well I am glad to see that.. thank you zizo..
on that interview if Maryam w.r.t Islamic Sharia law... leg is read my man Adam Deen..
first let us read his sharia law and then watch his tube..
Maryam Namazie, member of the very much disgruntled Council of Ex Muslims, takes another opportunity to strike at Islam with her recent article in the Guardian, “What isn’t wrong with Sharia law ?”. She claims that the current Muslim arbitration tribunals which operate under the arbitration act and Sharia councils are a demand of ‘Islamism’ to restrict citizens rights, in particular those of women, and that Sharia law is functioning as a parallel legal system here in the UK.
Sharia courts do not in anyway work as parallel systems, but work in conjunction with British Law, so that tribunals can only result in rulings that comply with UK law. Maryam mentions child custody as an example of alleged dissonance between the systems of law, claiming that custody reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of circumstance, whereas in British law, the child’s best interests are the court’s paramount consideration. This is a false comparison, since she compares the detail (al Hukm) of the Sharia law, which is the prefixed age, with British law’s purpose of the law (legal theory), which is the childs best interest. Her false comparison ignores the fact that in Sharia law, the child reverts to the father after the age if seven, in the view that it is in the child’s best interest. The child’s best interest remain the primary consideration and were the father not considered the best carer, custody would not revert to him, just as it wouldn’t to a mother in British law in the opposite scenario. This simplistic assessment, which claims that, unlike other legal systems, Sharia law is fixed regardless of the circumstances, is an erroneous conflation of Sharia law (the ideal) with the application of the law (fatwa). A fatwa is a Juristic verdict or the general Sharia ruling applied to a specific situation. If the situation is such that the child’s best interest are compromised, then a fatwa would be ruled for the child to reside with the mother instead of the father even if the prefixed age of the child were meet.
Further she also claims that only men have unilateral divorce and that women will lose their dowry, (the sum of money agreed to at the time of marriage), if they obtain a divorce without the man’s agreement. Maryam criticizes this by comparing it to British law where assets are divided based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Both men and women can divorce in the Sharia and both can request a divorce for exactly the same reasons. Maryam takes issue with the woman’s loss of her dowry if she requests a divorce. It is worth noting that like all systems of law, a specific Sharia ruling cannot be analysed in a vacuum or in isolation, and can only function within its intended contingent framework or backdrop. Maryam fails to mention that according to the Sharia, in origin the husband by obligation must provide for all his wife’s financial needs, to the extent that she is under no obligation to contribute to any financial matters in the marriage, even if she is a millionaire! Given this backdrop the dowry being returned may not sound so bad. As my wife likes to remind me, “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine.” Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, specific situations can result in specific rulings (fatwa). If for example the women has to divorce due to the husband abusing or mistreating her or the man is impotent, then this situation would be considered by the Sharia courts as a forced divorce or default divorce on the man’s part, and in this case, she would not have to return the dowry. Just as in British law, if she had contributed to the marriage financially as much as her husband, then this also would also affect the matter of dowry and any other assets involved.
Maryam’s third bone of contention relates to women’s testimony which she claims equates to half that of a man. The verse in the Quran which states the need for two women or one man relates to financial transactions which women were not actively involved in at the time of the Prophet. Many of scholars no longer regard this as applicable since women are nowadays just as well versed as men in these areas, rendering their testimony equal to that of men, as it already was stated in all other areas of the law, whether civil or criminal. Not to mention that a great portion of Islamic traditions are reported by one women namely the Prophet’s wife Aisha!
Lastly, regarding the Sharia’s penal code. In Sakine Mohammadi Ashtiani’s case, her stoning must be condemned, since it is not in accordance with the Sharia. This case lacks the necessary four witnesses, who have to literally see intercourse. One has to remember that the Hudud (capital punishment) at the time of Prophet Mohammed was meant to function as a symbolic deterrent signifying the severity of the act. This reasoning is supported by the near impossible standard of evidence needed for such punishments to be enforced. In reality, Hudud would never actualize, unless the party involved pleaded guilty in order to take the punishment in this world rather than the after life.Once we dissect this simplistic view of the Sharia law, it becomes clear that the real criticism ought to be directed at the misuse of the law, not the law itself. Sadly, Sharia law tends to be applied in countries where the rule of law, transparency and accountability are rare if not completely absent. Any legal system left to corrupt judges and despotic rulers who fail to up hold the rule of law is bound to fail to stand up to scrutiny. Criticism should rightly be directed at the mis-use of the Sharia, but let those addressing this topic get the facts right and not throw out the baby with the bath water.
We have seen this attack on Christianity; do you really think they are going to spare British Islam? I feel we need to take this issue head on, the; best form of defense, in this case is attack. Firstly, let’s wake up and smell the ataar., There are Muslims that practice the homosexual life style, whether in private or public.
The worse thing to do would be to deny this. How can we help such misguided Muslims individuals when we don’t even believe they exist? If the Muslims don’t have a dedicated support network to facilitate this matter to help those overcome difficulties and tests of faith, such as this, then we will definitely lose Muslims with this disposition to other ‘alternative’ lifestyles. We should view homosexuality as a set of actions which can be controlled, if desired, otherwise we will lose them to the liberal, “you were born with a gay gene” discourse. How many mosques do you think have Imams that would be able to adequately deal with this issue ?, "haram ya ahkih". I also think that it is important to distinguish between homosexual thoughts and homosexual behaviour. Homosexual advocates are very keen to prove that a homosexual disposition is defined by genetics and infer from this, that the fact this disposition is ‘natural’ therefore makes it socially and morally acceptable. And this despite the fact that research into the as yet elusive ‘Gay Gene’ is far from conclusive. But even if we accept this as a scientific fact, it does not follow that it is morally right to transform those thoughts into the homosexual behaviour. To imply that our sexual orientations are determined by our genetic make up and are therefore natural and thus ‘right’, is to create far more absurd moral dilemmas than it solves. For if all ‘natural’ behaviour is determined to be ‘right’, homosexual behaviour would not be the only type of behaviour to be validated, but all sorts unacceptable behaviours (read - not yet accepted) including sexual perversions such as pedophilia would also become acceptable if one could prove the presence of a ‘pedophile’ gene, which incidentally, some scientists claim does exist.. No one in their right mind would advocate such behaviour! Rather, we would try to seek help for such an individual to control their desires and help them refrain from engaging in them. So it does not necessarily follow that if our dispositions are natural that our behaviour is by inference right. Moreover, Allah does not condemn homosexual thoughts (any thought in fact, rather he wants us to guard ourselves) but the behaviour, the indulgence which the thought might engender.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Allah Almighty says (in a qudsi hadith), ‘Whenever My bondsman intends to do good but does not do it, it is written as one good act for him; but if he puts it into practice, it is written from ten to seven hundred good deeds in favour of him. When he intends to commit a bad deed but does not actually do it, it is not recorded against him. But if he does it, it is written as only one bad deed”
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Allah has forgiven my Ummah of the whisperings of their souls so long as they do not talk about it or act accordingly.”
If you think that the homosexual lifestyle is practiced and indulged in by only by so-called liberal Muslims, cultural Muslims as they sometimes refer to themselves, you’re absolutely wrong.
There are organisations like ‘Imaan’ and ‘Al Fatiha’ in the USA, who believe in living a Muslims life, but also practicing homosexuality. They claim either that the Islamic doctrine does not have any injunctions on homosexual activity or that the commands aren’t valid for today. Before we can address if homosexuality is right or wrong, we have to ask how we actually establish if there is such a thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. As Muslims we believe that God is the most perfect conceivable being entity, and that most conceivable being by definition, He (generic) is perfectly good. Now in His perfection, God’s perfectly good nature issues humans/ humanity with guidelines, otherwise known as commandments to us, which become our moral duties, e.g. you should not steal, you should not eat pork, you should not harm another. What makes these commands morally right is that they are considered based on Gods commands and can be traceable to a direct source emanating from Him and God’s commands are not capricious but flow necessarily out of his perfect nature.
"A Muslim’ is one who submits to the will of God"
This understanding is at the very core of the Islamic belief. The etymology of the word ‘Muslim’ is one who submits to the will of God, the very definition of a Muslim is the one who submits their will, their deeds, their faith and mind into God. The real God, conceived of us real and not hypothetical, has given us real commands to deal with for every real matter of right and wrong.
Qur’an 4:65 “But no, by the Lord, they can have no Faith until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes, and find in their souls no resistance against Your decisions, and accept them with complete submission.”
Qur’an 33:36 “It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a wrong Path.”
Qur’an 5:4 “This day those who reject faith give up all hope of your religion. Yet fear them not, fear Me. This day I have perfected your religion and have chosen for you Submission as your religion.”
Qur’an 5:92 “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and beware!”
Qur’an 64:12 “So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger (Muhammad).”
Qur’an 24:51 “The only response of the (true) Believers when summoned to Allah and His Messenger in order to judge between them, is no other than this: they say, ‘We hear and we obey.’ Such are successful. Those who obey Allah and His Messenger, fear Allah and do right, such are the victorious. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger fears Allah and keeps his duty.”
Qur’an 4:64 “We sent not a messenger but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah.”
Qur’an 4:115 “If anyone contradicts or opposes the Messenger [not Allah] after guidance has been conveyed to him, and follows a path other than the way, We shall burn him in Hell!”
It’s quite evident from the quranic references that Muslims must obey and submit to Allah’s will and this is how to live a virtuous life. Many Muslims have been infected by this notion that an act is ok if it feels ok. People refer to right and wrong not as a matter of fact, but a matter of taste, there are no objective values as regards of matters of taste, but rather like the claim that ice-cream tastes nice assertion that: , “pistachio ice-cream taste nice to you but not to me”, this type of relativist attitude is extended to moral issues, “ it’s right for you but not right for me”. From the outset, I believe it vital we distinguish our moral obligations from our feelings, or reaction to them. What we need to understand is that our moral obligations to God are independent to our state of feelings of guilt (or not lack thereof) towards them. When we fail to meet his commands, we are morally guilty. If every person in the world was de-sensitised to the extent that they felt that indiscriminate killing of people was morally right, God’s commandment relative to the act for indiscriminate killing would still be the determining factor for its moral value and the act would still have a negative moral value, regardless of people’s feelings on the matter.
“Without God, everything is permitted”
Now it would also follow that if God did not exist then right and wrong would be relative to our own opinions. As the Russian novelist Dostoyevsky said “without God, everything is permitted”. Morals become a by-product of socio-biological evolution that varies from society to society. Then nothing actually has a moral value, including homosexuality. If Muslims want to argue a case for homosexuality, then the best way to do so is from an Atheistic stance. But the problem is that homosexuals don’t want to become atheists and appeal to moral judgments like “it is wrong to discriminate”, inferring then that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. So then there thus seems to be a conceptual problem causing this tension. What I have found, is that many Muslims have submitted their spiritual side to God, but not their minds (not to be misunderstood to suggest there is no freedom of thought within Islam).They just don’t think like a Muslims, someone has submitted their entire being to Islam, including their moral outlook. . How secular/liberal Muslims approach issues of morality is by having a primordial philosophy (that typically be a liberal one) that shapes and subsumes the Islamic framework. No longer is right and wrong determined by God, but by an arbitrary founded principle that sculpts Islam’s morale framework and proceeding from its own understanding of right and wrong. However, what we mentioned before is that morals only make sense if we have God to trace them back too, so to answer if homosexuality is right or wrong we have to appeal to what God has said about the matter. If we solely appeal to relative frameworks without God then the persecutor of homosexuals and advocator of homosexuals would effectively have the same moral value as there are no actual rights and wrongs. With that in mind, if we look at the Quran and Sunnah we find that homosexuality is forbidden, therefore rendering that act morally wrong.
(1) As Muslims we are obligated to do God’s will
(2) We have access to God’s will from Revelation (Quran and Sunnah)
(3) The revelation forbids Homosexual behaviour
(4) Therefore Homosexual behaviour is against his will i.e. wrong.
In recent times modernist Islamic scholars have sought to argue that the Qur’an is a secular book of faith with no remit in the legal sphere, concerned merely with moral and ritual matters. However, a closer observation suggests that in addition to the moral and ritual precepts, the Quran contains a number of legal injunctions suggesting that the Quran and law are intimately connected.
One can discover that the Qur’an encompasses legal matters of ritual, alms-tax, property and treatment of orphans, inheritance, usury, consumption of alcohol, marriage, divorce, sexual intercourse, adultery, theft homicide and so forth. [1]
Some have minimised the importance of the Qur’an as a legal document by virtue of the fact that there are only 500 verses with legal content compared to the large volume of religious and moral verses. Out of over 6,200 verses,[2] less than one-tenth relate to law, its ideas of economic and social justice including legal contents are on the whole subsidiary to its religious call. However, this would be an erroneous contention as the Quran has no less legal material than the Torah, which is commonly known as “The Law”.[3] Consideration of the Qur’an as a document that prescribes law, has only recently come into question. Historically, the discourse amongst Muslims consisted of disputes about the degree to which Muslims should follow God’s commands. Namely, is there room for human agency in following God’s commands or are those rules purely deterministic both in meaning and application. A well-known example of this tension was recorded by Muslim historians between Ali and the Khawarij over the issue of resolution with Mu’awiyah through ‘arbitration’ (al-tahkim).[4]
The Khawarij where a rebellious faction of the religious puritan known as the Qurra (the readers and reciters of the Quran). When 'Ali agreed to resolve his conflict with the cousin of Uthman, Mu'awiyah (d. 60/680), the Khawarij broke of with him and eventually assassinated him.
The Khawarij claimed that Ali, by agreeing arbitration had betrayed God by accepting the judgment of human beings over that of God’s decree.[5] This conflict presupposes the fact that Muslims should ultimately refer to the Qur’an’s judgment on such matters.
The Sharia is considered by Muslims as the legal framework of Islam and the body of Islamic religious law within which the public/private aspects of life are regulated, hence serving as a complete source for the Islamic way of life.[6] The term Sharia itself derives from the verb "shara'a" (Arabic: شرع), which means "way" or "path to the water source". The majority of Islamic jurists view the Qur'an as the Sharia’s only primary source where other sources are depended upon, i.e. the sunnah, ijma and Qiyas.[7]
The philosophy underpinning the Sharia is that Muslims' understanding of the Oneness of God is linked to the notion of a single legislator.[8] Muslims believe that there is a sole creator and master of the universe and that they must submit to Him. Belief in the one deity requires a Muslim to assign no share of authority over their actions and behaviour to anyone else but that deity, which follows that ultimate sovereignty belongs to God and that God is the one who has the right to legislate.
This is supported by the further point that one of 99 attributes of God is ‘Al-Hakam’, which means The judge, The arbiter and The ruler, elucidating the view that the Qur’an’s author is a legislator. One can also understand the idea of ultimate submission from the etymology of the very word Islam, which means complete submission to God – the acceptance of God as the sole master without any partners.[9] In the Qur’anic worldview, submitting oneself to anything or anyone other than God is considered an act of shirk (association with partners to God).[10]
‘Law’ is defined as: “A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority” [11]the Qur’an assume an authority and does that authority express itself via the Qur’an? The Qur’an engages in a discourse emphasising Gods sovereignty and the imperative to obey Him. For instance: “The command is for none but God. God has commanded that you worship none but God. That is the right religion, but most people do not understand”. (Surah 12 verse 40) and “If anyone disobeys God and God’s messenger, that person is clearly on the wrong path”. (Surah 22. verse 36) Elsewhere, the Qur’an states: “Jacob said…None can command except God. In my place my trust and let all that [can] trust place their trust in God”. (Surah 5 verse 49) and contrasts such commands with what it characterises as the “whims of people” (hawa).[12] In another verse, the Qur’an orders that Muslims should refer to the God and his prophet in all disputes, going as far to say that if one does not he/she is not a true believer. (Surah 4 verse 105).
It is apparent from the Qur’an, when Mohammed arrived at Medina his message took the form of God’s Law akin to the Torah and the Gospels. In surah 5 verse 43, God asks, with a sense of astonishment, why the Jews resort to Muhammed in his capacity as a judge “when they have the Torah which contains the judgment of God.” The Qur’an goes then to say, “We have revealed the Torah in which there is guidance and light, [and by which] the prophets who surrendered [to God] judged the Jews, and the rabbis and priests judged by such of Allah’s Scriptures as they were bidden to observe.” Then the Qur’an refers to the Christians, addressing that Jesus was sent to confirm Moses’ message and to the Gospel to reassert the texts in the Torah. “So let the people of the Gospel judge by that which God had revealed therein, for he who judges not by that which God revealed is a sinner” (5:47). This clearly demonstrates that the Qur’an considered the Jewish and Christian scriptures to contain legal matters and that they were bound by their application.
What proceeds from these verses is an explicit mention of the law given to the Muslims. “We have revealed unto you the book [i.e., the Quran] with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it…so judge between them that what God had revealed, and do not follow their desires away from truth…” (5.48). Now, Mohammed began to think of his religion to deliver the Muslims a set of laws of their own from God as did Moses and Jesus. Mohammed’s arrival into Medina was the birth of the Prophet’s prophethood elaborating a basic legal structure.12 The viewing of the Qur’an as a legal document continued even after his death as the four Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar Bin al-Khattab, Uthman and Ali who were all senior companions of prophet Mohammed, continued to legislate according to the Qur’an. For example, Abu Bakr the first caliph (d. 13/634), Mohammed’s most trusted companion, had order his armies that were about to attack Syria, that they carefully adhere to the “laws transmitted” to them, at the “hands of” their Prophet.[13]
This authority takes the form of laws which are expressed as commands and prohibitions. A command (amr) is defined as a verbal demand to do something issued from a position of superiority over those inferior.[14] This can take the form of obligations or recommendations. For example, “if you are impure then clean yourselves” (5:6) A prohibition (nahy), being the opposite of a command, is defined as a word or words which demand the avoidance of doing something addressed from a position of superiority to one who is inferior.[15] For example, “Slay not the life which God made scared” (6:151).
However, the modernist scholars would argue that even though the Qur’an assumes an authority and expresses it via commands and prohibitions, it is limited to that specific generation. For example the verse, indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between people by that which God has shown you (4:105) is understood to mean that the verse is causative, indicating that God’s law must be implemented, but they reduce the scope. In this verse they say ‘al-naas’ is not general but rather it is specific. This is due to the fact that the ‘alif lam’ can carry three meanings. The meaning the modernists choose is li ’l-‘ahd; meaning the designation of a specific thing. They say that the ‘alif lam’ in ‘al-nass’ means a specific people, indicating the Meccans at the time of revelation. Therefore if it indicates the Meccans at the time of revelation - and they no longer exist - then the Qur’anic verse is inapplicable today. This is one example of an attempt to reduce the scope of the [16]
Fazlur Rahman, who was a well known modernist scholar, [17]the ethico- legal content of the Qur’an not as formulaic set of rules, but intended as a guidance to inform rules. Rahman was highly critical of the classical perception of the Qur’an understood as a book of law. For him, the Quran neither was, nor did it purport to be, a book of law, it called itself a guide for humankind and demanded that believers live by its commands, which were for the most parts not legal but ethical or quasi-legal. [18]
Rahman believed that the ethical-legal Quran’ic instructions functioned at two levels: the “ideal” and the “contingent”. The ideal was the goal that believers were to aim for. The contingent, on the other hand, meant what was possible at the time of revelation, given the structural constraints within the immediate community and the conditions of the time so the ideal might or might not be achieved during the time of the revelation. The close affinity of the Qur’an to the situation at hand, that is at the time of revelation, required that its instructions address problems of the time in their specific circumstances while highlighting or alluding to the ideal to which Muslims should aspire as they moved from one situation to another, from one time to another. [19]
Rahman argued that, in order to understand the ideal, the contingent in Quran’ic pronouncements, the best tool available was “historical criticism” which would clarify the context and the rationale of the guidance, and distinguish the ideal from the contingent. To demonstrate this point, Rahman used the example of polygamy. One of its instructions was that a man should not marry more than one wife if he could not do justice to all of them, adding categorically that no matter how he tried just treatment was impossible. However, it was equally true that the Quran gave permission to marry up to four wives. Rahman harmonises these two requests by saying that the Quran wanted to promote the maximum happiness of family life, understood to be a monogamous marriage. However, this moral purpose had to be compromised in the reality of seventh-century Arabian society, in which polygamy was too deeply entrenched for it to be removed without defeating the moral purpose itself. The Quran therefore accepted polygamy at the legal level, but restricted it and placed as many safeguards as possible, while at the same time enunciating the ideal of the monogamous society towards which the prophet wanted to move. [20]
The distinction between the ideal and the contingent, Rahman argued was given little importance if any in the construction of Islamic law and in the interpretation of the Quran. Yet, if Muslims were to bring about reform, jurists had mistakenly taken much of the Qur’anic content, such as for example, hudud and family law , as the ideal rather than the contingent.
An assessment of the modernist methods, suggests it is an attempt to presuppose the results of interpreting a text based on the intended meaning. That is to say that one already has an idea or value in mind before approaching the Quran and the modernist scholar superimposes that value or idea on the Quran’ic text.
With respect to the example of limiting the scope by means of interpreting the word people in the Quran in surah 4 verse 105 to only refer to the Arabs at the time of revelation, hence limiting the scope of the Qur’anic legal injunctions, a few points can be made. Firstly, one can not help ask , if the author meant that the judging was only for the 7th century Arabs , then way did he not use the word “Qureshi”? Surely this would make sense if the modernist interpretation was right. How would modernists interpret verses such as "O al-Naas (people), Worship your Sustainer, who has created you and those who lived before you..." (Qur’an 2:21). So, would this free Muslims in worshipping the Lord since the verse would be restricted to the 7th century Arabs ? This would mean that Muslims beyond 7th century Arabs would no longer have to perform their prayers, fast, pay Zakah and perform Hajj. Also, in Surat Al-A'raf, 7:158, Allah commands the Prophet "Say: "O al-Naas! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah". Wouldn't that make the Mohammed just a messenger for the 7th century Arabs only? Clearly this would be absurd.
Secondly, this qualification would be incoherent with the overall message of other verses in the Qur’an, the Islamic message of the finality and universality of Gods revelation. God in the Qur’an addresses the whole of mankind. "And we have not sent you except as a mercy to mankind"[21] and “O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) [22]Why would “the book of truth” be only sent down for the 7th century Arabs, why would God leave out truth for future generations? Also, to be consistent with this methodological interpretation, all of the requests within the Qur’an would need to be qualified in this very same way, i.e. the request to pray, to fight injustice, to fast, etc. A modernist proponent may claim that these types of requests are not legal but ritual and moral in nature and thus limiting does not apply. However, without a reason to justify this arbitrary restriction, this methodology lacks the consistency of the classical perspective. For the modernist methodology to hold any credence, the modernist has to shoulder this burden of proof. Why does this restriction not apply to all requests in the Qur’an since all the requests were revealed at the same time to the 7th century Arabs?
As I mentioned earlier, Modernists approach the Quran in light of the values that they already uphold. This can clearly be shown with Rahman’s approach. Rahmans distinction of “ideal and contingent”, presuppose that he knows what the ideal is. If we don’t take the injunction from the Qur’an as the ideal, then Rahman must refer to outside of the Qur’an for an ideal. For example, the ideal in the polygamy verse for Rahman is that to “promote the maximum happiness of family life which was a monogamous marriage”. How does Rahman come to know of this, as this is not from that verse in particular or any other verse. Rahman, clearly viewed “promote the maximum happiness of family life which was a monogamous marriage” as a judgment to begin with and is super-imposing it onto the Qur’anic verse. This method of superimposing preconceived values onto the Qura’nic text goes against the very notion of the verse condemning following one’s ‘hawa’. If this is true of Rahman’s methodology, then the very fact that Rahman uses external judgments not derived from the Qur’anic texts makes the entire enterprise of referring to the Qur’an’s authority superfluous to begin with.
If one approaches the Qur’an in an objective manner, allowing the Qur’an to speak for itself without reference to pre-existing assumptions, it is clear that we have a coherent methodology that is internally consistent with the Qur’anic text. This suggests that the classical position, which views the Quran as a legal document has a methodology that is unbiased and represents a clear understanding of the Qur’an. With that in mind, we have good reason to suggest that the Qur’an and law are intimately connected.
[1] 2:219 They ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: "In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit." And they ask you what they ought to spend. Say: "That which is beyond your needs." Thus Allâh makes clear to you His Laws in order that you may give thought.
30: 39 That is because they say: ' Bargaining is just like usury.
65:1 O you prophet, when you people divorce the women, you shall ensure that a divorce interim is fulfilled. You shall measure such an interim precisely. You shall reverence GOD your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor shall you make life miserable for them, to force them to leave on their own, unless they commit a proven adultery. These are GOD's laws. Anyone who transgresses GOD's laws commits an injustice against himself. You never know; maybe GOD wills something good to come out of this.
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayat.
[3] D. Goitein, “The Birth-hour of the Muslim Law,” Muslim World, 50 (1960), p.24.
[4] Abu El Fadl, Law and Rebellion, p.45
[5] Ibid.
[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia[7] Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, p.18
[8] Muhammad 'Abdullah Draz, The Qur’an An eternal challenge, p.160
[9] 39:38 Say: Tell me then, the things that you invoke besides Allah, -if Allah intended some harm for me, could they remove His harm, or if He (Allah) intended some mercy for me, could they withhold His Mercy? Say: Sufficient for me is Allah; in Him those who trust (i.e. believers) must put their trust.
[10] Abu El Fadl, Speaking in Gods Name, p.26
[11]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law 12 W B. Hallaq, Islamic Legal Theory, p.5.
[13] Cited in S. P. Brock, “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam”, in G. H. A Juynboll, ed., Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society, 12, p.200.
[14] Badran, Usul, p.360 cited in Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, p.188.
[15] Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, ?
[16] Saf Chowdhury ‘Quran and Hadith Studies’ lecture Post graduate certificate in Islamic studies 2008
[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlur_Rahman[18] Fazlur Rahman. ‘Islamic studies and the future of Islam’, in Malcolm Kerr, ed., Islamic Studies: Tradition and its Problems (Malibu, 1980). Pp. 128-9.
[19] Fazlur Rahman, Islamic Methodology in History (Karachi, 1965 ) , p 10
[20] Fazlur Rahman ‘The impact of Modernity on Islam’ , Islamic Studies 5,2 (1966), pp. 121-2
[21] Qu’ran 21:107
[22] Quran, 4:174
Further examples "O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest. (Quran, 4:174) and also "Those were the (prophets) who received God's guidance: Copy the guidance they received; Say: 'No reward for this do I ask of you: This is no less than a message for the nations.” (Quran, 6:90)
Errr that nonsense is too much to read.. let me cut in to pieces ..
Topic: Maryam Namazie interview on Australian TV