Looking for a New Islamic Fiqh

why can`t you ullus just convert to chaltahaism and start living instead of praying for death.

Jang,

First I will address the historical fallacy: The pressure for separate family laws has come from the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, which was formed as a follow-up to the Khilafat movement, with the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi and others. So lets give credit where its due. Blaming poor Jinnah for everything under the sun might be attractive to you but it isn`t true... (besides Muslims don`t equal Islam- so it was really about Muslims` social, political and economic state) Quite the contrary if there was ever a Muslim ready to dump all religious mumbo jumbo for a godless secular system in India across the board, it was Jinnah. He infact admired Turkey and its abolition of Muslim Family Law. As a legislator Jinnah actually got the famous India and Pakistan`s child marriages restraint act passed in face of major Muslim opposition from Deoband (yes the same people who Gandhi insisted make a party called Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind in 1924). A civil constitutional law would have been possible 1- had the British taken the unpopular decision of abolishing Hindu and Muslim law instead of codifying in the 19th century 2- Khilafat movement hadn`t been encouraged.

However... the issue here is not simply of constitutional civil law or of Jinnah or Gandhi or whoever else. Why are Muslims so attached to Muslim Family Laws ? Why are Hindus as a community more secular than Muslims today... I find this to be the case across the board? Because the late 18th century and 19th century saw the emergence of Hindu reformers... who might not have been secular themselves... but who largely influenced and updated the Hindu cultural construct... it is the part of a process.
In Christianity, we saw Luthar`s movement... which gave a new fiqh to the Christians. The whole reformation and renaissance has roots in the same idea.

Secularism in the west followed historically Christian reformation. There is no way in hell you are ever going to get a secular Islamic world without reforming Islam first. Luckily original Islamic thought gives a brilliant system of updation and upgradation... What I have suggested is not ``some sufi fiqh`` .... I suggest you read up on a fellow called Cardinal Richelieu, the Prime Minister of France and a devout Catholic Christian,... he is arguably the father of secularism as well... then you have John Locke... without Locke the formulation of liberal democratic ideal would have been an impossibility... he was an extremely devout christian.

True Secularism emerges out of the reformation of major religious discourse (i.e. Christian reformation in the 15th and 16th and Hindu reformation in the 19th centuries) Ofcourse there is another way... secularism by force. But ... in Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria etc we see secularism reversed by popular will... and in Turkey, it has only survived because state has gone beyond being secular... but has sought to control religion by making a ministry of religion that carries out much the same function as what I am suggesting this international body should do... except that Turkey`s official church is becoming increasingly dicredited in the eyes of the believers there.


Freesoul,

The only immature thinking I see on display is yours... because it is devoid of a sense of history- not Islamic- but European, especially that which pertains to the age of enlightenment. As long as this ignorance and arrogance that forces you to look down upon on those who are not ``enlightened`` as you to bcome self hating Muslims-by-birth... you will not achieve any progress. Not long ago, I, too, abused and laughed at those who took pride in Islamic history and associated themselves with Islam ...but I don`t think intolerance of any kind is mature thinking. You are free to live your life as an individual... that is your prerogative.

-YLH

I like the idea of the tab being picked up by the Wahabis. :D

Secondly, what do you think about Al-Azhar as the potential institute with foundations to carry your ideas forward for the Sunni world?

Ah Al Azhar...

Al Azhar was actually a very forward looking body when it was Ismaili. Sadly, while praise worthy Saladin is for his tolerance for other non-Islamic creeds, he changed the Ismaili university into a sunni university. The idea that I have given cannot be implemented through Al Azhar with its composition at present... Al Azhar ofcourse would need to accomodate more points of view to be a truly representative body.

The body that I suggest would need to be a grand Muslim body... with thousands of scholars... housed in a white dome like structure... with delegates from every corner of the Muslim world and cultures. It would have committees and sub-committtees... it should take its time... deliberate for decades... review every piece of philosophical, scientific and historical writing ever written ... hammer out every issue... we have 1000 years to catch up on.

PS:

And not just the Muslim World... but Muslims every where should have representation in such an effort... by scholars... I mean scientists, economists, physicists, biologists, chemists, neurosurgeons, mathematicians...

And if we don`t have an expert in a field... the body should be open to invite a non-Muslim as an expert witness...

Great ideas for solutions but they wont work, and why do I say that they wont work? It is because Muslims unfortunately are unwilling to return to the Quran as source, unlike Pervez and Iqbal who were willing to. 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.

Yassir

Sorry, it is a personal question but I am asking because you have put it up on your profile for public knowledge.
Why did you have to convert when you were a muslim and you remain a muslim?
Is it because your ideal and idol Jinaah was Ismaili or you specifically studies their philosophy to get convinced?

Regards

Dear Humsab,

Thank you sir for asking this question.

I converted because Ismailism (from sunnism- not Ahmadism as someone said) is the only sect in Islam that is fully cognisant of the true spirit of Islam... which places emphasis on its universality and therefore is not dogmatic. For example you`ll be surprised that at one point Ismailis in Gujurat were calling the Holy Quran ``Artha Veda`` as well.

It is by sheer good luck that Ismailism has produced some forward looking gentlemen as the Imams... but whatever the reason this sect in my opinion is the closest to the spirit of Islam and the mission of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

manto what i mean is, the new indian nation saw full-force of use of muslim religiosity during partition. they were absolutely chicken to abolish british made civil laws for muslims. they however were not scared of hindus of sikhs or jains in the same way.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

jang...

You want to bring the discussion back to partition... well then here is a million dollar question... the Muslims who control the AIPMLB and oppose any reform to family law in India were also the people most committed against Pakistan and the partition of India.

Don`t you understand it is not fear but an attempt to control the Muslims asking for consociationalist arrangements... that forces the Congress Party to continuously seek support amongst Maulanas and Deobandis... hence the continuation of Muslim Family Law in its most regressive form.

This proposal is rather naive. In practice, any such body would be dominated by conservatives.
Any new fiqh can be started only by a small minority and will have to gain acceptance slowly.

It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform...

``that forces the Congress Party to continuously seek support amongst Maulanas and Deobandis... ``

at the time of constitution writing it was fear. later, its congressi vote-bank politics.

``It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform``

You are right there. And it would be great to have such a council. It`s just that I don`t see any practical chance of this happening. If you think about the mechanism by which such a council can come into being you would realize that anti-reformist are more likely to end up controlling it than anyone else.

Re# 45

``It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform... ``

Those who use their brains have usually accepted the `individual/private interpretaion`` of religion anyways. They r not interested in changing religion for anyone, in the first place.

The ppl who want to control religion and hence blind ppl, r the ones who would be more ready to jump this bandwagon.

This proposal is inherantly childish and immature. In order to encourage free thinking in islam or any other religion, u have to free it from all groups clucthes, not form a new group to claim the so-called hijacked religion. Talk about hijacking the hijacked plane !