Logic and reason
Submitted by Mo (United Kingdom), Jan 24, 2007 at 11:14
I welcome your analytical and evaluative approach. The Part about purity; pure Islam is that from the Quran and Sunnah, now we can derive four main schools of thought from this, they are Hanafi, Maliki, Hambali and Shafi. They are relevant because of their influence upon their region during times where information and knowledge mobility was only limited to the geographical position, as certain hadiths were interpreted in certain respects from those who were qualified for interpretation.
As time progressed and mobility increased due to advancement of transport in general, these became less relevant to many people, especially for high level scholars who now have in their possession much of the hadiths that were otherwise not available to those before them. Scholars, at least the majority of scholars now derive their understanding from direct sources, the Quran and Sunnah, instead of the traditional "schools of thought" now having said this, it is not wrong in shariah perspectives to derive sources from these traditional means, because the schools of thoughts are not without clear evidences from the Quran and Sunnah; although there are minor differences in Fiq (jurisprudences) all aim to highlight Islam to the masses for their understanding.
However it must be noted that these schools of thoughts are branches from the main group "Al Sunnah wal jamma." There is an important concept in Shariah that states that we cannot condemn nor cannot force a certain fiq upon those who are not from our own, hence the people who follow Hanafi fiq cannot force their opinions upon those who follow any of the other three. The pure Islam, or should I say, a more acceptable Islam should be that which is within the framework of Islam, the schools of thoughts and scholarly opinions that has a consensus amongst the ulemas. My reference to Islam here is in relation to jurisprudence, the laws and regulations set out.
We have different sects Islam that is true, as you know the first disengagement was politically motivated, referring to the Shia sect; this over the centuries has become more than just political, but religiously orientated. So we find that within the Shia sect there is even more division, subdivisions and so on, some Shia have totally gone away from the basic message of Islam, and others still maintain their association with the tenants of Islam.
The Prophet (p) new this to become the case and so made many comments regarding this, he said "The correct path to Islam is to follows me, (meaning the Sunnah)" That is why we (the majority of Muslims) follow the mainstream, Ahl sunnah wal Jamma', or more literally "the people who follow the way of the Prophet" You may argue the reasons why there are division within Islam, my answer to that would be using intellect to determine the persuasions within Islam, there are many people form different sects that are coming to the mainstream Islam, it is a test for them, and Allah (s) guides those He wills.
Your comment about logic behind conquest, I do not think in a secular level there is a logical answer that you will come to accept, but it should be said that Islam is not ALL reason and logic, although there is much reason and logic behind most if not all laws and actions permitted and prohibited in Islam, where there is not logic behind a certain action it is usually that of belief. There may be a certain action we Muslims do that for the average non-Muslim there may be no logical basic, but we do it because we as Muslims accept it due to faith, and we go further and say that if it enhances our belief through these actions it is reason enough and logical in that sense.
Although I accept that it may not go down well for the average non-Muslim. An example is praying five times a day, or ablution prior to prayers etc. This concept can be implemented to conquest, though there is not a viable answer in a secular context where both sides can be argued and debated; we may not go very far into reaching an agreement about it methods. But we reason from a religious angel also, and that says that Muslims must transform lands that are not under shariah.
About war booty, I do not posses the adequate knowledge in that field; I shall read about it and perhaps give you an answer.
About the taunting, I have never heard of this before, If can provide me the evidences from the Hadiths that would help, I will comment on this after the provision.
I may not reply promptly due to constraints on time, but I do eventually when time permits.
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 (2101) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes