In other words, can you really be a Muslim but against sharia law? Simple question, simple answer? P.S.: I am asking the question because I read this post:
I don't know if it's different because I don't know the structure of the Qur'an, but one of the points of the New Testament is doing away with "The Law" of the Old Testament and creating a new covenant between man and God. I don't think there is a single "Christian" Church that teaches strict adherence to Old Testament Law.
Well, there are muslims who are against Sharia law. Like a lot of them. So..... I mean, perhaps if you take a fundamentalist view of the Quran, then it is indeed a core of the religion -- I really don't know, I've never studied the Quran directly. But fundementalists of almost any religion end up being crazy people that I don't want anything to do with. Just like most Christians in the world ignore a lot of the bible and support secular nations, the same can be and is true for millions of Muslims. So, I think there are two different questions -- 1) is Sharia law theologically a core of Islam -- my answer to that being that I don't know. 2) Can Muslims be against Sharia law -- my answer to that being of course, in the same way Christians and masses of every religion ignore large elements of those religions in order to be part of the secular world.
Given that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world that don't support Sharia law, the simple answer seems to be yes. If you're interested, here is a very detailed poll of Muslims on Sharia, broken down by every possible concept (by country, should it apply to non-Muslims, which laws should apply, etc) - it doesn't include Western Muslims, however. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ Are you not a Christian if there are parts of the Bible you don't strictly follow?
Why isn't there an option regarding picking and choosing which aspect of sharia to follow? I am a Muslim and my family practices sharia in matters relating to marriage, inheritance, charity, yet we never even considered bull$hit like penal law. Sharia in its entirety is a system that exists for a society that has simply ceased to exist in much of the world.
Does everyone agree on what "Sharia Law" means? If not, then that should also be clarified. Perhaps there is a "core" Sharia Law, as well.
Of all the horrible gifts that the Abrahamic religions have given us over the years, the concept of religious law might be the very worst.
Sharia Law is never explicitly stated in the Quran, but is rather an interpretation of Islamic law sourced from the actions of the prophet from various hadith and interpretations of the Quran. Many of it's penal codes are rather harsh which makes sense since Muhammad's moral structure is more fitting to a 600AD time frame and is in contradiction to most of modern secular morality. Is a Muslim a true Muslim if they don't follow Sharia? Who am I to judge who a "true Muslim" is. I'm rather glad that most religious folks at least here in the U.S. pick and choose their religious duties. I've always believed that most theists already have a preconceived developed moral structure before they are ever introduced to religious laws and selectively choose what part of their religion is compatible with their preconceived morality unconsciously. It really makes me wonder what the point of religion is to them when they obviously don't need their religious safety blanket.
The Leviticus stuff includes stuff like not wearing clothes made of two types of cloth or eating shellfish. So, yeah there isn't a widespread desire among Christians to adopt Old Testament Law.
Many Christians only invoke old testament law when it's easy for them to apply it. I mean you have to laugh your ass off at the level of cognitive dissonance when a Christian states "All sins are equal" and in that same day eat pork and discuss the depravity of homosexuality.
Maybe. I'm not very much familiar with Jewish theology. I know one of the biggest differences that separate Judaism from Islam and Christianity is the lack of fear for a literal hell which imo is large reason why secularism is more prevalent in the Jewish community in general.
You've missed his point. The purpose of the New Testament, and the arrival of Christ, is that God has established a new covenant that means His expectations of piety and deference in the Old Testament no longer apply. People who pick and choose lines from Leviticus to discriminate on homosexuals ignore this fact and are worthy of mockery. Jabbing at a Christian for not following OT law is willfully ignorant when the whole point of their faith, and what distinguishes it from Judaism, is that the OT's law has been done away with.
Because the New Testament also condemns homosexual behavior. More generally, the New Testament says that Jesus 'fulfilled' the Law of the Old Testament (but doesn't abolish it). Jesus condemns Jews who follow the letter of the Law and transgress on the spirit of the Law and emphasizes what's most important (loving God and loving your neighbor). And, in his death he is the perfect sacrifice that pays for all the transgressions of the Law that Christians have and will commit. For this reason, Christians set aside the tedious stuff of the Old Testament as having been fulfilled and paid for, but still maintain a morality of doing what's right. Later, Paul has a vision from God in which he is told to eat 'unclean' foods and is told that God has made them clean and not to call unclean what God has made clean. Paul goes on and also teaches that Jewish circumcision is unnecessary to be a Christian (contradicting Peter, who later agrees). On the basis of these things, Christians take it that the cultural practices Jews embrace to set them apart as the Chosen People (circumcision, dietary laws, and all the other weird stuff) are no longer necessary. If you think the Christian moral ethic just comes because they haven't thought very hard about what the Bible says, you'd be wrong. The best educated people of the West have been thinking on and writing about all the implications of the Bible for over a millennium. We can disagree with the conclusions, but I wouldn't accuse them of not being structured and careful about forming their thinking on morality. There's a ton of very intellectual writing on all of this stuff. Not all (or even most) Christians read that stuff, but it influences what's preached from many pulpits. I think a lot of Christians is the US make the mistake of seeing themselves as the Establishment and that agreement even from non-Christians is owed them, instead of seeing the Church as a mission in a society of unbelievers. That's where a lot of opposition to gay marriage comes from, imo -- that Christians implicitly feel like marriage belongs to the Church.
I cannot harp on this question enough. This is a fundamental issue in the development, interpretation, and subsequent criticism of the Sharia. It is one of the most misunderstood and misused phrases that exists within the general public (media, commentators, CF posters, etc.). The question posed sort of assumes the general public definition of the shariah, so it's tricky to answer without a more thorough and specific framework of what the shariah actually is. Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor have any desire to get in a heated debate. My lurking on the D&D has shown that people are pretty set in their beliefs and look for ways to validate them through poo-flinging.
I'm not talking about the OT laws. I'm talking about the New Testament. If you don't follow it all, are you not a real Christian? That's the equivalent of asking if a Muslim doesn't believe in Sharia law, are they not a real Muslim? Is a Jewish person that doesn't follow OT law not really Jewish?
No it's not because there is no country that is governed by the New Testament, either. There is no equivalent for sharia law in Christianity, and you saying there is shows a shocking lack of understanding of the issue.
