A Challenge to My Co-religionists
Rasheed Talib April 29, 2003
#24 Posted by Urstruly on April 30, 2003 11:09:28 am
Unfortunately, the author is the non-interacting type and historically he avoids supporting his thesis through follow up posts. The article is prejudicial, one-sided and inaccurate on several accounts. Let`s take a look at the three challenges that author has putforth before the youth of Islam. He writes:
a) that women would be treated only half as equally as men;
I have been researching this topic and found it to be untrue. But Islam does put emphasis on gender in legal matters, but what author has claimed is an exception to only one case and not the norm. In legal matters, for example, in testimony etc. there are four situations when the gender is taken into account:
Case (i) Women`s testimony is half that of man - only in financial matters. The minimum requirement to seal a financial deal is to have two male witnesses and if not available one male and two female witnesses are required. This is ordained by Qura`n.
(ii) There are certain situations where women`s testimony is equal to that of a man. That includes the situations when she is a victim of a crime against herself.
(iii) In certain situations man`s testimony is not acceptable .
(iv) In certain cases woman`s testimony is not acceptable.
b) that a cruel and barbarous penal system would be introduced as punishments for certain common crimes; and
This is a value judgement and not a challenge. If you share a value with a group of others the value has a different significance and when you observe a different group sharing different values than yours their value has a different significance. A Muslim watching a Hindu woman getting Satti has a different significance to Muslim as compared to a Hindu, while a Hindu watching a cow getting slaugtered has a different signifacance to that Hindu as compared to that Muslim.
c) that the property of a deceased person would be distributed according to a scheme of rigidly specified and unequal shares, mostly to the disadvantage of female heirs?
Again this is not true. I have researched the subject and found that the Muslim Law of Inheritance is very complex. Most basically there are preordained fixed portions of inheritance which go to certain relatives of deceases and that is 2/3rd of the inheritance. The 1/3rd of the inheritance can be bequested by the deceased before he dies. The fixed portion has a very diverse distribution which is distributed among parents,brothers, sisters, wife, and offsprings. Thus a women has more than one source to get inheritance which makes her part equal to that of a man. This is espacially important because a man legally is responsible to support his wife and children whereas women is not legally bound to support her husband and children. A man cannot legally stop his wife from inheriting while woman can legally stop man from getting her inheritance. A women is allowed to work or conduct independent business (Al-Nisa 32) but she is not legally bound to share her earning with her husband (Al-Nisa 34), whereas man is legally bound to share his earning with his wife. The law is complex but it is fair. I would really welcome author or anyone who wishes to engage in a debate with me on any of the topic. For author it is a challenge.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#23 Posted by hobbes on April 30, 2003 10:09:33 am
Rashid talib
Peter Berger? Excellent, Do also look at the work of rboert Bellah and Daniel Bell - Nasr Abu Ziad, I`m sure you will enjoy as well. Can Karl Popper and Willard van Orkin Quine, be too far behind? welcome gentle sojourner
Could not agree with you more about Politicization and utopianism - but really, you miss the mark: What we have in the so called ``fundamentalist`` movement are two trends, one is totalitarism, the other is a larger, deeper inquiry into method.
If we have politicization, we must quickly move past bemoaning it and act to influence the content of that politicization. Ideally realigion`s citadel is in the culture and conscience of society but lets us not fall in the same error of the utopian - so we`re not perfect, so who ever did we were, only God is perfect, right?
For utopianism/totalitarianism by necessity seeks to arrest change and it`s agent. The non-critical tribal society, the certainties of the restricted sacred, the assurance that one is in the bosum of perfection, so why change, the assurance that one is developing the perfect, so why change?
Asharite ideas make totalitarinism a necessicity - what is required then is to rearticulate basic ideas of method in Islam. What is Quran, How is to be approached, understood. Is Islam the same as Islamic knowledge?? Is shariah divine or human?? What in Islam is amenable to change and what is not? Why not?
A request: when concerned Muslims such as yourself should choose to describe yourself as cultural Muslims, you do a great disservice to all - I urge you to reconsider this. in choosing to describe yourself as such, you negate this endeavour and leave the field to those who suggest that there is not and there must be, a multiplicity of Islam and Muslim, and only one, and one they define, is the only Muslim.
The door remians open, just because we have not been home for a while does not, can not, mean that the home is no longer welcome to you.
Peter Berger? Excellent, Do also look at the work of rboert Bellah and Daniel Bell - Nasr Abu Ziad, I`m sure you will enjoy as well. Can Karl Popper and Willard van Orkin Quine, be too far behind? welcome gentle sojourner
Could not agree with you more about Politicization and utopianism - but really, you miss the mark: What we have in the so called ``fundamentalist`` movement are two trends, one is totalitarism, the other is a larger, deeper inquiry into method.
If we have politicization, we must quickly move past bemoaning it and act to influence the content of that politicization. Ideally realigion`s citadel is in the culture and conscience of society but lets us not fall in the same error of the utopian - so we`re not perfect, so who ever did we were, only God is perfect, right?
For utopianism/totalitarianism by necessity seeks to arrest change and it`s agent. The non-critical tribal society, the certainties of the restricted sacred, the assurance that one is in the bosum of perfection, so why change, the assurance that one is developing the perfect, so why change?
Asharite ideas make totalitarinism a necessicity - what is required then is to rearticulate basic ideas of method in Islam. What is Quran, How is to be approached, understood. Is Islam the same as Islamic knowledge?? Is shariah divine or human?? What in Islam is amenable to change and what is not? Why not?
A request: when concerned Muslims such as yourself should choose to describe yourself as cultural Muslims, you do a great disservice to all - I urge you to reconsider this. in choosing to describe yourself as such, you negate this endeavour and leave the field to those who suggest that there is not and there must be, a multiplicity of Islam and Muslim, and only one, and one they define, is the only Muslim.
The door remians open, just because we have not been home for a while does not, can not, mean that the home is no longer welcome to you.
#22 Posted by SR on April 30, 2003 9:41:24 am
#15 by Satire [``... your ``great`` prophet. BTW, didn`t he have more than 4 wives. Yeah, he was exempt. Nevertheless he didn`t practise what he preached for others...``]
This is a false accusation. It is entirely incorrect that the Prophet did not allow his followers to have more than four wives. In his life, the Prophet had a total of thirteen wives. (HisExcellency referred to only two of the thirteen, Khadija and Ayesha. But there were eleven others, however, #2 through #13 came only after the death of Khadija, and at one point there were as many as nine concurrently. Ayesha was either #4 or #5.)
Aub Bakr and Ali also had thirteen wives each. At any given point the number of wives was never limited to four, not in the Prophet`s lifetime. This limitation was imposed, decades later, after the fall of the Ummya dynasty and during the Abbassi era. Iman Hassan, Ali`s elder son, incidently, is known to have had over a hundred fifty `wives`. Most of those marriages however were rather short-lived. Nonetheless, it was all technically halaal.
...SR
This is a false accusation. It is entirely incorrect that the Prophet did not allow his followers to have more than four wives. In his life, the Prophet had a total of thirteen wives. (HisExcellency referred to only two of the thirteen, Khadija and Ayesha. But there were eleven others, however, #2 through #13 came only after the death of Khadija, and at one point there were as many as nine concurrently. Ayesha was either #4 or #5.)
Aub Bakr and Ali also had thirteen wives each. At any given point the number of wives was never limited to four, not in the Prophet`s lifetime. This limitation was imposed, decades later, after the fall of the Ummya dynasty and during the Abbassi era. Iman Hassan, Ali`s elder son, incidently, is known to have had over a hundred fifty `wives`. Most of those marriages however were rather short-lived. Nonetheless, it was all technically halaal.
...SR
#21 Posted by dost_mittar on April 30, 2003 9:41:23 am
Talib saheb:
Your writing is a model of the precise, sharp and focussed writing. Normally, religious matters should be of concern only for the adherents of that religion. But Islam is different; almost every page of the holy book has something on how to deal/not deal with non-believers (or what to do to them!) Therefore, what happens in islam is of vital concern to non-muslims, both ahl-e-kitab and others.
I had previously stated on chowk that the renaissance movement in Islam will most likely be led by Indian muslims. But now it seems that recent political developments are perhaps more likely to put them in a defensive mode than to undertake meaningful introspection.
gomak:
``Yes Fundos are the biggest threat and I am not only talking about
Religious Fundos but every Fundo from Maulana Saab in a Mosque
to Rumsfled from Sharon to Advani. These are the real threats``
These are threats alright, but there are BIG differences. Rumsfeld may be a war-monger and even anti-islam but I am not aware of his being a christian fundamentalist. Similarly, Advani is certainly no friend of muslims but he is not a religious fundamentalist either. In fact, he is not even known to be very religious. He may be full of hatred but that hatred is not rooted in his religion but the history of India and, more particularly, his personal history. The difference is of critical importance. The root of islamists` intolerance is their religious beliefs and has to be dealt at that level; the root of Advani`s hatred and those of others of his ilk lies in history, politics and religious identity and not in religion per se. The answer there lies in fighting the culture of intolerance being fostered in India and does not require any religious reform. [Hindu religion has many ills but intolerance is not of them]
Your writing is a model of the precise, sharp and focussed writing. Normally, religious matters should be of concern only for the adherents of that religion. But Islam is different; almost every page of the holy book has something on how to deal/not deal with non-believers (or what to do to them!) Therefore, what happens in islam is of vital concern to non-muslims, both ahl-e-kitab and others.
I had previously stated on chowk that the renaissance movement in Islam will most likely be led by Indian muslims. But now it seems that recent political developments are perhaps more likely to put them in a defensive mode than to undertake meaningful introspection.
gomak:
``Yes Fundos are the biggest threat and I am not only talking about
Religious Fundos but every Fundo from Maulana Saab in a Mosque
to Rumsfled from Sharon to Advani. These are the real threats``
These are threats alright, but there are BIG differences. Rumsfeld may be a war-monger and even anti-islam but I am not aware of his being a christian fundamentalist. Similarly, Advani is certainly no friend of muslims but he is not a religious fundamentalist either. In fact, he is not even known to be very religious. He may be full of hatred but that hatred is not rooted in his religion but the history of India and, more particularly, his personal history. The difference is of critical importance. The root of islamists` intolerance is their religious beliefs and has to be dealt at that level; the root of Advani`s hatred and those of others of his ilk lies in history, politics and religious identity and not in religion per se. The answer there lies in fighting the culture of intolerance being fostered in India and does not require any religious reform. [Hindu religion has many ills but intolerance is not of them]
#20 Posted by Ras on April 30, 2003 8:36:08 am
Rasheed Talib has touched upon the sensitive tip of the iceberg
here. Islam has to be liberated from its fanatical adherents.
Maybe the Sufi has it right.
And anyone can write or ask questions on religion without being
``Public followers``. General Zia and America helped to introduce
The ``public followers`` (Islamic version of show and tell) into
Mainstream Pakistani society. The rest as they say is history.
(The true believers do not have to show off their faith continuously)
Ras
#19 Posted by aquaris on April 30, 2003 7:01:41 am
One Factor which might be of Interest...is the Rise to Talibans in Afghanistan..
..The war torn Afghanistan after the defeat of Russia was in a complete Mess and the common afghanistani was at mercy of war lords...
Talibans then rose silently....and without much resistence and nearly peacefully took over the whole afghanistan with active support from nearly the whole population
There they had a real oportunity ...which I think will never come again for muslim and Islam in general to present a real working modern model for a muslim state which could stand tall and really show a better face of Islam
....But unfortunately they squandered.....they shut themselves in a medivial and Tribal mentality and all this happened in the name of Islam ..........I read some where ...when some of muslim scolars pointed out the way of Ijtehad to these medival Afganis at first they were bluntly refused and told We have the Final version of Islam and there is No possibility of any change in the laws which we think are Islamic....and when they again politely showed that modern times are different and they need to address certain modern issues and they can use the cardinal principle of Islam and find solutions to them....they were then fericly perseculted and kicked out of Afghanistan.
......So their I think Islam lost its last chance to present a real working model is an islamic state in this modern times...
....some would argue Pakistan can also present such a model and is in a better position then any or rest of Muslim countries...
But just look around you......Religious Leaders who have swept nearly half of Pakistan in the recent elections are not interested In any thing else But LFO...!! for them that is the beggining and the end of everything ....
..The war torn Afghanistan after the defeat of Russia was in a complete Mess and the common afghanistani was at mercy of war lords...
Talibans then rose silently....and without much resistence and nearly peacefully took over the whole afghanistan with active support from nearly the whole population
There they had a real oportunity ...which I think will never come again for muslim and Islam in general to present a real working modern model for a muslim state which could stand tall and really show a better face of Islam
....But unfortunately they squandered.....they shut themselves in a medivial and Tribal mentality and all this happened in the name of Islam ..........I read some where ...when some of muslim scolars pointed out the way of Ijtehad to these medival Afganis at first they were bluntly refused and told We have the Final version of Islam and there is No possibility of any change in the laws which we think are Islamic....and when they again politely showed that modern times are different and they need to address certain modern issues and they can use the cardinal principle of Islam and find solutions to them....they were then fericly perseculted and kicked out of Afghanistan.
......So their I think Islam lost its last chance to present a real working model is an islamic state in this modern times...
....some would argue Pakistan can also present such a model and is in a better position then any or rest of Muslim countries...
But just look around you......Religious Leaders who have swept nearly half of Pakistan in the recent elections are not interested In any thing else But LFO...!! for them that is the beggining and the end of everything ....
#18 Posted by rsridhar on April 30, 2003 7:01:40 am
re:#4 by HisExcellency
`` By applying mystic, pantheistic notions to every aspect of life... this school dilutes the message of Allah and replaces it with that of the local sufi or saint. Instead of interpreting God, the sufi ended up replacing Him. This leads to perversions in the religion itself``
I am not sure if this is a quote from the book (by Akbar S Ahmad) or your own quote. In either case, i disagree.
I think the best thing that happened to Islam is the Sufi culture. It has always been a peaceful movement. Sufis, like the Yogis, believe in personal mystical experience. Would you rather have Qoran interpreted by Mullahs or sufis? We have seen what mullahs can do with Qoran. It is not the book but how it is interpreted that matters.
In the Hindu scriptures, the book of Bhagwat Geetha has undergone umpteen number of reinterpretations but the substance has not changed. Besides, Qoran is written in Arabic and most of the students in Madrassas memorise it by rote. What is so inspiring about it? Do the Pakis, who swear by Qoran, know the real meaning of the Arabic words? How many can read and write Arabic?
Sridhar
`` By applying mystic, pantheistic notions to every aspect of life... this school dilutes the message of Allah and replaces it with that of the local sufi or saint. Instead of interpreting God, the sufi ended up replacing Him. This leads to perversions in the religion itself``
I am not sure if this is a quote from the book (by Akbar S Ahmad) or your own quote. In either case, i disagree.
I think the best thing that happened to Islam is the Sufi culture. It has always been a peaceful movement. Sufis, like the Yogis, believe in personal mystical experience. Would you rather have Qoran interpreted by Mullahs or sufis? We have seen what mullahs can do with Qoran. It is not the book but how it is interpreted that matters.
In the Hindu scriptures, the book of Bhagwat Geetha has undergone umpteen number of reinterpretations but the substance has not changed. Besides, Qoran is written in Arabic and most of the students in Madrassas memorise it by rote. What is so inspiring about it? Do the Pakis, who swear by Qoran, know the real meaning of the Arabic words? How many can read and write Arabic?
Sridhar
#17 Posted by rsridhar on April 30, 2003 7:01:39 am
re:#8 by MianBhai
You have said your bit. Now, go back to your seat in your madrassas and start rocking back and forth, memorising those Arabic verses whose meaning is beyond you. But, you still must memorise them because they come from a superior Arabic race, your masters. You must never ever question those verses. How can you, when you do not even understand them? Meanwhile, you are baffled and all you can do is to take out your frustration on other people.
Sridhar
You have said your bit. Now, go back to your seat in your madrassas and start rocking back and forth, memorising those Arabic verses whose meaning is beyond you. But, you still must memorise them because they come from a superior Arabic race, your masters. You must never ever question those verses. How can you, when you do not even understand them? Meanwhile, you are baffled and all you can do is to take out your frustration on other people.
Sridhar
#16 Posted by Satire on April 29, 2003 11:12:38 pm
Naqshbandi,
Does a person have to just say he believes in Islam (message of the ``greatest-latest-hippest`` prophet) to be a muslim. Or does he have to actually practice it?
If it is the mere proclamation than I guess we have many muslims. If it means to adhere to it, then there has never been a muslim in history (including) your ``great`` prophet. BTW, didn`t he have more than 4 wives. Yeah, he was exempt. Nevertheless he didn`t practise what he preached for others.
Atleast, the author is decent enough to be honest and wise enough to celebrate his heritage.
Satire
Does a person have to just say he believes in Islam (message of the ``greatest-latest-hippest`` prophet) to be a muslim. Or does he have to actually practice it?
If it is the mere proclamation than I guess we have many muslims. If it means to adhere to it, then there has never been a muslim in history (including) your ``great`` prophet. BTW, didn`t he have more than 4 wives. Yeah, he was exempt. Nevertheless he didn`t practise what he preached for others.
Atleast, the author is decent enough to be honest and wise enough to celebrate his heritage.
Satire
#15 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on April 29, 2003 11:12:38 pm
Talib
Once again, the real culprit for fanning this intolerant medieval philosophy of Islam, in modern times, after the fall of secular Ottoman and Mughal Empires, is Suadi Arabia with its excessive oil money.
Suadi Arabia pumped this money into the mosques and madressas of other poverty-stricken Muslim countries along with its ritual-ridden Wahabi Philosphy which does not believe in saints, fakirs, sufism and religious reforms.
#14 Posted by DRUMZ on April 29, 2003 10:32:08 pm
I agree w/ sameer. If it wasnt for Islam, Muslims would be halfway decent.
God, sometimes i wonder how people can actually believe in some of the crap thats called religion these days.
God, sometimes i wonder how people can actually believe in some of the crap thats called religion these days.
#13 Posted by Tipu on April 29, 2003 10:32:08 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#12 Posted by Tipu on April 29, 2003 10:32:08 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#11 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on April 29, 2003 10:32:08 pm
Talib
Islam is going through that last painful phase of getting secularized through which once the Christianity went through.
It is last stand of the Mullas to keep the religion linked with politics.
Interestingly, the Hinduism, after 5000 centuries, seems to be now just getting politicised.
#10 Posted by MianBhai on April 29, 2003 7:59:12 pm
http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_interactor_page.cgi?membername=sameerJB
i The liberal education allows to create its own path that is not bound by the Esher`s triangle and consumer spending is not possible when there is nothing to buy in a music-free, video-free, toothpaste and tooth brush-free, jeans- free, trousers-free, underwear free, radio-free, tv-free, art-free, entertainment-free and so on world. Spending on quran, ja-nimaz, tasbeehs, kalashnikovs, rocket launchers, goats, camels and hajj are not possible to initiate consumer spending. Moreover, it creates an environment that is not conducive to spending of any kind.
What a deep analytical brain you have!!. Sounds and seems eerily similar to distribution of Trishuls to thugs, Destruction of places of worship based on spurious evidence, genocide against minorities as a hobby. Wow, I never knew emancipation and freedom would lead people to partake in pograms against hapless minorities. All this, while half the population is going hungry and does not know where the next meal is going to come from. When people do not have proper drinking water or basic sanitation. One only has to board a train from New Delhi to any other city in India during early morning hours and you can see the teeming masses with Lotas perched up on makeshift burbs with their rounded moons in full view releiving themselves. I guess all this adds up to consumer spending and makes a vibrant economy.?!!
Also, Show me one muslim country which is `free` of ALL the things that they are allegedly missing out on, according to you?.
Stop Sniffing maaaaan! get back to reality.
AND
The less said about Mr. Talib`s article, the better it is going to be for every one. What sort of a `cultural` muslim is he that finds fault only with Islam and not a word about others?. Need to work harder on your research, Mr. Talib, if you want to stand a chance in an honest debate. No one is denying the ills that aflict contemporary muslim society, but you need to use a brush with smaller and thinner bristles rather than a broad one, as you have done, which you are ill equipped to use.
MB
i The liberal education allows to create its own path that is not bound by the Esher`s triangle and consumer spending is not possible when there is nothing to buy in a music-free, video-free, toothpaste and tooth brush-free, jeans- free, trousers-free, underwear free, radio-free, tv-free, art-free, entertainment-free and so on world. Spending on quran, ja-nimaz, tasbeehs, kalashnikovs, rocket launchers, goats, camels and hajj are not possible to initiate consumer spending. Moreover, it creates an environment that is not conducive to spending of any kind.
What a deep analytical brain you have!!. Sounds and seems eerily similar to distribution of Trishuls to thugs, Destruction of places of worship based on spurious evidence, genocide against minorities as a hobby. Wow, I never knew emancipation and freedom would lead people to partake in pograms against hapless minorities. All this, while half the population is going hungry and does not know where the next meal is going to come from. When people do not have proper drinking water or basic sanitation. One only has to board a train from New Delhi to any other city in India during early morning hours and you can see the teeming masses with Lotas perched up on makeshift burbs with their rounded moons in full view releiving themselves. I guess all this adds up to consumer spending and makes a vibrant economy.?!!
Also, Show me one muslim country which is `free` of ALL the things that they are allegedly missing out on, according to you?.
Stop Sniffing maaaaan! get back to reality.
AND
The less said about Mr. Talib`s article, the better it is going to be for every one. What sort of a `cultural` muslim is he that finds fault only with Islam and not a word about others?. Need to work harder on your research, Mr. Talib, if you want to stand a chance in an honest debate. No one is denying the ills that aflict contemporary muslim society, but you need to use a brush with smaller and thinner bristles rather than a broad one, as you have done, which you are ill equipped to use.
MB
#9 Posted by rsaxena on April 29, 2003 7:59:12 pm
...hahaha...this article, the truth, pissed off that haraaami studebaker...
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nkg: Re: # 234 Salim... like Israelis... An Indian Muslim
- nkg: Re: # 208 Shah2... Srikrishna Commission... An Indian Muslim
- harish_hyd: #52 by rf786 Only practical... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 50 Bubba In a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: "Another analyst, who declining... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- bubba: Hey dude, this is... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- bubba: Hey dude, this is... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- anil: Re: # 45 HP sahib: "...Is... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
