Rethinking Islam

[NGONGE]

^^ Oh! Another one-liner!

 

You know full well that his was a rhetorical question, Viking. If there is any *****footing around being done here, it’s coming from both of you. Three other people (in addition to myself) have replied to the original topic. We all gave our take on the questions and issues presented. Jamaal, as he always does with Islamic topics, chose to pick on one word without contributing a thing from his side and now that I’m done with him, you pop in?

 

My words are clear, people. If you want to challenge them, go ahead. I’d only request that you do me the courtesy of posting well thought and detailed replies instead of the chat room one line drivel.

[-Serenity-]

Holy Mackerel ! :eek:

 

Gentlemen, please xishooda. There is no need to trash another topic that could have been fruitful if discussed appropriately.

[Viking]

Nur,

I don't think the author is saying that Muslims should intepret the Law according to our whims but according to the time we live in. He states the Abasid era as a time from when the endeavor to intepret Shari'a stagnated. I haven't seen any clear poins made by the author that I disagree with, he sounds like someone who wants what is best for Muslims in accordance to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

 

NGONGE,

Islam doesn't need to change, Muslims do. As the author stated, the Qur'an and the Sunnah stay static but our intepretations of them should change with time (or when the need arises).

 

Jamaal, saaxib, I’ve never known you to be this sloppy in the past. This is a case of semantics and not dogma. Islam and Muslims are interchangeable words.

Allah SWT clearly states in Suratul Ma'idah that He has chosen Islam as our religion...

 

This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. (Ma'idah 5:3)

 

So since Islam is decreed upon us by the Lord, we (as Muslims) have the task of understanding what is it that has been decreed upon us (Islam). It seems to be an issue of semantics and not essence that has become an obstacle for you to understand what is being asked of you by J11.

[Nur]

Qucik obeservations

 

I have replied to the author in a well thought out manner, the topic was Rethinking Islam, but throughout his article, the author was referring to the understanding of latent Muslims of Islam, not that he was suggesting that Allah rework islam by sending an new Prophet, yet, the Prof made major blunders in my opinion due to his bicultural background, and ignorance of the Arabic language which was apparent from his writing eventhough he lived in XSaudi rabia for five years as a professional expatriate working to earn a living, not learning islam, but once he went back to UK, and his active role in Islam, we have him a new guru mufti in steeering Islam to a westoword direction.

 

 

7 of Nine

 

 

What is so Holly about Mackarel? or Tuna for that matter?

 

Jee, is for Christians, short for Jesus

 

Holy Cow, for Hindus,

 

 

Subxaana Allah ! is for Muslims.

 

 

Respectfully

 

 

Nur

[-Serenity-]

Nur, that was an attempt on my part at sarcasm. Sort of hinting how far the gentlemen have deviated from the topic.

 

Thanks.

[Medley of extemporanea]

I don't think Islamic thinking has stagnated. And even if it has, that’s not really a major problem. Ideas stagnate when they are not being applied to new situations. Once they are applied to new situations, it does not take much for ideas to revive and thrive.

 

What has stagnated is the economic and industrial growth of Muslim societies as compared with other societies. As a result Muslims are very weak and their societies dysfunctional. But things are changing

 

Let’s not confuse the two!

 

Also, in the end Islam is all about an individual and his/her creator and sustainer. While the situation of a man or a group may change, the route to salvations always stays the same.

 

We don’t really need to reinterpret our deen, we just need to trust in God, organize ourselves, work hard, persevere, be patient, and do all that is required to change our condition.

 

13:11 For each (such person) there are (angels) in succession, before and behind him: They guard him by command of God. Verily never will God change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls). But when (once) God willeth a people's punishment, there can be no turning it back, nor will they find, besides Him, any to protect.

 

47:2 But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

 

3:140 If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days of varying fortunes We give to men and men by turns: that God may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks witnesses to Truth. And God does not ove not those that do wrong.

 

2:251 By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds.

 

I would be worry of anyone that wants to 'reform' Islam but does not care about improving the daily lives of Muslims. I think that's where the real reform is need; in the daily condition of Muslims.

 

It's a fact that Muslims are among the poorest and least educated people. Yet they love God and worship God more then anyother people. So why does Mr. Sardar want to change their religions (which has no problems), yet he says nothing about the condition of their lives?

[Baashi]

This is a well-written and a well-reasoned piece by Professor Ziauddin Sardar. Of all the critics of Islam as a way of life, Prof Sardar is the only one that explained in detail why he thinks Islam needs rethinking. Reading the essay in its entirety, I followed the Prof’s terrain of thought and I think I grasped the crux of the article. As I read this write-up, I caught myself nodding in agreement most of the times. Upon concluding this interesting read, however, I find the gist of his opinion unhelpful to the target audience and, at minimum, misguided.

 

As I understood him, Prof Sardar, as any astute observer would, saw monumental problems in Islamic world that need to be dealt by Muslims. However, unlike majority of Muslims, he implicitly and at times explicitly attributes the despotism, totalitarianism, and backwardness that has characterized Muslim countries to the Islamic worldview derived from Islam itself. He astutely observes three root causes in which he said underpinned the malaise: (1) Non-evolving laws (derived from Prophets sayings called Shariah), (2) Non-active jurists who avoid reinterpreting and remaking of what they see as Divine laws, and (3) Lumping Religion and the State. He calls them "three metaphysical catastrophes"!

 

From the get go Prof Sardar started with the wrong foot by negating the central principle (namely Islam being a complete way of life in every aspect of human activity) of the very religion he intends to rescue from eternal doom. Having said that, he makes good points and he rightly points out where the Ummah has gone wrong. Here I wholeheartedly agree with him. For instance, the Prof makes the point that contemporary scholars abandonment of “Ijtihad†was wrong.

 

He rightly explains how the “reductive approach†by some scholars leaves the nation in state where obscure and inconsequential matters trump the real issues of the day. However, instead of reclaiming the leading seat in steering Muslim nations to the right path he sets out to rethink the whole message and (if necessary) modify it to bring Islam in line with what he sees to be the modern world.

 

The problem with this approach of “rethinking†or “remaking†an existing religion in search of relevancy to modernity is that the end becomes just that: catching up with rapidly evolving material world instead of worshipping and pleasing Allah which is the end all faithful are striving for. Had he sought to “reclaim†(here semantics mean a lot) the original message with understanding that by adhering its central pillars it will lead us to eminence his message would have gotten through.

 

Muslims nations lack behind in all areas of human progress. They abandoned their religion and sacrificed their unity, and yet they failed to completely and affectively adopt the secular system they have embraced. Prof Sardar’s diagnoses are partly right but I don’t think his remedy as he outlined in this write-up leads these nations to either camp. All in all, one thing is clear and that is a meaningful discussion of how and where we go from where we are is a good start.

 

my taano.

[NGONGE]

Viking,

Maybe it’s my disdainful attitude and haughty replies that are causing you to tackle the man and not the ball as it were. We are going in tediously dizzying circles here, saaxib. I’m seriously shocked and troubled by the dreadful idea that after reading most of my replies on Islamic subjects in the past year, you would still think I do not understand what Islam is or would need to be quoted a verse of the Koran as an explanation!

 

This is really irksome and wearing. I could completely ignore it and move on to other topics but I’m afraid that’s not my nature, I like to satisfy myself with the fact that I’ve given things my best shot (even if they’re as trivial as dissecting the overall meaning of one word).

 

 

Now that you’ve given me your explanation, what happens next? Are you going to agree with the author’s arguments and “rethink†Islam or, like Nur and Baashe competently just demonstrated, are you going to oppose them (author’s points) and clarify your position? If you decide to do neither and instead feel that your reply to me about ‘the problem with Islam’ was a sufficient reply, then really, you will be one of the people that I pointed to in my first post here (the one that Jamaal decided to quote).

 

I seriously hope this whole thing was a wind up and that with this last explanation this matter will finally end. If however, this is genuine and you (and Jamaal) really did not understand my words or were confused by them. I will (as I’ve been doing with every reply so far) go back over them for the twentieth time and see why something that is (to my eyes at least) crystal clear, proving difficult for you! Being the bigheaded genius that I’ve always been I’ll probably be compelled to conclude that the fault is very likely to come from your side.

 

[Viking]

NGONGE,

Everyone chooses the words they use for a certain reason. The author's reason can't be verified but yours can. The first sentence written on the piece is..."Serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long."

 

This leads me (and my ilk) to conclude that the author chose the topic (Rethinking Islam) in order to draw people's attention, and thereafter go ahead and explain what was on his mind.

 

Are you going to agree with the author’s arguments and “rethink†Islam or, like Nur and Baashe competently just demonstrated, are you going to oppose them (author’s points) and clarify your position?

This question prompts me to assume that you either haven't read what I said or (you have read it) but simply feel like taking the mickey.

[STOIC]

How do we become, much less remain, calm and patient in a world that tears and fragment every second!.Hasty decisions and blind following of the west will not reform our society.Turkey serves as an example of fruitless western style of separation between the state and church here.Today the Islamic world is not short of natural resources and wealth nor is it short of moral and ethical values.But according to anyone with insight and critical analyzation skills Islam is today at a point of stagnation be it philosophical or scientific!(This observation is obvious in the eyes of everyone).The muslim Ummah today needs a redefining of the intellectual and cultural setting of it's communities.There is nothing wrong with the Quraan or the Shariah but there is problem of defining where the line must be drawn between the devine revelation and reasoning!.We all know that the devine revelation is the word of Allah-period!.But we must realise as a muslims that the devine revelation can be subject to multiple interpretation.If we avoid questioning and reasoning this interpretations,don't you think that we are not making use of our god given brain?.Today we all live in the western world where through realm of knowledge, scientific and philosophical breakthrough are achieved everyday!.Now inspite of this success, the western world is still witnessing imbalance in their judgements!.This shows us that reason alone can not attain the ultimate justice(devine revelation must accompany it).

 

 

I have read most of the replies to this thread for the last two days.No one really adressed the solution to this problems.We know the problem exist but do we have solutions?.We know that ummah is weak and backward compared to the world standard.We know that there is intellectual stagnation.All this is an evidence that ummah is incapable of competing with the rest of the world.Shall we blame the mindless drive for westernization or shall we look back and see how the ummah have failed to make use of the Islamic spirit of sacrifice and sincerity in one's action?

[Haddad]

Originally posted by STOIC:

We know the problem exist but do we have solutions?

The solution: Islamic leadership.

We know that ummah is weak and backward compared to the world standard.

You're overestimating the technological advancements of the West. Those advancements, especially conventional militarism, have limitations. Besides, the Muslim world has the potential to become technologically advanced (Malaysia being a limited example), granted there's a proper leadership. It has also the potential to slow the West's advancements.

All this is an evidence that ummah is incapable of competing with the rest of the world.

Do you think the West will allow a competing? Do you know what it means the Ummah producing a nuclear warhead for every similar one (or a quarter/half) the West produces?

...shall we look back and see how the ummah have failed to make use of the Islamic spirit of sacrifice and sincerity in one's action?

It's leaderships who have failed the Ummah.

[Nur]

Baashi bro.

 

you write:

 

Here I wholeheartedly agree with him. For instance, the Prof makes the point that contemporary scholars abandonment of “Ijtihad†was wrong .

 

 

Ijtihad is an auxilliary branch of fiqh that is of last resort, not first, second nor even distant third, which is Qiyaas, Ijtihaad it is to explain complex issues facing the Ummah that need the collective pooling of knowledge and wisdom to confront a common RARE problem.

 

For Ijtihad to flourish, just like it did during the great imaams ( Mujahid,Awzaaci, Leith, Maliki, Shafici, Hanbali, Haniifah ) there must exist a fresh soil on which the fiqh plant can take root to provide the Ijtihad fruit. Once the stems are frimly placed on a rich soil of STABILITY, KHILAAFAH, and a purposeful exsistence as Ummah, Fiqh branches out to cover the far ends of the human endeavors and in that course, the Fiqh encounters mind teaseing problems that could not be resolved by current held views nor can be found out-right from the Quraan, ther Sunnah, Qiyaas, or the Ijmaac ( consensus opinion of scholars ), in these cases, Ijtihaad's door open up. The best analogy for Ijtihad I can draw from our experience is mathematicians who come across a difficult problem that no past experience can help solve the problem, which challenges the mind and fires ingenuity to its maximum throttle. We say, for that specific well defined problem, the door is open, because, both government and Scholars agree on the urgency of finding a solution.

 

Failing to grasp that fact, and trying to make Ijtihad with current situation as a backdrop of its evelopment by mavericks, we will have the New York Women leading prayers, Sodomy Marriages, I have even responded to a Somali who suggested that we need an islamic Protestant Movement to which I have posted a satirical piece.

 

 

Recapping,

 

1. Ijtihad is the last resort source of legislation.

 

2. Ijtihad if it was a plant, requires a vase, with rich nutrients of resources to draw from, which is an Islamic State that encourages, enforces and applied the Ijtihad to solve particular problems.

 

3. Ijtihaad takes back seat to Quraan, Sunnah, Qiyaas, and Ijmaac as a last resort for legislation or devising a solution to problems of fiqh.

 

4. Pre-requsiste for making Ijtihaad, is a firm knowledge of the Quraan, Sunnah, Qiyaas, and the Science of usool al Shariica ( The Moral of the Law) a very interesting branch of islam sciences that sheds a light on the origins of why the Sharia is the way it is and the fact that at different times, different situations, and at different contsxts, the same source, Ayah or hadeeth can have a different Xukm or application.

 

 

7 of 9 ( Ten of Ten ) sis

 

Thanks for the explanation sis.

 

Nur

[Nur]

Islamic Protestant Movement

 

 

The Lampoon

 

 

Brought to You By e-Nuri Corporation

 

The light Side, of the heavy Stuff!

 

 

Some so-called "Muslims" who have been rasied in the west with no clue of what Islam stands for, from time to time get conufused and suggest off the shelf interesting suggestions to modernize Islam in order to make it a " NORMAL " world religion.

 

One such suggestion caught my eyes once in Somalinet boards. I immediately responded impulsively, but you can only appreciate my response if you are knowledgeable in Christian history. So be careful when you read this piece, it pushes the envelope of warped imagination of confused "Muslims" to new hights.

 

A poster calling himself "O Jay" posted an article on Somalinet boards and Suggested the establishment of an Islamic Protestant Church to modernise Muslims to teach them the benefits of Democracy like the USA.

 

As a response, I wrote back the following piece to help Mr. O Jay establish his dream of Islamic protestantism Church, all I did was go back in history and rebuild his version of Islam like christianity was built, so we can have the comfortable religion like Christianity, so relax, this rendering is an imaginitive lampoon of his funny suggestion. It is not to belittle Islam, but only to illustrate that if we are not careful, were the train of thought can take us.

 

 

My Answer to O Jay.

 

 

Interesting Idea O JAY

 

 

Let us see where your Vision and idea takes us.

 

First, we will have the Islamic Nicean Convention, in the Mediterranean Port of Nicea, near Cyprus, There, we will have President Bush as the Chairman of the Convention, since he is a Sourthern Babtist, his presence and power can intimidate delegates to adopt Islamic Protestantism. His position will be analogous to the place of the Roman King De Niro who presided over the First Nicean convention in the second century in which Christians decalred that There are three Godheads.

 

The delegates who will come from all parts of Muslim world, will be named by your organization, Islamic Protestantism Organization, and because you do not have enough members to make a big difference, The National Institue of Health will CLONE you to be five thousand people who want Islamic Protestantanism. Meanwhile, Twenty "backward" clerics like NUR who will disagree with your plan will also be invited for the sake of fairness in the elections. At the end of the Convention, Genetically altered delegates, who are your clones, will declare that Allah is God , Muhammad is Son of God and Ali is the holy spirit, but these three are ONE . Welcome the Islamic Trinity.

 

 

Now we have the Muslim TRINITY.

 

 

Next, The Clones will author some two hundred books of Quraans, each one different version, The authors will have only one name, just like MARK, LUKE and MATHEW etc, and nobody will bother to verify their original names, and many sects will appear who will begin to fight and cause trouble for the peace of the New World Order.

 

Due to this confusion, the New Worl Order Government decides to give the Islamic Catholics a small state in Morocco, which will be called Islamic Vatican, where the Muslim Pope sits. He begins to bless people , feed them pieces of PITA Bread, and Islamic wine named ZOMZOM, The Pope will sell to them pieces of Paradise for $1000 per square meter while supplies last for the next century, he will allow all the sinning you can buy for a sizable donation to the Islamic Church, and if you can describe tidbits to the priest during your confession, The Church may even offer you a lucrative Job as the youth counsellor, where you have an opportunity to molest kids.

The New Islamic Church which you envision, will teach that all you have to do is believe that Muhammad died for your sins, so no more guilty feeling when indulging in your lusts. Islamic Catholics will be able to enjoy good things in life like wine and girl friends. In schools they will have Islamic Choirs, singing, "O my Lord Muhammad please save me". The Islamic Catholics will sell Statues of Muhammad, and Ali, and The Mowliid, Muhammad's birthday will be the Islamic Chrismas, when Islamic Catholics will import Chrismass trees from Norway and Sweden. The Islamic Nativity sites, In Islamic Catholics Mosques there will be a Statue of Muhammad , Halima, Khadija, Fatma, Aisha, Maymuna, Safia.

 

At This point many Muslim Catholics who live in Germany will become upset by the Church in Morocco, and is commercialization of the Religion. The Islamic protestanism movement begins, led by one of the decendents of your clones, his name will be Martin Luther O JAY, and the Islamic Protestant church is established.

 

Then the Protestants differ on many issues, so new sub groups are born, Islamic Southern Babtists, Islamic Seven day adventist, Islamic Methodists, Islamic Mennonites, Islamic Presbyterians, and Islamic Unitarians, etc...and the list goes on.

 

Finally, people become upset with religion altogeter, and become more Secular, Religion will become a big joke, and a one day Services for geriatric old couples in their 90s, while girls an boys will be going to church to chat and socialize, and plan weekend parties.

 

At the end, your Demonic Dream of Democracy will be realized when Gays and Lesbians are ordained as Islamic Protestant Sheikhs in your Islamic Protestant Church who will make everything under the sun Xalaal.

 

 

Is that what you had in mind O JAY?

 

 

Nur

 

 

2002 Nurtel Lampoons unlimited

[Baashi]

Nur, I don’t have any reason to disagree with what you had to say about “Ijtihadâ€. My “cilmi-dhegood†confirms that able and knowledgeable scholars have limited leeway in resorting to “Ijtihad†where the other three (Qur’an, Sunnah, and Qiyaas) come short in providing clear-cut guidance. This much I know (from recollection).

 

As you know, the human progress in science is opening new frontiers posing new and difficult ethical dilemmas. In the medical field, man is playing God and he now has both the intent and capacity to tinker with genetic blueprints of Allah’s creations. In this brave new world where human hearts are interchangeable, heart valves are replaceable with pig valves, organs can be donated, etc, how Muslims should deal with these new developments given that all the prerequisites that you have delineated in the post have not been satisfied?

 

My knowledge in Islamic fiqh is limited and I don’t know if all the potential questions that may arise from the medical field can be addressed by the three primary sources. But, what if “Ijtihad†is in order? Should the ordinary Muslim sit back and hold his/her breath until Khilaafa comes to reign and regulations can be had from the center? Prof Sardar suggested the word “Alim†be broadened and redefined so that the title includes the knowledgeable scholars with credentials in other areas of science for they are better equipped to weigh problems in their specialty.

 

Nur bro, it’s there where I agreed with the author. He rightly points out the self-defeatism mentality inherent in focusing on socio-political side of things all the while neglecting the economical and technological complexities of the age. Mind you I disagree with his main thesis where he dismissed the Sunnah as relics of bygone era as well as his call for “Reformationâ€.

 

This is merely an opinion. I will stand corrected where I erred in advance. I don’t have credentials in Islamic fiqh.

[Nur]

Bashi bro.

 

Yours was a very balanced observation, the need for ijtihad is indeed dire, the ummah is going through one of the most testing times, both in its existense and mission. Biotechnology is pushing the envelope of human limitaitions reenfocing Satan's promise in the Holy Quraan " I shall order them (humans) and they shall alter Allah's creation" .

 

Ijtihaad has been frozen for a while, but the last centuru witnessed the most daunting task of explaining the most difficult questions ever raised in Islamic Fiqh, partly because the Muslim Fuqahaa (jurists) were trained on mere Sharia alone without corequisites in the humanities and sciences to equip them with an understanding of the phenomena (like cloning) along with their carricalae in the Sharia descipline.

 

Ibn Qayyim in his book Iclaam Al Muwaqqicin says " In order for a Mufti to make a good judgement, he needs to know two principles well; 1. The Sharia , 2. The Object of the Judgement ( economics, science, genetics etc)"

 

During the islamic golden days of the Fiqh, scholars like Ibn Taymia were well versed in Mathematics, medicine, philosophy, Greek and latin" among other things.

 

the problem we live in today emanates from the separation of the theological sciences from the scientific ones, so we either have a scholar in theology who claims that the earth is flat, or a maverick scientists who come up with a wacky idea.

 

until we combine the two, to fully grassp Allah's intentions in the revelations, we will continue to be bystanders in the march of life and our choices will be confined bewteen being monks or secularists.

 

 

Nur