I live in Pakistan...if I go around publicly proclaiming that following hadith is contradictory to God's message...they won't like it...
Do you think it would be right for the government to put me in jail or tell me to leave the country because I disagree with the hypocrisy of the majority of this country?
Peace Layth
Can you elaborate that please?
I suppose then the currency
Should be backed by some sort of reserves (not necessarily gold) to give it REAL value.
Should be pegged to the value of gold to keep it from inflationary tendencies.
Ps.
Peace idolfree
What wrong ideas are you referring to?
And I don't think you should make fun of anyones religion. Humility? Compassion? Tolerance?
Deleted.
Peace...
Is it possible to have the sura number with the verse number? Like if I'm in chapter-6 and scroll down I have verse 118...can it be (611...
I have trouble identifying the sura number especially when I use the 'find' option in the translation using MS Word.
Sha
Peace everyone...
Buddhism it turns out is NOT a religion. Its a way of looking at the world. I find the ideas quite compelling...in fact it would be easier for various sects to first become buddhist in their outlook...and then accept God's message...here are the basics from buddhanet.net.
Introduction to Buddhism
This short essay is intended to give a brief introduction to Buddhism. It will discuss the way Buddhists perceive the world, the four main teachings of the Buddha, the Buddhist view of the self, the relationship between this self and the various ways in which it responds to the world, the Buddhist path and the final goal. - Mike Butler
The Three Marks of Existence
Buddhism has been described as a very pragmatic religion. It does not indulge in metaphysical speculation about first causes; there is no theology, no worship of a deity or deification of the Buddha. Buddhism takes a very straightforward look at our human condition; nothing is based on wishful thinking, at all. Everything that the Buddha taught was based on his own observation of the way things are. Everything that he taught can be verified by our own observation of the way things are.
If we look at our life, very simply, in a straightforward way, we see that it is marked with frustration and pain. This is because we attempt to secure our relationship with the "world out there", by solidifying our experiences in some concrete way. For example, we might have dinner with someone we admire very much, everything goes just right, and when we get home later we begin to fantasise about all the things we can do with our new-found friend, places we can go etc. We are going through the process of trying to cement our relationship. Perhaps, the next time we see our friend, she/he has a headache and is curt with us; we feel snubbed, hurt, all our plans go out the window. The problem is that the "world out there" is constantly changing, everything is impermanent and it is impossible to make a permanent relationship with anything, at all.
If we examine the notion of impermanence closely and honestly, we see that it is all-pervading, everything is marked by impermanence. We might posit an eternal consciousness principle, or higher self, but if we examine our consciousness closely we see that it is made up of temporary mental processes and events. We see that our "higher self" is speculative at best and imaginary to begin with. We have invented the idea to secure ourselves, to cement our relationship, once again. Because of this we feel uneasy and anxious, even at the best of times. It is only when we completely abandon clinging that we feel any relief from our queasiness.
These three things pain, impermanence and egolessness are known as the three marks of existence.
The Four Noble Truths
The first sermon that the Buddha preached after his enlightenment was about the four noble truths. The first noble truth is that life is frustrating and painful. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, there are times when it is downright miserable. Things may be fine with us, at the moment, but, if we look around, we see other people in the most appalling condition, children starving, terrorism, hatred, wars, intolerance, people being tortured and we get a sort of queasy feeling whenever we think about the world situation in even the most casual way. We, ourselves, will some day grow old, get sick and eventually die. No matter how we try to avoid it, some day we are going to die. Even though we try to avoid thinking about it, there are constant reminders that it is true.
The second noble truth is that suffering has a cause. We suffer because we are constantly struggling to survive. We are constantly trying to prove our existence. We may be extremely humble and self-deprecating, but even that is an attempt to define ourselves. We are defined by our humility. The harder we struggle to establish ourselves and our relationships, the more painful our experience becomes.
The third noble truth is that the cause of suffering can be ended. Our struggle to survive, our effort to prove ourselves and solidify our relationships is unnecessary. We, and the world, can get along quite comfortably without all our unnecessary posturing. We could just be a simple, direct and straight-forward person. We could form a simple relationship with our world, our coffee, spouse and friend. We do this by abandoning our expectations about how we think things should be.
This is the fourth noble truth the way, or path to end the cause of suffering. The central theme of this way is meditation. Meditation, here, means the practice of mindfulness/awareness, shamata/vipashyana in Sanskrit. We practice being mindful of all the things that we use to torture ourselves with. We become mindful by abandoning our expectations about the way we think things should be and, out of our mindfulness, we begin to develop awareness about the way things really are. We begin to develop the insight that things are really quite simple, that we can handle ourselves, and our relationships, very well as soon as we stop being so manipulative and complex.
The Five Skandhas
The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas, loosely translated as bundles, or heaps.
If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form.
After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception.
The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept.
The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara -- literally, to whirl about. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself.
The Six Realms
If ego decides it likes the situation, it begins to churn up all sorts of ways to possess it. A craving to consume the situation arises and we long to satisfy that craving. Once we do, a ghost of that craving carries over and we look around for something else to consume. We get into the habitual pattern of becoming consumer oriented. Perhaps we order a piece of software for our computer. We play with it for awhile, until the novelty wears out, and then we look around for the next piece of software that has the magic glow of not being possessed yet. Soon we haven't even got the shrink wrap off the current package when we start looking for the next one. Owning the software and using it doesn't seem to be as important as wanting it, looking forward to its arrival. This is known as the hungry ghost realm where we have made an occupation out of craving. We can never find satisfaction, it is like drinking salt water to quench our thirst.
Another realm is the animal realm, or having the mind like that of an animal. Here we find security by making certain that everything is totally predictable. We only buy blue chip stock, never take a chance and never look at new possibilities. The thought of new possibilities frightens us and we look with scorn at anyone who suggests anything innovative. This realm is characterised by ignorance. We put on blinders and only look straight ahead, never to the right or left.
The hell realm is characterised by acute aggression. We build a wall of anger between ourselves and our experience. Everything irritates us, even the most innocuous, and innocent statement drives us mad with anger. The heat of our anger is reflected back on us and sends us into a frenzy to escape from our torture, which in turn causes us to fight even harder and get even angrier. The whole thing builds on itself until we don't even know if we're fighting with someone else or ourselves. We are so busy fighting that we can't find an alternative to fighting; the possibility of alternative never even occurs to us.
These are the three lower realms. One of the three higher realms is called the jealous god realm. This pattern of existence is characterised by acute paranoia. We are always concerned with "making it". Everything is seen from a competitive point of view. We are always trying to score points, and trying to prevent others from scoring on us. If someone achieves something special we become determined to out do them. We never trust anyone; we "know" they're trying to slip one past us. If someone tries to help us, we try to figure out their angle. If someone doesn't try to help us, they are being uncooperative, and we make a note to ourselves that we will get even later. "Don't get mad, get even," that's our motto.
At some point we might hear about spirituality. We might hear about the possibility of meditation techniques, imported from some eastern religion, or mystical western one, that will make our minds peaceful and absorb us into a universal harmony. We begin to meditate and perform certain rituals and we find ourselves absorbed into infinite space and blissful states of existence. Everything sparkles with love and light; we become godlike beings. We become proud of our godlike powers of meditative absorption. We might even dwell in the realm of infinite space where thoughts seldom arise to bother us. We ignore everything that doesn't confirm our godhood. We have manufactured the god realm, the highest of the six realms of existence. The problem is, that we have manufactured it. We begin to relax and no longer feel the need to maintain our exalted state. Eventually a small sliver of doubt occurs.
Have we really made it? At first we are able to smooth over the question, but eventually the doubt begins to occur more and more frequently and soon we begin to struggle to regain our supreme confidence. As soon as we begin to struggle, we fall back into the lower realms and begin the whole process over and over; from god realm to jealous god realm to animal realm to hungry ghost realm to hell realm. At some point we begin to wonder if there isn't some sort of alternative to our habitual way of dealing with the world. This is the human realm.
The human realm is the only one in which liberation from the six states of existence is possible. The human realm is characterised by doubt and inquisitiveness and the longing for something better. We are not as absorbed by the all consuming preoccupations of the other states of being. We begin to wonder whether it is possible to relate to the world as simple, dignified human beings.
The Eightfold Path
The path to liberation from these miserable states of being, as taught by the Buddha, has eight points and is known as the eightfold path. The first point is called right view -- the right way to view the world. Wrong view occurs when we impose our expectations onto things; expectations about how we hope things will be, or about how we are afraid things might be. Right view occurs when we see things simply, as they are. It is an open and accommodating attitude. We abandon hope and fear and take joy in a simple straight-forward approach to life.
The second point of the path is called right intention. It proceeds from right view. If we are able to abandon our expectations, our hopes and fears, we no longer need to be manipulative. We don't have to try to con situations into our preconceived notions of how they should be. We work with what is. Our intentions are pure.
The third aspect of the path is right speech. Once our intentions are pure, we no longer have to be embarrassed about our speech. Since we aren't trying to manipulate people, we don't have to be hesitant about what we say, nor do we need to try bluff our way through a conversation with any sort of phoney confidence. We say what needs to be said, very simply in a genuine way.
The fourth point on the path, right discipline, involves a kind of renunciation. We need to give up our tendency to complicate issues. We practice simplicity. We have a simple straight-forward relationship with our dinner, our job, our house and our family. We give up all the unnecessary and frivolous complications that we usually try to cloud our relationships with.
Right livelihood is the fifth step on the path. It is only natural and right that we should earn our living. Often, many of us don't particularly enjoy our jobs. We can't wait to get home from work and begrudge the amount of time that our job takes away from our enjoyment of the good life. Perhaps, we might wish we had a more glamorous job. We don't feel that our job in a factory or office is in keeping with the image we want to project. The truth is, that we should be glad of our job, whatever it is. We should form a simple relationship with it. We need to perform it properly, with attention to detail.
The sixth aspect of the path is right effort. Wrong effort is struggle. We often approach a spiritual discipline as though we need to conquer our evil side and promote our good side. We are locked in combat with ourselves and try to obliterate the tiniest negative tendency. Right effort doesn't involve struggle at all. When we see things as they are, we can work with them, gently and without any kind of aggression whatsoever.
Right mindfulness, the seventh step, involves precision and clarity. We are mindful of the tiniest details of our experience. We are mindful of the way we talk, the way we perform our jobs, our posture, our attitude toward our friends and family, every detail.
Right concentration, or absorption is the eighth point of the path. Usually we are absorbed in absentmindedness. Our minds are completely captivated by all sorts of entertainment and speculations. Right absorption means that we are completely absorbed in nowness, in things as they are. This can only happen if we have some sort of discipline, such as sitting meditation. We might even say that without the discipline of sitting meditation, we can't walk the eightfold path at all. Sitting meditation cuts through our absentmindedness. It provides a space or gap in our preoccupation with ourselves.
The Goal
Most people have heard of nirvana. It has become equated with a sort of eastern version of heaven. Actually, nirvana simply means cessation. It is the cessation of passion, aggression and ignorance; the cessation of the struggle to prove our existence to the world, to survive. We don't have to struggle to survive after all. We have already survived. We survive now; the struggle was just an extra complication that we added to our lives because we had lost our confidence in the way things are. We no longer need to manipulate things as they are into things as we would like them to be.
PS. Can we have links on the main index to discussions on other religions? Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confucianism, etc. Please. )
Sha
Peace everyone...
I am still working on this essay. Just thought I'll get some comments, opinions and suggestions from freeminders. So the first draft of the first section of this article is here. Enjoy!
Freedom
& Islam
With Islam came the Scientific-Spiritual Age initiated by Muhammad, the last Prophet of God. It was a time of liberation, enlightenment and reason. Islam had not come as a religion but as a system that unchained man from dogma, economic servitude and social problems. By doing this it nurtured and propelled mankind?s mental, spiritual and material leap in time. This was made possible because ?freedom? happened to be the rallying cry of the Islamic faith. But the concept of freedom in Islam differs from what Western civilization has come to believe. In Islam, freedom is not an unattainable and utopian ideal but a reality based on solid foundations and rationale. As you will discover in the paragraphs to come, Islam was and is the true liberator.
Spiritual emancipation
Intellectual emancipation
Physical emancipation
Spiritual emancipation
We begin by discussing the essence of the Islamic faith. The literal meaning of the word Islam is ?submission? or ?surrender?. The basis of this surrender is ?belief in One God?. In Islam, you believe in the one God and submit to God alone to the dismay of many gods. This concept alone forms the basis of freedom in Islam.
In our search for freedom, there are four choices
Must we surrender?
The first choice is not to surrender. This is the present belief regarding freedom established by the Western civilization. Freedom and surrender, they will claim, contradict each other and therefore cannot co-exist. This argument is fine in refutation of the existence of freedom with surrender. But there is a presupposition Absolute freedom exists and it is possible.
The question to be placed to this machine-age logic is Does absolute freedom exist?
If it can be proven that absolute freedom is impossible and does not exist, would that imply that the next best thing to absolute freedom is maximum freedom? And if maximum freedom is the freedom we should aspire, and not absolute freedom, then what is this maximum freedom and how shall we achieve it?
Let us look at a few examples. When you get up and drink a glass of water, you surrender to your thirst. When you eat food, you surrender to your hunger. When you obey your parents, you surrender to their desires. When you protect your country, you surrender to the King or the Parliament of the nation. Every action has behind it submission to some form of willpower. It could be yourself, your parents, your Parliament or your needs. If there is nothing that you surrender to nothing happens.
So as far as absolute freedom goes, it does not exist. Since it does not exist you cannot achieve it. This is a logical fallacy which you cannot overcome. The best you can do is to aspire for maximum freedom and achieve it. And this is exactly what Islam promises a rational and achievable objective compared to the unachievable and utopian ideal professed by the West today.
Surrender to yourself
Since ?absolute freedom? does not exist, it is this second possibility which the West practically aspires to as their version of ?freedom?. Let us consider the actuality and affects of this kind of freedom.
Before we do that please notice that we are ?surrendering?, even if to ourselves. So freedom, in its most basic, has to exist with surrender. The only question now is what or who to surrender to. Here we observe the bent of mind of a man, and a society, when he submits to his own desires.
Surrendering yourself to your will gives you unlimited possibilities. You have become your own god. The only rule or law that you abide by is the achievement and accomplishment of your desire, through any and all means. Morality has no meaning since morality exists in a social context and you don?t care about the society, only about yourself. You are moral only as long as it fits your purpose. You abide by laws only as long as you fear being caught.
The exhilaration of such freedom is enchanting. You can now lie, deceive, steal, cause pain and indulge at will. Nothing internal stops you from exploiting a dying man, disobeying and hurting your old parents, effecting financial fraud to the loss of many, killing a man for his gold watch, and so on. This is the maximum freedom you desired, the utopia you were promised and this is all you sought.
It seems that you live in a perfect world. Since it is such bliss, let us say that everyone else also wants this kind of maximum freedom and the bliss that comes with it. And they attain with ease because they obviously don?t have to ask you or anyone else. They only have to follow their own desires to achieve it. Just like for you, neither morality nor law will stand in their way.
So if everyone is free to do as their heart desires, what happens? You killed someone for his gold watch; someone will kill you for your gold watch. You organized a swindle to rob people of their wealth; someone will rob your wealth with an even better swindle. You disobeyed and disrespected your old parents; your children will do the same to you. You exploited a dying man; you will also be exploited as a dying man.
Man?s base desires form the basis of all evil committed by man; submission to your own will is the same as surrendering to the devil. In a society of such men hunger prevails, exploitation is rampant, children die and women are raped. And all this is done mercilessly and unrepentantly. There is no end to the destruction caused by man?s submission to himself. Surrendering to himself, man achieves what he set out to achieve the end of civilization.
In his search for freedom, man becomes a slave to his own cravings. If anything, this is slavery and not freedom. Submitting to yourself is definitely not the way to freedom.
Islam, on the other hand, by telling you to surrender to God absolves man from the slavery of his own base instinct.
Surrender to gods
This is the route taken by most man-made religions or present-day distortions of Divine guidance. This is also the route taken by men who feel a moral obligation to their nation, their parents, their family and their friends. This moral obligation builds in them a desire to be ?appropriately inclined? towards most people they meet in life. They thus surrender to a ?higher morality? in their search for human happiness.
The two cases are very different. Submission to gods, in the religious sense, causes you to accept the moral and social authority of Priests, Imams, Pandits and religious leaders by other names. Where a Prophet was involved, as he is in all Devine religions, humans have a tendency of placing their Prophet in the same league as God as far as obeying is concerned. This authority is first bestowed on the Prophet by the clergy, and eventually shared by the clergy along with the Prophet because of their so-called ability to interpret and explain what God requires from man for man?s salvation. The clergy first makes the Prophet, and then themselves, gods alongside God.
Let us say that people surrender to a religious clergy and its interpretation of religion of what is right and what is wrong. This gives rise to competing clergies that want to have their way with your faith. And thus surface the religious sects we are so aware of. Present-day Islam is as much a victim of this same distortion as have been other Devine religions.
When you obey God, the Prophet, the Priests/Imams of a bygone and revered era, and members of your present-day clergy, you are obeying a chaos of opinions and contradictions. You have surrendered to so many gods that it is humanly impossible to discern the truth from the falsehood. Faced with such impossibility, you stop thinking. And this is just what the greedy clerical order requires of you blind obedience to whichever school of thought you belong to. They control the gates of heaven and hell, and they care not what you do with your life as long as you revere them in the name of religion.
Surrendering to many gods (dressed as religious leaders) results in the end of human reason faced with the ?divine truth? championed by the clergy; and it completes the subjugation of the spirit at the hands of forces suppressing light, truth and the right way. While your body is still free, slavery of the soul thus begins.
To people who submit to a higher morality, the question of what this morality is difficult, if not impossible, to answer. What will be the guiding principles of that morality and who defines them is answered by each one according to his level of maturity and comprehension of the Divine principles. In their search for these principles, most of these people will read and refer to philosophers that have searched the secret to human happiness throughout history. The philosophers used reason and logic to discern these eternal principles and these submitters to a higher morality use human reason to discern the ?correct combination of principles? discovered by various philosophers.
Submission to gods, in the philosophical sense, is as close to the concept of one God as you can possibly get, without getting there. Since the end objective is to find out what this ?higher morality? is, the submission to gods (human philosophers) is temporal it is part of the exercise of finding the one true God. The philosophers and their ideas become the means through which you reach to God?s System, the absolutely perfect set of laws available to mankind.
So while this is not the worst kind of slavery, it is still a step behind complete emancipation.
Surrender to God alone
Islam literally means ?surrender? and is an invitation to God?s System, the absolutely perfect set of laws available to mankind. The creed of Abraham is sighted as the one to be followed. God tells us
(2131) - When his Lord said to him ?Surrender?, he said ?I surrender to the Lord of the worlds.?
(2135) - And they said ?Be Jews or Nazarenes so that you may be guided!? Say ?No, rather the creed of Abraham, monotheism; for he was not one of those who set-up partners.?
Surrendering to God alone relieves you of the burdens, the shackles and the dogmas that have been placed by religious distortions of the clergy.
(7157) - ?Those who follow the gentile messenger prophet whom they find written for them in the Torah and the Injeel; he orders them to goodness, and deters them from evil, and he makes lawful for them the good things, and he forbids for them the evil, and he removes their burden and the shackles that are upon them. So those who believe in him, and honour him, and support him, and follow the light that was sent down with him; these are the successful.?
God considers no one but himself as the lawgiver, and no one but himself as the one to be obeyed.
(2163) - And your god is but One god, there is no god but He; the Almighty, the Most Merciful.
Since absolute freedom does not exist, surrendering to many gods leads to chaos and surrendering to yourself leads to slavery of the worst kind ? the only objective alternative is to submit to God alone as God suggests. Submitting to God alone means submitting to God?s System, the perfect system He has bestowed us with.
Agreeing to this basic argument (the Oneness of God Almighty and obeying only His laws) till now, non-Muslims would wonder why they should submit to the God of the Muslims. Language plays tricks with our mind. The word ?Muslim?, even though used as such to depict the followers of various sects and man-made religions, is not a noun. It is an adjective with the meaning ?submitter?. Feel free to call yourself submitter or some similar word in the English language or any other. But we must all still submit to the ?Lord of the worlds?, and please notice that it is not ?Lord of the Muslim world?.
To traditional Muslims would occur two problems at this point Fear of not loving their beloved Prophet enough and fear of not being blindly obedient as the clergy has taught them to be. To them I say if you want to follow hearsay and conjecture, be my guest. But if you want to discover the truth, you will have to think, question, and attempt to comprehend God?s System, its perfection and its universality.
(1124) - The example of the two groups is like the blind and deaf, and the seer and hearer. Are they the same when compared? Do you not take heed?
Surrendering to God alone leads you to true spiritual emancipation. You have no one to fear but He, no one to obey but He and no one to please but He. Focus relieves you of anxiety and ensures your commitment to God?s perfect system.
There is one little condition God will guide you to His perfect system if only you take heed. So in Islam, belief is not blind or deaf. You are not expected to accept what you do not agree with. God reveals His System to you but your mind is perfectly capable of comprehending it and applying it in your lives.
(1644) - With clarity and the Psalms. And We sent down to you the Reminder to make clear to the people what was sent to them, and perhaps they will think.
By requiring you to think, to question and to see the truth Islam relieves you from adherence to dogma and servitude to the beliefs of your forefathers. This freedom becomes the cornerstone of your emancipation. For without it, you would be unable to unravel the mysteries of this universe.
In reference to God?s system, one clarification must be repeated. Islam does not demand compliance to a system you inherently, deeply and intellectually don?t agree with.
(223) - And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then bring a chapter like this, and call upon your witnesses other than God if you are truthful.
Now here is the challenge to humanity. God is inviting you to test the validity of His wisdom and allow yourself to be persuaded only by the truth. If Plato, Aristotle and others can attempt to uncover eternal principles by use of the human mind, I am certain we can do much better given some Divine assistance.
Spiritual emancipation in Islam, therefore, has a simple and sound basis belief in God alone.
Peace everyone,
I have been looking up Mutazalites and came across this article by Tarek Hagey. I think it gives a concise history of thought (or the lack of it) in Islam in a reasonable manner
Islam Between Copying and Thinking
By Tarek Heggy
In the years between 1967 and 1973, when I was studying towards a degree in law and a Masters in comparative law, I acquired a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Later, while teaching at universities abroad, I set out to develop a wider knowledge of the subject. My readings took me beyond the circle of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence to those of the Shiites (the most important of which is the Ithna?ashariyya or Imammeya), and the four main doctrines of the Khawarij (the most important of which is the Abadeya school prevalent in a small region of Algeria and in most of the Sultanate of Oman), as well as to other schools, such as the eponymous Al-Tabri and Al-Laith interpretations.
Nor did my readings stop there.
I found myself exploring other worlds closely linked to the field of Islamic jurisprudence, the most important being the doctrine of the Mutakallimun, or dialectical theologians, and delving deeply into the philosophical teachings of the Mutazalites and the Ash?arites. There was also the world of the Bateneyites in the history of Islam, to which I was introduced by a close friend, Dr. Mahmoud Ismail, whose writings on the thinking of the Khawarij, the Qarametta and of what he calls the other ?secret sects? of Islam served as one of my primary sources while studying the history of Islamic jurisprudence.
In the course of a journey extending for over twenty years, I developed a strong aversion for those I call "worshippers of the word" and "prisoners of tradition", and a profound admiration for the proponents of reason, most notably, of course, Ibn Rushd (Averoess), whose championship of the primacy of reason was adopted by Europe and rejected by the Muslim world.
Europe?s gain was our loss in turning our backs on Ibn Rushd, we lost a historic opportunity for development. A close reading of all Ibn Taymeya?s works, as well as the works of his disciples, from Ibn Qaiym Al-Juzeya to Mohamed bin Abdul Wahab at the end of the eighteenth century, only deepened my aversion towards this trend and my admiration for the Mu?tazalites, who emphasized human responsibility in matters of religion, and for liberal thinkers who chose the path of reason over that of dogma, like Ibn Sinna (Avicenna), Al-Farabi and the leading exponent of this school, Ibn Rushd.
When I compare some of the works of Al-Ghazali (Algazel), like "The Revival of the Religious Sciences" (Ihya? Ulum ad-Din), "The Criterion of Knowledge" (Mi?yar al-?Elm), "The Criterion of Work" (Mi?yar al-?Amal), "Salvation From Perdition" (Al-Monqeth Men al?Dallal), "The Essence of Orthodoxy" (Al-Mustafsah Men Elm al-Osoul) and the "Incoherence of the Philosophers" (Tahafut al-Falasifah), which are distinctly lacking in rationality, with the writings of Ibn Rushd, in which rationality reigns supreme, I am amazed that the battle waged between the exponents of these two distinct schools ten centuries ago should have ended up in a clear victory for Al-Ghazali and a crushing defeat for Ibn Rushd. Nowhere is the difference in the approach of the two men more evident than in their defining works Al-Ghazali?s "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" and Ibn Rushd?s "The Incoherence of the Incoherence".
I was also amazed at how historians of Islamic thought concealed the fact that Al-Ghazali was unfailingly supportive of despotic rulers, contrary to Ibn Rushd, who was a constant source of irritation for despots determined to keep their subjects in a state of intellectual inertia, thereby guaranteeing the perpetuation of the status quo and their continued unchallenged authority. For an active mind is the source of questions and questions lead to accountability and, as an enlightened friend put it, questions have eyes and answers are blind!
I spent years trying to understand why the Muslims had chosen to follow the line advocated by Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the proponent of orthodoxy and tradition for whom knowledge meant only knowledge of religion and who cancelled the role of the mind altogether by denying the possibility of acquiring knowledge through intuition, over the line advocated by Ibn Rushd, who upheld the primacy of reason and sowed the seeds of a renaissance we chose not to reap. Why were Al-Ghazali?s ideas so readily accepted while Ibn Rushd?s were rejected?
I believe the answer to this paradox can be summed up in one word despotism.
At a time despotism in our part of the world was at its height, it is not surprising that Muslim rulers should have found Al-Ghazali?s ideas more appealing than those of Ibn Rushd. The orthodox line was also more appealing to their subjects who, under the yoke of tyranny, found it safer and less demanding to go along with the views of those who required nothing more from them than a suspension of their critical faculties.
In Europe, where the forces of enlightenment were locked in a confrontation with the clericalism that stifled intellectual initiative and rational thought, despotism was in retreat. This explains why, in the thirteenth century, a prestigious centre of learning like the University of Paris supported the ideas of the Arab Muslim Ibn Rushd over those of the European Christian Thomas Aquinas, the scholastic philosopher famous for his two-swords doctrine.
Meanwhile, the Muslim world continued to be ruled by despots who brooked no challenge to their authority and an equally despotic religious establishment which decried the use of reason and demanded blind adherence to the authority of tradition. Closely linked as to methods, motivations and goals, these two factors created an atmosphere that was inimical to the unhindered pursuit of knowledge.
Still, things were not just black and white. True, the Muslims lost a historic opportunity to use Ibn Rushd?s ideas as a springboard that could have placed them on a path similar to the one which took Europe from the obscurantist thinking of the thirteenth century to the vigorous intellectual climate which encourages debate, free thinking, general freedoms and creativity in literature, art and science. But it is also true that Muslims have known two "Islams", as it were, one that can be described as the Turkish-Egyptian model and one as the Bedouin model. While the former cannot claim to have attained the level of enlightenment, progressive thinking and freedom that characterizes the ideas of Ibn Rushd, it was nevertheless a gentle and tolerant Islam that could and did coexist with others.
Indeed, non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire enjoyed more protection that any other minority living anywhere else in the world at the time. Under the Ottomans, Christians of the Levant and Jews in Arab countries lived in conditions very similar to the ones in which the Muslim subjects of the empire were living. Even when they were persecuted by certain rulers, like Al-Hakem bi Amr Allah, it was part of a general policy that made no distinction between non-Muslims and Muslims. Although this model of Islam can in no way be described as secular, it adopted an enlightened approach to religion, dealing with it as a system of spiritual beliefs rather than as a system that ruled all aspects of life and governed the affairs of society.
Meanwhile, an altogether different model of Islam was taking shape among geographically isolated communities living far from coastlines and hence from exposure to the outside world. Their insularity provided an ideal breeding ground for the ideas of Ibn Taymema, Ibn Qaym Al-Juzeya and, towards the end of the eighteenth century, those of Mohamed bin Abdul Wahab. A collision between the two models of Islam was inevitable, and, in the second decade of the nineteenth century, they confronted one another on the field of battle. Under the command of Mohamed Ali?s son, Tousson, then of his other son, Ibrahim, arguably the greatest of the Egyptian ruler?s sons, the Egyptian army, and with it, the more enlightened Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam, emerged victorious.
But the winds of change were blowing throughout the region, and the years that followed were not kind to Turkey and Egypt. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I brought an end to Turkey?s ascendancy, while Egypt?s influence receded as its economy and educational system declined. Meanwhile, the proponents of the model of Islam which demanded a strict adherence to the letter of scripture and slammed the door shut in the face of rationality, suddenly found themselves in control of vast wealth unprecedented in history. This gave them an enormous edge over their moderate rivals and allowed them to extend their influence into the traditional strongholds of the Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam, where they waged a systematic campaign to co-opt establishment personalities and institutions. The success of this campaign found its most salient expression in the emergence of fanatical movements like the Taliban, who interpreted the doctrines of religion on the basis of tradition alone and imposed a scholastic, doctrinal brand of Islam that left no room for the exercise of reason. This sorry state of affairs could have been avoided if the majority of Muslims had supported Ibn Rushd or if conditions had not forced the retreat of the Turkish-Egyptian model.
In numerous lectures I gave in Europe and America, I tried to familiarize people with what I call Egyptian Islam which, until the nineteen forties, stood as a unique example of tolerance and flexibility. Noted for its acceptance of the Other, it was not pathologically obsessed with the fine print of scripture. While recognizing the divine character of the prophetically revealed laws, it also recognized that some of their provisions were formulated in the context of a different time, place and circumstances. Thus divinity was reserved for religion and did not extend to how mortals understood or chose to interpret its strictures. It was tacitly understood that there is a subjective dimension to the interpretation of any text, and that interpretation is necessarily coloured by the interpreter?s cultural formation, knowledge and intellectual abilities.
The voices now raised in the West in general and in the United States in particular to warn against the menace of "militant Islam" would do well to ask themselves a number of important questions
? Who shut their eyes for many years to a general climate which allowed the militant model of Islam to spread unchecked and forced the civilized, humanistic Turkish-Egyptian model to retreat in disarray as economic conditions and educational institutions declined, leaving the way open to an invasion by the militant model?
? Who turned a blind eye to these developments for close on thirty years and are today bemoaning the way things have turned out?
? Who in the nineteen fifties and perhaps even earlier invented the dangerous game of using political Islam to create a strategic balance with socialism? (In the seventies, Egypt played the same game with disastrous consequences.)
? Has the West only now realized that there is no room for freedom, democracy, human rights, women?s rights or civil rights in the militant model of Islam? Did it really believe this model to be a shining example of these noble humanistic values in the nineteen sixties, seventies and eighties?
? Why is the dossier of the honeymoon between the United States and the Afghan mujahedeen not being opened? Or, for that matter, the chapter of the close links which political Islam in pre-revolutionary Iran enjoyed with the West, particularly France? And, before that, the relations between political Islam in Egypt and Britain, the occupying power at the time, particularly during the two terms of the Mohamed Mahmoud government (1928 and 193?
The critical mind, which is the pride of civilized humanity, imposes an obligation on all of us to answer those questions. It also requires all parties to assume a share of the responsibility for what happened and is continuing to happen.
It requires us, further, to look closely into the two models of Islam referred to in this article and ask ourselves which is more capable of joining the march of civilization and living in harmony with the requirements of the age, without abandoning the positive features of our cultural specificity. Is it the model engendered by the school of traditionalists, victims of their geographical isolation behind high sand dunes, or the moderate, tolerant, liberal Turkish-Egyptian model?
Better still, could we adopt the enlightened model of Ibn Rushd, which helped Western civilization move out of the Dark Ages into the Enlightenment? Will we really choose the thinking of his opponents, thereby allowing ourselves to fall prey to a culture which favours superstition, myths, ignorance and a rabid militancy over education, work, development and brotherhood?
-end-
I really liked "I developed a strong aversion for those I call "worshippers of the word" and "prisoners of tradition", and a profound admiration for the proponents of reason" as well as the title to Ibn Rushd?s "The Incoherence of the Incoherence". lol
The question isn't what the West did, does, or will do. The real question is what we are doing and will do in the days to come. ! The capitalistic enterprise is definitely running out of steam fast.
Sha
Peace everyone,
Here?s my story?
I was in partnership with a friend (a few years my senior) and we were the up-and-coming advertising agency in the city. The partnership ended in serious financial misunderstandings. I was amazed at the greed which success caused because we were both practicing Sunni Muslims. To me it seemed like a grave contradiction ? Muslims overtaken by greed and feeling absolutely justified in their actions? Truly that is not what Islam taught (or could teach).
I have had doubts which were once again confirmed ? practicing Sunni Muslims are not honest/fair in their dealings and they are absolutely self-righteous about it. I knew something was wrong but didn?t know what.
After the break-up of the partnership my father asked me to look after some of his affairs in another city. There I stayed with some relatives. One uncle (cousin to my mother) introduced me to the idea that Hadith are not to be followed. We argued for long hours but he couldn?t convince me ? probably because his arguments were not supported by relevant verses and the arguments were also not structured as well as I have seen some now.
I agreed with the basic idea Hadith can be wrong. But are they?
So I started reading the Quran seeking the truth (in a narrow fashion). I would read and confront him with verses that showed one or another aspect that connected with Hadith explanations (like the ?middle salat?) (yes its ?balanced? and not middle). Etc.
That was my first reading of the complete Quranic translation.
I moved to a village and stayed with another family. Here my uncle (brother to my mother) was a staunch ahl-e-hadith. I started discussing the possibility of the irrelevance of hadith with him. I would read the Quran and confront him with verses. At this stage I was looking for two points Can Quran completely guide us?And what?s the role of hadith in Islam?
I also started reading hadith books and looking up hadith history in the books available in the house I was staying, books in the library of relatives living in the nearby town and in the local mosque. The contradiction in Hadith, the unreliable history of hadith and their disagreement with the Quran were becoming more and more clear?
I also realized that the Quran was outrightly proclaiming the irrelevance of hadith throughout and in so many ways. I was now surprised how Muslims could have ignored such clear admonitions for more then a thousand years!
Having read the Quranic translation accepted by Sunni Muslims about six times by then I was convinced that following hadith was what God calls ?setting up partners?. I knew that the religion we were following was distorted beyond comprehension?I had by now rejected the religion of my forefathers?
But where to go from here? I knew what was wrong, but what was right? I figured it will take me two or three years of study before I can comprehend salat, zakat, pilgrimage, and so on?just from the Quran?
I also had another thing troubling me?Surely I can?t be the only person getting this?surely there will be people who are practicing and preaching Islam based on Quran alone?
Till that time Internet had not featured in my study. Quran had been the only source of guidance; and also hadith books since they were the ones on trial. On the internet I first searched for ?anti hadith? and came across an article about Kasim Ahmed in Malaysia. It was comforting to know somebody was out there who thinks just like I have come to believe.
I also read an article (regarding hadith) from free-minds the first day of searching. I came across the submission.org website too and found the 19 theory which was a bit too much for me for the time being. I wanted to understand the Quran?s message not numeralise it.
I got to the main page of free-minds.org and it made sense?I wasn?t afraid of being ?led astray? since studying the Quran many times over had already persuaded me that Quran alone is the right path?
Especially some articles like ?What is Religion? and ?How to Study the Quran? were making absolute sense?and providing a viable structure within which to understand God?s message to mankind?
I spent the next few days reading everything there was on free-minds.org?and, well, that?s how I came to and started loving this place? !
Sha
Peace Layth,
Just some thoughts on the divorce article...
"If he divorces her again (for the third time), it is unlawful for him to remarry her, unless she marries another man, then he divorces her. The first husband can then remarry her, so long as they observe GOD's laws. These are GOD's laws; He explains them for people who know." (2/230)
I dont like the brackets! God didn't say third time ?
Divorce is a single event. There is a beginning, an interim period and a conclusion. Divorce would be twice (the beginning and the end) and not three times as has been traditonally believed.
The first divorce would begin the waiting period (its the decision to divorce but you have to wait for 4 months)...
For those who wish to divorce their wives, then they must wait for four months. If they retract, then God is Forgiving, Most Merciful. (2/226)
The three menstruation period is exceptional and reconciliation is possible in cases of pregnancy...
And the divorced women shall hold themselves for three menstruation periods; and it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs,...(2/22
If you choose to 'execute' the decision of divorce and separate thats the second and final divorce...
"Divorce may be done twice. The couple either reconcile equitably, or go through with the separation equitably...." (2/229)
God gives you time to reconcile. If you don't and the time for reconciliation is passed and you have separated then there's no going back.
"If he divorces her...(2/230)" which means if they decide to EXECUTE the divorce after the waiting period and separate...then they cannot remarry UNLESS she marries another man and he divorces her...
If people knew they could remarry then there would be no point to the waiting period...since the waiting period in that case wud be indefinite.
Also...if the second divorce (or separation) does not take place then the divorce was not executed (it didnot happen)...the decision was changed and the couple reconciled...no matter how many times they do this is irrelevant. Its like a 'proposition' that was taken back before it became a 'law'.
Sha
Peace
I am going to send this to a national newspaper here. Am looking for ideas, corrections, anything. Anyone?
Btw...I don't see much activity on the forums. I guess we are all occupied in life.
Banking with the Parasites
We all suffer a collective woe Dearth of cash to meet our obligations. Our toil and sweat take us nowhere, our machinations and furor come to naught. We pass through our lives in a state of suspended animation never really penetrating the circle of bliss and prosperity.
Man was meant to aspire for higher ideals but life has become a meek struggle for bread and butter. Why are we in such a mess? What has gone wrong? Have we sinned and the gods are angry at us?
Unlike greater men, we suffer not out of conviction and for some great ideal. We suffer because we refuse to think, question, analyze and finally discern light from the darkness that pervades ours senses. We suffer because we refuse to challenge what is wrong, to be courageous and to be someone significant in a larger human sense. We are a new breed of men which has chosen to endure great pain in the name of ? in the name of what?
You might have lived docilely and never imagined that a ?Great Conspiracy Against Mankind? could exist ? but it does. Fortunately, we have been warned again and again, by God and man alike, if only we listen.
The parasites
Imagine a parasite persistently munching on your house structure. No matter how much you struggle to give your house final shape, it doesn?t finish. Every day you construct a little more, the parasite eats a little more. Each week a few more parasites are born and you need to endeavor more just to keep up with their eating. This slowly and then rapidly develops into a hopeless struggle for survival. You face a choice die of meekness (struggling, toiling and sweating), or change the rules. If you are smart and noble, you fight back.
There is a parasite constantly eating away the income of your hard labor. Something is going on behind the scene which nullifies your efforts and makes you even more subservient to this parasite every passing day. Can there be any other way to end this tyranny then to wage war against this criminal of human society? By every rule, of God and man alike, they must be stopped from this oppression. Man must be set free to aspire for ideals that suit his stature.
The money-lenders
I have a firm conviction (and a strong case) that the tall and strong buildings of the banking establishment that demand our trust are a bunch of thieves robbing us in broad daylight. Something is wrong not with me or you in the way we work (toil, labor, sweat and struggle); but something is unquestionably wrong in our servile acceptance of the economic system that has been imposed on us by the mutual consent of gullible governments and greedy bankers.
Let us say that there is a Bank and I am a person with Rs100 which I carry around in my pocket. The Bank places an advertisement in the newspaper informing me that this money is unsafe in my pocket and I should keep it with them for safekeeping. The Bank also promises to pay an annual interest of 2% on this deposit.
This is what I get. What does the Bank get? The Bank keeps my money safe and pays me for it too?
This is an absurd proposition unacceptable to a profit-seeking organization. Looking a bit closely we notice that according to an arrangement between the greedy banker and the gullible government of your country, the Bank follows a ?fractional reserve? policy. This means that the Bank has to keep a fraction of the deposits in liquid cash to meet its obligations, and it can credit the rest.
Let us say that the government has set this reserve ratio at 10%. If the Bank was reasonable it would keep Rs10 (10% of Rs100) and credit the rest (Rs90) to a borrower on interest (lets say 5%). That would give it an income statement looking like this
Gross income Rs4.5 (5% of Rs90 that was amount loaned)
Interest paid to depositors -Rs2 (2% of Rs100 deposited with the Bank)
Bank expenses -Rs1
Net profit Rs1.5
But the Bank is not reasonable. The Bank knows that when it credits money to a Borrower, it is actually just creating a Deposit in the name of the Borrower. So what it does is this It keeps Rs100 as liquid cash, and creates Deposits in the name of Borrowers to the amount of Rs900.
With just Rs100 in deposits the Bank creates credit amounting to Rs900! Just look at the new income statement
Gross income Rs45 (5% of Rs900 that was amount loaned)
Interest paid to depositors -Rs2 (2% of Rs100 deposited with the Bank)
Bank expenses -Rs1
Net profit Rs42
So on a deposit of Rs100 the Bank earned Rs42 ? a 42% return on deposits. 100% guaranteed return since the Borrowers pledge their property and assets to secure the loan. What business could be better?
But I really wish this was all. Maybe a great lawyer can argue even this to be unjust and illegal in an honest court of law. But the Banks are not simply unjust. They are complete thugs and thieves of the worst kind, as you will just see.
The Rs900 that the Bank loaned was not money that previously existed. It was literally, to quote a bankers? term, ?created out of thin air?. Let?s say this money was returned to the Bank within a year with interest. How does the Banks income statement look now?
Interest earned Rs45 (5% of Rs900 that was amount loaned)
Actual repaid Rs900
Gross income Rs945
Interest paid to depositors -Rs2 (2% of Rs100 deposited with the Bank)
Bank expenses -Rs1
Net profit Rs942
Just look at that figure. Rs942! That is a 942% return on a deposit of just Rs100! And guess what ? the bank did not earn this money by giving back anything of value! It just guzzled it greedily. It stole it from smart, hard-working, value-creating people like me and you. The Bank made money out of currency itself ? whose sole purpose, to begin with, was to serve as a ?medium of exchange?.
Why doesn?t the government provide this same service at zero interest?
If you think Rs942 isn?t important ? think again. At a 10% reserve rate, 90% of the currency we use is what is called ?checking deposits?. Roughly, just to understand, we can say the Banks take way more then 50% of what we earn just for creating ?money out of thin air? which could have been done as easily by the government at no cost!
It?s the greatest swindle of all times and it just doesn?t end. And you know why not? Because they take away more then half our income and we all stay quiet and numb and stuck in the drudgery of daily living. They are the merciless feudal lords and we are the docile peasant slaves.
Lessons from history and religion
Let us look to what history and religion (Islam Submission) teach us about interest.
Remember that religion is a ?system? and not a set of rituals. The Book of God guides you to the ?true system?, the one that will propel you to prosperity and success in this world and in the next one.
This is what God has to say about interest
2276 - God wipes out financial interest and He grants growth to charities. And God does not love every wicked sinner.
God does not say things in vain and God does not make mistakes. ?God wipes out financial interest?. If you are a Muslim this should compel you to think. If you are not you can still consider it and see if there is a rational basis for this claim. We have been taught in economic textbooks and the business pages of newspapers that interest makes the world go round. That modern economy could not exist without this interest-based banking system. That denying interest is the same as denying modernism.
Careful and honest evaluation will prove that technological progress and economic development is despite the existence of interest, not because of it. Interest is the exploitative element pervading our ?modern civilization? afflicted with an old disease historically notorious by the name usury. Interest is inherently parasitic. It is profit from trading in currency itself. And the Banks are eating away wealth that rightly belongs to the common man (after all, he worked for it!)
Interest is, literally, wiping out real wealth. Whereas the institution of interest accumulates wealth in a few hands thus destroying it, charity distributes it back to the majority thus multiplying it. Even modern economics argues the existence of a large middle-class as an essential ingredient for growth. No wonder God said that He wipes out financial interest and grants growth to charities.
This is not the place to discuss this verse with the detail it deserves. It will probably serve as a philosophical pillar when we begin to unravel the perfect economic system God gave to man.
Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle and others have this to say about interest (or usury)
Thomas Aquinas talks about the injustice of interest in these words ?To take interest for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality, which is contrary to justice. Now, money was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange. Hence, it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as interest.?
Hillaire Belloc sums up the definition of usury to be ?a claim to increment, or extra wealth, which is not there to be claimed. It is a practice that diminishes the capital wealth of the needy and eats it up to the profit of the lender - so that, if Usury goes unchecked, it must end in the absorption of all private property into the hands of a few money brokers.?
The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle says ?The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.?
In 1921 Nobel Prize winner Frederick Soddy said ?There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth. An honest money system is the only alternative. Starting with nothing whatever of their own, bankers have got the whole world into their debt irredeemably, by a trick.?
Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, then the second richest man in Britain said "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
Mayer Rothchild ?Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws.?
President James Madison ?History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.?
Rothchild Brothers ?The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burden without complaint.?
Plato ?There must be no lending at interest.?
In conclusion
We exist at a time in history when the world is reaching the inevitable conclusion of great greed destruction. Why must we commence a civilisation from the ashes of an old one only to be led astray by bankers once again? Why not confront the money-lenders now and begin forcing change? Why not interrupt the devastating future from ever happening? Why not live in a better, humane and just world?
Let us be significant in a larger human sense. This struggle is vital to humanity?s meaningful survival. We owe it to our children to pass them a world free of money-lenders and their craving for a ?Pound of Flesh?.
To end I thank God for the mercy he has shown in guiding us and showing us The Straight Path. For without His guidance, we would surely be lost.
Salam,
I would rather not create a constitution for an Islamic State?there is a distinct possibility of the constitution being revered (some time in the distant future) as the document that initiated and propelled the renaissance of the Muslim Ummah. If so, it would acquire a sacred place in the minds of most ignorant men (the majority) and become a rigid and defining (irreplaceable) part of the system.
But there are other reasons?which are irrelevant since the first question is Do we need a man-made constitution? Or do we already have one? What if we consider the Quran as constitution, and its application in our lives as ?the laws? we make, which are subject to perpetual change. As long as our decisions (by judges, consultative bodies, individuals) are in accordance with the Book of God, I feel comfortable in them being not exactly the same from time to time and from place to place. After all, the problems and circumstances we face are also not exactly the same every where and every time.
Let us consider that the Quran is the constitution. And it contains all we need to know about running ?organized society?. Then the state (or organized society) exists to provide justice not by its own laws, but by the laws contained in the Book of God. It exists not as a necessity to Islam?but as something we humans need as a society to organize ourselves as a collective. The states reason for existence therefore is not to enforce, but to facilitate. The state is not an end in itself. it is a means to an end. The end goal, obviously, is to ?Submit to the will of the Lord of the Worlds?.
To put in points, the Islamic State exists
If we accept the role of the state as facilitator then it must be curtailed to a minimum to stop it from becoming an interruption to us serving God alone. We submit to God and not to the state, or its laws. The state must not replace God in any way. It must not become an entity apart and away from the citizens that make it. It should be subservient to the laws given in the Book of God, and the needs of the men who co-ordinate it. Just like any collective body.
Notes
The man-made constitution would become sacred just like hadith books. We?ll repeat the same mistake, but we?ll do it differently (constitution vs. hadith). Just like we didn?t call Muhammad the Son of God (a Christian mistake), but we made him ?too loved?? more then God at times, and equal to God most of the times. A similar mistake, repeated with a semantic difference.
The application of the Quran (rules/decisions) might seem to be different from time to time and place to place. That?s not a shortcoming of the Quran but the beauty of it. Only the God-given Book of Law can transform itself and reflect even the minor differences in circumstance and time. Replacing it by ?uniform man-made laws? stagnates society even though seemingly serving the need for ?standardization? and ?justice?. This is the same mistake Imam Shafi made ? believing that he could save the Muslim Ummah by ?freezing laws?. (Kasim Ahmed in ?Hadith ? A Re-evaluation?). The flexibility the Quran provides and the perfection of its guidelines negate the need for any other law-book.
Sha
In an article titled "Are women to be beaten?" in the free-minds website, the writer says the following
The Arabic word (IDRIB) is translated by the scholars as (BEAT) in that particular verse to support their case. Although (BEAT) is a correct translation of (IDRIB), there are a total of SIX meanings of the same word that are used by the Quran
?Do you not see how God has CITED (DARAB) the example of a good word like a good tree?? (14/24)
?Oh you who believe, if you ATTACK (DARABTUM) in God?s cause?? (4/94)
?And We SEALED (DARABNA) upon their ears in the cave for many years? (18/11)
??and let them PLACE (YADRIBNA) their covers upon their bosoms?? (24/31)
??and let them not STRIKE (YADRIBNA) with their feet?? (24/31)
??the Angels BEAT (YADRIBOON) their faces and backsides?? (47/27)
When presented with a situation such as the one above where we have more than one meaning for the same word, we must follow God?s instructions that have already been laid out for us
?The ones who listen to what is said and follow the BEST of it, those are the ones God has guided and those are the people with intelligence? (39/1
If we were to take the BEST meaning from the above verses in line with what attributes we know God possesses, and in line with the objective of the verse in question, which is marital harmony. Then it would make more sense and be more effective to use the 2nd meaning of (IDRIB), which is to (DEPART or SEPARATE). If a man has a problem with his wife which they could not resolve after speaking, not could they resolve after sleeping in different beds...Then separation is the most amicable approach at this point as a 'cooling-off' and re-examining period.
The 2nd meaning in the above verses seems to be "ATTACK". I wonder how the writer comes to the conclusion that it is 'SEPARATE' from the above verses.
(In the context of the next verse, 'separate' seems right. But the above logic doesn't fit...unless I'm not getting it. Please help.)
Verse in question 434.
Dear LoteTree
You say human life is sacred. I agree with you. I also believe that human life is sacred. For me, killing a single human being is like killing all of humanity.
You say that while the life of the killer is sacred (no death penalty for a murderer), the life of the killed is not sacred (no right to seek justice). Am I correct in my assumption?
Sha
Peace
If interest is money earned from money itself, isnt rent the same?
For example I have a million dollars. I lend it at 6% to earn interest. That is forbidden.
(2275) Those who consume financial interest, they do not rise except as the one who is being beaten by the devil out of direct touch. That is because they have said ?Trade is like financial interest.? While God has made trade lawful, and He has forbidden financial interest. Whoever has received understanding from His Lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven for what was before this and his case will be with God. But whoever returns, then they are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally.
What if I buy an apartment block for a million dollars and rent out the flats. Would this 'rent' be considered 'interest' or 'trade'?
Sha
It seems we are not the only ones with 'the yoke of inheritance'...
Quoted from Wikipedia.org
Karaites do not accept the Rabbinic Oral Law as halakha because
They do not believe that the Oral Law is mentioned in the Tanakh.
They believe that all the Torah was written down during the lifetime of Moses and Joshua, and that there is only one Torah.
They believe the Oral Law "adds" or "takes away" from the plain meaning of the text.
They believe it to contradict the text at times.
The Mishnah and Talmud record the opinions of Rabbis who disagree with each other. The Rabbis explain that whenever there are such disagreements, "both opinions are the words of the living God". Karaites maintain that it is unreasonable to believe that God would contradict Himself.
The Tanach reports that the written Torah was lost and forgotten for over 50 years and only rediscovered by the Temple priests (2Ki 228, 2Chr 3415). Karaites believe that it is inconceivable that an Oral Law could have been remembered when the written Law was forgotten.
Theoretically, most historical Karaites would not object to the idea of a body of interpretation of the Torah, along with extensions and development of halakha. The disagreement arises over the perceived exaltation of the Talmud and the writings of the Rabbis above that of the Torah, so that, in the view of Karaites, many traditions and customs are kept which are in contradiction with those expressed in the Torah.
Funny how humanity makes the same mistakes every time!
Sha
Peace...
What will it be like? How will it be different? Any views?
Sha
Deleted.
Peace
The issue to me isn't how wrong they are, but to figure out and proclaim the true system of God. Can we please stop the sunni-bashing?
Sha
Peace everyone
What is happening here? Why is everyone being so judgemental? So angry? So arrogant?
I always saw free-minds as a place to discover the truth about God and religion. It was a very inviting place. You could come and discover for yourself what God really wanted from us. We were always a tolerant lot.
Why are many of us now being so patronizing with people who don't agree with our understanding of God's message?
Most people have been brought up as Sunni or Shia or belonging to some other sect. It is NOT easy to give up the belief of your forefathers. Can we not empathise? Can we not try to explain with tolerance and understanding?
There will always be dishonest people who will debate for the sake of debate. Are we going to become like them? Can we not, despite the insults, maintain basic manners and politeness? If you think a person is a hypocrite and a liar...why not just ignore him?
Also...I donot see how we can be the judge of their idol-worship. It is up to God to decide. Going this way, its not going to take very long for us to start declaring people as non-muslims just like the Sunnis and all declare us now. Who are we to judge them and their beliefs?
We can only call people to the Straight Path. Not force them to walk it. Please let us not become intolerant, self-righteous and arrogant like the rest of the world.
Sha