‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan’

[muse]

Thats why the litmus test for a hadith is :

(a) Does it contradict the Koran ?

(b) Does it conform to human reasoning ?

(c) Is it conflict to other Sahih Hadith which are in turn established through the (a) & (b) ?

Amongst other procedures !

So the science behind it is kinda sound !

What is the relationship between Shariah and Hadith? any relationship at all??

 

[Armstrong]

What is the relationship between Shariah and Hadith? any relationship at all??

As far as I know Shariah is Islamic Jurisprudence plus Standards of Propriety & some personal dos & don'ts so I reckon most of it uses Hadith as a secondary source to gather most of the material from !

 

[muse]

So Human Reasoning is a secondary source - the primary source is something Divine?? If yes, why is a secondary source required at all?? It's almost like saying that one needs a secondary source to validate a Divine source? Aay qui Hovay?

 

[KingMamba]

So Human Reasoning is a secondary source - the primary source is something Divine?? If yes, why is a secondary source required at all?? It's almost like saying that one needs a secondary source to validate a Divine source? Aay qui Hovay?

Sir jii tuusi samjhe naii. It is as if a Hadith comes out that someone says that Prophet Muhammad PBUH said Muslims can fly and have wings. That hadith would not contradict the quran at all because the quran does not mention flying lol but would be absurd through human reasoning.

 

[Armstrong]

So Human Reasoning is a secondary source - the primary source is something Divine?? If yes, why is a secondary source required at all?? It's almost like saying that one needs a secondary source to validate a Divine source? Aay qui Hovay?

You asked what was the relationship between Shariah & Hadith not Shariah & Human Reasoning & I responded accordingly for the former by dubbing 'Hadith' as a Secondary source.

 

[KingMamba]

As far as I know Shariah is Islamic Jurisprudence plus Standards of Propriety & some personal dos & don'ts so I reckon most of it uses Hadith as a secondary source to gather most of the material from !

Sharia law is like a political system for Muslim nations while Hadith is just a guide for how a Muslim should act based on the actions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH and his sayings. So a country with sharia law would implements aspects of hadiths as moral code as long as they do not contradict the holy quran. Yaar your thoughts??

 

[Sugarcane]

Thats why the litmus test for a hadith is :

(a) Does it contradict the Koran ?

(b) Does it conform to human reasoning ?

(c) Is it conflict to other Sahih Hadith which are in turn established through the (a) & (b) ?

Amongst other procedures !

So the science behind it is kinda sound !

Good - Give me human reasoning how you will justify that You cut the hands of thief (Who most probably did it because he/she was poor and can't afford) but you will let go a murder after getting blood money?

 

[Armstrong]

Sharia law is like a political system for Muslim nations while Hadith is just a guide for how a Muslim should act based on the actions of Prophet Muhammad PBUH and his sayings. So a country with sharia law would implements aspects of hadiths as moral code as long as they do not contradict the holy quran. Yaar your thoughts??

As far as I know the Hadiths are the sayings & the doings of the Prophet (PBUH); which means they'd be everything from a moral code to legal rulings to frameworks for different societal paradigms etc.

The Shariah, as far as I know, is Islamic Law, Societal Standards of Propriety, Moral Codes & different communal paradigms all rolled into one blanket term !

 

[muse]

Easy - all is good - Thank you for your input - though I do want you to help me understand the point raised better -- Human reasoning, Divine, secondary source - there is much confusion and we need to better understand - for instance, some argue that notions of concepts such as "justice" exist only through "Divine" sources (scriptural texts) and others argue that concepts such as Justice exist outside the Divine sources and that this must be so, in order for us to even be conscious of such concept --

All these Logi - plural for logy (science) so, are there sciences beyond the religious science?? and if yes, then the use of the term La deen to signify "Secular" , is certainly problematic, is it not?

 

[Armstrong]

Easy - all is good - Thank you for your input - though I do want you to help me understand the point raised better -- Human reasoning, Divine, secondary source - there is much confusion and we need to better understand - for instance, some argue that notions of concepts such as "justice" exist only through "Divine" sources (scriptural texts) and others argue that concepts such as Justice exist outside the Divine sources and that this must be so, in order for us to even be conscious of such concept --

All these Logi - plural for logy (science) so, are there sciences beyond the religious science?? and if yes, then the use of the term La deen to signify "Secular" , is certainly problematic, is it not?

Help me first by laying a few things bare for me to begin with :

(a) Define Reason !

(b) Consequently define - Reasonable & at that Unreasonable !

(c) Similarly define - Right & Wrong, Good or Bad !

And then we'd begin from there.

Good - Give me human reasoning how you will justify that You cut the hands of thief (Who most probably did it because he/she was poor and can't afford) but you will let go a murder after getting blood money?

My question to you is the same as what I asked Muse ! After that I'd answer your question or you might end up answering it for yourself.

 

[KingMamba]

Good - Give me human reasoning how you will justify that You cut the hands of thief (Who most probably did it because he/she was poor and can't afford) but you will let go a murder after getting blood money?

In sharia you would not be able to cut off the hands of a theif who stole because he was poor. Instead the blame would be on the state for not making adequate situation so the man would not have stole in the first place. Reimbursement to the one who was stolen from would also come from the state. That is why zakat is a fundamental pillar of Islam because trying to eliminate poverty is a must for Muslims. In real sharia system all the Pakistani politicians would have their hands cut off because they already had money but continued to loot the awam.

As for blood money that is a decision for the deceased family to make. The murderer does not have a say in that decision if they want him to pay by death he will be executed but if they forgive him and instead ask for blood money he is liable to deliver. Blood money must be payed even if the murderer is forgiven because there has to be some compensation. Take the example of Caliph Umar abdul aziz (RA) he was murdered but forgave the murderer yet blood money had to be given which was then put into the treasury.

 

[muse]

You tax my limited ability - but my best understanding of "Reason" is a human faculty - as for the rest, perhaps we can approach them as we proceed? Please?

So are there sciences beyond religious sciences?? If yes, does it mean that there may be a variety of knowledge?

 

[KingMamba]

@muse I suggest you read Plato's Republic. That book goes in depth about the concept of justice and presents many arguments to what justice really is. Perhaps after formulating your own opinion as to what justice is you will come to the conclusion whether justice is really based on religion or if there is something in human nature that determines what we believe is just.

Help me first by laying a few things bare for me to begin with :

(a) Define Reason !

(b) Consequently define - Reasonable & at that Unreasonable !

(c) Similarly define - Right & Wrong, Good or Bad !

And then we'd begin from there.



My question to you is the same as what I asked Muse ! After that I'd answer your question or you might end up answering it for yourself.

Your question towards the both of them is quite frankly unfair and would more likely cause the discussion to reach a deadlock. What if their definitions of reason, good, bad, and unreasonable is not the same as your own??

 

[muse]

Thank you Mamba

Mamba, Are there sciences beyond religious sciences?

 

[Armstrong]

You tax my limited ability - but my best understanding of "Reason" is a human faculty - as for the rest, perhaps we can approach them as we proceed? Please?

So are there sciences beyond religious sciences?? If yes, does it mean that there may be a variety of knowledge?

Reason has to be defined a lot more deliberately & unambiguously than as just a faculty of ours to be used to measure things by including Knowledge which in turn needs a definition of its own to be used for any postulation that stems from it.

As for your question on whether there are sciences beyond religious sciences - I would suppose a better question would be to ask what is a 'Science' & what is a 'Religious Science' & does a difference between the two exist to postulate anything being beyond the other ? Perhaps 'Science' is just Science & it is our perception of it that makes us see things from different facets & exclaim the difference & the 'rightness' of our findings; a little like what Nietzsche postulates in his theory of 'Perceptivism'. Perhaps theres nothing is there to begin with & we see things they way we want them to see & because reasoning in itself is such an undefinable quotient that it can be used & abused in whatever manner one chooses to justify whatever that we are seeing !