Professor Abdullah Ahmed An-Naim’s,<~~delete comma discussion about Islam, Shari'a and freedom of belief cleared all of the many false aspects I had about Islam. He first began his discussion by explaining to the audience the meaning and definition of Shari'a, which is the body of Islamic religious law: “it is the legal structure within the public and private characteristic of life which is regulated for Muslim’s living in a legal system based on Islamic principle, like Put the period before the closing quotation marks~~>Sudan”. Shari'a to a Muslim<~~add comma he explained<~~add comma “is the totality of Islam the obligations and education of a Muslim”.<~~punctuation corrections needed, including at least one comma within that clause Professor Amid<~~who? then placed himself as an example to further help us understand what Shari'a is, he says that as a Muslim he is bound to Shari'a, not because he is obligated by the state, but because it is a matter of human interpretation of himself.
I hope you'll be clarifying all of this in your assignment. There are many generalities and vague references in here. Also, you need to cite all quotations.
(Broken Link Removed)
Please revise the following. thank you.
Professor Abdullah Ahmed An-Naim’s, discussion about Islam, Shari ‘a and freedom of belief cleared all of the many false aspects I had about Islam. He first began his discussion by explaining to the audience the meaning and definition of Shari ‘a. Shari’ a is the body of Islamic religious law; “it is the legal structure within the public and private characteristic of life which is regulated for Muslim’s living in a legal system based on Islamic principle, like Sudan”. Shari’ a to a Muslim he explained “is the totality of Islam the obligations and education of a Muslim”. Professor Amid then placed himself as an example to further help us understand what is Shari ‘a, he says that as a Muslim he is bound to Shari ‘a, not because he is obligated by the state, but it is a matter of human interpretation of himself.
10 answers
One more thing: In "...regulated for Muslim’s living in a..." -- there should be no apostrophe. In this sentence "Muslims" is plural, not possessive.
How would I cite the quotations from a panel discussion? Should I write the date?
thank you
I would take the elements in common in "interviews" and "lectures" (but with more than one person's name since it was a panel) for the Works Cited page.
(Broken Link Removed)
(Broken Link Removed)
Then for the in-text citations, you'd put the last name of the first person listed in your Works Cited entry.
(Broken Link Removed)
(Broken Link Removed)
Then for the in-text citations, you'd put the last name of the first person listed in your Works Cited entry.
Is this clear? next paragraph from the above.
This leads us to the fundamental question of how to ensure the institutional separation of Shari’a and the state? For this, professor Anan-Amin introduces the “civic reason” concept. By Civic reason, professor Anan-Amin means that if a Muslim wants to have Sheri’a involved in their life they should propose it but not enforced it with reference to someone’s belief or reference to one’s belief in Sheri’a. That is, the state is not to claim or justify a law based on being a sin against Sheri’a. This is not a reason; “the placement of a law must be argued from a point of social, political, constraints to the social process that would then lead to making what ever it is as unconstitutional” (Ani-Amin).
For instance, abortion, if the state was to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand of abortion being a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state. Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
This leads us to the fundamental question of how to ensure the institutional separation of Shari’a and the state? For this, professor Anan-Amin introduces the “civic reason” concept. By Civic reason, professor Anan-Amin means that if a Muslim wants to have Sheri’a involved in their life they should propose it but not enforced it with reference to someone’s belief or reference to one’s belief in Sheri’a. That is, the state is not to claim or justify a law based on being a sin against Sheri’a. This is not a reason; “the placement of a law must be argued from a point of social, political, constraints to the social process that would then lead to making what ever it is as unconstitutional” (Ani-Amin).
For instance, abortion, if the state was to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand of abortion being a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state. Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
Ist this clear?
Professor An-Naim opposes the idea of an Islamic state. He argues that a state “cannot be Islam, cannot have religion, and cannot have Shari’a.” He explains that because among Muslims many disagree on the meaning of Shari’a this has posed many problems in Islamic states. Furthermore, he believes that secularism is necessary for Muslims human rights. In fact, he states that whatever Shari’a is, it is not the business of the state to enforce it. Shari’a cannot be enforced by the state. However, he makes it clear that this is not a position of a western concept, but rather a necessary principle from an Islamic point of view.
In addition, Professor An-Amin maintains that a state claiming commitment to Shari’ a, going g back thousands of years to justify it, is not logical, and if fact any steps that a state takes in wanting to enforce Shari’a, is on the other hand corrupting Sheria. Shari’a would be more vibrant without the state interfering. Thus, for professor An-Amin, it is unethical to the true teachings of Islam to incorporate Shari’a. To do so, deteriorates Muslims’ spiritual callings to follow Shari’a and hinders the discussions among Muslims of how Sharia should be interpreted.
This leads us to the fundamental question of how to ensure the institutional separation of Shari’a and the state? For this, professor Anan-Amin introduces the “civic reason” concept. By Civic reason, professor Anan-Amin means that if a Muslim wants to have Sheri’a involved in their life they should propose it but not enforced it with reference to someone’s belief or reference to one’s belief in Sheri’a. That is, the state is not to claim or justify a law based on being a sin against Sheri’a. This is not a reason; “the placement of a law must be argued from a point of social, political, constraints to the social process that would then lead to making what ever it is as unconstitutional” (Ani-Amin).
For instance, abortion, if the state was to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand of abortion being a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state. Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
Professor An-Naim opposes the idea of an Islamic state. He argues that a state “cannot be Islam, cannot have religion, and cannot have Shari’a.” He explains that because among Muslims many disagree on the meaning of Shari’a this has posed many problems in Islamic states. Furthermore, he believes that secularism is necessary for Muslims human rights. In fact, he states that whatever Shari’a is, it is not the business of the state to enforce it. Shari’a cannot be enforced by the state. However, he makes it clear that this is not a position of a western concept, but rather a necessary principle from an Islamic point of view.
In addition, Professor An-Amin maintains that a state claiming commitment to Shari’ a, going g back thousands of years to justify it, is not logical, and if fact any steps that a state takes in wanting to enforce Shari’a, is on the other hand corrupting Sheria. Shari’a would be more vibrant without the state interfering. Thus, for professor An-Amin, it is unethical to the true teachings of Islam to incorporate Shari’a. To do so, deteriorates Muslims’ spiritual callings to follow Shari’a and hinders the discussions among Muslims of how Sharia should be interpreted.
This leads us to the fundamental question of how to ensure the institutional separation of Shari’a and the state? For this, professor Anan-Amin introduces the “civic reason” concept. By Civic reason, professor Anan-Amin means that if a Muslim wants to have Sheri’a involved in their life they should propose it but not enforced it with reference to someone’s belief or reference to one’s belief in Sheri’a. That is, the state is not to claim or justify a law based on being a sin against Sheri’a. This is not a reason; “the placement of a law must be argued from a point of social, political, constraints to the social process that would then lead to making what ever it is as unconstitutional” (Ani-Amin).
For instance, abortion, if the state was to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand of abortion being a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state. Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
This leads us to the fundamental question of how to ensure the institutional separation of Shari’a and the state? For this, Professor Anan-Amin introduces the “civic reason” concept. By Civic<~~lower-case "c" on "civic" reason, Professor Anan-Amin means that if a Muslim<~~make these plural so that further plural references (their, they) will make sense~~>wants to have Sheri’a involved in their life they should propose it but not enforced<~~should not be past tense; needs to match the tense of "propose" in the preceding phrase it with reference to someone’s belief or reference to one’s belief in Sheri’a. That is, the state is not to claim or justify a law based on being a sin against Sheri’a. This is not a reason; “the placement of a law must be argued from a point of social, political, constraints to the social process that would then lead to making what ever it is as unconstitutional” (Ani-Amin).
For instance, abortion,<~~delete "abortion," since you have named the topic in the next phrase in this sentence if the state were to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand that abortion is a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state.<~~That's a too-complicated sentence. How can you rephrase it into two sentences? Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone<~~The phrasing up to here is fuzzy; how can you rephrase to clarify? will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
For instance, abortion,<~~delete "abortion," since you have named the topic in the next phrase in this sentence if the state were to logically argue against abortion from a different point of view, such as taking a stand that abortion is a medical procedure that can severely harm the body, even provide some statistics, then people will exercise their civic reason and will feel the need to justify and reason with the state.<~~That's a too-complicated sentence. How can you rephrase it into two sentences? Therefore, the people will make abortion unconstitutional, rather than the state enforcing the law under the grounds that is a sin.
The process of civic reason that is equal to everyone<~~The phrasing up to here is fuzzy; how can you rephrase to clarify? will provide and assure for Muslims and non-Muslims a stronger relationship with religion as well as maximizing their civic reason.
Professor An-Naim opposes the idea of an Islamic state. He argues that a state “cannot be Islam, cannot have religion, and cannot have Shari’a.” He explains that, because many Muslims disagree on the meaning of Shari’a, this idea has posed many problems in Islamic states. Furthermore, he believes that secularism is necessary for Muslims<~~add apostrophe; plural possessive human rights. In fact, he states that whatever Shari’a is, it is not the business of the state to enforce it. Shari’a cannot be enforced by the state. However, he makes it clear that this is not a position of a<~~delete "position of a" western concept, but rather a necessary principle from an Islamic point of view.
Every time I re-read something, I see something else!!
There should be a period at the end of the first sentence here, not a question mark.
=)
There should be a period at the end of the first sentence here, not a question mark.
=)
1 answer