Human rights" are a concern. They are not a formal system. We use our formal system of morality, i.e. Islamic law, to address concerns, one by one, as they arise. — alcontali

Nobody uses sharia alone. Your government outlawed slavery without consulting a sharia judge.

Nobody uses sharia alone. — frank

That is a jurisprudential question for which I am not the right person to produce a religious advisory.

Your government outlawed slavery without consulting a sharia judge. — frank

Which one of the 200+ governments on this planet?

When I fly around the globe, and while the airborne airplane crosses 35 national borders, does that mean that my system of morality would flip flop 35 times?

As far as I am concerned, the core job of a government is to keep out other governments. I am not keen on letting them do much more than that. This view is obviously subject to the regulatory restrictions on the matter that syntactically entail from the Islamic scriptures, but on which I do not feel that I would be the right person to produce a religious advisory.

Nobody uses sharia alone. — frank

Incorrect. Saudi Arabia and ISIS use Sharia alone. The Koran is the constitution there.

When I fly around the globe, and while the airborne airplane crosses 35 national borders, does that mean that my system of morality would flip flop 35 times? — alcontali

To be honest, you appear psychopathic to me. I'm not attacking or insulting you. You just do.

Saudi Arabia and ISIS use Sharia alone. — Nobeernolife

Saudi doesn't use sharia alone. ISIS, I'll take your word for it.

Saudi doesn't use sharia alone. — frank

What else does Saudi use? Any reference?

..because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says" — Banno

The problem is your framing of the issue. And it's far from clear that those who describe themselves as 'religious' themselves would agree that this is what it means; Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists would certainly not think so. It's more like the typical Enlightenment framing of 'irrational' religion vs 'rational analysis', based on a rather cliched understanding of religious philosophy.

There's a passage from Josiah Royce paraphrased on William Vallicella's blog, which I think conveys the gist of religious philosophies far better than declaring them simply a matter of divine imposition:

I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

I'm quite happy to accept that this last sentence describes many contemporary philosophers, and many people who post here; as Thomas Nagel observes in a footnote to his essay, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament,

A number of prominent analytic philosophers are Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and others, such as Wittgenstein and Rawls, clearly had a religious attitude to life without adhering to a particular religion. But I believe nothing of the kind is present in the makeup of Russell, Moore, Ryle, Austin, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Strawson, or most of the current professoriate.

So, it's natural that such writers will depict philosophy of religion in very simplistic terms, but that is because for them it's simply not a meaningful domain of discourse.

A number of prominent analytic philosophers are Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and others, such as Wittgenstein and Rawls, clearly had a religious attitude to life without adhering to a particular religion. But I believe nothing of the kind is present in the makeup of Russell, Moore, Ryle, Austin, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Strawson, or most of the current professoriate.

That's what makes them all great in their own respects...

:wink:

I don't know if they're 'great' in many respects at all. Philosophy, philo-sophia, was originally grounded in something like 'saving wisdom' i.e. an insight into the roots of the human condition and its amelioration through wisdom. Where it differs from religion, is that it seeks to realise these ends through reasoned discourse, and not simply the acceptance of dogmatic beliefs. But the problem is in modern culture, that the sapiential (i.e. salvific) aspects of philosophy have too often been discarded with the bathwater of religious dogma. Leaving philosophy to be mainly 'talking about talking', which in all fairness, does comprise a very large percentage of what goes on in this forum, too.

What else does Saudi use? Any reference? — Nobeernolife

They began codifying in 2010. See here

...philosophy to be mainly 'talking about talking', which in all fairness, does comprise a very large percentage of what goes on in this forum, too. — Wayfarer

Yep.

They began codifying in 2010. See here — frank

It is still Shariah, and Shariah only. That they began codifying it does not change that. Your Wiki article does not reference any other sources than the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (i.e. Sharia) for the codified Saudi system. ISIS also "codified" Sharia, i.e. in their instruction manuals of how to handle sex slaves. Since the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (the sources for Sharia) are not structured as legal books, of course a Sharia judge will have to codify them.

To be honest, you appear psychopathic to me. I'm not attacking or insulting you. You just do. — frank

And now you are even an amateur psychiatrist publicly practising medicine without a license.

Laws vary by state, but practicing medicine without a license is illegal in all states. Common sentences range from one to eight years in prison, depending on whether it's a misdemeanor or felony offense. Many judges will also impose fines in addition to prison sentences. — Criminal Penalties for Practicing Medicine Without a License

Apparently, I would need to do the following things:

If you think you may have undergone medical "treatment" by someone who isn't in fact licensed to practice medicine, the first thing you need to do is report the person to local law enforcement. Since practicing medicine without a license is a serious crime, you need to get the police involved. This will hopefully lead to the offender’s arrest as quickly as possible, which is important because the offender may be continuing the fraud by "treating" or attempting to "treat" other victims.

Also, the patient should report the offender to the state medical complaint board. This board may be able to warn other potential patients and investigate how to prevent the problem in the future. For tips on where to go to make your report, see this page.

The patient may also file a lawsuit against the offender. — What to do as a victim of criminal unlicensed practice of medicine

I think that, with your dangerous habit of practicing medicine without a license, you'd better have a lot of money, and a lot of time to spare, because there are numerous parties and official departments who would urgently like to talk with you about that.

practising medicine without a license — alcontali

Isn't licensing an overreach of government authority in your view?

is still Shariah, and Shariah only. That they began codifying it does not change that. Your Wiki article does not reference any other sources than the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (i.e. Sharia) for the codified Saudi system. ISIS also "codified" Sharia, i.e. in their instruction manuals of how to handle sex slaves. Since the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths (the sources for Sharia) are not structured as legal books, of course a Sharia judge will have to codify them. — Nobeernolife

Sharia isn't the Koran or Hadiths. It's a practice. Codifying bypasses this practice.

Isn't licensing an overreach of government authority in your view? — Pfhorrest

That is indeed a potential problem.

In this case, I would be re-purposing an environment of existing licensing regulations to solve a problem, regardless of whether I like these regulations or not. Still, from the perspective of the individual believer, an existing government is merely a tool to achieve a particular goal, on the condition that the intended use is not in violation of Islamic law.

Who else could, on the territory that they control, rein in the (unlicensed) practice of medicine without permission of the patient and against his will? In all practical terms, I am afraid that it is most likely the official mafia that will have to do it. They even seem to have set up quite an impressive infrastructure for that purpose.

In the libertarian view, licensing is indeed a real concern, but not completely banned either. Richard Stallman created the General Public License in order to establish the copyleft regime with which he quite successfully neutralized the nefarious consequences of the copyright regime:

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too. — Preamble of the GPL

Turning such regime against itself is, in my opinion, a stroke of genius. Therefore, I do not object to the copyright regime for software, simply, because the copyleft regime existentially depends on it. I am an avid GNU/Linux user and I shun copyrighted software like the plague by happily using the holier-than-thou approach invented by "Saint-Ignucius".

Concerning government itself, I am indeed reluctant to use government services because I subscribe to the idea that there is not one problem that the government will not make worse.

By the way, Richard Stallman sits pretty much on the radical left of the political spectrum. So, I probably disagree with him on everything else concerning government and/or morality.

Sometimes these pesky governments even force you to make use of their services; in which case, you are obviously free from any related responsibility, unless you could easily escape the problem. In that sense, I guess that article 8 of the August 1945 London Agreement was spot on:

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. — Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis

Sharia isn't the Koran or Hadiths. It's a practice. Codifying bypasses this practice. — frank

Shariah is the practise of law based on the Koran, the Haddiths and the Sunna. When you base your legal system on Koran, the Haddiths and the Sunna, you have Shariah. Codifying that does not change that, it simply formalizes it. I don`t know where your confusion stems from.

Shariah is the practise of law based on the Koran, the Haddiths and the Sunna — Nobeernolife

Traditionally by way of ijtihad. I'm not too interested in debating it.

Traditionally by way of ijtihad. I'm not too interested in debating it. — frank

In both Sunni and Shia doctrine, the age of ijitihad is over. Again, I don´t know where your confusion is. Wishful thinking perhaps?

Religion is a small evil, unless thought about more in a descriptive sense, a small thing. He was religious. Could mean high or holy.

"I am that cool looking word to say(shape to conceive)." It's toned down in a one religion sense, as it is. Religious people, like good people should be doing more than stake a claim in heaven.

In both Sunni and Shia doctrine, the age of ijitihad is over. Again, I don´t know where your confusion is. Wishful thinking perhaps? — Nobeernolife

I don't know what the age of ijtihad is, and I'm not a Muslim, so I dont really care how they do it.

I just know that the predominant legal schools in Islam see ijtihad as essential to Sharia.

Have a nice day.

I don't know what the age of ijtihad is, and I'm not a Muslim, so I dont really care how they do it.
I just know that the predominant legal schools in Islam see ijtihad as essential to Sharia. — frank

I do not know where you "know" that from, but I have not seen that statement from any current leading cleric, either Sunni or Shia. Unless they define ijitihad in a very shallow way.

do not know where you "know" that from, but I have not seen that statement from any current leading cleric, either Sunni or Shia. Unless they define ijitihad in a very shallow way. — Nobeernolife

The sources from which the Hanafi madhhab derives Islamic law are, in order of importance and preference: the Quran, and the hadiths containing the words, actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (narrated in six hadith collections, of which Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most relied upon); if these sources were ambiguous on an issue, then the consensus of the Sahabah community (Ijma of the companions of Muhammad), then individual's opinion from the Sahabah, Qiyas (analogy), Istihsan (juristic preference), and finally local Urf (local custom of people). — Hisham M. Ramadan (2006), Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, Rowman Altamira, ISB

The four main schools are all like that. No cleric needs to rule on it. The practice of codifying is a British intrusion.

Why is this important to you, anyway?

the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

Is it always 'because God says'? Take some moral rule X. Is X a rule because God says, or does God say because X is really wrong? The former denies objective morals. If God said one must light a live puppy on fire at least once a month, then that's the rule, but a rule relative to God, not objective.
The latter would be God forbidding lighting live puppies on fire because that's just wrong, implying there's a higher authority than God.
How is this resolved? I resolve this by denying both.

The sources from which the Hanafi madhhab derives Islamic law are, in order of importance and preference: the Quran, and the hadiths containing the words, actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (narrated in six hadith collections, of which Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the most relied upon); if these sources were ambiguous on an issue, then the consensus of the Sahabah community (Ijma of the companions of Muhammad), then individual's opinion from the Sahabah, Qiyas (analogy), Istihsan (juristic preference), and finally local Urf (local custom of people). — Hisham M. Ramadan (2006), Understanding Islamic Law: From Classical to Contemporary, Rowman Altamira, ISB


The four main schools are all like that. No cleric needs to rule on it. The practice of codifying is a British intrusion.

Why is this important to you, anyway? — frank

That is not ijitihad. He is simply saying that they interpret the scriptures for a Sharia decision, which I also said. So why are you arguing? Ijitihad goes deeper, it is questioning the sources fundamentally.

And why is this important to you? I simply pointed out that there indeed are places where Sharia is the law today.

And why is this important to you? I simply pointed out that there indeed are places where Sharia is the law today. — Nobeernolife

Actually you asserted that there are places where sharia law is used alone. You pointed to Saudi as an example. Slavery is illegal in Saudi, so that tells you they aren't using sharia alone.

I take it the question isnt important to either of us. Let's let it drop.

Actually you asserted that there are places where sharia law is used alone. You pointed to Saudi as an example. Slavery is illegal in Saudi, so that tells you they aren't using sharia alone. — frank

They ARE using Sharia alone. As you busily and eloquently proved, Sharia is of course based on interpretation of the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths by Sharia judges. If slavery is codified as illegal in Saudi, do they use another source for that than Sharia? If you know one, tell us.

They ARE using Sharia alone. As you busily and eloquently proved, Sharia is of course based on interpretation of the Koran, Sunna, and Haddiths by Sharia judges. If slavery is codified as illegal in Saudi, do they use another source for that than Sharia? If you know one, tell us. — Nobeernolife

Slavery cant be outlawed by sharia law. You're kind of clueless.

The knowledge database of religious advisories keeps growing every day. Look for example just at this one site: https://islamqa.info/en . Every time there is a question, an attempt is made to discover a suitable jurisprudential advisory that syntactically entails from scripture.

However, saying that all issues have been clarified by the scriptures would be equivalent to saying that all theorems and their justification are discovered already when publishing the axioms of a theory.

It took 350 years to discover the justification from number theory for Fermat's Last Theorem. So, knowledge discovery is not necessarily an easy thing in a formal system. It could be a lot of hard work. — alcontali

Seems like a terribly confused system, if actually created by a deity. A set of texts is given like a set of axioms so that good people (muslims) can assign and or become experts who render all theorums based on axioms or generate them in response to questions....I mean, why give humans a soul and a heart and urges. You could make machines to play moral chess. It seems like not honoring your own creation, us, by making all behavior the result of mathematical type deduction. What a waste.

For example, don't ask it to predict the weather. — alcontali

which is nto really a philosophical issue.

And the Koran and other works cannot really demonstrate what philosophy of language one should have in relation to the texts, since if one uses part of the text to justify one's philosophy, then you have already applied a philosophy of language without it yet being justified when reading the text. You cannot justify the rules of justification either (deduction say) from scripture. And you cannot justify epistemological questions since if you accept scripture as perfect and right from the get go you already applied some kind of epistemology without it yet being justified. There are a lot of other things that scripture cannot resolve. And, at base, we as humans must take responsibility for some of our axioms, even if one of those axioms is 'I will do as that book seems to indicate or what experts of that book say it indicates'. Because one is still trusting oneself to choose the right book - so right there we have a radical intuitionist epistemology - or to find the right experts, or to be interpreting, whatever we argue confirms the scripture as correct, correctly.,

There is no escape from our own intuition, even if the one main, but enormous, act we use is saying we give up our intuition to book X because we know it is the right one.

Slavery cant be outlawed by sharia law. You're kind of clueless. — frank

Maybe, but you´d have to do a lot of interpretation for that. Can you show the source in the Koran, Sunna, or Haddith where it is forbidden?

And can we do without name-calling?