Sharia en de koran

quote:

omdat Triggershot zich positief uitliet over de Sharia. gezien het feit dat ik er negatief tegenover sta om duidelijke redenen ben ik benieuwd naar zijn visie en die van andere mensen.

mijn gok is dus dat triggershot het wel prettig vind om bovenaan de wet te staan, daar hij mannelijke moslim is.

quote:

Amnesty International is reporting that seven women are to be stoned in Iran. Please familiarize yourself with the facts being reported. You will note that even the prostitutes were married.

Stoning, or rajam, is a punishment in Islamic Law, meted out to adulterers. Under orthodox law, a person who engages in pre-marital sex is to be lashed 100 times while a person who engages in illicit sex outside of marriage is to be stoned to death. The verse which proscribes punishment for sex crimes in Islam is verse 2 of the 24th Chapter:

The woman and the man guilty of ZINA - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Immediately we see that there is no reference to stoning. That is because the punishment for stoning to death does not exist in the Quran. It comes in via the hadith. That hadith is deemed to have abrogated (sort of like veto) the Quran. For now I am not going to get into the discussion of abrogation or the merits of that particular hadith. That is for another day. My point was simply to show that the Quran does not make stoning a punishment. All I really want to demonstrate right now is the following:

The Arabic word “Zaniy” does not, in any way, relate to the marital status of the perpetrator. A married person guilty of the crime would be termed a “Zaniy”, as much as an unmarried person. In view of this fact, the Qur’anic law for a person guilty of the crime should be subjected to the punishment of one-hundred flogs, irrespective of his marital status. Any distinction made on the basis of the marital status of the perpetrator would, therefore, clearly be against the directive of the Qur’an.

In other words, there are persuasive reasons for Muslims to say to Iran — or any other party who engaged in stoning — that to do so goes against the Quran. I admit that this is the minority position in Islamic Law historically. However, our goal is to make it the majority position. The fact that it is the minority position should not detract us from making the argument that under Islamic Law, the most that Iran can punish these women is 100 lashings and therefore there should not be a stoning.

Now, immediately the question arises: would not 100 lashes just as equally kill a woman? The answer is it would almost definitely kill a woman. The other question that arises is this: replacing stoning with flogging still does not address the culture of patriarchy and the jurisprudence of oppression being practiced in Muslim countries. My answer is that indeed, it does not resolve any of those things. So then why even bother making this argument? Very simple.

Under a majority view in Islamic Law — ah, now we are in the majority — the Islamic punishments are a “ceiling” and not a “floor” of the maximum penalty. In other words, jurists — even orthodox jurists — accept that when you are going to flog someone for fornication you cannot flog them more than 100 times. Thus, our first goal, as reformists, should be to try to lower the “ceiling” from stoning adulterers/lashing fornicators to 100 lashes for both (since that is more consistent with the Quran).

In other words, first we have to collapse the distinction between pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex. Then we have to argue that the most either can be punished is 100 lashes, as the majority concurs. Then, we will take we have to really get our reformist asses active, and say, as does the Quran in Surat ul Burooj (Chapter of the Castles in the Stars), “God is the oft-forgiving and most merciful” to try and lower the number of lashes from 100 to maybe 40 (which can be survived), to maybe less than that, and eventually, to zero. So, if you want to make stoning go away, this is the argument you need to use.

How successful you are will depend on how persuasively you can demonstrate that critical first step: namely, a) that the adulterer/fornicator distinction does not exist in the Quran and b) the hadith about stoning does not trump verse 24:2 (where no stoning is mention). Step ‘a’ is easier because it is a question of language. Step ‘b’ is harder - much harder - because it requires for you to demonstrate that the hadith are not a primary source of law (which flies in the face of about 900 years of majority thinking in Islamic Law). With respect to step ‘b’ you should not, however, lose heart.

Over time I will show all the numerous jurists who historically did not consider the hadith a primary source of law that could therefore veto the Quran. I will also show that if you look just at contemporary Islamic Jurisprudence the ‘minority’ is at least about 40% (and rapidly growing and soon to become the majority). Since some of you will one day become Muslim Jurists (note that non-Muslims can be Islamic Jurists too) these lessons will be instructive. I will also set forth a number of different methodological tools that jurists today are using in the area of hadith (some will be completely challenge Islamic legal history; some, however, emerge right from it).

In the long term, there is no reason to say that when it comes to stoning Islamic Law cannot be changed. It can be. The tools are there. Only the knowledge is lacking. We will remedy that over time.

In the short term, we have to take more pragmatic action in order to say something to someone, anyone, about the seven women in Iran. This I have learned a lot of information about during this morning and will share in my next post.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 april 2007 16:32 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

Je hoeft dan ook niet te reageren, het is niet jouw topic, maar die van Gewoneman, dus als het je niet bevalt, ben je niets verplicht.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 april 2007 16:42 schreef bijdehand het volgende:
ik ben toch voor een democratie, en tegen de sharia

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 april 2007 16:34 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

poster.

quote:

Op zaterdag 14 april 2007 16:07 schreef TheMagnificent het volgende:
De zogenaamde Sharia die de Arabische landen hebben, is niet de werkelijke Sharia. De Sharia tentijde van de Profeet Mohammed (vzmh) en de Sharia tentijde van Islamitische Spanje (Andalusië) daarentegen wel.

De Saoudie-Arabië van nu is niet representatief voor de Islam en de Sharia.