I'm sure you have noticed that we have a new Muslim contributor here at IBA. I don't want to speak for him, but it seems to me that Eteraz is a very intelligent and enlightened man who seems to believe that Islam can be reformed.
For a long time, I have been wanting to get a discussion going on the possibility of reforming Sharia. However, I do not feel qualified to handle the discussion by myself, as I know so little, and do not have immense amounts of time to dig the info up myself.
Personally, I believe Sharia can be reformed. As I understand it, there are three ways of approaching Sharia:
1) through the Koran and Hadiths
2) through the interpretations of Muftis and Imams who issue fatwas based on the Koran and Hadith with regards to issues that are not specifically referenced in the Koran (it seems to me that these Fatwas are similar to the arguments of the Jewish Rabbis who created the Talmud out of the arguments about Torah. I say they are similar in that they are interpretive, not because they have reached to the same level of intellectual architecture.)
3) consensus (There is a verse in the Koran where Mohammed says that no decision made by the Ummah can be wrong, because they are his people. This sounds like a big wide-open door to Democratization to me, even if it has not worked in the past.)
So, there, now I've thrown my ignorant opinions out there. Now, let the games begin. Eteraz can come and tell me where I am right and where I am wrong, and the lot of you can tell me that you think I am an ignorant Pollyanna, or that you hope I am right, but you doubt it, or whatever.
Here, I will also add this to the mix. Here is a post on the topic of Sharia by a Muslim blogger named Muslihoon:
What is the sharee'ah? The sharee'ah is a code of rules and laws - much like Jewish halakhah - that certain experts have codified and determined. Sharee'ah is basically implementing fiqh (religious juridprudence), which in turn have been fixed into four schools of jurisprudence (singular: madhhab; plural: madhaahib).
Abu Hanifa an-Numan ibn Thabit (699-765 CE) established the Hanafi madhhab, Malik ibn Anas (715-796 CE) established the Maliki madhhab, Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee (767-820 CE) established the Shaafi'ee madhhab, and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal (780-855 CE) established the Hanbali madhhab.
All jurists must follow one of the four imams. Independent reasoning is not permitted: all relevant independent reasoning has already been done by the four imams. The sharee'ah is considered to be a divinely-sanctioned code of laws, and as such are unchangeable and relevant for all people in all places and in all times.
Because of the four schools, there are essentially four different versions of the sharee'ah (five, if one includes Twelver Shiites, whose fiqh is sometimes labelled as the Jaa'fari madhhab after their sixth imam, Jaa'far as-Sadiq). This is not much of a problem as the madhaahib tend to be distributed geographically (meaning certain madhaahib dominate in certain regions of the world), and so each region's experts would belong to the dominant madhhab. (Muslims are forbidden to pick and choose among or between madhaahib: one must choose a madhhab and stick with it for all of one's needs.)
The relevant experts are the judges (singular: qaazi; plural: quzaah) and interpreters (singular: mufti; plural muftoon). Muftis issue fatwahs, which are rulings that act as advice for judges. They are not mandatory. The role of the judge is to apply the law.
However, anyone with half a brain will realize that the laws codified in the eighth and ninth centuries need to be slightly modified for today. This is part of what makes implementing the sharee'ah difficult and impractical.
We will now list other issues will be problematic in implementing the sharee'ah:
1. Which of the four (or five) versions will be used? This is a significant issue in non-Muslim countries, where Muslims from various parts of the world (and, hence, belonging to different madhaahib) may live in the same area.
2. Where will the state get the required judges and muftis? How will the state certify them? How will point 1 above affect the presence and availability of experts?
3. Over whom will the sharee'ah courts have jurisdiction? What if one person of a party wishes to go to a civil court while the other party wishes to go to a sharee'ah court?
4. What about elements that are legal in non-Muslim countries but illegal in the sharee'ah (gambling, alcohol, pork, sexual immorality, pornography, free speech, blasphemy, freedom of religion)? What about elements that are illegal in non-Muslim countries but legal in sharee'ah (oral divorce, male dominance and preference, laws regarding apostates)?
5. What about punishments mandated by the sharee'ah that would be unacceptable by the non-Muslim state (such as the infamous hudood, which mandate what limb is to be amputated for which crime, when a criminal is to be executed, how many lashes is to be given)?
6. Would the sharee'ah include or exclude apostates, non-believers, free-thinkers? Would the sharee'ah be enforced against a person's wishes? What if others (the person's family, relatives, friends) want sharee'ah to be implemented but the person doesn't as he/she no longer recognizes it?
The list can go on and on. Suffice it to say that any call for implementing the sharee'ah is utterly ridiculous and completely impractical. Such calls are simple propaganda and agitation with no goal save to stir up Muslims to more mischief and to intimidate non-Muslims.
15 comments:
So, I take it you're not really a Muslim.
I'm still cracking up over the title, but I must say that the problem is not often with sharia itself. Sometimes, when the judgements and implementation get out of control, this is a big problem (just look at the massive hanging and stoning problem in Iran, just to name one example). A moderately enforced sharia held by Muslims who are similarly moderate would never be the problem. No more so than our laws are for us in the West. It's the calls for sharia in non-Muslim areas, used against Muslims and non-Muslims alike (as in Nigeria, for example) that is the problem, as well for calls for sharia in lands which already have laws in opposition to the laws of sharia, as you point out, that's the problem.
And as you say, the loopholes are enormous, so how do you curtail the problems once they begin? I'm not so optimistic.
If Muslims had a tradition (ala the Talmudic tradition of Judaism) of mystical, logical, and progressive interpretation, then they would have something to stake their claim on when the extremists try to take over. They could say, "Screw you extremists. We've got a tradition."
pastorius,
Don't muslims already have a tradition and history which has reliably countered any reform?
pim,
You seem to take the "of course I don't mean you bait." Who do you wish to relinquish to sharia? Is it their own fault for having not run far enough? Islam has divided, and so conquered, humanity for far too long.
Mac,
Yes, Islam has seemingly proven itself to be a impermeable membrane. However, I believe our ideology is stronger, and thus is able to win.
I don't think our win will be the same as in the Cold War. In other words, i don't think Islam will collapse. Islam is a religion. Religion do not die quick deaths. Instead, they either mutate, or are slowly replaced by something else.
I think Islam will mutate, because i think it means too much to too many people for it to simply go away.
By the way, Mac, you must know a lot of Christians whose Christianity has more to do with family ties, than it does to do with doctrine. I think that is what Islam is to most Muslims. That's why I think it can change. It can become more defined as what it means to the common person, and less by what it means to the extremist leaders who use its supremacist/power ideology to control and conquer.
pastorius,
I actually think it is an eventuality that we will win.
Communism like islam is an idea in disrepute, it is not dead. People love to dust off discarded ideas that they might pass off as new.
It is true that many Christian's have faiths such as you describe and I am sure that many muslims are likewise hypocritical. The faithful better reveal/define a faith than either of these hypocrits.
The common man would have to rely on his own interpretation of the koran. Wringing from the bloody text an actual "religion of peace" is a great task to expect from one that would be better served to discard said text.
A supposed hyprocacy is a flimsy thing to base one's security on.
Pastorius, ahh, but "innovation" is considered taboo in Islam, at least according to the many Muslims I've interviewed personally on the subject. How then can there be "progression" as you put it?
Maccus--I think we should reject it as a religious form of law within our Western secular lands due to the nature of our laws. I also think that Islamic countries should not be given a pass for human rights abuses just because the sharia is religiously based. As I said, I'm not optimistic.
I agree with your last two statements, PG. And yet, at the same time, I can be optimistic.
I think Mac doesn't understand the progression of ideas which were worked out in the Talmud, and how they led to the ideas that Jesus espoused.
I am a Christian, meaning I have faith in Christ, but at the same time, I believe that the ideas we have in our religion are worked out in time by humans inspired by the Holy Spirit. These ideas thus can be studied anthropolically.
Similarly, I believe that Islam can create a system of dialectic, by which Imams, Muftis, and the Ummah can work through the ideas of Sharia, and gradually mystify and modernize them.
I believe this taboo on innovation is as much a part of culture as it is an ordained idea of the Koran.
Think about the first five books of the Bible. Stoning of adulterers, apostates and homosexuals is mandated, just as it is in the Koran.
That sounds to me like it was a system of thought which was not very open to innovation.
To me, it is clear, that the gradual move away from such practices was accomplished by the dialectic worked through by Talmudic Rabbis.
I think Muslims, as human beings, are also capable of such thinking.
Any reason why they wouldn't be?
Since the Quran is immutable
Since the Sharia and the entire deen is founded upon that, I fail to see how the religion itself can be changed, nor how the uprisings the likes of which we see today, which began just past the living memory of Muhammaed was gone (Kharjarites, or Khawarij..depending on your historian) can be stopped.
When things are going 'badly' for muslims sooner or later they difficulties are pinned on failure to heed the Message. Then we're off to the races..
The hope lies in the conscience of muslims who innately comprehend the horror. Either they will choose to submit to the will of the salafi freaks or they won't. If they don't then you won't have a reformed Islam, but a different religion since things like the Stone and the Tree and 9:29 will have to be dealt with. Certainly Tantawi, Qaradawi and the rest of the ganag won;t consider this 'Islam'. ANd there's one other minor detail ..if a Wafa SUltan, who has called MUSLIMS (certainly in the middle east) backward, and SHE has to be in hiding ..what will will happen to a muslim Luther who says the Stone and the Tree is racist bunk? Who says the Quran cannot "TOTALLY" correct? Who says every 'word' is not meant to be adhered to?
I just want someone....hint hint....to photoshop Ibrahim Hooper and his CAIR buddies into those nuns pictured above. I've tried and almost gotten Hooper to be a lovely nun, but I'm just not skilled enough yet. Haha! But with 3 of them, we could give him some company. Would be great on The Ultimate Insult.
Epa, I must be stupid because this seems obvious to me, and yet an intelligent guy like you is telling me I am wrong.
Here, this is the way I see it. The Torah is immutable. It is the Word of God, dictated to Moses, just as surely as the Koran is the Word of Allah dictated to Mohammed.
The Torah contains laws which seem just as barbaric as the laws of the Koran.
And yet, these laws, immutable as they are, were changed by Talmudic Rabbis over time. In addition, we see the process of dialectic working in the prophets of the Old Testament (sorry my Jewish friends, that's what we goyim call it). There are verses, for instance, in Isaiah where God, speaking through the writings of Isaiah, says, "I don't want your burnt offerings anymore. I want sacrifices of the heart. I want you to take care of the widow and the orphan. The Messiah will sacrifice Himself. I need you to do the same."
This is a distinct change from all that went before on the subject of sacrifices and the Messiah.
The verses of Isaish changed the way the immutable Torah was looked at.
Am I incorrect in this?
Islam like Christianity has evolved while in positions of power for 14 and 16 centuries respectively. Or, I should say, at least Christianity has evolved. Judaism is a minority religion and, unlike the other two, doesn’t have a central figure like Mo or Jesus. I don’t think comparisons to Judaism are very helpful. Being in power for most of their history, Islam and Christianity have a different kind of experience and tradition than a minority religion.
I believe Islam has too much baggage to moderate like Christianity. I think it is important that people like Eteraz try and see for themselves that this isn’t feasible; it is little more than a personal solution. I can believe in exceptions on a case-by-case basis but to produce a large-scale sustainable moderate variant that wins the allegiance of all Muslims (or at least shames fundamentalists into hiding) is not feasible.
There are many other paths: secularization, marginalization of Islam, perfunctory Islam, superficial Islam, etc. I advocate secularization. Al Razi, the famous Persian philosopher and free-thinker (D 950 AD) argued that philosophy and Islam don’t mix--with rational philosophy being the correct way of thinking. This prompted Al Farabi to create an integration of philosophy with Islam. The morale of the story is this: advocate secularization and the other paths will be chosen by those who can’t make the full transformation.
So is the idea here, pastorius, that maybe in the next 1400 years islam might find a way to advance.
And is that advancement meant to come from "mystic" obfuscation of the troublesome koranic verses or from the common mans reinterpretation of the same verses? You seem to have trouble in choosing of which you will argue.
In the same breath you point to a tradtion of a supposed greater fluidity, and say that that another proven obstinate tradition may prove just as flexible. I see this as analagous to saying glass will flow and take the form of a vessel just like water. This is over a span of time much longer than our lifetimes true, but as a matter of practicality, you'd better introduce some heat to the glass. (Or you could just break it and put the sweepings in the vessal.)
In fact jason_pappas put a rather fine point on it. That we may come short of a principled goal, is no reason to forsake that cause.
No human soul should be subject to sharia.
Mac,
I agree with you that human should be subject to sharia as it stands in radical minds. I agree we need to put heat to Islam. I am for the war, and if you read my posts then you know that I am for making it an act of treason to advocate for the implementation of Sharia in Western nations.
I also agreee with you that we don't have much time. Therefore it is up to Muslims to fix the problem and quick.
I believe it can be done. I could be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I trust that the nations of the West have the weaponry and the will to solve the problem in another way.
First thing though is I believe we must believe in our own Declaration of Independence; all men are endowed by their creator etc.
We've got to try to help Muslims free themselves from the tyranny of radical Islam. That means, either they leave Islam, or moderate it.
I'm just curious about the taboo regarding "innovation" (I forget the Arabic here, sorry) that so many Muslims have told me about. If innovation is considered to be practically sinful then how can there be reform when you're speaking of laws which have their basis in the religious texts, which must remain unchallenged?
Post a Comment