What is Sharia?

Pages: 1 2

Reprinted from libertiesalliance.org.

The Islamic Sharia is a system of law. It is a collection of prohibitions, admonitions and commands about human behavior. The Sharia is not an internal matter that only concerns Islam and Muslims. The Sharia includes a large number of provisions about people who are not Muslims. These rules are usually prohibitions that carry severe penalties if violated. These provisions of the Sharia make life unsafe and uncertain for someone who lives under Sharia law and who is not a Muslim.

Under Sharia law, someone who is not a Muslim possesses no inalienable rights. If I am wrong here, I will be relieved, and happy to stand corrected and receive your e-mails pointing out why I am wrong. But if I am right, a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay possesses more rights than a Jew or a Christian who lives under Sharia law.

Unlike the legal systems of most modern nation states, Sharia law is not subject to democratic supervision. Like international law and rabbinic law, Sharia law is an academic affair: experts discuss and debate the rules until they reach an agreement. Sharia law does not know a parliament or a government that acts as legislator, but the rules of the Sharia come into being by being agreed upon by the experts, that is, the Islamic religious leaders, the professional Muslims, the Ulama, Ayatollahs, or whatever these dignitaries are called.

Like me, most of you will be only superficially familiar with international law. The pretensions of international law have never been put to the test of a free and democratic vote. It was, to say the least, interesting to note how often the accusers of Geert Wilders in 2010 and 2011 appealed to what they regarded as generally accepted international law in order to silence Geert Wilders. As international law demonstrates, communities of academic specialists, in their isolation, have a tendency to develop a degree of pedantry that an elected lawgiver could never afford. Up to a point, this is exactly what has happened to the Sharia.

Religions are not democratic even if they sometimes may preach or tolerate democracy. Hence, the way in which the rules of Islamic law come into being is undemocratic. This implies that allowing the Sharia, or a part of it, to be the law of the land in a Western nation will diminish the democratic character of that nation. It means giving away legislative power to unelected self-appointed men, who are unknown and anonymous, who operate from far-away mosques in Pakistan or Afghanistan. In a democracy, this is not the ideal arrangement. One may have legitimate religious reasons to nevertheless prefer such an arrangement, but it entails something worse than taxation without representation; it entails legislation without representation.

Western policymakers do not take Sharia law too seriously because it is an academic and religious affair, a system of law that springs not from the power of a state but from the minds of religious scholars. In the Muslim world, to the contrary, the authority of the Sharia is overwhelming. The colossal prestige of the Sharia in the world of Islam is easy to explain: Islamic theology identifies Sharia law with the will of God; and Sharia specialists are the religious leaders of the Islamic community. No government in the Muslim world can afford to alienate these specialists of religious law if it wants to remain in power.

Each and every Islamic country nurtures its own equilibrium between its government and its religious specialists. This ever-changing equilibrium is the stuff of PhD-dissertations. Nevertheless, most Islamic countries possess legal systems that are influenced by, but not identical with, traditional Sharia law. To the leaders of the radical Islamic movements this non-identity of national law and Sharia law is a permanent source of anger. The smallest discrepancy between Sharia law and the law of the land is permanent fuel to the fire of their propaganda machines since such a difference supplies proof that a human lawgiver wanted to take God’s place, and attempted to improve on Go’ds work, which is blasphemy since God must remain the only law-giver.

Sharia law is not a practical system of law developed in courts. It is the product of the deliberations of scholars, and it does not spring from the practical concerns of judges, barristers, prosecutors or defenders. Consequently, Sharia law is poor on procedure. It is a theoretical, abstract system of law thought out in academies. This explains most of its weaknesses.

Nevertheless, Muslim theology claims that Sharia law is divine. If unfamiliar new questions arise for which the Sharia has to provide an answer, Sharia specialists, at least in theory, put forward a solution that is based upon the four principles or ‘roots’, of the Sharia. These four principles will reemerge again and again in all discussions concerning the Sharia. They are Koran, Hadith, Analogy and Agreement.

The fourth root, Agreement or Consensus, is for all practical purposes the most important criterion. Once a consensus has emerged it becomes unnecessary to consult the other sources. Theory and theology, however, attach the greatest value to the authority of the first of these four roots, to the Koran, but in practice the wording of the Koran may have to be supplemented or interpreted by the other sources, or by another passage from the Koran itself.

Here we meet with an important principle from both Sharia law and Koran interpretation. This principle, ‘abrogation’, naskh in Arabic, is often misunderstood. ‘Abrogation’ means that a verse from the Koran that was revealed early might be repealed, or ‘abrogated’, by a verse that came down at a later point in time. Sometimes even an element from one of the other three sources can abrogate the contents of a verse from the Koran. Muslim scholars analyze all possible cases in depth.

The most famous example of abrogation is of concern to anyone who is not a Muslim: the abrogation of Sura 109, a Sura from the Mecca period that preaches religious tolerance. This Sura is abrogated by later verses from Medina that command the Muslims to fight and kill the unbelievers wherever they find them.

Whatever problem Sharia scholars are confronted with, in a few generations they will work out an agreement; and then Muhammad’s directive applies that ‘God will not permit [his] people to agree on an error.’

This important directive plays a central role in the Sharia system. Its application has a number of unforeseen consequences. Abolishing a Sharia regulation on which agreement had been reached, implies that Muhammad’s umma did go wrong. But according to Islam’s Prophet, it did not. Hence, it is out of the question to go back on regulations once they are agreed upon. Examples of cases where this creates difficulties and embarrassment are numerous: just think of the Sharia punishments for apostasy, adultery or theft.

A famous example of abrogation is the prohibition of wine. In early verses, the Koran speaks well of wine; later verses forbid wine. But how do we know which verse comes first? This we can only know from the Muslim Sharia experts. How do they know? Well, since wine is forbidden, the verse that forbids wine must be later than the verse that praises wine. Outsiders will suspect circularity, but to traditional Muslims this all enjoys the support of the Most High, and reconfirms that they would be at loss without the scholarship and learning of the experts who embody religious authority in Islam.

The friends of Islam see the alleged flexibility of Islamic law as an indication of its humane and liberal character. This, however, is a mistake. Flexible laws are not humane but dangerous, since citizens do not know for what they can be arrested and executed. Islamic law, flexible as it is reported to be, is unanimous on a large number of points. Agreement, consensus, that is what the system is build upon. No important disagreements exist on the points of law that are important to whoever is not a Muslim, whatever the friends of Islam may say. Not respecting the majesty of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is generally seen as a capital crime. If the courts or the governments do not execute the offender, spontaneous informal volunteers may feel justified to take this task upon their shoulders, whatever the cost to them personally.

Modern Western scholars have called into doubt the origins of the Sharia. They believe that the Sharia is the continuation of Roman provincial law as it was in force in the Roman Empire in the Middle East on the eve of the Arab conquests. A number of 20th century scholars wrote about the relationship between Roman and Islamic law. It is easy to see that the figure of the mufti is a continuation of the scholar of jurisprudence well known from Roman law, and other examples abound.

Strong influence from Talmudic rabbinic law on the Sharia is undeniable, and no miracle, since the Talmud and the Sharia both came into being in Iraq, in roughly the same period, 7th till 9th century AD. Fatwa’s are, of course, the exact functional equivalent of the rabbinic teshuvot, and the responsa from Roman law.

Muslims believe that their religious specialists derived the rules of the Sharia from its four sources: Koran, Hadith, Analogy and Consensus. However, modern Western scholars have come to believe that the rules of the Sharia were not derived from the four ‘roots’, but that the rules and provisions were anchored in these four ‘roots’ only in retrospect. This is again the stuff of PhD-dissertations. These academic questions, however, should not detain us here, we have a more important duty: to explain why we should concentrate on the Sharia, and not on the Koran or Muhammad, when we want to defend ourselves against the onslaught of Islam.

Modern Western scholarship on the Koran and the life of Muhammad has made great progress since the turn of the century. Consequently the traditional positions concerning Muhammad and the Koran have shown themselves to be untenable.

Whether Muhammad really existed, is more uncertain than ever. Two centuries of patient scholarship have created serious doubts about the historicity of the prophet of Islam. These doubts will not go away, no matter how small and insignificant the number of academics that works in this field may be.

The general picture which the Koran and the Islamic tradition offer of the setting in which Muhammad worked, first as a prophet, then as both a prophet and a statesman, the general picture of Mecca and Medina in the beginning of the 7th century AD, is not confirmed by the results of archeological research and inscriptions as far as these are available. This, of course, may change when research progresses but it is not a good sign, especially since what has been found, at first sight appears to contradict the traditional views.

The literary tradition about Muhammad’s biography does look like an unsystematic collection of mutually contradicting sermons that nevertheless all want to convince the audience that a certain Muhammad was the Messenger of God. The literary material that has been preserved does not look like an historical record at all. This is not necessarily fatal, but it is not a good sign. Numismatics does not confirm Islam’s version of the early history of Islam. This by itself is not conclusive, but it is not a good sign. There are discrepancies between what we know about the ancient Arab calendar and the reported stories about Muhammad. This needs not be fatal, but it comes close to being so.

True Muslims, however, do not share these doubts about their beloved prophet. The guild of Muslim religious leaders, on the other hand, will go further than simply not sharing these doubts; they will be infuriated when modern Western scholars unmask the Muslim version of the early history of Islam as a narrative created by theological necessities, as sermons that are disguised as history. It goes without saying that many Muslims will be ready to put on heavy armor to defend their religion against such attacks.

Pages: 1 2

  • Chezwick

    Friends, in your discourse with Muslims and their apologists, you'll often find those who disregard the barbarisms of the Ahadith by falsely claiming that the Quran is (or should be) the ONLY source for "God's" law on earth. This argument can be refuted with two responses…

    1) While the Quran is the final word in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, its brevity inevitably resulted in the Ahadith becoming the PRINCIPLE source for the Sunnah, which is the basis of Sharia. No Hadith can over-rule what is written in the Quran, but if the Quran does not refer to a given issue (and in fact, due – again – to its brevity, it fails to reference countless issues), the Hadith becomes the determining source.

    2) The Quran itself is replete with hatred and intolerance.

    Another effective methodology for obfuscation used by Muslims and their apologists is to claim that the most egregiously intolerant and/or barbaric Hadiths are "weak" vis-a-vis by their "chain of transmission", and are therefore invalid and thus cannot be used as a tool to bash Islam.

    Appropriate response…

    The Hadith collection of Bukari and Muslim are considered "sahi" (authoritative) by all Muslim schools of jurisprudence. Therefore, regardless of the arguments of your interlocutors, these Hadiths promoting pedophilia (child marriage), lapidation (stoning), the murder of apostates, etc., are enshrined in the Sunnah and are forever part of Islamic law.

    Don't let the bastards confuse you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mensch.keymelon Mensch Keymelon

      "Don't let the bastards confuse you. " Takes no effort at all from them…you are already confused.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        No, he's just a realist and looks around the world for himself.

  • Richard

    Seeing as there will always be Muslims willing to commit atrocities in their religion, there appears to be only one way to put a clamp on Islamist terror – go after the imams themselves. If a court can prove that there was a conspiracy involving Islamic scholars at the local mosque then there you have it. Aiding and abetting a crime is an indictable offence. If a court can prove that the true inspiration of terror comes from the scholars who do such religious dissertations then terror will have met its match. Not saying it will be easy, as proving a conspiracy in court will be subject to all manner of examinations by defence counsel, but it can be done. You defeat an army two ways, by killing all its soldiers or by capturing all of its officers. It seems the second option is the best choice (and the most humane) for defeating Islam.

  • Looking4Sanity

    What is Sharia?

    Isn't that Farsi for "sadism"?

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      It depends which kind of animal you ask.

  • Canuck

    A minor correction: The Babylonian Talmud was compiled by 500 C.E., although it continued to be edited. So, it predates the Arab conquest by at least 130 years.

  • Ghostwriter

    Anyway you look at it,Sharia ain't the sort of law that should be used in this country. Not now or ever.

  • johan

    Sharia is a law if it is eccepted and introduced in this country then we have lost our country. That's how powerful this law is we are than under a Muslim regime. We would have lost our identity. We are never a western country no-more. Therefore, under an Obama regime we are indeed getting closer and closer to the system of sharia law. The more Muslims that invate our country the faster we lose our country. I wish our governments should have a vision and look ahead for what is going to happen.

  • johan

    Furthermore, look what is happening in Dearborn Michigan. The town is full of police trying to keep law and order. They have beem attacking Christians lately and there is no end to the riots. Where was Obama? He is suppose to run the country, he probably will run it into the ground. It is an utmost that the Muslim borders are being closed.

  • ahmadnb

    "…the Koran may well be the word of God — this, after all, is untestable, but that the Sharia is the work of men, even according to the teachings of Islam."

    I agree with you 100% and I just happen to be a pretty serious Muslim. A lot of things in Sharia Law are in direct contradiction of commands in the Qur'an, and are not in line with the spirit of forgiveness and mercy that I have come across often in the Qur'an.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mensch.keymelon Mensch Keymelon

      ahmadnb, I will take you at your word, "I just happen to be a pretty serious Muslim." The difficulty with this terminology the undeducated cast about here "Sharia" this and "Sharia" that, they pretend it is a monolithig legla structure that is all encomassing…when it is not, as you yourself have eluded to.

      They don't know the truth, that is the trafedy. Sharia is law derived by the municipality suppossedly based in the Quran and the Sunnah, but as you have pointed out many of the "Sharia" laws were not arrived at in the best spirit of Islam, and thus you have the difficulties these people who flock here experience…they don't understand becaus of all the abuses that politicians have made over the years in "Muslim" countries.

      • ahmadnb

        You are correct…thanks.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          Two muslim friendly trolls, probably funded by the same group.

          Do you have adjoining cubicles as you post propaganda here?

          • ahmadnb

            Me Roger Russell, me no see what me don't want to see which is all lies, me speak TRUTH, everybody else LIAR, me GOOD CHRISTIAN, everybody else BAD CHRISTIAN or INFIDEL, me change my diapers now…

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Did I hit a muslim nerve? So, how many cubicles are in the place where you post all these lies?

            For you to pretend islam allows choices if someone wants to live sharia is not just a deception, it's a lie that gets muslims killed around the world.

            And you're diapers are wrapped up in the koran you pretend that muslims don't have to take it literally. Now how delusional is that?

          • ahmadnb

            Keep believing your own lies, you sicko.You're looking forward to the day when some “true” Muslims take me out, am I not right? Just remember this: Do you expect me to go quietly without taking some of them down with me first? Unlike you, I've got a family to care for. I'll make you weep when I'm done dealing with your “true” Muslims.Didn't Jesus say “Before you get the dirt out of thine neighbor's eye, get the dirt out of thine eye first”. Apparently you must think you're pure and so the quote here doesn't apply to a “pure” Christian such as yourself, which is why you constantly come after me and others who agree with me. Keep it up…your actions speak volumes about your character. I know you will.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You sure do know about that Bible.

            And as a lying muslim who says anything he wants, are you going to say sharia is optional, or that the koran doesn't need to be taken literally?

            If that's the case then you really have no place telling me the Bible while false has to be taken literally. Do you?

          • ahmadnb

            Yes, I know about the Bible. And I not only know it better than you, I also follow it better than you. Apparently it contains passages that make you feel uncomfortable, which is why you're attempting to keep me quiet about it. And who the hell do you think you are that I'll listen to you?? I'll keep preaching it to you until you either follow it or admit that you're a fake Christian who would crucify Jesus all over again were he to come back.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            This from the muslim who thinks sharia is a choice.

            Do you realize it was people like you the iranian clerics slaughtered as they seized Iran in 1977?

          • ahmadnb

            Here you go again. Another piece of historical misinformation. Where do you get your facts? Acid trips?”George Washington couldn't tell a lie. Bill Clinton couldn't tell the truth (and neither can Barack Obama). Al Gore Jr. couldn't tell the difference.”You must be with Al Gore Jr.!

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I get my facts from reality.

            When the shah was deposed the cleric destroyed and slaughtered all democratic forces within iran and it's military and installed his own people.

          • ahmadnb

            “Reality” to you is a relative term: It means whatever you believe to be correct at the moment and can be changed at your convenience.I refused to support the Shah because he hated my people. And likewise, I refused to support the mullahs that overthrew him for being what they were: Mullahs.Your argument was that the Tehran US Embassy was stormed in 1977. Instead of correcting yourself, you flailed about and tried to change the entire topic and tried to dishonestly weasel your way out of your mistake by lying further. Don't think I'll let you get away with these obvious falsehoods…and they're piling up on top of each other now. I will hound you and beat you over the head with them and watch as you flail away like you're doing now, much to the embarrassment of your fellow Christians. Many will wish that you would just leave them alone or even claim to embrace a different religion. They don't need the likes of human sewage like you misrepresenting them.And I see you've got a lot of free time on your hands, too. Must REALLY suck to be you.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            The shah hated your people? Why would he support someone in bangladesh?

            Oh, you are an iranian troll.

            So you decide moment by moment what reality is. No wonder you had all these words ready.

          • ahmadnb

            My, my…any more new stories to tell? I'm an Iranian troll now, huh?Well, let me educate you, little boy. Back in 1971 when Bangladeshis were being butchered by the Pakistani military and their fundamentalist allies, all of whom were being armed by the US and the ChiComs, Pres. Nixon saw it fit to ship arms to the Pakis via Turkey, Jordan and Iran. Even Israel was on our side…Bangladesh did a great dishonor to not acknowledge the support that Israel had given once the war was over. But Nixon hated us long after his foreign policy in South Asia fell apart when Pakistan got its butt kicked, and seemed to have taken Pakistan's defeat personally. And the Shah was kissing up to Nixon's butt all the way, like a good little doggie, and refused to support us. Strange that he would oppose us, given that fundies had been responsible for butchering us. Looks like he loved the fundies as long as they weren't causing trouble for him in his own country…karma can be such a b!tch.No, it's you who changes your reality every moment. One day you're a Bible thumper, then next you're a Bible rejecter. You're standing on quicksand. According to your Bible, Muhammad IS a valid prophet and messenger of God. This was foretold by King Solomon in Song of Solomon 5:16 more than 1,000 years before Muhammad was born. So why should I believe in Christianity? I follow the religion of Muhammad who, according to your Bible, WAS a genuine servant and messenger of God. And if you refuse to follow it, then it is you who blasphemes and rejects your own Scripture.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And do you blame the cyclone of 1970 on the shah too?

          • ahmadnb

            You are such an idiot…

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            For a pretended moderate from Bangladesh you sure did know an awful lot about the hardline clerics of Iran. For a supposed moderate muslim you sure do pretend an awful lot about a lot of things, like your untruthful pretense that sharia is a choice, not a command for muslims or that the koran doesn't need to be taken literally.

            So many lies, so much islamic tactics. I think you realize you're lying and just so determined to make islam look moderate you don't realize you are making yourself a mockery.

          • ahmadnb

            You know jack squat about Sharia. You don't know anything about your own religion to begin with…you're walking on quicksand here.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So, is sharia even worse than I have pointed out?

            Come on now, be honest for once…..

          • ahmadnb

            Like I said, you don’t know anything about Sharia. For one, it’s a man-made concept based on numerous legal rulings leading up to 1,000 AD. Many different versions of it exist. Many of its rulings are based on old Jewish Law, the Responsa.I do not agree with many of the principles of Sharia because they are in direct contradiction to the Qur’an which has remained pretty much unchanged since the days of Muhammad. The Qur’an is far more liberal and flexible than Sharia…the latter is just a rigid set of rules to live by.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            I know all I need to know about sharia.

            And your claims don't match reality.
            You don't know anything about sharia evidently.

          • Kevin Stowell

            Ha ha. It's good to know the goats are protected…I guess.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Isn't it? Well, sort of.

          • ahmadnb

            Sigh…another newslink. Typical armchair intellectual…

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And no newslinks. Typical propagandist. Of course I used a news link. Where else is news? And if facts don't agree with you, why do you think you have the option of making up your own?

          • ahmadnb

            A lot of things happen out there. You claim that the behavior of Muslims is indicative of the religion Islam itself, while denying the same standard for Christians and Christianity. You're nothing but a two-timing hypocrite.The facts are on my side. I have the Qur'an with me. And they're against you, which is why you grasp at whatever straws you can. You can't win, and I won't let you.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            No, I'm just realistic. When the religion teaches this:

            "9:14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers."

            And when activists live by those teachings of course the religion deserves credit for their actions.

            The facts are not on your side. And are al taqiyya when you use them.

          • ahmadnb

            Nice try, idiot. Now who's spreading false and misleading propaganda? Looked in the mirror lately??You left out the preceding verses. Very convenient. These applied to the time and place way back then. But then of course honesty is not one of your virtues any more than wisdom and knowledge are.11 But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge.12 And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.13 Will ye not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges, and purposed to drive out the messenger and did attack you first ? What! Fear ye them ? Now Allah hath more right that ye should fear Him, if ye are believers

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            So, if you can't force someone to convert they deserve anything muslims dish out?

            That's not a nice try, that's a home run.

          • ahmadnb

            Great…you ask me a question, and then answer it yourself.Home run? In your warped fantasies. Think again. The following verse commands Muslims to convey an idol-worshipper to a place of safety if he seeks protection from Muslims with no mention of being required to accept Islam. I win again, and you lose again, as usual.Qur'an 9:6. “And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.”

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            Too bad that a false sense of security is a way of life for islam. I'm sure Daniel Pearl was thinking this verse meant something, until his safe passage was over with. Too bad they didn't warn him when it was going to end.

          • ahmadnb

            There you go again…making stuff up out of thin air. Muslims are forbidden from fighting those who are not waging war against them. And even if a war were to break out, if the non-Muslim party were to withdraw and sue for peace, it would by obligatory to respond in kind and stop fighting.As far as the Jizya tax is concerned, this is something of the past…it doesn't apply to today's world. Bangladesh, for instance, has a constitution that is even more secular than the US Constitution…I just don't agree with the “socialism” part of it. There is no Jizya tax there, even though Muslims comprise of 85-90% of the total population. And even though Christians there comprise of less than 1% of the population there, Christmas is a national holiday there, along with major Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist holidays.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mensch.keymelon Mensch Keymelon

      contd from below : Judges were given wide leeway in what penalties they subscribed for crimes they judged in their courts…even Umar RA did not insist on the hadd when he heard the details of a case surrounding a servant stealing food from a master…so, yes, I believe some of the Sharia laws in some countries are not based upon the Quran and Sunnah in spirit or letter if you look closely at them.

      Consider the Constitution of Madina if you need to argue the point with a bigot here, that was the ideal Sharia laid down by Mohmmad himself, arrived at through the Quran and he was the sunnah. Don't stay too long in this environment here…be light, but don't let them blow out your flame or you will become lost and begin questioning yourself based on their false and misleading rhetoric.

      • kevinh

        Mensch, you illustrate the author's point exactly: the Sharia is made up by men becase the Quran is incompetent in its ability to control every aspect of humanities existance. You also reinforce the point that friends of the Sharia will say don't look there, look over here instead…so exactly what does the Constitutiion of Madina have to do with Sharia law today?

        Go ahead and call us "bigot" if you need to feel better about yourself.

        Also, ahmadnb didn't say "Sharia this and Sharia that" what he said was that the Sharia contradicts the Quran, or that it's or they are hate-filled and contradict the Quran.

        Best of luck with those reading skills and your personal attacks.


      • ahmadnb

        Don't worry about me…I have been challenged for years by those who hate Islam and those who tried to make me see the “light” of Christianity. All their efforts only helped to solidify my faith as a Muslim further and further…they confirmed what the Qur'an says about such people. I almost feel sorry for them…they had such high expectations of victory and I just happen to come along and throw sand over their lovely fire. They then show their true colors. It's pretty amusing to watch.Some of my best friends just happen to be Jews and Christians…they don't try to convert me and likewise, I leave them alone.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          So, you're a muslim that doesn't stand for a thing muslim teaches or forces on those adhering to islam.

          • ahmadnb

            Get lost, little kid…I was talking to a fellow adult. Your momma obviously didn't teach you manners.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And your mama obviously never taught you to tell the truth.

          • ahmadnb

            Of course she did…and she just visited me recently and had a great time with us. What about you? Did yours disown you or something? That would explain your bitterness…

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            And you the muslim who may or may not choose to follow sharia says so?

          • ahmadnb

            Of course…it's pretty obvious, not just to me but everyone else that you've tried to tear down. Roger Russell, Superman!!

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            If you say that in mecca you would be stoned. If you lived in pakistan and said that a car bomb would take you out in the marketplace.

            If you said that anyplace else your family would have to consider an honor killing.

  • Shahid Saleem

    Non-Muslims will continue to remain confused until they have thorough understanding of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Without any doubt the Qur"an is the word of God, and what Muhammad peace of Allah be upon him did (all his deeds) or said is Hadith. Sharia of course springs from both these roots. and means a way or path to the water source. This term is used for the dynamic body of Islamic Legal principles, Divine and the the divinely inspired, as well as human-input. We as Muslims are content with our laws just as the non-Muslims are happy with theirs. What is important is that as human beings we must respect each other and spread love and humanity instead of hate and intolerance. Thank you. Shahid Saleem.

  • burke

    Yes, Shahid, ‘love and tolerance’ in Koran 48.29: Those with Mohammed are “violent (ashidaa) against the kufar, but compassionate between each other.”
    You fellows are creating your own innovative, modernized version of Islam, aren’t you?
    Aren’t you?

  • abdullah

    Asalam alaikaum wr wb brothers and sisters, i have a ? i just got a job as a debt collector and i had a muslim brother on one of my calls. He had owed a debt from college. I was wondering if a brothers does violate the sharia law or no intrest iam i allowed to call him and try and have him pay his bill. Also what if he was muslim when he did it or non muslim what is the law on that issue?

  • Omar

    Burke , Muslims were commanded to be harsh (ashidaa) with the disbelievers who entered mecca and threatened to kill and hurt the believers , however if they have no such intention then we are ordered as Muslims to have love and tolerance. there is no innovation, it is written clearly and is very logical to the human senses. if one gets attacked defend then thy defend themselves

    • Omar

      i meant to say "if one gets attacked then they naturally defend themselves"

  • Catherine Bird

    Dr. Jansen, perhaps your misunderstanding of America’s ‘freedom of religion,’ stems from your not knowing our Founders’ writings which explain their language used in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

    As an American who has read these founding documents, as well as the Founders’ writings, I would like to clarify the meaning behind our ‘freedom of religion.’

    I am fairly sure you know that the first part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

    Taking into account the fact that, historically, most nations’ governments in existence at that time were under the rule of a religion, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or some protestant religion. Many of the groups who came to America were fleeing religious persecution and seeking a place where they could freely worship God as they chose. It stands to reason that those who rose to statesmanship in the new land would want to ensure and protect the rights of people who came here for true freedom, by denying the new government the ability to create a national religion which would require every good citizen to participate in worship of that religion.

    So, I guess you could say our “freedom of religion” is really a ‘freedom of worship,’ except it goes farther than that. The 2nd clause in our First Amendment tells our government that it cannot interfere with the “free exercise” of anyone’s beliefs–even if they don’t believe in anything.

    As any educated mind knows, all religions are Man-made; and are not necessarily Bible-based, nor adhere to the Bible if they claim to be based on the Bible. There are grave differences between the Bible’s primary messages and those espoused by the various religions. The main difference being that religions tell followers they must do good works to earn their way into Heaven (or whatever sort of paradise the religion promotes), but the Bible says that no Man can get to Heaven on his own; and Jesus already DID everything required to allow admission of fallen Man into Heaven. Interestingly, religions rely on financial tithes by their adherents to exist, but God’s Word does not. The Bible, instead, tells the reader he/she should give the first 10% of whatever they produce (not necessarily money) to God so He can “Bless the rest.”

    You mind find it interesting to note that, despite the First Amendment’s ‘Establishment Clause,’ the early American federal government did promote religious activities, like reading the Bible. In fact, President James Madison’s first request of the new Congress was to fund a mass-printing of Bibles for discemination to the People. And, during tough times in our history–and even before the new government was fully created–leaders asked the populace to ‘pray and fast’ for Divine Providence (God’s help).

    And, throughout American history, our venerable leaders and institutions have declared this a Christian nation. This link is to a page full of proof: http://www.usachristianministries.com/us-history-quotes-about-god-and-the-bible/

  • More educated

    Your state about James Madison is incorrect, study more…

    This act, entitled An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of
    Philadelphia,had absolutely nothing to do with aiding this society
    in its goal of distributing the Bible. It merely waived an import duty
    on one shipment of printing plates, determined by Congress to have
    been unfairly charged.

  • Mujahid

    Brother Peace and blessings of allah be upon you.
    Brother I request you to stop tagging incorrectly about the Islamic law.
    The Islamic law is as perfect as possible.There are no laws created in favour of a muslim or a non muslim.The shariah is a practical way in which everyone can survive without cheated, The Shariah is a set of rules made to ensure the whole humanity from the evil eyed people. The Shariah involves severe laws for wrong doers. These laws apply to both to a muslim and a non muslims.