The following post in another thread spurs the question around which I hope we can focus discussion in this thread:
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
That depends on your definition of modernization of course. Islam has the ability to adapt to all ages and changes because it's the truth revealed by Allah. If modernization means changing the fundamentals of Islam (to please others or for whatever reason), then no. If modernization means correcting wrong beliefs and traditions, which were actually never part of Islam in the first place, but added later (which most Muslims are unaware of), then yes. But that's a seperate topic altogether.
</p>
What do you think? Can Islam be modernized? Should it be? Is it wrong, and based on a false assumption, to suggest that it isn't already modernized?
Now to be clear, I'm not talking about technology or the difference between 1st and 3rd worlds. Nor am I focusing on politics nor any country's foreign policy, though I suspect some will see these things as tying in to the discussion. Rather, I am thinking in terms of ideas, especially those that emerged from what was known as the Age of Englightenment in Europe, such as: the rights of people to redress their government; the recognition of a public sphere in which discourse could take place, and the toleration of opposing views so as to allow for that discourse; democracy as a model for the adminstration of government.
One could expand this to include ideas that followed in what is less well-known as the Age of Modernity. Ideas such as the rights of workers to form together in unions; the equal status before the law of men and women; the equality of races; redistribution of both national wealth and political power to those who are without; education for the masses; that opportunity to advance one's self, to breathe clean air and drink clean water are also rights; that the natural world itself needs protecting from human exploitation.
What is modern about unions, they were called guilds in the old days and had many other names. Even the fellas building a pyramid thousands of years ago went on strike because their garlic ration was reduced. Mediation about working conditions have been around for ages.
Islam cannot be made modern just like a Gothic Castle can't be modern. You would have to tear it down and replace it with something modern. Basically, if Muslims and Christians want to live like "modern" Westerners they would have to abandon their religion and worship the State.
Any attempt at changing a religion is heresy.
Karl, I'm not sure if maybe you didn't read my OP or if you did and didn't understand it. But I didn't say "contemporary", I said "modern". Further, as I explained in my OP, by modern I mean a specific time period which began with the Enlightenment and the change of thinking that has come to be associated with that renaissance. And while guilds preceded the Enlightenment, they were in fact an essential part of the modernizing of the world and are different than your reference to ancient Egypt. So, yes, unions are "modern" using the classical sense of modern that I have asked about.
Christians do not have to either abandon our religion nor worship the state to be modern. Why do you perceive that Muslims would be required to do so?
Personally, I do not believe in "rights." I think if you are incapable of digging a well to obtain clean water, then you do not have the right to drink clean water (unless you find yourself in the good graces of those who show you mercy).
Eshai, surely you're aware that in many places in the world one might be fully capable of digging a well, but the water that one finds is not necessarily going to be clean. However, the existence of laws which would give you the ability to prevent people from polluting the groundwater might mean that if you did dig that well that you could be assured of finding clean, not polluted, water when you reached the water table.
Those who do not understand how clean water is achieved take for granted having it, and are unaware of the effort required to dig the well. Perhaps they think it magically appears, and so perhaps they become confused as to why some people do not have clean water.
I'm wondering if you have some magical views with regard to the existence of clean water yourself? It takes more than just exerting the effort required to dig a well to have clean water.
Why would any group of people wait to be "given the right" to form a union?
Because negotiating together with others who have the same economic interests that you do can put one in a better position to achieve a favorable outcome with regard to one's employment.
Concerning the redistribution of wealth: in school, if you make an A and the student sitting next to do makes an F, are you able to give him some of your points?
Don't think you understood the 'spirit' behind the examples given. A bit knit picky. I would like to hear your examples of sharing grades in exams
People forget that it was Islam that brought Western Europe out of its dark ages. The Muslims were the first to modernise. Seeking knowledge was the norm along with spiritual growth.
Unfortunately, the western modernisation took shape without spiritual guidance and resulted in laws of abomination and it is doing its best to be derogatory about Islam. This kind of modernisation is what Islam can do without. Destructive is what it is.
Don't think you understood the 'spirit' behind the examples given.
greenhill is correct, Grace Seeker. Though, even when it comes to pollution my stance is the same: if the people are unable to prevent the pollution of their land, they do not deserve to have it free of pollution. If they truly wanted it, they would take it and put a stop to having their groundwater polluted by whatever means necessary. They clearly value something else more than they do clean water, and so they continue living with polluted water.
And my point about the unions is that if you wait around for someone to give you permission to form a group so you can work together, you are a fool. You have to do what you know in your heart to be right, regardless of the potential consequences. This means that even if it against the law to form a union, and you feel it is right to form a union, you should break that law and form a union. Change the law through your actions.
My fundamental belief is reflected in all these examples. You get exactly what you earn and deserve based on the work that you do. In my opinion, something which is "given" has no value. It must be taken. And if you were not strong enough to take it, you do not deserve it. Is this not the essential nature of humanity?
My fundamental belief is reflected in all these examples. You get exactly what you earn and deserve based on the work that you do. In my opinion, something which is "given" has no value. It must be taken. And if you were not strong enough to take it, you do not deserve it. Is this not the essential nature of humanity?
Perhaps I misunderstand you, Eshai, but this sounds more like anarchy than any form of religion that I know, certainly not Islam. What you've articulated boils down to little more than "might makes right." How does that reflect the principles of Sharia?
Might does make right, though there are many forms of might.
What successful religion boasts a weak god?
What powerful nation is ruled by the humble?
What wealthy man is employed by the poor?
The strong rule the weak.
Weapons of war secure providence;
As peace is found in the land with the more powerful army.
Anarchy is when the weak become strong and shift the balance of power, old orders crashing down, but eventually a new order is installed. Anarchy is always only temporal, yielding yet another order where, lo and behold, the strong rule the weak. This is the way of nature.
In my opinion, there is a difference between helping the weak continue being weak... and helping the weak to become strong themselves.
Here are some different perspectives on my stance:
Can a child learn to walk and run well if we do everything in our power to prevent him from falling?
Should we hire people to do construction work who are unqualified and not certified to do the work because they need the money (all the while disregarding the lives of the people who will occupy that building)?
Of course not.
So why should we redistribute the wealth of a people, burdening their society at large, so weak people who never learned to build their own nation can continue being weak as they are spoon fed by the strong?
Starvation and thirst are powerful motivators. So it is unpleasant. But very little in life worth having comes without difficulty. There is a price for everything. If someone wants a great nation, they must be willing to pay a great price.
Karl, I'm not sure if maybe you didn't read my OP or if you did and didn't understand it. But I didn't say "contemporary", I said "modern". Further, as I explained in my OP, by modern I mean a specific time period which began with the Enlightenment and the change of thinking that has come to be associated with that renaissance. And while guilds preceded the Enlightenment, they were in fact an essential part of the modernizing of the world and are different than your reference to ancient Egypt. So, yes, unions are "modern" using the classical sense of modern that I have asked about.
Christians do not have to either abandon our religion nor worship the state to be modern. Why do you perceive that Muslims would be required to do so?
You are pushing liberal left wing principles and democracy, is that modern? I remember them also being ancient and a failure.
You are pushing material conquest over spiritual progress - that is not Islam - everything you wrote is selfish and abhorable.
Scimi
He is just being honest. The world is a gangland fighting for supremacy. The Zionists Lord are the plutocrats, the liberal leftists democracy groups Lord is the plutocrats and the collective state and the true religious peoples Lord is God. Which Lord cannot be defeated? We can only lose if we are tempted away from our Lord.
BTW Anarchy (self rule) which is just the opposite of monarchy can work in very small populations isolated away from other systems.
Might does make right, though there are many forms of might.
What successful religion boasts a weak god?
What powerful nation is ruled by the humble?
What wealthy man is employed by the poor?
The strong rule the weak.
Weapons of war secure providence;
As peace is found in the land with the more powerful army.
Anarchy is when the weak become strong and shift the balance of power, old orders crashing down, but eventually a new order is installed. Anarchy is always only temporal, yielding yet another order where, lo and behold, the strong rule the weak. This is the way of nature.
In my opinion, there is a difference between helping the weak continue being weak... and helping the weak to become strong themselves.
Here are some different perspectives on my stance:
Can a child learn to walk and run well if we do everything in our power to prevent him from falling?
Should we hire people to do construction work who are unqualified and not certified to do the work because they need the money (all the while disregarding the lives of the people who will occupy that building)?
Of course not.
So why should we redistribute the wealth of a people, burdening their society at large, so weak people who never learned to build their own nation can continue being weak as they are spoon fed by the strong?
Starvation and thirst are powerful motivators. So it is unpleasant. But very little in life worth having comes without difficulty. There is a price for everything. If someone wants a great nation, they must be willing to pay a great price.
True, but power corrupts and greed and conquest can go to their heads. The USA could have it's roads paved with gold if it was not such a wasteful warmonger.
Goodness, this is an old thread. I last made a comment a few years ago. Here's my latest views on the question of whether Islam should be modernized.
From what I have learned, Islam is perfect. Please refer to Surah Al-Maidah ayat 3. So what happens when you make changes to something which Allah has already made perfect? You make it worse, that's what. You cannot make something that's perfect any better by making changes to it. That brings us to the question of whether Islam is outdated and therefor it has to be modernized.
One question first. Does Allah know that we will have computers and the internet today? Of course, Allah does. Why doesn't Allah tell the Holy Prophet about computers and internet then? The retort would be 'What for?' There were no computers and internet, as we know it, at that time. Does that mean that, now that we have computers and internet, we need more instructions from Allah as to what to do? And therefor we need to modernize Islam?
No.
Let me share my own personal experience. I am an IT person. I live most of the time in cyberspace. I use the computer and internet much more than I use any other tools. So am I at a loss about what to do?
No.
Let's take Facebook. I interact with people all over the world via Facebook. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of behavior. So do I need to learn a new set of rules to interact with these people just because I interact with them via the internet?
No.
I interact with these people in Facebook just as I would interact with people in real life. People are still people whether I interact with them via the internet or in real life. So is there any need to modernize Islam to cope with inter-people interaction in the internet?
No.
I also ask Uncle Google when I need information. Some of this information is correct. Some are less correct. Some are totally false. I check, double-check and cross-check. Just the same as I would do when I ask anyone in real life for information. So is there any need to modernize Islam to cope with the information we get from the internet?
No.
Islam is perfect. Allah said so. If you do not believe what Allah says, that's a different story altogether. But as far as this thread is concerned, where the question is whether Islam needs to be modernized, the answer is,
Might does make right, though there are many forms of might.
What successful religion boasts a weak god?
What powerful nation is ruled by the humble?
What wealthy man is employed by the poor?
The strong rule the weak.
Weapons of war secure providence;
As peace is found in the land with the more powerful army.
Anarchy is when the weak become strong and shift the balance of power, old orders crashing down, but eventually a new order is installed. Anarchy is always only temporal, yielding yet another order where, lo and behold, the strong rule the weak. This is the way of nature.
In my opinion, there is a difference between helping the weak continue being weak... and helping the weak to become strong themselves.
Here are some different perspectives on my stance:
Can a child learn to walk and run well if we do everything in our power to prevent him from falling?
Should we hire people to do construction work who are unqualified and not certified to do the work because they need the money (all the while disregarding the lives of the people who will occupy that building)?
Of course not.
So why should we redistribute the wealth of a people, burdening their society at large, so weak people who never learned to build their own nation can continue being weak as they are spoon fed by the strong?
Starvation and thirst are powerful motivators. So it is unpleasant. But very little in life worth having comes without difficulty. There is a price for everything. If someone wants a great nation, they must be willing to pay a great price.
Assalaamu alaikum all,
This post's darkness really bothered me. So much so that I felt a need to write…the following. Influenced by the story of Asiya, wife of the Pharaoh.
Is there no beauty in this human world?
Is there no Justice, Kindness, room for Love?
Just merely might and petty grasps for more
And liars clutching jeweled goods they stole
And women toys for greedy, selfish boys
And children fodder for the drums of war?
Is there no God, no Paradise, no Scales?
Just worms and crumbling tombs that fade away?
The echoes of the chortling two-faced ones
As lost as the soft prayers of those who care?
You torture me with weights of this Dark Sight
Your visions crush the sweetnesses of life
Till I cry out:
Oh Lord! Prepare for me a Garden Home
So near to You and safe from empty Selves
Who shadow this most vibrant, leafy world
With grasping hands and tongues split into snakes,
With smiles of victors never fearing death.
I cry- and You Encircle me with friends
Like birds in startled flight on spring-like days,
That wreathe my troubled heart and leaking eyes
That whisper me a glimpse of things Unseen
Until perhaps a light may start to glow
Among the dying embers of my shell,
To burst into a flame that kindles hope
In any eyes that might be peeking here.
May puzzled hearts so wrapped in pride behold
My lips curved into arcs of sheer delight...
May Allah, the Protector, Shield us from darkness, and Lead us into Light.
Last edited by MuslimInshallah; 11-05-2014 at 09:35 AM.
In my opinion/view it depends on what one means by modernized .
very acute question. !!!
Is Islam compatible with technology? yes - I have the Quran app on my smart phone, thank Allah for al Khwarismi, without him, algorithms wouldn't have been invented and we'd not be here on this forum coz the computer wouldn't have been invented either.
Flip side - does Islam fit into the modernity of social norms accepted within western society today? NO... what it does do is give those who consider their soul - the option to feed it, not neglect it... as for my saying "modernity of social norms accepted within society today" - well, is this really only reflective of our own times? Or have we seen homosexuality, licentiousness, etc in other times? such as in the day of the Roman empire? Or say others?
So you see, these people who claim Islam cannot fit with the modern - are really talking rubbish... the Romans thought themselves modern because they abused little boys and forcibly took nations care not the collateral damage - today we see the same... have things really changed for us to call this age "modern"????
Come to think of it, people like Eshai sponsoring their hellenistic world view on Muslims is nothing new. They offer us all the trials and tribulations without any promise of a better standard of living, or even the hope of an afterlife - so what good is it to humanity to embrace modernity if that is all it has to bring?
I say, Islam is for all the ages, and not just me - living proof, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world - growing at a faster rate than Eshai's so called modernity is
You are pushing material conquest over spiritual progress
I believe they are linked and directly influence one another equally.
I believe that the material world is a reflection of the spiritual within each of us. If we are spiritually mature, it will reflect in our physical deeds and our successes.
Is the father who disciplines his child selfish and abhorrent?
I am not saying: "Do not help people."
What I am saying is: "Help people become successful and strong."
I believe you can throw all the money in the world at a problem, and that problem will never be resolved until both wisdom and strength rule how that money is used. In America, this approach was used in schools that were populated mostly by low-income and impoverished students. The government increased the funding to these schools, with no results. Then, inspired by great compassion for the student who fail and are held back, they implemented a new policy which says that the school can only hold back a student for one grade only. After that, they are automatically processed into the next grade so they "don't get left behind." What was the result? Lots and lots of idiots "graduating" from school. More kids dropping out because they couldn't keep up.
Is it uncompassionate, dark, and selfish to say that people who do not work for something should not get it?
Do you not think it is wrong to steal from someone so that someone who makes no effort to succeed gets what is stolen?
I worked to get what I have. I worked in school to learn what I learned, and to pass the tests to earn the qualifications and certifications that I have so that I could prove that I had the skill to practice my craft effectively and safely. None of that was given to me. Also, I had to pay for all of it. If I had failed a test, I would not have deserved to pass. This is simple logic.
I believe this is reflected in all things.
Should we make sure that each impoverished family is provided a house, a car, food, clothing, and communications?
Or should we strive to help those people become strong themselves so they can work and provide those things own their own for themselves?
For instance, my neighbor came to me and said his lawn mower was broken. He asked me if he could use my lawn mower. I told him, "No, but I will help you fix yours."
And then the big question: What happens when, after all of this is done, the weak and the slugs of society continue to remain weak? How many times will you try to fix a thing until you decide to throw it away and replace it with something that works? Is believing that people should be willing to work and provide for themselves really un-Islamic? Is it really un-Islamic to say that those who work hard to provide for their families must also work hard to provide for the families that are unwilling to provide for themselves? I'm not talking about caring for children or the elderly, or the injured. I'm talking about casting out those who CHOOSE not to make an effort.
Let's look at Cuba, when Fidel Castro took the island with a grand total of 1500 soldiers. What did the Cubans do? They fled. They offered virtually no resistance. They ran from their country! They would not stand and fight. Shame on them, I say! Don't expect me to fight for you when you will not fight for yourself. But that's exactly what they asked of me by coming to my country asking for refuge, because I was a soldier for my country.
So that's my perspective, and I do not think it is dark, or wrong, to ask someone to provide for themselves. Nor do I think it is dark or wrong to say that if they don't work to earn something, they don't deserve to have it.
I do not exactly enjoy nationalism, because each "nation" is like its own entity. If one embraces nationalism, they should embrace the idea that each nation should take care of itself like each human being takes care of itself. If one needs help from others, that is fine. But there is a difference between helping someone, and "doing for someone." Now, if the world were a single nation, we wouldn't exactly have these divided ideals.
And the way you look at things is not uncommon. That is how the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Until the poor has nothing left to live for. So they do not think twice about rising up against the rich. That they will die is of no consequence to them because to live with no hope is worse than being dead. That's how revolutions come about. Then the cycle starts again. The previously poor now become the rich. And having become rich, they do everything in their means to not just remain rich but to become richer and richer and richer. At the expense of the poor. Until the poor rises up in revolt.
This is why I believe the Islamic approach is the right one. The rich, by Islamic law, must share their a part of their wealth with the poor. They eat meat everyday but at least once a year, during the qurban of Eidil Adha, they take out money from their pockets so that the poor can also eat meat, even though it's just once a year. This way the poor do not feel that they are totally neglected. Then they will have some hope. With hope, they see life in a better light. When they see life in a better light, they can think about making their lives better.
You, Eshai, speak only from the viewpoint of a person who is fortunate. Yes, you worked hard at your studies. And you got the good grades which you deserved. However, I have been a teacher for decades and I know for a fact that not everyone is as fortunate as you are. There are many children who are simply not as mentally capable as you are. Try as they might, they will not achieve what you have achieved. Their lives will not be as comfortable as yours. Maybe you can say "Serves them right for being so stupid".
Let me tell you that I, myself, am very capable mentally and intellectually. My IQ is above average. I have no qualms about facing anyone in a contest of mental ability. Yet, after I reverted to Islam, I see why I must have compassion for those who are not endowed with mental capacity like mine. Throw me penniless with only the clothes on my back anywhere in the world and I will survive, then thrive and finally succeed. Not everyone can do the same. Many people need help to get on their feet. With just a little help from those who are more fortunate, those who are less fortunate will have a chance to have a better life.
This, Eshai, is Islam. This, Eshai, is how Islam has been from the beginning. Islam does not need to be modernized to be good. Islam is already good as it is.
Let me apologize in advance if I have misunderstood what you are saying when you say "Might is right". But if I am not mistaken, then you have just read my response to your attitude.
No it isn’t, if Islam (the Qu’ran and Hadith) is perfect why does it need interpretation. Surely something that is perfect doesn’t need explanation. Something requiring interpretation and explanation is something which is unclear or ambiguous; something that is unclear and ambiguous can’t be perfect.
Islam needs interpretation not because Islam is not perfect. Islam needs interpretation because we human beings are not perfect.
Consider this.
There is a rainbow in the sky. It's very clear and very beautiful. Along comes a man. He has bad eyesight. He cannot see that the rainbow in the sky is very clear and very beautiful. So he concludes that the rainbow is not as clear and as beautiful as he had been told. He doesn't realize that the problem is not with the rainbow but rather with his own eyes. So to help him see the rainbow in the correct light, we need to give him glasses. The glasses will interpret what he sees so that he can see it correctly.
See my point? Or shall we think about how to get you some glasses to help you see better?
At first read, a rather long post too, I see it is a fairly universal point - to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him one. It could be interpreted as truly being a Divine rule. Even the prophet said that, those who wish for their neighbours what they would wish for themselves are the true believers.
It is our test, realised or not. To submit, to refer (to the teachings), to act, to accept (whatever outcome). . .and not give up.
The reason we are different is so that we can learn. We are of the times where we don't need miracles to make a point, we use reason. And every body will have an account to pay or receive.
So, coming back to the point, modernisation should be for the convenience, like access to any related stuff, availability response to, action etc can really help the ummah but should not lead to the disruption of the 'way of life'. It has become too easy to live off the efforts of others.
Peace
Last edited by greenhill; 11-05-2014 at 02:57 PM.
As long as my heart does beat, I shall live, not lie
For when my heart does stop its beat, with truth, I die.
First of all, I honestly have no opinion on the "modernization" of Islam, as I am not a Muslim and I do not understand Islam. I am in the process of learning about it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali Mujahidin
Try as they might, they will not achieve what you have achieved. Their lives will not be as comfortable as yours. Maybe you can say "Serves them right for being so stupid".
I do not necessarily say that it serves them right, but everyone has their place and everyone has something that they can contribute to society in a productive way that best suits their inclinations. I believe everyone has value, but I also believe that not everyone can be the same. Not everyone is equal in this world, because no: not everyone is as fortunate as me, and I am not as fortunate as others. We all serve in different capacities in ways which are suited to our tendencies.
Any successful society consists of individuals who specialize in certain areas, and collectively they work as a team to achieve greater goals. If everyone in the team does the same thing, will the team function efficiently? Is this truly Islam, making everyone the same?
And if you want Islam to thrive, can it do so in an unsuccessful society?
I am not against compassion. Compassion is a useful part of society. As user greenhill pointed out: I believe in teaching people to fish instead of giving them fish. And if someone is incapable of fishing, perhaps they will at least be good at making nets. But is it Islam to allow a man to continue being fishermen even when he fails at it time and time again, and he requires others to give him fish because he is a terrible fisherman? Or, is it Islam to help him become successful in some other area where he can sustain himself? And if he insists on being a fisherman even though he fails, and requires fish from others, is it Islam to allow him this?
Is it Islam to allow a man to install air conditioners, even if he has no training and cannot pass the tests?
Is it Islam to allow men to frame houses when they have no understanding of structural integrity?
Is it Islam to allow people to fly helicopters if they are not licensed?
All in the name of being equal and the same?
My intuition tells me, "No, this is not Islam." Allowing people to not pull their fair share in society cannot be right. I cannot believe that giving people money and access to technology will improve their lives and give them hope. And to note, in my country I pay taxes which have been allotted strictly for sustaining those who are "less fortunate." I support this, because I understand that many people need a hand from time to time. It is also in the best interest of a country to help support those who fall onto hard times, because they will then rise up and improve themselves and their country. If they choose to do so.
But let us consider entire countries which are impoverished. Do you truly believe that if we build them railroads, pave their roads and give them cars, and install their plumbing... that this will help them in the long run? What happens when their stuff breaks down and needs repairs? Who will fix it? Who will keep their country running? The answer is: the people who know how to do it. But where are these people? Well, they were the ones who came in and gave them all this stuff in the first place, but now they are gone. So what happens? It all falls apart because there is no infrastructure. There is no order. And it isn't there because they didn't build it. This is something that literally cannot be given.
I do not believe that giving a paltry sum of money will give the poor hope. Because money is less valuable than knowledge. By giving a poor man money, he has just enough to survive and has no time or energy to further himself. I believe this is an injustice. Same with countries. You can't just give a country food, or money, and expect them to improve. Modernization (access to technology) will not help unless there are people in place to manage it.
These are world problems that little ol' me doesn't know how to solve, but I've watched as the poor have been given money and yet they are still poor. They are given food and they are still hungry. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is not working?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks