Standing Alone in Mecca by Asra Q. Nomani

sattar

We will pick up this discussion from here at some other place. I am currently extremely busy to respond to your questions.

Urstruly,

Read this slowly …

Quran tells you in simple language that punishment for adultery is lashes. I cannot simplify it further. Yes, it clearly says punishment for adultery is lashes. Check meaning of “zanni” for confirmation. Let’s not fool ourselves into believing something different. It is all there ... in simple language … in simple words … stated in very, very simple manner.

You are trying very hard to avoid accepting it. You tried a twisted argument, ignoring meaning of “zanni”, changing meaning of “mohsinaat”, using reasoning that defied logic, to come up with different interpretation. In process you argued that even Ali bungled up big time, in a very basic, fumdamental manner. And Holy Prophet called him “geteway to knowledge” and “highest wali”? You then dragged corrupted Torah as a way to do away clear Quranic commandments. In the past you even tried to apply Al-Furqan to Torah against Quran! Now, this is low …

To make your case, you had to classify sets of verses in A, B, and C … insisting that if you read A a certain way, and B a certain way, and C a certain way … and join their meanings together … ignore actual meanings of words and assign to them other meanings … assume things … you come up with a different conclusion.

No kidding!!!

If this is how you read something … anything … you can assign to it any meaning you want …

Looking a certain way, even a goat resembles an airplane. Only if one squints, view the goat in bits and pieces, twist and mis-process what he sees, blur his vision, tell his mind he is seeing wing of an airplane when he is actually seeing the ear of the goat … build images one by one … one scan at a time … use fuzzy reasoning ... argue red is actually a shade of blue ... and you can convince yourself you are looking at an airplane.

But if you open your eyes, you’ll see a goat!!!!!!

If you read 24:2 simply … it says “lashes for adultery”. I cannot make it any simpler … nor can Allah. If you don’t get it, you just don’t get it.

Urstruly,

You are vacillating between several sources, trying to find some way to validate your view. You failed at ahadith and then failed at Quran. You are now attempting Mosaic Law. Ignoring Quran and instead following Torah leads to more contradictions, not less. There was a reason why Quran was revealed!

Quran and Torah

Allah has vowed to protect message of Quran, but no such promise exists for Torah. Text, as well as message of Torah has changed overtime. Ignoring Quran and deriving guidance from existing Torah is therefore an absurd proposition to begin with. Furthermore, there is a difference in Torah and Quran. These are two different Books, for two different sets of people, for two different eras.

It is for this reason that as even as Quran mentions Torah and Gospels ... it declares that Quran is the Al-Furquan ... the Discriminator, the Criterion to judge. You once tried to apply Al-Furquan to Torah and Gospels, as opposed to Quran ... but failed. What the hell do you think you are doing?

Guidance from earlier prophets

Allah raised prophets for all nations throughout history of mankind. They were men of utmost righteousness and they fully submitted to Allah. While their messages varied in details, they preached belief in One God and doing good to others. It is this belief that is central to all religions as they were originally revealed. This is the message emphasized in 6:83-90.

Abrogation of previous Laws

Details of each religion were tailored to each nation for a specific era. As humanity progressed, Law became firm and universally applicable to everyone. Allah attests to these changes and declares that Law of Quran abrogates earlier divine Laws.

In this context Quran declares … ”None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar …” (Quran, 2:106, YusufAli’s translation)

Punishment for adultery

Quran clearly declares 100 lashes as punishment for adultery. I explained the meaning of “zanni” in this context. If you fail to accept straightforward sentences, it’s your problem.

Similarly, you ignored straight forward meaning of “mohsinaat” … and tried to twist its meaning to fit your twisted reasoning. Sorry, but this is rubbish.

Finally …

You now think that Ali exceeded his limits … and that also in a barbaric manner … whereby he had an adulteress beaten black and blue … only to have her stoned to death afterwards!

BTW, is this the same Ali whom the Holy Prophet (pbuh) called “gateway to knowledge” and “khattam-ul-auliya” ….? If such a noble person can bungle up, then who can be trusted? A simple explanation is that the said tradition is a fabrication … even if it was carefully documented by Bukhari.

Also note that owing to miscommunication and misunderstandings, Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) closest companions … Ali and Ayehsa … led armies against each other shortly after the demise of the dear Prophet (pbuh).

This strikes out the base of your view of absolute reliance on recorded ahadith, esp. when ahadith contradict Qruan.

Sattar

I will discuss the Ali`s (ra) legal verdict later but first get this out of your head that the punishment of stonning to death of aduterers is somehow ``un-Quranic`` or that the ahadiths prescribed in this regard that mentions Holy Prophet (pbuh) imparting this punishment to perpetrators are ``unauthentic`` because they somehow ``contradict`` Qura`n. Only a person who not only absolutely ignores the ahadith but also the history of Islam and also the life history of Holy Prophet can claim this. The fact of the matter is that Qura`n did not descend upon us as a discreet event in time like Moses got his ten commandments in one instance. The revelation of Qura`n spans 23 years of Prophet`s life.

Keeping this fact in mind, please read the following method of Islamic jurisprudence:

``......., please refer to the Qura`nic verses Al-Anaam (Cattle) 6:83-90, in which after mentioning the names of approximately 20 prophets and messengers Allah states that ``……..these are they (referring back to the Prophets) whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance. Say: I do not ask you for any reward for it; it is nothing but a reminder to the nations.`` [Ref: 6; tr:Yousafali]

This is an extremely important verse and early jurists in their books on jurisprudence refer to it extensively as ``Shara-e-Qable-na`` meaning, the law of the previous people (prophets) [Ref; 2]. Through this verse we get an important guiding principle i.e. if the authenticity of previous books (Psalm, Torah and Bible) is confirmed, and neither God nor his Prophet (pbuh) has instructed us otherwise the law stated in those books is our law. We have an obligation to follow it, because of verse 6:90.

And since, Mosaic law prescribes the punishment of death for adulterers, Holy Prophet (pbuh) with his actions has re-validated this law as the true Mosaic law, which is thus applicable to Muslims as well. Not all Mosaic Laws are re-validated, however, for example, although Holy Prophet (pbuh) has imparted the punishment of an eye for an eye in several cases, the Holy Qura`n repealed this Mosaic law later and replaced it with the laws of Qisas and Diyat.

It is also your ignorance when you claim that Holy Prophet (pbuh) only imparted the punishment of stonning to Jewish members of Medinite society. The recorded ahadith mention the case of Maa`iz (ra), a companion, of Holy Prophet (pbuh) who admittted to the Prophet that he had committed adultery and he was later stonned by the orders of Holy Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet often spoke highly of him after he was executed by stonning, saying that he entered Jannat as pure and without sin as he was on the day he was born. I can also recall another hadith where as a Muslim woman was being stonned to death when her blood splashed onto the face of a companion (probably Ali (ra)); the companion cursed the woman but he was stopped by Holy Prophet, when he indignantly told his companion that never curse the perpetrator in this way when being stonned to death or after because they have attoned their sin in such a way, that God forgives all of their other sins as well.

As far as Ali`s (ra) verdict in the case of implication of multiple hadds is concerned, the said incident (it is not a hadith) is true and it is a subject of discussion in various books of jurisprudence. As far as I know all four of the sunni schools of jurisprudence, especially that of Hanfi, dispute the verdict. The underlying principle they cite is that Holy Prophet (pbuh) never applied multiple Hadd punishments in any of his legal verdicts, therefore, Ali (ra) exceeded his authority. I am not aware of the current stance of Jafari jurisprudence in regards to multiple hadds. It is my assumption, which may be wrong, that that particular verdict by Ali was only a one time deal. Because I know another verdict by Ali (ra), where he ordered ceratin apostates to be burnt alive. I am not sure it was post-fact or before that that several companions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) objectd to his verdict citing the Holy prophets saying that immulation of perpetrators in this way is a punishment that God has reserved for Himself only. Similarly, the dipute over his verdict of multiple hadds is well known.

Urstruly,

… now you could argue that an adulterer should be given 100 lashes first, and then stoned to death. Sounds absurd? If so, then grab your balls…

… this is exactly what a recorded tradition says of Ali. According to this tradition Ali ordered that an adulteress be given 100 lashes. Once this was done, he ordered her stoned to death. He later exclaimed “I have flogged her in obedience to commandment of the Book, a have stoned her to death in accordance to practice of Holy Prophet”.

According to this tradition, Ali admitted that the Book of Allah prescribes lashes for adultery. Ali then acknowledges that the Prophet went further, beyond what the Book commanded, and had adulterers stoned to death.

Now grab your balls again. This tradition is recorded in Bukhari.

Did the Prophet (pbu) violate Quran? Did he knowingly have innocents killed? Can such traditions be trusted?

Such is the stuff one finds in recorded history. I have nothing against Bukhari … the guy had his heart in the right place and carefully, honestly, painstakingly documented what was reported. However, being human, he could only do so much to screen out fake stuff. And despite best human efforts, some fabrications do find their way into historical records.

Along the same lines, I remember a hadith where the dear Prophet (pbuh) stated along the lines that … in case of conflicts between Quran and ahdith, preference should be given to Quran.

This hadith should remove any confusion at all between Quran and ahadith …

Urstruly,

No your logic breaks down, and it proves the exact opposite.

Because if she (slave woman) screws someone else while being married … it is adultery. And for adultery she gets half the punishment. This suggests that full punishment of 100 lashes surely applies to adultery.

Got it?

Sattar

Blame it on my bad English but not the logic. Logic is correct even with bad English. In order to read my post correctly please substitute the underlined in the following with any of the following options:


“and she fornicates after being married ...” ...

``.....does hanky-panky with a man other than her husband...........``

``.......she engages herself into sexual congress with a man other than her husband...........``

``...... she engages in an act of illicit sex with a partner other than her husband...........``

``.........she fu..s another man other than her husband...........``

``........she copulates with another man other than her husband...........``

``........she two-times with a lover other than her husband...........``

``.........she makes love with another man other than her husband...........``


happy now?

Urstruly,

You got lost in labyrinth of twisted logic, and wrote … “and she fornicates after being married ...” ... (???). Shouldn’t this be adultery?

This was the very basis of your argument. You bungled up, and proved the exact opposite. Was this your iron-clad case? You cannot even read what you write. Have you gone nuts or what?

As Quran suggests, which you inadvertently proved, a slave gets half the punishment for adultery. This implies 100 lashes is full punishment for adultery, which is what 24:2 says [note that one who is married, commits adultery … and not fornication …].

You tried to validate executing adulterers from Quran, and failed at it. You have now abandoned Quran and gone back to unreliable ahadith that contradict Quran. Such is the sad state of your Islam … nothing ever ads up.

I hope Romair reads this …

Sattar

No logic is choppy if one follows the instructions and explanations by the greatest teacher (pbuh) of all. However, in this case, the verses in Quran` are self-explanatory, but still as a matter of protocol we double check our understanding with his interpretations. There cannot be two meanings in any of these verses- no matter how much one tries to wiggle out of, this iron clad case.

Urstruly (#145):

You are using choppy logic to make your case. The issue involves executing a person. If you cannot make a simple point simply, you’ve already lost the argument.

Furthermore, upon inspection your reasoning falls apart as well and, once again, the exact opposite of what you stated gains credence. Read on …

Your argument

Crux of your argument lies in interpretation of “mohsinaat” in 4:25 You insist that “mohsinaat” refers to unmarried, free, believing women. And since punishment prescribed for salve women now married to a believer for fornication (adultery? … more on this later) is half of full punishment, it suggests that full punishment of 100 lashes applies to fornication only, and not to adultery.

This, you argue, leaves a void for punishment for adultery. You then refer to recorded ahadith to prescribe death for adultery.

My counter argument

If a salve woman is now married to a believer … as suggested by your translation … (”…when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half …”) then her indiscretion is adultery, and not fornication. For adultery she gets half the punishment of a free woman, i.e. half of 100 lashes. This suggests that 100 lashes surely applies to adultery.

As death cannot be halved, this also rules out death for adultery.

Comments on your error …

You became too wrapped up in your logic … applying punishment for adultery to fornication, jumping between slave women and free women as well as non-married women and married ones. Eventually you got lost. This is evident from your statement … ”… woman who is taken into wedlock from captivity (slavery) and she fornicates after being married …

She fornicates after being married? Shouldn’t this be adultery?? This distinction is heart of the matter. Did you overlook it?

You make another mistake when insisting … “Logically, one cannot marry an already married women so by word “Mohsinaat” Qura’n is referring to unmarried free believing woman”.

One may marry a woman who is currently married, once her marriage is annulled. You are reading Quranic verse in isolation, which is a mistake. Quranic verses addressing an issue are to be read in conjunction with other verses addressing the same issue.

Meaning of “mohsinaat”

“Mohsinaat” is derived from root word “h’sun” … which means protected, fortified (Lane). Lane further defines “mohsinaat” as chaste women, abstaining from what is not lawful and not decorous. There is no mention of her marital status at all. I checked another Arabic dictionary from a Sunni scholar, and he agrees with Lane.

Going back to 4:25, a believer marrying a chaste slave woman … covers both married, as well as unmarried slaves. In case of married ones, it is understood that her previous marriage should be appropriately annulled first.

More weaknesses of your views

Your view suggests that while Allah carefully specified lashes for fornication, He forgot to specify death for adultery! What a contrast!! While Quran carefully addresses minor issues, it fails to address major ones!! This defies reason … unless you believe in a sloppy god …

Your interpretation of “mohsinaat” as unmarried women … makes one wonder: Did Quran forget to mention married slave woman, while addressing unmarried ones?

Furthermore, in post #66 I listed some of the problems with recorded ahadith on this issue. Ignoring these, while insisting the problems do not exist, is lame.

And finally …

You should first understand meaning of Arabic words and then try to interpret Quran.

Your sequence is reversed. First you apply twisted logic to verses. As words betray you, you are forced to apply incorrect meaning to them in order to validate your interpretation. Inevitably this also results in gaps in your reasoning, which you try to fill up by imposing unreliable, contradictory ahadith. By doing this you dig yourself in a deeper hole. Then you insist that since ullema have reached a verdict on this, they must be right.

This is not Islam, but a hodgepodge of ill conceived ideas. Your approach is riddled with flaws.

Urstruly (#122):

Romair and I may view ahadith differently … however he did not claim that Prophet (pbuh) failed to get his message across, or that everyone around him was a crook, or that every person on his planet is dishonest. You were rambling, sounding like a fool. Throwing up a tantrum makes a point not. Read my post #157 for details, esp. the last paragraph.

Furthermore, your cousin ntsyed does not believe in killing apostates who live peacefully. This is a new one … what do you think? Maudoodi wanted them dead. What’s the scoop …?

And what do your enlightened ullema say about return of Issa? Care to share their wisdom with us? Or is that too embarrassing …

Romair (#128):

Ahadith contradictory to Quran are not always rejected by mullahs. Rather, what mullahs often do is to reject Quran on basis of ahadith!!

Cases in point …

A few main cases I can cite are … killing for blasphemy and apostasy. Quran addresses blasphemy and instructs believers to simply avoid company of blasphemers. Similarly, while discussing apostasy in several places, Quran does not prescribe any worldly punishment for it. Rather, it discusses the possibility that an apostate may revert back to Islam … in which case, Allah is most forgiving.

But ullema insist on killing blasphemers and apostates on basis of ahadith, totally rejecting Quran in both cases.

Furthermore, consider the case of killing adulterers ... where Quran is ignored and punishment is based on unreliable, contradictory ahaidth.

Role of Prophets

I do think that Quran encourages believers to learn from Allah’s prophets and follow their examples. It is for this reason that Quran refers to Allah’s prophets as leaders, it calls Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the “best example” for believers, and so on. It assigns to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the task to convey the Book, to purify believers, and to teach the believers the Book and the Wisdom (2:129, 2:151, 3:164, 62:2).

There is more to a prophet than simply conveying the message. To some extent he does show by example the proper implementation of this message, at least in a limited context that he humanly can.

Furthermore, in some places Quran does limit the role of Prophet (pbuh) as that of the “conveyer of the message” only. However, in a couple of such verses that I found, the discussion was on his role in context of the disbelievers. That is to say, if people reject the Prophet (pbuh), he can only convey the message and not force them in any way.

Quran, the Discriminator …

Allah calls Quran the Al-Furqan … the Discriminator, the Criterion to judge. This is why I treat Quran as the main source. If a hadith contradicts Quran, it becomes unreliable for me. If Quran is silent on a subject or its details, and well-documented ahadith exist on this subject, and the message of these ahadith in no way contradicts Quran, rather it is consistent with message and theme of Qruan as well as human reasoning, for me it becomes reasonable to derive guidance from such ahadith.

Mullah’s views …

However, I agree that it is absurd for mullahs to force ahadith on others, and declare people non-Muslims for rejecting ahadith. Incidentally, there is nothing in Qruan that gives anyone any right to declare anyone as a non-Muslim, but here again, the mullahs ignore Quran … which goes back to my original point of mullahs ignoring Quran …

Romair,

What about the Quran?
Why isn`t it `hear-say` ?

Romair, the clueless field marshall, after writing 10 paragraphs and 5000 words about how useless the debate on secularism and religion is produced this gem:

``How about discussing economics and poetry and literature and science and business and construction and art and industry and philanthrapy and history and medicine etc. Something that people can use to raise their standard of living........ ``


People like Romair and others who follow this school of thought will never get this simple point: All of the issues mentioned above... Economics, poetry, literature, science, business, construction, art and Industry... DON`T THRIVE UNDER THEOCRACIES

Religious DOGMA closes down all these fine endeavours. Secularism in some form is required for the enhancement of all these fine fields that Romair wants to talk about...

How about Evolution... could you discuss Evolution in an Islamic country... after the 1977 coup... not a single word of EVOLUTION has been taught in any Pakistani state owned school... Lest I say more...

So get a life... Romair and his supporters...

Re: # 151

``The Roman Empire is believed to have existed, because there is proof. The artifacts are there for everyone to see. They still exist. It is not based on hearsay over 200 years. People didn`t orally tell each other that the Roman empire existed. The Coliseums, stadiums, theatres, etc. are there for everyone to see.

Similarly, for the Egyptian empire, the Pyramids, the Sphinx etc are there. The hieroglyphics on these sites are there. The Rossetta stone was discovered, through which hieroglyphics were translated into Greek. etc........``


Let`s use your logic to prove/disprove these legends.

1. Do you know where the blueprints of the Coliseums, stadiums, theatres, etc. [that] are there for everyone to see can be found?

2. Can you PROVE to us the names of their architects, builders, and when and who approved those designs? and that all those individuals were actually Romans?

Ditto ....for the Egyptian empire, the Pyramids, the Sphinx etc

My friend,

if you scroll back to where you and I started this discussion, first you said that reading stuff like Bukhari`s leads to `shirk`. That only Quran is needed to understand Islam, implying that sunnah are unimportant. At the same time you claim that Quran only contains `abstract level` of information per Islam, and you based it on the `size and length` of the Book. That it`s a collection of short stories from times gone by.

Then you took a step back to avoid using the word shirk in the aforementioned context.

You took another step backwards to say that yes Prophet (pbuh) should be obeyed, but only for the things that have a clear link to Quranic verses

Now you`re saying that indeed Bukhari`s work is important. That`s a long way from declaring `reading such things leads to shirk`. BTW the question you have yet to answer refers to the word `shirk` in #123, so you can help yourself.

By no means, all ahadith in Bukhari`s compilations could be used as law. As urs and I have maintained, there are a small number of weak ahadith therein and these are stated by Bukhari himself as such.

To learn the credibility of the narrators, one is expected to read other documents and look for evidences elsewhere. Why? Because since every project has a scope, the narrators` biographies are out of the scope of Bukhari`s project.

If you are interested in Islamic history to become as good a Muslim as you can be, to get closer to the Prophet (pbuh) on the Day of Judgement, you`d read all relevant documents that you can get your hands on, instead of debating others to provide proofs to you as if you have some sort of authority over the subject.

`nuff said!

:-)~~

Re: # 144

Sorry Mr Shah, I can`t explain that to you since I have very li`l knowledge of the subject. I`m always very afraid to hazard a guess in the matters of Shari`ah and things related to it.

:-)~~