"Reformed" Islam

[LuisDantas]

Virtually all Muslims want Sharia law. But many if not most do not belive it is applicable for non-Muslims.

One thing that needs to be understood is what Shariah.is.

I quite agree. Shariah does not seem to be well-understood at all. Certainly not among non-Muslims, and if I dare say so, there is some evidence that it is not always well understood among Muslims either.

Some honest attempts at reaching at least a common understanding about what Shariah says, how clearly and how strictly would probably not go to waste. I think it would be particularly fruitful to make clarification efforts about what Shariah would demand in countries that do not (yet?) follow it. If nothing else, it would make both support and criticism more meaningful and hopefully more honest and respectful as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

However, Civil laws are not a dual system. They are the settlement of Contracts, disputes and other non-criminal matters between individuals. They do not require the writing of new laws, they do not legalize any criminal acts they apply only to the individuals involved in non-criminal matters. The only difference is in a Judaic Civil Law issue the parties use a religious arbitrator instead of a court appointed one. This serves both the Jews and the community as it frees up the courts from getting involved in cases that can be settled by a religious ruling. .

well...you know...in lots of European countries imams performs marriages, concede divorce, etc etc.
Of course imams can do whatever they want in an Islamic community. Because these acts, which are religious and do not have anything to do with the state law, are a right which must be respected.

But of course, a Islamic marriage performed by an imam doesn't have any juridical value before the state, in European countries.
and so, if a Muslim man is married according to the state law, the imam cannot decide about the divorce. Only the state courts can.

so there is a conflict between two authorities: the religious one and the state courts. The state doesn't care about what an imam does or doesn't.
But what the Imam does, has no juridic value for the state law.

It is a concept that is impossible for a Muslim. We believe every aspect of our life is a religious matter. All things are part of worship. Even the act of eating is a prayer or form of communion with Allaah(swt)

Pastek says that the separation is possible. You say it is impossible.
You guys should find an agreement,

by the way...European Muslims must respect the state law, so this separation is already imposed to them.
In Europe all religions are equally unimportant and juridically irrelevant before the law. so a Muslim is not different than an Atheist or a Christian

It's like you said: "a Muslim who lives in Europe cannot recognize the constitution of the European state he lives in, because it is against Islam ".

 

[YmirGF]

The very idea of a "reformed" Islam is completely absurd. A reformation, such as what occurred in Christianity, is quite impossible to apply to Islam. That does not mean that we may not see the creation of a new faction in Islam that tries to link modernity to their faith. That's a bit of a tightrope walk tho, imho and would create genuine animosity with traditionalists.

For example, the "Qur'an only" and the Ahmadiyya brigades are tiny fractions of the Islamic world... and yet are a fairly vocal here on RF, giving the impression that the Muslim world actually cares what either groups think. Um, they don't.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure about western muslims i think it's maybe 50/50 with the Malikism.

If we take a country like UK majority of muslims there are from Pakistan so from the Hanafi school like in Germany as the majority of muslims there are from Turkey.
While in countries like France, Belgium, Spain, Italy many are from Africa/Maghreb and are from the Maliki school.

and with all due respect, African Muslims are the ones who can embrace better our Western principles, because they consider the separation between mosque and state compatible with their religion.

 

[Pastek]

and with all due respect, African Muslims are the ones who can embrace better our Western principles, because they consider the separation between mosque and state compatible with their religion.

Because in Africa/Maghreb people adopted some of the french civil law and also because they are until today inspired by the french model and follow a lot what happens concerning the political and social aspects.
Also they studied a lot the litterature so that's maybe why they understand more this belief.

 

[Woodrow LI]

well...you know...in lots of European countries imams performs marriages, concede divorce, etc etc.
Of course imams can do whatever they want in an Islamic community. Because these acts, which are religious and do not have anything to do with the state law, are a right which must be respected.

But of course, a Islamic marriage performed by an imam doesn't have any juridical value before the state, in European countries.
and so, if a Muslim man is married according to the state law, the imam cannot decide about the divorce. Only the state courts can.

so there is a conflict between two authorities: the religious one and the state courts. The state doesn't care about what an imam does or doesn't.
But what the Imam does, has no juridic value for the state law.



Pastek says that the separation is possible. You say it is impossible.
You guys should find an agreement,

by the way...European Muslims must respect the state law, so this separation is already imposed to them.
In Europe all religions are equally unimportant and juridically irrelevant before the law. so a Muslim is not different than an Atheist or a Christian

It's like you said: "a Muslim who lives in Europe cannot recognize the constitution of the European state he lives in, because it is against Islam ".

You are misunderstanding me. All Muslims have to abide by the laws of the nation they live in.

But even so as a Muslim I can not separate the laws of a Nation from my religion. All things I do are my religion. The only issue would be if the laws of a nation required me to do something I am forbidden to do, in which case my doing so would be a sin. My only option if I lived in a Nation that required me to disobey my beliefs is I would be obligated to leave that nation. Very few if any western nations have laws that would require me to do something that I am forbidden to do.

Even here in Rural ND, the laws are part of my religion as I am obligated to obey them. Not just because of state law but because as a Muslim I have to obey local laws. If they required me to do something sinful, I can not use the excuse it is the law as it is my choice to live here. I would be fully guilty of the sin as it is my free choice to be here.

Triva: No Clergy is required for an Islamic Marriage. It is an agreed upon civil contract, filed like a business contract. There is no required marriage ceremony performed by an Imam. The closest thing to a Ceremony is the walimah, an announcement to the community that the couple have signed a Nikkah. This is required. It is often quite a big celebration which I imagine to non-Muslims would appear to be a wedding ceremony.

But the actual marriage is the signing of the Nikkah by the Bride, Groom and Witnesses, typically 4 witnesses chosen by the groom and 4 chosen by the Bride. The Bride, Groom and each witness gets a copy of the signed Nikkah Here in the US if the state recognizes the Nikkah as a legal contract a copy is filed in the court house.

 

[Estro Felino]

You are misunderstanding me. All Muslims have to abide by the laws of the nation they live in.

But even so as a Muslim I can not separate the laws of a Nation from my religion. All things I do are my religion. The only issue would be if the laws of a nation required me to do something I am forbidden to do, in which case my doing so would be a sin. My only option if I lived in a Nation that required me to disobey my beliefs is I would be obligated to leave that nation. Very few if any western nations have laws that would require me to do something that I am forbidden to do.

Even here in Rural ND, the laws are part of my religion as I am obligated to obey them. Not just because of state law but because as a Muslim I have to obey local laws. If they required me to do something sinful, I can not use the excuse it is the law as it is my choice to live here. I would be fully guilty of the sin as it is my free choice to be here.

The law is for protecting people. Not for obligating them to do something against their principles.
Let's say that a Muslim young woman wants to become a model, but her father wants her to get married with a man she doesn't love...
well...in this case, the Muslim woman can report her father .
because a Muslim woman has the right to wear sexy clothes, to become a model and even to become an actress

 

[Woodrow LI]

The law is for protecting people. Not for obligating them to do something against their principles.
Let's say that a Muslim young woman wants to become a model, but her father wants her to get married with a man she doesn't love...
well...in this case, the Muslim woman can report her father .
because a Muslim woman has the right to wear sexy clothes, to become a model and even to become an actress

However that could not be made into civil law as doing so would violate state criminal law. Civil law can not do anything that would violate criminal law. Civil law is basically about contracts. Issues such as loans between individuals, Marriage contracts, inheritance etc.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I want to start this thread by quoting a current sentence said by Wafa Sultan:
"I personally don't think that Islam can be reformed. Unless we recreate a totally new belief system and keep the name. But whoever claims they can, has the right to try to do it"

well...I can't judge a sentence like this because I am not a Muslim, but I surely can understand what she means.
She means that the Muslim authorities should repudiate all the passages of the Qur'an justifying violence.
They should repudiate all the passages which justify the holy war. and they should say that all religions are equal in God's eyes.

In other words: a Christianized Islam. Without rejecting the centrality of Islam theological precepts, stated by the last prophet.

Response: Every verse in the Qur'an that refers to violence, not one says to fight an innocent person or fight anyone who does not attack you first. Rather, verse 8:61 forbids fighting those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says that there is no compulsion in religion. Thus the violent verses refer to self-defense, therefore being just verses. Thus Islam needs no reform but rather, one should read with understanding and in context, without prejudice and bias.

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: Every verse in the Qur'an that refers to violence, not one says to fight an innocent person or fight anyone who does not attack you first. Rather, verse 8:61 forbids fighting those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says that there is no compulsion in religion. Thus the violent verses refer to self-defense, therefore being just verses. Thus Islam needs no reform but rather, one should read with understanding and in context, without prejudice and bias.

Word has it that someone who refuses to convert to Islam after learning of it and also to pay the tax for non-Muslims does not get treated all that well under Islam, though.

Is that a misreading? An exageration? Or what?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Word has it that someone who refuses to convert to Islam after learning of it and also to pay the tax for non-Muslims does not get treated all that well under Islam, though.

Is that a misreading? An exageration? Or what?

Response: That is untrue. Islam teaches to respect those who respect you. (60:8,9).

 

[Estro Felino]

I quite agree. Shariah does not seem to be well-understood at all. Certainly not among non-Muslims, and if I dare say so, there is some evidence that it is not always well understood among Muslims either.

Some honest attempts at reaching at least a common understanding about what Shariah says, how clearly and how strictly would probably not go to waste. I think it would be particularly fruitful to make clarification efforts about what Shariah would demand in countries that do not (yet?) follow it. If nothing else, it would make both support and criticism more meaningful and hopefully more honest and respectful as well.

I totally agree with you, but from a juridic point of view, it doesn't matter.
It would't matter even if sharia were one and universal and even if it were the most secular and liberal legislation in the world (which is definitely NOT...)

because the state cannot accept a dual law system. Lex aequa omnibus= the law is equal for everyone.
it is very very unjust, irrational, anti-democratic that a group of people can apply a different law than the rest of a nation

It's like I moved to the US and expected American judges to apply the law of my country.
they would laugh at me for hours

 

[Estro Felino]

Response: That is untrue. Islam teaches to respect those who respect you. (60:8,9).

Come on...let's be honest. The Qur'an says that Muslims are supposed to conquer peaceful countries inhabited by infidels. Countries which have never bothered Muslims...
so...let's be honest and let's admit that some passages must be necessarily decontextualized\ignored

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Come on...let's be honest. The Qur'an says that Muslims are supposed to conquer peaceful countries inhabited by infidels. Countries which have never bothered Muslims...
so...let's be honest and let's admit that some passages must be necessarily decontextualized\ignored

Response: If we are to be honest, then the fact that you cannot quote any verse from the Qur'an or Sunnah that says to fight a person who is peaceful shows clearly that someone is not being honest. The readers can see who, which only supports the fact that Islam is a just and peaceful religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: That is untrue. Islam teaches to respect those who respect you. (60:8,9).

Does the refusal to adopt Islam and to pay non-Muslim tax constitute a lack of respect?

 

[Estro Felino]

Response: If we are to be honest, then the fact that you cannot quote any verse from the Qur'an or Sunnah that says to fight a person who is peaceful shows clearly that someone is not being honest. The readers can see who, which only supports the fact that Islam is a just and peaceful religion.

You are forcing me to quote them

Let's start with the passage Luis was talking about: it clearly says that Muslims must subdue the nations of the unbelievers, until they are subdued. They can choose either to convert to Islam or to pay the tax.

Qur'an 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

It is a concept that is impossible for a Muslim. We believe every aspect of our life is a religious matter. All things are part of worship. Even the act of eating is a prayer or form of communion with Allaah(swt)

Its not this I take issue with, so much as rather subjecting non-Muslims to this 'communion' follows afterwards.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Its not this I take issue with, so much as rather subjecting non-Muslims to this 'communion' follows afterwards.

I might be missing something, but I do not see how that need to even affect any non-Muslims.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Does the refusal to adopt Islam and to pay non-Muslim tax constitute a lack of respect?

Response: A person can believe whatever religion they like and not choosing Islam is not a form of disrespect. Yet not paying taxes is against the law in any nation.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

You are forcing me to quote them

Let's start with the passage Luis was talking about: it clearly says that Muslims must subdue the nations of the unbelievers, until they are subdued. They can choose either to convert to Islam or to pay the tax.

Qur'an 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


ah...and the only guilt of these unbelievers is to be unbelievers. Because being unbelievers means not to respect Muslims, right?


Quran (9:123 - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."


Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet , those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."


Maybe you believe that being a non-Muslim means to be a not peaceful person....
Right?

Response: You make my point, as no where in any verse you just quoted that refers to fighting, not one says to fight an innocent person. The words "Fight the innocent" or anything synonymous to it is mentioned no where. It simply says to fight the disbelievers, while verse 8: 61 says not to fight those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion. Therefore, the context proves that the verses which say to fight unbelievers refer to those who attacked the Muslims first.

Once again demonstrating that Islam is a just and peaceful religion, supported by your own failure to quote any verse that refers to fighting that say "attack first", or "attack someone who is peaceful", while verses 8:61 and 2:256 clearly forbid fighting those who are peaceful and proves only to fight in self-defense.