Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have made significant headway in the rapid development of their countries in many areas. In recent years, the Saudis have launched a series of reforms including some religious reforms to reining in religious militants and preachers And King Abdullah has joined other government leaders like those of Morocco, Turkey and Jordan in promoting inter-religious dialogue internationally, including the opening of a center for interfaith dialogue in Austria.
Kuwait, in contrast to Saudi Arabia, has been seen as a somewhat more open and liberalizing country politically, socially and religiously, including in contrast to Saudi Arabia permitting the building of churches. Regrettably, recent religious decisions in both countries are unfortunate reminders about the hurdles and pitfalls in the implementation of religious reform.
Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Shaikh issued the fatwa, or Muslim religious decree, on March 11, that further church building should be banned and existing Christian houses of worship should be destroyed in the Arabian Peninsula. The fatwa was in response to a Kuwaiti legislator query if under Islam the government of Kuwait could ban church construction in the country.
In contrast, overlooked are the opinions of scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 1449), the prominent Shafii scholar, in his Fath al-Bari reports that the majority of Muslim scholars held that the only part of the Arabian Peninsula that non-Muslims (even polytheists, as mentioned in the Prophetic hadith used as the basis for this ruling) are not allowed to be in is Mecca, Medina and Yamama -- an area that essentially covers the southern Hijaz. Prominent members of another Sunni school of law, the Hanafis, held that non-Muslims are allowed everywhere but the Haram area of Mecca itself, while the great eighth-century Muslim scholar Malik said they can even enter the Haram for trade (Fath al-Bari, ed. Abd al-Aziz Bin Baz, 6:210).
The Saudi government has remained silent as has the government-controlled media and indeed many Western media outlets. The Vatican and Catholic and Protestant bishops in Germany, Austria and Russia have expectedly and understandingly sharply criticized the fatwa.
Kuwait, another strong ally of the United States and a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council is poised to move down a similar slippery religious slope. Kuwait's Parliament approved last week severe new penalties for blasphemy: to impose the death penalty on Muslims who refuse to repent after being found to have insulted God, the Prophet Mohammad, his wives or the Quran. For non-Muslims, the punishment would be up to 10 years in prison; for Muslims who repent, the punishment would be up to five years or a fine. The Emir of Kuwait has 30 days to approve these penalties before they would become law.
Among its first critics was Leonard Leo, Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who called for their rejection: "These penalties are alarming and contrary to international human rights standards ... because they jeopardize the lives of individuals that exercise their internationally-guaranteed freedoms of religion and expression."
Many will see these worrisome developments against a background of conflicts and killings from Africa to Southeast Asia. Interreligious and inter-communal tensions have flared up not only in Egypt and Malaysia but also in Sudan, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan. A significant minority of hard-line ultraconservative and militant Muslims -- like their counterparts in Christianity and Judaism -- are not pluralistic, but rather strongly exclusivist in their attitudes toward other faiths and even fellow believers with whom they disagree. These myopic religious world views can turn ugly and violent.
Ironically, Muslim reformers (religious leaders and scholars across the Muslim world) have addressed the issues of Islamic reform and in particular pluralism, religious freedom and blasphemy laws.
Their efforts and voices are often drowned out by both the ultraconservative many religious leaders and the actions of violent extremists. Initiatives like the Amman Message and A Common Word, as well as coverage of reformist thinking, are invisible in much of the Western media. The Saudi fatwa is a case in point. Perhaps the strongest denunciations of the Saudi fatwa by Turkey's top religious leader went unnoticed despite the fact that he blasted the Grand Mufti's fatwa as in total contradiction to the teachings of Islam.
Mehmet Görmez, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate, sharply criticized the fatwa as contrary to centuries-old Islamic teachings of tolerance and the sanctity of institutions belonging to other religions. He emphasized that "The opinion of the grand mufti also obviously contradicts the agreements that the Prophet of Islam signed with the non-Muslim communities both in Medina and in the region. It also plainly overlooks the right of immunity given by Islam to the holy shrines and temples of other religions on the basis of the rule of law throughout its history."
Görmez underscored the negative impact of the fatwa: "We strongly believe that this declaration has left dark shadows upon the concept of rights and freedoms in Islam that have always been observed on the basis of its sources, and it will not be recorded as an opinion of Islam." He also added, "We, therefore, entirely reject the aforementioned opinion and hope that it will be amended as soon as possible."
The plight of Christians and other minorities in some Muslim countries in the face of a significant and dangerous minority of religious extremists and the failures of political and religious leaders threatens both the safety and security of religious minorities and the very fabric of Muslim societies. Mainstream Muslim religious and political leaders and the media need to not only condemn religious extremism and terrorism, as many have done nationally and internationally, but also speak out against those religious leaders and others who continue to advocate religious exclusivist theologies or doctrines and their implementation in law and society.
Follow John L. Esposito on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnlesposito
It is than possible to infer the reason. If we concede that your definition of "backward" is incorrect. All these society's and political systems are proposing similar "laws" not because they all have become "backward" in their thinking but because what they are trying to implement is the sunnah of Mohammed. As a scholar of Islam you would be well aware that sunnah of Mohammed is not temporal - it is valid for all times and all circumstances and Mohammeds actions cannot be constrained in time in any manner.
Thus what appears "backward" is simply application of sharia as espoused by Imam's Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi and Hanafi plus the hadd laws as espoused by the Quran.
thank you sir.
Is this strange European 1940 creation of a place called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the way to Jerusalem?
Chechen women in mortal fear as president backs Islamic honor killings
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/29/chechen-women-in-mortal-fear-as-president-backs-ho/
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood MP Defends Female Circumcision
http://globalmbreport.org/?p=926
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Opposes Child Protection Law
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2008/0724/p05s01-wome.html
You are evidently unfamiliar with Islamic scholarship. Al-Bukhari was far more knowledgeable about the Qur'an and life of the prophet than you. It is important that Muslims do not adopt apologetic stances in an effort to defend what they think is "Islam." The fact of the matter is that in the Islamic state, apostasy is seen like treason is in the secular fundamentalist regimes. It is a form of treachery that deserves capital punishment. If you consult any of the traditional books of Islamic jurisprudence, you will see this to be the case.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic organization to believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) (1835-1908) of Qadian. Ahmad(as) claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesus(as) of Nazareth and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad(sa). Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that God sent Ahmad(as), like Jesus(as), to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace. Ahmad’s(as) advent has brought about an unprecedented era of Islamic revival. He divested Islam of fanatical beliefs and practices by vigorously championing Islam’s true and essential teachings. He also recognized the noble teachings of the great religious founders and saints, including Zoroaster(as), Abraham(as), Moses(as), Jesus(as), Krishna(as), Buddha(as), Confucius(as), Lao Tzu and Guru Nanak, and explained how such teachings converged into the one true Islam.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the leading Islamic organization to categorically reject terrorism in any form. alislam,org
Perhaps, responding to the mufti in kind is the answer. How about all non-Muslim countries pass laws to demolish all Sunni mosques and deport all Sunni Muslims back to their country of origin?
Only those Muslims can stay who prove that they are persecuted in their country of birth.
You are just spouting off more apologist rhetoric. The difference between the Sunnis and the mushriks and atheists is that the atheists and mushriks are wrong and the Sunnis are right. Perhaps, you overlooked that distinction.
A start would be for people to think for themselves and stop listening to the loudmouthed pronouncements of popes and mullahs...anyone who tells you what "god" wants is a lunatic and/or a liar, and should be treated as such.
"Let who he wishs believe and and who he does not disbelieve." And "Let there be no compulsion in religion."
There are over one hundred Quranic verses confirming the freedom of conscious.
If it does not recognize your rights as a human, then it is not Islam at all.
- That is a lie.
p.s., And, just for future reference (and I don't mean this to be snarky), it is "freedom of conscience".
Moreover, because of such discussions in Turkey the Journalists and Writers Foundation (GYV), whose honorary chairman is well-respected Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, released a statement recently explaining the stance of the Hizmet [service] movement inspired by Gülen as a civilian one with no political ambitions: http://www.hizmetnews.com/index.php/latest-news/item/480-hizmet-and-current-political-debates-in-turkey
Gulen and people he inspires seek God's approval not human-beings'.
During the long night of Muslim rule in India, thousands of temples were desecrated and destroyed, and mosques were built over their ruins. Here is what Muslims did to the great Siva temple at Somnath (it was rebuilt by Hindus every time it was destroyed):
"In 725 CE Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, sent his armies to destroy the temple...
In 1024 CE, the temple was.. destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni...
In 1296 CE, the temple was once again destroyed by Sultan Allauddin Khilji's army. According to Taj-ul-Ma'sir, "fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword" and "more than twenty thousand slaves ...fell into the hands of the victors"....
In 1375 CE, the temple was.. destroyed by Muzaffar Shah I...
In 1451 CE, the temple was... destroyed by Mahmud Begda...
In 1701 CE, the temple was.. destroyed by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb built a mosque on the site of the Somnath temple, using some columns from the temple.."
One of the first things independent India did was to rebuild Somnath. The Aurangzeb mosque was carefully moved a kilometer away.
This is the reality of Islam - very different from the Disney version being sold to gullible Westerners.
So you equate one measly, unimportant mosque to the holiest of places of 1 billion Hindus? Would you argue similiary if Hindus or Christians build temples or churches on the Grand Mosque in Mekka? No, of course you wouldn't. And a hypocrite, ignorant fool like you talks about enlightenment?
Kashmiri's have taken part in one of the largest genocides of recent history when they wiped out Kashmiri Pandits from the valley. And these people now call themselves oppressed? Ridiculous and outrageous.
The most sacred places of Hindus are defiled and broken thanks to Islam.
==========
Such as mainstream classic fiqh of the major schools of jurisprudence.
The problem is not with this or that religious leader who follows Sharia law. Sharia law needs major renovation.
2) There are more than a hundred verses in the Quran that assert the absolute right of all humans to freedom of conscious – which predates the UN Charter for human rights by over fourteen centuries. In fact Islam especially in the first century after the death of Prophet (570 AD-632 AD) committed to history greatest battles to protect, secure and guarantee the freedom of conscious for all. This is attested to by the tens of millions of Christians still living side by side with their Muslim brethren in the Arab and Muslim world as we speak. The Jews enjoyed the same rights until the creation of isreal when they turned into occupiers and oppressors of the Palestinian People for the past 64 years.
In this context I recommend Maria Rosa Menocal’s book :”The Ornament of the World” referring to the exemplary peaceful, prosperous and exceedingly tolerant co-existence of Muslims, Christians and Jews under in Islamic Spain from 711 AD- !492 AD which was violently eradicated by the Catholic Inquisition - a brutal and atrocious face of intolerance and oppression.
3) For a more balanced and representative view of Islam we should all head towards and ask for the opinion of the Al Azahar in Cairo, the oldest Center of Islamic learning and scholarship (established in 969 AD); Wahabism does not represent the tolerant and enlightened face of Islam.
Some Jews are Israelis, and some Israelis are Jews. Many Jews oppose Israel, and many Israelis are Christians or Muslims.
The term "israelis" was reinvented to give religious justification for the creation of colonial settler entity on top of an indgenous people, the Palestinian People.
Palestinians Arabs (Muslims and Christians) can never be 'isrelis': the manufactured identity of the occupiers can never be accepeted much less imposed on thy cannotains
=========
Okay.
This is from the Al-Azhar certification on page xx of "Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law":
[Reliance] “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a).”
It is signed by the General Director of Research Writing and Translation
Muhammad ‘Umar Muhammad ‘Umar, and is dated 26 Rajab 1411 A.H./ 11 February, 1991 A. D."
Umar is confirming that in 1991 Reliance conformed to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. The appropriate official of Al-Azhar is stating that Reliance is present Sharia law of the Shafii school.
Wikipedia:
"Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence.
[...]
This work consists of the soundest positions of the Shafi'i school."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umdat_al-Salik_wa_Uddat_al-Nasik
Reliance of the Traveller says:
"o11.0 NON-MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)
[…]
(7) And are forbidden to build new churches."
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
Apparently u are not updated on the renewal/reform movement in the Islamic World especially in Egypt: the book u quoted is a medieval text and authored by the brilliant Doctor of the Law Al Shafi in the 9th century; it was brilliant for its own time but not for ours. Alexander Hamilton (a British scholar born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1892) and an Islamic historian once said -and rightfully- "that Islamic history left such a great and rich legacy...full of precious stones.." and that modern Muslims should look for these precious gems ….that is the relevant knowledge to modern times.
How remarkable that Shafi changed many of the fatwas he produced in Iraq after he moved to Egypt within the same time frame….he did that because Egypt was a different environment and had different circumstances. The early Muslim scholars / jurists did a great job for their own times…the challenge now is that modern Muslims should excel presently as their ancestors did….but we cannot survive on the crumbs of the past…we need to be as creative as they were…in fact we should be more creative than they were because we have the modern technology which the poor souls did not have then.
- The book itself says it should be read with the guidance of a living teacher/scholar.
- Even followers of Nuh Ha Mim Keller don't blindly a-contextually apply the book.
- Al Azhar isn't the Vatican of Islam.
- Only a fraction of Muslims are Shafiis.
- Even orthodox Shafiis in modern times would give/follow rulings which differ from what is in Reliance of the Traveller in some its details.
Prof. Esposito is a respected scholar of Islam and we need to listen to him and reflect on his opinion. As a Muslim I have nothing but respect for his scholarship and knowledge of Islam.
Three points need to be made on the issue above:
1) "Saudi Arabia" is no more than a tribal absolute hereditary autocracy - and accept for overseeing the two Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina and its religious window dressing practices, it has little or nothing to do with true Islam; its tribal autocracy brand of Islam is based on the Wahhabi literalist interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet which among other abuses legitimizes the illegitimate corrupt saudi tribal despotism which hardly resembles the moderate, egalitarian and tolerant Islam of the Prophet based on the Medina Covenant authored by the Prophet himself in 613 AD after his Hijrah from Mecca to Medina; this document is the world’s first constitution and predates the English Magna Charta of 1215 AD by over six centuries.
The Medina Covenant established for the first time in human history the inalienable right of the freedom of conscious to all mankind including Christians, Jews as well as the Heathen if the so wished. In fact the Prophet welcomed the Christian Arab delegation of Najaran in his Medina Mosque along with their crosses and freely debated with them for three days the merits of Islam and its clear reverence for and belief in Jesus, his mother and his
Generalizations with no proof...