Looking for a New Islamic Fiqh

OOhhhh...

How I miss Lahore...

Mr YLH are you aware of the work by..

Amin Ahsan Islahi http://amin-ahsan-islahi.org/

His Teacher and Mentor Hamid Uddin Farahi

or Mr Jawad Ahmed Ghamzi.. www.danishsara.org / www.understanding-islam.org

seems like A few were already on the same path... Unfortunatley very Few Know..
or are interested in knowing that..

#72, masadi {``What we need is not a ``new`` Fiqh but a return to the original Islam, the Quran and the Quran alone and then study and apply it based on the criteria it recommends, reason and reflection, logic, science, truth and justice- and which ofcourse has to be circumstance and era specific``}

Masadi Bhai,
Much of what you state makes a lot of sense. I agree that the Hadiths have become as much of a joke as the humorous ``Confucius say`` ones. If you put all the Hadiths together, I doubt if the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was really able to say so many things in one lifetime. As for the Holy Koran, I agree with you that we have to read it, understand it, and practice it BASED ON THE CONTEXT AND ERA associated with the text. Caution about Jews in Medina is not necessarily the same as a requirement to hate Jews for eternity. Cooperation and friendship with Christians in Arabia does not mean you can trust them forever, including the Crusades, colonization of Muslims, and elimination of Islam from Spain and south-eastern Europe. Sure, we can follow the Holy Koran, but we need to keep our logic, needs, senses, and interests while we do so. Blind obedience to even good advice can be harmful, if not balanced with logic. The last thing we need is more religious scholars or holy chefs telling us how to worship God and go to heaven - mostly by putting money in their pockets. :)

Yasser, dear boy, you know fully well what Islam needs. It is not a new fiqh, not the correct implementation of Sharia, not trying to determine the true intent of the Koran.

Just like de-Nazification, Muslim countries need to be de-Mohammadized. Every book ever having to do with Islam should be burned. Just like the Spaniards did with the Mayan language in Mexico, the speaking of Arabic ought to be banned. In 50 years, Arabic as a language would be just a dim memory and along with that the Koran, the Hadiths, etc. All Islamic ``scholars`` should be sent off to labor re-education camps a la the Chinese political prisoners.

In about 100 years, there will be no memory of 4 male witnesses to a rape, a woman`s testimony being valued at hald of a man`s, or any of that nonsense. At that point, the camel jockeys should be given civil liberties slowly.... oops, I forgot to mention that all these ars@holes should be treated not much better than slaves for a 100 years. That ought to teach them to value the liberties they get and behave properly.

Anyone rebelling ought to be impaled on a sharpened stick and placed in public squares in Arab cities which ought to be reduced to the dusty hovels they once were before civilized people like the British or the French arrived there.

That goes double for Peshawar. Anybody attempting anal penetration of young boys ought to be castrated, which would reduce Peshawar to an all-female city.

Think about this. You will agree it is the right thing to do.

``Wahhabiism has sought to nullify all traditional Islam and return to very simple basics that suit the tough and arid desert conditions but not the lush green valleys and plains beyond.``

This is really deep. I am blown away by this logic of yours. So, basically the tenets, beliefs, fiqh, application and following of Islam according a to a certain school of thought depends upon the geographical and topographical elements of a landscape.

I must say, mujtahids like you are truly what are needed to `correct` Islam. Of course people who have spent their lives learning about Islam know absolutely nothing, right?

OK...So for the tough and arid desert we have the Wahabbi form of Islam, for the lush green valleys of Persia and India we may follow the Sufistic ways...

What would be the Fiqhs best suited for the Arctics and the mountainous regions such as Himalayas and the sort?

HAHAH!

Thanks...I really enjoyed your article Hamdani sahab...

#71 should be read in the context of #38, part of which is reproduced below

``For the vast majority of Muslims (though only a minority know about their religion intellectually), Islam = Quran+ hadith+ fiqh+ scholars+ regional traditions, going back to the very beginning, Islam was the Quran alone; everything else post-dates the prophet by over 200 years, including all the written hadith, which are a small part of those that the collectors originally collected- they are unreliable as historical documents. First the political powers that be corrupted Islam by bringing in all that they desired to legitimize for themselves under the banner of ``Hadith``, in every age the # of hadith and contradictory hadith grew in geometric progression; then, to add to that confusion we had fiqh introduced: people claiming that what God had said was too complicated for the common person to understand, so they had to interpret and apply it for them. As if all of a sudden, God, in his desire to talk to humankind- as the Quran addresses its audience in many cases- lost his omnipotence and became dependent on these ``Faqihs``. That is what they imply when they rationalize their field-

What we need is not a ``new`` Fiqh but a return to the original Islam, the Quran and the Quran alone and then study and apply it based on the criteria it recommends, reason and reflection, logic, science, truth and justice- and which ofcourse has to be circumstance and era specific. If there is ONE unifying force among Muslims, atleast in label at the current epoch, it is the Quran, let us try to transform that abstract unity into essence by removing centuries of theological corruption that has been lumped with the Quran, by hook or by crook. Islam`s source is the Quran and the Quran alone, let us return to it. ``

If you throw out the source of Islam, the Quran referring to it as a ``paralysing edict of days gone by``, I`m afraid whatever system you come up with and label as Islam will not be Islam and can never be Islam, without its source, The Quran.

Quoting things out of context has to do with intellectual honesty, recognizing such things with critical thinking and scholarship. Neither of these were what we were discussing. We were discussing giving up the extra-Quranic baggage like hadith and fiqh that are ahistorical. Had nothing to do with keeping them but making sure they are quoted in their proper context.

If you think that you can define morality for the Quran rather than the Quran define morality for you, you have the whole purpose of it backwards.

masadi, #68 {``rejecting all the baggage that Islam has picked up along the way is a great start, we need to return to its source the Quran, however adding other new (under the progressive label) baggage would be an erroneous move.``}

Masadi Sahib,
Yes, we need to refer to the Holy Koran - but as a source of information and not a paralyzing edict of days gone by. In other words, let`s not quote the Holy Book out of context just to justify something we all know is wrong.

The entire world is about politics, how people choose to live and how they will die- when religion is kept out of such issues is the reason why it has become a dependent variable in today`s world, a grand distraction and little else. We need to get rid of this moral default of religion as practiced by the Mullahs as well. For them the beginning and end of religious morality is sexual deviance, everything else including murder is sanctified and glorified as they are used by the economic, political or military institutions for legitimation purposes. This ``reactive`` versus ``proactive`` role of religion- which is not limited to current day Islam by the way, needs to be fixed by its practitioners, otherwise it is reduced to little other than a joke.

C. W. Mills a non-believer wrote his ``Pagan Sermon to the Christian Clergy`` expressing similar ideas, the Quran contains similar exhortations even as it condemns the corruption of religion by the religious elite of the day:

In his ``Pagan Sermon to the Christian Clergy`` C. Wright Mills writes:

``But you may say, ``Don`t let`s get the church into politics.`` You might well say that
with good conscience were the political role of the church to be confined to
what it has been and what it is. But in view of what it might be, if you say
that you are saying, ``Don`t let`s get the church into the world; let`s be
another distraction from reality.`` This world is political. Politics,
understood for what it really is today, has to do with the decisions men make
which determine how they shall live and how they shall die. They are not
living very well, and they are not going to die very well either. Politics is
the locale of both evil and of good. If you do not get the church into
politics, you cannot confront evil and you cannot work for good. You will be
a subordinate amusement and a political satrap of whatever is going. You will
be the great Christian joke.``

The whole article can be read in his book, ``The Causes of World War 3`` which I also highly recommend

#67, rejecting all the baggage that Islam has picked up along the way is a great start, we need to return to its source the Quran, however adding other new (under the progressive label) baggage would be an erroneous move. Further, Islam is a totally egalitarian system, agreed but we still have a need to create an ummah that serves not the Muslims alone but humankind, just like stated in the Quran, ``ookrejat len naas``- a sort of a public intelligence apparatus- a humanitarian group that informs humankind, a developer of ``publics`` as C. W. Mills would say.

Manto {``In my opinion, a body with Muslims extracted from all parts of the world and cultures should be formed. ...sty. Most importantly, each one of them should believe in the mission of formulating a new fiqh for our times and should not be swayed by their own personal likes and dislikes. This body should be left to deliberate for as long as possible, with the tab to be picked up by the oil rich kingdoms and republics of the Arab world. ``}

Manto,
In spirit I agree with your timely suggestion that we need to update Islamic law, rituals, and even perceptions. We have gathered a lot of excess baggage over the last 1400 years and have sanctified almost all of it. I cannot agree with formulating a body of eminent ``Muslims`` from all over the world. These folks are bound to be no other than the familiar representatives of Anjuman-e-this and Anjuman-e-that. Asking the oil rich Wahabbis and conservative Sunni Arabs to fund this body is asking for a repeat of the Saudi-dominated Islam that has surfaced all over the world in the past two decades. No sir, I cannot trust a body funded by this bunch.
Next, we should stress the need for an Islam that is ideally suited for individuals. We need to more than merely catch up with the rest of humanity. We need to restore Islam back to where it began - a fresh, new, free, direct, and egalitarian belief system for all human beings. We do not need to think in terms of a ``chosen`` people, or empire, or even an ummah. Islam always was, and always needs to be, a religion for the ``unbeliever.`` It cannot be the sole domain of those headed surely to paradise. I admire the Sufi path because of its emphasis on love, refrain from blame, and its belief in the inherent goodness of all people. Like you, I applaud the Shia flexibility of Ijtehad. We both know what to do with Wahabism.

I think that a progressive Islam should consider some very radical topics for adoption:

The absolute immorality of war
The benefits of vegetarianism
Gender equality in rights and responsibilities
Removal of the social stigma against sex
Open door policy for welcoming ``kaffirs`` to Islam
Total absence of religious authorities
The basic compassionate, merciful, and forgiving nature of God
Treatment of corruption, lying, stealing, cheating and murder at least on a par with abstinence from alcohol, pork, adultery, fornication, and blasphemy.
Respect for individual rights
Tolerance of others
In summary, a softer, gentler, kindlier, more humane, more forgiving religion for today`s individuals.

Freesoul...

Again you are missing the point as usual.

The reason why John Locke could be a good christian and still believe that religion is a personal matter is because of the Christian reformation. I am afraid you didn`t read my posts at all.

The reason why FAIZ, despite his inspiration from Islam, could not be considered a good Muslim was because there hasn`t been an Islamic reformation.



Jang,

The reason why scientific inquiry could continue unchecked without the scaffold of religion is because of christian reformation.

the scientific rennaissance of the western word was a strong force which allowed people to think beyond mystical religion. this had little to do with any reformation. it happened inspite of religion, and in turn both strengthened (with guttenburg presses) and weakened religion. so, more people became truely religous by reading the bible, and religion spread via colonization. so, forget about ``reforming`` the religion, just keep chipping at it.

Re #62 & #61

I have read ur posts very well, so don`t bother to use strawman here.

Everyone, even atheists and agnostics in this world, have had some effects of their original religions on them. There is no exception. Newton, was a strong and quite a freaky beleiver in christianity. But by no strecth of thought, his `atheist` physics laws were inspired from Bible. The same can be said about Faiz. `Lazim hay kay hum be daikhain gay` is an example of his inspiration from Islam, but was he a mainstream muslim?

A secular person can be a religous, as lonmg as he/she keeps govt out of religion and vice versa. If u deny that for John Locke, then obviously u have not read anything.

yes, having a secular state was a result of witnessing the consequences of mixing religion and politics / policies.

these horrible consequences of the mix was what was got people to realize that the two need to be kept separate.

today we continue to see the disasterous consequences of the mixture. other nations too will realize the need make sure no one religion is given credance over another and to instead have a secular set up where all faiths are treated equally.

I would add that not only John Locke but Kant, Rousseu, Voltaire down to J S Mill and John Morley were all products of reformed Christianity. Even Darwin was a product of the social impact this reformation had on Christian society which became more accepting of free-thinking... (Hence Darwin was not tried like the earlier gentlemen).

Secularism began when French Prime Minister Cardinal Richelieu, a christian priest, declared that foreign and state policy had nothing to do with religion or religious considerations... the famous painting where he chose to appear as a secular prince instead ot the ``prince of church`` is the real beginning of secularism as we understand it in the west.

Freesoul.

You are totally missing the point because frankly you don`t understand what I am saying nor have you bothered to read my posts.

John Locke was the product of reformed christianity. How can you contest a case without knowing what the other person is arguing. I don`t think you have even tried to read his works, which deeply embedded in Christian thought.

Secularism in the west would have never come about had it not been for reformation first... it is a historical process beyond an individual here and there.