Re: Jury Duty
- From: "Zuiko Azumazi" <zuiko.azumazi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 14:11:31 -0500
"A Hirsi" <mod_in_all@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Jul 19, 12:19 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hajj Abujamal answered your question on June 30, 2007. Here is a
"Muslim (shari'ah) law cannot be
applied against those who are not muslims, unless the litigants
explicitly request it. You may elect the common law, but a muslim
not use it for judgment because it is not what ALLAH has sent down. "
--- Hajj Abujamal
It would really be helpful if you read and appreciate the efforts made<snip> ...
to answer your questions.
There is another connotation to this whole "law" debate. Take, for instance,
divorce laws. In Catholic countries divorce is legally forbidden, whereas in
Muslim (as well as most secular and Protestant) countries it isn't. Now,
how would Muslims react if they lived in a Roman Catholic country which made
divorce for Muslims illegal? Or vice versa, how would Roman Catholics react
if they were living in a Muslim country that it made divorce legitimate?
Which raises the perennial dilemma that Roman Catholics could always chose
not to divorce in a Muslim country but, contra wise, Muslims wouldn't be
able chose to legitimately divorce in Roman Catholic ones. How do
open-minded subscribers escape from these ramifications? Which "law"
predominates? Is there an equitable resolution that satifies everyone?
As Hajj Abujamal correctly indicates the Muslim (shariah), as a system of
jurisprudence, it applies to how Muslims legitimately divorce one another.
In another, more difficult, "law" sense it does not cover the moral dilemma
of whether dissolution of marriage is a universal good. Paradoxically, in
the minds of devout Roman Catholics, who are totally oppossed to divorce on
manifest theocratic grounds for everyone, including Muslims, whether divorce
is legally sanctioned by the state or Muslims (shariah) law. Where would
that "law" lead us? Does socio-political state "duty" (i.e. the social force
that binds you to the courses of action demanded by the state) then override
Ultimately, isn't the inescapable reality that we all live in a pluralistic
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. [Immanuel Kant]
- Prev by Date: Re: Truth in Theology and Philosophy
- Next by Date: Re: Muhammad and Muslim Apologists are Shifting the Burden of Proof
- Previous by thread: Re: Jury Duty
- Next by thread: Re: Jury Duty