Justice for Half a Man

zahraj # 56

I dont know about wife because every woman considers it her divine duty to change her man as shoon as the knot is tied. Yahan baray bary waa`iz fail ho gay; Hum kis bagh ki muli haiN:)

Ref ali87 #58

[harimau

Muslims dont need to look through the glasses of hindus.]

Okay. Let us not look at it through ``Hindu`` glasses. Kill the Shiites! Kill the Ahmadiyyas! To the stake with the Bahai and to the cross with the Issai!

[It would be expected of you to take this position having no religous centerpoint much less a Jurispendence based on some core values.]

Let us have the core values of ``Jeffersonian`` (personal conduct) democracy and fcuk the black women and enslave black men.

Dear Urstruly:

Just a humble suggestion: When composing the responses, do realize that academic stuff stays academic till practiced. Practice is what brings in the component of pathos along with logos. If certain elements of a book stays in the book for no one cares to look into them seriously then how can you say that they have been sucessful anywhere. To give an example: When the arabs were killing their daughters as soon as they were born, the Prophet (PBUH) set an example by giving love and respect to his daughter. Examples created role models. This example was followed.

Just recently, I met an old UETian who invited me over for dinner at his place. His wife was in the kitchen preparing the gravy whereas he was chopping various vegetables. They have been married for over 15 years. The woman claimed that she didn`t know how to chop vegetables and cook them! So, it`s the husband who specializes in vegetarian cooking. At first, I resisted my laughter, but then I stood up and complimented and said a few good words about him to his wife. The husband very proudly claimed that after reading the Prophet`s biography he realized that working at home is not being a hen-pecked husband. ``When the Prophet never felt ashamed to pitch in the household affairs, who is he to have a strong male ego`` he commented with an honest gleam on his face. Now this is practicing what you read. Just a living example!

I had also asked you previously on your definition of an Islamic Society. Please care to shed some light on that without consulting Qibla Naqshbandi. And, please read my ``without`` as ``without`` and not ``with.``

Regards.

Ursturly #58 ``YahaN dair he laikin andhair nahiN.``

Of course, of course. Quality takes time, we all know.

It is apparent that Mohammed S(Urstruly) has spent considerable time and effort about a topic he cares about. Some equally serious chowkies have weighed in with their opinions.
My own knowledge about Islam is limited to what I have read in the media or the interactions on the chowk. I have however one or two questions that I would like to have some answers for.

The first one is about the origin of the human species. Islam, judaism as well as Christianity subscribe to the the theory of God creating Adam first and then Eve from the rib of Adam. However if you look at human bodies, logic say it could not have been that way. Men have nipples and there is no logical reason for having them. The only reason for nipples being on the body is for nurturing the child. That fact dictates that the first human if there was one, was a female and then the man was made using the same template. Since the bible was written by men, they had to say that God created man first.

I have some other question, but I will postpone them till I get some serious answers to the above.

harimau

Muslims dont need to look through the glasses of hindus. Or are you under any illusions??!!

It would be expected of you to take this position having no religous centerpoint much less a Jurispendence based on some core values.

Dear readers,

Thanks for your esteemed and learned input. I am working on the responses to your querries. Due to the nature of the subject it takes time to formulate a response. Please be patient. YahaN dair he laikin andhair nahiN.

Dear Urstruly:

Thank you for your response. Let`s not forget something: The interactions and interactors on Chowk or anywhere else can be very deceptive no matter how forthright or rational they may seem. For the context of the argument may seem very rational to Person A but may mean something else to Person B (in this case, let`s assume that he is the writer).

Just a clarification: I have no issues with the length of the article. The topic required an indepth study. I do have a lot of issues with Muslim Men who claim to subscribe to the above set of arguments/beliefs. In reality, they get so damn caught up in the cycle that they completely forget the essence of any belief system. I also have a lot of issues with those who claim to put down non-Muslims, mainly women. There are many crooked Muslim Women out there as well, wearing a damn good facade of religion, origin and other stuff. Why ignore that version ? Is it because a corrupt Muslim is better than even a saint non-Muslim ? Islam has both good and bad people following an a la carte menu, the literal menu or nothing.

Indeed both my questions were general and of personal nature. The first one was tackled in a diplomatic but impressive way :-) and the second one has some semblance of sweetness. So, I want to dig a little deeper not to make you uncomfortable and not to win a point and also not to be discourteous . So, you are saying that when your daughter asks you these questions then you want to be well prepared. What about your wife? The mother of that daughter. If she has been practising the above set of beliefs/arguments, there should be a role model there. Should not it be like that? And, please do not consult any Ulema hovering around to pitch in :)

Personally, there are many things that I cannot relate to in this piece since I have not been there. It`s good to be reminded academically, but there is much more to it than academics. I believe very religiously that the families where women are loved and respected, they do that regardless of anything else. And, this is my commonly observed trend. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are mostly due to the individuals` leanings.

Rest Later,

re: urstruly

My only comment is that Islamic law and its treatment of women is specific to the culture, within which it is being discussed. It is impossible to generalize it and suggest that it applies across the spectrum of the muslim world. Islamic laws have been influenced by cultural practices and norms, and whether they are followed in spirit or interpretation in different regions, is a question open to debate.

If, the question can be asked, where are the rights of women as mentioned in your article, when it comes to Pakistan and its application of sharia? There is no mention of a burka in Islam and yet women in Pakistan`s NWFP are mandated to wear one as a form of Islamic dress. The interpretations of Islamic laws are reflective of the society and hence, the same law or code of conduct as specified, maybe be addressed differently in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia or Pakistan vis-a-vis women`s rights.

Your article is well researched, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. I disagree, because Islam has not provided the conditions you have mentioned; social justice and a financial platform for women. These conditions will be self denying unless women are empowered politically, because political rights for women, will be a response to their financial freedoms. As long as Muslim nations deny women equal economic citizenship rights, Islamic jurisprudence and its protection of womens` rights will remain a moot consideration.

Incidently, the western law and legal tradition is based on the Roman law and English common law`s origins are in the fact that as a law, it was common to all areas of England and hence, the name. English common law was a legal blend of medieval law, feudal customs and local practices. What we know as the codex of English common law today is the summary of decisions undertaken within the pennumbra of the Magna Carta. English common law, unlike the American consitutional law, is based on precedent and it has evolved as a series of precedents since the time when the Magna Carta was signed.

The Napoleonic code is entirely different from the English common law and the legal traditons of two had different histories in the colonial period. Napoleonic code was only applied to those areas, which were under French colonial administration after 1800s. The only territory ruled by the French in India was Pondicherry and it was under the rule of the Bourbon monarchy and was handed over to the British after the Seven Years War in 1763 and so, it never experienced Napleonic code.

The major difference is that the English common law pre-supposes innocence before guilt but the Napoleonic code assumes guilt before innocence. The majority of the muslim states with colonial experience were under the British rule and the only muslim nations to experience the French colonial adminstration were in (north) Africa, minus Libya, which under Italian administration. In fact, modern African legal traditions are a legacy of British, French, German (Cameroon, Tanzania), Italian, Belgian (Congo) and Dutch laws in South Africa. Hence, Islamic legal traditions were not expressively influenced by the Napoleon code or the British common law.

What about the legal traditions of Philippines? That nation was under Spain`s rule from 1550s to 1900, when it became a protectorate of the United States and existed under American administration. That nation also had a muslim population and were they also influenced by the Napoleonic code or the British common law?

Urstruly, Islamic law and women`s right is a geographic and demographic issue and it cannot be generalized. What you quoted from the Qu`ran was only applicable to Arabia and since Islam expanded, its legal traditions were often reflective of the local mores and customs. Islam not only changed, but was itself changed in the process of its expansion outside Arabia. Hence, Islam is not a monolith of the western imaginations. If we are, as you suggest, to avoid the mistakes of the west, it should be by not considering Islamic law and legal traditions as a monolithic entity encompassing the entire spectrum of the Islamic experience in the world.

Ciao

ZaraJ & manophd

Quite Right.

The old scriptures should be taken no more than a part of history and theological thinking of the time. The old scriptures of all religions are now completely outdated. And can not form a basis of any modern law.

With so many modern legal codes now so easily available, the elected parliaments should pick and choose and develop one to suite their own genious and environment.

The neo-religists use computers, quote foreign experts, use medical scientic data and sciences to sound authentic and rational. But finally, it all boils down to the ``Talibanic thoughts`` in some form or other - and leave the gaps to the devine wisdom and their own intrepretations. Sorry if I am sounding too harsh.

This whole thing seems to be exercise in futility. And history has seen this conflict go on for centuries.

AlephNull #31: ``Those who want to regard the hadith with skepticism ought to to regard the Quran with infinitely greater skepticism or better still outright disbelief.``

Everything in the world should be regarded with disbelief, until proven otherwise. This is the theory I follow. If one cannot find proof in Hadith, religion etc. one should discard it. And move to something else. I would not be a Muslim, if I could not find any logic in the Quran, as the word of God.

At the same time, I disagree with your comments about, ``outright disbelief.`` I think they are based more on your hatred of Islam than on anything else. Such individuals also need to be countered, also.

Every religion has to have some basic code. A book, a person, something. One can disregard religion all together, and become an athiest. Or one can search for reasonings that appeal to one, and accept the religion.

Why do I follow Islam and consider the Quran the word of God, and not the word of a man (as you do)? Good question that definitely needs an answer. Here is mine. I have studied the Quran from a scientific point of view. There are far too many scientific statements in it, that were only proven centuries later. I don`t see how any human could have come up with those. If you have studied the Quran, you must have come across them. If you haven`t then, you should not discuss the subject.

The other reason is that of all the religions I have looked at, Islam makes the most sense to me.

Hopefully, that answers your questions.

Urstruly #33: ``Coming back to ahadith, the method by which they were collected, collated, compiled and verified was as rational and rigorous as it is done today. The approximate number of ahadith that have reached us number somewhere approximately between 650k-700k. The six most authentic books on ahadith called Siha sitta shortlist fewer than 10,000 ahadith and most of them cross-refer with each other. This is about 1% of the total body of ahadith. Sometime same hadith is reiterated by several narrators with slightly different wordings. Siha sitta lists them all along with all the references through which it was received. Please keep in mind that collection of hadith is not a physical science, and it is not mathematics as Romair wants it to be. It falls under the category of history as a science or more precisely the library science.``

You have avoided the topic. Could you list the mechanism for collecting hadith. And do you agree that word of mouth over 200 years can remain 100% accurate?

``the method by which they were collected, collated, compiled and verified was as rational and rigorous as it is done today.``

There is no method available today that is rigorous enough to prove the accuracy of word of mouth information passed over centuries. If you know of one, kindly inform me. The only methods involve dating written documents/fossils etc. to find their age. So if there is nothing available today, how could there be something available a thousand years ago?

This, in itself, is enough to show that one cannot say with 100% certainity that Hadith are genuine sayings of the Prophet. In which case, they should not be considered such, for something so important as jurisprudence.

``The approximate number of ahadith that have reached us number somewhere approximately between 650k-700k. The six most authentic books on ahadith called Siha sitta shortlist fewer than 10,000 ahadith and most of them cross-refer with each other. This is about 1% of the total body of ahadith. ``

This again does not point to the 100% accuracy of Hadith. Just because 1% of something is taken, does not make it more genuine than if 10% of it was taken. And if six books cross reference with each other, then they are only accurate with respect to each other. It doesn`t mean they are necessarily accurate with respect to the original information.

``Siha sitta lists them all along with all the references through which it was received.``

Listing something by its reference does not make it accurate. If I tell you something, and you list me as a reference, does that automatically make my information accurate. Multiply that over 200 hundred or more years. If someone tells you something, that was told to them by their father, which was told to him by his grandfather, and so one, does that mean it is accurate?

``Please keep in mind that collection of hadith is not a physical science, and it is not mathematics as Romair wants it to be. It falls under the category of history as a science or more precisely the library science.``

I think you seem to be agreeing that the Hadith cannot be proven to be accurate. Some maybe accurate and some not. If that is the case, then one has to assume they cannot be considered the definite word of the Prophet, as far as jurisprudence goes. Otherwise, there could be many laws, that are based incorrectly on what was never said.

Urstruly #33

{{Romair’s post is even more outrageous, which leaves us no room but to invent a time machine and verify each and everything past with our own eyes. This is ridicuolous. Things in this world do not work like this. Most often we have to place our trust in our fellow human beings. We do that everyday. Of course we are by nature skeptics and we tend to make uneducated guess es more than the educated ones but truth generally prevails. The untruth and deception even in these times is still exception and not norm.}}

For once, Romair was onto something, though his motivations may be somewhat complex. He understandably shrank from pursuing his line of argument to its logical conclusion.

Claims of validity, authority, etc. need authentication or substantiation before they can be even tentatively accepted. This is especially the case with documents that are proposed to be the basis of a constitution or legal code applied to all and sundry without their prior consent.

The one document whose authority for traditional believing Muslims is as great as or greater than all others is the Quran. The authority of all other sources such as the hadith is derivative. It may be credible that the compilation of various hadith was painstaking, thorough, rigorous, and done with the best of intentions. Their authority still depends on various extravagant claims made in the Quran about this alleged being called Allah and Muhammad as his Prophet.

But the Quran is precisely the document which is most vulnerable to skeptical doubts, given everything that common experience tells us about human fraility, human motives, human will to power, the unlimited human capacity for self-delusion, visual and auditory hallucinations, etc., etc.

Unless the authenticity of the Quran – specifically, the alleged process of ‘revelation’ – can be established to any desired level of certainty, it should not be granted any authority whatsoever. Until this authenticity is established, everything else that depends upon it is a massive inverted pyramid built upon a point that does not exist.

This problem just will not go away. Intellectual honesty demands that it be faced squarely.

{{Knowledge is power and ignorance is self-destruction and skepticism is the boat between the two. Don’t miss the boat. }}

Just as important – make sure the boat takes you in the desired direction – i.e. from ignorance and self-delusion to knowledge, and not vice versa.

Urstruly #40 You have my response on the first issue. On forensic evidence, you write : ``I don’t understand what you are claiming here?`` Let me try to be clearer then: What I am claiming is that you either (a) dont understand the meaning of the term ``forensic evidence``, or (b) are applying some kind of logic that totally escapes me.

To further try and clarify: the dictionary meaning of the term is ``Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law``. By what stretch of common sense would the establishment of facts in a court be inadmissable? The only way this would be possible would be if Islam abhorred science and technology. And that I know is the opposite of the truth, and the Quran in fact strongly encourages the pursuit of knowledge of God`s creation (i.e. science).

Now that I have clarified sufficiently, let me pose the QUESTION: by what logic do you claim that forensic evidence is inadmissable for hadood laws?

Urstruly #36 On the third point concerning the inferiority of women:

You have not responded to my point that you turn psychiatry on its head when you reach the conclusion, with reference to modern psychiatry, that women are not as competent as men to be witnesses. And I`ll tell you the reason you have not responded: you have no response.

Instead, you simply reiterate your view that being a witness is too onerous a job for a woman. If you were really interested in psychiatry (and not interested in simply using it to try and led credence to your prejudices) you would have realized that your conclusion is not shared by any means by modern psychiatry. This point about women being less fit to be witnesses than men that you claim is based on modern psychiatry is in fact not even an issue in modern psychiatry.

Looong article... will read it some time..

Just an observation... Islamic law was one of the four basis of modern law derived somewhere in late 17th century.. the other being English Law, French Law.... I dont recall the last one..