Comment

Comment by amanda choate on November 19, 2011 at 1:59pm

So laws passed 1000 years ago, that is what we are concerned about. Did you know fhere are rabbinical courts in this country? Did the man who beheaded his go to jail? Yes, he was convicted. I keep forgetting, unknown to themselves, Islam is not a religion. Muslims in large numbers suffer under totalitarian regimes, throughout the Middle East. These dictators, who have come in following brutal overlords of colonizers have used Islam to keep suppression in place. Islam is what those practice make of it, just like Christians. No more or less.

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 1:10pm

Sharia Law in America.

1st Sharia Family Law Court in Richardson Texas 2008.

Next

If you actually read the article above in FULL there is a LINK citing over 50 cases of Sharia Law in US courts in 23 states to INCLUDE

A Muslim man who BEAT and RAPED his wife in accordance with Sharia Law to the point she was hospitalized.  The court in N.J. ruled in favor of the Husband in accordance with Sharia Law as his "RELIGOUS" right.  The Appeals court overturned this decision last year, but shows the direction our high courts are going.

Nidal Hassan and Mo Hassan who beheaded his wife cited Sharia Law.  BTW Parvez Ahmed of CAIR/HAMAS who Manal and Bedier work with gave Mo an Award just a few month prior to this beheading as a great moderate muslim doing outreach via his BRIDGES TV.

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 12:55pm

 It became a decisive authority in religious affairs. All religious doctrines were standardized through ijma. Its rejection was considered heresy, indeed sometimes tantamount to unbelief."[3]

 

Unbelief or apostacy.... WHICH IS WHY MANAL FAKHOURY WILL NOT SIGN THE PLEDGE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM... she would become an apostate according to authoritative ISLAM.

 

SO MUCH FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE....

 

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 12:52pm

the fourth major source of Muslim thought, the qiyas (analogy) ...”[1]

"... no one at all should [give an opinion] on a specific matter by merely saying: It is permitted or prohibited, unless he is certain of [legal] knowledge, and this knowledge must be based on the Qur'an and the sunna, or [derived] from ijma (consensus) and qiyas (analogy)."[2]

From dogma to norms to laws/codes, ijma is recognized to have a pivotal place in Islamic discourse and socio-religious unity. 

"This important doctrine played a vital role in the integration of the Muslim community. In its early phase it manifested itself as a general average opinion, a common feeling of the community, and as a binding force of the body of law against unsuccessful and stray opinions. In the classical period it developed with its complex theory and ramifications. It became a decisive authority in religious affairs. All religious doctrines were standardized through ijma. Its rejection was considered heresy, indeed sometimes tantamount to unbelief."[3]

"It must be noted ... that unlike the Qur'an and Sunnah, ijma does not directly partake of divine revelation. As a doctrine and proof of Shari'ah, ijma is basically a rational proof. The theory of ijma is also clear on the point that it is a binding proof."[4]

"Ijma plays a crucial role in the development of Shari'a. The existing body of fiqh is the product of a long process of ijtihad and ijma."[5]

---

[1] AbdulHamid A. AbuSulayman. The Islamic Theory of International Relations: New Directions for Islamic Methodology and Thought [Herndon, VA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1987], pp. 58-59.

[2] Al-Shafi'i. Al-Shafi'i's Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence [translated by Majid Khadduri; Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, 2nd Edition, 1987], p. 78.

[3] Ahmad Hasan. The Doctrine of Ijma': A Study of the Juridical Principle of Consensus [New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhaban, 2003. See Introduction.

[4] Kamali, op. cit., p. 228.

[5] Ibid, p. 231.

 

It says above:  It became a decisive authority in religious affairs. All religious doctrines were standardized through ijma. Its rejection was considered heresy, indeed sometimes tantamount to unbel

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 12:40pm

Amanda.... you want to continue to debate COMPARATIVE RELIGION.... and ignore you fist argument that Manal Fakhoury was this wonderful and moderate Muslim with not ties to the Muslim Brotherhood... but refuse to address this issue and Manal refusal to sign the Religious Freedom Pledge in the Past in her capacity as a civil rights worker and leader in the Islamic Community.... just want to keep this in the forefront.  Wonder why you are so afraid to address this issue and prove me wrong.

 

Now you keep going back to Islam as a religion.... (which I have no problem with), however Islam has not been purely a religion since the first Meccan period and had dismal record or failed.  Mohammad preached the RELIGON of ISLAM for 13 years and had less than 150 followers, when they were run out of Mecca to Medina the date the Islamic Calendar begins... Muhammed became a political and Military learder and was the beginning of the Political Ideology of Islam an intolerant and totalitarinan Political system which grew to over 24,000 followers in just 10 years of political and physical JIHAD.   IT is NOT a RELIGION and the country of Italy is the only one to officially recognize this to date.  

 

Amanda.... Please try to pay attention.   I explained exactly where Sharia Law comes from.   The Quran and Sunna (Sira (biography of Muhammed) and Hadith (the Traditions of Muhammad)), then about 1000 years ago all the scholars got together to determine which Hadith were false, Weak, or Strong (Human Reasoning or Ijtihad... so much for the perfect book or revealation of Allah), and once done there had to 100% unanimous concensus (IJMA) to become part of Sharia Law.

 

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University

June 2006

 

Ijma or consensus is one of the four sources of Islamic jurisprudence.

“Ijma is the verbal noun of the Arabic word ajma’a, which as two meanings: to determine and to agree upon something. To give an example of the former, the expression ajma’a fulan ‘ala kadha, means that ‘so-and-so decided upon such-and-such’. This usage of ajma’a is found both in the Qur’an and in the hadith. The other meaning of ajma’a is ‘unanimous agreement’. hence the phrase ajma’a al-qawm ‘ala kadha means ‘the people reached a unanimous agreement on such-and-such’. The second meaning of ijma often subsumes the first, in that whenever there is a unanimous agreement on something, there is also a decision on that matter.”[1]

The Qur'an and the Sunnah are two primary and foundational sources, while ijma and qiyas (analogical reasoning) are two secondary sources. 

“Classical Muslim methodology (usul) refers to the basic textual sources and methods used in producing Muslim attitudes in different spheres of life including international relations. These sources are the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma (consensus), and ijtihad (the use of human reason or aql) in elaboration and interpretation of the Shari'ah. Ijtihad includes the fourth major source of Muslim thought, the qiyas (analogy) ...”[2]

"... no one at all should [give an opinion] on a specific matter by merely saying: It is permitted or prohibited, unless he is certain of [legal] knowledge, and this knowledge must be based on the Qur'an and the sunna, or [derived] from ijma (consensus) and qiyas (analogy)."

Comment by amanda choate on November 19, 2011 at 11:55am

Our Constitution only serves to regulate government. It expressly states that government cannot restrict religion. Murder, is covered by statute, in compliance with the Constitution.
Most federal murder statutes deal with denial of other rights. Hence the big fight over the hate crimes bill. A lot of conservatives feel as though the feds do not have the right to prosecute under this flimsy notion. Murder is murder, you either have a defensible claim or not. Going back in our history many the spouse has tried to defend the murder of an adjulterous spouse, and seldom does it fly. That defense springs from the bible where adulterers were stoned to death. Same same.

Comment by amanda choate on November 19, 2011 at 11:42am

Soooo, Sharia law does not come from the Koran? I must be ignorant because that is where I understood Sharia law to originate. You are saying it doesn't? Where does this teaching come from then. Has anyone successfully defended thenself in court, in the US against a charge of murder citing Sharia? Ever?
Again your complaint against Dr. Fakhoury is not anything she has ever done, but someone so engaged, and so Muslim, is obviously dangerous. If she were Baptist there would be nothing you would have against her. Except that she hosted a Nelson fundraiser.

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 11:30am

CARLA,

Great comments and posting of Islamic Documentation.   Thank you

 

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 11:11am

P.S.S.   For the RECORD I never once called you a name.   I said your statement was Idiotic.  and asked if you were Insane?  when you suggested that the laws in our constituion do not go against the killing of apostates.

I never once resorted to name calling, however you can no longer say the same....calling me  Stupid, Bigot, an Einstien pants wetting litttle boy.... and that I seemed more like a them (Muslim) than different ( a Bigoted Comment in itself), and all this in just one short paragraph. 

WOW!   Now who is the Bully and intolerant person?

Comment by ACT Jacksonville on November 19, 2011 at 11:01am

Amanda,

Let me spell it out for you.......

Killing of an Apostate is not a religious element of Islam but political element or Islam and major  element within Sharia Law, a law which has replaced or systematically destroyed the religious freedoms and laws of the land in every country they have conquered...... this is a historical fact, this is in accordance with ALL authoritative Islamic doctrine.... and that is my point.

You try to defend a positon with emotion and feelings, no factual evidence, and when taken to task... then avoid the one way you could clearly prove your "FRIEND" Manal Fakhoury was good moderate Muslim by getting her as a "Civil Rights" activist to sign the PLEDGE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM below... but you instead infuse rhethoric and opinion instead.

P.S. too late have already been praying for you.  God Bless

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page