Wafa is being controversial - but controversy is good if people actually listen to the arguments on both sides and look for the truth.
Exactly. Controversy is a way to gain attention (which is closely related to populism) but more importantly, to discuss different visions and getting to understand eachothers arguments and learn from them without immediately resorting to weapons and destruction.
Unfortunately, there are some Muslims who do actually share the 'Islam means we need to be ruled by Sharia' and 'we need to fight to establish Muslim rule' philosophy. There are religious nutters in all religions, we have our fair share (and, arguably, an unfair share of media attention paid on these fringe nutters).
Agreed, I also think that the minority of religious nutters (extremist fundamentalist or the modern-day barberian term - Terrorists) is highlighted in the debate, for a good reason though.
The peaceful muslims around the world (close to 1.3 billion) are living their lives on a more moderate manner in my observation. So these religious fanatics are clearly spoiling a religious atmosphere for a majority of world citizens with cruel and barbarian ways of disagreement. Those groups are disruptive for modern day live and use means that have high impact (e.g. public transportation like airplanes) due to its potential of high casualties in one of the savest transportation means available on this planet.
The more awareness about this small group of extremists, the more people tend to reflect on their communities and identify its problems instead of ignoring them. Media can be controversial, but generally does address numerous problems in society and gives the common people an opportunity to reflect on those problems and progress the laws for the better.
Progression, instead of keeping the status quo. (no matter how large or small the (open or closed) community problems are)
However, the question still remains - is Islam, the religion, incompatible with Western Law.
Well, in what way could Islam (the religion) be incompatible? Islam requires a Muslim believe in God, believe Muhamad, pbuh, is His Messenger, pray five times a day, give alms/charity, fast during Ramadhan and perform the pilgrimage to Mecca if he can afford to do so. It says that one should obey the 10 commandments - specifically to not murder, lie, fornicate, commit adultery... etc etc
So, I would submit, on the religious side - there is nothing incompatible with 'Western Law' - which typically enshrines a 'freedom of worship'.
Similarly the social interactions in Islam (for 'ordinary' Muslims - those not in power) - Islam teaches that of the three levels of 'virtue' - the lowest is to be fair to all people (treat them with justice), the next level is to be kind (do more for them then you get in return) and the highest is kinship (treat others like you would treat family - do good for them even if they are ungrateful or would do you harm).
Islam also teaches how Muslims should behave as citizens of any state. God says:
4:59, O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the
Last Day; that is best and more suitable to the end
'Those in authority' can be taken to be those in power. We have concrete examples of this from the time of the Prophet, pbuh - where the Muslims who emigrated to Ethiopia were instructed to be obedient to and be good citizens of that Christian Kingdom. That country was always on good terms with the Muslim empire and was never invaded by the Muslims.
The problem I see with Islam (where religion and law are intertwined) or any other belief system for that matter, is that beliefs and convictions rule undividely into state law. From an atheist perspective (like me) every religion is emotional or subjective. Its a conviction system I do not share, although I could, to some degree, enjoy these charming utopian views.
For example:
If a group of islamic believers live in a society where they follow the Koran (nevermind the many different versions) and where the woman has to be sheltered from the vices of their men, then Western morality sees a conflict of interest in the treatment of freedom as it is locked in the moral (not religious) equalities of Western Law systems.
The problem in the West is that this conflict (religious freedom vs. human rights and equality) is separated in Western lawsystems. So when islamic believers fall back on our laws for freedom of expression, our laws see a conflict of interest in the human rights part.
Next to that, the moral system in the West likes to see a face when we talk to eachother. Also we great by giving one a hand. An increasing amount of islamic believers are using their right for freedom of expression to disregard our moral uses, which are not related to religion in Western society. It only affects social communication and behaviour. Their convictions divide people into groups, where the essence is to culturally motivate people to connect and intertwine for greater cohesion.
So, due to the nature of the Western lawsystem, and the growing influence of islamic viewpoints in Western society, there is a feeling of discomfort with the people that religion shuold be kept at home, for the individual, but not on the workplace and public places. Its the need for separation of church and state as its called in the West as this avoids conflicts.
So lastly we come to the instructions for Muslims who are in power.
Again, Islam gives clear guidelines on how to rule. It advocates consultation with people, but doesn't proscribe democracy (it doesn't actually proscribe any form of government, just stipulates how those in power should behave). Therefore Islam is not incompatible with democracy, monarchy etc.
Sounds pretty totalitarian to me! If we look at history of totalitarian regimes, they always end in suppression, limiting the freedom of people by decree, preferably by religious law.
Poor people don't have much demands, but a population with increasing wealth and prosperity want a say in modern society. So as the people grow stronger, autocratic regimes usually falter or end up in fighting its own people. Just look at Iran nowadays, or the Soviet Union a while ago.
Of course, we shouldn't forget the Orientalist notions that Islam teaches that all non-Muslims should be engaged in warfare, or that Muslims need to conquer and rule etc. These Quaint Beliefs have been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere.
Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. From early examples of Muslims living in peace in Ethiopia to todays Muslims living in 'Western' countries - Islam is clearly compatible with 'Western Laws'. The only way that Islam is made to be incompatible is when we construct a strawman of a militant, bloodthirsty creed that won't accept Kafir rule - a view that rightly belongs in the 18th and prior centuries (and I conced that there are examples of both Muslims - the 'mad mullahs' - and quaint Orientalists who still cherish these views).
Cheers,
Shafique
Well, the orientalist notions do have a resemblence of the warfare policies in the United States, if you ask me. Alot of Christians think they should use their power to influence the world with their utopian view of freedom and prosperity, but this is the same fallacy every other fundamentalist religion entices.
A modern day development that is observable in society of today, is that an increasing number of people are resorting to atheist beliefs due to the influence of advanced science and education in public schools. People are becoming smarter and see that religion is a major aspects in conflicts around the globe, and a drag on economic prosperity because of these unstable regions and governments that rule them.
One day we discover another planet (or galaxies) full of life and then we won't be focussing on ourselves anylonger. It would pose the same problem we have today and requires us to set a lawsystem based on common morals, without religous convictions. We would have the same and other problems to deal with. Probably larger than the ones we have now, in terms of power.
Extraterrestrial communication...how on earth do we do that, if we can't even agree on this little globe we use today... 💡
Thanks for your insight Shafique.
Cheers