Human Rights and Justice in Islam

[GeoffP]

I find it amusing when people say 'Islamic law says xxxxx", because it just shows they don't know shit, this includes most Muslims.

Peace be unto you

All Islamic legal schools - or at least all the major ones - proscribe death for apostates. So it's safe to say in that case at least "Islamic law says". It would be ignorant to pretend it were false.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

'a matter of interpretation' -- always the same bullshit argument in threads like this one. I always wondered how a page full of hateful remarks could be interpreted as anything else but hate.

 

[786]

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Then go back to what you posted as a reply to the OP.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Imagine having a conversation about whether or not Xenu (or Zeus, or the Japanese Goddess Amaterasu, or Allah, or the Aztec Goddess Coatlicue, etc ...) and this person can not accept that these Gods and Goddesses may not be real.

Well, there's really little point carrying on.

As for "Islamic" Justice, name 5 fundamental aspects of an Islamic justice system that can't be found in any other system of justice from Japan and China to Europe to India to the Americas. The fact is Muslim's practiced Slavery from before the Qur'an, during the Qur'an and after the Qur'an. Now, Muslim's say that this is either because there are no "true" Muslims and therefor make the intellectual leap over to - ergo of course they'd keep on practicing Slavery... I mean come on WTF?? The USA is NOT prefect and yet in a short period of time we went from practicing Slavery to electing a Black American to the highest office.

An inherent problem with theocratic system are they promote superstition over rationalism. It was not possible for Muslim's to ban Slavery because... just maybe Allah made people Slaves for His Purpose. So, it was left to the Europeans to do it for Muslims. That's why we're typing English and using electricity and not writing Arabic and using carrier pigeons.

 

[786]

'a matter of interpretation' -- always the same bullshit argument in threads like this one. I always wondered how a page full of hateful remarks could be interpreted as anything else but hate.

The interpretation comes from the context of the hate...

Hating someone for killing your children is different than hating someone for hating their skin color. "I hate those bastards" in these two different situations is very different. The complexity of the situation should be understood.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

All Islamic legal schools - or at least all the major ones - proscribe death for apostates. So it's safe to say in that case at least "Islamic law says". It would be ignorant to pretend it were false.

Actually there are very minute details, where killing an apostate for actively working against Islam is punishable by death as that is considered treason (its an 'Islamic State' ) other than that it may not be. Again depends on the school. And it depends on the scholars essentially.

Still there are examples of apostates not being put to death even in the early ages.

And suppose it is 'Islamic', how's that different from the apostasy laws in OT?

By the way I would like to point out that 'all islamic legal schools' are themselves interpretations. You can't call them what 'islam says' in the true sense of the word 'Islamic Law'- that is why I said "Islamic law' is an idea- and it develops with time.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

And suppose it is 'Islamic', how's that different from the apostasy laws in OT?

The ones in the OT are never enforced, or even used as threats, by any significant community of Christians or Jews. They are of historical interest only.

See, the thing is - no one cares about ideal Islam, or theoretical Islam, or "true" Islam, except some Muslims. What the rest of us are talking about, when we say "Islam", is the nature and influence of the established religion as found among its self-identified communities.

So Islamic Law is not an idea, or goal, or the like. It is an existing social structure. And "Islam says" whatever actual Muslims say it says, and act on as if it says. Likewise with the Quran, the scholars, etc.

 

[786]

The ones in the OT are never enforced, or even used as threats, by any significant community of Christians or Jews. They are of historical interest only.

True, although sad.

See, the thing is - no one cares about ideal Islam, or theoretical Islam, or "true" Islam, except some Muslims. What the rest of us are talking about, when we say "Islam", is the nature and influence of the established religion as found among its self-identified communities.

So Islamic Law is not an idea, or goal, or the like. It is an existing social structure. And "Islam says" whatever actual Muslims say it says, and act on as if it says. Likewise with the Quran, the scholars, etc.

So instead of saying 'Islam' say 'Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi', or whatever. It their 'schools' their following. Secondly if one reads about the development of the Shariah and these schools one realizes nothing is set in stone. Secondly there are differences within the schools and everything up for debate, even those 'set laws', with all the confusion and arguments it would be better to practice humbleness, which unfortunately is not found in our scholars, because then they would not apply these laws as they do.

Anyways, its a complex system and is not simple as "Islamic law says x".

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Actually there are very minute details, where killing an apostate for actively working against Islam is punishable by death as that is considered treason (its an 'Islamic State' ) other than that it may not be. Again depends on the school. And it depends on the scholars essentially.

The first point is pointless, as the act of apostacy is considered sufficient treason in most Islamic states to warrant punishment up to and including death. So let's not have that nonsense. As for school and scholar: no and no. All the major schools mandate death, with a tiny temporary loophole in Hanafi, as I recall, during which the apostate is to be given a chance to convert back. Same ultimate outcome, however. And if it depends on the scholars, then they are scholars essentially completely overlooked.

And suppose it is 'Islamic', how's that different from the apostasy laws in OT?

Oh, I'm sorry: are those my only two choices here?

 

[GeoffP]

Anyways, its a complex system and is not simple as "Islamic law says x".

If all major schools say "x", then yes, it is exactly that simple. The only simpler things are those individuals espousing such beliefs.

 

[786]

The first point is pointless, as the act of apostacy is considered sufficient treason in most Islamic states to warrant punishment up to and including death. So let's not have that nonsense. As for school and scholar: no and no. All the major schools mandate death, with a tiny temporary loophole in Hanafi, as I recall, during which the apostate is to be given a chance to convert back. Same ultimate outcome, however. And if it depends on the scholars, then they are scholars essentially completely overlooked.

Well if the state is Islamic, it will have whatever laws it wants, and they follow the jurists who they want.. this is what has happened throughout history of Islamic rulers. Others are not 'overlooked', they are just suppressed.

Oh, I'm sorry: are those my only two choices here?

High treason in some countries is punishable by death? And there are obviously 'other choices'. But you're not denying the apostasy laws in the OT so that is good.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

If all major schools say "x", then yes, it is exactly that simple. The only simpler things are those individuals espousing such beliefs.

Well for someone who doesn't want to understand anything in depth about Islam it certainly is simple as 'x'. For those practicing it, it may or may not be simple.

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Well if the state is Islamic, it will have whatever laws it wants, and they follow the jurists who they want.. this is what has happened throughout history of Islamic rulers. Others are not 'overlooked', they are just suppressed.

Well, you're not denying the oppression of the "other" in such states, so that is good. But these jurists are influenced by pre-existing legal opinion. The doors of the interpretation of that opinion are largely closed, or so was my understanding of the issue.

High treason in some countries is punishable by death?

Yes. Apostacy is high treason? Certainly seems to be considered treasonous. Or else what is the point of these laws, then?

And there are obviously 'other choices'. But you're not denying the apostasy laws in the OT so that is good.

No: so that is irrelevant. Of what possible meaning are they to humanitarian jurisprudence? Am I suggesting them as an alternative? No. I don't think you understand what I'm saying here.

Well for someone who doesn't want to understand anything in depth about Islam it certainly is simple as 'x'. For those practicing it, it may or may not be simple.

For those affected by Islamic jurisprudence without any want to practice it, it really is as simple as "x". We are, I think, as a group, entirely disinterested in the legal ramifications that allow the practitioner to arrive at the conclusion - or not - to execute people for the exercise of their alleged religious freedoms. The preamble - whatever stock the practitioner puts in it - is entirely irrelevant to us.

 

[786]

For those affected by Islamic jurisprudence without any want to practice it, it really is as simple as "x". We are, I think, as a group, entirely disinterested in the legal ramifications that allow the practitioner to arrive at the conclusion - or not - to execute people for the exercise of their alleged religious freedoms. The preamble - whatever stock the practitioner puts in it - is entirely irrelevant to us.

Its true, you are only interested up to the point it affects you, and nothing more.

But if you want to solve the problem you can't just see it in that narrow light. Those suppressed ideas will need to come back, and having a deeper understanding of how Islamic law developed can help you make a case for those suppressed ideas which you might 'support'. Bombs won't solve the problem...

By the way, its interesting the separation of people not wanting to be ruled by Islamic jurisprudence' but you expect everyone to abide by UN Human Rights as if your 'jurisprudence' was right. Spreading democracy is needed right?

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Its true, you are only interested up to the point it affects you, and nothing more.

True and not true. I'm concerned for how it affects many, many people. I'm in that group that hasn't chosen it, of course.

But if you want to solve the problem you can't just see it in that narrow light. Those suppressed ideas will need to come back, and having a deeper understanding of how Islamic law developed can help you make a case for those suppressed ideas which you might 'support'.

As in: a fundamental set of Islamic jurisprudences that promote humanitarianism? But that's the thing entirely: I can see where such grey areas might exist. Yet, if you forbid criticism then there can be no such return to these 'better days'.

There's a further problem, of course: the proposed 'Golden Ages' which you seem to be alluding to were always broken up by periods of awful hatred and pogrom. So, in that sense, it's a much easier prospect to 'see it in a narrow light', or simply circumvent such lofty ideals, because they're always falling on their knees. I'll take a young socialism with reasonable payout compared to a crumbling hope in an Age that came and went its way, like every Shiekh that abideth his hour.

Or more to the point: if it ain't fixed, start breaking it.

By the way, its interesting the separation of people not wanting to be ruled by Islamic jurisprudence' but you expect everyone to abide by UN Human Rights as if your 'jurisprudence' was right. Spreading democracy is needed right?

Well, the fact of the matter is - again - very simple. Humanitarianism is right, plain and simple. You could ask any humanitarian on the forum: Tiassa, Bells, Dywyddyr, Enmos, James, and so on. Preservation of human life and reasonable freedoms against arbitrary suppression of human rights. Such moral relativism is always postulated by those living in the safety of the best of surroundings, or by those wishing to drag everyone to the lowest of possible levels. You're asking me to compare a system that very potentially has homosexuals and minorities line up against the wall with a system that...doesn't.

 

[Bells]

The ones in the OT are never enforced, or even used as threats, by any significant community of Christians or Jews. They are of historical interest only.

There are a lot of Christians who support or would support the jailing or even death sentences of homosexuals (as one example). The only difference is, the media does not report on it. The issue here, of course, is that most of these Christians live in secular states, that provide protection, or do now provide protection, to homosexuals. But visit some Christian community websites, mostly evangelical groups around the world, and the word is crystal clear. When it gets to the point where the Catholic Church starts to blame homosexuality for its abuse scandals... While the "ones in the OT" are not enforced by law in secular states, if we were Christian States, for example, would you be sure that we would not be that far different? In Africa for example:

An overwhelming majority of respondents disapproved of homosexual behaviour. In three countries – Zambia, Kenya and Cameroon – this was a massive 98%. Interestingly, one of the countries with the highest numbers of people – 11% – accepting homosexuals is Uganda, where an MP is trying to get legislation passed which would punish homosexual acts with life in prison and even death in some cases. The former Portuguese colonies of Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique were also relatively tolerant of homosexuality.

---------------------

In recent years, Islamist hardliners in Somalia and Nigeria have introduced strict punishment based on Sharia law, such as amputating the hands of thieves and even stoning to death for adultery. The majority of people disapproved of such Sharia punishments. In Nigeria, they were backed by about 40% of Muslims and less than 10% of Christians. However, a majority did approve of whippings and amputations in Senegal and Mali. In nearby Guinea-Bissau, even 50% of Christians backed them. This was double the rate among Muslims in Ethiopia (25%)

Attitudes to Religion and Morality in Africa

Kenya, Zambia and Cameroon are predominantly Christian.

See, the thing is - no one cares about ideal Islam, or theoretical Islam, or "true" Islam, except some Muslims. What the rest of us are talking about, when we say "Islam", is the nature and influence of the established religion as found among its self-identified communities.

Something that needs to be acknowledged is that the minority voice in Islam seems to be overly loud, in that we are only interested in what they have to say. And from that, we base the religion solely on that violent and vocal minority. It suits our ideals to do so at the moment. Muslims have become the new 'commies' in the world when it comes to bad guys.

There are issues in Islam. Just as there are issues in other religions. It's not better or worse. One is just reported on more than the others.

 

[GeoffP]

While the "ones in the OT" are not enforced by law in secular states, if we were Christian States, for example, would you be sure that we would not be that far different?

Let me nip this right in the bud: there seems to be some kind of confusion over what the contrasts here are.

Ice is not defending Judeo-Christian tradition; he is an atheist. I, though a Catholic, am not defending that either. We are contrasting the intersection of Islam in legal application with that of humanitarianism. The OP is whether or not Islam is a good system for people...and it is not. A society run by Islam has great potential to be a very, very bad system for many people. The question is not "Is Islamic theocracy a better system for people than a Christian theocracy?" (because neither are any good), but rather "Is Islamic theocracy a good system for humanity?" And it is not. The question is implied by the nature of the OP.

(Neither is Christianity or even Catholicism, if that makes you feel any better.)

 

[Bells]

Let me nip this right in the bud: there seems to be some kind of confusion over what the contrasts here are.

Ice is not defending Judeo-Christian tradition; he is an atheist. I, though a Catholic, am not defending that either. We are contrasting the intersection of Islam in legal application with that of humanitarianism. The OP is whether or not Islam is a good system for people...and it is not. A society run by Islam has great potential to be a very, very bad system for many people. The question is not "Is Islamic theocracy a better system for people than a Christian theocracy?" (because neither are any good), but rather "Is Islamic theocracy a good system for humanity?" And it is not. The question is implied by the nature of the OP.

(Neither is Christianity or even Catholicism, if that makes you feel any better.)

Read the edit Bewt.

My point was that Islam, like every other religion on this planet, would not be and are not good systems of Government, nor would they support human rights and justice. Nor would Christianity or Judaism. They don't now.

 

[786]

Well, the fact of the matter is - again - very simple. Humanitarianism is right, plain and simple. You could ask any humanitarian on the forum: Tiassa, Bells, Dywyddyr, Enmos, James, and so on.

Hmm.... Humanitarianism is right, and that is because humanitarians (you listed) say so?

I mean its like me saying "Islam is right. You could ask any Muslim on the forum: x x x x x"

?

Did I understand that correctly?

Preservation of human life and reasonable freedoms against arbitrary suppression of human rights. Such moral relativism is always postulated by those living in the safety of the best of surroundings, or by those wishing to drag everyone to the lowest of possible levels. You're asking me to compare a system that very potentially has homosexuals and minorities line up against the wall with a system that...doesn't.

But the judgment is being made that having them not line up against the wall is actually better? It would only be so if the 'worldview' of these humanitarians was correct, which necessarily be not the case. For one the argument that all human life must be preserved is one very basic idea upon which such as a system depends on... and this may not necessarily be the 'best for society'. In terms of human material life it would seem the best option, but it may not seem the best option for society if it were heading inside a volcano.... It really depends on worldviews... And its not like you're not imposing your worldview (perhaps not 'faith') on others by creating a 'humanitarian' based society. Religious systems, most often, are concerned more about the 'after-life' than 'this life' as I'm sure you're aware of, and thus the priorities used to create a system that is 'better for society' are different compared to humanitarianism, for example.

By the way if I may ask (regarding comments you made to Bells): Are you suggesting that a system created by God (I'm talking Judeo-Christian/your belief) is not good and that we can do a better job than God himself?

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

Read the edit Bewt.

Tch. There's that balance again.

Merci, BcD!

My point was that Islam, like every other religion on this planet, would not be and are not good systems of Government, nor would they support human rights and justice. Nor would Christianity or Judaism. They don't now.

Again: that's great, but it isn't the point. We're comparing Islamism or Islamic formative influences on jurisprudence with...not.

Hmm.... Humanitarianism is right, and that is because humanitarians (you listed) say so?

I mean its like me saying "Islam is right. You could ask any Muslim on the forum: x x x x x"

No, that was hyperbole for the sheer fun of it. Humanitarianism is superior just so; because there's no room in it for the kind of nonsense that theocratic notions of government inevitably entail.

But the judgment is being made that having them not line up against the wall is actually better? It would only be so if the 'worldview' of these humanitarians was correct, which necessarily be not the case.

Err...fair distribution of wealth or resources, liberty and freedom are unreasonable? How could this possibly be so?

For one the argument that all human life must be preserved is one very basic idea upon which such as a system depends on... and this may not necessarily be the 'best for society'.

I would be interested to see in what possible way this might occur, coupled with real-world examples. I suspect it's a snipe-hunt. By contrast, I could locate a number of cases of theocratic governance in which the purported "good of society" is used to drown out the equitable treatment of human life.

By the way if I may ask (regarding comments you made to Bells): Are you suggesting that a system created by God (I'm talking Judeo-Christian/your belief) is not good and that we can do a better job than God himself?

You may certainly ask...once you have communed with God and got His definitive word on the subject.

Have Him send me a PM or an email and we can get started on His vision for society.