I am happy about this decision, not because I agree with Mr Wilders on anything in particular but because I believe in free speech. As far as I can see the only thing Mr Wilders has done (in the context of his entry ban to the UK) is speak out against Islam, he has criticised it in a film called Fitna which was the subject of his initial attempt to enter the UK for which this ban was originally put in place. I have watched this film and found it quite unremarkable, it's what I would characterise as nothing more than a sensationalist YouTube clip, in that it simply intersperses images of terrorist atrocities and verses from the Koran. Both are real, in the sense that these horrors did occur and the Koran does actually say the immoral things he claims it does about killing infidels etc. so I don't see why it should be considered so inflammatory. Wilders of course wants to imply that the words incite the deeds, Islamic apologists would claim that it's all in the interpretation, ten grand in legal fees later, nothing new and the world turns.
Some, if not most theocratic regimes (and pseudo-theocratic regimes like North Korea etc.) hate freedom of speech of course, Islamic ones are not alone in this, recent attempts in the UN and elsewhere to introduce so called "hate speech" laws are thinly veiled attempts to censor opposition to religion. If we allow the censoring of opinion for fear that someone "may" be offended then my view is that a huge slippery slope opens before us, inviting a slide into the darkness of past injustices.
I say, let Mr Wilders speak, if he is an attention grabbing idiot (which I suspect he is) then we can all see that and take the appropriate action (i.e. ignore him and stop giving him all this free publicity)
PS, a delicious piece of irony – Wilders was represented by a MUSLIM barrister, Arfan Khan
23 comments:
He doesn't half look like a member of Heaven 17 though. Didn't Fascist Groove Thang get banned as well, way back?
G, LOL, you're showing your age with that comment ;)
The album was "Penthouse to Pavement" (or something like that) if I remember correctly, don't remember it getting banned though?
I am a muslim---I havn't done any research on factors that motivate terrorists---(or what motivates criminals for that matter)---anyway---I have often used the excuse that the Quran has been "misunderstood" by these people. But in all honesty---this excuse does not really hold up. It would work in the case of the Taliban who are often illiterate and though they can read the Quran, they hardly understand a word of it.---But that is precisely why it does not work for Al-Qaeda---most of whom are Middle-eastern (Saudi, Egyptian...etc) and Arabic is their language. How is it possible they "misunderstood" the Quran? Its a puzzle. To a non-muslim who is unfamilar with the Quran---it would be easy to convince them that "voilent verses" can be taken literally---etc. But such an argument does not hold up with a muslim who actually knows the Quran. Most of these so-called "voilent verses" are taken out of context by people such as Wilders---but a Muslim reads the WHOLE Quran (many times over and over) so that it is not possible for a muslim to take such verses "out of context" particularly since the verses preceding or following such "battle-verses" ask for tolerance and remind people not to exceed justice/appropriate limits.---So---for me, the puzzle remains--what are the REAL reasons behind voilent acts? I suppose the answer is complicated, which is why it is easier for all of us (muslims and non-muslims) to accept a simplistic version that the Quran is "misunderstood".
I think if a Catholic were told that the IRA were basing all their voilent acts on passages of the Bible, they would find it hard to swallow as well....?
I would've thought that you'd have liked them, especially "For a very long time", also from "From Penthouse to Pavement". "Fascist Groove Thang" though was indeed banned. http://www.heaven17.com/biography.html
I too believe in free speech, but there has to be a certain limit.
If you were to shout: "Fire!" in a crowded cinema when there was no fire and people got trampled to death as a consequence, I doubt whether the claim to free speech would save you from jail - and rightly so.
CB, I agree there should be limits but I can't see why this particular person would be even close to that line; if we banned everything that "might" lead to violence we would have to start with much more mundane things, like football matches, green peace protests and scrumpy jack!
Thanks for your comment Anonymous, I agree the background to the various violent acts that have plagued our world in recent years is complex and certainly not as simple as Wilders would like to portray, I suspect though that it's not as simple as a lot of apologists would imply either.
Some would argue that such acts have always been there and it's just humans doing what humans do. I have some sympathy for this view but I cannot believe that religion has no part to play, simply because it is so central to so many people's lives. What people believe informs what they do, and it is clearly used by many as at least part of the rationale for their violent acts (like the 9/11 hijackers for instance)
So would you agree that religion can be a divisive force as well as a positive force?
Whilst you are quite right that Catholics in the IRA were not "Bible based" as I'm sure most Palestinian fighters are not "Koran based" (these conflicts were probably more about resources) I think it would be fair to say that the religious differences between communities provide a thread upon which each side can pull in order to unravel the cohesion of the overall society.
It comes back to Government, if governments are truly secular i.e. independent of religion, and these religious books are relegated to a private (allegorical) matter then it diminishes the ability of people to rally behind the words contained in them.
If you have Ian Paisley or Ahmadinejad waving their particular bronze age instruction manual in people's faces then of course the more evil among them will use those words to justify all kinds of things, even if it's simply an excuse to claim persecution or privilege for one side over another.
If we have unfalsifiable dogma at the centre of Government then we also have no mechanism to resolve disputes about it other than violence or 1000 years of cultural drift; at least with an economic dispute we have evidence to debate. (I realise this isn't entirely straightforward always either!)
Good post with so many comments, thanks
Steve - read The End of Faith by Sam Harris and you'll understand what motivates suicide bombers. It's an unshakable faith that they will be in heaven the second they die, without the need to go through Purgatory or a Judgement.
If you have total faith in your myths, then that's a very forceful driver.
Steve, I have heard the arguments you mention elsewhere as well and I would agree simply because I don't have any other explanation---But as a muslim---I am skeptical as to how much religion actually played a role in 9/11---because if they were muslim (and understood Arabic as they did)--they would have known that what they were doing is not condoned by the Quran---this point may be difficult for a non-muslim to understand and that is OK---but for a muslim such as myself---the argument does not feel right. As to the excuse of taking things literally---I admit this is also an easy and attactive explanation---But the Quran itself says that not all of it should be taken literally---any muslim who has read the Quran knows this.---at any rate---since we do not have any other logical explanations--the one that the Quran has been misunderstood or taken literally....etc will have to suffice. Thanks for letting me air my concerns.
Hi CB, yes I've read that one, I totally agree, as I say what people believe informs what they do, and in some cases to the exclusion of everything else including common sense and self preservation.
Forgot to answer your question---I would agree that religion can be a divisive force---the Sunni/Shia split is an example. Anyone who looks into it soon enough realizes there is actually very little (theological)difference between the two---but there is often real animosity. So it does bring up the question--why?
Banning speech equivalent to "fire" is relatively harmless in that there really isn't any value that arises from that kind of speech that we lose when we disallow it.
Political speech and religious speech do have something we (presumably) value, referring to discourse on how people ought to live together and deal with competing interests and notions of the good life. Sometimes that sort of thing can lead to violence, but we have a compelling enough interest in the value that it has that we try to allow it if we can.
Banning speech equivalent to "Fire"----In that case---Wilders should be banned. If we only allow speech that has "value" then since what Wilders says is a false premise--it has no "value" as intelligent discourse cannot be made on false premises.
On the other hand---there could be/should be real discourse on "how people ought to live together"--issues such as multiculturalism, "intergration" etc are relevant and beneficial.
Anon, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comment.
You assert that Wilders comments are based upon a "false" premise but clearly for a lot of people that is not the case. The essential problem for Jews, Christians or Muslims who assert that their holy book means x or y is that these assertions are totally unfalsifiable they cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt by anyone; the evidence for this is provided from within the ranks of theists themselves, i.e. there are innumerable divisions, debates, arguments and conflicts over what these things actually mean; unlike science where there is only one version of "physics" with religion there seem to be as many versions as there are believers, simply because the ideas are not testable.
You are quite right that we need to decide about how to structure our society and live in peace etc. but the question is, how can we determine fair rules?; one thing is for sure, rules cannot be based upon or governed by any of these holy books; your comment illustrates perfectly why this is the case.
A secular path is the only one which provides a level playing field for everyone and yet also allows people to maintain their own religion and culture etc. in large part Mr Wilders is simply arguing the case for this approach (if you listen to what he actually says).
The secondary point is about what we should or shouldn't be allowed to criticise, I think if religious people feel it necessary to thrust unfalsifiable beliefs into the public arena (as they frequently do, i.e. stem cell research or Sharia courts or abortion etc.) then they should expect those ideas to be analysed and critiqued by those that do not hold them. If we don't allow even that basic level of debate then we don't have a (real) democracy and we're back to settling things with explosives.
Steve
Thanks for bringing up the point about "false premises"---that what is or is not "false premises" might be subjective. I had not considered that.----However, if Wilders advocates that the Quran is an "evil book" because he has taken a few verses out of context ---such an approach is not beneficial to anybody? I am all for constructive criticism that will benefit/improve my religion---but a criticism based on what a Muslim considers "false premises" will not be respected. For example. Many feminists in the West assumed that the Quran suppressed/oppressed women and initially this led to calls for either rejecting the Quran altogether or re-doing the Quran so that it was more in line with modern feminist thinking---but such a proposition did not sit well with Muslim feminists because they claimed that the best way to get rid of suppression/oppression of women in some Muslim countries was actually to go back to the Quran which was egalitarian and advocated the equality of all human beings both men and women regardless of race, color, religion....etc. (Thus, it was not the Quran that needed changing, but Muslim society/law.)
Versions of religion----I would agree that in Christianity, there are many "versions" not just the Bible itself but the various denominations have their own understanding. I don't know about Judaism. Islam also has "flavors" that is, the Islam practiced in the Middle East may be different than the Islam practiced in Asia---However----there is only ONE Quran, regardless of Sunni/Shia or geographic location or era---we Muslims use the exact same Quran today as we did during the time of Caliph Uthman----there are no "revisions"/volumes/updates. All Muslims practice the 5 pillars. Our core beliefs are the same---we differ in our "traditions"(However, this is in line with Islam----we have the concept of "Unity within diversity"--this is because the Quran says that religion is not meant as a burden therefore we are free to pursue "traditions" that do not contradict the Quran)
Secularism---At least as practiced in the U.S.---would not be against the Quran (IMO) as long as it balanced "freedoms" with "responsibility" and advocated social justice......(However, oppressive secularism would be against the principles of the Quran--because it takes away freedom of choice)
Debate---I agree that debate is critical for finding ways that diverse points of view are heard and the one most suitable for everyone is picked.---In fact, I would go as far as to say, that for those who live in free societies---this would be a social responsibilty (part of the package that comes with freedom)
Islam/Science and Sharia---There are 4 major schools of Sharia (maybe 5)---the Fiqh (Jurisprudence) aspect of Sharia has always evolved according to the needs of the society and this should continue today.
In the past as well as today, Islam has not had much problems with science. As far as I know, stem cell research is not a problem either. The Quran says all knowledge is from God (even science).(IMO) Knowledge is neither "good" nor "bad" in itself--it is simply knowledge---how we humans use it makes it good/beneficial or bad/harmful.
Steve, thanks once again for bringing up some interesting points in this dialogue......
Hi Anon, many thanks for your comments, you raise some very interesting points. You know I often have a similar conversation with moderate Christians (I don't seem to get many Jewish visitors but I suspect it might be similar with them too) For me it illustrates very well the challenge that we face in finding fair ways to run diverse societies.
You argue that people (like Wilders) take some Quran passages out of context, similar immoral (by today's standards) passages exist in the Bible too and critics are routinely accused of doing the same, but you have identified the core of the issue, that of "context", i.e. he has his context and you have yours and both can be justified if we simply look at the words on the page. For every moderate Muslim, Jew or Christian trying to see the "big picture" and just get on with their lives, I feel there are many more lurking behind them who "cherry pick" the passages and ideas that suit their purposes and ignore those that don't, they are “literalists” when it suits them to be so. One only has to look at how the interpretations of the same original ideas are different in say Saudi Arabia verses those in Egypt around things such as Women's rights or treatment of apostates and homosexuals etc., or say Sudan when it comes to female genital mutilation or certain Pakistani tribal areas when it comes to honor killings and forced marriage etc. Now of course, I fully understand that many of these practices are not mandated in such books directly, but the problem is that the derived behaviors all "hide" behind the veil of "respect" that we are told (by religion) we must offer to religion and to some extent cultures derived from it.
I believe we all have to acknowledge that we cannot base societies rules of engagement on such texts, not because I think they are all "bad" necessarily (clearly there are some pearls of wisdom in all of them) but because they are all hopelessly ambiguous for such a purpose. Nor can we offer unanimous respect to any bad idea or abuse that cares to hide behind the concept of religious belief.
As far as science goes there seems to be fairly strong opposition to things like evolution in certain Islamic countries, particularly ones where the educational process is strongly controlled by religious institutions. I even think WEB sites discussing such topics are banned in places like Turkey; this always saddens me and seems reminiscent of the whole Galileo incident with the Catholic Church 400 years ago, a denial of reality.
Cherry picking verses---The Quran itself discourages "cherry picking" on several occassions in the Surahs. The Quran says it must be read as a whole. (That is how muslims read it---we also memorize some of the Surahs for our prayers---most muslims have read the Quran cover to cover many times)
While Wilders context may be valid for him, ---Since it is not one a "Muslim" will recognize---how will it help discussions aimed at improving religion?---If a billion Muslims do not read/understand the Quran the way Wilders portrays or understands it?---The whole discussion then, is aimed at a non-muslim audience---which really is no help in bringing constructive change to my religion.(IMO)If someone gave a bunch of passages from the Bible to a Muslim audience with the message that the Bible was an evil book and Christians were hate-filled fundamentalists-----????? what would it accomplish?
On the other hand, treatment of Women in Saudi and elsewhere, FGM in Africa, treatment of apostates, homosexuals etc are necessary (muslim)religious issues that need to be debated/improved---and had Wilders used the Quran to point out the equality of both men and women and how some muslim societies ignore this "value"---We could be getting somewhere. In order for criticism to be constructive (make a difference)---it has to be in the context of the recipients...should it not?
Science/Evolution---resistance to the idea is fairly recent in Islam---Sometime around the 10-11 century --a group of scholars called the Ikwan al-Safa came up with an idea of "evolution" though it was based on observations from the science of chemistry rather than biology. It was not as sophisticated as Darwins theory but interesting nonetheless.
I think the theory of human evolution needs more work (scientifically)---so far as I know--the DNA evidence from neanderthals suggests we are not directly linked to them---at any rate, progress in this area will be very interesting to watch.
I agree that banning knowledge is a disturbing thing for any muslim country to do because both the Quran and the Prophet(pbuh) strongly advocate the pursuit of knowledge.----but then, on the same note, I might suggest that those who criticise Islam for the sake of bringing constructive change---should at the very least---have a basic understanding/knowledge of the religion.....? (however, if their only purpose is simply sensationalism--then ignorance will work just fine)
"abuse that hides behind a concept"--I can thoroughly agree with that---abuse should not be hidden under the banner of "freedom of speech" nor should "secular" society abuse concepts such as "patriotism" for unjust wars or "national security" to selectively harass citizens and arbitrarily take away their rights...etc....Nor should relgion be abused for political purposes.
Improvement on the other hand---should be something that all human beings should strive towards regardless of ones political or religious pursuasion.
Hi Anon,
I really like your idea of pointing out where Muslims or Christians don't actually follow their holy texts, it's very common and I try to highlight it whenever I can! :)
However I have two points of concern about that, firstly I don't want them to follow *every* verse, some of the verses are immoral! I would prefer it if we could all agree that the texts are allegorical and that true morality comes from our evolutionary heritage, from consensus and from cherry picking the wisdom of the ages. Secondly, I fear it unlikely that those who prefer to take such texts literally would be inclined to listen, much less engage in dialogue about this with people who would probably be perceived as "outsiders" or trouble makers etc. People of any faith based persuasion tend to react badly when you point out the rational flaws in their beliefs in my experience. Even if all you want to do is discuss it with them. That's one of the problems I see with any system of "faith", and partly why I reject faith as a way of knowing anything (other than coincidentally) Faith generally resists change and improvement and that is an anathema to a rationalist like me.
I think the best we can hope for is to raise awareness among people who have typically been brainwashed as children into only seeing one point of view, it's a big old world out there and there are lots of good ideas, its a shame not to weigh them all fairly in ones mind before adopting a particular path. After all the vast majority of religious people only follow a particular faith because of an accident of birth, if you have been born in the Bible belt of the USA you would be a Christian and you would be debating with me just as passionately and coherently regarding Christianity rather than Islam, personally I find this fact evidence that neither position is actually true.
As an Atheist I would say that I criticise what I see in religion not out of a desire to "improve" religion per se. I criticise things which I feel are wrong when I feel I have good reason to do so, i.e. evidence (particularly the things that affect me and my family, community, country etc.) I completely agree with you that patriotism is an equally bad reason to believe things, in fact my philosophy is to reject anything that I'm told to be true simply because it's has a basis in revelation, tradition or authority. Evidence should be the only arbiter of truth in my view.
DNA evidence shows that we aren't descended from Neanderthals, we are cousins of them, this fact however confirms evolution even more than if we were directly descended from them. Our evolutionary heritage is a tree (actually more of a bush!), not a straight line, that is a religious misconception, humans are not the goal or the pinnacle of the process, much as some folks would like to think we are :)
Interestingly 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, a sobering fact that we should all think about from time to time.
I cannot fault your logic on the last point, I quite agree we should all seek improvement, even if that means admitting that what we believe is wrong sometimes.
Steve, thankyou for continuing the dialogue. I enjoy reflecting on the points you bring up.
Not following holy texts---I'm afraid it is a point the Quran also brings up---calling those people (including muslims) who follow only those parts that are "convenient" as hypocrites.--- this tends to displease some (non-muslim) religious people who happen to read the Quran. But it is precisely why--pointing this out to Muslims is often an effective (and faster)way to bring about social justice. (And one I hope people will use more often)
Cherry picking---I agree that there is much wisdom out there and since we cannot absorb all of it---it may be useful to "cherry pick" those aspects from outside our "own" that can enhance our religious/spiritual experience. However, the Quran points out that if you cannot sincerely follow your chosen path/religion---then the thing to do is to seek knowledge either within the tradition so as to erase doubts or from outside the tradition so you find one that is a better fit.(--rather than being a hypocrite) The Quran points out we (human beings) have been given intellectual abilities and they should be used.
The Quran---"cherry-picking" verses can be a serious problem---as the Quran istelf explains---it can distort the verses---which is why the Quran strongly discourages it. The structure of the Quran's verses are such that each verse supports and builds on another and each Surah(chapter) does the same. By deliberately breaking this internal structure---someone can create a distorted message.---a point that Muslims are aware of because the Quran points it out several times. (Which is why Muslims read/understand the Quran as a WHOLE as I mentioned before)
Christianity and literalism----Karen Armstrong seems to think Christians have forgotton how to read/understand the Bible. Judaism on the other hand has a very rich (and long)tradition of "understanding" the Torah. They have Rabbinical works, Midrash, Mishna, Gemarah...etc that helps explain the Torah and fleshes out the wisdom. Likewise--other religions also have their ways of approaching their Holy Texts so as to understand them properly, put them in context, and bring out a depth of Wisdom. It would be unwise to precieve all religions from a "Christian-centric" world view.
Accident of birth---Again I would agree with you that an "accident of birth" is often a deciding factor in many aspects of our identity---however, to use it as an excuse to limit oneself is simply intellectual laziness....?
Criticism---Many religious people---including myself---follow the "traditions of our fathers" (as the Quran calls it)out of intellectual laziness---that is, we never bother to see/check if our understanding of our own tradition(folk/cultural practices) has become distorted(contradict our Holy Texts)---Sometimes, it takes an "outsider" to wake us up and do something about it. Constructive Criticism is necessary for improvement regardless if one is following secular "traditions" or religious ones. However, I would say constructive criticism would not be the same as idle criticism.
"humans are not the goal or the pinnacle of the process"---not sure what that means---but we human beings do have sophisticated intellectual capabilities and the freedom to choose how to use it.----would you say this places special responsibilities on us "humans" to take care of other living and non-living "creations" wisely?
Hi Anon, and thank you too, your comments are most welcome. Again, I like the idea that you propose, but in practice we do not see success because agreement on "meaning" seems impossible without some independent arbiter. What I mean by this can be seen in science where evidence and testing provide such arbitration, and why you don't see English chemistry as distinct from Russian Chemistry etc. There is only "Chemistry" because "meaning" can be verified beyond interpretation. Without this ability religion seems destined for a path of ever more fractionation in a constant cycle of ebb and flow, at least this is what has been observed over the last 12,000+ years, we have no evidence that this pattern won't continue.
I understand what you mean by reading the Quran as a "whole", this seems reasonable from a philosophical point of view. What I struggle with is how this is practically possible without "interpretation", once the terrible "I"-word is raised then we seem to experience issues arising from self interest and prejudice in all faiths.
I would hope I don't perceive things from a "Christian-centric" world view; it is difficult for me to actually know that of course because I have been raised in a Christian culture, you would be better qualified to judge. However, my main thought is not that any particular religion is more "right" or "wrong" than any other but that "faith" itself is not a valid way of acquiring "knowledge". I think of it as a slightly higher level argument than simply focusing on topics like Sunni-Islam says X and Catholics say Y etc. although of course the lower level beliefs do inform people's actions so they are important to examine too.
I agree with you that not considering these things is intellectual sluggishness, however if we were to look at the billion or so Muslims and Christians in the world today, what would you say represents the percentage that have arrived at their faith through enquiry vs. culture, family or indoctrination etc. It's impossible to say precisely of course but my feeling would be that the former category would be statistically insignificant. I believe this (anecdotal) fact adds weight to my argument that these philosophies are actually man-made and not divine in origin and follow a well defined pattern in history back to our pre-sentient past.
We do have unique capabilities in the animal kingdom, perhaps not as unique as we would like to believe sometimes (like morality), but we are unquestionably the dominant species on this plant. What I meant was that often I debate with religious people who don't have a good understanding of evolutionary biology; more often than not these are people who accept evolution but feel that it is somehow “guided” by God (this is the usual Catholic position for example) They assume that humans are somehow the "purpose" of evolution, i.e. evolution has been progressing for 4 billion years with the sole aim of producing humans, i.e. we are the pinnacle or the "apex" of the process. This view is often wrapped up in the idea that humans are made in the "image of God", which is also an Islamic idea too if I remember correctly.
This idea is demonstrably weak; the Neanderthal example is evidence of this (there are others). Here we have a species of human with equal intellectual (brain cavity volume) and physical capabilities as Homo-sapiens (our own species) and existing at the same time (roughly 40-60,000 years ago), and yet they went extinct. Clearly Neanderthal humans were not part of God’s plan or evolution is not a directed process, the evidence would suggest the latter.
Anon, Just realised that the "image of God" idea isn't applicable to Islam in the same way as Christianity; there is a difference in theological interpretation around that.
Neanderthals/God's plan----It is an interesting topic to think about----I havn't looked into it for a while---but as far as I know, Neanderthal brains were 20% larger than ours, and they lived on our planet far longer than we have---(though our existence did overlap with the Neanderthals for a while until they went extinct) When we look at our accomplishments--we tend to see the glory---the buildings, technology, comforts...etc without giving much reflection to the costs---the destruction, the wars, the depletion of resources, pollution..etc. In this aspect, the Neanderthals were far superior than us---because they managed to stay longer on our planet without almost destroying it! If we assume that "God's plan" was to have a "representative" on the planet who would take care of his "creations" ---the Neanderthals may have done a far better job than us.......?
"Image of God"---Yes you are correct. God does not have a gender nor is anthropomorphic.
Faith through inquiry---might depend on the definition of "faith". I came across this interesting quote somewhere---"Faith without the light of reason and science degenerates into superstition". The Quran is against both blind faith and superstion--which is why it keeps reminding its readers to use and seek knowledge. At this point you might be thinking that it is rather insane of me to quote this since I believe in "God" which neither science nor reason can explain....!!!! "Faith" in itself is not the purpose of religion (with maybe an exception for Christianity)Religion should serve man---in that it should help us realize the potential (inherent goodness) with which we were created. The Quran says God has no needs--(He does not "need" us to pray--etc) The 5 pillars are for the improvement of "self"(soul).
Faith/trust/belief, in guidance can be a means of improving "self" (called "nafs" in Quran). The pursuit of knowledge enhances our understanding of "guidance".
Wether we are the "pinnacle" of evolution?....might depend on how we conduct ourselves? I believe we have the potential---we also have the intellect and the free-will to achieve it if we so choose.
Agreement on meaning/independent arbiter----That is a very interesting point. English Chemistry may not be different from Russian Chemistry---in its basic body of knowledge. In Islam, the "independent arbiter" is the Arabic Quran. In that it is the "basic body of knowledge" and all Muslims have the original(Uthmanic codex) Arabic Quran. If differences in interpretation, translation occur---one can go back to the Arabic and debate them out. Yet there are "flavors" in Islam. "Law"(Sharia) like Halaka (Judaism) is an important part of Islam---but the Quran is not primarily a book of "Law"---but of Guidance. It gives moral and ethical "principles" (often with examples and real situations) but the details/implementation should be worked out by the people in line with their era and customs. This is as it should be---in order to have Justice---(Which is the main purpose of Law) So, Sharia is made up of a combination of things such as Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Customs/traditions of the people(Al-Urf), Consensus(Ijma) and Ijtihad(The use of reason and intellect to find solutions to problems)This is where "flavors" appear from. ---But in the end,for all muslims it is the Quran that is their ultimate guidance.
That is why when non-Quranic aspects of Islam need to be debated for muslims--it is a good idea to go back to the Quran. Ofcourse human problems are not so much caused by religion, as religion is often used to justify the actions. So in order to solve such problems, one also has to look at other underlying factors such as socio-economics, and/or geo-politics and tackle them at the same time as you take away any justification for them.(IMO)
Post a Comment