Secularising Islam?

[glo]

I don't think I have ever posted in this section, and I am not sure that it is the right place for this thread. If mods want to move it to a better place, that will be fine. :)

The article I posted about Muslims who turned away from extremism (See World Affairs), has raised the issue of whether Islam should be secular or not.

Perhaps that's something that has been discussed at length before, but it certainly isn't something I have given much thought until now.

Below is a quote from the article, which was taken from an interview with Maajid Nawaz. I describes a view which was presented to him by Islamic scholars he met in prison. Their view argues that Islam has always been meant to be secular, and that sharia has always been meant to be a voluntary code, rather than one enforced by law.

For the duration of the trial, he was placed in a cramped cell with 40 of Egypt's most famous political prisoners. There were row after row of beds with only a thin crack between them to inch through. Maajid was thrilled to discover two of the men who had conspired to murder Anwar Sadat – Omar Bayoumi and Dr Tauriq al Sawah – had recently been moved to this dank cell. "This is like meeting Che Guevara – these great forerunners and ideologues who I can now get the benefit of learning from," he says. But "they were very fatherly, and they had been spending all these years studying and learning. And they told me I had got my theology wrong".


After more than 20 years in prison, they had reconsidered their views. They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal – yet there had been consensus around once principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. "It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow," he says.


These one-time assassins taught Maajid that the idea of using state power to force your interpretation of sharia on everyone was a new and un-Islamic idea, smelted by the Wahabis only a century ago. They had made the mistake of muddling up the enduringly relevant decisions Mohamed made as a spiritual leader with those he made as a political ruler, which he intended to be specific to their time and place.


Maajid's ideology crumbled. "I realised that the idea of enforcing sharia is not consistent with Islam as it's been practised from the beginning. In other words, Islam has always been secular, and I had been totally ignorant of the fact." But he says he found this epiphany excruciating. "I knew if I followed these thoughts wherever they would lead," he says, "I would go from being HT's poster boy to being their fallen angel."

I would be interested to hear people's views.
Is the view presented correct?
If not, why not?

Thank you.

[ardianto]

When I was young I agreed with idea Muslims must leave sharia in daily life. But after I learned further about Islam, now I agree with idea Muslims must live under sharia in daily life. Of course not under puritan version of sharia because puritanism is against Islam itself. In example, in puritan sharia women are not allowed to go to mosque although there are some hadith that prohibit men prevent women go to mosque. There are many irrational prohibition in puritan version of sharia.

Sharia in right interpretation is not scary law.

Now in Indonesia and Malaysia, a number of Muslim thinkers are trying to build an Islamic 'Madani' society. A Muslim society that live under moderate interpretation of sharia that applicable in modern life, that always respect to human right and can live together with non-Muslim in peace.

[Eliphaz]

The consensus is the Shariah law is based upon the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas).

So whilst the first two sources (Qur'an and Sunnah) are revealed sources, the latter two are not, which I believe is where the difference in scholarly opinion over what is voluntary and what is compulsary arises. And of course these are also likely to change over time.

I'm sure someone can elucidate this far better than I have done.

[Sampharo]

The movement seems to be instead of bringing back terrorists and extremists to moderation, going into extremism itself. Yes terrorists and extremists are under the impression that they can fight and kill anyone who doesn't apply the shariah, pronounce them kafir and apostate, and automatically target their own rulers in crazy rebelion that is neither Islamic nor politically or socially productive. That is definitely wrong. However that does not mean at all that the correct view is

They told him he was false to believe there was one definitive, literal way to read the Koran. As they told it, in traditional Islam there were many differing interpretations of sharia, from conservative to liberal – yet there had been consensus around once principle: it was never to be enforced by a central authority. Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law.

That is fundamentally incorrect and every page of Hadith and Sunnah proves otherwise. Shariah law was enforced and there was never "difference of opinion" on its fundamentals. Abu Bakr Al-Seddique led wars against apostasy and zakat-withholders, and Umar Ibn Al-Khattab affirmed dresscodes as far as Egypt (reaffirmed that women should not show their bodies to other women especially non-muslims in public baths), and both refused allowing anyone re-interpreting the allowance of eating the food of the people of the book as permissibion to consume pork or alcohol and held criminal punishment against those who dared to do so, and no Khalifa of the Rashidoon ever entertained or allowed a single brothel, bar, a worshipped idol, or failure to uphold the Shariah law that was the sacred duty of all judges and magistrates to monitor and uphold. That which propelled the Islamic nation into its great age.

Additionally this silly term "Wahhabism" keeps being plugged in over and over. First of all it's a term made up by Shia and other deviant sects to give negative connotation to orthodox adherence to Islam and rejection of changes and manipulations of those sects. It resurged in Saudi Arabia and is nothing than a bad name to proper Sunnah as the prophet -pbuh-, companions and Salaf actually applied the rules of Islam. Terrorists and extremists however embrace the faith and beliefs of Khawarej, another deviant sect based on rebel beliefs that Islam condemns with evidence, and Saudi scholars were in consensus and were amongst the first in doing so with clarity and evidence.

Sobhan Allah, truth is now being buried by both sides in their stupid war of their own desires. :cry:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Chuck]

I'm one of the most literal interpretor of the Quran, but I never believed the way they did when they were literally interpreting Quran. But Quran has complex composition and in places it is figurative and in places it is literal, you need pay attention to the composition to understand which is what.

What you are asking is a complicated subject and I don't know what they exactly meant when they said something. I could misinterpret their comments. Anyhow, watch the lecture of Dr. Sherman Jackson, it should be helpful regarding your questions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+jackson&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+jackson&hl=en

[Karl]

Islam cannot be secularised. Secularism is anti Islamic. States like Turkey are a total sellout. Muslims who want secularism are false. I would rather be ruled by the Taliban than a bunch of sell out secularist false Muslims. You may as well be ruled by the infidels.

[Eliphaz]

Islam cannot be secularised. Secularism is anti Islamic. States like Turkey are a total sellout. Muslims who want secularism are false. I would rather be ruled by the Taliban than a bunch of sell out secularist false Muslims. You may as well be ruled by the infidels.

I agree. Islam and secularism are diametrically opposed. One seeks to push spirituality to the background of our life and the other seeks to bring it to the all-encompassing forefront.

[Karl]

The BIGGEST threat "secularization" poses is the fact that rather than the intention of allowing Islam to remain as a separate entity with full integrity within a larger secular framework so as to allow Muslims to practice AS Muslims, secularism intends to SUBSUME Islam instead! Calling for "secularism" merely means that kafir laws can OVERRIDE sharia law and the Muslim ways of life rather than allowing Muslims separate immunity from secular laws and respecting Islam on an equal footing. Secularisms main objective is to SUPPRESS Islamic ways of life. Therefore, secularization poses a grave threat to Muslims because they would be persecuted and prosecuted for certain things that are halal under Islam but criminal under secularism. We have seen this behaviour in the contemporary West. We hear in the news all the time Muslims being persecuted for wearing head scarves, or for practicing polygamy or for young marriages etc etc.

Secularism should NEVER be allowed to be given a foot otherwise it will take a mile, as has been evident in places such as Indonesia and Turkey. At one point I heard that Turkey had banned head scarves and implimented marriage "age laws", just for the sake of entry into EU! The following case demonstrates one utterly disgusting example of secularists persecuting Muslims, the court case of cleric Sheikh Puji in Indonesia being one fine example of secularist persecution of Islam. Secularists persecuted this poor man for having a 12 year old young woman as his wife. He earlier had to send his wife out to some other Muslim country so that the secularist authorities could not seize her off him. This is why I am fiercely opposed to the "secularism of Islam"!:

http://thejakartaglobe.com/home/shei...ear-old/335248

In another example, one photo I saw a while back on the net showed a group of Indonesian women holding up a banner reading "Say NO to polygamy!". That's secularism at work! And that's why all Muslims must make it their duty to STAMP IT INTO THE GROUND when it's in Islamic dominated areas. Frankly I don't know why Indonesia just doesn't invite the Dutch back in to run the country and be done with it, because at the present it seems to be over ridden with kafir organizations such as U.N., Unicef, World Vision etc. These organizations have Zionist and Western backers and are basically spies for the West. That's why Russia threw them out of the country.

[ardianto]

the court case of cleric Sheikh Puji in Indonesia being one fine example of secularist persecution of Islam. Secularists persecuted this poor man for having a 12 year old young woman as his wife. He earlier had to send his wife out to some other Muslim country so that the secularist authorities could not seize her off him. This is why I am fiercely opposed to the "secularism of Islam"!:

http://thejakartaglobe.com/home/shei...ear-old/335248

Sheikh Puji is a poor man ?...... Lol !. ;D

The poor man and his car.

Other sheikh Puji's cars.

Brother, this polygamy would not became a problem if his second wife is not 12 years old girl. Also this is not a love story. Lutviana Ulfah was selected from many poor girls who want to get a better life for their families. This polygamy seemed like a rich man bought a wife from poor family.

In Indonesia polygamy is common practiced. But men are suggested to marry poor widow as their second wives.

[Ramadhan]

The term "secular Islam" is an oxymoron.

[glo]

Thank you for the interesting comments so far.

Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. "It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow."

I have another question, which is perhaps more theological than political, and which relates to the above quote.

Given that Islam places so much emphasis on intention, I wonder of how much benefit an Islamic lifestyle is, if it has been forced upon somebody, rather than being chosen willingly and consciously.

In other words, for example, does God value a woman who has worn hijab all her life, but only because she was forced to?
Is her action of any value, if it isn't accompanied by willingness, submission and understanding?

I hope this makes sense.

[ardianto]

Given that Islam places so much emphasis on intention, I wonder of how much benefit an Islamic lifestyle is, if it has been forced upon somebody, rather than being chosen willingly and consciously.

There are many benefit of Islamic lifestyle for Muslims. But it is better if Muslims accept Islamic lifestyle willingly and consciously than forced by law.

I think Muslim country doesn't need to forced people live in Islamic lifestyle except in certain matter like obligate women to wear hijab, because there are many differing interpretations of Islamic lifestyle. But I totally agree if Muslim country ban every lifestyle that against Islamic lifestyle like hedonism, liberalism, free sex, etc.

In other word, I agree if Muslim must live in Islamic lifestyle but state must respect to difference between a Muslim and another Muslim. In example, not every Muslim agree if TV is haram, and state cannot makes a rule that ban TV.

In other words, for example, does God value a woman who has worn hijab all her life, but only because she was forced to?
Is her action of any value, if it isn't accompanied by willingness, submission and understanding?

In Indonesia except in Aceh province, there is no state law that obligate women to wear hijab.
At the past, was difficult to find Muslimah who wore hijab in cities. But now we can find many Muslimah who where hijab in everywhere. They are not forced. If they wear hijab that because they have realized if wear hijab is an obligation.

However, I support a state law that obligate Muslimah wear hijab.

[Eliphaz]

Thank you for the interesting comments so far.


I have another question, which is perhaps more theological than political, and which relates to the above quote.

Given that Islam places so much emphasis on intention, I wonder of how much benefit an Islamic lifestyle is, if it has been forced upon somebody, rather than being chosen willingly and consciously.

In other words, for example, does God value a woman who has worn hijab all her life, but only because she was forced to?
Is her action of any value, if it isn't accompanied by willingness, submission and understanding?

I hope this makes sense.

I think if we take into account 'verily, actions are by intention' then, if she wore it against her will it would become a question of her existing knowledge or her intention to gain knowledge of Islam, and to act on that knowledge. I know that many girls find that they wear the hijab when they are ready and comfortable enough to do so, which comes with knowledge and confidence, so I think God would understand when a girl is ready to start wearing it and not value her any less if her knowledge or confidence has not reached that level, provided her motivation is there.

If someone is force-fed anything, whether it is hijab or living under Islamic Law, then it is always going to have adverse effects.

[glo]

If someone is force-fed anything, whether it is hijab or living under Islamic Law, then it is always going to have adverse effects.

Do you support the view that "Sharia [should be] a voluntary code, not a state law." ?

[Eliphaz]

Do you support the view that "Sharia [should be] a voluntary code, not a state law." ?

I must say that I am not trained in Shariah law, but my opinion is that the Muslim scholars need to first and foremost re-open the doors of ijtihad (independent interpretation) and provide an interpretation of Shariah law compatible with the world we are now living in. Shariah is not a monolithic concept. Representative democracy is, similarly, an ever-evolving concept.

Most Muslims today accept the principles of representative democracy as congruent with Islamic belief, take shura (consultation) for instance. It is only when democracy and secularism are confused as meaning the same thing that Muslims disagree with it. Secularism has no place in Islamic state law, past or potential.

So, I believe we should not treat Shariah as monolithic, and say that it as a whole compulsory or on the whole a voluntary system. Shariah law needs to be updated to the modern age first and foremost and there is no reason why it cannot be.

[MSalman]

I must say that I am not trained in Shariah law,

then my respected brother, it is better to no speak about issues for which we have no knowledge

but my opinion is that the Muslim scholars need to first and foremost re-open the doors of ijtihad (independent interpretation) and provide an interpretation of Shariah law compatible with the world we are now living in.

and who told you the doors of ijithad are closed? And where did you get the idea that Shari'ah is not compatible with modern world; hence, we need to change it? Bro, do you realize the ramification of this statement?

Shariah is not a monolithic concept. Representative democracy is, similarly, an ever-evolving concept.

Shari'ah is not software which changes from time to time. The foundation. issues of creed and many other jurisprudence issues require no changes whatsoever whether we live in 7th century or 21st century. The other things, which may require different rulings depending on situation, environment and time or newly introduced, then the Shari'ah already covers it. Therefore, Shari'ah is already complete and perfect and fully compatible with any time period.

Most Muslims today accept the principles of representative democracy as congruent with Islamic belief, take shura (consultation) for instance.

I do not know how you define 'most Muslims' or where you got this idea but the concept of shura is completely different than democratic concept of elections.

[Sampharo]

Thank you for the interesting comments so far.


I have another question, which is perhaps more theological than political, and which relates to the above quote.

Given that Islam places so much emphasis on intention, I wonder of how much benefit an Islamic lifestyle is, if it has been forced upon somebody, rather than being chosen willingly and consciously.

In other words, for example, does God value a woman who has worn hijab all her life, but only because she was forced to?
Is her action of any value, if it isn't accompanied by willingness, submission and understanding?

I hope this makes sense.

Sister glo, please don't misunderstand. Sharia law is as the name implies: a LAW. Personal sins that are not judged by the law are for any person to commit in their privacy and for God to judge and punish, but sins that transgress have been set by God to have punishments, and the community needs to uphold that law to maintain its civility and decency.

Even in secular society this is understood: What will happen without public nudity or indecency laws? Why wouldn't drunk-driving be legal? Why shouldn't people be able to rob and steal? The Shariah law governs the wrong things that humans can do and affect others, creating a harmonious existence in society. Someone who wears hijab while hating it and wanting to take it off but is not doing so because of the application of the law, is the same as a man who doesn't run around stark naked because the cops application of the law. God judges the intentions and what is in our heart, but that does not mean that society faces and endures whatever behaviour of some of its members no matter how deviant or wrong.

A woman may not want to wear hijab, but a thousand young boys parents don't want their young teenage boys seeing half-naked miniskirts walking around the streets. Someone might want to drink their fill of alcohol, but society does not have to tolerate mumbling drunks crashing around the alleys and driving their cars into people. So while the west stumbles around building a hundred thousand laws into their man-made code to try and reach perfect society (but often miss and overshoot, like when they went as far as putting nation-wide curfue on minors and arrested any teenagers who were simply outside after a certain time!) or at least what the average person thinks could represent a respectable society, Shariah law was perfectly laid for the muslim community to follow.

[Eliphaz]

then my respected brother, it is better to no speak about issues for which we have no knowledge

Why is there nothing between 'trained' and 'no knowledge'. Do you always see everything in black and white?

and who told you the doors of ijithad are closed? And where did you get the idea that Shari'ah is not compatible with modern world; hence, we need to change it? Bro, do you realize the ramification of this statement?

This is not my personal opinion, it just seems to be the consensus. What is the ramification of this statement exactly? Can you provide evidence that ijtihad was practised by recognised mujtahids known to us today after this?

Shari'ah is not software which changes from time to time. The foundation. issues of creed and many other jurisprudence issues require no changes whatsoever whether we live in 7th century or 21st century. The other things, which may require different rulings depending on situation, environment and time or newly introduced, then the Shari'ah already covers it. Therefore, Shari'ah is already complete and perfect and fully compatible with any time period.

So you yourself are saying there is no room for ijtihad because the Shariah is already complete? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I do not know how you define 'most Muslims' or where you got this idea but the concept of shura is completely different than democratic concept of elections.

I didn't say shura = democratic elections. I simply said democracy is compatible with Islamic beliefs.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
You aren't supposed to force sharia on anyone (whether this be state sharia or whatever type of sharia).

[Chuck]

Thank you for the interesting comments so far.


I have another question, which is perhaps more theological than political, and which relates to the above quote.

Given that Islam places so much emphasis on intention, I wonder of how much benefit an Islamic lifestyle is, if it has been forced upon somebody, rather than being chosen willingly and consciously.

In other words, for example, does God value a woman who has worn hijab all her life, but only because she was forced to?
Is her action of any value, if it isn't accompanied by willingness, submission and understanding?

I hope this makes sense.

If watch Dr. Sherman's lecture, he is an expert on Islamic law and its history, it might put it in correct perspective for you.

Sharia was a voluntary code, not a state law. "It was always left for people to decide for themselves which interpretation they wanted to follow."

That bold part can't be further from the truth. Sharia law was basically state law historically. It is as absurd as saying law of US is voluntary code, not a state law. However, sources of sharia are many, but primary sources were Quran and Sunnah.

Second part of the sentence is partly correct in a way, but might be misleading who is not academically familiar with sharia law. There were differences of opinion among different schools of thought and scholars, which is perfectly normal, but sharia law for the state had a way of dealing with differences of opinion and one school of thought or scholar cannot force his opinion on others.

I will repeat again watch Dr. Sherman's lectures, if you want to know about Sharia law, he is the guy.

[MSalman]

@Eliphaz

before I respond to your specific comments, please define ijtihad for me because your definition seemed to be different from traditionalist definition. What kind of ijtihad you are talking about? According to you, what sort of changes do the Shari'ah require through ijtihad?

@aamirsab

akhee, you're wrong; please read bro sampharo's last post as he clarified it clearly. State laws are always forced on people to bring order and justice within society and the Shari'ah is no different.

[aamirsaab]

....
@aamirsab

akhee, you're wrong; please read bro sampharo's last post as he clarified it clearly. State laws are always forced on people to bring order and justice within society and the Shari'ah is no different.

Yeah that's true in an Islamic state :)

[glo]

Even in secular society this is understood: What will happen without public nudity or indecency laws? Why wouldn't drunk-driving be legal? Why shouldn't people be able to rob and steal? The Shariah law governs the wrong things that humans can do and affect others, creating a harmonious existence in society. Someone who wears hijab while hating it and wanting to take it off but is not doing so because of the application of the law, is the same as a man who doesn't run around stark naked because the cops application of the law. God judges the intentions and what is in our heart, but that does not mean that society faces and endures whatever behaviour of some of its members no matter how deviant or wrong.

A woman may not want to wear hijab, but a thousand young boys parents don't want their young teenage boys seeing half-naked miniskirts walking around the streets. Someone might want to drink their fill of alcohol, but society does not have to tolerate mumbling drunks crashing around the alleys and driving their cars into people. So while the west stumbles around building a hundred thousand laws into their man-made code to try and reach perfect society (but often miss and overshoot, like when they went as far as putting nation-wide curfue on minors and arrested any teenagers who were simply outside after a certain time!) or at least what the average person thinks could represent a respectable society, Shariah law was perfectly laid for the muslim community to follow.

I agree that laws are in place to keep society in order and to discourage people from committing crime.
On a human level I benefit and feel safer in a society where good laws are in place and reinforced.

That was not the focus of my question though.

My question is how much value has it in God's eyes, when somebody lives a 'good life' - but not willingly and out of submission to God, but only because s/he is forced to do so by the state law?
If - as you say - God judges our intentions and what is in our hearts (and personally I agree with you), then would that 'good life' gain no reward from God?

[جوري]

You keep asking the same question on various threads, a question that has no answer, since none of us are God to answer for God. You always do that and then upset when the reply doesn't suit your frame of mind. What would make you happy? If I were are to say, God loves it when you feel goodness but don't act upon his laws? Or perhaps, you are ****ed to eternal hell for not enforcing God's laws and in turn you'd woefully lament on how incredibly unfair that is of him when you are so good about everything else. We can only tell you what God has told us.

That he is Just, and no good or bad deed goes unaccounted for!

1- We are not God to pass judgment or know for certain -- certainty is a christian tenet not an Islamic one.
2- asking the same question on various threads will produce the same outcome, I assure you.. there is nothing wrong or missing from the replies, but there is something absurd in the question itself, since again none of us are God to know what it is 'God thinks of' anthropomorphism as well is a christian tenet not an Islamic one!

You should ask yourself the same and let us know of your reply.
If no one believes in the Jesus is God fiasco, doesn't want to eat his flesh or drink his blood or believes in him as a lord and savior, will they be forgiven because well they are good about everything else? and can you back up your reply from your scriptures?

all the best!

[Eliphaz]

I agree that laws are in place to keep society in order and to discourage people from committing crime.
On a human level I benefit and feel safer in a society where good laws are in place and reinforced.

That was not the focus of my question though.

My question is how much value has it in God's eyes, when somebody lives a 'good life' - but not willingly and out of submission to God, but only because s/he is forced to do so by the state law?
If - as you say - God judges our intentions and what is in our hearts (and personally I agree with you), then would that 'good life' gain no reward from God?

What Gossamer said, we cannot know either way.

But Shariah law is more of a system to foster and preserve the Islamic way of life on earth, as opposed to a magical umbrella for which everyone who lives beneath it gets into Heaven.

Muslims nowadays are by no means unanimous on how Shariah can or should be implemented considering that, in my opinion, it does need to be updated or at least consolidated with the changes that have gone on in society as a whole, globalisation being a huge part.

There is nothing blasphemous in saying that Shariah needs to be updated, for it is partly man-made is it not? And men - scholars - no matter how respected and eminent and pious they were, were still prisoners of their own times, and by extension, the prominent thoughts and customs which existed in those times.

[Sampharo]

I agree that laws are in place to keep society in order and to discourage people from committing crime.
On a human level I benefit and feel safer in a society where good laws are in place and reinforced.

That was not the focus of my question though.

My question is how much value has it in God's eyes, when somebody lives a 'good life' - but not willingly and out of submission to God, but only because s/he is forced to do so by the state law?
If - as you say - God judges our intentions and what is in our hearts (and personally I agree with you), then would that 'good life' gain no reward from God?

Oh I did not understand before that that is what you were asking about.

Actually there is a good answer for you but I hope you will keep an open mind to comprehend it:

Fundamentally speaking, intention has everything to do with a person's reward or punishment towards his actions. We are not rewarded for any good deeds that we do if we were doing it for self-serving purposes and not God. If we give money to someone because we intend to ask him later to help with something, or want him to speak well of us, or going after a tax-break, then our action earned us no reward with God, and it is not recorded for us.

On the authority of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab -RAA- narrated that the prophet -pbuh- said: "Acts and deeds are based on intention, and for every one his intention is counted. So whomever makes hijra (immigration) for God and his prophet, then his hijra was for God and his prophet, and whomever makes hijra for a business to attend to or a woman to marry, then his hijra is for whatever it is he intended it to be." [Agreed Upon Muslim and Bukhary] Note that hijra at the time was an act of worship that people were rewarded for, so it refers here to a good deed being done for a worldly gain rather than God, and that the one who does that loses any reward.

The prophet -pbuh- once told in a long hadith (narrated by Abi Abdul Rahman Abdullah Ibn Omar), about three believing people before the companion's time who were travelling together in the desert, and when they went into a cave for shelter, the rocks moved and a big one fell on the entrance to cover it. The three men tried to move it but couldn't, and one was inspired that they pray to God and supplicate to help them move the rock, and mention the best of their deeds in the supplication in begging for His support. The first man told his story (great act of kindness, love and respect shown to his parents) and the rock moved a little. The second one (which is our point here) prayed and supplicated with that he once loved and desired a woman madly and always talked to her about being with him but she refused, until one harsh year when she was in distress and need, he offered her a great amount of money in return to letting him have her. She reluctantly accepted, and when he became with her privately and was about to have his way, she said: "Fear god, and do not break the seal without righteousness" at which point his heart moved him and he collected himself and stood up, and left her with the money and walked away without commiting the act. So the man said "If you know that I did that for you God and accepted it from me as a good deed, help us in our need". The rock moved again. The third goes on but this is not the place for the whole thing....

This hadith along with others is the evidence that consensus of Islamic scholars depend on in teaching that abandoning a sin for the sake of God, is a good deed in itself. It is obedience to God and counts as doing an act of kindness, the bigger the sin avoided, the bigger the reward for NOT doing it. This of course is ONLY when someone is not doing the sin, because he is obeying the commands of God, rather than someone who doesn't want to get caught.

So yes, there is a difference between a woman who wears hijab because shariah law dictates it and in an Islamic society she can't go out in showing her "assets" without hassle and a run in with the law, and a woman who wears hijab out of commitment to the ordainment of God and willfully to please God.

So someone who doesn't do the sin because he was forced, does not receive the reward.

Here is a twist though: there is still a difference also between someone who is enforced to obey Shariah law or maybe or indirectly co-erced (for example not allowing alcohol so one cannot buy it even if one wants to) while fully intending to commit the sin, and someone who commits the sin regardless of whether against the law or he was in a place where it wasn't enforced.

The person who does the crime, earns the sin, and it gets recorded. If he does it while avoiding and meticulously evading detection from the law, it becomes even a greater sin because he is insistent upon it and his intention is strong and he has to lie and deceive to get away with it. The person who fears the law's punishment or is incapable of making the sin but wants to, gets nothing recorded because the act was not made.

So the intention differentiates between three groups of people:
- Those who avoid the sin because they wish to obey and please God, get rewarded for their piety and fighting temptations. The bigger the temptations they turn down, the bigger the reward.

- Those who do not commit the sin, because they didn't have access to it or were afraid of punishment based on law and shariah. They do not get the reward of the pious, but at least they get no sin recorded.

- Those who commit the sin, it gets recorded against them and God judges them. God is the all-knowing and all-judging and He either forgives them based on his will and mercy and the intentions and what lies in the person's heart, punishes them in this life to cleanse them of it so they don't pay for it in the afterlife (great mercy), delays the punishment till the grave and the afterlife where they receive great punishment in hell for it, or the sin is specifically grand and earns punishment both in this life and in the afterlife (like unkindness and ingratitude to parents, or abandoning prayers).

Hope this helped you understand.

God knows best.

[ardianto]

What Gossamer said, we cannot know either way.

But Shariah law is more of a system to foster and preserve the Islamic way of life on earth, as opposed to a magical umbrella for which everyone who lives beneath it gets into Heaven.

Muslims nowadays are by no means unanimous on how Shariah can or should be implemented considering that, in my opinion, it does need to be updated or at least consolidated with the changes that have gone on in society as a whole, globalisation being a huge part.

There is nothing blasphemous in saying that Shariah needs to be updated, for it is partly man-made is it not? And men - scholars - no matter how respected and eminent and pious they were, were still prisoners of their own times, and by extension, the prominent thoughts and customs which existed in those times.

Maybe I am the only participant in this topic who agree with you.
Shariah need and possible to be updated. In fact, some rules in Shariah law has updated at least in my country. In example, I found in old style Shariah law if a husband want to divorce his wife, he can say "I divorce you" anywhere, anytime, and the wife automatically becomes a widow. But this is not fair for the wife. So, in new style Shariah law if a husband want to divorce his wife, he must go to Shariah court. This divorcing need a trial process and must approved by the judge.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace;

....My question is how much value has it in God's eyes, when somebody lives a 'good life' - but not willingly and out of submission to God, but only because s/he is forced to do so by the state law?

Most probably it's a hadith that says , if u want to do some good works but somehow can't do it , still u will get rewards for ur good intention . And if u want to do something bad but don't do it , no punishment for it :statisfie

God is kind . So , hopefully one won't get any punishment for not committing the sins ( does not matter why s/he did not do that ..because of the fear of Sharia law or whatever that is ) .

And God Almighty knows Best.

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:

... if a husband want to divorce his wife, he can say "I divorce you" anywhere, anytime, and the wife automatically becomes a widow.......

well , she is not a widow unless her husband dies . ummm can't remember the word - divorcee I guess.

divorcing need a trial process and must approved by the judge.

but if a husband pronounces the word talak and does not withdraw it in 3 months , still the marriage is valid ? Do all scholars agree with that ?

Most probably , in 1965 Pakistan Govt . made some changes in inheritance law. If a man dies when his father is still alive , grandsons and granddaughters will get the same share in property. This is a law now but can we say that this the correct Sharia law ?

[glo]

There is nothing blasphemous in saying that Shariah needs to be updated, for it is partly man-made is it not?

Maybe I am the only participant in this topic who agree with you.
Shariah need and possible to be updated. In fact, some rules in Shariah law has updated at least in my country.

Those are very profound statements. I have never heard Muslims say this. Thank you both for sharing.

And men - scholars - no matter how respected and eminent and pious they were, were still prisoners of their own times, and by extension, the prominent thoughts and customs which existed in those times.

Eliphaz, that's the most profound statement I have read in a while.
I think it still applies to us nowadays.
If only more (religious) people thought like this, we would hopefully be much more humble and carefully in voicing our own opinions, and be less proud in our conviction that 'we are right' and 'others are wrong' ...

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Maybe I am the only participant in this topic who agree with you.
Shariah need and possible to be updated. In fact, some rules in Shariah law has updated at least in my country. In example, I found in old style Shariah law if a husband want to divorce his wife, he can say "I divorce you" anywhere, anytime, and the wife automatically becomes a widow. But this is not fair for the wife. So, in new style Shariah law if a husband want to divorce his wife, he must go to Shariah court. This divorcing need a trial process and must approved by the judge.

:sl:

Just because a country changes the laws, does it mean it really needs to be changed? I don't see why? Did Allah(swt) not say he has perfected for us this deen? Maybe in application it might differ to lets say at the Prophets(saw) time. Even I won't say that, as I'm not knowledgeable in the topic of Shariah Law. The Laws of Allah(swt) don't change. When you say updated, what exactly do you mean? Add and subtract like do people of other religions?? When it comes to talking about Islam, it could mean just about anything. So you should be specific :)

What's with the term "old" style and "new" style? Shariah is shariah.

Btw you're not widowed if you're divorced. As Muslim Woman said, you're a divorcee. You're a widow when your husband dies.

You also said it's unfair to the woman if the husband divorces her like that. What's the difference from then and now? Why would fairness change? The Laws sent by Allah(swt) don't change. Maybe you could be more specific in what you mean. It's possible I may be wrong?

:w:

[Al Ansari]

Islam cannot be secularised. Secularism is anti Islamic. States like Turkey are a total sellout. Muslims who want secularism are false. I would rather be ruled by the Taliban than a bunch of sell out secularist false Muslims. You may as well be ruled by the infidels.

I also agree.

[Chuck]

I have never heard Muslims say this. Thank you both for sharing.

I've said this couple of times. Anybody who have even slight academic knowledge of sharia would know this. Btw, did you watch the lecture?

[MSalman]

Muslims nowadays are by no means unanimous on how Shariah can or should be implemented considering that, in my opinion, it does need to be updated or at least consolidated with the changes that have gone on in society as a whole, globalisation being a huge part.

you talk about update and changes yet you do not tell us what exactly are you talking about. I am still waiting for this:

@Eliphaz

before I respond to your specific comments, please define ijtihad for me because your definition seemed to be different from traditionalist definition. What kind of ijtihad you are talking about? According to you, what sort of changes do the Shari'ah require through ijtihad?

There is nothing blasphemous in saying that Shariah needs to be updated, for it is partly man-made is it not? And men - scholars - no matter how respected and eminent and pious they were, were still prisoners of their own times, and by extension, the prominent thoughts and customs which existed in those times.

bro, this is nothing but plain nonsense. You have yet to tell us what kind of updates you are talking about because 1) either your position is going to be plain batil or 2) due to lack of your knowledge you do not know that the Shari'ah already covers it. Hence, it needs no updates! Please enlighten us how Shari'ah is partly man-made?

[MSalman]

Shariah need and possible to be updated.

enlighten us what kind of updates and why those updates?

Do you know anything about ramfication of tabdeel and istihlal in Islam?

But this is not fair for the wife.

Fear Allah ya akhee, inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raaji'oun! So for centuries Islam was unfair - the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) practiced and preached unfairness? No one for centuries deemed this as unfair but now you people suddenly poped up after 14 centuries with such knowledge and wisdom that you could pin point the unfairness? Do you realize the ramification of your heretical statement? If I were you, I would offer two nafal rakaat immediately and cry in front of Allah.

secondly, you should know that in the Shari'ah, there are limitations on when a man can divorce her wife and there is guideline on how he should be doing it. For example, uttering all three divorces at once is a bida'a

Honestly, why do you people consider themselves as some sort of helpers and authorities in Islam while you have no clue about it?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I just want to add, who are WE to change something already mandated by Allah(swt) and through the Beloved Prophet(saw)? Do you want to end up like the previous nations and like those who change parts of their religion? I would hope not. This is a really serious matter. You cant just dictate what you feel like. The Prophet(saw) said if we hold onto the Quran and Sunnah, we would never go astray. Saying that the Laws of ALLAH need updating means we are unhappy with Allahs decree. And to say the Laws of Allah azawajal needs updating means you're saying that His Laws are not perfect, when in fact they are. Like I said maybe in application, but this deen is for all times and part of our deen are the Laws of Allah(swt). This would too mean that these Laws are for all times.

:sl:

[Karl]

Now in Indonesia and Malaysia, a number of Muslim thinkers are trying to build an Islamic 'Madani' society. A Muslim society that live under moderate interpretation of sharia that applicable in modern life, that always respect to human right and can live together with non-Muslim in peace.

Sounds like suck up to kafirs to me, total heresy. Just because Allah's laws don't fit the American way doesn't mean you can bowdlerise the Qur'an by some sycophantic modernization! Please elucidate for me what "human rights" you think are not already expounded in the holy Qur'an?? The U.N definition of "human rights" is completely different and incompatable with the definition of it as stated under Islam. Many of the U.N definition of "human rights violations" aren't in fact actual violations at all; it's just that the infidels and their U.N abomination employ the term "violation" to blacken the nature of anything they DON'T LIKE. For example, they have made a problem of polygamy, child brides, child soldiers, child labour etc etc, where in fact these are NOT inherent human rights violations! So we must be very careful not to interpret at face value the kafir definition of "human rights" as if it were the very same as what Islam defines it. All Muslims must reject all kafir organizations such as the U.N, because the U.N is the enemy of Islam, it is a Zionist/communist global imperialist order. Sharia law is complete and perfect, and as someone else here said, it's not like some kind of computer software that can be "updated" from time to time, it is eternally faultless.

[Karl]

I didn't say shura = democratic elections. I simply said democracy is compatible with Islamic beliefs.

Absolute RUBBISH. Democracy is NOT compatible with Islam, it is a pagan anathema, and even its creators abandoned it as an unworkable system . The qur'an quite clearly states that there will be fitnah and oppression on earth and a great mischief and corruption if there is more than one khalifa in the whole Muslim world. (Sura 8. Al-Anfal part 10, 73.)

[abdullah_001]

:sl:

There is no such thing as secular Islam. I think some of the brothers are under the illusion that Islam needs to change with the changing of time. Let me remind everyone that our primary sources for everything, including our most intimate, to personal, to formal affairs, are first and foremost and will always be the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). We cannot change our "interpretation" to suit our needs based on our times, we are not Christians and we did not make the straight path, Allah(swt) did.

Second, Islamic states always exerted the Sharia as the state law. In fact, the whole basis for a need of "modernized" Islam (according to some people), stems from the aversion of sharia from the so called Islamic states.

The first thing Muslims need is an Islamic state in which the sharia is implemented. THEN we can talk about consensus and what not, but our most prominent and severe problem is the lack of an Islamic state.

[ardianto]

:sl:

Thanks for your responses, brothers, sisters.

Insha Allah, I'll be back with my answer. But for this time I must explain I am not secularist even I am an anti-secularism. And if I have an opinion like that, that's because I have a dream, Muslims would live under Sharia.

[Sampharo]

But Shariah law is more of a system to foster and preserve the Islamic way of life on earth, as opposed to a magical umbrella for which everyone who lives beneath it gets into Heaven.

Muslims nowadays are by no means unanimous on how Shariah can or should be implemented considering that, in my opinion, it does need to be updated or at least consolidated with the changes that have gone on in society as a whole, globalisation being a huge part.

It's quite incorrect and unknowledgable to say these things.

First off, Islam seems in your mind to be confused with man-made ways of life. Your comprehension seems epitomized by:

There is nothing blasphemous in saying that Shariah needs to be updated, for it is partly man-made is it not?

The answer is an absolute flat NO!

Three facts need to be understood:

1- Muslims are not a group of people following tradition they developed over hundreds or thousands of years. They are following in and believing God's message that was delivered in full during the lifetime of the prophet -pbuh- and is not subject to the opinions of clerics or churches. Scholars are only working to authenticate what the message WAS, and with missing pieces here and there and with different methodologies, in minor side matters the schools findings differ. That does not mean that they are all right, but in the absence of compelling evidence it is acceptable to follow the measured opinions until compelling evidence is found and its rulings are agreed upon as to what THEY WERE as stated by the prophet, not come up with manufactured or man-made rulings that think SHOULD BE.

2- No group of wise men "came up" with Shariah. Shariah is a half-arabic term for "Shariatu Allah", which literally means God's Legislation. Unlike churches where clerics find what is politically appropriate or in their opinions would pass as good to call God's Legislation, Islam is saved from manipulation or human intervention, and the flat ruling regarding changes is straightforward deviance. Only in absence of a ruling can an opinion be "measured", but rulings that exist and evidenced to come from the prophet's Quran or hadith or his Sunnah and actions, cannot be changed.

3- Most importantly Shariah is not intended to provide a sweet mortal life. It is the law by which adherence will be obedience regarding God's limits and societal rules, and by which muslims are to treat each other to meet God in the afterlife without a sinful transgressional burden. Muslims can live a hard life, avoiding things that many people might regard to be normal or unevil (like eating slaughtered meat that did not get the name of God mentioned on it) and most pious people stick by those rules, because it is their religious duty to do so in obedience to God. So it's not up to humans to decide what God requires from us or what is "better" for society. Like you said: "And men - scholars - no matter how respected and eminent and pious they were, were still prisoners of their own times, and by extension, the prominent thoughts and customs which existed in those times."

Hope that clarified

Those are very profound statements. I have never heard Muslims say this.

That is because muslims won't say such things.

Maybe I am the only participant in this topic who agree with you.
Shariah need and possible to be updated. In fact, some rules in Shariah law has updated at least in my country.

Ardianto, no scholars can change a ruling in Islam, and if they do then they have commited a severe act of deviance and does not at all allow it to be permissible for people to follow what they said: "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah."[9:31]

Man's (or if stated in marriage contract then the woman or either) divorce with the word is an inambiguous ruling extracted from Quran and confirmed in Hadith to be the orders and example of the prophet. I haven't heard of a country with a muslim majority (not even crazy Egypt) who neutralized Islamic divorce by the whims of scholars. If they indeed have done that then they commited a grave deviance by the statement, and yet no muslim is given leniancy if he follows such a "fatwa" if that is what they call it.

Divorce by man (or woman or either if stated in the contract) is by personal desire and pronouncement of a statement, not by administrative procedures. They might as well say that a person is not muslim unless he fills out applications and they get approved. In both cases it is complete hogwash that counts as nothing in light of muslims adhering to Islam.

Just an additional note ardianto, and I do not mean it as an attack at all, but to clarify it: The Khawaarij and extremists have the false belief that not applying Shariah as it was 100% is kufr. That is not true of course. However what IS true and stated by the majority of scholars of Islam that DISBELIEF in Shariah as being ordained and required by God to follow, or attempt at editing it or changing it because of an opinion that a different ruling is better than what was ordained in Islam, is indeed Kufr and scars a muslim's faith (according to Ibn Abbas along with the Jumhoor of Ulama).


Please remember, what men (like muslim thinkers and philosophers) think of and build in terms of philosophy and opinions based on Islamic principals for the mortal good of mankind, is just that, their thoughts. Islam is God's religion and just like Quran, it is not subject to man's adjustments.

And God knows best and may we be guided to the best of our mortal life as well as our much more important eternal afterlife.

[alcurad]

Shari'a is more of a general set of principles than specific laws, some like to cling to the past though, hence our state...

Turkey in it's current form is more 'Islamic' than many of our despot run countries, democracy is more or less the reason for that, food for thought.

[ardianto]

:sl:

enlighten us what kind of updates and why those updates?

Do you know anything about ramfication of tabdeel and istihlal in Islam?

Updating is different than changing.

In Islamic rule, a Muslim must shalaah 5 times per day and night.
If a Muslim makes a new rule, shalaah 8 times per day and night, that's means this Muslim change the rules of Allah. This is strictly prohibited.
But updating is different. Some rule in Islamic laws are possible and even need to be updated to makes it compatible with current situation.

In example. Several years ago a Muslim astronaut from Saudi went to outer space, a place where there's no day and night and this became a trouble for Muslim in shalaah.
Regarding to this situation, Ulama updated the rule of shalaah. In this updated rule, a Muslim can shalaah in outer space follow Ma'kah time.
Now imagine, if Ulama are not allowed to update the rule of shalaah, how can Muslim astronaut shalaah in outer space ?.

Brother, although I say Sharia possible to be updated, we are not allowed to update any rule in Sharia law because we are not Ulama. Only Ulama can updates these rules, even the have done it many times but we never realized it because we know this updating with another name,.....fatwa.

Fear Allah ya akhee, inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raaji'oun! So for centuries Islam was unfair - the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) practiced and preached unfairness? No one for centuries deemed this as unfair but now you people suddenly poped up after 14 centuries with such knowledge and wisdom that you could pin point the unfairness? Do you realize the ramification of your heretical statement? If I were you, I would offer two nafal rakaat immediately and cry in front of Allah.

secondly, you should know that in the Shari'ah, there are limitations on when a man can divorce her wife and there is guideline on how he should be doing it. For example, uttering all three divorces at once is a bida'a

Honestly, why do you people consider themselves as some sort of helpers and authorities in Islam while you have no clue about it?

Jazak Allah khair, brother.
Insha Allah, I will offer two nafal rakaat because I am not free from sin and unfairness. I am not prophet but ordinary ummah.

But, let me tell you a story.
There was a man who married a shaleehah woman who always obey him, serve him and his children very well. However, few years later when the wife going old, the husband feel bore to his wife. Then the husband say immediately "I divorce you !", and he send his wife back to her parents then marry a young girl.

Story like this was really happened. Although some people say that divorcing is valid according to Sharia law, actually that is not fair for the wife. That's why Ulama need to update this divorcing rule.

In the updated rule, if a husband want to divorce his wife, he must has a reason why he need to divorce his wife. In example, the wife ignore her duty to serve her husband and ignore her duty to take care her children. Then the husband go to Sharia court and tell his complain to Sharia court officer. Therefore, Sharia court judge call the wife and witnesses from both sides, and collect some evidences. If the husband's accusation is right, the husband can say "I divorce you" in the front of judge, then the wife get divorced. However if the husband's accusation is not true, the judge must punish the husband because the husband has making fitnah.
I think this system is more fair and not against Islamic law.

Brother, I am really sorry if my previous post was very provocative. Honestly, I am sick to see some people make strange rule in Sharia law. In example, Taliban. They made rule that ban women have a job. And when people say that rule is against Islamic women right, their supporter always say that rule is the rightest Sharia rule.

[ardianto]

Btw you're not widowed if you're divorced. As Muslim Woman said, you're a divorcee. You're a widow when your husband dies.

You are right sister. The correct word is divorced woman.
I am not native English speaker. In my language widow is 'janda', and divorced woman is also 'janda'.
Thanks for your correction.

By the way, you can read my post above. Insha Allah you will understand what I mean with 'update'.

[MSalman]

Shari'a is more of a general set of principles than specific laws, some like to cling to the past though, hence our state...

Turkey in it's current form is more 'Islamic' than many of our despot run countries, democracy is more or less the reason for that, food for thought.

such thought leads us to nothing but heresy, meaning hell fire. We like to save ourselves from hellfire; so, please keep your food of thought to yourself. we do not need such methodology whose asl is based upon manhaj of shaytan

:sl:

Updating is different than changing.

:wa: akhee

depending on the context, the words can mean two different things or they can be synonyms.

In Islamic rule, a Muslim must shalaah 5 times per day and night.
If a Muslim makes a new rule, shalaah 8 times per day and night, that's means this Muslim change the rules of Allah. This is strictly prohibited.

this is updating just as changing - it is simply a game of playing words akhee

But updating is different. Some rule in Islamic laws are possible and even need to be updated to makes it compatible with current situation.

akhee, you are simply using wrong words and terminologies to get your point across. and this has much to do with your lack of knowledge or maybe people from whom you take things. In Islam, the point you are referring to wouldn't be labeled as change or update rather as ijtihad. And ijtihad is based upon previous rulings or general text and situation or environment.

In example. Several years ago a Muslim astronaut from Saudi went to outer space, a place where there's no day and night and this became a trouble for Muslim in shalaah.
Regarding to this situation, Ulama updated the rule of shalaah. In this updated rule, a Muslim can shalaah in outer space follow Ma'kah time.
Now imagine, if Ulama are not allowed to update the rule of shalaah, how can Muslim astronaut shalaah in outer space ?.

Brother, although I say Sharia possible to be updated, we are not allowed to update any rule in Sharia law because we are not Ulama. Only Ulama can updates these rules, even the have done it many times but we never realized it because we know this updating with another name,.....fatwa.

akhee al-kareem, this is not called updating the Shari'ah; this is ijtihad

In Islamic world, updating/changing Shari'ah means that you are talking about changing an already established law. Whereas rulings on new things or situations, like your example, come under the heading of ijtihad because we never faced them before neither there is an explicit text in Shari'ah about it. Hence, the scholars look general text, already established rulings, other environmental/situational factors and make ijtihad and give fatawa.

But, let me tell you a story.
There was a man who married a shaleehah woman who always obey him, serve him and his children very well. However, few years later when the wife going old, the husband feel bore to his wife. Then the husband say immediately "I divorce you !", and he send his wife back to her parents then marry a young girl.

Story like this was really happened. Although some people say that divorcing is valid according to Sharia law, actually that is not fair for the wife. That's why Ulama need to update this divorcing rule.

my brother this is a very dangerous statement and we strongly strongly advice you to not utter it again. It is a statement of kufr, please rectify from it and seek repentance from Allah. This is like saying Allah revealed an unfair law and the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companion (may Allah be pleased with them) preached it. Fairness and unfairness is not legislated by man because man is flawed and we do not operate on this methodology. Our methodology is to submit to rulings of Allah: we hear and obey.

This is what we call changing the Shari'ah and making halal things haraam and haraam thing halal. Who gave permission to humans to do this?

In the updated rule, if a husband want to divorce his wife, he must has a reason why he need to divorce his wife. In example, the wife ignore her duty to serve her husband and ignore her duty to take care her children. Then the husband go to Sharia court and tell his complain to Sharia court officer. Therefore, Sharia court judge call the wife and witnesses from both sides, and collect some evidences. If the husband's accusation is right, the husband can say "I divorce you" in the front of judge, then the wife get divorced. However if the husband's accusation is not true, the judge must punish the husband because the husband has making fitnah.
I think this system is more fair and not against Islamic law.

brother, Shari'ah did not define any such conditions for the man. Under an Islamic state if the man is not looking after his children then his wife can go to court and complain and judge will issue the ruling. However, no where in the Shari'ah it is defined that a man should tell his reasons for divorcing his wife in the court. Under Shari'ah they can take the matter to court; however, it is not binding upon the man to divorce his wife only under court's supervision after giving legitimate reasons.

Secondly, who will define these legitimate reasons? Will it not be based upon flawed human reasoning? How certain are we that they will be fair? And which criteria will we use to judge that they are fair? Is it going to be your criteria or my criteria or some other group's criteria? How is this different from secularism? Today, you are complaining about divorce, tomorrow someone will complain about other shari ruling and day after someone else. Where will we stop: will it be when we left with no Shari'ah? And is this just for the heck of making sure that rulings are logical according to our flawed understanding and reasoning? When was Islamic rulings were based upon human understanding and reasoning?

This is nothing but arrogance - it should be enough for man to understand that it is Allah who legislated these rulings. However, due to our arrogant nature, we want to understand everything and know the reasons and making sure they are logical and make sense to us.

We are not more wise and knowledgeable than Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him). This alone should seal the deal! There are number of authentic ahadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in which he said that at the end times there will be people who will say things which you never heard from your ancestors. This is exactly what is happening in our times: many heretical groups have emerged and propagate the idea of updating the Shari'ah which in reality is kufr and apostasy.

Imam Malik (rahimahullah) reported to have said that if something was not part of deen at the time of sahabas (may Allah be pleased with them) then it will never be part of deen at our time. If the people, who understood the Islam the most, did not practice Islam the way we are doing then our way is clearly wrong.

Brother, I am really sorry if my previous post was very provocative. Honestly, I am sick to see some people make strange rule in Sharia law. In example, Taliban. They made rule that ban women have a job. And when people say that rule is against Islamic women right, their supporter always say that rule is the rightest Sharia rule.

my dear brother, I understand what you mean but you need to learn from a knowledgeable trustworthy scholar and not relay on internet because it is not helpful. What you are saying and doing is not correct. Secondly, Shari'ah is not judged by what people do or how we understand things. Let us leave it to those who have knowledge and save ourselves from ignorant fatawas which may lead us to hell fire.

and Allah knows best

[Sampharo]

Brother, although I say Sharia possible to be updated, we are not allowed to update any rule in Sharia law because we are not Ulama. Only Ulama can updates these rules, even the have done it many times but we never realized it because we know this updating with another name,.....fatwa.

Horribly misguided and wrong. Fatwa is an arabic word that means nothing more than "provision of a consult". It is solely based on established shariah, or maybe ijtihad for a situation that did not arise before as brother Islamiclife explained. However under no circumstances can Ulama update or change or switch Islamic rulings. They fundamentally do not have the power or legitemacy to do so! It is as rediculous and inconsequential as a car driver declaring the speed limit to be 80 Miles/hour for him and calling the police to tell them so, so that they adjust their radar traps and don't bother him when he's driving at such a speed from now on.

But, let me tell you a story.
......

Story like this was really happened. Although some people say that divorcing is valid according to Sharia law, actually that is not fair for the wife. That's why Ulama need to update this divorcing rule.

Brother ardianto, you may be ignorant but that is no excuse: You are saying that God's ruling that is evident in the Quran and delivered by the prophet is not fair and you want to substitute it with a scholar's opinion. This is a clear statement of kufr you have just pronounced. حسبنا الله ونعم الوكيل

You need to immediately dismiss those people from being regarded as ulama if they dare tell people that such alterations are valid, and seek proper scholars to learn from, to learn what Islam really is.

[ardianto]

Thanks for your correction, brother Sampharo.

Jazak Allahu Khairan.

:)

[Ramadhan]

I can't remember exactly the content of the hadith, but isn't there a hadith narrated by Abu Dawwud by Abu Hurayrah r.a. about how Allah SWT sends for the ummah every hundred years those who update (this is not a good term, something to do with "tajdid"?) the deen?

I think it says like this (in transliteration, more or less):
Innallaaha yab'atsu lihadzinil ummati 'ala raksi kulli mi ati sanatimmannyujaddi dulahum diiynahum

[Sampharo]

Yes there is such a hadith, authenticed by Abu Dawood. But it does not say update, it says revive.

Narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the prophet -pbuh- say: "Allah arranges for this ummah every hundred years someone who revives/renews its religion for it."

عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه ‏

‏عن رسول ‏‏ الله ‏صلى ‏ الله‏ عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال: (‏ ‏إن الله يبعث لهذه الأمة على رأس كل مائة سنة من يجدد لها دينها ) ابو داؤد

As in when people go astray and deviance groups grow strong, or scholars fall victim to weak narrations and laypeople are being lead astray, someone will rise to revive the true sunnah, and renew the energy for ijtihad in new areas (like the Saudi who went to space, or ruling on use of nuclear weapons, or rules of Islamic finance). We don't know for sure but Al-Albani seems to be a grand example for our generation.

As you can see people (even on this forum) can say "why should we listen to people who died centuries ago?"

God save us from misguidance.