Aceh parliament passes stoning law

mahmud wrote:

Unfortunately neither you nor your reference cared to provide the text of this legislation (or a link thereto) -including the section that purportedly allows -among other things- stoning and whether this legislation would apply to all of Acehnese. Too many important things you left out and all I read is a Tarek-Fatahesque alarmism.

If they are talking about sharia penal code, the stoning of adulterers is automatically in it.

There are as many interpretations of sharia as islamic schools of thought, there are as many interpretations of sharia as muslim societies. Tunisian women for example enjoy their full rights to equality. Yet, th elaw is sharia inspired. Polygamy has been outlawed since independence, 1956, based on Tunisian Sunni Malaki interpretation of sharia .  They did not call it sharia perhaps because of an anticipated reation of Westerners (as seen above). Tunisia is a "moderate", constitutionally Islamic state, and open society.  

Pre-independence Tunisia was ruled by Khalifas, Qadhis and the whole nine yeards, applying sharia.  Yet, stoning never ever happened. 

I would like to ascertain in particular that stoning is in this proposed legislation. Period. I am trying to be not judgemental on the basis of a mere word "sharia", if you know what I mean!

mahmud wrote:

There are as many interpretations of sharia as islamic schools of thought, there are as many interpretations of sharia as muslim societies. Tunisian women for example enjoy their full rights to equality. Yet, th elaw is sharia inspired. Polygamy has been outlawed since independence, 1956, based on Tunisian Sunni Malaki interpretation of sharia .  They did not call it sharia perhaps because of an anticipated reation of Westerners (as seen above). Tunisia is a "moderate", constitutionally Islamic state, and open society.  

I could be wrong but as far as I know, Tunisia is a secular dictatorship where many Islamic tradictions such as Hijab are banned in official places like universities. That by itself indicates that its code of law is not based on Sharia. I am not aware of any Islamic school of thought that allows banning of Hijab and polygamy. That would be against Mohammad's Sunnah and thus would violate Sharia.

True, there are many different school of thoughts in Sharia but all of them agree on certain rules. I am interested to know which school bans polygamy and stoning (both adopted into Islamic law from ancient Jewish law). References are appreciated.

It is a fact (based on evidence of every place it has been implemented) that Sharia law is quite archaic and does not fit in the modern world. Trying to whitewash it does not help either muslims or non-muslims.

mahmud wrote:

Tunisia is a an Islamic state according to its constitution. You may say a dictatorship but it is an equal opportunity -male female, thugh I wonder what does that have to do with the subject at hand,

Tunisia is an Islamic state but its code of law is not based on Sharia, which is the subject of this thread. It is not just me saying it is a secular dictatorship, it is a historical fact. Bringing Tunisia as an example of a successful, "moderate" application of Sharia is ridiculous.

Quote:

You do not seem to have any understanding of the issue. Neither the Qur'an nor the Sunna made polygamy a sine qua non to Islam. Early Islam allowed alcohol but when people showed up drunk at mosques the rule changed: alcohol became haraam. A strong indication that changes to suit situations is allowed.

I was a practicing muslim for most of my life with a very good understanding of what I am talking about. Changes in rules were allowed only by God or by the Prophet. After him, any changes to the rules that set up in Quran and Sunna was considered "Bid'ah" (false invention) and banned. Interpretation was limited only to the cases where there was not an explicit direction in Sunnah or Quran. Regarding polygamy, the point is not that it was compulsary as you said, but that it was permissible and could not be banned. Please show me a reference from any Islamic school of thought that says otherwise.

Quote:

You said that stoning iActually I challenge you to show me that stoning is in the Qur'an or in the Sunna, because it is not.....

Don't you see your contradiction. Stoning is adopted from ancient Jewish law, which is correct, But by whom? The Qur'an? No. The Sunna? No. SO how is it part of the sharia? Because some ignorant in Afghanistan, Iran and God knows where said so, Sanizadeh said Amen it Islamic, it is sharia,

You need to study a bit more on Sunnah and the history of Sharia. Stoning and many other elements of Shariah are indeed part of the Sunnah. It was practiced during prophet Mohammad as well as the early Khalifas. It did come from Jewish law because the jewish law was indeed the basis of most Sharia laws in early Islam; as confirmed by the Prophet himself when he said the religion of Islam is the continuation and purification of the religion of the people of the book.

Now I challenge you to bring specific reference of any Islamic school of thought (Sunni or Shia) to support your claim that polygamy and stoning were not part of sharia. Calling me ignorant is not going to help your case.

There has been many attempts to refine and modernize Sharia; I know several scholars in Iran working on that, and some limited fatwas in that regard which has not yet been accepted by the mainstream. The key roadblock, again, is Sunnah. Sharia cannot be modernized until a majority of Muslim scholars attempt to reinterpret Sunnah in a away that allows changing of the rules from what Prophet Mohammad practiced. One way to accelerate this process is to expose the archaic and inhuman nature of the current rules in Sharia and its incompatibility with the modern world.

I cannot follow your logic, sanizadeh. You are a practising Muslim. You reject sharia as archaic. Fine, you are still Muslim. But to you, since Tunisia had outlawed polygamy, it went "against" the Sunnah and thus its Islamity is in doubt. 

Yes, please, it makes it difficult to read.

What I find frightening, sanizadeh, is when progressive Muslims argue that sharia is archaic -I don't disagree- but also argue that any (ijtihaad) effort to bring it up to date will render it a non-sharia and thus un-Islamic. What would you expect Muslims to do? Just quit being Muslims?  Is your beef with the word "sharia" or its content? It seems to me that even if it is content is brought up date, it is the word "sharia" that seems to bother. 

BTW it seems you missed a closing (/quote) in your post#10. Every post after that is idented. Can you edit that post please?

p.s. thanks for fixing it.

Thread title changed at Ze's request.

Coincidentally, the [url=http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/10/indonesia/finkel-text]current issue of National Geographic[/url] magazine has an article on Islam in Indonesia. I'd be happy to hear what our resident Muslim experts have to say about it.

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

The province of Aceh, on the western prow of the Indonesian archipelago, is now perhaps best known for suffering a direct strike from the December 2004 tsunami, which killed more than 160,000 Indonesians. But for centuries, the Aceh region has been recognized as one of the most devout Muslim areas in all of Asia. Aceh's unofficial slogan is that it is the "veranda of Mecca," and many of its residents seem to sit on this porch with their backs to the rest of Indonesia, embracing an Islam closer to that which exists across the ocean on the Arabian Peninsula. Here, more than anywhere else in the islands, people observe a strict Islamic code of conduct. In 1999 the national government paved the way for Aceh to become the nation's first province to establish sharia as criminal law.

Devi Faradila is a fashionable, 35-year-old mother of two and a parliamentarian in Aceh Province. At the time of my visit, she was the leader of the all-women's unit of the Banda Aceh Sharia Patrol, a municipal force in charge of monitoring compliance with local rules in the province's capital. On a typical Friday-a day, according to Aceh law, when all Muslim men must attend mosque-Faradila readied her unit for duty, breaking up a Ping-Pong game in the station house, wagging her finger at a couple of text messaging officers.

Faradila and 13 patrollers donned black baseball caps to complete their uniforms-black shoes, black slacks, black blouses, and lime green head scarves-and piled into a pickup equipped with loudspeakers. Faradila, in the driver's seat, pulled on leather gloves, added a fresh coat of lipstick, and put on mirrored sunglasses. Her deputy hopped in beside her. The rest of the women sat in the bed of the pickup.

The truck moved slowly through the city, Faradila blasting a constant stream of announcements over the speakers. "Hurry up, men! Friday prayers are about to begin." "Stop all activities. It's time to pray." Men on the streets or in shops-a carpet seller, a furniture maker, a fruit vendor, a bricklayer-turned their heads and stared. A few checked their watches. "Today is Friday. It is obligatory for men to pray."

Aceh is the only Indonesian province with a sharia patrol unit; a total of 800 officers, mostly men, police the region day and night. But at midday on Fridays, the Muslim Sabbath, sharia enforcement is left to the women, who can pray at home. Faradila wove the truck around the massive five-domed mosque at the city center, then toward the shoreline, which was both gorgeous, with mountains rising green from the sea, and haunting-giant swaths turned to swampland by the tsunami. One officer in back spotted a teenage girl strolling down a sidewalk with no head scarf, a reckless act in a city where virtually every Muslim woman is covered. The truck immediately screeched to a halt. "Veil! Veil! Veil!" the officers shouted. The girl looked aghast. She indicated in pantomime that she would put a covering on, and the truck drove off.

As prayer time grew near, Faradila's pleas became less polite. "Close your shop!" "Find the nearest mosque!" The truck pulled over in front of a dilapidated two-story building, a fish market and artists' studio, a known place for drinkers. The team leaped out of the truck-half Charlie's Angels, half Taliban. Two men were swiftly nabbed. They were fishsellers, they said, and smelled too bad to attend a crowded mosque. The women issued them citations anyway.

A widely distributed booklet, [i]A Brief Look at Sharia Islam in Aceh[/i]-the cover shows a man being whipped-outlines the rules. If you're caught gambling: six to 12 lashes. Improperly mingling with the opposite sex: three to nine lashes. Drinking alcohol: 40 lashes. Skipping prayer on three consecutive Fridays: three lashes. The whip, according to the booklet, must be made of rattan a quarter to a third of an inch thick. At the Banda Aceh Sharia Patrol station, two whips were on display, each as long as a cane and as snappy as a flyswatter. There was a photo album filled with images of the whippings; more than a hundred have taken place since 2005. The man who administers them wears a maroon robe, white gloves, and a face-covering hood. The crowds are enormous.

Polls indicate that, although most Indonesians say they want sharia as the foundation of public life, they are uneasy about the imposition of such corporal punishments. Outside of Aceh, adoption of religious-based regulations has been piecemeal, with some districts prohibiting gambling or drinking, or requiring women to wear veils. Yet these rules have often been enacted by secular politicians who see Islamic regulations as a way to curry favor with their pious constituents or distract attention from ongoing corruption. In the future, experts say, playing the "Islam card" may not have the populist force it did just three or four years ago.

Except, perhaps, in Aceh, which appears to be ratcheting up its Islamization and has even considered implementing the surgical severing of hands in accordance with the Koran's punishment for theft. That would be fine with Faradila. Sharia law, she insisted, has made Banda Aceh more reverent and much safer. She'd like to see an expansion of the laws. "Cutting hands," she said, "in the correct circumstances, would serve as a lesson to others. Crime would be greatly reduced." [b]Stoning for adulterers would also be fine.[/b] "When you embrace Islam," she said, "you have to embrace all the laws."

It appears that as of the date of that interview, stoning for adulterers was not part of the law.