So Where Exactly Does "Religious Law" Come From?

This case of the Malay dog trainer girl being arrested still disturbs me. Last nite I had an interesting conversation with the nation's topmost legal minds.  Why wasnt the fellow who re-uploaded that Youtube video also arrested?  The girl uploaded the video three years ago. It is old news. Now after three years some busybody found the video and reposted it again. The Law should arrest the guy who reposted the video. 

Anyway I am also prompted to write about what exactly is 'Islamic' law, what is shariah law, Allah's law, man made law, the opinions of the scholars (nauzubillah) etc. What exactly are the religious people upholding?

Very often "religious" law fails when you apply logic to it. "Religious" law frequently also fails when you apply science to it. 

So the question is can laws which fail logic and science come from Allah? I dont think so. 

Allah is the Creator, the Perfector, the Most Wise, the most knowledgeable. Knowledge means science'. To me Allah is the greatest scientist (Alim).

Here is something I picked up about "Shariah Law".  Shariah law of course differs according to the different sects or mazhabs in Sunnism (Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, Shafie) and also among the Shiahs. This immediately tells you that Shariah that differs from one madhab to another madhab cannot be from Allah.  It is from the sect or mazhab.

For example here is something about illegitimate children from the Indian Courts. India has a sizeable Muslim minority. Just like anywhere else, problems arise when say a Muslim woman gives birth too long after a divorce, too soon after a marriage etc.  

"(2) Under Muslim law a child born within two years (or even longer periods under Shafie and Maliki schools) of the dissolution of marriage may be legitimate, but under theEvidence Act a child born after two hundred and eighty days of the dissolution of marriage can never be treated as legitimate."

So under the Shariah, after a couple divorces, if the divorced woman then gives birth two years (24 months) or more after the divorce, the child is still considered legitimate.  

Of course this is tak masuk akal. Neither does it follow established scientific fact. The longest recorded pregnancy that resulted in a live birth was 375 days (slightly over 12 months) but it was a rare exception. Most human births occur within nine months and 10 days.

Pregnancies of two years or more than two years are quite impossible among human beings. Science has proven that elephants have the longest pregnancy among mammals ie 20 to 22 months. All this is based on science.  Human beings are not elephants ok.

So in India, when Muslims go to court to dispute legitimacy of childbirth after divorce the Indian Courts ignore the Shariah Law and stick to the Indian Evidence Act which is based on science and evidence.  

The Indian Evidence Act says that babies born 280 days or more after divorce cannot be linked to the divorced husband.  This is more scientific, logical and more importantly it is truthful. This is therefore a more Islamic law. 

The question (for Muslims) is how can a law that says that a woman can give birth two years or three years after conception be deemed as coming from Allah? Allah would know better what is the term of pregnancy for a woman, an elephant etc. 

To say that a pregnancy can go on for two years or four years cannot be an Islamic Law. So if you insist on believing these types of laws, what exactly is your "religion"? Fikir baik-baik.

Maliki mazhab and dogs

Now here is something about dogs from the Maliki sect or mazhab.

• The Shafi’i Judge and Jurist Qadhi As-Safadi states, “Malik says that dogs are pure and what they lick is not made impure, but that a vessel licked by a dog should be washed to avoid filth.” ((Taken from “The Mercy in the difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘Aa’ishah Bewley printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4 ))
• The following quotes are statements from Imam Maalik as reported in the Mudawwanah of Imam Maalik regarding the dog:
• “One may eat what it catches in a hunt, how then can we declare Makrooh (hated or disliked) what it drinks (or places its tongue in).” (page 116)
• Maalik said, “If one desires to make wudhu’ from a vessel wherein a dog has drank (or put its tongue in), it is ok for him to make wudhu’ from it and pray.” (pg 115)
• Maalik said, “If a dog puts his tongue in a vessel of milk (labn) there is no harm (la ba’as) if one takes (i.e. eats) from that milk.” (ibid)
• Note that there are many other quotes from him within Volume 1 of the Mudawwana regarding the purity of the dog. I have chosen these only as a sample. [Vol. 1 published by Daar Al Kutub Al-'Ilmiyyah published in 2005 CE

http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/118

Obviously Malik did not know science either. Imam Malik said it  was ok to drink milk which has also been lapped up by a dog. Science tells us that you should not even share a coffee cup with another human being. Germs can travel from one person to another.

Of course I agree that you can eat animals that have been caught by hunting dogs. But it is assumed that we would wash the meat first before cooking it or at least cook it thoroughly over a fire.

However that is not the point. The point is Imam Malik says dogs are pure. Imam Malik is considered the founder of Islamic Jurisprudence. The famous book Al Muwatta which is attributed to him is labeled the "First formulation of Islamic law". Nauzubillah - May Allah protect us. 

So did anyone arrest Imam Malik when he said that 'anjing itu suci'?  Yes or no? But you still call him 'Imam Malik'? Pasal apa pulak?  Then why did you arrest that girl? 

Again the point is - what are you following? Islam? Allah? The Quran? Or the different opinions of human beings who you yourself have labelled scholars? 

Those who uphold Shafiee follow Shafiee. Those who uphold Malik follow Malik. Pernah dengar tak orang kata "duduk dalam bakul angkat sendiri"?  What do you think?

First of all you (or your grandfathers) chose which sect or mazhab you want to follow. Then you create new religious laws according to the sect you have decided to follow.  Ultimately it is you who chooses your own law. 

Now here is some history. Many of the imams who were scholars were often thrown into jail, murdered  or beaten up by the Khalifahs. Here is a list :

* Imam Husayn ibn Ali and his family (the Prophet's family) were brutally murdered by the army of the khalifa, Yazid ibn Mu'awiya. 

* Imam Abu Hanifah was ordered to be thrown in prison by the khalifa al-Mansur where he subesquently died. 

* The khalifa al-Mansur also ordered that Imam Malik be beaten.  He was beaten until his arms became paralyzed. 

* Imam Shafi was taken in chains from Yemen to Baghdad

* Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was jailed by the orders of the khalifa.  

*Almost all of the Imams of the Prophet's family were poisoned at the request of the khalifas of their times. 

There was too much politics, intrigues and mystery surrounding all those people. And these are the people who wrote down what has now become "Islamic law"?  May Allah protect us.

Here is more about the sectarian laws :

• Although other mazhabs forbid playing chess, Shafi'i permits it.
• Some Shafi'is endorse the practise of female circumcision

So the mazhab of Shafie permits the playing of chess. Thank you very much. The Hanafi mazhab does not permit playing chess. Pasal apa pulak? They keep reminding us that there is only one "god". But how come there are so many different religious laws? Can play chess, cannot play chess etc etc.

Some scholars within the Shafie mazhab endorse female circumcision. Yukky. So is all this also Islamic Law, sectarian law, sharia law, imam's law or whose law is this? 

The Taliban are Hanafi. They will break your fingers if they see you playing chess. Or taking photographs with a camera.

Then of course there are mistakes or errors when people formulate laws according to their mazhabs or sects. Here is a list of common errors that have taken place. I got this from the Net.

Causes of Error in Counting Opinions as the Imam's Madhhab

(1) Relying on an opinion he retracted

(2) Not paying attention to the manner in which he qualifies a statement or makes it absolute.

(3) Additions from some of the scholars of the madhhab

(4) Relying on books that have been criticized in the madhhab

(5) Misunderstanding. Ibn Rajab (al-Qawa'id, 169) states about Abu Bakr 'Abd al-'Aziz, known as Ghulam al-Khallal, "Abu Bakr frequently would narrate the words of Ahmad by the meaning he understood as a result of which great distortion would result. He fell into this sort of thing greatly in the book Zad al-Musafir."

(6) Combining two narrations when they should be distinguished as separate narrations, or the reverse.

(7) Distortion or misreading (Tashif) in the text of a narration.

(8) Using unreliable manuscripts

(9) The Imam might express an opinion, and then one of the scholars of the madhhab might further qualify it, and then the one transmitting this information might attribute all back to the Imam ***

So all these things did happen.  Of course there will be the lame brain (kurang akal people) who will say that 'all this has been studied, filtered and clarified' by the scholars.

Really? Then how come a woman can be pregnant for 24 months? Or 36 months? 

You cannot play chess? If you play chess you will be thrown in jail. Or you can play chess? You will not be thrown in jail. 

Or you can drink milk that was already lapped up by a dog (Maliki). Or you throw a Malay girl in jail for washing her dogs?  

Which one is which? So what exactly is your religion? Who are you following? Allah ? The Quran? The opinions of human beings that you have chosen to like? 

Here is a simple logic argument - please read it carefully. When it is up to you to decide which scholar's or imam's opinion of law you choose to follow, it ultimately means that it is you who choose your own laws. You determine your own laws. If you then insist that it is still "god's" law, you have just elevated yourself. 

To close here is something about the different opinions between the mazhabs about what is ijma or the consensus opinion, as well as their different rationales. As usual the different sects say different things.

Hanafi - Ijma is through public agreement of Islamic jurists. Rationale : the jurists are experts on legal matters

Shafi'i - Ijma is through agreement of the entire community and public at large. Rationale : the people cannot agree on anything erroneous

Maliki - Ijma is through agreement amongst the residents of Medina, the first Islamic capital. Rationale :  Islamic tradition says "Medina expels bad people like the furnace expels impurities from iron"

Hanbali - Ijma is through agreement and practice of the Prophet's Companions. Rationale : they were the most knowledgeable on religious matters and rightly guided

Usuli - Only the Ijma of the ulama of the same period as the Prophet or Shia Imams is binding. Rationale :  consensus is not genuinely binding in its own right, rather it is binding in as much as it is a means of discovering the Sunnah.

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

So the scholars differ in their opinions.