I want this as a separate discussion, not theology-heavy but common sense and easy to follow. I am starting this thread for Anand Bhaijan as he has had many questions about Islam.
I believe that Islam is a very modern and progressive religion. Quran is a guide if followed ‘properly’ and ‘intelligently’ leads to peace (the term Islam itself means Peace). Many interpretations of Quran are stuck in the 7th century (when it was revealed) and unfortunately the scholars have not bothered to explain the significance of many Surahs (chapters) in the context they were revealed. One notices that a Surah is either Makki (reveled in Makkah) or Madni (in Madina). Some dealing with Wars and others with the # of Wives.
To keep this discussion simple, let’s just talk about these two issues (Wars and Wives).
In 7th Century Arabia, women had zilch rights. They didn’t even have a right to know where they will be buried after they were killed or the weapon they will be killed with. Newborn baby girls were buried alive, as they were viewed as a ‘curse of Gods (by the Pagans believing in many gods). Quran said NO to all of these archaic practices. It said that Women deserve respect. It granted them property rights, a right to choose who they want to marry, among many other rights. At that time, it was a huge leap forward. From being killed at a whim by their males, to having so many rights and not knowing what to do with them. So Quran only reflects the wisdom of that time. It shows us that no matter how bad a situation; one must strive to make it better. Now if we stay with the 7th century wisdom, obviously we will make strides no more than what were made then, but if we ‘learn’ from Quran, we will adopt progressive solutions to today’s problems. Polygamy is one example. The limit of 4 wives was a great step forward considering that incest and unlimited wives was pretty much a norm in 6th and 7th century Arabia. Conditions are much different today, so we don’t need to engage in Polygamy.
Same goes for Wars. Slavery was a norm in Arabia. Quran gave us guidelines as to how to treat your captured Slaves considering that the only right a captured Slave had was a right to die. Now that Slavery is pretty much a thing of the past in most of the world, we can learn from Quran that everyone deserves respect.
I would like a common sense discussion. If Islamic Scholars want to join in, please don’t quote heavy duty sexy Hadiths and full text versus from Quran (a nice summary will do just fine). Let’s keep it simple. Thanks.
I just want to add this; the word "Islam" means submission, and it dose not mean peace as people think. The words are "As-LaMA" meaning he submitted and "TasLeem” to submit. So when you submit to the will of god, he who is peace and from whom peace is driven, peace will be achieved, inshallah.
You are absolutely right when you say that when we follow the Quran we can attain peace. But about the wars, we need to understand that there are three things, which destroy peace:
i Refusal (Kuffer) to refuse gods laws nowadays the state laws. ii Refuting (Fusq) to refute gods laws. iii (TaGhoT)* to submit to laws which are from anything other then god.
All these three can create a situation of tumult and tyranny (Fitna) or destruction (Fasad), to establish peace and to remove these conditions we have to struggle (jihad). I am not sure, but for the third condition you have to go to armed struggle (Jihad-bl-Qital). To remove this conditions we are ordained to go to war and establish peace.
So if you really think, the conditions for going to war as established by Islam are the same that have been followed by many nations even today, it’s the third conditions which brings us in clash with the modern day warfare. Even the US to establish peace under the first two conditions went to wars. The civil war, where to maintain the state and its laws they had to go to war, and the II WW where a person was killing people unjustly and was refuting the laws set by god. I do agree that it’s impossible to go to war in the third condition, if the first two conditions are prevailing.
Not to challenge your common sense bhaijaan, but if the women has the full right to chose who she marries and if she chooses on her own will to be the second wife of a man in this day & age then why should we challenge her on the grounds of our common sense?
In Pakistan, the person who used to help our family out with household work (some people called batman, but in our house he was "chacha") went home for his brother's funeral and got married (second wife) to his brother's widow. We were all surprised & when asked the reason he told us that his brother had a love marriage & so the girls family disowned her. Now that she is a widow in her late 30s with no financial back ground and kids still trying to struggle, no one is willing to take care of her & she does't want to be left alone. He had tried to get her married but when nothing worked out he offered himself.
Now for some allowing up to four wives was a thing of the past but I believe there is great wisdom in this teaching and if the society makes sure that the women get the full right to chose their husbands, it less likely to get misused.
If you read the statistics of the imbalance of number of men vs. women after the first and second world war & how it effected the society therein, the idea makes a lot more sense.
Thank you Minime Bhaijan, for correction. Yes it means Submission. I confused it with Salam (which I think means Peace – but I could be wrong).
Thank you Ahmadjee Bhaijan. If the conditions are all met (the consent of the First Wife, etc.) then fine. I didn’t say anything to make it illegal, I just offered a suggestion. If the case was the other way around (more men less women) would you support Bigamy?
I think context of time has to be taken into account. As pointed out earlier, Islam was a very progressive religion early on but this has changed over a period of time. Having said that, there is progress and then there is 'progress'. But yes, Islam needs to be looked at in it's original context to get understand it's original dynamism.
Anyway, according to anthropologist's data there had been in the past clans/tribes that were religious homosepians, yet they practiced polyandry (not for economic reasons as it is done in some parts of Nepal). They conclude that it was due to the higher mortality rate of the birth giving women. Usually wars would even out that ratio by killing men and from that they conclude that the clans/tribes had a relatively peaceful living environment.
From what we know of world today, and as far back as the documented historical facts go, the ratio from men to women has usually been stable. Only in case of wars had men's ratio gone down. From the census bureau of UN, most countries even today have more women than men. (Surprisingly enough the states of UAE, Bahrain etc. have more men than women ... must be all the non-citizen immigrant workers)
Usually two things effect population drastically, war or epidemic. With epidemic being equally devastating to men & women, it generally doesn't effect the ratio. War does. And with countries like US not letting women serve as front line combats, this ratio is less likely to go in favor of women (or men, which ever way you want to look at it). Even if they do get to go to the front lines it will hardly effect the ratio, unless they supercede the men in number and skill & start to get precedence as the front line combats.
Bottom line, the situation has a 1 in a million chance to occur but if it does by all means I will try to find solutions for it taking into consideration how it will effect the society in general.
On one hand there are many many muslims who clearly support the ideals set forth by Osama Bin Laden and his group. Essentially this includes a Pan-Islamic nation with a unified Islamic Government of one kind or another with undiluted Shariya as the law of the Nation. Denying this reality amongst the muslims today is disingenious to say the least. Then on the other hand are the more progressive, liberal, 'westernised' muslims who are essentially projecting a future with a "Global Village" unfolding and seeing muslims as full participating members of this village, but without "Shariya" as the official law and without "Islamic Village" in its title. They want to accept secularism and democracy as the social contract and Islam to a very large extent as a private and personal matter. At the present moment it is also quite clear that the power in the muslims nations resides with the second group wether it is in the person of Mahathir, Musharaff, Mubarak, etc. or the small percentage of the populace that is western educated and trained.
The first Group, however, has clearly won the high ground amongst the muslim populace. They have selected to focus very narrowly upon certain aspects of muslim history at the expense of the rest. They have captured the emotive issues, and there is no charismatic rational muslim leader who seems to be able to challange them.
With this in view: it is nearly impossible to even rationally suggest that the suicide bombings in palestine is neither Islamic nor righteous. They were showing a muslim school in the chicago area on 60 minutes on CBS. These very nice young american muslim girls in Hijabs, all were in total agreement that the suicide bombers were shaheeds, and hence martyrs.
That in a nutshell is the real issue: It is the heavy islamic scholars that have been asked not to post in this disscussion who have the control of the Islamic "agenda" and they are defining all the interpretations of Islam. Us folks sitting in the luxury and freedoms of the 'evil west' have very little input to the hearts of muslims at large.
What are God's laws? and how can one violate them? In my view God's laws are the laws of nature..all natural phenomenon, gravity, our birth, death etc are God's laws. No one can defy them or violate them. No one has done so yet. God has already pre-determined punishments for such laws. Try to defy gravity when you are on 20th floor of the building, jump off the edge to fly off and land on the next block and see what God does to you. Yes you can use a glider and trick God too. That proves every law has a loop hole.:)
Also, anything that protects "life" and propagates it, is the will of God. Smoking, drinking substances that damage health and your life, can't be according to God's will. Similarily, hurting someone, cheating someone on his/her trust don't seem something that God all merciful would like us humans to indulge very often. Now this is common sense like NYA was talking about.
Now all that other stuff that "peace" can be only if we all follow God's laws on economics, banking, toilet manners,marrying needy women etc etc is plain bull sh1t. We as humans are perfectly capable of making and implementing laws that protect life, propagate life and stop people from hurting, cheating and killing each other. Marrying war widows to shelter them and support them is good but other alternative is good too..give them pension enoguh to live on...give them work, support education of their children and protect them from havish of other men against their will. Marrying somone in order to help them is a very lame charity. and what kind of help and respect a household worker, who is called batman in the neighbourhood, can give to a widow(s)?
PA, perhaps the Hadith collection and literature in and of itself was not such an "evil" phenomenon as espoused, since obviously within the circumstances of that time it was definitely an interpretation by the scholars (proof is of the Hadith scholars themselves unanimously disagreeing with each other over many issues), maybe no less dynamic than the present ones. What did contribute to the "freeze" was the non-implementation of the faculty of Ijtihad.
If Islam is not dynamic (I have no idea what the given definition in context is), then it must be stagnant. Having decided the earlier Islam was indeed dynamic, can it be said that the Islam revealed and taught by Muhammad (pbuh) is not the Islam we see and practise today?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
On one hand there are many many muslims who clearly support the ideals set forth by Osama Bin Laden and his group. Essentially this includes a Pan-Islamic nation with a unified Islamic Government of one kind or another with undiluted Shariya as the law of the Nation. Denying this reality amongst the muslims today is disingenious to say the least. Then on the other hand are the more progressive, liberal, 'westernised' muslims who are essentially projecting a future with a "Global Village" unfolding and seeing muslims as full participating members of this village, but without "Shariya" as the official law and without "Islamic Village" in its title. They want to accept secularism and democracy as the social contract and Islam to a very large extent as a private and personal matter.
[/QUOTE]
The true value is probably somewhere in between the two extremes.
I disagree with the picture you posted about the divide in the "Muslim liberals" vs. the so-called "Islamists". Its as bad as having a monolithic view of Islam or of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.
There is a divide but its far more than just two blocks of ideals & that divide has been there throughout many centuries. The sympathy towards the "Islamists" is not among the masses. For instance, in Indonesia, which is the biggest Muslim country in the world, they do not hold much support, neither does the neighbor Malaysia & they both are not dictatorships but democracies. The millions of Muslims in India don't care either; nor does the laws have been a concern in the poverty stricken Muslim countries in Africa-their concern is to get something to eat.
The people who do support the "Islamists" know for the fact that the current pseudo-colonial system isn't working, and are looking for other options. But its also a fact that countries like Saudi Arabia/Iran where a different political structure influenced by man-interpreted-Sharia-Laws have been experimented do not have a satisfied population either.
Anyway, the issue or the solution is not in having or not having the Sharia Laws but to have a consensus about the root of the problem.
dynamic (I have no idea what the given definition in context is), then it must be stagnant. Having decided the earlier Islam was indeed dynamic, can it be said that the Islam revealed and taught by Muhammad (pbuh) is not the Islam we see and practise today?<<<<
Khairun Nisa. Ideally it should be different from the time of Prophet Mohammad. It should deal with today’s issue (with the guidelines provided from how Prophets handled issue of their time). Since there was no Internet at that time (everyone relied on Telegram) so it can be said that the usage of Internet violates Islamic Laws. Sadly some people are stuck in the 7th century and refuse to get out of it.
Ahmadji Bhaijan, Bigamy also means having 2 husbands (or two wives). These practices occurred not only in South Asia but also many other parts of the world. There are many countries with a very skewed male-female ratio. Would you support polyandry if there were more Men and fewer Women? In China there are 108 men to every 100 Women. In India it is pretty much the same, so is in Pakistan. Now tell me would you support Polyandry in China, India and Pakistan?
Moulana Channji, Yaarji you are my Last Prophet (lately you have been a Lost Prophet).
NYA Bhaijan, the 108 ratio is very common & is not considered an imbalance. Actually only a hand full of countries these days have a perfect 100 ratio.
And no I would not support bigamy in China or any other country soly on the basis of ratio.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
OldLahori,
I disagree with the picture you posted about the divide in the "Muslim liberals" vs. the so-called "Islamists". Its as bad as having a monolithic view of Islam or of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.
There is a divide but its far more than just two blocks of ideals & that divide has been there throughout many centuries. The sympathy towards the "Islamists" is not among the masses. For instance, in Indonesia, which is the biggest Muslim country in the world, they do not hold much support, neither does the neighbor Malaysia & they both are not dictatorships but democracies. The millions of Muslims in India don't care either; nor does the laws have been a concern in the poverty stricken Muslim countries in Africa-their concern is to get something to eat.
The people who do support the "Islamists" know for the fact that the current pseudo-colonial system isn't working, and are looking for other options. But its also a fact that countries like Saudi Arabia/Iran where a different political structure influenced by man-interpreted-Sharia-Laws have been experimented do not have a satisfied population either.
Anyway, the issue or the solution is not in having or not having the Sharia Laws but to have a consensus about the root of the problem.
[/QUOTE]
You ofcourse are correct, that the splitting a monolith into two extremes is a gross oversimplification. However, I did that because those are the extremes that appear to be underlying the intellectual conflict. The populace at large in the muslim countries, in my opinion, is up for grabs. I do beleive that the "Islamists" have a good position right now but unfortunately they do not seem to have an agenda to carry most of the muslims with them. They do manage to carry a small vocal minority with them in most muslim countries.
The solution in my mind is farily straight forward: We have to develop a mechanism for free inquiry and free speech so an honest consesus can develop. Right now that does not exist. I have personally tried to start a dialog in person in my local mosque here. I can tell you that it does not work. There is a very vocal minority that tends to get very emotional very quickly, and sanity dictates that for personal safety any discussion should be closed as rapidly as possible. How do you bring "Ijtehaad" back to life when "blasphemy, apostacy, shirk, etc " are pulled out in the blink of an eye. Look at writers in egypt, syria, SA, iran, Pakistan, BanglaDesh, etc.; no one can write about religion in an open manner. It has to be acceptable to the ones who interpret in the 9th century mold!
Definitions of what islam stands for differ. Anything from Peace/Submission/ and submission to ways of peace is generally what the scholars have decided upon.
I've personally tried to look at human physcology and a unified system which can tie it all together. It seems to me that absolute or infinite truth isn't something a human being can achieve for himself, and not everyone would necessarily agree with him, so only Allah(swt) is the knower of the absolute truth and we must 'submit' to teh rules put forward by him as we can never be absolute enough to match those rules.
Now onto your question about using logistics and being progressive. See, Islam does allow flexibility, and muslims are flexible only where the flexibility exists.. we dont invent flexibility when it doesn't exist. There are tons of religions out there which're flexible and have lost their identities and original message. Dont want to point any fingers. (the purpose of religion, btw, is teh hereafter, and i dont see a lot of people focusing on that.. but are more focused on their daily life.. hence i say a lot of flexibility in religion makes us loose the original purpose)
Re: wars and women, I do agree that we should be progessive enough to move forward and create a society where widows/single women would be able to take care of themselves, but unfortunately that isn't the case today. We cannot change a God-made rule ever, but we can create circumstances where that rule would be followed correctly, and in a minority. Nothing can stop us from that.
[quote]
and unfortunately the scholars have not bothered to explain the significance of many Surahs (chapters) in the context they were revealed.
[/quote]
^^ The above statement is completely false btw. :)
btw, PakistaniAbroad.. your point about the hadiths and stuff.. keep it out of every other thread ok? I mean it gets on the nerves.. make your point in one thread.. dont pollute each and every one of em.
[quote]
btw, PakistaniAbroad.. your point about the hadiths and stuff.. keep it out of every other thread ok? I mean it gets on the nerves.. make your point in one thread.. dont pollute each and every one of em.
[/quote]
The hadith and stuff is one of the basic reasons this religion has stopped progressing and has literally moved backwards. Proponents like yourself are guilty of stifling progress. It's important enough to be mentioned in EVERY thread examining Islam as a religion.
and you my friend, are being like one of those religious mullahs who lack wisdom and a lot more to say the least... if you were wise enough, you would've realized by now that repeating your point is no way to enforce it!!
if you want to decide and prove that hadiths are stifling progress start a nwe thread.. this one deals with teh beliefs held by the majority, and the majority says hadith are fine!
again, repeating != making a point. repeating = annoying.