The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Jolthig]

I have to agree with Aulus, Amin. To enforce physical Sharia when I have told you in the past that the Muslims are too stubborn for it

Not liking a law doesn't mean you shouldn't enforce it. Not liking a law only becomes a problem if the police don't like it.

and no one in the West wants it, is impossible.

Idc about someone opinions on something that won't even affect them positively nor negatively.

And this is the problem that I have with this view of yours. Not because of Shariah, but because you aren't willing to consider other people's perspectives. This is in way intended to offend you. Rather, as a Muslim, it is my duty to humbly help you understand certain things.

You yourself, have admitted that physical Shariah won't work in today's world as you agreed with my past post.

Amin, you can still have the heart for it and acknowledge that it won't work in today's society. I have a heart for adhering to the Shariah, but I also know theocracy isn't applicable to modern society.

Advocating for physical Shariah while knowing it won't work is a weak form of argument. Not just a weak form of argument, but rather, a stubborn refusal to consider the geography of the peoples of the modern era.

I love the Quran and Sunnah, and I know some of its rulings, but I also know some won't work in modern society, and I am willing to accept this.

The non Muslims still won't want Shariah even if it won't affect them positively or negatively. They dont want a Muslim government, even if it doesnt force its ideals on non Muslims.

Saying "I dont care" makes your views look quite self-centered and a bit arrogant. Again, not intended to anger you. Rather, just merely as your brother in faith, pointing out some errors that I see in some of your views.

Once again, you can have a heart for physical Shariah, but also acknowledge it won't work in today's society nor will any of your advocacy be useful. Itll save you a lot of stress, Amin. Especially on an occasionally heated forum like NSG and other social media.

I'm not saying dont compromise our faith. Rather, we need to acknowledge circumstances around us. You know what I mean, bro?

If I offended you, please forgive me as this was in no way to offend you. Rather, to help you out and advance as a Muslim. To improve your preaching.

Because when people debate, they need to know the geography, circumstances, and history around them in order to give out a view. This isn't just for Islam, but any religious or political view, and this is what NSG encourages too. We dont have to agree with our opponents, but we can also acknowledge circumstances.

When we do this, this improves our preaching and debate style. You know what I mean?

So please, dont stress yourself man with advocating for physical shariah. It's just a waste of time and the majority of people simply won't listen to you while the Muslims in Muslim countries will continue to sin.

In the end, Allah is our True Judge, and he will judge every single one of us for our deeds. Inshallah. Ameen.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Everyone to their own opinions.



It's a bit blurry on the "protects women" in modern era as the Islamic leaders are mostly men and there are not a lot of women leaders. Protection of women are woman's issues, and it's more acceptable for women to be placed in the leadership positions and to take care of the affairs accordingly and according to their views. For men to take care of protection against women in modern era? Hardly fair and sometimes can be even unfair and downright offensive, for some.

Why is it offensive for men to protect women?
Women can be leaders too in my interpretation.
And Allah knows best

Men are not always fair on the issue of protecting women. For example, in a rape case, they blame the women more than the men. Men blame women for their clothes, their attitude, but never blaming the men for not keeping their eyes off women and for their attitude. At least that's what happened in Indonesia.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Tbqh Ahmad Dahlan wasn’t a full on Salafi and had little to do with the way his organisation was turning into a quasi-Wahhabi movement after his death. Dahlan (Muhammadiyah) and Hashim Ashari (leading founder of the NU) both studied in Mecca, but the latter's organisation ended up being against Wahhabi Salafism.

It was really the vacuum that Ahmad Dahlan left after his death that allowed Wahhabi ideas to seep into the Muhammadiyah through the creation of the conservative Salafi Tarjih Council (in the late 1920s, iirc).

Ahmad Dahlan still wanted to purify Islam in Indonesia that he saw, is somehow 'mixed' with outside elements such as pre-Islamic Javanese traditions. But yeah, he is likely more influenced by the works of Muhammad Abduh.

I have read about the Tarjih Council too; wahhabism seems like a problem for both NU and Muhammadiyah right now

Indonesia has never truly fights the intolerance problem seriously.

As an Indonesian, I can confirm that intolerance is a problem in here, but hopefully our nation can solve it in the future. Being a diverse nation with intolerance problem seems to never ends well, just like the Balkans.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And this is the problem that I have with this view of yours. Not because of Shariah, but because you aren't willing to consider other people's perspectives. This is in way intended to offend you. Rather, as a Muslim, it is my duty to humbly help you understand certain things.

You yourself, have admitted that physical Shariah won't work in today's world as you agreed with my past post.

I remember saying that it would be difficult, Not that it would be impossible. If I have said that I retract that statement.

Amin, you can still have the heart for it and acknowledge that it won't work in today's society. I have a heart for adhering to the Shariah, but I also know theocracy isn't applicable to modern society.

This is not true, considering the theocratic states that exist now (albeit they're [the well known ones] corrupt but still).

Advocating for physical Shariah while knowing it won't work is a weak form of argument. Not just a weak form of argument, but rather, a stubborn refusal to consider the geography of the peoples of the modern era.

True, but divine law has no regard for time period.

I love the Quran and Sunnah, and I know some of its rulings, but I also know some won't work in modern society, and I am willing to accept this.

What makes you think that enforcing punishments like 100 lashes for zina impossible?

The non Muslims still won't want Shariah even if it won't affect them positively or negatively. They dont want a Muslim government, even if it doesnt force its ideals on non Muslims.

And this is the reason I don't care about their opinion on an Islamic theocracy.

Saying "I dont care" makes your views look quite self-centered and a bit arrogant. Again, not intended to anger you. Rather, just merely as your brother in faith, pointing out some errors that I see in some of your views.

I understand.

Once again, you can have a heart for physical Shariah, but also acknowledge it won't work in today's society nor will any of your advocacy be useful. Itll save you a lot of stress, Amin. Especially on an occasionally heated forum like NSG and other social media.

Lol true, but so would not talking about it (which I won't and can't do now)

I'm not saying dont compromise our faith. Rather, we need to acknowledge circumstances around us. You know what I mean, bro?

By not practicing certain parts of our faith we are compromising it.

If I offended you, please forgive me as this was in no way to offend you. Rather, to help you out and advance as a Muslim. To improve your preaching.

Don't worry, I'm not.

Because when people debate, they need to know the geography, circumstances, and history around them in order to give out a view. This isn't just for Islam, but any religious or political view, and this is what NSG encourages too. We dont have to agree with our opponents, but we can also acknowledge circumstances.

I don't do that when it comes to Al-Islam.

When we do this, this improves our preaching and debate style. You know what I mean?

I'm sorry but I don't.

So please, dont stress yourself man with advocating for physical shariah. It's just a waste of time and the majority of people simply won't listen to you while the Muslims in Muslim countries will continue to sin.

That's the whole reason I'm advocating it.

In the end, Allah is our True Judge, and he will judge every single one of us for our deeds. Inshallah. Ameen.

Aameen.

[Menassa]

Islam covers pretty much everything that needs to be covered, actually. A primary argument is that it's not Islam who need to be adapted to the progress of mankind and 21st century, but it's us who need to adapt Islam in pretty much every progress of mankind and 21st century.

I hope it's clear enough, I don't think I worded this argument in a clear version.

I'm aware on what Islam thinks about this subject, I just so happen to disagree with Islam's opinion on said subject.

Same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism~

You should be a religious studies department head.

[The Grims]

Indonesia does seem like a nice place to live/visit.

Not really, it is a garbage dump. People just drop their trash everywhere and stop caring.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

This is not true, considering the theocratic states that exist now (albeit they're [the well known ones] corrupt but still).

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,

The main issue any Muslim would have with the version of theocratic states established in the modern world today would be their inherently coercive nature, in enforcing the bureaucrat's interpretation and application of Islam, forms of interpretation and application that would crumble upon open debate. One example of such would be Wahhabism.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

If it's of any help to the discussion, I'd like to put this forward: The theory of Maqasid Sharia. Maqasid, being the Arabic word denoting "goals" or "aims", in an Islamic context would seek to determine the underlying purposes of the Islamic faith, and the intended benefits behind the Quranic commandments and the Prophetic example. It is, of course, not to be confused with Asbab-al-Nuzul, the circumstances and occasions of revelations, also important to interpreting and applying Islam.

The notion of a maqasid was first put forward by the theologically Ashari proponent, Al-Ghazali. According to his analysis of the Quran and the Sunnah, he concluded that there were competing interests that were intended to be preserved: din (Faith), nafs (Life), nasl (Progeny), aql (Intellect), and mal (Property). The concept was later furthered and developed by many scholars who took the idea in precedence of the overused 'blind Taqlid' of their days and as a means of pertaining to the intention behind Islam, rather than its literal and contextless understanding. Some of these scholars included Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Shatibi, al-Izz, al-Qayyim, al-Qarafi, etc. Interestingly, they all hail from opposing schools of jurisprudence, especially Taymiyyah, suggesting that the roots of the maqasid theory lie more universally than one might think. Many took the concept as a concrete foundation for their judicial rulings; al-Shatibi himself was quoted saying that the legal objectives of the Shariah "are the benefits intended by the law. Thus, one who keeps legal form while squandering its substance does not follow the law."

Modern day Islamic jurisprudence is becoming ever more historiographical. Deriving directly from past scholars, sometimes without ever a question of the basis for their rulings. Any Muslim could easily pertain that an exegetical critical analysis of the primary sources i.e. the Quran, and the Sunnah would be far more desirable in the pursuit of truth. This is why I suppose, having a more 'maqasid approach' to worldly affairs, both at the State and personal level, would benefit all.

ChEck ThIs OuT

Just a few questions for all of you regarding this topic. What role would the maqasid play in an Islamic legal system? And how would one derive such merits from Islamic sources such as the Quran or Hadith? With these values being derived from Islam and apply accordingly, would such unite different Islamic schools of jurisprudence under a common initiative?

[The Eternal Aulus]

If it's of any help to the discussion, I'd like to put this forward: The theory of Maqasid Sharia. Maqasid, being the Arabic word denoting "goals" or "aims", in an Islamic context would seek to determine the underlying purposes of the Islamic faith, and the intended benefits behind the Quranic commandments and the Prophetic example. It is, of course, not to be confused with Asbab-al-Nuzul, the circumstances and occasions of revelations, also important to interpreting and applying Islam.

The notion of a maqasid was first put forward by the theologically Ashari proponent, Al-Ghazali. According to his analysis of the Quran and the Sunnah, he concluded that there were competing interests that were intended to be preserved: din (Faith), nafs (Life), nasl (Progeny), aql (Intellect), and mal (Property). The concept was later furthered and developed by many scholars who took the idea in precedence of the overused 'blind Taqlid' of their days and as a means of pertaining to the intention behind Islam, rather than its literal and contextless understanding. Some of these scholars included Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Shatibi, al-Izz, al-Qayyim, al-Qarafi, etc. Interestingly, they all hail from opposing schools of jurisprudence, especially Taymiyyah, suggesting that the roots of the maqasid theory lie more universally than one might think. Many took the concept as a concrete foundation for their judicial rulings; al-Shatibi himself was quoted saying that the legal objectives of the Shariah "are the benefits intended by the law. Thus, one who keeps legal form while squandering its substance does not follow the law."

Modern day Islamic jurisprudence is becoming ever more historiographical. Deriving directly from past scholars, sometimes without ever a question of the basis for their rulings. Any Muslim could easily pertain that an exegetical critical analysis of the primary sources i.e. the Quran, and the Sunnah would be far more desirable in the pursuit of truth. This is why I suppose, having a more 'maqasid approach' to worldly affairs, both at the State and personal level, would benefit all.

ChEck ThIs OuT

Just a few questions for all of you regarding this topic. What role would the maqasid play in an Islamic legal system? And how would one derive such merits from Islamic sources such as the Quran or Hadith? With these values being derived from Islam and apply accordingly, would such unite different Islamic schools of jurisprudence under a common initiative?

In a practical way, I would envision something such as;

• Economical subsidies for newly weds to encourage marriage and lessen the burden of newly weds
• A savings tax rather than the income tax (zakat)
• A national (Islamic) council to bargain for Muslim rights in Muslim minority countries

[The Eternal Aulus]

I think the bold part is essentially important as it's a warning from Allah ta3la for us to not enforce sharia.

He didn't say that.

But because of the seriousness of the harm they cause, the hypocrites will be in the lowest level of Hell, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth (grade) of the Fire”[al-Nisaa’ 4:145]

According to this hypocrites will be in a lower part of Hell than those who do not belief. Ergo, hypocrisy is worse than disbelief. Ergo, it's better to let people disbelief than to force them into hypocrisy by enforcing a certain law.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This is not true, considering the theocratic states that exist now (albeit they're [the well known ones] corrupt but still).

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,

The main issue any Muslim would have with the version of theocratic states established in the modern world today would be their inherently coercive nature, in enforcing the bureaucrat's interpretation and application of Islam, forms of interpretation and application that would crumble upon open debate. One example of such would be Wahhabism.

Wa'Alaikum Assalaam wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

This is true, and I think a great way to counted that is to put actual Islamic scholars in the government instead of rich peeps who are just trying to get their own way.

If it's of any help to the discussion, I'd like to put this forward: The theory of Maqasid Sharia. Maqasid, being the Arabic word denoting "goals" or "aims", in an Islamic context would seek to determine the underlying purposes of the Islamic faith, and the intended benefits behind the Quranic commandments and the Prophetic example. It is, of course, not to be confused with Asbab-al-Nuzul, the circumstances and occasions of revelations, also important to interpreting and applying Islam.

The notion of a maqasid was first put forward by the theologically Ashari proponent, Al-Ghazali. According to his analysis of the Quran and the Sunnah, he concluded that there were competing interests that were intended to be preserved: din (Faith), nafs (Life), nasl (Progeny), aql (Intellect), and mal (Property). The concept was later furthered and developed by many scholars who took the idea in precedence of the overused 'blind Taqlid' of their days and as a means of pertaining to the intention behind Islam, rather than its literal and contextless understanding. Some of these scholars included Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Shatibi, al-Izz, al-Qayyim, al-Qarafi, etc. Interestingly, they all hail from opposing schools of jurisprudence, especially Taymiyyah, suggesting that the roots of the maqasid theory lie more universally than one might think. Many took the concept as a concrete foundation for their judicial rulings; al-Shatibi himself was quoted saying that the legal objectives of the Shariah "are the benefits intended by the law. Thus, one who keeps legal form while squandering its substance does not follow the law."

Modern day Islamic jurisprudence is becoming ever more historiographical. Deriving directly from past scholars, sometimes without ever a question of the basis for their rulings. Any Muslim could easily pertain that an exegetical critical analysis of the primary sources i.e. the Quran, and the Sunnah would be far more desirable in the pursuit of truth. This is why I suppose, having a more 'maqasid approach' to worldly affairs, both at the State and personal level, would benefit all.

ChEck ThIs OuT

Just a few questions for all of you regarding this topic. What role would the maqasid play in an Islamic legal system? And how would one derive such merits from Islamic sources such as the Quran or Hadith? With these values being derived from Islam and apply accordingly, would such unite different Islamic schools of jurisprudence under a common initiative?

Ooo wow, I'm interested in this. Maqasid makes a lot of sense too. And I'll be sure to read that pdf insha-Allah. Jazakallah Khairan.

He didn't say that.

But because of the seriousness of the harm they cause, the hypocrites will be in the lowest level of Hell, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth (grade) of the Fire”[al-Nisaa’ 4:145]

According to this hypocrites will be in a lower part of Hell than those who do not belief. Ergo, hypocrisy is worse than disbelief. Ergo, it's better to let people disbelief than to force them into hypocrisy by enforcing a certain law.

(I'm saying this for lack of better word choice, but I do care about those who are misguided and pray for their guidance)
Why should that be our problem though? If they commit a crime and get punished, that's their problem, not ours.

[The Eternal Aulus]

(I'm saying this for lack of better word choice, but I do care about those who are misguided and pray for their guidance)
Why should that be our problem though? If they commit a crime and get punished, that's their problem, not ours.

Because we want the best for them. Ergo it's better for them to disbelief than force them into hypocrisy per forced Sharia.

It's not about the punishment of sharia ie wordly punishment but the one in Jahannam.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

(I'm saying this for lack of better word choice, but I do care about those who are misguided and pray for their guidance)
Why should that be our problem though? If they commit a crime and get punished, that's their problem, not ours.

Because we want the best for them. Ergo it's better for them to disbelief than force them into hypocrisy per forced Sharia.

It's not about the punishment of sharia ie wordly punishment but the one in Jahannam.

True, but there are times for mercy and times for justice.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Because we want the best for them. Ergo it's better for them to disbelief than force them into hypocrisy per forced Sharia.

It's not about the punishment of sharia ie wordly punishment but the one in Jahannam.

True, but there are times for mercy and times for justice.

You don't get it. It's not about mercy and justice, it's about the inner state of a person.

When a person is coerced into a system then that produces hypocrisy. When a person is not coerced, ie free to leave, then it creates disbelief. Ergo, non-coercion is preferable to coercion.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

True, but there are times for mercy and times for justice.

You don't get it. It's not about mercy and justice, it's about the inner state of a person.

When a person is coerced into a system then that produces hypocrisy. When a person is not coerced, ie free to leave, then it creates disbelief. Ergo, non-coercion is preferable to coercion.

The law isn't about rehab, it's about punishment. If people break the law, whatever Shari'ah punishment they get is well deserved.

[Frievolk]

You don't get it. It's not about mercy and justice, it's about the inner state of a person.

When a person is coerced into a system then that produces hypocrisy. When a person is not coerced, ie free to leave, then it creates disbelief. Ergo, non-coercion is preferable to coercion.

The law isn't about rehab, it's about punishment. If people break the law, whatever Shari'ah punishment they get is well deserved.

If the law is about not rehab but about punishment, that law should neither be obeyed nor followed by any person who is able to think. Same with any philosophical system that preaches that "no rehab, only punishment" cow dung.

[Jolthig]

Amin, we are still obeying Islam by adhering to ayah 2:256. If a non Muslim majority dont want an Islamic government, then it should not be forced on them (I'm talking about the government itself; not its laws)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Amin, we are still obeying Islam by adhering to ayah 2:256. If a non Muslim majority dont want an Islamic government, then it should not be forced on them (I'm talking about the government itself; not its laws)

Agreed.

[Jolthig]

I'm reading I Am Malala. I'm interested in her story and how she became a human rights activist.

[Saranidia]

I'm reading I Am Malala. I'm interested in her story and how she became a human rights activist.

Yes Malala is one of my favourite women’s rights leaders(excluding prophets)
Here is a list

1 Khadijah
2. Malala
3. Helen Pankhurst
4. Shahid Emily Wilding Davis
5.Malala’s father
6. Saladin
7. Usama ibn mudinqh
8.Bilqis
9.

[Jolthig]

I'm reading I Am Malala. I'm interested in her story and how she became a human rights activist.

Yes Malala is one of my favourite women’s rights leaders(excluding prophets)
Here is a list

1 Khadijah
2. Malala
3. Helen Pankhurst
4. Shahid Emily Wilding Davis
5.Malala’s father
6. Saladin
7. Usama ibn mudinqh
8.Bilqis
9.

Nice. Malala's father also sounds awesome.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Especially that part. Hell, only that part if necessary.

That's going too far. No citizens should be treated as 2nd-class citizens...

Considering you are openly stating that muslims should always support muslims over kuffar, regardless of how bad the muslims in question are behaving, do the kuffar have any other choice ?

Remember: muslims who think like you protected, sheltered and highfived the terrorists that murdered kids in Bataclan from the police. Not exactly the kind of person you want around.

...however, I agreed with the statement of this. Regardless, we should try to look for Muslims with better morality and attitude-wise as well.

Muslims who have an Islamic morality and attitude are the best Muslims.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

That's going too far. No citizens should be treated as 2nd-class citizens...


...however, I agreed with the statement of this. Regardless, we should try to look for Muslims with better morality and attitude-wise as well.

Muslims who have an Islamic morality and attitude are the best Muslims.

Muslims tend to have a different interpretations on what constitute the best Islamic morality and attitude.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

That's going too far. No citizens should be treated as 2nd-class citizens...


...however, I agreed with the statement of this. Regardless, we should try to look for Muslims with better morality and attitude-wise as well.

Muslims who have an Islamic morality and attitude are the best Muslims.

You mean, the Muslims who follow your viewpoint, amirite

[Saranidia]

Yes Malala is one of my favourite women’s rights leaders(excluding prophets)
Here is a list

1 Khadijah
2. Malala
3. Helen Pankhurst
4. Shahid Emily Wilding Davis
5.Malala’s father
6. Saladin

Nice. Malala's father also sounds awesome.

Yes let me complete the list
7. actually Al-Dasuqi(for
advocating that rapists should be treated as hirabah committers and possibly killed)
8. Queen Bilqis(for demonstrating positive islamic female leadership)
9. Emir Usama Ibn Mundinqh(for acts of
Chivalry and love for his daughter)
10. Brotherly Leader Muammar Al Gaddafi, King of Kings of Africa(
(For supporting Islamic feminism, chivalry towards women in terms of protecting mothers of young children from
execution under the Arab Charter of Human Rights and in defending women from being forced to follow capitalist expectations as well as promoting female education and
Female empowerment, allowing women to serve in trusted military capacities including as officers)