Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Future of Islam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Trying to blame Islamophobia for violent forms of Islam is irresponsible.
    There is a misunderstanding---perhaps I was unclear. My initial comment was in the context of the problems facing minorities in some Muslim majority countries and tackling this situation becomes difficult/slower because of Islamophobia on the one hand and Wahabism on the other.

    Radicalization (of activists) occurred because secular dictators brutally repressed activism/activists calling for self-determination---the process is similar to how the Irish became radicalized. These radicalized rhetorics and views found a practicing ground in Afghanistan when the U.S. (with the help of Saudi and Pakistan) decided to train and arm these radicals to fight Russia.....Saudi financing also helped spread Wahabism, and when this type of Islam mixed with arms and war---created fierce freedom fighters---this ofcourse pleased the U.S. (and Pakistan...who also had their own strategic agenda) which insisted on arming such freedom fighters instead of the other type---eventually resulting in Al-Qaeda....

    However, while Islamophobia is not the cause of Al-Qaeda or ISIS...the hate it promotes can be one of many factors of alienation, anger and disconnect among mentally unstable Muslims that cause them take up violence. Likewise, the rhetoric and ideas generated by paid/financed Islamophobes can be one of many factors that cause some people to take up violence against their own fellow citizens who are presumed to be "Muslim"---such as the massacre at the Sikh temple, burning of mosques...etc....It is important to keep in mind that Islamophobia did not arise in a vacuum---rather circumstances and environment created an opportunity for this type of idea to take hold.
    Nevertheless---insofar as this type of prejudice effects state policies---it can create an environment that facilitates oppression and injustices---such as the use of entrapment practices by law enforcement/FBI, Search and seizures without warrant, arrests without cause---or at worst assassination by drone.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by siam View Post
      There is a misunderstanding---perhaps I was unclear. My initial comment was in the context of the problems facing minorities in some Muslim majority countries and tackling this situation becomes difficult/slower because of Islamophobia on the one hand and Wahabism on the other.

      Radicalization (of activists) occurred because secular dictators brutally repressed activism/activists calling for self-determination---the process is similar to how the Irish became radicalized. These radicalized rhetorics and views found a practicing ground in Afghanistan when the U.S. (with the help of Saudi and Pakistan) decided to train and arm these radicals to fight Russia.....Saudi financing also helped spread Wahabism, and when this type of Islam mixed with arms and war---created fierce freedom fighters---this ofcourse pleased the U.S. (and Pakistan...who also had their own strategic agenda) which insisted on arming such freedom fighters instead of the other type---eventually resulting in Al-Qaeda....

      However, while Islamophobia is not the cause of Al-Qaeda or ISIS...the hate it promotes can be one of many factors of alienation, anger and disconnect among mentally unstable Muslims that cause them take up violence. Likewise, the rhetoric and ideas generated by paid/financed Islamophobes can be one of many factors that cause some people to take up violence against their own fellow citizens who are presumed to be "Muslim"---such as the massacre at the Sikh temple, burning of mosques...etc....It is important to keep in mind that Islamophobia did not arise in a vacuum---rather circumstances and environment created an opportunity for this type of idea to take hold.
      Nevertheless---insofar as this type of prejudice effects state policies---it can create an environment that facilitates oppression and injustices---such as the use of entrapment practices by law enforcement/FBI, Search and seizures without warrant, arrests without cause---or at worst assassination by drone.
      All these long round robin posts fail to justify your assertion that Islam and Sharia is compatible with international law, or international law can be based on the Qur'an or Sharia. Can Islamic teachings guarantee the separation of religion and state, and the independent secular rights of homosexuals, atheists and Baha'is? Please be specific where Islamic teachings and Sharia can guarantee this.

      Still waiting . . .

      My contention is that the Baha'i Faith can be the basis for international law.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-22-2016, 09:32 AM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        "Baha'i Faith can be the basis for international law"---that is great.

        Religious paradigms provide a better framework for ethics so I think if we are looking for ethical laws/jurisprudence---we need faith based paradigms that govern all aspects of life,... ethical economics, ethical laws, ethical governance...

        If we think of a future with legal pluralism---then Bahai can have their own basis for international law, Muslims can have their own systems as well as other faith communities can have ethical systems that reflect their deeply held ethico-moral positions---areas of contestations can be settled by international arbitration bodies. Therefore, a mono system is not imposed on the whole world---which would be oppression---but in pluralistic systems everyones right to conscience is respected equally.

        Europe was already grappling with concepts and problems of legal pluralism because of the formation of the EU. But now, with globalization and the post nation-state (transnational) framework, they are thinking of legal pluralism in global terms. Several factors have made the concept of nation-state superfluous....Net-economies which have no trade boundaries, hybrid legal systems, religious, ethnic groups and institutions as global players...failed states....etc...(Scholars such as Neil Walker and Peer Zumbansen are thinking about these issues in a European context---In the Islamic areas, Muslim scholars are working on the intersection of economics and law in areas such as Global Islamic finance, Global Halal markets and productions...etc as well as post nation-state structure of law---perhaps loosely modeled on the EU type system....The Ottoman Empire also practiced legal pluralism, so it is possible to look at what worked and did not work from the past....)

        Separation of religion and law---In the Islamic context, since religion =law---this separation was already in effect in classical sharia. It is in modern times, because of the concept of nation-state, that law and state have merged. It would be much better if law and state were separated again.
        Rights---Again, Islam does not have the unbalanced concept of rights alone---but balances rights with responsibilities--and in this context, all groups within a society have rights and responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities can be negotiated so that equality/dignity and justice are preserved.

        Comment


        • #49
          (a shallow) Comparison of paradigms--

          (Secular) Modern paradigm is a "win-lose" model--This is a zero-sum paradigm which is predicated on the idea that macro relations are based on anarchy and the powerful survive. The selfish needs are the driving factor.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorea...nal_relations)

          There is another way to think---and some religious philosophies offer a different (more balanced) perspective of human potential...?....
          ...the win-win model---which recognizes the human desire (motivation factor) for altruism as well as self-interest and balances both aspects for the best outcome of human potential...In such a paradigm, survival of macro relationships (large groups) does not depend on power---but on co-operation. -------In this context the Quran has some interesting advice to offer:---

          Quran Surah 5:48
          Yusuf Ali: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

          If macro relations are based on the rule of laws (plural) in which a co-operative paradigm fosters a competition for best practices---this could benefit the Earth, humanity as a whole, as well as the individual soul....its a win-win at all levels....

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by siam View Post
            "Baha'i Faith can be the basis for international law"---that is great.

            Religious paradigms provide a better framework for ethics so I think if we are looking for ethical laws/jurisprudence---we need faith based paradigms that govern all aspects of life,... ethical economics, ethical laws, ethical governance...

            If we think of a future with legal pluralism---then Bahai can have their own basis for international law, Muslims can have their own systems as well as other faith communities can have ethical systems that reflect their deeply held ethico-moral positions---areas of contestations can be settled by international arbitration bodies. Therefore, a mono system is not imposed on the whole world---which would be oppression---but in pluralistic systems everyone's right to conscience is respected equally.
            Yes each can have their own, but you have failed demonstrate how the Islamic view can be a modern model for international law.


            Separation of religion and law---In the Islamic context, since religion=law---this separation was already in effect in classical sharia. It is in modern times, because of the concept of nation-state, that law and state have merged. It would be much better if law and state were separated again.
            Problem here, the Baha'i Faith clearly acknowledges the separation of religion and state, and Islam does not have a consistent model for International Law, because the bottom line is Sharia=law does not take into a consistent diverse issues of dealing with international law.

            Rights---Again, Islam does not have the unbalanced concept of rights alone---but balances rights with responsibilities--and in this context, all groups within a society have rights and responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities can be negotiated so that equality/dignity and justice are preserved.
            It is extremely obvious that Islam does not have a balanced view of rights with responsibilities outside Islam for international law.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha%27i_perspective_on_international_human_rights



            Baha'i perspective on international human rights

            Divine basis for human rights

            The Bahá’í Writings make clear that human rights are not merely a political or social concept that is contingent on recognition by governments. Rather, the Bahá’í perspective is that human rights exist with or without governments; indeed, they are a divine endowment flowing from the creation of all human beings with the potential to reflect the attributes of God. All human beings have for this reason an equal spiritual dignity.[3] Accordingly, governments have a moral obligation to respect this divine endowment, an obligation that would exist even in the absence of treaties or customary legal norms obligating them to do so. Bahá’u’lláh impressed upon rulers this sacred duty: “For is it not your clear duty to restrain the tyranny of the oppressor, and to deal equitably with your subjects, that your high sense of justice may be fully demonstrated to all mankind? God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers.”[4] These are divinely-ordained responsibilities that no government can legitimately shirk.[5] Bahá’u’lláh also teaches that because of this equal spiritual dignity, all human beings are members of a single human family that should be unified. This means that all should treat one another as brothers and sisters, and in turn honor and respect the rights of all other human beings, not only as co-equals, but as spiritual relatives. He declares, “Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch.”[6] Recognition of this fundamental connectedness is a precondition, according to the Bahá’í teachings, for the full realization of human rights. Bahá’u’lláh asserts in this connection: “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.”[7] Human Rights will remain no more than a morally admirable concept so long as they are not anchored in such an appreciation for human unity. That unity provides the impetus, the motivation, the will, to uphold and defend the rights of others. And it implies that human rights are the concern of everyone, not just governments.[8]

            Background

            The earliest use of the terminology of human rights in publications by Bahá’í institutions coincided with the inception of their official relationship with the United Nations. Three of the first four documents submitted to the newly established international organization in 1947 and 1948 were statements on various aspects of human rights intended as contributions to the preparatory work on the UDHR. The first of these was an eight-page statement entitled “A Bahá’í Declaration of Human Obligations and Rights”[9] which was presented to the Human Rights Commission[10] in February 1947 on behalf of eight national Bahá’í administrative bodies.[11] The Bahá’í International Community (BIC) explains that concern for human rights can be found throughout the Bahá’í Writings. Bahá’u’lláh, urged the rulers of the earth to “rule with justice ... safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers.”[12] He taught that “there shall be an equality of rights and prerogatives for all mankind.”[13]

            Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of Baha’u’llah’s teachings, states that: “[t]he unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which .... the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples.”[14]

            Moreover, in The Promise of World Peace, the Universal House of Justice (the supreme governing institution of the Faith) underscores the importance of the UDHR and its related conventions, asserting that “all such measures, if courageously enforced and expanded, will advance the day when the specter of war will have lost its power to dominate international relations.”[15]

            Bahá’í views on human rights are based on the concept that every person is essentially a spiritual being endowed by the Creator with talents and capacities, and that the purpose of life is to realize that potential for the benefit of society as well as the individual concerned. The equal dignity of all human beings and the need for both solidarity and legal equality among them are clearly posited in many passages of the Bahá’í sacred scriptures.[16] These ideas are encapsulated in the concept of the “oneness of mankind”, which is described as the “pivot round which all the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh revolve”.

            © Copyright Original Source

            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment

            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
            Working...
            X