The Shar'iah law is merely an application how a certain sect of Islamic teachers have translated their text.
In the days of Mahomet, brutality or cruelity towards women, children, and non-Muslims were not allowed.
In the days between 11th, 12th and 13th century, the fanatic Crusaders have wrecked havoc across the Arabic lands.
With the downfall of the Arabic rulers and dynasties, a fiercely radical and militaristic Turkish rulers have taken hold of the populace, whom were beginning to question themselves that the lenient and forgiving way of social control the Kur-an states, may not be able to protect them from outside incursions any more.
Then the society was locked up in an enclosed state of internal dictatorship of the religion.
The 'Old' Muslims used to have three major concepts when it comes to translating controversial aspects of their religion:
* Ilm - judging and translating the text based on all knowledges accountable to man
* Ijma - A consensus of the society on what sort of translations are acceptable
* Ijtihad - Reasonable analysis and thinking towards the consequence the religion brings
Compared to what the medieval Europe was like in those days, those three concepts was what made Islam the most forgiving and tolerant religion that was to be seen in the world.
Unfortunately, with the events I have described in the beginning, all the major concepts of faithj declined, as "Ilm" was limited to "judging and translating the text based on religious knowledge accountable to religious hierarcgy", "Ijma" was stripped down to "A consensus of the religious hierarchy on what sort of translations are acceptable", and "Ijtihad" was all together dismissed.
In short, with the emergence of the political absolute dictatorship of the Seljuk Mamluks, and then the emergence of ruthless Osman Turks, the religious hierarchy of Imams and Alims set forth upon to the populace their own version of mental dictatorship, which stripped the populace from all rights in regards to religion.
What the populace was once allowed to talk about, were forbidden. The important debates concerning laws and religion where philosophers and free thinkers took part, were now strictly limited to a handful of previliged, religious hiearchy.
If one condemns the Islamic faith without taking the history behind it, that's pulling the whole thing outside of context and distorting it. It's like saying the brutal and primitive nature of the medieval European society where they used to burn, cook, drown, and hang people when they "went to court", started massive anti-Judaistic genocides in Germany and Hungary during the Crusades, and then cannibalized Muslims in conquered lands, is what Christianity is really about.
Of course, I won't condemn the true essentials of the Christian faith based on the facts what the Crusaders themselves did alone, so why should any of you do the same to the Islamic faith?
..
Again, the Shar'iah Law, which modern day Islam Governments consider to be the basis of their faith, is basically nothing but a bullshi* scam fad started from Ayatola Homeini. It's not even based upon Kur'an itself.
Such "Shar'iah Law" never existed in Mahomet's days. The word "Shar'iah" meant something totally different. It meant "a process, set of rules, and important concepts concerning the values of a society to abide by when people must form a law" rather than "law" itself. It was based upon the Kur'an, Sunnah, Ijma and the Quiyas.
Nowadays, it's not - the Shar'iah Law of modern Middle East, is based upon a handful of radically conservative retro-Islam religious officials. It would be equivalent to something like the Neo-Nazis making a constitution of their own, and saying that's what the "New Democracy" should be - oppressing other races, taking away freedoms, and ruling the populace under terror.
Now, if someone encounters the Neo-Nazi version of the constitution, would he go say that's what Democracy is? A backward political belief?
