Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.—Kahlil Gibran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 I have learned to use quotes to sound more eloquent than I really am -Matheen http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770 Ouch!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 In defence of Xylitol's comments about France: Couldn't you reply without calling him a liar? It was all over the UK press after Bishop Nazir-Ali (rather foolishly) warned about the possibilty of a simialr scenario in London. "How bad has it gotten in France? Daniel Pipes answers: They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations. What are they? Those places in France and French territories that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them. Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule. (November 14, 2006)" These zones have been listed by the French authorities at this website:http://i.ville.gouv.fr/divbib/doc/chercherZUS.htm (Note that I don't consider Islam to be a factor in the Paris riots, economic deprivation was more to blame. see here: http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Cesari/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Daniel Pipes an authority on French suburbs? Yeah right! Name me ONE French academic ONE who calls the suburbs Dar al Islam! Name me ONE French Muslim organisation that calls the suburbs Dar al Islam! And please don't reply with some quote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singho Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770 A despicable act. Sickening and typical. It's not the first case of so-called 'honour killing' among people who have no honour, and it won't be the last given the pathetic and inappropriate leniency of the punishment. The English secular criminal justice system obviously isn't working because of the proliferation of such 'honour killings' in the Sikh community. Islamic justice would, I am sure, punish the guilty more appropriately, and send the right signal to the community that keeps believing itself free to commit such crimes. The question is, what is the Sikh method of dealing with the crime of kurimaar? What is the traditional punishment, under Sikh law? Does such a Sikh law even exist??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kam1825 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Singho give your thoughts to some of these as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/honou...ofhonor_2.shtml http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...norkilling.html http://www.amews.org/review/reviewarticles/mojabfinal.htm http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-dasgupta210204.htm http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/ex...iew.cgi/12/7014 http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,...1436398,00.html http://noiri.blogspot.com/2007/05/islamic-...to-america.html also sickening and typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Horrible crime indeed and one that leaves me wondering. Honour crimes are punishable in most Western and Islamic states by either heavy prison or death sentences. But what about Sikh law? The rahitname only consider it a matter of excommunication and would this crime have happened in a Sikh state they would have gotten away with it because Sikhism has no rulings on such matters... Western and Islamic law punish honour crimes but what about Sikh law? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x362p9_si...r-killings_blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Use the seacrh function - this has been discussed and settled before, while you were 'away'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 There is no judiciary nor any jurisprudence in Sikhism to deal with such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 As you currently live in Europe and hence are not following Sharia, does that mean you aren't following Islam to the letter? Ayatollah Khomeini came out with a few interesting Fatawah in his time...... If you want to go on about despicable 'honour' killings, let's compare what Gurbani says about women and what the Quran says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 its a lovely video. i like the style and settings in the video. i hope to see some sikhs make a similiar video of the incident at chamkaur in the near future.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Will wonders never cease? Since when did you become a Shariati Muslim? Weren't you the one who used to say that you followed the Spiritual side and Sharia was for the mundane? Anyway, there's nothing more amusing than someone feigning fake outrage. So sharia solves all these problems of honour killings does it? But doesn't Sharia law contain an element of honour killing but BY THE STATE and not by the wronged husband? If someone is committing adultery then they can be stoned to death, so how does this do away with honour killing? I'm not sure what your sense of outrage is all about, is it that you want the state to punish the adulterer rather than the husband? In some Arab countries such as Jordan, honour killing is not against the law. As far as I am aware, if either Singho or SHAHJI walk in on their respective wives in flagrante delicto with a man then they need to provide 4 witnesses to the sex act having taken place. So unless the two guilty parties are willing to testify against themselves then our friends will be forced to start knocking at their neighbours doors asking them to see the crime taking place! In this age of instant communications they could always turn on the webcam and get a lot of witnesses instantly as there are so many momins trawling the net for such scenes! As for Sikh jurisprudence, Sikhs are covered by the law of the state in which they live. As for an Amritdhari having committed adultery then he has committed a Bujjar Kurehat which entails a tankah (punishment) and either excommunication or readmission into the Khalsa after the tankah has been completed. We are not savages that we kill people for adultery or that our religious authorities stone offenders to death! We leave that to less civilised peoples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 how can we argue against sharia and call it uncivilised and at the same time say we follow the jurisprudence of the country we live in.. if we were to live in a khalifah, then we would have to follow the law of the country, the sharia, so we can't really talk against it can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 tonyhp, are you a Sikh? No offence meant, just asking out of interest. All this was discussed before. The highest authority on judicial matters for Sikhs are the 5 Pyare and Akal Takhat. As demonstrated during Maharaj Ranjit Singh's rule. Sharia tells Muslims to tax non-Muslims. Sikhs never paid that tax and never will. Raj Karega Khalsa - it is better to die than live in ghulami. I don't want to go more into Sharia and Fatawah because not everyone here's over 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine...mp;ref=magazine NYT article on sharia. Javanmard, how accurate would you say this article is? And btw, just b/c I criticised some practices which a sizable minority of Muslims around the world engage in does not make me a racist. All communities have extremists. My main contention is that moderate Muslims do not step up and vigourously oppose this kind of extremism, as expressed in my previous post. Instead, it seems that many attempt to cover it up, sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 19, 2008 Report Share Posted March 19, 2008 Xylitol, thanks for clarifying. All communities have their black sheep indeed. But please do try to get better informed and double check your information. Tonyhp32, adultery is a crime in all religions and the overwhelming majority of civilizations have treated it as such. If you are ok about adultery being unpunished that's up to you: God disapproves of it! If you are of those that encourage sin don't claim to believe in law! Adultery in Sikhism get punished by a bare excommunication for the sinner. What about the people whose trust he/she has broken?What about the value of being faithful in marriage? What about the bad example given to the rest of society? What about the treason to the partner? Any religious system worth its name delivers justice. Dura lex sed lex. Your religious system says that an adulterer has to take tankah before being accepted in the community again. It ranges from cleaning shoes to whatever else may go though the panj pyare's mind (what about the rule of law tonyhp32, ever heard of that concept?). This tankah does NOT bring justice to victims: it rehabilitates the sinner. He may get away with cleaning shoes for a month or washing dishes. Where is the justice? Regarding narimar (killing a woman) and kurimar (female infanticide) it's the same. A man or a woman may kill their daughter in law or kill their baby daughter and get away with a tankah. This means that in a Sikh state the Atwals would have gotten away with washing dishes, maybe two slaps. Is this justice? You say that "as for Sikh jurisprudence, Sikhs are covered by the law of the state in which they live.". This is a makeshift solution for a religious system without a divine law. When there is no law there is no justice. And where there is no justice there is no truth. You claim to "raj karega khalsa" . A raj implies divine law. Without the rule of law there is no justice because citizens depend on the will of others unchecked by law. Where is your law? The authority of a divine panchayat? That's not the rule of law, that's dictatureship because people would live under the whimsical decisions of five individuals without any legal framework. That is not what characterizes a divinely revealed religion. Man made laws cannot be a makeshift religion for a religious system that claims to be based on miri and piri. The only reason Sikh haven't paid jiziah is because of the generosity of emperors like Akbar AND because during the reign of those emperors Rajputs and other non-Muslim communties served in the army. The usul of jiziah is a tax for non-participating in the army. Matheen you talk about not living in ghulami (whatever that means). Isn't relying on man made foreign laws a form of ghulami to a non-divine authority. What happened to "the Khalsa belongs to God only"? ps. Jordan and Syria give immunity to those who commit honour killings. So what? It's still unacceptable in Islam No law no justice. No justice no truth. No truth no religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Bahadur, let's say, hypothetically, you're living in Europe and someone does something wrong to you. Will you go to the police or to the local Imam? Be honest. What does Shariah say about racism, internet fraud, pornography, car accidents, copyright etc? It may have been suitable when Mohammed formulated it but it certainly isn't applicable today. A 'divine law' would surely have foreseen every type of crime possible until the end of the world. What's the difference between a Tankah and any other punishment? In fact, as you say, it is superior because it rehabilitates the criminal. (A Tankah can be quite severe - including lashes and imprisonment). How exactly does Shariah provide justice to the victim? Can it unrape or bring back to life? Shariah,or any law applied by one person is subject to the interpretation of that person and his bias. It's the reason we have juries and panels of judges. Look at Saudi Kadhis and some of the ridiculous verdicts they come out with. Divine law? possibly not. Maharaj Ji gave authority to 5 true Sikhs - " Khalsa Mera Roop Hai Khas" - I would say that 5 Singhs, well versed in Gurbani would be far fairer than any other system. You're right about one thing - 'No Truth, no religion'. Why exactly do YOU follow religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Bahadur, let's say, hypothetically, you're living in Europe and someone does something wrong to you. Will you go to the police or to the local Imam? Be honest. Shari'a says that for non-religious matters and as long as human law coincides with divine law I can go to the local police. It is allowed in shari'a for those Muslims living in a non-Muslim state What does Shariah say about racism, internet fraud, pornography, car accidents, copyright etc? It may have been suitable when Mohammed formulated it but it certainly isn't applicable today. A 'divine law' would surely have foreseen every type of crime possible until the end of the world. Divine law implies free will on part of humans. What you are implying is extreme pre-destination which we don't believe in in the school of Ahl e Mohammad (as). For all the cases you have mentioned there are rulings based on usul e fiqh What's the difference between a Tankah and any other punishment? In fact, as you say, it is superior because it rehabilitates the criminal. (A Tankah can be quite severe - including lashes and imprisonment). How exactly does Shariah provide justice to the victim? Can it unrape or bring back to life? Justice does not mean undoing the past. It implies inflicting a punishment equivalent to the pain endured by the victim as well as ridding society of evils. Shariah,or any law applied by one person is subject to the interpretation of that person and his bias. It's the reason we have juries and panels of judges. Look at Saudi Kadhis and some of the ridiculous verdicts they come out with. Wahabis are Nasibis, we don't accept their rulings as they are based on false premises. Ijtihad is not unlimited and most issues have already been covered by fiqh. Maharaj Ji gave authority to 5 true Sikhs - " Khalsa Mera Roop Hai Khas" - I would say that 5 Singhs, well versed in Gurbani would be far fairer than any other system. How is that different from a Wahabi qazi? or from a Mongol invader? There is no text of law a citizen can refer to. Where is your text of law that a citizen can refer to in a Sikh state? Where is the rule of law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xylitol Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 you claim sharia is divine law, however much of sharia was formulated as new issues arose after the passing of the Prophet. This is the way with all legal systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singho Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Bahadur, let's say, hypothetically, you're living in Europe and someone does something wrong to you. Will you go to the police or to the local Imam? Be honest. 1) There are many types of 'wrong'. If it's a matter of tortious liability you wouldn't go to the police. 2) The police have nothing to do with 'justice' or the 'judiciary' or the 'judicial system'. They are an arm of the executive. 3) The police are under NO legal obligation to help, say, a victim of a violent crime, in European countries such as the United Kingdom. 4) What do you mean by 'the local imam'? Which type of islam and system of shariah are you referring to here? It's important. What does Shariah say about racism, internet fraud, pornography, car accidents, copyright etc? What does, say, English law say about racism? It is an aggravating factor compounding the seriousness of another offence. It's not an offence in itself. What does, say, English law say about internet fraud? Fraud is a type of theft covered by the Theft Act 1968. Don't you think every school of Islamic jurisprudence covers this type of theft? What does English law say about pornography? It is silent on the subject, meaning that there's no law dealing with it. Did you mean OBSCENITY? English common law (case law) struggled with this concept quite recently. Islamic law of every type would cover this. What does English law say about car accidents? Quite a lot. But so what? Are you saying that under the implementation of any flavour of sharia law, the Caliph would be disallowed from enacting rules governing the conduct of persons who make use of his highways? Somehow I doubt that. What does English law say about copyright? That it is automatically invested in the originator, and is transferable. It's not a difficult concept, and I fail to see how you could say that any system of sharia law would fail to protect intellectual property rights. More to the point, you should ask a qualified ulema about what sharia says about a subject before drawing conclusions. It may have been suitable when Mohammed formulated it but it certainly isn't applicable today. In YOUR opinion. A 'divine law' would surely have foreseen every type of crime possible until the end of the world. Yes, and so it does. What's the difference between a Tankah and any other punishment? 1) It applies only to members of your club, and if a person (say, someone who murdered his daughter) refuses to submit then you expel him. Expulsion is no punishment at all. 2) It is unjust because it is not based on a judicial system. This makes it inconsistent and inherently unfair. One gang of 5 hard-cases might decide to whip a man 100 times for adultery, and another might give a murderer just 5 lashes. 3) The members of the 5 'beloved' may or may not have a sense of justice, or be trained in law or morality or ethics, and may not even be mentally sound and capable. There is no criteria for assessing your 'judge dreads'. In fact, as you say, it is superior because it rehabilitates the criminal. (A Tankah can be quite severe - including lashes and imprisonment). How exactly does Shariah provide justice to the victim? Can it unrape or bring back to life? You need to consult a qualified sharia lawyer about what the sharia law in any particular system is, but at least sharia in all its forms offers the possibility of recompense in the case of murder to the victim's family should they accept it, out of the criminal's pocket. What other system of law gives you that? Maharaj Ji gave authority to 5 true Sikhs - " Khalsa Mera Roop Hai Khas" - I would say that 5 Singhs, well versed in Gurbani would be far fairer than any other system. No that's completely risible and absurd. Gurbani contains no advice whatsoever on criminal or civil justice, and '5 true Sikhs' is no qualification at all. Rather a disqualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 5 dudes and some ideas is not a judiciary system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matheen Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 1) There are many types of 'wrong'. If it's a matter of tortious liability you wouldn't go to the police. 2) The police have nothing to do with 'justice' or the 'judiciary' or the 'judicial system'. They are an arm of the executive. 3) The police are under NO legal obligation to help, say, a victim of a violent crime, in European countries such as the United Kingdom. 4) What do you mean by 'the local imam'? Which type of islam and system of shariah are you referring to here? It's important. Bahadur knows what I'm on about..... What does, say, English law say.. Who's talking about English law? You don't seem to know about the Tankah system and how it has been used during Guru Ji's time and the Sikh Raj. No that's completely risible and absurd. Gurbani contains no advice whatsoever on criminal or civil justice, and '5 true Sikhs' is no qualification at all. Rather a disqualification. How much Gurbani do you know? Please get your facts right. What are the sources of Sharia law and when did they come about? Please tell us....... While you're at it, list all the Fatawah issued by Ayatollah Khomeini as an example of divine law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golestan Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Bahadur knows what I'm on about..... Sorry I don't ... Who's talking about English law? You don't seem to know about the Tankah system and how it has been used during Guru Ji's time and the Sikh Raj. It's actually well documented. Akali Phula Singh ordered Ranjit Singh to present himself in front of the Akal Takht for having slept with a Muslim prostitite. When Ranjit Singh arrived he didn't apply the sentence which had been said to be lashes. Again proof that there is no judiciary While you're at it, list all the Fatawah issued by Ayatollah Khomeini as an example of divine law. Have you studied fiqh? fatawa are decisions taken by a faqih on the basis of usul e fiqh i.e. divine law. That's how any judiciary system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singho Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Bahadur knows what I'm on about..... This is a public discussion forum where people make statements. I am not interested in personalities but the issues. You tried to pose a hypothetical question, and I highlighted why it was false. Who's talking about English law? You are the one saying that sharia law doesn't deal with X,Y,Z, while secular law does.. I'm trying to help you understand that there is not one system of sharia law, and that you have no idea about the scope of secular laws. You quoted legal issues such as 'racism' and 'pornography' with all the legal awareness of a reader of The Sun. Your statements, which you held to be justification for your criticisms, were so non-specific and off-base that you revealed a conspicuous deficit of awareness about the society you yourself live in. You don't seem to know about the Tankah system and how it has been used during Guru Ji's time and the Sikh Raj. On what basis do you make this claim? How much Gurbani do you know? Please get your facts right. I know enough of Gurbani to be aware of the extent of what passes for the corpus of something that's supposed to be a coherent Sikh liturgy but which has been shown many times on this forum to be not much more than a collection of hearsay. None of this, shall we say, 'archive', contains anything remotely resembling a judicial system. What are the sources of Sharia law and when did they come about? Please tell us....... Again, I claim knowledge of the law of England and Wales but am not an ulema. If you want me to indulge your semi-literate Wikipedia-like fantasies by presenting a summary here on this forum, on no proper authority and with no way to check the facts, for your benefit then I will have to disappoint you. While you're at it, list all the Fatawah issued by Ayatollah Khomeini as an example of divine law. Here we go again, see? You have given yourself your little promotion as enemy of Islam a little too soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts