Are Islamic worlds in turmoil?

[Johnny B]

Horta ,Wan dhawahay Xiin-ow,

As for the new terminology, xiin-ow ,isen't the resemblance of my way of interprating Caano Geel's naval point of "my interpratation of Allah's ruling" mantra and the said new terminology clearer now that it had otherwise be?

 

I think i share his concerns over the clarity of whose peice of mind should/would/could a Sharea law implement.

 

As for the manifestations and Signs , i coulde't be more respectful to such a stance.

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by Centurion:

So what you are saying in effect GC, is that you'd rather be governed by fallible persons with their fallible laws, rather than by fallible persons with infallible laws (which is what we consider Sharicah to be)

Yes, because you cant question infallible laws when practiced by fallible people.

 

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

cg, I gather you think sharica can only exist in an ideal world, and not practical in the reality that's governing a nation! Did I read you wrong adeer?

Have we found the perfect people or have i missed something? But seriously what do you think. How do you manage the incentives of people to govern fairly and provide for the consensus of their population, react to a changing world, when you empower them with infallible and intractable laws. Or do we just say that doesn't happen to us?

[Caano Geel]

Faarax-Brown

Caano,on a scale of 1-10,10 being the most liberal,how do you rate yourself?

Depends on what the interpretation of ratings resulting from the scale entail

[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?

[Centurion]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

Yes, because you cant question infallible laws when practiced by fallible people.

When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men.

[xiinfaniin]

Caano Geelow, Adeer you know that shariicah was practiced by imperfect men before and succeeded! I got to leave now, but your qs are not that deep adeer. We are many years away from the desirable shariicah, but it will IA come one day!

 

JB, the divity of the sources of the shariicah does not take away the discussion needed to implement it in the most practical way.

i hope that makes sense!

[Johnny B]

CG, indeed it seems to be the one i don't get it,

hence i've no choice but to expose my summary of what i precieved to be a nostalgic utterance of a beloved era for the beleivers to the test.

 

In all honesty ,if you tell me to not eat pork and a Sharea law tells me not to eat donkey meat, i woulden't be able to notice the devinity in the latter. nevertheless, point taken, and am all ears.

[Caano Geel]

Centurion

When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men.

you question both the judgment and the reasoning behind the judgment. You accept if you agree with both or the consensus says so (which is not always right and depends on who is given the power to advocate) - for examples look at how many cases go appeal courts.

 

There are two reasons for having fallible laws, first, you can question the logic behind them in every sense, there is no higher authority to appeal to than the justification of the reason. If the justification is no longer valid, you may modify the law. Therefore laws represent and evolve with the societies they judge.

 

Second, sadly there always exists a paradox of power in human society, if you give up the power of judgment to the judges/rulers/guardians of your society, you entrust them to watch over that society, but who watches over them? Since they are also human, they are also susceptible to the same temptation that you are. So you are faced with two options: 1. You assume them to be perfect and above all temptation to misuse their power or 2. You appoint someone to watch over them.

 

The first point there entails the perfect people, but whom chooses who is perfect and can fulfill such a role. The second point means that you will forever have to come up with guardians that watch the guardians.

 

In effect this is what common law attempts to deal with, it is extremely pessimistic. It assumes that no one is capable of fulfilling such a position of trust. It therefore takes you, the subject of that law as its guardian. If you disagree with it you make you point and you challenge it, if your case is convincing, such laws may be repealed . Therefore the fallibility of the enforcers is inconsequential when you can challenge the law it self. This is not case the other way round.

 

---

xiin,

awoowe, of course they are not deep, they only deal how you live your life and on whose consent, but its not like it makes a difference. Though it is interesting that when you say a "desirable shariica" you implicitly qualify the existence of an "undesirable shariica" - but i'm sure we'll be able to tell the difference and have the choice to pick right one.

 

JB,

sorry i'm lost, what don't you get - the identification of a bonafide shariica?

[Johnny B]

JB,

sorry i'm lost, what don't you get - the identification of a bonafide shariica?

 

Yep,exactly that and any kind static law , and not only becouse Sharea is devine, but becouse since no law, devine or man-made, has ever covered or will ever cover all aspects of human-life,becouse simply human-life is dynamic, an ever evolving adoptation of the conditions of life, it's almost impossible to identify let alone favor and hold forver a static set of laws over others.

 

few thumb rules might helped humanity survive , but a noble Sharea rule as " Thee shall not kill" has show to be un-implementable under certain circumstances, hence exceptional.

 

Is it all about the " dam dam drara ram " or am i missing it all?

[Caano Geel]

JB, your musing sound to me like the seeds of some real scholarly research .. i think you need to hit the library and start talking to shariica scholars dude

[Centurion]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

quote:Centurion

When a ruling goes against you, surely you do not question laws already considered infallible, but rather how they are exercised by mortal men.

you question both the judgment and the reasoning behind the judgment. You accept if you agree with both or the consensus says so (which is not always right and depends on who is given the power to advocate) - for examples look at how many cases go appeal courts.

Sharica law does not limit the defence to just being able to question a judgement but the reasoning behind the judgement can also be questioned.Sharica is not in any way set in cement, it is merely far more coherent in its adherence to Quranic (and Hadith) principles than Western jurisprudence (the one i assume you are more attracted to) is to its undeniable Christian foundations and tenets. Hence it often appears backward and barbaric in the Western world, and unfortunatelu also to Western educated muslims.

 

First, you can question the logic behind them in every sense, there is no higher authority to appeal to than the justification of the reason. If the justification is no longer valid, you may modify the law. Therefore laws represent and evolve with the societies they judge.

The principles of Sharica are unassailable, and do not require frequent revisions, not unlike other bodies of law, the interpretations of the Quran and Hadith can of course evolve with the modern world.

It could be said that the fact Western jurisprudence can to a very large extent be shaped by 'the societies it judges' is a double sided blade. Of course it allows for revisions of laws to include appropriate social changes, but also results in ever changing standards, the constant 'positioning of the bar' when it comes to things like ethics.

Take for example the stance on Homosexuality, it has become commonplace in the Western world, and subsequently nation by nation revised its position on Homosexuality ( a position of stark opposition to homosexuality or anything of the sort; remnant of the Christian foundations of Western jurisprudence). Islamic jurisprudence follows letter by letter Quranic and Hadith-based proclamations by God and his prophet, and the islamic stance of total condemnation of homosexuality will never 'evolve'.

 

In effect this is what common law attempts to deal with, it is extremely pessimistic. It assumes that no one is capable of fulfilling such a position of trust. It therefore takes you, the subject of that law as its guardian. If you disagree with it you make you point and you challenge it, if your case is convincing, such laws may be repealed . Therefore the fallibility of the enforcers is inconsequential when you can challenge the law it self. This is not case the other way round.

This 'remarkable' phenomenon of Western jurisprudence of 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. Sharicah bestows guardianship to the glorious Quran, which judges can fall back on every time. 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.

[Fabregas]

But how will you know, when the perfect ppl arise?

[Peacenow]

Originally posted by Centurion:

I suspect it's because they have been there too long.

 

quote:

---

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?

Somalia should emulate Singapore and forget about muslim world, islamic culture

Many muslim nations are in dire situations, hence we must abandon Islam?

 

Peacenow, your cries for others to abandon (or dilute their practice of) your former religion are rather pathetic symptoms of your recent apostasy.

All that I say is to relegate religion to inside your home.

I'm a realist, I been to Singapore and Malaysia and I marvelled.

I don't want to drag myself into wasteful debates on muslim headscarves, when others are thinking about men into mars. . This I deemed within the spectrum of Islamic culture.

 

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. I don't want to get into the business of crying, wailing and hailing and then finding why, I haven't moved a inch from where I stood. It is this same principles, that I would like to see in the country called Somalia. Where decisions are taken on a purely coldly calculated reasoning of the national interest and security bearing.

[Peacenow]

Originally posted by peacenow:

quote:Originally posted by Centurion:

[qb] I suspect it's because they have been there too long.

 

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?

Somalia should emulate Singapore and forget about muslim world, islamic culture

Many muslim nations are in dire situations, hence we must abandon Islam?

 

Peacenow, your cries for others to abandon (or dilute their practice of) your former religion are rather pathetic symptoms of your recent apostasy.

All that I say is to relegate religion to inside your home.

I'm a realist, I been to Singapore and Malaysia and I marvelled.

I don't want to drag myself into wasteful debates on muslim headscarves, when others are thinking about men into mars. . This I deemed within the spectrum of Islamic culture.

 

I don't live in the world of 'inshallah' where everything is god willing. No way. I take responsilbitly for my actions. Otherwise I wouldn't be where I'm today putting a suit everymorning, in a city (Milan) and country (Italy), where you will see no other black/dark skin person anywhere but delivering pizza or cleaning offices. What I do now has a bearing on my circumstances today, tommorow and the future there-after. I don't want to get into the business of crying, wailing and hailing and then finding why, I haven't moved a inch from where I stood. It is this same principles, that I would like to see in the country called Somalia. Where decisions are taken on a purely coldly calculated reasoning of the national interest and security bearing. I'm sorry, but I refuse to let Somalia to be tied down to what I see as covering up the shame and failures of the Arabs over the last 50 years.

 

''Here look at what we have over here. 10 million Somalis, that we can use as cannon against you''. That is what is happening now.

[Fabregas]

@Peacenow, saxiib what load of bonkers mate. There are thousands of Somalis who are Muslims and hardworking. Infact the most hardworking people in Somali are the religious folks. They provide many services and have very good innovation skills. You have made another ridiclous and offensive statement, when you said:

 

 

Quote:I don't live in the world of 'inshallah' where everything is god willing. No way. I take responsilbitly for my actions. Otherwise I wouldn't be where I'm today putting a suit everymorning, in a city (Milan) and country (Italy), where you will see no other black/dark skin person anywhere but delivering pizza or cleaning offices. What I do now has a bearing on my circumstances today, tommorow and the future there-after

 

 

So African people are cleaners, pizzdeliverers and beggers in Milan because they live in the world of "Inshallah"? Whilst your different because your an enlightened folk( unlike the rest of us) all because you managed to get a job from a white man? What about the devout Somali Muslims, who graduate everywhere and work their *** of for white men? Working 9-6 for a white men and leaving the Islamic religion doesn't make you special nor does it make enlightened, just because you had some tough question from your philosophy teacher or read a little Darwin.

 

Also i am still looking for an apology or explanation as to why your declared the Somalis(in Europe) as no good Arab-recrutied Suicide bombers? Care to explain?