and the Chronicles was talking about which one?
and the Chronicles was talking about which one?
even then 5 yrs is a big differences....its not like a few weeks apart that can be adjusted by saying lunar and solar
how do you get a .7 yr? dont you have the exact date / yr? you can use a calender converter by just googling...Hijra (Islam) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imam hossein (saa) martyred 61.7 years after Prophet hijrat and begining AH date so 622+661.7 ±684
That's it.
Where do the rights of Others stop & the rights of the Society begin ?
Where is that fine line ?
And how would one determine that ?
And why does one use that & that particular barometer or determinant ?
The answer is that the Society decides these things for itself for, purely from an Academic Point of View, these are nothing but things agreed upon either unconsciously so or consciously so !
Therefore if the Society can decide a cut-off point at X why can it not decide at Y ?
I'm not a Koranists in the literal sense of the word; I just advocate Koran & Rationality which isn't really a call for ignoring other interpretations or even the Hadith just treating them as Historical Evidence as part of the best available Commentary on the Koran not an addition to the Koran itself !
And I never said or implied 'treat Religion as Governance'; I said treat Religious Paradigms for what they are !
Which is to say if the Swiss Civil Code is a Legal Paradigm what do you think Islamic Jurisprudence is ?
If the advocacy of the institutionalization of the Swiss Civil Code neither infringes upon the rights of others nor does it pronounce us to cry everything from 'discrimination' to 'fascism' in the same breath, I wonder why the call for Islamic Jurisprudence induces such a different response when they are both Legal Paradigms by nature !
As far the percentage of the Zakat or the timing of the Prayer is concerned you must consider a set of things !
Firstly we're not contradicting God here we're simply giving our interpretations of what they are therefore the Finality of the Message doesn't really apply here & whatever inherent inflexibility you're implying here seems paradoxical in the face of the presence of dozens upon dozens of sects even within these sects & the many varied interpretations that come with it !
Secondly the Society has to consider where it draws the Line ? What does it decide to be in the domain of the Personal & what in the domain of the Societal which is to say just as the Society can decide that a Society has Rights over a Family whereby it reserves the right to tell what a Parent can or cannot do & a plethora of other such examples, it can decide once more here !
Thirdly there is a huge spectrum of opinions on what the Zakat Percentage is or isn't & what the timing of the Prayers are or are not & after you've decided which of the two or whether none of the two or even both of the two, the Society is going to decide what should or should not be Institutionalized you put it to vote !
As for the element of Violence you're talking about that is a common denominator wherever you force something down people's throat whether it be in case of a particular language, ethnicity, geography or religion & that & that alone is what is the reason behind it whereas everything else is a symptom of the reaction....an intensifier if you will !
Therefore don't shove down anything people's throat - Ask them !
Asking them what they want is the essence of the Democratic Principle !
Give them a choice to choose or to refuse !
If you're looking for unanimity of opinions then I ask - Why ?
Why look for unanimity here where everyone's on board when such a consideration is never applied to anything else ?
What will or what won't be decided would be done so based upon the respective bargaining powers of the ayes & the nays & the environment of consensus or pluralism here - Give & Take !
That confusion comes when we start seeing Oriental things from a Western Lens without thoroughly considering the rhyme & meter of the dynamics that each faced !
Consider this - There has always been Pluralism in Islam interspersed with Tyranny & yet never Secularism - Why ?
Because we never had an ecclesiastical order to induce such a reaction & because in Islam the Spiritual & the Worldly was never ripped asunder in much the same manner !
I've raked my brain about this for some time now !
Maybe @Oscar would agree with me on this ?
Maybe not !
Answer me , one thing , mate .
The society has done it in the past , it is doing so today , it will continue the same in the future . Where's the change , mate ? You would consider just the conscious determination and subsequent enforcement of " democratic principles " to be near that ? I have been trying to make the point that religion is a freaking personal business and should remain as such , because whenever enforcement happens on a societal scale by the wishes of a few ( never on democratic principles as the history ) tells us , it has either lead to anarchy,chaos,confusion or downright bloodshed,civil war - if the past is any indication . The changes you propose , mate , are just not possible with the current mindset and the sectarian strife/differences of Muslims - these people aren't even ready to listen/tolerate others let alone come to argue on things and agree and believe in give and take . I am not denying that its not good as a hypothetical solution but practically , it doesn't appear practical unless Muslims get real " enlightenment " and not what they consider today , outsourcing all their free and critical thinking powers to Mullah or the God's viceroy . It hasn't been done in the history so I am not seeing the sudden change .
Well , I have no problem in anyone being anything or following whatever they want - I am too liberal to bother with that stuff , but still what you mention constitutes a Quranist - even taking Hadith as a historical reference and not considering it a general guideline and a detailed manual for performance . So do not worry , unlike a Mullah , I do not have the power and authority to issue a kill fatwa - effective immediately
Then , I believe you consider the Swiss Civil Code , the same as Sharia - open to changes as the change occurs ? Open for legislators to make alteration based on the modern day needs ? Not a lot of Muslims will agree on that - I told you they do not even want the forensics to take part in investigations of the crimes and their punishment governed by the Islamic law . It isn't admissible , you see , mate , they still need a total of four people to witness the " foreplay " and the " intercourse " . Come one , optimistic Armstrong . What sort of people are you talking about ? You think they be willing to reform as you think ? Never !
I know we will not be contradicting or going against God's message for he has left a lot of things for interpretation by the common man , which means the permission/denial of a lot of things aren't to be decided based on a couple of Hadiths or the interpretation to be decided by a couple of elders who have some divine knowledge of religion and the others were born with no intellect . The paradoxical inflexibility I talked of , is there , it has just transferred itself to different sects and is being controlled from them . I mean from the beginning , you always had to take the help of a senior most educated wise person and later his students , either it be the starting schools of thought or sects . Its the way , we have always run this religious business and we sure as hell aren't going to change the way . Ecclesiastical order and the grand importance of few leaders/scholars/generations of this and that were always present , we just lived in an illusion of deciding for ourselves even though all we were doing was praising them and agreeing with them and subconsciously thinking hey we got a say in these matters . This wasn't what Islam was supposed to be , but thats what it turned out to be .
Why am I not commenting on the limits you talk about , why am I not talking about where to draw the line , why not a single mention of " what should the society/state interfere in and what should it leave alone for people to decide " , why not a word on democratic principles and how it should take place ? Because , I do not see it happening looking at the history of Muslims .
You raked your brains and are certain of that , but the reality on ground is different . Answer me in Naswarville .
