DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Stivenslivakovishhhs** · 06-29-2012, 07:12 AM

In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi . I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik.

If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom.

This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted:

Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description.

On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days?

Who the hell are you to call me a mushrik? Point me to where I once outright rejected the application of these laws. The important thing has always been the maintenance of Islamic society. There are no instances in Islamic history - at least before the modern era - where Muslims were systematically prosecuted for every transgression; actual transgressions and violations of the social code that were prosecuted were those that threatened social equilibrium.

I quote from Sheikh Gibril:

It is a well-established principle in the Law already from the time of the Companions (Allah be well-pleased with them) that the Shari`a demands we always try to find excuses in order not to enforce the criminal penalty (hadd).

Sayyidina `Umar and Ibn Mas`ud in Sahih al-Bukhari and Ibn Hazm’s Fisal (“Avert the penalties by way of inconclusive evidence as much as you can

Sayyida `Aisha in al-Tirmidhi (“Avert the penalties as much as you can, and if any leeway is found then release the detainee. Truly it is preferable for the ruler to pardon mistakenly than to punish mistakenly”);
Explain how the above would ever be possible with the extraordinary policing powers and technology and science of this day and age? The modern state invades all dimensions of life. How for example, would it be possible to find excuses because of inconclusive evidence with the sheer amount of CCTV cameras avilable?

06-29-2012, 07:12 AM	#40
Stivenslivakovishhhs Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 400 Senior Member	In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi . I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik. If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom. This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted: Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description. On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days? Who the hell are you to call me a mushrik? Point me to where I once outright rejected the application of these laws. The important thing has always been the maintenance of Islamic society. There are no instances in Islamic history - at least before the modern era - where Muslims were systematically prosecuted for every transgression; actual transgressions and violations of the social code that were prosecuted were those that threatened social equilibrium. I quote from Sheikh Gibril: It is a well-established principle in the Law already from the time of the Companions (Allah be well-pleased with them) that the Shari`a demands we always try to find excuses in order not to enforce the criminal penalty (hadd). Sayyidina `Umar and Ibn Mas`ud in Sahih al-Bukhari and Ibn Hazm’s Fisal (“Avert the penalties by way of inconclusive evidence as much as you can Sayyida `Aisha in al-Tirmidhi (“Avert the penalties as much as you can, and if any leeway is found then release the detainee. Truly it is preferable for the ruler to pardon mistakenly than to punish mistakenly”); Explain how the above would ever be possible with the extraordinary policing powers and technology and science of this day and age? The modern state invades all dimensions of life. How for example, would it be possible to find excuses because of inconclusive evidence with the sheer amount of CCTV cameras avilable?
	Quote