'Omar's Law is UNKNOWN in Sweden': Swedish historian to Imran Khan

[Saeed4Truth]

ye historian kitanbi batain kr rha hai, IK ne dono models ko ek jesa kaha tha, yani Omar (RA) law aur swedish law resembles

 

[magicjack]

Now our new history is being written by IK and backed by Mr. Haroon ur Rashid. I believe, they will soon write another segement of major history under the caption "Sita White Marhooma ki yad dasht".

This will be an interesting story to read.

 

[UKPakistani]

Hazrat Umar (RA) ruled for 10 years and see what he achieved in this relatively short time. When Saad Bin Abi Waqas (RA), Muar Bin Al-Aas (RA), Khalid Bin Walid (RA), Mughira Bin Sha’ba (RA), Ammar Bin Yasar (RA) and Ayaz Bin Ghanam (RA), all highly respected sahaba holding high offices, were found to have transgressed, Hazrat Umar (RA) had no hesitation in removing them from their posts. What a contrast to today’s rulers! Their cronies commit a crime for which they are convicted but then, with the stroke of a pen, they are cleared of all wrongdoing.


make sense to ANYONE ?

 

[Sedqal]

Yes, who cares if swedes copied omar's law (if there is such a thing). Most important is that I don't keep you away from your tryst ....have fun!

Alas, I have been trying to accidently run into her for quite a while now but to no avail, though I have this lingering fear that she is probably married and might call me Bhaiya to stop any unwanted advances (bigsmile) - in any case returning to the post in question, lets look at the bigger picture:

1. Rational sciences primarily came from Greeks to Muslims (through translation in Golden period of Islam), Most of Muslim scientists/ philosophers were greatly influenced by Greeks. Traditionalists were not in favor of rationality (to varying degrees)
a. Philosophy is hard to explain as it is - Its even more difficult to show a direct linkage between scientific spirit and philosophy
b. Traditionalists won the battle

2. Masses were far more influenced by traditionalists then rationalists (Again religion)
a. No public support of rational sciences
b. Public perception that rationality is the 'other side' as compared to Islamic sciences

3. Imam Ahmed was tortured and jailed by a pro-rationality caliph (al-mamun !?) on the basis of a rational argument (Mutazalee) whether Quran is creation or not. As Imam Ahmed died soon after he was released from prison most blamed the caliph for imposing his rationalist views on public.
a. Imam Ahmed held a great esteem amongst Public and traditionalists and this is one of the key events which resulted in rationality being despised in Islamic society (before this it was tolerated)
b. Also consider the fact that masses accepted Fatmid dynasty even though it was Shiite in a Sunni majority area because Fatmids did not impose any beliefs on them (that was right after the mamun)

4. Once rationality lost its appeal in public the curios elements in Muslim society went to Sufism. Which fared worse for rationality
a. As all mystical religions, Sufism provided no venue for scientific research. A bit of simplification but Sufism provides a world view which is very subjective so much so any objective reality does not exist (thus no need for empirical research)
b. Where rationality depended on logic, Traditionalists depended on Holy Texts and Sirat Sufis went the third way, knowledge not from texts or logic but through divine

So in case of Islamic empires rationality has always enjoyed a troubled relationship with religion and in my humble opinion any study of Muslim failure to excel in natural sciences will not be complete unless religious influences are also considered in the debate!

 

[InsafianPTI]

yes I agree with you when you say humans have tthis urge to improve themselves but for me its hard to imagine how they worked out such a similar system without any interaction or knowledge about what was happening in muslim world.
In another post of mine in this thread I had said that I don't agree that it was pure cognition and some coincident, for me as it is in modern learning theories that they have managed to evolute these system from what they learned from their previous generations or previous civilisations and in this case it was muslims.
If their history don't throw any light on this that doesn't mean it can't have existed.

I'm not saying this must be the case but it seems like highly likely, this was the case with muslims too who learned from previous civilisations too e.g. greeks.
I think some people confuse it in a way that Islam doesn't prohibit from learning from others and adopting as long as it doesn't damage the principles of morality and belief system in islam.

I has also to do with the fact that Islam promotes equality in society and is sort of anti status quo, that includes minotities rights and women rights.
are these not the steps towards the social welfare?
So how can you say that this has nothing to do with the religion?

I can add that the best way of implementing these systems is the process of evolution.

Completely agree with you. I think that this is a futile discussion. Humans have this urge to improve themselves and the environment around them. Most religions and belief systems just manifest this quest. All of this has to happen in an atmosphere conducive to this kind of evolution. Unfortunately we have not had this environment available to us for the last 4-500 years. I think most of it has been said here already - we live in the past and think that anything good that's seen around the world was somehow a contribution from the Muslims. I think that all religions in essence should have universal appeal. Abrahamic religions have a continuous chain and the social dogma and teachings are pretty much the same for all of them with slight differences here and there.

I agree with you that there is this false sense of entitlement among muslims that since we are supposed to be the last of the Abrahamic religions we will one day automagically dominate the world. I don't even know what dominating the world means really. I don't really buy the notion that muslims did dominate the world - if few kings rulings the world is the concept of muslims domination then I am not sure I am ready to consider that as domination of Islam.



This is a gem of a quote from Khaldun. I am not even sure if we can even characterize what we have in Pakistan as a government - its a cabal at best and then you take out the part about 'preventing any injustice' and thats the government of pakistan for you.

 

[mrk123]

yes I agree with you when you say humans have tthis urge to improve themselves but for me its hard to imagine how they worked out such a similar system without any interaction or knowledge about what was happening in muslim world.

Let me clarify that I am just talking specifically about the concept of welfare system. In the history of Muslims, apart from the reign of the 4 Caliphs, which era would you describe as a model of a social welfare state? I don't know much about this topic to be honest with you but does it really take much thinking to come up with a basic structure of a welfare state - in my opinion it doesn't. A tribe in Amazon coming up with their tribal structure to meet the welfare needs of their tribe is a form of welfare state, isn't it? As I said I am not very knowledgeable on this topic and just generalizing things here and thinking of arguments from the top of my head so I may be wrong. What I am trying to say is laying out the possibility that two separate group of people can come up with the same solution for a problem even if they had no interaction of any kind. Just as in sciencce there are countless examples that two different scientists were working to solve a problem and came up with almost similar solution without any collaboration on either side of the Atlantic.

In another post of mine in this thread I had said that I don't agree that it was pure cognition and some coincident, for me as it is in modern learning theories that they have managed to evolute these system from what they learned from their previous generations or previous civilisations and in this case it was muslims.
If their history don't throw any light on this that doesn't mean it can't have existed.

Since I am not well versed on this topic I would like to know the specifics of what we are talking about - some examples would help. I am still not sure what are we talking about when we say that the west borrowed from the muslims. Are we just talking about the concept of welfare state or is it more than that? Then couple of questions I have - one is that what we are calling 'muslim' structure of a state is it purely islamic or did it itself borrow from the earlier civilization and the second one is if it is indeed an 'islamic' model then why don't we know about it and where did it disappear to just after the first few decades?

I'm not saying this must be the case but it seems like highly likely, this was the case with muslims too who learned from previous civilisations too e.g. greeks.
I think some people confuse it in a way that Islam doesn't prohibit from learning from others and adopting as long as it doesn't damage the principles of morality and belief system in islam.

You basically answered one of my questions above :-)

I has also to do with the fact that Islam promotes equality in society and is sort of anti status quo, that includes minotities rights and women rights.
are these not the steps towards the social welfare?
So how can you say that this has nothing to do with the religion?

I can add that the best way of implementing these systems is the process of evolution.

I am not sure that I said that it had 'nothing' to do with religion - if i did then i made a misspoke. In fact I was making a point that justice, equality, freedoms, are humanistic values and are natural and what happens is that when a few usurp the power they tend to create a system which is not just, is unfair and oppressive. This has happened a lot within the Islamic world after the first 4 caliphs.

Another point I was trying to make was that Islam is the culmination of a chain of Abrahamic religions - and I would assume that these true religions had the same humanistic and social values enshrined in their scriptures and teachings.

I guess both of us are saying the same thing in our own way - i am just learning a few things from the conversation. Thanks!

 

[InsafianPTI]

agree with everything but want to answer your first few questions.
the question here is how did humans got to the thinking this should be the principle (the welfare state) for humans to live with?
what made them do that?
You think it was pure work of their minds?
yes humans can possibly think of same solution of a probelm if they are given centain or similar sets of values, what made them to think that way and adopt those sets of values?
e.g. what made them to abandon the priostitution of woman (referning to main intyerview of this thread) and stand for women's rights?

what was the conscious and sub-conscious inspiration?

My pointis human can't just accidently think of and develope this all of a sudden with their social and cultural aspirations (yes they need brain to adopt that).

yes like yourself I don't know much about this specific topic either but I'm talking about the theoritical aspects of it only!

Let me clarify that I am just talking specifically about the concept of welfare system. In the history of Muslims, apart from the reign of the 4 Caliphs, which era would you describe as a model of a social welfare state? I don't know much about this topic to be honest with you but does it really take much thinking to come up with a basic structure of a welfare state - in my opinion it doesn't. A tribe in Amazon coming up with their tribal structure to meet the welfare needs of their tribe is a form of welfare state, isn't it? As I said I am not very knowledgeable on this topic and just generalizing things here and thinking of arguments from the top of my head so I may be wrong. What I am trying to say is laying out the possibility that two separate group of people can come up with the same solution for a problem even if they had no interaction of any kind. Just as in sciencce there are countless examples that two different scientists were working to solve a problem and came up with almost similar solution without any collaboration on either side of the Atlantic.



Since I am not well versed on this topic I would like to know the specifics of what we are talking about - some examples would help. I am still not sure what are we talking about when we say that the west borrowed from the muslims. Are we just talking about the concept of welfare state or is it more than that? Then couple of questions I have - one is that what we are calling 'muslim' structure of a state is it purely islamic or did it itself borrow from the earlier civilization and the second one is if it is indeed an 'islamic' model then why don't we know about it and where did it disappear to just after the first few decades?



You basically answered one of my questions above :-)



I am not sure that I said that it had 'nothing' to do with religion - if i did then i made a misspoke. In fact I was making a point that justice, equality, freedoms, are humanistic values and are natural and what happens is that when a few usurp the power they tend to create a system which is not just, is unfair and oppressive. This has happened a lot within the Islamic world after the first 4 caliphs.

Another point I was trying to make was that Islam is the culmination of a chain of Abrahamic religions - and I would assume that these true religions had the same humanistic and social values enshrined in their scriptures and teachings.

I guess both of us are saying the same thing in our own way - i am just learning a few things from the conversation. Thanks!

 

[mrk123]

Alas, I have been trying to accidently run into her for quite a while now but to no avail, though I have this lingering fear that she is probably married and might call me Bhaiya to stop any unwanted advances (bigsmile)

Just hope that your accidental run in was just a fender bender where each party is courteous and exchange numbers and was not a horrible crash ;-)



I had some good points that I wanted to make but they escape me now - old age is catching up fast! :-)

Anyway, I will try again

- in any case returning to the post in question, lets look at the bigger picture:

1. Rational sciences primarily came from Greeks to Muslims (through translation in Golden period of Islam), Most of Muslim scientists/ philosophers were greatly influenced by Greeks. Traditionalists were not in favor of rationality (to varying degrees)
a. Philosophy is hard to explain as it is - Its even more difficult to show a direct linkage between scientific spirit and philosophy
b. Traditionalists won the battle

2. Masses were far more influenced by traditionalists then rationalists (Again religion)
a. No public support of rational sciences
b. Public perception that rationality is the 'other side' as compared to Islamic sciences

3. Imam Ahmed was tortured and jailed by a pro-rationality caliph (al-mamun !?) on the basis of a rational argument (Mutazalee) whether Quran is creation or not. As Imam Ahmed died soon after he was released from prison most blamed the caliph for imposing his rationalist views on public.
a. Imam Ahmed held a great esteem amongst Public and traditionalists and this is one of the key events which resulted in rationality being despised in Islamic society (before this it was tolerated)
b. Also consider the fact that masses accepted Fatmid dynasty even though it was Shiite in a Sunni majority area because Fatmids did not impose any beliefs on them (that was right after the mamun)

4. Once rationality lost its appeal in public the curios elements in Muslim society went to Sufism. Which fared worse for rationality
a. As all mystical religions, Sufism provided no venue for scientific research. A bit of simplification but Sufism provides a world view which is very subjective so much so any objective reality does not exist (thus no need for empirical research)
b. Where rationality depended on logic, Traditionalists depended on Holy Texts and Sirat Sufis went the third way, knowledge not from texts or logic but through divine

So in case of Islamic empires rationality has always enjoyed a troubled relationship with religion and in my humble opinion any study of Muslim failure to excel in natural sciences will not be complete unless religious influences are also considered in the debate!

Even though you make a very interesting and well informed argument I am not sure I am ready to accept that religion played a significant role in the decline in the pursuit of rational sciences in the muslim world.

Do you really think that there was a clear demarcation in the timeline where the traditionalists claimed a victory over the rationalists. I have to admit that I have not read about this topic in detail so my observation may sound superficial. One question I would like to raise is that for 300-400 years of the so called golden age in the history of the muslims where they excelled and pursued the rational sciences what gave the rationalists the upper hand over the traditionalists? Another interesting point is that how much weight did the clergy/traditionalists have in the muslim world considering that muslims didn't have a central authority akin to the catholic papacy - as you rightly pointed out above, the kings had the last say in these matters. Then the decline should not have been that sudden and uniform and it would have been sporadic.

I personally think that these events in history (i.e. if you want to call them events) happen in human history for various reasons. Volumes could be written on what these factors were. We have seen this cycle repeated over and over again over the course of history. People are getting giddy about and predicting how the american genius is going to wane and how the east will rise once again when it comes to rational sciences.

In essence what I am saying is that religion may have played a role but it was not a major role in this decline. It probably was a combination of a lot of factors and when if the americans lose their superiority over the rational sciences at some point in the future and the causes are investigated then I would venture a guess that most of them would apply in general to the decline of the muslims in the field of rational sciences.

 

[mrk123]

agree with everything but want to answer your first few questions.
the question here is how did humans got to the thinking this should be the principle (the welfare state) for humans to live with?
what made them do that?
You think it was pure work of their minds?
yes humans can possibly think of same solution of a probelm if they are given centain or similar sets of values, what made them to think that way and adopt those sets of values?
e.g. what made them to abandon the priostitution of woman (referning to main intyerview of this thread) and stand for women's rights?

I think its evolution and is based on deliberation, experience etc. As I said before its innate in human nature to strive for harmony, equilibrium as it is the basis of everything in the nature around them. The key is the outside factors that throw a monkey wrench in the works and the biggest ones are the not so good qualities of humans. Collective well being of a group of people or the society is the driver here. I also used an exampe of an Amazonian tribe and their social code or structure and how it evolves, in isolation, over centuries with sole objective of the well being of the pack. In that case sometime they miss out on other developments in thoughts and ideas because of their isolation. I know that its confusing but I am jsut thinking aloud.

Now the question you ask is what prompts them to adopt a certain set of values. I would argue that its the collective goal of betterment and well being of a group of people, tribe or a society. The interesting point to ponder is why the world recognized the value of women's rights in just the last century - why weren't they considered earlier in the human history.

what was the conscious and sub-conscious inspiration?

I guess its the communal harmony, betterment of the people, balance, fairness etc?

My pointis human can't just accidently think of and develope this all of a sudden with their social and cultural aspirations (yes they need brain to adopt that).

Of course not - its an evolutionary process. Sometime its by way of serious deliberation and sometime its a result of consolidating thoughts, ideas and experiences over a long period of time.

yes like yourself I don't know much about this specific topic either but I'm talking about the theoritical aspects of it only!

I am sure some folks on here have a good grasp of these topics but definitely not me - I am just shooting from the hip ;-)

 

[UKPakistani]

Question to you ALL

So whats the conclusion on Omar's Law in the Scandanavian Countries

 

[mirza40]

It is concluded that there is no Umar(R.A.) law. Hazrat Umar R.A. followed Allah and His Messenger Mohammadpbuh law.
Likewise, Sweden has drawn its law from History(many examples can be quoted). They are good by themselves. Scandinavian countries are good example of welfare states BUT what they have good or bad, it is for their own nations not for other human beings. Other nations should also make such rules to give better facilities to their citizens.

 

[jaanmark]

it take 100 years to understand SWEDE mah ****** nation can not be see , find out by any tool who any one can say about them . they are the father of Jews for time been. thanks.

 

[ambroxo]

سوشل سکیورٹی کا نظام سب سے پہلے کس نے معترف کروایا تھا ؟
اور جب اس ریاست میں یہ نظام متعرف تھا اس کے سینکڑوں سال بعد کیوں سویڈن کو اس کا خیال آیا ؟
اور جب خیال آیا تو یہ خیال انہوں نے کہاں سے لیا ؟

​

no one says wild wild west (2 times wild not only one ) to old Europe but their own books and history films

​

 

[Hanan9]

jab khulley aam BONGIYAN mar kar apney aap ko "LEADER" samjho gey, tau phir doosroun ka JAWAB bhi sunn liya karo.

First of all the credibility of this site is at stake.
Secondly, the mentioned historian doesn't seem to be a real character or this interview was not real.
Because as historian guy claimed that Scandinavians did not know about muslims
That's a false claim because according to other historians viking took a raid to spain which was under muslim control at that time and they captured Seville which Muslims took recaptured again.
And you know at that time Spain was the center of of muslims modern civilization many muslim scholars,scientists,historians,travellers and philosophers belonged to that region at that time.
So how could Scandinavians missed that influence?
Also Muslim travellers met with russians and vikings in russia. Read about ibn e faldan's work.
So this proves the link of Scandinavians with the muslims.

 

[M Ali Khan]

First of all the credibility of this site is at stake.
Secondly, the mentioned historian doesn't seem to be a real character or this interview was not real.
Because as historian guy claimed that Scandinavians did not know about muslims
That's a false claim because according to other historians viking took a raid to spain which was under muslim control at that time and they captured Seville which Muslims took recaptured again.
And you know at that time Spain was the center of of muslims modern civilization many muslim scholars,scientists,historians,travellers and philosophers belonged to that region at that time.
So how could Scandinavians missed that influence?
Also Muslim travellers met with russians and vikings in russia. Read about ibn e faldan's work.
So this proves the link of Scandinavians with the muslims.

woh sab baad mein, yeh batao achanak 8 saal purani thread mein post kar ke kya mila aap ko?