KARBALA: When Skies Wept Blood

[singho]

[double post]

[singho]

[double post]

[singho]

Wow. I come back to this thread only one day after suggesting that sikh has no form of judicial system or jurisprudence whatsoever, and what do I see? A lot of noise.

I shall simply ignore the pointless and rather idiotic unreferenced assertions made about 'Sharia law' as if it were one single entity (it isn't), the 'I heard this about Ayatollah so-and-so', the 'are you blaspheming?' and 'how dare you call yourself singho' childish posts, and make this as simple as possible:

It appears to me that sikh has NO system of civil laws of either the common law or codified type, and equally NO criminal justice system of code of criminal laws. Am I right to say so?

Let us suppose for a moment that the gurus intended to invent a religion that was supposed to repudiate any form of established sharia law in the tradition of the great faith of Islam, as suggested by some of the less educated (in law) on this forum. Would they not have established their own system of jurisprudence, and some form of judicial system and a system of laws IN RIVALRY to the Islamic-based sharia law that YOU say they intended to decry?

If you want to say that the gurus were opposed to sharia (which is a secular subject relating to 'temporal' authority and the dispensation of temporal justice), then why are you referring to the 'spiritual' works of the gurus, which (unsurprisingly, because they are spiritual works and make no pretensions about establishing any laws) SILENT on matters of law?

If sikh has temporal and spiritual authority, then where is this system of sikh law? Where can I refer to the sikh law on theft, for example? Can someone provide a reference to the sikh law on theft? What about the framework i.e. the system within which this law to be administered? Where are the sikh courts of justice and where is the courts procedure described?

Are we to believe that a gang of 5 people (we say people but mean 'men', right?) with total and ARBITRARY power is considered sufficient to take the place of a complete legal system the like of which any country in the world today will possess? Judicial systems exist as a protection against ARBITRARINESS. Where is the sikh protection against ARBITRARINESS?

The bottom line is you have none, zero, nothing, nada.

What's more, you actually have the temerity to sit here representing the sikh world on this little forum, and do nothing but make uninformed, unresearched, unacademic assertions on the subject of 'sharia law' (a non-existent single entity in your terms) - a subject which not one of you is qualified to discuss.

So if you're hiding a precious sikh book describing a legal system and code of laws, now's the time to bring it out otherwise 'case closed'.

The gurus never denied the authority of sharia - only you nonentities do.

[Xylitol]

.

[Xylitol]

[glow=red:4e38ed6922]This is the point you guys consistently ignore. It's been mentioned at least 3 times in this post, yet you keep ignoring it b/c you find yourselves unable to come up with an appropriate response.

[/glow:4e38ed6922]

------>"If you read the works of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and all other top scholars, it is crystal clear that Sharia developed in response to the needs of a community that found themselves (took) control of the land and needed a system of jurisprudence. It developed over centuries, helped by far-sighted leaders who founded universities for the subject. It is not a revealed system. Guidance is taken from the Holy Quran, but it is very much a man-made system based on the interpretation of fallible men that came about AFTER they took control of the land."

Honestly, how do you expect to convince people if you can't defend your basic assertion?

[Matheen]

"Singho" wrote: Let us suppose for a moment that the gurus intended to invent a religion that was supposed to repudiate any form of established sharia law in the tradition of the great faith of Islam, as suggested by some of the less educated (in law) on this forum. Would they not have established their own system of jurisprudence, and some form of judicial system and a system of laws IN RIVALRY to the Islamic-based sharia law that YOU say they intended to decry?

Would Mohammed not have done the same thing? HE DIDN'T. It has been proven that Sharia came about centuries later.

At least read the previous posts before digging a deeper grave for yourself.

You are indirectly blaspheming against the Prophet by holding him responsible for man-made law.

You claim not to be able to chack the facts about Sharia. If you don't have a clue then keep silent until you do.

Ayatollah Baqir Al Sadr and other eminently qualified scholars do not hide the facts about Sharia unlike you.

[singho]

Would Mohammed not have done the same thing? HE DIDN'T. It has been proven that Sharia came about centuries later.

At least read the previous posts before digging a deeper grave for yourself.

You are indirectly blaspheming against the Prophet by holding him responsible for man-made law.

I'm going to keep this simple enough for you to understand. You have no idea about the law.

Any law that is written down has to be interpreted in order to be applied. The laws of sharia are derived from the spirit and the letter of the laws that were set down by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The original law is from al-Quran and the ahadith, and interpretations are extrapolated from these original sources by people with knowledge.

You claim not to be able to chack the facts about Sharia. If you don't have a clue then keep silent until you do.

Where did I claim this?

I said you are the one with no means to check the law. You don't even know what law is (i.e. where it comes from, and the need for any law manmade or otherwise to be interpreted in its application).

Ayatollah Baqir Al Sadr and other eminently qualified scholars do not hide the facts about Sharia unlike you.

I am hiding nothing.

[Matheen]

Any law that is written down has to be interpreted in order to be applied. The laws of sharia are derived from the spirit and the letter of the laws that were set down by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The original law is from al-Quran and the ahadith, and interpretations are extrapolated from these original sources by people with knowledge.

Quote me original law from the Holy Quran. Are you saying the hadiths came about during the Prohet's time.

Do you know the sources of Shia law?

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Can you respond to Xylitol's post above with fact, not opinion?

[singho]

[glow=red:9ea7f96966]This is the point you guys consistently ignore. It's been mentioned at least 3 times in this post, yet you keep ignoring it b/c you find yourselves unable to come up with an appropriate response.

[/glow:9ea7f96966]

------>"If you read the works of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and all other top scholars, it is crystal clear that Sharia developed in response to the needs of a community that found themselves (took) control of the land and needed a system of jurisprudence. It developed over centuries, helped by far-sighted leaders who founded universities for the subject. It is not a revealed system. Guidance is taken from the Holy Quran, but it is very much a man-made system based on the interpretation of fallible men that came about AFTER they took control of the land."

Honestly, how do you expect to convince people if you can't defend your basic assertion?

Kindly indicate what I'm supposed to defend here. Al-Qu'ran is not manmade, and according to the passage you have quoted it is not manmade. It is always the supreme authority in Islamic jurisprudence. It is unquestionable that the knowledgable persons charged with interpreting this codex would have built up a system of precedents over time, but essentially the core of all sharia systems is the divine law as revealed in the Holy Qu'ran.

Are you alleging that I implied that lawyers have some kind of divine status? If a scholar decides to interpret the Holy Qu'ran to determine how internet fraud should be dealt with, that doesn't mean he's inventing a manmade law from his own conception. He is using the faculties of an ordinary man to interpret divine law and apply it to a situation.

Now kindly address my questions about sikh law, because I am keen to know the answers. Thanks a lot.

[singho]

Quote me original law from the Holy Quran.

Why? Don't waste my time and the bandwidth of this forum with such pointless requests. The forum is slow enough as it is and hardly works because of all the posting and editing on this thread.

Are you saying the hadiths came about during the Prohet's time.

See above.

Do you know the sources of Shia law?

Yes.

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Can you respond to Xylitol's post above with fact, not opinion?

1) I'm quaking in my boots LOL

2) If you hadn't been wasting my time by posting your pointless message you would have been able to see that I had responded to Xylitol's post a couple of minutes after he posted it.

3) If you persist with such time- and bandwidth-wasting irrelevent questions (e.g. do I know what date it is) I will simply ignore all your posts in the future and keep referring to this one, so you will need to create a new account to ask me anything. Capiche?

[Matheen]

but essentially the core of all sharia systems is the divine law as revealed in the Holy Qu'ran.

Then why the difference amongst different schools?

It is unquestionable that the knowledgable persons charged with interpreting this codex would have built up a system of precedents over time,...

Yes, and they come out with statements like "a man can have sex with animals" or "a man can have sexual relations with a child as young as a baby"

The point is that Sharia was not formed for centuries after the Prophet's passing. FOR CENTURIES THERE WAS NO SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE IN SHIA ISLAM.

I challange you to prove otherwise.

The points in your last posts to defend the time lapse in formation of Sharia can, ironically, be used with regards to Sikhi!

[tonyhp32]

SHAHJI,

So because you cannot show why a 'divine' law would impose a greater punishment on someone who steals a loaf of bread than someone who steals £100 million it shows I know nothing of Islamic jurisprudence!

These and a myriad of other situations show that Sharia law is just like other forms of law, subject to change and imperfect if it does not. Whereas other forms of law have changed, Sharia law cannot because apparently it is 'divine'!

Rather than being an asset to Islam, Sharia law is open to ridicule by all who are not chained by their religious convictions into accepted such a grotesque set of laws. Unfortunately for you and Singho, the 'divinity' of Sharia law comes as a package and cannot be divorced from Islam. Islam has enough problems with its beliefs without having a primitive set of law to further burden it.

Nice to see you have taken your arrogant scholarship into Islam as well. Just as you thought you knew more about Sikhi than those who were born into the religion, you now show the same arrogance towards Muslim peasants that you did towards Sikhs.

No Sikh scholar as far I know has ever claimed that Sikhi has a system of laws similar to the Sharia. The Gurus did not leave us with laws which due to the evolving nature of jurisprudence would have been outdated after a few decades.

As a scholar I am sure you are aware that any system which seeks to legislate for every minute activity in a person life is bound in the end to end up being open to ridicule and the followers of that religion will end up as drones. Is that not what has occurred in Islam? Go to any 'ask the Imam' type site and you will get ridiculous questions from people who have lost the ability to think for themselves and rationalise.

Some typical questions-;

Respected Moulana, could you please give me an answer on the question & answer that this brother raised: "1. A person may urinate standing up if necessary, as long as no one can see his 'awrah (private parts which should remain covered) and there is no danger of the urine coming back on him. 2. It is better to urinate sitting down, because this is how the Prophet(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did it in most cases." Although we are very aware of the seriousness of standing and urinating , is this person justified according to the Sharia to state that a person may stand and urinate?

Like they say, ask a stupid question and get a stupid reply.

Standing and urinating is prohibited as it is also the custom of the Kuffaar. However, if one is unable to sit and relieve himself, for example, broken and plastered leg, then he will be excused for standing and urinating.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Assalamualaikum.Unknowing of gunaa, my husband has drank my milk a few times out of lust , when i was breastfeeding my baby 5 yrs back. What should we do now?

I am 22 years old and my husband is 31 years . We are married for 7 years and we were cousins before marriage.

I

s it stealing to get tv service & not pay?

My friend can connect me to get sattelite & cable tv without subcribimg. Is this stealing? He says tv is haraam anyway.

A person who said he is a "Salafi" told me that eating lizard is permisable is it true?

This answer is a classic!

There is difference of opinion among the Ulama regarding the Iguana.

According to the Hanafi Madhab, it is not permissible. However, it is permissible according to the Shaafi’ee Madhab. Eating a lizard is Haraam.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Singho,

Nice to see you are back. I thought you might have taken your ayotollah's advice to heart and taken a trip to the farm

You claim that Sharia law has divine sanction from Quran and Hadiths. But SHAHJI has just stated that some hadiths which Sunnis believe to be reliable are in his view weak. So there it falls, your so-called divine law. There is no consensus amongst your 4 schools of jurisprudence or the Shia school. How can something that was to have been a guidance have different interpretations. If a theft is committed in Saudi, the right hand is amputated but if the same theft is committed in Iran then only four fingers are amputated! How do you explain this difference? No doubt in an evolving system of law, the same crime can attract different punishments, but here we are talking about 'DIVINE' law.

[shaheediyan]

Singho says:

"He is using the faculties of an ordinary man to interpret divine law and apply it to a situation."

Limited by an ordinary mans interpretation. Then how does it remain divine? Ordinary man, no matter how educated, is susceptible to bias, personal experience, sociological and political influence, culture etc etc.

Any religion with dreams of creating a Kingdom (or world dominance) will obviously develop a legal system. If it is a Kingdom being created in the name of a religion, then obviously they will seek to create the legal system based on religion. That is inevitable and would be considered by many as unilineal evolution.

This thread isn't going anywhere.

Yes, the Semetic Kingdoms developed a law system as did the Indic Kingdoms based on their respective religious texts, religious histories and understanding/interpretation of them to cover as many aspects of life as possible.

Sikhi does not have a legal system, because it has no need for it. The majority of Sikhs, as the largest single majority of Muslims, and majority of Hindues, follow the Indian legal system.

And those that live outside of India, follow the legal system of country they inhabit. Muslims living outside of Muslim countries have to follow the law of that land. So why would these Muslims, like yourselves, choose to live in a country, where DIVINE justice cannot be sought?

Money, freedom, equality, opportunity, safety, family, luxury....?

Are all these things not available in great countries like Iran?

If so, then why choose to risk living in a country, where the 2 hypothetical questions I have posed, you consistently ignored, may become a reality and you would not be able to see divine justice?

[golestan]

Be nam-e Khoda

Tonyhp32 wrote:

SHAHJI,

So because you cannot show why a 'divine' law would impose a greater punishment on someone who steals a loaf of bread than someone who steals £100 million it shows I know nothing of Islamic jurisprudence!

These and a myriad of other situations show that Sharia law is just like other forms of law, subject to change and imperfect if it does not. Whereas other forms of law have changed, Sharia law cannot because apparently it is 'divine'!

Rather than being an asset to Islam, Sharia law is open to ridicule by all who are not chained by their religious convictions into accepted such a grotesque set of laws. Unfortunately for you and Singho, the 'divinity' of Sharia law comes as a package and cannot be divorced from Islam. Islam has enough problems with its beliefs without having a primitive set of law to further burden it.

Nice to see you have taken your arrogant scholarship into Islam as well. Just as you thought you knew more about Sikhi than those who were born into the religion, you now show the same arrogance towards Muslim peasants that you did towards Sikhs.

No Sikh scholar as far I know has ever claimed that Sikhi has a system of laws similar to the Sharia. The Gurus did not leave us with laws which due to the evolving nature of jurisprudence would have been outdated after a few decades.

As a scholar I am sure you are aware that any system which seeks to legislate for every minute activity in a person life is bound in the end to end up being open to ridicule and the followers of that religion will end up as drones. Is that not what has occurred in Islam? Go to any 'ask the Imam' type site and you will get ridiculous questions from people who have lost the ability to think for themselves and rationalise.

Your point about the loaf of bread is a pure lie.

Let us suppose Singho stole the loaf of bread out of sheer fun even so he would receive a mild sentence compared to Shahji who stole 100 million. The hacking away of the fingers is only given to those guilty of theft under the following conditions:

- being a mature adult of sane mind

- steeling out of greed NOT out of necessity

- steeling something of considerable value

Steeling a loaf of bread would not lead to someone's fingers being chopped off.

You first tried to make a whole fuss about the presence of witnesses: you were proven wrong

You then tried to prove that steeling a loaf of bread would bring about a greater punishment than steeling 100 million: again you were proven wrong.

If people really can rely on their own minds only there would be no need for divine messengers. Your argument is hence void.When you make a claim of miri-piri and Khalistan it implies that there is a political and judiciary system that has to be implemented. Yes you tell me it is absent. You go further and claim that people can make up their on laws based on their own reason, isn't this precisely what you would call manmat instead of following gurmat? If the Gurus were spiritual AND temporal leaders there needs to be a political system established by them only not some fallible sinners who can err. Yet you don't seem to have such a system.

How do you explain this difference?

How do you explain the existence of:

Nirankarais

Radhasoamis

AKJ

DDT

Nihangs

Udasis

Nirmalas

Sacha Sauda

Ram Rais

Gulabdasis

Namdharis

etc etc etc

each one of them with a different vision of Sikhism.

The multiplicity of schools of law does NOT take away the validity of divine law. The founders of the four schools were students of Imam Jafar (as) and this is a fact. On many occasions he has reproached them the fact that they modified his teachings.

The Prophet (pbuh) has been very clear before his departure when he said: I leave you the Quran and my Ahul Bayt, my Ahlul Bayt , my Ahl ul Bayt!

This hadith is in both Shi'a and Sunni books who both also confirm that the Ahl ul Bayt (as) are the sons of Ali (as) and Fatimah (as). If the Sunni schools refuse to acknowledge the authentic sources of jurisprudence i.e. Quran and Ahlul Bayt (as), it does not take away the validity of shari'a. The very fact that Imam Ja'far (as) taught fiqh destroys Matheen's argument that shari'a is a latter invention.Shari'a is the law and fiqh the discipline of law as subject. It is fiqh that has known changes over time due to historical and social changes.

kind regards

Bahadur Ali Shah

[singho]

And those that live outside of India, follow the legal system of country they inhabit. Muslims living outside of Muslim countries have to follow the law of that land. So why would these Muslims, like yourselves, choose to live in a country, where DIVINE justice cannot be sought?

Money, freedom, equality, opportunity, safety, family, luxury....?

Are all these things not available in great countries like Iran?

If so, then why choose to risk living in a country, where the 2 hypothetical questions I have posed, you consistently ignored, may become a reality and you would not be able to see divine justice?

The fact that a person happens to live under a particular regime does not imply approval of all of his government's policies, and it never did. You seem to be advocating a sort of British totalitarianism of the mind, or to put it more succintly, a fascist system in Britain under which if you don't agree with the ruling class then you have to self-exile or be exiled. I'm sure it would suit most of you guys, as the traditional turbanned stooges of the British and heavily dependent on National Lottery and government grants. But it doesn't work for me.

[ishvar2]

Singho - With all due respect I think you missed the point of Shaheediyan's post. He's not advocating self exile he's just raising a very important point which incidentally affects both Muslims of all persuasions (and Sikhs to a lesser extent in a different way due to the lack of laws and jurisprudence) which is that conflict in secular law and religious expression.

I don't know if you know but there are Muslims who want Sharia law in the UK for Muslims only. From what I know, there is an wide opposition to it from non-Muslims rightly or wrongly.

I think this is the spirit in which Shaheediyan asked this questions - if it came down to living in a country that has the majority of laws you want to live under and one that does n't (though you could politically and legitimately fight for them) and given that the laws are an inherant part of your belief then surely one would live in the former and not the latter.

I personally feel it is the right of people to have a framework to challenge existing laws of the country they find themselves in etc. I have no idea how this works in Sharia in its various schools.

In reality, of course people live where they are born and one hopes that when they are mature enough they'll have to make this choice themselves.

I don't think anyone wants a fascist state anywhere in the world.

The jibe against the turbanned stooges is unwarrented and doesn't further the discussion not that it was going anywhere.

My take: Sikhi doesn't not have any laws or jurisprudence. Perhaps in your view we are missing something. I pray that we can respect this difference as in the end only God knows.

[ishvar2]

super repost!!

[ishvar2]

repost!

[ishvar2]

repost!

[Kam1825]

Singho i think if you want to bring up that sikhs use money from the natonal lottery then you can check the records if you still work for a law enorcement.

Last year money from the national lottery was paid for a march through many northern cities celebrating the birth of the prophet.

National lottery money was used by the shias in another parade to remember Imam Hussain.

The Naziris and ismailis used national lottery funds for schools and mosques in the midlands.

I do not need to say more i am sure you can check for yourself

[golestan]

Kam1825 wrote:

Singho i think if you want to bring up that sikhs use money from the natonal lottery then you can check the records if you still work for a law enorcement.

Last year money from the national lottery was paid for a march through many northern cities celebrating the birth of the prophet.

National lottery money was used by the shias in another parade to remember Imam Hussain.

The Naziris and ismailis used national lottery funds for schools and mosques in the midlands.

I do not need to say more i am sure you can check for yourself

Let me get it right. You argument is:

Panjabi, Khoja and Sunni goons use haram money so we can do it too?

Makes sense of course.

[Maha Kharag Singh]

it kills me to say this but kudos to bahadur for having the balls to come out the closet and openly accept islam to the extent of changing his name and going through various different accounts like new pais of salwara, unlike some people who hide behind usernames which mean nothing to them.

[golestan]

Maha Kharag Singh wrote:

it kills me to say this but kudos to bahadur for having the balls to come out the closet and openly accept islam to the extent of changing his name and going through various different accounts like new pais of salwara, unlike some people who hide behind usernames which mean nothing to them.

Angels are holding their breath in awe, the waves about to spread on the shores stand still, the leaves floating in the wind are suspended in their journey, the Ganga itself is motionless, nay the whole universe interrupts its cosmic dance , all say in one voice:

Awwwwwww that's so sweet of you Maha Kharag Singh!!!

[Maha Kharag Singh]

ok that wasnt a cue for you to act like a woman bahadur, man up or change ur name!

[golestan]

Maha Kharag Singh wrote:

ok that wasnt a cue for you to act like a woman bahadur, man up or change ur name!

Very impressive...