那麽,一個溫和的穆斯林會如何評論『石刑』(註:將通姦者以亂石砸死)呢?他往往會否認『石刑』是出於伊斯蘭律法,甚至反過來以挑戰的口吻要你從古蘭經裡找出『石刑』的依據。他是對的!古蘭經裡的確沒有提到『石刑』,但它卻存在於聖訓(Hadith)裡,而聖訓也是伊斯蘭法的法源之一。在伊斯蘭法系裡,如果沒有成文法可依,尚可爰引適用猶太律法,以資補充。用『石刑』處死通姦者的律法,最初見諸舊約全書的申命記第22章23~24節,而且聖訓也有多處有關穆罕默德執行『石刑』的記載。(請參看布哈里聖訓Volume 6, Book 60, Number 79、Volume 3, Book 34, Number 421)
天地的主權,只是真主的,真主是唯一的歸宿。(古蘭經24:42)捨伊斯蘭教而尋求別的宗教的人,他所尋求的宗教,絕不被接受,他在後世,是虧折的。(古蘭經3:85)穆斯林要與他們(不通道者)戰鬥,直到亂局平定、再無反抗,一切宗教全為真主(古蘭經8:39) 在這裡值得注意的是,古蘭經第八章第三十九節的"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."(Yusuf Ali的英譯本),其中的"tumult"與"oppression"的阿拉伯文原文是"Fitnah",意思不是指對穆斯林的迫害或逼迫,而是指抗拒伊斯蘭武力擴張或統治的行為。惟有當伊斯蘭居於統治地位,非穆斯林"心悅誠服地繳納人頭稅,並且自覺地屈服"(古蘭經9:29)時,正義與和平才會實現。(譯者按:馬堅的中譯本偏離原意太多,故拙文不採)。
事實上,當穆斯林軍隊攻克一地時,他們並不立刻接受當地被征服的人皈信伊斯蘭教,因為那會使戰利品與Jizyah(人頭稅)的收入減少。(註:在伊斯蘭法制裡,非穆斯林的婦女、財物都是合法的戰利品,穆斯林戰士可以任意掠奪享用),而戰利品與人頭稅是穆斯林武力擴張的兩大誘因。那些被征服的人民保留了原來的宗教信仰達數世紀之久,同時持續獻出他們的財產給伊斯蘭帝國,以作為穆斯林軍隊四處征討的資本。以下這段聖訓顯示,穆斯林會"保護"信仰其他宗教的人----他們只要按著伊斯蘭教律,繳納人頭稅,就不會被殺。 "According to the saying of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart. He fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying jizyah (poll-tax) on them, deducting no fifth from it, nor taking it as booty.(Sunnan Abu Dawud Book 19, Number 2955)
根據伊斯蘭學者的通說,古蘭經第九章第二十三節有關穆斯林不要以不通道者為awlia(註:保護者、監護者、統治者)的指示意謂穆斯林應當拒絕非穆斯林的法律與政治體制,因此無論何時何地,只要能力所及,推翻政府並建立伊斯蘭政權就是穆斯林宗教信仰的一項義務。在達成此一目標之前,這個國家在伊斯蘭教義上被定性為Dar al Harb(註:戰爭之境、鬥爭的場所);當一國的政治體制全盤伊斯蘭化時,該國則被定性為Dar al Islam(註:伊斯蘭之境),而伊斯蘭法(Sharia)就成為這塊土地上的法律,但這並非意謂每個人都要被迫皈信伊斯蘭,而是每個人都受伊斯蘭律法管轄。在這個體制下,非穆斯林被統稱為Dhimmis(受保護者),他們必須繳納Jizyah(人頭稅)以支應伊斯蘭政府的財政所需,並且以此換取人身安全。
Quote:
1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue/wholesomeness/morality/ goodness?
2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.
3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.
4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.
5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?
6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.
7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.