The Future of Islam

[siam]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[siam]

"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.

[siam]

(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....

[shunyadragon]

"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

© Copyright Original Source