Western Concepts: Are they Compatible with Islam??

[DrumR]

Thank you for the favor of a reply c0de.

Reviewing a previous post.

Originally Posted by c0de

I think the major difference between Islamic Shareeah and Western Legal systems is the paternalistic attitude that is taken by Shareeah. Specifically, with regards to the priorities of the Rights being protected. Islamic Shareeah for example will ban Alcahol and intoxicants, because of the negative affects that intoxicants produce for society in general. While Western systems might give priority to the personal choices freedoms of the individual. But that is just one example.

I believe that I perceive that a certain distinction is beginning to arise, a difference that is sufficiently subtle yet it is one that points to, what I consider to be, an important difference within the very foundation of the system of Islamic Law as compared to the Anglo-American Legal systems. That subtlety also brings with it an indication that there is yet an additional layer of ignorance which has heretofore been left un-mentioned and therefore un-assayed.

Originally Posted by c0de

The 5 universal principles of the Shareeah represent the unalieanable rights which Shareeah holds dear. If we examine these principles in a "big picture" sort of way, it is obvious that Shareeah is intent on protecting the over-arching stability of society. While Western Legal systems, as we know, are geared towards maximizing personal freedoms and liberties. So in the end, the two end up being mutually exclusive, even though they are both perfectly rational systems.

That subtle difference of which I have alluded to previously I find indications of here as well.

So it is that I propose that the fundamental in-compatibility of Western ideals with Shareeah may quite simply be put as the difference of view points between that of a Father and Mother towards their common Male offspring, respectively.<1>

The Shareeah ideal appears to be more in line with the Maternal-istic view in that "once a child always a child;" i.e the stability of the community over the rights of the individual coupled with the implied assumption that the individual is not sufficiently up to the task of discerning the differences involved.

The Anglo-American ideal <2> appears to be more in line with the Paternal-istic view in that a citizen, having reached the age of their majority, is to be considered as a competent adult sufficient to all tasks required of them i.e.; the steady advancement of the society.

It is from an examination of these basic differences that one of the layers of ignorance inherent to the particulars of the discussion may now be shown to be the lack of understanding of the underlying principals, not only of Shareeha, but also of the Western Democracies in general and with Anglo-American Democratic ideals in the specific.

It is indeed fortunate that respondents to this thread have brought to bear the light of knowledge to certain aspects of Shareeah and are willing to explore further and more advanced topics concerning same. However I must point out that the same light cannot be said to have been shed upon the philosophical basis of the Anglo-American ideal, the Reasonable Man Theorems. I am of the opinion that with out such a standard of comparison for those theorems that much of what has been stated here may come to naught; that is to say that that fruit which may issue is neither apples nor oranges.

Your Thoughts?

Originally Posted by c0de

The sooner one gets to the heart of the matter, the better.

So it is hoped, c0de, and yet that rapid progression should not, IMHO, be at the expense of missing some of the basic fundamentals.

Originally Posted by c0de

Yes, but looking at the state of affairs in my home country of Pakistan for example, I do not see much hope for any improvement in the judicial state of affairs at this point. The whole system is rotten from the inside out. But then again, it is already a given that Islamic Shareeah is not being applied in any Muslim country to begin with.

To Tao_EQUUS and c0de:
I thank both of you for your voluminous input, however...

Would you both be so kind as to please slow down a pace?
It appears to me that I am having enough of a difficulty in dealing with one paradox without having been handed another at this time.

Please understand that I do not doubt the veracity or sincerity of either of your view points but:

If what c0de says above is correct then one maybe led to believe that there is no Islamic Legal Principal nor is there an Islamic Religious Precept at stake in the Middle East and that the violence there is but one of whom may 'grab' political control over the other, using religion as a "cover."

Yet should Tao_EQUUS be correct then the conflict is but in-fighting for control between fractious religious schisms bent at exercising an exceedingly tight control aimed, not only at the hearts of men, but at the minds of the populace as well, both at home and abroad.<3>

So I ask of you (in the plural sense) to join together in providing a few more clues to help this poor confused soul to decode, if possible, this apparent paradox.

Should the above be not a paradox, then please take into account that I am still within what may be construed as the confines of the first "chapter" of this discussion and, as there may be other readers in the same state, your collective debate of the finer points of what may be considered as "advanced concepts" are still a bit beyond this stumbling student and add considerably to the existing confusion.


=====
Notes:
1) "their common male offspring" A father views the female offspring in a much differing light than he would the son.
2) "the Anglo-American ideal" Considers that children: who having reached the age of their majority and after having had received sufficient and proper instruction and mentoring during the years of their youth; may then take upon their individual shoulders a portion of that shared burden of social responsibilities as an Adult - being given as much freedom as may be required to do so.
3) "both at home and abroad" this is to be taken in the context of the Middle East being "home."

[DrumR]

Greeting all.
I shall digress a bit for the purpose of clarification.

One of the greatest difficulties that I see in this discussion is that of the definitions of the systems involved. Were we speaking of English and American Law exclusively, and the philosophy that drives them, that would narrow the field quite considerably. Yet the French system of Law is significantly different than the former two, as is that of Spanish Law.

In the USA all three systems are practiced to some greater or lesser extent. At the Federal level, and with the majority of the States, it is English Statute Law based, then there is a French Napoleonic Law base in the State of Louisiana, and in some of the Western and Southwestern States there is a base of Spanish Case Law, California being but one of them. This is quite a conglomeration that most citizens of the USA are blissfully un-aware of. How much more so the World at Large I wonder?

Yet the underlying philosophical concept of USA Law is what is known as the "Reasonable Man Theorems." Unfortunately, the existence of these Theorems, and their content, remain relatively unknown to the majority of USA citizens (untaught) and have fallen into disuse even within the legal fraternity.<1> Without some grasp of these Theorems it may become most exasperating to try discuss the in-compatibilities of Western Ideals with Islamic Shareeah, and vice versa, as an attempt to do so would be based upon ignorance rather than upon knowledge. So it is that armed with this new bit of "intelligence" that it is hoped that new light may be shed upon the enormity of the problem while at the same time pointing a way to but one of many probable solutions.

I have noticed that there is indeed "displayed" a considerable lack in the knowledge of the afore mentioned "Reasonable Man Theorems," not only with the majority of my fellow citizens, but within this thread as well.

Notes:
1) "within the legal fraternity." This is based upon discussions with all too few "lawyers".

[DrumR]

Thank you for joining into the conversation farham.
Much of what you have offered in your post is of considerable interest and I thank you.

This reply may appear to be more of a critique of that which I perceive as questionable aspects of that same post, yet these "opinions" should not be construed as to detract from those positive contributions of that post to this thread.

Originally Posted by farhan

Thanks to DrumR for starting this thread, & also to Thomas & c0de for slowly evolving this thread in the right direction. I will address with a few concepts here, that IMO are more important than others. And some issues raised by Neti & Salt in the parallel thread, as that thread has gone wacky, the only way it was destined to go.

As to that other thread what may transpire there and its relative level of sanity is of little or no concern within the general context of this thread nor should such negative comments be considered as the norm for this thread.

Originally Posted by farhan

As far as notion of Church & state is concerned, there are some important facts to be understood here. Firstly this notion is a product of a Christian secular mindset, nothing to do with Islam.

This bent is neither needful, compassionate, nor fully accurate farham. With that said: such rhetoric as found above would have little to do, IMHO, with the topics at hand - for the topic of this thread is not "Christian bashing", "Islam bashing" nor is it bashing to begin with. It is hoped that with the practice of due diligence, reflection and consideration that this thread will not devolve to such straits.

The in-accuracies.
Chief and Shaman, or church and state, such concepts have been, and are still to this day, associated with mankind. This form of association existed long before the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians or the ancient Chinese each of which are civilizations known to pre-date Rome and the Caesars, Christianity, and the Prophet Muhammad.

Originally Posted by farhan

There are instances in Islamic history when rulers were brought to court by common men. If the ruler doesn’t abide by the law, then the state isn’t Islamic.

One may find similar incidents in the history of the Ancient Chinese, the USA and other nations as well farham. It is a good thing to know that "The People" have and will correct such outrages regardless of culture.

Originally Posted by farhan

There are two baisc concepts, Shura & Ijma. Shura is decision by consultation, & Ijma is by consensus. Its difficult to differentiate the principles of all three of them, but I think consensus is more ideal & because of that, less pragmatic than Democracy. 51%'s rule will be called democracy, but not ijma. For ijma, all parties will have to come down a little bit & agree on some common grounds.

I am a bit "lost" here farham. Would you please expand upon the concepts of Shura and Ijma?

Originally Posted by farhan

For democracy, lobby & win.

Early on in the course of this discussion at large the differences between theory and practice were brought to light concerning Shareeah and Islam. What you point to above is but a symptom of the same within Democracies and displays a lack of a basic understanding of Democracies in general. It is hoped that this form of ignorance will be eliminated, about Islam and the Democracies, during the course of these conversations and discussions. Until then, one would sincerely hope that such displays of ignorance will be reduced as they may be seen as counter productive.

If I may offer a suggestion for the future, I would caution that one limit oneself to addressing that which one knows to be true, asks a question where one is unsure, and should a conjecture or hypothesis be offered to please label it as such.

Originally Posted by farhan

In Islamic system they cant do it, since true sovereignty resides neither in the ruler nor in government nor in a statistical majority; it belongs to God. What belongs to man is viceregency, the literal meaning of the word Caliph. As Dr. Moukhtar in his lecture said, man is supposed to align his will to the will of God, so he cant make a law against the divine will. But abiding by the limits set by God, all new laws will be made & all people will be ruled by consultation & consensus, according to rationale & material sciences.

Thank you for bringing this important point out "in print" farham, I refer to Dr. Moukhtar above definition.

Originally Posted by farhan

We have got a two party dictatorship in US (third guy never wins, ask Ron Paul) ,

Despite how things may appear, farham, there is not a dictatorship such as you have stated in the USA. Additionally may I suggest that one review those political parties in existence at the beginning of our, the USA's, Civil War. The Republican Party, that presented Abrahan Lincoln as its First candidate to stand for the Presidency to the the USA, was the "new kid on the block."

[DrumR]

Thank you for the favor of a reply Tao_Equus.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

DrumR,

Official protest from the UN and other countries and NGOs like Amnesty International did not limit themselves to disgust for the punishment. Indeed the main noises made were about the process of trial where legal representation is denied or deliberately thwarted. In Saudi, Iran, Sudan and several other countries the sharia courts ignore all international conventions on what is a fair trial. To call them courts at all gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve. They are nothing but rubber stamping committees for the ruling elites.

Thank you very much providing this additional piece of information in that Legal Representation, a common concept of Anglo-American justice, was lacking in those proceedings. I hope that you will understand that my previous comments were based, in part, without having the benefit of that particular of the trials having been exposed, for such was not indicated in the BBC article you had provided the link to.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Now you can believe in god or allah or the flying spahgetti monster as a persoanl belief system and it can be harmless. But when it demands political exclusiveness it becomes intolerable fascism because it derives its mandate not from what serves the people but what serves the ruling elites.

I am of the belief that the above is pertinent not only to religious and spiritual ideologies but to basic philosophical-isms as well. Thomas, in the first reply to this thread, provides some support for this as well. Yet I ask is this same concept alluded to within Shareeah? I believe that a comment concerning this from c0de, due to that one's greater relative knowledge concerning Shareeah, would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

In the west we fought for centuries to shed off the absolute tyrany of the Papacy and to bring the elites under the power of the masses through democracy.

I believe, if memory serves, and don't quote me on this, that during a colonization attempt in to Southern Spain, the colonial Muslims involved had started to adapt and grow towards a similar direction. This raises some questions, foremost among which is, what aspects of Shareeha supported such a change? if indeed one did exist.

Corrections and illumination please?

[c0de]

@ DrumR


I find myself confused... As I ponder on the deeper issues involved, the issue becomes less and less clear. Thinking about the maternalistic vs paternalistic attitudes, I can not help to spot the contradictions in this model. I mean, after all, there are many maternalistic attitudes present in the Anglo-American model as well. For example, Alcohol and ciggerrettes might be legal and regulated... however other substances like the Class-A drugs are not. Also, the model completely falls apart if we look at the issue of government practices and attitudes with regards to the economy. As contrary to the belief that paternalistic attitudes are present, the actual economic practices of Western countries (as is especially evident these days), are also very maternalistic. They always have been this way, regulating and subsidizing the economy from the ground up. I realise that these are seperate issues altogether, but at the end of the day, we do have to consider the totality of the situation presented before us. If we are talking about the main contradictions between the Islamic model of governance, vs the Anglo-American model, we have to look at how legal systems are applied and influence everything in government.

So the issue is actually much more complicated then I initially expected. I do agree with you that it is useful that we limit the systems under observation. However, if we do, we can not really speak of "The Western" systems anymore... Just Anglo-American from this point onwards. This is fine by me. After all, we are not really speaking specifically of any Muslim country anyway.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by c0de

@ DrumR


I find myself confused... As I ponder on the deeper issues involved, the issue becomes less and less clear. Thinking about the maternalistic vs paternalistic attitudes, I can not help to spot the contradictions in this model. I mean, after all, there are many maternalistic attitudes present in the Anglo-American model as well. For example, Alcohol and ciggerrettes might be legal and regulated... however other substances like the Class-A drugs are not. Also, the model completely falls apart if we look at the issue of government practices and attitudes with regards to the economy. As contrary to the belief that paternalistic attitudes are present, the actual economic practices of Western countries (as is especially evident these days), are also very maternalistic. They always have been this way, regulating and subsidizing the economy from the ground up. I realise that these are seperate issues altogether, but at the end of the day, we do have to consider the totality of the situation presented before us. If we are talking about the main contradictions between the Islamic model of governance, vs the Anglo-American model, we have to look at how legal systems are applied and influence everything in government.

So the issue is actually much more complicated then I initially expected. I do agree with you that it is useful that we limit the systems under observation. However, if we do, we can not really speak of "The Western" systems anymore... Just Anglo-American from this point onwards. This is fine by me. After all, we are not really speaking specifically of any Muslim country anyway.

Hmmmm not picking at or criticising but is it not fair to say, esp. looking at Pew reports, that it is Euro/American rather than Anglo/American? I think Europe cannot and will not tolerate any more expansion of Islam within our home range. We fought for centuries to free ourselves from Papal totalitarianism. Then fought two outrageously brutal "world wars" against ideological totalitarianism. Such events live long in the collective psyche. Do you really think we are going to bend over and let Islam shaft us? 90% of Germans say not. 87% of French say not. 83%of Brits say not. 89% of Dutch say not. 88% of Italians say not. Do not think I am a lone voice because I talk amongst those that wear rose coloured spectacles.


tao

[DrumR]

Thank you for the favor of a reply c0de.

Originally Posted by c0de

I find myself confused... As I ponder on the deeper issues involved, the issue becomes less and less clear.

You re confused c0de? Now just where do you think this leaves me?

Originally Posted by c0de

Thinking about the maternalistic vs paternalistic attitudes, I can not help to spot the contradictions in this model.

Considering the terminology that I had used I believe that I also can spot a few discrepancies. Perhaps it would have been better to have limited myself to using "mother-view" and "father-view" but even with that one "opens a new can of worms." Then again my suppositions may touch upon aspects more advanced than my limited knowledge can support at this time.

Originally Posted by c0de

If we are talking about the main contradictions between the Islamic model of governance, vs the Anglo-American model, we have to look at how legal systems are applied and influence everything in government.

Or, IMHO, how the underlying philosophies would drive the law and thereby its effective application(s) to governance. Yet as I have indicated earlier, and somewhat frequently, Islamic Law, Shareeah, has yet to be sufficiently presented for this ignorant one to do much more that "take a stab in the dark" in the hopes of finding something to cling to rather than taking the longer and more thorough approach of an ordered instruction.

Originally Posted by c0de

So the issue is actually much more complicated then I initially expected. I do agree with you that it is useful that we limit the systems under observation. However, if we do, we can not really speak of "The Western" systems anymore... Just Anglo-American from this point onwards. This is fine by me. After all, we are not really speaking specifically of any Muslim country anyway.

I had taken the position of the Anglo-American viewpoint as my limited knowledge of that system is far greater than that concening other nations of the world. Given that these forums are international in scope, I had hoped that members of other national governmental forms of the West would add to the richness of the topics of that thread.

As you have indicated c0de, the stated topics of this thread do not concern themselves with a specific geo-political nation as such any more that we should re-define "Western Nations" to mean Anglo-American exclusively. What I was wishful of pointing out was that when the time comes to discuss the specifics of incompatibilities of Western societies that there are differences and variations to be found within the overall theme of Western Nations.

The overall topics of this thread are sufficiently intriguing that I find that I must now apply that same restraint and consideration to my own curiosity that I would wish from others.

[farhan]

Originally Posted by c0de

Well Farhan, looking at this list of historical figures and comparing it with the contemporary claimants to these titles, we see an obvious difference. Both Jinnah and Salauddin were forced into their respective positions. Jinnah was dragged into nation building by the Muslim League, and the boy Saladin was picked away from religious studies to be trained by his uncle, who later was assassinated and Saladin was his replacement. All indications are that he preferred his religious studies to military ones in his youth.

Compare that with the current slew of people like Imran Khan... the guy builds a hospital and claims that he is now deserving of the Prime Ministership. Anyone who wants to become a leader, is doing so out of ambition and ignorance. Ambition is obvious, ignorance is not, but is even more important to note. Anyone who really understands what leadership is, knows that it is the ultimate form of servitude. Like Socrates said, who the hell would willingly want to become a servant of everyone in the city? Only one who does not understand the responsibility of such a task.

Yes, he is neither Jinnah nor Salahuddin, but compared to Zardari or Nawaz he is much better. Unlike them, he has given "something" to the nation. In the current circumstances, there is no other way tho bring a bigger change but to enter politics. Otherwise, what options has he got. Sit in his hospital or start a revolution. One way he is gonna waste his life, other way he destroys the country.

I understant your point, I am just skeptical that democracy is a beginning to anything. That would imply that the proccess is progressive... But democracy was developed thousands of years ago in Greece. I do not see much improvement today, apart from fact that the metaphoric slaves of today are allowed to vote... to choose... (to elect puppets)... unlike the literal slaves of Greece back then who couldn't even do that.

Democracy hasent been developing for thousands of years. Yes Athens was a kind of democracy, but not for slaves or women. Roman republic was another kind of democracy, so was the Rashidun Caliphate. Both ended in Imperialism. western democracy was a also a kind of democracy in the begining, then somebody thought, hey...lets de-link currency from gold... to fund war...& there we go again.

In the last 2500 years, we only got a few hundred years of democracy. But its still an evolution. This time its global fascism, may be the next time hour-glass is turned, it will be global democracy.

I agree with your point... we both understand that bottom-evolution has to come before the top-down governance... I just dont think were ever going to get past the first stage, so worrying about the second stage is a moot point IMO. Especially if we consider the fact that the second stage is actually a self-fulfilling consequence of the first anyway

This definitely is a possibility, but what have we got to lose?

[farhan]

Originally Posted by DrumR

Yet the underlying philosophical concept of USA Law is what is known as the "Reasonable Man Theorems."

Simply putting it, how exactly are you going to prove somebody is reasonable? If you do, who is going to prove you are reasonable? If somebody does that, who is going to prove he is reasonable? Tough question. If some people gather together & make some standards of reasonability, that standard might not be reasonable for other groups of people.

Originally Posted by DrumR

Thank you for the favor of a reply c0de.

So it is that I propose that the fundamental in-compatibility of Western ideals with Shareeah may quite simply be put as the difference of view points between that of a Father and Mother towards their common Male offspring, respectively.<1>

The Shareeah ideal appears to be more in line with the Maternal-istic view in that "once a child always a child;" i.e the stability of the community over the rights of the individual coupled with the implied assumption that the individual is not sufficiently up to the task of discerning the differences involved.

The Anglo-American ideal <2> appears to be more in line with the Paternal-istic view in that a citizen, having reached the age of their majority, is to be considered as a competent adult sufficient to all tasks required of them i.e.; the steady advancement of the society.

I dont think one can divide behaviors like that. There is an incomplete man in every woman & an incomplete woman in every man. There is an incomplete father in a mother & vice versa. Similarly, how exactly is somebody going to draw a line between paternalistic & maternalistic behaviour? What if some body else draws another line 5 cm to the left?

Similarly the fundamental incompatibility between western & shariah ideals that I see, is of the place where you draw the line.

As code said, class-A drugs arnt legal in many different countries. How is it paternalistic? A reasonable man should obviously know its bad, & should abide by "the reason". Islam modifies the line, & brings Alcohol too, in the list of "prohibited stuff". It also implements a heavy punishment for "found drunk outside", so that breaking law wouldn't become a game. We have a very watered-down version of this law in the west too. Thanks to the watering-down we still get drunk-drivers. Diana case is an example (If you dont buy the conspiracy theories)

Economy is ofcourse another example, you give it too much of freedom, it crashes.

------------------

In Quran Allah says,"I have inspired what is right & what is transgression (to men)". So, there is such a thing called reason somewhere in the deeper layers of human consciousness. And then Quran says, "Land & gold & women & offspring .... these have put you in a state of forgetfulness". Which means despite knowing what is right, men will still do what they shouldnt.

IN Islam, there are two levels of law. One is the moral principles, that a person has to impose upon himself, as state cant do anything there. For example, I can easily buy grapes, sugar & an air tight container. State will never know what I am doing with them. If I have god-consciousness in me, I will still abide by the law.

Then there is the state law, according to which, if I am found drunk outside, the state will punish me. But if I didnt do it inside my home, why will I do it outside? So the main thing is a person's/society's standard of morality. If you develop it, you wont need any law. But some people arnt that much into developing it, so we will need it implemented by the state.

As far as I have understood till now, Islam gives more importance to building a sound character first & then implementing laws. In Islam, other than the concept of taqwa (piety/god-consciousness), that is as difficult to define as reason, there is another concept Fuhush (lewd) & Hiya (modesty), which includes a lot more than simple modesty. Then there is Qanaat (being content). And there is a lot more. The thing is that law is a divine moral personal law first, & state law later.

[farhan]

Originally Posted by DrumR

This bent is neither needful, compassionate, nor fully accurate farham. With that said: such rhetoric as found above would have little to do, IMHO, with the topics at hand - for the topic of this thread is not "Christian bashing", "Islam bashing" nor is it bashing to begin with. It is hoped that with the practice of due diligence, reflection and consideration that this thread will not devolve to such straits.

The in-accuracies.
Chief and Shaman, or church and state, such concepts have been, and are still to this day, associated with mankind. This form of association existed long before the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians or the ancient Chinese each of which are civilizations known to pre-date Rome and the Caesars, Christianity, and the Prophet Muhammad.

My intention wasn't Christian bashing or anybodyelse-bashing. The thing is that, people talk about Islam, & they always see it in the background of the "images" from Christian states. What I am saying is that Islam should be seen independent of Christian history. They are different religions, diffeent mindsets/worldviews, & have a different history.

I very specifically said that these "Christian states" weren't "very Christian" either.

chief & shaman, there is nothing problematic with that. "The Chruch & The State", "we fought against papacy", "we wont allow...","it needs to be stopped", thats something different. Again one is bringing christian history/mindset/dark images that have nothing to do with Islam.

One may find similar incidents in the history of the Ancient Chinese, the USA and other nations as well farham. It is a good thing to know that "The People" have and will correct such outrages regardless of culture.

I was again pointing out the fact that heriditary monarchy isnt Islamic. The example was only an example.

Early on in the course of this discussion at large the differences between theory and practice were brought to light concerning Shareeah and Islam. What you point to above is but a symptom of the same within Democracies and displays a lack of a basic understanding of Democracies in general. It is hoped that this form of ignorance will be eliminated, about Islam and the Democracies, during the course of these conversations and discussions. Until then, one would sincerely hope that such displays of ignorance will be reduced as they may be seen as counter productive.

If I may offer a suggestion for the future, I would caution that one limit oneself to addressing that which one knows to be true, asks a question where one is unsure, and should a conjecture or hypothesis be offered to please label it as such.

If you see my post, I was talking about the evolution of democracy as it has occured. I was trying to differentiate between democracy as a mean & democracy as an end. No bashing here either

Despite how things may appear, farham, there is not a dictatorship such as you have stated in the USA. Additionally may I suggest that one review those political parties in existence at the beginning of our, the USA's, Civil War. The Republican Party, that presented Abrahan Lincoln as its First candidate to stand for the Presidency to the the USA, was the "new kid on the block.

Yes its not exactly a dictatorship, but the way it stands right now, it exists somewhere in the grey regions around it. In the days of Lincoln, things were much more democratic.

I am a bit "lost" here farham. Would you please expand upon the concepts of Shura and Ijma?

Well shura is more or less like a democracy, where people are consulted for decision. Of course there can be many different kinds of shura, from powerful democratic, to purely rubberstamp.

Ijma is decision by concencus, not majority. People discuss & reach an agreement. There is a quote attributed to Imam Shafei

“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.”

This is more or less the spirit of Ijma. Sorry for not going in detail, I am running out of time right now.

[c0de]

@ Tao + DrumR + Farhan




Tao

Hmmmm not picking at or criticising but is it not fair to say, esp. looking at Pew reports, that it is Euro/American rather than Anglo/American? I think Europe cannot and will not tolerate any more expansion of Islam within our home range. We fought for centuries to free ourselves from Papal totalitarianism. Then fought two outrageously brutal "world wars" against ideological totalitarianism. Such events live long in the collective psyche. Do you really think we are going to bend over and let Islam shaft us? 90% of Germans say not. 87% of French say not. 83%of Brits say not. 89% of Dutch say not. 88% of Italians say not. Do not think I am a lone voice because I talk amongst those that wear rose coloured spectacles.


tao

The greatest threat to the West (including Japan) comes not from any outside power, but from the decreasing population growth that will make all of its established institutions implode and collapse, probably within the coming century. This is the real reason why such aggressive steps are being taken so rapidly by the powers that be... (speaking of rosy spectacles... how are yours holding up?)




DrumR


I think Farhan (its Farhan not "farham" by the way ) has made some good points above regarding where we "draw the line" in defining public morality. More specifically, what stance the Legal system of any nation takes in defining public morality. He pointed out that this line is dependent on the public attitudes of the society, and I believe that this is very much true. However, if we start talking about this, we will eventually end up asking the question: "Well, who controls those attitudes? Where do they come from?".... and that is another separate question that we probably should not get into here... but another VERY important and fascinating question in its own right.

However, just to get re focused, the question which we have to answer is this: Is the "fatherly" vs "motherly" model even applicable if we consider the crossover between legislation? I mean, to be truly "fatherly" you would need no babysitting of the society whatsoever. The economy would be allowed to run wild, and the institutions and industries left unsubsidized. What nation can survive with such a "father" at the helm? The fact is that nurturing society absolutely requires the "motherly" model... And I think this is the only real contention between any two legal systems we are looking at (and many others as well), the level of regulation that the judiciary is allowed. As it is the intent (stated or unstated) of all legal systems to guide public morality. However, in the real world, I think, it is the judiciary which is guided by the "public morality". No verdict which goes against the stated attitudes of the public are ever allowed to persevere.

A side note, I just realized that the lumping together of "Anglo-American" legal systems is, if we really think about it, even more odd considering the Common Law vs Civil Law contradiction. So I think that trying to avoid generalizations is fruitless at this point. We might as well go back to the "Western Legal systems" approach because it is really the political Literalistic model which we are dealing with vs the idealistic Islamic (albeit "secular") Shareeah model.





Farhan

This definitely is a possibility, but what have we got to lose?

I am asked this question a lot, whenever I speak of my cynical views, especially to my friends who support Imran Khan. Sometimes I think I should just stop trying to infect people with my "negativity" as some might call it. This is why I try to avoid talking politics now (which was one of my favorite non-small talk subjects at one time, the other being military affairs and history). This is not to say I do not have an answer to this question however... but I rather not get into it.

[Eclectic Mystic]

For the record, my query wasn't about whether Western concepts of freedom were compatible with Islam, but whether his personal concepts were. I thought the OP was ironic to criticize something on the basis of it being "incompatible" since that belief, in doing so, reveals itself to be incompatible.

[c0de]

@ DrumR

p.s. I mistyped the word "liberalistic" as "literalistic" in my last post. Liberalistic isn't even a real world, but you get the point.

[I, Brian]

Tao, count up how many millions of Muslims have been killed as a direct and indirect results of US foreign policy, and it's hard to see why Muslims in general should be worshipful of the US.

Also note it's not a loathing of Westerners - it's of Western politics.

Westerners are frequently in the West Bank protesting - a few even get killed by the IDF.

Plenty more Westerners happily visit Muslim countries and seem to suffer little more than a little haggling in the Souks.

And other Westerners live or have lived in predominantly Muslim areas - areas held to be dangerous by the white folk because dark skinned people live there - when in fact the only trouble people such as me ever saw was the white racists driving in to cause trouble.

So your perception of Islam really seems to come from someone with little contact with Islam in real life, and a focus on media sensationalism.

Regarding stats: would love to know the sample size and sampling. For a cynic, you certainly seem to take confidence in any statistic that can help support a negative point of view, rather than apply the same cynicism, which can only be disappointing.

[DrumR]

Thank you for the favor of a reply farhan.
First things first.

farhan has no "m"
farhan has no "m"
farhan has no "m"
farhan has no "m"
farhan has no "m"

I most sincerely apologize for my inadvertent mis-spelling of your name farhan.

Originally Posted by farhan

I dont think one can divide behaviors like that. There is an incomplete man in every woman & an incomplete woman in every man. There is an incomplete father in a mother & vice versa. Similarly, how exactly is somebody going to draw a line between paternalistic & maternalistic behaviour? What if some body else draws another line 5 cm to the left?

farhan, both c0de and I agreed that the choice of labels may have been less than ideal. Perhaps if one would remove the words "maternal-istic" and "paternal-istic" from my previous proposition it may not be found as confusing.
Thus I submit a modified form for examination.

The Shareeah ideal appears to be more in line with the view that:
the stability of the community has priority over the rights of the individual coupled with the implied assumption that;
the individual is not sufficiently up to the task of discerning the differences involved.

The Anglo-American ideal <2> appears to be more in line with the view that:
a citizen, having reached the age of their majority, is to be considered as a competent adult sufficient to all tasks required of them i.e.; the steady advancement of the society.

Your thoughts?