Because Hadith supplements the Qur'an, such as whichever Hadith(s) you ascribe to. Another "fundamental" of Islam
Some scholars use ahadith in order to put Quranic verses into historical context which they believe helps them to better understand the Quran.
The reason why ahadith are not dependent on the Quran is because there are thousands of ahadith that have no connection to the Quran whatsoever. They are not used to put the Quran in context, and the Quran is not used to put them in context.
They are simply probable stories of what happened in the prophet's life. These stories are not
"dependent" upon the Quran (or "Allah's Laws), and many of these ahadith are used in the formation of sharia.
Did you not understand my Trinity analogy? The existence of the Qur'an & Hadith "testify" to the necessity of Shari'a. Again, fundamental Islam.
The existence of the Quran and ahadith does not necessitate sharia. It is possible to leave out ahadith and simply follow the Quran.
You say that sharia is fundamentally Islamic, I assume, because millions of Muslims believe it should be implemented. The problem with your statement is not that you see it as fundamentally Islamic, the problem is that your definition of sharia is not correct.
You define sharia as Islam's "divine law".
But the fact of the matter is that there are many parts of sharia that have nothing to do with divinity.
In addition,
scholars of fiqh will readily admit that their opinions, which are incorporated into sharia, cannot be taken to be inspired or "divine".
And so even though a correct way ("divine way"), or sharia, is mentioned in the Quran (as I just recently found out), the fact is that the only laws that Muslims have now that are unequivocally considered divine, are those contained in the Quran.
What is fundamentally Islamic is the knowledge that sharia is not exclusively "Allah's Law". Why do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood mentioned "basic" sharia (by the way I have not confirmed that they said this)? The Muslim Brotherhood is not willing to leave out what Allah commanded. Their statement is a tacit admission that sharia incorporates things that Allah did not command as well.
As a Muslim, I'm sure you are fluent in Arabic (the language of Allah). So, to ensure accuracy, please translate this verse from Sura 45:
ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاكَ عَلَىٰ شَرِيعَةٍ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ فَاتَّبِعْهَا وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
Especially these characters: نَاكَ
Indeed I am a Muslim, no most Muslims are not fluent in Arabic, and yes my fluency in Arabic is superior to yours.
Surah 45 verse 18.
The verse is directed to the Prophet. It basically says that Allah put him on the right path (or way of life) and that he should follow that way and not to follow the desires of people who don't know.
I'm pretty sure the word نَاكَ (naka) means "to screw" or "connect" when not in context. In context it reads: I (Allah)
put you on the correct way or
connected you to the correct way.
In any event نَاكَ is not the word that is significant in this verse. The word that is significant is شَرِيعَ (sharia) which is located two words down from naka. In this context a lay translation of sharia would be, "the correct way". As in: Then I (Allah) put you on
the correct way of life (that's basically how the first part of the verse reads).
I did not know that the word "sharia" was in the Quran.
You were right about this Drummer4Christ (even though you did not know you were right). There is what can be viewed as a concept of sharia in the Quran.
But it is sill a fact that the laws that are incorporated into the sharia of nations are not entirely "Allah's laws". There are secular laws and scholarly laws incorporated as well.
Shari'a came as a result of the connection between law and religion established by Mohammed and adopted by his followers throughout the later centuries. Characteristically, all expositions of Muslim law begin with the ‘religious duties’ or ‘acts of worship’, such as ablution, prayer, and pilgrimage. law is thought of, not as a product of human intelligence and adaptation to changing social needs and ideals, but of immutable divine inspiration. For Muslims, proof-texts are found in the Qur'an and Hadiths; and on this assumption, the jurists and theologians of the second century (and subsequent centuries) elaborated a structure of law.
Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is a large area of study, especially for Muslims trying to determine a laws "godliness".
As a Muslim, why didn't you simply point all of this out the first time?
This is exactly what I pointed out: Sharia incorporates the Quran, ahadith, and the opinions of local scholars. And the laws are not all religious laws. Sharia is fundamentally Islamic in as much as the basic idea is to attempt to create laws that fall within the directives of Allah and Muhammad.
You've claimed that honor killings are a violation of law (the murder of an innocent person). If they are violations, then surely there are instances of the offending party (the family member/members) being prosecuted. Please cite an example of a Muslim being prosecuted for such a crime (honor killing) under Islamic law.
So you agree with me that it does not matter if the crime is prosecuted hudud or tazir as long as it is prosecuted.
I'm not going to look for examples for you. If you think that honor killings are condoned by Islam or Islamic laws then you bring your proof.
I'm not going to spend my time searching for sharia court cases. And in fact when it comes to an "honor killing", a sharia court would not even describe it as such. As far as I know "honor killing" is a western term. A sharia court would probably just label it murder.
It is the practice of non-Muslim propaganda websites to find instances were crazy people murdered their own relatives and then falsely label the instance as an "honor killing". People murder their own relatives every day in western nations but of course nobody calls those "honor killings".
In any event as far as I know sharia cases are not posted on the internet so I won't have any examples for you.
