CFM 6/9 to 6/15


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores

This week's CFM lesson includes John 18.  I found an interesting translation curiosity in verse 38.

Quote

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

The footnote indicates that the Greek actually reads "when he had said this again."

Is it curious that he would ask "What is truth?" twice?  It is to me.  If I can speculate, I believe there is some insight into the character of Pilate.

I've heard many people say he was a basically good man for his time.  Others said he was evil for letting a man he knew to be innocent be sentenced to death.  I think both are true.

It seems that he was just enough to understand the law and know when someone had done wrong.  He was just enough to tell the Jews that he found no fault in this man.  He is often portrayed as a coward who feared the mobs if he didn't act.  But he did act.

He simply asked "what is truth?" the first time as a response to Jesus.  He was keeping up the conversation.  But then he asked himself "what is truth?"  And he recognized that the truth was that Jesus was innocent of any crime of Rome.  So, he went to the Jews to figure this out.

The Jews' response was that while he did not violate any of Rome's laws, he was guilty of capital crimes under Mosaic Law.  But under Roman rule, they were not allowed to carry out capital punishment.

Pilate didn't understand Mosaic Law.  But he knew they had "some system of laws" that was important to them.  And they came to him for Rome's permission to exercise that punishment.  After trying to sway them, he realized they were really serious.  I wonder if one provision of his position was to allow for the local cultural laws to be enforced even if Roman law didn't count it as a crime.  That seems quite plausible.

One function as a magistrate was to keep the peace.  And it was Rome's policy to allow for local religions to freely practice.  We've seen some judges in America allow for some abhorrent things to be done because Sharia Law required it.  And the judge believed that whatever happened between Muslims was in accordance with Sharia Law which both parties agreed to abide by.  While this is a terrible ruling to our modern sensibilities, in Pilate's day, that may have been common practice -- especially in a world where death was a way of life, trials were much swifter, and capital punishment dispensed with a casualness that we simply aren't familiar with.

So, this guy who had nothing invested in the process, who was charged with keeping the peace, saw that the mobs were invoking their local laws as a justification, a law that he was not familiar with and didn't care to get familiar with.  Then he simply said effectively,"Fine!  Do with him according to your law.  But I don't want anything to do with it."

Cheap excuse?  Maybe.  But what did he know better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Pilate was to his core as evil as the Pharisees but with a much different agenda and so he was often in opposition to the Jews.  I believe Jesus could have played into Pilate's hatred of the Jews and especially the Pharisees to save his own life but Jesus didn't - to his credit.  I do not believe for a minute that Pilate was trying to keep the peace - rather I believe he was the consummate (evil) politician pandering to Rome and his own personal power and position.  The Jews were a pitiful power on the world stage - only thinking themselves significant.   Within 40 years the Jews would be crushed by Rome in one of the most brutal exercises against humanity recorded in history.  And it wasn't just the Jews - what Rome would do to Egypt would leave that once great civilization forever in the shadows as a very minor country and society forever after.

BTW as bad as we think of the Pharisees - if it was not for them we would not have the Old Testament scriptures today.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A truth we find in scripture is that the Lord is merciful, more merciful, to those who are raised in ignorance in comparison to those who are his covenant people (raised in truth).

If I am to be honest with myself, I don't think Pilate is any different from our current politicians today; however, I find Pilate's attempt to spare Christ wise. Pilate had them choose between a murderer and one he knew who had no wrong in him. Pilate knew his place, and as you mentioned, "one function as a magistrate was to keep the peace," and this attempt was an attempt to free Jesus and keep the peace. Who would have thought that a people would have chosen a "murderer" over an innocent man? When that didn't occur he made what the majority of our current politicians do today -- self-preservation. You can have him, but I wash my hands.

Asking something twice though, appears to be human nature. How many times have we answered a question and then experience the same question from the same person? One interpretation, they want to make sure they heard what they heard correctly. Another, they weren't convinced the first time and as such they ask again to make sure they themselves aren't being deceived.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2019 at 9:55 AM, Mores said:

I've heard many people say he was a basically good man for his time.  Others said he was evil for letting a man he knew to be innocent be sentenced to death.  I think both are true.

This statement summarizes what I feel about Pilate. He knew something was up. He felt Christ was innocent of wrongdoing, and his wife warned him that she had a dream that he needed to let him go. He was not a particularly righteous man by any means, most Roman governors were steeped in bribery and political backstabbing, and I'm sure Pilate was no different. What seperates him from others, in my mind, is that even despite the rather grimy nature of his soul, he had enough of a spark of the Light of Christ in him to attempt to free the Lord. He had no particular reason to stand up for him, far easier to just let him be condemned and have done with the matter, but he did try to free him, which makes him far better than the leaders of the Jews.

However, I don't absolve him completely. He had every chance to free a man he knew was innocent. He was a Roman governor. He had access to military power far beyond anything the defeated Jews could bring against him, and yet he took the coward's way, and tried to dodge responsibility for his actions. We know the Atonement had to happen, and if he tried to spare Christ, the Lord would still be slain in accordance to the words of the prophets, but by refusing to stand up for what knowledge he had, he failed and so took upon him some of the guilt. Pilate is very much a grey figure in the story of Christ that's for sure.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 6/13/2019 at 10:26 AM, Traveler said:

BTW as bad as we think of the Pharisees - if it was not for them we would not have the Old Testament scriptures today.

Source?  Just curious rather than trying to debate.  

The Pharisees were hung up on oral traditions while the Sadducees were concerned with the written law.  Wouldn't the Sadducees be more likely to be responsible to carry a version of today's Old Testament?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Pilate is very much a grey figure in the story of Christ that's for sure.

Not that I disagree with any of the above comments but we also know a bit more about Pontius Pilate.  (Luke 13:1)

1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilæans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

This suggests he was a fairly typical Roman tyrant who apparently desecrated the temple by killing Jews during their sacred, religious ceremonies.  Historical accounts of his other activities suggest he delighted in taunting and irritating the Jews (see Josephus; Philo) and his activities actually exacerbated the Jewish rebellions for which he was eventually removed from his position.  

As much as I feel for his place as a judge in this circumstance, I don't feel much sympathy for the man.   Bad guy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2019 at 6:55 AM, Mores said:

We've seen some judges in America allow for some abhorrent things to be done because Sharia Law required it.

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm sincere. What abhorrent things have been done in the US under approval of magistrates in accordance with Sharia Law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2019 at 9:26 AM, Traveler said:

I believe Pilate was to his core as evil as the Pharisees but with a much different agenda and so he was often in opposition to the Jews.

Pilate recognized and proclaimed Jesus' innocence, even as he allowed the execution to take place, while the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees were howling for his blood. That right there tells me that the grasping pagan politician Pilate, despicable though he may have been by modern or perhaps even contemporary standards, was not even in the same league as the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

 

Not that I disagree with any of the above comments but we also know a bit more about Pontius Pilate.  (Luke 13:1)

1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilæans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

This suggests he was a fairly typical Roman tyrant who apparently desecrated the temple by killing Jews during their sacred, religious ceremonies.  Historical accounts of his other activities suggest he delighted in taunting and irritating the Jews (see Josephus; Philo) and his activities actually exacerbated the Jewish rebellions for which he was eventually removed from his position.  

As much as I feel for his place as a judge in this circumstance, I don't feel much sympathy for the man.   Bad guy.  

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be voting Pilate into office anywhere. He was far from an effective governor, definitely guilty of graft, murder, etc.

When I say grey, it's that despite all that, even he knew Christ was innocent. Even this corrupt and filthy politician knew Christ was important even if he did not know why, because despite all of his moral failings, he tried to free Christ twice, while the Pharisees who knew the scriptures like the back of their hand were baying for his blood. I've always been impressed that a wicked man like Pilate could somehow be better than the Pharisees, because at least he tried to free Christ, especially when he could have just said kill him and done nothing.

That's all the credit I'll give him because, as I mentioned, eventually he proved himself a moral coward and gave into the mob, but the fact that a little spark of goodness, even though it was quickly snuffed out, could exist in Pilate and not the Pharisees, makes me less judgemental of him than them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
5 hours ago, Vort said:

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm sincere. What abhorrent things have been done in the US under approval of magistrates in accordance with Sharia Law?

About a year (possibly two years) ago I recall reading a judge's ruling that a Muslim woman who wanted a divorce was unable to do so because Sharia required her to pay her husband for her freedom.  But because of Sharia Law, the woman had no real possessions.  So, she was unable to do so.  Thus, the judge's ruling essentially said that she was not allowed to divorce her husband.

EDIT: As noted, it has been a while since I read the article.  So, I may have the details a bit mixed up.  But the bottom line was that because of certain details of Sharia Law, the judge basically told her that she could not divorce her husband.  His reasoning was that she entered into the agreement under the conditions of Sharia Law.  So, she must abide by it.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

Not that I disagree with any of the above comments but we also know a bit more about Pontius Pilate.  (Luke 13:1)

1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilæans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

This suggests he was a fairly typical Roman tyrant who apparently desecrated the temple by killing Jews during their sacred, religious ceremonies.  Historical accounts of his other activities suggest he delighted in taunting and irritating the Jews (see Josephus; Philo) and his activities actually exacerbated the Jewish rebellions for which he was eventually removed from his position.  

As much as I feel for his place as a judge in this circumstance, I don't feel much sympathy for the man.   Bad guy.  

Yes, I'm not on the Pilate fan club either.  But I believe you're misinterpreting that passage in Luke. 

Gallileans were considered the most rebellious (against Roman rule) of all the Jews of Israel.  They rioted and protested much more than any other group -- and even committed acts that we would consider criminal.  They were under Herod's jurisdiction.  And Herod made many concessions to appease the Jews of his area.  But they would occasionally come to make sacrifice and attend feasts in Jerusalem (Pilate's jurisdiction).

Pilate simply did not like the idea of having any Gallileans in his land.  He was afraid that whatever they were doing in those "secret temple meetings" was obviously seditious.  So, this was not about Jews in general.  It was more of a political action than a religious one.  In his mind, it was indeed keeping the peace.

We can also see many other times that Pilate did all sorts of "evil" against the Jews.  But if you look at the background and details, it was all because of political, economic, and legal issues rather than religious (i.e. good vs. evil) issues. 

We also need to keep in mind that the mindset of the time was that the rulers did have power and authority do do such violent acts as he perpetrated.  Even the Roman Republic did not have a Bill of Rights or the belief in unalienable human rights as we have today.  As non-Roman citizens, the Jews did not have the same rights as a Roman citizen.  They were merely allowed their autonomy at the will and pleasure of the Romans.  So, basically, much of Pilate's actions that we might consider evil was simply business as usual for the time.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scott said:

Source?  Just curious rather than trying to debate.  

The Pharisees were hung up on oral traditions while the Sadducees were concerned with the written law.  Wouldn't the Sadducees be more likely to be responsible to carry a version of today's Old Testament?

I am away from my home and library - I will provide a source later if you like.  The Pharisees were the ancient evolution of the Maccabees that saved the Jewish traditions and scriptures from the Greeks intent on destroying the religion and in addition of the eventual evolution source of modern Rabbis. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Pilate recognized and proclaimed Jesus' innocence, even as he allowed the execution to take place, while the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees were howling for his blood. That right there tells me that the grasping pagan politician Pilate, despicable though he may have been by modern or perhaps even contemporary standards, was not even in the same league as the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Pilate was an integral part of the Roman empire - which was one of history's most brutal empires.  Pilate's declaration of Jesus' innocence was more a rub against the Jews than a support of Jesus and this comes out in the account of Mark when Pilate released Barabbas.  It was something done with specific intent to spite the Jewish leadership - plus it was the Romans (not the Jews) that executed Jesus.   If you are correct then this would mean that Pilate was willing to murder someone he believed innocent  just for his own political advantage - I personally think this puts him clearly in the same evil standards of the Pharisees. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mores said:

About a year (possibly two years) ago I recall reading a judge's ruling that a Muslim woman who wanted a divorce was unable to do so because Sharia required her to pay her husband for her freedom.  But because of Sharia Law, the woman had no real possessions.  So, she was unable to do so.  Thus, the judge's ruling essentially said that she was not allowed to divorce her husband.

EDIT: As noted, it has been a while since I read the article.  So, I may have the details a bit mixed up.  But the bottom line was that because of certain details of Sharia Law, the judge basically told her that she could not divorce her husband.  His reasoning was that she entered into the agreement under the conditions of Sharia Law.  So, she must abide by it.

I don't believe it. Better find the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mores said:

About a year (possibly two years) ago I recall reading a judge's ruling that a Muslim woman who wanted a divorce was unable to do so because Sharia required her to pay her husband for her freedom.  But because of Sharia Law, the woman had no real possessions.  So, she was unable to do so.  Thus, the judge's ruling essentially said that she was not allowed to divorce her husband.

EDIT: As noted, it has been a while since I read the article.  So, I may have the details a bit mixed up.  But the bottom line was that because of certain details of Sharia Law, the judge basically told her that she could not divorce her husband.  His reasoning was that she entered into the agreement under the conditions of Sharia Law.  So, she must abide by it.

Based on my personal experience with Muslims - Sharia law is not well defined but open to interpretation and varies according to region - and varies a lot between Shia and Sunni Muslims.    It may be a surprise to many (most or all) members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but I was once talking to a very devout Shia Muslim about Sharia Law.  It is obvious to me that there is no country, place or society today operating under Sharia Law.  So I asked my Shia friend where I could go on earth and observe a society or people that are the closest to living everyday according to the precepts and ideas of Sharia Law.  After some time pondering my question - he answered - Utah.  We discussed for some time the why of his answer.  The short answer to his reasoning was because of his respect for our doctorns, teaching and our ideas of respect for local law and our notions of blending state and religion.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 It is obvious to me that there is no country, place or society today operating under Sharia Law. 

Not sure what you mean by this.  Saudi Arabia's entire criminal law is Sharia and there is no codified secular civil law (e.g. marriage, inheritance, property ownership, etc.), so judges use their interpretation of Sharia to adjudicate those cases too.  Countries such as Qatar and Oman based their Constitutions on Sharia while countries such as Iraq base their Civil Law on Sharia - this is similar to the US Constitution being based on Judeo-Christianity.

There are states within countries (including the Philippines) that operate under Sharia Law.  For example, many autonomous regions of the Philippines have Sharia Courts, independent of the Philippine Constitution but are running under the Philippine Supreme Court.  Non-muslims in the area may request adjudication in a non-Sharia court only if there are no muslim party in the case.  Nigeria, with a fast growing Christian population, have several states that are adjudicated under Sharia Law, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

It is interesting that Pilate was made a (literal) Saint in some early Christian churches and is still recognized as a Saint today among some Orthedox Christian sects.  Some of the sects still hold feast in his honor every June 25.

According to some Orthedox Orthedox Christian sects, Pilate did everything he could to save Jesus and after Jesus's crucifixion Pilate converted to Christianity.

Some sects go as far as to recognize Pilate as a martyr, saying that he was executed for trying to convert the emperor of Rome to Christianity.

It seems that early Christians (all or most?) held Pilate in high regards (and some still do; mostly Orthedox), but he fell out of favor among some sometime in the Middle Ages.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  Saudi Arabia's entire criminal law is Sharia and there is no codified secular civil law (e.g. marriage, inheritance, property ownership, etc.), so judges use their interpretation of Sharia to adjudicate those cases too.  Countries such as Qatar and Oman based their Constitutions on Sharia while countries such as Iraq base their Civil Law on Sharia - this is similar to the US Constitution being based on Judeo-Christianity.

There are states within countries (including the Philippines) that operate under Sharia Law.  For example, many autonomous regions of the Philippines have Sharia Courts, independent of the Philippine Constitution but are running under the Philippine Supreme Court.  Non-muslims in the area may request adjudication in a non-Sharia court only if there are no muslim party in the case.  Nigeria, with a fast growing Christian population, have several states that are adjudicated under Sharia Law, etc. etc.

It is my understanding that any society that utilizes or in any way has banking and/or economic operation that allows compound interest as a legal way of conducting business, is not actually governed by Sharia Law regardless of any other claims - the court system may reflect some aspects of Sharia Law but are not complete.  I would liken it to a religion that claims priesthood without priesthood keys.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott said:

It is interesting that Pilate was made a (literal) Saint in some early Christian churches and is still recognized as a Saint today among some Orthedox Christian sects.  Some of the sects still hold feast in his honor every June 25.

According to some Orthedox Orthedox Christian sects, Pilate did everything he could to save Jesus and after Jesus's crucifixion Pilate converted to Christianity.

Some sects go as far as to recognize Pilate as a martyr, saying that he was executed for trying to convert the emperor of Rome to Christianity.

It seems that early Christians (all or most?) held Pilate in high regards (and some still do; mostly Orthedox), but he fell out of favor among some sometime in the Middle Ages.

There are some early Christians that also baptized in blood.  In essence all the letters of the Apostles  that we have in scriptures were written mostly to correct false notions entering into early Christian doctrine and practices.  That some early Christian society believed something is not evidence that a particular believe was divinely inspired. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that any society that utilizes or in any way has banking and/or economic operation that allows compound interest as a legal way of conducting business, is not actually governed by Sharia Law regardless of any other claims - the court system may reflect some aspects of Sharia Law but are not complete.  I would liken it to a religion that claims priesthood without priesthood keys.

What makes you think Saudi Arabia uses compounding interest in their economy?

For the most part, they are Sharia compliant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFit947384

Three categories of the 12 national banks.  4 are fully Sharia Compliant. Several are nearly Sharia Compliant and are taking steps to become Sharia compliant.  While they legally allow smaller banks to not be 100% Sharia compliant, most banks do make the effort.

Saudi is not as totatalitarian as Sharia may demand.  But to say that Utah is more like Sharia than Saudi simply doesn't use all the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that any society that utilizes or in any way has banking and/or economic operation that allows compound interest as a legal way of conducting business, is not actually governed by Sharia Law regardless of any other claims - the court system may reflect some aspects of Sharia Law but are not complete.  I would liken it to a religion that claims priesthood without priesthood keys.

 

The Traveler

That doesn't make any sense.  Just because only 4 out of the 12 Saudi licensed Banks tout themselves as Islamic doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is not a country ruled by Sharia Law in the same sense that just because Baptists don't have priesthood keys doesn't mean they're not Christian.  It is not you and me that decide if the Saudis are Sharia or not.  It is THE SAUDIS.  Saudi Arabia states they are Sharia.  Who are we to say they're not?

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That doesn't make any sense.  Just because only 4 out of the 12 Saudi licensed Banks tout themselves as Islamic doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is not a country ruled by Sharia Law in the same sense that just because Baptists don't have priesthood keys doesn't mean they're not Christian.  It is not you and me that decide if the Saudis are Sharia or not.  It is THE SAUDIS.  Saudi Arabia states they are Sharia.  Who are we to say they're not?

 

I will attempt to bring some things to light for you and @Mores.  My sources are not articles but individuals devout in Islam.  It is important to understand Islam from their point of view rather than from especially our Christian background.  Much concerning Sharia Law is expressed symbolically in the in the hajj to Mecca.  There are several things but it is my understanding that Sharia Law is related to and dependent on the Hajj.  Another way of expressing this idea is that the Hajj is part of Sharia Law and symbolizes the journey through this life to the next.  There are some surprising similarities of the Hajj to our temple covenants and worship.  I will try to summarize a few things according to what I have been told by more than one source (Islamic friends). 

Part of the Hajj symbolizes the violent war of the righteous against the forces of Ha Satan which is basically the same as the Christian g-d of devils and demons in opposition to the true G-d.  The violent war is symbolized by throwing rocks at pillars denoting one's devotion to G-d and opposition to Satan and those institutions and individuals he controls.  The number one way to observe someone or an institution controlled by Satan is if they are held in bondage by compound interest.  In Islam this is directly stated as interest but in borrowing if there is a prescribed time and amount for pay back - it is not technically considered interest.  But with compound interest the amount of payback varies drastically with the amount of time of the payback.  Many in Western societies get confused because interest is the term used to describe Satan and everybody charges interest or an amount for borrowing.  It is compound interest that changes, by design, the payback over time.  It is also important to note that the symbolism of Satan and evil interest are pillars or towers.   This is the reason that so many Muslims were dancing and rejoicing when the twin towers of Wall Street were brought down.  But we (everybody) know now that the towers coming down was not the end of Satanic influences in world trade and commerce.  

Another point is that Sharia Law is a theocracy where G-d himself governs.  In this manner Sharia Law would be similar to our Christian Millennial  reign.  But for sure, references to Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a theocracy and though certain political changes may bring a society closer to Sharia Law - it is not actual without the hand of G-d causing it.  Mortals may assist but it is my understanding that Sharia Law is a divine miracle beyond human capability.   This is why I asked my friend not where there is Sharia Law but where that society currently closest to Sharia Law exists.

I hope this helps.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I will attempt to bring some things to light for you and @Mores.  My sources are not articles but individuals devout in Islam.  It is important to understand Islam from their point of view rather than from especially our Christian background.  Much concerning Sharia Law is expressed symbolically in the in the hajj to Mecca.  There are several things but it is my understanding that Sharia Law is related to and dependent on the Hajj.  Another way of expressing this idea is that the Hajj is part of Sharia Law and symbolizes the journey through this life to the next.  There are some surprising similarities of the Hajj to our temple covenants and worship.  I will try to summarize a few things according to what I have been told by more than one source (Islamic friends). 

Part of the Hajj symbolizes the violent war of the righteous against the forces of Ha Satan which is basically the same as the Christian g-d of devils and demons in opposition to the true G-d.  The violent war is symbolized by throwing rocks at pillars denoting one's devotion to G-d and opposition to Satan and those institutions and individuals he controls.  The number one way to observe someone or an institution controlled by Satan is if they are held in bondage by compound interest.  In Islam this is directly stated as interest but in borrowing if there is a prescribed time and amount for pay back - it is not technically considered interest.  But with compound interest the amount of payback varies drastically with the amount of time of the payback.  Many in Western societies get confused because interest is the term used to describe Satan and everybody charges interest or an amount for borrowing.  It is compound interest that changes, by design, the payback over time.  It is also important to note that the symbolism of Satan and evil interest are pillars or towers.   This is the reason that so many Muslims were dancing and rejoicing when the twin towers of Wall Street were brought down.  But we (everybody) know now that the towers coming down was not the end of Satanic influences in world trade and commerce.  

Another point is that Sharia Law is a theocracy where G-d himself governs.  In this manner Sharia Law would be similar to our Christian Millennial  reign.  But for sure, references to Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and not a theocracy and though certain political changes may bring a society closer to Sharia Law - it is not actual without the hand of G-d causing it.  Mortals may assist but it is my understanding that Sharia Law is a divine miracle beyond human capability.   This is why I asked my friend not where there is Sharia Law but where that society currently closest to Sharia Law exists.

I hope this helps.

 

The Traveler

No it doesn't help.  

What you're doing here is coming up with your own (or your Muslim friends) interpretation of what is Sharia Law and telling people who ARE living under Sharia Law - they're not really living Sharia.  THAT doesn't make any sense.  How about you go to the Bansangmoro in the Philippines and explain to them why they're not really ruled by Sharia Law so there's no reason why they should not just live under Philippine Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 2:39 PM, anatess2 said:

No it doesn't help.  

What you're doing here is coming up with your own (or your Muslim friends) interpretation of what is Sharia Law and telling people who ARE living under Sharia Law - they're not really living Sharia.  THAT doesn't make any sense.  How about you go to the Bansangmoro in the Philippines and explain to them why they're not really ruled by Sharia Law so there's no reason why they should not just live under Philippine Law.

Whenever we speak about Law - especially as a standard, it is not an open concept.  The point of any law is to create a standard that crosses lines of interpretation, cultural application and social political evolution.  When we invoke religion (G-d) into this mix we may gain a quick advantage but what should be permanent is more likely to become temporary.  According to you post - we must wonder if Muslims  living in the Persian Gulf region are so unaware of Muslims as an example of a perfect Muslim society under Sharia Law.  But I will be blunt in that throughout the middle east cultures those of Philippine dicent are not look on as pace setters in that they are not imported into the Middle East to take upon the most prestigious vocations.  Hardly the intent of Sharia Law

But I will give another example in asking a question - is the forcible wearing of a burka by Muslim women proper according to Sharia Law?  If Islam cannot clearly define Sharia Law - how can the rest of the non Islamic world deal with it?, define it? or ir even recognize it?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share