims went backwords.
The Arab nations are rich and in smaller in population, so this law is not observed as a very uniquely beneficial one. In the other nations, like Pakistan, the poverty rate is high and literacy rate is low, but still, there is no true law there. I am a Muslim, but I do not feel shy when I say that in such countries, the rich and/or powerful people tend to use the Islamic law to get there job done. Since the people are not educated there, they are often easily persuaded into accepting something because they are not towards researching it for themself. Also, the tribal council laws you talked about, they are active in Sindh as well, they tend to do the evil practice of doing unjustice with the Islamic law, alter a few according to their will and get there job done.
If you analyze this law completely, it is strict about such things, and also, it has laws which bounds the government and/or the system into many rules. Thus, if applied correctly, cases of curroptions are reduced. I think that this is among the main reasons why such nations are affraid of applying this law completely.
I just want to say that this is a field that I am good at, Alhumdullilah(praises to Allah). I will say that you are rejecting or overlooking this topic, but it has been very famous and when these verses are brought forward to many people(including scientists), they are very attracted to Islam and this can be regarded as a good reason why islam is spreading so quickly. I brought this forward in my post because you are the one who said about islam sticking it's nose into medicine. You go through the link, and you will see how deep it goes in many fields. If you have doubts about the verses, know that they are confirmed by many scientists and some of them accepted Islam when these verses were brought infront of them. Click here and see for yourself. http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm
Brian said:
With respect, I don't think you know what English Common Law is. It is true to say that many things were collected together during the period you mention (you may be thinking of the Domesday Book, the Magna Carta etc) but these things already existed just in a more disparate form. English Common Law is (among other things) a collection of local ordinances, by-laws and customs. Different areas of the country had their own customs and rules. These customs and rules were hundreds of years old by the time of the Norman period and they certainly predate the arrival of christianity.
The Magna Carta, for example, merely collected together and codified certain things and made them into law. But these "things" were already common practice long before Magna Carta. Magna Carta is important because it gave royal recognition to certain practices not because it invented these practices.
Au contraire. I am arguing the exact opposite in fact. That none of the principles of christianity that entered English law were exported to other countries. The Common law that is found in other countries is the basic principles of common law which have absolutely nothing to do with christianity. Common law has always been secular right from the start. Different religions have assaulted it over the years (christianity, islam, hinduism etc), but fortunately they were all unsuccessful.
Common law remains as it has always been. It just shrugs off these assaults by religion and becomes stronger as a result.
Yes there are things that need to be taken into account with DNA evidence (as with other types of evidence) but none of this detracts from my statement that assuming all is well with the sample and assuming the correct interpretation is given to it then the evidence is almost 100% reliable.
With respect, I don't think you know what English Common Law is. It is true to say that many things were collected together during the period you mention (you may be thinking of the Domesday Book, the Magna Carta etc) but these things already existed just in a more disparate form. English Common Law is (among other things) a collection of local ordinances, by-laws and customs. Different areas of the country had their own customs and rules. These customs and rules were hundreds of years old by the time of the Norman period and they certainly predate the arrival of christianity.
The Magna Carta, for example, merely collected together and codified certain things and made them into law. But these "things" were already common practice long before Magna Carta. Magna Carta is important because it gave royal recognition to certain practices not because it invented these practices.
Au contraire. I am arguing the exact opposite in fact. That none of the principles of christianity that entered English law were exported to other countries. The Common law that is found in other countries is the basic principles of common law which have absolutely nothing to do with christianity. Common law has always been secular right from the start. Different religions have assaulted it over the years (christianity, islam, hinduism etc), but fortunately they were all unsuccessful.
Common law remains as it has always been. It just shrugs off these assaults by religion and becomes stronger as a result.
Yes there are things that need to be taken into account with DNA evidence (as with other types of evidence) but none of this detracts from my statement that assuming all is well with the sample and assuming the correct interpretation is given to it then the evidence is almost 100% reliable.
Mohsin:
I'm interested in your phrase "the true law". The true law would have to be perfect, without any flaws. However I have pointed out a couple of flaws in sharia in this thread. The idea of requiring four witnesses to prove a crime is unnecessary. Three witnesses can do the job just as well or even two witnesses or even one witness.
Obviously a lot depends on the particular crime itself and also on who the witnesses are. Suppose you attack me in front of four witnesses but all the witnesses are your brothers. These witnesses may not be very reliable because they will try to support you. Or suppose the four witnesses are my brothers. Again they may not be reliable because they will back me up. Now suppose there are only three witnesses but they are all independent people who happened to be standing nearby. In this case it may well be that the three independent witnesses are more reliable than the four witnesses in the other scenarios.
The whole idea of requiring four witnesses is pointless. You can't have hard and fast rules about things like this. You need to judge things on a case by case basis. You need to put all the evidence before a jury and let them decide. The problem with sharia (and this is therefore a flaw) is that it requires certain things such as four witnesses for no good reason.
Another very important thing about law is that it has to be changeable. ie it needs to be able to adapt and change to keep up with changing times and new scientific breakthroughs. Sharia is static, it cannot change therefore it cannot be the "true" law because the "true" law would have the ability to change if required.
You could have a point here but I would say that all legal systems try to punish corruption not just sharia. The UK doesn't use sharia and yet corruption is almost unheard of in the UK (at least as regards police and government). Of course, corruption does occur but nothing like on the scale of India or Pakistan.
My personal opinion is that practices like baksheesh don't help. In places like India and Pakistan it is almost expected that some bribery will take place. I think you need to have zero tolerance for corruption. It would take a few things to wipe out corruption in Pakistan and India - more honest politicians, more rigourous enforcement of the law, better education by parents and teachers that corruption is not acceptable etc.
Sharia isn't the answer because there isn't sharia in the UK and there isn't corruption so this proves that you don't need to have sharia to get rid of corruption. You just need to enforce whatever type of legal system you have more effectively. You need to educate people properly and you need to work on any cultural aspects that say that a small amount of corruption is ok.
People need to be made to understand that a small amount of corruption is not ok. No amount of corruption is ok. Zero tolerance.
These are the kinds of things that eradicate corruption not a sterner legal system. Even if you had sharia in Pakistan, the people at the top would still be able to manipulate the legal system the same way they do now. It doesn't matter what kind of legal system you have in place. If the people at the top want to be corrupt then they will be corrupt unless you have checks and balances in place to stop them.
If you were lying on an operating table about to be operated on, would you rather the surgeon was using the quran and hadith as a guide or would you rather he used his medical textbooks?
I'm interested in your phrase "the true law". The true law would have to be perfect, without any flaws. However I have pointed out a couple of flaws in sharia in this thread. The idea of requiring four witnesses to prove a crime is unnecessary. Three witnesses can do the job just as well or even two witnesses or even one witness.
Obviously a lot depends on the particular crime itself and also on who the witnesses are. Suppose you attack me in front of four witnesses but all the witnesses are your brothers. These witnesses may not be very reliable because they will try to support you. Or suppose the four witnesses are my brothers. Again they may not be reliable because they will back me up. Now suppose there are only three witnesses but they are all independent people who happened to be standing nearby. In this case it may well be that the three independent witnesses are more reliable than the four witnesses in the other scenarios.
The whole idea of requiring four witnesses is pointless. You can't have hard and fast rules about things like this. You need to judge things on a case by case basis. You need to put all the evidence before a jury and let them decide. The problem with sharia (and this is therefore a flaw) is that it requires certain things such as four witnesses for no good reason.
Another very important thing about law is that it has to be changeable. ie it needs to be able to adapt and change to keep up with changing times and new scientific breakthroughs. Sharia is static, it cannot change therefore it cannot be the "true" law because the "true" law would have the ability to change if required.
You could have a point here but I would say that all legal systems try to punish corruption not just sharia. The UK doesn't use sharia and yet corruption is almost unheard of in the UK (at least as regards police and government). Of course, corruption does occur but nothing like on the scale of India or Pakistan.
My personal opinion is that practices like baksheesh don't help. In places like India and Pakistan it is almost expected that some bribery will take place. I think you need to have zero tolerance for corruption. It would take a few things to wipe out corruption in Pakistan and India - more honest politicians, more rigourous enforcement of the law, better education by parents and teachers that corruption is not acceptable etc.
Sharia isn't the answer because there isn't sharia in the UK and there isn't corruption so this proves that you don't need to have sharia to get rid of corruption. You just need to enforce whatever type of legal system you have more effectively. You need to educate people properly and you need to work on any cultural aspects that say that a small amount of corruption is ok.
People need to be made to understand that a small amount of corruption is not ok. No amount of corruption is ok. Zero tolerance.
These are the kinds of things that eradicate corruption not a sterner legal system. Even if you had sharia in Pakistan, the people at the top would still be able to manipulate the legal system the same way they do now. It doesn't matter what kind of legal system you have in place. If the people at the top want to be corrupt then they will be corrupt unless you have checks and balances in place to stop them.
If you were lying on an operating table about to be operated on, would you rather the surgeon was using the quran and hadith as a guide or would you rather he used his medical textbooks?
I am very much under the impression that there was a wide variation in the actual application of such local legal processes across England. Therefore it was required to codify a statute book that would harmonise the process process under a "common" set of standards and applications. My understanding is that English Common Law was only "founded" when this codification actually took place under Plantagenet rule, though the principle of "common law" itself is much more ancient.banjo said:
The Magna Carta itself, as I understand it, was set up primarily to assert the legal rights of the landed nobility against abuses by the crown, but found itself being more widely applied.
As to how much of a Christian influence was involved in any aspect of English Common Law - certainly there is no argument to be made that it is entirely influenced by Christianity, but I was quite under the impression that there were marked Christian influences. Add to that the fact the Church certainly had a strong hand in the application of law into the Mediaeval period, so it would be suprising to not see something of Christianity within it.
As for criticisms of genetic testing - I'll certainly watch out for an authoritive article on the subject.
Point noted. You are keen in making observations. 
We do not question the Qur'an, but we must know it to follow it. When we will know it, we will come to know the truth. In a way, we are reseaching it. If someone is altering it's teachings, the research I refferd to was about knowing what is really written. So, in a way not questioning on God's authority, but checking on what is really said. Thus to see if the person quoting is correct or not.
We do not question the Qur'an, but we must know it to follow it. When we will know it, we will come to know the truth. In a way, we are reseaching it. If someone is altering it's teachings, the research I refferd to was about knowing what is really written. So, in a way not questioning on God's authority, but checking on what is really said. Thus to see if the person quoting is correct or not.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
mohsin,
i couldn't agree more - and the same is true of many jews! incidentally, there is a muslim friend of mine, a theologian and teacher with whom i have the pleasure of learning Qur'an from time to time. she often says (albeit with some sorrow) that none of the self-styled "islamic states" are actually that - run in an islamic way for their citizens; the lack of social justice in them is evidence enough. in case you are interested, her website is at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8206/hkrausen/halhome.htm
was-salaam
bananabrain
i couldn't agree more - and the same is true of many jews! incidentally, there is a muslim friend of mine, a theologian and teacher with whom i have the pleasure of learning Qur'an from time to time. she often says (albeit with some sorrow) that none of the self-styled "islamic states" are actually that - run in an islamic way for their citizens; the lack of social justice in them is evidence enough. in case you are interested, her website is at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8206/hkrausen/halhome.htm
was-salaam
bananabrain
Banjo, when I said true law, I really mean't the true Islamic law. Sorry if I missed it out earlier. Secondly, there is a door opened for addition in the Islamic law. There are levels, I mean, for a decission, first we look into the Qur'an and the Hadiths. If we do not find any such case there then there is Ijmah(gathering of scholors to make a rule but not contradicting to Islam). Then there is Qayyas(making a dicission by one's own self but again, respecting the teachings of Islam). An example of Ijmah that I can give you is that of about the rules/laws about organ donation which was held in several places like Malaysia, in Jeddah, in Riyadh and India. It was decided that the following three conditions must be satisfied for organ donation.
First is , the organ that you are going to give to the person, it is only if his life is in danger, and then if he wants the organ, then its allowed, i.e. only to save a life. Point number 2, the person donating the organ, he should not do it for economical reasons… not for money. Third is, after the person donates the organ, it should not cause loss of his life. For instance, you can donate one of your kidneys but you cannot donate your vital organs like the heart.
Thus, there is a room for addition in the Islamic law.
__________
[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.
__________
First is , the organ that you are going to give to the person, it is only if his life is in danger, and then if he wants the organ, then its allowed, i.e. only to save a life. Point number 2, the person donating the organ, he should not do it for economical reasons… not for money. Third is, after the person donates the organ, it should not cause loss of his life. For instance, you can donate one of your kidneys but you cannot donate your vital organs like the heart.
Thus, there is a room for addition in the Islamic law.
You are taking it all wrong man. When did I or anyone said something like that. Qur'an is not a book or science, it is a book of signs, aayats and verses. There are about a thousand verses which are concerning with science, none contradicting with any established facts. Islam lays a lot of stress on learning. It tells us to learn so that we would come to know of God's artistry.
__________
[2.164] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.
__________
Mohsin:
Yes but true law and true islamic law are one and the same thing, aren't they? If islam is correct then islamic law must be the best and true law. So there is no difference between the true law and the true islamic law.
In this case then, shouldn't islamic law change it's rulings on how many witnesses are required for a crime? I've already explained to you why four witnesses are not necessary so therefore islam should change this ruling.
I think though that islam would be unable to change this ruling because the rule comes from the quran and therefore any change would be contradicting the teachings of islam. Doesn't this then mean that the teachings of islam contain a mistake?
I've proven to you that four witnesses are not required to prove a crime and yet islam says that four witnesses are required to prove a crime. Thus islam must be wrong.
Ijmah can only be brought into play as long any findings do not conflict with islam so this rules out any chance of correcting islam when it is shown to be outdated or plain wrong.
I'll try and explain to you the point I am trying to make. I'll try and be as clear as possible.
As you say the quran is a book of signs and verses but that's not all it is. It also lays down rules to be followed by the faithful. It lays down a very wide variety of rules encompassing what to do in many different situations. These rules must be followed by members of the ummah (the community of muslims).
Among these rules are rules governing law. The rules governing law form the sharia. These law rules must be followed by any islamic state.
Now, you say that there are a thousand verses dealing with various aspects of science and none of them contradict established science. Fine. But it is also true to say that none of them have helped anyone understand any new scientific principles. It is all retrospective. Science discovers that the earth is a sphere and then people find verses in the quran that suggest that the earth is a sphere.
There are probably lots of new discoveries yet to be made in science and when they are discovered, people will probably find verses in the quran that seem to tally with these new discoveries. But the verses in the quran themselves won't assist anyone in making any discoveries. It's all retrospective. I presume you would agree with that?
This is all fine and I have no problem with any of that. As you say the quran is not a science book so you would not expect a surgeon to use the quran as a guide to how to do an operation.
However, what you are suggesting is that we use the quran as a guide as to how to run a legal system. The problem is that law is a lot like medicine. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than people might think. Just as you would not give a surgeon a quran and tell him to use it as a guide, likewise you should not give a lawyer the quran and tell him to use it as a guide.
Understanding law requires a lot of finesse and delicacy. It requires a lot of understanding of detail. Often the outcome of a particular legal problem can be quite surprising. It may be the opposite of what you would think at first sight but then when you work through the problem you begin to understand how the law arrived at the solution it arrived at. You can follow the solution step by step and each step is a logical consequence of the previous step and it leads logically to the next step. Ask any law student, they will confirm what I telling you.
When you study law, they will often present you with a legal problem to solve. At first glance the answer looks to be obvious but then when you work it through, it often turns out that the correct solution is in fact the exact opposite of what you thought it would be. Law is very complicated and has developed and evolved over centuries.
The quranic approach to law just isn't sensitive enough to be actually followed in real life. In exactly the same way as you wouldn't use the quran to teach medicine, you wouldn't use the quran to understand law. It's too much of a blunt instrument. In actual fact, the quran isn't all that detailed about law - it covers a few areas in a very cursory manner eg inheritance, crime (four witnesses), what to with thieves etc but it doesn't go into it in much detail.
A law book on, say, inheritance alone, will be about four inches thick. Longer than the whole quran and hadith put together in fact. And that's just one subject. If the quran contains God's take on the law then I have to say that God would not make a very good lawyer.
God says you need four witnesses to a crime, I say you don't and I'm right. Take another example - that of amputating the hands of thieves. Well great, but then what happens when you later discover that the thief is in fact innocent? And by cutting off his hands you condemn that thief to a life of begging and petty crime. You remove the chance that he could be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society (lots of thieves do change their ways after a spell or two in prison). No way will he be able to find work with no hands.
Sharia has no finesse. It fails to understand some of the finer points of law. Muslims want to follow sharia because they think it is what God wants, they don't want to follow sharia because they think it's the best legal system possible (in my opinion). But this is the wrong way of looking at it. It's putting the cart before the horse. We should use our (God-given) intelligence and come up with the best legal system possible not blindly follow instructions written 1400 years ago. Especially when our own common sense tells us that there are better legal systems possible.
For example, four witnesses to a rape is unnecessary and impractical. This is obvious so why do it?
Yes but true law and true islamic law are one and the same thing, aren't they? If islam is correct then islamic law must be the best and true law. So there is no difference between the true law and the true islamic law.
In this case then, shouldn't islamic law change it's rulings on how many witnesses are required for a crime? I've already explained to you why four witnesses are not necessary so therefore islam should change this ruling.
I think though that islam would be unable to change this ruling because the rule comes from the quran and therefore any change would be contradicting the teachings of islam. Doesn't this then mean that the teachings of islam contain a mistake?
I've proven to you that four witnesses are not required to prove a crime and yet islam says that four witnesses are required to prove a crime. Thus islam must be wrong.
Ijmah can only be brought into play as long any findings do not conflict with islam so this rules out any chance of correcting islam when it is shown to be outdated or plain wrong.
I'll try and explain to you the point I am trying to make. I'll try and be as clear as possible.
As you say the quran is a book of signs and verses but that's not all it is. It also lays down rules to be followed by the faithful. It lays down a very wide variety of rules encompassing what to do in many different situations. These rules must be followed by members of the ummah (the community of muslims).
Among these rules are rules governing law. The rules governing law form the sharia. These law rules must be followed by any islamic state.
Now, you say that there are a thousand verses dealing with various aspects of science and none of them contradict established science. Fine. But it is also true to say that none of them have helped anyone understand any new scientific principles. It is all retrospective. Science discovers that the earth is a sphere and then people find verses in the quran that suggest that the earth is a sphere.
There are probably lots of new discoveries yet to be made in science and when they are discovered, people will probably find verses in the quran that seem to tally with these new discoveries. But the verses in the quran themselves won't assist anyone in making any discoveries. It's all retrospective. I presume you would agree with that?
This is all fine and I have no problem with any of that. As you say the quran is not a science book so you would not expect a surgeon to use the quran as a guide to how to do an operation.
However, what you are suggesting is that we use the quran as a guide as to how to run a legal system. The problem is that law is a lot like medicine. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than people might think. Just as you would not give a surgeon a quran and tell him to use it as a guide, likewise you should not give a lawyer the quran and tell him to use it as a guide.
Understanding law requires a lot of finesse and delicacy. It requires a lot of understanding of detail. Often the outcome of a particular legal problem can be quite surprising. It may be the opposite of what you would think at first sight but then when you work through the problem you begin to understand how the law arrived at the solution it arrived at. You can follow the solution step by step and each step is a logical consequence of the previous step and it leads logically to the next step. Ask any law student, they will confirm what I telling you.
When you study law, they will often present you with a legal problem to solve. At first glance the answer looks to be obvious but then when you work it through, it often turns out that the correct solution is in fact the exact opposite of what you thought it would be. Law is very complicated and has developed and evolved over centuries.
The quranic approach to law just isn't sensitive enough to be actually followed in real life. In exactly the same way as you wouldn't use the quran to teach medicine, you wouldn't use the quran to understand law. It's too much of a blunt instrument. In actual fact, the quran isn't all that detailed about law - it covers a few areas in a very cursory manner eg inheritance, crime (four witnesses), what to with thieves etc but it doesn't go into it in much detail.
A law book on, say, inheritance alone, will be about four inches thick. Longer than the whole quran and hadith put together in fact. And that's just one subject. If the quran contains God's take on the law then I have to say that God would not make a very good lawyer.
God says you need four witnesses to a crime, I say you don't and I'm right. Take another example - that of amputating the hands of thieves. Well great, but then what happens when you later discover that the thief is in fact innocent? And by cutting off his hands you condemn that thief to a life of begging and petty crime. You remove the chance that he could be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society (lots of thieves do change their ways after a spell or two in prison). No way will he be able to find work with no hands.
Sharia has no finesse. It fails to understand some of the finer points of law. Muslims want to follow sharia because they think it is what God wants, they don't want to follow sharia because they think it's the best legal system possible (in my opinion). But this is the wrong way of looking at it. It's putting the cart before the horse. We should use our (God-given) intelligence and come up with the best legal system possible not blindly follow instructions written 1400 years ago. Especially when our own common sense tells us that there are better legal systems possible.
For example, four witnesses to a rape is unnecessary and impractical. This is obvious so why do it?
Banjo! you call yourself a lawyer? You are so eager in making a judgement without knowing the arguments from the other side. I told you that I am not well versed in this subject, I am not a scholor, not even had any proper education in this matter. Only heard and read acticals and lectures and Alhumdulillah(praises to Allah) have obtained some useful knowledge. Just because you do not know how it(the Sharia criminal law) works and I do not know it, does not mean that it is wrong. You ask a well versed scholor, start a thread about this in some Muslim controlled forums. Unfortunately, there are'nt many Muslims here to satisfy your doubts, but you might find good answers there. Keep in mind that this was the same law, followed even more strictly when the Muslims were on the top. During the dark ages, there was peace and order in the Muslim controlled states while the Europians where struggling deeply. If there had been no explanation to your initial doubts, this would not have been possible.
About "Qur'an and Science", I will agree with you that discoveries are made earlier and then compared with the Qur'anic verses. But this had not always been the case. The media has not shown the great contrabutions made by the Muslims in the field of science. With the limited instruments and technology what we had at that time, from 8th to 12th century- what discoveries the Muslim Scientists made - it is unbelievable. Today, because Science is Advanced we are making so many discoveries. There with the amount of limited facilities we had, the amount of discoveries Muslim Scientists made - its unbelievable. I want to ask you, what was the insparation which made this possible? The Muslims were so ahead so quickly in say, astronomy and biology, who's to say that they were not concidering the Qur'an and it's verses at certain cases.
Also in present time, when the verses about embroyology were brought in front of Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore (the head of Anatomy), he confirmed them to be 100% true. Also, there was a stage of development he did not understand and made an observation to confirm it, only to find it again 100% correct. See this for yourself http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm . Also, Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan. He said:
“I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in [the] Quran, and for us the modern astronomers have been studying very small pieces of the universe. We’ve concentrated our efforts for understanding of [a] very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts [of] the sky without thinking [about the] whole universe. So, by reading [the] Quran and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe.”
(It's an assumption, but it can help.)
Another thing, several archeological discoveries had been made following the verses of the Qur'an and also the Bible.
Banjo, keep an open mind with a positive approach. I have some respect for you as you are an educated person, and it is easy to make a dialog with a learned person rather then one who has got no grounds to stand on.
Sincerely,
Mohsin
About "Qur'an and Science", I will agree with you that discoveries are made earlier and then compared with the Qur'anic verses. But this had not always been the case. The media has not shown the great contrabutions made by the Muslims in the field of science. With the limited instruments and technology what we had at that time, from 8th to 12th century- what discoveries the Muslim Scientists made - it is unbelievable. Today, because Science is Advanced we are making so many discoveries. There with the amount of limited facilities we had, the amount of discoveries Muslim Scientists made - its unbelievable. I want to ask you, what was the insparation which made this possible? The Muslims were so ahead so quickly in say, astronomy and biology, who's to say that they were not concidering the Qur'an and it's verses at certain cases.
Also in present time, when the verses about embroyology were brought in front of Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore (the head of Anatomy), he confirmed them to be 100% true. Also, there was a stage of development he did not understand and made an observation to confirm it, only to find it again 100% correct. See this for yourself http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm . Also, Dr. Yoshihide Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan. He said:
“I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in [the] Quran, and for us the modern astronomers have been studying very small pieces of the universe. We’ve concentrated our efforts for understanding of [a] very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts [of] the sky without thinking [about the] whole universe. So, by reading [the] Quran and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe.”
(It's an assumption, but it can help.)
Another thing, several archeological discoveries had been made following the verses of the Qur'an and also the Bible.
Banjo, keep an open mind with a positive approach. I have some respect for you as you are an educated person, and it is easy to make a dialog with a learned person rather then one who has got no grounds to stand on.
Sincerely,
Mohsin
kkawohl
Well-Known Member
I agree that from the 8th to the 12th century- the discoveries the Muslim Scientists made - were extraordinary...but, it was because they were scientists, not because they were Muslim.Mohsin said:
God, (the spiritual existence) allows us to draw inspiration therefrom. It is a divine influence upon the human mind...but to say that the Qur'an and the Bible, which were written by fallible humans centuries ago...has scientific value today...is stretching the truth to extreme limits.
Religious influences (not necessarily spiritual) are there to govern the gullible...not governments.
Namaste,
Kurt
kkawohl
Well-Known Member
English common law is the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. In the US today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute.I said:
Indeed, but note two points - there was a great variation in common law across England - which in itself was formed from various kingdoms of often considerably different ethnic groups. There was no single system of law of England before codification - in fact, that is a precise reason why codification began in the Norman period. Yes, there may have been some regional similarities on how certain issues were to be approached, but I don't believe that there is an argument to claim that common law in itself was universal in its beliefs and process across England before codification.
Also note that Christianity as a practised religion, was certainly present in the British Isles before the Dark Ages - there are Christian finds in England from the Claudian period (1st century AD), and Constantine the Great spent a lot of time raised in Britain, under a Christian mother and Christian servants. Add to that the church was effectively the adminstrator of county courts into the mediaeval period. It would therefore be disingenius to imagine that Christianity had absolutely no influence on English Common Law as it was codified - though I do indeed agree that it did not form the basis of common law, but instead heavily influenced other areas of law.
Also note that Christianity as a practised religion, was certainly present in the British Isles before the Dark Ages - there are Christian finds in England from the Claudian period (1st century AD), and Constantine the Great spent a lot of time raised in Britain, under a Christian mother and Christian servants. Add to that the church was effectively the adminstrator of county courts into the mediaeval period. It would therefore be disingenius to imagine that Christianity had absolutely no influence on English Common Law as it was codified - though I do indeed agree that it did not form the basis of common law, but instead heavily influenced other areas of law.