BBC Viewpoint: The global voices reclaiming Islam

[muriel_volestrangler]

This is a piece summarising what looks like quite an interesting programme, on in the UK tonight, about directions inside Islam.

The essence of the argument against the Sharia is much more than the fact that its interpretation and application is illiberal and contrary to contemporary ideas of human rights.

The fundamentalist position is that the Koran is the source of all legislation in Islam and therefore the Sharia is an immutable body of sacred law.

It is this concept itself that is now being challenged.

Sharia, it is being widely argued, is not divine but a "jurists' law", that was formulated and socially constructed during the early phase of Islamic history.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/battle_for_islam/4203918.stm

It may be relevant that the countries looked at are not, on the whole the 'centre' of Islam, but those more on the periphery (Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Turkey).

Any comments - especially from any Muslims?

[PsychoDad]

1. The Arab states are the minority.

When one says Islam most westerners think of the arab states such as Saudi Arabia. These countries are in fact the numerical minority within Islam. Indonesia is the most populous muslim country in the world and any real discussion of Islam should center on the majority of Muslims. Looks like the BBC did a fair job of that.

There are two sources for Islamic jurisprudence, the Quran and the Hadeeth (the collected sayings and actions of the Prophet (pbuh). Most of the Sharia Code (and there are five main schools of Sunni Sharia and two Shia, there is no monolithic "Sharia" law. where you live in the world often influences which school a muslim follows more closely, here in the West we Muslims follow a mixture of the various schools) are based predominantly upon the Hadeeth, not solely upon the Quran.

The problem in this is that a judge is free to choose which of the reported sayings/actions of the Prophet (pbuh) they will place predominance in. Now, the Hadeeth were first collected by Al Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) some 100+ years after the prophet's death and consists of accepted "Strong" and "Weak" Hadeeth. Not all Hadeeth carry the same weight, some are considered sound, probably factual, while others are weak, or probably rumors or poorly remembered renditions.

The problem is that there are enough that you can find one (a Hadeeth) to support almost any pet opinion a Judge or Sheikh may have, no matter how contrary to the core teachings of Islam, and this all to often happens, often to the exclusion of stronger Hadeeth to the contrary.

It is more important, IMHO, to follow the spirit of the Quran in matters of Islamic jurisprudence, which was revolutionary for it's time in respects of human and animal rights. The Quran itself states that it is complete, and that anything not prohibited within is allowed.

I think it is innovation not to continue with the revolutionary spirit and concern for the poor and forgotten among humanity that exemplified the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh).

This is a problem for the legalists among the Ulama, or Islamic Scholars, who in their pursuit of legal precedents among the Hadeeth, forget the simplicity and revolutionary attitude of The Quran, Muhammad, and Islam.

Peace

[T_i_B]

2. Well I watched the programme about Mohammed Bakri

but I've already read Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with extremists which deals with Bakri, not to mention the KKK, David Icke, Alex Jones and Ian Paisley. So I'm already familiar with the subject of the programme I watched. And yes, I would highly reccomend Ronson's book.

There is a lot of programmes on UK terrestrial TV at the moment about Islamic extremism though. There was the programme you watched, Muriel, the one I watched, and another on Channel 4 entitled "the man who predicted 9/11", and that was just last night. And there was another one about the causes of Islamic extremism on Channel 4 over the weekend I think.