so again who is a contemporary scholar, and can you give examples too. [i know you told me before but that post is buried under a whole lot of others and i can't even remember what topic it was in.]
Also HT = extremist? examples pls...
And which scholars, in particular, do u like and why?
HT = Hizb Ut Tahrir. They seem to focus a lot on the answer to everything being reestablishing the khilafah.
As for "extremist", I am uncomfortable with such as word. It divides into camps tha is
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
HT - believe socio-political problems across the Muslim world, divisions and borders, and western control and hegemony is due to lack of Islam in the political sphere in our societies (foreign systems, ideologies, institutions, and leaders!) - requiring a solution by re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate system.
Secularists and Modernists however believe that the Western democractic systems can work in our societies and are permitted for us to follow.
Take your pick!
Did you know that Hadhrat Umar (ra) considered the border with the mountain ranges as an adequate border with the Persian empire?
The empire was however completely conquered when it allied itself with another.
If you think borders are haraam, that requires evidence.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Contemporary scholars are those living in current times and generally include Haitham Hadad, Yusuf Qardawi, Michael Mumisa, Kamal Hashmi, Soraiya Faroqhi etc
They can also include scholars over the last century or two like Showkani, Abduh, Afghani, Mawdudi, Qutb, Nabhani, Khomeini etc
Moderates / extremists terms are politically loaded terms that the west uses to signify their enemies and their friends - you need to be careful of those who are their friends... like Zardari, Karzai, Saudis, Musharraf, Mubarak, PLO etc
Shaybani, Bazdawi, Amidi, Sarakhsi, Suyuti, Ghazali, Shatabi were great jurists.
Agfash and Sibaway for their linguistic contributions...
Mawdudi is profound for his application of traditional scholarship to contemporary political realities as are Qutb, Nabhani and Khomeini inspiring for bringing about socio-political change.
Shawkani was excellent in exposition of jurisprudential theory to contemporary realities.
Baqr al-Sadr and Nabhani are excellent for their rendition of political, philosophical and economic theory.
Faroqhi is excellent for her unpicking of historical revisionism of chunks of Muslim history.
Wallerstein superbly articulated world systems theory in a manner showing how the Muslim world is still being controlled despite colonialists having packed their bags.
Vali Nasr's wonderful exposition of the trajectories set in our countries by the colonialists...
Chomsky is great for exposing the propaganda at work in democractic societies and exposing the flaws in the system and its hypocrisy...
Heywood is good for his conceptualisations of political concepts...
etc etc etc
Borders are fine - in Islam they are temporary, as per your example of Umar(ra), always expanding and not fixed (which negates jihad and expansionism of the Islamic call), as in contemporary nation states (and its underlying theory)!
Can someone define "Secular" and "secularism" for me please?
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
You can generally get a rough definition if you stick the following search in google
define:
followed by the word you would like a definition thereof.
The term secular in contrast to religious usually means worldly or temporal.
The term secularism refers to a system of belief that marginalises religion (separates it from the state, politics or public affairs) or totally rejects it.
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Which is generally consistent with its definition. Something is generally secular if it is not religious (or religion has been marginalised).
erm yeah i know, i didn't say that wasn't the definition, just gave a simpler one - one which i understood better
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Ok - in simple terms as I can put it:
Secular is used to refer to social activities where religion has no prominent role - usually primarily when talking about politics in the West.
Historically religion (via the institution of church and pope in rome) had a lot of say in government legislation, policies, court decisions, societie's culture (holidays, marriage, education, welfare) etc - after enlightenment processes in europe the kings took over the church role (UK) and in time both were removed (france) and replaced by parliaments - thus religion was allowed to have a function in society but only in relation to the personal lifes of the faithful and none in legislation, politics, courts etc
Thus the societies became secular and religion was secularised - divorced from politics and social life and marginalised to the personal domain (of belief, worship, marriage, deaths etc)
The same attempts are being made to do the same to the Muslims in the UK and the Muslim world. Islam plays a large part in politics, social processes, social identities etc The west want us to fit into their secular models, where religion is boxed in a predetermined space in life, and not allowed out. Muslims want to be able to refer to it in all aspects of life - hence the problem. Those who want to do this are seen as extremists by govt and those who are happy to generally secualrise and play ball are seen as the nice moderates. Do what the govt says and you are the good guys - do what they dislike you are the baddies.
The same processes are playing out in the muslim world too - there the target of attack are ideas like the caliphate which is the Islamic political system - some muslims (secularists/modernists) are trying to argue Islam has no political system and we can copy western man made systems as Islam hasn't specified a political system - as if!