“There should be ‘modernisation’ of Shariah law to some extent,” claimed Shamrahayu A Aziz, a professor of criminal law and human rights from Malaysia’s International Islamic University, who visited the Maldives last weekend for a discussion on faith and legislature.
“However, Shariah cannot tolerate the denial of the basic teachings, especially when there is clear text in the Quran or sunnah,” she added.
Aziz made the claims to Minivan News this week after having been invited to speak in the country by the Justice Society of the Maldives for an academic discussion on the ‘Death Penalty in Law and Shariah’. The discussion was designed to provide a comparative approach between “traditional Islamic views” on corporal punishment and its contemporary use in certain jurisdictions, she added.
Under the Maldivian constitution, Shariah is turned to by the courts in areas where established law does not cover, though the number of people actually sentenced to sharia mandated punishments like the death penalty in the last few decades has been limited to three cases that have not been carried out to this date. The most recent call for the death penalty was issued just last month in relation to an alleged gang killing.
Aziz said that when considering the possible “modernisation” of Sharia concepts such as the death penalty, Islam has specific texts within the Quran relating to a “comprehensive system of life” that cannot be amended to better comply with external standards or humanitarian agreements.
“In analogy, [the] Islamic system is built in a chain or circle. There must not be any break in the chain. If a break happens, Islam therefore is not a complete chain and it cannot be a comprehensive system of life anymore,” she said. “In order to fit in the ‘modernisation’ process, the stringent requirement in [legal] proceedings and the conviction process is very helpful.”
According to Aziz, it remains a “misconception” to perceive Sharia solely as a form of justice built around corporal and capital punishment, particularly when Islam does not itself try to encourage violence.
However, Aziz claimed that particularly in consideration of international concepts and conventions on human rights, Sharia could play an important role in raising awareness “on the importance of protecting the general public.”
“No one can arbitrarily be killed by another without reason,” she said.
Taking the example of a hypothetical domestic violence case, Aziz asked that when a person is arbitrarily murdered, in order to respect the victim’s rights, should a murderer be liable for the arbitrary act that has been committed?
“I accept the fact that killing a person is cruel. But the Islamic punishment of death penalty is not something encouraged. As much as possible death penalty must be avoided,” she said. “That is the reason why the punishment can be imposed and the sentence may be carried out in some exceptional situations.”
Aziz claimed that these situations are outlined under stringent criminal law that requires specific procedural process, with only certain types of evidence being allowed to be used as a basis for proceeding with execution.
“The death penalty is not the first resort in the punishment list. It stands at the last, the bottom [of the list],” she said. “Islam encourages compassion and forgiveness. Islam does not teach Muslims to kill. There are various verses in the Quran which state the clear position on the prohibition of killing.”
In looking at how Sharia could and had been adapted in line with human rights, Aziz took the example of blood money as an indication of how Islamic law can be focused on benefitting victims.
In a case where a person in arbitrarily murdered and they may have a young family remaining, Sharia is said to call for provisions of financial support to ensure a more stable upbringing from the guilty party.
“At least, with the payment of the blood money the children can continue living. This is in line with human rights as the rights of the children for a living after the killing of a father and the only breadwinner of their family must also be taken care of,” Aziz said.
Aziz stressed that his lecture was not specifically meant to address the current situation and attitudes regarding the death penalty in the Maldives.
“I am not the right person to tell maldivians what is best for Maldives,’ she said. “It is left for Maldivians to address the issue and to tackle the sentiments of their [fellow countrymen].”
However, the issue of using the death penalty in Maldivian law was thrust back into public debate last month when the Criminal Court of the Maldives sentenced Mohamed Nabeel to death for the murder of Abdulla Faruhad, following a review of witnesses statements and finding him guilty of the crime.
The Judge said that article 88[d] of the penal code of the Maldives stated that murders should be dealt accordingly to the Islamic Shariah and that persons found guilty of murder ”shall be executed” if no inheritor of the victim denies the murderer to be executed, according to Islamic Shari’ah.
Correction: An earlier version of this article, sourced from an email interview, mistakenly referred to Aziz as a he. Minivan News regrets the error.
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
Parliament to consider mandatory Shariah punishments- Comment: Islamic Scholarship and Maldivian Women – My swim against the tide
- Rising extremism could threaten Maldives’ tourism industry: report
- Capital Market Authority and Islamic Ministry unite to promote Islamic finance
- Bill submitted to ban import of pork and alcohol
- Q&A: Silent coup has cost Maldives a judiciary, says Aishath Velezinee
The case of Mohamed Nabeel is an extreme one where due process of law has been carried out and the death sentence is seen as fair by most people.
This was a horrific premeditated murder in front of witnesses and the perpetrator had no regard whatsoever to human life. The circumstance for the death penalty are exactly cases like this which are very clear cut and there's no room for doubt.
“There should be ‘modernisation’ of Shariah law to some extent"
I disagree with the Professor. It doesn't need to be modernized 'to some extent'.
The system needs a complete overhaul. In fact, maybe it needs to be replaced entirely by modern law.
The scholar is a female; not a male
I wonder y minivan news has done such a huge mistake when they took a personal interview of her.
This has been corrected. The interview was via email and Minivan News regrets the error. -Minivan News team
As far as I know she is not a professor yet, she is just an Assistant Professor. Why has'nt Minivan done its hw?
why is this "mini van" news is behind the islamic sharia ... no news website in maldives is covering topics like these..what is the problem with you mr.JJ
if you feel that your religion is more modern than islam then openly you write it cmpare it ..
which verson of windows is latest windows 95 or windows XP? your book is outdated & if you really support the modernization then you better follow the latest book from the lord of the heavens & earth thats Quran.
Death sentence was handed out to the suspected murderer. However there was no mention of how he would be killed, chopping off head by sword? Lethal injection? Hanging?
As suggested by Professor Islamic sharia should be modernized to solve problems of 21st century.
yasir,
Your 'latest version' is 1400 years old. So is the legal system in it.
Thus, the whole upgrade talk we were having. Unfortunately logic seems to be incompatible with the OS in your minds.
“However, Shariah cannot tolerate the denial of the basic teachings, especially when there is clear text in the Quran or sunnah,”
“I am not the right person to tell maldivians what is best for Maldives,’
"Aziz said that when considering the possible “modernisation” of Sharia concepts such as the death penalty, Islam has specific texts within the Quran relating to a “comprehensive system of life” that cannot be amended to better comply with external standards or humanitarian agreements."
She is talking sense, so far!
But, I don't see any booty here for people who want to abolish the death penalty and for those who are completely against Sharia Law!
People like yaamyn are jumping as if the professor had said the obvious thing!
Sharia is intact and any system can be modernized like she said only if it does not oppose it's originality and the specific texts within Quran and Sunnah.
If this penalty is carried out, it will be a mockery of justice rather than true justice. It will be bending the will of the courts to mob rule. There are no procedures, criminal codes, or laws in place that specifically allow for the execution of this punishment.
Its complete nonsense. There is only the vague reference that all judgement should be in-keeping with Shari'a, but islamic law is very versitile, and unless laws and regulations are specifically approved by parliament - not to mention all the proceedurs that need to be followed, no human life should ever be taken.
So what if this Mohamed Nabeel deserves death!? A life time in prison, with programs that might put him to work would be on a level with a quick, easy and painless death (anything else would be unIslamic) My point is that even if this guy deserves death, it is not worth using vague, undefined procedures, because sooner or later someone will use that vagueness to kill someone who is innocent. Someone who has only circumstantial evidence against him. Or someone who has a mob calling for his murder because a perceived slight.
When the fanatics called for the Apostate's head earlier this year, he could have easily been taken and executed on the spot if we agree to this execution here and now. If we stand by and allow this murder to be killed without due process, then WHEN an innocent person is killed the same way (and it WILL happen, like it has happened in EVERY other country that has the death penalty), when that day comes we will all have blood on their hands. Because we saw the slippery slope, and continued to move down it until we find ourselves in an abyss with no way to climb back into the light.
What exactly is modernisation...? Non-believers tend to not understand the power of belief.
If things are not right at the moment and need to be re-aligned with the fundamentals of Islamic Sharia, then lets not call it modernisation, a word loathed by most believers who do not accept inferiority to the West.
@ Yasir
The latest is Windows 7, good luck with your XP. In time to come you will realize, or so I hope for your own future.
Cntrl+F "his" and "he" and replace with "her" "she". 😀
"And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed, then they are Kafirun" Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 44
so does this Shamrahayu A Aziz thinks that Allah is incapable of making a single law for all times?
Or does she thinks that God speaks to her asking to change the sharia?
There wont be any prophet after Prophet Mohamed (SAW)
How can we change the Sharia of the God to the way we want, to the way we desire.. We take Islamic Sharia from Quran, thats Allah's words.. and only He can change His words.
Allah is the most powerful and self sufficient
Yaamin: "The system needs a complete overhaul. In fact, maybe it needs to be replaced entirely by modern law".
Who can make the best law other than the One Who created you. Have you read This Law from beginning to the end? Can you assess the actual situation that we are in right now...
Eventhough people think they are very logical and scientific the fact is that they are not..
Shamrahayu A Aziz may be a professor, but that doesn't mean that every thing she say is correct. Even I'm very good at math, but does that mean that if I say 1+1=3 that I'm correct?
All the words which comes out of the mouth of human being's aren't truth. So to find out the people who speak truth/lies we have to rely on Quran and Sunna
To some extent Yaaymn is right. Sharia needs changes. How and to what extent it can be amended and made relevant to today's life depends on Muslim world.
Cant our Mullahs sit together and come out with something concrete on this issue?
Somebody, somewhere has to take initiative (and bad name) and comeout with some suggestions.
@ zeenat
"Sharia needs changes. How and to what extent it can be amended and made relevant to today’s life depends on Muslim world"
Up to no extent it can be change. You have to follow it the way it is. It is Something our God established on us, it can be only amended by Him.
God knows the best
Hey everyone, just wake up!! We don't have to give up the Islamic Sharia to make the western people please with us, they are not the one who feed us, cloth us or cure us.. Allah give us provisions.. We have to make Allah please with us.
@hussain on Thu, 16th Dec 2010 9:40 AM
You asked "Who can make the best law..."
Do you honestly think the creator needs to decree a law for his creations to follow? Humans are not a part-creation. Humans can ONLY think within what is provided and allowed for them. So, what every guidance that creator wants, will be and is engrained into your genetics. The fact that you think about yourself is because the creator has allowed you to do so.
The fact that humans can think (in human logic and in our capacities) means that you can use your brains and thinking freely are allowed. If humans as a group or collectively do decide that we need a democratic system to our well being here on this god-forsaken land, in this split second of time, then we should be able to do it. We collectively decide what laws and policies would enrich the society and live by them.
The key word here is human well being. What you and beardees are mumbling about Allah imposed restrictions and creating dumb and stupid communities, is not how a creator would want his creations to act. period!
@joker on Thu, 16th Dec 2010 10:44 AM
"All the words which comes out of the mouth of human being’s aren’t truth. So to find out the people who speak truth/lies we have to rely on Quran and Sunna"
But the claim that quran & sunna are the words of god & prophet are claims made by *humans*. So as per your logic those aren't truth (since words from human mouth arent truth).
If quran is the word of God then there will be evidence, and people can believe it. On that contrary, if there is enough evidence, why call it a belief or faith?
@ Ismail
What the creater wants is mentioned in the Quran. In Quran its not mentioned to decide a law for ourselves for our well being.
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed, then they are Kafirun” Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 44
Here He has not mentioned to decide,
May Allah guide us all to the path He is pleased with
Ismail:
You are exactly right, humans can only think within what is provided and allowed for them.
Who could give the best procedures and instructions for running a diesel engine other then the manufacturer of that engine? If you say that those who use the engine have to think and investigate and come up with the best procedures for maintaining the engine it would take many years to come up with a good instruction manual which at the end will not be perfect.
And which human made law in the world is perfect?
Your logic of genetics as a natural process is irrational. Do some research and you need more and deep thinking?
@ larry page
I know, there are mistakes in my logic. So you can leave my words. But rely on Quran, since in it there are enough evidence that it is true.
May Allah guide you and me to the path He's please with
Dr shamrah is not a professor. She is an assistant professor.
@ larry page
“But the claim that quran & sunna are the words of god & prophet are claims made by *humans*. So as per your logic those aren’t truth (since words from human mouth arent truth)”.
I hope that you believe in logic and science. And if you do you would find the very fact that Qur’an is not the word of a human being. But if you are a lay man who don’t believe in logic and science it may be difficult for you to believe it.
Just try to find the truth with an open mind. God willing you will find the Truth.
The Maldives is doomed. It will not be long before the vitriolic anger present in these debates will spill out into violence. The Holy Quran is divine, no doubt. But our understanding of what each verse means, is human. An adult will understand what is in the Holy Quran better than a child, because knowledge and experience provide for better understanding. Scientific knowledge can enhance human understanding of the divine revelation. If that is the case, people living in different centuries will understand the Holy Quran differently. Therefore, Islamic jurisprudence will necessarily change as human knowledge evolves!
Consider death penalty. Is there any similarity in the position of the next of kin in the 21st century to his position in 7th century Arabia? The modern state has replaced the family and tribal units as the basis of sustenance, protection, education, upbringing etc. The Child Protection Unit can take children away from their kinsmen. So how can we then assume that the kinsmen can claim a legitimate right to redress and compensation? Therefore, the State has become the next-of-kin of every individual. Your father cannot beat you. Your mother cannot starve you. Your brother cannot slave-labour you. So who is the next of kin?
For every action there is a reason. If that reason ceases to exist, then so does the frame of that action. Afalaa thaugiloon?
Our new Constitution was adopted as a foundation on which a "liberal muslim" society can been developed.The Framers of the Constitution saw their vision for this country as an "Open Society" with "Rule of Law".
The crux of the problem is not just Islamic Shariah "per se" but the fact that every single judge is interpreting the Islamic Shariah as they personally interpret (depending on where they studied.) Which means that for the same offense, no two judges will pass the same sentence! That is the problem! So where is justice?
What is necessary is to establish "Rule of Law" in accordance with "Islamic principles and democratic norms". And to do so the SINGLE MOST important task has been pending in the Majlis since the tenure of Dr. Hassan Saeed as AG. Namely the Amendment to our "Penal Code".
This Penal Code was drafted with the specific purpose to "modernize" our justice system. It was written after much research (into our law, penal code, Islamic Shariah etc) with assistance from the renowned law Professor Paul Robinson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
The draft Penal Code is a landmark trendsetting piece of legislation that could transform the entire legal landscape of this country and help enormously to establish "Rule of Law".
The draft Penal Code is based on Islamic Shariah and modern democratic principles. It codifies all the offenses (be they Islamic or Legal). In other words the Judges will not be able to come out with sentences out of the blue claiming them as Islamic Shariah. The Judges will have to follow the penal code to pass their sentences.
If this country adopts this Penal Code we will be the first Islamic country to be able to successfully "merge" the Islamic Shariah with modern democratic norms without contradicting Islamic Shariah.
Unfortunately, our honorable members of Parliament are too busy playing politics. The work that was begun to establish democracy, rule of Law, Good governance, transparency, justice in a truly democratic Islamic State were forgotten immediately after the Presidential Elections.
Most people saw the new constitution only as a tool to hold elections and thought that "democracy" had been established with the election of the President Nasheed.
The Presidential Election was the necessary first step. Enacting all the enabling legislation to make the New Constitution function properly has not been done by the Majlis. Our elected MPs are far too selfish and driven by ego and political interests. Many of them are not even qualified (to even understand our laws) and should never have been elected. They have no desire to reform this country.
While the election of President Nasheed was a giant forward step for democracy, the election of the current Majlis were several giant steps backwards. Although we have some very good MPs we have to take the functioning of the Majlis as a whole. What a pity!
Here is a bit of a dilemma for you.
a. Do you agree that stoning people alive is barbaric? (If yes, go to b. If no, go to 1.)
b. Do you accept that in Sharia you are required to stone people alive for some "offenses"?
c. Do you see how "a" and "b" struggles to co-exist?
1. You are born to a wrong era
2. When Jews and Infidels invent time travel, use that technology to back to camel riding
Slightly off topic, but since some here are demanding we please God for everything that He provides us, I just thought of participating in the assertion, in their favour.
Just the other day God miraculously cured an HIV patient. A very first. And a miracle.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/stemcell-transplant-cured-patient-with-leukaemia-and-hiv-doctors-say-20101215-18y9t.html
Only bit I don't get is why He cured an Infidel first. But anyways, the point is, we should be thankful for God.
@ MN
Would you please post my comment of 3:39
Thanks
How rules or laws came into existence?
Were they not made as per the socio-political condition of that area. Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians and Arabs they all had rules as per their socio-political conditions. Sharia too was framed as per the conditions prevalent during that period.
If ancient people were intelligent enough to frame Sharia, cant we people do it now? It is our responsibility to take forward our religion as per the present conditions.
yaamyn:
Do you know there is a 1400 year-old challenge is the Quran: "If the whole of mankind and jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur`an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support." [Quran: 17:88] Before suggesting us to change or replace Quran, first take up the challenge and try to compose a book similar to Quran.
@hussain on Thu, 16th Dec 2010 2:31 PM
"I hope that you believe in logic and science. And if you do you would find the very fact that Qur’an is not the word of a human being"
As I said in that comment, if Quran is the word of God, then there will be evidence and then people can believe it if they are convinced. Reality is that not all humans are convinced of that (for whatever reason that maybe).
It is not a 'fact' that Quran is not the word of a human being according to some. Similary, it is not a 'fact' that Bible the word of God, according to Muslims and may others. One could believe one of them is true, but it is not fact.
Facts are things like:
- Obama is the president of USA
- Objects fall when released in mid-air
- Their acceleration is constant irrespective of its mass.
- Speed of light is not dependent on the motion of the observer.
Those are true irrespective of one choose to believe them or not, because they have been observed so many times, it has become fact.
This does not mean however that they will be true for eternity. Obama will most likely not be president of USA forever. Speedy of light might also vary with the motion of the observer (though this hasnt been observed yet, does not mean it will never be).
Is SHARIA only a combination of Quran and Hadith?
Or SHARIA is combination of Quran, Hadith and FIQH?
If it is so why sharia cannot be modernized in some extant?
Here I would like to mention some points from Sharia, which very clearly contradicts every practiced law worldwide.
1. A Muslim cannot be put to death for the murder of a KAFIR an (unbeliever)
2. Woman’s testimony is not accepted in case of adultery or any capital offence.
3. The Judge of the court must be a Muslim. The Judge maybe a non-Muslim only if the accused is a non-Muslim.
4. Women inherits half of a Man
5. Adoption is not allowed in Sharia.
6. Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives.
7. Muslim is allowed to have four wives at one time.
8. Woman’s witness is half of the man’s in business transactions
9. Muslim men can marry Christian and Jews women but Muslim women can marry only a Muslim man.
Modernization of Sharia deniers generally doesn’t know that the mentioned points are clear contradictions for all the practiced laws worldwide today.
So how can a law written in 1400 years ago would fit in the 21st century? The universe is big in both space and time and, for much of humankind’s history, was beyond the reach of our instruments and our minds. That changed dramatically in the 20th century. The universe of 100 years ago was simple: eternal, unchanging, consisting of a single galaxy, containing a few million visible stars. The picture today is more complete and much richer.
So denying of the modernization of Sharia for some extent is uneducated and barbaric.
@ Abdulla Rasheed
"So how can a law written in 1400 years ago would fit in the 21st century?"
Because the Creator is still the same.
@ Abdulla Rasheed
We don't have to modernize Shariah.
What we need is to establish the "Rule of Law" in the Maldives, and not to have this "twin approach" of laws and regulations AS WELL AS the courts relying on "Islamic Shariah" to pass to judgement (in addition to consideration of the Law.)
This practice ends up with different judges interpreting the Shariah on individual basis since there is no common written interpretation of Shariah on all the topics for them to refer to.
All the necessary Laws need to be reformed and enacted by parliament (Criminal, Family, Inheritance etc. etc.) Such laws will take into consideration the Islamic Shariah (a combination of Quruan, Hadith and Fiqh).
The result will be a modern, democratic legal system with its roots firmly based on Islamic Principles.
We are not here to "reform Islamic Shariah" for the whole world. Our interest is to reform our legal system to provide justice and equality for our people.
@hussain on Thu, 16th Dec 2010 2:19 PM
Your comment "Who could give the best procedures and instructions for running a diesel engine other then the manufacturer of that engine?"
This is not comparable.
An engine must use diesel, lub oil, etc. If you use something else it does not work and BREAKS down.
A man creating (rather making) a engine from metal is incomparable to (your version) of CREATING universe, including everything out of nothing.
As per you, the earth & everything was created by God. There are others who are blatantly against everything that your God has decreed. Yet, nothing, absolutely nothing happens to them. They live and die as they always have. Some happy, others not so happy. History shows that typhoons, tsunamis, landslides, earth quakes occur distributed and unlike previously touted, they span across all beliefs, thus they cannot be acts of an angry god.
There is absolutely no proof, that god is angry at someone who does not believe your god. So, your theory does not work. What happens is that you take upon gods anger and you are the one who inflict injury on those who does not believe as you do.
If there is a god, he would create man as free beings, to enjoy life and live socially. YOur version of religion is created for men, by men; with raging hormones, wanting excessive sex, power and materialistic world.
@ Ilyas Ahmed,
For some extant I can agree with you. However what about article 2, 10, 19 and 59 of Maldivian constitution? Should we abolish those articles completely from our constitution? If we are not we must talk about reforming SHARIA isn’t it?
Under article number 142[a], the courts must rule according to Islamic Sharia when deciding a matter on which [Maldivian] laws are silent,”
Considering to those articles could you please tell me the ways that we can provide justice and equality for our people?
@ Abdulla Rasheed
The reference to Islamic Shariah in article 2,10,19,59 and 142[a] of the Maldivian Constitution does not pose a serious barrier to establish "Rule of Law" in accordance with modern democratic values and principles.
Being a Muslim nation where the people follow "Islam" as the main guiding principle to conduct their day to day affairs, it is only natural for such reference to be made in the Constitution. If you read with an open mind you will see the words "As per Laws enacted by Majlis" always written in conjunction with references to Shariah.
You need to read the Constitution as a whole. Articles in various chapters are inter related and need to be read together. If you study it thoroughly you will admit how progressive the Constitution is.
As the Constitution is a broad Legal Frame Work, it is not to meant to provide details on any single matter. Enabling legislation on various areas of governance need to be formulated for the Constitution to become a reality for the people.
Bottom line is, the Constitution gives the complete power and responsibility to the Majlis (Parliament) to formulate necessary Laws. Therefore it is especially important for the Majlis to enact legislation on those issues where interpretation of Shariah has been so controversial.
Once these necessary legislation become the Law of the Land, and our new Penal Code is passed by the Majlis we will be on our way to build a liberal democratic Islamic country.
Last but not least, it would be vital to reform our judiciary and train our judges in parallel to the task of legal reform.
@ Larry page
"Facts are things like:
- Obama is the president of USA
- Objects fall when released in mid-air
- Their acceleration is constant irrespective of its mass.
- Speed of light is not dependent on the motion of the observer."
In other words you want God to sit with you at your breakfast table and spread out the butter, right?
@heck:
"In other words you want God to sit with you at your breakfast table and spread out the butter, right?"
No. Just pointing out the difference between a fact and non-facts.
@ Abdulla Rasheed
Further to my comment at 1:40 A.M today, just wish to add the following to make my thoughts absolutely clear.
Once the important laws are enacted and the Penal Code passed and ratified, the judges will have to apply the Law ONLY. They will no longer have to "consider Shariah" (and interpret Shariah on their own) to decide on cases.
If we don't undertake comprehensive legal reform (formulate necessary new laws/amend existing laws) to govern our affairs, the judges do have the prerogative to "consider Islamic Shariah" to decide on issues which are not covered by Law.
This is how the members of the Special Majlis solved the problem of harmonizing "Modern Law" with "Islamic Shariah".
To sum up these key elements of the Constitution :-
- Islam is the Religion of the "State".
- Majlis has the absolute power and authority to formulate Laws.
- Laws shall not contradict Islamic Shariah
- Governance will be based on the Law.
So unless the Majlis introduces Taliban style laws (which will need to be ratified by the President), we have nothing to worry about!
Just get the Majlis to do their elected job instead of playing power politics. They can play these games after completing the key legal reforms.
@ hameed
As a Muslims you are right. Likewise Christians and Hindus would give the same argument - While for Christians Bible is the last word, for Hindus it is Geeta/Ramayana. Despite having their holy books, they also have different laws. That does not make them less religious.
No way we should change Sharia, let that be the guiding force, but certain changes can be made as per current socio-political situation.
@ Ilyas Ahmed
"Once the important laws are enacted and the Penal Code passed and ratified, the judges will have to apply the Law ONLY. They will no longer have to “consider Shariah” (and interpret Shariah on their own) to decide on cases."
I just thought of a much simpler hassle free way!
Everyone will be his/her own judge and if they think they have done something wrong they must try their own cases at their own courts and be their own Chief Justice. If found guilty they should hang themselves!
Sharia law must remain exactly as it was a 1400 years ago. Otherwise it will leads to all sorts of perversions and depravity. Like "female Scholars."
just keep on critizing islam but be truthful. Quran the outdated book? written 1400 years back? you are right but the sad truth is thats exactly why the book is so latest! is science modern? if you agree Quran is too. phases of embryology is there. skin receptors which feels pain is there. do you know there are waves at the bottom of the deepest ocean. learn first man.
Quran is the miracle of miracles.
This is bulls&*# of a reasoning.
A few things are certain.
Muslims don't need non Muslim enemies. Being ignorant and lulled into stupefying idiocy, they will find enemies within to engage in ever lasting wars.
Muslims do believe in faith, and would not accept reasoning even is it slapped them in the face.
Muslim belief is like cancer; even the ones who want to logically reason out, will be intimidated and literally forced into cancerous thinking.
@ Markaz
@ jack
- Quruan will never go out of date
- Authentic Hadith never goes out of date
BUT IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW:-
The words "Islamic Shariah" consists of "Quruan", "Hadith" AND "Fiqh".
What is "Fiqh"? Fiqh is Islamic jurisprudence. It is an expansion of the Sharia Islamic law based directly on the Quran and Sunnah that complements Shariah with EVOLVING rulings/interpretations of Islamic jurists.
In case some of you are frozen in time (for over 1400 years), this is the 21st Century. Through Fiqh, Islamic Shariah IS MEANT TO EVOLVE according to the times.
Evolution is a lie invented by zionist Charles Darwin.
As brother Jack pointed out. Quran knew about embryologoy and other advanced science stuff 1400 years ago. Sharia doesn't need to "evolve." This is a term radical secularists give to hide their true intentions.