Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Islamic courts
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223872802

Message started by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm

Title: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm
Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 3:04pm
It wouldn't surprise me.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:09pm

Yes.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:14pm
In today's World, what is the rationale for that?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:16pm

Probably the same rationale it was 1400 years ago. A non-believer isn't even honest to himself, by denying his maker, and therefore can't be trusted to render reliable reports.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm
Oh man, I've read some irrelevant stuff in my time, but that almost takes the cake. Points for humour though! Imagine if the reverse was the case, oh the UPROAR!!!

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:20pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

No jurisdiction here............yet. But that will change if the muslims get their way, so be vigilant.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Gaybriel on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:22pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
Oh man, I've read some irrelevant stuff in my time, but that almost takes the cake. Points for humour though! Imagine if the reverse was the case, oh the UPROAR!!!


irrelevant perhaps in a secularist society and therefore regular court

but in Islamic courts it remains relevant- as it all centres around the belief in god & islam

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:23pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

No jurisdiction here............yet. But that will change if the muslims get their way, so be vigilant.


Yes, I know that.  

Does the expression "Islamic Court" refer only to some sort of Tribunal determining matters about Islam, or does it mean the Civil/Criminal Courts in every Islamic country?>

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Gaybriel on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:24pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

No jurisdiction here............yet. But that will change if the muslims get their way, so be vigilant.


well they have jurisdiction in countries that are run by shariah law. but from my understand there is no country that practices shariah law correctly.

I also believe many muslims reject shariah law because they believe it has been corrupted by man- that it is man's interpretation of god's word, instead of god's word itself.


Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Gaybriel on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:24pm

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:23pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

No jurisdiction here............yet. But that will change if the muslims get their way, so be vigilant.


Yes, I know that.  

Does the expression "Islamic Court" refer only to some sort of Tribunal determining matters about Islam, or does it mean the Civil/Criminal Courts in every Islamic country?>


civil/criminal courts

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:25pm
Abu?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:27pm

In an  Islamic Caliphate it's simply called a "Court", not an Islamic court. But of course it rules by the Islamic Shari'ah. Christians and Jews are permitted to have their own civil courts, but not criminal courts.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:43pm
Abu, just tell me in non Islamic terms.......are the Criminal/Civil Courts in for example, Qatar (being an Islamic Country) 'Islamic Courts' bound by this rule of preference in credibility to a Muslim over a non Muslim?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:47pm

Gaybriel wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:19pm:
What are 'Islamic Courts?'  What is their jurisdiction?

No jurisdiction here............yet. But that will change if the muslims get their way, so be vigilant.


well they have jurisdiction in countries that are run by shariah law. but from my understand there is no country that practices shariah law correctly.

I also believe many muslims reject shariah law because they believe it has been corrupted by man- that it is man's interpretation of god's word, instead of god's word itself.


Wouldn't that just mean they reject parts of Shariah law, or the conservative brand of it which is popular today? Otherwise they would reject their whole religion. But they would still want the law to be dictated by religious interpretation rather than democracy or some secular method, right? Does it just mean they are 'Koran only' Muslims?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:56pm


Quote:
Abu, just tell me in non Islamic terms.......are the Criminal/Civil Courts in for example, Qatar (being an Islamic Country) 'Islamic Courts'


Qatar is not an Islamic state. So that's not a good example. It's not all that difficult to comprehend though. The courts are run by Shari'ah (Islamic) law, Christians and Jews can have civil courts.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:59pm


Quote:
But they would still want the law to be dictated by religious interpretation rather than democracy or some secular method, right? Does it just mean they are 'Koran only' Muslims?


There are of course some Muslims, who don't believe in Shari'ah, however their definition as Muslims is quite doubtful, as they'd clearly be denying things that are obviously part of Islam. However, they aren't 'many' as Gaybriel has stated. Perhaps they're just over-represented in the West, and even then they're a tiny minority.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:05pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:56pm:

Quote:
Abu, just tell me in non Islamic terms.......are the Criminal/Civil Courts in for example, Qatar (being an Islamic Country) 'Islamic Courts'


Qatar is not an Islamic state. So that's not a good example. It's not all that difficult to comprehend though. The courts are run by Shari'ah (Islamic) law, Christians and Jews can have civil courts.


Aaaaagah, bugger me dead, Indonesia then.  There is no need to mention Christians and Jews.

In an Indonesian Court, one like that which tried Corby, is there a basic premise that the word of a Muslim will have same added weight per se, over a non Muslim?

Give a straight answer fer buggers sake.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:06pm

Quote:
There are of course some Muslims, who don't believe in Shari'ah


Does Shariah mean based in Hadith, or can it be derived from the Koran only?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:12pm

There are 4 sources of Shari'ah: Qur'an, Hadith, Ijma' (Consensus) and Qiyas (analogical deduction)

The so called "Qur'an-only movements" are extremely small in number, and have very little following in the Western world, and pretty much negligable following in the Muslim world. Most have been started by Christian converts, probably trying to corrupt Islam, the most notable was an Egyptian Copytic Christian in the USA. Who made his own hybrid Islamo-Christian religion. I think he had more Christian followers than Muslims  ;D

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Gaybriel on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:16pm

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Quote:
But they would still want the law to be dictated by religious interpretation rather than democracy or some secular method, right? Does it just mean they are 'Koran only' Muslims?


There are of course some Muslims, who don't believe in Shari'ah, however their definition as Muslims is quite doubtful, as they'd clearly be denying things that are obviously part of Islam. However, they aren't 'many' as Gaybriel has stated. Perhaps they're just over-represented in the West, and even then they're a tiny minority.


oop- didn't mean to misrepresent!! change 'many' to 'some'!

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:16pm


Quote:
Aaaaagah, bugger me dead, Indonesia then.  There is no need to mention Christians and Jews.


Indonesia is also not an Islamic state. There's been no functioning Islamic state since 1924, when the last one was abolished at the close of WWI.

Indonesian law is based on Dutch (Netherlands) law, not Islamic law.

I know it's hard for you to comprehend, because you just have this mentality, if the country's mostly Muslim population, it has to be an Islamic country, and it's court is therefore an Islamic court, but it's simply not the case. Islamic Shari'ah law was abolished in Indonesia a few centuries ago and replaced with Dutch law. Like it or lump it, understand it or misunderstand it, that's the cold hard reality.


Quote:
Give a straight answer fer buggers sake.


Give a straight question, and you'll get a straight answer. Indonesia and Qatar are not Islamic states with Islamic law systems. If you like, I can pretend they are, if that'll make you happy?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:19pm
Is there an Islamic Country anywhere on this Planet?

Duh.....no there is not, not since the 1920's.

Bugger me dead, FD.....why raise a non issue?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:20pm
Just pretend they are, or make one up, or tell them which country is......THEN you can answer his question, which you could have done in the first place without all the unnecessary tangents.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:25pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:20pm:
Just pretend they are, or make one up, or tell them which country is......THEN you can answer his question, which you could have done in the first place without all the unnecessary tangents.


No point, as it is a non issue.  It all came down to me being the Lawyer trying to get to basic facts agreed before I exploded.

It is all a non event as it seems there is no such functioning thaing as an Islamic Court, these days.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 6:31pm
I'm interested in what existed in the past, and what Muslims want to recreate. It makes no sense to judge a person's choice to become Muslim only by the standard of Muslims living in non-Muslim states. Islam is a government more than a religion.

Perhaps Abu could answer Sprint's question by referring to the most recent appropriate Caliphate.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:35pm

Nope, not really interested in answering any more of sprint's questions. As he's indicated he wants to demand questions be answered, and doesn't accept any kind of counter-question that seeks clarification or rhetorical questions in reply. In other words he doesn't believe in debate, but simple yes/no answers (even though his questions aren't even yes/no questions).

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:36pm
Just as well your answers are never yes/no answers.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Aussie on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:38pm
Jordan....if you look up there ^^^^^^^, you will see how wrong you are.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:39pm

I'm sorry they're not simple enough for you..

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:48pm
Is there a one yes/no answer limit per thread? Or is there a one question limit per thread? Or is it just up to your own whim? Have I asked too many questions for one post? Can one ask a rhetorical question? What if an answer creates another question? Can someone other than the person asked answer the question? Can you ask a question about a question? Would it be ok to answer a question with another question? And can you answer that answer question with a question? Do you think question is a funny word? Why do words start to sound weird after you say them a few times over and over? Why does toast always land butter side down? Do you like vegemite now that you're a muslim? Do you wear a dress? And one of those funny little hats? Is there something you'd like to ask me? Do you own a goldfish?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Lestat on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:20pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 7:48pm:
Is there a one yes/no answer limit per thread? Or is there a one question limit per thread? Or is it just up to your own whim? Have I asked too many questions for one post? Can one ask a rhetorical question? What if an answer creates another question? Can someone other than the person asked answer the question? Can you ask a question about a question? Would it be ok to answer a question with another question? And can you answer that answer question with a question? Do you think question is a funny word? Why do words start to sound weird after you say them a few times over and over? Why does toast always land butter side down? Do you like vegemite now that you're a muslim? Do you wear a dress? And one of those funny little hats? Is there something you'd like to ask me? Do you own a goldfish?


OBSESSION.....

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:23pm
Déjà vu?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Lestat on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:33pm

jordan484 wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:23pm:
Déjà vu?


Yep..I'm obessed about you being obsessed.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by jordan484 on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:37pm
Yes, it would seem so.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Oct 13th, 2008 at 8:38pm
I think it depends on the quality of the carpet.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Jan 31st, 2009 at 2:31pm
Abu doesn't this contradict your claims in the locked 'common misconceptions' thread where you give the impression that Muslisms and non-Muslims are treated equally under Islamic law?

What is your response to these claims that non-Muslims are not allowed to testify against Muslims?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1225416753/17#17

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Jan 31st, 2009 at 7:26pm
The claim that ahl al-Dhimma cannot give testimony is pretty weak.

They use a claim that an obscure Islamic scholar called al-Muraghi, who I've never heard of, and about whom I was unable to find any information, gave such a ruling. Not from Imam Abu Hanifa, not from Imam ash-Shafi, not from Imam ibn Hanbal, not from Imam Malik, not from any of the thousands of well respected classical Islamic scholars, but from some unknown who apparently gave such a ruling. A ruling which contradicts 1350 years of history, during which ahl al-Dhimma were able to give testimony. Sorry, but there's nothing to respond to, it's quite clearly a farse, like the rest of his anti-Islamic rants.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Jan 31st, 2009 at 7:40pm
So can you clarify the apparent contradiction with the opening posts:


freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm:
Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?



abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:09pm:
Yes.


Doesn't this achieve the same end result? Getting up and having your say may feel nice, but if your testimony is considered inferior by default, the impact on your ability to defend your rights is the same as if you were prevented from testifying.

Do you think it is reasonable to say that your 'common misconceptions' thread is deliberately misleading in that it creates the impression that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal before the law?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 17th, 2009 at 2:33pm
Abu, you keep insisting in other threads that Muslims and non-Muslims are treated as equals before the law. But you refuse to explain this and only refer people to the common deceptions thread, even though it avoids the issue also. Why is that?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 17th, 2009 at 4:21pm
It doesn't avoid it at all, and neither have I.

The common misconceptions thread deals quite well with the issue of equality before the law. If there's anything specifically in there you're struggling to understand, start a thread about it, and if I'm able, I shall endeavour to clarify it for you. If you just wanna use it as a means to claim deflection, taqiyya etc. then stop wasting my time and yours, and just continue with your whinging (as you'll probably do, no matter what answer you get).

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 17th, 2009 at 4:24pm
Thanks for the offer Abu.


freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2009 at 7:40pm:
So can you clarify the apparent contradiction with the opening posts:


freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm:
Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?



abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:09pm:
Yes.


Doesn't this achieve the same end result? Getting up and having your say may feel nice, but if your testimony is considered inferior by default, the impact on your ability to defend your rights is the same as if you were prevented from testifying.

Do you think it is reasonable to say that your 'common misconceptions' thread is deliberately misleading in that it creates the impression that Muslims and non-Muslims are equal before the law?


Abu, can you explain the apparent contradiction between the common deceptions thread and your post above? I don't see a need to start a new thread, as that is what this thread is about.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 17th, 2009 at 4:51pm

Perhaps I answered prematurely, without consulting Islamic texts to see the facts. Once you brought that to my attention, I've ceased offering my own opinions on such issues, as I fear again, giving a wrong answer.

What's more relevant here is why you'd think the opinion of some [islamically] uneducated person such as myself on an internet forum, would be more authoritative than a proper Islamic scholarly explanation? Do you think the average person such as myself formulates the laws in Islam? As I've conveyed to you a few times already, I mostly just convey to you the opinions of scholars.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 17th, 2009 at 5:12pm

Quote:
Perhaps I answered prematurely, without consulting Islamic texts to see the facts.


Well, did you?


Quote:
Once you brought that to my attention, I've ceased offering my own opinions on such issues, as I fear again, giving a wrong answer.


Surely, if you discover that you ahve mislead someone, or may have mislead someone, the appropriate course of action is to find out whether you mislead them and correct them if necessary? Not simply refuse to answer any more questions.

How about, on seeing that you may have got it wrong, you clarify? Either correct your post, or back it up. All you have done so far is deflect to a strawman argument. You have not clarified whether Islam considers the testimony of non_muslims to be inferior.


Quote:
What's more relevant here is why you'd think the opinion of some [islamically] uneducated person such as myself on an internet forum, would be more authoritative than a proper Islamic scholarly explanation?


False dichotomy. It would be great if you could back up your claims with appropriate references. But references to irrelevant sources are not a substitute for answering simple questions. If you don't know, jsut say so. But don't tell me your common deceptions thread answers a question when it does not.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 17th, 2009 at 8:53pm
Common misconceptions thread is quite clear...

-----

Judiciary

One of the accusations against Islam’s treatment of dhimmi is that a dhimmi is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim and his oath is not acceptable in an Islamic court.

Bat Ye’or states:

Every legal case involving a Muslim and a dhimmi was judged according to Koranic law. Although the very idea of justice implies equality between parties, a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim. Since his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court his Muslim opponent could not easily be condemned. In order to defend himself, the dhimmi was obliged to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense.14

The rule of law applies to everyone within the Khilafah and there are no exceptions. It is obligatory for the Islamic State to judge in cases concerning the dhimmi with justice and no discrimination against them is allowed.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

And if you judge, judge with justice between them.

Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15

The most famous example of this justice is in the legal trial of a Jew who stole the coat of armour of Imam Ali (ra) as he was travelling to a battle. The judge Shurayh made no exception for Ali (ra) even though he was the Khaleefah, a Muslim and also off to fight in a battle so was in desperate need of his armour. Shurayh ruled in favour of the Jew and accepted his testimony in court. Full details of the trial can be read here.

****************************************************************************
The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy).
****************************************************************************

It may be claimed that the condition of ‘Adl applies only to Muslims who refrain from committing the kabeera (major) sins. This is incorrect. ‘Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because ‘adaala (trustworthiness) was stipulated in the testimony of the Muslim as well as in the testimony of the non-Muslim, by using the same word without distinguishing one from the other.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

O you who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draws to one of you, at the time of bequest, two witnesses, ‘adl (trustworthy) from among you, or two others from other than you.16

He (swt) meant non-Muslims by saying other than you. He said ‘two ‘adl witnesses from Muslims or two ‘adl from other than Muslims.’ So how can the ‘adaala be defined as not committing a kabeera (major) sin and insistence on committing a sagheera (small) sin regarding a non-Muslim? Also how can we reject as a witness the one who disobeyed his parents once, but accept as witness the spy, just because spying is not from kabeera sins? Therefore, the valid meaning of ‘adl is the one that abstained from that which the people consider violation to the uprightness.17

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 18th, 2009 at 2:36pm
Acceptable does not necessarily mean equal. To me that just implies that they are allowed to testify. Also, are non-Muslims less likely to be considered trustworthy? Under our system, anyone can be a witness, no matter how 'untrustworthy'. It is up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth, not some religious official who hides evidence from the court. We even allow insane and immature people to testify. Can you imagine a system that forbids a victim of pedophilia from testifying because they are too immature?


Quote:
Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim.


Sounds pretty discriminatory to me. I take it that by 'the people' it means the Muslim people?

Also, what made you previously think the testimony of non-Muslims was considered inferior?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by helian on Feb 18th, 2009 at 7:35pm
Systems of justice are flawed enough… I don’t believe that throwing a religious element into the mix, particularly of one so severe and one that proselytizes with zeal, would necessarily judge equally those of the faith and those who are not. Why would they necessarily be more just than a secular system?

Let’s see what stories of religious inequality emerge from Iran when (hopefully) the crash of oil prices causes the collapse of the Islamic Theocracy.  


Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 18th, 2009 at 9:20pm
Abu, can you explain this apparent contradiction in your common deceptions thread?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1234955518

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 19th, 2009 at 3:10am
There's no contradiction at all.

Even if Tallow's accusation were correct (which it is not), and Imam Ali (ra) was lying then that still  does not affect the relevance of this example in the slightest. Please stop deflecting to irrelevant side issues.

Your issues with the common misconceptions thread are really petty, I gotta say.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 19th, 2009 at 11:19am
Abu do you not understand the apparent contradiction that tallo pointed out?

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by Yadda on Feb 19th, 2009 at 1:42pm

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm:
Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?



Can you imagine the outcry [from muslims in the West], if those circumstances were reversed, and we applied those values to muslims within our court system?

I mean, muslims would be rioting on our streets, and calling us bigots, and 'racists'.
....err, yeah,
....well you know what i mean!









"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!"





Funny isn't it, muslims never believe that such demands [which they make], applies to themselves.....






How would muslims feel.....

“Slay those who insult ENGLAND”
“Behead those who insult ENGLAND”
“Massacre those who insult ENGLAND”
“Butcher those who mock ENGLAND”
“ISLAM you will pay, demolition is on its way”
“ISLAM you will pay, your extermination is on its way”
“Exterminate those who slander NON-MUSLIMS”
“ISLAM is the cancer, TRUTH is the answer”
“TRUTH will dominate the world”
“ISLAM go to hell”
“ISLAM take some lessons from 9/11”
“ISLAM be prepared for the real Holocaust”







Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 19th, 2009 at 7:25pm
freediver,

No I don't understand the supposed contradiction.

All that Tallow claimed was that Imam Ali (ra) was supposedly a liar. That does not alter whatsoever the fact that testimony of non-Muslims is quite acceptable under Shari'ah law, acceptable enough that the Muslim head of state (As Ali was Caliph at this time) could be ruled against, based solely on the word of a non-Muslim.

Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by soren on Feb 19th, 2009 at 9:59pm

Yadda wrote on Feb 19th, 2009 at 1:42pm:
How would muslims feel.....

“Slay those who insult ENGLAND”
“Behead those who insult ENGLAND”
“Massacre those who insult ENGLAND”
“Butcher those who mock ENGLAND”
“ISLAM you will pay, demolition is on its way”
“ISLAM you will pay, your extermination is on its way”
“Exterminate those who slander NON-MUSLIMS”
“ISLAM is the cancer, TRUTH is the answer”
“TRUTH will dominate the world”
“ISLAM go to hell”
“ISLAM take some lessons from 9/11”
“ISLAM be prepared for the real Holocaust”



They would riot, of course, you racists, white supremacist, bigoted insensitive islamophobe. How very dare you imagine for a minute that you could be permitted to say anything like what a Muslim can say? You would be dragged before some sensitivity-court and ruined, white pigdog English oppressor. Off with your head!
Alana's at da bar!






Title: Re: Islamic courts
Post by freediver on Feb 19th, 2009 at 10:15pm
Abu, is it true that the judge in that particular case got punished for what he did? In other words, you are using a legal case to make Islam look good and implying it is somehow typical or representative, yet it was an extraordinary case in which the judge was reprimanded.


Quote:
All that Tallow claimed was that Imam Ali (ra) was supposedly a liar.


The Imam contradicted himself. He started oput by saying the Jew stole whatever it was, then he said the court ruled in his favour. Tallo concluded one of the statement was a lie. It certainly doesn't make much sense.


Quote:
That does not alter whatsoever the fact that testimony of non-Muslims is quite acceptable under Shari'ah law


The issue here is whether the testimony of non-Muslims is considered inferior to that of a Muslim. A lot of people seem to think so. Even you did, though you appear to be changing your mind. Is there a 'difference of opinion' on the matter?

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.