Indigo Jo Blogs

Honesty? What does that mean to such people. Super ignorant.

Knows not and knows not that he knows not...

Dude,

What does Jewish law have to say about anything? You know, I dont like ignorant folks talk about the deen of Allah (azawajal) I dont think we should make these defensive half hearted statements about Jewish law. We should all be consistent.

Great post Yusuf, We all know that religious arbitration was not an issue until Canadia Muslims came into the picture. Proggies are very happy with this ruling, There should be no doubt now that they are outside the fold of Islam. Just look at the groups which made a fuss about all this, communists, socialists, right and left wingers etc. The proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding.

Just to correct your phraseology, the expression is 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

'Proggies' - what are they? Progressive Muslims perhaps? Shame there aren't more of them. Muslim women, not just nasty Kafirs, opposed this development. Of course you now, in your wisdom say that they are not really Muslims. Well who are you to say? Judge and jury?

Having said that, Yusuf's point about consistency is well made.

Does anyone know where this idea that child custody laws in Islam favour the husband. From what I've read the different madhabs differ greatly on the issue and none of them really favour the husband that much.

Shamil: from the laws in Arab states, probably. I've come across what fiqh books say on the issue, and I agree that they generally favour female relations, especially for younger children. Older children get a choice.

Are you sure about that Yusuf?

From what I've heard women in the gulf countries are given custody of their children.

I think that in Shi'ite jurisprudence women have no custody rights. Maybe because it's that way in Iran the media has assumed that it applies to all Islam.

Pedantic kafir,

Please dont mistake my brilliance for someone else's. I made the point about being consistent.

Asalaamualaukum wa rahmatullah...

As I understand it the woman gets the children when they are young and as they get older the husband does. I can only point to Western countries where the woman is always favored to show that just because she is a woman doesnt mean she is the best interest of the children. As children get older they dont need milk, smothering, i.e. They need structure, discipline, financial assitance, etc. Basically everything that a father can provide. Especially as the boys get older and the women get more mature. Women dont know how to turn boys into men, so says Dr. Laura. (You'll dont know whats up, hee hee)

brb, babies.

In any event it would be best to point to the precedent made by the Prophet Muhammed hismelf, though he stayed married to al his wives or the sahabah. What ever is going on in the Gulf or Pakistan doesnt mean diddly doo doo.

Child custody goes to the mother, and then her mother, and her mother's mother.... and so on. That's what I have heard, is that correct?

Hi Pedantic Kafir,

In response to your comment ‘Proggies’ - what are they? Progressive Muslims perhaps? Shame there aren’t more of them.

As you probably know, the proggies are few in number when compared to the generality of muslims. They differ with the majority of muslims just as the fanatics/terrorists differ with the majority of muslims.

Consider this: If for more than 1400 years, the majority of muslims and their scholars have understood the religion in a certain way, and all of a sudden a handfull, perhaps less than 2,000 people come on the stage and claim that majority of muslims are wrong or mistaken in their interpretation of Islam and go on to offer a new interpretation; would you agree that the appropriate question will be to ask "what is the prophetic basis of thIs new interpretation"?
What is the motivation and what is it trying to achieve?

Without addressing these questions, it will be difficult for the majority of muslims whose Islam is rooted in a prophetic tradition and fostered by scholastic schools of thought - to throw their hands around the neck of the proggies and fall in love with them. The interpretation of the religion is not a function of whim. It is a bit different from changing the colour of one's hair or getting a new makeup.

They seem to have tossed aside at the drop of a whim, the entire system of Islamic jurisprudence and heritage. So, what happens to our Isnad (chain of narration system), usuludeen (foundational principles of religion), usulfiqh (foundational principlies of jurisprudence), etc .....by which we evaluate issues, accept and reject ideas, and derive rulings. Does that mean that these guys are smarter than the Prophets, the companions, the scholars, the saints, and ordinary muslims?.

These questions are important, and cannot be ignored in favour of sentiments.

Does that mean that these guys are smarter than the Prophets, the companions, the scholars, the saints, and ordinary muslims?.

Maybe. A lot of the 'Proggies' live in the West, where learning and ideas about human rights are far more advanced than would have been the case when the four schools of sharia were first put together.

Flanstein - could to see a Muslim's repsect for the 'people of the book'.

I don't see the problem in -- as I understand was the situation in Canada -- to allowing two parties in a civil dispute voluntarily to agree to have it settled by an arbitrator of their mutual choice rather than to litigate their dispute. That's generally recommended in the UK as a means of conflict resolution, since it's generally quicker, far cheaper and much more likely to lead to a reasonably amicable resolution than is taking the conflict to a civil court.

It might seem odd to me that two people choose to have their dispute settled by an Islamic or a Jewish court since I'm neither a Muslim nor a Jew, but so long as they're happy with it, it's not really any of my business, any more than it's any of their business how I might negotiate a divorce settlement. So long as my ex-wife and I (or my ex-business partner and I) are satisfied with the results, or at least consider them reasonable, then that's all that really matters, surely?

Custody of the children is, perhaps, a different matter, since the children have an interest in the result -- their welfare is the over-riding interest in British law -- and they can't just be treated by a set of rules, since all individuals and families are different. But that apart, provided you've got some regulation to make sure the arbitrators are competent and unbiased, and possibly provided the parties have some recourse to civil judicial review if a decision is manifestly unfair or against public policy, I genuinely cannot see why -- other than because of religious or anti-religious bigotry -- people have such a problem with private arbitration in a religious court, so long as it's by mutual consent.

Hi Steve, Much thanks for your thoughts.

Just to complement, if I may, the arbitration courts will obviously work within the parameters of the law, whether Canadian law, British law, or any other law. So, in effect, what we have is an actualisation of a sub-set of the "civil" laws. Hence, it will not be possible for these arbiter courts to pass a ruling or judgment that contradicts the civil law, whereas the government can at any time pass laws that take away from their powers.

From this point of view, it should be easy to see that those who oppose such moves are acting on baseless erratic emotion (since they are not compelled to attend these courts). I guess their argument is that they are trying to protect the rights of people "brainwashed" enough to go to these artiter courts. Well, what can one say....other than commend them for their noble and righteous intentions!

To talk a bit about artitration in Islam, we have a similar artibration system within the Islam societal laws , regrettably jackasses (excuse my language!) have taken over the muslim world and have neglected half of these teachings: The christians should settle their affairs with their priests while the Jews will go to their rabbis, or in fact wherever they chose to go. No one should be forced to succumb to principles that are unharmonious with their conscience except where the social order will be compromised, whereby the prevailing governing social order takes precedence. In an Islamic setting, Islamic laws cannot be applied to a non-muslim who obvious do not believe in them (again, except where social order is at stake). Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

I had heard that one of the lesser known positive aspects of Sharia law was the emphasis on arbitration - bringing the two parties together to reach a consensus. This is a rather modern idea in Western terms.

Of course I'm not in favour of Sharia law in general. The issue of 'agreement' and 'consent' is a bit of a grey area in cultures where women must obey their husbands. Two equal parties consenting of their own free will to be bound by arbitration is a different matter.

If Muslims want to bring in any kind of Sharia tribunals in the West, they must take account of the fact that, in the West, men and women are equal. I'm by no means convinced that that is the case in Muslim communities, so it is better to put such tribunals on hold until it is.

Astaghfirulah!

Oh, I thought ...Proggies were the so-called "Progressive" (retarded)muslim movement. lol!

Kafir,

Just a response to your comment which runs as follows, I feel obliged :)

Maybe. A lot of the ‘Proggies’ live in the West, where learning and ideas about human rights are far more advanced than would have been the case when the four schools of sharia were first put together

You see, you keep thinking about "advancement"...i.e. material, technology, economic, etc, advancements. The shariah's job is to ensure the advancement of the human heart/consciousness, indeed without obstructing the other kinds of advancement you are on about.

The only objection the shariah will have to the type of advancement that is familiar to you is when it violates, spiritual teachings i.e. religion, life, intellect, offsprings, wealth. The shariah says that these five things must at least not be wrecked by "advancement". What kind of advancement is that if you destroy human life, intellect, children, natural resources, etc? Surely, advancement must have some sort of guidance....otherwise what you have is the world filled with weapons of mass destruction, and the likes, synthetic food, pollution - it's amazing anyone is still alive....

We can advance in whatever we want as long we don't destroy these things that are known to faciliate peaceful habitation of the planet and has allowed human civilisation to flourish ......

Correction, irrelevent kafir. Proggies are a minority of extremist fanatics, no different that hypocrites like you who speak from both ends of their mouth. The stink is so familiar.