Insurance issue

by the Chanceller himself

Insurance is of two general types - mutual co-operative insurance - a group of people agree to pay a given amount to compnsate for losses that may occur to any of tehm - this although rare today was common amongst Muslims in the past and is stil extant today and upon thsi frame many modern institutions wich to resurrect some form of modern Halal insurance schemes (see Wahbah Zuhayli's Fiqh al-Islami wa adillatuh section on invalid sales (section two of chapter 4 volume on mu-amala maliyah)

Insurance in exchange of fixed instalments to a an insurance company which is compriised of invested partners/shareholders. This guarantees up to a certain sum or an unlimited sumof monies, taht may be paid upon teh occurence of certain incidents of situation, either to specified persons. It is esential a financial guarantee where in exchange for sertain fixed sums, a financial gguarantee either limitied or unlimited amounts are secured in the event of certain specified instance which may or may not occur. The insurance compnay makes monies from teh collection and usage of the premiums that are paid.

The Hanafi jurist who is considered the final reference in hanafi fiqh ~(as his tarjihaat are taken by teh hanafi jurists) ruled that such insurance is forbidden in principle .

1. it is a guarantee of certain monioes for certain monies in which the amounts differ as such it is analagous to riba - an increase in monies without a legitimate exchange i.e. yuo are paying an amount of money for money

2. the element of mukhatara i.e. the exchange may or may not take place and this is one of teh aspects of gharar (Qurafi explains this in his Furooq - as gharar covers the transaction which teh exchange is doubtful e.g. the fish in teh water [hadith in ibn maja]. It is an inherent aspect of teh contract as it is dependent upon whether certain outcomes occur in iredr to recieve the compnsation - (Zuhayli)

3. the amounts are unspecified this is jahal, the other aspect of gharar that is forbidden [again this is established in teh prohibition of gharar and in teh type of sales forbidden wherein the product is unknown - see Qurafi's furooq)

4. Ibn Abidin also makes the point that undertaking such a contract with the free will of a non-Muslim in Muslim lands with tehir conasent is acceptabel and recieving sucha sum from them in such an event is permissible due to the absence of security in non-muslim lands for shrar based transactions and the permissibility ot undertaking such transactions outside dar ul-Islam i.e. as oong as they freely enter into the contract. Tihs would be the most appropriate ruling for the muslims living in the west (volume 3 of rad al muhtar of ibn abidin - can't remeber preciselty but can verify if required)

Come and Rise

Come and rise dear brother of mine
Advance to the fore, and see the sign

Wake up from your shallow grave
Open your eyes and witness the knave

Their reign has dried the fertile land
They buried the books in the sand

They lead the zealous without respite
And the zealous cried day and night

A question presented to the chameleon
The questions treated as a rebellion

The questioner killed with ink and paper
Condemned and rendered as a traitor

Follow me for this is the truth, they sighed
The boat that rocked and then capsized

A blaze upon it, started years before
The spark that finally came to the fore

And upon its ashes we sit and wait
For the new king to rise and vacillate

And after the storm comes a cloud
Blocking the sun with its white shroud

We pray and hope for it to clear
But it lingers like our deepest fears

A thought of what may have been
A regret of which we now dream

Critical assumptions

The arguments presented by those advocating a return to an Islamic caliphate, or Khilafah, contain a number of implicit assumptions that are critical to the validity of their conclusions. These assumptions relate to the nature of Islam itself and that of the world order, in addition to the existing public opinion in the Muslim countries. It is the latter category of assumption that I'd like to examine here. Basically, the arguments' main planks are:

1. Muslims are fed up with their current rulers and states.
2. Muslims would welcome an Islamic dictatorship, providing it with the mandate and the support to allow it to sustain itself.
3. Muslims see Islam as a political ideology with (at least) a fairly well-defined ruling system.
4. Muslims view their borders as artificial, imposed by the West, divisive and haraam, and would support the new state's efforts to unite with its Muslim neighbours by annexing bordering countries.

In order for the caliphate movement to generate sufficient momentum for the return of the caliphate to become a political inevitability or even a realistic scenario in the short-term, each of the above statements must be true. I would question whether any of these statements is justified, given the current social and political conditions in the Muslim world.

This (i.e. the invalidity of these assumptions) would not necessarily preclude the establishment of a viable Khilafah-style state, but acknowledging this fact would help better define the necessary daawah and political work that advocates of such a system would need to pursue.

(to be continued, insha Allah)

Some quotes on thinking

“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.” Oscar Wilde

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too” Voltaire

“Those who know how to think need no teachers.” Mahatma Gandhi

“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” Benjamin Lee Whorf

“People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it.” Anthony de Mello

“Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence.” Thomas S. Szasz

“Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” William James

" ... the mind works with ideas, not with information" Theodore Roszak

"...it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are-- if it doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong." R.P. Feynman

Views toward the Shariah

Most people view Islam, just like any religion, as consisting of a set of thoughts, values and instructions on how best to conduct oneself in accordance to the Will of the Creator; these instructions are what are referred to as the divine rulings or the ahkam shariah - the Shariah for short. The main driving force keeping these thoughts, values and behaviours alive and in circulation is largely inherent, as abiding the Will of the Creator is directly linked in Islam to (a very individual concept of) reward and punishment in the Hereafter. Put simply, if you don't follow the Shariah, you're in trouble. So by and large, Muslims through the centuries have stuck to the Shariah, abiding by its commands, and avoiding its prohibitions. The ruling executive and the jurispudence has in the past generally reflected this by being Shariah-compliant in those matters perceived by the public to be governed by clear Shariah rulings.

But those who also view Islam as a political ideology will see the Shariah differently. Any ideology is seen as comprising a Thought and a Method, with the latter consisting of the manner in which the Shariah rulings are executed, in addition to the manner in which the creed is preserved and the ideology propagated. Such a model necessitates the existence of an executive political entity to carry out and administer the Method, and considers this entity a fundamental part of the Method, and hence of the ideology itself. Consequently, great importance is attached to bringing about this executive authority in a quest to resume the "Islamic way of life" (disrupted by the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate in the early 20th century).

This is in contrast to the "religious" model above, which considers the political executive entity a natural and inevitable development, as its existence and functioning is itself, like most other matters, governed (to some extent) by the Shariah. While the "ideological" view recognises the fact that any political entity will ultimately reflect the thoughts prevalent in society, they address this by attempting to "politicise" thinking amongst the public so that the establishment of a totally Shariah-compliant state would enjoy broad popular support.

Naturally, the propnents of each view will prioritise their daawah activities according to their outlooks, and their measures of success will reflect this. Despite the differences however, fundamentally, all groups are carrying out what they perceive to be the obligation upon them. Those whose work is focussed on encouraging Muslims to abide by the Shariah, do so out of a belief that this daawah is itself part of the Shariah, and hence worthy of reward. Similarly, those who work to raise awareness of the necessity for an Islamic state only do so out of a sense of Shariah obligation. And those in authority in the Islamic state would rule according to the Shariah, as this would be an obligation upon them, i.e. that would be how they would abide by the Shariah.

But the issue that deserves some more thought here is this: does the obligation upon the ruler to implement the Shariah extend, in his absence, to the Muslim public, making it an obligation upon them to bring such a ruler into existence? By not having the Shariah implemented upon them, are the Muslim masses sinful, even if they abide by the Shariah in other matters?

"Abide by" or "implement" the Shariah?

In the context of ruling and politics, is the Shariah something to "abide by" or to "implement" ?

implement (verb): To fulfill; perform; carry out. To put into effect
according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.
"implement." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Jan. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implement>

abide by (verb): To act in accord with. To submit to;
agree to. To remain steadfast or faithful to;
"abide." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Jan. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abide>

A few quotes: clarity

"Nothing is ever as easy as it seems to be except in made-up realities (like math), and we'll always be slaves to our discourse." Anon

"Most people make the mistake of saying that they understand things when they simply know the words. To really grasp a subject you have to be able to feel the truth in it. Intuitively." Anon

from this sig

Topics to consider

So what are the things we need to look at? Let's make a short unstructured list of issues and topics; perhaps one can structure and prioritise them later:

1. Islam: political ideology or religion with some political aspects?
2. Khilafah system: is there such a thing? Mirage, fantasy or divine promise?
3. Shariah: implemented or abided by (even in ruling context)?
4. Democracy: is it really a problem or could it hold the key to the solution?
5. Resuming the Islamic way of life: but did it ever stop?
6. Islamic state: do people really want one?
7. Islamic state: why do I want one?
8. What exactly would be "Islamic" about an Islamic state?
9. Why did the Ottoman empire collapse?
10. Isn't freedom of religious belief essential for accountability/reward?
11. ...
12. Rizq: aqeedah or just fact of life?
13. Shukr/Hamd: is it just saying "thank you" to Allah?

(to be continued, insha Allah)

Islam and sudoku

There are so many things I'd like to explore ... where does one start? So many unanswered questions, thoughts, dilemmas, challenges, prejudices, assumptions, judgements, inhibitions and pet theories that need untangling. So many complex issues that have been over-simplified, and simple matters over-complicated. So many questions ignored or overlooked, and so much rhetoric taken for granted.

I now think its less important to understand everything correctly than to have an appreciation of their complexity and to have a (fairly) consistent view about them. Indeed, it may not even be possible to understand all aspects of the Deen "correctly" and consistently, as Islam itself may not be the perfectly consistent monolith its sometimes portrayed as.

The attempts, by the various schools of thought and revival movements, to somehow formulate Islam into such a structure, have always run into difficulties as they venture beyond their original remits, flagging up inconsistencies and contradictions. Rather than triggering a revision of the original assertions, predicates and scope of the school, these incosistencies tended to be conveniently overlooked and neglected, or reconiled using elaborate (and sometimes quite convoluted) logic and reasoning.

This is somewhat similar to the common sudoku problem: solving an individual 3x3 matrix is not the same as solving the entire 9x9 matrix, and unless one is prepared to constantly redo each 3x3, the correct solution(s) will never be found. But perhaps the multi-dimension soduko puzzle of Islam has no solution after all. Perhaps we just have to accept that there is no consistent and correct set of answers to the matters of the Deen. Perhaps by our insistence on making the Deen conform to the pre-conceived sudoku model in our heads we are actually "unsolving" the correct parts instead. The axiom "if its not broken, don't fix it" comes to mind.

Nevertheless, I believe as a bare minimum, one should at least scrutinise the thoughts one holds, as they are, in a reflective stock-taking exercise to compile an intellectual inventory of oneself. Assumptions, prejudices and inhibitions can then be exposed and challenged, on a personal and individual level, allowing one to filter and fine-tune one's thoughts accordingly. These thoughts, after all, define who we are.

Perhaps the hardest part is mustering the courage, not to question the thoughts of others, but to reflect upon the validity of our own.

The logical song

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees
Well they´d be singing so happily
Oh joyfully, oh playfully watching me
But then they sent me away
To teach me how to be sensible
Logical, oh responsible, practical
And they showed me a world
Where I could be so dependable
Oh clinical, oh intellectual, cynical

There are times when all the world´s asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won´t you please, please tell me what we´ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who i am

Now watch what you say
Or they´ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh fanatical, criminal
Oh won´t you sign up your name
We´d like to feel you´re
Acceptable, respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable!

At night when all the world´s asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won´t you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am, who I am, who I am.

Bismillah...

Ok, so where does one start? The idea (for me at least) is to use sms to write this, so this may end up a bit minimalist (no sms abbreviations though, if I can help it).

Is there any way of adding some structure to these blogs? The whole idea is to "map out" the thoughts in my head, so just compiling a growing pile of ad-hoc thoughts won't necessarily help untangle the individual strands, although these 'labels' might help. Perhaps its too early to tell; we'll see insha Allah.