Precious Star
Junior Member
We need to be totally honest with ourselves. In most muslim societies, there is no equality, justice and elimination of poverty. Women are often treated badly, and hunger and poverty are rampant.
News New Islamic law in Indonesia
- Thread starter zaman-gm
- Start date
We need to be totally honest with ourselves. In most muslim societies, there is no equality, justice and elimination of poverty. Women are often treated badly, and hunger and poverty are rampant.
zaman-gm
Junior Member
As because of Islam and Sharia???
What is Sharia? Is this the only way of Life??
sister herb
Official TTI Chef
Any kind of laws which touch the human choice to practice a religion are complicated because we can´t dictate how someone practice his religion or does he practice it at all.
For example imposed by law how people can dress or when religious law also concerns non-muslims creates situations when the government actually dictate the parts of citizens individual choices of life. It doesn´t mean that people practice religion because they want to obey Allah but because they fear the punishments if they break the laws. If some woman use hijab because she has to, not because she wants to obey teachings of islam, there is a lot of difference.
For example imposed by law how people can dress or when religious law also concerns non-muslims creates situations when the government actually dictate the parts of citizens individual choices of life. It doesn´t mean that people practice religion because they want to obey Allah but because they fear the punishments if they break the laws. If some woman use hijab because she has to, not because she wants to obey teachings of islam, there is a lot of difference.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
If Shariah law is taken at face value in its entirety in Muslim countries and enforced as it should be, Muslims should ideally be happy and content with it as it is the source of Divine Guidance. Where however, Shariah law is fused, intermingled and blended with anything else, either partially or almost fully, the results will be catastrophic. The reason being mixing Non Divine Law with Divine Law cannot go together; some ideas, some tools, some manners of assisting and enforcing what constitutes Islamic law instead of adding or amending it are plausible.
Where some elements of Shariah law are added to a Non Divine constitution, the same situation will apply as the two cannot go hand in hand and conflict will arise. There is also the added dilemma of incorrect interpretation of Islamic law, the wrong methods of enforcement, the wrong people to include in implementation and more importantly a reasonable justification in detesting Islamic law based on incorrect versions of Islamic law presented as truth in the first place.
When those who show hostility towards Shariah law are Non Muslims alone, the circumstances are grave but not impossible to refresh and re-educate people, the situation is harder and more dangerous when those whose hearts are hardened include Muslims themselves.
That can be for one of several reasons; some did not know what Shariah law was or is and the thoughts and evaluations of others have clouded their judgement to hatred alone. Some may know little or as much as they want to know and are content to not accept knowledge outside of their immediate evaluations. A few may know a lot, but whose ideals are more inclined towards other constitutional systems or otherwise and Shariah law is either secondary, of less value in comparison or must be aligned with modern ideologies. Some may even state they love Islam, they love Shariah, but they don't want to see it or live under it. Others may choose to hide under the banner of rejecting implementation due to the many groups that call for it.
Whatever the scenario may be, the Messenger of Allah (SAW), delivered the Shariah, his followers; the Companions and the succession of generations implemented it and being the perfect system of the most perfect human being and seal of Prophets, it will remain as the best and greatest constitutional system for mankind until the Day of Judgement. What makes it so even more so is that Divine Sovereignty is based on scripture and from the One who knows more about the human race (its strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, qualities, complications and psychological synchronization) and all creation combined, the Creator Himself.
Where some elements of Shariah law are added to a Non Divine constitution, the same situation will apply as the two cannot go hand in hand and conflict will arise. There is also the added dilemma of incorrect interpretation of Islamic law, the wrong methods of enforcement, the wrong people to include in implementation and more importantly a reasonable justification in detesting Islamic law based on incorrect versions of Islamic law presented as truth in the first place.
When those who show hostility towards Shariah law are Non Muslims alone, the circumstances are grave but not impossible to refresh and re-educate people, the situation is harder and more dangerous when those whose hearts are hardened include Muslims themselves.
That can be for one of several reasons; some did not know what Shariah law was or is and the thoughts and evaluations of others have clouded their judgement to hatred alone. Some may know little or as much as they want to know and are content to not accept knowledge outside of their immediate evaluations. A few may know a lot, but whose ideals are more inclined towards other constitutional systems or otherwise and Shariah law is either secondary, of less value in comparison or must be aligned with modern ideologies. Some may even state they love Islam, they love Shariah, but they don't want to see it or live under it. Others may choose to hide under the banner of rejecting implementation due to the many groups that call for it.
Whatever the scenario may be, the Messenger of Allah (SAW), delivered the Shariah, his followers; the Companions and the succession of generations implemented it and being the perfect system of the most perfect human being and seal of Prophets, it will remain as the best and greatest constitutional system for mankind until the Day of Judgement. What makes it so even more so is that Divine Sovereignty is based on scripture and from the One who knows more about the human race (its strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, qualities, complications and psychological synchronization) and all creation combined, the Creator Himself.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
Throughout the ages, there have been different challenges to Islam both from within and from outside it. The most significant and distressing oppressor has often been the Muslim him/herself. At first, it was largely an inter-governmental issue where the common people did not create or stir meaningful damage, but it has since enveloped to become a serious issue and while still less detrimental than state sponsored or state orchestrated de-alignment with Islam, it is nevertheless a present reality.
For this reason, it may be wiser to know ones religion; not just in terms of the rudimentary aspects of ritualistic practice, but also of doctrines, Shariah law itself, the concept of Tauheed, what constitutes Shirk and its many manifestations and how to interpret Islam from Islamic legal and political sources outside of immediate modern government scholars.
If we were to examine and evaluate ourselves alone, how many of us could say, we are satisfied with the way we are and are ready to die knowing that we have little to fear because we have fulfilled our objectives and responsibilities to the best of our knowledge and that we know our religion. I for one cannot say that.
For this reason, it may be wiser to know ones religion; not just in terms of the rudimentary aspects of ritualistic practice, but also of doctrines, Shariah law itself, the concept of Tauheed, what constitutes Shirk and its many manifestations and how to interpret Islam from Islamic legal and political sources outside of immediate modern government scholars.
If we were to examine and evaluate ourselves alone, how many of us could say, we are satisfied with the way we are and are ready to die knowing that we have little to fear because we have fulfilled our objectives and responsibilities to the best of our knowledge and that we know our religion. I for one cannot say that.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
If I can add as a concluding remark, this is not a testimony of hate itself. I am not preaching anything against anyone in particular, only an incorrect philosophical analysis and understanding of Deen based on a limited time period in the study of Shariah law and what it is not.
Today, junior scholars and trainee Islamic judges [in Shariah, not secular state constitutional laws] who learn about Shariah law pass their initial evaluation or first stage after seven years and are awarded the honorific title of 'beginner'. If that is true about such personages who have spent a significant portion of their life in strict training of Islam, then what of those who have not, can they be in the same league as the 'beginners' and start forming and evaluating what they know of Islam as specialists, experts or otherwise. A medical student with two years of training cannot possibly present an accurate description of surgery compared to a doctor who has been in the field for over twenty years, but unfortunately when the tables are turned and the discussion is about Islam, we have so many experts in the subject. We have to be careful in our evaluations, our perceptions of our own knowledge and our judgments about topics we may actually be prejudiced and less knowledgeable about than we think.
Finally, what does this have to do with the thread itself and the issue of a government enacting Islamic legislation over some parts of a country and over Non Muslims. As I said earlier, if the understanding, correct knowledge, correct application and strict adherence to pure Islam is legislated among people who want it and are aware of its contents, there should be no problem both from the masses, the common Muslim or the government itself.
However, this is not the case. Indonesia as a country, while being the largest Muslim nation, is also home to a sizeable proportion of Christians and Hindus (the latter especially in Bali) as well as several other groups who may be atheist or otherwise. I believe there may even be large segments of Buddhists as well. In addition, Indonesia's constitution is based on secular principles and firmly rooted in strong cultural traditions. If you add some aspects of strict Shariah law as well when most people there are not calling for Shariah, may not want it, may not know that much about it and may even have fixed and harsh opinions about it based on what I spoke about earlier, what is the likely outcome of this political experiment; nothing short of disaster.
This reminds me of 'Yasik', which was highly condemned by Ibn Taymiyyah in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 'Yasik' was the constitution of Changez Khan [known in English as Genghez Khan]. He mixed aspects of secularism, Mongol law and Shariah and called it Yasik. He used it to rule over Muslims and Muslim lands. The scholars of the time denounced it as Kufr and warned the Muslims against it.
Today, we are less aware of who scholars are, we seem to take them less seriously, accept our own opinions and evaluations above theirs and have little interest in learning more about what's important about Deen itself.
To cite some personal examples, I was not aware magic was haram and practitioners [i.e. magicians] become Non Muslims as soon as they enter the profession, that they were thirteen conditions to La illah ha ill lal la, that Jihad [the military aspect] has one hundred grades and degrees assigned to those who participate waiting for them in Jannah and is not available to anyone else, that when Allah speaks to Muslims in the Qur'an He is sometimes speaking highly selectively to different groups of the highest and best types of Muslims and they include the Muhsineen, the Mu'minnen, the As-Sabirun, the Al-Khashi'un and the Al-Abrar to mention just a few.
Its little things like this that make all the difference. I hope I did not offend anyone by my words or examples. I wished to illustrate and speak in detail over a few points and help provide an overview of how we are today compared to earlier generations, what Allah expects from us, how we can and should improve and what we should avoid.
Today, junior scholars and trainee Islamic judges [in Shariah, not secular state constitutional laws] who learn about Shariah law pass their initial evaluation or first stage after seven years and are awarded the honorific title of 'beginner'. If that is true about such personages who have spent a significant portion of their life in strict training of Islam, then what of those who have not, can they be in the same league as the 'beginners' and start forming and evaluating what they know of Islam as specialists, experts or otherwise. A medical student with two years of training cannot possibly present an accurate description of surgery compared to a doctor who has been in the field for over twenty years, but unfortunately when the tables are turned and the discussion is about Islam, we have so many experts in the subject. We have to be careful in our evaluations, our perceptions of our own knowledge and our judgments about topics we may actually be prejudiced and less knowledgeable about than we think.
Finally, what does this have to do with the thread itself and the issue of a government enacting Islamic legislation over some parts of a country and over Non Muslims. As I said earlier, if the understanding, correct knowledge, correct application and strict adherence to pure Islam is legislated among people who want it and are aware of its contents, there should be no problem both from the masses, the common Muslim or the government itself.
However, this is not the case. Indonesia as a country, while being the largest Muslim nation, is also home to a sizeable proportion of Christians and Hindus (the latter especially in Bali) as well as several other groups who may be atheist or otherwise. I believe there may even be large segments of Buddhists as well. In addition, Indonesia's constitution is based on secular principles and firmly rooted in strong cultural traditions. If you add some aspects of strict Shariah law as well when most people there are not calling for Shariah, may not want it, may not know that much about it and may even have fixed and harsh opinions about it based on what I spoke about earlier, what is the likely outcome of this political experiment; nothing short of disaster.
This reminds me of 'Yasik', which was highly condemned by Ibn Taymiyyah in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 'Yasik' was the constitution of Changez Khan [known in English as Genghez Khan]. He mixed aspects of secularism, Mongol law and Shariah and called it Yasik. He used it to rule over Muslims and Muslim lands. The scholars of the time denounced it as Kufr and warned the Muslims against it.
Today, we are less aware of who scholars are, we seem to take them less seriously, accept our own opinions and evaluations above theirs and have little interest in learning more about what's important about Deen itself.
To cite some personal examples, I was not aware magic was haram and practitioners [i.e. magicians] become Non Muslims as soon as they enter the profession, that they were thirteen conditions to La illah ha ill lal la, that Jihad [the military aspect] has one hundred grades and degrees assigned to those who participate waiting for them in Jannah and is not available to anyone else, that when Allah speaks to Muslims in the Qur'an He is sometimes speaking highly selectively to different groups of the highest and best types of Muslims and they include the Muhsineen, the Mu'minnen, the As-Sabirun, the Al-Khashi'un and the Al-Abrar to mention just a few.
Its little things like this that make all the difference. I hope I did not offend anyone by my words or examples. I wished to illustrate and speak in detail over a few points and help provide an overview of how we are today compared to earlier generations, what Allah expects from us, how we can and should improve and what we should avoid.
zaman-gm
Junior Member
Jazak Allahu Khiran Brother Abu Juwairiya.
We have a lesson from that greatest verse.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion" (Quran 5:3)
There then everything we will do should be a Ibada'h/A'amal(Deeds). So the Shariah of Muhammadur Rasoolullah SAW will be a Ibada'h. We just need to follow it with strategy (time, place and people). Our Prophet establish Islam slowly from his mother land. Then he able to make understand people what should they do. Then people accept that easily.
Bani Adam have that Light of Iman in their heart. Just need to spark that Light. Allah know the best.
We have a lesson from that greatest verse.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion" (Quran 5:3)
There then everything we will do should be a Ibada'h/A'amal(Deeds). So the Shariah of Muhammadur Rasoolullah SAW will be a Ibada'h. We just need to follow it with strategy (time, place and people). Our Prophet establish Islam slowly from his mother land. Then he able to make understand people what should they do. Then people accept that easily.
Bani Adam have that Light of Iman in their heart. Just need to spark that Light. Allah know the best.
MehmetHilmi
Junior Member
But what if some people have different views of Sharia? For instance some hanafis (including me) do not believe in the necessity of stoning. Just as the Ottoman Khilafa believed as just one person was officially stoned in the entire 600 year rule of the empire. But we have Daesh which comes up and stones a couple of women in its first few months. These things scare me. I disagree with you Abu Juwairiya. We cannot apply sharia like it was 100% back then. It does not fit into the 21st century world. Rather a blend of democracy, local customs, and Islamic morals is the way forward. I do not think that the prophet completely ignored the culture of his time. Neither did he ignore the world's developments. So neither should we.
Precious Star
Junior Member
This makes a lot of sense. Most people do have different views of Sharia. Its not working. It is resulting in bizarre rulings like not permitting women to drive, kidnapping young girls and turning them into sex slaves, forcing men to do push ups for wearing shorts, and hitting people with canes if they disobey the law.
sister herb
Official TTI Chef
We should at the first learn to live like Islam teach us to live. Having some religious laws in the society and religious polices to guarding people to follow that religious law, doesn´t teach us to live like muslims. It only teach us not to broke the law. Or not to be caught for breaking the law.
Basicly many of the laws in many countries already have basics of morality, similar like what islam teach us.
Basicly many of the laws in many countries already have basics of morality, similar like what islam teach us.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
Assalammu Alaikum and Jazakallah Khayrun Brother Mehmet Hilmi. First of all, it is not for me (Abu Juwairiya) to decide if Shariah law of the 7th Century, the 14th Century or even the last century the world will ever see, should be applied to the time in which the present day or future generations should abide by. Second, it is also not for the highest and most knowledgeable academic (or non academic) secularists [Muslim or Non Muslim] to decide this either. So who should and can decide then and how should they do so? That is where it can be scary!
The only people who can the authority to do so are those best trained to do so; the Scholars (as long as they actually do so) and the leaders of governments who choose to follow Shariah [I shall refer to them as those 'with authority' as mentioned in the Qur'an] (and certainly not the novice Abu Juwairiya!). However, is that where it ends, what about differences in interpretation of Shariah, namely the Maddhabs and by the Scholars and government leaders who follow Shariah, not anyone else.
As the Schools of thought emerged after the Messenger of Allah (SAW), the Scholars since then have determined the following rules-
1. Ahadith: The strongest, most authentic Ahadith and most widely accepted with the best Sanad should take precedence for most (or all where possible) legal rulings where Ahadith is or needs to be consulted.
2. Ijma and Qiyas. Where something is new or was not available at the time of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), the nearest similar things are looked at for guidance to make acceptable rulings in accordance with that. Where nothing is found in that respect, then the same rules are applied for something that may have happened during the lifetimes and rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and if not there, then at any specific time of a highly acceptable ruler. In the absence of that, the Scholars and government leaders who follow Shariah make a ruling as close as possible to the rules of the issue in question being more or less harmful to society in general. Issues that have risen in this respect have been about smoking, drugs, cloning, FGM (Forced for girls) among other things.
3. Stoning: The Qur'an does not mention stoning (as far as I know) as the means for execution of those who commit adultery. Even Ahadith does not do so either, although there are several instances where it is mentioned where it happened with the Prophet's (SAW) watchful eye. The point is execution is the ruling given for adultery. The reason being Western law is based on the Old Roman Model where morality is against the person and Murder is against the State. In Islam, immorality (in some forms such as Adultery) is against the State, while Murder is against the person. In this manner the killer is either forgiven and made to pay blood money (Diya) to the relatives of the deceased while immorality (from where either social evils can stem from and easily accelerate) can seriously harm the well being, general stature of the entire social and religious foundation of the society itself. You will also find many Islamic governments that have governed with shariah have not applied stoning, but have implemented execution.
4. The application of other systems, namely democracy, capitalism, federalism, socialism etc along with Shariah. Firstly, the questions arise, did the Prophet (SAW) look at the cultural and political systems of the time or of earlier times? I will leave that to those who have more knowledge than me, as I am not equipped with sufficient Islamic knowledge to answer that question and what I do know, I do not want to mix with what could be false or partially true, so I absolve myself of the possibility of saying something that could be true, misleading or interpreted to be something I did not intend them to be.
Second, in the absence of the Prophet (SAW) doing so or actually doing so, can we the later generations do so alongside Shariah and to what degree? Again, the answer to the questions is it is not for us to decide but for the Scholars and leaders of governments who follow Shariah and them alone. Outside of those two, almost everyone else is excluded from making those decisions; the reasons for doing so are precisely because what I mentioned earlier; the consequences will outweigh the positives and those with insufficient expertise in doing so will make very harmful decisions to Islamic society.
Remember in the age of the Social Media, everyone's opinions can (but mostly not) count as a 'fatwa' and if anyone takes it as being Islamically correct and it isn't you are as accountable as the next person for misleading information. If anyone acts on this information and does so with criminal action, then the person who gave the 'fatwa' is a little accountable for it.
Last, when I mentioned the need for governments to implement Shariah alone as the system of the constitution, I spoke of it as the only method to rule for an Islamic society. In this sense, can there be room for democracy or other isms or other ideologies, I referred to Shariah being accepted as the only source of the constitution, this I still maintain. However, the point of differentiation is how much the other isms can be used as secondary to Shariah and to help as an accessory to accepting Shariah.
5. Local Customs: As you correctly mentioned, the Prophet (SAW) did not ignore local cultures and neither should we. The point of difference is where it is in conflict with Shariah, then religion takes precedence over culture. However, even then 'sensitivities' are permitted to come into play along with context. Where a given people may not be able to accept certain rulings or laws, some re-evaluation or minor adjustments are permitted, again by 'those in authority' and only by them.
6. Application of 100% Shariah as it was at the time of the Prophet. If anyone interpreted this as Shariah being completely rigid, inflexible, unchangeable and fully set in stone in all things, then I am sorry for the inference. This is neither plausible, possible, theoretically tangible nor feasibly attainable. There were literally dozens of modifications immediately after the Prophet's death, hundreds during the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and thousands after them (among the just rulers that is). What is unchangeable are the principles upon Islam is based, the Divine Rulings set in the Qur'an and some of those in Ahadith with a firm grounding of support among the Companions and Classical Mufasireen who had evidence to support their assertions and personal rulings.
I hope this brief analysis is helpful as a less than brilliant response from a novice with no experience or training. I have presented what I know from knowledge from personal research of the Classical Mufasirren, the works of those who have done research on the early history of political Islam and Islamic rulers. As such, I welcome any statements that give a better understanding of Deen and where I am wrong, to better educate the Ummah. Wasallam, Abu Juwairiya.
Precious Star
Junior Member
I think time has shown us that there are no true governments that follow the heart and soul of islam. A government is a body in control. In a democracy, it is the result of a popularity contest called a vote. In a non-democracy, it is the result of an autocrat's zest for power. Hence, Sharia will fail.
We must also be careful that we don't idolize "scholars". These days, that word is used as a catch-all for anyone that has a website. Let the Catholics have their popes and archbishops; muslims need only the Quran and sunnah.
We must also be careful that we don't idolize "scholars". These days, that word is used as a catch-all for anyone that has a website. Let the Catholics have their popes and archbishops; muslims need only the Quran and sunnah.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
I also thought I might add one aspect of law in Saudi Arabia, Shariah is not. That being women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and this being endorsed by the Saudi so-called scholars. First, let it be understood, while I am not a scholar myself and I disagree with the legality and religious attachment to it, I understand its application and continued enforcement in Saudi Arabia alone and not as an international Islamic requisition.
The Saudi 'men of religion' as I prefer to call them instead of true scholars, understand their people as do the Saudi government and due to the strict segregation of the society, its enforcement and implementation of separation between the two genders is what has made the men of the country difficult to control. While the men are physically unable to meet women in most social circles, this has created a hormonal tension and a confused state among them especially with the rigidness of marriage contracts which has made a willingness to overstep the Islamic boundary all the more tempting in doing so.
In this sense, the issue is one of 'protection' and 'preservation' of women from the dangerous predators who may have the opportunity to attack and assault sisters if the latter were given the right to drive and venture out alone without a male mahram. Again, I disagree with this, but it may take a while before Saudi society is ready to accept the possibility that women cannot be locked away for life and that the men need to be re-educated and re-trained in how to view sisters, i.e. with respect and believe they are equal to the men and not as helpless as they are currently seen to be.
The legal sense, that is the ruling/s are based on the premise that women did not drive camels at the time of the Prophet (SAW), and although they did ride on camels, it was always as part of a caravan of travelers and always with several mahrams. This is also not strictly true, but it is used nonetheless as evidence.
The Saudi 'men of religion' as I prefer to call them instead of true scholars, understand their people as do the Saudi government and due to the strict segregation of the society, its enforcement and implementation of separation between the two genders is what has made the men of the country difficult to control. While the men are physically unable to meet women in most social circles, this has created a hormonal tension and a confused state among them especially with the rigidness of marriage contracts which has made a willingness to overstep the Islamic boundary all the more tempting in doing so.
In this sense, the issue is one of 'protection' and 'preservation' of women from the dangerous predators who may have the opportunity to attack and assault sisters if the latter were given the right to drive and venture out alone without a male mahram. Again, I disagree with this, but it may take a while before Saudi society is ready to accept the possibility that women cannot be locked away for life and that the men need to be re-educated and re-trained in how to view sisters, i.e. with respect and believe they are equal to the men and not as helpless as they are currently seen to be.
The legal sense, that is the ruling/s are based on the premise that women did not drive camels at the time of the Prophet (SAW), and although they did ride on camels, it was always as part of a caravan of travelers and always with several mahrams. This is also not strictly true, but it is used nonetheless as evidence.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
Where Shariah is 'officially' in operation, through legislation and implementation such as in Saudi Arabia, there is usually something extra and that is addition, amendment and deletion.
The Prophet (SAW) stipulated that if a State does not accept Shariah in its entirety, then it is as if it has not been accepted at all and that is the way it should be approached; either fully or none at all. The result of partial acceptance is Shirk. Shirk because it is now the worship of the State and not the worship of Allah.
The Prophet (SAW) stipulated that if a State does not accept Shariah in its entirety, then it is as if it has not been accepted at all and that is the way it should be approached; either fully or none at all. The result of partial acceptance is Shirk. Shirk because it is now the worship of the State and not the worship of Allah.
zaman-gm
Junior Member
We won't support, perform or promote anything go beyond Quran and Sunnah. If we talk about our scholars, we have a strong chain of 14th century. They already set a platform for us. We had three Golden age scholars as our Prophet SAW mentioned.
Sharia is essential for Muslims. We can't blame or discourage it due to our failure to apply.
Sharia is essential for Muslims. We can't blame or discourage it due to our failure to apply.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
I agree in part with you. The Qur'an and Sunnah are our foundation, our source of inspiration, law, interpretation, responsibility and development. I also agree that our past failures in understanding and applying Shariah cannot be held to be our benchmark for how we judge Shariah today or tomorrow.
Where I disagree is on when scholars cannot or should not go beyond the 14th century or the Golden Age of scholars. It was a good and blessed period, but it did not have all the answers and cannot be seen as a time when it will have all future answers as well. As I mentioned earlier, the scholars (as long as they are on the true path and correctly follow Shariah) are the people invested with the authority to rule as guides. In addition, as someone has already said, times change, methods change and you have to adjust to the present for specific things.
However, because of our history and long distrust of scholars in general due to one reason or another, we have lost that respect and status for them that Allah gave them and hence it is difficult for us to accept the legitimacy.
At the same time, we do not, should not and cannot worship the scholars. We follow them as long as they follow Shariah and that is where it ends. They are human beings first and human beings last with the same nature, passions, desires, weaknesses and characteristics as any other creation with free will and capable of wrong as much as any non scholar; the difference is their elevation of rank, knowledge, influence and ability to deliver legal verdicts, either as a body of officials or alone (but usually as an assembly both to avoid personal error and corruption).
It is the office of scholarship that I speak of and not individual personages. The wrong, questionable, suspicious and outrageous actions of some so called scholars in one or more generations is not sufficient to abolish the office itself.
The Ahadith speaks of those scholars entrusted with power and authority and the sentences for misuse, ultra viries, corruption, complicitness in criminal endeavors (for supporting evil governments) and how each person or group will be met with the kind of indictment they deserve for engaging in abuse of authority when they meet Allah on the Day of Decision. Once there, each person will be paid in full for their deeds and account for all acts undertaken and words spoken according to their capacities.
Last edited:
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
I will add the same is true about Shariah and its legislation as the constitution of the State. Since the 7th Century, there have been many governments that have exercised the rule of law with the Shariah as the source of the constitution, but have been oppressive and evil. Similarly, if it is true of the past, it is also true of both the present and of the future, but it again does not negate that the choice of law has already been decreed for us by Allah himself and that is Shariah. If we choose to embrace it, it is good for us, if we choose to reject it, it is to our detriment. What we can and should do is what the Companions did; we hear and we obey. It is not for us to disagree. As the Qur'an says, once the Messenger has decreed a matter, it is not open for discussion, it is even more so and true of Shariah. What we can do is work around it as Allah says even if you dislike it, are unsure of it and do not understand it, you must still accept Shariah as it is and not how you want it to be.
Abu Juwairiya
Junior Member
Jazakallah Khayrun Brother for your helpful reminder and supplication for us all and may Allah reward you. I will add however, that the Prophet (SAW) once spoke to the Companions of his 'brothers and sisters' and his love and affection for them. The Companions added 'are we not your brothers and sisters', to this the Prophet replied, 'you are my companions'. I will paraphrase the next part, his brothers and sisters are those who will believe in him, strive for the akhirah and respond to his call even though they have never seen him.
The Classical Scholars add the end times are not far off and it is those Muslims who will take up the cause and hold on to it with their 'molar teeth' (the literal words used) are the ones he meant. The Classical Scholars add that is when it will be a golden age, a goldmine for reward because of the difficulties involved, the struggles ahead and the responsibilities and scars to bear, but a wonderful end if the challenges are met and taken on.
Some people today say from now and until the Day of Decision, these are the end times. We have the ability to participate or wait on the sidelines, that is our choice for both us, our friends and our families, but in the next world if choose to ignore it, we will regret it once we see the handsome fruits of success of those that responded and were accepted because they were not afraid and saw the opportunities we missed out of apprehensiveness and uncertainty.
The Classical Scholars add the end times are not far off and it is those Muslims who will take up the cause and hold on to it with their 'molar teeth' (the literal words used) are the ones he meant. The Classical Scholars add that is when it will be a golden age, a goldmine for reward because of the difficulties involved, the struggles ahead and the responsibilities and scars to bear, but a wonderful end if the challenges are met and taken on.
Some people today say from now and until the Day of Decision, these are the end times. We have the ability to participate or wait on the sidelines, that is our choice for both us, our friends and our families, but in the next world if choose to ignore it, we will regret it once we see the handsome fruits of success of those that responded and were accepted because they were not afraid and saw the opportunities we missed out of apprehensiveness and uncertainty.