'Islam is the official religion of the state'

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraqi Constitution Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Constitution "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 1, Section 2

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess sometimes you just have to make concessions to write a constitution. There are some things you can fix later, once everybody starts working together.

On the other hand, you could just have a civil war.

[ QUOTE ]
No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't think of a single rule of Islam that I object to that is not in dispute. Can you?

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. COnstitution, Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the government of Iraq will be as faithful to the rules of Islam as the U.S. government has been to the rights of the people.

One can hope.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So you are free to follow any religion that doesn't conflict with Islam then. Great!



[/ QUOTE ]

For a while, I was confused about the course of our discussion, but I've come to realize that you're just stupid. Everything is clearer now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a discussion on one of the undisputed rules of Islam:

[ QUOTE ]
GEORGE THOMAS: This is a video of you meeting with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Jaafari. You had a chance to talk to him about religious freedom. And meet with other high-ranking members of the Iraqi government. What was your impression, when you pressed them on the subject of religious freedom?

TERRY LAW: The main issue that I brought up, George, was the issue of what happens to someone who changes their religion. The Koran is quite clear about it: the person who does so is declared an infidel. If they don’t recant after three opportunities, then the word goes out to kill them. My question to the Prime Minister was: if someone were to change their religion, and they are killed for doing so, is that not an abuse of the most basic of all human rights: the right to life and to live.

GEORGE THOMAS: And what was his response, sir?

TERRY LAW: He gave me a 45-minute lecture on the American Constitution and refused to answer my question.

GEORGE THOMAS: And Dr. Law, as you know, in Islam there is no conversion away from Islam, it is punishable by death. One aspect of this constitution is the judiciary, and in ‘the judiciary’ it says the judges who are appointed to Iraq’s highest court must have experience in Sharia law and that Sharia law will be part of it. Are you concerned about this?

TERRY LAW: I am very concerned, sir. Basically, because Sharia law and the right of people to change their mind about religion are diametrically opposed. And to say that people have human rights, or to say that they have religious freedom in the constitution, and then to say that Sharia law is the basis of that—is a contradiction in terms.



[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/In...m-in-Iraq.html

I will restate my position again: I don't believe that any American soldiers should by fighting and dying to protect a constitution that mandates Islam as the official religion and a source of law.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, you could just have a civil war.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be inevitable regardless of whether this constitution is approved.

[bobman0330]

Why do I care what that guy says again? In any case, the provision about religious freedom is not a law, it's a constitutional provision. The first provision you brought up does not trump it... it doesn't affect it at all. Even if you take the radical Islamophobic position of that interview, it doesn't matter. Infringing religious freedom is unconsitutional in Iraq, no matter what the Koran says.

ooh, found a some good ones here.

1. Consensual anal sex between a man and his wife is permitted, though frowned upon.
2. Shaking a woman's hand, forbidden.
3. Chess and backgammon, forbidden.
4. Music for purposes of enjoyment, forbidden.

[nicky g]

"TERRY LAW: The main issue that I brought up, George, was the issue of what happens to someone who changes their religion. The Koran is quite clear about it: the person who does so is declared an infidel. If they don’t recant after three opportunities, then the word goes out to kill them"

I believe this is incorrect and that this rule is not undisputed nor even mentioned in the Quran. As I understand it, the directive to kill apostates is found not in the Qur'an but in a hadith (ie one of the supposed sayings of Mohammed). The authenticity of many hadiths is disputed and they do not carry the same weight in Islam as the Quran, which arguably contradicts the supposed injunction several times. When it does talk about apostasy it threatens apostates with punishment in the afterlife, not this one. Many Muslim scholars etc do not believe renouncing Islam should carry any earthly penalty. For those who read French there is a series of articles on the issue from the excellent Moroccan news weekly Le Journal here.
It quotes a fatwa from Al-Azhar, arguably the most important centre of learning in Sunni Islam (although also arguably these days coopted by the Egyptian state, saying that while people should not choose or change their religions lightly, executing apostates is not expressed in any Koranic text and is only supported by one hadith (which does not give it much weight given that there are innumberable and often contradictory ones).

[Jdanz]

i'm pretty sure that Dar al Islam (abode of islam) and Dar al Harb (Abode of War) are mentioned directly in the Quran, which has serious implications about killing those who aren't islamic, not to mention that almost all sources since the 7th century consider the hadith immutable law in some form.

Though i'd like to argue that these sentiments aren't in the Quran i believe they are. Luckily there are some wild things in a lot of religious books, and none of the sections on killing non-believers (which doesn't include christians or jews) have ever been put into practice, or even much considered outside of the last fifty years.

As i understand it while it's in the text almost all modern scholars of islam don't see killing non-believers as a part of the practice of islam, and condemn the practice.

Note: while there are certainly passages that say to kill non-believers there are specifically passages that say don't kill non-believers, however the kill the non-believers passages came later and are believed to have supersceded thr don't kill passages.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure that Dar al Islam (abode of islam) and Dar al Harb (Abode of War) are mentioned directly in the Quran, which has serious implications about killing those who aren't islamic, not to mention that almost all sources since the 7th century consider the hadith immutable law in some form.

Though i'd like to argue that these sentiments aren't in the Quran i believe they are. Luckily there are some wild things in a lot of religious books, and none of the sections on killing non-believers (which doesn't include christians or jews) have ever been put into practice, or even much considered outside of the last fifty years.

As i understand it while it's in the text almost all modern scholars of islam don't see killing non-believers as a part of the practice of islam, and condemn the practice.

Note: while there are certainly passages that say to kill non-believers there are specifically passages that say don't kill non-believers, however the kill the non-believers passages came later and are believed to have supersceded thr don't kill passages.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were talking about apostasy, not general attitude to non-believers. What passages about killing unbelievers are you talking about? The passages I'm aware of in context refer to being attacked in holy places and the fact that it is permissible to fight back.

My understanding is that the dar al Harb business is not in the Quran, but was introduced by later scholars/jurists. But whether it is or not, the world is not stricly divided into those categories; there is also dar al Sulh (house of the treaty) or dar al Ahd (house of the covenant), non-Muslim lands which can be to peace with Muslim lands.

"not to mention that almost all sources since the 7th century consider the hadith immutable law in some form. "

Depends on what school of thought etc you belong to. It is unquestionable that the Qur'an, the word of God, takes precedence over the sayings of the Prophet, which as I said come in many forms that aren't all universally accepted as genuine. Regarding the hadith in question there is also an argument that it referred not to people changing their religion but betraying the Muslim camp in a war.

[ACPlayer]

Islam does not divide the world into just these categories. There is also at least one other category, roughly translated to house of peace. This is roughly those States with which the house of Islam is co-existing peacefully. The house of Islam and house of war - white and black - categorization is used by some to paint Islam in a negative light, ie for political reasons.

All these terms are from the Islaminc Fiqh and not directly from the quran. The fiqh contains detailed law derived from the Qur'ân and the Hadith covering the myriad of problems that arise in the course of man's life. The classification comes from the Hanafi Fiqh approximately 200 years after Mohammed.

Further, there are some Islamic scholars in the past who have opined that Muslims should not live in the house of war. However, even the Prophet sent Muslims to live in Christian lands.

The take away from all this has to be that these classifications are not from the Quran, but are political interpretations after the fact to reflect the realities of those times in which the classifications came about. Of course extremists like OBL (and many Saudi wahabists) insist on a rigid classification. However, the bulk of islamic scholars do not appear to agree. The people who do agree with OBL are those in the West who believe it is to their advantage to paint Muslims in this light.
dar al-sulh also called dar al-ahd

The justification for this classification is found in the quran:

[ QUOTE ]
“Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance,] compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to God: for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom.”

-- 3. Al-Nisa’: 92



[/ QUOTE ]

Some other quranic quotations about who to fight or not against.

[ QUOTE ]
“[60:1] O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in God your Lord! …”

“[60:8] God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.

[60:9] God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.”


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
“(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.”

-- 9. Al-Tawba: 4



[/ QUOTE ]

It also bears remembering the teh Quran explicitly protects those who are of the BOOK (that is the monotheist biblical christians and jews). Most of the war classification and the conversion directives are against the pagans of that time. Islam was instrumental in converting many into a monotheist view from the pagans that lived in the middle east around the time of the prophet.

[Jdanz]

i hadn't really heard of house of peace, but from the link you posted that seems to be in reference to people of the book, which do not qualify as non-believers.

People covered under dhima wasn't really what i was refering to, and i may have gotten off the original topic of apostates, however i was trying to say that there is some firm textual evidence for these violent views, and as such they can't just be dismissed, though i think it's fairly clear due to both religious and political realities these were never taken very seriously in any mainstream muslim ciricles.

Essentially i'm acknowledging that there are very violent overtones in some of the later suras but this was never something practiced by any muslims i'm aware of from the death of mohamad to the 20th century.