More lies, just narrower, and a glimpse of truth
Submitted by Alain Jean-Mairet (Switzerland), Jan 1, 2007 at 01:49
Let's read them:
It was not meant to be appreciated. Since when should one care to be appreciated by liars?
What I wrote is that there are several Sharia according to the different Islamic schools of jurisprudence (Hanfi, Shafi'I, Maliki and Hanbali for the Sunni and mostly one for the Shia), and that for judging of matters where non-Muslims are concerned, the differences are irrelevant.
Iran has not implemeted the full Sharia, yet. That is all. The basic point here is that Islam actually failed. A few centuries back, that "civilisation" was totally broke. Colonialists abrogated Sharia, but let Islam alone. And now that many Muslim countries are doing better, Islam is generating its laws again, progressively.
That is a flat out lie. See for example Ibn Rushd, akas Averroes, in his al Bidaya, a legal handbook reviewing the stances of the different schools of jurisprudence, written by a Muslim jurist for Muslim jurists. For all madhahib, the general rule for the aim of jihad is derived from Koran 2:193 and 8:39 (same content): "Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely" and from the tradition "I have been commanded to fight the people until they say: 'There is no god but God.' "And the particular rule is founded on the tradition "When ye will encounter your polytheits foes, then summon them to three things. Accept that which they consent to and refrain from [attacking] them. Summon them to conversion to Islam. If they consent to that, accept it and refrain from [attacking] them. Summon them thereupon to sally forth from their territory to the Abode of the Emigrants (muhadjirun) [i.e. Medina] and impart to them that, if they do so, they will have the same rights and duties as the Emigrants. If they are unwilling to do so, however, and prefer to remain in their own territory, impart to them thereupon that they will be like the converted Bedouins, who are subject to the same supreme authority of God as the [other] believers, but who are not entitled to a share in the spoils, unless they join the Muslims in the war. If they refuse that, then summon them to the payment of poll-tax. If they consent to that, accept it and refrain from [attacking] them. But if they refuse, then invoke the help of God and attack them." (English translation by Rudolph Peters, Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton).
Let's add here that Averroes wrote, just after that bit: "Nevertheless, it has been related irrefutably that the Prophet repeatedly made sudden attacks upon the enemy at night or dawn. Some, consequently, maintain, and they are in the majority, that the practice of the prophet has abrogated his words."
And I'll add that bit, which is integrated in the last mentioned tradition (when ye will encounter...) as related by Abu Dah'ud, Sunan, III, pp. 37-38 (no. 2612), but which was not maintained in the demonstration above because it was out of context there: "If you besiege the people of a fortress, and they desire to surrender unconditionally, do not accept this from them, but let them surrender according to your judgment, and do with them what you wish afterwards." These are Muhammad's words according to Muslim traditions.
Present Iran has many cosmetic attributes of modern Western countries indeed, but its government reigns supreme on all important matters, and it cannot be voted out of power. And that is really much more than a detail. It is actually a despotic (theocratic) regime practicing dissimulation (lying about one's religious conviction, something very common among Shia, most notably because they long had to lie about their being Shia for taking part to the Hajj in Sunni Mecca) at the highest level, not a democracy.
That is true. But that was only practical during the first 10 or 20 years of Islam. It might practical again today, thanks to Western IT, if the Muslim community would realize it and work at it.
Yes. Excellent. Let's do that, in Mecca, or in some place between Mecca and Medina. It might work, it might help modernize Islam for good. But don't you fool people into thinking it's already been done. In Iran!
Well, they are no codes. But let's move on.
Well, ijtihads have been closed by Sunnis and carried on by Shias. And the result is worse, read more cruel, by the Shia. So I don't think that ijtihad is the way. It carries with it a solid tradition of sticking to unmoveable consensus which are totally unacceptable by the rest of the world.
It has to be something new, innovative, creative. And it has to go straight to the core, to the "Muslim community", as you were telling just above.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2098) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes