Are Islamic worlds in turmoil?

[N.O.R.F]

Peacenow

 

With all due respect I think your focusing on the wrong issues. As I mentioned before, Somalia failures is due to not following Islam and not because of it. Wearing a suit in Milan and wearing one in Dubai instead of blue-collar jobs mean the same thing. Opportunity, education, determination etc and has nothing to do with feeling sorry for one’s self whilst the other strives.

 

But you are right in one sense. Example being Employment laws. In Muslim countries employment law is very unclear and tends to favour the national whereas in Europe it is written in stone for all to see and nothing is compromised. Such things, the practice of these laws, should be adopted.

[Ms DD]

Peacenow

 

Sorry if it feels that we are ganging up on you but I feel that this has to be said. Putting on a suit in Italy shouldnt fool you or make you feel superior. At least those pizza delivers and cleaners work for their livelihood. But it dont mean that you are better. Why dont you come to London and see the stockbrokers, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, accountants who are all Somalis and muslims and earning 5-6 figure salary..Funnily enough they remain humble and grateful for their blessings. Also you are showing lack of understanding when it comes to Islamic knowledge. Saying inshallah doesnt mean one should become lazy and good for nothing. Our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) exhorted us to "tie your camel and then trust in Allah." In other words, we should do everything we possibly can in any given situation, then we hand our efforts over to Almighty Allah. As muslims, we should believe in Qadr, but I am not saying 'lets sit on our hands and wait for the decree to happen'.

 

This reminds me when my cousin who is very educated girl visited this family in Italy. The husband was a dentist and he thought that he was the best thing since sliced bread. Fair enough, but when he also was looking down on my cousin and believed to be this uneducated hijabi clad girl, that was what got my goat.

[xiinfaniin]

Folks, I think peacenow is simply venting at what he thinks as the sole reason for Muslims’ backwardness! But he misdiagnosed, and if he were a doctor his license would have been revoked for his prescriptions are more deadly than the ailment itself…he’s not only swimming in ironies but worse yet he seems to hold a particular pride in what I think are apparent infractions!

 

 

Caano Geel, you don’t really think only perfect rulers can implement shariicah! To cut this short, give me an example/scenario in which your concerns lie and where you think shariica could be inadequate to meet the needs (not the wants) of modern society (our society)!

[Elysian]

Originally posted by peacenow

I don't live in the world of 'inshallah' where everything is god willing. No way. I take responsilbitly for my actions. What I do now has a bearing on my circumstances today, tommorow and the future thereafter.

Waa wareey, why have no one told me this before! That explains why my home is so messy and my relationships so tattered. Thanks for enlightening me peacenow!

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

FB, you're right atheer, you can even bet your your boots that i stand for obviously oxymoronic of the questions, as i've difficulties taking things at face value.

That i come out as a miles away shooter doesen't bother me as long as you're willing to educate me and let me on the secrets of inner-circle.

 

From my humble understanding , Sharea is the ideal law of a Slamic state , and as such it's dependant on interpratations of those who will live under it, it has to have exceptions and Mutatis mutandis paragaphs to cover all the aspects of a Human society.

Now FB, are you telling me that Sharea is a devine law that covers A to Z of all aspects of life?

my questioning of its devinity maybe is of ignorance but it all depends on your evidence of its devinity in comparasion to falliable man-made laws. Mind you walking me through it?

JB,lol.You are asking to be educated on a subject that you are questioning its validity & existence? Isn't that unsurprisingly oxymoronic of you? But since you said that you fail to take anything at face value, I guess you are entitled to take anything that you so wish.

 

As for your question regarding the Sharea being Devine A-Z law, I am not sure if I got the question right. If I havent,please correct me.

 

Otherwise,The sharia is the Devine law from Allah that covers every aspect of the human society. Of course it depends on the intereptration of those who live under it, but those interpretations have already been set and as such doesn’t require much change,but if then such a society decides to go astray from the known known of sharia guidelines & implements its own set of rules,then of course it wont be a Devine law,since it not pure.

 

Now commonsense will dictatate that such an entity( government or society) with flawed interpretations, doesn't really become a true sharia state. If it’s the former, then of course I must tell you with a resounding yes, that indeed the sharea is 100% Devine law that covers from A-Z, You should know that dear JB by now

[Garyaqaan2]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Folks, I think

peacenow

is simply venting at what he thinks as the sole reason for Muslims’ backhandedness! But he misdiagnosed, and if he were a doctor his license would have been revoked for his prescriptions are more deadly than the ailment itself…he’s not only swimming in ironies but worse yet he seems to hold a particular pride in what I think are apparent infractions!

 

Abti Xiinfaniinoow I have watched very closly my good freind peacenow I am not shure if he confused with the terms of ISLAM, 0R SHARILAW,

 

 

Originally posted by PEACENOW

forget about muslim world, islamic culture and arab

 

 

The position of the so called Muslim world is in a deadly and calamoutius position. It is a rot. We have to decide, do we really want live in the real world? Do you like what you see? Or do you move ahead with a single minded pursuit of the national interest?

.

THE REAL WORLD IS TO LIVE IN PEACE. AND ISLAM = PEACE I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

 

PLEASE READ WITH ME THESE PHARSES FROM THE QURAN

 

Peace comes when people take their actions seriously.

 

Thus Islam teaches that human beings are responsible. Every person is responsible for what he or she does. Responsibility is first of all before God. No one should pass the blame onto some one else. “No bearer of the burden will bears the burden of another in the Hereafter,” says the Qur’an (6:164; 17:15; 35:18; 39:7; 53:38).

[Khalaf]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

Khalaf, Xiin,

just as Geeljire said, up until the perfect incorruptible all knowing, seeing people with the perfect understanding and knowledge of everything come around, i'll take the fallible and malleable man made law - defined and enforced by the peoples its there to govern.

My brother Caano, I think Xiin said it best that Shariah was practiced by imperfect men before and succeeded. Also we should all realize, in particular those who make shariah to be “stringent” that what is forbidden in Shariah is very small.

 

The lawful and Unlawful

 

peace

[Caano Geel]

centurion saaxiib,

thank you for the good points, and forgive me for my corrupted education, let me try to answer your points as faithfully as i can.

 

First I'm not trying to recreate the western jurisprudence, my interest is that i do not wish to see an elitist system. The reason i say this is because any system not based on the cooperation and comprise of consensus leads to serving one group above the rest. Why I think this might be the case for religious law is that not everyone interprets doctrine in the same way. Therefore religious law or for that matter any law with infallible doctrine is prey to those that control the *acceptable* interpretation of the doctrine. (On a side note I actually believe that people interpret and disagree of on doctrine and interpretation because it is a sign of thought and advancement and richer understanding) If you don't believe this is the case, then look at the breadth of muslim consensus in the judgment, practice and theory of islam. Given its wealth how much beyond the basics have adequate consensus to form mass law.

 

When we say Sharica is not set in cement i think we're actually wrong in a lot of the cases. The fact it takes its inspiration from faith means that it is reducible to the tenants of the faith - no further. However the interpretation of those tenants are varied. So you would that before a society composed of many different people can follow such laws, they must first define what they agree on.

 

Now if we follow a process of finding some consensual agreement, and if as you say judgment is open to question and reason to revision, then we have nothing to disagree on.

 

However, and this is a big however, the phrase

 

"the principles of Sharica are unassailable"

 

is the interesting one, because you first have to define what is and isn't unassailable, and how long it remains unassailable. In the most general sense, the aims of any just law aught to be unassailable, in that they aim to look for the well being of the society. Therefore saying a principle is unassailable is only valid as far as what each of the components of the principle is unassailable.

 

Let me give you an example, since we are taking the principles of a faith as the irreducible parts of the law, which interpretation of faith is unassailable?

 

 

This is a problem because when you say

 

"the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world",

 

you must also answer *whose interpretation*, yours or mine, theirs or ours. Of course that is unless we'd like to argue that there is no such thing as an interpretation when it comes to faith.

 

>

When you say

 

"[Western jurisprudence] .. shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade"

 

you are completely right. And actually it aught to be a double sided blade, otherwise we would be talking of a perfect system - the practicality of which as you can tell i don't have much faith in.

 

More than that, if a law cannot address all of the subjects that it affects equally and fairly, sooner or later you are also a minority on some subject and prey to its distortions. Unless of course every one is the same and no one could possibly fall into a minority of some sort.

 

With regard to your sentence

 

"[Western jurisprudence]'s .. bestowing guardianship of the rules of law to the defendant is naught but a make shift solution to the fact that it has lost its grip on its foundation tenets inherited from Christianity and has but modern society's moral compass as its guide."

 

That my friend is nothing but a good thing. It realises that western society contain more that christians and have more than one notion of a christian, therefore when it works best is when it is blind to christian doctrine.

 

Sadly there is an unsatisfiable constraint on the premise.

 

"Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time."

 

Having bestowed guardianship on the Quran, whose interpretation of the Quran shall we take - since non of us can claim to have a complete understanding of it. This would be no problem, if the tenant were questionable, however if we state infallible and assailable wisdom, must find the interpreter and and interpretation of the infallible and assailable wisdom. You see the obvious contradiction.

 

Finally on

 

"Judges of contemporary non-islamic systems of law live in a world where they but follow ever changing laws, which are dictated by todays debased morals."

 

Two points, first, why do you think laws change? Surely all secular laws are not dreamt up to satisfy the books of bureaucrats?

 

Second, it is your prerogative to find the modern world as having "debased morals", however sadly this is the world you live in and predictably that line is as old as the notion of a moral.

 

-

xiin:

i'll also cut it short, Would love to, soon as you give me how fallible judgments may be made from a infallible laws? how we recognise them - since interpretation on the infallible is a touchy point, who does the judgment? how do we choose them

 

khalaf:

First, thank you for the read, the problem is not one of "stringent", somethings must necessarily be stringent, others not, but how to manage infallible laws in world that you live in, with its diverse opinions and interpretations. The world that it was practiced faithfully no longer exists and hasn't existed for over a millennia. And the problem are not questions of 'can you earn interest on your savings' but how do you balance between the interests of individuals in a heterogeneous society and on whose interpretation of that balance. My point is not that there is a right or wrong, but a consensus- even if a society in the majority chooses the most draconian interpretation possible of sharica law - then that is what its members aught to respect and abide by. But a society must always have the power to choose, question and revise.

 

-----

-+ sorry for bad grammar/spelling, etc i cant write even at the best of times

 

-+ wrt to the topic of the thread, ummm Ms Dhucdhuc & Dheylo, i hold you responsible for going of the topic

[Peacenow]

I'm really glad that in the year 2007, Somalis can have this discussion, without the accusations and violence. I believe many others are having this discussion and rightly so.

 

The truth is that there is no muslim community or world. It is every man for himself. Islam, will not put food in your table tonight, the work you do today will. The arabs have used the Somalis, and given us the worst excesses of their shameful existence. Why are Somali women all covered up now? Walking the streets like voiceless ghosts. When I was in Dubai, they had a whole beach devoted to topless bathing. Why do we have to carry the can for their failures. We have become nothing more than cannon for this islamic jihad and this disgusting arabs. I say reject it.

 

When it comes to the state we should think coldly, about what is in our national interest of security. We mustn't console ourselves with notions of a worldwise ummah. Countries have no friends. We should use countries like USA to export our way out of poverty. We must understand that countries will continue to be dominated and used while it's people are in poverty. Poverty will lead to Ignorance will lead to you being dominated.

[Ms DD]

Originally posted by Munira002:

Ms DD, they are reer magaal dear..lol, had you ever watched a wedding video from Italy, you might mistake the somali wedding to a lingala [Congolese]music video..lol

 

loool..I had to laugh @ reer magaal. You reminded me when a grandma from Sardinia with jeans and tank top came up to me, chastising me for looking like tuke. According to her, I should be out there to be admired for my youth..and that I should take advantage of it before I get old and wrinkly. Completely another world. They are even the Somalis from the US who themselves arent very much conscious of the Islamic traditions such as hilib halaal. Somalis in the UK are such anal about such details.

[Centurion]

centurion saaxiib,

thank you for the good points, and forgive me for my corrupted education, let me try to answer your points as faithfully as i can.

 

Funny that you thought I meant you , I have absolutely no problem with criticism of Sharica from anybody, especially Muslims. Unjustifiable perceptions of Sharica as backward, barbaric and totally inappropriate in Today’s world, I find rather annoying.

 

First I'm not trying to recreate the western jurisprudence, my interest is that i do not wish to see an elitist system. The reason i say this is because any system not based on the cooperation and comprise of consensus leads to serving one group above the rest. Why I think this might be the case for religious law is that not everyone interprets doctrine in the same way. Therefore religious law or for that matter any law with infallible doctrine is prey to those that control the *acceptable* interpretation of the doctrine.

 

What you are assuming here is that because Sharica (or any other religious body of law) is less influenced by ‘society’ as a whole than by those law-makers with the adequate religious knowledge, it is more vulnerable to manipulation. This would be more of a correct assumption if it were any other religion. When I said the principles of Sharica are unassailable, I mean its foundation; the glorious Quran and the Hadith. There are only so many interpretations of a passage in either source, hence its harmonious (a point you were so kind as to make for me below )and continues reform to make it more adequately adaptable for/to contemporary issues.

 

Manipulations of Islamic religious texts are never subtle, nor are consequential abuses of the canons of Islam easy to conceal. My point is that, Islamic jurisprudence has the fortune of having sources which (Quran & Hadith) which have almost no grey areas where it matters, resulting in no major lack of consensus among law-makers.

 

Now if we follow a process of finding some consensual agreement, and if as you say judgment is open to question and reason to revision, then we have nothing to disagree on.

 

I don’t think we have, I am like you concerned about any potential elitism, a symptom of retrogression which religious bodies of Law are specifically vulnerable to. I also share your cynicism for the idea that there is a ‘perfect’ system of law, such shall never exist, we can but attempt to follow Allah’s will when it is clear, and follow our instincts and knowledge as best as we can, when it is less so.

 

 

Let me give you an example, since we are taking the principles of a faith as the irreducible parts of the law, which interpretation of faith is unassailable?

 

An example would be the sanctity of life, and hence the negative (relative to) Islamic legal opinion on the issue abortion.

 

 

This is a problem because when you say

 

"the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world",

 

you must also answer *whose interpretation*, yours or mine, theirs or ours. Of course that is unless we'd like to argue that there is no such thing as an interpretation when it comes to faith.

 

‘interpretation’ is too deceptive a word.Since it implies restructuring of the concepts being looked at. A more appropriate description would be ‘understanding of’ the Quran & Hadith.

Throughout history scholars of the Quran and the Hadith seem not to have very conflicting opinions on ‘interpretations’ of the Quran and Hadith.

So I’ll take my luck with how highly respectable and knowledgeable scholars apply the commandments of Allah, and the actions of the Prophet (SCW) to modern issues.

 

When you say

 

"[Western jurisprudence] .. shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade"

 

you are completely right. And actually it aught to be a double sided blade, otherwise we would be talking of a perfect system - the practicality of which as you can tell i don't have much faith in.

 

More than that, if a law cannot address all of the subjects that it affects equally and fairly, sooner or later you are also a minority on some subject and prey to its distortions. Unless of course every one is the same and no one could possibly fall into a minority of some sort.

 

Sharica does not have that corrupted side of the legal blade; the changing of laws according to fluctuating moral values of society but retains the ‘society-friendly’ features you are seeking, such as equality and the upholding of the rights of women.

 

With regard to your sentence

 

"[Western jurisprudence]'s .. bestowing guardianship of the rules of law to the defendant is naught but a make shift solution to the fact that it has lost its grip on its foundation tenets inherited from Christianity and has but modern society's moral compass as its guide."

 

That my friend is nothing but a good thing. It realises that western society contain more that christians and have more than one notion of a christian, therefore when it works best is when it is blind to christian doctrine.

 

You have the belief laws should be shaped primarily for the content of society, and I deduce you would contest the application of Sharica in a society which includes other [minor] religious-groups. Islamic jurisprudence is more about practicing life in the manner most pleasing to our Lord, He Who Knows Best, and a Muslim society would only be happy (should be in any case, Modern day Turkey is not, make of it what you will) living their lives in accordance with Sharica, which will provide (or so Muslims believe, one might add) the optimum living conditions, harmony and well-being.

 

Sadly there is an unsatisfiable constraint on the premise.

 

"Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time."

 

Having bestowed guardianship on the Quran, whose interpretation of the Quran shall we take - since non of us can claim to have a complete understanding of it. This would be no problem, if the tenant were questionable, however if we state infallible and assailable wisdom, must find the interpreter and and interpretation of the infallible and assailable wisdom. You see the obvious contradiction.

 

I’m not sure I fully understand the above paragraphs (no doubt the spelling mistakes are to blame) but I take it you mean how can we interpret the infallible, since different people will reach different understandings.

It is enough for us to know 1) The Quran and Hadith are always right, and if something is spelled out clearly, we cannot interpret it into something different and 2) If a passage brings about a conflict in interpretation like all other things, the most compelling of arguments shall be followed otherwise a middle path (one seen as most appropriate) shall be taken. Since we are humans (as the Arabs say ‘Kulli Ibn-Adan Khadda’) we will be forgiven for a universal consensus which in the Afterlife proves to be faulty, a consensus is what is important.

 

"Judges of contemporary non-islamic systems of law live in a world where they but follow ever changing laws, which are dictated by todays debased morals."

 

Two points, first, why do you think laws change? Surely all secular laws are not dreamt up to satisfy the books of bureaucrats?

 

Secular law is no big evil, but in a manner of speaking its laws are shaped by the people, the people are not shaped by the laws as should be. Of course intentions are fine, to accommodate all people equally, but it is inadequate for a Muslim nation, which should follow Sharica, the path most pleasing to God, and most rewarding for us.

 

Second, it is your prerogative to find the modern world as having "debased morals", however sadly this is the world you live in and predictably that line is as old as the notion of a moral.

lol, i am well aware of how old the notion of ‘The morals of today are not what they were once’ is sxb, nevertheless that does not make it less true today.