Thank you for your feedback.

While I can’t possibly respond to all the points you have raised here, I do plan on addressing them in future posts. For now, I wish to make two points, one general, and the other specific to the issue of Islamization:

1) The validity of reason: You can’t escape the fact that your comment is full of reasoning. You can never discredit reason, and when you try to do so, you only discredit your own views, because it will lead us to think: how did you come to accept your own views as true? Out of emotion? faith? family affiliation? etc.

Please bear in mind that reasoning is only a tool to resolve contradictions between a set of beliefs and to integrate facts in a consistent way (understanding is only possible with the use of reason. Otherwise, you are simply holding a set of ideas that you do not know how to fit together). You may try to connect false ideas through reason, but the failure is not with reasoning as a tool, but with the ideas themselves.

What your view boils down to is: “I’m ignorant and choose not to think, therefore, I am certain that I am right.”

No matter how much you choose to deny it, but the Holy Koran is full of reasoning, and there are a number of verses that validate reason and speak of the merit of using reason.

2) Islamization: the danger with Islamization is that it is based on poorly defined arguments. For example, you said: “if you do believe that God’s message is divine.” My point is, define what “God’s message” is. Islam is interpreted differently by different people, and you cannot claim that all interpretations are “God’s message.” So which interpretation is God’s message, and how did you come to this conclusion?

It is not a matter of partially implementing God’s message, but implementing a man-made law in the name of God.

Please read my other post on why Islamization is unIslamic for a further explanation of why I disagree with Islamization.

I hope this helped clarify some of your objections.

A system should influence the behaviour, but with that you need to have sincere people who are capable of enforcing it. If one obsrves negative results, one shall not conclude that necessarily the system is wrong, as it could be an effective one but lacks effecient implementers.

Besides, no man-made system is entirely correct, no matter how logical you try to be. That is because the system should care for emotinal aspects as well. Thus, if you only use reason as a means to derive a “meaningful” law then, dude, it will be inappropriate. The Marxism school is deedmed to be based on reason, but it was nothing but bullshit.

A man-made system, techonology, social model or whatever will always evolve to satisfy the ever-increasing demand for seggregating the wealthy from the poor. Many theories and solid beleifs were demolished and replaced by others. This is a sign that humans will come up with the best of their knowledge up to a point.

However, the Creator knows better, and He even knows that we cannot handle the responsibility in the best way, but His wisdom may be to see how will you stick to your “beleifs” rather than being arrogant with our great minds and the powerful solutions that it can create.

Last, The beauty of the Islamic law is that it does not deny other laws, it actually contain them in a rather harmonic manner. No traffic system exists in Islam, but it never denies the importance of it.

I will deal with implementing Islamic law in a future post, as well as deal with the issue of culture and politics.

As for “importing a foreign law,” what makes a foreign law good or bad is not the fact that it is foreign. Islamic law was, at one point, foreign to Persia, Spain and the Indian sub-continent. Rather than condemn foreign law for being foreign, we must evaluate its merits. Not all Western political systems are of equal standing, and we can’t accuse them all of leading to the same results.

Wassalam