Imam Tom discusses The Impossible State by Prof Wael Hallaq (part 3)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Part 2: • Imam Tom discusses The...
Visit Utica Masjid: www.youtube.co...
Support Blogging Theology on Patreon:
/ bloggingtheology
My Paypal Link:
www.paypal.com...
My favorite youtube channel. Paul never lowered the quality standard of Blogging Theology, thank you, Paul and Imam Tom.
Truly thank you for being committed to sharing with us a variety of lecture genres but I steer away from atheism subjects because I simply don’t care about how they think, I feel sorry for them, and hope that they can revert to their fitra. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf once said “believers and atheists are constantly thinking about God.” Makes sense.
I can listen to Imam Tom and brother Paul for hours ❤️❤️❤️
I am doing it and I second this. God has chosen him for the best kind of charity. InshaAllah.
MashAllah brother Husseinberg!
I have been. Lol
Every time you say Subhan Allah Allah will plant a tree for you in Jannah 🌳 😇 ❤
Where is your evidence for that brother. Is it a prophetic Hadith? Share it
@@aqa7401 There are several Hadith, you can search for them if you’re curious or have any doubts.
Good luck and God bless 💕
@@aqa7401 There are multiple. These are zikr with tree in jannah as rewards in hadeeth graded as sahih, hasan, dhaif :
*1) سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ الْعَظِيمِ وَبِحَمْدِهِ*
Jabir reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Whoever declares the glory of Allah and his praise will have a palm tree planted for him in Paradise.”
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3464
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
عَنْ جَابِرٍ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ مَنْ قَالَ *سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ الْعَظِيمِ وَبِحَمْدِهِ* غُرِسَتْ لَهُ نَخْلَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ
3464 سنن الترمذي كتاب الدعوات باب ما جاء في فضل التسبيح والتكبير والتهليل والتحميد
6429 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث صحيح في صحيح الجامع
*2) لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللهِ*
Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Increase your plantings in Paradise, for its water is sweet and its soil is clean. Its plantings are to say: there is no movement or might but in Allah.”
Source: al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr 13354
Grade: Hasan (fair) according to Al-Albani
عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ غَرْسِ الْجَنَّةِ فَإِنَّهُ عَذْبٌ مَاؤُهَا طَيِّبٌ تُرَابُهَا فَأَكْثِرُوا مِنْ غِرَاسِهَا *لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللهِ*
13354 المعجم الکبیر للطبرانی
1213 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع
*3) سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَلاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ*
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that :
the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed by him when he was planting a plant, and said: "O Abu Hurairah, what are you planting?" I said: "A plant for me." He said: "Shall I not tell you of a plant that is better than this?" He said: "Of course, O Messenger of Allah." He said: "Say: 'Subhan-Allah, wal-hamdu-lillah, wa la ilaha illallah, wa Allahu Akbar (Glory is to Allah, praise is to Allah, none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Allah is the Most Great.)' For each one a tree will be planted for you in Paradise."
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سِنَانٍ، عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ أَبِي سَوْدَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ مَرَّ بِهِ وَهُوَ يَغْرِسُ غَرْسًا فَقَالَ " يَا أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ مَا الَّذِي تَغْرِسُ " . قُلْتُ غِرَاسًا لِي . قَالَ " أَلاَ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى غِرَاسٍ خَيْرٍ لَكَ مِنْ هَذَا " . قَالَ بَلَى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ . قَالَ " قُلْ *سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَلاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ* يُغْرَسْ لَكَ بِكُلِّ وَاحِدَةٍ شَجَرَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ " .
Grade: Da'if (Darussalam)
Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 3807
In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 151
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 33, Hadith 3807
@@aqa7401Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by him while he was planting a plant. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O Abu Hurayrah what are you planting?” I said: A plant for me.” He said: Would you like me to tell of a plant better than this?” I said: Of course, O Messenger of Allah.” He (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Say: Subhan-Allah, Wal-hamdu-lillah, wa la ilaha illallah, wa Alllahu Akbar (Glory is to Allah, praise is to Allah, non has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and Allah is the Greatest) for each one a tree will be planted for you in Paradise.”
ibn majah and Albani graded it sahih, theres a similar hadith in Tirmidhi by Ibn Mas'ud
@@elcaporal739 albani has no authority to grade hadees. Albani khwarijee who created zombie tribe and who tried to remove love of Prophet Sallalauh Alaihiwasallam from Muslims.
“They are incredibly civilised…when it comes to cheese….”
I cackled. 😂
Brilliant conversation. I absolutely loved it. The little riffs both Paul and Imam Tom goes off on keeps it on its toes.
Thank you so much. Please have Imam Tom on again discussing other books. He is truly a gem in the Ummah. Also, Brother Paul, I hope you are taking good care of yourself, have hot meals, drink water and try to get plenty of rest. May Allah ease everything for you.
Every thing in these episodes with Tom is so sophisticated. I've really got to learn lots from them!
Thanks for you Mr Paul & Mr Tom for your time and may Allah grant you as well as us, success in this life and the hereafter!
Masha Allah, another great episode. May God strengthen you brother Paul.
I would really live to see a book or a series called "the possible state" or something alike - talking about what should we do in this day and age to actually achieve what hundreds of millions around the world are dreaming of, an actual Islamic state.
I really want to see what Imam Tom has to say about this.
Such a work has yet to be written - Muslims are too busy facilitating autocratic states and denying democracy is compatible with Islam (which it obviously is because the coercive, unjust and oppressive aspects of democratic rule can be challenged unlike autocratic rule). Maybe you can research and write the definitive account of the Possible State!
@@stephenconnolly1830 I'm just some dude who doesn't even have university education, I don't think I can produce something that is worth anything valuable :(
@opaaaalgahawy5475 There's one book that comes to mind, called Qas Al Haqq قص الحق but it's very very idealistic and not practical at all. It's all about what the perfect Islamic world would be like, but not how to get there exactly... then again, its MASSIVE and the author is still pumping more volumes.
Ps: I don't think it's been translated out of Arabic. The name is a play on words which would classicaly mean "Narrating the ultimate truth" but actually means "Dividing/Distributing Rights"
Always a pleasure!
This series just keeps getting better on the book with more golden nuggets. Jzkl
SubhanAllah. Imam Toms comprehension is amazing. 100% agree.
Such a beneficial & enjoyable conversation. Jazakum Allah khair.
Thanks Tom and Paul, this series has been very informative and beneficial! Looking forward to hear more from Tom. Already a subscriber to Utica Masjid, brilliant content there! Thank you for that and for benefiting the umma immensely.
Thank you Brother Paul and Imam Tom for this wonderful content, may Allah (SWT) reward both of you for your efforts.
I think this is a best channel which truly is enlightening people about islam on solid grounds. May Allah accept this from you.
Jazakumullahu Khairun. May Allah SWT bless you both with Firdaus. 🤲
Very interesting indeed. And profound. I'm incredibly grateful for imam tom distilling the content of this book for my humble brain to understand, which I would have struggled.
Insightful as always. Al-Hamdu lillah
I love Imam Tom speech. He use al-quran and Hadith as a reference and have quite a broad knowledge in Islam.
This is one of the few "blogging theology" videos I watched fully, it was very interesting
THANK YOU ALLAH ALMIGHTY FOR EVERYTHING YOU GIVE ME IN THIS LIFE AND FOR PROTECTING AND TAKING CARE OF ME AND FOR BEING THERE FOR ME WHEN I FEEL DOWN AND RAISING ME UP PROTECT US ALL O ALLAH 🙏☪️☪️
Thank you brother Paul and Imam Tom! You are both brilliant.
The best conversationalists on RUclips!! Was waiting for this drop!
@BloggingTheology
Masha Allah. Such an eye opener. Would love to see the 2 of you do a series on what an Islamic State would look like in daily practice. Like infrastructure, security, welfare, education, utilities, etc.
thank you both, may allah enlighten us
Barak Allah Akhi Paul for ur work 🌹👍🏼
Fascinating discussion, just ordered the book! I think it has important insights for geography teachers and the topic of development
Thanks a lot Tom and Paul, this series has been extremely informative and beneficial! Please continue with some other books/topics.
Superb content MashaAllah
Back with this gem 💎
شكرًا
Thank you!
@@BloggingTheology thanks for Allah
Thanks for sharing this Saturday gift brother Paul - JAK!
Masha Allah. This is exactly the answer I was looking for. I always thought that the separation of power is neat as an idea, but evidently terrible in practice. Because if a body politic, like a political party, controls all the executive, legislative, and judiciary, then would it not be another form of absolute power? I'm now really convinced that only Islam and Shari'a can ever create a community where justice is uphold. Because only when people realise that there is an afterlife and everything we do in this world, however small, will have consequences there, then those people would act just.
Excellent discussion.
Ma sha Allah-- I will have to listen all parts now
Masha allah very good commentary and presentation for other way of better state for the Umma and world. (Impossible state) Thank you both of you, may allah bless you
When God is sovereign, then debates surrounding abortion become irrelevant. Islam solves many of the World's problem!
This is another great addition to the Paul and Imam Tom classics.
Jazakallah Khair Imam Tom and Ustad Paul
Phenomenal podcast 👍🙂
Alhamdulillah
First comment 🤍
Imam Tom Facchine you're the best
Mrs Paul Mashallah you're great .I love love all your video mashallah may Allah increase your knowledge.
I would push the whole idea in the book with the question of what paradigm the Author was operating with as lense for his observation when interpreting the reality of the modern state to build his arguments to then to make a conclusion?
One of my teachers DR Abdullah bin Yusuf Al-Judai has also written a book on these called تقسيم المعمورة and his conclusions differ greatly and he quotes orthodoxy on the matter. We’re actually studying it as part of our B.A sharia course…
What are his conclusions and how do they differ? You should make a video on these points for the benefit of the ummah
Excellent discussion..par intellectual 👍
A British Muslim and American Muslim discussing a Palestinian Christian's book. Nice
Sovereignty belongs to Allah alone. Understand this, and the foundation of Islamic polity can be built.
Amazing.
This is one of many reason that "they" try to shunt Islam. Insyaallah in the future, the sharia will be implemented for the better of Bani Adam.
Thank you for Mr. Paul and Mr. Tom for this... I loved it so much. Deeping down my knowledge about Islam and politics, which is I tot it's only historical fiction...
Hahaha, I never imagined I would hear the phrase "Imam Tom" in my life....😁
Selam Alejkum Poul love your Chanel and love Tom great mind’s!
Alhamdulila
Wooow nice video ❤🎉❤
Yeah, like Imran Hussein said for a long time any Muslim country that uses a democratic election system should not be called an Islamic state ruling.
Can you do a talk on David Graeber's book Debt the first 5000 years
Alhamdulillah. Have not been let down.
I have heard shaykh abdal hakim murad critique and contrast so called modern Islamic nation-states with the traditional Islamic political understanding/expression. AH this lecture echoes the same understanding
PRAY FOR THE GREAT UPCOMING OF ALLAH LORD ALMIGHTY TO COME IN THIS TIME IN NEED PRAY AND FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE PLANS OF THE EVIL WICKED THAT THEY MAY NEVER ADVANCE BUT BE SNUFFED OUT PRAY AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF WICKED EVIL THAT THEY FALL INTO THERE OWN NET AND TRAP AND THAT WERE MEANT FOR MY PEOPLE IN ALLAH ALMIGHTY NAME AMEN MASHALLAH SUBNANALLAH 🙏☪️☪️
Hi Paul. Please also do a video presentation with Iman Tom of what is the antithesis of the modern nation state in terms of classical Islamic model of political governance with Shariah and word of God as main supreme paradigm with clear example of when was it last done and where to start from in terms of its revival?
Very enlightening
Fascinating book, I recall reading it some time ago. Yet the dilemma which has not been addressed are the implications. If the nation-state arrangement is antithetical to Islamic law, then what should traditional Muslims do now? They can't rewind history, yet trying to Islamicize the state has already been shown by Hallaq to be a failure. I haven't heard a good answer to this question.
Shariah societies were decentralized and organic mostly because of the premodern, preindustrial and pre-technological historical context in which they existed which were less complex. Just comparing a 21st century state structure to a 15th century one without talking about the context which led to that structure's development is not really helpful.
Good questions!
Stay tuned!
at the mo' i'm reading Buchan, Witch Wood ... in it he mentions the Amalekites on page 49 and again on page 60 ... i've read to page 67, there may be more mentions. the book is written in 1927; it occurs to me it may connect to the israeli prime ministers mentionings in this day and age
I find it a worthwhile endeavour to think about how society could be improved and it should be encouraged.
I also think its not unreasonable to demand a certain degree of clarity and honesty from the one who is presenting, so the viewer does not have to decipher what this system actually entails and how it might play out in practice.
The system promoted here is a "totalitarian theocracy" based on the Salafi ideology, an Ideology which organisations like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and also Isis base their worldview and actions on and is actively promoted by Saudia Arabia.
Which should not come as a surprise, since Imam Tom studied at the Islamic University of Madinah, which is government funded and known to export Salafi-inclined theologians around the world. The endgoal of this ideology is to establish a world-wide caliphate under the rule of sharia.
This a society in which the ability to influence political decision making is effectively removed from the vast majority of the population.
A Judiciary operating outside and completely independent of government, while simultaneously holding power over government and also being recognised by said government is simply impossible (and I could explain in detail, for those who don’t immediately identify the obvious contradiction) .
All political, military, economic power in this system will be concentrated in the hands of a few (mostly the so called "ulema" which Imam Tom would certaily like to be a member of).
Parliament, Elections, Political Parties, Oversight, independent press, freedom of speech, an opposition will not exist.
This leads to various effects, as can not only be seen in history but also current existing systems.
High-level Corruption, Economic monopolies, due to Lack of representation : unrest and possible formation of competing systems, that are in violent opposition to the government
Discrimination and persecution of minorities and women, complete loss of individual freedoms and - given modern technology - elimination of privacy, establishment of a police state and decline of scientific and social development
Some of those problems also keep rearing their ugly head in democracies, the difference is that democracy has mechanisms in place to constantly push back against those, a totalitarian theocracy does not.
Thats why I personally consider democracy a vastly more desirable system than the one promoted by Imam Tom.
LOL OK you've gone off the deep end, my friend. Written like a RAND report.
@@TomFacchine Anything factually incorrect? Please, feel free to correct.
@@grnzrn Not all errors are factual, some are interpretive.
Very relevant topic which was always misunderstood but Quran spoke clearly about it and said those kafir who go against the laws of Quran or govern secular laws.
Thank you
These types of powerful organisations are called QUANGOs in the UK. They can have far reaching powers across governmental functions.
If you read objective resolution which is included in Pakistan's constitution which is an example where the idea of nation state and islamic state go together.
Doesn't seem like it worked out very well...
God = moral law
Heaven = Nation state
That's how orthodox and catholic Christians belive
The example he gave for child care services seems to be also true for the social care services taking away childrens in many European countries who they were supposed to protect.
As recently as the late 19th century, Pope Pius IX issued his Syllabus of Errors, which denounces and repudiates numerous modern ideas and ideologies, not least of which are liberalism and the separation of church and state. The medieval papal bull, Unam Sanctam, affirms the sovereignty of the Church over the State in no uncertain terms. Modern Western Christianity is indeed out of keeping with how Christianity was practiced throughout most of its history.
Also, there was a degree of legal pluralism in Christian Europe. This is why Jews could lend money at interest in the medieval era, because they were exempt from Catholic canon law prohibitions placed on Christians which forbade them to lend at interest.
Wow ❤️❤️
Link to Part 1: ruclips.net/video/Bm2UyQMK3Ig/видео.html
Link to Part 2 :
ruclips.net/video/3Mf2bZXCjq0/видео.html
Dear Imam Tom, could you shed more light on why the problem of bureaucracy would be done away with under the sharia paradigm? Wouldn't a bureaucracy still be needed to interpret and implement laws formulated by the ulema? Isn't the principle of separation of powers likely to be violated under the sharia system as well?
As a very brief response, it sounds like your idea of bureaucracy is much broader than Hallaq's.
And there's a difference between something having a chance of being violated vs. being structurally predisposed to violate it. Hallaq would say the modern state is the latter.
Following up: the problem of bureaucracy is limited to the quality of rigid standardization (and the assumption that this ensures neutrality) that undermines the localism and flexibility of the Shariah in theory and practice.
Let's say, once the power to make the ruler accountable is given to a council of scholars, a method that stands in contrast with the European model of political technology, then do you think that the council will remain immune from similar challenges?
If the solution to this are Shariah and Taqwa, then why is it a problem to Shariah-source or legitimize or aim for a system akin to the current modern political technology?
Another thing. 55:07 The claim, that without any elections, there can be a better system of representation. The reasoning is that 1. a judical "caste" recruits their members from a wide range of society. 2. There can be slightly different judicial systems. 3. The scripture itself, somehow. Those 3 things guarantee are better representation. Now in reality, not everybody has the ability or interest to become a judge (even though under this system it sure is a good way to get representation/power). Common folk like me have to learn how to fix a generator, for example. And those people are needed to run a society. The problem people like me then face is that there are then Mullahs in power, that I cannot remove by vote, even if they repeatedly don´t represent my interests. Also, history shows, that members of a caste, tend to not recruit as widely and indiscriminately, to put it mildly. I fail to see how this is a better system of representation than the one we have in a democracy (despite lobbying and such). Bonus question: Can women become judges under this system?
Hallaq's argument is a historical rather than a theoretical, he is saying that premodern Shariah based societies DID provide better representation, and that is documented historical fact. The reasoning is a little different than what you laid out:
1. There is no "caste," nor "recruitment," rather it is the consequence of the locally based, decentralized, financially/politically independent, meritocratic education system, most of which were set up as religious endowments, and so were free or low cost (premodern madrasa system, which colonial powers dismantled upon arrival).
2. "Slightly" is an understatement. Jews tried under Mosaic law, Christians under the Bible is not slightly different.
3. Not "somehow," rather because the Quran acts like a 3rd party audit, it generates law that is severely critical of the wealthy and powerful and extremely sympathetic to the interests of the poor and oppressed. Compared to Modern law which is generated by the State itself and its political caste (look at the beginning of US history with the 3/5ths compromise, only property holding men voting, etc.)
You seem to be imagining a pretender to the Shariah system that functions like a modern state but instrumentalizing religion to give it legitimacy, such as Iran. This is nothing but the modern system because of the location of sovereignty.
Bonus: This itself is a matter of legitimate difference of opinion among Islamic jurists. Malaysia, for example, has female judges.
@@TomFacchine
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Excuse my ignorance, but this made it even more confusing. How is this elevated to a historical fact? You seem to compare premodern islamic society to todays democracies at 54:48 . Now it seems that Hallaq is comparing the premodern islamic system with other systems at the time (which would theoretically allow for a comparison, given there is reliable data available and correcting for events like the Ridda Wars, in which a sizeable number of the political opposition to the islamic system was removed) Or maybe he is talking about a different period in time alltogether?
1. I agree. Caste might be the wrong word. But I think the formation of an at least slightly privileged class of religious scholars is not completely unreasonable to assume under this system even if the judges come from different backgrounds.
2. That makes sense. Its the people of the book after all. But what if there are Buddhistis, Hindus, other Religions and maybe even atheists among the population. How would this be dealt with under this system?
(I have to say that im generally in favor of a well-defined, codified law, that applies to all citizens equally. This seems to me the most elegant solution.)
3. I still don´t see how this guarantees better representation for the population. I also fail to see it as an effective control mechanism. The Quran itself has no executive power.
I don´t see how this works.
4. I found some interesting articels on that. Very informative. You could have mentioned, that there was actually a non-trivial number of quite remarkable, even celebrated female judges, especially during the golden age of Islam. Malaysia today is interesting, but also complicated as an example, given the fact that there seem to be only about 10 female judges for a population for 17 Million Muslims. And this also only seems to have happened as a result of an ammendment to the secular constitution, which prohibits discrimination. So I hope you understand that I remain highly sceptical of the possibility of female judges under the proposed system. Would you personally advocate for female judges under this system?
@@grnzrn I do appreciate your engagement on these issues and will keep them in mind for future videos. As a respect to you, I have to admit that I've exhausted the amount of time I have to engage in the comments section without encroaching on my other responsibilities. Take care!
@@TomFacchine I understand.
Any expert here? I've a problem understanding one thing. Here we get to know all encompassing powerful state is as they say represents the popular will end of the day. So my question is this why are people willingly giving oath of allegiance to state? When they know their actual representation is not there? How come they were brainwashed into thinking in that way? And how come they comply with that? It seems apparently they have no problem with that. Elaborate anyone?
Fear for their life and love for dunya.
hey mr paul,can u invite jefrey lang here,thx.
Regulatory law or administrative law is certainly an end run around The constitution, referring to the United States and the example given about the department of environmental conservation and the Adirondack park Agency. However there are appeals processes which are rather slow and cumbersome which can be utilized, the system is not perfect it is flawed like any system but it has its benefits. I’m not so sure on law emanating from religious standards whether they be Islamic or any other religion as applied to secular society. Islamic Christian and Jewish religious law has been incorporated into secular law it does not have a dominance in regards to belief but rather has its application in civil and criminal law incorporated into a secular concept. Islam alone as a legal system for society would only bring us into the dark ages.
Did you know basic of science now is from islam world? Avicena/ibn sina did you know this name?
Why you say religion bring back to dark age? I hope you can prove it, and also read the quran that holy book still related until today.
Did you know basic of science now is from islam world? Avicena/ibn sina did you know this name?
Why you say religion bring back to dark age? I hope you can prove it, and also read the quran that holy book still related until today.
These type of scholars needs to make islamic government policies with integration of technological people.But in our countries all is running reverse.
Traveling with no direction 🧠📲📺🙈😔
This difficulty that you're in it will come to an end. It will come to an End
Qur'an 💯
But we did have khilafa, and then the ottoman imperialism happened . So why wasn’t it safeguarded by this logic ? I’m just playing devil’s advocate, since I do think it’s much better but that’s a question that’s been bothering me. Why did we lose it ?
Biggest threat to the matrix !!!!
Paul I was sure that this was a Muslim author. Now realizing that the author is a Christian, can you explain why he would write such a book that seems so pro-Islam?
Because he realized that the conditions of christians under shariah was way better
Why don’t you read to find out for yourself?
What is this word HALAK??
Did I hear and spell correct.?
I never heard it anywhere?
Can't find part 2!
Secular means man made lows over Allah sharia low.
How could it be normal where you have all different kind of tipe kriminals acting like a politicians.
Interest in banks
Taghut everywhere etc.
@Los Rajvosa 007
Prophet Muhammad, too, was a raging bandit, extortionist, self-serving kriminal acting like a messenger. I'm glad you're against kriminals. But it seems you are wearing blinders.
Is there a german translation of the book available?
Does Islam promote for a patriarchal state? (I do not intend to use the feministic understanding of the word 'patriarchy')
CRITIQUE
@19:20 the fact that the rule of law was used to reign in the errant officials amid their malfeasance demonstrates the ethical propriety of the system in the US. Such is compatible with the best moral/ethical impulses laid out in the Qur'an and, therefore, would be thoroughly Islamic. It is, despite Imam Tom's cynicism, a positive not negative development.
@28:23 the executive and judiciary in the ideal putative Islamic State are no less likely to legislate as they encounter new situations and circumstances. Imam Tom's point painting this dynamic in negative terms is therefore facile.
@30:00 the State's law is not un-lslamic or anti-Islamic simply because it is sovereign and above all law: firstly, because the constitution trumps the State (and any ideal Islamic State would have its own constitution drawn from the Islamic sources); secondly, because an Islamic State relies on humans interpreting the Islamic sources to deduce law/legislation their deductions trump God's sovereignty whether we like to admit this inconvenient fact or not.
@31:00 the US State could suspend the constitution (actually this would require someone at the nexus of power like the President and his administration) in theory, however, doing so would firstly require those with the power to do so to successfully negotiate all the checks and balances in place before plunging everyone into a state of autocracy. This is possible but unlikely in a modern democracy (the last minute experience of Trump's interference with Biden's election illustrates the point well).
Similarly, whatever iteration of the Islamic State promulgated by the Muslims would face similar challenges. Imam Tom is simply mistaken on this front and his idealistic thinking blinds him to the realities of statehood.
@32:30 Imam Tom states that in the Islamic State God is sovereign. This may be true in a theoretical, de jure, sense, but in a practical, de facto, sense it is simply untrue. Human interpretation is always required when reading the Qur'an and Sunnah and therefore their efforts in so doing transfers sovereignty onto those effecting the interpretation. Sufficient human effort results in the drafting of and agreement with the constitution which shapes everyday matters for the community \ Ummah and other non-Muslim citizens of the state. None of this entails the active sovereignty of God, since all related activities are thoroughly human in origin.
@32:55 nowhere in the Qur'an does it state God expresses sovereignty via the Shari'ah. The only occasion in the Qur'an where Shari'ah is mentioned is in Surah al-Jathiyah, #45, Ayah #18, which is a Meccan chapter predating the point in time where law, legal matters and legislation occurred.
@34:20 what has happened is that humankind has transitioned from a pre-modern mediaeval mindset into modernity. This means we modern humans appreciate matters in a different light to our predecessors. It also means Muslim conceptions need to catch up with this modern era and new modes of thinking about the world instead of thinking about Islam in monolithic, unchanging terms. This is not to say the Qur'an etc require updating, not at all, just that rigid, uncritical thinking about such requires ditching and reformulating in line with modern modes of thought and approaches. Otherwise, our outmoded version of Islam will become obsolete and/or the Muslims, who cleave to it, extinct.
@38:00 Hallaq's thesis is simplistic - humans have agency throughout, even if revelation descends from God it has to be interpreted by human beings. The right of the poor to the wealth of the rich is one of God's stipulations (via the Qur'an), but humans still need to somehow write this into the constitution of the Islamic State to enshrine and encapsulate it in a suitable form for legal definition; thereafter all governments would need to interpret the particular clause in the constitution for the purpose of enacting appropriate legislation and by putting into place the necessary administrative levers to translate into State policy followed by the judiciary who would need to judge on abuses and to interpret who qualifies as poor and who as rich, how much the former deserve and how much the latter must give. These are complex matters egregiously and simplistically misrepresented by Hallaq's thesis of a sovereign God legislating sovereign law.
@40:30 yet another facile point - the Ummah, its judges, scholars, thinkers and the community (including non-Muslims) would all have a say in a democratic system of Islamic governance. They would not, however, have a say in an autocratic system. Despite what Imam Tom says about the special role of various Muslim scholars in interpreting the law being more democratic, privileging a particular segment of society turns out from bitter experience to be a sure-fire way of ensuring the oppression and injustice of autocracy, no more anti-Islamic a position can one wish for.
@42:25 Imam Tom gets his history wrong here - during the imperial period of the Islamic State (from Mu'awiya onwards) the Ulama \ jurists were mostly in opposition to the autocratic government of the Caliphate. If given favoured status in the modern state, the jurists would surely/eventually end up committing the same autocratic mistakes as their ancestors who made disgusting accommodations with the Ummayyads and Abbasids etc.
@46:20 legal pluralism in the Islamic State only extends to aspects of family law and religious rites of non-Muslim communities (e.g. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus etc). Everyone else and regarding all other laws would be applied according to State directives as interpreted by the judiciary empowered by the State to judge. This is perhaps one of the few distinctions between an Islamic and non-Islamic system, but it is a minor distinction at that, because I would imagine the State would allow, for example, a Jewish woman to petition for equal inheritance or equitable divorce settlement via the State court system rather than having to rely on the Jewish community courts where her rights might be more limited. Thus, in line with Qur'anic prescriptions, injustice must be appropriately challenged under an Islamic State even if by doing so this would conflict with non-Muslim rites.
@50:00 any future Islamic State would do likewise in jealousy promulgating its State laws etc so there is no difference between the nation state and the Islamic State in this respect.
@51:21 it is not a badge of honour to learn Islam in Medina situated in the autocratic state of Saudi Arabia where people are not free to voice their opinions and where academic freedom does not exist. At the very least, the Saudi state does not permit opposition to its rule, including antithetical ideas at the educational level. This means university teachers and scholars are conservative in their teaching which serves their students' learning poorly. Imam Tom's views in this video betray the impact traditionalist, conservative dogma has had on his thoughts.
@53:53 is Imam Tom saying legal representation in the ideal future Islamic State free? Or significantly cheap? Really? Are lawyers anywhere around the world cheap to hire to argue legal matters? If so, wouldn't that in itself encourage too many frivolous cases? Which reality is he living in?
@55:00 there are ONLY two, not three, choices when it comes to government - democracy and autocracy. Muslims have to decide whether they want the state they live in to be one or the other. However, like individuals, they cannot choose to sell themselves into slavery because God has instructed them not to in the Qur'an therefore they must choose a democratic rather than autocratic model.
@56:05 astoundingly naïve and uncritical assertions - scholars/jurists/judges are mostly not independent of the government; each requires an education and each requires an appropriate position/appointment. In this respect, most scholars/jurists/judges require state funding for their education resulting in a government sector job paid for via taxpayers' money. This is the pattern throughout the modern world these days, particularly within the democratic paradigm.
@58:40 the abuses against Muslims in France and Sweden are just that, unjust and oppressive. But this happens in ALL states to a greater or lesser extent, more particularly in autocratic ones where redress is not possible whatsoever. Analogous challenges would face people living in the Islamic State.
Thank you for this discussion. After listening to all three installments, I have a few thoughts in contradiction and some continuing curiosity. Please forgive my length. As you suggested earlier, I have waited for your concluding installment to perfect my understanding.
You do not mention that political parties are made up of voters. If a party includes a majority of voters, that majority of voters should be able to decide, through their representatives, the issues of the day, should they not? Representatives are accountable to the voters to hold power beyond the next election. Perhaps the most famous example of a representative seeking to hold power regardless of voters’ will was Donald Trump. The voters kicked him out. He was held accountable to the voters (through the messengers in the electoral college). Democracy worked.
You characterize the modern nation state (democracy) as separate from the voters. I assure you, from my experience within the executive, legislative branches and now performing an appointed judicial function, it simply is not separated from the voters. Individual voters may feel powerless because they are one among hundreds in a town, thousands in a county, millions in a (US) state, and hundreds of millions in a country. But elections at each of these levels concerning thousands, perhaps millions, of decisions to be made (taxation, education, public utility, transportation, crime, punishment, etc, etc) - many not addressed in Muslim law I imagine, occur with great frequency here. Each election an exercise in accountability.
If Islamic scholars in an Islamic state determine appropriate taxation, are Christians and Jews to be exempt - not required to pay the tax based on their religious beliefs?
Congratulations on your successful lawsuit - your democratic power applied through it, holding the New York DEC accountable. A good example of effective separation of executive and judicial powers in the modern secular state.
I and most judges who I know are not products of an elite class, I assure you.
You suggest that Sharia governance is independent from any government? If a Sharia system interprets law, and dictates behavior, it seems to me it is a government. Is it not?
You referred to a “territory.” What “territory” to be governed by Sharia are you referring to?
How are members of the Sharia scholar class “organically” selected and removed?
If I may, there are many lapses in your comment. First and foremost, the machinations of power are often invisible to those operating from within any given political system based on them, for they are subject to those machinations and cannot look at them from a vantage point. What may seem like a mild, natural consequence of an otherwise healthy system to an operative of that system, might in fact be far more malignant and destructive when observed without the benefits of one's biases. So you shouldn't trust your experiences as an accurate foundation on which to base your assessment of the whole system, as being an insider is as much an obstacle as it might be an asset.
Additionally, power tends to stay with those that want to keep it, instead of those that want to hand it over. Even in a supposed democracy with various machinations in place to stop this, bands of men bent on subverting the system form organically and instantly, and begin competing in a race to the bottom to acquire and hold as much of the power that is up for grabs as possible. Whereas in a despotic system, this takes the form of suppressing one's political rivals, in a democracy it takes the much more sinister and far more destructive form of manufacturing consent. If before the two dozen sons of a rival family were poisoned to secure one's own line of succession, now an entire country's sons need to be poisoned to neutralize the threat. So an ideological, moral war starts in society, waged by the ruling elites, which are always a separate group, a tiny minority -no matter who or what they're supposed to "represent"-, against the population.
Every institution, and every aspect of public life needs to be subverted and remade to accommodate the official justification narratives of this ruling elite or be destroyed. Destruction might take a nonviolent form-although even that is not a given, and a BLM or an Antifa are always there if and when needed-, but it is total and unrelenting. From Harvard to Hollywood, from every news agency to every publication house, from every major corporation to every university, the justification narratives of the ruling elite must be treated with reverence and total submission, as anything less would bring about the total jihad of the entire political machine, which now enjoys the coerced allegiance of segments of society that were historically always beyond the control of even the worst despots.
So even if you, as a judge, enjoy the appearance of independence, as soon as you make a tiny, small, insignificant decision like, say, overturning Roe v. Wade, the entire machine gets to work: the political wing leaks your name and addresses to the media wing, the media wing then relays that information to the activist wing so they can gather outside your private residence and intimidate you and your family, while the police and military wings of the regime sit back and watch the peaceful protestors, whereas a mob of opposing ideology engaging in the same behaviour would be branded as a terrorist organisation attempting an insurrection by intimidating public officials. The collegial wing of the regime gets to the work of providing coherent, sobering and detailed accounts as to why all this is perfectly justified and legal and moral, and the system keeps the pressure on until the lesson is learned well: if you defect from this party line, you will be crushed.
Whereas the persecuted political opponents of the old regime always posed the threat of being elevated to the level of heroes and revolutionaries, the detractors of the new regime are systematically demonized by an entire industry designed to abuse the latest technological tools and psychological discoveries to defame in a most devastating fashion, even the heretics of the old were allowed to rest once beheaded or burnt at the stakes, whereas the new regime can accuse of heresy long after your death, and tarnish your reputation posthumously, even if you were good, loyal servant all your life.
What's worse, because of democratisation and secularisation, this process must be as expansive as possible, to neutralzie all potential threats, which in a democracy with universal suffrage means a war of everyone against everyone. As I mentioned before, where a despotic king killed and maimed the sons of his most prominent political opponents, the millions of nameless, faceless mini-kings of a modern bureaucracy, in an attempt to ensure the perseverance of power in their own ideological dynasties, outlaw masculinity itself. When a mythical despot in history might have killed all firstborn sons of his subjects, the actual despots of today will deploy their education wing to brainwash every little boy in the nation in the virtues of transgenderism. In short, where there was friction between the rulers and the ruled in traditional societies that on rare occasions degenerated into limited warfare with conventional weapons, this friction graduates into full-on, open, constant warfare of all against all with the most destructive weapons of mass destruction created by man: weaponized social psychology.
All this means the political completely Invades the private, the private is political, and the political is increasingly insane and aggressive.
As for the separation of the branches, the level of political interference with the public, social and private existence of the people is nowhere greater than in a democracy, even in the so-called totalitarian regimes there is still some separation between those in charge of refining the dogma, the priestly caste, and those in charge of implementing that dogma, or the warrior caste. The potential of getting out-competed by more virtuous elites in a democracy however, fuels the need for priestly involvement in every facet of social existence. If a convincing, public demonstration of faith in the dogma is the way to acquire and maintain power, then the priests must reign supreme, as they're the ones in charge of refining the dogma so the believers can achieve ever greater heights of holiness.
@@iraniandude2899 You honor me by taking the time and effort to reply. Thank you. I disagree that my long involvement with democracy blinds me to its flaws any more than Tom's and your involvement with Islam blinds you. If study and involvement in a subject result in biases, then no one can be a credible authority on any subject.
In my experience, there will always be disagreement over interpretation of a society's rules. Democracy demonstrates every day around the world where it is applied that it is an effective nonviolent dispute resolution method. This fact is so widely accepted that even dictatorships and Islamic states pretend to be democracies.
@@chuckhillier4153 I assure you the honor is mine. It isn't mere involvement that taints your experiences with biases, it is your position of esteem and influence within the system which understandably makes you more likely to agree with the various justification narratives presented by the system to legitimize that esteem and status. This isn't to say that you cannot have an unbiased view of the system that you are part of, it only means that such a view cannot be based on your experiences of it if.
Success is indeed a great measure to judge a political system with, however that success must rationally, empirically and directly be linked to some machinations of the system, which in the case of democracy, there is no such evidence, other than the circumstantial one which asserts democracy and success to occupy the same geography. Racists use the same argument to prove the superiority of the white race, since almost all of those wonderful, successful, wealthy democracies happen to be white. They actually have a better argument than the defenders of democracy.
The issue with success is that first it needs to be defined, which reveals its somewhat subjective quality, is a society where every child has a smartphone more successful than one where every child has an intact family with a father and a mother at home?
The second problem with using the success of Western Liberal democracies to defend Liberal democracy is that even if we did agree on the highly materialistic value systems of Western Liberal democracies of what constitutes success, it still remains unclear whether they'd be able to perpetuate that materialistic success in a long-term time frame. All evidence, in fact, points to the opposite being true, the collapse in birthrates, the increased political polarisation, the increasing economic disparity, the encroachment of Liberal values by increasingly popular illiberal dogma, the stratification of bureaucracy, the hyper-egalitarian instinct overwriting all social contracts in its own image... all societies in human history have had incredible bouts of growth, expansion and worldly success, what matters, in the end, is their ability to perpetuate this success across time and space, to outpace social entropy, moral degeneration and political collapse. My homeland of Iran was invaded once by Arabs, and a couple of centuries later, by Mongols. Whereas the cultural imprint of the Arab invasion remains incredibly alive and strong today, of the Mongol invasion there is not one trace left, except for perhaps the small genetic one. Ascendant societies are in a race against time, their enemies and internal subversive elements to remain ascendant, and Western Liberal democracies show all the signs of running out of vitality, and it happened almost as quickly as it did to the Mongols.
@@iraniandude2899 Thank you again for replying. The elephant in the room of this discussion is, of course, Tom's conclusion that he and other scholars like him are the ones who should be handed power. No bias there?
@@iraniandude2899 Thats why a free press is also important. What does the free press look like under Sharia-Law?
57:51 Thats the theory. Here is how it plays out in practice: "By one estimate, 80% of the 600+ Saudi judges and almost all senior judges[58] come from Qasim, a province in the center of the country with less than 5% of Saudi's population,[59] but known as the strict religious Wahhabi heartland of Saudi Arabia.[55] Senior judges will only allow like-minded graduates of select religious institutes to join the judiciary and will remove judges that stray away from rigidly conservative judgments.[60]" - Wikpedia - Legal system of Saudi Arabia
Wikipedia? Really?
If you had followed previous videos, you would know that there is no country in the world today paradigmatically based on the Shariah. Rather, there are secular nation states that instrumentalize religion as it suits them. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of that.
@@TomFacchine There are footnotes in the wikipedia article that direct to the sources. Ofcourse you may question the validity of those but wikipedia is usually not a terrible ressource. Regarding Sharia-Law. The more I read about it, the more I reach the understanding, that there actually is no Sharia-Law. It seems that there have been various attempts to codify such a law, but never successful. So, naturally, there can be no country in the world that is based on something that simply doesnt exist. But maybe I´m wrong and you are so kind and direct me to the codified Sharia Law.
Honest question. Why is there so much resistance against codifying Sharia Law by the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia? What is the reason for this?
@@TomFacchine Ok, you immediately shadow-banned me. Thats one way, I guess. It´s just not going to work in a public political debate or a parliament of a secular society. You know, the places where you have to convince people and answer questions.
@@grnzrn calm down, I did not "shadow ban" you; this video is not on my channel in the first place, and I don't even know if the owner of a channel gets to shadow ban someone or how they would do that. Don't get conspiratorial on me, it would dissuade me from engaging you and your views.
1:00:34 So Judges can be engaged in business activities in areas where they are also the only legal authority and the only thing keeping them in check is scripture, that does not contain any rulings on modern business practices and which they are free to interpret? What could possibly go wrong! This is actually the perfect recipe to create Mullah-Warlords which at some point start fighting against each other and the government over ressources. Thinking about it: this is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now and keeps happening all over the middle east. I think I´ve just identified a root cause.
Slow down and use your listening skills, did I say or imply what you're claiming? I did not. Plus it's a red herring, we're talking about the conflict of interest inherent in being employed by the state, those are two separate issues. This video deals with the big picture, if you don't have the patience for that you will never get to the details.
Wow, the series can easily be renamed, accurately, as why no modern state (including Afghanistan) claiming to islamic/sharia-based polity is actually one, or can be one - and you jump straight to taking Afghanistan as an practical example to understand islamic polity!
@@TomFacchine What you say in the video is:
The key features of sharia-society
- legal specialists are educated independent of government
- financially independent (running their own business)
- earlier in the video you mention, that judges should be working more local (in their communities)
Please correct me, if I´m wrong, but there seems to be no control over the courts by the government (or parliament) whatsoever. Judges are also free to interpret scripture the way they see fit. So checks and balances is removed. The question of who is then actually enforcing the law is not mentioned in the video. I think its a logical consequence that judges start creating their own local enforcement agencys (or militias). And since judges are human beings (with businesses) there will also be corruption. And I think thats what we are seeing play out in reality. ISKP in Afghanistan certainly has 1. legal specialists, educated independent of government 2. they are financially independent (running their own business) 3. they are working more local (in their communities) And I´m sure they are convinced to have to correct interpretation of the scripture.
@@TomFacchine Also, I´m really trying, not to misrepresent what you are proposing. In all honesty. So please correct me, if I got something wrong.
@@grnzrn judges in Afghanistan are appointed by the govt. Bt in islamic polity, the disputing parties go the learned person that both parties think to be honest and knowledgable. That's the diff in a nutshell, to the best of my knowledge.
According to Islam , Mary can have a Son, without a man touching her . But inorder for Allah to have a Son, he needs a wife .
Who is greater here between the two ?
Ofcourse Mary .
Imam Tom or imam sam, is utter disrespect to islam, if you are unwilling to change to an islamic name dont convert to islam,, these days its absolutly crazy times, we have a guy who calles himself eddie from the deen show tv, ask him what is eddie, there are even some mulims arabs calling themselves MO (MOHHAMMED), NOW WE HAVE AN IMAM TOM, UTTER DISGRACE,, TOMORROW WE WILL HAVE IMAM LAKSHAMI, IMAM RAM,
who are you to say that? Does Islam belong to you? any name not against Islam Muslims can use.
Go away troll
I love Imam Tom's superh comprehension of texts. Unlike camel urine drinking sheiks who can READ a text, unless you can COMPREHEND it you may still misinterpret and mislead peoole. Thats why the English portion of any exam includes BOTH reading & comprehension not just reading and memorizing.