the purpose of life

[Spion]

And the personal aspects of Sharia law implemented is interpreted without the requiste compassion, understanding and tolerance. Indeed it would appear to be an excuse to further repress the population which is agitating for change.

What's the balance of social and political forces there?

 

[Spion]

a harsh application of sharia provides the requisite demonisation essential for us to justify maintaining a military presence there and physically intervene when civil unrest becomes inevitable.

Are you saying the Saudi ruling elite implements sharia and implements it harshly so that the US has a ready-made reason to intervene?

 

[muckypup]

Are you saying the Saudi ruling elite implements sharia and implements it harshly so that the US has a ready-made reason to intervene?

A lot more complex then that, firstly the interpretation of sharia thats applied is not one thats concurrent with the original model. Secondly, there's only a partial implementation of sharia. Thirdly, the border boundaries drawn up by the departing colonials include the two holy sites, makkah and Medinah, this influences the social environment that is expected within the global Muslim communinty (the Ummah).

Finally, client regimes presupposes intervention so the more important role a harsh implementation of Sharia serves is 'Hey look at the barbarians, sharia is reprehensible and its spread must be avoided at all costs.'

But as I said its a bit more complex then that.

 

[Spion]

A lot more complex then that, firstly the interpretation of sharia thats applied is not one thats concurrent with the original model. Secondly, there's only a partial implementation of sharia. Thirdly, the border boundaries drawn up by the departing colonials include the two holy sites, makkah and Medinah, this influences the social environment that is expected within the global Muslim communinty (the Ummah).

Finally, client regimes presupposes intervention so the more important role a harsh implementation of Sharia serves is 'Hey look at the barbarians, sharia is reprehensible and its spread must be avoided at all costs.'

But as I said its a bit more complex then that.

I'm far from convinced there is an 'original model' of sharia that has been diverted from. There are so many implementations of Islamic law, mediated by so many local cultures, by differing law schools and by so many different levels in the multitudinous hierarchies spread over a vast area of the globe that claiming an 'original' is going to be one hell of a task for anyone.

And i really don't know what you mean by "Thirdly, the border boundaries drawn up by the departing colonials include the two holy sites, makkah and Medinah, this influences the social environment that is expected within the global Muslim communinty" or it's relevance.

And I'm also far from convinced of any mechanism, conscious or otherwise, in which sharia is in any way a tool for triggering intervention. It ignores the particular social history of SA and explantions for why it arose. And, let's face it, having US troops on Saudi sand is not popular, to say the least.

I think we need to know the social make up of the country and the religious and political forces that work through them. It'd be useful to know what manifestations of politics there have been.

 

[Spion]

. . . all of which is pretty far from the purpose of life

*goes and opens a beer*

 

[fattboy]

Abu Dawud was neither G0D nor Prophet Muhammed last time I looked.
A fourth rate Hadith with no basis in Qu'ran, and contrary to the actions of Prophet Muhammed and you expect me to accept that?

Also, Lot's people - the father, Lot was tricked by his own daughters to copulate and bore his children. That is the 'crime' of Lot's people. That's not a "sex-crime" we see committed often, since it's usually the Father initiating sex with his children against their consent (incestous rape of a minor), and that was not the crime of "Lot's people" who were grown women unable to find husbands, breeding with their own father

where did u get this slander, and erroneus understanding of the hadith from?

 

[fattboy]

Does that mean you would be in favour of homosexuals being rounded up in a Muslim state?

You'll never get one here, BTW, so I'd best start finding out how the world really works, if I were you.

i would prefer not 2 go 2 prison 4 seven years so im not really gonna get in2 some hypothesis thats not gonna benefit either of us, i dont wanna get misconstrued.

 

[fattboy]

According to Torah, yes, Lot's daughters tricked their father into siring their children. It's an indisputable text tho. Anyway, that's 2nd millenium BCE stuff, and it's still forbidden to have sex with your father (and vice-versa).


Re. Attitudes to homosexuality. This is the 21st Century, not the 1st, or the 9th, or the 19th.
There are big probs with Haredim attitudes towards homosexuals at Gay Parade time (and no doubt persecution/troubles in those communities) - some 3 Gay people were unfortunately stabbed but the person doing that was convicted of attempted murder.

its marvellous how u query the reliability of ahadith that were collected and put 2 paper no more than 200 years after the events, that are graded in terms of reliability from sound thru 2 weak and fabricated and have scrupulous chains of tranmission(or not as the case may be),which is a science in itself thats accepted by western historians, but have no problem in accepting a text that ceased 2 exist in its entirety after Jerusalem was pretty much smashed 2 pieces at the time of the babylonian exile and what survived was lost again when the romans invaded, and whats left 2day is not much more than historical accounts.
even Jews themselves admit the Levites changed what had been originally revealed to Moses pbuh.
theres nothing indisputable about it at all other than it was originally divine revelation and that whats there 2day is not.

 

[fattboy]

There's unanimous agreement within the muslim community, together with much circumstantial evidence, both current and historical which strongly suggests that Saudi is a Anglo American client state.

The internal repression & disappearances of muslim intellectuals & scholars is legendary, and the application of sharia law is partial, both the economic and political applications of Sharia have been left out as that would outlaw both capitalism and monarchy.

And the personal aspects of Sharia law implemented is interpreted without the requiste compassion, understanding and tolerance. Indeed it would appear to be an excuse to further repress the population which is agitating for change.

Also, a harsh application of sharia provides the requisite demonisation essential for us to justify maintaining a military presence there and physically intervene when civil unrest becomes inevitable. Saudi has a bloody future ahead of it especially with peak oil on the horizon

some very good points

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And this new obsession with homosexuality has more to do with the influence of Christian fundamentalism.

What new obsession? It's always been a big deal, the only diff is that in the old days, it was all mocking and ostracism.

 

[invisibleplanet]

but have no problem in accepting a text that ceased 2 exist in its entirety after Jerusalem was pretty much smashed 2 pieces at the time of the babylonian exile and what survived was lost again when the romans invaded, and whats left 2day is not much more than historical accounts.
even Jews themselves admit the Levites changed what had been originally revealed to Moses pbuh.
theres nothing indisputable about it at all other than it was originally divine revelation and that whats there 2day is not.

I'm referring to the Samaritan Torah from before the 6th BCE, which was considered even before the Babylonian exile by Samaritans to have been written by Moses' great-grandson, and which did survive the first destruction of the Temple - NOT the Masoretic texts which survive dated from 10th CE onwards. There are 6,000 differences between the two texts. It's not contested by Jews that changes have been made to the text of Judaic (non-Samaritan) Torah by scribes/priests during those 1500 years. The Samaritan text remains unchanged in all this time, and btw, both Samaritans and Jews consider only the Torah to be divine revelation. Samaritan's name (in Hebrew) means 'Keepers of The Law'.
http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/vonGal
Also, in case you weren't aware before you go slinging barbs at Levites, Moses was also a Levite.

its marvellous how u query the reliability of ahadith that were collected and put 2 paper no more than 200 years after the events, that are graded in terms of reliability from sound thru 2 weak and fabricated and have scrupulous chains of tranmission(or not as the case may be),which is a science in itself thats accepted by western historians,

So where is the basis in Qu'ran for murdering homosexuals? The Qu'ran is the only text which is considered 'divine revelation'. And what of Prophet Muhammad's attitudes in the Hadith? Did he kill the Mukhannathun (closest translation=transsexual)? In fact, just why do you think Yasin is so great? His viewpoint is retrograde, going backwards, not forwards, oppressive, not liberative.

Let's get back to discussing your hate-filled Sheikh, shall we.

 

[fattboy]

I'm referring to the Samaritan Torah from before the 6th BCE, which was considered even before the Babylonian exile by Samaritans to have been written by Moses' great-grandson, and which did survive the first destruction of the Temple - NOT the Masoretic texts which survive dated from 10th CE onwards. There are 6,000 differences between the two texts. It's not contested by Jews that changes have been made to the text of Judaic (non-Samaritan) Torah by scribes/priests during those 1500 years. The Samaritan text remains unchanged in all this time, and btw, both Samaritans and Jews consider only the Torah to be divine revelation. Samaritan's name (in Hebrew) means 'Keepers of The Law'.
http://rosetta.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/TC/vonGal
Also, in case you weren't aware before you go slinging barbs at Levites, Moses was also a Levite.


So where is the basis in Qu'ran for murdering homosexuals? The Qu'ran is the only text which is considered 'divine revelation'. And what of Prophet Muhammad's attitudes in the Hadith? Did he kill the Mukhannathun (closest translation=transsexual)? In fact, just why do you think Yasin is so great? His viewpoint is retrograde, going backwards, not forwards, oppressive, not liberative.

Let's get back to discussing your hate-filled Sheikh, shall we.

can u fine me anywhere in the Qur'an about how 2 make ablution, or what times 2 pray at, or how and where 2 cut off a thieves hand, i dont think u'll find anything about stoning adulterers in the there either.

from an account i just read on wikipedia, apparently one(mukkhannathun) was brought 2 the Prophet pbuh him and he was banished.

the mcb dont speak 4 muslims, they just say whats politically expedient 4 them, their words carry no weight amongst muslims.
i dont see sugarcoating Islam as progression.

 

[muckypup]

i dont see sugarcoating Islam as progression.

neither is coating it with bile progress. Islam has a great deal of room for interpretation and its within that space we either show our humanity or descend into ignorance. The majority of the Qura'an and indeed the Hadith talks about compassion, kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, mercy, understanding and beauty; the defining attributes of the divine.

I suggest a cursory glance at previous Islamic civilizations, until the 14th Century, as an eye opener; Colonism has had a massive impact on the interpretation of Islam, and understandably when faced with centuries long (and continuing) socio economic exploitation and destruction anger is to be expected.

But lets not forget the driving force behind all faith is unification and a move towards truth which is exemplified in beauty. Hence, a struggle against oppression must be inclusive of beauty otherwise your practice of Islam is fragmented.

 

[muckypup]

the mcb dont speak 4 muslims, they just say whats politically expedient 4 them, their words carry no weight amongst muslims.

I wholeheartedly agree. But be aware that currently the Muslim community lacks strong guides; the few that exist and are peddled heavily by mainstream media and other organizations are solely reacting against perceived oppression and injustice. Their approach is fragmented, angry and (perhaps understandably) overtly political.

The result is a community in crisis grasping for solutions. Please don't be taken in by so called Scholars who are clearly adopting the language of Christian fundamentalism. Think for yourself.

 

[invisibleplanet]

If Zakat were properly administered there'd be no need for thieving. It should be first determined if the fault lies in the distribution of Zakat, and not in the thief. No-one's hand should be removed from their body for a failure in the distribution of alms or the failure of a thief to convey their need beyond their means. If a thief steal through a fault in distribution of Zakat, then the money to cover their theft should come from Zakat. A metaphorical rap on the knuckles and no more to the thief for not communicating their desparateness.

If the thing stole is beyond the means of Zakat, then the fault lies with the thief - the object should be returned to wherever it came from, and the thief should make community service to realise the purpose of charity is to only help the needy, not the greedy. If they've not got the object to return to it's 'owner', then perhaps some kind soul would give them a job so they can pay back the price of a replacement. If they stole to feed an addiction, then all efforts should be made to cure their addiction and it should be considered that they were possessed by their addiction. When they are well enough, they can make reparations to the person they stole from.

If there's no instruction in Al Qu'ran to separate a person from their hand, then perhaps one should go with the merciful route above. If a man/woman is injured for life by the removal of a hand, then they're handicapped for the rest of their life, less able to fend for themselves and to work for themselves, stigmatised and shunned by society due to their handlessness. It's only food/property after all, and Code of Hammurabi is soooooo 3rd Millenium BCE. If Allah is merciful, then I'm quite sure we mere humans should make all attempts to be merciful too.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If Zakat were properly administered there'd be no need for thieving. It should be first determined if the fault lies in the distribution of Zakat, and not in the thief. No-one's hand should be removed from their body for a failure in the distribution of alms or the failure of a thief to convey their need beyond their means. If a thief steal through a fault in distribution of Zakat, then the money to cover their theft should come from Zakat. A metaphorical rap on the knuckles and no more to the thief for not communicating their desparateness.

If the thing stole is beyond the means of Zakat, then the fault lies with the thief - the object should be returned to wherever it came from, and the thief should make community service to realise the purpose of charity is to only help the needy, not the greedy. If they've not got the object to return to it's 'owner', then perhaps some kind soul would give them a job so they can pay back the price of a replacement. If they stole to feed an addiction, then all efforts should be made to cure their addiction and it should be considered that they were possessed by their addiction. When they are well enough, they can make reparations to the person they stole from.

If there's no instruction in Al Qu'ran to separate a person from their hand, then perhaps one should go with the merciful route above. If a man/woman is injured for life by the removal of a hand, then they're handicapped for the rest of their life, less able to fend for themselves and to work for themselves, stigmatised and shunned by society due to their handlessness. It's only food/property after all, and Code of Hammurabi is soooooo 3rd Millenium BCE. If Allah is merciful, then I'm quite sure we mere humans should make all attempts to be merciful too.

Was someone getting confused about Islam again?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If there's no instruction in Al Qu'ran ...

Are you channelling Aldebaran these days?

 

[invisibleplanet]

can u fine me anywhere in the Qur'an about how 2 make ablution,

Have you tried looking at Al Ma'idah (Surah 5, Verse 6) ?

 

[fattboy]

neither is coating it with bile progress. Islam has a great deal of room for interpretation and its within that space we either show our humanity or descend into ignorance. The majority of the Qura'an and indeed the Hadith talks about compassion, kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, mercy, understanding and beauty; the defining attributes of the divine.

I suggest a cursory glance at previous Islamic civilizations, until the 14th Century, as an eye opener; Colonism has had a massive impact on the interpretation of Islam, and understandably when faced with centuries long (and continuing) socio economic exploitation and destruction anger is to be expected.

But lets not forget the driving force behind all faith is unification and a move towards truth which is exemplified in beauty. Hence, a struggle against oppression must be inclusive of beauty otherwise your practice of Islam is fragmented.

yep, i agree fully with u muckypup, i could give u verses all day long from the Qur'an about being kind, merciful and forgiving giving charity etc etc., Islam is beautiful.
but i dont think theres that much room 4 interpretation, some maybe but i cant think of an example right now, maybe its just a bit early in the morning, can u give an example?

btw in the Qur'an the word punishment appears 117 times and the word forgiveness appears exactly twice as many times, how is amazing is that!
check this out

 

[fattboy]

Have you tried looking at Al Ma'idah (Surah 5, Verse 6) ?

i was half expecting this

it does explain the sequence but i dunno if it would suffice because when we start we pronounce the name of Allah, and rinse the mouth and nose and im pretty sure these cant be ommitted, ive certainly never seen anyone make ablution by just starting with the face.

 

[fattboy]

I wholeheartedly agree. But be aware that currently the Muslim community lacks strong guides; the few that exist and are peddled heavily by mainstream media and other organizations are solely reacting against perceived oppression and injustice. Their approach is fragmented, angry and (perhaps understandably) overtly political.

The result is a community in crisis grasping for solutions. Please don't be taken in by so called Scholars who are clearly adopting the language of Christian fundamentalism. Think for yourself.

Islam is political tho,the testification of faith is the most political statement in the world.

there are dodgy scholars without a doubt, the scholars 4 dollars, but there are sincere ones too, the further a scholar sits from the gates of the rulers the more trust i'll in him.

 

[fattboy]

If Zakat were properly administered there'd be no need for thieving. It should be first determined if the fault lies in the distribution of Zakat, and not in the thief. No-one's hand should be removed from their body for a failure in the distribution of alms or the failure of a thief to convey their need beyond their means. If a thief steal through a fault in distribution of Zakat, then the money to cover their theft should come from Zakat. A metaphorical rap on the knuckles and no more to the thief for not communicating their desparateness.

If the thing stole is beyond the means of Zakat, then the fault lies with the thief - the object should be returned to wherever it came from, and the thief should make community service to realise the purpose of charity is to only help the needy, not the greedy. If they've not got the object to return to it's 'owner', then perhaps some kind soul would give them a job so they can pay back the price of a replacement. If they stole to feed an addiction, then all efforts should be made to cure their addiction and it should be considered that they were possessed by their addiction. When they are well enough, they can make reparations to the person they stole from.

If there's no instruction in Al Qu'ran to separate a person from their hand, then perhaps one should go with the merciful route above. If a man/woman is injured for life by the removal of a hand, then they're handicapped for the rest of their life, less able to fend for themselves and to work for themselves, stigmatised and shunned by society due to their handlessness. It's only food/property after all, and Code of Hammurabi is soooooo 3rd Millenium BCE. If Allah is merciful, then I'm quite sure we mere humans should make all attempts to be merciful too.

ur just talking from ur opinions and desires IP, we all have them, but being a muslim means submitting 2 Almighty God.
b4 i became a muslim and even shortly after i thought sharia was an extremist thing and that niqaab was too but the more knowledge u aquire the more u understand the wisdom behind it.

about stealing, thats gotta be one thing that even a lot of non muslims will agree with the sharia on.
its only applied if the item is beyond a certain value, not 4 something trivial.
yeah it is a harsh punishment, thats why ppl in sharia ruled places dont go round robbing ppl very much.

Islam protects the ppl, the innocent ones who wanna live in peace, not the ones committing crimes.
the Qur'an doesnt explain every last detail of Islamic life IP, theres loads of things that arent in the Qur'an, ive mentioned a few.
the sharia isnt just the Qur'an, its the sunnah too, it compliments and explains the Qur'an, its an essential part of Islam and forms a massive part of the sharia.

 

[invisibleplanet]

In the Qu'ran it is clear - any transgressor MUST be given every chance to make amends before any punishment is exacted. There are a many ways in which a person can make amends - I simply listed those ways. There are many ways of 'cutting off the hand of a thief' - one of those would be to ensure they had the means to provide for themselves and so did not feel compelled to thieve. Another is to ensure that Zakat is readily available to the needy. I listed as many ways as I could that would remove the need or compulsion to steal.

Cut off someone's hand and they are handicapped for life - it's not merciful, compassionate or wise to handicap someone for life over the stealing of property. Mutilation is an archaic, pre-Islamic practice and not relevant to the 21st Century. Property is not more important than People, even if People are sometimes thieves. There are other punishments that can cause a person to 'repent of their wrongdoing' other than mutilation.

 

[fattboy]

ur hard work man

 

[invisibleplanet]

ur just talking from ur opinions and desires IP, we all have them, but being a muslim means submitting 2 Almighty God.

No, I think you'll find I've followed Moses' Code of Law in a 21st Century manner.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Niqaab - niqab (full veil) is not 'religious dress' or 'Islamic tradition'! It's a high-status symbol that used be a symbol for women who did not have to work, and was worn mainly in Egypt and the Arabian States. It was never worn in Pakistan/Kasmir, nor Indonesia, China etc. It's a cultural, not religious item of clothing.

 

[nino_savatte]

Was someone getting confused about Islam again?

 

[nino_savatte]

Islam is political tho,the testification of faith is the most political statement in the world.

.

Not political but ideological. A small but important difference. What is "testification"?

 

[fattboy]

Niqaab - niqab (full veil) is not 'religious dress' or 'Islamic tradition'! It's a high-status symbol that used be a symbol for women who did not have to work, and was worn mainly in Egypt and the Arabian States. It was never worn in Pakistan/Kasmir, nor Indonesia, China etc. It's a cultural, not religious item of clothing.

it is religious, there just a differing over wether its mandatory or not.

 

[fattboy]

Not political but ideological. A small but important difference. What is "testification"?

the testification of faith is the shahada or kalima.
it translates like this, 'There is none worthy of worship except Allah, and Muhammed is His Messenger.'

it is political because it negates the authority of anything other than the authority of Islam.