Re: 25-Aug-16 World View -- North Korea lays land mines to prevent soldiers from defecting / US VP Biden snubbed by Tur
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:16 pm
I'd like to add to the above discussion of Sharia law.
I've been looking at the origins of Sharia law, and the only words I
can use to describe it are "total chaos."
The Koran was codified 20-30 years after Mohammed's death. Some of it
had been written down, but many of the texts were based on the
testimony of one person. The selection and interpretation of texts
was controlled by a politician (Caliph Uthman) whose clan was to
become the Sunnis, and who was in a bitter political and ideological
fight with Ali, the first Shia imam. Although some Muslim scholars
claim that the Koran text is unimpeachable, there is nothing in my
experience that leads me to believe that Uthman didn't filter all the
texts according to his ideology, exclude some texts contrary to his
ideology, and change a word here or there based on his ideology.
Uthman ordered that all other versions of the Koran be destroyed, but
some have survived, and there are different Korans used in some
places. Even when a text is known for sure, there are often several
interpretations of the ancient Arabic that can be adapted to any
current ideology.
And that's the Koran. Now we move on to the sunnah and hadiths --
statements by Mohammed or his companions, respectively, preserved in
the memories of people, and passed on from generation to generation,
not codified until one or more centuries later.
So this is total chaos. Muslim scholars distinguish between
"established sunnah" and others. But even the "established sunnah"
are based on the consensus of people. If you're a political leader,
and you ask for a consensus, and you tell what consensus you expect,
then how many of your subjects are going to disagree with you?
These texts were filtered by many, many, many politicians, during and
after many wars. There is no rational conclusion except that these
texts were chosen, modified, or created by subjects of politicians
with one ideology or another, sometimes during or after a war, to meet
a political objective. So there is nothing in my experience or
research to suggest that these are any more valid than, say, a press
release from a Washingon politician.
Sharia law is based on these sources -- the Koran, the sunnah, and the
hadiths. Any Islamic law-making politician or body of politicians can
easily enact anything at all into Sharia law, just by selecting from
the wealth of these thousands of texts, and by interpreting them in
any way desirable.
I gave one example previously -- Is a headscarf required by Sharia law
or not? In Turkey under Ataturk, a headscarf was illegal. In Turkey
under Erdogan, a headscarf is allowed. In Iran under the Shah, a
headscarf was not required. In Iran under the Ayatollahs, a headscarf
is required. So which of these are Sharia law? The answer is that
all of them are, because Sharia law can be anything that any
politician wants it to be.
So when a jihadist quotes something from the Koran or sunnah or hadith,
he's completely full of crap. Also, it's worth noting that
the Koran forbids suicide.
https://quran.com/4:29 - "And do not kill yourselves"
Here's an interesting sidelight. When the Muslims began governing a
large empire in the early 700s, they borrowed a lot of administrative
practices from their neighbors in Constantinople, the Byzantines (as
well as their other neighbors, the Sasanians). Constantinople was,
of course, the eastern branch of the Roman Empire, and so they had
centuries of experience in administering large empires, so it made
sense to borrow their technique.
So this means that Sharia law and Roman law have huge areas of
overlap. So even if Sharia law were implemented somewhere (highly
unlikely), it may appear mostly similar.
http://www.exploring-islam.com/differen ... adith.html
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ ... rigins.htm
https://quran.com/4:29 - "And do not kill yourselves"
I've been looking at the origins of Sharia law, and the only words I
can use to describe it are "total chaos."
The Koran was codified 20-30 years after Mohammed's death. Some of it
had been written down, but many of the texts were based on the
testimony of one person. The selection and interpretation of texts
was controlled by a politician (Caliph Uthman) whose clan was to
become the Sunnis, and who was in a bitter political and ideological
fight with Ali, the first Shia imam. Although some Muslim scholars
claim that the Koran text is unimpeachable, there is nothing in my
experience that leads me to believe that Uthman didn't filter all the
texts according to his ideology, exclude some texts contrary to his
ideology, and change a word here or there based on his ideology.
Uthman ordered that all other versions of the Koran be destroyed, but
some have survived, and there are different Korans used in some
places. Even when a text is known for sure, there are often several
interpretations of the ancient Arabic that can be adapted to any
current ideology.
And that's the Koran. Now we move on to the sunnah and hadiths --
statements by Mohammed or his companions, respectively, preserved in
the memories of people, and passed on from generation to generation,
not codified until one or more centuries later.
So this is total chaos. Muslim scholars distinguish between
"established sunnah" and others. But even the "established sunnah"
are based on the consensus of people. If you're a political leader,
and you ask for a consensus, and you tell what consensus you expect,
then how many of your subjects are going to disagree with you?
These texts were filtered by many, many, many politicians, during and
after many wars. There is no rational conclusion except that these
texts were chosen, modified, or created by subjects of politicians
with one ideology or another, sometimes during or after a war, to meet
a political objective. So there is nothing in my experience or
research to suggest that these are any more valid than, say, a press
release from a Washingon politician.
Sharia law is based on these sources -- the Koran, the sunnah, and the
hadiths. Any Islamic law-making politician or body of politicians can
easily enact anything at all into Sharia law, just by selecting from
the wealth of these thousands of texts, and by interpreting them in
any way desirable.
I gave one example previously -- Is a headscarf required by Sharia law
or not? In Turkey under Ataturk, a headscarf was illegal. In Turkey
under Erdogan, a headscarf is allowed. In Iran under the Shah, a
headscarf was not required. In Iran under the Ayatollahs, a headscarf
is required. So which of these are Sharia law? The answer is that
all of them are, because Sharia law can be anything that any
politician wants it to be.
So when a jihadist quotes something from the Koran or sunnah or hadith,
he's completely full of crap. Also, it's worth noting that
the Koran forbids suicide.
https://quran.com/4:29 - "And do not kill yourselves"
Here's an interesting sidelight. When the Muslims began governing a
large empire in the early 700s, they borrowed a lot of administrative
practices from their neighbors in Constantinople, the Byzantines (as
well as their other neighbors, the Sasanians). Constantinople was,
of course, the eastern branch of the Roman Empire, and so they had
centuries of experience in administering large empires, so it made
sense to borrow their technique.
So this means that Sharia law and Roman law have huge areas of
overlap. So even if Sharia law were implemented somewhere (highly
unlikely), it may appear mostly similar.
http://www.exploring-islam.com/differen ... adith.html
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ ... rigins.htm
https://quran.com/4:29 - "And do not kill yourselves"