ILLUSION OF SOLUTIONS

[Maqari]

Comrades,

    I initiate this thread ultimately to deal with certain elements from a thread that is currently undergoing discourse, after they appeared to me deserving thus. (In doing so however, I insist to make clear that my views on the matter are absolutely secular). I shall beg your permission to proceed, without further ado.

Due to both the sensitivity and multiplicity of my subjects, I will try to categorize and process each within its own context. Although very so often they tend to complect

1- Illusions of Religious Solutions (Conservatism or Atavism?)


The Human has as one of those features that set him apart from other ?known? species: perceptibly, the tendency to try living in perfect harmony with his Past, Future, and Present.
In contrast what we often have is: Repression, incoherent justification, and total or partial reconstruction of the Past. ?Hey! The past was simply perfect! The laws set and unyielding, end of discussion!? A though pattern that nearly abolishes the concept of ?original thought? and directly leads one to: implementing and accepting incircumstantial laws and social structure in the ?Present?. Which many at times run adjacent to inconsequential decisions concerning the ?Future?.

There is of course in many of us: the illusion of comfort and purpose in the inclination to revive or maintain those existing or traditional orders of the past. Thus certain ?intellectuals? find it suitable to adopt and advocate a political philosophy emphasizing allegiance to traditional and religious institutions, or rather using them as a moral legate. As a whole this thought pattern is commonly called ?conservatism?.

(A)- As it?s true of the majority of us ?the masses? to be: intellectually lazy, narrow minded, and emotionally immature. We prefer to stay as we are, or go back to what we ware, under pretence of self righteousness. When in reality we find it hard to admit that change and uncertainties scare us. We avoid intellectual intricacies in our minds and decisions and succumb to (and even help re-implement) those ?perfect past orders? that we think advantageous to us showing great disregard to others. And we do all this while extending an accusing finger towards them. ?We are right, they are wrong. Point blank!?

To align society and human thought in a right-wrong scale is simplistic. It prevents us from digging into matters analytically. It oppresses and impoverishes thought? because one is forced to remain within boundaries of a crudely simplified blue print. to behave, think, and conduct ourselves all in accordance with this simplified version of life and look at it from one lone perspective: ?what if this plan fails? =It will not. It?s divine and has work. What if others think different? =No chance. Everybody has to accept it. No one is allowed to think different???..? And perhaps the crudest way to arrive at such junctions is through: ?Atavism?.

(B)- I find it almost ironic that while biologically atavism occurs mainly by the chance recombination of genes, it?s socially brought about by a semi-conscientious effort.

The widespread tendency to defensively retreat and seek refuge in one?s past whenever social unrest, disorder, and injustice plague the present is characteristic of many societies, the Neo Nazis want to return to the 1930s, the Islamist to ?Shari?a?, (George W Bush to the crusades), The Pan-Africans as our comrade Usman11 puts it want to: ? go back to beliefs and laws of our ancestors?.
A noteworthy point is: in order for the Conservative/atavist ideology to achieve any popularity the current social structure has to be immensely intolerable. Instead of genes situations have to coincide, i.e. economical, social, and educational instability all supplement the Conservative/atavist with a decisive amount of moral ground. The masses have to feel cheated, lost, and deprived of the most basic of rights. And when they turn towards the so called intellectuals and spiritual leaders for guidance, they (the intellectuals) find it conveniently easy to convince an oppressed public that: a return to the past is the only solution. Too proud to admit that they are Bankrupt of ideas or too lazy to pursue them they advocate revival of a previous orders however decrepit and outdated.


2- Flawless for the Lawless (Quixotic Logic)


(A)- It would be alarmingly simplistic and dismissive for me to draw such conclusions that: those who advocate the implementation of past doctrines do so without any reasoning. On the contrary there is an immense logic at work behind their convictions. Religion has provided the human race with answers to many ills and injustice in the course of history, and helped maintain orders in ways that social science hasn?t. It?s in this so far correct as no society may be maintained unless there be certain order or structure ascribed to it. Its questionable however is when it claims that one sole and binding eternal and ?flawless? order is possible for societies at all times and in all circumstances, and variation.

This notion of a flawless system, although sometimes based on valid deductions from acceptable premises is simplistic. It?s many times presented as if all mankind have common goals and interests whom the legislators of such systems pretend to serve to the best of their ability. The irony of such claims is that: it is uncompromisingly founded on the belief of its superiority and do not tolerate negation. Hence when met by one it either tries to isolate or eliminate it. When a Muslim denounces Islam he/she is given 3 days to repent after which execution is to follow if he/she does not comply.* Kitabu-l-Kaba?ir. You openly fight against ?The Patriot act? and might find yourself rubbing shoulders with the current residents of Guantanamo Bay. Threaten the United States version of Democracy and a few thousand women and children get slaughtered overseas in the interest of national security. Defy Lenin and meet a tragic end somewhere in the subterranean world of the ?Gulags?. ???.And so on

(B)- We now have an idea so oversimplified that it consumed itself in the process. Distracted by the need to maintain its ?flawlessness?, it renders itself insusceptible of rational treatment. Its thus arise ideas like Criminalization of a Sin. When the implementer does no longer desires to be burdened with reason but still needs to be obeyed. Hence any thought that contrasts those ?flawless systems? posed a threat to them. Then there springs into effect the concept of punishments that: are grossly non proportional to their offences. Because those who advocate them are of the militant opinion that: sins and crimes command more fearing than they do understanding. It?s the triumph of the quixotic over logic.

Peace.One
Al-Maqri III

[_Waziri_]

Intersting analysis Usman even though I see it to be only a thought, a reflection over the state of affairs without any effort to proffer solutions which are more likely to be found in belief in the power of something not practical reason.

I still do have some few questions to ask you concerning your usage of labels that appear too general and uncompromising:

You said here:

Thus certain "intellectuals" find it suitable to adopt and advocate a political philosophy emphasizing allegiance to traditional and religious institutions, or rather using them as a moral legate. As a whole this thought pattern is commonly called "conservatism".

Why Conservatism? Who gave them this label? Afterall can we have a single identity of a people who emphasize allegience to traditional and religious institutions considering the fact that humanbeings at individual level always tend to have differences in perception. Can we really have a group of conservatives?

We avoid intellectual intricacies in our minds and decisions and succumb to (and even help re-implement) those "perfect past orders" that we think advantageous to us showing great disregard to others. And we do all this while extending an accusing finger towards them. "We are right, they are wrong. Point blank!

For me I always think that there cannot be a situation that I will always be right and they will always be right. But I rather they do their own and allow us do our own. This is one fact that is absolute even with Islam. It believes that others can exist in or even within it. What gives me problem is the modern American crusade that tends to believe that you are either with us or against us. This contradicts human nature.

Too proud to admit that they are Bankrupt of ideas or too lazy to pursue them they advocate revival of a previous orders however decrepit and outdated.

This too also appear to be too general and simplistic. It leaves the reader to ask the unavoidable questions that will illustrates this point and when we do that we will see some "conservatives" agreeing with it and some "progressives" disagreeing with it. This will make me think that no idea is conservative or progresive but time and circumstances will always dictate to us what to choose.

Its questionable however is when it claims that one sole and binding eternal and "flawless" order is possible for societies at all times and in all circumstances, and variation.

I quite agree with you that no eternal and flawless people around to implement that  flawless order. They will always affect the flow of the flawless order with their own flaws. In other words while the order maybe flawless the people implementing it are not and as such they will always soil it.

When a Muslim denounces Islam he/she is given 3 days to repent after which execution is to follow if he/she does not comply.* Kitabu-l-Kaba'ir.

But then, Usman you fail to remember  that this truth is relative to condition and circumstance even according to the advocates of it.

Then there springs into effect the concept of punishments that: are grossly non proportional to their offences. Because those who advocate them are of the militant opinion that: sins and crimes command more fearing than they do understanding. It's the triumph of the quixotic over logic.

Usman I find this conclusion to be oversimplistic in itself. When you say some punishment are non proportional to their offences, you will  compel us to employ a scale. We will also need a reference and an illustration like they do in the court of law when lawyers ask for a specific punishment to be meted on an accused. And when you give such reference and illustration we will then come up and debate it. Where we agree that the punishments are truly non-proportional we withdraw them where we do not agree we conclude that every body should go ahead and do his own according to the dictates of his conscience. This is what we call freedom, espicially when we merge it with rights and liberties. In Islam we say: Let there be no compulsion in religion....

[usman11]

Wazirii, lol....I hope you are not suffering from amnesia or usman syndrome. Do you not see that the article was posted by magari? Abi, you have me in mind? Please O! Discuss issue and quite chasing after arguments...

[Maqari]

Usman11. LOL Waziri is not talking to you, he is is talking to me (Maqari) its just that him and I happen to be on first name basis, and You and I happen to  be namesakes LOL
peace ONE

[Maqari]

Waziri

I appreciate that you have taken time to read and respond to my thoughts. There  is however two fundamental points I made  vitally clear in my introduction. which you appear to have overlooked in your reply:

1-   my sentiments here being a ?transition? from another ongoing thread, (and the two are some what interconnected) in response to certain questions that ware raised during the course of the prior discourse. Not to ?proffer solutions?
   
2-   and the more significant point that : I clearly addressed the issue of ?the sensitivity and      multiplicity of my subjects? and the need to ?categorize? not ?simplify? them. The principle is fair enough providing you will agree that:  to handle any multiplicity be it subjective or objective, one needs definitions, arrangements, series, and groupings.

You said:

?Why Conservatism? Who gave them this label? Afterall can we have a single identity of a people who emphasize allegiance to traditional and religious institutions considering the fact that humanbeings at individual level always tend to have differences in perception. Can we really have a group of conservatives?


My aim was not to define ?conservatism? but rather prove that: a certain ?thought pattern? (e.g. the shari?a) qualifies as such.

And although I?m aware that it may be a deviation from what I ultimately intended to address I will answer your questions. Even if merely for the sport.

Why Conservatism? ? Because this line of thinking openly declares its desire to maintain, restore, or ?conserve? the traditional norm, that ?traditional norm? being: the type of moral order, rules, or laws that existed in previous periods. it  holds the wisdom of the past as its most valuable asset, and opposes any reform that is above ?moderate?. This by definition is ?conservatism?.

There of course exist many examples that serve to supplement the argument. To name a few:

The European Conservatism of the 19th Cent. Amplified by the political and social changes that derived from the period of the French Revolution,  outlined and formulated by the likes of Edmund Burke and Joseph De Maistre, with emphasis on preserving the power of kings and aristocracy,  and maintaining the political influence of landholders.

We also have as example the: Wahabi Movement of 18th Cent., advocating a return to stricter religious periods in the Arabian Peninsula.

Another one that also comes to mind is: the not so agrarian and anti welfare politics of Ronald Reagan.

Or (this is my favorite) the crusader worldview of  the Bush regime in the United States
After which Dr. Marvin Olasky a professor of journalism at Texas University In Austin named his book ?Compassionate Conservatism? (a term I noticed the White House Journal was careful to use several times in their current articles).

Waziri, Conservatism includes many Variations, Economic, Moderate, Moral, Extreme, each with its fragments and manifolds. It will be daunting and totally besides the point to try and discuss them all. My goal was to investigate the nature of ?Religious Solutions? and distinguish and whether we arrived at it through desperation and lack of better solution or a reactionary need for the past (which I called ?Atavism?)

Who gave them this label? ? No one needed to. They do it all by themselves when they attempt or succeed at installing a state where citizens are subject to state authority primarily in the area of social behavior aspects of their lives and Legislate to conserve traditional orders.

can we have a single identity of a people who emphasize allegiance to traditional and religious institutions? ?NO. Can we define that ?thought pattern?? YES.

Now if you will, please allow me a few questions of my own.
You asserted:

?For me I always think that there cannot be a situation that I will always be right and they will always be right. But I rather they do their own and allow us do our own. This is one fact that is absolute even with Islam. It believes that others can exist in or even within it. What gives me problem is the modern American crusade that tends to believe that you are either with us or against us. This contradicts human nature.?

In saying: ?I rather they do their own? do you imply that you will tolerate behaviors that are considered un-Islamic even from a fellow Muslim?


?This is one fact that is absolute even with Islam. It believes that others (I take ?others? to be: those of deferent opinions) can exist in or even within it.? ? Does existing in or within it entail the right to challenge its principals and refusal to submit to those of its laws they consider in-circumstantial and unproductive to society?

you also remarked:

?This too also appear to be too general and simplistic. It leaves the reader to ask the unavoidable questions that will illustrates this point and when we do that we will see some "conservatives" agreeing with it and some "progressives" disagreeing with it. This will make me think that no idea is conservative or progressive but time and circumstances will always dictate to us what to choose?

This leaves me puzzled as to what you are trying to counter. Is it  my assertion that: Conservatism often arises from lack of options, pride, and fear of progress ? Or that: the concept of conservative and progressive is totally nonexistent? Please elaborate.

And finally, by ?proportional? I mean: circumstantial to the needs and surroundings of society and consequential to its progress. Sentences based on justice not founding principles and balanced opinions about enforcing the moral order (religious conformance, family values, lesser freedom of expression???).
Individuals do not provide ?scales? or sketch ?illustrations? of legal systems, constitutions do. And when the constitutions fail or are besieged by corruption they shall be carefully reviewed and reformed, Instead of insisting on a past doctrine that a certain group held to be ?flawless?.
This is what I call freedom.

Peace, One.
Al-Maqri III

[_Waziri_]

My aim was not to define "conservatism" but rather prove that: a certain "thought pattern" (e.g. the shari'a) qualifies as such.

Actually Usman, this is where the problem lies most. Why should the Shari'a be seen to qualify as conservatism? I personally think this is entirely reduced to perception. If you can still remember, Sayed Qutb maintained the opinion that our present socio-political structure reflects the practice of antiquity, that is to say, it is the conservatism as opposed to Shari'a which is the progressivism. I think these things are only matters of perception rather than generalisations.

Why conservatism? – Because this line of thinking openly declares its desire to maintain, restore, or 'conserve' the traditional norm, that "traditional norm" being: the type of moral order, rules, or laws that existed in previous periods. it  holds the wisdom of the past as its most valuable asset, and opposes any reform that is above 'moderate'. This by definition is "conservatism".

If this is the case then there is nothing that is not conservatism on this earth since all the norms, especially social norms, we have today are known to have been practiced and adhered to by political units centuries back. Example is accomodation of sodomites into the societal structures that is being done in the US of today. This ofcourse is what was accepted in Hausa cultures centuries back. We had "Yan Daudu", they belong to a group recognised by the community then.

There of course exist many examples that serve to supplement the argument. To name a few:

The European Conservatism of the 19th Cent. Amplified by the political and social changes that derived from the period of the French Revolution,  outlined and formulated by the likes of Edmund Burke and Joseph De Maistre, with emphasis on preserving the power of kings and aristocracy,  and maintaining the political influence of landholders.

We also have as example the: Wahabi Movement of 18th Cent., advocating a return to stricter religious periods in the Arabian Peninsula.

Another one that also comes to mind is: the not so agrarian and anti welfare politics of Ronald Reagan.

Or (this is my favorite) the crusader worldview of  the Bush regime in the United States
After which Dr. Marvin Olasky a professor of journalism at Texas University In Austin named his book "Compassionate Conservatism" (a term I noticed the White House Journal was careful to use several times in their current articles).

Usman actually these are all examples of "conservatism". But what is the example of not-so-conservative practice? On deeper reflection you will find that there is non to this effect. At least in human socio-politico-economic realms.

Waziri, Conservatism includes many Variations, Economic, Moderate, Moral, Extreme, each with its fragments and manifolds. It will be daunting and totally besides the point to try and discuss them all. My goal was to investigate the nature of "Religious Solutions" and distinguish and whether we arrived at it through desperation and lack of better solution or a reactionary need for the past (which I called "Atavism")

And this is where I always think the problem lies. Because we can hardly obtain any solution that is not reflective of the past. It is like any thing we can think of will mean something thought of in the past. Like Firdausi would say: Everything that I shall say has been told, all have waklke through the garden of knowledge[/u]  

can we have a single identity of a people who emphasize allegiance to traditional and religious institutions? –NO. Can we define that "thought pattern"? YES.

I think I got the argument here. You mean it is not practical but in theory we can see thought pattern along that line. This I also agree but my major problem stems from the truth that whenever we attempt to define a particular thought pattern as conservative we fail to present and define another thought pattern that is antithetical to it. It is like without opposite.

Now if you will, please allow me a few questions of my own.
You asserted:

"For me I always think that there cannot be a situation that I will always be right and they will always be right. But I rather they do their own and allow us do our own. This is one fact that is absolute even with Islam. It believes that others can exist in or even within it. What gives me problem is the modern American crusade that tends to believe that you are either with us or against us. This contradicts human nature."

In saying: "I rather they do their own" do you imply that you will tolerate behaviors that are considered un-Islamic even from a fellow Muslim?

Yes actually I will tolerate behaviours that are considered un-Islamic even from a fellow Muslim depending on condition and circumstances. But you know that there is always the gods and the servants in every set-up. When I am the god I will act like him when I am the servant I will operate within the limit of a servant in every set-up I find myself.

"This is one fact that is absolute even with Islam. It believes that others (I take "others" to be: those of deferent opinions) can exist in or even within it." – Does existing in or within it entail the right to challenge its principals and refusal to submit to those of its laws they consider in-circumstantial and unproductive to society?

This is just the reality of it. There is a political Islam which is different from theological Islam. Muslims as political unit or group often disagree on fundamental issues regarding laws,  social and political arrangements but respect for the majority decision is desired and those that will refuse to respect that are ousted out of the group or if they are many treaties are signed so that they  can remain different within or without the major group.  They are not persecuted. Treaties are signed even with non-Muslims who choose to reside in Muslim communities. In Spanish Islam, the Calipha had a Jew as his secretary. A jewish secretary to an Islamic empire.

you also remarked:

"This too also appear to be too general and simplistic. It leaves the reader to ask the unavoidable questions that will illustrates this point and when we do that we will see some "conservatives" agreeing with it and some "progressives" disagreeing with it. This will make me think that no idea is conservative or progressive but time and circumstances will always dictate to us what to choose"

This leaves me puzzled as to what you are trying to counter. Is it  I disagree that: Conservatism often arises from lack of options, pride, and fear of progress ? Or that: the concept of conservative and progressive is totally nonexistent? Please elaborate.

Yes, actually it is the concept I tend to believe is completely non-existent.

And finally, by "proportional" I mean: circumstantial to the needs and surroundings of society and consequential to its progress. Sentences based on justice not founding principles and balanced opinions about enforcing the moral order (religious conformance, family values, lesser freedom of expression.........).
Individuals do not provide "scales" or sketch "illustrations" of legal systems, constitutions do. And when the constitutions fail or are besieged by corruption they shall be carefully reviewed and reformed, Instead of insisting on a past doctrine that a certain group held to be "flawless".
This is what I call freedom.

The problem is the understanding of that "circumstantial" or "needs of surroundings of society". In Islam as you know individuals do not provide the scales. It is the constitution, the Qur'an. There is also a concept of Dharurah and Maslaha in Usul. Umar, the second Caliph had lifted the punishment of amputation cos of the famine that ravaged many houses at one particular season. The Qur'an as a constitution aproaches issues with pragmatism. It is a perfect model.

[Maqari]

Waziri. (did you get my mail?)

I can always depend on you to get academic and steer the debate towards your preferred destination. Again your arguments remarked on some very interesting points but unfortunately your conclusion directly contradicted them. This in the tradition of dialogues is: a logical fallacy. Allow me????.;

You said;
?If this is the case then there is nothing that is not conservatism on this earth since all the norms, especially social norms, we have today are known to have been practiced and adhered to by political units centuries back.?

Which leads to;
?And this is where I always think the problem lies. Because we can hardly obtain any solution that is not reflective of the past. It is like any thing we can think of will mean something thought of in the past. Like Firdausi would say: Everything that I shall say has been told, all have walked through the garden of knowledge?

And then
?Usman actually these are all examples of "conservatism". But what is the example of not-so-conservative practice? On deeper reflection you will find that there is non to this effect. At least in human socio-politico-economic realms?

Then you said;
my major problem stems from the truth that whenever we attempt to define a particular thought pattern as conservative we fail to present and define another thought pattern that is antithetical to it. It is like without opposite.

And to drive the point home you added;
 ?Yes, actually it is the concept I tend to believe is completely non-existent.?

It seems like you enjoy getting technical (for some reason I still dont quite understand, but hey.......) So let us assume that we can deduct from the above sentiments the following;

     A) Everything is ?conservatism? because everything has at some point been practiced.

B)   No New solutions can be hacked or termed progressive because all human thinking is just merely a reflection on things that ware thought of in the past. Or as Imam Al-Firdaus puts it? all have walked through the garden of knowledge?.
C)   Since everything has been known and practiced in the past. Everything can be regarded as ?conservatism?. And nothing can serve to exemplify ?progressivism?
D)   Thus conservatism in reality is a word without an antonym
E)   Therefore ?conservatism? does not exist.

In what appears to be a two level Disjunctive Syllogism, you attempted to have us convinced that conservatism is merely just a figment of our imagination.
You simply told us that all Z equals X. then claimed X is nonexistent without Z; then you told us that Z is nonexistent; thus we have to infer that X cannot possibly exist. The error lays in your conclusion that X is naught because Z is. This inference is clearly incorrect because both its premises are negative. and you cant concretely define anything by its antonym or even synonym

Here is a widespread example of this particular type of fallacy;
A)   light is non-existent because dark is the opposite of light
B)   we can see when is light; but we can never see dark because its too dark to see
C)   thus light is non-existent since we cant possibly perceive its opposite.

Or to say that if something is the opposite of nothing; and nothing is the lack or absence of anything; nothing is improvable. Then ?something? is nonexistent. In short anything of which can be found no tangible opposite is nothing.!,

But your premises established; neither the non-existence of conservatism nor totally refutes the existence of progressivism, rather assumes that no thought can be new. (Which you cannot logically prove or disprove)

The contradiction is; you have two independent premises and a single conclusion, even if your conclusion is correct your premises did not establish that bro. Plus the evidence you provided for the propositions are in as much need of proof as the proposition itself. because It ?may? be true that all solutions are thought of in the past but this does not exclude the possibility of progress. Besides ?progress? does in no way imply; the invention of a new thought that is entirely independent of all precedent thoughts (this is logically impossible, to do that one must first abandon the concept of time space and matter), rather a gradual growth or development founded on ?precedent? Ideas with regard to the needs of the current situation,  To advance toward a higher or better stage, to improve steadily.

If I was to provide a definition for what is considered progressive (by the collective opinion of a group or personal perception) , you will then tell me that this Idea in itself is not new because something similar has occurred to a certain someone in the past. A line of thought that is likely to cast us in the void of an infinite ?diallelus? a Regress argument, a Problem of Criterion, where all propositions require a justification (not proof) and all justifications require support. This is the most fruitless form of dialogues in human history.

So for the sake of the argument I will restructure my statement concerning the Shari?a. And replace conservatism with say; ?Foundationalism? (and that is saying the least.)

I will even go an extra step and agree that; in all discourse there need be some set of epistemologically basic propositions or else the process of justification will always lead to an infinite regress. Although I must maintain that ? reason is the source and criterion of knowledge.?

Are we clear? Then we can finally discuss the issue of a ?flawless system? (my initial concern)

Allow me a look at your concluding statement;
?The Qur'an as a constitution aproaches issues with pragmatism. It is a perfect model.?


Take for instance a ?perfect model? or a ?flawless system? then match it with your earlier statement:
?In other words while the order maybe flawless the people implementing it are not and as such they will always soil it? . then apply to this a syllogistic method e.g.;

a)   Systems are applied by people, and only people
b)   Systems can be flawless
c)   People cannot
           =Systems can not be ?flawlessly? applied by people.

Waziri this is just an affirmative conclusion derived from a self contradictory premise, its however a type of error considered permissible in philosophy on grounds of induction, and sometimes even inevitable.

My frustratrtion is over your conclusion, its an error that is not in any shape permissible (at least to me) I dont know how you can explain to me this: ?Petitio Principii?. this act of ?Begging the question?, to say that Shari'a is "the perfect model" pereod. is a circular argument where the premise depends on the truth of the subject in question. Where the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition used itself to prove itself, this is not so reasonably persuasive, and requires truck loads of rhetorical skill to appear convincing. And that is the only way one can prove the existence of a ?flawless system?. Here is an example of such an attempt:

a)   Suppose the Shari?a is a ?perfect model? when applied correctly
b)   Shari?a shall be applied correctly
c)   Shari?a is a perfect model.

Of course your arguments are both philosophically and logically valid. In respect that; the conclusion was directly derived from the premise. But then that is not so impressive a task when the conclusion and the premise are one and the same. The above Shari?a advocate does nothing to convince us of the ?flawlessness? of Shari?a. He/she merely just begged of us to ?assume? that the Shari?a is flawless. after which he/she needed no argument at all.

Peace One
Maqari III

[Maqari]

I was going to let this slide. but on a second thought...............


Waziri you remerked that;

"If this is the case then there is nothing that is not conservatism on this earth since all the norms, especially social norms, we have today are known to have been practiced and adhered to by political units centuries back. Example is accomodation of sodomites into the societal structures that is being done in the US of today. This ofcourse is what was accepted in Hausa cultures centuries back. We had "Yan Daudu", they belong to a group recognised by the community then."

By sodomites you mean homosexuals right? this example is also far fetched because Homosexuality has been accomodated into social structures for as long as man can trace back his/her history. at various places in diversed cultures "yan daudu" are just one tiny part of this oddesey. neither is the concept intirely new to "the US of today", the only new thing is concerning marital status and PACTs.

We all know how the greeks of the entiquity got down. Im sure you heard of those insane orgies at King Croesus
also a carefull study of the customs and social structures of the "Native Americans" would reveal to you that homosexuas ware not merely just "recognized" amongst their ancestors, but were even venerated as being spiritually gifted.
The daily activities in the streets of Basra some 1000 years ago, (although under govenorship of an Islamic administration) bear much resemblence to that of West fourth St. in the east village today ( for those not so familiar with NY. east village is a lower Manhattan district where the rainbow flags hang high and proud :P ).  the examples can literary run pages.


while Im at it perhaps I should also answear our brother Myadudu (waziri never did post the thread that was to supposedly deal with me Bro.) Myadudu said;

"I had tried to show Maqari that adultery and sodomy are indeed crimes against humanity and their punishment is death because, as we are told in Islamiyya, they were all killed."

Amin, of course I recall those "Islamiyya" days. they leave much to be remembered. And of course I was also taught all sorts of "gay bashing" and that gays should be taken atop the highest mountains and be thrown down alive!. what I dont remember is; getting any reason to justify the dare devil operation. so I asked myself WHY? and kept on asking.........Im yet to get an answer.

Guys, we all have our perceptions and ways of life. and although I can never picture myself taking part of any homosexual activities, I care less what gender my next door neighbour prefers to take to his/her bed. let alone advocate ending his/her life on basis of sexual orientation.

Besides if all homosexuals ware murdered do you know how much genius would have been wasted?  8) Carravagio, Michel Angelo. but then those guys must have been lucky. cus the catholic church was already burning witches and condaming gays when the latter was painting the sistine chapel on the Vatican payroll. or let me give you another example one from the Islamic camp; Al hassan ibn Haniy. He was blatantly gay yet the caliph Harun al Rashid allowed him priviliges that not even some of his top advisers enjoyed. but then again without people like Al-hassan the Arabic literature would probably be a joke today. maybe only the under previliged gets punished.

On the light tip though, myadudu ATL must be one hell of a place to live when one is "homophobic".

Peace ONE
Maqari III

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Very impressive contribution from Maqari.
Any system of laws are only as good as the persons interpreting them.
My observation leads me to conclude that there is lot of evidence of Sharia law being interpreted by bullies to as it seems in many places only to be enforced against the poor.

[Yoruba Land]

Any system of laws are only as good as the persons interpreting them.
My observation leads me to conclude that there is lot of evidence of Sharia law being interpreted by bullies to as it seems in many places only to be enforced against the poor.

Hi Dave, me thinks this is a point made across by all the contributors. The law is flawless but its implementors are not. Also this is not peculier with the Shari'a but all systems In UK, US or Nigeria.