Try google ....why didn't I think of that instead of going straight for the wayback machine and looking under the couch for digital papers ?
Ariel wrote:Try google ....why didn't I think of that instead of going straight for the wayback machine and looking under the couch for digital papers ?
Sorry, but I found a few files. And I found an aricle "What is Sharia" from our Arabist Hans Jansen. He is by no means political correct, and the man is hated by all the friends of Islam as Hans calls them. I love Hans Jansen.
andModern Western scholars have called into doubt the origins of the Sharia. They believe that the Sharia is the continuation of Roman provincial law as it was in force in the Roman Empire in the Middle East on the eve of the Arab conquests. A number of 20th century scholars wrote about the relationship between Roman and Islamic law. It is easy to see that the figure of the mufti is a continuation of the scholar of jurisprudence well known from Roman law, and other examples abound.
The first I didn't know about and it's an argument bound to inflame the pious. The second fits with the alternative narrative about the origins of Islam and has the capacity to destroy its credibility.Muslims believe that their religious specialists derived the rules of the Sharia from its four sources: Koran, Hadith, Analogy and Consensus. However, modern Western scholars have come to believe that the rules of the Sharia were not derived from the four ‘roots’, but that the rules and provisions were anchored in these four ‘roots’ only in retrospect.
Part can be seen here (I've yet to strain my eyes over it) http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Collection_of_the_Qur_an.html?id=Ggc4AAAAIAAJMuch earlier, the Scottish scholar John Burton had shown convincingly that the stories and traditions about the collection of the Koran were not history in any secular sense of that word. These stories were similarly created in answer to urgent theological necessities: his The Collection of the Qur’an, 1977.
My emphasis. Extract edited slightly to overcome errors in my OCRing.The most surprising featurc of ihe Muslim traditions on the collection
of the Quran is the denial of any role in the process to Muhammad himself. The merit of assembling and preserving the record of the
momentous divine revelations has been variously ascribed to some half dozen of the Prophet's associates or Companions, and these ascriptions have usually been treated as hopelessly conflicting. Dr Burton argues that they are in perfect agreement. Their sole function was the deliberate exclusion of Muhammad.
A crisis seemed imminent when in the second Muslim century
(roughly between a.d. 850 and 950j certain legal views which were
agreed between the sch<M>ls were rejected by a powerful fundamentalist group on the ground that they were not mentioned in the Qiir'an texts. Two replies were offered. The first, that the Prophet himself had legislated on these matters, proved unsatisfactory since it raised the problem of the repeal of thc Qur'an. The second suggestion, that these matters had been treated in the Qur'an and the relevant verses omitted on the assembly of the texts, ensured that medieval Islam would regard
the maikaf as incomplete. This certainty necessitated the placing of the collection of the Quran in the period following the Prophct's death.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest