At 04:36 AM 12/25/2012, orgasm wikipedia wrote:
Jojo,
Lomax knows when he is humiliated by his Muslim beliefs. He will not
answer Student question 2.
Merry Christmas.
Wikipedia
Rather poor prediction. I answered the question in another post,
before I saw this. This was it:
Thanks for answer. Next, is amputation prevalent in Sharia Law nations? Ref:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12
The web page cited actually does not bear on the question. But I also
did not exactly answer the question, rather I looked at *all nations*
that have laws that allow amputation as a punishment for theft. It's
very few. But the question actually asked something else.
There are sometimes attempts to pass legislation that "implements
Shari'a law." That's a totally naive -- or cynical -- political ploy,
and completely inappropriate by Muslim tradition. The Sunni
tradition, in particular, is that the sovereign has the power to
determine what aspects of Shari'a are to be active, what are no
longer appropriate, etc. Punishments are *not* obligatory, they are
*allowed* by Shari'a, and subject to the discretion of the sovereign,
in general, and judges appointed by the sovereign, in particular. For
a sovereign (which means the organized governing source of a nation,
whether it be an individual or some process) to *legislate*
"Shari'a", naively, would be an abdication of responsibility.
Rather, a "shari'a nation" would use shari'a principles, applied to
modern conditions, which requires careful consideration, to develop
legislation, the same as is done in every modern nation, simply
making sure that shari'a is considered. (And lots of politicians in
the U.S. will source U.S. law in the Mosaic code, a similar idea. But
you won't see the 10 Commandments as legislation, or the requirements
of the Torah, naively interpreted. The Torah was also tribal law.)
Now, I'm generally, if I have to choose, a Maliki. That's a largely
North African school, one of the original schools. It very clearly
places the consensus of the community in a high place as to the
sources of law, more so than the other schools, as far as I know.
This is *entirely* consistent with democratic practice, though it can
also be applied more widely.
The general consensus among Muslims, as to the Hudud, the obligatory
punishments, is that they are not to be applied under modern conditions.
Those are tribal law, to be applied under tribal conditions, where
the possibilities and mechanisms of organized society are not present.
This would be quite the same as with the matter of slavery, for example.
Again, I'm not a fan of the Saudis, but they were one of the last
sovereign governments on the planet (the actual last?) to outlaw
slavery. It was not that long ago. What did they do? It was
impressive, and contrast that with what happened in the U.S., which
outlawed slavery as, effectively, an act of war against part of our
own nation, and with massive economic damage and disruption, and
still, little or no improvement in the common lot of African slaves,
who simply traded chattel slavery for economic slavery, and it took a
century to move far beyond that.
In the Kingdom, when they banned slavery, the Kingdom *bought all the
slaves,* at market price, and freed them. In doing this, they
respected prior property rights. And what they did actually was
sunna, for that is what the Prophet did with slaves. He bought them
and freed them. He did not change property rights. People who have
fixed ideas of "right" and "wrong" think that the "bad" slave-owners
should be *punished* by being deprived of their property, *lawfully
acquired.* But, wait, other prophets had slaves. Hagar married her
slave-girl to Abraham. There are plenty of references to slaves in
the Bible (and that did not escape apologists for chattel slavery in
the U.S. South.)
Slavery is allowed in the Shari'a, but only under certain conditions
(and with certain responsibilities). But nobody sees "Shari'a law" as
re-establishing the institution of slavery. Or, rather, nobody sane.
The Kingdom decided, apparently, that slavery was now contrary to
"public policy." It's a bit remarkable, because they are Hanbali,
which doesn't so much recognize, as I've understood the matter, 'urf
(public policy) as a source of law. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
Whatever, the Saudis did well on this one.
