Re: Islamic Law - Part 2

 

Assertion:-

The Islamic view is that the Law of the Community (I do not use the word State because neither Hebrewism nor Islam set up a State in the Western sense of a Machine) is meant to facilitate behaviour such as people would live by had they been spiritually regenerated so that this would also transform them inwardly in time, and to create a threshold to prevent slippage to more primitive levels.

Christian:-

Does that mean that this "Law of the Community" was not meant to be extended to the state level as we have in modern societies and enforced by civil authorities? Nowadays how could the "Law of the Community" be implemented otherwise?

Comment:-

You use the phrase "not meant to be" as if it was known that in some future date there would be a State Bureaucracy, Police Force etc. for whom the Law was not meant.

The Law was meant for the whole community - i.e. all were responsible for its knowledge and enforcement and there were certainly judges and trials. There was, however, discretion on whether the witnesses or victims would advise, warn, forgive or prosecute.

I do not think it is absolutely necessary to have a separate police force (or military force) distinct from the common citizenry that can be used by Political Masters against the community.

It is perfectly possible to have a scheme whereby the citizens take up these duties in rotation say a sixth of them for one year in six or two months per year, or even one day a week. There would also, of course, be expert professional officers and organisers - as in any other profession. But there would be no question of "them against us" or any disunity or conflict of loyalties.

Critic:-

You say:- But you are confusing "Islamic Ethics" (where Islam means surrender to God) with the practices of some Muslim rulers or jurists.

But are not all the other more specific points of canonical Islamic dogma also part of "Islamic Ethics", and not solely "surrender to God", even though it is its core?

Comment:-

It is part of Islamic Ethics that human beings have the right to self-determination and that communal affairs be settled by mutual consultation and those who are placed in authority by common consent should be obeyed. In Muslim communities these are those who have knowledge, virtue and ability.

When I say that Islamic ethics should not be confused with the practices of Muslim rulers or jurists, I mean that there is a difference between the Principles and the Practice and between the general ideas and the particular application.

The rulers and jurists do according to their knowledge, education, intelligence and motives and the circumstances of the times. These change. There is a need for constant research and development and education. Mutual consultation is an on going affair. There is really no excuse for stagnation in Islam.

Critic:-

You say:- Islam amended the Law so that people could actually apply it. In Islam it is the Attributes of God that provide the Ideals and to Surrender to Allah is to internalise these Divine Attributes.

Is this specifically Islamic? As a Christian, "surrender to God" is what I strive at continuously.

Comment:-

Good for you if you have a correct concept of God. You are then a Muslim. All true religion is Islam (Surrender to Allah).

Critic:-

Islamic Law is for Muslims. Western Law recognises diversity of faiths. When plurality of ethical principles is forbidden in a law system, that law system has a tendency towards stifling diversity and freedom.

Comment:-

As far as I know the only Legal System that makes allowance for diversity is the Islamic one. Not only does it have 5 different Islamic ones but it also recognises the right of other religious communities to apply their own laws to members of their community.

Critic:-

How so? Diversity is catered for explicitly by *all* European nations, and even more so in America. Only in a few of these are there noticeable religious restrictions - e.g. France - and even in these cases the standing of a citizen is explicitly *not* a function of what he or she believes. By contrast, this is explicitly not the state under Islam. Only Muslims are given full rights as citizens of an Islamic state. Those of the Book are afforded protection, but have are not recognised as having equal standing, either in rights or in representation. It is unclear what allowances Islam makes for the irreligious or apostate citizens, but I would estimate that these would be in an even worse position.

Comment:-

Yes, there is a difference between the Laws of Britain, France, Germany Spain, USA, Brazil and so on. But the Laws in each of these countries is a single body but not usually self-consistent. There is also a difference between the Laws in the various States of the USA. But none of these recognise the Jewish or Muslim Law or that of any other Religion. These laws do not take into consideration faith and conscience, or even the notion of Justice, Compassion and Truth. In fact, some countries pass laws that not just ignore but flout religious requirements and even encourage or create conditions that promote immoral behaviour and depravity.

You are of course giving reign to your own prejudices and confusing the ideal with what some people do - this is like saying "Look there are criminals in the USA, therefore the intentions of their Laws are faulty.

What can you mean by "full rights as citizens"? People of other religions have (or ought to have) the right to practice their religion according to their own laws. They can have their own Councils and make their own decisions. Yes, they are required to pay a tax in return for protection. This tax absolves them from military service.

As for Apostates, if they are not simply traitors to the Muslim community but declare that they have converted to another religion then that is the community they would belong to.

I think you are assuming that everything in Islam must necessarily remain as it was under the conditions and times that you choose to consider. But Islam also teaches compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, the acquisition of abilities and the search for and application of knowledge. It only requires better education and enlightened people to bring about changes that still remain within Islam.

Look into the history of Christianity - would you say that in the Dark Ages and during the times of the Borgias, Christianity had reached its ideals? Are the changes since then a destruction of Christianity or rather of the teachings of Jesus? But yes it is the progressive reformation of Christianity under the influence of Islam that has allowed Western Progress to take place and brought it nearer to the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, Muslims have degenerated by abandoning Islam, and this is now also taking place in the West.

Critic:-

You say that the Law should be self-consistent. Self-consistency is a philosophical ideal for law. But more important is that the law works in the vast majority of cases, and as far as possible mitigates the worst excesses of human nature. It is quite possible to have a wonderfully consistent system of justice, which simply fails because it does not take account of the fact that flawed human beings will be administering it.

Comment:-

What you say is true. However, three points:-

(1) As the purpose of the Law is to remove evil and establish the good, then self-consistency understood correctly would imply that the law does work and takes into consideration human nature as it is as well as its potentialities. I believe Islamic Law tries to do just that.

(2) The notion of Justice includes self-consistency. If you do not treat similars similarly and differences in proportion to their differences then this is neither Justice nor consistency.

(3) It is always good to aim for an ideal, which even if it is not reached, ensures efforts that lead towards it. Otherwise we have stagnation.

Critic:-

You say: These Western Laws do not take into consideration faith and conscience, or even the notion of Justice, Compassion and Truth.

What exactly do you mean by "Justice, Compassion and Truth"? You are clearly wishing to impose your views on a largely unwilling and resistant populace, particularly where America is concerned. Do you realise how impractical and arrogant this is?

Comment:-

It is clearly absurd to suppose that I can impose something on others, including Americans. It also flouts the notion of freedom of speech and ideas, which allows criticisms and debates in order that truth may be reached and development take place. Do you really want to stop people from expressing their ideals and values? How then is progress to take place?

I see you do not have an idea of what the terms such as Justice etc. mean. This I think is a common condition, which makes Western Law avoid these notions.

Obviously education is required.

But your kind of attitude to this would prevent all progress. Would you say that when Europe was Pagan, the Christian missionaries ought not to have undertaken their education? Or when Europe was in the Dark Ages Islamic influences should not have brought enlightenment?

I know that Americans regard themselves as "civilised". But this word, derived from the notion of a "city" does not really have any ethical connotations. In fact, from the religious ethical ideal point of view Americans, with some exceptions, are relatively primitive, barbaric and depraved people. This is not to say that others are much better.

But I think that despite these obsessions with present non-values, the Americans and everyone else will be taken willingly or unwillingly, screaming or smiling into a more enlightened future.

----------<O>----------

Content