Justice for Half a Man

Sattar

The issue of time of revelation of Qura`nic verses and rajm; and also the issue with Jew has been discussed, debated, and scrutinized thru every angle by early jurists to death. They reached their consensus only after that. Now all 5 fiqah have a consensus on this issue. There are tens of other ahadith that I can quote where Prophet has awarded rajm for non-jews and Muslims as well. Your contention that everybody that followed Prophet after him was a hypocrite and had ulterior motives is not only baseless but it defies all standards of honesty - intellectual or otherwise - and the common sense. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. And you still haven`t provided any proof yet. You have written about 50 posts so far and you havn`t been able to quote one single hadith which contradicts with other in this regard.

I dont know how long I can go on in circles like this.

Urstruly,

When Quran clearly states one thing … it should be followed by a Muslim. You seem to have difficulty accepting this basic principle.

ON QURAN AND AHADITH

Clear Quranic commandments are self-evident. Quran is the word of Allah. Recorded ahadith are works of men, and by definition, prone to errors. Furthermore, ahadith on this topic contradict each other, as I have pointed out. Still furthermore, the timing of these hadith (before or after revelation of relevant Quranic verses) and its application (to a Jew) remains an issue.

And still further more … why would you accept ahadith if Mohammad at times committed colossal blunders (your opinion, not mine).

ON IJTEHAD AND IJMA

As for Ijtehad and Ijma … you are ignoring the fact that these mullahs also believe in a two-thousand year old prophet residing in the sky, the giant fire-breathing donkey, and flying prophets raising the dead, flying above clouds to meet God.

Furthermore, you yourself called your mullahs and their works as “fat-butt, lethargic, stupid, dishonest, and un-Islamic”. Why would you then trust their Ijtehad and Ijma?

+++++++++++++++

Dude … you’ve got problems … and all you do is blame the English. Sorry ... won`t work ...

Sattar

You don`t get it do you? Let me put this across to you for the upteenth time.

You are commenting on an issue that pertains to juriprudence & law. There is a minimum of three gateways that you have to qualify your statements thru as elaborated in tens of posts below. You are stuck at first gateway. You claim that the your opinion does not need to qualify second gateway that is hadith because they (hadith) are contrdictory.

The fact of the matter is that you have to do more than that. You have to show that contradiction. On the other hand the position that I take on this issue qualifies not only the three gateways of Qura`n, Hadith, and ijtehad but also the fourth which is Ijma`a (Consensus).

Even if there is a contradiction in hadith on this issue (which there is not), there is a procedure in Islamic jurisprudence called Consensus. Let me explain it to you. Disagreement between two individuals on any issue is natural. It is human nature. On subjective issues human beings overcome this disagreement thru a procedure called Consensus i.e. the majority rule. This principle is the backbone of modern jurisprudence. The US supreme court regularly issue its verdicts when they are passed by majority of the panel of its judges. A minority do disagree. But the law becomes the law of land, no matter how controversial, if a simple majority of judges approve it. Same principle applies to Islamic jurisprudence. The consensus (ijma`a) of ummah on this issue is that the married fornicators should be stonned to death in public. This consensus passes the three gateways as mentioned above. You or anyone has an equal right to disagree with this consensus (ijma`a) and voice your opinion but unless you qualify your opinion thru the three gateways it will remain an opinion. It cannot become law.

PS: While we are on the topic ... We love making myths about great men don`t we... Other than the myth about him disowning his daughter which is contrary to the facts... another Myth that is made of Jinnah is that he took 1 rupee as his salary as governor general.

It is true that Jinnah didn`t withdraw his salary till Feb of 1948 because of the shortage of the funds, but his salary was Rs. 10416 and Annas 11. In feb of 1948 he was finally paid his salary of Rs. 57795 and Annas 13. He paid Rs 23207 and Annas 8 as the tax and his net pay was Rs 34,588 and Annas 5.

Jinnah`s greatness lies in not the stories made about him by Pakistani so called Historians ...
but his practical approach to the whole thing. It was practical not to withdraw his salary from Aug 47-Jan 48 , so he did it, but he didn`t indulge in the drama of Rs. 1 salary like he never was seduced by the populist charm of the Third class railway bogeys.

Why don`t Pakistanis stop making stories about my hero?

Echoboom,

I don`t know how Jinnah is relevant to this topic, but I will enlighten you with some facts.

Jinnah continued his correspondence and association with his daughter Mrs. Wadia. We have all the evidence to suggest that. He loved playing with his grandson Nusli and didn`t cut off any familial ties as you seem to suggest (Ironically this is mentioned in the book `Jinnah, Pakistan and the Islamic Identity, a Search for saladin` , a book that caters to your point of view). He didn`t disown her as the popular myth goes, and he left her a substantial share in the property (more than say Islamic Law would let her have). Dina Wadia leads a quiet but affluent life in the US because of that inheritance.

Jinnah also `fixed` his sister Shireen Jinnah a substantial amount in his will, the interest (Note) of which was to be paid to Shireen every month. Undoubtedly Jinnah was a shia Muslim who paid reverance to Imam Hussain. Infact that was the point I was making on the other board. Jinnah was quite religious in his personal life towards the end, but he never let his personal religious belief come into the working of the state. This separation of `Personal religious belief` and Public secular matters made him a Secularist, and not his pork-eating or whisky drinking.


Facts are taken from Jinnah`s will, and from the `Jinnah Papers` by Z H Zaidi and National Archives of Pakistan.

-Manto

PS Obviously I don`t include you in that category. You are an enlightened muslim whatever our disagreements maybe.

Urstruly

Agreed with the spirit of #148 ... disagree with your thesis in #149... I am sure you are aware that the schools in the Islamic world at its peak were schools which taught languages, Greek and Roman Philosophy alongside the Islamic philosophy and theology.

The `informal` Madrassah education that you seem to praise today is a far cry from the educational system that produced Avicenna, Ibne-ul-Haitham, Al Khawarzimi, Omar Khayyam, Ibne Rushd, and visionaries like Nizam-ul-Mulk. I`ll go ahead and assume that admirers of the madrassah system like Echo-booom don`t even know the first thing about these great men of Islamic History.

-Manto

Urstruly,

I never said I do not accept hadith. This, once again, is your creative spin on the issue.

You seem to be in denial that … ahadith on this issue contradict each other, as well as Quran … and therefore cannot not be trusted. Simple! Refer to #80, #20 for details. Furthermore, you claim that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) committed colossal blunders! This is a strange position for a proud Muslim to take … whereby you have dealt the final blow to your own argument on ahadith here.

It is not the fault of the English if you cannot even read and reason … you know.

Sattar

And how may I ask you discredited hadith? By merely saying that you don`t accept it? This is not discrediting this is called ``not accepting``; there is a difference. You don`t accept hadith; fine; that is why you are a Quadiani and I accept it therefore, I am a Muslim. As a principle of Islamic jurisprudence Islamic law is not applicable to non-Muslim so why you worry so much if a a Muslim committing adultery is given capital punishment or awarded with laddus.

Urstruly,

You are conveniently overlooking shortcomings of your ullema … and are instead looking for scapegoats. To understand this, one only needs to review your arguments on punishment for death for adultery … which you claim is the correct “Islamic” position.

To support your case, you argued in favor of following Torah. When I showed that Quran should be followed, you argue in favor of recorded ahadith. When I discredited the recorded ahadith, you argue that the verdict of ullema is adequate. When I discredit the ullema, you go back to insisting that recorded ahadith should be followed … since that’s what your ullema says!

Refer to #132 and 135 for details.

This type of circular, irrational reasoning in serious legal matters shows how twisted your ullema really are. If your mullahs fail to intelligently argue on such as a basic matter... you cannot rightfully blame the Brits, or anyone else for your own shortcomings.

PS: Changing one`s mind is easy ... compared to changing it from worse to better. You seem to have overlooked this distinction ...

Dear Manto

Thank you for your kind words. So our differences now boil down to on two issues

1. Separation of church and state

2. Whether the word of Qura`n is infallible or not.

And based on these two premises you predict that the Islam system of justice will eventually fail.

Both are debatable issues and Muslim world is in a process of informal ijtehad on issue#1. The key to issue # 1 lies in the answer to the issue #2. Since there is no compulsion in our religion I think the best bet is to let the people find the answer to issues# 2 themselves. Our job is just to show them the way.

echoooobooom

You are absolutely right. The things that I have written in this article should have been a way of life and should be known to me or people like me thru informal education. I am the generation who is not only deprived but also cheated out of what was mine. I had to go to great lengths to re-educate myself.

Manto, here, is wrong in saying that I could put this thesis together because of `angelicised` education. The fact of the matter is that I had to go thru painful transformation first to de-educate myself of `angilicised` education and then re-educate myself. It was not my vocabualry, my syntax, my grammer that I had to change; I had to change my mind.

mantolives:

Please note that it is generations I said. Nothing personal.

Now here is something personal:
Your intellectual metabolism is dangerously hyper. Consumed at this rate, the chances of burning out early are more. Such zeal and passion, if harnessed by the wisdom of a madrassah learning, can be useful.

Your hero Jinnah was a proud practising muslim. Anyone who consciously, publicly, and proudly (along with ALL his clan) becomes a Ithna` asha`ri shia HAS to be a very diehard fundamentalist. Sure, everyone changes over a lifetime. You`ll too. But you & I might believe internally and NOT make a public display of it--more so if the majority sect gets alienated during politically turbulent times and looks upon one as a saviour of muslims.

Practising shariat, Jinnah disowned his only child. How many of us are THAT practising today.? A muslim woman CANNOT marry a non-muslim. That is the LAW. Jinnah was a LAWYER and he knew QURANIC LAWS..and did not seek loopholes or selective or timespecific mealymouthedness. Quranic laws just cannot be spurned at will. The presence of the 5 fiqhues is itself a glaring testament to ijtehad.

What would you think of someone who calls himself an expert on shakespeare but has read it in another language? Can he teach shakespeare? Quran is in arabic.


Maualanas, maulvis, mullas, ulemas are more highly educated and learned , even in the english language , than most of the parrots-mynahs of the english-mediums in Pakistan. In fact when some from these schools joined madrassahs and became equally profficient in urdu, farsi and arabic it was only then they called themselves having acquired some learning. Just talk to some of them, there are many now everywhere.

Jinnahs best friend was nawab bahadur yaar jang--a great scholar and orater equally fluent in english, urdu, and arabic (spoken & written). Maybe you can emulate your hero even more, if you care to know more about his muslim side than secular side.

echoboom

Urstruly`s synopsis is indeed good. I agree with a lot of what he says... because I consider myself a student of Islamic law (especially from a historical point of view). I don`t want to boast, but I think I know more of its complexities than people like you whose entire purpose is to make feel good statements and insult other people you know nothing of.


The reason Urstruly can so articulately put across his point of view is because of the very same `anglicized` education system.

-Manto

urstruly:

A very good synopsis indeed!

Our misfortune is that our anglicised education system has so much eclipsed the minds of four generations that it is impossible to convince them that they are ignorant. A villager at least has the brains to admit that he does not know.

The most learned ulema are scientists, enginerrs, doctors, accountants, copmuter experts as well as space-engineers. They are completely at home and at ease.

Our artsy feel-good-course graduates are confused for a reason. It is our and previous three generations ignorance that is at play here. YLH is simply an intellectually-abused generation.

A uoung north american muslims guide to islam, by syed hosain nasr is a good start. www.nasr.com

Dear Urstruly

Thankyou for your reply. I have read it in detail, and I truly respect your point of view as an extremely enlightening and informative point of view (sharp contrast to what one is used to from the Islamists), even if I happen to disagree with it. I think that Islamic law was the most advanced legal system in the 9th century (which is partly why the Islamic Civilization was the most advanced in the world at that time). However since even you rule out any possibility of separation of church and state, and hence re-affirm the Quran`s infallibility in matters of law and administration of justice, I am afraid the Islamic jurisprudence will fail to evolve any further, though I think it had the greatest potential had it not been bound by theology.

-Manto