2,743
edits
Shari'ah (Islamic Law): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (Some improvements (more needed), mainly to reflect other views. Deleted some dead links/bad sections.) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
==Islamic Laws:== | ==Islamic Laws:== | ||
=== | ===Forbidding things which are permitted in most secular countries today=== | ||
Islamic laws criminalize, among other things: | Islamic laws criminalize, among other things: | ||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
====Lack of hijab/un-Islamic dress==== | ====Lack of hijab/un-Islamic dress==== | ||
{{Main|hijab}} | {{Main|hijab}} | ||
The Quran refers to the ''jilbab'' (overgarment or cloak) and the ''khimar'' (piece of cloth that covers the head), and the term hijab came to be applied to both, though today is often applied only to a head covering. The Sunni and Shi'a schools of jurisprudence agree that a Muslim woman's head must be covered, and her body except for her hands and face in the presence of non-Mahrams, with some disagreement of detail such as whether believing slave women are similarly to be covered. Men are required to cover from the navel to the knees. This is based on their interpretation of certain Quran verses, with details provided by hadiths. Some modern interpretations argue that | The Quran refers to the ''jilbab'' (overgarment or cloak) and the ''khimar'' (piece of cloth that covers the head), and the term hijab came to be applied to both, though today is often applied only to a head covering. The word hijab occurs in {{Quran|33|53}} as a screen or barrier shielding the gaze of vistors from Muhammad's wives at his home. The Sunni and Shi'a schools of jurisprudence agree that a Muslim woman's head must be covered, and her body except for her hands and face in the presence of non-Mahrams, with some disagreement of detail such as whether believing slave women are similarly to be covered. Men are required to cover from the navel to the knees. This is based on their interpretation of certain Quran verses, with details provided by hadiths. Some modern interpretations argue that hijab was only for Muhammad's wives and not applicable to Muslim women today, though verses which mention the jilbab ({{Quran|33|59}}) and khimar ({{Quran|24|31}}) mention the believing women in general. | ||
Adherance is voluntary in western countries as there are no laws enforcing hijab (though community and family pressure, especially on adolescents living with their parents, often has a similar effect). However, in some Muslim majority countries (such as Iran) hijab in one form or another is legally enforced.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d2_1186358824|title=Iranian morals police arrest 230 in raid on 'satanist' rave|publisher=Live Leak|date=August 6, 2007 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120915/http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d2_1186358824 |archivedate=2012-09-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.weeklyblitz.net/568/women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil-in-bangladesh |title=Women detained for not wearing veil in Bangladesh |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120915/http://www.weeklyblitz.net/568/women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil-in-bangladesh |archivedate=2012-09-15 |accessdate=2012-09-15}} - Special Correspondent - Weekly Blitz, March 3, 2010</ref> In the late 2010s Saudi Arabia loosened some restrictions on the attire of women. | Adherance is voluntary in western countries as there are no laws enforcing hijab (though community and family pressure, especially on adolescents living with their parents, often has a similar effect). However, in some Muslim majority countries (such as Iran) hijab in one form or another is legally enforced.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d2_1186358824|title=Iranian morals police arrest 230 in raid on 'satanist' rave|publisher=Live Leak|date=August 6, 2007 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120915/http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d2_1186358824 |archivedate=2012-09-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.weeklyblitz.net/568/women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil-in-bangladesh |title=Women detained for not wearing veil in Bangladesh |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120915/http://www.weeklyblitz.net/568/women-detained-for-not-wearing-veil-in-bangladesh |archivedate=2012-09-15 |accessdate=2012-09-15}} - Special Correspondent - Weekly Blitz, March 3, 2010</ref> In the late 2010s Saudi Arabia loosened some restrictions on the attire of women. | ||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan between 1996 and late 2001, all forms of music and Television (i.e. moving pictures) were banned. TV sets, radios, etc were confiscated and burnt, and anyone caught with cassettes in their possession was jailed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rawa.org/music.htm |title=The censorship of music in Afghanistan |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120630/http://www.rawa.org/music.htm |archivedate=2012-06-30 |accessdate=2012-06-30}} - RAWA, April 24, 2001</ref> In early 2001, they destroyed the historic 1,400 year old giant (175 and 120 feet tall) Buddha Statues which were located in the Bamyan Valleys.<ref>[http://www.hazara.net/hazara/geography/Buddha/buddha.html A Profile On Bamyan Civilization] - Ishaq Mohammadi </ref> While their actions may be called 'extreme', they were only adhering to a somewhat accurate interpretation of Islamic law based on the Sunnah of their prophet. Just as Muhammad had done before them, when he conquered Mecca and destroyed the 360 pagan idols which were housed at the Ka'aba, the Taliban were only destroying Afghanistan's offensive (to Muslims) pre-Islamic 'pagan' heritage and art. If the Taliban's actions are denounced by apologists as 'un-Islamic', then they must also denounce Muhammad's. The truth of the matter is that their actions were very Islamic. | During the Taliban rule of Afghanistan between 1996 and late 2001, all forms of music and Television (i.e. moving pictures) were banned. TV sets, radios, etc were confiscated and burnt, and anyone caught with cassettes in their possession was jailed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rawa.org/music.htm |title=The censorship of music in Afghanistan |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120630/http://www.rawa.org/music.htm |archivedate=2012-06-30 |accessdate=2012-06-30}} - RAWA, April 24, 2001</ref> In early 2001, they destroyed the historic 1,400 year old giant (175 and 120 feet tall) Buddha Statues which were located in the Bamyan Valleys.<ref>[http://www.hazara.net/hazara/geography/Buddha/buddha.html A Profile On Bamyan Civilization] - Ishaq Mohammadi </ref> While their actions may be called 'extreme', they were only adhering to a somewhat accurate interpretation of Islamic law based on the Sunnah of their prophet. Just as Muhammad had done before them, when he conquered Mecca and destroyed the 360 pagan idols which were housed at the Ka'aba, the Taliban were only destroying Afghanistan's offensive (to Muslims) pre-Islamic 'pagan' heritage and art. If the Taliban's actions are denounced by apologists as 'un-Islamic', then they must also denounce Muhammad's. The truth of the matter is that their actions were very Islamic. | ||
=== | ===Permitting things that forbidden in most secular countries today=== | ||
Islamic law permits: | Islamic law permits: | ||