I know you love labels but I think you may have made a mistake with your labelling gun in your last post. You wrote:
"Stage1. Pseudo Intellectuals suport fanatic illterates for Sharia."
Shouldn't that read "Fanatics (or politicians perhaps) support fanatic illiterates for Sharia." Intellectuals generally don't support fanaticism. Maybe I'm too caught up in semantics myself. I understand the progression you illustrated and it does in fact describe the current situation in the Muslim world well (with the exception of the labelling). Exactly who are the pseudo-intellectuals? Are those who supported the Taliban in its initial phases "pseudo-intellectuals", and if so, do you think they were solely motivated by religious ideals?
In the entire Muslim world there is not even one country whose government could be labelled "Islamic". They are ALL secular governments (or in some cases monarchies). The Islamic shariah, and its implementation, is used as a tool to retain political power. When we get caught up in Islamic debates both sides seem to lose sight of this fact. When we make statements like "Islam threatens society" and use the examples of modern "Islamic" governments (of which there are none) to support our argument, we fail to see the entire picture.
I do however see the value in an argument like Stud's. I don't see anything wrong with criticizing the Sharia based legal structure, its obvious that some of the laws are unsuitable for modern society, while others need to be reshaped and redefined. I don't think this is tantamount to "innovation", but rather a neccessity for the survival of our societies. The door to Ijtehad needs to be reopened!
Achtung, there is a big difference between saying that 'the doors of ijtihad need to be reopened' and saying that some of the sharia is 'unsuitable for today's society and they need to be redefined'.
Ijtihad is looking to the sources of Islam for the solution to a particular problem which did not exist in the time of the Prophet (pbuh), e.g. genetically modified foods, photography, cloning, or cigarettes, etc. I completely agree that we (qualified scholars) must make ijtihad on these issues if we are to progress.
However, I do not agree that laws of the Shariya which are clear in the Quran and Sunnah (i.e. meaning and interpretation is clear and no ijtihad can be made) should be altered to suit our lives today.
Ijtihad is something which is allowed, in fact recommended and encouraged by Rasul Allah (pbuh) whereas altering Islamic law is not.
The Shariah is based on the interpretation of scholars. The Qur'an and Sunnah are not legal documents. The legal aspects of Islam are derived from these sources, through the interpretation of religious scholars. Unfortunately, this ongoing interpretation no longer exists. What we have now is a legal structure which is nothing more than an ossified dogma. If it was ok to interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah centuries ago and arrive at conclusions regarding what exactly constitutes Islamic law, why is the same Ijtehad no longer plausible? Were the men of the past who interpreted these sources deities? Were they infallible? Did they have a divine property which the scholars of today lack? Why can't the Shariah be re-interpreted? It had to have been interpreted by someone in the first place - and unless these persons were infallible to begin with, I can't seem to see why others can't follow in their footsteps.
In the Quran, more than often, the "meaning and interpretation" are not clear, it is ambigous and open to interpretation. But today those that challenge the interpretations of the past ulama are threatened with accusations of apostacy. I'd like to see this change.
"Redefine" is a bad choice of words on my part, a better word would be "re-interpret" ;)
I endorse your earlier aproach of a complete secular Format. If you apeal for reason through Islam or modification on shariah, the genie is out of the bottle. If we compromise with the traditionalist he will black mail us in to complete submission to his perception of Divine Authority.
The liberals or the Left wing must never compromise with the Traditionalist. They must never say "Lets Impliment Islam in a Modern Way". The liberals can only play a constructive role when they reject completely the role of Relegion in Goverment.
The Traditinalist will use the redundant argument" If you dont want Shariah You are not a Muslim"
And surprisingly this black mail has worked so well that it has robbed our community of free thinkers. The Logical thinker is then caught in a web of personal guilt. His fears for Salvation, over whelm his initial ability to think with logic.
If we allow a theocracy to see the light of day, the same black mailers will replace force with fear. Their simplistic absolutism will find legislative expression. The price is too high the results are evident in Afghanistan.
By the term Pseudo Intellectuals I was refering to people like my self. I was an avid suported of Taliban when they were advancing. This whole dramatic episode apealed to my Childish Idealism. I saw this "Army Of God" as the heroic reality.
I followed with interest their progress and swelled with pride when they took over. I was under the impression that " The glory days were comming back." Streets would be lighted again, Education would flow like a river, perisan carpets, beautiful turbans combined with modern technology and abundant security.
I was wrong.
An Autopsy remains out of question on grounds of fear and discovery. What you and I may term as inquiry the fanatic front sees as western arrogance.
But they wont have it both ways. If they wish to impliment Islamic Law on our lives then they must face a critical analysis. The only way they and perhaps even I, can escape the exposure of Islamic contradictions is by confining the role of relegion to Personal Morality.
When Ever I argue my case against the Sharia I receive threats insults and divine predictions on my future abode in hell.
When it comes to social Law I am not motivated by the need to submit to the Creator. My thoughts are propelled by the existing conditions around me. I do feel however that in so doing I fulfil the divine design of human capacity.Surely if there is A God and he did create me He will note my intentions were sincere.
I hate all moments that require bravery. I am a coward. I love to blow with the wind. But in this particular case my compassion exceeds the desire to blend in.
Its interesting you say that, because I was going to say the same thing about you (you beat me to it). I know, alot of what I believe is idealistic - your right.
Your not much of a realist yourself Stud ;) Shakespeare said the "world is a stage". We are all actors playing a role. There is a thin line seperating what "should be" and what "can be". Without those few actors who see things for what they "should be", the world would be void of compassion and the "freedom" you so often discuss in your posts. Our dreams shape our reality - what "should be" often becomes what "can be".
The problem with you is, you fail to see things holistically - you opt for a linear version of reality which conforms to your worldview. Religion seems to be the central obstacle to progress in your worldview. Its a pity that you ignore everything else. You should try to embrace chaos, instead of attempting to impose order on everything which is contrary to your belief system.
You came up with a very very funny argument. you said
"i can not follow the rules so let me change the rules to suit my own actions."
Try doing that~
1) let your wife marry another man.
2) pray once a week
3) borrow good moral values from those who have them.
and wait for you reward or punishment with god. thats all!!
As far as an intelligent discussion is concerned, your topic shows that you have no knowledge of islam whatsoever, and have a biased opinion against its laws and book. under such conditions, no discussion is possible.
i would suggest you to believe in what your heart tell you to..but please dont mess up with other's religions.
your idea was not only far-fetched but funny, and unrealistic, and you know that well.
vague ideas...
obscure prophecy...
influence...
helplessness....
.....
black jewels...
of insignificance.
b) Believe in God, but believe that he rules the world through laws of nature like gravity or whatever and not bother to send prophets.
c) Believe in God and prophets, but not believe Mohammed.
d) Believe in Mohammed and Quran but not believe Islamic laws and Sunnah.
e) Believe in both but believe that the laws are subject to change and are not final.
This line is for Abrahmic religions, Judaism and its derivatives like Christianity and Islam. Of course there are entirely different philosophies like Buddhism and some sects in Hinduism who don't have concept of God or are silent on that issue or believe in more than one of them. Lot of variation.
I personally find it hard to believe that human beings which are such a TINY fraction of life on a TINY planet in solar system which is a very very very tiny fraction of the whole universe will get such an EXTRA and UNNECESSARY attention of God, if he exists, to send prophets ONLY to them (why not in parrots or pigs or mangoes).
All religions tell man to be humble. But all of them have given a big ego to mankind.
Now we know structure of universe (to some extent) and know where we stand. Now we know evolution of life. Now we know that sun does not move around the earth nor human being is a big centre of attention in the world.
It is indeed ironic to believe that some supernatural force will suddenly start asking questions to everyone on some date, particularly to homo sapiens on earth and direct them to paradise or hell.
hamko ma'aloom hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin
dil ke KHush rakhne ko, 'GHalib' yeh KHayaal achcha hai
[This message has been edited by PG (edited February 16, 1999).]
Afterall what are religious books? They are just a collection of stories prevalent in that period in that part of the world, whether it is Adam and Eve in Palestine or Ram and Krishna in India + some simple morality. What were the laws? Laws were the ones that were prevalent in that period (all over the world, cutting the hand etc. was common)
They played an important role in that time. They have there own contribution.
But that does not mean we still keep holding them. Bullock-carts have been useful over centuries. But if someone tries to ride an aeroplane and wants to take his bullock cart alongwith, we will laugh at him. He will say he has a point. Bullock carts had helped a lot to him over years.
Taking religions in next century is like carying this old baggage when none is needed.
Thanks Mudasser for starting the discussion on roots of the disease, (Talibans are just symptoms). As Marx says " The analysis starts with analysis of religion."
[This message has been edited by PG (edited February 16, 1999).]
May I make a request. Lets not get into a mud slinging contest. This thread has intellectual potential. There are some intelligent people writing her. Lets hear each other out.
May I make a request. Lets not get into a mud slinging contest. This thread has intellectual potential. There are some intelligent people writing here. Lets hear each other out.