Fundamentals of Islaam

[Semantic]

With all due respect, why is it that secular Western nations are more upset with Saudi applications of Sharia, than Eastern states, secular or not, with heavy Muslim populations, who should rightfully be outraged at their misdeeds and their abuse of Islamic doctrine?

Most Eastern states have more pressing social issues to address within their own countries due to the breakdown fo the societies within them. As Islam becomes increasingly culturalised, they look to the extreme interpretations as, to an extent, desireable as they have lost their own direction. Indeed, this is why we see pockets of literalistic interpretation popping up. However, I did not say that these were abuses of Islamic doctrine/misdeeds - I just said they were historically extreme minority positions and interpretations that have only now come to the fore as the Ummah has lost the concept of taziqiyyah and by extension the importance of iman and ihsan. Without a grasp of maqasid Shariah - the aims of the Shariah, these interpretations have become increasingly ritualised as can clearly be seen by reading the legal responsum of groups such as the CLRO in Saudi - the traditional diversity of Islam is ignored for a variety of reasons. I personally don't see how these minority positions can be correct, especially in light of the somewhat spurious logic that the various fatwa contain in many respects, but the aforementioned pr and image portrayal of Islam works in more ways than one - Saudi is looked to by the cultural muslims as the opposite of Western secular trends as a more strict and possibly correct version of going about things, which, given it's extension of minority positions (as opposed to creation of new positions), adds to it's percieved validity.

I haven't seen any of the Western states do anything about it - where are the sanctions? Any action whatsoever? There was widespread condemnation of the Taleban if I can recall, especially having worked with several Muslim female groups..

Having said that, I've worked with a wide range of Islamic female groups who have worked for this goal.

As for slavery, there are many verses in the Qur'an that discuss slaves who are not prisoners of war, though it does speak of treating them "humanely".

Which ones? Islamic scholars through the ages have been under agreement that the only way to become a slave is to either be captured in war or be born of slaves. There were slave girls as well as slave guys. Slave kids too (produced by two married slaves). Previous methods of enslaving an individual were banned. As time went by, more and more groups were exempt from slavery until it was effectively impossible.

However, it makes no efforts to abolish the practice. Arab merchants traded slaves with Europeans, and they took no pains to make sure that the Europeans would treat them well.

Those activities were against Islamic law and were cracked down on during most caliphates..

So, are we speaking of Islam as a socio-cultural phenomenon, or will we work from the positions of Islamic scholarship and the original texts of revelation?

[mirrorinthefog]

Originally Posted by Semantic

Most Eastern states have more pressing social issues to address within their own countries due to the breakdown fo the societies within them. As Islam becomes increasingly culturalised, they look to the extreme interpretations as, to an extent, desireable as they have lost their own direction. Indeed, this is why we see pockets of literalistic interpretation popping up. However, I did not say that these were abuses of Islamic doctrine/misdeeds - I just said they were historically extreme minority positions and interpretations that have only now come to the fore as the Ummah has lost the concept of taziqiyyah and by extension the importance of iman and ihsan. Without a grasp of maqasid Shariah - the aims of the Shariah, these interpretations have become increasingly ritualised as can clearly be seen by reading the legal responsum of groups such as the CLRO in Saudi - the traditional diversity of Islam is ignored for a variety of reasons. I personally don't see how these minority positions can be correct, especially in light of the somewhat spurious logic that the various fatwa contain in many respects, but the aforementioned pr and image portrayal of Islam works in more ways than one - Saudi is looked to by the cultural muslims as the opposite of Western secular trends as a more strict and possibly correct version of going about things, which, given it's extension of minority positions (as opposed to creation of new positions), adds to it's percieved validity.

Would you not agree with me, then, that the human rights violations that occur under these regimes, are condmened by the Qur'an, or are simply unnacceptable to humanity at large, as it would be in any other country?

Thank you for clarifying a few things. There are pragmatic and entirely political reasons for the West not intervening with Saudi Arabia, none of which I personally agree with, and would probably be better saved for the politics boards. But I would like to ask you how many of the many movements you mention working against human rights violations in Muslim countries are funded by major Muslim organizations, and how many of those efforts are embraced by the status quo?

I understand that you're trying to keep the conversation in the sphere of what is written in holy scripture, rather than its various cultural applications, and I respect that. However, I believe (and this is just my view of things) that such doctrine is not, and perhaps cannot, properly applied to the modern world, and when religion is made a vehicle for politics, and religious dogma is applied as law, repricussions can be dangerous. Islam not only brings a new way of worshiping the one God, but also laws which the Ummah must follow.

Originally Posted by Semantic

Which ones? Islamic scholars through the ages have been under agreement that the only way to become a slave is to either be captured in war or be born of slaves. There were slave girls as well as slave guys. Slave kids too (produced by two married slaves). Previous methods of enslaving an individual were banned. As time went by, more and more groups were exempt from slavery until it was effectively impossible.

The last portion of my previous post quotes one many verses dealing, albeit indirectly, with slaves. Since I'm assuming women were not taken as prisoners of war, the slaves mentioned are in the latter category, which I still find an abhorrent notion. The bans you are talking about I've never encountered in the Qur'an (that, for example, no Muslim could ever again acquire another slave), so they would fall under the realm of cultural interpretation, not the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an itself does not punish or condemn those who practice slavery, in any way, shape or form, under any guise, under any excuse, whether it is profiting from those who were born into captivity (which seems a whole lot like punishing the child for being born in a lower caste), or those enslaved in war and must try to 'work their way out of' slavery.

Anyway, I can appreciate your viewpoint, Islam is admirable in its teachings in many ways. I just believe that, like other philosophies, it has its flaws. Whether this comes from its misinterpretations (or, as you put it, "extreme" interpretations) or some of the doctrine, as in Judaism and Christianity, is obsolete, or is not of any divine origin, is probably a subject best left untouched, since neither of us can change the other's mind. I'll agree to disagree.

[Semantic]

Would you not agree with me, then, that the human rights violations that occur under these regimes, are condmened by the Qur'an, or are simply unnacceptable to humanity at large, as it would be in any other country?

Under the interpretation I hold of the holy scriptures on the basis of the work of the majority of Islamic scholars over the ages I personally view the activities that occur in some of these countries incorrect. However, please note I didn't say that minority means incorrect, I am not so arrogant to assume that there is only one path to truth. To quote: "I believe my opinions are correct, but I am cognizant of the fact that my opinions may be wrong. I also believe the opinions of my opponent are wrong, but I am cognizant of the fact that they may be correct". I'm pretty sure of myself though (eh, I'm young - soon I won't be old enough to know everything).

The activities that go on there are, sadly, not something that are unacceptable to humanity at large. I doubt your background entitles you to speak for humanity (I'm assuming you're Western) as the mass of people live in relative poverty under patriarchal systems of social law.

Thank you for clarifying a few things. There are pragmatic and entirely political reasons for the West not intervening with Saudi Arabia, none of which I personally agree with, and would probably be better saved for the politics boards. But I would like to ask you how many of the many movements you mention working against human rights violations in Muslim countries are funded by major Muslim organizations, and how many of those efforts are embraced by the status quo?

Quite a few in the West in particular, especially at the scholarly level.. The problem of course being that countries such as Saudi have money. Heaps of it. You find Saudi "translations" of the Qu'ran and books of law based on these minority positions being disseminated muslims communities all over the world, nice and free and glossy and backed with vigorous funding. I mean, look to the 9/11 hijackers - how many of these were Saudi? How many were Iraqi? What happened? The battle for hearts and minds is a tough one indeed..

I understand that you're trying to keep the conversation in the sphere of what is written in holy scripture, rather than its various cultural applications, and I respect that. However, I believe (and this is just my view of things) that such doctrine is not, and perhaps cannot, properly applied to the modern world, and when religion is made a vehicle for politics, and religious dogma is applied as law, repricussions can be dangerous. Islam not only brings a new way of worshiping the one God, but also laws which the Ummah must follow.

See below for a discussion of the (very) basic construct of Islamic law and its relationship with the Shariah (the two aren't the same). Dogmatic issues are lessened by the structure of Islamic law.. Although a discussion as to what level they remain at is beyoned the current scope of this discussion (it's a looong one). There isn't a state that practices an Islamic form of government today - there is no khaliphate. In the absence of this, the laws we have kick back from the macro level and emphasise the building of an Islamic state within ourselves - we have to control our inner state and be the best muslims we can, building on community and helping one another out. This is why I'm wary of discussing the current state of things - it's not the way it once was and different sets of rules apply in the absence of an Islamic state legislature (no more hadd punishments for example, although certain countries try to ham fistedly apply them).

The last portion of my previous post quotes one many verses dealing, albeit indirectly, with slaves. Since I'm assuming women were not taken as prisoners of war, the slaves mentioned are in the latter category, which I still find an abhorrent notion. The bans you are talking about I've never encountered in the Qur'an (that, for example, no Muslim could ever again acquire another slave), so they would fall under the realm of cultural interpretation, not the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an itself does not punish or condemn those who practice slavery, in any way, shape or form, under any guise, under any excuse, whether it is profiting from those who were born into captivity (which seems a whole lot like punishing the child for being born in a lower caste), or those enslaved in war and must try to 'work their way out of' slavery.

Women can be taken as prisoners of war.. If there is a pitched battle during which the males of a community are taken captive, the women and children would not be able to survive in their absence. For Islamic law, we look to a number of factors, working mainly from Qu'ranic injunctions and our hadith literature (speaking as a Maliki sunni muslim) - the axiomatic basis that I choose to follow for my own interpretation is detailed here. The hadith act to specify (takhsis) the message of the Qu'ran. For example, we are told to pray, but the hadith tell us what times of day and how to do this. Similarly, the structure of Islamic governance mandates that the ruler of the Islamic state and qualified scholars of a given age can come to a consensus regarding an action deemed in line with public interest considerations and enact it into law, provided it doesn't contradict existing statements that are based on clear evidences - a rule that establishes freedom (hurriyyah) outweighs one that negates it. The Shariah is an abstraction - what human mind can know the will of the Divine? Our fiqh is our attempt at interpreting this Divine will - it is an attempt at achieving the ideals and purposes of the Shariah (maqasid al-Shariah), ie looking out for the welfare of the people (tahqiq masalih al-ibad).

The fiqh is not the Shariah - Shariah is a term co-opted by those who see themselves as on the truth. While the Shariah is immutable, the fiqh is not, these two are often conflated. Hence we do not look at only the Qu'ran for law, we use it as a foundation from which we build the law. Our texts punish ill treatment of slaves and repeatedly call for their equitable treatment as brothers and sisters. If a slave is harmed, he is freed immediately. If he is killed deliberately, his master faces the death penalty unless the slave has family to whom he can pay a blood debt (which they may or may not accept). For those enslaved in war, why is it wrong that they must "try to work their way out of" slavery? War is a nasty, nasty thing as we can see in Iraq today. What else should be done with them? Imprisonment? Execution? Look at what happened in WW2. Huh? Where are all the unaccounted?

If the enemy side was still extant after a battle, there was always the option of fida (ransom). If there would be no ill effects as a result and good will could be increased, they could also be set free there and then or in exchange for other pows - this was the recommended action as can be seen in the example of the Prophet (pbuh), see the battle of Hunain and subsequent treatment of pows for example. For example, at the battle of Badr, some of the captured were freed for ransom, others were freed once they had acted as writing teachers for the children of the Ansar - that was their mukataba..

Given the social pervasiveness of slavery in Arab society at the time, any outright abolishment would have completely destabilised the society. The Islamic state had social responsibilities towards all within it - muslims, non-muslims all - these could not be fulfilled with a sudden change of society that removed existing structures of providence (ie the master providing food/shelter for all he had authority over). With the introduction of Islam, slaves gained state protected rights which put them far above the serfs of middle age Europe - effectively putting them on the level of indentured servants. Again, I would indicate this is a significant distance from the slavery we have seen anywhere else - indeed, I don't think you'd disagree that Islam condemned all other forms of slavery (maybe it's a bad word, very emotive, isn't it?). People are born into poor homes or ghettos today - I've worked with kids from inner city schools who recieve substandard education which will, quite simply, not allow them to progress. Those born of slaves became rulers of the entire Islamic nation on numerous occasions. I could list examples of the progeny of slaves who occupied all offices within this state, became prominent scholars of all colours and races. If children were made free while their parents were still indentured, what would occur? Who would provide for them? Their parents master? If you were a slave, the onus was on your master to provide for them as he himself was provided for - with food, shelter etc. Negligence in this led to state sanctions. Any slave who was fit and healthy, as I mentioned before, could free himself via mukataba - the only slaves who could not do this would be the old or infirm, who would stay in their masters service and be provided for within this construct. Hence many did not accept freedom even when offered.. Qu'ran 24:33 is interesting.. If a slave asks for freedom via mukataba, he should also be given enough to establish himself in life.. Makes sense, doesn't it? Shame it didn't happen in America this century.

An example. Interest (riba) is prohibited in Islam as there is always a loser. If somebody wished to change the current system of an interest based economy in a given country to one that was interest free, then they would not do it by categorically banning all interest based transactions given the social pervasiveness of these. Unless they wanted the entire economic system to collapse that is. Freeing of slaves was recommended for this reason - it stands out as clearly defined as a morally right thing to do in the Qu'ran itself. It's included as part of our institution of zakat. The public treasury had a permanent head dedicated to freeing slaves by paying off their debts from the state coffers.

Anyway, I can appreciate your viewpoint, Islam is admirable in its teachings in many ways. I just believe that, like other philosophies, it has its flaws. Whether this comes from its misinterpretations (or, as you put it, "extreme" interpretations) or some of the doctrine, as in Judaism and Christianity, is obsolete, or is not of any divine origin, is probably a subject best left untouched, since neither of us can change the other's mind. I'll agree to disagree.

But at least you can hopefully learn of the traditional view of things that the majority held onto.. The diversity of thought in fiqh has sadly become constricted

As for changing of minds, Allahu alim.

I hope I've helped somewhat, I apologise for the length of some of my posts, but there was a heck of a lot more I could have written.. I'm just an ordinary muslims and this is just my own personal view on things, so I'm sure some of my brothers and sisters will hold differing ones. Breakfast time, peace out.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Semantic

Eh, it's not just Islam or Christianity.. Look at the deaths attributable to Stalin (40 million russians?) etc..

Right. I included non-"religious" fundamenatlism in my post.

[mirrorinthefog]

I wasn't going to post anything, but I think I need to clarify a few things.

Originally Posted by Semantic

Under the interpretation I hold of the holy scriptures on the basis of the work of the majority of Islamic scholars over the ages I personally view the activities that occur in some of these countries incorrect. However, please note I didn't say that minority means incorrect, I am not so arrogant to assume that there is only one path to truth. To quote: "I believe my opinions are correct, but I am cognizant of the fact that my opinions may be wrong. I also believe the opinions of my opponent are wrong, but I am cognizant of the fact that they may be correct". I'm pretty sure of myself though (eh, I'm young - soon I won't be old enough to know everything).

The activities that go on there are, sadly, not something that are unacceptable to humanity at large. I doubt your background entitles you to speak for humanity (I'm assuming you're Western) as the mass of people live in relative poverty under patriarchal systems of social law.

You're assuming wrong. My parents are both Muslim, I was raised in the Middle East. I don't know what position you are in that you think you can 'teach' me your traditional view of a patriarchal society, which I lived in till adulthood and do not agree with on many, many levels. I'm trying not to argue because the arguement will go on forever.
I don't claim to speak for humanity; what I'm talking about are generally accepted violations, human rights you may or may not agree with, depending on what the Qur'an has to say about it. When someone else is physically and systematically harmed because of a group's interpretations, "minority" or no, as far as I'm concerned there is serious a problem-ie, the system, practice, or application of a the philosophy is flawed. You don't have to agree with me.
The relationship between the Qur'an and the hadith, and the place hadith should have in the application of Islamic law has long been an arguement, which, not being Muslim, I don't wish to get into as I don't believe it's my place to intervene, otherwise the orguement, as you pointed out, will go on forever. I am of the opinion that neither is a reliable source of information, and, like any other religious doctrine, is fatal in the wrong hands. Again, this is strictly my point of view. Muslims believe that the Qur'an is divine in origin, and the hadith is its message in action.

[/QUOTE] Women can be taken as prisoners of war.. If there is a pitched battle during which the males of a community are taken captive, the women and children would not be able to survive in their absence.
[/QUOTE] Women cannot survive without men? I have survived without the help of a man on my own and quite well, thank you. I know many, many women, yes, in patriarchal, Middle Eastern, Muslim society, who have survived in the absence of men. The Prophet's first wife owned several caravans which the Prophet operated, she was wealthy in her own right in an oppresive, patriarchal society, and commanded a great deal of respect in pagan Arabia, where women were treated virtually like cattle. I don't think you are not doing a woman a favor by imprisoning her because her someone in her family participated in war and lost.
And I think this might be what PNG was implying.
Please do not try to justify the system. You speak of an economic collapse. As far as the pagans in Mecca were concerned, Islam and the Prophet's teachings robbed them of their economic freedom. It was a revolutionary movement for its time and completely eliminated certain societal inequalities.
You may find your arguements perfectly just, and in it's own context it is reasonable and humane. I simply do not agree with your view.
Either way, as you can see, there are many things in Islam with which I do not agree. This doesn't mean you don't have a right to present it as you see it, or to introduce it to the world as you believe it should be introduced. You're entitled to your own opinon, as am I, and I would not like to discuss this topic further, as the arguement will go on forever and would prove counterproductive.

[Semantic]

You're entitled to your own opinon, as am I, and I would not like to discuss this topic further, as the arguement will go on forever and would prove counterproductive.

My apologies for offending you..

In War, people die.. Systems go to ruin.. In 600 AD, a woman could not survive on her own if she did not have resources to fall back upon - eg Khadija had caravans as you yourself said.. She had the protection of her tribe and bodyguards against bandits.. I personally can't see what else could be done in a war situation. As I've indicated, they were freed more often than not..

My point about patriarchal society was that most people (ie in the world today) don't have the same concept of human rights as you or I. Women aren't viewed as equals. I didn't say it was right, I just stated a fact.. I stated earlier that I disagree with the treatement females recieve in some of these countries and believe it is against their rights as I see it.

We agree that we are both entitled to our views, I presented it as I saw it as the purpose of this thread was to answer queries about Islam and muslims perceptions of certain issues. The onus is thus on me to justify the system I believe in, is it not? If this conversation is becoming eminently unconstructive in your eyes, then I agree we should stop.

As a final point in this particular thread, most muslims believe the hadith are divine in revelation too..

Peace.