Rethinking Islamic Reform

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

@Shamlawar

From what I understand of you, You seem to to think everything that isn't Wahhabist or in line with Khariji thinking is "Liberalism and Western Values", even if it's just giving people voting rights to elect a leader. You even called Hamza Yusuf a Western Liberal. He's a classical Scholar who studied under classical Sheikhs.

You also have a habit about making claims without supplying evidence or if you do, you use farsi (in the allegations against Rumi) which not everyone understands and you don't even give the citation, you just say "hey look it's in this book, find it yourself".

So please make another thread detailing evidence about Tariq Ramadan's alleged duplicity. As for this thread, we're here to discuss THIS debate and the arguments presented. If you can't focus on that, then leave the discourse.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Mu'tazillah were reformed khawaarij. Go and read history of your own sect.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

LOL .....basically dancing around the question again

This is why I say Western Liberalists and Wahhabis are allies for each other. They ignore real Islam and use each other for validation.

[Azmal]

I already addressed this point about Thugs and criminals and the references also address that point; so let's not cherry pick things just to serve one's argument. I think it's possible that democracy can work for Muslims as long as it under Islam, coincides with Islam; not Western style secularism. Most of the things you tout are benefits of Western Liberal democracy can theoretically happen

Islam does not necessarily shun or repudiate a secular ruler, as long as that ruler upholds the principles and ethics of Islam and seeking advice from qualified Ulama when it comes to legislating civil and criminal law.

Principles and ethics of Islam is subjective…your discussion with SK is this thread is vivid example. By allowing government to establish rules and laws based on subjective terms like “Principles and ethics of Islam” would actually be disastrous to the country and especially to those who value religion. However, in separating religion from the state, it must follow that even those who do not follow ANY religion, must be given rights and security. After all, how can you guarantee your own right to practice as you choose (nor not practice) when some are not given this right? The answer is you cannot guarantee your rights when you're not prepared to guarantee others' rights.

[Azmal]

Khostai knows about Tariq Ramadan because Ramadan use to be a professor in Rotterdam University where he used his position to speak in favor of liberalism and Western values in English and French while speaking like a radical Muslim Brotherhood preacher in Arabic at the local mosques.

He was exposed for his treachery and two faced tactics. The thing is, you and your bum chum Pakhpaloo may have developed feelings for the soft spoken Egyptian preacher. But to people in the Netherlands it is clear who Ramadan really is. Only Ikhwanis and other deviant people who have absolutely no morality still value Ramadan as a preacher.

The current realities of Muslim world where mothers and babies sleep hungry at nights, and men strapping bombs to their heads or rectum have long passed the signposts of morality, dignity and honor. As long as obscurantist ideas are fostered and we are not ready to have a broader dialogue on Islam and the Muslim traditions and practices we are morally and spiritually will be bankrupt and nothing will change. This is something that very few Muslim will accept....and the fact is that the majority are in a state of denial. The whole Muslim Ummah is daydreaming and is hostage to their erroneous beliefs, misconceptions and false hopes. Unfortunately, there is very little hope for Muslim till they completely overhaul their thinking.

[Azmal]

LOL .....basically dancing around the question again

This is why I say Western Liberalists and Wahhabis are allies for each other. They ignore real Islam and use each other for validation.

Wahabis believes the actions of God are indistinguishable from naive observation of the natural world…they simply are the way things are, and for no other reason than it is Allah will. An atheist who believes that the world is utterly chaotic and random will see the world in precisely the same way.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Principles and ethics of Islam is subjective…your discussion with SK is this thread is vivid example. By allowing government to establish rules and laws based on subjective terms like “Principles and ethics of Islam” would actually be disastrous to the country and especially to those who value religion. However, in separating religion from the state, it must follow that even those who do not follow ANY religion, must be given rights and security. After all, how can you guarantee your own right to practice as you choose (nor not practice) when some are not given this right? The answer is you cannot guarantee your rights when you're not prepared to guarantee others' rights.

If it was subjective, then, there would be nothing called "islam" in the first place. There's the foundational backbone with has always been universally accepted by all Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'a.

The reality is most Afghans are Muslims, so whatever type of democracy or secularism you propose will have to be compatible with Islam and subject to the authority of Islamic Values first and foremost, otherwise it will be fully rejected by Afghans. This means secularists have to work within Islamic standards and not the otherway around. This is ONLY way democracy will be able to thrive in Afghanistan or the Muslim world in general. And that's how it should be Muslims should not accept anything else.

As for "people with no religion" well even in secularism; you can't please everyone. Truth and Justice are not about pleasing everyone. It's about implementing what is right for society as a whole. If someone is an Atheist or has no religion; Islam already protects them on special conditions, Their Atheistic or Non-religious tendencies are restricted for their own Home and private domain and they don't facilitate things that undermine Islamic Values (i.e. keep alcohol, distribute lewd material, engage in lewd behaviors etc.)

As long as they can behave themselves, they can live in it. Just like Muslims in America or the West as you argued, You can pray and go to mosque and so on just as long as you respect the Laws of America. Well same applies with Islam, you can disbelieve or eat pork, as long as you respect Islamic Values. The difference between America and a Democratic society founded on Islam is that in one Islam plays subordinate role and the other Islam plays dominant role.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Wahabis believes the actions of God are indistinguishable from naive observation of the natural world…they simply are the way things are, and for no other reason than it is Allah will. An atheist who believes that the world is utterly chaotic and random will see the world in precisely the same way.

I don't think Wahhabis believe in simply Allah's will, they cherry pick their favorites verses and ignore the details deliberately because it's inconvenient.

Notice how many times I ask Shamlawar for daleel .....how many times has he provided it? Practically zero. Then these House Slave types look at people that think like Shamlawar and say "see look, this is your Islam, we were right".

You know on a side note, while I use the term Wahhabi out of convenience, I've actually started to learn there are Moderate Wahhabis; they have a more rigid and narrow interpretation of Islam, but they denounce terrorism and takfir, rather they just disassociate from everyone and just keep to their own circle.

[Azmal]

If it was subjective, then, there would be nothing called "islam" in the first place. There's the foundational backbone with has always been universally accepted by all Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'a.

The reality is most Afghans are Muslims, so whatever type of democracy or secularism you propose will have to be compatible with Islam and subject to the authority of Islamic Values first and foremost, otherwise it will be fully rejected by Afghans. This means secularists have to work within Islamic standards and not the otherway around. This is ONLY way democracy will be able to thrive in Afghanistan or the Muslim world in general. And that's how it should be Muslims should not accept anything else.

As for "people with no religion" well even in secularism; you can't please everyone. Truth and Justice are not about pleasing everyone. It's about implementing what is right for society as a whole. If someone is an Atheist or has no religion; Islam already protects them on special conditions, Their Atheistic or Non-religious tendencies are restricted for their own Home and private domain and they don't facilitate things that undermine Islamic Values (i.e. keep alcohol, distribute lewd material, engage in lewd behaviors etc.)

As long as they can behave themselves, they can live in it. Just like Muslims in America or the West as you argued, You can pray and go to mosque and so on just as long as you respect the Laws of America. Well same applies with Islam, you can disbelieve or eat pork, as long as you respect Islamic Values. The difference between America and a Democratic society founded on Islam is that in one Islam plays subordinate role and the other Islam plays dominant role.

I give you that there is one Qurhan but even that depends on interpretation of not just different sect but each individual and on what that individual will bring to it. A violent person will find justification of violence, while a peaceful person will find peace. That in it self depends on cultural/political/social background of people. Just to give you an example Islamist of Tunis that legally gives woman equal right in their constitution to that of Saudi Arabia that don't even allow woman to drive. I have said this before the limits to an individual’s liberty ought to be enshrined in the Law on the one hand, and at the mercy of one’s own conscience on the other. Whereas the former applies limitations on our freedoms only from interfering with the freedoms of other individuals, the latter is one that is needed through active propagation amid religious discourse. In Muslim societies, the role of the Mullah should not be to police our moral behavior, but rather, to work on propagating the faith through active debate and written persuasion. Take example of Muslim raised in a liberal Democracy, they knows they’ve nothing to worry about, for the case for religious belief is even stronger in a free society…while on other hand even the illiterate people back home have realized that Mullahs are not about morality they are about their rituals and their Fatwas. Lack of freedom will kill the spirit of man and leave him worthless and hopeless. Remember that the original argument for separation of religion and state were by very religious people whom understood the corrupt influence of politics on religion. If you allow the government to establish an "official" religion would actually be disastrous to the country and especially to those who value religion. However, in separating religion from the state, it must follow that even those who do not follow ANY religion, must be given rights and security. After all, how can you guarantee your own right to practice as you choose (nor not practice) when some are not given this right? The answer is you cannot guarantee your rights when you're not prepared to guarantee others' rights. Liberal democracy is far from perfect but it is truly superior then forms of tyranny--- including theocracy, diving-right monarchy, oligarchy, and dictatorship.

PS: It is liberal democracy that give birth to people like Sheikh Hamza Yousuf, Noman Ali Khan and rest…not “Islamic” country.

[khushal]

Sadly what this guy says is what majority of Muslims in Islamic countries believes…off course we can blame it on war and colonization and what not but Muslims land is no longer place for reason and logic. These are people, who value simple-mindedness and fear, superstitions, a belief in Muslims exceptionalism that blinds them from the fact of their own mediocrity, and they outnumber sane Muslims or at least they are most vocal of Muslims. Not to get personal but let’s not forget the background of Shamlawar Khurasan, from his Khalqi father killing people for praying to him burning his lips on drugs and now declaration of Takfir against people like Hamza Yusuf. These people with their Takfir are playing god!

This analysis is inaccurate. Every society has violent people and when they rise in a society, it is because the environment in the society has allowed them to rise. Blame the variables and factors that led to that environment ie your commies and todays failed afghan gov morons who by the way have former commies.

[khushal]

You know on a side note, while I use the term Wahhabi out of convenience, I've actually started to learn there are Moderate Wahhabis; they have a more rigid and narrow interpretation of Islam, but they denounce terrorism and takfir, rather they just disassociate from everyone and just keep to their own circle.

Those are the original wahabis. They changed as the environment changed. Most now preach the hard power approach because in their viewpoint the soft power approach has been exhausted and does not work. It is logical to conclude that a democratically elected Morsi's forced removal has and will continue to strengthen this viewpoint and Turkeys failed military coup of a democratically elected gov will counter it.

[ذو الفقار]

Very interesting debate here. If I may, I’d like to put forward some of my own ideas about what kind of reform we need:
1. Reform of the fundamentals of Islam, such as reform of the theology, divine revelation and texts (Quraan and Sunna), reform of our Six Articles of Faith – is absolutely unacceptable. I am against going down this route taken by Reform Jews and Christians who by “reform” conceive of reformation of the actual theology and fundamental doctrines of the Faith.

2. Reform of the Shari’a, the divinely ordained laws of our religion, and reform of the rituals of worship – is also absolutely unacceptable, this includes reforming or dispensing with the institution of Hijab (veiling, segregation) and the Hudud (divinely ordained punishments for criminal of-fences like murder, theft, adultery, etc.).

3. Reform of the Fiqh or jurisprudence of Islam, by re-opening the proverbial “gates of Ijtihad” and fostering a new approach to understanding Islamic law. In principle I am not opposed to this kind of reform, as long as it does not go against the spirit of Islam and Islamic teachings and ends up being a cover for infiltration of modernism and undesirable Western cultural practices into our Religion.

4. Reform of the institutions of religious authority. I am definitely in favor of this, as long as it too is in the right direction. I am in favor of a type of reform where religious authority in Islam becomes decentralized and no longer the domain of the corrupt State. I am passionately opposed to any conception or approach to Islam which is being promoted by the State, by co-opting and controlling the institutions of learning, the Ulama the Mosque, and the institution of the Friday sermon.

5. Reform of folk practices and localized approaches to Islam which are against its Spirit and Letter, such as veneration of tombs, pilgrimages to shrines, the business of amulets and talismans, celebration of un-Islamic festivals such as Nowruz, the Mawlid, Urs, etc. This kind of reform and its consequent return to a purer and more faithful to the texts of Quraan and Sunna approach to Islam is not only preferable but something that ought to be demanded.

[khushal]

[FONT=&quot]

PS: It is liberal democracy that give birth to people like Sheikh Hamza Yousuf, Noman Ali Khan and rest…not “Islamic” country.

This is also wrong. It is "true sovereignty" that gives him free speech rights. Hamza even says that it will not and can not happen in the Middle East until they have true sovereignty. There is no difference between thugs that you support with foreign forces and the thugs your opponent supports. Thug sovereignty is not true sovereignty.
Leave outsiders out of quarrels you have with your people. History has proven that Shah Shuja tactics do not work in Afghanistan.

[ذو الفقار]

Generally speaking, when the reformists and modernists speak of “reform” they are essentially wanting to reform Islamic practices and conceptions so that they are more palpable to Western cultural sentiments and modern ideas like feminism, liberalism, secularism and democracy.

This is why many of the debates surrounding so-called Islamic reform revolve around a couple of issues and is not really a discussion about structural reform. These issues are:

1. Condemnation of Homosexuality

2. Polygyny

3. Female Circumcision or “FGM”

4. Veiling and Segregation of Women (particularly face-veiling)

5. Armed Jihad

6. Islamic/religion-based State (“theocracy”)

7. Citizenship and Civil Rights of non-Muslims

8. Hudud or corporal punishments for criminal offences like adultery, theft

These are issues specific to Islam, but proponents of “reform” may also touch on more broader issues that apply to other religions including Islam such as

1. Halal-method of slaughter “animal cruelty”
2. Male infant circumcision
3. Criminalization of Abortion "Woman's right to choose"
4. Condemnation of pre-marital sexual relations (its criminalization being specific to Islam)
5. Death penalty for murder and rape
6. Criminalization of intoxicants and narcotics
7. Educational system and teaching of evolution, sex-ed, and other ideas offensive to Religion
8. Discouragement or condemnation of birth-control and family planning ideas

It is my thesis that the so-called Muslim "reformists" speaking of these issues and controversies vis-a-viz their agenda for reform is proof that they are not genuine religious reformers coming from the spirit of Islam's own indigenous stream of reform but rather people that are pushing a foreign agenda whose idea of reform is simply cultural Westernization of Islam

[ذو الفقار]

From what I understand, Tariq Ramadan is advocating the third kind of reform I outlined: “Reform of the Fiqh or jurisprudence of Islam, by re-opening the proverbial ‘gates of Ijtihad’ and fostering a new approach to understanding Islamic law”

But where I disagree with him is his agenda of reforming classical Islamic fiqh or jurisprudence to make it more palpable to Western cultural sentiments and modern ideas like feminism, democracy and liberalism. Thus he seems to have a peculiar agenda and not motivated by genuine concern for the condition of Islam.

I also disagree with him on the question of democracy. In principle I oppose democracy as an altogether un-Islamic idea. Democracy is essentially “sovereignty of the people” and “majority-rule”, whereas Islam only goes to the extent of encouraging Shura (consultation), but consultation only in matters that are not already settled by decisive texts of divine revelation. Hence, there is no question of consulting regarding the clear laws of Halal and Haram, or the statutory laws of Islam. Furthermore, consultation is a necessary Islamic institution, but it is never spelled out as being binding upon the ruler or Amir of the Muslims to whom they owe allegiance. The final decision or veto-power is with the Amir, not the people or their public representatives who consult with the Amir.

Tariq Ramadan also advocates the concept of ‘minority fiqh’ an interesting idea, but I am quite skeptical of it. The idea is that Muslims as minorities living in predominantly non-Muslim countries and societies require their own unique Fiqh to address the unique circumstances and issues they face. I am skeptical of this idea because it seems to be based on the premise that the comfort and “social security” of the Muslims living in non-Muslim countries takes precedence over the Islamic concept of social separatism and isolationism for Muslims living among non-Muslim host societies.