Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[TashaN]

Perhaps he has a hard time having a discussion with Muslims except after demanding them to forget about their religion:

Well, he might not have understood yet what Islamic law mean to Muslims, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken in his analysis. Of course he knows that we have to follow Islamic law, but he simply asked us to put ourselves in his shoe for a second to understand where he is coming from and how he is trying to view this issue.

In general, i think there is nothing wrong with his logic even if you disagreed with him based on what you believe in.

Also, don't forget that, for westerners, all what they can recall when they remember religious texts interfering with people's lives is witches burning, holy wars, etc. On the other hand, he might not have been clearly exposed to how practical Islamic laws can be today, as it was in the past.

 

[TashaN]

I believe that there have been a clear injustice in viewing Islamic laws and values because it has been outweighed and overlooked, by the other more prevailing issues like Hijab, the Hudud, Jihad, women rights, etc.

This made alot of efforts of Muslim scholars goes to address these issues and refute it which resulted in a relative lack of resources for how applicable islamic law can be today and how the Muslims and non-Muslims alike lived in the past together under this ruling. Not to say there are no work in this subject available in english, but it's less than the issues i have mentioned.

Add to that the confusion one might have when trying to deal with contradictory works, one that praise Islamic law, and the other which find it insufficient and unpractical, even cruel sometimes, not to mention some Muslims who continuously refuse to adopt islamic law. We always point our fingers to the outsiders but there are alot of people amongst us who refuse Shariah law and you all know that.

So, i advice all of you, Muslims and non-Muslims alike in this thread to calm down and let emotions aside to reach to a common goal based on understanding, because this topic might be a clear cut issue for many Muslims, but not for non-Muslims, especially those who live in the West, who lived the fruit of liberal democracy and can't see in our current REAL LIFE a better substitute for that system.

I might come later on to comment on some points raised by Mr Spinkles and others, because these days i have some exams but i'm coming here from a time to another to check out new posts and post some short quick posts when i can.

This is a great opportunity for everyone to have a productive discussion about this issue and even if we disagreed, understanding other people's point of view is enough to make the first step.

Peace and blessing.

 

[kai]

Well, he might not have understood yet what Islamic law mean to Muslims, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken in his analysis. Of course he knows that we have to follow Islamic law, but he simply asked us to put ourselves in his shoe for a second to understand where he is coming from and how he is trying to view this issue.

In general, i think there is nothing wrong with his logic even if you disagreed with him based on what you believe in.

Also, don't forget that, for westerners, all what they can recall when they remember religious texts interfering with people's lives is witches burning, holy wars, etc. On the other hand, he might not have been clearly exposed to how practical Islamic laws can be today, as it was in the past.

i am no spring chicken but i dont think any of us are that old TashaN, our experience is basically what we hear and see from Islamic countries mainly Saudi,Iran, and of course the Taliban, and of course from the Fatwas issued that reach us via the news which are usually news worthy, (which means they are radical)

 

[Sahar]

Well, he might not have understood yet what Islamic law mean to Muslims, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken in his analysis. Of course he knows that we have to follow Islamic law, but he simply asked us to put ourselves in his shoe for a second to understand where he is coming from and how he is trying to view this issue.

Yeah just like when he said:

Here's my solution: if it's God's law, then let God enforce it. Human beings should enforce human laws.

Without any doubt he doesn't understand what Islam or Muslim means. I thought this thread is about where Muslims are coming from and I don't think the way to make this possible is to ask him to forget about his ideologies, philosophies, beliefs or whatsoever. Now when you have an argument with a Muslim about an Islamic rule then asking the Muslim to forget about his religion, it sounds ridiculous.

In general, i think there is nothing wrong with his logic even if you disagreed with him based on what you believe in.

What logic exactly? :sarcastic
To forget that I am a Muslim for a "moment"?!

 

[kai]

Yeah just like when he said:
Without any doubt he doesn't understand what Islam or Muslim means. I thought this thread is about where Muslims are coming from and I don't think the way to make this possible is to ask him to forget about his ideologies, philosophies, beliefs or whatsoever. Now when you have an argument with a Muslim about an Islamic rule then asking the Muslim to forget about his religion, it sounds ridiculous.

What logic exactly? :sarcastic
To forget that I am a Muslim for a "moment"?!

you want us to understand Islam ? it works both ways , perhaps its a western thing ,this look at it from my point af view for a moment thing , we do it all the time in discussion or argument, to try and look at it from someone elses point of view is a valuable thing.

 

[TashaN]

i am no spring chicken but i dont think any of us are that old TashaN, our experience is basically what we hear and see from Islamic countries mainly Saudi,Iran, and of course the Taliban, and of course from the Fatwas issued that reach us via the news which are usually news worthy, (which means they are radical)

Both might affect your judgment, not necessarily one of them of course.

The islamic laws muslims dream of can't be represented by the actions and laws of these countries you have mentioned, although they are going through a reformation era now.

There have been a time where many countries stopped implementing shariah law because of colonizations, etc, and also, along with that, major modern interpretations for islamic laws were much fewer than expected, to address the new challenges muslims face in their daily life. So, in Iran, muslims there ended up in the mercy of the Mulla who act like a Pope, but a powerful one. And in Saudi Arabia, scholars stopped where Mohammed bin abdul wahab ended, instead of building on his view and re-evaluate it to fit the current challenges and changes in muslims lives, because the situation today is not the same like in the time of Mohammed bin abdul wahab, where people, at that time in arabia, returned back to worship trees, graves, etc. And, Taliban lacked a vision and a wise leader.

On the other hand, the fatwas you see are just a result of uncertainty in the muslim world due the gap where new interpretations of the texts stopped, or been directed to serve only political means, and ignore the other major factors.

If i started talking about this issue i'll never stop. I guess i'll make a decent research about it one day.

 

[TashaN]

Yeah just like when he said:

Here's my solution: if it's God's law, then let God enforce it. Human beings should enforce human laws.

Why are you upset about it?

This might not be proper to be said by a Muslim, but he is not one. He gave you a solution, just tell him what's wrong with his solutions if you think it's wrong, so simple.

Without any doubt he doesn't understand what Islam or Muslim means.

Then tell him what does it mean.

I thought this thread is about where Muslims are coming from and I don't think the way to make this possible is to ask him to forget about his ideologies, philosophies, beliefs or whatsoever. Now when you have an argument with a Muslim about an Islamic rule then asking the Muslim to forget about his religion, it sounds ridiculous.

What logic exactly? :sarcastic
To forget that I am a Muslim for a "moment"?!

You just took this "forget about your religion" notion and you started complaining about it already all over and over. That was part of the discussion. He think you should adopt man made law, so just tell him why you can't.

Don't assume that he believe in a God who will ask you what to do, when, and how. Explain for him that Allah set for us a guidance and example to go through and live based on it, then to make it the absolute measurement where we can act and interpret based on it so we don't go astray from the right path.

Tell him that, without divine guidance, we might end up in a misery, because we don't know all the consequences of the future if we implemented man made law.

Tell him that Allah law is a gift from him, and all what we have to do is to refer to it so we know that we are not missing the right way of living for humanity, a law, which have been designed, by the designer of humanity.

He doesn't believe in God "correct me if i'm wrong Mr Spinkles", but you do, so just take islamic law and put it to the test, and let's forget who was the author, and let's see whether it's the best and absolute solution for humanity or not. How is that?

 

[Sahar]

you want us to understand Islam ? it works both ways , perhaps its a western thing ,this look at it from my point af view for a moment thing , we do it all the time in discussion or argument, to try and look at it from someone elses point of view is a valuable thing.

If someone wants to understand my point of view, it doesn't work if I forgot about my point of view.

 

[kai]

Both might affect your judgment, not necessarily one of them of course.

The islamic laws muslims dream of can't be represented by the actions and laws of these countries you have mentioned, although they are going through a reformation era now.

There have been a time where many countries stopped implementing shariah law because of colonizations, etc, and also, along with that, major modern interpretations for islamic laws were much fewer than expected, to address the new challenges muslims face in their daily life. So, in Iran, muslims there ended up in the mercy of the Mulla who act like a Pope, but a powerful one. And in Saudi Arabia, scholars stopped where Mohammed bin abdul wahab ended, instead of building on his view and re-evaluate it to fit the current challenges and changes in muslims lives, because the situation today is not the same like in the time of Mohammed bin abdul wahab, where people, at that time in arabia, returned back to worship trees, graves, etc. And, Taliban lacked a vision and a wise leader.

On the other hand, the fatwas you see are just a result of uncertainty in the muslim world due the gap where new interpretations of the texts stopped, or been directed to serve only political means, and ignore the other major factors.

If i started talking about this issue i'll never stop. I guess i'll make a decent research about it one day.

great post , unfortunately all we have to go on at times is what we see and hear.

 

[kai]

If someone wants to understand my point of view, it doesn't work if I forgot about my point of view.

what! no it wouldnt help if i tried to look at something from your point of view and you forgot what your point of view was ? :no:

 

[TashaN]

great post , unfortunately all we have to go on at times is what we see and hear.

You don't even have to go for it, it will come to you by itself , and you have the choice either to accept it as a fact and ignore the root of the problem making you remain in the dark of what is REALLY happening and why, or to stop, wait till you get a a very clear view from all angles.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i don't know which part of my post gives you the impression of imposing our beliefs on the non muslim minority ? applying the shariah in a country where the muslims are a majority ? i said islam is tolerant enough to modify the laws for the non muslim minority to suit their religious beliefs..

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but wouldn't Sharia law forcibly prohibit me, as an atheist, from:

• Marrying the woman I love, if she happens to be Muslim?
• Expressing myself in ways that are deemed to "insult" or "blaspheme" against Islam?
• Being elected the supreme ruler / president / whatever?
• Having a glass of my favorite red wine with a pork chop dinner? (In fact tonight I cooked some pork chops in a delicious white wine vinegar and dijon mustard sauce.)
• Paying the same exact tax that all citizens must pay? (I'm thinking of the "jizya" tax.)
• Would my testimony against a Muslim be admissible, and have just as much weight as anyone's testimony, in court?
• Could all the dance clubs and gay bars stay open?
• What about TV shows, movies, art, or literature that is deemed to have "bad morals" or to have too much nudity, romance, or pornography? Would I, as a non-Muslim citizen under Sharia law, be free to buy these things or produce them?
• What would happen to someone like Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh?

If the answers to the questions are what I think they are, or even if just a few of them are, then an Islamic state *would indeed* be imposing its religion on me and anyone like me.

the islamic state is certainly not a theocracy...at least not with the same criteria that jump into people's minds from their experience with the christian theocracy in the dark ages...and that was clariefied earlier in this thread..and no need to repeat it

The Islamic state is also certainly not a democracy, according to Dr. Badawi.

and btw..the following quote gave me the impression that you are trying to force your secularism on me..aren't you ?

Here's my solution: if it's God's law, then let God enforce it. Human beings should enforce human laws.

I don't understand. What, exactly, am I forcing on you? I thought I merely shared my opinion with you.

you realize this is a dead end for the discussion..don't you ?...if you want to understand how we view the islamic law..you are most welocome.. but if ,for one second , you thought muslims are obliged to justify their religion for you..YOU ARE MISTAKEN..

Of course you aren't obliged to read this thread, reply to my posts, or justify your beliefs. But that WAS what I requested in the OP, for you to justify your beliefs, not simply state them as if their truth is obvious to everyone. It is claimed that Islamic law is a perfectly just, loving, reasonable set of laws. I'm inviting you to substantiate that claim by carefully considering facts and reasoning. Tariq and Cordoba have done an admirable job of this on the issue of interest loans (which we aren't discussing anymore, for now! )

as for the free thinkers like you , they will act exactly like they do in their secular democratic governments..VOTE...is there something else you - as a free thinker- has the authority to do in your democratic country ?

There are innumerable things that I have the freedom to do in a democratic country besides vote. One thing I CAN'T do is pass a law that makes atheism the official religion and makes blasphemy against the great prophet Richard Dawkins, or mishandling of his sacred book 'The God Delusion' punishable by fine or incarceration. Christians have a significant majority in this country and yet NONE of my Christian friends would pass similar laws imposing a Christian state even if it came to a vote.

Let me explain it this way: if 51% of the voters are atheist, does that make atheism true? Of course not. If 51% are Hindus, does that make Hinduism true? Of course not. The idea that a simple majority of fallible, corruptible, ignorant human beings has the ability or the authority to determine cosmic truths about the universe and God, and God's will, is simply ridiculous. They can barely manage to figure out what they want in this world, much less what God wants in the next world. That's why even though the Christians have a strong majority in this country, they would never outlaw "blasphemy" against Jesus, for example, because they reject *the very principle* that the majority has any authority to decide such issues. They are free to criticize blasphemers, they can choose to boycott their books or TV shows, prevent their children from watching it, etc. But they can't *force* those whom they disagree with to shut up by means of a fallible human government.

why not ? ..a vote..bowing down to the majority..does the democracy of your country have any more advantages than that ? didn't the 51 % voters for the american president imposed their view on the other 49% percent ? do you vote for the individual decisions of your democratic country ? the war on iraq for example ?

The democracy of my country did have many more advantages than that, it's called the Bill of Rights, but it's being challenged every day unfortunately. Yes, the majority elect the president; no, I don't vote on decisions at the national level, I only vote on issues at the local level, in a country of 300 million states elect representatives at the national level who look out for their interests. The decline of a functioning democracy in the U.S. is a concern of mine but it is not the issue in this thread.

The issue is whether an Islamic state is a democracy, and if that is a good thing. Dr. Badawi explained quite candidly that a democracy derives its power from the people, and is accountable solely to the people, and therefore it is not the same as an Islamic state in which its power, authority, and accountability is from God. What Dr. Badawi does not understand, i.m.o., is that in practice any state that does not derive its power from its people, and is not 100% accountable to its people, is tyrannical and has no accountability at all.

who told you that the modern sholars of fiqh didn't talk in stuff like brain death , genetic engineering and organ transplantaion ?
few months ago..i watched a progrm about a moroccon muslim woman who made her ph.D in the islamic stance regarding organ transplantion...thanks to her , organ transplantion was officially legalized in morocoo and she was honoured by the king himself..

I'm rather shocked that organ transplantation was illegal to begin with. Do you mean the organ transplant trade, as in the selling of one's organs to people who need them?

I was talking about the Qu'ran and the prophetic tradition, the basis of Islamic law. I presume there is no specific mention of these kinds of issues in those texts, because the people who wrote those texts lived in the 7th century and could not have known these issues would come up 1,300 years later.

i am going to clarify that to you one more time..if you are here trying to convince muslims that they are wrong about the divinity of their religion..you better Save your time and energy for a more fruitful dicussion..
i guess you are intelligent enough to dicriminate between a discussion that can go somewhere and another one with a dead end..aren't you ?

I'm intelligent enough to recognize when someone is so closed-minded that they refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees. Sorry, but I disagree that Islamic law is perfectly just and reasonable and I am indeed challenging its divine origins. You're free to ignore me simply because you disagree with me, if you want. But I think it would be a shame if everyone closed their eyes and covered their ears any time their beliefs were challanged openly and honestly.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Okay enough of this mushy business.

So here is my viewpoint.

In essence an Islamic political system is a secular system. Now the definition of secular here needs to be analyzed. Some say secular refers to a system that does not borrow from religion at all. I say that is not true. Religion should not interfere in secularism but if a religious edict is found to be just by the prevailing authority then borrowing it into the secular system is fine.

So, for example, Islam says false testimony is bad. A secular system can find agreement with this and go ahead and make false testimony punishable. So in that sense according to Islam politics and religion must be separated and each country can implement its laws as it sees fit. The only command of Islam in this respect is:

Al-Nisa' Chapter 4 : Verse 59
Verily, Allah commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that, when you judge between men, you judge with justice. And surely, excellent is that with which Allah admonishes you. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.

Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5 : Verse 43
They are eager listeners to falsehood, devourers of things forbidden. If, then, they come to thee for judgement, judge between them or turn aside from them. And if thou turn aside from them, they cannot harm thee at all. And if thou judge, judge between them with justice. Surely Allah loves those who are just.

Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5 : Verse 9
O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people's enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just. That is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is Aware of what you do.

Al-An`am Chapter 6 : Verse 153
'And approach not the property of the orphan, except in a way which is best, till he attains his maturity. And give full measure and weigh with equity. We charge not any soul except according to its capacity. And when you speak, observe justice, even if the person concerned be a relative, and fulfil the covenant of Allah. That is what He enjoins upon you, that you may take care.'


And Quran gives us the example of the Prophet David who was also king:

Sad Chapter 38 : Verse 23
When they entered in upon David, and he was afraid of them. They said, 'Fear not. We are two disputants; one of us has transgressed against the other; so judge between us with justice, and deviate not from the right course and guide us to the right way.'

Sad Chapter 38 : Verse 27
Then We said to him, 'O David, We have made thee a vicegerent in the earth; so judge between men with justice, and follow not vain desire, lest it should lead thee astray from the way of Allah.' Surely, those, who go astray from the way of Allah, will have a severe punishment, because they forgot the Day of Reckoning.

Al-Rahman Chapter 55 : Verse 10
So weigh all things with justice and fall not short of the measure.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Some say secular refers to a system that does not borrow from religion at all. I say that is not true. Religion should not interfere in secularism but if a religious edict is found to be just by the prevailing authority then borrowing it into the secular system is fine.

So, for example, Islam says false testimony is bad. A secular system can find agreement with this and go ahead and make false testimony punishable. So in that sense according to Islam politics and religion must be separated and each country can implement its laws as it sees fit.

I agree with you, Tariq. Having a secular government does not mean rejecting all religious directives. We wouldn't get very far as a society if it was legal to give false testimony in court. The key thing to consider is that it is okay for this to be enforced in a secular government because we are capable of arriving at the conclusion by simply reasoning about the issue, without appealing to what my God says, or your God says, or your holy book says, etc. which are issues that can NEVER be resolved by human beings.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I agree with you, Tariq. Having a secular government does not mean rejecting all religious directives. We wouldn't get very far as a society if it was legal to give false testimony in court. The key thing to consider is that it is okay for this to be enforced in a secular government because we are capable of arriving at the conclusion by simply reasoning about the issue, without appealing to what my God says, or your God says, or your holy book says, etc. which are issues that can NEVER be resolved by human beings.

Well I disagree with you that those issues can never be resolved. But that said, I agree with you completely. My point to prove, however, is that this is what Islam says and this is how Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Caliphs ruled. They held the simultaneous posts of political and spiritual leadership but both were kept separate. For it is noted that when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was approached by Jews to settle a matter he asked them who they agreed upon as a judge. It was asked what mode of judgement they wanted. Did they want to be judged by Judaic law, Islamic law, etc. Same with Muslims. If the Muslims society wished to implement Shariah law on themselves and judge themselves by it then so be it.

Many Muslims are misled by the fact that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the political leader during the later years of his life. But this was because everyone nearly unanimously agreed to this and no one dared claim opposition simply because Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was a known just and kind ruler. This does not mean, however, that politics and religion should be mixed. None should interfere with the other. And that is my Islamic view.

But as you stated reasonable discussions can come to that conclusion and an Islamic state is, in essence, a secular state.

 

[Sahar]

Okay enough of this mushy business.

So here is my viewpoint.

In essence an Islamic political system is a secular system. Now the definition of secular here needs to be analyzed. Some say secular refers to a system that does not borrow from religion at all. I say that is not true. Religion should not interfere in secularism but if a religious edict is found to be just by the prevailing authority then borrowing it into the secular system is fine.

So, for example, Islam says false testimony is bad. A secular system can find agreement with this and go ahead and make false testimony punishable. So in that sense according to Islam politics and religion must be separated and each country can implement its laws as it sees fit. The only command of Islam in this respect is:

So will the "Islamic" secular political system implement the following Islamic rulings and laws or not?
Take, [O, Muúammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [Allāh's blessings] upon them.
At-Tawba: 103

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allāh. And Allāh is Exalted in Might and Wise.
Al Ma'ida:38

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allāh, if you should believe in Allāh and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
An-Nur: 2

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Without any doubt he doesn't understand what Islam or Muslim means. I thought this thread is about where Muslims are coming from and I don't think the way to make this possible is to ask him to forget about his ideologies, philosophies, beliefs or whatsoever. Now when you have an argument with a Muslim about an Islamic rule then asking the Muslim to forget about his religion, it sounds ridiculous.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't mean "forget" your religion literally! I meant to simply invite you to analyze the issue based on its own merits, just as a mental exercise, to see it from a different point of view. I mean, if the Islamic law is reasonable and just, then IF we examine an issue by itself, simply using reason and without appealing to Islamic law, then we should discover that the just, reasonable thing to do is precisely what was prescribed by Islamic law all along. So I don't see any danger, even for a Muslim, to just consider an issue by itself, and use reason to determine what is just and unjust.

The Muslim graduate students I have known aren't constantly referring back to Islamic law when trying to understand problems in their research; they simply consider the research on its own merits, based on evidence and reasoning. So I'm just inviting you to consider the ethical problems I've raised in this way. I can't force you to consider it that way and I wouldn't force you even if I could.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

So will the "Islamic" secular political system implement the following Islamic rulings and laws or not?
Take, [O, Muúammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [Allāh's blessings] upon them.
At-Tawba: 103

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allāh. And Allāh is Exalted in Might and Wise.
Al Ma'ida:38

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allāh, if you should believe in Allāh and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
An-Nur: 2

All three must be agreed upon by the people against whom judgement is being passed. Jizya and Zakat are both taxes so I don't see any reasonable person disagreeing with that.

Good question.

As for the thief and promiscousness if the government agrees (with appropriate representation from minorities) that the Quran gives a reasonable punishment then so be it.

Again, a reasoned judgement must be made in this regard whereby religion's edicts may be argued but final judgement must be made by agreement and reason and not because my holy book says so.

So look at it this way. Personally I think all three laws are very reasonable so if I had to vote to pass such a resolution I would definitely say yes. In arguing the reasonableness of these laws, however, I can not tell a Christian "because the Quran says so". I would have to reason with him and show him the justice in these laws.

 

[Sahar]

All three must be agreed upon by the people against whom judgement is being passed. Jizya and Zakat are both taxes so I don't see any reasonable person disagreeing with that.

Good question.

As for the thief and promiscousness if the government agrees (with appropriate representation from minorities) that the Quran gives a reasonable punishment then so be it.

Again, a reasoned judgement must be made in this regard whereby religion's edicts may be argued but final judgement must be made by agreement and reason and not because my holy book says so.

So look at it this way. Personally I think all three laws are very reasonable so if I had to vote to pass such a resolution I would definitely say yes. In arguing the reasonableness of these laws, however, I can not tell a Christian "because the Quran says so". I would have to reason with him and show him the justice in these laws.

Then such hypothetical political system can't be described as "Islamic"?!

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Tch. Call it what you want that is the political system the Quran admonishes and the practice of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and if secularism was his practice then Islamic and Secular political systems are the same.