Ok, fair enough, so please explain why your posts have been about Islam??
look friends, I asked whether Islam was the problem, you all agree that it was - now Armstrong realizes the position he has put himself in and says it's governance - in other words the answer to mismanagement is, yes, you guessed it, Islam or is it IslamISM.
Both Armstrong and Develepero agree that "Virus" is not complementary - now if we said armed Democrats were attacking the state and the nation, or that armed communists were and were spreading their message with assistance of foreign funding, h might they respond??
Hyperion says it's not the 90's - as if the solutions are necessarily time bound
Our solution will come form how we choose to define the problem - clearly defining the problem as Islam is going to be problematic - Would defining the problem as Islamism also be problematic?? Yes it is a trick question
Because I'm persuaded that some will object strongly to describing the problem as Islam-ISM, they see no distinction between Islam and Isam-Ism - and therefore the need to save 16 year old bombers and assassins - redemption for all, noble indeed.
Now if you want to avoid the case of the problem and focus on governance, sure - even then you will begin and end with Islam - see Khialfat thread -- It's reckoning and we can't keep running from it indefinitely - resolve to finish this war and fight it - if they give up, great, they won't escape justice, that must be a given - it would mean blood letting -- so what do you think we have had up till now? 40K cilians killed more than 5 soldiers, more Pakistanis killed than in India Pak wars.
But how is it problematic?
For eg, if we toe the line of the very radicals and blame democracy for all Ills in Pakistan.. it may come out that way for the past 5 years.. corrupt to the core.. and generally mismanaging everything. But is it really democracy in its mature form? should we blame this half-hearted effort? Should democracy or any system be blamed if it has been implemented incorrectly?
Therein lies another question; If Islam as a system is so perfect.. then why is it that it has failed so miserably in the past 200 years to produce anything fruitful in terms of a governance system?
But has it really been a system based on Islam at all??
Well, arguments for that would suggest that wherever these "Islamic" systems have been implemented there have been clergy involved in drafting the laws and such which kings and rulers implemented. Who were these clergymen?
If what is called Political Islam(Distinction must be made between Faith and religion) is taken into account.. then the manipulation of religious thought began as early as 700AD.
If the last 100 years is taken into account.. then many of these gentlemen were rebels to their own schools of thought.
So much so , that there is enough in-coherent thought in many of these laws that they may be considered separate religions entirely.
Now if all of these gentlemen can be considered as interpreting Scripture(the Quran,the Hadiath etc). then all of them can be considered as representations of Islam?
That is the question for the topic.
Now off topic.
I found during my studies that many of these interpreters took the exact meaning(as it should be as well) of the verses and did not go beyond that. While that is imperative that you take the exact Arabic word for word meanings... it is also imperative that you then dwell upon those. Where was the verse revealed or hadiath/sunnah recorded? What time? what conditions? What event? (YES, all this information exists and if verified through thousands of references). Moreover, what was the narration in which this verse was included?
If one was to simply take statements at only face value , picking them out bit by bit.. then the Quran becomes completely contradictory. Yet , these contradictions have been taken as it is by these implementer and rather disappointingly .. no intelligence used in its interpretation. So should I accept this as correct interpretation or consider this a prime example of Islam?
However, the enigma I face is that what I defend is the very material that has been used to create chaos. So have I (based on Imam Abu-hanifa's school of thought) reached the right interpretation or have they?
In this case, the argument goes to the one who is able to utter their views out the most times.. and clearly.. the people hyperion calls out utter a lot more than I do.
