Shariah Law
A Christian Critic:-
I wrote to my MP making the following points about
the proposal to annex parts of Shariah law to English Law:-
(1) In Islamic law the husband's permission
is required for a wife to get a divorce. The husband can divorce the wife for
no reason and without legal process.
(2) The wife can only divorce the husband
(except in certain specific cases such as impotence) with his permission. The
man may demand payment for this.
(3) There is no maintenance after the first
three months.
(4) The husband gets custody of the children.
(5) There is no division of property, there
being no 'property of the marriage'. The woman gets only what she brought to
the marriage.
(6) There is no minimum age of marriage;
Marriage to little girls is permitted and still practised in Islamic countries.
It is specifically permitted by the Koran and Shariah. Sexual intercourse is
permitted at age 7; before that penetration is not permitted (though sodomy
is), but the child may be used for sexual pleasure.
(7) The guardian's permission is required for
the marriage of a woman of majority age. Her consent is required, but silence
or tears are deemed to imply consent.
(8) As regards inheritance a female gets half
the share of a male.
(9) All Islamic judges are male; thus women
do not get a fair hearing in an Islamic court. In addition to this a woman's
testimony is regarded as having half the value of a man's. The law is
institutionally biased against women.
(10) It will be said that it is only the
option of Islamic law that is being offered. This is false: tremendous social
pressures will be brought on Muslims (particularly females) to opt for Shariah.
Shariah is the Holy Law, and to reject that is to reject Islam - apostasy.
I hope you will agree that it is quite out of
the question that Islamic Law should be incorporated into English Law. Indeed I
think it would be a technical impossibility, but I am not a lawyer. I cannot
believe that Arch-Bishop Rowan Williams had even looked into these details.
Comment:-
If you want to be fair, you will also send
the following reply to your MP.
Whereas it is true that some of the rules
used in Muslim countries are somewhat primitive because the communities there
are backwards, this cannot be attributed to the Shariah itself. To deal with
your points one by one:-
(1) This is not
true. Wives can go to the Shariah courts. Cruelty, mistreatment, failure of
husband to meet his obligations are all grounds for divorce. Husbands cannot
divorce wives without reason and wives could go to court if unjustly divorced.
You have to read the whole of the Quran to determine what is expected of
husbands and wives. Yes husbands can divorce their wives by uttering their
intention to do so three times. But if these are uttered on the same instead of
on three different occasions then that is regarded as hypocrisy and cannot be
binding. You are thinking of a legal process in the Western sense. But you
ignore all the instructions in the Quran for Muslims which Muslims have to obey
if they do not want punishment in the hereafter. Marriage is regarded as half
of religion and divorce is regarded as the worst of what is allowable. Divorce is not an easy thing when
children are involved and when a marriage is embedded in a social network of
extensive families. Any dispute between the spouses is required to be
arbitrated by members of both families. A sober decision is required because a
man cannot remarry his ex-wife unless after she has married and divorced
another man. In general divorce on mutual consent is allowed.
(2) In Islam there
is a marriage contract such that mutual agreement can be made before marriage.
A dowry for the wife is also agreed on and she remains owner of her property.
All her earnings are hers.
(3) Women have
their property and can earn their own living.
(4) Custody of
children is not automatic but depends on circumstances.
(5) Women have
their own property and can earn their own living.
(6) As consent to
marriage is required, that would determine minimum age. If this requirement is
flouted that has nothing to do with religion, but with local culture. I have
not come across the things you say in the Quran or Sunna, on which the Shariah
is based. Please show us the relevant passages.
(7) Again you
mistake local practices and conventions for Shariah.
(8) Inheritance
Laws have to do with distribution of wealth and recognition of the fact that
the woman on marriage shares in her husband’s wealth. In Western Law
until recently women inherited nothing and even today people can make wills
leaving all their wealth to one heir or to animals. It is erroneously supposed
that this Islamic law makes women inferior to men. This view confuses facts
with values. No one requires that people of unequal talent or virtue should be
treated equally or that differences in height or strength make people unequal
in law. Justice requires that people should be treated in proportion to their
similarities and dissimilarities. We do not think treating similars
dissimilarly or dissimilars similarly is Justice. We regard men and women equal
in Justice but not similar in nature or function.
(9) (i) Most judges
in the West are men - are you saying that if women are brought before male
judges they cannot get a fair hearing? (ii) Judges whether male or female have
to study and abide by the law not their own whims. The Islamic Shariah is not
based on human prejudices and whims or expediency or the outcome of the power
struggle between political parties and pressure groups. It is therefore, much
more objective and impartial. (iii) There are women judges in Iran. (iv) As for testimony the
difference takes account of the fact that women are and should be more
personally emotionally involved on the side of their relatives.
(10) If people are
truly Muslim then they will want Shariah Law. If they are not then they can
resort to the Secular Law. The Shariah applies only to Muslims because that Law
is embedded harmoniously in the rest of the Islamic teaching and way of life.
It becomes incongruous only if it is not so integrated.
What happens within
a marriage or families is not the concern of the State but it is the respective
families that deal with any dispute or injustice between the spouses.
It is necessary to
differentiate between ordinary practices in local cultures and the Shariah
which is the religious Law based on Islamic Principles as found in the Quran
and Hadith, where Justice, Compassion and Truth are primary considerations. It
is not denied that malpractices, inadequate knowledge, understanding and
application of Islamic Principles and adulterations with extraneous non-Islamic
malpractices do occur. All this certainly requires rectification. But critics
also know that there are many inadequacies and malpractices in Western
Societies, Laws and Legal systems that can be and have been criticised and
attempts are made at reformation there as in the Muslim societies.
In any society there are certain standards or
conventions which people are expected to conform to. These change over time,
but it is not possible to judge the past by the present or the present by the
past, or those under one set of conventions by another set. But one can
recommend a better more objective set above another if it is really objectively
better. The Law has to be adapted to the conditions of the time and place and
its application depends on the ability and understanding of the judges at the
time.
All this misunderstanding comes from partial
understanding of Islam and the Shariah. As the critic is not an expert on
Shariah so why does he regard himself qualified to speak about it? This
practice of expressing opinions based on ignorance appears to be a typically
Western habit not permitted in Islam (4:157).
No. One cannot possibly agree with someone
who makes pronouncements based on ignorance, a little knowledge and much biased
speculation about the subject he writes about. He is not a lawyer as he
confesses and cannot possibly know how the Shariah would be applied.
Muslims believe that the Shariah is better
but we do not impose it on others as others wish to impose their law on us.
Islamic Law applies to a community of Muslims where all the aspects of Islam
exist.
Critic:-
Your other response is to deny that I am
qualified to give an opinion; again without evidence. Truth does not depend
upon qualifications.
Comment:-
Yes, you are wholly unqualified to give an
opinion about Islamic Law. These judgements, like any science or discipline,
require thorough knowledge of the aims, values, principles and context, not
speculation based on anecdotes.
You do not understand Islam and that the
Shariah is meant to apply to Muslims, that is to those who accept Islamic
values, undertake to abide by them and form a society in which all the facets
of Islam are interwoven. It is a religious law which deals with how to pray and
with manners and etiquette, with relationships with the environment, inter-human
and family relationships, and with how to deal with one's own body, mind and
soul and develop consciousness, conscience and will, and with Justice,
Compassion and Truth. It is concerned with the establishment of a culture and
civilisation that will facilitate spiritual development.
But it does not only have a goal but also has
to take into consideration the realities of the time and place where it is
applied. Conditions change with time, place and people and so do the
capabilities that can be harnessed, the limitations and possibilities and the
maladies that require different treatments.
The Shariah is not, therefore, like a secular
law that has a limited function about superficial peace and order by the
application of the outcome of a political power struggle. But it is the result
of the objective studies of Scholars regarding the aims and principles of Islam
which, being Submission to God the creator of all things, is concerned with
Truth and not whims, speculations, fantasies, prejudices and opinions based on
narrow self-interests. As such the law is modifiable as knowledge and wisdom
grows.
The Islamic Law does not apply to
non-Muslims. We do not wish to impose our laws on you as you wish to impose
yours on us. It is impossible to call a system Democratic where that is done
and it is mere hypocrisy for people who wish to do this to claim belief in
Democracy. What we see the Western media doing is to judging Islam from their
own limited arbitrary, accidentally acquired and often perverse value systems
in order to mentally condition people. This is probably because they harbour
guilt feelings. Unfortunately, of course, many Muslims fall for this and wish
to ingratiate themselves with the West.
I and many other
Muslims, though we recognise the weaknesses and failings of Muslims, do not
make any apology for Islam. Muslims wish to create and live in a physically,
socially, psychologically, morally and spiritually clean environment. They do
not wish to live in a community where loose morals, debauchery, sexual
promiscuity and perversions, rape, seduction, trade in women, sexual
exploitation, prostitution, depravities, infidelity, adultery, divorce,
dysfunctional families, family breakdowns, domestic conflicts and violence,
abortion, infanticide, illegitimate children, child abuse, abandoned and
neglected children who grow up delinquent and produce vandalism, hooliganism,
and criminality; where crudity, viciousness, aggressive and self-centred
anti-social behaviour; cruelty, assault, profanity, defamation, malevolence,
sadism, cynicism, degradation, psychopathy, lack of standards, of mutual
respect, of self-respect and of self-discipline; purposelessness,
irresponsibility, social disintegration, deprivation and so on become rampant;
and produce the consequential stresses, strains, tensions, conflicts and misery
that necessitate escapism into fantasy, illusion, alcoholism, drug addiction,
mindless excitement, materialism, gambling, frivolity, gossip and scandal
mongering, and all manner of prejudice, injustices, persecutions, enslavement,
deception, swindling and hypocrisy.
We think that a society that tolerate these
things and even directly or indirectly encourages them and does not vigorously
and adequately take steps to eradicate these things, is NOT a civilised
society. We do wish to change all this as part of our global social conscience,
and we know that it cannot be done by compulsion. But we are opposed, it seems
to me, by those who fear just such a transformation and wish to protect their
"freedom" to self-indulgence. In fact, however, there can be no real
freedom when the physical, social and psychological effects of these
malfunctions have to be dealt with, and when people are brain washed into
consumerism, trapped into debt to those who control the finance, and
manipulated through selective misinformation, trivia and prejudice by the
media.
There are widespread misunderstandings about
Shariah Law in spite of the fact that many articles about it have been written.
According to a famous Hadith:- Islam has three levels:- the Religious Law
(al-islam), the Faith (al-iman) and the Righteousness (al-ihsan). These
correspond to Shariat, Tarqat and Haqiqat of which it is said:-
"The Shariat is what Muhammad (saw)
instructs, The Tariqat is what Muhammad (saw) does and the Haqiqat is what
Muhammad (saw) is."
Whereas Righteousness refers to the state of
being of a true Muslim who has surrendered to Allah (and thus to God-made
objective principles), the Law exists as a guidance for the community, to
facilitate development and prevent back-sliding. The Law is meant to make
people behave AS IF they were spiritually regenerated so that they would become
modified by it. It does not deal only with what in the West is called Criminal
or Civil Law, but with all aspects of life and its aim is primarily spiritual.
The social aspect exists to serve the spiritual and the economic aspect is
meant to serve the social. This is the reverse of how things stand in Western
Law. The Faith is intermediate between the two, a bridge. That is say faith
develops after the discipline is followed and then leads on to the
transformation of the person.
"The dwellers of the desert say: We
believe. Say (to them): You believe not, but rather say, 'We submit'; for faith
has not yet entered into your heart; and if you obey Allah and His Messenger,
He will not diminish aught of your deeds; surely Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful." 49:14
Note: "the dwellers of the desert"
can be understood literally as referring to the Beduin Arabs but in a symbolic
sense as referring to all of us who live in a "spiritual desert".
According to this verse, faith is not the starting point but a result of an
appropriate discipline. We need to pass through a school to obtain beliefs
based on knowledge.
The Islamic Shariah is based, in order of
priority on (1) Allah (2) The Quran (3) The Sunna of the Prophet (4) The
authority of knowledgeable, virtues and able Scholars. (5) The Shurah and Ijma
- Assemblies or Councils where discussion ttakes place and consensus is reached.
(6) Urf and Adat - Established practices and customs (7) The decisions of
individuals who ought to use Aql, intelligence and seek knowledge.
Note: Islam is surrender to Allah, and though
it is based on the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, it also recognise other
scriptures and Messengers and even the interpretation of the Quran requires the
inspiration from God.
Critic:-
You say: Islam is surrender to Allah. But one
may sincerely want to submit to God, but if Allah does not exist, then that submission
is pointless. If God does not exist, then the claim of divine inspiration of
the Quran is also false.
Comment:-
This is nonsense from an Islamic point of
view. Islam takes for granted the existence of Allah because that refers to the
self-existing origin of all things including matter, energy, order, life and
consciousness. These things do exist but are transient and therefore have a
cause or source.
Critic:-
If there really is a God, then there is a whole
bunch to choose from, since there is no obvious sign anywhere in the universe
as to which god is the good and only one.
Comment:-
Again nonsense!. There cannot be a bunch to
choose from. There can only be one that is supreme and self-existing and the
source of all other things. Otherwise we would have confusion and chaos not
consistency and harmony. Nothing, recognised by its regularity could then
exist.
Critic:-
Now, if the Quran is interpreted with God's
inspiration, that does not explain the many sects in Islam, since there should
be one and only one valid interpretation. Otherwise, the scripture is
worthless.
Comment:-
Also nonsense!. If something has a
comprehensive meaning then the limited capacity for knowledge and understanding
of human beings means that all will have partial knowledge and different people
will have different parts. The cure for this is to strive to increase
knowledge, understanding and awareness. To encourage this is exactly the
function of the scriptures.
Critic:-
You say: Islam takes for granted the
existence of Allah because that refers to the self-existing origin of all
things including matter, energy, order, life and consciousness. The problem
with that is that it all comes from the Quran. The Quran claims Allah is the creator.
Comment:-
We read the Quran and see that it tells the
Truth. What is there about "self-existing origin of all things including
matter, energy, order, life and consciousness" that you do not understand?
Is it the name "Allah" that you object to? If you think that all
these things arise from the Big Bang, then tell us what the cause of the Big
Bang is. But quite apart from this we must have a cause for all these things to
evolve from the Big Bang.
Allah is the name given to the ultimate
self-existing Reality. It is the ultimate explanation for all things.
If a book tells you that 2+3 = 5 would you
object on the grounds that it is the book that tells you so? If you cannot see
that it is so then there is nothing one can do about this. It has significance
only for those who do see it.
Critic:-
You say the cure for sectarianism is to
strive to increase knowledge and understanding and awareness and to encourage
this is exactly the function of the scriptures. But despites this, all those
sects remains, so your proposed cure does not work.
Comment:-
What is it about my statement that you are
unable to comprehend? I said the cure is to strive to increase knowledge. If it
is not striven for then the cure has not been applied. Would you say that a
particular medicine does not work because it has not been used by the
sufferers?
Critic:-
There is no strictly static codified set of laws of
Sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a
consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Quran (the religious text of
Islam), Hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad and his companions), Ijma
(consensus), Qiyas (reasoning by analogy) and centuries of debate,
interpretation and precedent.
My own experience, especially my attempts to discover
what a Shariah Law Code might really contain, confirms this statement. Yet many
Muslim-dominated countries (or, in the case of Nigeria,
States) claim, in so many words, that their law code is the Shariah. Many
Muslims have claimed the right to refuse to do anything contrary to the
Shariah. Such claims, it seems to me, are meaningless if not supported by clear
definition of what they mean by the Shariah.
Comment:-
The description of Sharia as given by you above is
correct to an extent. In fact, it is not Hadith but Sunna that is the second
source of Islam. Hadith are simply records that have been tampered with and are
not always genuine. Scholarship is needed to establish the genuineness, but
also as to how the sayings and doings are to be interpreted. They do have a context
not always known or understood.
It is also necessary to understand that Qias,
reasoning by analogy, is not the same thing as what is understood by logic. The
analogies are not verbal ones and there are various levels of similarities and
differences. (Is one chair like another chair? They are alike because both are
chairs. But chairs are like benches, both are used for sitting on. Or they are
like tables or cupboards as they are furniture.)
The need or requirement for definition is based on the
idea that verbal descriptions rather than experience or the things experienced
are the real realities. This is to be rejected. Definitions are abstractions
that restrict by exclusion and are rigid. In fact the precision of a definition
is inversely related to the accuracy with which an object or event to which it
relates is understood. Life and reality are not like that.
It is, of course, true that human beings communicate
through words but definitions as required by logic are not the only means of
communication. A description is better and improves as experience increases and
deepens. A set of people with common experiences will also understand the
descriptions in common. But actual practice is what improves experience. This
involves interaction with the environment as well as the practice of religious
discipline, meditation and mutual discussion. Ijma and Qias are, therefore,
important. These depend on the people, the community and their circumstances.
It is only when and if all Muslims exist in a single
nation under a single government such that there is some kind of uniformity
then only can there be a single Shariah and that would be comprehensive enough
to include variations that cater for local differences of conditions. But, even
as it is, one can regard the Shariah as something that includes all the
variations of it, rather than identifying it with a single kind. However, it
must also be recognised that much that goes under the name of Sharia is not
really based on the Quran or Sunna but on extraneous influences. Purification
through scholarship is needed.
Critic:-
As Shariah and
Islam demands that one day Islam will rule the world and everyone will be
forced to accept Islam, it follows that anything less is "not allowing
Muslims to live according to Sharia". If more people understood the truly
imperialist nature of Islam they would be less willing to grant concessions to
Muslim minorities unavailable to religious minorities in Islamic states.
Comment:-
You are confused.
Firstly, There is no question of "forced". "There is no
compulsion in religion." Quran 2:256.
The Shariah is based on the Quran. Religion is about faith. Compulsion
cannot possibly cause conversion.
Secondly, the
Shariah is about rules of conduct. That does not contain the idea that anything
less than world domination is "not allowing Muslims to live according to
Shariah".
You appear to be
ignorant of the fact that under Muslim rule all other religions also flourished
whereas they were generally persecuted under Christian intolerance. It is only
lately when Muslims began to be attacked that retaliation began.
Critic:-
If there is no
compulsion in religion, why do you have to "fight the unbelievers in every
stratagem of war until they submit", why does Allah compel you "to
fight in the way of Allah until all submit to Islam", and why has
"fighting been prescribed to you by Allah"?
Comment:-
Read the Quran
without biased filtration. Fighting is only permitted in defence against
aggressors. But people do often interpret things according to their
self-interests and distort meanings just as you do. The unbeliever is fought
against because he attacks Muslims.
"But fight them until there be no more
oppression (persecution or sedition) and that the Din (religion, faith,
justice, the attitude and way of life) may be Allah's; but, if they desist,
then let there be no hostility save against the unjust oppressors." 2:193
"...for persecution (oppression or sedition) is
worse than slaughter;" 2:192
We believe that
life has a cosmic purpose else would not exist - individuals do constantly die
and there is constant reproduction - so that the plan should be fulfilled. We
do not apologise for that belief.
Critic:-
We believe in
Democracy where people decide their own government and it is not imposed on
them.
Comment:-
In which so called
"democracy" do
"people" rule? Where do "the people" make laws? When did
you make a law? And if you did why are you imposing it on others?
Critic:-
If I feel strongly
enough about an issue I can lobby a political party, or even spend my hard
earned cash to bring the matter to the attention of others, who then vote in an
election and choose people who will make and unmake the laws they approve of.
Comment:-
You will be wasting
your time, even when you can persuade or force a crowd to make a public
demonstration! Unless of course you are a powerful Company or Corporation with
many millions in cash. Then, of course you will be looking for your own
corporate interest and not that of the nation. Nor do they apply objective
principles.
Those who are
elected to Parliament (1) are chosen as candidates by those who run the
Political Party (2) are elected by a small minority of people – only a
fraction actually vote and of those only a fraction vote for the political
party that attains power – the rest
of the population are disabled. (3) and they have to toe the line taken
by the leaders of the party or are expelled or fear losing their seats. (4) The
people elect them on the basis of one or two policies that they barely
understand out of great many that the government deals with but which are not
presented for public decision. (5) People might agree or disagree with some
policies of one party and some of the other, but cannot vote for both. (6)
Looking at the election campaigns we see that vast quantities of money are
spent, intrigues, bribes and threats, and many dirty tricks are used, and these
are more theatre than discussion. (7) Looking at what goes on in Parliament we
see that it is merely a battle ground of attack and defence, like dog's
snarling at each other and no serious discussion takes place. (8) The policies
are made on the basis of prejudices, whims or in the self-interest of small
groups that has the real power and wealth. That is why there is such a big
difference in wealth and why workers can be thrown out on the unemployed
scrapheap when they become unprofitable for the owners. It is Corporations,
often international ones run by foreigners who dictate policies. That is not
Democracy. And many people realise this.
It is true,
however, that those who make the decisions, must increasingly consult experts
who make the researches and base their policies on correct scientific
information. But that is also very often ignored, especially when powerful
commercial corporations or political interests bring in their own
"experts" that have been paid to select and distort the truth. But
whereas some respect is given to objective facts, the same is not true about
objective motives and values or objective actions and behaviour. Efficiency and
Economy have been inadequately understood. It is only very recently that the
question of ecological balance, pollution and wastage of resources has come
under social consideration. But social and psychological welfare and
development have been mostly ignored.
Critic:-
It is an awful lot
fairer than some so-called priest sitting on his gilded throne with dusty books
he claims to be divinely inspired and deciding what is good for everyone else.
Comment:-
There is no
priesthood in Islam. But in so far as there are self-appointed priests that is
a corruption that needs to be removed. There are independent Scholars who must
make researches and consult each other and be accountable to the community.
Each Muslim is responsible for himself.
Critic:-
Are you in fact
aware that the two big heroes of Islamism Nahbanni and Qutb are both heavily
influenced by Western philosophers, Rousseau and Hegel, despite there claims of
rejecting all things Western?
Comment:-
I am not aware that
they are heroes of "Islamism" whatever that is. As for Western
Philosophers, we do not accept or reject them and some of their ideas may be
similar to Islamic ones and may well have derived from Islam. As Muslims, we
are concerned with Islamic sources and with the principles of Truth, Compassion
and Justice, these being the attributes of God to whom Muslims submit.
Critic:-
Do you get the
point yet? Religion is the business of the *individual* not the *state*.
Comment:-
Whose law is that?
Islam does not have a "State" in the Western sense. It has a
community. Religion is the business of the individual and of the community of
like-minded people and of their environment.
You keep trying to
misunderstand Islam by applying your culturally conditioned criteria instead of
understanding Islamic ones. Certainly in many Muslim countries there are
dictators and owing to an emphasis of Western Education by foreign rulers there
has been a neglect of a more comprehensive Islamic education leading to
somewhat naive Islamic movements against oppressors and invaders. But the
experiences in the West ought to have shown that a degree of freedom is
necessary over a period of time for development to take place. The institutions
in the West took centuries to develop but Muslims have not had the same
opportunities in the last few centuries.
The fact remains
that there are still many defects and increasing ones in the Western systems
and that there is a much superior system in the teachings of Islam, though not
yet implemented. This is likely to change as the Western system collapses,
probably within fifty years.
Critic:-
It is laughable how
not only you ignore the meanings of words such as Democracy, but you also
ignore economic reality. The societies that are collapsing fastest are those
burdened by Islam today, whereas the West, precisely because our system is
flexible and allows for discussion and debate enables problem solving. All the
economic states from the Muslim world indicate stagnation and decline - yet you
laughably insist you are somehow about to overtake the world. I would have
thought these facts would help you to question Islam's validity, since Allah
supposedly promises to increase the prosperity of the believers?
Unfortunately this
is an oxymoron, since faith in Islam requires suspension of all doubt; belief
in Allah is all that is needed. Yet science requires precisely that for
progress - doubt. It is only by doubting the validity of things and questioning
them that discoveries are made. Yet Islam by its very nature forbids all doubt.
"Allah knows best" is the ultimate shrugging of the shoulders and
rejection of responsibility. By handing everything over to Allah the spirit of
enquiry is squashed, knowledge is seen as dangerous and suppressed and the
population under Islam slides into material decline and poverty - not even
questioning their demise so long as two extremely potent myths remain
unchallenged -that "Allah knows best" and that all setbacks are the
fault of Western imperialists and the Jews.
How Islam, which
cannot even sustain material growth in its own backyard is somehow going to
take over the world I do not know. Perhaps if instead of focussing on jihad,
and the non-Muslim world it attempted to put its own house in order the spirit
of enquiry once seen in the Islamic world long ago *might* flourish again; but
so long as Muslims remain fixated by the poisonous creed of Wahabism and fellow
travellers.
Comment:-
I notice that you
are confusing people who may or may not understand or practice Islam with Islam
which is a teaching, and that you are ignoring historical realities that
Muslims have been under attack for centuries and dominated and exploited by
foreign powers with alien values. What makes you think that the states you
mention are Islamic? Or that Islam contains a single system of thought and can
be identified with Wahabism. But we notice that as soon
as there is a wakeup call for Muslims to take control of their own affairs then
there are governments and people like you attacking them wishing to impose
their values on them. In this there is no sign of the humility or doubt that
you claim to admire.
Faith in Allah is faith in Objective truth. It is the
duty of Muslims to seek truth. That is what leads to progress. To say
“Allah knows best” is to acknowledge that one may not know and
ought to seek. It dispels the arrogance of certainty. You do not build anything
on doubt, you destroy things by it. You doubt something only when you have
alternatives and then the purpose of doubt is to activate you to dispel doubt through
knowledge. There is no flexibility or progress when a person is mentally
conditioned, though there may be drifting with the wind of circumstance.
You understand
things according to how you have been conditioned to think. I have lived in the
West all my life and studied Western Philosophy, Sciences and Politics. I have
also studied Islam. Islam has its own points of view, criteria and values. I
write from this point of view. In order to understand Islam you too will have
to understand these criteria and values.
We are having a
discussion about "Democracy". Even in the West it is defined as
"the rule of the people by the people for the people." This is most
certainly NOT what is practiced anywhere in the West or in the World.
Islam does not have
the word "Democracy". But the description of how all affairs should
be run is incorporated in the phrase "mutual consultation.". This is
to be understood in connection with the ideas that all human being are
"vicegerents" and each person is responsible for himself and the
things that exist within his sphere of influence. Muslims are required to
submit to Allah whose attributes among other things are Truth, Benevolence and
Justice. It is these things that are beneficial for man. Therefore, I have
described this system as "True Democracy". If you do not like the phrase you can
discard it. I am not interested in the words, but in the reality to which they
refer.
Certainly, the
system described is an ideal that has not been implemented. But there is a big
difference between a system that strives towards the ideal and a system that is
based on the delusion that it is an ideal and cannot, therefore progress. It is
even worse when it wants to impose that delusion on others. But true, it is
better than tyrannical totalitarian dictatorships.
I have no doubt
that the so called Muslim countries are backwards in many ways. But they do
want to progress. It is a question of knowing what progress means. For Muslims,
success is defined in the Quran and it is not the same as your idea of it. I
notice that you are confusing political conditions with economic ones, and
identifying human welfare with material wealth ignoring social, psychological,
spiritual and environmental factors. That is just the attitude I am
criticising.
Critic:-
I am not an admirer
of the efforts by wealthy Muslims to get all advantages of Western Financial
Law and at the same time retain lip service to Islamic principles. I have
recently described it in this group as "an exercise in applied
hypocrisy".
A Muslim:-
The Quran tells us
“Measure with Justice (or true measure)" 6:153, 7:84, 11:85, 17:35. The international
financial system is based on speculation and false measures, not true measure.
Interest is a very minor part of the issue. The point is True Valuation,
which is not possible in today's economy.
Comment:-
Considering the
global financial crisis that Banks are facing and the millions of people who
are loosing their mortgaged homes (2008), there is certainly something wrong with
the way Finances are managed. This crisis comes at the same time as there is a
disastrous environmental and climatic change and a Resource crisis. There is a
steep rise in fuel and food prices which is connected with the fact that land
is being given over to production of bio-fuels instead of food.
I do not think
Interest (Usury) is a minor part of the issue. But it is true that it destroys
true valuation. Interest treats money, which is a medium of exchange, as if it
was a commodity. But the interest charged on loans stands for no production
whatever. Therefore, the whole financial system, based on sale and purchase and
hire of money, is a delusional structure.
The Banks want to
make profits by lending money and charging interest. To do this they attract
money by paying savers interest. But to make a profit they have to charge
borrowers more than they pay savers. To increase profits they have to attract
borrowers by means of incentives, propaganda and temptations. The borrowers
spend the money as they borrow thus increasing demand and prices. Later they
have to repay more than they borrowed - capital + interest. So they have less
to spend on goods, depressing demand and prices.
The interest swells
the income of those who already have a surplus. As money is purchasing power,
there is pressure to lend this out to keep the Economy going – if people
do not buy then the industry cannot sell its products and must close down. This
would produce unemployment, loss of wages and further loss of purchasing power.
The Economy is kept going either by reducing interest or by intense pressure
salesman ship. People are forced to buy whether they need things or not.
So we have a built
in contradiction that leads to crisis such as we see today. Needs, factories
and workers are still there but the financial system has disrupted their
co-ordination. It is not only the case that the population increase causes
increase in demand on resources but that demands per person is also increasing
beyond need or value. The production and transport of goods requires fuel and
the natural sources of fuel - oil and coal - are running out. So land is being
used for production of biological fuels rather than food crops. The further
contradiction lies in the fact that the pressure to buy which keeps industry
moving produces the wastage, pollution and disruption of the environmental and
Ecological system that needs to be combated, not to mention the social and
psychological malfunctions that concentrated pursuit on materialism and
consumerism brings.
A fundamental
problem today, despite claims to enlightenment in the West, is
self-righteousness – the inability to understand that other non-Western
people have their own values and ideals, and even more, the phobia and
intolerance towards other ideas without examination that leads to murderous military
campaigns against them. They demonise others and send their citizens to kill
and be killed. They justify their aggressive invasion of others but are
outraged when others retaliate. They refuse to negotiate to reach peaceful
agreements, but instead conduct intensive one-sided propaganda and
misinformation. They mourn their own dead, whom they falsely call
self-sacrificing heroes in order to console and encourage their relatives, but
fail utterly to see that the opposition might have exactly the same view in
reverse – that it is they who are the evil that they are heroically
fighting. Indeed, whereas the invaders are a well-equipped and well paid
military force that have been sent as aggressors by those in power and cannot
be said even to be defending their own country, the defenders are volunteers
driven by faith. That is not something to be dealt with through force but
education. Unfortunately, however, the tendency is to apply three other aggressive
forces, namely financial and political pressure and mental conditioning
techniques based on a web of illusions and fantasies.
The invasion is
justified on the virtuous grounds of fighting against tyranny and establishing
civilised and humanitarian values but it is easy to see, even from the very
popular soap operas and other programmes on Western Television and other media
that reflect a large aspect of the western life as well as encouraging
imitation that they have an increasingly depraved and malfunctioning culture
and social system for which their inadequate and often perverse laws are
responsible. Indeed it is this which also affects their political and economic
systems and is also likely to cause the degradation and collapse of the whole
Western Civilisation. They suppose that they are making progress but one can
progress downwards in a cycle instead of upwards. They claim also that they are
defending or creating Democracy and that there to support the local
governments. The fact, however, is that these are puppet governments set up by
the USA in its own interest,
supported by other Western governments for the control of resources and
populations. This kind of conduct by governments would not be possible where an
Objective Law, that is unalterable by human beings, especially politicians, is
accepted as supreme. But it also requires that those who define, interpret and
apply the Law, the Judges should be independent of political control, impartial
and objective. That is, they must be free from personal interests, prejudices,
illusions, fantasies and cultural conditioning. This requires special
discipline.
----------<O>----------
Contents