Less decadent Islamic world

[Workable Goblin]

Of course printing of the Quran and the Sunnah is Halal and more accurately Mubah (where there is no ruling for or against), especially in the case of the King Fahd complex which produces most of the worlds Qurans. However, it took time for rulings to be made from the Ulema on whether this was Biddah of the deem or practical. In many ways it is more difficult to make this decision then with fear of perversion or Biddah.

Obviously I'm aware printing Qur'ans is now acceptable (I own a printed translation, after all). I was talking about at the time.

The argument the Ulama made was using the Bible as a reason against the use of printing as well prescribing to Mustahabb (recommended, or according to the tradition that is not obligatory). According to Islam, the Injil was made corrupt due to its uncontrolled (supposedly corrupt) manner of transmission. The Quran by comparison was held in tight control to keep Biddah out of the book completely and to them ensuring its 'perfection'. Therefore, it was highly contested and if the Ulama is split on a issue, it will be forbidden or recommended against. So one will have to change the character of the Ulema to achieve this.

See, this is what I was talking about. When a division of opinion among religious scholars means that something is forbidden, and when something like a printing press could be deemed to be a forbidden innovation because it could possibly cause erroneous Qur'ans to be propagated, there is already a strong bias in favor of the status quo. While in theory engineering and scientific developments might be acceptable, in practice people will tend to avoid those fields because there is the possibility they could get in trouble for them if some of the ulema disapprove of what they do. Moreover, such trouble is actually likely, looking at historical scientific discoveries (evolution being the most obvious if out-of-period example). As a result, the advance of science and technology will be hindered relative to other religions where there was less doctrinal insistence on avoiding "innovation". This is a strong structural disadvantage.

 

[xerex]

If Islam is to advance as much as the west then it needs to undergo a reformation like the christian faith had too, to break the backward looking dogma.

What broke Christianity wasnt the Protestants directly. It was that religion was now subservient to temporal power.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Well, the general point is the same, regardless of what term you use (and to most non-muslims, the terms are interchangeable, other than far fewer are familiar with the term Salafi). The Reformation sought a strictir adherence to scripture. Broadly speaking, that is one of the hallmarks of this movement.

The terms are not interchangeable at all. One can follow the ideal of the Salaf (first generation of Muslims) without following Ibn Wahab, or vice versa. The burden of proof is to show where Salafi disagree with the fiqh of the Abbasid, Umayyad, Almohad, etc... If there is a major difference and distinction in the Ulema during the 9th century to that of the Ulema of Saudi Arabia, then it can be said the Salafi was a reformation, however I feel it would be easy to contest that point even if there was a difference.

The times in which a reformation sort of occurred was with the Shurha/Mu'Tazila/Forms of Shia, etc...

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Obviously I'm aware printing Qur'ans is now acceptable (I own a printed translation, after all). I was talking about at the time.


See, this is what I was talking about. When a division of opinion among religious scholars means that something is forbidden, and when something like a printing press could be deemed to be a forbidden innovation because it could possibly cause erroneous Qur'ans to be propagated, there is already a strong bias in favor of the status quo. While in theory engineering and scientific developments might be acceptable, in practice people will tend to avoid those fields because there is the possibility they could get in trouble for them if some of the ulema disapprove of what they do. Moreover, such trouble is actually likely, looking at historical scientific discoveries (evolution being the most obvious if out-of-period example). As a result, the advance of science and technology will be hindered relative to other religions where there was less doctrinal insistence on avoiding "innovation". This is a strong structural disadvantage.

Perhaps you are right, I was simply giving fiqh and Ulema distinctions on Biddah. In order to have a framework to work from. Obviously in many cases (usually) technological improvement is sapped.

 

[Pesterfield]

because it could possibly cause erroneous Qur'ans to be propagated,

Couldn't it be argued a printing press would cause less errors, you just have to insure the printing plates are absolutely correct.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Couldn't it be argued a printing press would cause less errors, you just have to insure the printing plates are absolutely correct.

It's not always errors but the mass propagation by a method that was not present at the time of the prophet. It was questioned whether it was Biddah of the deen because it pertained to Allah's word.