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.

 

[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?d...6cFS4zyLo3KwgOf2pCOCg&q=sherman+jackson&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...6cFS4zyLo3KwgOf2pCOCg&q=sherman+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/she...use-charges-after-marrying-12-year-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/she...use-charges-after-marrying-12-year-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]

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.