Reply to An image of Mohammed

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "An image of Mohammed "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima]
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh [/quote]

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet. [/quote]

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph.  And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since  1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.  [/quote]

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?[/quote]

1st of all,  you didn't ask a specific question,  so there was nothing to dodge. If you have a specific question about sharia law,  please do ask and I will be glad to entertain, discussing sharia without a specific question is pointless as it is too broad.  2nd my assertion that Muslims are asked to flow the law of the land where they live is not baseless, it is based on Islamic Jurisprudence and texts.  Whether specific Malay Muslims, Random Muslims surveyed on  the street or Pew research show that those specific Muslims desire otherwise is irrelevant as they remain just desires/wants of those specific people. You can want everyone in the entire state of NY to wear pink,  that doesn't make it a law.  The Islamic text is clear on this issue, Muslims who enjoy the liberty to practice their faith are required to honor the government of their country, and to live as decent, law-abiding citizens :

[quote] [b] The obligation to follow the law of the land[/b]

That the Shari'a obliges Muslims to comply with the laws of their country of residence is premised on the Qur'anic dicta demanding fulfilling "obligations" and "covenants," as in the imperatives "You who believe, fulfil your obligations" and "Honour your pledges: you will be questioned about your pledges." Hence, when asked for a fatwa about the extent to which the Shari'a allows Muslims to obey the governments of the non-Muslim countries in which they live, the prominent contemporary Shaykh Salman al-Oadah replied:

[b]"The Muslims living in a non-Muslim country, even if they originally entered that country by means of forged documents, are considered to be living in their adopted country under a covenant. They must, therefore, comply with the laws of their country of residence without, at the same time, disobeying Islamic Law."[/b]

By "disobeying Islamic law" is meant matters that relate to personal obligations as, for example, Muslim women being asked by the Australian government to remove their hijab (head scarf), or Muslims being asked to consume alcohol or unlawful food, which is unconstitutional and farfetched. Given that section 116 of Australia's Constitution separates religious and civil authority and prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting laws establishing any religion or enforcing religious observance, or prohibiting freedom of religious practice, it is evident that no authority, religious or otherwise, can force a Muslim to abide by, or abandon, any personal religious laws unless deemed illegal by Australian law.

Classical Muslim jurists applied the same rule for Muslims passing through enemy lands (in other words, an abode of war), as demonstrated in the fatwa of the imminent jurist of his time, Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani (748-804):

"If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy's front lines by deceptively pretended to be messengers of the Muslim's Caliph carrying official documents - or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines - they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. This also applies in case of being truly trusted by the other party."[/quote]

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics