Light said:
Devadatta, your view as a non-Muslim is very appreciated in this dialog. Obviously you have come to this facts based on your reading and understanding. Maybe not as accurate as we Muslims have learnt, but nevertheless a good effort on your part to understand Islam.
You've mentioned..
It is a serious matter of what person or institution carries forward the will of Allah. Because, it is impertive for that person or instution to have the right knowledge to carry forward the will of Allah. A person may think he is carrying forward the will of Allah, but it is on the contrary. The main point is, Islam has laid the foundation where Islamic civilisation must be build upon. This foundation is very comprehensive, contrary to your belief as Aidyl has put it in his previous post. This is one of the reason why some countries, whom appear to be Islamic, does not fully observe the Islamic rule. That is why some claimed that there is no country in the world that is implementing the right Islamic rule. This is all because of person or institution that runs the country does not carries forward the will of Allah according to His instruction. Why? Because they either do not have the right knowledge or completely ignorant.
If it operates within well-understood ethical guidelines, then this guidlines shouldn't and wouldn't change. However, it was change very frequently (e.g. in the acceptance of Homosexuality/Lesbianism, legalising of prostitution and so much more) that the orthodox Judeo-Christian tradition wholly oppose. How then the pluralist democracies define ethic when the ethic that it relies on changes according to the will of the people. On the contrary, Islam have clearly define the ethic Muslims has to adhere to and there is no negotiation on that part. Ruling regarding anything around it or any innovations/discoveries that came after is taken into consideration based on the well laid ethics. That is why there is fatwas regarding all matters. Eg, organ transplant, using of recycled water, use of weapon of mass destruction and so much more. the ruling don't just based on scientific evidence, but also includes references to Al-Quran and Al-Hadeeth. When a rule is taken based on a solid foundation (that does not moved/changed as the people desire) then can we say that it is fully adhering to the will of Allah.
Yes, it is true that even after that extensive research and comparative study of the ruling, it will produce several conclusion by individual Ulama. That is the beauty of the whole process. It challenge the Muslims to think and gain knowledge. The difference in opinion is natural for the Muslim world, and we are encourages to respect each other opinion although we strongly believe the otherwise is correct. Unity in Islam is vital. As such, if the Majlis or the leader of one community has decide on a ruling, the Muslims in that community must follow that rather than observing their own.
I completely disagree with what you claimed above. Shariah that Islam has always envisioned, will only come with the implementation of a true Islamic ruling. There is no reference in the Islamic history that it flourised WITH democracy. I personally believe that the Khalifah rule will reappear as been prophesied in Quran and Hadeeth with the coming of Al-Mahdi and Isa (Jesus) alaihi salam. In democracy, the people chose who to run the country. As we all know, every person have different level of knowledge on every subject. Thus, how can we trust that the people will choose the right person to rule the country? Let alone trusting them to carry the will of Allah. The Khalifah system is very successful in this aspect. The reason why the system crumble is none other by the work of the western government whom wants to see the disintegrated Muslims world. At that point, the Muslims faith has weakened and driven by lack of knowledge contribute to its destruction.
Democracy is never an Islamic method of governing and as in a Hadeeth which says something like, if something has not come from Allah and His Messenger, it is innovation and every innovation is a path away from Allah.
Allah knows best. Any mistake is from my own naivety and any truth is from Allah the supremely merciful and supremely kind.
May Allah lead us to the right path.
Hi Light.
Thanks light for your appreciation, and for your thoughtful response.
You’re right that the moral/ethical standards of “Western Shariah”, if we allow there is such a thing, is far more open-ended than Islamic Shariah. But again I think the moral universe of the West may be more consistent than you think. Principles like the sanctity of life, especially human life, the accountability of individuals for the moral choices they make, respect for the right of others, etc., are alive and well, and still form part of foundational documents like the U.N.’s Universal Charter of Human Rights.
As in Islamic Shariah, there is a definite process involved. New “rulings” if you like, do arise in different forms to meet with the changing circumstances of human life. As in Islam, different human behaviours call for different moral/legal responses: prohibition, disapproval, recommendation, non-recommendation, morally neutral, etc. In the West, of course, these categories are not the same as in Islam; in some areas the penalties differ as well. Of course the process is in a way far more complex in the West, involving governments, legislation, pressure groups, religious bodies and various kinds of moral suasion, and so moral standards are far more contested than they are in Islam.
But perhaps the essential difference is that Islam is significantly more concerned with regulating everyday outward comportment, family life & and the relations between men & women than generally prevails in the West. And in the interests of better understanding, I’d like to point out one obvious root to this difference.
Really it goes back to fundamental theology. As you know, nearly all Christians adhere to the basic creed, that Jesus was fully God but also fully man. Islam rejects, even abhors, this creed, and affirms the One God, who shall have no participants.
Now, you may perhaps know this already, but for Christians having this creed, and even having the firm guidance of a hierarchical church, is only the beginning of belief. Every Christian must struggle with the riddle of Jesus Christ. You might say that Christianity is built around the “Jesus Koan”. In Islam these metaphysical/psychological perplexities are taken right off the table, but any Christian who takes his religion seriously must work through this koan (conceived of in numerous ways of course), to find his way to belief.
This internal struggle is one of the major roots for that mysterious entity “the Western mind”, and at the root of an intense individuality, Existential anguish, Faustian ambition, and finally that restless (you might say compulsive) spirit of inquiry which is most characteristic of the culture we call “Western”.
In short, it’s this intense interiority of the Western mind that makes it seemingly indifferent to many of the kinds of human behaviour that Islamic Shariah regulates. It’s not that the West is less moral than Islam – though it may be in some areas – but that it pitches its moral tent more in the mind than in behaviours.
All this is not to paint the West as superior or inferior, but only to help you perhaps to better understand the Western mentality. The West has no doubt paid mightily for its complex theology, and been led to many failed ideologies and injustices. And you may be correct that the West has gone too far, that human beings need the strict guidance of Islamic-style Shariah. You may say that Westerners are kind of crazy (we are). You may be right that democracies are far too messy to arrive at God’s will. (Of course my contrary view is that it’s far more dangerous to put God’s instruments in too few hands than in too many.) These are matters on which we can reasonably disagree, as we’re doing here.
But may I tell you my central concern? My feeling as a non-Muslim is that Islam, with its fierce monotheism, its vigorous will to put God into everyday life, its core dedication to justice, has much more to offer to world culture. The trouble is I don’t see the present orthodoxy, as defended here, nor the political climate in most Muslim countries leading to that end. I see a colossal failure of the imagination. From the West Bank to Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan & Peshawar, all the enemies of Islam, whether called Imperialists, Zionists, Crusaders, would disappear like smoke in face of a genuinely mobilized umma. Democracy may or may not be compatible with Islam, but Muhammad (pbuh) certainly knew how to mobilize people power in his day, and knew how to wield the weapons of peace as well as war. I think a 21st century Muhammad could do the same, though is methods would more resemble Gandhi’s than Caesar’s.
Sincerely,
Devadatta
