American Muslims say they reject separate ‘sharia’ law system

[VCheng]

not only they many Arabs enjoy luxury life with 4 wives and huge business with too much freedom and choices want to make afghanistan pakistan a true stone age islamic states

Pakistan does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy by any means; the Arabs, as you point out, are runners-up I think.

 

[Awesome]

Interesting to see how those enjoying the civil liberties of the West can be so vociferous about their lands of origin following sharia, but don't want it for themselves.

Continuation of that over-reaction. Most people with the grasp of realities - like say American Muslims - would want in place a system that is fair and equal for all - a secular system. Keeping that in mind, it is the obvious choice to not go for Shariah as a state law.

That does not mean they reject Islamic jurisprudence altogether, just that most people who have the far sight and the benefit of this degree of enlightenment (not necessarily education) will not see these two things as contradictory or mutually exclusive, others will see it as anything but that.

Also you seemed to have picked up on things from your perspective, but if you read the meat of the news report it seems to have reported this seemingly non-news as news because it is possible the Islamophobia of the west is playing up a fear that shouldn't be there in the first place? It is a good thing the American Muslims are doing, your question seemed to imply that they are doing something bad (or at least being hypocritical). Sort of like damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[VCheng]

............

Also you seemed to have picked up on things from your perspective, but if you read the meat of the news report it seems to have reported this seemingly non-news as news ......................

I just found the news snippet interesting, that is all; I did not project anything into it that reflected a personal bias.

 

[Awesome]

Here's the deal with "Sharia" law in non-Muslim States like the USA, Britain, many others...

So long as there is no actual crime, parties are free to pursue judgement by whatever means they desire. Let's say two Muslims agree to abide by a ruling given by a cleric. They can go before him, state their case, and allow the cleric or mullah to decide. This is simply a different form of arbitration.

The thing is, the ruling is not legally enforceable. The cleric cannot FORCE one man to pay $$ to another, for example. And of course, he cannot send someone to jail.

So the reality is that there are little snips of Sharia all over the world. It happens every time two parties seek counsel on a dispute and agree to abide by the decision of the judge.

I agree with the statement on arbitration and I feel that so long as both the parties agree to it, there is no harm. Provided these are civil cases (marriage, inheritance feuds, inequitable profit sharing, etc.). If a crime takes place, where a punishment has to be sentenced - you need to go through state machinations - the state laws.

 

[agentny17]

One of the Al-Azhar scholars in the 30's, and 40's said get me anything that benefits Muslim countries, Ummah, and i will find you a permission to do it in Islam.

 

[Serpentine]

I think most of the members don't know the difference between a news agency and forum.Who said for every single news there should be a new topic?

 

[seethru]

Separation of powers between the three branches of the government. Applying laws equally on everybodys without discrimination based on color, race, political views, religion, ect.. Personal freedom. This is part of our religion, that we sadly don't apply in most Muslim countries.

I am really not sure if you are familiar with sharia (of any form).

"Separation of powers between the three branches of the government." -- It's modern construct in Sharia. Only recently some advocates of Islamic jurisprudence have 'extrapolated' things to that assertion. (In fact) That way, every culture that existed had this in some way or form.

Applying laws equally on everybodys without discrimination based on color, race, political views, religion, ect..

Naah, check the facts.


Personal freedom. This is part of our religion, that we sadly don't apply in most Muslim countries.

you see, There are things like Apostasy and Blasphemy. Most apologists of Islam argue that both are NOT in Qur'an, hence incorporating them in Sharia is wrong/historic mistake. That's the key. NOTHING is in the Qur'an directly. Everything is inferred., And so, It's obvious that sharia is simply like any other jurisprudence system, which is based on moral codes of society., (most of the times, people claim that basis of morality is Religion, which they see synonymous with GOD.)

From there it can be asserted that Sharia is the Law of Land (Historic) where Islam was majority religion, after 7th century in this part of the world. It's important to note that a tribal society of Arabia which was constantly in conflict until 7th century , was politically integrated after the rise of Islam. hence, It would be accurate to say that sharia is Post-tribal-Arabian legal system which Muslim dynastic rulers used in the places they conquered.

Any reasonable Muslim scholar would explain how sharia was politicized in the modern world along with Islam.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think you guys have hit upon a great idea for a new American TV reality show. Instead of "Judge Judy" the show would have some Imam as the Judge. Muslims would bring their dispute before the TV Sharia Court. Any lashing or hand cutting would have to occur off-camera, though. Remember, it was TruthSeeker's idea if it pops up on the Fox Channel (or maybe A&E). I will demand a royalty payment of 15% for this Emmy-winning idea!!

 

[agentny17]

I am really not sure if you are familiar with sharia (of any form).

"Separation of powers between the three branches of the government." -- It's modern construct in Sharia. Only recently some advocates of Islamic jurisprudence have 'extrapolated' things to that assertion. (In fact) That way, every culture that existed had this in some way or form.

Applying laws equally on everybodys without discrimination based on color, race, political views, religion, ect..

Naah, check the facts.


Personal freedom. This is part of our religion, that we sadly don't apply in most Muslim countries.

you see, There are things like Apostasy and Blasphemy. Most apologists of Islam argue that both are NOT in Qur'an, hence incorporating them in Sharia is wrong/historic mistake. That's the key. NOTHING is in the Qur'an directly. Everything is inferred., And so, It's obvious that sharia is simply like any other jurisprudence system, which is based on moral codes of society., (most of the times, people claim that basis of morality is Religion, which they see synonymous with GOD.)

From there it can be asserted that Sharia is the Law of Land (Historic) where Islam was majority religion, after 7th century in this part of the world. It's important to note that a tribal society of Arabia which was constantly in conflict until 7th century , was politically integrated after the rise of Islam. hence, It would be accurate to say that sharia is Post-tribal-Arabian legal system which Muslim dynastic rulers used in the places they conquered.

Any reasonable Muslim scholar would explain how sharia was politicized in the modern world along with Islam.

Apostasy and Blasphemy has nothing to do with Islam. That is why i was saying that we need to define Sharia Law, before we ask to apply it..... I have a feeling that you have no knowledge about Islam(Islam doesn't mean Muslims) what so ever, and you are just arguing.

 

[VCheng]

I think you guys have hit upon a great idea for a new American TV reality show. Instead of "Judge Judy" the show would have some Imam as the Judge. Muslims would bring their dispute before the TV Sharia Court. Any lashing or hand cutting would have to occur off-camera, though. Remember, it was TruthSeeker's idea if it pops up of the Fox Channel (or maybe A&E). I will demand a royalty payment of 15% for this Emmy-winning idea!!

What are the odds that such a program will be maligned the world over for "portraying Islam in a bad light" based on the content and the decisions handed down?

 

[Hussein]

Define Sharia Law, their is not one defintion to such term... Arguing if we should apply sharia or not just tells you how ignorant are we as Muslims at this time being. We been in this fight for 60 years now, and i don't see us stopping anytime soon... I want someone to define Sharia Law to me.

you're so right.
i was thinking about something when i was reading this that i was speaking with a maghreb muslim not a long time ago here: we were speaking about divorce: the fact that you go to imam for it that is about the religious mariage we have. when in the same time they have the national/civil obligation mariage here (if in france). this applied to be a parallel "law" but Jews do the same. And even church says agree or not to marry a second time...
is it chocking? for me not at all
the problem is that some muslims include in Sharia crazy things .. i am not speaking about crazy stoning the extremist from the extremists, the sickiest people, i mean as you say... what is sharia law?

anyway we live in foreign country we live their rules , ad they have the chance that the population chooses their own rules. when in some countries people didn't choose at all the rules .

 

[seethru]

Apostasy and Blasphemy has nothing to do with Islam. That is why i was saying that we need to define Sharia Law, before we ask to apply it..... I have a feeling that you have no knowledge about Islam(Islam doesn't mean Muslims) what so ever, and you are just arguing.

Hmmm, I had a hunch, but I ignored, went ahead and posted an academic point of view.

You are just one of those who assume Islamic-supremacy. I don't want to change your perception of your religion/culture/associated Political system and it's greatness etc,. and won't try it. Just wanted to Post the view because i thought it was related to the thread content.

But please, just because you don't approve of a view, don't call people ignorant. I may not have a first hand exposure of Islam, but I think i have a good enough academic knowledge of Islam and it's history.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

I think you guys have hit upon a great idea for a new American TV reality show. Instead of "Judge Judy" the show would have some Imam as the Judge. Muslims would bring their dispute before the TV Sharia Court. Any lashing or hand cutting would have to occur off-camera, though. Remember, it was TruthSeeker's idea if it pops up of the Fox Channel (or maybe A&E). I will demand a royalty payment of 15% for this Emmy-winning idea!!

An imaam (by which I understand you mean the worship-congregation-leader who go by the title of Imaam in N.A) can't make judgements. A judge (or ruler+judge, depending on how State structure is laid out) does. So Judge Judy doesn't have to lose her job, only has to go through an intensive 20-years course!

 

[agentny17]

Hmmm, I had a hunch, but I ignored, went ahead and posted an academic point of view.

You are just one of those who assume Islamic-supremacy. I don't want to change your perception of your religion/culture/associated Political system and it's greatness etc,. and won't try it. Just wanted to Post the view because i thought it was related to the thread content.

But please, just because you don't approve of a view, don't call people ignorant. I may not have a first hand exposure of Islam, but I think i have a good enough academic knowledge of Islam and it's history.

First of all, i don't believe in "Islamic-Supremacy", or any type of supremacy matter of fact, don't put words to my mouth. Second, i never called you ignorant, but i think your knowledge about Islam is very limed(Fox News knowledge). Third, you actually acused me of knowing nothing about "Sharia" or Islam Laws, and i think it is funny coming from someone who doesn't know what he was talking about, or just racist.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...

You almost got what the shari3ah actually says in these matters without having studied it. Nice job pilot!

However, there's several misunderstandings (that everyone who has posted has) I'd like to try clarify:

Here's the deal with "Sharia" law in non-Muslim States like the USA, Britain, many others...
...

"The Law of the sharii3ah" would be a better term. sharii3ah is not law itself. The word itself derives from shar3 i,e, a path you take. The feminine form sharii3ah gives it constancy and longevity i.e. it is your usual commuter route. There's laws of the road that apply to the traffic, but the road isn't itself law! The sharia (dropping the convoluted spelling convention) includes therefore the creed, the acts of worship, a worldview etc etc, and yes, laws.

I'd even improve the term to "The Law of the CURRENT shariah". The sharia has reached its culminative version, butprevious ones not only existed by continure to exist, concurrently as well as part of the current version. For example, some parts of the previous sharia, which you'd have heard called as the Mosaïc Law or the Halakha, were not updated and remain unchanged, e.g. no new revelation came, wAllahu a3lam, about the adulterer and the Jewish punishment of stoning continues.

...
So long as there is no actual crime, parties are free to pursue judgement by whatever means they desire. Let's say two Muslims agree to abide by a ruling given by a cleric. They can go before him, state their case, and allow the cleric or mullah to decide. This is simply a different form of arbitration.

The thing is, the ruling is not legally enforceable. The cleric cannot FORCE one man to pay $$ to another, for example. And of course, he cannot send someone to jail.
...

You're talking about the law part of the sharia, and specifically in case of a parallel law of the land prevalent, arbitration. Arbitration is voluntary but binding once arrived at at least in the U.S, so in that country there's that element of obligation ("...legally enforceable...") that you refer to. Same here in Pakistan.

One thing you got wrong if the "cleric". Since there's no clergy and no church, the person who you actually want to refer to is the judge, and in this specific case, the arbiter. Otherwise, the judiciary tries to ensure correct judgement and the executive its enforcement.

...
So the reality is that there are little snips of Sharia all over the world. It happens every time two parties seek counsel on a dispute and agree to abide by the decision of the judge.

Exactly.

As a case in point, your country's legal system is quite compatible with the sharia, except in some areas where it isn't. Of the top of my head I can think of e.g. waiver in punishment in exchange for making testimony etc. I'm not a law person so can't help you with these.

When you're in court, the process of decision works through similar logical steps. But outside of it, the sharia is a very vast concept, and the Americal Muslims polled apparently do not know about the creed they profess to represent, a malaise fairly universal today, along with the second: deciding without knowledge "no the sharia doesn't apply", "yes organ transplant is permissible", "yes suicide bombings are ok", instead of "I. DON'T. KNOW".