Do you think

[Med911]

Re: Do you think

@psyah

Peace Med911

I’ve abridged your post for ease:

Thanks for this response … To further discuss the points you have raised … I sincerely hope that you understand that we should not criticise another when the position we occupy has the same deficiency.

On this basis let’s look at

1. The problem you identify is that of a husband being unjust to his wife. My answer to that is a judge in the West may differ from another judge in the way they approach the problem. You state that opinions will vary between Muslims, but the same applies in the West. However making note of another point you make later which is : *the West creates a mold to fit society, while you wish to create a society to fit your prefabricated mold. *Assuming that this statement is cogent I would have thought there is more consistency in a prefabricated mold than a mold constantly changing to fit what it contains. Even physically the mold is rigid and the filling is fluid … it makes logical sense that the contained is what should adjust to the mold. So if there is a standard to go by then people aim for that standard. You see I am not only contesting your logic about what mold is better, but also pointing to the fact that the differing opinions will occur in any society among any two judges regardless of the system they follow and going by your mold definition it should happen more frequently in a moving society than one that goes by fixed standards.

The actual answer is that it will be a case by case decision about whether the husband did use undue force or harmed his wife in which case it is dealt with accordingly.

2. Ok, next you ask whose definition of modesty is valid. Well you see this brings about another affair … in the West we are not allowed to strip naked in public, except in designated areas. Public sex is not allowed. However some people may have differing opinions. In fact the conservatives and liberals often differ on how much nudity can or should be shown on TV. If it is possible to have groups of people align themselves in to parties based on their orientations of liberal vs conservative then why can’t they align themselves on the basis of consensus. Look some people say it is acceptable to eat meat at KFC, some say it is not. Then in order to cater for everyone it is better to avoid KFC if an official body has overall responsibility for the group. Scale this up and you have your country dynamics. Shari’ah is not an alien entity that differs from the methods of statecraft today, but I believe it to be a superior form of the same thing.

.

1. The difference between how a Western or any secular system would approach a problem of a such a nature , or any problem in general, and how an Islamic Shariah based system would is simply this. The Western secular model has the advantage of not being hobbled by dogma. A dogmatic system is one which is inflexible and unable to adapt. All situations are seen through the same prism of religious law. To try and resolve an issue without such a prism, would be tantamount to heresy. Take for example the application of the Blasphemy law in Pakistan, or the example of the judge who is now under threat from extremists for condemning the murderer Qadri. A system which at the very least, does not presume to be divinely inspired, has the flexibility to adapt and interpret laws so as to fit each situation individually. Im sure you would claim that a Shariah system would do this aswell, and ideally I would agree with you. However, we do not live an ideal world, and the flexibility you claim exists in Shariah would be hotly, perhaps even violently, opposed by extremists.

You are right, strictly speaking, what is contained in a mold is supposed to take the shape of a mold. However, this strict definition of a mold only applies in the case of Chocolate cake or Jello pudding. In the context of societies, which are dynamic, the mold is what must change. The mold in this case is only relevant to the extent that it is used to contain and sustain a society. Once the dynamic of society can no longer fit within the confines of the original mold, a new mold must be made. So laws are amended, additions are made, things are subtracted from the law, all in an attempt to contain a society and allow it to function. The reason why this can be done is because man made laws are not holy cows, they can be changed. In a faith based system however, such amendments are nearly impossible because laws are apparently made by divine decree. The fact that the heavily abused “Blasphemy” law of Pakistan cannot be amended is a case in point.

2. People SHOULD be able to align PEACEFULLY into opposing camps, but this would be giving to much credit to those who fancy themselves the champions of Islam. To such people, there can only be one view. They refuse to see any other side, because in their minds, Allah SWT leaves no ambiguity, and so there is no middle ground. Its a zero sum game to them, and so the existence of one view, is by its very existence a contradiction of the other. To allow two opposing interpretations, is as illogical to them, as to believe that light and dark can ever inhabit the same space. Now you cite KFC, but then there are far more inflammatory issues that will creep up, and ignoring the issue or avoiding it is not an option (at least not in the long run). Shariah is not an alien entity, but any system that tries to impose it, or any religious based set of laws, will have to contend with the problem of interpretations. Where this Shariah system is flawed is not in the quality of its content, but in its application, and by those who apply it.
   Islam isn’t the issue here, its Muslims who interpret and apply it.