Common Sense Islam

PA

If Islam has truly regressed since the dawn of the A'Hadeeth. Then why do you subscribe to such a 'backward, downhill' religion?

Surely, you should be following a progressive religion!

What does Islam say about people who say one thing, and mean another. I think the word is 'Hypocrite'.

No need to justify your reasons. Please.

Islam is Islam and it is the best way of life to follow.

Look closely at the Social, Economical, Legal, Financial, Educational, Cultural, Political, Spiritual and Equality offerings of Islam, and you will know why it is what it is.

For someone who claims to be a Muslim, and I don't doubt your word for a minute. I am rather ashamed and surprised at your 'unconstructive' criticism.

' If you don't like your job, find another one, cuz u ain't gettin job satisfaction here'!

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. <<<

So 108 men and 100 women is allright.

That means 100 men and 108 women should be allright too?(if nto why not?)

Assuming 108 men/100 women has been common(particularly in ancient times when girls were killed in more numbers):

So to turn the ratio around 16% of males had to get killed in the war.

So for widows to be a big social problem more than 16% males have to be dead in wars...Ahmadijee, was that common to happen? In today numbers, 72 million Indian males had to die before such a problem arises.:)

NYA, enjoy it today while I am here.:) Worship me!!

The ratios you see quoted in UN census are uniform throughout the age groups and the imbalance is not reflected specifically in one perticular generation.

The imbalance in the ratio that occurs due to war is specific to a particular age group and that is generally 18--30 years old men.

If you are unfamiliar with the statistics of casualties of war in world wars, or the wars of the past between super powers of that time, please use one of the internet search sites to enlighten yourself. :p

Lastly, I never said that polygamy can be justified only on the basis of war or ratio numbers. A woman has to agree to accept a polygamous husband.

Chann ji, may peace be around you and on you.

What I meant by God laws are the one, which are particularly in the Quran, since the whole thread was started with the common sense in Islam. Where as it really raises a situation where those who do not believe in God and the submission, for them these laws means nothing.

On the other hand every religion has its own set of common sense laws, which are becoming not so common nowadays, why? Because we are judging HIS wisdom rather than submitting to it. Take for example the Ibrahamic religions. One particular case is the issue of interest. There are tons of verses in Old and New Testaments about the prohibition of Interest; same is the case with Quran. So one can argue based on today’s common sense that these laws are not practical, and the situation arises that you refuse and refute these laws. This is just one place where the clash occurs in the Islamic world, when these laws ordained by god are refused, refuted and then forced on people by design. It creates a state of discord and thus diminishes the authority. Those who have the authority use force to implement what they think is the law, and so begins the internal strife and struggle.

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

Your statement above is the core issue in between the Secularist and the Islamists today. Yes I agree humans to an extent are capable of making and implementing laws, and in Islam Quran and Sunnah defines that extent.

Humans can make and implement laws but they don't know when or where or even how to draw the line. For that, Divine Guidance is needed. :)

Just out of curiosity, ChanMahi, what do you make of prayer and prayer rituals, is that a human invention or divinely delegated?

IN Response to those who think islam needs to be changed

Ibn ‘Umar narrated; “When the Prophet (saw) passed away, the hypocrisy presented itself in Medina, and a wave of apostasy hit the Arabs and the non-Arabs. Abu Bakr called a meeting addressing the Muhajireen and the Ansar and said, ‘The Arabs have stopped giving the goats and camels (in Zakat)’. The Companions (ra) pondered over for some time. Afterwards ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) said, ‘O Khalifah of Allah’s Messenger! Accept from the Arabs only Salat and overlook for the Zakat because they are newcomers into Islam’” The rest of the Muhajirin and the Ansar followed suit in their opinion.

Abu Bakr (ra) than climbed the Minbar and delivered a sermon, “When Allah (swt) sent Muhammad (saw), the truth was very little; Islam was like a thrown away thing. Its hold was weak and its followers were very small in number. Then Allah united them on Muhammad (saw) and made them an everlasting and balanced Ummah. By Allah, if they deny to give me a rope (to tie the animal), which they used to give Allah’s Messenger (saw), and all the trees, stones, jinns and men support them (for that) even then I will wage war against them until my spirit meets Allah (swt). Certainly Allah (swt) has not separated the Zakat and the Salat”

In another narration ‘Umar (ra) narrated; “I came to Abu Bakr (ra) and said, ‘O Khalifah of Allah’s Messenger! Try to make familiar with Islam and treat them gently. They are like the wild beast’. He replied, ‘Instead of expecting help from you, I am being ashamed and embarrassed by you. You were strict in your days of Jahiliyah but are demonstrating weakness in Islam. For what do I fear them that I should compose flattering poetry or some words of magic to make them familiar. Alas! Alas! The Prophet (saw) has passed away and coming down of the revelation has stopped. By Allah I will fight them until I hold the sword in my hand even if they deny to give even a single rope in Zakat’”

Hayat us-Sahabah (The Lives of the Sahabah) documents the above chain of events, which took place shortly after the death of the Prophet of Allah (saw). It describes the response of Abu Bakr (ra) to those people who refused to pay the Zakat. Those people who in ‘contemporary terms’ modernised Islam because the situation they found themselves in had changed. Abu Bakr (ra) declared war on them; it was termed the ‘war of apostasy’.

To modernise is to adapt a doctrine to the present day. In the case of Islam this means twisting it to reflect ideas of personal freedom, democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, pluralism and laissez-faire economics; that is to make it secular.

The call to modernise presents itself when there is a perception that the Islamic Shari’ah is incapable of solving mans’ problems and when there is an observation that material stagnation in the Muslim lands is due to Islam and not because of the polluted Western thought in these lands.

Can this be so, when the glorious Islamic past was witness to the first general hospitals, licensed pharmacies, mobile dispensaries, and medical schools? Under the guise of Khalifahs of the calibre of Harun-al-Rashid, Al-Walid and Nur-Uddin structures of accreditation, finance and regulation were developed that implemented medical care irrespective of race, creed or colour. This Islamic society had produced physicians and surgeons who were at the forefront of medical science for a millennium and longer. The names Ibn Sina, Ibn Al-Nafis, Ibn Rushd, Al-Razi, Al-Zahrawi are still quoted in medical circles.

It is the Western secular thought that has hindered our progression. The ideas of Capitalism are trying to twist Islam so as to reform it into a doctrine that resembles Christianity. The Deen does not need to be revised, it is not a predated belief like Christianity. Nor is it incapable of delivering solutions to human beings at any time or place, as the last 1400 years bear testimony to. Islam does not need to undergo a reformation, the like of Christianity. However for the revival that needs to take place the non-Islamic systems that rule in our lands need to be dissected out. Only then will the Ummah resume the material progression that she so deserves.

The call to modernise is a weapon that has been wielded by the Kuffar with mixed success. It has taken many shapes and forms; orientalism, nationalism, democratisation, economic reform, Islamic extremism and now military conquest.

September the 11th 2001 presented another opportunity to redefine Islam. Images of destruction on a scale never seen in the United States of America entered millions of homes, amongst them the homes of some 1.4 billion Muslims. In real time two fully fuelled jumbo jets laden with passengers crashed into the New York World Trade Centre. Visions of human beings jumping hundreds of feet in sheer terror as the building collapsed around them filled our screens. 5400 people are reported to have died including firemen, policemen, and passengers of commercial airplanes, countless traders, insurance brokers and economic analysts from all over the international community. The economic markets plummeted, and the fall out has triggered a global recession in the opinion of many experts.

The Muslims who reside in the West have reacted with shock. Many prominent speakers, scholars, academics and politicians came out in condemnation of the attack. Their comfortable lives disrupted in one act. Forced to confront the face of Islamic ‘fanaticism’ in their own back yards they have been asked to make a decision, between the civilised free world and radical Islam. As Bush said either ‘you’re with us or you’re not’.

On the 16th September President George Bush described the onset of a ‘Crusade’ against the Taliban and the al-Qaeda movement - defining the forces of good and evil in the process. The self-appointed expert on Islamic Fiqh, Bush, continued five days later by saying; “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.”

Prime Minister Berlusconi continued the rhetoric on September 26, describing the choices available to Muslims:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights, a system that has as its values understandings of diversity and tolerance.”

Perhaps unaware of the fragile Muslim coalition the US were carefully constructing, Berlusconi continued:

“The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered Communism, (even if it means a confrontation with) another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1,400 years ago.”

British Premier Tony Blair explained to the Muslims:

“Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater. Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. There is no sport allowed or television or photography. No art or culture is permitted. All other faiths, all other interpretations of Islam, are ruthlessly suppressed. Those who practise their faith are imprisoned. Women are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First driven out of university, girls not allowed to go to school, no legal rights, unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned.”

Opening his heart he continued:

“It is time the West confronted its ignorance of Islam. Jews, Muslims and Christians are all children of Abraham. This is the moment to bring the faiths closer in understanding of our common values and heritage, a source of unity and strength. It is time also for parts of Islam to confront prejudice against America and not only Islam, but parts of Western societies, too.”

The media have also jumped on the bandwagon. Cristina Odone writing in The Observer on September 23 made the following observations on Islam:

“The Taliban and bin Laden invoke God as the co-pilot in their jihad. (In a recently recycled interview bin Laden gave to Time magazine two years ago, the word 'Allah' punctuated his every threat.) Yet talk to any moderate mullah, and he'll tell you that the ethos of the Koran is compassionate and inclusive, and that Islam values the peace lover as highly as the soldiering martyr.”

Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian minister of international co-operation writing in the Financial Times on October 10 alluded to efforts by scholars to redefine certain Islamic concepts. He writes:

“At the heart of this view is an ancient Islamic concept that divides the world simply into Dar al-Harb, the abode of war, and Dar al-Islam, the abode of Islam. Muslim clerics have tried with some success to redefine jihad as essentially a defensive concept.

Allah (swt) says:

“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their belief” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 120].

Rest of the article

In essence what they ask of the Muslims is to modernise, to forsake political Islam in exchange for democracy and pluralism so as to create ‘stability’ like that of Pakistan, Nigeria and Algeria. They ask us to redefine Jihad so as not to bring Islam into conflict with other cultures and beliefs, and to allow the values of the Free Market to go unchallenged as they exploit, rape and plunder, sowing seeds of disharmony across continents. They ask us to exchange the jilbaab and khimar for their own brand of slavery; that which considers a woman to be no more than an object with a market value to be transported across borders in Europe like cattle, to feed their hunger for sex. Tony Blair, George Bush, Berlusconi and the entire Western establishment are telling us how to worship. Writing in The Independent Yasmin Ali-Bhai Brown sums this up impeccably:

“A fortnight ago, on a special Jonathan Dimbleby programme about Islam, Dr Ghada Karmi, a respected Palestinian academic who describes herself as a ‘cultural Muslim’, pointed out with great bravery I thought - that Islam had never gone through a reformation, implying that this had to be the next step. I agree. Now, Muslim men and women accost us in the streets and instruct us to submit to the hejab. I find this intrusive and contemptible. Who are they to tell me how to worship?”

She continues:

“Our reformation must be built on human rights which are not ‘Western’ but universally agreed. Please explain to me how the five pillars disallow equality, rule of law, democracy, freedom to choose, and personal autonomy? … We will haemorrhage, bleed, spill blood and surely die of that loss unless we now learn to absorb the best ideas in the world.”

The call to modernise emanates from those smitten by the West who regard themselves as intellectual. They are intellectual but with a corrupt culture, deriving their ideas from the Kuffar. They are detached from the rest of the Ummah; their ideas are alien to the pure creed of Islam. Consequently, they are unable to command respect from Muslims in the West or the Islamic lands. So in a time when leadership in the form of the crystal Islamic thought is required, such people are incapable of providing it.

The call for modernisation suggests that our reality has changed to such an extent that we have to re-evaluate our ideas. On closer examination this is not the case as a human being is still a human being. He has not evolved over the last 1400 years. He has not grown an extra limb and neither has he changed with respect to what makes up his nature, i.e. his mind, his instincts and his organic needs. We are exactly the same human beings as the Sahabah (ra) were at the time of the Prophet (saw). Muhammad (saw) was not less civilised than us because he lived 1400 years ago.

Man has always used his mind to deal with problems that he faces in his daily life. The Muslims used to communicate with messengers sent on horseback, now we have high-speed ISDN Internet connections. It does not change the fact that human beings need to communicate. We are no more advanced nor ‘civilised’ then the Muslims of the past. By virtue of the fact that human beings have a brain they will inevitably progress to determine better ways of eating, travelling and communicating as long as they continue to feel problems. Technical progress is not unique to the West or the Islamic world.

The call for modernisation is a dangerous one, which aims only to compromise Islam with today’s prevalent values. It brings together guidance and deception and seeks to make the latter superior. The Muslims should realise this and reject it as an affront to the Will of Allah (swt) and an insult to his Messenger (saw). Islam was sent as a mercy to mankind, with no need to be distorted, misused and put on trial by the Kuffar. It is the Kuffar who seek compromise, tolerance and submission on the part of the Muslims, but reject an attack on their own values as an insult to ‘the civilised world’.

There is no need for the Muslims to question their belief. It should be the Kuffar whom we put on trial, to demand that they wash their blood stained hands, and renounce capitalism as the scourge of the modern world.

The call of modernisation asks Muslims to revert to the ‘shared values’ of the ‘civilised world’, values that equate the death of an Iraqi child with the price of oil, and the defamation of Muslim women with the price of peace. The actions of the West are hypocrisy; they do nothing but highlight the fallacy of their own values. We should not accept them whether they come from the speeches of leaders of the ‘free’ world, the ink of intellectuals or the mouths of scholars. We should stand firm as Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (ra) stood firm.

Muhammad (saw) said: “There will be days which will require endurance, in which showing endurance will be like grasping live coals. The one who acts rightly during that period will have the reward of fifty men who act as he does” (Abu Dawud, Kitab Al-Malahim).

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr Xtreme: *
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.
[/QUOTE]

What is the difference between the mankind of yesterday and days mankind?. Anwser; mankind has not changed, so why should islam change?

I mean in the past man use to travel on camels today man travels in cars, in the past they use to send letters by pigeons today man sends it through the post,in the past man use to hunt for food today man buys food from the shop, etc.So where is this so called change?. The point is the only thing which has changed is the means and styles to satisfy man instincts and organic needs. Man has not developed an extra heart, or extra lungs, or have more eyes etc>>>>>>>so reality is,man has not changed then Islam DOES NOT need to be modernised. And history bears witness that islam looked after mankinds affairs for over 1400 yrs until it was destroyed by the treachous West in 1924.Then no doubt it will be re-establish and it will look after mankinds affairs once again and take its rightful position of being the correct ideology and take humanity from darkness into light.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by clubber lang: *

What is the difference between the mankind of yesterday and days mankind?. Anwser; mankind has not changed, so why should islam change?

I mean in the past man use to travel on camels today man travels in cars, in the past they use to send letters by pigeons today man sends it through the post,in the past man use to hunt for food today man buys food from the shop, etc.So where is this so called change?. The point is the only thing which has changed is the means and styles to satisfy man instincts and organic needs. Man has not developed an extra heart, or extra lungs, or have more eyes etc>>>>>>>so reality is,man has not changed then Islam DOES NOT need to be modernised. And history bears witness that islam looked after mankinds affairs for over 1400 yrs until it was destroyed by the treachous West in 1924.Then no doubt it will be re-establish and it will look after mankinds affairs once again and take its rightful position of being the correct ideology and take humanity from darkness into light.
[/QUOTE]

Man has changed! Our concept of who we are has changed. Our understanding of how are brains are put togather has changed. Our understanding of how that brain functions has changed. We understand how emotions are processed and how they affect our judgements has changed. Our understanding of our biology and physiology has changed. Our understanding of physics has changed. Denying the scientific progress and how that has changed our view of who we are and where we fit in this universe, simply shows how far we have fallen behind!!! Your statement simply states unambiguously what the problem is with the Muslim world today ... IGNORANCE!!!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *

Man has changed! Our concept of who we are has changed. Our understanding of how are brains are put togather has changed. Our understanding of how that brain functions has changed. We understand how emotions are processed and how they affect our judgements has changed. Our understanding of our biology and physiology has changed. Our understanding of physics has changed. Denying the scientific progress and how that has changed our view of who we are and where we fit in this universe, simply shows how far we have fallen behind!!! Your statement simply states unambiguously what the problem is with the Muslim world today ... IGNORANCE!!!
[/QUOTE]

Ok i think you misunderstood the point, heres a article to explain it a bit more clearly.

Is Islam Uncivilised?

uploaded 10 Dec 2001

The following is the transcript of a talk delivered by Dr Imran Waheed at Sheffield Hallam University on 1 November 2001.

Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said (to the nerest meaning) “And We have sent down to you the Book as an explanation of everything, a guidance, a mercy and glad-tidings for those who submitted themselves to Islam.” [TMQ An-Nahl: 89]

The question of whether Islam is uncivilised is a particularly pertinent question in the light of recent events in the world. Indeed this is a question that has been raised by many - Muslim and non-Muslim; by politicians, thinkers, writers, journalists and many others alike. The Italian PM Berlusconi said, “We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights”. A writer in the International Herald Tribune said, “Islamic society, the West's equal at the time of the European Renaissance, failed to make the transition to a modern society…Islam since 1914 has failed to make a serious intellectual response to the modern West. Culture and intelligence, not power, decide the quality of societies.”

Although the Western leaders are at pains to point out that the current campaign against the Muslims of Afghanistan is not a war on Islam or the Muslims, there is a definite campaign to make Muslims forget any desires or wish of erecting an Islamic civilisation once again by corrupting the Islamic creed and by removing the political element of Islam.

The Western world is very proud of its achievements over the last century in which she has undoubtedly dominated the world politically, militarily, intellectually and economically. New inventions and discoveries pioneered by Western scientists have been paraded for all to see: penicillin, the double-helix structure of DNA, nuclear technology, e-commerce, and so on and so forth.

Consequently we are told that Western civilisation, or to be more precise capitalism, equates with progress and enlightenment; to the extent that nothing else is capable of producing progress and that everything apart from the Western culture leads to backwardness and darkness. Some say that progress can only occur once religion and state are detached from one another – they cite the example of the bloody struggle between the Church and Western philosophers that led to the Western Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

However what is not paraded by the West is the abyss of exploitation, chaos and despair that capitalism has created throughout the world. Humanity still stands at the crossroads, with capitalism unable to solve the problems of mankind correctly and in a manner that creates tranquillity throughout society.

At such a juncture in time, if you were to assemble a group of people from society in a room to discuss how mankind ought to proceed in life, and solve many of the problems that the world faces today we would hear a vast plethora of ideas and suggestions. Some may call for nationalism, others for secularism and increased freedom; others may call for a return to family values, or for an improvement in education. And some may pose the question “Isn’t Islam the solution to the problems that man faces?”

And this would often be met with derisory laughter and immense scepticism, since for many Islam is equated with being backward. The one who calls for the return of Islam as a world order is branded backward and intent on plunging the world into darkness. So many Muslims would come to accept that Islam is something old and antiquated, and not suitable for the rigours of modern life in the 21st century. Wouldn’t Islam take us back to the use of camels, and bows and arrows, and communication by horseback messengers? Wouldn’t we all have to live in caves and eat dates if Muslims had their way? What would Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) know about the Internet, neurosurgery or superconductor technology? So it would be said by the sceptics “Do you want to take us back to the days of wearing sandals and travelling by camel?”

When looking into this matter, the first issue that needs to be considered is whether or not the Islamic texts have the ability to deal with the ‘modern problems’ that are often encountered in twenty-first century life. Do the Book of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) have the ability to deal with the issues that we face nowadays and the issues that we will face in the future?

The simple issue which needs to be accepted by all of us is that the Islamic texts came to address men and women as human beings, not just as a man living in the Arabian desert in the seventh century. It neither addressed man with relation to a particular time or place but rather it addressed him whether he was living a century ago, today, or in a 100 years time. The simple issue remains that a human living today, is the same human who lived 1400 years ago and will continue to be the same human in another 1400 years time.

Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said in the glorious Qur’an (to the nearest meaning) “You will not find in the creation of Allah any alteration”. Anyone could see that the human whom Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) addressed 1400 years ago when He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said “Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury” is no different in respect to a human who is addressed by the same speech today. And anyone could see that the human whom Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) addressed more than 1000 years ago when He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said “Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” [TMQ Al-Israa: 31] is no different to mankind today. And indeed when Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said “The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live and a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water.” [Tirmidhi] he was not only referring to the needs of the Bedouins of Arabia.

Indeed these needs are an unalterable reality that have existed since the time of Adam (as). Similarly we find that men and women find themselves attracted to the opposite sex, and that they have the maternal and paternal desires; this is an inherent part of the human make up. People throughout the ages have worshipped something, be it the Creator, Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala), or something else such as a philosopher, a pop star, a politician, a king, or a planet. This again is an unalterable part of the human make-up that has never changed no matter whether the mode of transport was camel or Concorde. No one can claim to have 2 brains, or 4 livers, or 3 hearts. The air in the world today does not have more or less oxygen or nitrogen than 1400 years ago. Are we to somehow believer that Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the early Muslims were less civilised because they lived 1400 years ago? The fundamental point remains therefore, that no matter what time or place is considered, humans are fundamentally the same, with the same needs and desires, irrespective of any other considerations.

The Means to Solve Problems have Changed

So if mankind hasn’t changed and the Islamic texts address man, and haven’t changed, then what is so different today? Many would have us believe that the world is radically different today – and definitely they would say, this world is radically different from the one that Islam used to dominate over. What is clear is that what has not changed is the nature of the problems that mankind faces. They are the same problems that have existed from the very creation of man, life and the universe. However, what has changed are the tools that man uses to solve these problems; a few examples will suffice to illustrate this point. In the past people would live in very primitive houses; today we can see the skyscrapers and the like that populate the urban areas. In the past Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) sent messengers to other rulers on horseback; today a message could be sent by e-mail, fax or SMS. Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and his Sahabah (ra) fought many battles using horses, bows and arrows; today wars are still fought, but using SMART technology, cruise missiles and satellite intelligence. In the past the Muslims learnt astronomy so they could locate the Qibla wherever they went; today an electronic watch will do the same. The fundamental point that these examples illustrate is that man, with respect to his needs, and the problems that he faces has not changed; and that any change that we perceive is merely a change in the tools or the devices that man uses when he solves his problems.

the rest of the article

The obvious point which follows on from this is that since the Islamic texts deal with man and his problems, and not the tools that he uses to solve his problems, the Islamic Shari’ah is as relevant to mankind today as it was when it elevated the people of Arabia, and took them from the darkness of Kufr to the light of Islam. As a result of this we should not claim that Islam needs to be modernised to fit in with modern life or adapt to the Western way of life, as some have suggested so as to make Islam palatable to Western tastes. The predominance of man-made systems throughout the world has led to the belief by some that the laws need to be constantly changing; this is a fallacy and is nothing more than an illustration of the weakness of man-made systems and ideologies.

So whenever a shooting massacre occurs in the West like at Dunblane in the UK or at Columbine High School in the USA, we found that guns were either banned or a debate was launched about whether guns should be made illegal. But anyone who studied the reality of these tools, of which guns are an example, would find that many of them could be used to kill indiscriminately. For example, knives, chemical gases, planks of wood, even cars could be used to commit a massacre.

In Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) and its foundations (Usul al-Fiqh) it is well known that the general rule about things is that they are allowed. Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said (to the nearest meaning) “He it is who has created everything in the Earth for your (disposal)”. However what Islam restricts is how such things, tools, means, devices, or technology are used. So Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Whosoever does something which is not from us, it will be rejected”.So in Islam we would view a knife as something allowed; but its use would be restricted; so it could be used to slaughter an animal in the Islamic manner or to perform a life-saving operation but it would not be allowed to use it to kill another unjustly. Also a fermentation plant is something allowed: however to use it to produce alcohol would be forbidden, but to use it to produce vinegar would be allowed.

After having considered these matters it becomes apparent that it is a gross misrepresentation and affront to Islam and Muslims to claim that the hopes, desires and aspirations of this Ummah, whom Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) described as “the best Ummah brought forth from mankind”, for the return of the Islamic State are associated with a wish to go back to the dark ages.

Ijtihad

Indeed, not only is the Islamic Shari’ah capable of dealing with existing problems, it is also capable of dealing with any problem that may occur in the future, even if it were to relate to technology which has yet to be invented or even conceived in the mind of a person. The nature of the Islamic texts are such that they allow the derivation of many rules from just one text. This is done by a process known as Ijtihad whereby effort is expended to understand the text and extract the Islamic rule related to a particular event.

Some examples will illustrate this point further; if you look to the problems which have befallen the Muslims; their lack of unity, their absence as an entity from the world arena, their corrupt rulers and the fact that their lands are the household of Kufr (dar al-Kufr) you may think that Islam is unable to deal with such realities. So some Muslims may fall into the trap of giving their own opinions about how the Muslims could revive and live under the rules of Islam, thinking that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) had nothing to say about this issue. Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is al-Hakim, the Legislator, and it is therefore inconceivable that the Islamic texts would not address this issue.

Indeed if one were to study the Book of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala), and the Sunnah of his Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) one would see clearly the detailed methodology required to transform dar al-Kufr into dar al-Islam, and the corrupted society to an elevated one, since that is what Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) did when he carried the Islamic Da’wa in Makkah, and when he sought Nusrah from the tribes of Arabia, and when he implemented Islam in Madinah.

So the Qur’an and the Sunnah show clearly how the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and his Sahabah (ra) reviled the idols of Quraish, attacked the burying of the female infant, the bonds of tribalism and nationalism, the cheating in the market place and sexual promiscuity, as well as the heads of Kufr of their time like Abu Lahab and Walid ibn Mughirah. They continued in this onslaught even though it brought hardship, propaganda and boycott. So the Islamic scholar would derive from such evidences the necessity to expose the false slogans of capitalism such as human rights, the freedom of speech, democracy or the notion of free trade. This is an illustration of the comprehensiveness of the Islamic texts - the deen of Islam gives the detailed rules to be followed in bringing back the Islamic way of life to the earth if it were to be removed.

We could consider other issues that might affect the Islamic state in the future. One such example would be the use of military intelligence and spying; for example satellite technology to spy on the enemy, would this be something that the Muslims could utilise? Could the bugging of the computers and phones of the enemy be acceptable?

Indeed we would find again that the Islamic texts are capable of dealing with such issues; so if we study the Qur’an we would find that it is not allowed to spy on the believers since Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) mentioned in Surah Hujurat (to the nearest meaning), “and spy not on each other”.

However we would see that Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) before the battle of Badr sent out scouts (Adi ibn al Zaghba and Bisbas ibn Amr) to spy on the enemy. In the battle of Ahzab (the Confederates) he sent Hudayfa bin al Yaman to find out the true state of affairs in the disheartened Confederate camp. In the same battle the Muslims used a codeword to recognise one another at night: “Ha-meem laa yunsaroon!” So the Islamic scholars would be able to look at the use of information warfare, bugging, spying and satellite technology from the angle of Jihad, which removes obstacles in the way of the Islamic Da’wa. So such things would not be used against the Muslims, unlike the tyrant Muslim rulers today who spy on the Muslims, especially those who work to place them in the dustbin of history, and establish the deen of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) in their place.

Many other issues which have arisen in recent times such as IVF, cloning, life support machines, advanced weaponry, genetically modified foods or space exploration have also been addressed by the Islamic Shari’ah in the same manner that has already been discussed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the fundamental points that we have seen are:

• The nature of man today is the same as man in the past, and therefore the Islamic texts which deal with man are suitable to be applied in any time or any place.

• What has changed throughout the ages are the tools which man uses to solve his problems; the problems however remain the same.

• The Islamic texts allowed technology and new devices but restricted their use to the Shari’ah rules.

• The Islamic texts can deal with any problem, in the past, at the present time or in the future

In consideration of all these points the glorious heritage of the Muslims in the past would come as no surprise: the advances at the hands of Muslims in chemistry, medicine, military science and astronomy would come as no surprise. The problem today is that the Muslims lack confidence in the ability of their deen to deal with the problems of life: this is due to their failure to understand Islam in this manner and also due to the absence of Islam practically in life’s affairs: so many of the sons and daughters of this noble Ummah who have excelled in their respective fields have been seduced into thinking that only capitalism equates with progress.

The backwardness of the Muslim world began when Islam was separated from the State If one were to look at Turkey today one would find a weak nation, with a weak economy, dependent on foreign aid and loans and not a force on the international arena. Compare the Turkey of today with the Islamic State of the past that was a beacon of justice throughout the entire world.

What is required from every one of us is to understand Islam in this manner and work practically to bring Islam back to the affairs of life by working for the return of the Islamic Civilisation – the Islamic Khilafah. It is not the Muslims who must question their way of life – indeed it is the West that ought to question their way of life – they are in constant need of updating and amending their laws since their whole way of life is built on the perverse premise that man can decide right and wrong. Indeed it is the Western secular thought that has hindered our progression and is indeed uncivilised.

The adherents of Capitalism are trying to twist Islam so as to reform it into a doctrine that resembles Christianity. The British poet Basil Bunting wrote: “Sooner or later we must absorb Islam if our own culture is not to die of anaemia”.

THE CONCLUSION

The Deen does not need to be revised; nor is it incapable of delivering solutions to human beings at any time or place, as the last 1400 years bear testimony to. Islam does not need to undergo a reformation, the like of Christianity. However for the revival that needs to take place the non-Islamic systems that rule in our lands need to be dissected out. In a matter of a few centuries the Muslim Ummah in the past were able to take Islam to most of the known world, when the means of communication was the pen and the means of travel was the camel. Imagine then what this Ummah, who carries the truth, could achieve in the age of the Internet and space travel.

“And who is better in speech than one who calls to Allah, does good deeds and says that ‘I am of those who bow down in submission’?” [TMQ Al-Fussilat:33]

I did take the time to read the extensive copy of Dr. Imran Waheed's talk at Sheffeilf. I really do not want to get into a discussion over it. I find the talk cliche ridden and clearly demonstrates the state of affairs for many educated muslims who are unable to abridge the gap of their "traditional" arguments for Islam and the modern culture. They can only talk to one side of the gap or the other. When Dr. Waheed addresses Islam, he is talking to the already converted and convnced Muslims without bringing modernity along, and when he talks to the westerners he is using metaphors that more or less leave Islam out.

I just want to say this is a very beautiful discussion, ma'ashallah.

Good to see people exchanging views so peacefully.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
I did take the time to read the extensive copy of Dr. Imran Waheed's talk at Sheffeilf. I really do not want to get into a discussion over it. I find the talk cliche ridden and clearly demonstrates the state of affairs for many educated muslims who are unable to abridge the gap of their "traditional" arguments for Islam and the modern culture. They can only talk to one side of the gap or the other. When Dr. Waheed addresses Islam, he is talking to the already converted and convnced Muslims without bringing modernity along, and when he talks to the westerners he is using metaphors that more or less leave Islam out.
[/QUOTE]

OK nice to see you read the article but i dont understand what you agree and disagree with. So if u dont mind could explain it in simple words, ie things u disagree with and if u agree with anything. Thanks

Re: Common Sense Islam

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
..heavy duty sexy Hadiths..
[/QUOTE]

I wonder wat u mean by "heavy duty SEXY hadiths"????????? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

after going through the article above with some very good point the authors makes a statement which is blatently false and shows his prejudice:

[QUOTE]

What is required from every one of us is to understand Islam in this manner and work practically to
bring Islam back to the affairs of life by working for the return of the Islamic Civilisation – the Islamic
Khilafah. It is not the Muslims who must question their way of life **– indeed it is the West that ought to
question their way of life – they are in constant need of updating and amending their laws since their
whole way of life is built on the perverse premise that man can decide right and wrong. **Indeed it is the
Western secular thought that has hindered our progression and is indeed uncivilised.

[/QUOTE]

THE WEST HINDERING OUR PROGRESS????
once again the same conclusion that the West is to blame for our (muslims)present-day conditions. How cheap.........of course the West has its bad point, but we can not point the finger towards the west for our own mistakes.

[QUOTE]

he Deen does not need to be revised; nor is it incapable of delivering solutions to human beings at any
time or place, as the last 1400 years bear testimony to. Islam does not need to undergo a reformation,
the like of Christianity. However for the revival that needs to take place the non-Islamic systems that
rule in our lands need to be dissected out. In a matter of a few centuries the Muslim Ummah in the past
were able to take Islam to most of the known world, when the means of communication was the pen
and the means of travel was the camel. Imagine then what this Ummah, who carries the truth, could
achieve in the age of the Internet and space travel.
[/QUOTE]

filhaal:
only the first 300-400 years of islam's history bear true testimony to its greatness, the last 800-1000 years we muslims have spent in the darkness, blaming others for our own mistakes.........

You are absolutely right filhaal. These guys keep talking about the Turkish Khalifa and won't even read the turkish history to see how corrupt the Khaifaat had become, and how intellectually bankrupt the system was and how relieved the turks were when Atta turk abolished it.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
You are absolutely right filhaal. These guys keep talking about the Turkish Khalifa and won't even read the turkish history to see how corrupt the Khaifaat had become, and how intellectually bankrupt the system was and how relieved the turks were when Atta turk abolished it.
[/QUOTE]

That's true. I mean….common you guys have heard of the corrupt system of Umayyad, Abbasid and Uthmaniyyah. What is there to emulate?? Sultan Harems? Or the so-called sultans/caliph glamorous/filthy rich lifestyles?

Muslims will do better with a democratically elected representative under a president – call him Caliph if that sounds more Islamic to you.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by google: *

That's true. I mean….common you guys have heard of the corrupt system of Umayyad, Abbasid and Uthmaniyyah. What is there to emulate?? Sultan Harems? Or the so-called sultans/caliph glamorous/filthy rich lifestyles?

Muslims will do better with a democratically elected representative under a president – call him Caliph if that sounds more Islamic to you.
[/QUOTE]

Google, you know the comparison is incorrect. I appreciate sarcasm as well as anyone. But, what have I said incorrect about the turkish calipha that was abolished by Atta-turk?