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.
