Let me give that some thought ...
Man, Pastorius,
This is a *huge* topic. I'll run off some thoughts that came to my head as I read this, obviously everyone is free to disagree. At some point I'll write a little primer on Shariah; when I have more time. For now, thoughts. Caution, I was just listening to Tool, so I might be a little jagged.
1 - Islam has no clergy. As such, there has *never* been any agreement over *anything.* Muslims can't even agree on whether there is one savior at the end of time named Mahdi; or two, one whom is Jesus and the other Mahdi; or none, in which case all those who do believe in one or two saviors are wrong.
2 - Shariah just means "the way." It's like "the force." lol. But what constitutes 'the way' is very different amongst Muslims. So the operative question becomes: how do DERIVE 'the way.' Everyone pretty much agrees that you have to use the Quran. After that, there is no agreement. A majority of scholars have agreed that after the Quran, you use hadith, the consensus of the scholars, and analogical reasoning. This is the 'method' that the four major schools that your blogger mentions tend to use. *But* note: this is not the only method of *deriving* the Shariah. The 'school' I follow (which is none of the aforementioned four or five), doesn't believe that the hadith are a legitimate source of the Shariah. We say: Quran and Sunnah. Sunnah being those practices (not beliefs) of Muhammad which satisfy a certain criteria. But you know where the real problem is? It's in the fact that there *cannot* be any agreement on what the Quran is saying either. Epamindoas said somewhere that because the Quran is immutable it cannot be changed. That's just wrong. I can believe that the Quran is immutable, and my reading of it can be incredibly different than any other Muslim scholar's. In fact, Ali, the Fourth Caliph, made precisely that point when the huge civil war broke out. He said, look, the Quran is divine, but we are not, and we're its interpreters, so we'll end up differing. So anyway, as it stands today, there is a competition (as there has been always) as to which interpretation of the way, and therefore, their method of derivation, will win.
Really? But then, why ...?
3 - Now what's significant is that Jihadis, Bin Ladin and Zarqawi, also use 'the way' to reach their conclusions. Yet, you can use 'the way' to reach the opposite conclusions. In my humble opinion, the reason that they are able to manipulate the Shariah into a killing machine is because of the *method* they follow. In their method of derivation, the hadith always come in and not only that, but the hadith can *even* abrogate or nullify the Quran. Remember my point in my "Noble Quran" post as to why my dad was pissed? He was pissed b/c non-divine sources (the hadith) were being used to trump the Quran. That *should* be unacceptable. Let me give you an example as to how hadith fuck shit up. In the Quran there is no stoning to death. There *is* a punishment for sex out of wedlock, but it's not stoning. Yet, everyone, including a large number of Muslims, think that stoning IS part of the Shariah. WHY? Well, because there is one hadith that says that there is stoning for adultery. This was sufficient for most scholars and they said, "well, look, since the hadith explains the Quran" (a claim without substantiation), "it means that the God wants there to be stoning for adultery." It's pretty sick, to be frank, how it happened. But in the barebones, here is what happened.
4 - At a certain point in the development of Shariah, two schools formed. The People of the Opinion, and the People of the Tradition. The People of the Opinion said that if you can't solve a problem strictly by using the Quran, then you use your best common sense judgment. The People of the Tradition said, no, you don't use your judgment, you must, instead, go into the history/tradition of Muslims before you, specifically the Prophet and his companions, and see what they would do. The People of the Opinion said: that's bullshit because those who came before us did not deal with the problems we are dealing with. A lot of People of the Tradition, then, started inventing 'traditions' to suit their agenda. Then, the worse thing happened. The rationalist school (the Mu'tazila), which was the intellectual underpinning (the think-tank) for the People of the Opinion, got pulled into a Caliph named Mamun's inquisition, and a lot of
People of the Tradition were murdered and killed in the name of rationalism. As such, the general mass of MuslimsPostmodernist Sharia?
gravitated towards the People of the Tradition, and suddenly started
buying their argument. There emerged the 'Ashari school of philosophy (as their think-tank), which said that revelation always trumps reason, and thus came to an end the time of the People of the Opinion. The four schools of law we have right now (five if you include the Shia') *are all based in the methodology of the People of the Tradition!* Remember: there were some amongst the People of the Tradition who invented hadith, or took hadith into the Shariah
even though they were spurious. There is nothing in the Quran that talks about homosexuals. But there are plenty of hadith out there.
Ok, I think this is enough for now. This is a total hatchet-job of an explanation b/c I'm writing it on the fly. Academics would nag at certain generalizations I've made. Plus I *have* put my views here, and as such, you can accuse me of bias. Finally, I should point out that my problem with Islam lies in the fact that a majority of Muslims have been sold a defective Shariah without the possibility of real alternatives. Muslims need a Shariah rooted in the way of the People of the Opinion/Mu'tazila School. It is now making a comeback. But it's going to be a hell of a fight. In other words, while I concede that the explanation of the Shariah you set forth in your post (quoting the other blogger) is the majority view; I think that it is deeply flawed and in need of excision. Unfortunately, the 'Ashari/Traditionalist position has been in 'power' for 1000 years. Fact for optimism: our side is smarter. Uh, but their side has guns.
12 comments:
Mu'tazila School was very short lived and they ended up with a brutal suppression of those that didn’t toe the party line. It was more like the French Revolution: heady ideals of rationalism and liberty but culminating in the reign of terror.
On the other hand, the only modern transformation that has “worked” was started by Mustafa Kemal; and he was a vicious tyrant kicking Turkish butt into the 20th century (while killing many others along the way.)
It doesn’t sound promising, but feel free to give it a go.
ok this is not a snotty response ...
If the Quran, is as malleable as you say then
WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
While I don't doubt that your words are true for you my 'friends' out of Oman disagree explicitly. (Of course not many of them seem to believe many jews died from 1939-45 either, and that jews "practically control the USA", and that we killed all the indians, probably while fornnicating with gambling prostitutes, but hey ...)
In fact the belief of the few that the immutable IS immutable is the controlling issue since these people must be by definition intolerant of what to them is a perversion of God's perfection, and off we go.
Notable, Et, is that you're view is pefectly compatible with Islam not being an imperial force of conquest (unless by providing a model for behevior and superior morality thereby drawing people to it). Also, self criticism is possible in this vein, but how do you criticise that which you accept as perfect?
As you say, big subject, but a necessary one to BEGIN to cmoprehend. I am not so worried about "islam" as I am about those morons who believe what THEY think about it gives them certain moral license, and their ability to intimidate.
Immutability of anything has always been interesting to me b/c I'm trained in Philosophy which believes in the immutability of nothing.
*This* is how criticize something you assume to be immutable:
1 - You say that the Quran is immutable.
2 - Then you interpret it as you think reasonable.
It's that straight-forward.
All you have to assume at some point along the way is that the immutability/perfection of a holy text is not destroyed by way of continous, ongoing interpretation and re-interpretation of it. <---This is what Christianity did with the Enlightenment and Islam needs to do now.
As far as what are we waiting for? No one is waiting. Look up Muhammad Shahrur, Ghannouchi, Soroush, Ghamidi, Rashid Rida, Wadud, el Fadl, Mernissi. These are *huge* *huge* *huge* forces.
I like the Caliph you quote who says, The Koran is immutable, but we are fallable, and we are the ones who interpret it, so we make mistakes sometimes.
Christianity did have to admit that to itself.
Still, we have Fundamentalists who say, the Bible isn't that hard to understand. Here, it means this and only this.
Many Catholics still believe the Pope is infallible.
But, here's the $64,000 question:
WHY IS IT THAT SO MANY MUSLIMS SEEM TO LACK THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE KORAN?
Pastorius,
I'm going to stay silent to your million dollar question. Not b/c I'm lacking on ideas, but because I think we need to get a good idea of all the theories/potential answers that are circulating out there. Once we can do that survey we can evaluate each claim one by one. Also, I think I'd be shooting from the hip right now and I don't really want to do that with a question of that gravity. My theories on the matter I'll bring to the IBA bit by bit.
That sounds good and reasonable.
"That sounds good and reasonable." The whole thing also wreeks of bullshit, in my humble opinion.
If I cared I could spend a wasted day going through it lie by lie and showing where and why it's bullshit. However, because I have no interest in wasting my time I will announce that we meet again tomorrow, Thursday evening, from 7-9:00 pm for our weekly Blue Revolution session. In Vancouver, Canada we'll be at the Vancouver Public Library atrium. We are not here to discuss Islam. We are here to bury it.
Yes, such a propositiion might be offensive to some, and I don't care. The fascist poligion of Islam, like its Nazi co-religion, is evil, and its practicioners are of the smae ilk. A moderate Nazi is still a Nazi, offensive to write or not. I make no apologies.
Regarding the sensitivities of Left dhimmi fascists, I suggest they fuck off and die. The point of our meetings is to find and organise ourselves as we opponents of fascist Islam are. Practicality, not sensitivity training, is our purpose. The only dialogue we need is to find common cause with non-Muslims who will unite in destroying Islam completely.
This is hardly a game. Muslims kill people at random. They are activists and perptrators of murder. We must organise to destroy their ideology. That's the bottom line. If people are offended, look at the results of Islam and compare that to the common Human decency most others practice in their religions and ideologies. Only fascist Islam is so evil that the world's populations are compelled to destroy it.
Join us in your own location to fight fascist Islam. Wear a blue scarf and sit in public to await others who will join you in this struggle. Please leave your location at no dhimmitude. Thank you. And good luck.
Let no one ever say we don't celebrate diversity here.
I am diverse, if not reasonable.
Dag,
You contain multitudes. And, as is true with me, not all of them are reasonable.
I don't care what you say, but I can't really respond if you won't explain your reasons.
Really, Eteraz would be the one who would have to respond, if he cared to.
It really ain't my job to defend him. However, he seems like a decent guy to me, even if I don't agree with his overall perspective (meaning I think he sees things a little out of proportion on the rosy side of Islam).
By the way, many people who have new shit to contribute see things a little different from the way they are. So, I am hoping Eteraz has something original to add.
As much as we can all enumerate what we don't like about Islam, and as much as we may be justified in our thinking, we could never be the ones to suggest a reform, because we don't give a shit about Islam when it comes down to it.
We may care for Muslims as human beings, but that doesn't mean I am going to spend my time thinking about the intricacies of their religion.
Eteraz is a Muslim who does not agree with the radicals. He has studied the Koran and Sharia. He has some different opinions about where Islam can go. I am interested in hearing them. And, like I said, he seems like a decent guy.
I do not disagree about the man himself. He's welcome to join us at our weekly Blue Revolution meetings and to hang out and do whatever any other social person would do. I'd be especially pleased if he brings along his sister.
Post a Comment