Exsubmariner
11-13-2006, 11:07 PM
As many of you may know, I happen to have a friend who is a practicing Shia Muslim. I refer to him as my Persian friend and have posted about him in politics. Since this is not quite a political topic, I have decided to write about this particular conversation here. I am lucky to have such a friend, for his different perspective (which I find to be very rational) on the world.
This particular conversation, I found myself being instructed on the basis of Shia law, and the decision making process which goes into a ruling.
Basically, it goes something like this. There is the Islamic law as written in the Qu'ran. Then, there is the precedent set by the prophet. After that, there is the precedent set by the Imams. If none of these satisfies your dilemma, you may make a determination based on the conventional knowledge of your day.
Sunni Law differs in that you have to stop at the precedent of the Imams.
Whabbi law differs in that you have to stop at the precedent set by the profit.
Thus, the resolution to women voting, for example, in Whabbi or Shia law is unresolvable because the prophet sure as hell didn't deal with it and neither have the previous Imams. It is a decidedly modern dilemma, but Shia law offers a process by which women may be allowed to vote, because of changing social norms in an increasingly democratic world.
Anyway, I got Socratic on his ass and said something about ethical mathematics. After he told me about the rule that intent is not punishable in Islam, only action (in other words, anyone can make any threat, but they have to act on it to be punished for it in Islam) I posed the question of a mad bomber. What if he were faced with a mad bomber that was going to kill some number of people, it was just a question of the size of the bomb. It could be a suicide belt, a truck bomb, a semi tractor trailor bomb, or a nuclear bomb. I asked him at what point is it OK to violate the edict of thou shalt not kill (there is a similar law in Islam)and the rule of intent being unpunishale. He replyed that when the law was written down, there was no such thing as a bomb which could potentially kill thousands in an instant. The Prophet nor the Imams never faced such a scenario. In previous days the feircest weapon available was weilded in hand to hand combat and could kill one at a time. Thus, he said, one had to rely on conventional knowledge.
Therefore, he said, one should try to take the bomb away and if lethal force was necessary, so be it. I thought this a very good answer. He also noted that a Whabbi or Sunni would be screwed because they would have to wait for the bomber to set off the bomb, which of course would be too late.
Discuss.
This particular conversation, I found myself being instructed on the basis of Shia law, and the decision making process which goes into a ruling.
Basically, it goes something like this. There is the Islamic law as written in the Qu'ran. Then, there is the precedent set by the prophet. After that, there is the precedent set by the Imams. If none of these satisfies your dilemma, you may make a determination based on the conventional knowledge of your day.
Sunni Law differs in that you have to stop at the precedent of the Imams.
Whabbi law differs in that you have to stop at the precedent set by the profit.
Thus, the resolution to women voting, for example, in Whabbi or Shia law is unresolvable because the prophet sure as hell didn't deal with it and neither have the previous Imams. It is a decidedly modern dilemma, but Shia law offers a process by which women may be allowed to vote, because of changing social norms in an increasingly democratic world.
Anyway, I got Socratic on his ass and said something about ethical mathematics. After he told me about the rule that intent is not punishable in Islam, only action (in other words, anyone can make any threat, but they have to act on it to be punished for it in Islam) I posed the question of a mad bomber. What if he were faced with a mad bomber that was going to kill some number of people, it was just a question of the size of the bomb. It could be a suicide belt, a truck bomb, a semi tractor trailor bomb, or a nuclear bomb. I asked him at what point is it OK to violate the edict of thou shalt not kill (there is a similar law in Islam)and the rule of intent being unpunishale. He replyed that when the law was written down, there was no such thing as a bomb which could potentially kill thousands in an instant. The Prophet nor the Imams never faced such a scenario. In previous days the feircest weapon available was weilded in hand to hand combat and could kill one at a time. Thus, he said, one had to rely on conventional knowledge.
Therefore, he said, one should try to take the bomb away and if lethal force was necessary, so be it. I thought this a very good answer. He also noted that a Whabbi or Sunni would be screwed because they would have to wait for the bomber to set off the bomb, which of course would be too late.
Discuss.