Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - AhmadFarooq

Pages: [1]
« on: September 18, 2016, 10:51:54 AM »
How about giving a new theme for this forum a try?

The green versions for these particular themes seem nice enough:

Instructions for installing a new theme:

As someone who has personal experience with open source software, a backup will definitely have to be made before trying any thing new.

In Islam / Qisas in Relation to Close Relatives
« on: November 22, 2015, 11:45:31 PM »

It is stated that:

Under sharia, neither Qisas nor Tazir applies if a Muslim parent or grandparent kills their child or grandchild, or if the murder victim is a spouse with whom one has surviving children. The culprit can be, however, subject to Diyya (financial compensation) which is payable to the surviving heirs of the victims.

Question#1: Is this correct? How could there not be an application of  Qisas or at the very least Tazir "if the murder victim is a spouse with whom one has surviving children"? Does it not contradict the divine Islamic laws?

Apparently, there is some degree of disagreement among the Sharia schools when the victim is the child:

The four major schools of Sunni sharia have been divided on applicability of Qisas when the victim is a child, and the father is the murderer. The Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali Sunni sharias have ruled that Qisas does not apply, as has the Shia sharia doctrine. The Maliki school, however, has ruled that Qisas may be demanded by the mother if a father kills his son. The Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i sharia extend this principle to cases when the victim is a child and the mother or grandparents are the murderers.

If I am not mistaken in my understanding of the above,

Question#2: How could the Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Shia schools not apply Qisas when the father is the murderer?
And how could the Maliki school not apply Qisas when "mother or grandparents are the murderers"?

...Historically, sharia did not stipulate any punishment against the accused when the victim is the child or the spouse of the murderer, but in modern times some sharia-based Muslim countries have introduced laws that grant courts the discretion to impose imprisonment of the murderer. However, the victim's heirs have the right to waive Qisas, seek Diyat, or pardon the killer.

Question#3: Why did Sharia in the past not "stipulate any punishment against the accused when the victim is the child or the spouse of the murderer"?
Was this just a deficiency in the written formal law of the time and the jurists of those times failed to give the issue much importance? Or is there some wisdom in such an exemption?
From what I understand the modern Sharia laws stated above are much better in fulfilling the divine Islamic laws than the earlier ones.

Source for above quotes:

I personally believe that the Wikipedia information is probably somewhat inaccurate as there are a few apparent discrepancies in it.


Rebuttals & Polemics / Sun set in muddy water
« on: November 11, 2015, 01:59:21 PM »

In the rebuttal here:
It is written that the following narration is not authentic:
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).
(Sunan Abi Dawud 4002)

But according to it is classified as "Sahih in chain".

Can you explain this apparent contradiction, or whatever is the difference?


Pages: [1]

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube