DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**VarenHokalos** · 06-29-2012, 06:27 AM

Assalamualaykum,

Whilst I was on Mount Sinai, last week. Don't be so ridiculous. You cannot possibly believe that the basic medieval framework of the Shariah is able to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence. This framework can't even be referred to as "medieval" in the usual pejorative way. In nearly every way living medieval Islam was far better.

In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi

. I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik.

It is a common Muslim view that the idea of Shariah itself is rich enough- and flexible- to meet the challenge of the complexities of modern existence, if it was permitted to be true to its own deepest principles. The idea of Shariah, that is, capable to fulfil the constitutional requirements of the modern Islamic world. If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom.

I can't since it dosn't exist but, did or did not Hazrat Umar Radi'Allahu Anhu temporarily stop the implementation of such a punishment during a famine? This is not about prescribed punishments changing because of time but having to take into consideration societal conditions, with the modern state it would be a recipe for a type of Islamic totalitarianism. This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted:

In response, we can confidently say that 'Umar's moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to 'Umar, he ordered that the thieves' hands be cut in the very year of the famine and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, 'Umar only applied the principle of avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor, very much in line with the letter as reported from the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was-salaam): "Avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases." For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband's wealth, since a portion of the man's wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility. I don't particulary have anything to say in regards to the punishment of stealing but it's necessary, that the four schools of jurisprudence that advocate reasoning and analogical thinking (qiyas) as ways of legal interpretation assert themselves in the contemporary context. This is not simply a call to Westernization - where reasoning and logic are clearly over-valued at the cost of more profound principles - but a valid call to an extremely long period of paralysis. Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description.

On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days?

06-29-2012, 06:27 AM	#37
VarenHokalos Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 356 Senior Member	Assalamualaykum, Whilst I was on Mount Sinai, last week. Don't be so ridiculous. You cannot possibly believe that the basic medieval framework of the Shariah is able to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence. This framework can't even be referred to as "medieval" in the usual pejorative way. In nearly every way living medieval Islam was far better. In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi . I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik. It is a common Muslim view that the idea of Shariah itself is rich enough- and flexible- to meet the challenge of the complexities of modern existence, if it was permitted to be true to its own deepest principles. The idea of Shariah, that is, capable to fulfil the constitutional requirements of the modern Islamic world. If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom. I can't since it dosn't exist but, did or did not Hazrat Umar Radi'Allahu Anhu temporarily stop the implementation of such a punishment during a famine? This is not about prescribed punishments changing because of time but having to take into consideration societal conditions, with the modern state it would be a recipe for a type of Islamic totalitarianism. This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted: In response, we can confidently say that 'Umar's moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to 'Umar, he ordered that the thieves' hands be cut in the very year of the famine and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, 'Umar only applied the principle of avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor, very much in line with the letter as reported from the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was-salaam): "Avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases." For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband's wealth, since a portion of the man's wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility. I don't particulary have anything to say in regards to the punishment of stealing but it's necessary, that the four schools of jurisprudence that advocate reasoning and analogical thinking (qiyas) as ways of legal interpretation assert themselves in the contemporary context. This is not simply a call to Westernization - where reasoning and logic are clearly over-valued at the cost of more profound principles - but a valid call to an extremely long period of paralysis. Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description. On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days?
	Quote