The Nature of Moral Law

[Hans Bulvai]

A people's or a nation's law are essentially the codification of its religion. As Torah Law is the codification of Judaism and as English Common Law is more or less the codification of Western Christianity, so too is Sharia Law the codification of Islam. And until Islam gets its act together, until Sunni and Shiite stop killing each other, until terrorism is foresworn, until women are as privileged as are men, and much more, Sharia Law has no place in civilized society.

.

Lets not allow the shortcomings of man taint the true picture of what is.
The dictators (and their whores) of the Middle East do not represent Islam although they claim that they do.
It falls on deaf ears as the 'spring' case has proven. What you see today manifested as the 'work of Islam' is actually a moving away from what was commanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah_law#Women

WomenMain article: Women in Islam

In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of the zakat poor-tax, observance of the Ramadan fast, and the Hajj pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting, as women are relieved from the duty of the five daily prayers or fasting during their menstruation.[citation needed]

There are no priests or clergy needed in order to perform rites and sacraments in Islam. The leader of prayer is known as an imam. Men can lead both men and women in prayer, but women do not traditionally lead men in prayer.[187] In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women, however in the early days of Islam, female scholars were much more common.[188] Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says, "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[189] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.[citation needed]

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right.[190] Islam grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. A woman's inheritance is different from a man's, both in quantity and attached obligations.[Quran 4:12] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brothers.[Quran 4:11] Sharia law requires family members females or males to support each other as needed; compare female inheritance in Salic law. Men are fully obliged to financially maintain their household, whereas women are not; it is often said that even if the woman is a millionaire and he is poor, he is still obliged to spend on her. She is not obliged to share her wealth with her husband unless she does so out of kindness.[citation needed]

Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may enter into marriage with only Muslim men,[191] although some contemporary jurists question the basis of this restriction.[191][192][193] On the other hand, the Quran allows a Muslim man to marry a chaste woman from the People of the Book, a term that includes Jews, Sabians, and Christians.[191][Quran 5:5] However, fiqh law[which?] has held that it is makruh (reprehensible) for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country.[191]

In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal.[194]

The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[102] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant.[103]

See also: Ma malakat aymanukum
[why?] [edit] Women's rightsStatus of women under Islamic law prior to the 19th century
Islamic law grants women some legal rights they did not have under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.[195] Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, has noted:

As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them – hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.[196]

Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century
At this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[197]

[Marcus]

First, ALI, there's a big difference between Christianity and what some, so-called Christians do. I imagine the same obtains for Islam.

ALI and Hans,
Second, all I know about Islam is what I see on the news: women having to marry their rapists, women with their noses cut off, burkhas, head scarves, car bombs, you-get-the-idea. If all that is a perversion of Islam, I'll take your word for it and be glad to hear it. That said, if anyone purporting to represent Christianity today—priest, pastor, whatever—were to espouse the kind of things done in the name of Christianity 1000 or 500 years ago or even a couple hundred years ago: burning at the stake, witch-hunts, chattel slavery, and more, he'd have his house down upon his ears. If Islam is really so enlightened and so misrepresented by dictators and their whores, where is the contrary voice coming out of Islam?

As for Judaism, I could care less. Saw a segment on last night's news where an ultra-Orthodox Jew tried to get some Israeli women to go sit in the back of the bus . . who the hell are such people? Nor do I, or any Protestants I know, subscribe to the Old Testament's civil law as it pertained to the ancient, Israeli social order.

My point is simply this: Sharia Law—where and if it contradicts the Moral Law—has no place in the civilized world, and that is not racial proscription, it is an ethical proscription.

[Zack Morris]

Second, all I know about Islam is what I see on the news: women having to marry their rapists, women with their noses cut off, burkhas, head scarves, car bombs, you-get-the-idea. If all that is a perversion of Islam, I'll take your word for it and be glad to hear it.

Isn't this an admission of ignorance? You know you are being fed distorted, one-sided information. Why don't you seek out more accurate information? Have you personally met any Muslims?

My point is simply this: Sharia Law—where and if it contradicts the Moral Law—has no place in the civilized world, and that is not racial proscription, it is an ethical proscription.

All of this stuff is crafted under the axiomatic assumption that Christianity is inherently moral. It is written with a Christian bias. A roughly equal number of people in the world subscribe to a different faith with its own distinct philosophical pedigree. Who are you to say they are incorrect?

[Marcus]

Second, all I know about Islam is what I see on the news: women having to marry their rapists, women with their noses cut off, burkhas, head scarves, car bombs, you-get-the-idea. If all that is a perversion of Islam, I'll take your word for it and be glad to hear it.

Isn't this an admission of ignorance? You know you are being fed distorted, one-sided information. Why don't you seek out more accurate information? Have you personally met any Muslims?

My point is simply this: Sharia Law—where and if it contradicts the Moral Law—has no place in the civilized world, and that is not racial proscription, it is an ethical proscription.

All of this stuff is crafted under the axiomatic assumption that Christianity is inherently moral. It is written with a Christian bias. A roughly equal number of people in the world subscribe to a different faith with its own distinct philosophical pedigree. Who are you to say they are incorrect?

Well, no, not really . . not really "ignorance" that is when half the stuff one hears is from the mouths of mad mullahs, some poor woman forced to marry her rapist, and such. The other half is graphic—women walking the streets in tents and such. Can't get much more accurate than that. And, no, one doesn't need Christianity to understand The Moral Law, which was around a long time before Jesus expounded on it. Who am I? A person with an opinion. And you?

[Nonc Hilaire]

No such thing as "moral law" or natural religion. That is all a projection of Western modernity and its' need to reduce Jesus to someone logically understandable by the 19th century mind.
It is unrecognizable by non-Western cultures.

A Christian should be able to see the distortion of Christianity in popular culture and realize how Islam is being distorted the same way, but much worse. Everything is Shia/Sunni. It is as if other systems of Islamic jurisprudence do not exist.

Paul had it right in 2 Cor 3:6. The letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life. Christian or Muslim does not matter. Mindless and unmerciful legalism of any kind is destructive.

[Marcus]

No such thing as "moral law" or natural religion. That is all a projection of Western modernity and its' need to reduce Jesus to someone logically understandable by the 19th century mind.
It is unrecognizable by non-Western cultures.

A Christian should be able to see the distortion of Christianity in popular culture and realize how Islam is being distorted the same way, but much worse. Everything is Shia/Sunni. It is as if other systems of Islamic jurisprudence do not exist.

Paul had it right in 2 Cor 3:6. The letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life. Christian or Muslim does not matter. Mindless and unmerciful legalism of any kind is destructive.

I quite disagree, Nonc, as did C. S. Lewis and others. The Moral Law is written on every human heart. It is not some projection of modernity, but has rather been there since time began, written, as it were, into the very fabric of the cosmos, and as recorded in Lewis' Illustrations of the Tao referenced above. Nor does it make Jesus any more or less understandable.

I do agree, though, that as Christianity is often distorted, so might Islam be distorted. That said, how does one explain a head-to-foot burkha?

[cincinnatus]

No such thing as "moral law" or natural religion. That is all a projection of Western modernity and its' need to reduce Jesus to someone logically understandable by the 19th century mind.
It is unrecognizable by non-Western cultures.

A Christian should be able to see the distortion of Christianity in popular culture and realize how Islam is being distorted the same way, but much worse. Everything is Shia/Sunni. It is as if other systems of Islamic jurisprudence do not exist.

Paul had it right in 2 Cor 3:6. The letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life. Christian or Muslim does not matter. Mindless and unmerciful legalism of any kind is destructive.

I quite disagree, Nonc, as did C. S. Lewis and others. The Moral Law is written on every human heart. It is not some projection of modernity, but has rather been there since time began, written, as it were, into the very fabric of the cosmos, and as recorded in Lewis' Illustrations of the Tao referenced above. Nor does it make Jesus any more or less understandable.

I do agree, though, that as Christianity is often distorted, so might Islam be distorted. That said, how does one explain a head-to-foot burkha?

Serious answer...cultural (going back to tribal and "nation") norms and superimposed on a single line in the Quran mentioning dressing modestly.

Joking answer...same way a pious Muslim could describe a stripper G-string bikini...as the warning example of the worst excess of the "other" culture.

[Zack Morris]

Well, no, not really . . not really "ignorance" that is when half the stuff one hears is from the mouths of mad mullahs, some poor woman forced to marry her rapist, and such.

That's what I'm getting at. Where is the stuff you're hearing coming from? How can you claim to be aware of even half of what's coming out of the mouths of "mad mullahs"? Which mad mullahs?

Large swaths of the Islamic world are primitive and underdeveloped. The reasons why some civilizations succeed while others do not are a mystery; it would be naive to pin the blame solely on religion. Although I sympathize with the idea that Islam is particularly problematic, I can't help but think of all the hate I hear coming out of the mouths of Christians in this country, let alone in primitive Christian societies.

Are you aware of what preachers in Uganda like to say? Are you aware of how women are treated in southern Sudan? That the countries with some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in the world are Catholic? Or that some of the world's highest murder rates can be boasted by deeply Christian countries?

Didn't Jesus have a clever saying about people who like to point out the flaws in others while ignoring their own?

And you?

I am.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I quite disagree, Nonc, as did C. S. Lewis and others. The Moral Law is written on every human heart. It is not some projection of modernity, but has rather been there since time began, written, as it were, into the very fabric of the cosmos, and as recorded in Lewis' Illustrations of the Tao referenced above. Nor does it make Jesus any more or less understandable.

Lewis was an apologist trying to build a rational, rather than a revelatory, basis for Christianity.

Mayans tearing out human hearts, cannibals in New Guinea, the slavery of Pharaoh and the daughters of Lot - no such thing as a natural moral law.

Morality exists because of revelation. This is very clear when one traces the development of morality through the Pentateuch, and I'm pretty sure you will find the same thing in the other Axial age religions as well.

[Marcus]

I quite disagree, Nonc, as did C. S. Lewis and others. The Moral Law is written on every human heart. It is not some projection of modernity, but has rather been there since time began, written, as it were, into the very fabric of the cosmos, and as recorded in Lewis' Illustrations of the Tao referenced above. Nor does it make Jesus any more or less understandable.

Lewis was an apologist trying to build a rational, rather than a revelatory, basis for Christianity.

Mayans tearing out human hearts, cannibals in New Guinea, the slavery of Pharaoh and the daughters of Lot - no such thing as a natural moral law.

Morality exists because of revelation. This is very clear when one traces the development of morality through the Pentateuch, and I'm pretty sure you will find the same thing in the other Axial age religions as well.

That dog won't hunt, Nonc.

First, Lewis was an apologist; Lewis was not a rationalist.

Second, nature itself is revelatory. See the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

Nor do your examples negate or deny in the slightest the existence of The Moral Law. Take a moment or two: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... ition4.htm

[Nonc Hilaire]

That dog won't hunt, Nonc.

First, Lewis was an apologist; Lewis was not a rationalist.

That's what I said. Apologetics is a rational method of explaining religion, made by logical argument and not by revelation.

Second, nature itself is revelatory. See the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

Nature itself reveals only as far as there is a natural knowledge that God exists. Paul is clear that righteousness comes from God and is transmitted through the gospel. No "Natural Law" or "Natural Morality". He does describe Jews to whom the law was revealed, but discarded it. Don't miss the shift at Romans 1:6 Paul where Paul moves from a general introduction and begins discussing the specific auditors he is addressing.

Nor do your examples negate or deny in the slightest the existence of The Moral Law. Take a moment or two: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/ar ... ition4.htm

I do not deny the existence of a moral law, only that that law is transmitted by revelation and is not part of human instinct. It is not "written on every human heart" as you say. Lewis is simply selecting out quotes which he feels fit his apologetics.

[Marcus]

1) That's what I said. Apologetics is a rational method of explaining religion, made by logical argument and not by revelation.

2) Nature itself reveals only as far as there is a natural knowledge that God exists. Paul is clear that righteousness comes from God and is transmitted through the gospel. No "Natural Law" or "Natural Morality".

3) I do not deny the existence of a moral law, only that that law is transmitted by revelation and is not part of human instinct. It is not "written on every human heart" as you say. Lewis is simply selecting out quotes which he feels fit his apologetics.

Not necessarily:

In Christian theology, presuppositionalism is a school of apologetics that presumes Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and claims to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. In other words, presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true. Presuppositionalism is the predominant apologetic of contemporary conservative Calvinist and Reformed churches.

No, nature is much more than that:

God's revelation in nature, together with God's revelation in Scripture, form God's one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing each other."

"That the commandment might appear as supernatural the natural had to appear as really natural. The supernatural could not be recognized for what it was unless the natural were also recognized for what it was. There had to be regularity if there was to be a genuine exception."

"The revelation that comes to man by way of his own rational and moral nature is no less objective to him than that which comes to him through the voices of trees and animals. Man's own psychological activity is no less revelational than the laws of physics about him. All created reality is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God." —selected from Apologetics, Cornelius Van Til

Righteousness indeed comes from God and is not a result of keeping the law but of faith. On that we agree.

And, it would seem, we also agree on the existence of The Moral Law. You say that that law comes by revelation, not by nature. I say that nature—the natural world including man's created nature—itself is revelational.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

look

assuming G_d exists

who says, he/she has same sense of morality, ethic, good or bad and other values and mindset we associate with
good and evil

who says we understand and know G_d`s mind

in fact

argument could be made

that

those values

mindset

good and bad

morality and ethics

all those things

makes more sense , if G_d does not exist , in that case, we , the humans, we define the good and bad and moral and immoral

2B frank, history of mankind, and not only the distant past but more so the contemporary, attest there must be no G_d of the kind we envision .. maybe there is a G_d but not our kind of


.

[Marcus]

. . if G_d does not exist , in that case, we , the humans, we define the good and bad and moral and immoral . .

That's it in a nutshell, ALI, that is the question:

[The serpent] said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” . .

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Or, said another way, "defining good and evil" in the same sense that a man "knows" his wife.

That's the question, "Has God said?" and that's the choice, "Yes or no." Been that way since the dawn of time.

Take your pick . .

[Nonc Hilaire]

The essential idea behind natural moral law is that it is objectively derived directly from human nature and the nature of the world.

Any idea that divinity is involved must be excluded or you have confused the question.

[Marcus]

The essential idea behind natural moral law is that it is objectively derived directly from human nature and the nature of the world.

Any idea that divinity is involved must be excluded or you have confused the question.

You must speak for yourself, Nonc. Quite frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion why the existence of The Moral Law must exclude God or else confuse the matter. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Any moral law, must, by definition, be transcendent. Lacking transcendence, such morality is not law but simply materialistically derived, changeable rules a la Dawkins' selfish gene and such.

Sorry . . .

[ansuchin]

I am not a Christian nor am I one of the "People of the Book" as my Muslim friends define me, so I am the infidel in the discussion here.

Still, is the problem as to how "moral law" is derived the central issue in our lives? "Moral law" may be "written in human hearts" as Marcus asserts or may be the product of divine revelation as Nonc Hilare maintains, or it could be a result of multiple determinants: educational, cultural, experiential, spiritual, or biological.

Do these distinctions really matter for how we actually live our lives for good or ill? How? All these natural vs revelatory morality disputes seems like a Swiftian Big-Endian/Little-Endian controversy to me, but then again, I am not a Christian and I am an unconverted pagan to the Abrahamic religions with little understanding and appreciation of these matters.

The fundamental question for me is this - why do some of us behave decently when confronted with suffering and evil, and others do not and even cooperate and participate in such darkness? What makes the difference between those who act with kindness and mercy and those who respond with greed and hatred under such circumstances?

If a suffering, terrified, or destitute human being knocks on your door, do you care to help them because you studied noble scripture or philosophy? Or do you respond with care and compassion because their suffering is simply an immediate necessity that you are compelled to address as a pain that you share with all your human brothers and sisters?

Beliefs and convictions however derived are the easy part - placing them into action where hard choices must be made through the immediate demands of compassion is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. What we actually do, or fail to do, is what really matters. We are the owner of our actions and heir to them, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
.

[Marcus]

. . The fundamental question for me is this - why do some of us behave decently when confronted with suffering and evil, and others do not and even cooperate and participate in such darkness? What makes the difference between those who act with kindness and mercy and those who respond with greed and hatred under such circumstances?

If a suffering, terrified, or destitute human being knocks on your door, do you care to help them because you studied noble scripture or philosophy? Or do you respond with care and compassion because their suffering is simply an immediate necessity that you are compelled to address as a pain that you share with all your human brothers and sisters?

Beliefs and convictions however derived are the easy part - placing them into action where hard choices must be made through the immediate demands of compassion is where the proverbial rubber meets the road. What we actually do, or fail to do, is what really matters. We are the owner of our actions and heir to them, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” —Jesus

We'll all know soon enough . . .

[AzariLoveIran]

.

. . why do some of us behave decently when confronted with suffering and evil, and others do not and even cooperate and participate in such darkness ?

.

"AnuChin" ,

only one guy makes sense answering your above question .. and that is Zoroaster

He says, there is 2 G_d .. one good and one bad

they in continues war with each other


MK-86CRpp1w


and

that is where G_d & Devil came from

those bad guys you talking about , Rumsfeld and Cheney and company, they Devil worshipers

.
What makes the difference between those who act with kindness and mercy and those who respond with greed and hatred under such circumstances ?
.

Semms 2B genetic , some people have evil gene


.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

A people's or a nation's law are essentially the codification of its religion. As Torah Law is the codification of Judaism and as English Common Law is more or less the codification of Western Christianity, so too is Sharia Law the codification of Islam. And until Islam gets its act together, until Sunni and Shiite stop killing each other, until terrorism is foresworn, until women are as privileged as are men, and much more, Sharia Law has no place in civilized society.

.

Lets not allow the shortcomings of man taint the true picture of what is.
The dictators (and their whores) of the Middle East do not represent Islam although they claim that they do.
It falls on deaf ears as the 'spring' case has proven. What you see today manifested as the 'work of Islam' is actually a moving away from what was commanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah_law#Women

WomenMain article: Women in Islam

In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of the zakat poor-tax, observance of the Ramadan fast, and the Hajj pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting, as women are relieved from the duty of the five daily prayers or fasting during their menstruation.[citation needed]

There are no priests or clergy needed in order to perform rites and sacraments in Islam. The leader of prayer is known as an imam. Men can lead both men and women in prayer, but women do not traditionally lead men in prayer.[187] In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women, however in the early days of Islam, female scholars were much more common.[188] Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says, "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[189] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.[citation needed]

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right.[190] Islam grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. A woman's inheritance is different from a man's, both in quantity and attached obligations.[Quran 4:12] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brothers.[Quran 4:11] Sharia law requires family members females or males to support each other as needed; compare female inheritance in Salic law. Men are fully obliged to financially maintain their household, whereas women are not; it is often said that even if the woman is a millionaire and he is poor, he is still obliged to spend on her. She is not obliged to share her wealth with her husband unless she does so out of kindness.[citation needed]

Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may enter into marriage with only Muslim men,[191] although some contemporary jurists question the basis of this restriction.[191][192][193] On the other hand, the Quran allows a Muslim man to marry a chaste woman from the People of the Book, a term that includes Jews, Sabians, and Christians.[191][Quran 5:5] However, fiqh law[which?] has held that it is makruh (reprehensible) for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country.[191]

In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal.[194]

The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[102] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant.[103]

See also: Ma malakat aymanukum
[why?] [edit] Women's rightsStatus of women under Islamic law prior to the 19th century
Islamic law grants women some legal rights they did not have under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.[195] Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, has noted:

As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them – hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.[196]

Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century
At this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[197]

(*This isn't directed at any posters here so much as to the general attitude you find about Shariah Law in Western dialogues)
It is a shame that Muslims have to defend themselves on attempted caricatures thrust upon them. It is in bad form to criticize something that you do not live under unless you are prepared to openly explain your criticism. Most people cannot do this and instead use Shariah Law as an anterior strawman to create unity within their own communities.

Personally, I have nothing positive to say about Islamic practice or jurisprudence; for if I did, I'd probably be a Muslim but I am sure Islam as a whole can and will survive my dissent and disagreements.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Marcus,

Descartes erred in attempting to squeeze truth from representation. If a Christian beats his wife, there is no way to separate the Christian identity from the actor. That job belongs to God when he separates the wheat and chaff.

There is a moral (character) law written on the hearts of men revealed by Christ. It is apart of our likeness with God. We are not to take. The rest is either divine command or human construction ordained or blessed by a God who loved us so much he dwelt among us.

[Sparky]

A people's or a nation's law are essentially the codification of its religion. As Torah Law is the codification of Judaism and as English Common Law is more or less the codification of Western Christianity, so too is Sharia Law the codification of Islam. And until Islam gets its act together, until Sunni and Shiite stop killing each other, until terrorism is foresworn, until women are as privileged as are men, and much more, Sharia Law has no place in civilized society.

.

Lets not allow the shortcomings of man taint the true picture of what is.
The dictators (and their whores) of the Middle East do not represent Islam although they claim that they do.
It falls on deaf ears as the 'spring' case has proven. What you see today manifested as the 'work of Islam' is actually a moving away from what was commanded.

I don't buy that for a second. Whenever confronted with the ghastly results of a philosophy made flesh through law, practice and constitution, it's enthusiasts are forever telling us that this is because "it's not being done properly." If only the real principles of [BELIEF_SYSTEM] were properly implemented, then [CATALOGUE_OF_HORRORS] would be replaced with [LIST_OF_UTOPIAN_OUTCOMES].

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah_law#Women

WomenMain article: Women in Islam

In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of the zakat poor-tax, observance of the Ramadan fast, and the Hajj pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting, as women are relieved from the duty of the five daily prayers or fasting during their menstruation.[citation needed]

There are no priests or clergy needed in order to perform rites and sacraments in Islam. The leader of prayer is known as an imam. Men can lead both men and women in prayer, but women do not traditionally lead men in prayer.[187] In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women, however in the early days of Islam, female scholars were much more common.[188] Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says, "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[189] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.[citation needed]

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right.[190] Islam grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. A woman's inheritance is different from a man's, both in quantity and attached obligations.[Quran 4:12] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brothers.[Quran 4:11] Sharia law requires family members females or males to support each other as needed; compare female inheritance in Salic law. Men are fully obliged to financially maintain their household, whereas women are not; it is often said that even if the woman is a millionaire and he is poor, he is still obliged to spend on her. She is not obliged to share her wealth with her husband unless she does so out of kindness.[citation needed]

Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may enter into marriage with only Muslim men,[191] although some contemporary jurists question the basis of this restriction.[191][192][193] On the other hand, the Quran allows a Muslim man to marry a chaste woman from the People of the Book, a term that includes Jews, Sabians, and Christians.[191][Quran 5:5] However, fiqh law[which?] has held that it is makruh (reprehensible) for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country.[191]

In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal.[194]

The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[102] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant.[103]

See also: Ma malakat aymanukum
[why?] [edit] Women's rightsStatus of women under Islamic law prior to the 19th century
Islamic law grants women some legal rights they did not have under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.[195] Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, has noted:

As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them – hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.[196]

Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century
At this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[197]

So once upon a time, Islam offered a slightly better second class citizenship to women than that afforded by the common law. A little underwhelming, no?

[Nonc Hilaire]

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

If you are going to take that approach, then discussion of religion becomes impossible. You would have to treat every sect/denomination/usool al-fiqh as a separate entity. In the case of independent Christian churches each congregation would be considered a separate religion. And what do we do with the Hindu religions?

Then you must deal with human misunderstanding and sin. This idea that implementation = religion is oversimplified.

[Hans Bulvai]

(*This isn't directed at any posters here so much as to the general attitude you find about Shariah Law in Western dialogues)
It is a shame that Muslims have to defend themselves on attempted caricatures thrust upon them. It is in bad form to criticize something that you do not live under unless you are prepared to openly explain your criticism. Most people cannot do this and instead use Shariah Law as an anterior strawman to create unity within their own communities.

Personally, I have nothing positive to say about Islamic practice or jurisprudence; for if I did, I'd probably be a Muslim but I am sure Islam as a whole can and will survive my dissent and disagreements.

A reasonable approach.

But I have to ask, out of curiousity, nothing positive at all about Islamic practice? There is not one thing that you can tell yourself, "huh, makes some sense"?

[Hans Bulvai]

A people's or a nation's law are essentially the codification of its religion. As Torah Law is the codification of Judaism and as English Common Law is more or less the codification of Western Christianity, so too is Sharia Law the codification of Islam. And until Islam gets its act together, until Sunni and Shiite stop killing each other, until terrorism is foresworn, until women are as privileged as are men, and much more, Sharia Law has no place in civilized society.

.

Lets not allow the shortcomings of man taint the true picture of what is.
The dictators (and their whores) of the Middle East do not represent Islam although they claim that they do.
It falls on deaf ears as the 'spring' case has proven. What you see today manifested as the 'work of Islam' is actually a moving away from what was commanded.

I don't buy that for a second. Whenever confronted with the ghastly results of a philosophy made flesh through law, practice and constitution, it's enthusiasts are forever telling us that this is because "it's not being done properly." If only the real principles of [BELIEF_SYSTEM] were properly implemented, then [CATALOGUE_OF_HORRORS] would be replaced with [LIST_OF_UTOPIAN_OUTCOMES].

The implementation is the religion - it's the living, practical embodiment of the idea.

But the majority of Muslims are not engaged in Catalogues_of_horrors. Like the majority of the planet, they want the same things as everybody else. Most of them are probably worried about how they will feed their kids. And it is impossible to have a utopian outcome no matter the system. And just because you don't like the system doesn't mean that it is not working for someone else. Do tell of the ghastly though please. Maybe we can go through them to see if they are indeed inthe constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah_law#Women

WomenMain article: Women in Islam

In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of the zakat poor-tax, observance of the Ramadan fast, and the Hajj pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting, as women are relieved from the duty of the five daily prayers or fasting during their menstruation.[citation needed]

There are no priests or clergy needed in order to perform rites and sacraments in Islam. The leader of prayer is known as an imam. Men can lead both men and women in prayer, but women do not traditionally lead men in prayer.[187] In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women, however in the early days of Islam, female scholars were much more common.[188] Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says, "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[189] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.[citation needed]

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right.[190] Islam grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. A woman's inheritance is different from a man's, both in quantity and attached obligations.[Quran 4:12] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brothers.[Quran 4:11] Sharia law requires family members females or males to support each other as needed; compare female inheritance in Salic law. Men are fully obliged to financially maintain their household, whereas women are not; it is often said that even if the woman is a millionaire and he is poor, he is still obliged to spend on her. She is not obliged to share her wealth with her husband unless she does so out of kindness.[citation needed]

Islamic jurists have traditionally held that Muslim women may enter into marriage with only Muslim men,[191] although some contemporary jurists question the basis of this restriction.[191][192][193] On the other hand, the Quran allows a Muslim man to marry a chaste woman from the People of the Book, a term that includes Jews, Sabians, and Christians.[191][Quran 5:5] However, fiqh law[which?] has held that it is makruh (reprehensible) for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman in a non-Muslim country.[191]

In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal.[194]

The divorced wife always keeps her dowry from when she was married, and is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[102] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant.[103]

See also: Ma malakat aymanukum
[why?] [edit] Women's rightsStatus of women under Islamic law prior to the 19th century
Islamic law grants women some legal rights they did not have under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.[195] Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, has noted:

As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them – hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.[196]

Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century
At this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[197]

So once upon a time, Islam offered a slightly better second class citizenship to women than that afforded by the common law. A little underwhelming, no?

Yes but not just common law. What's more oppressive; being forced to wear a veil or being forced to take it off?