> The Role of Reason and Intellect Between the Modern Western Paradigm and Islam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

There are many things in your answer I wish to take up but I will start with your comments on inequalities. You stated the following as inequalities: criminal and non criminal, the knowledgeable and the ignorant, the pregnant and the non pregnant, the teacher and the student, the old and the young, the ruler and the subject, those in authority and those not in authority, etc, etc, etc.

But all this seems to say is that we are all different and no one would think otherwise.

well, not only that, but im talking about a societal outlook.

But you miss the main point;

I have a feeling that is mote of the fact that you failed to grasp what was stated, but lets see

that the three inequalities I mentioned: master and slave, man and woman and believer and unbeliever are enshrined in Islamic law

firstly, that is stupid and secondly, that is stupid. The reason why its stupid is because the the level of the parent being over the son is also enshrined in Islamic law, the level of the sinner and the level of the righteous one is also enshrined in the Islamic law, the difference and the right between the teacher and the student is also enshrined in Islamic law, the student can be hit by the teacher but not vice versa, if the father kills his son, his case is not to be put to death, but if it were to happen otherwise, the son may be put to death, etc ,etc ,etc.

meaning that different kinds or groups of people are treated differently before the law

thats a plain lie. the truth is that various types of people are LOOKED AT differently, but they are all judged the same. If a Muslim harms or oppresses the non muslim, the mustlim state extracts retribution for the case of the non muslim against the muslim who oppressed him in whatever legal matter it is. So quite rankly sir, the reason why your not making sense is simply because you simply don't know Islam and therefore shouldn't be offering your own commentary on it.

not on anything they have done but simply on who or what they are.

what book of Islamic judicial rulings have you come across where a qaadhi looked at a case between a muslim and non muslim, and stated "well, sincey our non muslim, then you have to do such and such as ransom to this muslim".

One might add as an example to your list and say blacks and whites is an inequality and it was enshrined in law in the USA right up until 1960 and many went to great lengths to show it was just using the Bible and Biology much like the rationale offered for these three Islamic inequalities from the Qu’ran and biology elsewhere in this board.

Now I see why Salman responded in the way he did.

I ask you. what is the paralel between incident 1 and incident 2
incident 1: a black person and a white person
incident 2: an American patriot and a anti-American
while both incidents are within a single country

the people of America is going to look at the individual who is anti american different than they would look between someone who is not of their color. If someone does not like the white or a black simply because of his color, then the terminology rendered to that attribute is called "racist". However, when a genuine American does not like an anti-american, no one calls that "racist" they call that patriotism because the thing that they are attaching allegiance to and enmity against is based on a sociological and philosophical aspect of difference.

As for a women and men. In American law, it is prohibited for a women to walk outside in public without a top at least covering her chest. That law is not in place for a man. So my question to you is, why is your legal system promoting inequality with regard to men and women?

As for the master and slave, the modern equivalent of what your objecting to is the very thing you approve of in American or modern law. It is under the laws of prisoners of war.

the only difference between the islamic aspect and the non Muslim aspect is that with the Islamic mode of this law, the pow has various routes of existence whereas in modern western law on the same legislation of prisoners of war, you only have three options, which are quite dreadful
1. imprisonment (with no end in site)
2. torcher (while being imprisoned)
3. death

The only other option that is offered is for the sake of national interest and that is an exchange of the prisoners of war.

So in the West there is no distinction in law between a white and black person,

Good, Im glad yall finally realized that even though it took yall several thousand years to realize what we have already realized about 1429 years ago. so I say your peoples are about 1379 years behind us.

no distinction between a student and a teacher,

yeah there is, the state by default sides with the student in todays world. Likewise, in terms of marital social justice, the state by default sides with the women and the man is by default guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who has grew up here in the states and who has dealt with marital case law knows that the state by default sides with the women as being innocent and the man as the aggressor. And they have nice and fancy argument that people try to use in order to justify this oppression. But of course, none of that gets exposed in your book and thereby goes under your radar.

between those in authority and those not so your analogy is inappropriate and unsound. You may have reasons for these inequalities of treatment but I doubt if such reasons have any weight at all.

actually, my analogy is not only MOST appropriate, but it explains the full reality of our paradigm in a manner that you can at least begin to understand

To try to argue that the employer owns those they employed in the sense defined in sharia is fatuous.

of course is fatuous to you because you simply in the dark regarding the Islamic nature of slavery period. Your impression of slavery is embedded in how your ancestors implemented it. This is why people who are not Muslim cannot properly explain or articulate and therefore translate the Islamic paradigm of certain matters into a way that westerners can understand.

When it comes to women and men on a beach we are talking about improprieties in behaviour (yours) not inequalities between men and woman as you in each of the cases you mentioned would be treated as an idiot and carted off by the police

Okay. I have a litmus test for you

Tell your wife or daughter or sister (whichever one you choose) to walk around without a top in New York, or anywhere in America for that matter. And then you do the same. When the cop arrest her and not you, then I want you to quote this same four sentence logic to him and we'll see who is the idiot in all of this.

. Of course we may on occasion treat men and women differently in social relationships but we also may treat old people differently, children differently and so on but NONE of that is enshrined in law is it?

actually it is. your laws of favored handicapped people over non handicapped people. I don;t mind this law, infact this is a good thing from an Islamic point of view. However, your attack on our differentiations of people is correctly quarantined within your version of handicapped vs non handicapped. And if you are adamant on denying this usage of expression in articulating the Islamic mode to be equivalent with some of your laws, then quite frankly you are in more need of a psychiatrist than you are in need of holding a discussion on Islam.

In a similar way I can be "democratic" or "patriotic" or "communist" or "unpatriotic" but there is no law that says I am now to be treated differently.

actually there is. It is under the treason law of American law.

Your answer with regard to slave girls is hardly worthy of a reply and the idea that in law an employer can kiss an employee by agreement is absurd and there is no law prohibiting employers from sexual relations or engaging in personal relationships but there are laws about harassment and they apply equally to men AND women. My question was not when has sexual relations with a slave girl occurred but is it allowed in Islam and do you support it given that Islamic truths are not debatable

then lets be a bit more close in analogies here

that question is like saying "can the employer have relations with the employee"

allowed means simply allowed. That means a person is either going to do it or not.

The first criticism and illogic on your part is how are you going to label the allowment of sexual relations with those who are slaves as being an injustice, when you allow unrestricted sexual relations with anybody, even to fagots.

If your going to use the concept of "consent", then you have to by default apply that on the master and the slave, because sexual relations is determined BASED ON consent. If your saying that these slaves did not consent, then your saying that the masters raped the, as copulation without consent equals rape, and the rapist, according to the jurist like Maalik and others, is to be killed, whether he did so for a slave or not.

This leads me to point out your second fallacious area of thinking which is that your entire objection to this "allowment" is based on the notion that the slave did not wish to do so.

In the shariah, that which is "allowable" has different states. It transforms from one state to another if the details change.

If I eat carrots, it is allowable, However if I eat carrots to improve eyesight, then I am turning this allowable act into an act that is recommended

likewise, with the master an the slave, it is allowable that the master copulates with the slave, but if the slaver does not consent to he act, then the act thereof transforms from an allowable act to a forbidden act.

likewise, in western law, a man and a women are allowed to copulate, but if one of them does not consent, then the act would be rendered forbidden.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

well, not only that, but im talking about a societal outlook. [/COLOR]

If I follow your long post correctly the Islam sees almost everything as an inequality and its law such as it is, is not much concerned with the act only the relationship. Hence a teacher you say can hit a student but not vice versa, a father can kill his son and he is not put to death but not vice versa so the act is unimportant. So CLEARLY different groups of people are treated differently so how can it be a lie when YOU stated this to be the Islamic position.

So Islam preserves inequalities and uses law to do so. To take an example, you mentioned handicapped people and you clearly do not understand what the law (Western) tries to do here. It does not favour the handicapped what it tries to do is bring about a level of equality, level the playing field so to speak. Thus it does not enshrine in law the inequality brought about by the handicap but tries to neutralise it. The same occurs in you example about Muslim and non-Muslim, Western law make no distinction at all, it is not a pertinent fact between there two but Islamic law does so again preserves the inequality.

You make the same mistake over you blacks and whites, patriots and non-patriots because in law there is no distinction. That is if either of these two groups break the law then their colour or democratic orientation has no bearing. One cannot be charged with treason for being unpatriotic. The same again with public decency, if someone goes beyond what is acceptable they may well be arrested for disturbing the peace whether they are men or women.

Prisoners of war are not in any way slaves, they were not purchased, they cannot be sold, they are not owned either. It is NOT true that prisoners of war are locked up forever, it is not true that torture is part of being a prisoner and prisoners of war are not executed. I know as well as you do that there are exceptions but when they occur they are dealt with severely.

Slavery was a part of most societies in ancient times and was stamped out by the British in all its colonies in the early 1800s but it continued in some places right up until 1960 - do you know the name of the last country in the world to formally renounce slavery?

Don't give me this tripe about Islam being enlightened, able to articulate the Islamic paradigm on slavery because Muslims were as involved as anyone in the trade and where the last to give it up; but it sounds like you want to bring it back?

I have no idea where you get such weird ideas about sexual relations. I don't know of any law that states one can have sexual relations with anyone and you betray your bias by using the term 'faggot'. The fact that people have illicit sexual relationships is not going to be stopped by law is it and such relationships are not confined to the WEST either - do you know how many prostitutes there are in Iran, or Saudi Arabia or the UAE? Do you think there are no Muslim homosexuals?

Why is it so hard for you to see that the master/slave relationship is one of ownership and any law which then tries to regulate sexual relationships within it is a bad law and simply preserves an inequality and a very bad inequality at that. I don't care if the slave agrees or does not agree; the relationship is unacceptable and the idea that a slave girl who agrees to sexual relations with her master not only makes it allowable but turns it into a recommended act (something good) is an abominable idea and shows a flawed reasoning ability.

[salman]

^1 - read what people say - 80% of your posts are either straw man or talking about stuff which is never mentioned or implied by your opponent or whole thread. I will let brother continue given that he has enough strength and time to response to this utterly idiotic response.

2 - this is last time I will allow you to beat around bush and talk about this inequilty stuff. Your own methdology and inconsistency/double standards within it have been exposed and they are enough to refute your thoughts agaisnt Islam and answer your questions. If you ever repeat the same questions again, which have been addressed here, then I will delete it immediatly and if you would continue to repeat it despite my warning then good old fashion ban will do the trick. We do not want same thing in every other thread when it is already addressed. Whether you like our answers or not is a different story and as I have made it clear before so many times: WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU LIKE ISLAM OR HATE IT; our job is done.

3 - We may have allowed you to continue such discussions if you have used more proper approach and showed some improvement. However, you neither know abc about Islam or tried to learn it, nor you show any rationality in your responses. Your responses are becoming more and more stupid instead of improving. And we do not have tolerance level to continue dealing with this rubishness, at least I do not.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

^1 - read what people say - 80% of your posts are either straw man or talking about stuff which is never mentioned or implied by your opponent or whole thread. I will let brother continue given that he has enough strength and time to response to this utterly idiotic response.

2 - this is last time I will allow you to beat around bush and talk about this inequilty stuff. Your own methdology and inconsistency/double standards within it have been exposed and they are enough to refute your thoughts agaisnt Islam and answer your questions. If you ever repeat the same questions again, which have been addressed here, then I will delete it immediatly and if you would continue to repeat it despite my warning then good old fashion ban will do the trick. We do not want same thing in every other thread when it is already addressed. Whether you like our answers or not is a different story and as I have made it clear before so many times: WE DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU LIKE ISLAM OR HATE IT; our job is done.

3 - We may have allowed you to continue such discussions if you have used more proper approach and showed some improvement. However, you neither know abc about Islam or tried to learn it, nor you show any rationality in your responses. Your responses are becoming more and more stupid instead of improving. And we do not have tolerance level to continue dealing with this rubishness, at least I do not.

Let me be plain. When you say 'straw man' I assume you are talking about the fallacy that can occur because of simplifications. There is nowhere in my post where I have done that. I asked questions about three inequalities enshrined in Islamic law and al-boriqee agreed stating that Islam recognised many other inequalities as well. That was in essence his answer and I assume it is correct.

I accept therefore that is the Islamic position but since we are talking about the role of reason, and this was the core of my questions, is it reasonable to fix inequalities in law forever? It follows, that arguments about managing any inequality can be constructed with perfect logic as long as one accepts that the inequality is acceptable or good or necessary. But I hope no one today would subscribe to such a premise and therefore that part of Islamic law is now consigned to history just as laws relating to various inequalities in the West have been.

Just as an example, whilst it might have been good 1,000 years ago to have laws regarding slavery and its management that cannot be the case now. To put it another way, it is perfectly logical not to have slavery or indeed any inequality because it is more just to press for nullifucation or removal of all inequalities and not their retention.

So my posting are not as such about inequalities but about that rational that supports them or what you I think called methodology, your thinking and I have suggested on the basis of these answers that it is flawed. Let me put it another way. Learning is a dynamic activity so it is more, much more than simply being told what the answer is or even the logic as to how the answer was derived. Thus the essence of any learning is not so much the knowledge but the questions. I would say all education requires people to:

Reflect and think independently and critically

As Jacob Bronowski who said: It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to hero-worship what is known but to question it.

As Charles Steinmetz said: There are no foolish questions and no man becomes a fool until he has stopped asking questions. We must not allow answers a privileged status over questions breading a serious misunderstanding about the significance of questions in the learning (and thinking) process so that instruction at all levels keeps most questions buried in a torrent of obscured “answers.”

Thinking is not driven by answers but by questions. Had no questions been asked by those who laid the foundation for a field. For any field to stay alive it has to have questions and nothing develops if those in the field dutifully accepted what was already known instead of questioning it.

It is only when our thinking goes somewhere that we learn anything of value to us.

In Christian and Jewish circles each new believer has to think it all through for themselves not just accept blindly what someone has said with question and debate. I conclude that Islam is anti-intellectual and sounds like it is driven by a kind of political correctness. For example, one might be able to accept that 10th century scholar could interpret the meaning of qu'ran with accuracy as they were closer to it and its time based language. However it seem highly improbable not to say foolish to even think that a 10th century scholar can adequacy apply such teaching in the 21st century.

In short my argument is that for any subject to stay alive it must develop and as far as I can see from what you say Islam is fully developed and you are locked into the past and cannot move beyond it, you are unable or unwilling to reconsider even though the facts might have changed and might be different again tomorrow.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

If I follow your long post correctly

based on the following, that has not happened yet. I can;t wait till you do, so that way discussion can be over.

the Islam sees almost everything as an inequality

the reality of Islam is justice and its existence is the fight against its opposite i.e. oppression. equality and inequality is not the concern because equalizing the non equal is a form of oppression. That is why the western outlook of equality and its opposite is basically tyrannical oppression in the social and even legal arena, which is why you cleverly chose not to respond to the actual direct points that were addressed to you for you to answer, rather you utilized this ambiguous excerpt of mine regarding the "societal outlook" and cleverly slithered away from adressing the points mentioned therein

and its law such as it is, is not much concerned with the act only the relationship.

wrong, the main purpose and the basic deduction of rulings is concerned with the act WHILE considering the state or reality of the entities involved. If a christian becomes a buddhist, because the court understood his original state as being christian, then there is no treason or apostasy in that regard. However, if it was a Muslim, then it is treason of apostasy.

Hence a teacher you say can hit a student but not vice versa, a father can kill his son and he is not put to death but not vice versa so the act is unimportant. So CLEARLY different groups of people are treated differently so how can it be a lie when YOU stated this to be the Islamic position.

did you not read what came after I said it was a lie. Here it is again

I stated
the truth is that various types of people are LOOKED AT differently, but they are all judged the same.

the parent is legally allowed by LAW to discipline their child even through physical punishment. No law on earth makes a vice versa of that, so the child does not turn around and physically disciplines the parent. IN that sence, the any law of the world has favored parents with this right and has not favored children with this right. What sane person would call that "inequality", yet, in reality, it is technically an inequality.

You see, your parallel is that there are inequalities throughout existence, including your own law, and the only problem you have is concerning those inequalities that your intellectual constitutions have deemed to be oppression, otherwise you make no mention about other unequal realities in your societal outlook.

So Islam preserves inequalities and uses law to do so.

Islam preserves justice which entails putting in place everything that deserves to be in that place. That means treating the state of each entity upon its level. Equalizing the non equatable is the very by-product of tyranny.

To take an example, you mentioned handicapped people and you clearly do not understand what the law (Western) tries to do here. It does not favour the handicapped what it tries to do is bring about a level of equality

as I said before, some of the inequalities of your laws have been fancied up with arguments that inherently contradict the reality. I said that about marital issues in the court of law, and now I can see you have adopted the same for this.

Explain to the average john doe how does preserving parking space in the front of businesses and enforcing non handicapped people to park further away "leveling" the equality if the definition of equality is to make equal the states of things. Apparently, the law did not make equal the two, rather what it did was to favor handicapped people with an easier accessibility due to their handicappedness to places. Call it justice, call it being nice, but do not call it "equality" because it is against the very definition of equality.

are you registering now? You cannot convince a fly that this law is a representation of the concept of equality. However, you can convince nations that it is a law of justice, and a law of being easy and kind.

, level the playing field so to speak. Thus it does not enshrine in law the inequality brought about by the handicap but tries to neutralise it.

according to the above remarks I made, this becomes nothing more than simple lunacy

The same occurs in you example about Muslim and non-Muslim, Western law make no distinction at all, it is not a pertinent fact between there two but Islamic law does so again preserves the inequality.

yeah it does, and I told you that already, but due to your cleverness, you cleverly did not wish to cite what was brought to your attention because you know you have no leg to stand upon.

You make the same mistake over you blacks and whites, patriots and non-patriots because in law there is no distinction.

outside of the color issue, there is a distinction between the patriot an non patriot. put simply, non patriots are not welcome and their acts are viewed as treason in the sight of American law.

That is if either of these two groups break the law then their colour or democratic orientation has no bearing. One cannot be charged with treason for being unpatriotic.

well, I'll give you the ball on that.


EVERYONE, CHECK HOW SILVER EMPHATICALLY PULLED AN ISLAMIC ONE ON US. CHECK THIS STATEMENT

The same again with public decency, if someone goes beyond what is acceptable they may well be arrested for disturbing the peace whether they are men or women.

So why are you know employing the Islamic approach. Stop playing games man, If your talking about "EQUALITY", then that means a women can go out with no top on JUST AS A man can go out with no top on. That is what "EQUALITY" is. using the "acceptable" thing and "disturbing the peace" is something Muslims would say. stop being muslim and stick to your principles of equality methodology.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, go tell your wife, daughter, sister, or mother to walk out in public with their tops off JUST AS you can (i.e. equality) and when the police arrest your female family members to the exclusion of you, then I want you to ask him why is he being unequal by allowing you to do what they can't (i.e. INEQUALITY).

The reality is, is that you have laws of inequality in your framework, but because of your prejudice of this concept, you like to be apologetic and dance around the issue by not calling it what it is, therefore you would resort to such explanations as you did with the "handicapped" issue and just like you did with the issue of men and women BEING EQUAL to go out without their tops.
Its not a social issue no more when someone gets arrested, it becomes a legal issue, and for the police to arrest women for not wearing their tops while allowing men to walk around with tops IS A LAW OF INEQUALITY point black no ifs, ands, or buts, it is pure and unadulterated inequality whether you like it or not, or whether you chose to disguise this inequality with fanciful display of dancing as you did with handicap laws and as you did with this here.

Prisoners of war are not in any way slaves,

yeah, they are worse in the modern western context. at least with slaves they have a more illuminating end

they were not purchased, they cannot be sold, they are not owned either.

yeah, we know, they are tortured, put to death, or barbarically imprisoned. Those are the outcomes of western prisoners of war.

It is NOT true that prisoners of war are locked up forever

what prisoner of war has ever been released into american society.

, it is not true that torture is part of being a prisoner and prisoners of war are not executed.

The quite frankly, you are living in disney land and are ignorant of how American military law is implemented.

I know as well as you do that there are exceptions but when they occur they are dealt with severely.

wrong., what I stated is the general reality of pows. the least of which is being imprisoned forever.

Don't give me this tripe about Islam being enlightened, able to articulate the Islamic paradigm on slavery because Muslims were as involved as anyone in the trade and where the last to give it up; but it sounds like you want to bring it back?

Didn;t anyone inform you that there is Islam and there is Muslim. We are talking about Islam here. If you want to talk about Muslims, then you can take that into another thread specifically dedicated to that topic. Bringing the fact that Muslims steal does not therefore entail that Islam legalizes stealing, and for you to pathetically attempt to bring this argument is an example of the ineptitude that you westerners are inherently driven by. So what if Muslims were involved with the slave trade ordeal. That does not meant Islam allowed this practice.

and lastly, at least those muslims did not do, what your wretched forfathers did. They brought slavery into a whole new level, worse than pharouh and the slaves of Isra'eel. It shouldn't even be called slavery, it should be called moral genocide. the "muslims; who acted beyond the dictates of Islam in the slave trade ordeal at least did not measure up to this genocide that yall have committed. but that is neither here nor there, what is here is Islam and its dictates, not what people do.

I have no idea where you get such weird ideas about sexual relations. I don't know of any law that states one can have sexual relations with anyone

its under the law of sexual complicity. everyone is ALLOWED to have sexual relations with whom they wish. In other words, one this act is performed, there is no crime being done in the name of the law and according to your law. So of course there is no law that you know of because silence is the act of allowability.

and you betray your bias by using the term 'faggot'. The fact that people have illicit sexual relationships is not going to be stopped by law is it

the law is made to deter the widespread acceptance of such actions, it is not meant to completely cut them off. You should have learned that in school. the criminal law is not intended to stop crimes, it is intended to minimize them because everyone knows that nothing can be stopped.

and such relationships are not confined to the WEST either - do you know how many prostitutes there are in Iran, or Saudi Arabia or the UAE? Do you think there are no Muslim homosexuals?

of course I know these tings, probably better than you. However, unlike your society, it has to be kept on the low key. you see, in their societies, criminal are the ones who have to remain in the down low. Here in your society, its the opposite. the school boy has to promote that he have relations with such and such girl in order for him to be cool with the rest of everybody. Its a whole different world buddy And when your nation's leaders speak of spreading their methodologies to their countries, everyone knows that these inhuman indecencies will come with its territory, which is why there is such an anti-american sentiment in the entire world, not just the muslim world, at large.

Why is it so hard for you to see that the master/slave relationship is one of ownership and any law which then tries to regulate sexual relationships within it is a bad law and simply preserves an inequality and a very bad inequality at that. I don't care if the slave agrees or does not agree; the relationship is unacceptable and the idea that a slave girl who agrees to sexual relations with her master not only makes it allowable but turns it into a recommended act (something good) is an abominable idea and shows a flawed reasoning ability.

because your just simply speaking out of your neck without any decent mode of argument, thats why you can't see what I see which is so plainly obvious

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

[COLOR=Black]The basis of Islam is the Qur'an and Sunnah. The Qur'an is found in the Mushaf (a book of where the Qur'an is compiled) and the Sunnah is found in Hadith. These are the basis for 3 other source methods of the deductions of Islamic legal theory. So in actuality, Islam has 5 basic sources of law that are all agreed upon which is

1. Qur’an(the holy recitation of God's word given to Muhammad)
2. Sunnah and hadith(the example and sayings of Muhammad)
3. Ijma’(consensus)
4. Qiyas(reasoning from analogy)
5. Ijtehad(effort of thinking)

I would not regard myself as an expert here but there are only 4 sources not 5. Ijtehad is more like a kind of qualification for dealing with the four sources - well that is what Nawami says.

Ijtehad means something like reflection but has the added idea of struggle and that is what thinking is like. One has to have knowledge of course to begin the process but it would in my view limit thinking to just focus on the Qu'ran and Sunna and one supposes that is why one needs consensus and analogy because there will be much that the Qu'ran and Sunna are silent on. For example, in the modern world we have lasers, digital cameras, in vitro-fertilization and so on as well as different forms of government and cultural norms which could not have been known 1400 years ago.

The question then perhaps is who is qualified to speak or rule on these matters and what knowledge can they draw upon?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I would not regard myself as an expert here but there are only 4 sources not 5. Ijtehad is more like a kind of qualification for dealing with the four sources - well that is what Nawami says.

Ijtehad means something like reflection but has the added idea of struggle and that is what thinking is like. One has to have knowledge of course to begin the process but it would in my view limit thinking to just focus on the Qu'ran and Sunna and one supposes that is why one needs consensus and analogy because there will be much that the Qu'ran and Sunna are silent on. For example, in the modern world we have lasers, digital cameras, in vitro-fertilization and so on as well as different forms of government and cultural norms which could not have been known 1400 years ago.

The question then perhaps is who is qualified to speak or rule on these matters and what knowledge can they draw upon?

ijtihaad is a source of law, albeit the last and least authoritative, yet remains the last source of Islamic law. the statement "effort of thinking" that was utilized within its parenthesis was a mistake on my part. ijtihaad does not mean effort of thinking, it means qualified scholastic deduction of the sources of Islam to a particular ruling. That is the more accurate meaning of the term.

the people who are qualified to do so are those who the scholars deputize to be qualified to do so. Its kinda like a degree. When you completed a masters or phd, the certificate you receive, like your doctorate or your masters is nothing more than the approval of those who are already of that level, they have already approved yourself worthy to granting you the honor of completing what it takes to receive it. The same with Islamic knowledge.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Let me be plain. When you say 'straw man' I assume you are talking about the fallacy that can occur because of simplifications. There is nowhere in my post where I have done that. I asked questions about three inequalities enshrined in Islamic law and al-boriqee agreed stating that Islam recognised many other inequalities as well. That was in essence his answer and I assume it is correct.

wrong, this is what you asked

So Islam preserves inequalities and uses law to do so.

so this was my answer

Islam preserves justice which entails putting in place everything that deserves to be in that place. That means treating the state of each entity upon its level. Equalizing the non equatable is the very by-product of tyranny.

next

I accept therefore that is the Islamic position

no, you accept a fallacious thinking the basis of which is utterly flawed which is to assume that justice is equal to equality and the lack of justice i.e. oppression is inequality. The entire ideological framework from which this preposterous outlook stems from is void of any reason, logic, and makes no sense to a sane mind.

but since we are talking about the role of reason, and this was the core of my questions, is it reasonable to fix inequalities in law forever?

no one calls the recognition of an apple and an orange as an act of inequality except for a people who took it upon themselves to equalize the non equatable, like an apple and an orange.

It follows, that arguments about managing any inequality can be constructed with perfect logic as long as one accepts that the inequality is acceptable or good or necessary.

Again, back to my point, that can only be stated if the mind of such an individual is convinced that apples and oranges are equatable. We know logically they are not, however western philosophical outlooks usually is not based on any coherent logic, but based on sensitivities of people. One day fagots are killed the next day it is a crime to speak against fagots. Its a truly social degradation of the human intellect to even adopt these western outlooks and apply them on a societal and legal basis, at least not without its ramifications and its most logical conclusion which is the madness that we see today in your society.

But I hope no one today would subscribe to such a premise and therefore that part of Islamic law is now consigned to history just as laws relating to various inequalities in the West have been.

1. When human facts do not change, then there is no change in the law. 90 percent of law deals with aspects of the human nature that simply do not change. This is another ideological fallacy in your whole entire paradigm, the idea that through time alone, or because of mere technological advancements, that the entire nature of a human has changed and now because of that fallacious argument, it entails the restructuring the dictates of the One who created us to begin with. This is pure madness.

2. there is always in equalities in all law, even your own law as I continually and pointing out to you, and you keep trying to escape the most logical conclusion which you don;t want to make. I TOLD YOU TWICE and I will say it again, go outside without a shirt and take your wife, daughter, or mother, or sister outside with you without a shirt. When the police arrest her to the exclusion of yourself, I want you to ask them why is the law permitting you to legally go out like that to the exclusion of your female partner. THAT IS AN UTTER INEQUALITY, however it is an inequality that you accept, therefore you find fanciful language to try and alter its reality. the same with the handicapped

the same with rich and poor. why are the rich taxed 40 percent whereas the average people taxed like 10 percent. Why is there this inequality. If it was equal then everyone would be taxed the same. We can keep on going with inequalities in your law, its just that because you have already developed such a negative view of inequality based on your fallacious endeavor to equalize the non equatable, then when such realities ar reflective in your various laws, you turn around and alter their realities with fanciful arguments that try to legitimize these inequalities. And this is utterly where your entire western outlook looks dramatically hypocritical to everyone on earth.

Just as an example, whilst it might have been good 1,000 years ago to have laws regarding slavery and its management that cannot be the case now.

you are truly dis-functional. The LAW of slavery in Islam is in place to ensure that if the practice occurs, then in such an environment, that is how we are to behave with these laws. IT DOES NOT MEAN that because the practice does not exist now, then it is to be abolished.

To put it another way, it is perfectly logical not to have slavery

thats not logical, thats stupidity. just because slavery does not exist in this time period does not mean it will cease to exist anytime in the future. Your "logical" claim is based on your awkward sentiments rather than established logic.

or indeed any inequality because it is more just to press for nullifucation or removal of all inequalities and not their retention.

again, all of which is based on the idea that apples and oranges are the same along with the idea that equality is the very meaning of justice and inequality is the very meaning of injustice when in reality the meaning of justice and oppression is much more comprehensive in nature, which as well includes equalizing the non-equatable.

So my posting are not as such about inequalities but about that rational that supports them or what you I think called methodology, your thinking and I have suggested on the basis of these answers that it is flawed.

And that is the inherent preposterous of your entire philosophy. The rationale that supports our thinking is based on a philosophy that makes sense and appeals to the human intellect. apples are apples and oranges are oranges. Our methodology entails likening them to be equal when it comes to their nature i.e. fruit, and likewise, our methodology also has enough human decency and intelligence to take into account their specific differences i.e. one being an apple and one being an orange.

Let me put it another way. Learning is a dynamic activity so it is more, much more than simply being told what the answer is or even the logic as to how the answer was derived.

off topic, but its fine

Thus the essence of any learning is not so much the knowledge but the questions. I would say all education requires people to:

why do I have a feeling that you are going to turn statements that are made for empircal studies and apply them to divine claims

Reflect and think independently and critically

As Jacob Bronowski who said: It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to hero-worship what is known but to question it.

yeah, to things that are empirical

As Charles Steinmetz said: There are no foolish questions and no man becomes a fool until he has stopped asking questions. We must not allow answers a privileged status over questions breading a serious misunderstanding about the significance of questions in the learning (and thinking) process so that instruction at all levels keeps most questions buried in a torrent of obscured “answers.”

Thinking is not driven by answers but by questions. Had no questions been asked by those who laid the foundation for a field. For any field to stay alive it has to have questions and nothing develops if those in the field dutifully accepted what was already known instead of questioning it.

It is only when our thinking goes somewhere that we learn anything of value to us.

again, all of this is fine and dandy to things that are empirical in nature, but it is not applicable to matters that are divinely legislative in nature, When God or His Messenger declares a thing, all questioning goes out the window and simple servitude is to be applied.

In Christian and Jewish circles each new believer has to think it all through for themselves not just accept blindly what someone has said with question and debate.

an that is why Allah replaced your respective people with the ummah of Muhammad and abrogated your shariah for the shariah of Muhammad because when you all took on that methodology, it nullified your worth in supporting the Divine message, thus Muhammad was chose to fulfill what you have failed to do.

I conclude that Islam is anti-intellectual

as usual, your conclusions are absurd. Here is the intellectualism of the fundamentalist thinker Ibn taymiyyah
Ibn Taymiyah Pages

therefore I conclude that you don't know what your talking about.

and sounds like it is driven by a kind of political correctness

.

it damn sure does not match the tyranny of your political correctness.

For example, one might be able to accept that 10th century scholar could interpret the meaning of qu'ran with accuracy as they were closer to it and its time based language. However it seem highly improbable not to say foolish to even think that a 10th century scholar can adequacy apply such teaching in the 21st century.

again, all of this is based on your awkward theory that the entire human characteristic has drastically changed in 10 centuries and that our entire natures have altered into a different state.

In short my argument is that for any subject to stay alive it must develop and as far as I can see from what you say Islam is fully developed and you are locked into the past and cannot move beyond it, you are unable or unwilling to reconsider even though the facts might have changed and might be different again tomorrow.

1. Islam stayed alive an is more than actively keeping its heartbeat after 14 centuries. Therefore there must be something illogical about your thinking
2. If something is perfect, there is no need for changes, and if the basic nature of whom the law was revealed about has not changed, then there is no need for change in the law. No one claims that the american constitution is obsolete and unfit for our times, of course except for those who wish to alter the very basis of American legal theory and law. Lets put it like this, Since you are so much of a hypocrite with regard to having these same realities inherent in your thought, then in order to counter your hypocrisy, then I will likewise adopt YOUR LANGUAGE about our paradigm

OUR Islamic law IS the universal human rights of humanity. It is the justice for the human race for all time. Its rules are enshrined in universally accepted principles. Sounds familiar.

3. lastly, facts have not changed. the fagot is still doing an immorality whether yesterday,today, or tomorrow. The crime of promiscuity will remain a crime as it was yesterday, likewise it is today, and it will remain a crime tomorrow. What Islamic law addresses is the basis for human interaction, and all of these basic interactions do not changes or alter to a new state thereby justifying the abolishment of these laws. That is one of the biggest fallacies of your entire structural paradigm.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

ijtihaad is a source of law, albeit the last and least authoritative, yet remains the last source of Islamic law. the statement "effort of thinking" that was utilized within its parenthesis was a mistake on my part. ijtihaad does not mean effort of thinking, it means qualified scholastic deduction of the sources of Islam to a particular ruling. That is the more accurate meaning of the term.

the people who are qualified to do so are those who the scholars deputize to be qualified to do so. Its kinda like a degree. When you completed a masters or phd, the certificate you receive, like your doctorate or your masters is nothing more than the approval of those who are already of that level, they have already approved yourself worthy to granting you the honor of completing what it takes to receive it. The same with Islamic knowledge.

Ijtihad (اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. By the end of the 10th century theologians decided that debate on such matters would be closed and Muslim theology and law were frozen.

This process is a thinking process, its it not automatic and one has to work it out and knowledge is of course a pre-requisite of that process. One could say that Ijithad is a source of law IF one allows original thinking to take place and but as I have said that only occurred in early Islam and now it is forbidden. In terms of the theme of this thread it means that one cannot use Ijtihad to gain a new thought, one cannot arrive if you like at a new theory so by implication there is no original thinking in Islam now and all one does is revisit what the Salaf's have said.

Every religion has its orthodoxy but most at some point go through a reformation and allow rational thinking to take place once more. We have seen this in both Christianity and Judaism and it occurred in the 17 century driven by the European Enlightenment and it seemed obvious then and now that everyone has a possibility to be original and that ability is not confined to experts or Salafs.

What usually happens is that one identifies an irreducible minimum of what it means to be a Christian or a Muslim etc and then one uses rational thought to work out what is acceptable now. For example, in Islam one might say that praying in Arabic is not required and one can pray in English on the rational basis that praying in Arabic is not a condition of faith but just a cultural practice since Arabic is just a language like any other and it is not special in anyway, God sent the Qu'ran in the ordinary everyday Arabic of the time.

So perhaps you will consider this and tell me what is the irreducible minimum that a Muslim must subscribe to if they are to claim they are a Muslim?

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

no, you accept a fallacious thinking the basis of which is utterly flawed which is to assume that justice is equal to equality and the lack of justice i.e. oppression is inequality. The entire ideological framework from which this preposterous outlook stems from is void of any reason, logic, and makes no sense to a sane mind.

no one calls the recognition of an apple and an orange as an act of inequality except for a people who took it upon themselves to equalize the non equatable, like an apple and an orange.

When human facts do not change, then there is no change in the law. 90 percent of law deals with aspects of the human nature that simply do not change. This is another ideological fallacy in your whole entire paradigm, the idea that through time alone, or because of mere technological advancements, that the entire nature of a human has changed and now because of that fallacious argument, it entails the restructuring the dictates of the One who created us to begin with. This is pure madness.

I have nowhere that I recall saying that justice = equality, you have invented that idea. Justice means the quality of being fair, total impartiality unless you have a different meaning. For example, God is just because He is holy and cannot be tainted by evil. It is a question for you to show rationally that sustaining an inequality is just, and you listed dozens of them. I mentioned three inequalities but take any one you like and show that the treatment in law within Islam is just.

It is a totally fallacious analogy to think of an apple and an orange as they have no common properties with humanity with which to make the analogy work and in any case if one just thinks of them as fruits all differences disappear.

I agree that human nature has not changed and that is because of sin but also it is a deduction here that Islam has therefore made no difference because laws cannot make a man or woman good and as the Bible say all they do is make sin plain.

You last point seem to indicate that Islam alone knows the dictates of God but where in Islam can you find any moral idea or the depravity of man which cannot be found elsewhere long before Islam began. So you say my framework is flawed and like most things it probably is but what kind of rational thinking would say IT has a framework that is flawless and will be flawless forever - surely that implies intellectual blindness and a condemnation to stagnation