From Will at The Other News:
“Sharia’a means highway (Shahrah) and in the religious sense, it is the path that takes one towards the right direction in this world, bringing tranquility in this life and will bring much joy in the life hereafter. The basic principle of Sharia’a is establishment of justice based on the universal accepted values of virtues, to keep the balance in the world.”The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.
These were the approximate words used to put forth some of the ideas by former Supreme Court Justice of Pakistan Honorable Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, as he spoke for over an hour at an Open Public Forum at Shahnai Restaurant Banquet Hall in Houston, on the topic of “The Role of Sharia’a Law in Modern Legal World – Useful toll or a liability?”
He was on a private trip to Houston, where on the insistence of his friends, he agreed to speak. More than 350 persons attended the program, including some elected County Judges, prominent attorney, lawyers, persons from Republican Party, some people from the Churches, and many expatriate Pakistanis & Muslims from various countries.
Program was emceed by Ms. Sobia Izfaz, while opening address was done by the head of three members host committee Dr. Mohammad Afsar, while another member Tahir Bhatty gave the vote of thanks. The third host committee person was Zafar Kureshi. The Q-&-A session was conducted by well-known Attorney Syed Izfar.
Famous Community Attorney Anwar-e-Qadeer, who used to be Honorable Ramday’s student, introduced the Honorable Judge.
“Sharia’a is kind of boogeyman in the western society. I do not know from where such fear is coming because the principles of justice and all the universal good values are part of the basics of laws made within Sharia’a. These are the same as the Ten Commandments given to Hadhrat Moses (Peace be Upon him – PBUh). There are no systems of criminal procedure courts, etc. prescribed by Quran, etc. So the systems of corpus duress get evolved by societies according to their set-ups and environment. There are certain commandments given by Allah SWT through Quran and life of Messenger Muhammad PBUh, which cannot be violated. Other than that Sharia’a and municipal laws can exist together.
I was part of a Judiciary Review Board of Pakistan Sharia’a Court, where three court judges & two established scholars did an extensive assessment for almost five years of all the British & other manmade laws in subcontinent since 1841: They all were studied word to word and nothing of substance was found in them that was unIslamic, since the values are universal. No faith will ask people to commit crimes.
Few things where the spirit of Islam was missing was for instance in the punishment of the crime of murder. What was missing is now part of Pakistan’s law and that is if the people of the deceased pardon the murderer with or without compensation, the court has to nullify the punishment of death or life imprisonment penalty,” added Honorable Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday.
America has Laws and a Constitution. There is no need for Sharia law!
Read the full assault here.
UPDATED BY AVENGING APOSTATE:
"Shari'ah means path or way, not highway. (Shahrah is a different word than shari'ah). And the only accepted way or path according to the Quran, from which Shari'ah is derived (alongwith the Hadiths)is Islam, not universally accepted norms. There is no doubt that Shari'ah is nothing but 7th century regulations as written in the Quran and as practiced by the murderous and infamous Mohammed.
This guy is lying, or worse telling half truths here like Muslims so often do.
The Quran contains at least 164 violent verses.
15 comments:
Pastorius,
Not only does America have no need for sharia, we have no good reason to recognize it in our courts.
By the way, your link at the end of the article is not working. Its just regular text, right now.
Also when I click on the title, it gives me an error message. Something about the URL being too long.
Damian , full 'story' here:
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=8329
Will,
Thanks for the URL.
Sorry about the screwups with urls today.
I am having trouble with Firefox.
Pastorius,
I understand. Stuff like that happens.
Europe has had Sharia law for centuries, it has fought wars for no other reason than to abolish Sharia law. The inquisition was nothing more than Sharia law, law by the church. The treaty of where ever 1648 or so said it quite clearly, no more Sharia law.
I'd like to know about that treaty.
If you are talking about the Treaty of Westphalia, I don't think that had anything to do with Islam or Sharia, but I could be wrong.
I do not know European history AT ALL.
Ciccio,
I don't support the inquisition or having our court respect laws that are religious in nature, but the laws that Europe once had, had nothing to do with Sharia, unless you count the areas that were occupied by the Islamic empire. What was going on in the middle ages with people being put to death for heresy and all was not good. That said, For the sake of clarity, lets not confuse the two. Its bad enough that people critical of Islam are often called racists, even through Islam is not a race.
Pastorius,
I'm not sure, but I think Ciccio, might be confused. I don't know what the treaty of Westphalia is, however.
Damien,
I advocate the death penalty for Sedition, and I consider the promotion of Sharia in the Western world to be Sedition.
So, what is the difference between that and heresy?
Maybe he is talking about the Battle of Vienna in 1683.
Pastorius,
Heresy is saying or thinking something that goes against what a particular religion teaches. In the case of the middle ages, people were put to death for simply disagreeing with the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. Sedition is calling for the overthrow of the government. I don't think we ever had the death penalty for sedition, but we did for treason. I can support it, when it comes to treason, but for sedition, it might be a bit much.
Yes, I guess if we want to keep church and state separate, and I do want that, then it is legally fine to talk about the death penalty for treason/sedition, but not for heresy.
I would always be against the death penalty for heresy.
I think my point is, for us moderns, death for treason or sedition is the same thing as death for heresy was to the medieval sensibility.
See what I mean?
Pastorius,
Yeah, I see what you mean. In the eyes of the average person in the middle ages to criticize the Church was equivalent to Treason. In Islamic countries dominated by sharia, there is same attitude, only towards Islam. However, even considering that, you can criticize the United States government, without committing sedition. As a citizen, You can even advocate changing the US constitution, without committing sedition. So, its not a perfect parallel. Also there is a slight difference between sedition and treason. Maybe you could talk to Citizen Warrior. He did a good job of explaining the difference to me.
Post a Comment