It's May 14, 2024, 08:26:11 PM
Let me get my theological bang on. IMO, Muhammad was a reformer. Although he worked with what immediately faced him at the time, he intended for Islam to change, evolve and adapt with the times as human customs and thinking evolves. The problem with Islam today is that the gates of itijihad have been thrown shut...And the gates of itijihad are only open in countries where religious freedom reigns. Originally, that is, the O.G Islam was intended to be open to interpretation and was a lot more personal and not as rigid as it is today. It has become stagnant the same way Catholicism stagnated Jesus's movement when it codified and corporatized it. It is inevitable that in the coming century a sort of reformation of Islamic thought will take place as muslims reject the shopping holiday that has become the Hajj, and likewise the rigid fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamist extremists and the oligarchial Arab-centricism...then individual muslims will throw open the gates of itijihad and begin a flourishing of new Islamic sects and thought.
now this isn't no character assassination, but is it true the prophet(PBUH) married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consumated their marriage when she was 9 years old ?Ii asked someone who knows more about Islamic history then myself and he told me the prophet(PBUH) consummated their marriage when she was between 9-12 and it was justifiable. He gave the justification that it was a normal part of Arab 'Lifestyle' at that time. Having sex with a 9-12 year would be seen as immoral, unethical, illegal and vulgar practice in 2010, so clearly the Islam at the time was based on the way people lived back then.Now if you go by the example i've given in the vast difference between now and should it be realistic that Islam should be 100% applied the same way as it was back then ? If you look at it objectively, no one can deny (however you want to spin it or twist it)that a lot of Islam is based on the culture and lifestyles of people living in Mecca at that time. For example the fasting guidelines and how men were solely responsible for supporting their families financially, which i will will elaborate on below.1) Fasting guidelines were implemented on the fact that Meccans were traders who basically worked when they chose to, the equivalent of what you'd call self employed in this day and age. Also it was normal(even now for many) at the time for Meccans to sleep 5-6 hours a day in the hot weather, normally during the period between Fajr-Zuhr, Zuhr-Asr, Asr-Maghrib. Now should there be the same fasting guidelines for Muslims who live in much different working and environmental lifestyles to that of Mecca 1400 years ago ?2) The instruction on men supporting their families were based on the fact that Mecca was full of rich merchants who could easily support their family financially without the need for women and children having to go out to work. Now we all know in the real world unless your last name is Hilton the chances are that you will have to go out work.
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.
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.
. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan)