The tenets of Islam are as easy as it it is. Pray, Give Alms, Fast, Perform Pilgrimage and Attesting to the existence of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad? Maybe next time when anyone of you say the tenets of Islam contains any part that says wage war, you wouldn't mind to say, thats your own concorted version of Islam. That would be appreciated.

@enugu
I might have missed out your questions, nevertheless, you shouldnt jump into conclusion and assume that I intentionally missed it, I was following the pattern of the thread to answer questions. Nevertheless, your question would be, sorry I couldnt find it?

The interesting thing I found about all this accusations is, most of the people that claim Muslims support terrorism fail to actually research that fact by googling or doing what they do best in attesting to the crimes perpetuated by a so called Islamic group or organisation.

Here is a helpful google result for starters.
http://www.google.com.my/search?q=muslims+condemn+terror+attack

babyosisi:

We open the Koran and read where Muhammad waged wars and killed and captured people and made them his slaves so these people say they are following his examples.

Is it? , when you say something like that, you should include quotations to support that statement.it would help other readers, atleast me, so I would know what exactly you are reffering at, and be able to give proper response in regards.

babyosisi:

It leaves us with just one explanation why Muslims are very susceptible to violent and terrorist acts,there could be something in the teachings of Islam with violent connotations causing them not to love but hate other people with opposing views so much that they are willing to blow up themselves with their enemies.

There could be? First you attest by claiming it promotes, now you are not sure? Interesting.

Its not my duty to stop another person's crime, rather I choose to correct stereotypical deduction. I am not a religious police, and this is not a law enforcing thread and the world is full of different crimes being perpetuated with different motives. Whatever someone else chooses to propagand, what we should investigate is, whether the source of the propaganda validates the cause before a deduction is made. If it is not, then it should be condemned, and I do know that out of the many billions of muslims out there arround the world, more than 90% condemn terror, and that is more than enough.

I already answered your question before, so I choose not to answer it again. If you need to read it again, please visit
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-20477.288.html#msg580981
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-20477.288.html#msg581021

The Truth About Shariah.

I have always tried to go through shariah in an understandeable short essay, but due to the nature of forums, I doubted many would read it, nevertheless its worth a try today. I would try to summarize as best as I can, I just hope people would understand better and not derive meanings other than what they are really are.

The general public have several preconceived notions about Islamic Law. One such notion is that Islamic judges are bound by ancient and outdated rules of fixed punishments for all crimes. Here I would explore that idea and look at other myths in an attempt to present Islamic Law from a non-biased view of Shar'iah Law.

Although it is the responsibility of the mass media to bring to the world's attention violations of human rights and acts of terror, many believe that media stereotyping of all Muslims is a major problem.

Which I tend to assume that honest readers would agree to too.

Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Shar'iah is only applicable to Muslims.

Now the Islamic Law at Glance.

Historically the Islamic Judge (Qazi) was a legal secretary appointed by the provincial governors. Each Islamic nation may differ slightly in how the judges are selected.

One common myth associated with Islamic Law is that judges must always impose a fixed and predetermined punishment for each crime.
Judges under Islamic Law are bound to administer several punishments for a few very serious crimes found in the Qur’an, but they possess much greater freedom in punishment for less serious (non-Hadd) crimes. Common law is filled with precedents, rules, and limitations which inhibit creative justice. Judges under Islamic Law are free to create new options and ideas to solve new problems associated with crime.

Elements of Shar'iah Law

Shariah Law controls, rules and regulates all public and private behaviour. It has regulations for personal hygiene, diet, sexual conduct, and elements of child rearing.

Shar'iah Law has several sources from which to draw its guiding principles. It does not rely upon one source for its broad knowledge base. The first and primary element of Shar'iah Law is the Qur’an.The second element of Shar'iah Law is known as the Sunna or otherwise known as the Hadith.

The Sunna contain stories and anecdotes, called Hadith, to illustrate a concept. The Qur’an may not have all the information about behaviour and human interaction in detail; the Sunna gives more detailed information than the Qur’an, but nevertheless an unbroken chain of narration is needed to authenticate it, before implementation.

The third element of Shar'iah Law is known as the Ijma. The Muslim religion uses the term Ulama as a label for its religious scholars. These Ulama's are consulted on many matters both personal and political. When the Ulama's reach a consensus on an issue, it is interpreted as Ijma. The concepts and ideas found in the Ijma are not found explicitly in the Qur’an or the teachings of the Prophet (Sunna). Islamic judges are able to examine the Ijma for many possible solutions which can be applied in a modern technical society. They are free by the Islamic law, to create new and innovative methods to solve crime and social problems based upon the concepts found in the Ijma.These judges have great discretion in applying the concepts to a specific problem.


The Qiyas are a fourth element of Shar'iah Law. The Qiyas are not explicitly found in the Qur’an, Sunna, or given in the Ijma. The Qiyas are new cases or case law which may have already been decided by a higher judge. The Shar'iah judge can use the legal precedent to decide new case law and its application to a specific problem. The judge can use a broad legal construct to resolve a very specific issue. For example, a computer crime or theft of computer time is not found in the Qur’an or Sunna. The act of theft as a generic term is prohibited so the judge must rely on logic and reason to create new case law or Qiyas.

The fifth element of Shar'iah Law is very broad and "all encompassing." This secondary body of knowledge may be ideas contained in the other written works. The New Testament is an example of this area of information, and legal discourses based upon Civil Law or Common Law may be another example. All information can be examined for logic and reason to see if it applies to the current case. It also may be a local custom or norm that judge may find helpful in applying to the issue before him. The judge may also weigh the impact of his decision upon how it will effect a person's standing in the community.

Crimes under Islamic Law can be broken down into three major categories. Each will be discussed in greater detail with some common law analogies. The three major crime categories in Islamic Law are:

1. Hadd [plural Hudud] Crimes (most serious).
2. Tazir Crimes (least serious).
3. Qesas Crimes (revenge crimes restitution).

Hadd crimes are crimes against God's law and Tazir crimes are crimes against society. There are some safeguards for Hadd crimes that many in the media fail to mention. Some in the media only mention that if you steal, your hand is cut off.

The Islamic judge must look at a higher level of proof and reasons why the person committed the crime. A judge can only impose the Hadd punishment when a person confesses to the crime or there are enough witnesses to the crime. The usual number of witnesses is two, but in the case of adultery four witnesses are required.

The media often leaves the public with the impression that all are punished with flimsy evidence or limited proof. Islamic law has a very high level of proof for the most serious crimes and punishments. When there is doubt about the guilt of a Hadd crime, the judge must treat the crime as a lesser Tazir crime. If there is no confession to a crime or not enough witnesses to the crime, Islamic law requires the Hadd crime to be punished as a Tazir crime.

Tazir Crimes
Modern Islamic Society has changed greatly from the time of the Prophet. Contemporary Shar'iah Law is now in written form and is statutory in nature. Islamic concepts of justice argue that a person should know what the crime is and its possible punishment.

For example, Egypt has a parliamentary process which has a formal penal code written and based upon the principles of Islamic Law, but Saudi Arabia allows the judge to set the Tazir crimes and punishments. Modern Islamic Law recognizes many differences between these two nations.

It also allows for much greater flexibility in how it punishes an offender. The major myth of many people is that judges in Islamic nations have fixed punishments for all crimes. In reality the judges have much greater flexibility than judges under common law.

Tazir punishments vary according to the circumstances. They change from time to time and from place to place. They vary according to the gravity of the crime and the extent of the criminal disposition of the criminal himself.

Historically Tazir crimes were not written down or codified. This gave each ruler great flexibility in what punishments the judge was able to dispense. The judge under Islamic Law is not bound by precedents, rules, or prior decisions as in common law. Judges are totally free to choose from any number of punishments that they think will help an individual offender. The only guiding principle for judges under Shar'iah Law is that they must answer to Allah and to the greater community of Muslims. Some of the more common punishments for Tazir crimes are counselling, fines, public or private censure, family and clan pressure and support, seizure of property, confinement in the home or place of detention, and flogging.

Contemporary treatment of Islamic Law and "Radical Muslims" is filled with stereotypical characterizations. Some in the Western media have used the "New York City bombings" as a way to increase hate and prejudice. They have taken the views of a few radicals and projected them onto all Muslims. This action has done a great disservice to the Muslim world.

Some people, also have concluded that Islamic judges lack discretion in their sentences of defendants in the Shar'iah Court System. There are Hadd crimes that do have fixed punishments set forth in the Qur’an, and not all the Hadd crimes are bound by mandatory punishment.

True we are bound to agree that, Islamic Law is very different from English Common Law or the European Civil Law traditions. Nevertheless, we should note that Muslims are held accountable to the Shar'iah Law in an Islamic state, and are judged based on current applicable situations and contexual applications, but non-Muslims are not bound by the same standard (apostasy from Allah). Muslims and non-Muslims are both required to live by laws enacted by the various forms of government such as tax laws, traffic laws, white collar crimes of business, and theft.

babyosisi:

Anyone reading the posts would see how evasive and cunning you have been.o
I literally had to drag answers out of you like pulling teeth.
My questions have been simple,even an illiterate can understand them.

You said there is no ideal sharia state today and I wanted you to agree that since there was none,any government killing apostates in the name of Sharia must be wrong based on your explanation and I also wanted to know if it is the dream of Muslims to have an ideal shariah state but suddenly you are sick of answering because you know as you claim,an ideal sharia state would be the will of Allah but would kill apostates also.

The cartoon earlier tells the typical muslim answer to questions.
The others dissappeared because they know theit truthful answers will not be politically correct,the same reason you are throwing a tantrum.

God help us!!!

This is exactly what you said now and I am inclined to agree that you never read what I have written before or you choose to cast a blind eye to it. Let me re-paste them again, since you insist I havent answered them.

1. I wanted you to agree that since there was none,any government killing apostates in the name of Sharia must be wrong based on your explanation.

logical link=topic=20477.#msg581040#msg581040:
You would be charged with murder, if you kill someone where Islamic law is practiced. I encourage that you take it upon you to read before you form opinion on anything. Islamic Law plus the application of fatwa, just the same way you read the old testament and embrace new modified laws based on context, that should help.

2.as you claim, an ideal sharia state would be the will of Allah but would kill apostates also.

logical link=topic=20477.#msg581047#msg581047:

The will of Allah? Allah Enjoins us to be sincere and apply shariah based on circumstances, wisdom, sincerity and context. Anything not applied in relation is not his will, hence I suppose that applies.

Futhermore,

logical link=topic=20477.320.html#msg581062:

A good example is the law of cutting hands when you steal. It is only applicable according to the shariah in the enviroment that there is 0% poverty, a place where everybody has shelter and food to eat. So tell me that ideal community is available today.

A refrence was during the prophets time when he halted the law due to ferminine.

3.The cartoon earlier tells the typical muslim answer to questions.

Well just as predicted, the typical muslims have just fullfilled your typical stereotypical nature.

I am sorry to say but I am really getting sick of your loop of questions and use of fallacious approaches to distract people. I am sure nobody wants to answer you, because when then go through the last two pages of this thread they would understand exactly my worries in regards to how you want to drive at achieving your motives.

Its as simple as it is, if you want to really have a honest conversation, open your mind, read through all I have said, and say something useful thats on track.

I am sure your response would be, "This is exactly what I expect, This is what they are", that I surely don't doubt. As I said I am sick of trying to clarify things with you. Any honest person reading through this thread would understand exactly what I said, Thank goodness I used English and most of us went to school.

Sincerity is a pre-requisite to a healthy intellectual discussion, and I do encourage you use that as a tool not only in this forum, but everywhere you go.

For a start, It would interest people reading this thread, to know what your intentions are, and what you plan to achieve. Honestly I would like to know.

@babyosisi
Are you new to this thread? I guess not? Then why the before post? Hmm Several but not All, as you agree too, which would for once say you are not using a generalisation concept.

If a christian believer choose to be different like the Jehova witnesses for example, would you attest that the laws governing their belief system even though they are christians is popular amongst all christian belief? I guess not.

I repeat, since you choose to turn a blind eye on what I already said. Stories can exist, fables can, human cospirators propagandist and cospirators can form whatever they like. All shariah laws can be reviewed, modified to accomodate any reality based on what we call fatwah. Whoever chooses not too, is guilty not the whole entity of that belief system, since it accomodates for changes based on circumstancial evidence.

I am sure you would agree, if it were to support christianity or whatever you believe in, but I still would give you the benefit of the doubt to consider applying that same ideology to Islamic doctrines.

In Nigeria for example wouldnt equate the Yoruba Muslims as the Hausa Muslims? Yes I suppose not, but rather that is exactly what you are doing, beign bias and generalising a crime commited by the Hausas to qualify for the entire Nigerian Muslims.

The simple derivation of filtering all those unfair approaches is by using a intellectual approaches, Why is it not ALL? What are those using the different approaches applying? Does the religion approve of those application?

If the religion does approve such application, then the religion is ok?

babyosisi:


You my man are the one missing it,IBB and Abacha were just my examples to tell you that Castros agenda was not different from the dictator Abachas.

They did not kill in the name of religion but politics.

Since you choose to equate Castro to Alqueda and Islamic jihadists and know better,what religion did he seek to convert the whole world to and how many planes to and from America has he targetted in the name of his god?

To answer your question above,the terrorists in IRA have a target and they are not doing their fighting in the name of Christ because he did not give any such command.

When it comes to analysing crimes perpetuated by Muslims, you agree that their cause was religious based, but when it comes to those perpetuated by Non Muslims, you agree that it has no religious motive. Interesting.

I don't even know where to start since you are soo misguided with the meaning of terrorism. I am not a teacher, I am only a clarifier, for those seeking for the truth. I still can't figure the way you analyse things, but I guess if you really know the historical background of Castro considering his uprise to what he is now, you would know exactly where I am coming from, but since you don't have such a rich understanding of political, or even historical occurencies or simple terminologies used vs propaganda approaches, I would hereby rest my case, since you are not ready to even evaluate what I have written already, rather you are looking for answers to affirm to what you already believe.

A clarifications of Northern conflicts, whether you are muslim or not, as long as  you are not of Hausa Origin, during the conflicts, your life would not be spaired. I was in Kano in 1990-1992 conflicts, and I know how many Yoruba Muslims were slaughtered.

As for affirming to your already mindset/beliefs, That I cannot really help you with. Sorry.

Yes, there is no Ideal Islamic State.

To form an Islamic State there must be a total rehaul in the political, judicial, and social environment, so for example Saudi Arabia uses a Monarchy system, which is totally not accepted by Islamic law, you can check that for yourself.

donmayor:

Christian terrorist are not terrorising in the name of the gospel. They are fighting independent, country related wars. Islamic terrorists are driven by words in the koran and their perception that if you're not a muslim you're an enemy, an infidel.

Words in the Quran? You derived that by browsing through hypotesis on the case, I suppose? Am I correct?

How about I do the same? Starting from the old testaments, looking for how God according to the bible destroyed a whole city of homosexuals and use that today as an anthem against my cause of wiping homosexuals out of the world? Because God believes they do not need to exist, and its following his way? I guess that is not applicable since its in the realms of your beleif?

But in reality, that is exactly what you are doing, using quotations out of context to assume.

@babyosisi

You miss it again, its not about me, its about the points I have laid down, the credibility of it, so you don't have to make it personal.

Maybe you might want to browse through the historical archive of Fidel Castro, his uprise against the goverment etc etc and maybe read extensively on what terrorism is, because your understanding seems to have come from media relativity.

Did I mention Abacha and IBB? I guess not, here you go making up generalized statements out of the examples I have given. Even though the subjects in relative question, were not rightly placed, their position was not established the same way Fidel Castro was. So please read through the historical archives and relate it with the definition.

Do you agree that there are christian terrorist in Ireland and Sri Lanka, for example? This is because by religion, they are christians. Please answer this question, thank you.

Would you mind to read if I have the link to the answers to your worries about the number of days? If so please read http://www.islamicvoice.com/january.2001/religion.htm

@babyosisi

This is the second time you are repeating the same way of addressing issues. So you are choosing to use a generalization rule to accept facts to suit you when you need it to suit your original sentiments?

Would it be fair if I start using that approach to accept your points?

This I am saying, Considering the fact, that you are saying that it is not OK to use an IDEAL understanding for things that are so crucial when the roots are under questionable scrutiny?

I don't remember talking about Ideal world? I was talking about the law as it presents itself? So why are you using something that does not fit with what I originally said? Confusion only arises when I say something and you plug that thing into another unequated existence, to distract that person from what I actually said.

How many times do you want me to answer the same question?

If I choose my method of answering a question by saying yes and giving a reason to support it, due to nature of the question being contextual, you tend to say that I am not answering your question, because it does not agree with what you originally believed in?

The basis of this argument was to clarify things, not to agree to what you already believe, please do note that, in your next reply to the topic.

When you talk about secrecy, please post exactly which of the answers I am secretly answering? From what I remembered precisely, you hate supporting answers, when you yourself your belief is heavily backed with contextual applications and not just a word for it.

Ideal LAW, you cant judge an offender without evidence and circumstantial situations that support that crime, this is totally what it is about, it does not have to do anything with the WORLD.

@m4malik you have sidetracked what I was actually saying and choose to question my intentions of that original post? Why is that? What does the Islamic world have anything to do with what I said, considering the fact that I didn't mention anything related to the Islamic world.

Is that your way of being defensive, when you know quite alright that my intention was leave religion apart and face reality with scientific proof and worldwide acceptable standard?

Please do let me know what exactly you are trying to drive at, because honestly I do not understand your argument?

babyosisi:

The other problem is to find out the root cause why Muslims seem to be more susceptible to committing terorist acts.
Is there something in the teachings that may be causing this untoward side effect.
You may not need to answer but this is something that should concern any Muslim like the rest of soceity because it could be you or your family in the next targeted plane.

I repeat not only on this thread, Muslims are not susceptible to committing terrorist acts, rather humans are. The problem is when we tend to choose to cling to our stereotypical approaches to reasoning.

When an act of violence occurs and its viewed, the first identity check on it would be, what is that person's religion to enable proper phrasing of that violence, If that violence is perpetuated by a human that happens to be a Muslim, the sentence would then be crafted with the word terrorism, or terrorist in the construct. If that violence is perpetuated by somebody other than a Muslim, then it is an ordinary Crime.

Thats the reality you have to face when browsing through foreign news especially from the western media today. The question is, does that make Muslims bad? No rather it makes us understand that, its a weapon of sympathy against certain political agenda's such as Sadam is a terrorist, because he is acclaimed to be a muslim, but Fiedel Castro and Hu Jintao are not.

Naziru:

The context here is, in an Islamic state a Muslim denouncing Islam does not only commit apostasy but also treason. An treason even in secular laws is punishable by death (though not in all states, I admit).

@babyosisi, I think he said an Islamic state? You might want to ask for the pre-requisites of an Islamic State for which that applies, if I tend to agree that your intentions are sincere. The whole construct of a sentence should be addressed, anytime one is made to send a message.

As I said in my before post it applies to the past, where the situations are different and hence as clearly stated by My friend here, that such an act is treason, and hence punishable by that law. But as of today we do not have an ideal Islamic state, Islamic soldiers and even direct enemies across such an Islamic border, An Islamic Nation, so I guess what he says stands?

That is applicable today even in the government structure, where if an act as a citizen of a naton, is a threat to the national security of any specific country, you could face a penalty, which sometimes could be punishable by death. Nevertheless do not get me wrong yet again, as I clearly stated before, An ideal Islamic state with such an adverse tension, doe not exist today in this era, hence such application wouldn't be proper.

Naziru:

But isn't it intriguing, this stereotyping? Islam is judged by the (mal)practice of Muslims but neither is Christianity or Judaism. You don't hear of Christian terrorism in e.g the ETA movement in Spain or in the IRA of Ireland or Judaic terrorism as we see in west bank and Gaza.

Very true. Yet another very valid sentence that we tend to choose not to give feedback too, but when that applies to the so called Muslim subjects, and they tend to ignore such a visible point, you tend to think they are either weak or its their nature.

So are we really here to understand ourselves, and treat every point raised with fairness and justice or are we here to just bash the Muslim's with our hypocritical sentiments and hatred.

davidylan:

Why can't the Arabs do the same rather than spending valuable time burning American and Isreali flags, hurling stones at the Isreal border and joining jihadist organisations?

I would say your wordings are stereotypical in nature, So I wont say much here, other than point to UAE, Qatar, etc where your so called ARABS, have a developed nation and live in peace? The reason? I leave you to decide.

davidylan:

2. Terrorism is NOT an Arab concept ONLY! it is a central tenet of Islam that every "moderate" desperately wants to pretend does not exist.

All we have got from you to support that deduction was a quotation of the Quran if I am not mistaken, in another thread, and if I were like you, I would had quote from your old testaments or even new too, to support your same out of context quotations, but no I wouldn't do that because its fallacious, I would never distract people like you always do, to agree with you.

davidylan:


Everyone is focused on the fact that Isreal occupied Lebanon for over 20yrs and bandies that as the reason for the rise of Hizbollah, most forget that hizbollah's financier and backer, Syria occupied the same Lebanon for 22 years!

Actually everyone believes that to address an issue, you have to know the root of it. If you choose to be different and you have another approach to solving a problem, without knowing the source and the cause of that problem, please let us know, because you tend to know it better than anyone else.

Terrorism is a reality but Islam just like christianity does not approve it.

Is terrorism a Muslim problem? When you ask such a question, I would be obliged to agree that you do not honestly know the meaning of terrorism. So if I must answer that question, I would have to define what terrorism entails, how or how not the Muslim community, have linkage with terrorism and when to use the word, and when not to, and how the world hypocritically use terrorism when it suits them and use freedom fighting when it doesn't.

@Olabowale
May God forgive you for your self indulgence and Assumptions.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now considering this definition which would be accepted, we need to point out what ways of force or violence that are unlawful.


Is it waging a war against another nation?
Or
Is it one person blowing himself up in shopping complexes?
Or
Is it waging a Civil War against a government?
Or
Is it blowing up complexes of a country or destroying a country?

If we agree that all this do count for a terrorist act, based on the actual definition presented to us, then we are then allowed to account for death tolls everyday caused by various act of force or attack around the world with equal justice.

So with this we tend to ask ourselves this question.

Is US presence in Iraq an act of terrorism?
Is the civil war waged by the Tamil tigers an act of terrorism?
How about the Northern Ireland issues?
Israel's attack on Lebanon?
Suicide bombings in Israel?
Bomb explosions in Russia?

If we agree to the before questions and choose not to agree to the later question, since an association would change the way you see things, then we might as well rest the thread and agree that our judgements arent fair at all, and doesnt stand outsides our prejudices.

Considering the major acts of terrorism in the world, be it war, destruction of property and assets with political or personal agendas. How many percent are accounted to source from the what you term as Muslims?

We should treat this thread with precise and accurate facts and not just sentiments and blunders that wouldn't exist beyond what we make ourself believe based on concentrated media coverages that have motives.

What do you want me to say? I taught I answered that question before?

shariah is not a law invocked by people but Authourities? Or maybe you didnt know that? Or let me guess you don't have a knowledge of the Shariah? Ah that I understand . Read for yourself, don't agree because what you hear they report, what does the law actually dictates is important.

A good example is the law of cutting hands when you steal. It is only applicable according to the shariah in the enviroment that there is 0% poverty, a place where everybody has shelter and food to eat. So tell me that ideal community is available today.

A refrence was during the prophets time when he halted the law due to ferminine.

The will of Allah? Allah Enjoins us to be sincere and apply shariah based on circumstances, wisdom, sincerity and context. Anything not applied in relation is not his will, hence I suppose that applies.

So the precise answer would be yes, you would be charged with murder, if you kill someone where Islamic law is practiced. I encourage that you take it upon you to read before you form opinion on anything. Islamic Law plus the application of fatwa, just the same way you read the old testament and embrace new modified laws based on context, that should help.

By Islamic law you are not allowed to kill another person if you are not at declared war involvement, for self defence that is? If I may ask you? Have you read somewhere where the Islamic law approves the killing of another person within its jurisprudence as legal?

That law is actually reviewed in some countries under what is called FATWA.

A fatwa (Arabic: فتوى‎) plural fatāwa , is a legal pronouncement in Islam, done by a law specialist on an issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where "fiqh," Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fatwas is known as a mujtahid or a mufti. In many Muslim countries, e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, etc. there exists an official Mufti position, to which a distinguished expert in the field of Islamic law is named by the authorities of the country.

In the early days of Islam, fatawa were pronounced by distinguished scholars to provide guidance to other scholars, judges and citizens on how subtle points of Islamic law should be understood, interpreted or applied. There are strict rules on who is eligible to issue a valid fatwa and who cannot, as well as on the conditions the fatwa must satisfy to be valid.

According to the Islamic science called "Usul al-fiqh" (Principles of Jurisprudence), the latter are as follows :

1. The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Koranic verses and hadiths;
2. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
3. It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
4. It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

No, punishment by death shouldnt be allowed.

The judgement on Amina was not based on Shariah procedures, of proofs and investigation hence why should it be accomodated as the Shariah's way?

I am not evasive, I gave you a No and Yes answer and I was supporting my answers? Or that is not allowed? Or you dont like what you read? I taught Amina was raped?

babyosisi:

So can I quote you that in Islam today there is no punishment for apostacy so anyone who kills or punishes someone for converting is a murderer and needs to be punished?

How about I quote where God destroys a whole town in the bible because they are homosexuals, and hence wage a war against homosexuals, because God condemns them by destroying them and claim its holy?

We reason with context dont we?

Please reason objectively.

babyosisi:

Dear logical,the Afghan man was saved because the international community got involved.
Many have died before his case came to light.

Now you choose to believe that, and you claim that your assertions are from someone that really cares and believes that some muslims are liberal or can be.

What exactly do you want me to believe about the conclusion you want to reach? You see the problem? They are what I presume of them, and any actions they do now that does not agree with what I presume them to be, is because of the pressure I have on them, they would always be what I pressume them to be.

So please re-evaluate your judgements please.

Yes and No.

During the prophet's time, yes because you are classified a threat, due to the tension at that time.

Now, Nope, thats why in Afghanistan's the rulings was in favour of the man that coverted.

The same applies to christianity during the Crusade or was it before?, if you openly renouce your christian faith, what would happen to you? And Why?

Why were witches burnt? etc etc