Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

219 | 220 | 221

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

AUG 31, 2005 04:18 AM

rottenart said:
what part of


1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.



do you see being presided over by secular islamic scholars?


But you don't knoooooooooowwwwwwww that .....

surreal

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 31, 2005 11:59 AM

rottenart said:

bones_708 said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

bones_708 said:

That the statments made were not correct and don't match the info given. Worse spin than Fox News if you will. wink


What? Experts in Sharia will not be there in their capacity as religious scholars rather than scholars of the law itself?

I have no idea what actual point you are trying to make.

Is it really that the Sharia experts are not there in a religious capacity? What? Spell it out for fuck's sake. blackeyed


At the very best it's assuming facts that haven't been given. Just because someone is a scholar in islamic law does not make him an a cleric as has been claimed. There system is different and you are trying to put it in terms relating to our society which don't quite fit.




what part of


1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.



do you see being presided over by secular islamic scholars? that bit about democracy and freedom will go exactly as far as the official, governmental interpreters (i.e. clerics) say it does. you're quick to point out that we don't know that this will be a theocracy but that road goes both ways; you have no way of knowing that it won't (though it seems pretty clear to most of us...). furthermore, despite the fact that we don't know for sure, history is pretty apt at guessing what will happen next. democracy got such a boost in iran when we deposed a leader there...


as far as addressing your points goes, if you can draw parallel from your first post in this thread to your last, i'll be happy to debate. i'm still operating under the assumption that you believe the US constitution takes christianity as i's basis.


FUCK!



you are right it's all in how well they follow it. As I said before there are places with good constitutions that ignore them all together and places with no constitution that do just fine without them. So this constitution by itself doesn't nessesaraly mean anything one way or the other. I also am a bit sadened by the idea if it's not doen the way "we" would do it then it must be wrong. To me that is how most of these comments come across. There seems to be a prejudgist against islamic people in that they can't have democracy and their religion at the same time. I don't think this is true.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

AUG 31, 2005 12:06 PM

jake_lex said:
I just think inserting a phrase like "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam" is playing with fire. Read the US Constitution, and you won't find any religion mentioned by name, because the framers knew that tying it to one specific religion would make that religion the basis for law in general. That's what I'm afraid that the Iraqi constitution will do.

I've said this before, I'll say it again: any country that gives sharia law the same legal footing as other secular laws cannot be called a democracy, in my opinion.



I think that there is more than a little misunderstanding of what shira is. It does contain religios rules like dietary restictions and others. What it also is is a history of the law for islamic countries having little to do with religion directly. British commen law is rather similar if you leave out some of the behavoral law. Different people view it in different ways and alot of the "laws" are just guidlines that you should live your life by without penalty if you violate those "laws".

Andvari

Andvari

Calgary, AB
April 2005

AUG 31, 2005 12:08 PM

bones_708 said:

jake_lex said:
I just think inserting a phrase like "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam" is playing with fire. Read the US Constitution, and you won't find any religion mentioned by name, because the framers knew that tying it to one specific religion would make that religion the basis for law in general. That's what I'm afraid that the Iraqi constitution will do.

I've said this before, I'll say it again: any country that gives sharia law the same legal footing as other secular laws cannot be called a democracy, in my opinion.



I think that there is more than a little misunderstanding of what shira is. It does contain religios rules like dietary restictions and others. What it also is is a history of the law for islamic countries having little to do with religion directly. British commen law is rather similar if you leave out some of the behavoral law. Different people view it in different ways and alot of the "laws" are just guidlines that you should live your life by without penalty if you violate those "laws".



Sharia (Arabic: شريعة; also Sharī'ah, Shari'a, Shariah or Syariah) is the Arabic word for Islamic law, also known as the Law of Allah. Islam classically draws no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life. However, this traditional view of religious law is opposed by some modern liberal movements within Islam. The term itself refers to "way to water" or a "break in a riverbank allowing access to water." Islamic scholars for the most part distinguished between fiqh, which means 'understanding' and refers to the inferences drawn by scholars from the sources of law, and sharia, which is the moral ideals that lie behind the fiqh. Scholars hope that fiqh and sharia are in a particular case identical, but they cannot be sure. What is certain is that if one acts on legitimately derived fiqh, one is exempt from sanction.

The sharia as dictated by Islamic lawmakers is believed by Muslims to be merely a human approximation of Sharia, which is the divine and eternal correct path. In creating sharia Islamic lawmakers are not, therefore, actually creating correct or incorrect actions, but rather attempting to interpret divine will.

For Sunni Muslims, the sources of Islamic law are the Qur'an and the Hadith, but ijma, the consensus of the community, was also accepted as a minor source. Qiyas — various forms of reasoning, including by analogy — are used by the law scholars (Mujtahidun) to deal with situations where the sources provided no concrete rules.

In Imami-Shi'i law, the sources of law (usul al-fiqh) are the Qur'an, anecdotes of the Prophet's practices and those of the 12 Imams, and the intellect (aql). The practices called Sharia today, however, also have roots in local customs (Al-urf).





Wikipedia

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next