Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Pew has a website for anyone to browse on religious beliefs and practices across the world.

One section of their site that I'm currently going through are religious restrictions in the world today - government and social hostilities (think mob violence in Pakistan or suicide bombings against churches in Egypt).

In both categories, the Muslim world (Middle East and North Africa) lead the way, ahead of even Asia which is filled to the brim with communist and cult of personality dictatorships.

Having read up on the progression of law in the Muslim world - where most countries in the Muslim world have been influenced by Napoleonic code (Egypt, North Africa, Turkey) or English common law (or both), very few Muslim majority nations are actually purely Islamic (the Ottoman empire never was). One exception is Saudi Arabia.

The Muslim narrative is that Muslim majority nations promoted tolerance and equality between the faiths. But most of the Muslim majority nations that discriminate on religion today do so on the basis of sharia - regulations against Church building, apostasy from Islam, prohibiting open displays of Christianity, restrictions on proselytizing, blasphemy laws, etc., are all based off of pure Islamic law, not secular law, obviously.

Simply put, if the sharia elements of law in Muslim countries were swept away, Muslim majority countries taken as a whole would be far more tolerant.

Far from stagnating or retrograding, as the claims/excuses go, Muslim countries have actually progressed in regards to the introduction of positive law ('man-made', or Western derived, in this case) into their systems of governance (however, Muslim countries have never fully secularized or progressed nearly as fast as the West/rest of the world).

This is, of course, the inconvenient fact that apologists wish to cover for when advocating the mythical historical tolerance of Islam. But the proof is in the eating, and one can see how tolerant Islamic law truly is in the present day. Hence, Westerners are right for being skeptical of any claims to the contrary:







http://pewforum.org/Government/Global-R ... ent.aspx#2

Why religious? If they are political restrictions where they are implemented in the name of religion I can understand it but how will you differ the difference as christians or non-muslims?

-- Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:25 pm --

Far from stagnating or retrograding, as the claims/excuses go, Muslim countries have actually progressed in regards to the introduction of positive law ('man-made', or Western derived, in this case) into their systems of governance (however, Muslim countries have never fully secularized or progressed nearly as fast as the West/rest of the world).

I don't think you can blame it on the islam religion at all..Remember that Church ruled europe too went into Renaissanse through interactive learning from shariah ruled muslim nations such as Andalusia Spain/Ottoman ME..

-- Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:36 pm --

The Muslim narrative is that Muslim majority nations promoted tolerance and equality between the faiths.

Absoluetly..i.e. Ottomans under their shariah rule allowed minorities to live according to their own religious laws and justice system..But if you search the system of ottomans you would clearly see that minorites had more trust on the application of the legal system of shariah than their own..

But most of the Muslim majority nations that discriminate on religion today do so on the basis of sharia - regulations against Church building, apostasy from Islam, prohibiting open displays of Christianity, restrictions on proselytizing, blasphemy laws, etc., are all based off of pure Islamic law, not secular law, obviously.

I'll play devils advocate and will tell you that it's their own right to persue political islam where they are themselves "as locals" treated like foreigners by the colonial nations..

-- Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:48 pm --

very few Muslim majority nations are actually purely Islamic (the Ottoman empire never was).
when advocating the mythical historical tolerance of Islam. But the proof is in the eating,

For you to say this...First you have to digest what's written in this link...
philosophy-dubai/the-medina-charter-prophet-muhammad-t42298.html

-- Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:21 pm --

In both categories, the Muslim world (Middle East and North Africa) lead the way, ahead of even Asia which is filled to the brim with communist and cult of personality dictatorships.

and one can see how tolerant Islamic law truly is in the present day. Hence, Westerners are right for being skeptical of any claims to the contrary:

Yes those cult of personality dictatorships are the works of like minded western nations..

The last loving dictotor of the western world have been thrown off his throne by his people..
This country was Tunisia..And this loving president called Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was also works of the like minded western nations, in this case franco led italians..They show the whole muslim world how great monuments of democracy they were when they democraticaly manipulated the election results of another democraticly electing secular "mooslim" nation..lol..
The end result is that he has been made to stay in power for the last 22 years, only to worship the ideals of his colonisers.
This is what Fulvio Martini says:

In 1999 Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service SISMI, declared to a parliamentary committee that "In 1985-1987 we organized a kind of golpe in Tunisia, putting president Ben Ali as head of state, replacing Burghiba (sic) who wanted to flee". Bourguiba, although a symbol of anticolonial resistance, was considered not capable to lead his country anymore, and his reaction to the raising Islamic integralism was deemed "a bit too energetic" by Martini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zine_El_Abidine_Ben_Ali

So what is it again that was worrying western nations?...The answer is "islamo phobia" of course..

Absoluetly..i.e. Ottomans under their shariah rule allowed minorities to live according to their own religious laws and justice system..But if you search the system of ottomans you would clearly see that minorites had more trust on the application of the legal system of shariah than their own..

The Ottoman empire was never a purely Islamic state and the Tanzimat reforms of the 19th century were adopted from Napoleonic law.

Even then, the law of apostasy was still in place so there was never total religious freedom and these laws were introduced by secularized pashas to the disdain of religious authorities who sought to repeal the European influenced laws that were being set up.

The Ottoman empire was never a purely Islamic state and the Tanzimat reforms of the 19th century were adopted from Napoleonic law.

Why do you think they were never a purely islamic state?

It was inevitable that they adopted seperate justice system for non-muslims as large numbers of them were immigrating to live under the empire during its domain towards the west, as well as through the unrest in Europe itself i.e. jews , I tell you that many consession were given to non-muslims living under this empire that had eventually triggered its destruction..

You do not need to call them Napoleonic law when muslims have their role model prophets..

Even then, the law of apostasy was still in place so there was never total religious freedom and these laws were introduced by secularized pashas to the disdain of religious authorities who sought to repeal the European influenced laws that were being set up.

Yeah secularized pashas.. you mean deviated so called muslims or converts...dear oh dear..
Hey listen what makes a muslim nation a nation of islam is their covenance with the laws of God/islam..
You cannot have total religious freedom when it is going to threaten/break their unity in covenance with God.. Alrite you get that? But of course within your privacy(yourself) you can preach anything you like..

Why do you think they were never a purely islamic state?

The Ottomans were never purely Islamic from the 1530's to the abolishment of the caliphate. Under Suleyman I, royal edicts called firmans (Sultanic law) were introduced to supplement sharia law. These laws were codified into what is known as kanun.

Even though the laws were treated as a part of sharia, they were all positive (man made) laws. From this point on, the Turks were no different from Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Pakistan today which combines Sharia law with English common law and/or Napoleonic code.

Later, in the nineteenth century, the Ottomans began reforming their legal system after Napoleonic code with the hopes of competing with the West. Napoleonic code effectively replaced the sharia in Egypt and the Ottoman empire.

But to stress my previous point, the Ottomans never fully adhered to pure Islamic law before the 19th century - much in the same way that Europe followed Roman law before the definitive separation of church and state.

But to stress my previous point, the Ottomans never fully adhered to pure Islamic law before the 19th century -

what is pure islamic law? and in what sense those firmans(known as kanun) were different from this pure islamic law?

Koran 5:44 - Whoso judges not according to what God has sent down - they are the unbelievers.

Berrin, the sultanic edicts were man made laws that Muslims were to follow.

To me, that is as un-Islamic as the Muslim majority states in the world today who rule by secular Western law.

Eh do you know the difference between ferman and kanun, also the difference between kanun and shariah..Are you saying that ottomans never had supreme religious authority?
What about the situations which are not covered by shariah? couldn't they be regulated as seperate kanuns.. such as organization of military and government, banking,running monetary affairs, taxation etc..

Hey how far do you think you know anything about islamic judical system and jurisprudence eh?..
Do you think I can be a graduate from your school of thought?

You know we are progressing too fast ..Are you sure that we now have enough experience over religion islam and shariah to move on this fast....