Are you scared to @ me or replying to my posts? Calling random people atheists for posting what madhab say?
Your posts seem to present individual reasons for not implementing Shariah law, but you avoid directly stating that you oppose it. It's like making a list of complaints about children—like them being loud, smelly, or expensive—then acting outraged if someone suggests that you don’t want kids, saying, "That’s not what I said!"
Now, let's address the main point of your argument: that under Shariah law, we are mandated to execute those who miss prayers.
To start, neither the Qur'an nor the Hadiths explicitly mentions execution for missing prayer for any reason. The Qur'an emphasizes the importance of prayer and its observance but does not prescribe any worldly punishment, let alone execution, for missing prayers out of laziness. The focus is more on spiritual consequences rather than legal or physical punishments. Similarly, the Hadiths, which record the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), do not advocate for harsh penalties for those who miss prayers out of negligence.
Your argument hinges on a single passage from a Shafi'i book of Fiqh. It would be arrogant to tackle this without the requisite Islamic knowledge, so I am not arguing against the logic of section of the book, but your argument that implementing this or not means adhering to sharia (or not) but let's clarify: Shariah law is rooted in the Qur'an and the Hadiths. Books of Fiqh are complementary works by great scholars. Your argument seems to suggest that because there is no absolute uniformity in every single issue, it is impossible to choose the correct version of Shariah. But it’s important to understand that the various Madhabs (schools of thought) do not consider each other outside the fold of Islam. Islam is, in a sense, decentralized, with no single authority like a Pope. Within the boundaries of the Qur'an and Hadiths, different scholars may reach different conclusions. This diversity is necessary because believers live in a wide variety of circumstances. As long as a ruling does not contradict the Quran or the hadiths, any argument that a ruling is against the spirit of sharia is false.
Even in your source—a snippet of a screenshot—the same paragraph mentions repentance as a direct remedy, alongside catching up on missed prayers. So even your harshest source suggests that repentance is a possibility.
Your reasoning follows a simplistic "X means Y" logic, which doesn’t account for the complexity of Islamic jurisprudence.
Let's consider historical precedent: has there ever been a case in any Islamic society, past or present, where someone was executed specifically for lazily neglecting prayer? Even in extremist-controlled areas like ISIS-held Syria or Al-Shabaab-run Somalia, this has never occurred.
Are you saying all these groups, historical and modern, are applying Shariah wrong? No, they aren't. Shariah is based on the Qur'an and Hadiths, with Fiqh books serving as supportive works to help judges interpret and apply the law.
Your argument is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Shariah is and the difference between it and the intellectual contributions of various scholars over the centuries.
I’m not arguing for or against execution; I’m arguing that whatever your take on this issue, it doesn’t mean that a state is or isn’t run by Shariah law. A state could approach prayer as a personal matter, issue warnings in public spaces, or even enforce it harshly, but none of these scenarios would negate the state’s adherence to Shariah.
It’s clear where you stand: you believe Somalia should not implement Shariah law. Own up to that, but understand that this position may make your words less persuasive to many believers in this thread because, for every Muslim, the desire to implement Shariah law should be evident. There’s more respect for a secularist who openly states their position, allowing for honest debate, than for a believer who obscures their true beliefs.
Regarding my previous post, it was a response to the overall discussion, not aimed at anyone in particular. If you’re not an atheist, you shouldn’t have been offended. If I meant to call
you an atheist, I would have done so directly. That’s why I didn’t quote you or anyone else. If anyone has a reason to be upset, it’s
@JustSomeGuy whose post clearly gave off an atheist vibe to me, and even him I did not wish to call an atheist.