Top Menu

Muneer Awad on Rachel Maddow: “OK Ban Unconstitutional”

Muneer Awad

Muneer Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR-OK was on the Rachel Maddow show discussing the Oklahoma amendment that seeks to ban Sharia’.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    “I challenge you to find proof that most Islamophobes do not advocate what i write above.”

    “You’re asking me to prove a negative. How would that go about exactly, proving thousands of people didn’t say something? Could you find proof ten thousands of crickets don’t chirp Rihanna songs in places all over the world? It seems to me the burden of proof is upon you to show Islamophobes across the board advocate rounding up all American Muslims, putting them in concentration camps and killing them off altogether.”

    Jack, are you an atheist? i find that many atheists, after making a claim that they must provide proof for(Sure enough, there are occasional islamophobes who advocate the things you listed, but the majority doesn’t.), when challenged, resort to laying the burden of proof on me since it is impossible to prove a negative. Wasn’t your original assertion, “Sure enough, there are occasional islamophobes who advocate the things you listed, but the majority doesn’t.” Isn’t that a negative? Are you not also bound by the burden of proof?

    “Not necessarily, since the former deals with what Muslims understand Sharia to be, and the latter with my criticism of it. To me, it seems perfectly possible, even reasonable, to gain a better understanding of how Muslims view Sharia, and yet criticize it. In fact, a better understanding may very well lead to a criticism that is more poignant.”

    i understand that you are seeking a better way to criticize Shari’ah and the Muslim understanding of it. i understand that clearly. However, you cannot gain an actual understanding of it and then declare that Muslims can mold it to whatever they wish. That is where your motives for engaging in discussion became suspect. Where is your response to the fact that in order to change Shari’ah Muslims must also change the Qur’an? Shari’ah as found in the Qur’an declares that it is haraam to eat pork and consume alcohol and have sex outside of marriage. If Muslims wish to do these things, they have no support in from the Qur’an, hence no support from the Shari’ah.

    “Yet someone who gains a better understanding of what evolution is and isn’t, doesn’t necessarily swing to the other side. It’s very well possible that, along with his growing understanding of the matter, he refines his arguments against, because he keeps the same core convictions.”

    Not asking you to give up your core convictions or come over to “my side”, just that you remove all bias as it an obstacle to your full understanding of the subject.

    “Well, from your answers I take away that to you, Sharia and fiqh do not coincide with each other, nor do fiqh and the Hudud. It seems that to you, Sharia encompasses certain eternal(?) principles informing fiqh, which is the human endeavour to apply these principles to specific problems and situations.”

    That’s exactly correct. Now how does this understanding lead to the conclusion that Shari’ah is ethereal.Because sometimes they(the scholars) got it wrong?

    “It seems to me the burden of proof is upon you to show Islamophobes across the board advocate rounding up all American Muslims, putting them in concentration camps and killing them off altogether. And we’re not talking about the occasional loon comment by Pam Geller about nuking Mecca, Medina and Tehran in case Iran uses a nuclear device against Israel. I’m talking about Islamophobes from Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck to Frank Gaffney saying: ‘You know what we should do? We should put all these American Muslims in concentration camps and kill all of them!”

    You really believe citing prominent Islamophobes will show a representative sample of what Islamophobes think? Have you visited some of these hate sites? These are not occasional comments. Almost all of them are advocating nuking Muslim holy cities, mass forced deportation of Muslims, banning immigration, laws making it illegal to be Muslim,or advocate Shari’ah etc.. in language oddly reminiscent of the language used against the Jews before and during the Holocaust. How do you suppose they will round up us Muslims for forced deportation if not into concentration camps first?

    “Citing the worst case scenario does not negate it’s logical possibility.”

    “It’s a logical possibility that pigs should fly. For you even more so than for me since you believe in an Omnipotent Creator, which can actually make it happen. But that doesn’t mean it’s very likely, now is it.”

    Wouldn’t pigs having wings, yet still being unable to fly actually make it more a logical possibility that they SHOULD fly. Otherwise it’s just imagination, no? You are purposely distorting my argument:The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when its usage includes a logically valid form, in which a chain of logical implication establishes that a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. A relatively minor event such as banning Shari’ah can lead to all that i mentioned in my arguments. It is not a forgone conclusion, just a logical possibility . You cite history, but history is not on your side.

    “Historically, anti-Muslim hysteria in the US is better compared with anti-Italian and anti-Chinese hysteria in the 19th century, or anti-Irish sentiments at the turn of the century, or anti-Jewish sentiments in the first half of the 20th century, and the Red Scare.”

    What did these anti-Jewish sentiments lead to? Hitler embracing the Jews and apologizing for his actions? You see, what happened with the Italians, Chinese, Irish,and Jews was different in every case, but all were logical possibilities.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Jack

    Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq: “Hence your parting line: “this conversation does help to clarify what Muslims have in mind exactly when they use the term ‘Sharia’”, is very disingenuous as it comes after declaring that Muslims can mold Shari’ah into whatever they wish. Tell me what exactly did you get out of this conversation?”

    Not necessarily, since the former deals with what Muslims understand Sharia to be, and the latter with my criticism of it. To me, it seems perfectly possible, even reasonable, to gain a better understanding of how Muslims view Sharia, and yet criticize it. In fact, a better understanding may very well lead to a criticism that is more poignant.

    Take the theory of evolution for instance. Someone who has all sorts of false notions about what the theory of evolution entails, may be easily dismissed when he sums up his objections. Yet someone who gains a better understanding of what evolution is and isn’t, doesn’t necessarily swing to the other side. It’s very well possible that, along with his growing understanding of the matter, he refines his arguments against, because he keeps the same core convictions.

    Tell me what exactly did you get out of this conversation?

    Well, from your answers I take away that to you, Sharia and fiqh do not coincide with each other, nor do fiqh and the Hudud. It seems that to you, Sharia encompasses certain eternal(?) principles informing fiqh, which is the human endeavour to apply these principles to specific problems and situations.

    “I challenge you to find proof that most Islamophobes do not advocate what i write above.”

    You’re asking me to prove a negative. How would that go about exactly, proving thousands of people didn’t say something? Could you find proof ten thousands of crickets don’t chirp Rihanna songs in places all over the world? It seems to me the burden of proof is upon you to show Islamophobes across the board advocate rounding up all American Muslims, putting them in concentration camps and killing them off altogether. And we’re not talking about the occasional loon comment by Pam Geller about nuking Mecca, Medina and Tehran in case Iran uses a nuclear device against Israel. I’m talking about Islamophobes from Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck to Frank Gaffney saying: ‘You know what we should do? We should put all these American Muslims in concentration camps and kill all of them!’

    “Citing the worst case scenario does not negate it’s logical possibility.”

    It’s a logical possibility that pigs should fly. For you even more so than for me since you believe in an Omnipotent Creator, which can actually make it happen. But that doesn’t mean it’s very likely, now is it.

    Historically, anti-Muslim hysteria in the US is better compared with anti-Italian and anti-Chinese hysteria in the 19th century, or anti-Irish sentiments at the turn of the century, or anti-Jewish sentiments in the first half of the 20th century, and the Red Scare.

  • Mr President

    Good arguments from almost everyone….almost….because there is pork…I mean HalalPork…..This human being (I stand to be corrected)…..is either stupid or plain stupid

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    Jack Says:

    “@Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq; to say that islamophobes (in general) advocate concentration camps, indiscriminate murder, torture and genocide is just as far-fetched as to say Muslims (in general) advocate floggings, stonings mutilations, beheadings and cruxificions.”

    Jack , either you’re not getting it, i lack the power to explain myself clearly, or you are deliberately playing a game where you had already reached your own conclusion and after hearing my rebuttal simply reworded your original conclusion. Hence your parting line: “this conversation does help to clarify what Muslims have in mind exactly when they use the term ‘Sharia’”, is very disingenuous as it comes after declaring that Muslims can mold Shari’ah into whatever they wish. Tell me what exactly did you get out of this conversation? i challenge you to find proof that most Islamophobes do not advocate what i write above. Trust me it is not the occasional Islamophobe. Every single Islamophobe on atlasshrugs and jihadwatch and Debbie Schuessel’s site have done exactly that. The Islamophobes on this site have done exactly that.

    “Furthermore, there is no logical necessity which dictates the barring of ‘Sharia’ from Oklahoma Courts will in all likelihood lead to bloodbaths, concentration camps and genocide. Or any evidence that leads one to think this will be the probable outcome.

    One might say that anti-Muslim hysteria might eventually lead to these things, and point out this law too is a symptom of that very hysteria, but to say this is a first step which may lead to a Muslim Holocaust is pretty outrageous.”

    Not when you yourself have made the logical connection between this law and anti-Muslim hysteria. Citing the worst case scenario does not negate it’s logical possibility.

    “Historically, it makes no sense either. There’s no Nazi-like party around, which advocates banning Muslims from becoming high school professors, or gathering young men to march in the streets to beat up Democrats and Muslims, or burn Mosques and stores owned by Muslims. Not even the Tea Party is that crazy, although I’ll grant you the rhetoric gets pretty vile at times.”

    Yet there is a growing number of groups and individuals that advocate such things as forced deportation, violence against Muslims domestically, nuking Mecca, invading Iran, etc. And those in these groups seek political power.

    “As for Sharia encompassing the principles which inform Islamic jurisprudence, that’s a nice way of putting it,”

    It’s the correct way of putting it.

    “First of all: how am I ascertain your view of what Sharia basically is, is correct?”

    You can do your research by first reading the Qur’an, then you can ascertain if my view is the majority view by reading up on what the scholars and laypersons in Islam have to say on the issue. I guarantee that my view is the majority, mainstream view, but you shouldn’t just take my word for it.

    “You’re already in some disagreement here with JD, who I assume is also a Muslim.”

    Disagreement with my coreligionists will not negate that my view is the mainstream one.

    “Secondly, as you admit yourself, a lot of Muslim theologians equivocate the term ‘Sharia’ with fiqh.”

    i never said equivocate. i said equate. There is a reason why i used the word i did. Many scholars when speaking to Muslims equate the terms Shari’ah and fiqh because they understand that there is a complex, living relationship between the two. They cannot be separated, but that does not mean that they are the same. i have already shown you that one is derived from the other.Muslim Scholars rightly assume Muslim audiences will get this

    “Secondly: even though you make it sound as if Sharia is easily recognized by someone versed in the Quran and the Sunna, it seems pretty subjective still, since different people in different times and places (and even people in the same time and the same place) take away different principles from the Quran and the Sunna.”

    No they haven’t. You still seem to be “programmed” to think of Shari’ah and fiqh as identical. Different people in different times and places, and even in the same time and place have all sought to JUSTIFY fiqh according to the SAME principles of shari’ah. For them to take away differnt principles would be to take away a different Qur’an. Now i know that you will say what they take away is a different understanding of Qur’an and Sunnah, and it is the application we are talking about here. But every scholar who makes a ruling will often times contradict the opinions of someone else who bases their arguments on the need to meet the requirements of these same principles. Your analogy about Protestant Christians and the Bible highlights how you would like to simply a complex issue in order to justify your claims. Disagreements over fiqh does not amount to disagreements over principle of Shari’ah.

    If the Qur’an is explicitly against murder, suicide, terrorism, stoning for adultery, homosexuality, execution for apostasy, etc. and anyone reading it can see this. And anyone who hears them being advocated can see the outright denial of these principle and the need of extremists to twist the Qur’an and cherry-pick and twist the hadith to justify their bogus conclusion, why is it hard for you to ascertain just exactly what is and what isn’t Shari’ah?

    “So someone being raised in a liberal environment with an education in the humanities might take away from the Quran and the Sunna that men and women are made as each others equals and the one is not to have dominion over the other; whereas somebody in the very same city, coming from a more conservative background, might take away from it men are to be the heads of their households, in effect having some kind of dominion over their spouses. In the same way, one person could take away from the Quran and the Sunna Muslims ought to strive for positive partnerships with people of other faiths (or no faith); and someone else might come away with the impression any kind of friendship with non-Muslims is ill-advised, and that polytheists, agnostics and atheists are to be engaged with inward enmity.”

    All of that is nonsense since this idea about conservatives and liberals is suggesting that those who advocate, say, gender inequality and restrict friendship with non Muslims are more legitimately Islamic. That different groups interpret the Qur’an differently is a function of many intervening factors and can never be explained away as “the source(Qur’an) itself is unclear”

    “In fact, one can find all these positions (and more) in different degrees among Muslims, so apparently it’s not all that clear cut what the principles of Sharia encompass precisely.”

    Again, not to sound chauvinistic, but these differences of opinion still do not amount to a difference of opinion as to what the Shari’ah is, entails, or encompasses. The vast majority Muslims have no problems recognizing if a ruling has a legitimate basis in Shari’ah or not.

    “That God has been looking the other way for the last fourteen hundred years? I mean, that’s not a small error, nor has it been made by one or two interpreters. And since it originates in the traditions about Muhammad and his sayings and doings,”

    “who knows how many errors the canons of fiqh may contain which profoundly distort the *true* principles of Sharia? Who’s to say? Who’s to know? Maybe it contains mistakes that will never be discovered. Where does this leave the Muslims community? Forever erring, committing cruelties and injustices in the name of Islam?”

    Again you still cannot divorce yourself from erroneously conflating the two categories of fiqh and shari’ah. “Mistakes” in fiqh books, which are not canonized by the way, defeating your whole argument, are issues in application of principles that are agreed upon. The distortion is in the application, not the principle itself. The vast majority of Muslims are not erring and committing cruelties and injustices in the name of Islam, so what is the source of their behavior? Is it Islam, per the Shari’ah, via Qur’an and Sunna? Seems to me the vast majority of Muslims today have no problems understanding and applying Shari’ah.

    “Plus, there is something disingenuous in the way you frame it, since in this way, Sharia can never be held accountable for the injustices perpetrated in it’s name.”

    There is nothing disingenuous in the way it is framed, unless you want to argue that Muslims must collectively be held accountable for the actions of its relatively few extremists. In the same way Shari’ah can never be held accountable for it’s misapplication, used in the service of other than Allah. Your argument amounts to an admittance that you would like Shari’ah to be blamed for the injustices perpetrated in it’s name.

    “If fiqh allowed for the oppression of women for ages and ages, holding them captives in unhappy marriages, even subjecting them to marital rape – even if this is still going on today and the legal framework making these injustices possible are being pushed by Islamists as we speak – one can always retort: well, of course that’s really awful and all, but hey, at least it’s not Sharia which is doing that, because all those Muslim theologians interpreting it that way were and are simply wrong. And even if fiqh pushed for the expansion of the Muslim empire by force at one time, and allowed for subjugating scores of people into slavery, even sex slavery; one can always say: Ho-ho! But that was simply from a misunderstanding of Sharia!”

    See my post above as to why this is a bogus argument. Refusing to implicate Shari’ah itself will not hinder Muslims from dealing with legitimate problems in Islamic jurisprudence. It is Islamophobes who think that our refusal to criticize shari’ah is explicit support for injustices in fiqh and hudud. All of those things you mentioned are unIslamic so it is very simplistic of you to suggest that there are not other intervening factors contributing to this state of affairs. Your argument actually resembles that of many Islamophobes masquerading as “moderate” critics of Islam. Namely that all of these actions are committed in the name of Islam, and many Muslim scholars justified them using Islamic texts and teachings( Qur’an and Sunnah), so the problem must be with Islam and with the Shari’ah and it’s intrinsic ethereal quality, making it hard to apply properly, and making it so malleable one can mold it to whatever one wished without implicating the Shari’ah itself. And any scholar that disagreed was only expressing the minority view, so lacked legitimacy.

    “And so it seems different generations of Muslims can mold and knead Sharia into whatever suits their respective ideas about morality and justice. Since those ideas change over time and place, so does their understanding of Sharia.”

    It is only westerners who believe that ideas about morality and justice change over time and place. Muslims on the other hand understand them as unchanging principles that have near infinite applications(only Allah is infinite). Your obsession with conflating fiqh with shari’ah blinds you to the falseness of the statement that shari’ah can be molded and kneaded to whatever suits the generations of Muslims. In order to do this with Shari’ah one would have to change the Qur’an. If Muslims decided one day that alcohol and pork were halal, they would have no recourse in the Shari’ah.

    “But then one has to wonder whether there really is a Divine Revelation shaping Muslim understanding of the world and society, or whether it is rather the other way around.”

    And of course that was your position all along. You only wanted to “confirm” it by appearing to have reasoned discussion with a Muslim who appeared to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Jack

    As for Sharia encompassing the principles which inform Islamic jurisprudence, that’s a nice way of putting it, but I still have two questions about it (or objections to it, if you will).

    First of all: how am I ascertain your view of what Sharia basically is, is correct? You’re already in some disagreement here with JD, who I assume is also a Muslim. Secondly, as you admit yourself, a lot of Muslim theologians equivocate the term ‘Sharia’ with fiqh. So, some quotes from seminal Islamic thinkers through the ages backing up your ideas about what sharia basically is, would be welcome.

    Secondly: even though you make it sound as if Sharia is easily recognized by someone versed in the Quran and the Sunna, it seems pretty subjective still, since different people in different times and places (and even people in the same time and the same place) take away different principles from the Quran and the Sunna.

    Listening to you on the issue, I’m reminded of Protestant Christians saying the Bible has a clear and unequivocal Message, and that if one is truly devout, the Holy Spirit of God will grant one a true understanding of it. But of course, when it comes to it’s interpretation, there are a lot of different opinions around, even among the devout.

    So someone being raised in a liberal environment with an education in the humanities might take away from the Quran and the Sunna that men and women are made as each others equals and the one is not to have dominion over the other; whereas somebody in the very same city, coming from a more conservative background, might take away from it men are to be the heads of their households, in effect having some kind of dominion over their spouses. In the same way, one person could take away from the Quran and the Sunna Muslims ought to strive for positive partnerships with people of other faiths (or no faith); and someone else might come away with the impression any kind of friendship with non-Muslims is ill-advised, and that polytheists, agnostics and atheists are to be engaged with inward enmity.

    In fact, one can find all these positions (and more) in different degrees among Muslims, so apparently it’s not all that clearcut what the principles of Sharia encompass precisely.

    “If the Shari’ah is opposed to, say, stoning as a punishment for adultery, yet we find it in books of fiqh, what are we to conclude?”

    That God has been looking the other way for the last fourteen hundred years? I mean, that’s not a small error, nor has it been made by one or two interpreters. And since it originates in the traditions about Muhammad and his sayings and doings, who knows how many errors the canons of fiqh may contain which profoundly distort the *true* principles of Sharia? Who’s to say? Who’s to know? Maybe it contains mistakes that will never be discovered. Where does this leave the Muslims community? Forever erring, committing cruelties and injustices in the name of Islam?

    Plus, there is something disingenuous in the way you frame it, since in this way, Sharia can never be held accountable for the injustices perpetrated in it’s name. If fiqh allowed for the oppression of women for ages and ages, holding them captives in unhappy marriages, even subjecting them to marital rape – even if this is still going on today and the legal framework making these injustices possible are being pushed by Islamists as we speak – one can always retort: well, of course that’s really awful and all, but hey, at least it’s not Sharia which is doing that, because all those Muslim theologians interpreting it that way were and are simply wrong. And even if fiqh pushed for the expansion of the Muslim empire by force at one time, and allowed for subjugating scores of people into slavery, even sex slavery; one can always say: Ho-ho! But that was simply from a misunderstanding of Sharia!

    And so it seems different generations of Muslims can mold and knead Sharia into whatever suits their respective ideas about morality and justice. Since those ideas change over time and place, so does their understanding of Sharia. But then one has to wonder whether there really is a Divine Revelation shaping Muslim understanding of the world and society, or whether it is rather the other way around.

    Nevertheless, I do wish to thank you for your time and kind indulgence, because this conversation does help to clarify what Muslims have in mind exactly when they use the term ‘Sharia’.

  • Jack

    @Muhammad ‘abd-al haqq; to say that islamophobes (in general) advocate concentration camps, indiscriminate murder, torture and genocide is just as far-fetched as to say Muslims (in general) advocate floggings, stonings mutilations, beheadings and cruxificions. Sure enough, there are occasional islamophobes who advocate the things you listed, but the majority doesn’t. Likewise, there are occasional Muslims who advocate medieval Hudud laws in their full horror, but the majority doesn’t.

    Furthermore, there is no logical necessity which dictates the barring of ‘Sharia’ from Oklahoma Courts will in all likelihood lead to bloodbaths, concentration camps and genocide. Or any evidence that leads one to think this will be the probable outcome.

    One might say that anti-Muslim hysteria might eventually lead to these things, and point out this law too is a symptom of that very hysteria, but to say this is a first step which may lead to a Muslim Holocaust is pretty outrageous.

    Historically, it makes no sense either. There’s no Nazi-like party around, which advocates banning Muslims from becoming high school professors, or gathering young men to march in the streets to beat up Democrats and Muslims, or burn Mosques and stores owned by Muslims. Not even the Tea Party is that crazy, although I’ll grant you the rhetoric gets pretty vile at times.

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    but Shari’ah is not only concerned with legalistic specifics(law).

    Allahu A’lam

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    JD says:

    “shariah is the Muslim universe of ideals. It is the result of their collective effort to understand and apply the Quran and supplementary teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (called Sunna) in order to earn God’s pleasure and secure human welfare in this life and attain human salvation in the life to come.”

    Respectfully JD what you just described is Fiqh, not Shari’ah. Shari’ah consists of the underlying principles, found in Qur’an and Sunnah, used to formulate, among other things, jurisprudence(fiqh). The collective effort to understand and apply the principles found in Qur’an and Sunnah to a legal corpus results in fiqh. The collective effort to apply these same principles to other areas of life results in other things such as aqida(creed/belief)or kalam(dialectic theology). There is an organic(living) relationship between Shari’ah and law, but Shari’ah is not concerned with legalistic specifics(law). This is why Shari’ah law is a misnomer; but it probably results from an attempt at shorthand since the phrase “law informed by Shari’ah” is too cumbersome compared to “Shari’ah Law”. Shari’ah law as a corpus of fixed laws and legal opinions does not exist in the real world but what does exist as malleable body of legal precepts, rulings, and opinions is properly called fiqh. And as there is no central religious authority dictating doxa(doctrine), each school of Islam has it’s own fiqh, but none has a different Shari’ah. It may be confusing to non-Muslims, but a simplistic understanding of shari’ah and fiqh serves only to justify discriminatory practices against Muslims.

    “Yes, I’m beginning to see how you and Muhammad ‘abd-al Haqq view the concept. So Sharia belongs to the universe of ideals, whereas Fiqh is the human, and therefore fallible, elaboration of those ideals.”

    You are beginning to understand, but not completely. You have combined my view and JD’s to arrive at this understanding. But JD’s view conflicts with my view.

    “In this way, the notion of ‘sharia’ is forever preserved from being tainted by injustices and cruelties, brought about by human interpretation of Sharia. Yet, in conceiving it this way, it also becomes rather
    ethereal”.

    There is a living(organic) relationship between shari’ah and fiqh, which is why many Islamic scholars equate the two concepts. Just like Muslims know that there is a difference between deen(religion) and political action, yet non-Muslims get confused trying to figure out if there is separation of church and state in Islam. But the relationship is much more complex than that, just like the relationship between shari’ah and fiqh.

    “It’s a bit like saying Aztec mythology is beautiful, but completely unrelated to human sacrifices, because – you know – those were just cases of poor understanding what the religion was *really* about.”

    It’s not exactly the same as your analogy so i won’t go so far as to call it a false analogy. If the Shari’ah is opposed to, say, stoning as a punishment for adultery, yet we find it in books of fiqh, what are we to conclude?

    “This is all very confusing, since Muslim clerics themselves bolster their understanding of fiqh and hudud with an appeal to ‘Sharia’ (often equivocating these matters). But if Sharia is an ethereal matter, floating beyond the bounds of fallible human understanding, maybe it would be better for Muslim theologians not to use the term at all.”

    Shari’ah is not ethereal, that is your contention. Shari’ah is very real and easy enough to ascertain, in some cases even if one is not immersed in the Islamic tradition. Many Muslim laypersons who are not scholars or scholarly experts on Shari’ah instinctively recognize legitimate shari’ah and the legitimate jurisprudence that can be derived from it.

    Muslim “clerics” must appeal to Shari’ah to legitimate rulings, but that in no way makes their opinions infallible. i can site many instances where fiqh conflicts with shari’ah. At the risk of sounding chauvinistic and claiming that non Muslims can’t possibly get it,i must state that almost any Muslim can look at a legal ruling and determine if it was legitimately derived from the Shari’ah or not. But even non Muslims can do this, once they remove the “programming” that causes them to conflate shari’ah, fiqh,and hudud into one, artificial category. If you have read the Qur’an, however, and/or memorized it, you will have in your memory or on your bookshelf a repository of Shari’ah and it would thus be impossible to declare Shari’ah as ethereal.

    “@Muhammad; as for the slippery slope fallacy, I still don’t understand your explanation of the shortcomings of it’s criticism, and this seems to originate in a different understanding from what the ‘slippery slope fallacy‘ actually entails.”

    Declaring the slippery slope argument a fallacy is fundamentally dependent on the idea that exception to a rule or principle does not invalidate its universal application. But this contention is false. Exceptions to a rule invalidate that rule being a rule.

    Therefore the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when its usage includes a logically valid form, in which a chain of logical implication establishes that a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established. Because the slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy, one can admit a slippery slope fallacy, but not that every slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

    What is being argued here on the Islamophobic side is this:

    If we allow consideration of Shari’ah Law in US courts, pretty soon we’ll be throwing the US Constitution out the window, we’ll have public lashings and stonings for adultery and homosexuality, beheadings and imprisonment for apostasy, and persecution of Non Muslims. Pretty soon the Muslims will take over the entire country.

    What is being argued on the “pro Islam” side:

    Banning Shari’ah is the first step in the demonization of Islam and Muslims, which will soon lead to discrimination against Muslims, which will lead to attacks against Muslims, wholesale deportation and persecution of Muslims, which will lead to even worse human rights violations, such as concentration camps,indiscriminate murder, torture, and genocide.

    Notice that Islamophobes advocate everything i just mentioned the “pro-Islam” side claims they advocate. And the Muslims do NOT advocate any of the things Islamophobes accuse us of secretly trying to accomplish. One side is using the slippery slope fallacy, the other is using the logically valid form of the slippery slope argument.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Ducky’s here

    How many Americans are aware that religious courts have been around for some time. Generally the state courts support them since the litigants are generally more content with the rulings and these courts take some load off the state courts.

    Are Oklahomans concerned that stonings will be held in the Walmart parking lot?

  • Jack

    “shariah is the Muslim universe of ideals”

    Yes, I’m beginning to see how you and Muhammad ‘abd-al Haqq view the concept. So Sharia belongs to the universe of ideals, whereas Fiqh is the human, and therefore fallible, elaboration of those ideals.

    In this way, the notion of ‘sharia’ is forever preserved from being tainted by injustices and cruelties, brought about by human interpretation of Sharia. Yet, in conceiving it this way, it also becomes rather ethereal.

    It’s a bit like saying Aztec mythology is beautiful, but completely unrelated to human sacrifices, because – you know – those were just cases of poor understanding what the religion was *really* about.

    This is all very confusing, since Muslim clerics themselves bolster their understanding of fiqh and hudud with an appeal to ‘Sharia’ (often equivocating these matters). But if Sharia is an ethereal matter, floating beyond the bounds of fallible human understanding, maybe it would be better for Muslim theologians not to use the term at all.

    @Muhammad; as for the slippery slope fallacy, I still don’t understand your explanation of the shortcomings of it’s criticism, and this seems to originate in a different understanding from what the ‘slippery slope fallacy‘ actually entails.

  • Badger

    I see Halal “I don’t like people who aren’t like me. Let’s get rid of them!” Pork is still talking complete twaddle. It must be quite tiring hating people this much all of the time.

  • http://thebandofstrangers.blogspot.com/ Jack Cope

    Like I said Mr Pork, you’re the expert apparently so why don’t you tell us all about Sharia law and how it works. Don’t forget to provide citations.

  • Cervantes Fan

    The OK ban is QUIXOTIC, a case of tilting at windmills, fighting imaginary dragons.

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    ^* general MUSLIM population

    Allahu A’lam

  • muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    Halal pork

    “@ Muhammad abd al haqq :You say that America is more Sharia compliant than Saudi Arabia.Have you ever seen Sunday gatherings in New york or any major American city with public beheading,cutting of hands of thieves or public flogging takes place?No further comments.By the way,I am not hallucinatory prescription of Quran like you are!!Thank God for that.”

    i knew you were an idiot, but now i am sure that you are a childish idiot in need of major psychosocial overhaul. Please, you have to go back on your meds and start seeing your psychiatric therapist again. Btw, capital/corporal punishment is still on the law books in Shari’ah compliant USA, so arguing that the method/application of capital/corporal punishment used determines what makes one culture superior to another is just parochial, tu quoque nonsense:

    “We still execute people, and torture prisoners of war, but at least we don’t have public beheadings, floggings, stonings, cutting off of hands, etc. Our culture is superior!”.

    Never mind that in every single instance these punishments were carried out, the general MUSLIM, was opposed to it.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Khushboo

    ^no we haven’t because that’s not really Shariah!

  • http://Googlemail Halal pork

    @ Muhammad abd al haqq :You say that America is more Sharia compliant than Saudi Arabia.Have you ever seen Sunday gatherings in New york or any major American city with public beheading,cutting of hands of thieves or public flogging taking place?No further comments.By the way,I am not on any hallucinatory prescription of Quran like you are!!Thank God for that.

  • http://Googlemail Halal pork

    @ Muhammad abd al haqq :You say that America is more Sharia compliant than Saudi Arabia.Have you ever seen Sunday gatherings in New york or any major American city with public beheading,cutting of hands of thieves or public flogging takes place?No further comments.By the way,I am not hallucinatory prescription of Quran like you are!!Thank God for that.

  • http://thebandofstrangers.blogspot.com/ Jack Cope

    Mr Pork, pray name us the principles of Sharia then if you are so expert on the matter. What’s that? You can’t? You can only quote random bits of junk from websites? Then keep silent.

Powered by Loon Watchers