OT: Could Bush Have Been Right?

[Merryprankster]

dezhen

Well, I didn't want to get in to the Fiqh and Sharia distinctions. I was trying to speak in generalities. Otherwise, it gets quite messy.

But Fiqh undeniably has its roots in Sharia. That's where you go to get it, using individual reason to extrapolate from Islamic principles.

However, the western system is not built on those principles, hence the resistance. When I speak of humanist law, I am talking about law that does not derive from religion.

I can get to democracy, for instance, without Christianity or any other religion. Pushing such a system on the Islamic world, which makes no categorical distinction between "humanist law" and "God's law" is a rough road. Democracy must be justified within the Islamic context.

So I'm not disagreeing that there is a set of law (Fiqh) that is undeniably derived, using human reason. But I think you'll have to agree that Fiqh and jurisprudence that comes out of the individual reasoning process is Islamic in the sense that it is undeniably derived from Islamic principles.

Fiqh must be justified within the context of Islam. Western law has the concept of secular humanistic law, which does not need such justification.

And no, I'm not an expert either, but mildly versed, as you. If I've got that wrong, let me know.

[dezhen2001]

IMO, the biggest "western harm" done to the ME has nothing to do with any specific policy, and certainly not with any actual (recent) intent to exploit the ME. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the globalization process as well as general western pressure to adopt reforms coupled with old world Imperialism in the region. Namely, there is a lack of development in Islamic Jurisprudence. There is a strong cultural bias in the ME against "non-Islamic" models and systems - you can't institute them in an Islamic system. How do you justify a system built on secular humanism (Man's Law) within the context of a society that doesn't recognize the concept as valid? You can't push that type of reform and expect a positive result

Old world colonialism (and the Ottoman Empire, which relegated the religious adviser to a secondary role over time) stunted the growth of Islamic Jurisprudence. It kept it from growing into a system that can handle the demands placed on a modern government. There has been real progress in Islamic Banking law, which has shown remarkable flexibility and resilience in the global market. Great Islamic template for future reform in the region.

Just to some back to this because re-reading it there is a heap of things i wish i could write about. But its 3.50am and its also far too boring.

The old-world colonialism you speak of is a double-sided coin. You are of course correct that by that time the Ottoman empire itself was in decline and "behind the times", but during that period of history there were many important contributions to Islamic scholarship. Some of which are being studied more deeply now to see how these intellectuals developed solutions in theology and law to the problems they faced. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Shah Wali Allah of Delhi and many others are all towering figures from the last 2 centuries of thought. Even the likes of Mawdudi and other controversial figures all had a role to play and are important to be studied. Also not forgetting Abdul ghaffar Khan who was one of the most important colleagues Ghandi had, and successfully managed to get something like 200 000 Afghan Pashtun tribes-people to non-violently protest the occupation of India by Britain. Try getting any pashtun to do that today and you can see how much work needs to be re-done!

Even in the Ottoman empire itself, there was the creation of the Mejelle which was a synthesis of traditional islamic and european law, combining many of the various schools of Law together with the european aspect too.

Not everything was static and down the crapper. It just depends on where and how you look.

[cam]

Faith denies Proof. I agree with that statement, if you are talking about the existence/non-existence of god.
If you are talking about the investigation of an actual event then yes I want lots of proof. That's my agenda, what's yours?

[dezhen2001]

But Fiqh undeniably has its roots in Sharia. That's where you go to get it, using individual reason to extrapolate from Islamic principles.

To some extent you are correct, but not in others. In Islamic law there are 4 main sources of law, and many secondary sources. The 4 main being Quran and Sunnah - these are basically "as is" and it gets complicated but basically there are around only 500 verses in Quran (out of over 6000) that have specific legal provision. With the Sunnah as well, specific rulings that are not contextually specific and hence "eternal" are also very few. Mostly they espouse specific examples of a historical and sociologically specific situation that later generations can study to draw principles and examples from. Of course, this is if you are not a literalist who thinks we should all live like we did in 625AD

Then we come to the other 2 - Qiyas (analogy) and Ijma (consensus). These are based on man, and not "divine". Analogy is of course based on the texts of Quran and Sunnah but its also similar to the western legal concept of ratio legis or ratio descendi, insomuch as an exsiting rule is studied to see the foundational causes of its inception, and by analogy these are applied to new cases if the causes are found to match. In the Quran, for example, it tells us that a type of alcohol made from grapes is forbidden. By analogy, so is any type of alcohol and any intoxicant, because the reason is that it causes us to loose our mental faculty and hence become negligent of our duties and obligations (for want of a better description) towards God and also to other people.

However, the western system is not built on those principles, hence the resistance. When I speak of humanist law, I am talking about law that does not derive from religion.

Of course, but Western Law still has a set of presuppositions and foundational doctrines that anything else is built upon. The UN charter is a good example of this - Islam also has its own equivalent but just not so neatly drawn up as that. From what little exposure i have had to the western legal tradition, many things are the same as Islamic law - just different doctrines as the foundation

Ultimately no matter if we say we are following God, or a specific charter, it is man who is the arbitrator - who uses intellect and reason to apply and if need be, to create new rulings based on the changes in time and circumstance. Islamic law is no different to this - yes there are a few things that are "eternal" (mainly relating to worship), but many things actually are not. Islamic law actually makes a distinction between 2 areas - that of worship, and that of the social domain.

I can get to democracy, for instance, without Christianity or any other religion. Pushing such a system on the Islamic world, which makes no categorical distinction between "humanist law" and "God's law" is a rough road. Democracy must be justified within the Islamic context.

This is the crux of the argument then isnt it? Is democracy compatible with Islam? there are many works being done on both sides of this right now. For me, the reason i initially became Muslim was because of the egalitarian and moral/ethical nature i found when studying Quran. Of course people can say its not the case, but as far as i have studied it is, and i am happy for it to be so. Can any type of "islamic" system be democratic in nature? Well it depends on what you envisage both "islamic state" and "democracy" to be. Consultation between advisors, every person having a "voice" and many other things already exist even within the classical construct of a "Caliphate", and have done since the time of Muhammad. It was he who said "The Jews (in medina) are one Ummah with the believers (ie. Muslims)" when creating the treaty of medina, and one example is that 8 verses of Quran were revealed to absolve a Jewish member of the community from a false charge raised against him by a Muslim who was actually the guilty party. Again, it depends on where you look and how you interpret things.

I think you'll have to agree that Fiqh and jurisprudence that comes out of the individual reasoning process is Islamic in the sense that it is undeniably derived from Islamic principles.

What are Islamic principles?

Fiqh must be justified within the context of Islam. Western law has the concept of secular humanistic law, which does not need such justification.

Surely it has some method of weights and balance to stop people being allowed to run rampage and make "law" whatever they like? In Islam this is why we have the Quran and Sunnah, as well as specialists in the legal sciences who can argue against you using the same initial sources if they think you are wrong, making stuff up or are talking total shit

How do you think that Yemeni scholar could argue against those extremists otherwise?

No worries, this is interesting stuff
If you want to read more about how the islamic legal process works, Usul al Fiqh by Abdul Hannan is a good place to start, it covers a lot. Its a bit heavy going, so something like this may be a bit better. Some of it differs from what i have been taught/studied (primarily when talking about the "hadd" crimes) but its pretty good nonetheless.

[Merryprankster]

dezhen,

I'm not arguing that one set of principles is more valid than the other, and I certainly agree with you that the western legal tradition has principles to work from, reason by analogy, etc. The processes involved in determining rulings are more or less identical.

My point is, that those principles are not by necessity religious in the west. The foundations are in many cases secular. It is this aspect of the system which creates resistance to importation, wholesale because it claims lineage from man's own opinion and reason without reliance on the divine.

By contrast, the "root" of Islamic jurisprudence is "Islamic principles." I do agree with the because "What does that mean?" is the crux of the argument, even (and ESPECIALLY) within Islam itself. That is always the crux of the western jurisprudence process as well.

Thanks for Qiyas and Ijma. For some reason I couldn't remember those terms. As you yourself noted Qiyas derives from the religious principles (whatever those may be, depending on the POV of the person). I also disagree that they derive from man. They are processes carried out by man, but the ultimate legitimacy of any decision deriving from their use lies in WHY they are carried out.

Ijma certainly means consensus, but the process of ijtihad IS to try and uncover Allah's will/ruling on a particular issue where there may be no specific guidance, using all available means - the Koran, the sayings of the prophet, Qiyas and Ijma. That is my understanding, at least. The point again being that ijtihad works to uncover the truth of Allah's will and law on a particular topic.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think you and I are actually in (mostly) violent agreement, just that I am not expressing myself very clearly.

I agree that both Islamic Jurisprudence and Western Jurisprudence rely on virtually identical processes. I agree that the western legal tradition relies on a set of principles in the same way that Islamic jurisprudence relies on a set of principles. However, where I believe they are different is that the western tradition incorporates and derives a great deal of its ummm... tradition from non-divine principles (in fact, you can get to all of them without the divine).

But, within the process of Islamic jurisprudence it is impossible to escape the divine, as you are trying to determine Allah's will on a matter. Although you are certainly using personal reason and consensus, analogy, and a host of other techniques, the purpose of that pursuit is to reach understanding of Allah's will. Because of that, I disagree with you in that you cannot claim that this is "man-made."

Now, I fall into the category of people that believes there is nothing inherently self-limiting about this. The principle of Ijma, for certain, is a strong indicator that the say of the majority carries weight. It is not a far step to reach a democracy justified in Islamic jurisprudence. But trying to import western democracy wholesale, when it is clearly a very heavily secular phenomenon, is something that is going to encounter a lot of resistance because it is not justified as a result of Allah's will. (I'm not sure it can be, but it is more the fact OF that is pertinent here, and I am not an Islamic legal scholar.)

Now, if you disagree and believe that Ijma and Qiyas are "man made" law, then we are at an impasse and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. But I was never intending to say "What's written in the Koran and the Sunnah is it, and all else is forbidden!!!!" Nor was it to say "that is the common understanding in the Islamic world," either.

Once again, I apologize for the dearth of history in my postings originally. I was trying to sum up for the sake of space and time. Not all was static and in decline as you have noted. The Ottoman Empire was desperately trying to reform its military, its education system and a host of other things, in the middle and end of the 19th century. The intellectuals were contributing to that effort, within their own scholarly Islamic tradition. Further, they were all doing this successfully. In general, however I was trying to convey the historical fact that things were in NEED of reform.

[Merryprankster]

If you are talking about the investigation of an actual event then yes I want lots of proof. That's my agenda, what's yours?

No, it's clearly not what you want. If you wanted to determine what was going on, you would compile all the available evidence, including 'the gubmint did it' websites and the 9/11 reports etc. and decide what you think happened.

[cam]

I wasn't aware of your psychic abilities MP, please tell me more.
There is lots of evidence , sadly I'll be long dead before it comes out.

A lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. **** Cheney

[dezhen2001]

MP: no problems, just showing the flip-side on this issue

My point is, that those principles are not by necessity religious in the west. The foundations are in many cases secular. It is this aspect of the system which creates resistance to importation, wholesale because it claims lineage from man's own opinion and reason without reliance on the divine.

Oh, i have no doubt that they are probably completely non-religious, and never said they were. Like you and i both mentioned for example - the Ottomans started to reform their education system, and legal system - who do you think said that it could be so while still being "islamic"? Who do you think is saying things now and that they are still "islamic"? The scholars of law. The "religious" aspect is a set of guiding principles relating to such things as justice, modesty and so on. One of the scholars i study from basically said that we should have the attitude of "anything good belongs to me", as in, if there is anything out there that is not against islamic principles, then its method is useful and we should use it to develop ourselves - especially if we are in the west.

yet especially within the middle east it goes back to the stigmatized mindset we both mentioned before. No one will even think of this because they feel marginalised - even the scholars of law who supposedly are spending their whole life studying the sources to make solutions for their community. If you cant get out of this mindset - then like any immigrant community, you stick to what you know and try to preserve what you have, often completely ignoring anything else that falls outside its bounds.

Thanks for Qiyas and Ijma. For some reason I couldn't remember those terms. As you yourself noted Qiyas derives from the religious principles (whatever those may be, depending on the POV of the person). I also disagree that they derive from man. They are processes carried out by man, but the ultimate legitimacy of any decision deriving from their use lies in WHY they are carried out.

Its pretty much just semantics. If man has to use logic and reasoning to develop a response to an issue not covered in either of the 2 Sources, then it cannot be said to be infallable. No jurist would say that, and i find it quite scary that you would inflate these processes towards the divine To me, any ruling using these are created by man, even though based on a type of "divine precedent". There have been issues where some scholars have performed Qiyas and when seeking the cause ('ilal) in the Sources, they have found numerous possible options - so which one? Again, this shows that it is a process of man cannot be infallable and all-knowing. Scholars have argued over many things throughout history, which to some may sound chaotic - but to me its good because it means they dont have inflated heads and think they know it all

Ijma certainly means consensus, but the process of ijtihad IS to try and uncover Allah's will/ruling on a particular issue where there may be no specific guidance, using all available means - the Koran, the sayings of the prophet, Qiyas and Ijma. That is my understanding, at least. The point again being that ijtihad works to uncover the truth of Allah's will and law on a particular topic.

hmmm... your definition is slightly incorrect, at least according to my studies/teaching. Ijtihad is defined as exerting effort to infer rules relating to new problems when they are not directly available in the Sources. Qiya and Ijma fall in to this category. There is not really any "Allah's will" involved in it, as its classified as temporal and a type of speculation. Again, if you remember the Shariah/Fiqh divide, then this falls within the Fiqh category. I dont know if you have learned the difference between Qat'i/Nass and Zanni but it is important to bear in mind.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think you and I are actually in (mostly) violent agreement, just that I am not expressing myself very clearly.

The main thing i am trying to show, is that both systems are based on a legal process, created and developed by man, and have many similarities. Yes, Islam has a specific religious grounding and "secular humanism" does not - but even then there will be much cross-over between the 2, as Islamis Law has many aspects which are based on human nature.

However, where I believe they are different is that the western tradition incorporates and derives a great deal of its ummm... tradition from non-divine principles (in fact, you can get to all of them without the divine).

Thats cool. I mean heck, some scholars have stated that you can study Islamic Law without being Muslim and be able to infer rulings. Some even said that you can find all the basic principles and foundational doctrines without even having any scripture - that they correspond to reason. Of course, not all the details but the generality yes.

But, within the process of Islamic jurisprudence it is impossible to escape the divine, as you are trying to determine Allah's will on a matter. Although you are certainly using personal reason and consensus, analogy, and a host of other techniques, the purpose of that pursuit is to reach understanding of Allah's will. Because of that, I disagree with you in that you cannot claim that this is "man-made."

its your right to disagree with me. There were many discussions on this in history - the Zahiri school for example (now extinct) basically held that whatever is clear and unambiguous (Qat'i/Nass) in the Quran and Sunnah constitutes Shariah. They rejected the use of Qiyas, ijma or any other tool saying that Islamic law only covered what was clear. Modern scholars like the late Muhammad Asad also believed this, stating that only what was clear is Shariah, the rest is temporal and man-made. To some extent i agree with this opinion.

The principle of Ijma, for certain, is a strong indicator that the say of the majority carries weight. It is not a far step to reach a democracy justified in Islamic jurisprudence. But trying to import western democracy wholesale, when it is clearly a very heavily secular phenomenon, is something that is going to encounter a lot of resistance because it is not justified as a result of Allah's will. (I'm not sure it can be, but it is more the fact OF that is pertinent here, and I am not an Islamic legal scholar.)

This is the crux of the issue - why import western style democracy at all instead of letting folks develop their own solutions to their own problems? This is what many of the current Muslim scholars, even those who are "pro-modernity" and all that other jazz are asking.

I was never intending to say "What's written in the Koran and the Sunnah is it, and all else is forbidden!!!!" Nor was it to say "that is the common understanding in the Islamic world," either.

Actually one of the most foundational legal maxims is "Everything is deemed permissable until proven forbidden" - basically the opposite

Anyway, interesting discussion

[FatherDog]

Dogboy, When Merry is pressed to speak his mind, he will continually speak someone elses and also wander off when challenged on a position, He has been far less than critical of teh Bush administration and if you bothered to read a lot of his stuff you would see that for the most part he seems instead to fully support teh Bush agenda and also equally seems to have a hard on for teh arab world.

If that's the impression you've gotten from Merry's posts, you seriously need to brush up on your reading comprehension.


Anyway, thanks to both MP and dezh for making this a pretty informative thread.

[David Jamieson]

dogboy-

brush up on your own sh.it man. as soon as you get your tongue out of other peoples butt crack.

Man I am getting tired of some of the jive that goes on here. these threads wouldn't last a second if i was still modding here.

[Merryprankster]

dezhen, I guess I just don't see a flip side. It looks to me like we're saying the same things, with the exception of the ijtihad bit...

I completely agree both western and Islamic jurisprudence use similar (identical really) processes.

The distinction about how you interpret ijtihad then is probably important. Some may interpret one way and some another which will have a direct impact on what's legal or not in their opinions.

BTW, I'm not suggesting the process isn't fallible (or pushing it towards the divine). I was suggesting that IF ijtihad is the seeking of Allah's will on a particular issue, then the legitimacy is, in fact, derived from the divine.

However, IF the definition of ijtihad for a particular group is not seeking Allah's will, and is a "man-made" thing, then the legitimacy is NOT from the divine.

What your posts have done, of course (and usefully) is clarify what I said in the beginning - that generalizations do not apply across the board. There is significant disagreement within the Muslim community over lots of stuff, as you have made quite clear, and which is certainly the case - again, my generalizations were made for simplicity's sake.

This is the crux of the issue - why import western style democracy at all instead of letting folks develop their own solutions to their own problems? This is what many of the current Muslim scholars, even those who are "pro-modernity" and all that other jazz are asking.

They don't have to, nor should they if it's unacceptable. I'm not suggesting that that is a solution. I was merely pointing out that the answer the question "why don't they just do 'x' like we have" is somewhat silly once you get into the meat of the issue.

While this has been very interesting, I'm trying to identify if there is an "issue" we are working our way through using the process of debate or if we are just having a discussion, because I agree with you on all counts.

I did learn that there are different interpretations of what ijtihad is, and I believe that will have a direct impact on how you perceive "where law comes from," which will also have a direct impact on what you perceive as acceptable or not within an Islamic context.

Good to know. I thought it was a commonly accepted definition. It appears it is not.

There is lots of evidence , sadly I'll be long dead before it comes out.

Thanks for proving you have an agenda! Have a nice day.


KL, the problem is that I don't actually read your posts because you're on my ignore list. I only respond to the snippets of garbage other people quote. I also have a pretty good idea of what you would say, so sometimes I just respond to what I'm pretty sure you're saying. Based on your responses and the responses of other people on the board, it looks like I guess right alot.

I also "wander off," because I have things to do from time to time. Shocking. Alternately, I no longer find it amusing to be on the board at that time. Sometimes, I'm not on here for several days or weeks. Amazing, isn't it?

[cam]

What agenda? Hello this is a Kung Fu forum, that's my agenda.
I am not here to talk with right or left wing sycophants but as I live in Canada I do have an interest in the insanity that goes on down there. Good luck!

[ZIM]

Anyway, thanks to both MP and dezh for making this a pretty informative thread.

Agreed.

For Dezhen-

I'm unclear on one aspect:
These legal scholars of whom you speak- are they considered to be clerics or wholly secular in their standing? What I mean is, must they be clerics in order to be jurists or are they an independent class?

[rogue]

Ditto about MP and Dawood. I'm just sitting back reading the exchange.

[David Jamieson]

I'm on ignore lists because people can't handle the truth.

Myself? I ignore no one but am quick to ridicule those who put forth some of the crap that gets put forth here.

for instance, most of the guys who write all this crap about Bush almost never, and I mean this, almost never post anything at all about Kungfu.

So, once again, I'm looking at Cam and going, "hey, finally, someone who ain't talking sh.it"

I'm purty tired of bush rhetoric,. american flag waving in re: Iraq and all that other poop that don't belong here. I really don't know why guys keep posting it here. I'm guessing it's cause they are lightweights as far as political arguing goes and simply don't have the cajones to post it in the appropriate forums that you would never see a kungfu post in.

I think it behooves the mods to now sift through these turds, and clean out the ******* threads about politics.

Thanks and good night Mrs Robinson.