Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
The Overfiend:
Yes I'm most probably wrong about the whole 'Hajj is a shopping holiday' thing, when I wrote that my mind was in bang mode out to smear, destroy and create, so my apologies, my bad. ;)
Last year I did some reading on Sharia law in colonial Britain for a comparative law subject and I was surprised to learn that Islam originally was not rigid in iinterpretations at all. The British colonialists were the first to ever codify Sharia law, that is, particular interpretations of the Koran were first taken together and, written down and applied as State law by non-Muslims (the British colonialist magistrates) even though Muslims today in ex-British colonies defend Sharia law as if it is 'Islamic law', it is infact not Sharia law but what was once called 'Anglo-Mohammadan Law' in colonial times, and codification favored particular interpretations for sake of creating a coherent legal system at the expense of itijihad. The State called it Muslim Law and so over the years identity with what it is to be a Muslim became synonymous with the State laws that were enforced as 'Sharia Law'. So in the British colonies the magistrates would enforce polygamous marriage on muslims even though some Muslims may not have followed such an interpretation of Islam. Today, Muslims defend their 'right' to polygamous marriage as if it is Islamic Law, however polygamous marriage (and child marriage) is only justified by a specific interpretative school of thought on Islam, not in general by a reading of the Koran itself, for instance, in Indonesia (ex-colony of Portugal) the country with the largest Muslim population, polygamous and child marriage is considered abnormal by Indonesian Muslims, as illustrated this is helped along by the State favoring particular interpretations with codification into law and State enforcement helps define for it's subjects what it means to be a Muslim as citizens associate what it is to be a Muslim with their legal rights as a Muslim.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: Illuminati Clique on January 12, 2010, 05:14:27 AM ---Yes I'm most probably wrong about the whole 'Hajj is a shopping holiday' thing, when I wrote that my mind was in bang mode out to smear, destroy and create, so my apologies, my bad. ;)
Last year I did some reading on Sharia law in colonial Britain for a comparative law subject and I was surprised to learn that Islam originally was not rigid in iinterpretations at all. The British colonialists were the first to ever codify Sharia law, that is, particular interpretations of the Koran were first taken together and, written down and applied as State law by non-Muslims (the British colonialist magistrates) even though Muslims today in ex-British colonies defend Sharia law as if it is 'Islamic law', it is infact not Sharia law but what was once called 'Anglo-Mohammadan Law' in colonial times, and codification favored particular interpretations for sake of creating a coherent legal system at the expense of itijihad. The State called it Muslim Law and so over the years identity with what it is to be a Muslim became synonymous with the State laws that were enforced as 'Sharia Law'. So in the British colonies the magistrates would enforce polygamous marriage on muslims even though some Muslims may not have followed such an interpretation of Islam. Today, Muslims defend their 'right' to polygamous marriage as if it is Islamic Law, however polygamous marriage (and child marriage) is only justified by a specific interpretative school of thought on Islam, not in general by a reading of the Koran itself, for instance, in Indonesia (ex-colony of Portugal) the country with the largest Muslim population, polygamous and child marriage is considered abnormal by Indonesian Muslims, as illustrated this is helped along by the State favoring particular interpretations with codification into law and State enforcement helps define for it's subjects what it means to be a Muslim as citizens associate what it is to be a Muslim with their legal rights as a Muslim.
--- End quote ---
Bottom line for me is that I don't support Shariah (what has come to be known as Islamic law) as a legal system. Religion is such a personal and subjective thing, that I don't think it can be an affective form of government. It's possible when the Prophet Muhammad was alive to be the governor/judge/president in legal matters that it was affective, and in comparison to Midevil Christianity the Islamic system thrived over Christianity because it recognized the religions of the Christians and Jews and in many ways allowed progress where Christian law remained stagnant.
As for your post, I think I differ with you on many of the details. For example your interpretation of polygamy, and also the idea that Shariah (Islamic Law) is something that was interpreted and formulated by the British. They may have played a role in helping to standardize, document, and perpetuate certain ideas... but you will find in the Middle Ages when Muslims were dominant in the world the Shariah was being used in many parts of the world by Muslim governments.
The Overfiend:
Well yes what I meant and should have specified is that through the British colonial magistrates, for the first time in history, Islamic law was codified and translated from the Arabic interpretive tradition. Through codification of Islamic law, the British altered and made Islamic law more rigid through application of the doctrine of precedent; stare decisis, a concept foreign to Islam. As the traditional Sharia way of applying and making law is called itijihad: instead of relying on precedent, the mufti would reach a decision on a case through independent interpretation of the Qur'an in regards to the particularities of a case. However, through applying the doctrine of precedent to the Muslims in their territories the British magistrates side-stepped this relativist approach to applying law and contributed to the closure of the gates of itijihad. This was probably not done purposefully to alter a living faith, more for the sake of control and efficient governance, the British contributed and influenced (along with particular Islamic schools of thought) into making what could have been and should be a very personal faith into a religion with much more rigid and dogmatic interpretive traditions.
Moving on, what do you disagree with what I said about polygamy and Islam?
Verse IV: 3, known as the ‘Verse of Polygamy' in the Qur'an says:
‘Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice'.
Through this interpretation, Sharia law allows for marriage of up to four wives and this is the classical interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence. However, other interpretations of the Qur'an advocate a prohibition on polygamy, as later in the Qur'an Verse IV: 129 says:
‘Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire'.
Modernist Islamic jurisprudence claims that as a man can never do justice among multiple wives, the Qur'an virtually prohibits polygamy. For the modernists, justice among wives is not to be taken to simply mean in terms of food, lodging and clothing, but equality in love and affection; and this is impossible as Verse IV: 12 says, so for the modernists the Qur'an by implication prohibits polygamy.
Therefore as I was saying, polygamous marriage is not generally advocated by the Koran, rather polygamy is only advocated by specific interpretive Islamic schools of thought, not generally by the Koran; as we can see from the contradictory verses. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan) even though some Muslims may not have even subscribed to that particular interpretation of the Koran, the gates of interpretation were helped closed and a living faith stagnated.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: Illuminati Clique on January 13, 2010, 12:06:27 AM ---Well yes what I meant and should have specified is that through the British colonial magistrates, for the first time in history, Islamic law was codified and translated from the Arabic interpretive tradition. Through codification of Islamic law, the British altered and made Islamic law more rigid through application of the doctrine of precedent; stare decisis, a concept foreign to Islam. As the traditional Sharia way of applying and making law is called itijihad: instead of relying on precedent, the mufti would reach a decision on a case through independent interpretation of the Qur'an in regards to the particularities of a case. However, through applying the doctrine of precedent to the Muslims in their territories the British magistrates side-stepped this relativist approach to applying law and contributed to the closure of the gates of itijihad. This was probably not done purposefully to alter a living faith, more for the sake of control and efficient governance, the British contributed and influenced (along with particular Islamic schools of thought) into making what could have been and should be a very personal faith into a religion with much more rigid and dogmatic interpretive traditions.
Moving on, what do you disagree with what I said about polygamy and Islam?
Verse IV: 3, known as the ‘Verse of Polygamy' in the Qur'an says:
‘Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice'.
Through this interpretation, Sharia law allows for marriage of up to four wives and this is the classical interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence. However, other interpretations of the Qur'an advocate a prohibition on polygamy, as later in the Qur'an Verse IV: 129 says:
‘Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire'.
Modernist Islamic jurisprudence claims that as a man can never do justice among multiple wives, the Qur'an virtually prohibits polygamy. For the modernists, justice among wives is not to be taken to simply mean in terms of food, lodging and clothing, but equality in love and affection; and this is impossible as Verse IV: 12 says, so for the modernists the Qur'an by implication prohibits polygamy.
Therefore as I was saying, polygamous marriage is not generally advocated by the Koran, rather polygamy is only advocated by specific interpretive Islamic schools of thought, not generally by the Koran; as we can see from the contradictory verses. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan) even though some Muslims may not have even subscribed to that particular interpretation of the Koran, the gates of interpretation were helped closed and a living faith stagnated.
--- End quote ---
word.. nice explanation.
morbidenigma:
Some good replies, does anywhere know where i can read up more on how British colonial magistrates altered Islam
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version