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

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

he 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.

I am not quite sure why you persist with this line or refuse to understand what is going in here. If one sees an inequality with rich and poor we can just accept it or we can try to make it more equal by taxation bands that is the logic because it tries to remove the inequality not preserve it. Now either Islam does the same or it does not, you tell me

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

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.

How you can say this is off topic is beyond me and learning is at the centre of development of the intellect and reasoning. Thus, I cannot make out for sure what you are saying here and neither am I sure you understand the implications of what you say or even if you are clear about what empiricism means.

Let me explain, there are as far as I know ONLY three ways of thinking or reasoning: induction, abduction and deduction. It is you argument I think that induction or empiricism is allowed in Islam; then it means we can look for data and draw conclusions from it. Therefore, we might look at say the role of women in the modern world and thus argue that it is very different from what is was 1400 years ago and hence it implies that any law regarding their secondary status should/could change and so on for a whole range of things that would/could render much of what is in sharia as out of date and it should be consigned to history.

If one cannot do as I have stated then neither induction nor deduction is allowed in Islam as far as theology or law is concerned so it is stagnant, it cannot develop or change and so by implication must be intellectually barren because it does not allow any thinking at all.

One can argue that you have the very words of God but to me that makes it worse because you now stifle, and I say that advisedly, all questioning or progress. From my point of view God has given us an intellect and we can use it to find him and if that requires asking hard questions then so be it, that does not lessen God does it?

PS Just need clarrification. Is it the Islamic position that anything the Prophet said or did is in effect a command to follow in his footsteps? Without wanting to be trivial just clear hence this simple question, if Prophet Mohammed did not like tea does that mean that tea is bad and we should not like it either?

[al-boriqee]

There are a number of problems and issues in which you have raised by which a mere repudiation of each may not be ample enough in your case, because most of this is driven from several fallacious arguments that stem from a type of illogic that can never be applied in the Islamic context. Before I issue my replies, I will have to highlight the base fundamentals in which your entire pov has been contaminated with due to these contentions of yours.

Most of what you said stems from the following
1. the idea that established religious facts, due to their crystallization, actually is the mode of the suppression of thought. In simple terminology, thought becomes frozen. Thats the first fallacy
2. that subjects that do not have the basic properties of change, are in fact changeable, and when someone merely highlights this logical fact, they are labeled as being regressive and do not allow progression of thought to take place.
3. that rationality is contrary to orthodoxy. And this fallacy represents a major portion in your entire ideological deduction of our religion because our religion is fundamentally opposite to the said religions in question. I highlighted this fact in another article of mine. The basic gist of what I said was that when westerners view our religion, they view it with their own historical prism of their own respective religion. The subject I was discussing was technological advancements. In christendom, when people adhered to their religion, science, advancement, and progression were always opposite to christian doctrine. science, advancement, and the likes only happened once christians left their religion OR they had to reform it.
IN OUR case, in Islam, our history has proven to be OPPOSITE of that, and to that extension, other religions, for our technological advancements, progression, and the likes, took place WHEN WE ADHERED to orthodoxy. LIkewise, concerning the opposite, when we left our religion, backwardness, degradation, and regression became our plight. In other words, advancement came in hand in hand with the implementation of our orthodoxy, that was never the case for christianity or any other religion. Thats what makes Islam unique in contrast with the rest.

From a theological aspect, the point is to show that all of human reason is inherent in the orthodoxy of Islam. WHY? because The One who gave us the faculty of reason and intelligence, the basis for HIS legislation was revealed to BE IN ACCORD with that reason and intelligence. IN other words, the laws of Islam were put there because they MATCH with human rationale and are the most reasonable of all viewpoints. Thus, for someone to say that there is a variant between what the law is and what human rationality is, is claiming that a mistake was done on part of the Law giver (God) for stating such a law, OR the One who granted us our faculty of human reasoning (God).

so in conclusion, these are the basic three fundamental ideological aspects that totally obstruct your ability to truly understand Islam in light of Islam, because your understanding of Islam is under the light of other than Islam.

I had the ability to understand the following
1. understand Islam in light of other than Islam
2. understand Islam in light of Islam
2. understand other thoughts in light of these other thoughts
4. understand other thoughts in light of Islam

because of my blessing from God to have gone through these four stages, I had to submit to that which was more befitting of human reasoning, which is that Islam itself is understood in light of Islam, and all other thoughts are understood in light of Islam, because I finally understood that Islam is the criterion of right and wrong, truth and error, reason and unreason, logic and illogic, etc, etc.

No, I will address these contentions of yours inshallah

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

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.

right and wrong. There is truth to this, but it is not as simplified as you have made it.

what the tenth century scholars did was to CODIFY the BASICS of Islamic legal theory. On that basis, everyone understood that the meaning of "The doors to ijtihaad are closed" TOO MEAN that the basic deductions of law were codified. The purpose of a school of thought is to BUILD upon and progress in the jurisprudence pertaining to that school of thought. When people decide to re-open the door, it destroys the product of built legal theory. I don't know how educated your are on general world legal theory, but usually, in the world of legal theory, newer thinkers are usually recognized for their adopting what was built upon and to progress it further. In legal theory, it makes no sense for a thinker to start back from scratch and relay the foundations again if the foundations have already been laid.

allow me to interpret for you, what you wish for us to do in your own paradigm. In computer programming, in modern recent times, most of the basics of programming have already been laid. So students who learn and go to computer programming do not start back into the beginning of what computer programming was when it first came out, which was understanding the binary codes. Now, computer programming students in the beginning learn things beyond that scope because the basics have already been establoished. As one person who was taking computer science told me, to start back from scratch to leanr everything makes no sense.

This, in essence, is what Im trying to get you to understand. For someone to come and re-invent a new fiqh of the modern era is illogical for several reasons
1. ALL OF the madhaabs have already taken into account NEW situations which would require the ijtihaad of a scholar. Thus the claim that "the door to ijtihaad is closed" is not to be understood the way you understood it
2. What the shariah provides is the basis. When something does actually pop up that is new, it is viewed under the basis of the shariah. This is equal to any modern nation state who has a constitution. the US consistution is over 200 years old. So why is not any rational american calling for a restructuring of the constitution. The reason why Americans are not calling for a re-inventing of a new constitution "for modern times" as they say, is because everyone with some intelligence knows that the constitution serves as a BASIS for judgment, a structural framework, as you will, FROM WHICH and BY WHICH judges of the UNited States of America can resort back to

So when someone claims that we need to re-invent a new fiqh and legal theory fit for our times, it is tantamount to someone telling an American that they need to bring forth a new constitution fit for our times when the average American sees their constitution as the beacon of justice for all of time due to their belief that it is the very source of human universal principles.
That is where we stand with the Qur'an and our Sunnah and the madhaahib (schools of thought) in Islam who expounded on Islamic legal theory.

This process is a thinking process,

of course, that is why our scholars have been thinking for 14 centuries

its it not automatic and one has to work it out and knowledge is of course a pre-requisite of that process.

thank you for proving my point. Therefore, average people are NOT qualified for this subject just as average people are not qualified to deduce their own drug prescription

One could say that Ijithad is a source of law IF one allows original thinking to take place

and it does

and but as I have said that only occurred in early Islam and now it is forbidden.

wrong. You have misunderstood what was stated. As I highlighted above. ALL of the scholars who are said to have claimed that "the Door to ijtihaad is closed" ALSO accepted the fact that in new situations, the scholar is OBLIGATED to perform ijtihaad in that issue.

When the scholars stated that "the doors to ijtihaad were closed" they did not mean what you understood on absolute terms, rather what they were speaking of is with regard to someone coming and forming an entire legal school when the basics have already been established. Under this guideline, there is no need for someone to invent a whole knew legal school because everything regarding Islamic legal theory has already been exhausted from matters that do not evolve in the first place.

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.

that is generally correct, yet with some inaccuracies as well. Its right in the fact that one cannot use ijtihaad to gain a new thought. Allow me to quote the reality of this situation because many of you modernist and secularist have tried to add a meaning into ijtihaad that is originally not from the meaning of ijtihaad

the following was provided from Islamicsystemblogspot

Unfortunately due to the influence of the Western ideology and the resultant defeatist mindset, we now see the incorrect usage of the term ‘Ijtihad’ to mean ‘Islah’ (reform).

The reason why this was pointed out is because ijtihaad in the Islamic context means the scholarly effort of deducing or extracting a decision BASED ON THE RULES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN LAID OUT.

And this is why I fundamentally see that the reason why you have misconstrued this subject is because you have psychologically understood ijtihaad for reform, and that is simply not the case.

Every religion has its orthodoxy but most at some point go through a reformation and allow rational thinking to take place once more.

again, this contention of yours stems back to the fallacy I have stated in the beginning, which is the idea that religion INHERENTLY is at odds with rational thinking and that a religion can only be in congruity with that is if a deconstruction of orthodoxy occurs and building an entire construct of modernism to take place, and then, and only then could such a religion be deemed as rational. That is essentially absurd with regard to the Islamic context. That is because
1. Islam does not have the same properties as other religions. Other religions entailed regression in the implementation of their ideas and it only progressed when those ideas were put on the sideline WHEREAS in contrast to Islam, our religion by default of our implementation of our ideas results in progression, not regression, and when we put our ideas on the sidelines, then regression occurs as opposed to progression.
2. modernism, in terms of its thought in Islam, is typically an ideology that makes no sense. It may work for christains or not, but it definitely fails with regard to the Islamic context. It fails miserably trying to explain the objectives of Islam. This is one major reason why a reformation is drastically different in Islam than it is with other religions. And to compare our religion with yours is a malpractice to the world of objectivity.

Thus when you state this

We have seen this in both Christianity and Judaism

it makes absolutely no sense to Muslims because our religions are polar opposites in terms of what are the outcomes in the implementation of our respective religions. When christianity and judaism, or anything else reigns supreme, tyranny becomes the resultant effect. When Islam reigns supreme, justice becomes the resultant effect across the board. Im not saying that christians or others CANNOT be just o that Muslims CANNOT be tyrannical, Im merely speaking from a general rule of thumb here.

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.

thats fine and dandy from your point of view. However, in our point of view, our originality stems from a concept called "ittibaa" which basically means to follow.

the scholars and the general sunni masses have a common saying in arabic

"ana muttabbi, lastu mubtadi"

"I am a follower, not an innovator"

our originality stems ONLY from the avenue of following footstep by footstep of what people before us treaded upon. And thus is where we all get caught up in confusion. We all get caught up in viewing Islam from some ideological basis. However the basis of Islam in contrast to everything else is that the universe (i.e. the world) is divided between the way of the prophets and the way who chose other than the way of the prophets.

THe way of the prophets is a way of conformity with its previous predecessor. THAT IS WHY they all professed the SAME message

I want you to read this article here, because it perfectly explains our contention in perfect detail in contrast with yours

Islamic Revival: Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 1

Anyways the prophetic way is exemplified by the reaffirmation of what came before, which is in contrast to the way of the devils which is the abandonment of what makes sense for all time that was laid down as a foundation and nullify it under the pretext of "modern times"

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.

thats plain stupid, because this very framework or mode of thinking stems from the logic that God's ordainments were not wise enough to consider future outcomes. No, the definition of a Muslim will always remain the definition of a Muslim and the definition of disbelief will always remain the definition of disbelif because the very essence of these concepts are BEYOND the ideological properties of change. I don;t know how else I can drill this in your brain. Many of these things that you consider needs to be changed not only fall outside of change, they just simple are not even inherent with the properties of change to begin with. Its like say, we need to change our nutritional intake with chemical intake from Mars. Well, that theory makes no sense of the basic physiological aspects of humans has not changed. The same with our Islamic concepts. And this is why people of sane and rationale mind are viewing this reformative call as a call to lunacy from its basis.

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.

again, WRONG.
our tradition is not nullified on the basis of someone's lack of ability to do something. as I told you before, the exception do not nullify the general rules, and that applies to any science.



Secondly, your ideology is bent on the assum,ption that Islam needs to bend, in accord, and therefore submit to the adherents. That is in utter contradistinction to the very meaning of the religion of the prophets, because the religion of the prophets dictates that the people ADHERE and Submit, and thereby accord themselves to the revealed way, and not that the revealed way submits to them and accords to their condition. The meaning of a Muslim is to submit to the very will of the One whom you have submitted to. To adopt an outlook that the religion has to bend over to my own personal needs is an arrogant contradistinction to everything Islam is based on


secondly, arabic is not just a language, it is the language of the Qur'an. Under your pov, it leads to the idea that the quran that is haphazardly translated into other languages has no significant realities different from the arabic. It will also lead to the assumption that the actual salaah be performed in a language other than it is suppose to be. It will lead to the very destruction of the concept of Gods word because I can say that Allah said
"Qul huwallahu ahad" however I can;t say that God said
"Say. He, God, is one" because that is not what was stated.


your very ideology has no regard for meticulousness which is a necessary attribute of faith. You see, you non muslims are very meticulous with regards to your work, home, family, etc or what have you, but when it comes to someone being meticulous about the very thing that is more worthy of being meticulous about over ALL of those other things, then they are characterized as "extremist" and "they need to reform" and "be easy, your too harsh" etc.

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?

Okay, i 'll say it in the most simplest fashion that encompasses all of Islam


in order for a Muslim to be Muslim, then it is that they BELIEVE in their heart, SAY with their tongue, and ACT out with their limbs everything God has told them with in the Qur'an which by default entails unwaivering obedience to following the dictates of the Messenger of God TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY.



of course such a concise yet, far reaching implicative statement entails hundreds of other dictates but since you wanted conciseness, then that is conciseness.


and that definition will remain until the day we are raised and that definition, because it is beyond the properties of time and change, will never be nullified under the slogan of time or modernity.



I hope everything here has been clear
regards

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I have nowhere that I recall saying that justice = equality, you have invented that idea.

I did not invent that nor did I claim that this is what you state. It is merely implied through viewing your various arguments and reasoning.

and then, you refute yourself by saying

Justice means the quality of being fair,

i.e. the quality of the concept of the enactment of equality

Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably.

So you thereby contradict yourself in this

total impartiality unless you have a different meaning.

I do.
Justice, in the view of the prophets, is
"to render a thing in its proper place, the place that DEMANDS for that thing to be there"

For example, God is just because He is holy and cannot be tainted by evil.

I don;t mean to attack you, but that is a stupid definition. God not being tainted by evil is understood. However, God is the creator of evil. Had it not been for God, evil would not have existed. So this definition, although is trying to be moral, is insufficient

God is ultimately JUSt because He is the MOst perfect of Those who gives or renders the right of things to its proper place. He allowed for women to have certain privileges that men are not alloted because He understood the overall nature of women TO BE DIFFERENT than that of man and vice versa.

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.

Ive already explained that to you three other times with equavalent inequal laws in your own respective law, and your failure to address these inequalities is proof of your insincerity to the actual issue at hand, because most of the nullification on your part in trying to deny these inequalities in your laws were adorned with fanciful arguments like "it tries to level the plain field" when in reality an inequality is simple an inequality, and none of your fanciful arguments can alter this fact. So until you actually address those inequalities in your law, then you can forget about any further commentative arguments later on

for starters, please explain to us why would the police arrest your daughter or wife for not wearing a top on the streets while you can do the exact same thing while not arresting you. THAT, no matter how you adorn it, is an utter inequality. Explain how your law has this inequality in light of adopting a foreign policy of fighting laws of inequality around the world.

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.

Thank you sir, for just demonstrating to us not only your absurdity in thought, but demonstrating to us your oppression and injustice in equalizing the non-equatable

in the realm of justice, the judge ALSO HAS TO consider the nature of the person in question. It does not makes sense for the judge to punish a thief is is originally POOR on the same scale as someone in the corporate world in forming scandals. Under your concept, theft is theft, and there is no difference in the one who commits it. If a poor thief stole 10 thousnd dollars, it is not the same as someone who extorted 10 thousand dollars, even though the crime is the same and the amount is the same, the condition of the criminal is different. Therefore, it is from JUSTICE that the judge adopts forbearance where forbearance IS NEEDED (which is the definition of justice) and to adopt stern actions where stern actions are needed. Under your theory, all of that is destroyed

and this is why every common person on the street in any city and state and the ones that I have been and resided in generally do not view the american justice system to be synonymous with "justice", but because they are not Muslims, they do not have a route to properly articulate their point of view to members of the same society that I am articulating for them here in this post. The major cause or reason for this tyranny in the justice system STEMS from the idea that justice is represented through equality of being which is one of the greatest ideological tyrannies of this age.

I agree that human nature has not changed and that is because of sin

simply nonintuitive. the entirety of human existence lack of change is not SIN. Im not even talking about sin. Im talking even about progression. for example. most progressive thinkers claim that the women needs to abandon the hijaab because it is regressive. There is one problem. what the hell does the abandonment of hijaab have anything to do with actual advancement. The ONLY resultant effect of the abandonment of the hijaab is the escalation of promiscuity and adultery. It will not make us develop warp speed any sooner, it will not enable us to develop anti-matter bombs any sooner, it will not develop any actual advancement to the human sphere of life, rather it will only destroy the already half way destroyed and decaying moral integrity of modern society.

So im not even talking about sin, im talking about the simple basic human desire for the other gender (which is NOT a sin), or the fact that we need to pray five times a day for our moral character to be in tact, or any other trait that was revealed for the human condition which did not change from the last century or the last millenia.

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.

thats stupid and makes no sense. The purpose of law from a societal legislation is to MINIMIZE the harms done to the well being of society, NOT to reform the individual. Islamic personal law and adaab takes on the job to do this, but as far as criminal law or social law, the ordainments of Islam were not ultimately revealed to better us in our selves, but they were revealed to inform us on how an ideal human society can reach the peak of perfection.

You last point seem to indicate that Islam alone knows the dictates of God

that is because the religion of God is the submission of the prophets i.e. Islam

but where in Islam can you find any moral idea or the depravity of man which cannot be found elsewhere long before Islam began.

Are you talking about slavery? I you are, then
1. thats a bankrupt theory of yours because your bible cursed ham to the depravity of slavery
2. our slavery does not entail the depravity of man. Your does. Our slavery is not synonymous with yours. That is why I told you that our slavery is MORE synonymous with your current day employer/employee relationship. Your inability to recognize that is nothing more than either your bigoted stance of Islam, or your attempt to interpret the Islamic form in OTHER than what it actually was. Using the actions of modern nation states of the arabs is futile in this discussion if we are talking about Islam itself. What Muslims do is entirely a difference subject.

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

a thinking that stems from the Divine Will. The reason why I advocate that our platform is flawless is not because of the idea that "I am better than you" but rather because our platform is the product of the Lord of the Universe, and the Lord has no flaw, and whatever He decides or whatever decisions He makes, has no flaw in it.

regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

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.

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.

1. I agree with you, if that is what you meant that sin sadly is still with us. But the circumstances 1400 years ago are not the ones we have now are they. It is obvious that a 10th century scholar could have no knowledge of 21st century circumstances and it is obvious that making a decision without all the facts is to court disaster. Burke summed this up by saying.

..the heart of of the positions' is always the conviction that circumstances will alter cases; practicalitoes will govern decsions; one must always be wary of abstractions and universals.

But men may not build a future by turning their back on their past.

2. If we are going to use fatuous arguments then Christianity has existed for 2,000 years, Judaism for 3,000 and many Indian and Chinese religions for longer so by extension there is something illogical about your thinking by your own argument.

3. You miss the point, no one is suggesting to use your example that the American constituition needs to change just for the sake of change but that does not mean it can never be challenged and it is those challenges that in fact strengthen its integrity.

4. There is a declaration of human rights written many years ago but Muslims cannot accept it and so defined their own - why? Because they cannot accept the idea of equality which I would say is a universal right. So where is the hypocrisy you speak of? If I may say so your outlook is to assume that anyone who does not agree with you or Islam must by definition be wrong and its very hard to see how that can be considered a rational position to take.

5. There are moral codes we abide by, they existed long before Islam and Islam can claim nothing new here. I don't know why you have such disgust for homosexuality any more than any other sin. Homosexuals exist everywhere and even a passing acquaintance with Arab poetry will tell you how obsessed they were with it. My own view is that one cannot help it if you are homosexual in nature but it should never be practised, that is when in my view it become wrong. I do not like at all immorality but I have never seen anywhere where law has stamped it out, its only personal devotion to God can in my view do that and we cannot have such a law can we?. Do you really think that the 'west' is any different to anywhere else? If so I suggest you start looking at the statistics from Saudi Arabia, Iran,... anywhere.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

How you can say this is off topic is beyond me and learning is at the centre of development of the intellect and reasoning. Thus, I cannot make out for sure what you are saying here and neither am I sure you understand the implications of what you say or even if you are clear about what empiricism means.

Let me explain, there are as far as I know ONLY three ways of thinking or reasoning: induction, abduction and deduction. It is you argument I think that induction or empiricism is allowed in Islam; then it means we can look for data and draw conclusions from it. Therefore, we might look at say the role of women in the modern world and thus argue that it is very different from what is was 1400 years ago and hence it implies that any law regarding their secondary status should/could change and so on for a whole range of things that would/could render much of what is in sharia as out of date and it should be consigned to history.

If one cannot do as I have stated then neither induction nor deduction is allowed in Islam as far as theology or law is concerned so it is stagnant, it cannot develop or change and so by implication must be intellectually barren because it does not allow any thinking at all.

One can argue that you have the very words of God but to me that makes it worse because you now stifle, and I say that advisedly, all questioning or progress. From my point of view God has given us an intellect and we can use it to find him and if that requires asking hard questions then so be it, that does not lessen God does it?

when i get a chance, i iwll address some of these absurdities, but overall, i feel that most of these absurdities have been addressed in my recent replies

PS Just need clarrification. Is it the Islamic position that anything the Prophet said or did is in effect a command to follow in his footsteps? Without wanting to be trivial just clear hence this simple question, if Prophet Mohammed did not like tea does that mean that tea is bad and we should not like it either?

thank you for a reasonable question. Im glad you asked. it is a question by which its answer is somewhat comprehensive

the prophet way is called "as-Sunnah" in arabic which literally means "way" or methodology.

the sunnah has different meaning from two playing fields
1. the definition of sunnah between the experts in various fields
2. the types of sunnah as understood in Islam

your question is centered with regard to the second type so therefore I will only explain the first type briefly

Type 1: Sunnah according to the muhadithoon has a different meaning to what the fuqaha (the jurist) have labelled as sunnah. A sunnah to the muhaditheen means every and any act that the prophet ever did, even his silence, or abandonments of a thing. As for the fuqaha, their view of sunnah was restricted to the science of fiqh, which is to undstand and classify any act within 5 major rulings i.e. a. lawful b. unlawful c. recommnded d. disliked and e. allowed. Therefore wehn the fuqaha used or said "it is sunnah" then they used it interchangeably to be allowable or recommended OR obligatory in certain cases.

there are other views on sunnah with other fields of Islamic sciences, however I don;t want to over burden you with this. Your question is pertaining to the second type I mentioned above

Type 2: Now, even though it is the hufaadh (muhaditheen) who developed the following, it is more of an issue of categorization of the sunnah into parts

Sunnah is of two types and each type can be further divided into other types

1. sunnatul fi'iliyyah (the sunnah of actions)
2. sunnatut tarkiyyah (the sunnah of abandonment).

So whatever the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) left off from acts of worship, then it is a sunnah to leave them off. If it was the sunnah of the prophet to leav off some personal like, then the MUSLIM WILL BE rewarded for following the prophet in that, however there will be no harm for a muslim to abandon that sunnah. for example. the prohet ate camels meat. It does not mean that a Muslim HAS to eat camels meat

further more, sunnah is broken down into the following three aspects

1. Sunnah Fi'iliyyah (from actions)
2. Sunnah Qawliyyah (verbal)
3. Sunnah Taqreeriyyah (a tacit approval)

therefore, his actions can either be obligatory or only recommended, or allowed for Muslims depending on what the sunnah in question is. It can also be discouraged or even prohibited

I'll give examples from the prophets actions or statements which can fall into any one of these rulings for a muslim

1. a sunnah that is obligatory can be the sunnah of salah. The salaah is compulsory for the muslim
2. a sunnah that is highly recommended is to perform the dhikr (supplications) to Allah after the salaah. It is highly recommended but it is not absolutely obligatory
3. a sunnah that is allowed is eating camels meat. the prophet alaihi salatu salam at camels meat yet we have a choice to not eat it if we do not like it.
4. a sunnah that is discouraged is that the prophet use to make the early morning (tahajjud) prayers every day because it was binding on him by Allah to do it, but it was not binding on the Muslims. So if a muslim were to perform this everyday, it would be something that SEEMS beneficial, but it will still be discouraged and not encouraged.
5. an example of a sunnah of the prophet that is Prohibited for Muslims to perform is for example having more than 4 wives. He was allowed to have more than four and we are only allowed to have UP to four.

however, in my discussion of Islamic thought vs westen thought that I have with you all, the meaning I am intending with sunnah is the overall divine guidance given to the messenger in the aspects of guidance for humanity. Im not talking about some minute fiqh aspect of the prophet's sunnah.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

you refute yourself by saying "Justice means the quality of being fair, i.e. the quality of the concept of the enactment of equality. Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably.

So you thereby contradict yourself in this

Justice, in the view of the prophets, is
"to render a thing in its proper place, the place that DEMANDS for that thing to be there"

We might just be muddled over terms here. Equality means being essentially equal or equivalent or one might say balanced in some way. Justice means to act fairly so there is a clear difference: one is a state and the other is an action.

If I now look at your definition is it any different from saying be fair or is it a mechanism to ensure inequalities are sanctified by law? Let's take a simple example, suppose a mother sings to her sick child would not that be a 'proper place' for that to happen and indeed demand that it happen and logically therefore music is permitted?

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Are you talking about slavery? I you are, then

a thinking that stems from the Divine Will. The reason why I advocate that our platform is flawless is not because of the idea that "I am better than you" but rather because our platform is the product of the Lord of the Universe, and the Lord has no flaw, and whatever He decides or whatever decisions He makes, has no flaw in it.

NO I was not talking about slavery, I was asking you what has Islam brought to the world in terms of morality that was not brought by almost every other religion?

I see your point about platform but it cannot be an argument of weight only a point of view, something that you fervently believe in. As an argument its is flawed because the premise cannot be shown to be true and of course I or anyone else can raise the same argument using their holy book with equal fervour.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

I don;t mean to attack you, but that is a stupid definition. God not being tainted by evil is understood. However, God is the creator of evil. Had it not been for God, evil would not have existed. So this definition, although is trying to be moral, is insufficient. God is ultimately JUSt because He is the MOst perfect of Those who gives or renders the right of things to its proper place. He allowed for women to have certain privileges that men are not alloted because He understood the overall nature of women TO BE DIFFERENT than that of man and vice versa.

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.

I've already explained that to you three other times with equavalent inequal laws in your own respective law, and your failure to address these inequalities is proof of your insincerity to the actual issue at hand, because most of the nullification on your part in trying to deny these inequalities in your laws were adorned with fanciful arguments like "it tries to level the plain field" when in reality an inequality is simple an inequality, and none of your fanciful arguments can alter this fact. So until you actually address those inequalities in your law, then you can forget about any further commentative arguments later on

for starters, please explain to us why would the police arrest your daughter or wife for not wearing a top on the streets while you can do the exact same thing while not arresting you. THAT, no matter how you adorn it, is an utter inequality. Explain how your law has this inequality in light of adopting a foreign policy of fighting laws of inequality around the world.

Thank you sir, for just demonstrating to us not only your absurdity in thought, but demonstrating to us your oppression and injustice in equalizing the non-equatable

in the realm of justice, the judge ALSO HAS TO consider the nature of the person in question. It does not makes sense for the judge to punish a thief is is originally POOR on the same scale as someone in the corporate world in forming scandals. Under your concept, theft is theft, and there is no difference in the one who commits it. If a poor thief stole 10 thousnd dollars, it is not the same as someone who extorted 10 thousand dollars, even though the crime is the same and the amount is the same, the condition of the criminal is different. Therefore, it is from JUSTICE that the judge adopts forbearance where forbearance IS NEEDED (which is the definition of justice) and to adopt stern actions where stern actions are needed. Under your theory, all of that is destroyed

and this is why every common person on the street in any city and state and the ones that I have been and resided in generally do not view the american justice system to be synonymous with "justice", but because they are not Muslims, they do not have a route to properly articulate their point of view to members of the same society that I am articulating for them here in this post. The major cause or reason for this tyranny in the justice system STEMS from the idea that justice is represented through equality of being which is one of the greatest ideological tyrannies of this age.

1. I am unaware of the Islamic doctrine with regard to Sin as you state it but it seem impossible that a sinless God, the 'most perfect' in your words should create evil - that does not make any sense. The Christian and Jewish view is that nowhere in the Bible is it explained why sin exists. But if that is the Islamic positions I can say no more but please don't say the position is 'stupid' just because it is not yours.

2. We have discussed at length inequalities and I don't deny them only say that my view is we do not accept them but try as best we can to nullify them. That you find that a reprehensible idea is a mystery to me.

In you example, of stealing both parties go to court, the law is the same for both and in law there is no distinction. But when the judge sentences he takes into account not the people involved but the enormity of the crime and if found guilty one supposes the judge makes the punishment fit the crime not the person although there may be mitigating circumstances. In simple terms it does not matter how bad the crime is the Judge when listening to the case must be impartial and hear the evidence, he or she cannot be swayed by who a person is. This is obvious because if there were no crime no one would be in court in the first place would they?

Surely, Islamic law (I hope) must do the same, its the crime that the law addresses not the type or kind of person or circumstances; as I said otherwise there would be no case to answer.

3. How can striving for equality be a tyranny? According to you giving or trying to give equality of opportunity to say disabled people is a tyranny meaning some sort of despotism or dictatorship? As I said, we might not be able to remove the inequality, the disablement, but we do not have to simply accept it either as if nothing can be done to nullify it.

Last week Sir Ronald Pitts Crick died. He lived in a time when glaucoma was a sentence to blindness and that is an inequality but he would not accept it, he would not have said God ordained this and almost single-handedly changed the prevailing view across the world and today the condition is not curable but it is treatable.

So is it best to accept inequalities or fight against them whatever they are?

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

simply nonintuitive. the entirety of human existence lack of change is not SIN. Im not even talking about sin. Im talking even about progression. for example. most progressive thinkers claim that the women needs to abandon the hijaab because it is regressive. There is one problem. what the hell does the abandonment of hijaab have anything to do with actual advancement. The ONLY resultant effect of the abandonment of the hijaab is the escalation of promiscuity and adultery. It will not make us develop warp speed any sooner, it will not enable us to develop anti-matter bombs any sooner, it will not develop any actual advancement to the human sphere of life, rather it will only destroy the already half way destroyed and decaying moral integrity of modern society.

So im not even talking about sin, im talking about the simple basic human desire for the other gender (which is NOT a sin), or the fact that we need to pray five times a day for our moral character to be in tact, or any other trait that was revealed for the human condition which did not change from the last century or the last millenia.

Who said that lack of change was sin?

You logic is impeccable here as abandonment of hijaab has little to do with the actual advancements you mentioned though none of them were relevant to discussions of morality and the logic that supports them.

The trouble is that you pre-suppose that its use reduces promiscuity and adultery. My wife for example does not wear a hijaab, never has and never will as long as she or I live but she would chew you up into little bits and be rightly outraged, incensed by your suggestion that she now encourages promiscuity or adultery. Your logic is flawed; you are making the basic error in logic of saying girl A does not wear the hijaab, girl A is promiscuous therefore all girls who do not wear the hijaab are promiscuous which is an obvious fallacy. It is equally fallacious to say girl A does wears the hijaab, girl A is not promiscuous therefore all girls who wear the hijaab are not promiscuous.

If you disagree then explain why the divorce rates are very high in Islamic countries such as the UAE or why in Tehran there are reported to be 100,000 prostitutes - do I have to go on in this way?

I am not against decency in dress and proper rules of decorum but they come from the heart not from any outward and outdated notion of what it means to be covered.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Since this question is general, this includes everything. So the answer is broken down in two formats
1. With regards to religious guidance. 2. with regards to things OUTSIDE of religious guidance

in terms of the first, then there is nothing outside Islam that can be truth. However we have to understand that Islam is much broader than your conception of it. With Muslims, Islam, the entire religion of Islam began with Adam (the first man) and was completed with Muhammad. That means that whenever we find truths elsewhere, it is because that truth came with the Islam of those prophets before us. When it is claimed in the Bible "thou shalt not forge idols and graven images" this in reality is the Islamic reality. It just happened to be accepted by the Jews of those times. This is because our prophet Muhammad stated in a hadeeth that "the entire religion of Islam is like a house, each prophet was a stone that progressed its building, and I was the last stone that completed the house"

I understand that this is the Islamic position but where is there any evidence that Islam started with Adam or even if there is any hint of it before the 6th century?

My difficulty here from a rational point of view is that your words imply that you should listen to the Biblical prophets so logically that must mean you accept the Torah, Gospel and Psalms as we have them otherwise you seem to be in the impossible position of claiming Biblical prophets and then ignoring the most authentic books we have which tell their story. Or to use your analogy Prophet Mohammed was just one stone but where are all the others?

It is a very odd position to take that nothing outside of Islam can be truth in a religious sense and it seems to deny what is obvious. Judaism and Christianity as well as many other religions have truth and often they are the same as Islamic ones. Since these came before Islam you seem to be in the illogical position of saying Prophet Mohamed brought the truth but they were also there before his day so his message was not needed? It follows, you have to 'invent' this idea that Islam was always there to make any sense.

You did not expand about truths outside of religion so perhaps you might expand on that or if I missed it give me the relevant posting.