Sharia Law

Welcome,

I do not have the sources but do you speak / read Arabic? 

I am sure others will be giving you more info,...

The sources of sharia are Quran and Sunnah.  Books of sunnah are;

Hi,

From my limited knowledge
Fiqh = science of the law  or Islamic Law

There are different areas like say the Fiqh of medicine, marriage, prayer, etc.

It is a good question you ask about understanding of Fiqh. #1 you have to have knowledge- expertise in Arabic grammar. #2 you have to have training and long-term study to be wildly regarded.

Yes scholars of today can give opinions.. like say, can Muslims use computers.. that was not something 1000 years ago they dealt with. The science behind it is that the way to arrive at the conclusions is consistent with the past. And any opinion that is to be "accepted" must have the arguments / proof behind it.

its like in the past to get have, say a paper approved or legitimate you need the sources to back you up.. similar.

There is not only a science in the actual study of the Hadith and Sunnah, but also the methodologies of the discussion itself. 
For some man things there is consensus.. like we should pray, fast etc. Others there are differences that are accepted as well in other areas.

If you want an idea.. go to the page on DarUsSalaam Publishers and you can see there are books on specific Fiqh.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

As a non-Muslim two things are of interest to me.

 

abuayisha wrote: Are, then, the scholars of fiqh the contemporary authoritative and/or authentic interpreters of Sharia law? There is much debate on this issue.

1.  Is there a published/promulgated collection of agreed upon laws that are considered authoritative and binding on Muslims in general?  For example, there is a promulgated code of laws and court precedents that are a matter of public record which is binding law in America.  Analogously, there is a code of canon law in the Catholic Church that is binding and a matter of public record.

 

Or is any legal opinion of a scholar an acceptable interpretation of Sharia Law? Wide debate on this question.

 

While I am sure that there is a consensus of some (perhaps a majority of) Muslim scholars that terrorism and military conquest are not valid means of spreading Islam, if a particular scholar or another consensus affirmed that they are valid means,  would that make them legitimate?

 

I define �terrorism� as premeditated, politically-motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to  intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population.  Innocent noncombatants are deliberately targeted as a matter of strategy.

 

�Military conquest� is self-explanatory.  An example would be the invasion and conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom of  Spain by Muslim forces in the 8th century.