Interview with Leader of Hezbollah
- Thread starter Udo Erasmus
- Start date
RHOQ said:
Al Qur'an gives only specific directions on some specific issues. These were probably sufficient for as long as the Prophet himself was alive and able to give his interpretations and/or instructions. With the development of the Islamic Empire came the incorporation of a variety of complex societies. All that needed legal answers for specific, sometimes only local problems. This led to the development of a more complex and structured approach of Islamic Law, which in its turn led to the development of Law schools, jurisdiction and its practices and instruction.
Since the very beginning scholars had to look to Sunna and Hadith to fill the gaps and to add rules where Al Qur'an stays silent. Hence Sunna and Hadith are second and third sources of Islamic Law. How, where, to which extend etc.. depends first of all on the the law school (Ar.madhab). In contemporan settings the law school followed depends on which country you speak of and the influence of shari'a depends of the place it occupies within the nation's law system.
The usefullness of those texts which proved their validity within the context of the historical development, application and interpretation of Islamic Law can't be ignored, which doesn't mean they should be a static attribution. Discussion on the validity of a certain text as source for Islamic law or the practice/instruction thereof also largely depends on which hadith one discusses, in which (local) setting.
If not in context of specifically Islamic Law, I look at the Hadith compilations purely as historian. My first rule on hadith interpretation and -study is that if you encounter a hadith which is in clear opposition with what you find in Al Qur'an, you should consider it as fabricated. Hadith study and interpretation is however a tricky business to engage yourself in, because what you find in opposition with Al Qur'an, possibly isn't for an other scholar. Hence carefullness is always the best teacher. Or like we always say: "Allah knows best"
salaam.
Aldebaran: I do not mean to be overtly antagonistic but how can you claim to be a , what is it a Professor of Islamic Studies and not know this fundamental Sura?
Sura 4:34. Although I am a native Arabic speaker I am sure that anyone reading would use that as a rationale to justify impeaching m claim. Ergo, I'll rely on Professor at the University of London. Professor Abdel Haleem was educated at al Ahzar University as well as Cambridge before gaining the Islamic studies chair at the school of Oriental andf African Studies at the University of London. His translation : Husbands should take full care of their wives with [the bounties] Allah has given to some more than others with hat they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what Allah would have them guard in their husband's absences. If you fear high handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, THEN HIT THEM. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. All this is most HIGH and GREAT.
[Emphasis by me of course]
Concurring sources: Fachri, Pickthall, Dawood, Shakir, Asad, Mandndi, and a contemporary of Abu Bakr; himself, Ibn Ishaq. Buhkari and Muslim ALSO speak on it. Care to revise your flippant post?
On the case of female circumcision, it is easily found in more than one Hadit'
Sura 4:34. Although I am a native Arabic speaker I am sure that anyone reading would use that as a rationale to justify impeaching m claim. Ergo, I'll rely on Professor at the University of London. Professor Abdel Haleem was educated at al Ahzar University as well as Cambridge before gaining the Islamic studies chair at the school of Oriental andf African Studies at the University of London. His translation : Husbands should take full care of their wives with [the bounties] Allah has given to some more than others with hat they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what Allah would have them guard in their husband's absences. If you fear high handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teachings of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, THEN HIT THEM. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. All this is most HIGH and GREAT.
[Emphasis by me of course]
Concurring sources: Fachri, Pickthall, Dawood, Shakir, Asad, Mandndi, and a contemporary of Abu Bakr; himself, Ibn Ishaq. Buhkari and Muslim ALSO speak on it. Care to revise your flippant post?
On the case of female circumcision, it is easily found in more than one Hadit'
rachamim18 said:
I don't lecture but on invitation. Hence I don't call myself "professor". (In fact I'm right now a post-graduate student once again, be it at a different faculty and I hope to have finished it soon.)
See above my comment on exactly that controversial verse (makes me wonder if you read posts before posting) and why I don't agree with such readings.
For as far as my knowledge of English goes, I give you my reading:
"The men are the guardian of affairs for the women, for the reason that God has advantaged (= in quality of physical strenght) the one above the other and because they have spend of their possessions (= on the women in form of dowry etc..). Virtuous women are therefore sober and in the absence of their husband keep intact of their husband what God has prescribed to be thus conserved. (= they respect him in his honour and his possessions). But of those among them you fear disobediance, admonish them, leave them alone in the resting places (= sleep seperately) and separate. If they then obey you do not seek further arguments against them. God is exalted and great."
Probably you confuse with stories telling about the Prophet commenting on this subject. He seems also to have told a woman who asks him about it, that *if* she does it, to "cut just a little bit". That probably made at-tabari comment that *if* it is done, it should be no more then touching the clitoris with the blade, cutting "the tiniest piece possible". Which in my view should be seen as being aware of a still culturally endorsed tradition, attempting to transform it in no more then a non-mutilating ritual, reduced to a tiny little scratch.
There is no support for FGM in Islamic teachings, let alone it would be a command.
salaam.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
'Fundamentalist' as applied to religion, usually means those who seek a return to whatever they perceive to be the fundamental principles of the religion involved.
At various times in recent history, Muslim women have gone outside in western clothing, attended schools and universities. Recently, there has been an upsurge in the burqa. For instance, in recent months in Teheran, the police have been issuing warnings to women travelling outside in non traditional clothing, on orders from the president. We can assume that these women are muslim, and that muslim leaders in that country in the past, have tolerated their western dress. Ahmedinejad is apparently seeking a return to a more fundamental interpretation of societal rules.
Same with adultery. Recently, women have been stoned to death in certain islamic countries on discovery of their infidelity. There appears to have been a number of years in which this practice [the stoning] wasn't taking place. I think it's safe to assume that adultery was committed during those years, but once again, in recent days, the religious authority has become less tolerant.
By any definition, this desire to return muslims back to a more doctrinaire manner of living, qualifies as fundamentalism.
At various times in recent history, Muslim women have gone outside in western clothing, attended schools and universities. Recently, there has been an upsurge in the burqa. For instance, in recent months in Teheran, the police have been issuing warnings to women travelling outside in non traditional clothing, on orders from the president. We can assume that these women are muslim, and that muslim leaders in that country in the past, have tolerated their western dress. Ahmedinejad is apparently seeking a return to a more fundamental interpretation of societal rules.
Same with adultery. Recently, women have been stoned to death in certain islamic countries on discovery of their infidelity. There appears to have been a number of years in which this practice [the stoning] wasn't taking place. I think it's safe to assume that adultery was committed during those years, but once again, in recent days, the religious authority has become less tolerant.
By any definition, this desire to return muslims back to a more doctrinaire manner of living, qualifies as fundamentalism.
Johnny Canuck2 said:
If you're going to use the phrase "religious fundamentalism" I would define it as an endeavour to take as ones inspiration and guide the source text of that religion.
What I was trying to tease out from Aldebaran was that a "fundamentalist" understanding of Islam, by my definition taking the Qu'ran (and not later texts/law) as the source text, could lend itself to appreciation by "Western" observers. I believe thinkers have already explored this territory, but if I were studying it, I would look at the correlation between Islam and traditions of Liberalism- "rights and responsibilities", "justice", "fairness and equal treatment" etc.
On the two examples you give. Actually the punishment for adultery in the Qu'ran is 100 "stripes" (Alderbaran didn't correct me) for both the man and woman involved, and social segregation (adulterers marry among themselves). No mention of singling out the woman. No stoning etc. We might think the punishment is harsh. But it meets the test of fairness in terms of equal treatment.
And as I said earlier, the one injunction in the Qu'ran on women's dress concerns the bearing of breasts in public. Is this unreasonable? Would someone advocating this be regarded as "doctrinaire" in our society? The word "doctrinaire" implies a degree of unreasonability. A rigid adherence to an idea that is not in accordance with commmon sense or notions of "natural law".
One a general point, I think the later traditions (Hadith, Sunnah) developed precisely because the Qu'ran wasn't a "doctrinaire" document. It sets minimum standards, defines boundaries etc, but it appears to have been open to interpretation.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
moono said:
Who is 'them'; the average person living in Cairo or Istanbul, or some small cadre of zealous clerics and politicians?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Interview is fake
It turns out the 'interview' is a fake and a forgery and has been acknowledged as such by the publishers and Hezbollah itself. See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09012006.html
The original link now has a disclaimer at the beginning if you revisit it.
Sorry SWP-folk, time to calm down - Hezbollah are still as bourgeois and reactionary as they always were, even if they did give the Israelis a tough time and their stock has risen.
Udo Erasmus said:
It turns out the 'interview' is a fake and a forgery and has been acknowledged as such by the publishers and Hezbollah itself. See:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09012006.html
The original link now has a disclaimer at the beginning if you revisit it.
Sorry SWP-folk, time to calm down - Hezbollah are still as bourgeois and reactionary as they always were, even if they did give the Israelis a tough time and their stock has risen.
All this talk and the mag that published it even doubts its vercity. Zzzzz....
Similar threads
