Skip to main content

View Diary: Making A Modern Muslim World (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes and No (0+ / 0-)

    If what you are saying is true of Muslims, then it applies when they are not in majority Muslim countries too, correct? Let me surmise, based on your comments, what I am understanding from your comments:

    1. Muslims accept the Quoran as the 'book of law'.
    1. All majority Islamic countries today are not governed according to true Islamic law
    1. These forementioned countries have been tainted by either colonialism or despotism, but not by Muslims who just may have a different interpretation of Quoranic law.
    1. Muslims are going against Quoranic law if they live under secular rule. (Thus your comment "Muslims redress disintegration of its leadership and authentic Islamic authority - by removing secular legal processes which are a type of bid'ah and impermissible").

    Now let me extend some of this logic...

    A. Since Muslims cannot live under secular government, they should aspire to bring the government into harmony with the Quoran.
    B. Since the Quoran looks upon non-Muslims as less in the eyes of the law, I would have less rights.

    Now if A & B are logical conclusions based on items 1-4, tell me why I shouldn't be worried about the Islamic religion?

    If I am wrong, please put the item number/letter and refute what I have wrote.
    Thank you,

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

    by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:10:33 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK Its a mouth full... lets go... (0+ / 0-)

      but not by Muslims who just may have a different interpretation of Quoranic law.

      Explain...

      Muslims are going against Quoranic law if they live under secular rule.

      Incorrect... I am a Muslim in the West where there is secular rule and I can live according to sharia where ever possible. But because I live in a non-Muslim country there are things that must be accepted, if they were not acceptable Muslims would not come to the West.

      Now, with that said, we must keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between a Muslim country and a non-Muslim country, this must be understood. It is expected that Muslim would in fact be a sovereign body and elect Islamic law as its principle legal framing. This is not the present day case due to a number of reasons but as Dr. Khalid Abou El Fadl has said Colonialism being a primary reason.

      Therefore, we have either autocratic governments in ME or despotic governments in ME. This is not OK by any Islamic standard. The US has supported those conservative factions because of oil. The conservative factions seek to crystallize their respective positions which they have achieved. Which is why this is a difficult situation. This has also affected religion because the state has funded academic centers/universities as well as the legits.

      What I am saying here,

      "Muslims redress disintegration of its leadership and authentic Islamic authority - by removing secular legal processes which are a type of bid'ah and impermissible

      Is that the juristic community (authentic authority) and the state (leadership) must address the issue of state financed legal institutions so that the legal culture is able to exert authority when necessary. Despite resistance from the state. My opinion is that the best way to implement this is in the fashion that it was traditionally privatized law guilds. The adoption of Western legal system by "leadership" and not an authentic authority is the impermissible bid'ah. How did I do?

      •  Are secular legal processes permissiable or (0+ / 0-)

        impermissable according to the Quoran?

        What is considered "authentic authority" in Islam?

        Isn't that one of the problems of Islam; there is no central authority, only various interpretations?

        After all, the scholars you cite are only adding their interpretations, right?

        How can any one person's interpretation of the Quoran be more 'right' than any other person?

        "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

        by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:09:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That would take a jurist to explain... (0+ / 0-)

          impermissable according to the Quoran?

          You need a jurist for that explanation.

          Abou El Fadl writes on that. He has written numerous works... sometimes I think thats all he does. He is at UCLA Law Department.

          there is no central authority

          Well I think the Europe had a big hand in this one. The last central authority was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and that item is almost 100 years old.

          However, the juristic culture was not a single power it was rooted in the 4 schools (this is Sunni Islam). these schools were privatized institutions that were funded by beautiful endowments. These schools/guilds formed the legislative body.

          After all, the scholars you cite are only adding their interpretations, right?

          The contemporary scholars or historical scholars.

          How can any one person's interpretation of the Quoran be more 'right' than any other person?

          How can one lawyers understanding and explanation of US constitutional law be above another? Are each legits analysis the same or equal or are there superior legits? I apologize but I had to answer a question with a question.

          •  For the Lawyer analogy, there is the (0+ / 0-)

            court that interprets the law, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter in the US system.

            So who would be the final 'interpreter' within an Islamic court? Who finally decides what Allah intended when he spoke through Mohammed?

            Is that a judge too? What if others say his interpretation is heresy? Who finally judges what the word of god truly is?

            "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

            by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Now second part... (0+ / 0-)

      Since Muslims cannot live under secular government,

       rephrase-- since Muslim Lands should not...

      they should aspire to bring the government into harmony with the Quoran.

      Most if not all Muslims would like to live with government that is in harmony with quran and you may not believe this but the US provides this in its constitution. There are some minor details but Dr. Feldman (Noah Feldman US Constitutional Lawyer and Harvard Law Professor) has clearly outlined how the two coincide.

      B. Since the Quoran looks upon non-Muslims as less in the eyes of the law, I would have less rights.

      No. But legal interpretation has developed rulings which make this the case because at the time 900 - 1200 CE non-Muslims were the Byzantine Empire, Roman Catholic Church and Visigoths, these were all warring communities including Muslims. So of course the legal representation of these relationships or "foreign relations" would reflect this. And with the gate of ijtihad closed as well as a conservative juristic culture who will not look into liberal rulings, in fact they will not change anything we are at a stalemate.

      Sorry about the letter thing... it was at the bottom and there was too much text to go back through it all.

      •  So what are Muslim lands? (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't that one of the rantings of Bin Laden? That certain Muslim lands, notably Spain, are in the hands of the infidels?

        After all, at the time Mohammed received the word from god, there really weren't Muslim lands.

        "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

        by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:12:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ... (0+ / 0-)

          So what are Muslim lands?

          Do you believe in majority rule? Start there. For example wasn't Apartheid in South Africa unjust? Those of European origin, the minority ruled the indigenous African Majority. There is something wrong with that no?

          Isn't that one of the rantings of Bin Laden? That certain Muslim lands, notably Spain, are in the hands of the infidels?

          I don't know what bin laden has said... I have never heard one of his speeches, but how is Spain a Muslim land? The Muslims were expelled long ago.

          After all, at the time Mohammed received the word from god, there really weren't Muslim lands.

          This is moot point now not significant.

          •  Isn't according to the Quoran, all lands are (0+ / 0-)

            Muslim, because they belong to Allah and are thus for the true believers?

            I certainly don't remember reading anything about majority rule in the Quoran. That would be a modern non-Quoronic concept wouldn't it?

            And if that is acceptable, why wouldn't secular based rule be so. Especially if as a Muslim living in the US you do not feel like you are going against Allah, do you?

            "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

            by Boisepoet on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:42:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  hmm... (0+ / 0-)

              Muslim, because they belong to Allah and are thus for the true believers?

              Why would you say that? What makes you say something like that? Did you read the quran and interpreted that or did you just come up with it from your mind.

              "And if that is acceptable, why wouldn't secular based rule be so.

              This is why I said earlier...

              Now, with that said, we must keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between a Muslim country and a non-Muslim country, this must be understood.

              Sorry I must go now... if you post a few more questions I will address them this evening... its family time now. May God bless you.

              •  Still waiting for the 'fundamental' difference (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pandoras Box

                between Muslims and non-Muslims that make them more compassionate, civil and needing to live under a government that is different than non-Muslims.

                Especially intriguing since the actual practice of Islam is so different in comparison to the theoretical that you posit here.

                "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

                by Boisepoet on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:18:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  lots of muslims (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pandoras Box, Boisepoet

              are against sharia, I've heard them say it.  the idea that all muslims have to by nature want something as horribly illiberal as sharia is just hakim's attempt to railroad other opinions and make the conversation fatalist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site