Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[Mr Spinkles]

This is a response thread to open up discussion and debate to Cordoba's thread in the Islam individual religion forum. Cordoba describes Dr. Badawi as "one of the leading Muslim scholars in the West" and offers this website where you can listen to Dr. Badawi speak about Moral Teachings of Islam, Social System of Islam, etc.

I listened to about an hours' worth of various clips. I was particularly interested in the Political System of Islam, including "Religion and Politics" and "Rights of non-Muslim minorities". Also I find under Social System of Islam, "Influence of a non-Muslim wife on her children" and "When a women embraces Islam while her husband remains a non-Muslim" very informative.

The best I can say about Dr. Badawi's explanations of Islamic teaching (I believe he would prefer I call them "explanations of" rather than "his views on" on Islamic teaching) is that they are articulate, and well-supported by quotations from the Qu'ran and examples from Islamic history. And quite candid. He seems to be an able academic and intellectual.

But that's the best I can say. On every other issue--most importantly ethics and government--I not only disagree with Islamic (would Islamist be the better term?) teaching, but I am strongly opposed to it. In fact I fear for the future of democracy and freedom on our tiny planet when I consider Dr. Balawi's figure that there are perhaps 1 billion people who subscribe to the Islamic agenda.

Here are just a few points of Islamic teaching that stood out to me, and I'm using words and terms Dr. Badawi uses:

Islam and the State:
​

• The Qu'ran, and the prophetic tradition, are free from human error, cultural bias and ignorance because they are from God. These books contain the basic guidelines and principles for every aspect of our lives, from sex and diet, to economics and (Sharia) law.
• Separation of church and state is not applicable in Islam, and in fact "the whole notion of secularism is alien" to Islam, because there is nothing which is not under God's sole harmonious authority. Islamist rule differs from theocracy because there is no clergy who can claim to be God's sole representatives on Earth. But it is like theocracy because it rules by the supremacy of God, whose laws are ultimate. The people in an Islamist government must be able to choose their rulers. Monarchy or dictatorship is incompatible with Islam.
• However, Islam is not synonymous with democracy. In a democracy, authority comes from the people, and government rules by the people and for the people. In Islam, ultimate authority comes from God alone; rulers rule by divine guidance. In a democracy, there is a human-made, amendable constitution which serves as the basis of all law. In Islam, the Qu'ran and prophetic tradition serve as the "constitution" from God, and it cannot be amended. All laws must be consistent with God's laws.
• Muslims in the West should strive to establish an Islamic government under divine directive. The Qu'ran makes it clear that those who do not rule according to God's directives are unbelievers, rebels against God, and wrondoers, and this is part and parcel of Islam, just like prayer and fasting.
• Non-Muslim minorities in an Islamic state should have "cordiality extended to them" as long as they are not "fighting against Muslims" or "the goals of Islam".

Islam and Morality
​

• He mentions ethical prohibitions on certain things to protect the faith of the believer, such as a prohibition on engaging in magic and sorcery.
• It's important to remember that moral directives like the one above ^ are not ancient human traditions, or laws that were "developed", but God's commands. The didn't evolve gradually by social means and thus don't have the bias of human beings.
• Islam prohibits sexual acts outside of marriage between a man and woman--pre-marital, extra-marital, or otherwise.
• Believers must safegaurd their minds by avoiding "intoxicants" such as alcohol. Alcohol was a widespread evil among pre-Islamic peoples in the Arabian peninsula, and it was abolished originally not through law, but because people came to embrace Islamic teaching.

Islam and Marriage
​

• It is "unlawful" by sharia law for a Muslim man to marry and have children with a non-Muslim wife, unless she is Christian or Jewish, AND it is determined she does not pose a "danger" or "harm" to the Islamic identity of the children or husband. No Muslim can marry an atheist or agnostic.
• What if a man embraced Islam while his wife remained non-Muslim, or the other way around? The former case is "easy": there is no problem as long as the wife is a (harmless) Jew or Christian. The latter case, in which the wife embraces Islam and the man remains non-Muslim, is more serious. A divorce does not have to take place right away; however, "normal husband-wife relations" (obviously he's referring to sex) must be suspended, and the husband has a limited period of time to consider accepting Islam before the marriage "contract" and "gift" have to be reworked or ended.

The conclusion that I am driven to, from Dr. Badawi's explanations and others, is that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with secular government, democracy, human rights, equality, and modernity. It is only compatible with those ideals insofar as they happen to intersect with the directives and mythology--attributed to God, of course--handed down to us from a particular 7th century empire. Hence the unequal treatment of men and women, the phobia of "sorcery and magic", the rejection of secular government, etc.

I.m.o. Islam is basically a totalitarian system, except that the people are "free" to choose which of Big Brother's lackeys will come to power for the moment, so they can go to work not using their human minds to interpret and apply the unalterable divine law.

I'm not saying there is nothing good, reasonable, or just here. Certainly, Islam is very *logical*, given its assumptions. But the assumptions are terrible, and the logic therefore brings us to some conclusions that are ridiculous, if they are examined critically and objectively.

I invite anyone on RF to justify the assumption that the Qu'ran is indeed the best, most perfect guideline for everything about life and society; OR justify one of the above directives individually, on its own merits (not based on its appearance in the Qu'ran). I love the one about sorcery and magic .

And please *justify* it, don't simply endorse it. One can't simply say, "As a Muslim, I believe...." that doesn't mean a thing, and in fact you're dodging the responsibility to think for yourself. I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously if I answered a challenge to justify my beliefs by saying, "Well, as an atheist, I believe democracy is good." No, I would have to explain *why* it's good.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A word about economics in Islam: I am amazed that Islam has its own "economic system", as described by Dr. Balawi in terms of such far-reaching 7th century screeds as property rights, production and productivity, equity, inheritance, etc. I can only assume that an ancient scripture - driven economic system, like a similarly driven government, is a hindrance to progress at best and a catastrophe at worst. I imagine this is one factor in the poverty of many resource-rich Islamic governments.

 

[Cordoba]

Thank you Mr. Spinkles for starting this thread, which may help clarify a few issues about Islam and how it applies to the modern world of today

Starting with economics in your second post, which is one of the most unstable issues we face today on a global scale, Islam is very clear in seperating between interest-based loans (which is usury) and between the sound finance of business and trade through partnerships and other sound means of finance.

The real "catastrophe" is what we see in the global financial markets of today

The only way out of the current global financial mess is to restructure the banking system in a way that guarantees it remains stable and sustainable on the long run

This can only be done by abolishing the concept of lending money in return for capital + interest

Usury/interest is a parasite which does not correspond to real value-added in the economy and which harms any economy on the long run with a financial system that is based on lending money for profit. It is unethical to take advantage of the needs of others, exploit their weaknesses and tempt them to borrow money in order to make a profit

On the long run, the whole system eventually collapses with the domino effect as a pack of cards, and that is what happened in the 1930s, and what is happening today, though let's hope we don't end up facing a global depression ...

Our Creator knows what is good for us, and He knows what is harmful, and He commands believers to keep away from what harms them, which includes dealing with usury/interest

For more background on this issue of the prohibition of usury/interest in Islam, you may wish to look at this background:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543140

As for the OP, I will start to respond to you on the issue of Islam and politics in the next post ...

Peace and all the best

 

[Cordoba]

On the issue of politics and democracy in Islam, one important point to understand is what happened to Jesus vs. what happened to Muhammad, peace be upon them both

At the time of Jesus, his enemies decided to get rid of him, and the same happend to Muhammad after 13 years of preaching Islam in Makkah

In the case of Jesus, our Christian friends believe that he was crucified, (though we believe that God saved Jesus from that horrible death on the cross) and his message was suspended, while in the case of Muhammad, peace be upon him, he migrated from Makkah to Madinah where he established the first Muslim state which was capable of protecting itself from attacks by its enemies, and protecting the right of Muslims to be Muslims.

This is the core issue relating to the importance of politics in Islam: Muslims have the right to defend themselves when attacked and this can only be done when there is a political system which allows them to do so

In the context of the modern world of today, moderate Islamic political parties participate in general elections, when they are given a chance (as in the case of Turkey for example), and comply with the basics of democracy: those who have a majority rule based on the consensus of voters. If at any time people find their performance in government inadequate, they would be simply voted out of power in the following election, and replaced by another political party

Isn't that one of the pillars of democracy?

 

[maro]

As for islam and democracy...i have my own understanding and i hope cordoba will correct me if i am mistaken....

for the shariah to be applied at the first place..we need a society with an islamic majority..we need a democratic vote....here is where islam is compatible with democracy...
if we made a vote , where 49 % , for instance, chose to apply the islamic law..then it shouldn't be applied..because muslims (who chose the shariah) are still a minority...they can only have civil courts like the one in the uk for example...

but once the shariah was chosen by the majority to be applied ...we don't vote for its individual rulings ..as it's a divine law..not a human one that is liable to alteration and modification...in other words..You either Take it or leave it....

As for the non muslim minorities living in muslim society applying the shariah...i guess some rulings may be taken from their religions to be applied specifically for them...

as for economics , islam made some broad recommendations..as forbiding ushury ,monopoly....etc...i am not an expert in that field honestly ,but i hope brother cordoba will talk about the isalmic stance on monopoly as well...

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Spinkles and Cordoba. I would love to present my opinion on all the topics. But do you see the inherent flaw in the OP. That there are sooooo maaannnnyyy topics where to get started?

Economics, democracy, what? Please make this easier for me. You know its times like these I wish I could just talk to all of you. Does any one of you live in the Middle East? Man I would love to meet you and we could discuss all of these things.

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

As for islam and democracy...i have my own understanding and i hope cordoba will correct me if i am mistaken....

for the shariah to be applied at the first place..we need a society with an islamic majority..we need a democratic vote....here is where islam is compatible with democracy...
if we made a vote , where 49 % , for instance, chose to apply the islamic law..then it shouldn't be applied..because muslims (who chose the shariah) are still a minority...they can only have civil courts like the one in the uk for example...

I have two disagreements with what you say. First off western democracy isn't a case of doing what the majority want as the people don't get to decide but rather only to decide which members of the political ruling class will misrule over them. The best example I can think which makes this clear is the fact that the majority of people in many countries did not want their nations to invade Iraq and yet these nations done so. If democracy was rule by the majority then this would not have happened. In fact the democratic process is merely a façade to fool the common people into believing that they really have a say in the functioning of the capitalist states. But they don't, capitalists rule and decide in capitalist states.

The second disagreement I would have is in putting Sharia up for a vote in the first place. If you say that the people have a right to reject the Law of God then you are saying that the people, not Allah are sovereign and this is in my opinion contrary to Islam. When the Prophet conquered Mecca did he take a vote? When Abu Bakr and Umar expanded the Islamic lands did they ask the people do they wan't to be governed under Sharia? They didn't but rather imposed it on these non Muslim lands, thus making them Islamic lands.

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

This is the core issue relating to the importance of politics in Islam: Muslims have the right to defend themselves when attacked and this can only be done when there is a political system which allows them to do so

Muslims don't need a political system to give them consent to defend themselves. When a Muslim land is invaded it is an individual obligation to defend it whether there is an Islamic political system in place or not. There was no Islamic system in Afghanistan yet I don't think anyone would argue that the Jihad there was unjust. What if a person is attacked in his house? Does he need a political system to justify defending himself?

I think I might possibly be misunderstanding you and if so my apologies.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Muslims don't need a political system to give them consent to defend themselves. When a Muslim land is invaded it is an individual obligation to defend it whether there is an Islamic political system in place or not. There was no Islamic system in Afghanistan yet I don't think anyone would argue that the Jihad there was unjust. What if a person is attacked in his house? Does he need a political system to justify defending himself?

I think I might possibly be misunderstanding you and if so my apologies.

Uh oh ... brace yourselves everyone we have ourselves an(other) extreme viewpoint.

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

Uh oh ... brace yourselves everyone we have ourselves an(other) extreme viewpoint.

There is nothing extreme about my view at all, in fact my view is moderate. What is extreme is those who think they know better than Allah and the Messenger (Peace be upon him) and who claim that Islam can be changed to suit prevailing notions.

Now I have given my opinion and if I am incorrect then I stand open to correction and I will accept that. If you disagree with what I say then it would be much better for you to state why rather than make a judgement of me based on a single post.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Okay Muhamed lets do this. Open a new thread and post a link to that thread here and lets make that the topic of discussion. This thread already has enough topics to be going on with I think.

 

[maro]

I have two disagreements with what you say. First off western democracy isn't a case of doing what the majority want as the people don't get to decide but rather only to decide which members of the political ruling class will misrule over them. The best example I can think which makes this clear is the fact that the majority of people in many countries did not want their nations to invade Iraq and yet these nations done so. If democracy was rule by the majority then this would not have happened. In fact the democratic process is merely a façade to fool the common people into believing that they really have a say in the functioning of the capitalist states. But they don't, capitalists rule and decide in capitalist states.

agreed

The second disagreement I would have is in putting Sharia up for a vote in the first place. If you say that the people have a right to reject the Law of God then you are saying that the people, not Allah are sovereign and this is in my opinion contrary to Islam. When the Prophet conquered Mecca did he take a vote? When Abu Bakr and Umar expanded the Islamic lands did they ask the people do they wan't to be governed under Sharia? They didn't but rather imposed it on these non Muslim lands, thus making them Islamic lands.

when i said a vote , i meant we have to make sure that we are talking about a country where muslims are the majority , and thus it can officially be called an islamic one , and the shariah is its major policy...that was the case in both al madina and in mecca - after the conquest-

as for the lands were muslims entered during the era of abu bakr and omar...the first thing to do was certainly not to apply the shariah...the first thing was to call people for islam...and when it happend that the majority embraced the religion..the shariah was automatically applied later on...without the need to impose anything on any one

So my point was , in the lands were muslims are a minority..they have no excuse to impose the islamic law on someone who doesn't believe in the religion...and even when they are the majority ,islam is still tolerant enough to allow others to adopt the rulings that suit with their religious beliefs...are we in agreement so far ?

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

Yes I think we are in agreement on most issues. Could you clarify this however:

when i said a vote , i meant we have to make sure that we are talking about a country where muslims are the majority , and thus it can officially be called an islamic one , and the shariah is its major policy...

Are you saying that in a Muslim majority country that Muslims should be given a vote on this? If that is what you are saying then I disagree as that is in effect still giving them sovereignty and you also have a problem if they vote no.

If that is not what you are saying and I have misunderstood then we are in agreement.

 

[maro]

Yes I think we are in agreement on most issues. Could you clarify this however:

Are you saying that in a Muslim majority country that Muslims should be given a vote on this? If that is what you are saying then I disagree as that is in effect still giving them sovereignty and you also have a problem if they vote no.

If that is not what you are saying and I have misunderstood then we are in agreement.

no ,this is not what i am saying...the vote is only to discriminate the Muslim:secularist ratio....
in a country like Egypt or saudi arabia for example..it's well known that the percetage of muslims is overwhelming , so there is no practical need for a vote...

 

[MuhamedAbdullah]

no ,this is not what am i saying...the vote is only to discriminate the Muslim:secularist ratio....
in a country like Egypt or saudi arabia for example..it's well known that the percetage of muslims is overwhelming , so there is no practical need for a vote...

Ok, my mistake. Sorry. We are in agreement then on these issues.

 

[maro]

Muslims don't need a political system to give them consent to defend themselves

the government's aim it to take care of the muslims' interests in general..and this includes defence...actually without a true loyal islamic government ..muslims will turn into a vicitm either to some puppet secularists taking the orders from their masters in the other side of the globe...or to some fanatic criminals raising the islamic mottos and claiming to be muslims.. !!

btw , the islamic economics is a whole science teached in universities..and people can have their masters and Ph.D in it...but we can't mention it ..without at least mentioning that paying the zakat is the third pillar of islam..

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Cordoba,

Thanks for your response. The current financial crisis does suggest that something is wrong with the American economic system. But does it really suggest that something is wrong with the *global* system? And is the solution to abolish loans, period?

Usury/interest is a parasite which does not correspond to real value-added in the economy and which harms any economy on the long run with a financial system that is based on lending money for profit. It is unethical to take advantage of the needs of others, exploit their weaknesses and tempt them to borrow money in order to make a profit

I agree wholeheartedly that it is unethical to take advantage of desperate people and tempt them with loans they can't pay back. That's called being a loan-shark. But there is nothing unethical about loaning someone a modest amount of money, that they can afford to pay back.

Let's look at an example: let's say I really want to move to a new apartment in a safe, low-crime area, right now. I can't afford it now, but I could afford it if I saved for a few months. But I want to move now. So I pay what I can afford now, and borrow the rest. I pay back the loan over time, plus some interest.

The downside is that I end up paying, say, 10% interest more than if I had waited and saved my own money; but the upside is that I got to move into my apartment right away. I decided moving to the safe apartment now was more important than spending extra on the interest for taking out a loan. And the bank that loaned me money had to part with their money, getting nothing in return, except my guarantee that I'd pay them back; but it was worth it to them because they trusted me to pay back the loan and pay some interest. So everybody's happy.

This same example could apply to any sort of loan, including say someone who wants to start their own restaurant or other business. There are people who have great ideas for new products or services, but they would never be able to save enough of their own money in their lifetime to launch their idea. Banks will only be willing to give risky loans for a new idea if they can get some interest on it when the idea succeeds; then the inventor/entrepreneur is able to start the business he wants; then the consumers get a new product or service that they enjoy. The bank can use the interest it got to pay its employees and offer even bigger loans or more loans for great ideas that simply can't get off the ground without a lot of initial capital.

So, what's wrong with this? How can you say no value has been added when someone gets to move into a new apartment or get a great idea started?

 

[Cordoba]

I agree wholeheartedly that it is unethical to take advantage of desperate people and tempt them with loans they can't pay back. That's called being a loan-shark. But there is nothing unethical about loaning someone a modest amount of money, that they can afford to pay back.

Let's look at an example: let's say I really want to move to a new apartment in a safe, low-crime area, right now. I can't afford it now, but I could afford it if I saved for a few months. But I want to move now. So I pay what I can afford now, and borrow the rest. I pay back the loan over time, plus some interest.

The downside is that I end up paying, say, 10% interest more than if I had waited and saved my own money; but the upside is that I got to move into my apartment right away. I decided moving to the safe apartment now was more important than spending extra on the interest for taking out a loan. And the bank that loaned me money had to part with their money, getting nothing in return, except my guarantee that I'd pay them back; but it was worth it to them because they trusted me to pay back the loan and pay some interest. So everybody's happy. ...

So, what's wrong with this? How can you say no value has been added when someone gets to move into a new apartment or get a great idea started?

There is nothing wrong with moving to a better apartment or starting a new business, quite the opposite, but it's how such transactions are financed

And the alternative (without getting into borrowing money for interest) is available

If you can't afford to pay the cost of the apartment, the owner can still sell it to you by instalments. If you pay 10% as a down-payment which you can afford, and the remaining over a number of years, then the problem is solved

In this case, the purchaser did not borrow money, but bought a real physical product which is to be paid over a period of time

This is the core difference between doing a sound business transaction in Islam and between falling in the trap of interest / usury ...

Now on the surface, it may seem the same from the point of view of the individual (buying an apartment for say 500,000 dollars, paying 50,000 now and 450,000 over a period of 10 years) but in reality on the macro level it's not, because there is real value-added in the economy by buying that flat with no parasite interest which accumulates in the financial system, and which on the long turn causes the whole system to collapse ...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There is nothing wrong with moving to a better apartment or starting a new business, quite the opposite, but it's how such transactions are financed

And the alternative (without getting into borrowing money for interest) is available

If you can't afford to pay the cost of the apartment, the owner can still sell it to you by instalments. If you pay 10% as a down-payment which you can afford, and the remaining over a number of years, then the problem is solved

In this case, the purchaser did not borrow money, but bought a real physical product which is to be paid over a period of time

This is the core difference between doing a sound business transaction in Islam and between falling in the trap of interest / usury ...

Now on the surface, it may seem the same from the point of view of the individual (buying an apartment for say 500,000 dollars, paying 50,000 now and 450,000 over a period of 10 years) but in reality on the macro level it's not, because there is real value-added in the economy by buying that flat with no parasite interest which accumulates in the financial system, and which on the long turn causes the whole system to collapse ...

First of all, you didn't answer the question. I asked, "What's wrong with this?" Even if you can propose an alternative solution, it does not mean that there is anything wrong with the solution I described. So again, I ask, what's wrong with this?

Secondly, your scenario only works if you assume the owner is willing to sell the flat for only 10% of what he's asking, and take the risk that you will indeed pay the other 90% in the future. You can't assume that, because it won't be true much of the time. If there are enough other buyers out there willing to pay 100% up front, then the owner will not sell to a buyer who can't pay 100% up front. Having 100% of the money up front has *greater value* for the owner than getting 10% of the money now and *probably* getting the other 90% later.

Third, what's wrong with this "parasite interest"? It seems like a good thing to me, if used ethically. Money can't add real value to the economy if it's just sitting there. By having interest, and allowing loans, the money doesn't just sit there, it does something useful like letting people buy apartments or sell a new invention. The apartment owners can sell their apartments more easily, and the consumers get to buy some nice, high-tech invention. And the person who loaned the money gets it back, plus a little extra. No doubt this positive outcome will encourage them to put some of this return back into the economy, with more loans, more apartments, more inventions, etc. What's wrong with this?

 

[Cordoba]

1- What is wrong with interest-based loans (from the point of view of macro-economics and finance) is that the money created by the multiplier effect of interest-based loans is unsustainable on the long run, and eventually leads to recession and depression

2- When buying property, most people can't afford to pay 100% up front. There is always demand for buying property on instalment

3- Yes, on the short run it looks ok, but the problem arises when the negative aspects of interest and "ficitious" money created by the multiplier effect of commercial banks on the long-run leads to whole system to collapse

The long-term negative harm caused outweighs the short-term "advantages", and that one of the main problems of the business world of today: it's too short-term oriented and doesn't care much what will happen later on ... But when it happens (like in the 1930's) it's a major disaster which affects all people as it harms the whole of society ...