• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Changing Islam from the Inside

sharon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
11,600
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Excerpt:

An-Na’im is a principled advocate of democracy and human rights, but from within his own Islamic tradition. He warns that if liberal freedoms are seen simply as Western values, they will never be accepted by the Muslim world. As he writes: “I know that if I, as a Muslim, am faced with a stark choice between Islam and human rights, I will certainly opt for Islam.” For this reason, he takes strong issue with the many writers — the latest is Anthony Pagden in “Worlds at War” — who posit an unbridgeable divide between Western enlightenment and Muslim intolerance. Such an outlook, An-Na’im says, is self-defeating. It can never win adherents in the countries where tolerance and civil liberties are needed most, and is likely only to aggravate problems.

An-Na’im’s approach is entirely different. He argues that human rights and democracy are not only consistent with Islam but must be adopted by Muslims if Islam is to remain true to itself. He begins by insisting that Islam requires human freedom, including the right not to believe, since religious belief must be voluntary or it is not belief. “Belief in Islam, or any other religion, logically requires the possibility of disbelief.”

His next point is that Sharia, the Islamic code of laws that all Muslims agree to adhere to, is not static; it changes over time in response to changing social and historical conditions. Sharia, An-Na’im says, is a product of fallible human interpretation, even if what is being interpreted are divinely given commands. And since Muslim scholars disagree “on almost every conceivable subject,” Sharia needs the flexibility and openness of a secular, liberal state. “Freedom of dissent and debate,” he writes, “was always essential for the development of Sharia.” An Islamic state that imposes a single version of Sharia is a violation of Islamic belief and a contradiction in terms.

By a similar reasoning process, and with citations from the Koran, An-Na’im argues for equal rights for non-Muslims and apostates, as well as for women. He acknowledges that traditional interpretations of Sharia granted no such rights. But as conditions change, Sharia must change too (while retaining Islam’s essential message).

Is An-Na’im correct? Among other things, he holds up a mirror to the West, pointing out that those who insist Islam is intrinsically and necessarily anti-liberal have the same view of a static and unchanging Sharia as the most retrograde elements in the Muslim world. He is also critical of the West’s secular absolutists, who want to use government to impose their particular nonreligious point of view on believers. An-Na’im’s concept of a secular state is of a neutral referee assuring a level playing field for competing points of view; France’s headscarf law does not rise to his standard of freedom.

Changing Islam From the Inside - NYTimes.com

This same conversation is going on in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt.
 
I think the odds of stable change are most probable that they are going to occur from within. If Sharia law opens up to issues of modern man and it takes differentiating the name from calling it a "Western enlightenment" to "Usual Sharia law change in time" so be it. Just take the scarfs of women while they pose for their driving license pictures, and make the driving issue more approachable to women one day:

Image Detail for - Brave Women Dare Take Wheel in Defiance of Saudi Law Against Driving ...
 
I think the odds of stable change are most probable that they are going to occur from within. If Sharia law opens up to issues of modern man and it takes differentiating the name from calling it a "Western enlightenment" to "Usual Sharia law change in time" so be it. Just take the scarfs of women while they pose for their driving license pictures, and make the driving issue more approachable to women one day:

Image Detail for - Brave Women Dare Take Wheel in Defiance of Saudi Law Against Driving ...

During the flashfloods in Jeddah.. alot of people were swept away.. A teen-aged girl jumped in a car and pulled 9 cars to safety.. She was lauded as a hero.

Much of what Muslims believed was Sharia law came out of various tribal customs having nothing to do with the Koran... or the time in which Muhammed lived.

You have to realize the cause was illiteracy.

There is nothing to stop women from going to school or working or talking with men.. There is nothing about wearing face mask or an Abaya..

There is nothing to stop a woman from driving.. Bedouin women have been driving for decades.
 
Still all that is practiced though. But as long as change is in the way that is good right.
 
Islam doesn't need changing - as with American Christianity, rednecked backwoodsmen do.
 
Islam doesn't need changing - as with American Christianity, rednecked backwoodsmen do.

Not changed so much as rediscovered by educated Muslims...... and the Saudis are pretty well educated at this point.
 
Not changed so much as rediscovered by educated Muslims...... and the Saudis are pretty well educated at this point.

Christians make a distinction between the letter and the spirit, which may be relevant here. Christian fundamentalists, of course, insist on a lot more archaic letters - the whole Old Testament.
 
Christians make a distinction between the letter and the spirit, which may be relevant here. Christian fundamentalists, of course, insist on a lot more archaic letters - the whole Old Testament.

I know.. I'm Episcopalian..

I just think that what some have called Shariah for so long is not found in the letter or the spirit of the Koran.
 
I know.. I'm Episcopalian..

I just think that what some have called Shariah for so long is not found in the letter or the spirit of the Koran.

A bit like English Common Law, perhaps. All laws reflect not only the ideals but the prejudices of particular societies which, in the case of Islamic onces, have often been held back by colonialism and other foreign interference.
 
I dislike both Islam and Christianity, because imo religion in itself is a man-made tool to influence and control people. While Christianity has it's problem, I see I slam as being more strict, zealous, and fanatical. That's not t say that Christianity has its own zealots.
 
I think there's a similar thing with the Chinese, but they're much further along in the process. Progressively liberalise but don't call it "Western values" which alienates the culture that tries to adopt them. It's probably the correct long term approach, one will have to wait and see if it's successful.

It's like liberating countries that had no popular uprising. Even assuming a positive intent on the part of the liberators, it takes ownsership of ones history away from the liberated. It becomes harder to build a social identity around it that will protect liberty long term. I don't think my people would have any pride in our national identity if our ancestors didn't have a hand in securing it.
 
I dislike both Islam and Christianity, because imo religion in itself is a man-made tool to influence and control people. While Christianity has it's problem, I see I slam as being more strict, zealous, and fanatical. That's not t say that Christianity has its own zealots.

Did you read the article?
 
I don't think my people would have any pride in our national identity if our ancestors didn't have a hand in securing it.

You guys north fought for your national identity throughout centuries too. Perhaps that is why whenever I watch Irish or Scottish movies I kinda feel like I can relate to them.

Was there anytime when you were left alone in peace from ancestry till the last time you were liberated from England?
 
You guys north fought for your national identity throughout centuries too. Perhaps that is why whenever I watch Irish or Scottish movies I kinda feel like I can relate to them.

Was there anytime when you were left alone in peace from ancestry till the last time you were liberated from England?

I don't want to threadjack but briefly there were Vikings and Normans but not Romans before the English. Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of Invasions) goes back to around 1500BC depicting the invasions by the Gaelic people themselves with a folkloric twist. Just like everyone elses history really.
 
Back
Top Bottom