Do you think

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

Re: Do you think

Bhai. I posted a reply to each of your points, but it seems to have gotten completely lost, I dont know why.
Very frustrating.
I was able to salvage this bit.
As regards my previous statement:

I think my statement is rather obvious. Organized religion, meaning a system that is setup by some party or another, following some preordained pattern of rituals, rules, regulations, is not a necessity. What is essential however, is a mind that is logical, pragmatic and flexible. The question was, do we need such an "organized" system to be able to follow Islam. I dont believe so. Religion is a personal thing, and to properly follow it means we have to have an organized mind, capable of discerning what is right and wrong, not a system setup by a third party telling us how we should or should not worship.
If people in Pakistan for example, would for a moment stop and think on their own instead of following the proclamations of self styled religious scholars, people wouldn't have been passing out mithai at my cousins engineering college on hearing of the assassination of Salman Taseer... Organized relgion creates drones, who's minds are disorganized and confused. Islam demands we think, but organized relgion demands that we follow and regurgitate.

22

Re: Do you think

All Humanity, since we all come from the same source both in terms of evolution, and spirituality, share a very basic and innate sense of right and wrong. So obviously, all Muslims to share among themselves this basic primal understanding of right and wrong. However, how this basic morality is is applied to the dynamics of society is where we differ. We all know for example, in our deepest recesses that rape is a crime. But what of a situation in which a husband is accused of forcing intercourse upon his wife, is that considered rape? Should it be punished, or should it not? Opinions will differ, even among Muslims. How can you decide what is just in this case? And what if there are those who are so entrenched in their opinion that no scholar but those that agree with them will be acceptable?

The West also acknowledges that rape is wrong. But revealing oneself is not a crime, its an expression of ones own freedom. There is a very fine balance here, however, there is no justification for a man (or a woman) to rape, regardless of what the woman is wearing. And the contention that there is a correlation between revealing oneself and courting crimes such as rape, simply doesnt hold water. Women have been raped in Pakistan who were perfectly respectable and modest by most standards. But once again, here lies the dilemma. Who defines what is modest? There are those in Pakistan that consider a woman wearing a dupata as being immodest for not wearing a burqa. And then there are those who consider women whose eyes are revealed through their burqa as being immodest. I mean, its a very slippery slope. Whos definition of modesty is valid?

The west views the issue of sex education very differently from you. They see it as teaching children about their own bodies, which is very important so a child understands what is happening, particularly during puberty. And there is no correlation between sex education and promiscuity. I know many who were promiscuous without sex education, and many who weren't even with it. My experience is that children deprived of sex education are no different from those that receive it, except that deprived children are more curious and even more confused.
I am in the medical field, and you might not believe this, but there really are those who have absolutely no knowledge of matters related to sex, especially among extremely conservative societies, even upon marriage! We are taught that when evaluating a couple that is having problem concieving, that we consider whether they understand how the process works. Its sounds nuts I know, but thats what they tell us. There are women who have no concept of contraceptives. All these I think would be important for people in a country like Pak with its over-sized population.

The scholars you speak of dont exist. No scholars ever agree on anything. Recall what happened to the renowned scholar Sarfaraz Naeemi, who disagreed with Taliban... Look where the Scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamdi is today after receiving threats? Im afraid your scholars will be risking their life in your Pakistan.
Let me ask you this, your Shariat may allow rights for all minorities, but what of those who are murdering Hindus, Christians, Ahmadis and Shias? Will they simply accept the proclamations of your scholars?
And what if your scholars themselves come to the conclusion that Ahmadis should all be shot? What if the say that all women without a dupatta should be beaten or worse? Should we just all accept this?

We all make wealth and power our goal, no matter how much we deny it. Our egos demand that we accumulate wealth and power. This is the curse that we all bear, and to simply wish it away is being naive. All wisdom traditions acknowledge this fact, and all acknowledge that ego is a deterrent, but is not easy to defeat. The west through capitalism, instead of foolishly trying to suppress this natural human tendency, seeks to harness it for the greater good. The pursuit of wealth produces business, business produces employment, and employment produces the opportunity for other to better their lot. The quest for power, the need to be known, and to leave a legacy, not only produces dictators, but also creates genuine leaders and innovators, who change society for the better. Do you not think there was a hint of ego lurking in the minds of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc or even Einstein?

All societies yearn for a system that just and ideal, even as they know it will never be perfect.
You see the Western secular capitalist world has the same goal as the ideal Islamic society. The goal is a just and prosperous society. The difference is that the West creates a mold to fit society, while you wish to create a society to fit your prefabricated mold. This mold which you call Shariah, is the problem because the dynamics of society refuse to fit that mold. But beyond this, we cant even decide on which mold we are to try to fit into. There are those willing to murder mercilessly, anyone and everyone who disagrees with their concept of what this mold should be. So while you argue over semantics, and your scholars bang their heads together trying to create the one mold that will fit every dynamic of society forever and ever, the real problems of society go unaddressed. The wisdom of the west lies in the fact that they realize that you cannot control how society evolves, you can not make a society 'be" a certain way. You have accept thing as the are and create laws that fit the society as it is. This is called pragmatism and I believe this is also central to Islam, except that we lose the forest for the trees. We become so focused on the details, that we forget the goal.
This is the same issue with Riba. I dont know the technicalities of how this system would work, but one thing is certain, we should not simply apply it because it seems to be what God has ordained. We should implement it if it works. If it produces the results we want, then it should be considered Islamic, and something that is implemented. Hell, if it works, im sure even non Muslims will adopt it.

And remember, the road to hell is paved with good intention. Im afraid that in trying to regulate morality, however well intentioned we may be, we end up creating more problems then are resolved. If the history of Pakistan has taught us anything, good intention rarely create anything good in the long run.

Sorry for the long winded reply, but I thought your argument deserved a detailed response. Or at least I hope its detailed.

23

Re: Do you think

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.

3) Regarding sex edcuation ... yes they advertise sex education as "changes to your body" but in practice they do not limit it to this ... they go one more step to talk about relationships and contraception and this should not be discussed as it removes the taboo from the act.

4) Over-population should not be an issue for young children ... contraceptives should be taught in adult classes only, otherwise not taught at all. Why should some organisations have exclusive rights to free advertising for their product?

5) There are plenty of scholars who agree, they do so mostly actually even Shi'a and Sunnis on many things ... you just don't hear about that because it 'aint sensational enough to broadcast.

6) If the leadership is structured where sincere advice is sought from scholars then minority groups will not be harmed and individuals not given undue or unnecessary burdens.

7) This again is not an argument against Shari'ah the same problem exists in secular societies ... in fact for a moving mold it is more likely to happen. I got caught for a parking fine, because the law changed from a fives minutes overdue to a lower amount.

8) I do deny it ... I feel you should accept that as true - or of course deny my denial ...

9) Disagree - a capitalist model is based on greater rights to ones own at the price of others - they depend on disparity.

10) As mentioned before there is no wisdom in the Western model, just clever selfish intent. Scholars will not ever make a single model to fit all, but will apply things in different contexts ... Islam fits well with culture, history should show you that.

11) Two things ... the road to hell is paved with good intentions ... may be so ... but this is not an all encompassing statement ... there are caveats ... which are

  • so long as ends are used to justify the means
  • and we seek not from God protection from evil elements

then yes ... **the road to hell is paved with good intentions

Otherwise ... the road to paradise is the good intention followed by cautious treading seeking help and advice all the way.**

24

Re: Do you think

  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 P

25

Re: Do you think

  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.

  1. 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.
26

Re: Do you think

  1. You ignore my earlier point on this. There is no correlation between sex education and higher rates of promiscuity among teens. I personally have known people who were promiscuous and had no sex education, and I know people who were not and did have it. The taboo has to be removed at some point. In the US sex education (with the consent of parent), is taught at puberty, age 11-13. Now some might argue that if Allah SWT saw fit that a young woman along with her partner be able to give birth, why do we assume they are not ready to at least be told of it?
    And my experience is that teens, being as rebellious as they are, are often attracted to whats taboo, not repulsed by it. Hence, that is why so many begin smoking in their teen years.

  2. My point regarding contraceptives etc was simply that such subjects must be discussed at some point. It is an important subject. Whether advertising for companies or not, contraception is a real issue. Now whether you choose to teach children (teens) about such things is a matter of debate, but again, whether or not you discuss it has no bearing on whether they will be promiscuous or not.

  3. Im sure there are many scholars who do agree. Many scholars agree on many issues across religious lines. There is even agreement on some issues between Christians, Muslims and Jews. But thats not the point. The issue isnt what the agree on, its the many things they dont agree on. Its those things that cause problems. Disagreements are covered more often, not only because they are sensationalized, but also because those stories generally end up being far more violent and attention grabing. Agreements on certain issues are ignored because they dont produce a story or grab attention. But disagreements often result in suicide bombings, and mass murder.

  4. IF is the important term here. You seem confident that such wholesome leadership, and such ideal scholars can be found. Reality on the ground tells us differently.

  5. No one is arguing against Islam or Shariah. We are debating whether a system based on religious laws can function given the inherent flaws of society and individuals. I dont think it can, and in fact, I think its a dangerous exercise in futility.

  6. I will deny your denial. We are all on some level driven by a need to gain wealth and power (or to be known). That we control this yearning is one thing, but that does not negate the fact that such a yearning does exist. Now you are going to tell me that you do not want to win Millions of dollars (Pounds)? Perhaps you are among the few that truly want to live as a fakeer, and have no desire to see any wealth for yourself or your family by extension. Well thats great for you, but will you impose the same austerity on others as well? Society is made up of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people yearning to be known, to be powerful, to want wealth, not only for themselves, but also for others. They want to have fulfillment for themselves and their loved ones. Fulfillment that will only come through having money to spend and invest. Now you can deny this yearning for wealth exists, or you can harness it for the greater good.
    I see wisdom in the capitalist system that harnesses this yearning for wealth. Denial is futile, and only serves to suppress the basic nature of ALL human beings, until it explodes.

27

Re: Do you think

  1. A capitalist system assumes that people will in general, always look out for their own self interest at all costs. I agree. While there are individual exceptions, on the whole, people look out for themselves and their own. But accepting this reality of human nature, the capitalist system aims to use this negative aspect towards the greater good. In that sense, capitalism is a force for good. Examples abound of capitalists producing wealth for themselves, while also producing wealth for others, or do you think the company you work for, assuming you work for a company, hired you because they like you personally? You have a job because you serve the intrests of the company and her owners. That you gain an advantage through this exchange is the hidden advantage. The company is not altruistic, but the result is such that they might as well be.

  2. There is selfish intent in all societies, even those governed by Shariah. The difference is that the West accepts this reality of human nature and harnesses it, while the system you advocate denies it.

  3. The road to hell being lined with good intention is only cautionary statement. Sometimes even the most good intentioned can be leading you blindly to your demise. The road to paradise is an ambiguous one, and whether you are truly following it is best left to god. Those of whom you seek help and advice are mortal just as you are, and their knowledge of whats at the end of the road is as fuzzy as yours. I think we should be very cautious of those who claim to know whats down the road, or whether we are the right road to begin with, when their insight is as limited as our own.

28

Re: Do you think

Peace Med911

It's good to see that we are converging to a common understanding ... :) even if our takes on it differ ... clear disagreements are about where you place altruism with respect to trade and see the results of the two as synonymous I don't. Capitalism to me is about setting the highest most honoured rank as the one who has the most wealth and it breeds the slavery of others, but keeps them sweet in the process.

The Shari'ah is not selfish ... that is a misnoma your are presenting here ... The Shar'ah appoints Allah (SWT) as Ruler and humans as "representatives" ... The Shari'ah is about doing what we can to help and support others. It is self serving in the manner that following it gives the people, who are in charge of dissemenating the needs of the nation, a sense of peace that they are undertaking their duties as leaders. A post that has been brought to them from their "fate". I am not saying that selfishness is not a trait of humanity rather we recognise this trait as Muslim moreso than the others that is why we see the long term affects of selfishness and hence see it as a natural trait that must be curbed and subdued (the true meaning of harness). Our sense of justice must prevail over any selfish intent and that is the position of Shari'ah - it does not deny the reality of selfishness and does a better job at harnessing it for it will grow out of control ... you only need to look to examples in the lives of people and see that if selfishness was a hole it would never fill. Harnessing it therefore needs to be done ... but what you say what capitalists are doing is harnessing selfishness I would argue that they are letting it fester and grow out of control leading to more suffering ... the best way to deal with it (harness it) is to subdue it and conquer it with a balanced mind. Its abuse would be to lead people on with empty promises and would also translate to loans with interest as well.

For the last part I will just bring my previous comment back again but slightly rephrased:

**The road to paradise requires both good intention and noble conduct

this means we cannot:** undertake acts where **ends are used to justify the means

***and we must:*- **seek from God protection from evil elements along the way

(this is a best practice and not a guarantee)
**
I don't believe that the insight of others is as limited as my own ... Just as there are people who have good eyesight and bad eyesight I believe there are people with good insight and bad insight and degrees in between. My being a Muslim depends on the fact that the prophets had guidance from Divine sources, unmatched insight and through time our spiritual leaders share a semblance of that ... I believe there are people out there who have great minds and likewise great hearts and are sensitive to Creation. I believe dreams are more than stray and random images in the brain ... I believe the mind is different from the brain as the person is different from the body ... However I do indeed take all claimant with much caution ... I have a standard to go by ...