--------------AE0F784D844ECCF00BDE26E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town for several days... > Maybe I'm still splitting hairs, but I ddo not see the direct > relation you identify. What I mean is, anyone who subscribes, in > their heart, to a religion will take that religion, and the way of > life it offers, wherever they go. For example, a Christian Senator, > here in the US, will take the lessons he has learned to his job. If > he employs Christian doctrine in his life, it will also determine the > way he does his job. The difference comes where the religious > doctrine is part of the legal code. This must be the case for if not > would it then become impossible for a Muslim to live as a Muslim in > anywhere but a Muslim country. I personally do not believe this to be > true. Azamin, I am interested in your thoughts on this. Perhaps the > above paragraph is not clear enough to let me be properly understood. > Let me know if that is the case. yes.. in Islam when someone subscribe to it he/she has to take Islam as his way of life as far as he/she can.. for a new convert.. then it's up to his/her capabilities to do it... that's the flexible... for example in this ramadan month.. if a new convert cannot fast for the whole day. he/she can learn to do it for half.. then slowly for the whole day... i term of policy making.. there is some flexibility as for example.. Islam prohibit muslims to drink liquor.. thus.. the Islamic government should prohibit muslim from drinking liquor.. but non muslim can and liquor should be sold to non muslims only... and they should drink at their private place like at their home.. not at public like in cages etc... Islamic government if as what it should be should consider the needs of non muslims... As there is some common grounds with other religion and morality.. in the field of liquor and gambling... it makes the implementation of these limitation easier... The concept is.. it is prohibited for muslims but allowed for non muslim as long as they respect those muslims... but somehow some countries which has syariah law / islamic country do not really follow these guideline.. and the case of Greg's friend happen... (i'll comment on his e-mail later.. it is a bit delayed..) and I believe that there is a lot of these common grounds btween Islam and Christian or jew... or morality. What I wrote above is about what should happen in countries where muslims are the majority of more that 80% which it is easier to implement it like in saudi arabia, iran, pakistan and in case of Nigeria.. some states, not all states in nageria... and non muslim right according to Islam should be guarded. I countries where Muslim are the minority... they can follow as far as they can which I belief for their personal obligation but they do not have their obligation to implement the law as they don't have the power (to be the government). in the same time, they must follow the laws of the land as long as it is not against Islam. (and I believe there is no country i this world that has law to force its citizens to drink alcohol, eat pork, gamble and have free sex) The holy Quran that, there is no force upon in Islam (for non muslims).. but when you are a Muslim.. you have to obey it... So it is not impossible for muslim to live in non muslim countries. For halal food, they can have it on their own initiative.. that's why you can see some halal food in London, Australia, NY etc... > ----------->My understanding of the situation is a little different > than yours. I have read that the additional autonomy you mention was > itself outside the Nigerian constitution. And further, the adoption > of the Shai'ra as the official legal code was beyond what was > intended. My further understanding of the problem is that the Islamic > code is being imposed on non-Islamic citizens. It is the same as in Malaysia where the 2 states under the Islamic party cannot implements the syariah law as it is against the constitution... but if they win the federal government with tow-third majority.. they can amend the constitution... Constitutions can be amended with enough majority supported it and even the US constitutions had be amended several times... so does Nigeria.. The problem is if the Nigeria consttution is still not amended yet.. and thus the Amina's sentence is unconstitutional... (I assume they did not amend it yet) and petition should focus on this with some in the trial process/procedure.. not the law itself.. and this is acceptable to all... To protest that the law is inhumane to those with rational/open minded people is OK and should be with no problem as we can discuss it.. but what about those who are close minded and those illiterate form rural of Nigeria.... they cannot accept it and thus.. creating some dissatisfaction in them and somehow one of the factor of their anger to the west... But other people/country also have rights to takes action which is within their rights/boundries... but some of these actions also contribute to the ill feelings/dissatisfaction too... so the solution I believe is to have an understanding between parties involved so that we can understand each other and take action in more friendly and peaceful manner manner... So if any government/country is at odd with another government/country.. they should solve it in a friendly manner without making any unsatisfactory feeling which might cause a deeper illfeelings... well we can only hope.. the reality is different... thay's why we have wars... To me, they (nigerian) should amend the constitution first before implementing the syariah law... About the law is implemented to non-muslim.. I believe in case of alcohol, pork, and gambling... they cannot do it only in public as to respect the muslims.. and they can do it in their private home/place... for unwed sex.. if both involved is a non muslim.. there should be no procsecution... but when one of the partner is a muslim.. then it is implemented.. But then with the strict requirement of witness... most cases will be trialed under Takzir law which the punishments can be just fines or jailing.. or if there is no proove.. case is dissmissed.. > ------>I think we are almost agreeing here. While one should > certainly have additional sensitivity when discussing religious > topics, I do not believe that such sensitivity precludes discussion, > or even criticism. I see religion, and any aspect of culture, for > that matter, as fluid things. We can each learn from and grow through > the other. I think it is OK to talk about sensitive issues with those who are willing/can accept it.. but it is difficult with who cannot... Anyway..all things that I wrote is just "what it should be" and "what is during the early Islamic days", not the reality in this modern day world as some did not really follow the guidelines that Islam had stated. somehow, sometime I felt that some non muslims in US/non muslims countries are more islamic than some muslims in the islamic country... in term of ethics... honesty, discipline etc... Azamin --------------AE0F784D844ECCF00BDE26E8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town for several days...Maybe I'm still splitting hairs, but I ddo not see the direct relation you identify. What I mean is, anyone who subscribes, in their heart, to a religion will take that religion, and the way of life it offers, wherever they go. For example, a Christian Senator, here in the US, will take the lessons he has learned to his job. If he employs Christian doctrine in his life, it will also determine the way he does his job. The difference comes where the religious doctrine is part of the legal code. This must be the case for if not would it then become impossible for a Muslim to live as a Muslim in anywhere but a Muslim country. I personally do not believe this to be true. Azamin, I am interested in your thoughts on this. Perhaps the above paragraph is not clear enough to let me be properly understood. Let me know if that is the case.yes.. in Islam when someone subscribe to it he/she has to take Islam as his way of life as far as he/she can.. for a new convert.. then it's up to his/her capabilities to do it... that's the flexible... for example in this ramadan month.. if a new convert cannot fast for the whole day. he/she can learn to do it for half.. then slowly for the whole day... i term of policy making.. there is some flexibility as for example.. Islam prohibit muslims to drink liquor.. thus.. the Islamic government should prohibit muslim from drinking liquor.. but non muslim can and liquor should be sold to non muslims only... and they should drink at their private place like at their home.. not at public like in cages etc... Islamic government if as what it should be should consider the needs of non muslims...As there is some common grounds with other religion and morality.. in the field of liquor and gambling... it makes the implementation of these limitation easier... The concept is.. it is prohibited for muslims but allowed for non muslim as long as they respect those muslims... but somehow some countries which has syariah law / islamic country do not really follow these guideline.. and the case of Greg's friend happen... (i'll comment on his e-mail later.. it is a bit delayed..) and I believe that there is a lot of these common grounds btween Islam and Christian or jew... or morality.
What I wrote above is about what should happen in countries where muslims are the majority of more that 80% which it is easier to implement it like in saudi arabia, iran, pakistan and in case of Nigeria.. some states, not all states in nageria... and non muslim right according to Islam should be guarded. I countries where Muslim are the minority... they can follow as far as they can which I belief for their personal obligation but they do not have their obligation to implement the law as they don't have the power (to be the government). in the same time, they must follow the laws of the land as long as it is not against Islam. (and I believe there is no country i this world that has law to force its citizens to drink alcohol, eat pork, gamble and have free sex) The holy Quran that, there is no force upon in Islam (for non muslims).. but when you are a Muslim.. you have to obey it...
So it is not impossible for muslim to live in non muslim countries. For halal food, they can have it on their own initiative.. that's why you can see some halal food in London, Australia, NY etc...
----------->My understanding of the situation is a little different than yours. I have read that the additional autonomy you mention was itself outside the Nigerian constitution. And further, the adoption of the Shai'ra as the official legal code was beyond what was intended. My further understanding of the problem is that the Islamic code is being imposed on non-Islamic citizens.It is the same as in Malaysia where the 2 states under the Islamic party cannot implements the syariah law as it is against the constitution... but if they win the federal government with tow-third majority.. they can amend the constitution... Constitutions can be amended with enough majority supported it and even the US constitutions had be amended several times... so does Nigeria.. The problem is if the Nigeria consttution is still not amended yet.. and thus the Amina's sentence is unconstitutional... (I assume they did not amend it yet) and petition should focus on this with some in the trial process/procedure.. not the law itself.. and this is acceptable to all... To protest that the law is inhumane to those with rational/open minded people is OK and should be with no problem as we can discuss it.. but what about those who are close minded and those illiterate form rural of Nigeria.... they cannot accept it and thus.. creating some dissatisfaction in them and somehow one of the factor of their anger to the west... But other people/country also have rights to takes action which is within their rights/boundries... but some of these actions also contribute to the ill feelings/dissatisfaction too... so the solution I believe is to have an understanding between parties involved so that we can understand each other and take action in more friendly and peaceful manner manner... So if any government/country is at odd with another government/country.. they should solve it in a friendly manner without making any unsatisfactory feeling which might cause a deeper illfeelings... well we can only hope.. the reality is different... thay's why we have wars...To me, they (nigerian) should amend the constitution first before implementing the syariah law... About the law is implemented to non-muslim.. I believe in case of alcohol, pork, and gambling... they cannot do it only in public as to respect the muslims.. and they can do it in their private home/place... for unwed sex.. if both involved is a non muslim.. there should be no procsecution... but when one of the partner is a muslim.. then it is implemented.. But then with the strict requirement of witness... most cases will be trialed under Takzir law which the punishments can be just fines or jailing.. or if there is no proove.. case is dissmissed..
------>I think we are almost agreeing here. While one should certainly have additional sensitivity when discussing religious topics, I do not believe that such sensitivity precludes discussion, or even criticism. I see religion, and any aspect of culture, for that matter, as fluid things. We can each learn from and grow through the other.I think it is OK to talk about sensitive issues with those who are willing/can accept it.. but it is difficult with who cannot...
Anyway..all things that I wrote is just "what it should be" and "what is during the early Islamic days", not the reality in this modern day world as some did not really follow the guidelines that Islam had stated.somehow, sometime I felt that some non muslims in US/non muslims countries are more islamic than some muslims in the islamic country... in term of ethics... honesty, discipline etc...
Azamin