[IbnMardhiyah]

Sixpak dude you must've become a cook during your absence ... seems like you love making bihari kabobs.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, but in that case the small number of people are selected by all of the people & those representatives then vote for one amongst themselves (aka a parliamentary democracy).

Whereas the general populace doesn't vote on you being amongst the ulema.

And again, the key difference here is that Sayyedina Umar (RA) appointed every member of the council who selected Sayyedina Uthman (RA). They weren't selected by the general populace.


I know that, but the main source is the Quran...and this is irrelevant since I was quoting the Qur'an

Your statement was



which implied exclusivity to the Qur'an. Had you been aware of the other 3 sources of legislation, it is doubtful you would have made such a statement.

What it seems like is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are googling as you go to make the facts you discover suit your argument instead of the other way around.



It was that bad, because you're not a scholar of the Qur'an and you're not qualified to do exegesis of the Qur'an. Tafsir is not based on imagination.



It is not Islamic to attempt to interpolate your own meanings into Qur'anic ayahs. It is not intelligent to do this on a public forum full of Muslims and then expect noone will criticize you.




Quick question: before you googled this translation, did you have any idea who Muhammad Asad was and why his beliefs are not in line with Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jamah?



Great job googling, but this is obvious and goes without saying.

The point is that the decision was ultimately that of Sayyedina Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA).



word

1. FYIi never google my sources, I have used these verses in discussing government with various other individuals

2. Yes as a matter of fact I know who Muhammad Asad was. And by the way, his views were in line with those of Sunni Muslims, but of course he had his own ideas also

3. Who says I can't look at the Qur'an and get something out of it? Unlike Christians or Jews, we Muslims are allowed to look at the Qur'an without the aide of scholars/priests/rabbis

4. I didn't put my own meanings into the Qur'an, I mean, did you even read the verses? It is pretty self-explanatory....I don't need a scholar telling me what I can allready read...

And the Qur'an is not addressing scholars, it is addressing ME, the reader...did you notice that the Qur'an always says 'OH YOU WHO BELIEVE'...it doesnt say, oh scholars..

and the following verse further stresses not relying on scholars/learned men:


MUHAMMAD ASAD

9:31 They have taken their rabbis and their monks-as well as the Christ, son of Mary-for their lords beside God, [47] although they had been bidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no deity: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity!


YUSUF ALI

9:31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
*footnote says 'scholars/learned men*

PICKTHALL

9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!


5. The decision was not ultimately Abu Bakr's (r)....he wanted to recommend Umar (r) so that there would not be another huge argument over who is the leader (as there was after the Prophet (s)'s death), and when the people did bayah, they accepted his choice = democracy.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Sixpak dude you must've become a cook during your absence ... seems like you love making bihari kabobs.

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

It was that bad, because you're not a scholar of the Qur'an and you're not qualified to do exegesis of the Qur'an. Tafsir is not based on imagination.

There is no space for personal remarks in a scholarly discussion.

[bihari]

Originally Posted by bihari

Shariah is derived from the Qur'an, Sunnah, Qiyas, and Ijtihad.

I think you are confusing the Shariah and Fiqh.

Shariah is defined as 'divine law' or 'divine injunction', which can ONLY come from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Divine injunctions cannot be derrived from Ijtihad, 'Ijma, and Qiyas

Fiqh is derrived from Qur'an, Sunnah, 'Ijma, and Qiyas

Ijtihad is an effort from scholars to derrive rules, and it part of either Qiyas or 'Ijma

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

It is always amusing to see how much of a hypocrite you are, and how much you do the exact things you accuse me of doing. Its also amusing how you like to use big words to make yourself sound smarter. Whats the matter, did mommy make you read the dictionary when you failed in school?

The real problem with your rebuttal wasn't that it used little yellow smileys to make its point, it was that the little yellow smileys conveyed more than your sentences did. All you did was engage in a baseless personal attack. That's all you ever do, because you lack the knowledge and brainpower to form real, intellectual arguments.

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

Do you want a cookie? Or how about a gold star? For the record, I have yet to make any sort of blatant punctuation error, and even if I did, this isnt English class. It just seems like a diversionary tactic because you have no real response to what I said.

Originally Posted by TrentReznor858

Like you said apples and oranges moron.

You don't see any blatant errors in that sentence? I guess you wouldn't, since you're an idiot.

Originally Posted by bihari

1. FYIi never google my sources, I have used these verses in discussing government with various other individuals

Right. It's just a coincidence that you demonstrate ignorance of basic knowledge, and then come back a few posts later with a new perspective on the events that occurred, twisted to suit your own purposes.

Originally Posted by bihari

2. Yes as a matter of fact I know who Muhammad Asad was. And by the way, his views were in line with those of Sunni Muslims, but of course he had his own ideas also

No, they weren't. Muhammad Asad based his views on the teachings of a Mutazilite scholar.

Originally Posted by bihari

3. Who says I can't look at the Qur'an and get something out of it? Unlike Christians or Jews, we Muslims are allowed to look at the Qur'an without the aide of scholars/priests/rabbis

You can get something out of it, you just can't form your own conclusive interpretations and apply them to law.

[quote=bihari]
4. I didn't put my own meanings into the Qur'an, I mean, did you even read the verses? It is pretty self-explanatory....I don't need a scholar telling me what I can allready read...

Originally Posted by bihari

YUSUF ALI

9:31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
*footnote says 'scholars/learned men*

There's a difference between using scholars and learned men for guidance and considering them your Gods. It's funny you try to argue against following the ulemah using this verse, when earlier you pasted the verse about "following those charged with authority among you." I'm sure you're also familiar with "and if you do not know, then ask those who know." And the hadith that the ulema are the inheritors of the prophets.

Originally Posted by bihari

There is no space for personal remarks in a scholarly discussion.

It wasn't a personal remark. It was a correct statement & not at all meant to insult. It's inappropriate for those not learned in the Quran to attempt to give tafsir of it.

Originally Posted by bihari

I think you are confusing the Shariah and Fiqh.

Shariah is defined as 'divine law' or 'divine injunction', which can ONLY come from the Qur'an and Sunnah. Divine injunctions cannot be derrived from Ijtihad, 'Ijma, and Qiyas

Fiqh is derrived from Qur'an, Sunnah, 'Ijma, and Qiyas

Ijtihad is an effort from scholars to derrive rules, and it part of either Qiyas or 'Ijma

Sorry, I misspoke. I was distracted while posting previously. I meant "ijma as-sahaba." Ijma of the sahaba is indeed a source for shariah. As are Qur'an, Sunnah, and Qiyas.

[TrentReznor858]

Since you are a slow reader, maybe this will suffice. Sixpak = . Understand?

[riad19]

Originally Posted by Dubai3000

I am for a democracy with islamic sharia elements. A total democracy is again to much freedom to do everything which is wrong. And total sharia is no freedom at all states like Talibans, Saudi etc.... The best way is find a middle ground where everyone can be happy.

are u for real. what makes saudi or the taliban 'total shari'ah'?

[riad19]

i like the concept of a democratic shari'ah where the Khalifah is democratically elected to rule. Non-muslims should have the right to their own courts and laws while respecting public decency. Khalifa's should be elected for 5 years, with no limits of maximum terms a person can serve. So a just Khalifah will have the choice of serving for lifetime if the people choose him to do so. The House of political affairs will serve as the legislative brach, with one member from each muslims country/state. The Khalifah will be the leader and all issues must be voted upon by the members, with the Khalifah's vote being worth 25 regular votes. House of religious affairs would have 2 scholars from each country, and every bill/law/issue must pass thought this house before making it to the house of political affairs.

There should be fees, punishment for breaking civil laws, but for breaking religious laws, indivduals should be given a choice of either taking the punishment here on earth of being hopeful of the mercy of Allah in the hereafter. There will be no capital punishment except for the crimes that have been established in the quran and sunnah. as mentioned above, in cases of social crimes such as zinah, sodomy, etc, the individual will be given the choice of taking the shari'ah prescribed punishment, or be made to do certain amount of community service and hope for Allah's mercy in the hereafter. For crimes such as homicide, the victims family will have the choice of either forgiving the killer, and taking the bloodmoney, in which case the killer will pay a certain amount and spend the rest of his/her lie in jail, or if the family chooses, the killer will get capital punishment. This will solve the capital punishment debate we have in the west, people who want it can have it, people who dont want it, have the choice of forgiving the killer.

i can go on and on, but u guys get the point.

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by Ibn Abu Ibrahim

The nation-state model was developed by Europeans for Europe. It does not and cannot apply to the Muslim world because of the pluralism Muslims enjoyed under previous khilafah's.

Regardless of who developed the model and who imposed it on who, bottom line is that it is the norm of the times. To bring back khilafah which is essentially a monarchy would require a very radical change, and anything radical has equal and opposite reaction. So we'll lose again.

Let me ask you this, if there's a scholar that we might consider like the top most Alim of the world and he makes an ijtihad and says that khilafa is not fardh anymore. How would we accept their opinion? Are we going to listen to them or we gonna brand them as a modernist or something because to us establishing khilafa is more important?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by riad19

For crimes such as homicide, the victims family will have the choice of either forgiving the killer, and taking the bloodmoney, in which case the killer will pay a certain amount and spend the rest of his/her lie in jail, or if the family chooses, the killer will get capital punishment. This will solve the capital punishment debate we have in the west, people who want it can have it, people who dont want it, have the choice of forgiving the killer.

I don't think the debate in the West stems from the families of the victims.

And what if the family is in on the murder... and simply contracts someone to kill their 'target', and then that someone can pay back most of the money as said 'bloodmoney'?

[riad19]

Originally Posted by Variable

I don't think the debate in the West stems from the families of the victims.

i dont think the origin of the debate matter as much as the practical application of the subject matter in the debate itself, in this case the death penalty. and it seems that we will always be divided on whether we should have death penalty in the States or not. In one side of the story u have had homicidal maniacs who broke free from jail and murdered certain individuals. On the other hand we have had cases where a defendant was found not guilty by various means and individual investigation after the execution had taken place. I dont think there can be a middle ground in an issue as sensitive as the death penalty where the two sides are choosing between life and death of an individual. So in my opinion, the best is to give the public the right to choose in case if they ever befall such calamity of losing a member of their family in acts of violence.

Originally Posted by Variable

And what if the family is in on the murder... and simply contracts someone to kill their 'target', and then that someone can pay back most of the money as said 'bloodmoney'?

ur saying what if a family wanted to kill one of their members by hiring someone? and then got the bloodmoney, in which case justice wont be served... i know your point but obviously there is more to civil law that what i described in the 2 paragraphs.

in cases of homicide, the family sometimes become the suspects. if thats the case, then the family loses its right to the bloodmoney or forgiving the person who pulled the trigger. the scenario i mentioned above would apply in cases like OJ's. If OJ was in fact found guilty in court, then the Brown family would have the choice of taking the bloodmoney and having OJ in Jail for life. Oherwise the default rule is execution.

Islamic law is just as complicated as western law, so i dont think i'll be doing justice by mentioning a paragraph here and a paragraph there. A person does need to go to school for 4-5 years just to understand islamic law. Although since there is no country that implements the shari'ah, there arent many schools that concentrate just on islamic law.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by riad19

i dont think the origin of the debate matter as much as the practical application of the subject matter in the debate itself, in this case the death penalty. and it seems that we will always be divided on whether we should have death penalty in the States or not. In one side of the story u have had homicidal maniacs who broke free from jail and murdered certain individuals. On the other hand we have had cases where a defendant was found not guilty by various means and individual investigation after the execution had taken place. I dont think there can be a middle ground in an issue as sensitive as the death penalty where the two sides are choosing between life and death of an individual. So in my opinion, the best is to give the public the right to choose in case if they ever befall such calamity of losing a member of their family in acts of violence.

Okay, you said: For crimes such as homicide, the victims family will have the choice of either forgiving the killer, and taking the bloodmoney.... This will solve the capital punishment debate we have in the west, people who want it can have it, people who dont want it, have the choice of forgiving the killer.

And I'm saying giving the family the choice of whether the perpetrator should be executed or not - wouldn't solve the debate over capital punishment here in the West.

One family's members don't represent 'the public'.

[riad19]

Originally Posted by Variable

Okay, you said: For crimes such as homicide, the victims family will have the choice of either forgiving the killer, and taking the bloodmoney.... This will solve the capital punishment debate we have in the west, people who want it can have it, people who dont want it, have the choice of forgiving the killer.

And I'm saying giving the family the choice of whether the perpetrator should be executed or not - wouldn't solve the debate over capital punishment here in the West.

One family's members don't represent 'the public'.

yeah i know it wont solve the debate, but the debate is exactly that - a debate. what matters is the practical application of the subject matter thats being debated upon. this debate will carry on forever. if we did away with capital punishment, u think people who support it would just quiet down? ofcourse not. there will always be people on both sides. the best solution is to apply the individuals' personal stance when it really does come down to executing a person.

if you are for it, u have the right to exercise your stance in the unfortunate event that you lose someone close. if you are against it, you also have the same option. the public debate will never end, thats just a given.

it obviously gets more complicated if the suspect has killed more than one person, etc etc. again, what i am talking about is at a very general level, when it comes to implementing such laws, there are many aspects that come in place, and have been practiced for centuries in the islamic world.