Gordon said:
Thanks very much for your reply. It is interesting that you say you do not live in a country which follows Islamic Law. I am still somwehat perplexed as to how the westernised version of Islam (without the Sharia law) which you seem to prefer can possibly be reconciled with the version with it. You say that the latter will move as knowledge of science and religion increases but to an outsider the opposite seems to be occurring and those countries seem to be going backwards in regard to their cultural values.
Sharia law, if it would be applied, should only to muslims. Sharia literally means practicing Islam; which has very risk of different interpretations. When it becomes positive law, then all citizens within its jurisdiction should properly obey, which for any regulations within sharia where non-muslims don’t understand and don’t accept, are defined as ‘intolerance’.
Personally, I don’t agree sharia law to be applied as positive law. In my country, Islamic scholars are divided into two opinions, one towards sharia law, the others not. Actually, there was compromising idea, to be put in positive law : “contry will have it’s positive law, in addition, apply sharia for muslims”. But this was not popular, and rejected.
Pro-sharia-law say, permissivity tends to open temptations which then could direct to bad actions, while non-pro-sharia-law say, external factors could be there around influencing, confidence and beliefs will prevail; under assumption that people get well educated. The non-pro request to put quality education in priority, while pro prefer prevention by avoiding / not allowing temptations.
The problem in dispute then, not everyone could resist temptations, and you know how television intrudes deeply into one’s mind, nobody can resist television influence (which sells sexuality and violence along with other programs), especially children and teens.
When sharia law becomes positive law, intolerance will rise, eventually. Reasonable then, if you choose to live by avoiding risk, you tend to be trapped in your own limited area of playing, overlooking hidden opportunities outside the box. That partially explains why they seem to be going backwards to their cultural values.
Unfortunately, speaking of law application, its not easy to be moderate. Often one should take hard choice, which when you decide to select one choice, give up other opportunities lie on the other side, cannot have everything, always there a trade-off.
There we talked at decision making level. What about the community members?
Well educated members will be able to see the situation, make their own wisdom, and not be drawn into fanatism (except those who have political agenda), while the others (unfortunately majority), will be living in their trapped world as they don’t know much anything except what they have been told. To ask the latter to stripe bomb into their chest is easy. They are potential victim of politicians.
The key for muslim society is education. That’s why, in well educated country, they seem more against bombing (87%) compared to those agree (13%).
If we hold the quote “power tends to corrupt’, one cannot expect politician to be good and sincere hearted so not manipulate (especially in the middle of fuel control game), but education can build strength in society to defend themselves from manipulation.
The big question still remains unanswered for me. Does Islam stand for religious tolerance, freedom of speech, women's rights and co-existence with others (as found however imperfectly in western cultures)?
Basically yes.
Practically, the passage above explained why. Once they put sharia law to be positive, it tends to move to the extreem point.
If so why do countries that have 'Islamic (Sharia) law have none of these things? If this really were as simple as intepretation, then why do we not find countries with versions of Islamic Law that recognise religious tolerance, freedom of speech, women's rights and co-existence with others that seem only to be found elsewhere?
They are trapped in their own choice of practising “precaution to risk”, which push them to the extreem practice of simply not allowing many things.
It is a lot more easier for individuals to run sharia law, since one can judge everything individually case by case. When it up to public, become positive law, should be able to cover different views for various cases, generalization requires hard choice.
Take for example:
If you don’t want your kids to be hit by running car on the street when they are crossing, you could teach them the safe way to do it, or if you are not sure they can do it and afraid of losing them badly, you just simply forbid them. It becomes problem when forbidding is become your family law, if it prioritizing the prevention of risk, which will trigger several consequences. The result, never will your kid be able to do it until he get grown up. This is just a simple case (which you may say that it could be written as law, with several conditions such as : should be accompanied by an adult, only in not fast car lanes, etc. But in reality, complexity is far higher than this example).
Is there such a version of Islamic Law?
Islamic Law basically is it’s 4 sources and their applications, which often require interpretations in dealing with cases.
Version appears in the practice (sharia), as the result of the way it is applied. There is no particular law called Islamic Law, but there are versions of Law of Islamic Sharia. For simplifying, people used to call it Islamic Law.
