There are plenty of "laws" in the New Testament that, if broken, some Christians believe you are not a true Christian. I guess you've also never heard of the Ten Commandments. There are many Christians who believe that should be what our laws are based off of.
If you think that the ten commandments are equivalent to sharia law, then you really need to learn a whole lot more about it.
I don't consider it a core, because if that religion gets modernized (like it has in the West) can't they just re-interpret the gospel like what the Christians did with Leviticus and ignore Sharia law? Don't know enough about the Koran or the Bible to know if this is viable.
I think, to the great unwashed, Sharia Law used in this context includes the crime and punishment bits....and the legislation of it. I shouldn't have to reject Christianity because I covet my neighbor's wife or his ass (not that there's anything wrong with that), or because I like to cut loose, footloose, and kick of my Sunday shoes on occasion. Similarly, I don't believe a Muslim is any less a Muslim if he or she rejects aspects of Sharia Law.
And both have people who say you're not a true believer if they don't follow them. If the argument that the practice of enforcement of one over the other is atrocious, that's not the question that was asked.
Don't most countries that have a dominant Muslim population live under Sharia law? So for the most part, where Muslims can live by Sharia or force others to they do?
The school/country that funds more than 90 % of Islamic literature around the world (Saudi Arabia) certainly does NOT allow re-interpreting anything. What are you referring to when you say that religion gets modernized in the West? I guess you are not talking about Islam? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because theoretically, it could be re-interpreted to ignore sharia law, sharia law is not part of the core of Islam? That doesn't make much sense to me, because the pre-dominant schools of Islam prohibit any such re-interpretation, in fact make any attempt at it a case of blasphemy, punishable by death.
Like if someone comes along and claims to be a god or a new last prophet, produces a bunch of new material, and starts a new religion that can re-interpret the old material through the lens of the new? Cuz that's kinda how the Christians did it. It can be done, but I don't think we'd call those people Muslims. Not sure "some Christians" is the standard we should be measuring to. For any act, you can probably find some Christian somewhere who would challenge the sincerity of your faith. But, I'd also say that the New Testament doesn't have any laws. Certainly not like Sharia or the Talmud. Those are codified scholarly interpretations of what the holy books mean for what people should be doing to be good, whereas the whole point of Christianity is settling up for being bad. I think the medieval church made overtures in that direction of becoming authoritarian about what is holy or unholy, but much of that reversed with the Reformation. There are still firm ideas about what's holy and unholy -- and the 10 Commandments is a favorite in that regard -- but there isn't the comply-or-go-to-hell dilemma anymore. The church says sinners of all kinds get to go to heaven. Also, I think our religious politicians who want to say our law is based on Abrahamic tradition are claiming undue credit to aggrandize their religion, not to guide our legislation. The 10 commandments have such basic stuff -- don't murder, don't steal -- that any legal tradition would share it. The first 4 commandments (which are all about worshiping God) are not part of our law, and is actually repudiated by the separation of Church and State clause in our Constitution.
What is the relevance of countries being governed by a particular code in connection to whether a person is a real Muslim is they believe a certain tenet? Countries are governed by humans. How those individuals define their faith and force it upon their people has no relevance to whether some other person in another country is a real Muslim. Or to put it more simply, why are Saudi Arabia's laws relevant to whether a Muslim in Houston is a "real" Muslim?
So if the medieval church liked to determine what was holy, were people of that period who disagreed not real Christians? This is the problem with this whole line of discussion - Christianity has been redefined over time by the powers that be. But I don't think anyone would argue that people who disagree with the definitions of a particular time are not real Christians. Why would it be different for Muslims? Ignoring the fact that there's no single agreement on what Sharia law even is, why would people who disagree with how that aspect of the faith is currently interpreted not be real members of the faith?
Because Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) funds a lot of the mosques and Imams around the world and a vast majority of the Islamic literature. There have been estimates that 80 % of mosques in the United States are under Wahhabi influence one way or another.
Let me clarify the question for you: The question is about what the mainstream trend in Islam says. You keep nitpicking words about "real" or "not real" - yes, I get your point - you might well argue that the one who follows a strictly peaceful, spiritual Islam like dmc89 is actually the "real" Muslim - but my question is about whether the Muslim mainstream (worldwide) would consider sharia law (in one form or another) an indispensable part of their identity as Muslims. I hope that makes it more clear what I am asking about. The whole premise of my question is that bnb (correctly) was very critical of sharia law, but said that he doesn't think that means Islam is a "bad" idea at its core. The background of my question is to work out whether - if you agree with bnb that sharia law is problematic (I do) - can even make that distinction of "sharia bad, Islam good". My hypothesis is that you cannot make it because as of right now, in mainstream Islam, in one way or another, sharia law is an indispensable part of the core of Islam. I hope that explains the premise of my thread.
Just wanted to say, briefly (for me, anyway).... ...that a lot of what the old Abrahimic laws are (the Ten Commandments, particularly) were codified centuries earlier in ancient Sumer and Mesopotamia (that part of the world we're all so concerned about now)... ...particularly fairly universal concepts like "...don't murder..." or "...don't steal..." ...Abraham, according to the Book of Genesis, was actually a citizen of this culture (reminding everyone that being Jewish was a lifestyle choice, and not a "race", as we like to understand the term...as Jewish people summarily attest to today in various ways... Even Jewish people acknowledge the existence of what they call "God-fearers"...people who, while not practicing Jewish customs, can and do follow certain universally "God-like" codes of behavior and ethics... If this is ultimately about what the "core" of a "religion" is...I would submit that any religion that, at its core, cannot distinguish between what is good for everyone as opposed to what is good for me... ...isn't really much of a "religion" at all...
Here's an idea - determining what's right and wrong based on centuries/millennia year old transcription of the creation myths of bunch of middle eastern tribes, on the basis that such transcription is the work of magical invisible creatures in the sky, is inherently problematic in any society based on reason.
I think this line of inquiry is fatally flawed. If you really are an adherent of these faiths, you'd say its up to God who is and is not a 'real' believer. Christianity has a nice bright line -- believers go to Heaven. Any other metric we put to decide who is 'real' just pales in comparison to divine judgement. But, obviously we don't have God's perspective on these things. So there's a couple ways we can go: 1. Refrain from passing judgement. My preference, though sometimes hard for people to do in practice. And, it's really hard to do things like Sharia if you refrain. 2. Self-identify. The easiest thing and probably the default position to avoid the complexity of other solutions. But, you end up getting a bunch of idiots in your buckets who don't really know themselves. You end up with Muslims advocating violent jihad and Muslims that condemn all violence in the same bucket. Or Christians that say homosexuals are damned next to Christians who say homosexuality isn't sinful. There's a lot of logical dissonance like this. 3. Do your best to apply some normative judgement based on your understanding of the ideal of that religion. This is something I probably do a lot of with christianity, ignoring outliers and focusing on what the model of the religion is 'supposed' to be. That's what the OP is asking us to do here. But, it takes some education and wisdom and its a bit disassociated with worldly reality. So, is sharia core to Islam? By approach 1, I have no opinion. By approach 2, I'd say its a mixed bag because several Muslim countries try to practice Sharia and others do not. By approach 3, I'm unqualified to say. If, instead, Allah is real, maybe we'll all find out after we die.
