I dont Support Sharia

[emkhan]

There's a lot of mud slinging by Shias and Sunnis on the fringes that affects the chance for Muslims to build a lasting peace in their own lands, but last I checked, Shias were not barred from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina - zones that are off limits to non-Muslims - so by all accounts, if Sunni Scholars don't declare Shias non-Muslims, then who are we to make those judgements?

Grana, in Mecca and Medina they keep their mouths shut.
Anyhow I would not like to get involved in another discussion which will have no ending. I just wanted to say that secularists and shia people don't endorse sharia Muhammadi s.a.w
They always oppose it, mock at it and deny it.

[tor_khan]

Fine. There is a time to end an argument, but two things (1) Sunnis are not uniformly decided on all aspects of Sharia. (2) Who said Shias don't have their own interpretation of Sharia?

[Ghundal]

The Sunni Shiite bs has been played out by Sheikhs who want to keep people distracted while they are stealing wealth from the people

[tor_khan]

The Sunni Shiite bs has been played out by Sheikhs who want to keep people distracted while they are stealing wealth from the people

Is that a reasonable excuse you give to families when there are communal attacks during Moharram?

[Ghundal]

Is that a reasonable excuse you give to families when there are communal attacks during Moharram?

No. The discussion requires a new thread.

In my opinion, neither the hard line Sunnis or Shiites really give a damn about the differences.

Put it this way, if both adherents to these groups can live peacefully when millions are dying of starvation, who cares about their difference?

Would Allah(swt) care who is beating their chest or not on Ashura? Or which person is serving humanity?

Shiites are not just victims, but also continue to stir up sectarian differences for sakes which are not religious at all.

It is hard for me to believe that most care about Sayyidina Hussein's martyrdom when most of these same people do not even care about the living brings around the world .

[Ghundal]

Why are they mourning the dead when the living are dying? Priorities? Practical?

Mourning of such nature is clearly prohibited in Islam by Hadith and the Quran.

The specific hadiths prohibiting this commemoration are accepted by both Sunnis and Shiites, but Shiites ignore it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

St. Paul once said something to the effect of: let us get past the milk and get to the meat. So let's get into an evidence based analysis of Soldat's video which is the meat to Soldat's milk. (Rotten smelling milk from the teet of that dog Miss Andersen I might add) After all, Soldat does not provide one verifiable bit of evidence or textual reference to buttress his claim. He doesnt do the purposed law system the justice of an even handed analysis.

If sharia is the case... what is the control? Is the control in this situation for the purpose of comparison American law? Is it British post magna carta law? Is it the law of Germany? Is it basically anything but Sharia? He doesnt distill down the propaganda to give us information about what the case versus control setup is in his purposed model of a Pashtun state. For that matter, he attempts to defy both history and logic and conflate western post enlightment values and Pashtunwali. Furthermore, he compresses the rather detailed history during Amanullah Khan's reign into a simple set of propaganda lines to somehow conflate natural Pashtun tendencies with that of Amanullah Khan's proposed set of laws.

Finally, Soldat conflates the Victor Hanson/Neoconservative/Lindsay Graham/Ricky Santorum campaign rhetoric lines about why "they hate us", an example being the "promise of 72 virgins" with the ground level reality: there is little if any evidence in the corpus of writing from these resistance fighters that they care at all about 72 virgins and that this is why they continue to fight a sustained war of attrition against the Western interventionalists.

So now, a point by point analysis of Soldat's rather obtuse video.

Aesthetics:
Improved significantly on the background. A little jumpy at times where he spliced out some parts that he deemd excessive.

1. A discussion of shariah law and rape.
The issue here is that any law system, whether it be American constitutional law, shariah law, or Zulu tribal law... deserves an honest analysis that assails the nuances from many different angles.

So for instance: The general propaganda offered by Irshad Manji, Soldat, Farhat T Andersen, Hirsa Ali "of Somalia" attempts to take a complex law system, developed over hundreds of years based on a series of events that occurred nearly 1500 years ago tries to distill the discussion around controversial but important social laws into a set of "why sharia is bad for dummies". At best, they will offer up a single hadith in the hopes that someone is not smart enough to read up as many hadith or quranic verses on the subject as possible. This approach is equivalent to saying: Roe versus Wade shows us definitively that Americans love to get abortions... in fact if you dont get an abortion... you're really missing out according to American ideals. That would be a stupid and subpar analysis of an extremely elegent, complex, and evolving law system that deserves quiet a bit of respect in its development.

So in this same way, the rape versus zina discussion attempts to claim that the danger behind sharia is that it will take a rape claimant and automatically convert the case into a zina case based purely on some sort of nonexistent algorithmic process enshrined in sharia law.

Let us examine some of the hadith that complicate Soldat's propaganda:

"Wa'il ibn Hujr reports of an incident when a woman was raped. Later, when some people came by, she identified and accused the man of raping her. They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allâh has forgiven you," but of the man who had raped her, he said, "Stone him to death." (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)"

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/...t.php#038.4366

Even in regard to the forced sexual intercourse that Soldat purports a master can do to a female slave... the matter is more detailed than he lets on:

"Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)""

The verse above links a hadith about the revealed text to the instance in which a particular ayaah or verse of the Quran was revealed.

In fact, rape and zina are classified as two entirely different categories of offenses.

"According to Ibn Qudamah, "This is the view of Umar, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and others and we do not know anyone who has departed from this view." (Although this seems to indicate unanimity, Ibn Qudamah himself uses the language "overwhelming majority.") Muwaffaq al-Din Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi n.d), Vol. 10, p. 159"

Here is an excellent article detailing the intracacies of sharia law in regard to the crime of rape from the Malaysian Law Journal:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77976650/P...in-Islamic-Law

Here is a quote from the paper regarding why zina is placed in an entirely difference category of crime than rape itself:

"Asifa says:
This cursory review of traditional Islamic Syari'ah shows that the crime of
rape is not a subcategory of zina, but rather aseparate crime of violence under Hirabah. This classificationis logical because the taking is of the victim's property (the rape victim's sexual autonomy) by force. In Islam, sexual autonomy and pleasure is a fundamental right of both womenand men."

The paper makes it a point to note that the zina punishments themselves are what link zina and rape in terms of similar punishments being meted out in similar circumstances (the rapist being married versus single).

Even the crime of zina and the debate over the right to privacy and keeping a sin between God and man or bringing it to the court finds merit in the hadith literature itself. There is a famous hadith in which a young man has committed adultery and he comes to the Prophet demanding a punishment be enacted upon him for what he has done. The prophet turns away from him multiple times giving him a chance to not bring this sin to the attention of the Islamic court (i.e. the Prophet).

Yet Soldat's piss poor propaganda is not meant to tease out nuances and the basis for enlightened and justified shariah. Instead, he refers us to the client states of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to make his point. One might ask him who exactly empowers the Saud monarchy against which the Bin Ladinist insurgency raged?

Now, to give you an idea of just how idiotic Soldat sounds, let me make an apt comparison. I personally think that American law has many fine points in it and there is much justice that can come of it. In fact, a very elegent discussion of the constitution, its interpretation, of local, state, federal, supreme court, founding father interpretations, senate minutes etc offer a panoramic viewpoint of a single set of American laws and their interpretation.

If however, I wanted to propagandize I could attack the very cornerstone of the American judicial system and take the incorrect and irredeemable misapplication of American law under the jury system and run with this logic.

For instance, here is a very powerful documentary from Toramana's own batch of documentaries at Frontline Public Broadcasting about the Norfolk Four. This case involved forced confessions and the decade long behind bars struggles of four men accused of rape. The prosecuter and investigators are noted as being zealous to the point of ignoring insurmountable evidence. Eventually, a trial by jury, even after DNA evidence exhonerated the men and a confessor came forward resulted in guitly verdicts by JURY.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e-confessions/

or for that matter, the case of Cameron Todd Willingham under the auspices of JURY and presidential candidate Rick Perry in which the Jury basically overlooked incontrovertible proof of Mr. Willingham's innocence and coupled this to Mr. Perry's desire to never go against the death penalty in Texas due to the risk of not getting elected again:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

Or the case of this jewish couple which was continuously and doggedly harangued by a zealous prosecutor who did not want to tally a loss on his public record when the father was accused of molesting his autistic daughter in a scam (ie. he had never done it):

http://www.freep.com/article/2011061...raped-daughter

These are just 3 cases that I have high lighted (amongst many I followed over years), two of which occured in generally less educated and poorer regions of the US. It took the press to high light these cases to ensure justice was served. The TRIAL BY PEERS system failed. In the case of the Norfolk sailors it took a whole decade to free the men only after a wealthy law firm did pro bono work and even then, they had the demand from the Virginian government that the title rapist be attached to these exhonerated men's records, effectively ruining their lives until the pro bono lawyers can undo that injustice.

Or take CIA agent Dr. Sagemann's testimony in the Mahenna case here:

In Mehanna Trial, Defense Saves The Star Witness For Last | WBUR

and the different outcome his testimony had in a midwestern state in very similar circumstances under, once again, trial by jury, for a very similar crime (claiming to corner a suspect for preemptive support of anti American activities).

My point here is not that American law is inferior or superior to shariah. Its merely that Soldat plays fast and loose with evidence and his idiotic minions here also trumpet his claims.

This then degrades the level of discussion around an important subject central to one of the main impetuses behind this supposed war on terror.

We should do our best to put Soldat's figurative feet under the fire and ensure that just because he has moved from the literary format to the audio visual format that he not be permitted to commit the same original sins as the mass media (i.e. not being forced to reference his claims or to detail them further). If this is not done than Soldat and the morons that claim Najib had valid reasons for killing people get away with murder of a different sort.... murder of the truth.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There are other claims that I will address from the video. But I think that the intricate claim of shariah law applied to rape is just once instance amongst the many that shows we are not dealing with a someone who wants to bridge the societal gap peacefully. Instead, as Abbassinaafghan notes about Soldat's video... its goal is to perpetuate the mistruths and propaganda that prop up interventionalism in Muslim lands.

Its quiet alright, the truth is always out there and we aim to ensure that Soldat answer for each and every one of his quips.

I tend to find, most humurous, his consistent refrain of: If you oppose me and my view then you automatically support the stoning of little girls.

It reeks of propaganda and low intelligence argumentative methodology.

See one page back for my response in full.

[Afghanistan2010]

I can't tell who is a Muslim and who is not by looking at them emkhan because I am not God. You can dress bush in Islamic clothing and have him memorize verses of quraan, that will not make Jim a Muslim. Why are you people so stupid? If you like chicken sandwich and someone else says they don't, that offends you? Why?

And you can't tell me who is african and who is russian because you are not God,but the african tells you : im from africa.
You : no i don't know and i can't say you are african.
African : Are you blind or dumb ? I said im African.
You : Non , non you are not i don't believe.

[Afghanistan2010]

You don't worry about me emkhan. You worry about yourself.*

A person's imaan and faith can not be measured but his intelligence can. For instance, a bunch of you here are upset because you think that soldat has insulted your religion by saying he doesn't believe in sharia for the reasons he provided in his video. In his video soldat spoke of women not being provided with justice after being raped, people getting away with murder and corruption. Is that what sharia or is that sharia failing to provide a reasonable Solution to what is required for the challenges that muslim societies face today? What soldat defined in his video is not my religion which is why I am not offended by it. I know that he knows better than believing in all that himself but he knows you people are idiots. You are offended because A, you either don't know what sharia is or B, you don't want to admit that sharia implemented by today's imperfect muslim leaders turns islam in to a joke. If there is a third explanation then please explain it to me.

Because you people don't know your own religion that well or are too stupid to see or accept the truth, people like soldat take advantage of your stupidity and then the rest of us end up paying the price for your stupidity. If you dont know what you believe in so dearly yourself, who are you to tell me the extent by which secularism has influenced me? Further more, why should I let you be in charge of my religion?

You are twisting the truth,

it is all known to the east and west that pope does not support shariah and an atheist less than that,so we do not wonder that they do not support shariah,but then telling us what to do is another thing.He is a littel chicken and he should say what he want , it is not more than the barking of my neighbours dog.

It is if he is the one who has the right to tell us what to believe and to correct our Religion which is free from failures rather that failure is in himself.

He should change(reform) himself.

[Afghanistan2010]

Fine. There is a time to end an argument, but two things (1) Sunnis are not uniformly decided on all aspects of Sharia. (2) Who said Shias don't have their own interpretation of Sharia?

The Scholar of Islam are agreed since 1400 years,that everyone who insults the companions,the family of the prophet(pbuh) has likewise insulted the prophet (pbuh) and say that there is anything wrong in quran or the sunnah (authentic ahadith) is out of islam.

And every shia or whatsoever has this believe is not to be considered as muslim.But we know that many people have such believes and they visit the two holy sites (Kaaba and Masjidun Nabawi) because we do not know of that,what is in their breasts.

And there are shias who have different opinions and such,but aslong as they do not contradict the above named and other things they are considered as muslims.

And if they are of the sort that is above they are not considered as muslims.

wa Alhamdulillah waAllahu aleem.

[IamDZJ]

I would rather listen to an atheist use his common sense to figure out things than you who are refusing to tell me exactly what problem you have with what he says asides from he is a dog and he is a chicken. Yesterday I was willing to give you a chance to explain your point and I was warned off for being a Shia the way someone warns another of a mad dog's bite by emkhan. You don't get that chance today. Dont forget to thank him.
Raam Raam..

[Ghundal]

Look at this Uncle Tom video for other Uncle Toms .

[tor_khan]

The Scholar of Islam are agreed since 1400 years,that everyone who insults the companions,the family of the prophet(pbuh) has likewise insulted the prophet (pbuh) and say that there is anything wrong in quran or the sunnah (authentic ahadith) is out of islam.

And every shia or whatsoever has this believe is not to be considered as muslim.But we know that many people have such believes and they visit the two holy sites (Kaaba and Masjidun Nabawi) because we do not know of that,what is in their breasts.

And there are shias who have different opinions and such,but aslong as they do not contradict the above named and other things they are considered as muslims.

And if they are of the sort that is above they are not considered as muslims.

wa Alhamdulillah waAllahu aleem.

In response to the text in bold type: http://www.pashtunforums.com/575333-post112.html

[Afghanistan2010]

In response to the text in bold type: http://www.pashtunforums.com/575333-post112.html

I agree with your view of unity but listen,

Brother , from hatred comes more hatred and not peace.
If a man wants war,you can't reponse with peace and no resistance.

There will be no unity between the shia and sunni,when there is not an explanation and discussion between the Ahlus Sunnah and the shiite,if we try find out what is wrong and what is right about islam to take away the differencies and it is clear that 4+2 = 6 and they tell you its 7 you can't do anything.