Shari'a Cannot Replace the WORD of the LORD as Truth

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 8, 2009 at 11:54

So we'll suppose then by the opening part of the last writer's comment's that there is a self pious disregard for other observations, that in the supposed self sufficiency that undergirds such a posturing towards others who trust in the original WORD of the LORD, we understand the need for some to ridicule that which they do not understand and replace it with that which they do, such as the Quran.

As to the questioning of any other person's religious perspective, one must be careful not to expose the premise by which such prompting is based, for in doing so, the weaknesses of the person, and not the religious aspiration, becomes exposed. If there is true strength and the strength of truth in the religious perspective, then that strength is the basis by which such belief is held, and there is no necessity for berating or belittling the other person's beliefs.

If one holds to the Truth of the WORD of the LORD as found in the Hebrew Holy Bible, then the Holy Spirit provides the strength and Truth through Jesus Christ as LORD. Conversely, we have the witness of the Quran that said that was not good enough for the Islamic Prophet; thus he dictated the Quran for those who would not and do not believe in the WORD of the LORD.

The expressions of belief in the opposing perspective have, over the centuries, exposed the differing centering of the belief systems, causing dissent for the lack of the understanding why the Islamic Prophet felt led to try and replace the WORD of the LORD with his Quran. It is simple; he did not want to believe in the WORD of the LORD, for its Truth did not reside in his heart.

Now, how does this apply to the argument that shari'a is to be imposed by Islamic dictates over societies determined by Islamic dictates to be inferior to Muslim law? Without a central truth and a True Spirit to guide, there is no religious imposition made by any of mankind (whether Muslim or Christian) that will be tolerated in blind obedience, for it is the nature of every man woman and child to rebel without spiritual intercession.

Thus, it is not an easy question to ask if a manmade application of religious law is better, one over another, for they both (actually all) fail in that application, even in Muslim circumstances. To say that imposition of the precepts of shari'a is better or worse than the imposition of a equal morality based on a differing belief system is merely debating such things from a merely human perspective, as we have seen here.

Quoting from the previous writer: " As regards the Sharia, those who most vehemently oppose it are absolute ignoramuses. The problems and difficulties of the Sharia arise from its application and intepretations of its applications in the wider sense. Stating that there is no codified text of book of 'mores'is also patently wrong - its is called the Holy Quran,"…..

We then call for the question from the other Muslim who posed the question: "what and where is Shari'a?" The Koran is universally accepted holy book for the Muslims. But there is no codified book of Shariah. The prophet of Islam could not do everything as to life, living, life-style and ethics etc. This is not humanly possible. As there is none, it is the duty of the learned Muslims to codify scientifically, considering time and values, a book of Shariah universally acceptable to all Muslims.

It is evident that in the imposition of shari'a, there are still questions within the Muslim community. This is plainly seen in Iran, where the police powers of the Islamic Revolution are necessary to impose the restrictions of obedience to shari'a, and not the willingness of a compliant society.

In the supposition of the 'Advocate' Doulah's position, there was a statement that rings of the truth of the matter, that it was not humanly possible to provide a complete guide for all to observe in this temporal realm. Is this patently wrong?

After deciding that a need exists for a higher power to provide the understanding and guidance, a true study of Hebrew Holy Bible, written at the direction of Almighty God and from Whom it gets its authentication, is necessary to receive its Truth. And after receiving that Truth, then one receives the wisdom and understanding that it provides. It is that truth that the Islamic Prophet determined was not going to be his guide; therefore there is the Quran. Whether or not there needs to be a codified law of shari'a is for the Muslims to decide, for Muslims.

For the true believer in the LORD Almighty God, through Jesus Christ as LORD, there was, is, and always has been, the Hebrew Holy Bible, His Holy WORD.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".