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

**f6HLLFcw** · 06-26-2012, 09:28 AM

This news piece just gives evidence to another failed attempt of imposing an undefined 'sharia state' on people in the modern context.

Brother Usama has no alternative and the alternative he wishes to offer is very scary - very Hibz ut Tahrir and I think they are just misguided zealots. Abu Zakir's critique is more of a challenge but again his alternative is extremely dire (kingship).

I agree with you both, the greatest of atrocities can be brought about by trying to use the modern state as an instrument of re-establishing or restoring "Tradition". The downfall for the modern Muslim world is the concoction of bringing together the traditional modes of Shariah with the empowered modern state.

It's important that we keep in mind that in the past Muslim states did not have the means to control all of its citizens or to force upon even the holiest of laws upon all and sundry. By comparison the modern state has incredible policing powers and the technological and organisational means to impose a high degree of regulation. The hudood punishments and strictures of traditional Shariah codes must be understood in this context.Before the establishment of the modern state, in traditional communities, those in authority only had the power and the will to prosecute the most flagrant and socially disruptive breaches of Law. To a large extent such traditional practices work by mutual and communal self-regulation rather than by means of a powerful state, with all its hitherto unknown technological and bureaucratic muscle, enforcing traditional or traditional-seeming ideas. Religious authorities which have been brought in to certain modern "Islamic" states and polities to apparently force the "traditional" ways - some of the districts of Malaysia, for instance - are profoundly non-traditional.

A fascist, by definition, is a "traditionalist" who fails to acknowledge that the modern state is not in the slightest a traditional institution and so is unable to "restore" a traditional order - as if the imposition of "sanctity" by demonic weaponry is not itself demoniacal. Traditional Islam, which produced the amazingly fertile civilization of the Middle Ages, has absolutely nothing in common with modern so-called "Muslim" states that have resulted in the Shariah being turned into a regime of stifling brutality.

06-26-2012, 09:28 AM	#20
f6HLLFcw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 538 Senior Member	This news piece just gives evidence to another failed attempt of imposing an undefined 'sharia state' on people in the modern context. Brother Usama has no alternative and the alternative he wishes to offer is very scary - very Hibz ut Tahrir and I think they are just misguided zealots. Abu Zakir's critique is more of a challenge but again his alternative is extremely dire (kingship). I agree with you both, the greatest of atrocities can be brought about by trying to use the modern state as an instrument of re-establishing or restoring "Tradition". The downfall for the modern Muslim world is the concoction of bringing together the traditional modes of Shariah with the empowered modern state. It's important that we keep in mind that in the past Muslim states did not have the means to control all of its citizens or to force upon even the holiest of laws upon all and sundry. By comparison the modern state has incredible policing powers and the technological and organisational means to impose a high degree of regulation. The hudood punishments and strictures of traditional Shariah codes must be understood in this context.Before the establishment of the modern state, in traditional communities, those in authority only had the power and the will to prosecute the most flagrant and socially disruptive breaches of Law. To a large extent such traditional practices work by mutual and communal self-regulation rather than by means of a powerful state, with all its hitherto unknown technological and bureaucratic muscle, enforcing traditional or traditional-seeming ideas. Religious authorities which have been brought in to certain modern "Islamic" states and polities to apparently force the "traditional" ways - some of the districts of Malaysia, for instance - are profoundly non-traditional. A fascist, by definition, is a "traditionalist" who fails to acknowledge that the modern state is not in the slightest a traditional institution and so is unable to "restore" a traditional order - as if the imposition of "sanctity" by demonic weaponry is not itself demoniacal. Traditional Islam, which produced the amazingly fertile civilization of the Middle Ages, has absolutely nothing in common with modern so-called "Muslim" states that have resulted in the Shariah being turned into a regime of stifling brutality.
	Quote