Looking for a New Islamic Fiqh

OK , my bad. I came across the Islamic law of legitimacy.
I also discovered that the reason it is so long, is for the protection of women, and not any other. Also, medically I have found cases where there have been extrauterine fetuses developing...the fetuses die, but can remain in the woman`s body for a very very long time. Perhaps it is for cases such as these that may call the woman bearing the fetus into question, but that is why the fiqh would protect them from any wrong doing.

But the Hudood ordinances of 1979 is used by thousands of parents and others to tarnish the honor and reputation of the very women Islam is meant to protect. The ‘ethical’ mismatch between the Hudood ordinance of 1979 and the law on legitimacy belies belief.

Well then that is your ignorance... if you are hell bent on confusing ``iddah`` with ``gestation``.

Under your jurisprudence, a woman`s child would be accepted as the former husband`s if the child is born within 2 years (Hanafi) or even 4 years (Maliki)

Ahh... the kufr name calling. Go ahead.
Only Allah knows who is truly muslim and who is not. I don`t need anyone else`s confirmation, especially yours.
As to having me check the facts. I did. I didn`t find the 2-4 yr limit anywhere. And I wasn`t confusing the iddah.

I followed the sunni madhab untill recently. Please check the facts before you speak. Confusing the iddah (during which time, the woman would show signs) with pregnancy is not right... under Sunni law, it can extend to a period of 2 to 4 years. You can check this.

Islam needs Ijtehad... and denying Ijtehad is also Kufr.

I don`t know if anyone has mentioned this before, since I didn`t have the time to read over everyone`s comments, so here`s my $0.02.

First off, you post a disclaimer that you are no scholar of Islam, but a muslim. Well, as a muslim, or a member of any other faith for that matter, you really need to use valid references before making your arguments. Its says here that this article has been read 1980 times! Don`t you think its your responsibility to actually research what you write, for those readers out there who may believe everything they read about Islam since you mention that you are muslim and so they`d think you`d actually knew what you were talking about????

Your first paragraph states that ``according to Hanafi law a child born within 2 years of the dissolution of marrige is considered ligitimate``. Please provide proof. And for Maliki and Shafi ``4 years``, once again please provide proof. Your only logical statement about this is with the Shi`a law, for ``10 months``...obviously you follow the Shi`a madhab, otherwise you`d know better about the other fiqh rulings.

You can look up even on the interenet various sites which have questions and answers provided on a variety of subjects. One such source is Sunnipath.org.

As far as I`ve know and have read, the waiting period for a non-menstrating woman according to Hanafi, Shafi, and Hanbali, is 3 months. For a non-pregnant woman it is 4 months and 10 days, and for a pregnant woman it is until delivery.

I never read beyond your first paragraph...so that`s all I can comment about.

There really is no need to make up new laws....the only need is to re-educate those that should really know better.

Monto

I say why mix Islam with the Muslims, theory with the practice, like mixing law with the lawyer. As the professional lawyers abuse law so do the practicing Muslims with Islam. What use are these Fiqahs today. It is 5.45 am in Islamabad and you can hear the den the abominable loudspeakers fixed on mullah plazas are making. The lodspeaker is the almighty today for the mullah but the Fiqah did not say anything about it. All Fatwas condemning it as a `Biddat` and all laws banning its use have gone waste as the almighty Loudspeaker shareef has no ears.

The main theological issue driving conflict in Islam today is essentially the same controversy that has divided modernist and fundamentalist Christians for the past century. Fundamentalist and modernist Christians can be differentiated by many criteria, but the one which applies equally to Muslims relates to principles for interpreting divinely inspired texts. Fundamentalists vest their scriptures with authority. They take them at face value and interpret them literally in all instances except those where a figurative meaning is blatantly obvious. Modernists are more skeptical. They treat their scriptures more as literature than as divine law. They prefer allegorical and figurative applications for formulating ``enlightened`` religion. For a more thorough investigation of this perspective and its implications visit
http://www.oprev.org/Shofar.htm#feature1 .

Simon Templar...

The Prophet gave this method...

By denying it we robbed humanity of modernity that could have been achieved 5 centuries before the age of reason dawned in the west.

Imagine where we would be today...

All because some fellow like you decided that the 4 Aima`s work was a sacred cow. Talk about Hindu rasm or riwaj.

aquaris,

Absolutely.

Javed Ahmed Ghamdi is Islam`s hope for the future.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#78, I don`t think the ``erudite gora`` as you put it are the criteria for judging truth or falsehood of anything. Also by stating that the only baggage is hindu rasm-o-rivaaj, you are thinking of a narrow segment of Muslims and an even narrower view of what is recognized as ``Islam``. Islam`s source is the Quran, everything else combined under its banner that forms part of it today dates from atleast 200 years after the prophet, that means every single hadith and every paragraph of fiqh. They are the ``rasm or rivaj`` that are just as alien to Islam as the other ``rasm or rivaj`` that you mention.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#75, true, but in determining specificity we need to use the context of the Quran, logic and science and not associate with that the ``manufactured context`` given to it by the hadith and other ahistorical documents that under the guise of explanation offer little other than total distortion of the Quran.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I fail to understand the logic of this article. Just because some men
are behaving badly in India, abusing Islam, doesn`t mean you start
re-writing Quran to suit your personal agendas. The only baggage
Muslims of the Sub-Continent have, are the hindu rasm-O-rivaaj. If
we recognise and jettison them from our daily lives, we`ll be just fine.

I wish, all of you gutless wonders, the strenght to leave Islam if you
can`t abide by it`s tenets. But that`s asking too much from athiests,
agnostics... whatever, who simply cannot tolerate religion around them.

This year in Germany around 1000 Christians left their religion and
embraced Islam. The majority among them, were well educated and
well-placed women who weren`t married to a Muslim.

Islam, in it`s original form, is the fastest growing religion in the world.
If the erudite gora, who was born into and lived around a `reformed
Christianity` all his lives, chooses Islam, it should certainly be modern
enough for all coconuts.

I say ``Fuqh the Fiqh,`` and let`s start thinking outside the box. Let`s stir up some originality. Let`s invent some theological fiqh faqh that will put Islam right back where it belongs - in the hearts of men and not in their throats (as in force fed.) :)

OOhhhh...

How I miss Lahore...

Mr YLH are you aware of the work by..

Amin Ahsan Islahi http://amin-ahsan-islahi.org/

His Teacher and Mentor Hamid Uddin Farahi

or Mr Jawad Ahmed Ghamzi.. www.danishsara.org / www.understanding-islam.org

seems like A few were already on the same path... Unfortunatley very Few Know..
or are interested in knowing that..

#72, masadi {``What we need is not a ``new`` Fiqh but a return to the original Islam, the Quran and the Quran alone and then study and apply it based on the criteria it recommends, reason and reflection, logic, science, truth and justice- and which ofcourse has to be circumstance and era specific``}

Masadi Bhai,
Much of what you state makes a lot of sense. I agree that the Hadiths have become as much of a joke as the humorous ``Confucius say`` ones. If you put all the Hadiths together, I doubt if the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was really able to say so many things in one lifetime. As for the Holy Koran, I agree with you that we have to read it, understand it, and practice it BASED ON THE CONTEXT AND ERA associated with the text. Caution about Jews in Medina is not necessarily the same as a requirement to hate Jews for eternity. Cooperation and friendship with Christians in Arabia does not mean you can trust them forever, including the Crusades, colonization of Muslims, and elimination of Islam from Spain and south-eastern Europe. Sure, we can follow the Holy Koran, but we need to keep our logic, needs, senses, and interests while we do so. Blind obedience to even good advice can be harmful, if not balanced with logic. The last thing we need is more religious scholars or holy chefs telling us how to worship God and go to heaven - mostly by putting money in their pockets. :)

Yasser, dear boy, you know fully well what Islam needs. It is not a new fiqh, not the correct implementation of Sharia, not trying to determine the true intent of the Koran.

Just like de-Nazification, Muslim countries need to be de-Mohammadized. Every book ever having to do with Islam should be burned. Just like the Spaniards did with the Mayan language in Mexico, the speaking of Arabic ought to be banned. In 50 years, Arabic as a language would be just a dim memory and along with that the Koran, the Hadiths, etc. All Islamic ``scholars`` should be sent off to labor re-education camps a la the Chinese political prisoners.

In about 100 years, there will be no memory of 4 male witnesses to a rape, a woman`s testimony being valued at hald of a man`s, or any of that nonsense. At that point, the camel jockeys should be given civil liberties slowly.... oops, I forgot to mention that all these ars@holes should be treated not much better than slaves for a 100 years. That ought to teach them to value the liberties they get and behave properly.

Anyone rebelling ought to be impaled on a sharpened stick and placed in public squares in Arab cities which ought to be reduced to the dusty hovels they once were before civilized people like the British or the French arrived there.

That goes double for Peshawar. Anybody attempting anal penetration of young boys ought to be castrated, which would reduce Peshawar to an all-female city.

Think about this. You will agree it is the right thing to do.

``Wahhabiism has sought to nullify all traditional Islam and return to very simple basics that suit the tough and arid desert conditions but not the lush green valleys and plains beyond.``

This is really deep. I am blown away by this logic of yours. So, basically the tenets, beliefs, fiqh, application and following of Islam according a to a certain school of thought depends upon the geographical and topographical elements of a landscape.

I must say, mujtahids like you are truly what are needed to `correct` Islam. Of course people who have spent their lives learning about Islam know absolutely nothing, right?

OK...So for the tough and arid desert we have the Wahabbi form of Islam, for the lush green valleys of Persia and India we may follow the Sufistic ways...

What would be the Fiqhs best suited for the Arctics and the mountainous regions such as Himalayas and the sort?

HAHAH!

Thanks...I really enjoyed your article Hamdani sahab...

#71 should be read in the context of #38, part of which is reproduced below

``For the vast majority of Muslims (though only a minority know about their religion intellectually), Islam = Quran+ hadith+ fiqh+ scholars+ regional traditions, going back to the very beginning, Islam was the Quran alone; everything else post-dates the prophet by over 200 years, including all the written hadith, which are a small part of those that the collectors originally collected- they are unreliable as historical documents. First the political powers that be corrupted Islam by bringing in all that they desired to legitimize for themselves under the banner of ``Hadith``, in every age the # of hadith and contradictory hadith grew in geometric progression; then, to add to that confusion we had fiqh introduced: people claiming that what God had said was too complicated for the common person to understand, so they had to interpret and apply it for them. As if all of a sudden, God, in his desire to talk to humankind- as the Quran addresses its audience in many cases- lost his omnipotence and became dependent on these ``Faqihs``. That is what they imply when they rationalize their field-

What we need is not a ``new`` Fiqh but a return to the original Islam, the Quran and the Quran alone and then study and apply it based on the criteria it recommends, reason and reflection, logic, science, truth and justice- and which ofcourse has to be circumstance and era specific. If there is ONE unifying force among Muslims, atleast in label at the current epoch, it is the Quran, let us try to transform that abstract unity into essence by removing centuries of theological corruption that has been lumped with the Quran, by hook or by crook. Islam`s source is the Quran and the Quran alone, let us return to it. ``

If you throw out the source of Islam, the Quran referring to it as a ``paralysing edict of days gone by``, I`m afraid whatever system you come up with and label as Islam will not be Islam and can never be Islam, without its source, The Quran.

Quoting things out of context has to do with intellectual honesty, recognizing such things with critical thinking and scholarship. Neither of these were what we were discussing. We were discussing giving up the extra-Quranic baggage like hadith and fiqh that are ahistorical. Had nothing to do with keeping them but making sure they are quoted in their proper context.

If you think that you can define morality for the Quran rather than the Quran define morality for you, you have the whole purpose of it backwards.

masadi, #68 {``rejecting all the baggage that Islam has picked up along the way is a great start, we need to return to its source the Quran, however adding other new (under the progressive label) baggage would be an erroneous move.``}

Masadi Sahib,
Yes, we need to refer to the Holy Koran - but as a source of information and not a paralyzing edict of days gone by. In other words, let`s not quote the Holy Book out of context just to justify something we all know is wrong.

The entire world is about politics, how people choose to live and how they will die- when religion is kept out of such issues is the reason why it has become a dependent variable in today`s world, a grand distraction and little else. We need to get rid of this moral default of religion as practiced by the Mullahs as well. For them the beginning and end of religious morality is sexual deviance, everything else including murder is sanctified and glorified as they are used by the economic, political or military institutions for legitimation purposes. This ``reactive`` versus ``proactive`` role of religion- which is not limited to current day Islam by the way, needs to be fixed by its practitioners, otherwise it is reduced to little other than a joke.

C. W. Mills a non-believer wrote his ``Pagan Sermon to the Christian Clergy`` expressing similar ideas, the Quran contains similar exhortations even as it condemns the corruption of religion by the religious elite of the day:

In his ``Pagan Sermon to the Christian Clergy`` C. Wright Mills writes:

``But you may say, ``Don`t let`s get the church into politics.`` You might well say that
with good conscience were the political role of the church to be confined to
what it has been and what it is. But in view of what it might be, if you say
that you are saying, ``Don`t let`s get the church into the world; let`s be
another distraction from reality.`` This world is political. Politics,
understood for what it really is today, has to do with the decisions men make
which determine how they shall live and how they shall die. They are not
living very well, and they are not going to die very well either. Politics is
the locale of both evil and of good. If you do not get the church into
politics, you cannot confront evil and you cannot work for good. You will be
a subordinate amusement and a political satrap of whatever is going. You will
be the great Christian joke.``

The whole article can be read in his book, ``The Causes of World War 3`` which I also highly recommend

#67, rejecting all the baggage that Islam has picked up along the way is a great start, we need to return to its source the Quran, however adding other new (under the progressive label) baggage would be an erroneous move. Further, Islam is a totally egalitarian system, agreed but we still have a need to create an ummah that serves not the Muslims alone but humankind, just like stated in the Quran, ``ookrejat len naas``- a sort of a public intelligence apparatus- a humanitarian group that informs humankind, a developer of ``publics`` as C. W. Mills would say.

Manto {``In my opinion, a body with Muslims extracted from all parts of the world and cultures should be formed. ...sty. Most importantly, each one of them should believe in the mission of formulating a new fiqh for our times and should not be swayed by their own personal likes and dislikes. This body should be left to deliberate for as long as possible, with the tab to be picked up by the oil rich kingdoms and republics of the Arab world. ``}

Manto,
In spirit I agree with your timely suggestion that we need to update Islamic law, rituals, and even perceptions. We have gathered a lot of excess baggage over the last 1400 years and have sanctified almost all of it. I cannot agree with formulating a body of eminent ``Muslims`` from all over the world. These folks are bound to be no other than the familiar representatives of Anjuman-e-this and Anjuman-e-that. Asking the oil rich Wahabbis and conservative Sunni Arabs to fund this body is asking for a repeat of the Saudi-dominated Islam that has surfaced all over the world in the past two decades. No sir, I cannot trust a body funded by this bunch.
Next, we should stress the need for an Islam that is ideally suited for individuals. We need to more than merely catch up with the rest of humanity. We need to restore Islam back to where it began - a fresh, new, free, direct, and egalitarian belief system for all human beings. We do not need to think in terms of a ``chosen`` people, or empire, or even an ummah. Islam always was, and always needs to be, a religion for the ``unbeliever.`` It cannot be the sole domain of those headed surely to paradise. I admire the Sufi path because of its emphasis on love, refrain from blame, and its belief in the inherent goodness of all people. Like you, I applaud the Shia flexibility of Ijtehad. We both know what to do with Wahabism.

I think that a progressive Islam should consider some very radical topics for adoption:

The absolute immorality of war
The benefits of vegetarianism
Gender equality in rights and responsibilities
Removal of the social stigma against sex
Open door policy for welcoming ``kaffirs`` to Islam
Total absence of religious authorities
The basic compassionate, merciful, and forgiving nature of God
Treatment of corruption, lying, stealing, cheating and murder at least on a par with abstinence from alcohol, pork, adultery, fornication, and blasphemy.
Respect for individual rights
Tolerance of others
In summary, a softer, gentler, kindlier, more humane, more forgiving religion for today`s individuals.

Freesoul...

Again you are missing the point as usual.

The reason why John Locke could be a good christian and still believe that religion is a personal matter is because of the Christian reformation. I am afraid you didn`t read my posts at all.

The reason why FAIZ, despite his inspiration from Islam, could not be considered a good Muslim was because there hasn`t been an Islamic reformation.



Jang,

The reason why scientific inquiry could continue unchecked without the scaffold of religion is because of christian reformation.

the scientific rennaissance of the western word was a strong force which allowed people to think beyond mystical religion. this had little to do with any reformation. it happened inspite of religion, and in turn both strengthened (with guttenburg presses) and weakened religion. so, more people became truely religous by reading the bible, and religion spread via colonization. so, forget about ``reforming`` the religion, just keep chipping at it.

Re #62 & #61

I have read ur posts very well, so don`t bother to use strawman here.

Everyone, even atheists and agnostics in this world, have had some effects of their original religions on them. There is no exception. Newton, was a strong and quite a freaky beleiver in christianity. But by no strecth of thought, his `atheist` physics laws were inspired from Bible. The same can be said about Faiz. `Lazim hay kay hum be daikhain gay` is an example of his inspiration from Islam, but was he a mainstream muslim?

A secular person can be a religous, as lonmg as he/she keeps govt out of religion and vice versa. If u deny that for John Locke, then obviously u have not read anything.

yes, having a secular state was a result of witnessing the consequences of mixing religion and politics / policies.

these horrible consequences of the mix was what was got people to realize that the two need to be kept separate.

today we continue to see the disasterous consequences of the mixture. other nations too will realize the need make sure no one religion is given credance over another and to instead have a secular set up where all faiths are treated equally.

I would add that not only John Locke but Kant, Rousseu, Voltaire down to J S Mill and John Morley were all products of reformed Christianity. Even Darwin was a product of the social impact this reformation had on Christian society which became more accepting of free-thinking... (Hence Darwin was not tried like the earlier gentlemen).

Secularism began when French Prime Minister Cardinal Richelieu, a christian priest, declared that foreign and state policy had nothing to do with religion or religious considerations... the famous painting where he chose to appear as a secular prince instead ot the ``prince of church`` is the real beginning of secularism as we understand it in the west.

Freesoul.

You are totally missing the point because frankly you don`t understand what I am saying nor have you bothered to read my posts.

John Locke was the product of reformed christianity. How can you contest a case without knowing what the other person is arguing. I don`t think you have even tried to read his works, which deeply embedded in Christian thought.

Secularism in the west would have never come about had it not been for reformation first... it is a historical process beyond an individual here and there.

pakistan was created for islam, so its obvious that pakistanis are ``commited`` to islam ;-)

Re: # 58

It is just not possible that an institution wielding control over state would just withdraw from positions of power, thru reformation. Christianity was forced out, not left thru reformation.

It is like expecting Pakistan army to leave civilian domain (govt, bureaucracy) thru internal reforms. It won`t happen this way.

``The founding fathers of the United States very clearly credited the US constitution to John Locke... and other scholars of the age of enlightenment``


John Locke did not try to reform Christianity as if we would try to make 1 woman`s evidence equal to man`s. He was more concerned with limitin religion`s role to `souls salvaation`. Your example of John Locke, strengthens my case, not urs.

Sorry just saw your post again... and you are not talking about stripping religion from people`s lives but just the state- a position I agree with- religion should ultimately be a personal matter... but religion became a personal matter in the west through reformation. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts it is not about whether church disagrees with a position... but whether people are ready to give it the authority to shape their lives... the people will stop giving the church authority in the Islamic world if there is a reformation as there was in Christiandom.

The rest of the post is relevant.

Historically no secular state has ever resulted from the process that you outline- hence the failure of secularists like yourself... even our officially secular neighbour has tried to limit religion in people`s personal lives. The most successful secular state in the Islamic World is Turkey. In Turkey Kemal Ataturk- despite what people would like to portray him as- did not try to make people irreligious- he tried to reform them. He even tried to reform and nationalise Islam- and to a large extent his efforts have borne fruit. However, his successors made a dogma out of his actions rather than his vision and therefore you have a reversal of sorts in Turkey. Still- Tayyib Erdogan, a conservative Islamist, is more secular than several secular politicians of the Islamic world.

The purpose of a secular state is NOT to make people irreligious but to ultimately give them the freedom of conscience. The founding fathers of the United States very clearly credited the US constitution to John Locke... and other scholars of the age of enlightenment. Jinnah was well aware of this process when he spoke of Protestants and Christians discriminating against each other... and then developing toleration. That is ultimately secularism... not denouncing Islam because you don`t like it- the majority of Pakistanis will remain deeply committed to Islam whether you like it or not... and they have every right to.

-YLH

Re: # 55

gay-marriage was just an example to prove a trend. If chtistian orthodox had their ways, even a discussion would not be possible on such topics. European Immigrants to USA would have thrown out USA consitituition, if it anyways had incorporated chrisrtianity in it. The founding fathers could easily see what would would fly. It was not the reformed christianity, but the desire of ppl to limit religion`s role in their affairs.

Again, my point is simple: Islam can not be reformed in a centralized or imposed ways. Limit its role to ppl`s pvt lives, and ppl will make it as relevant to their lives as they deem fit. And it has happened in so many ways around us. 4 marriages of a man, r now things of past. People have simply rejected this. The concept of femal sex slaves now disgust an ordinary muslims, and he can`t belive Mohammed and his followers ever justified this. All the things against `sood` (interest) has become irrelevent. Zia made provision for shia to by pass this, and 70% of bank customers (by one estoimate) declared that they were shias just to by-pass zakat deduction. It is happening all around us. What is necessary is that we strip Islam from pakistan, and declare all statements of Jinnah and ML linking Pakistan with Islam, as null and void.

Freesoul,

You are looking at specific occurences, point by point- I am talking of the general trend. The secularisation of society is not dependent on a victory here and defeat there. The reason why a debate is possible in the west today on issues of gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research etc is because the majority religious discourse has been reformed to allow such a debate... Church disagreeing with an opinion is very different from the Church persecuting that opinion.

There would have been no constitution of the United States had there been no John Locke (or Rousseu or Kant etc) whose writings the founding fathers of the US closely followed.
John Locke was the product of the age of enlightenment that was brought about christian reformation.

-YLH

re: jang # 52

Islam and Islamic societies face some peculiar issues that make progressive, liberal political reforms within Islam and Islamic societies quite difficult and uncertain. And when such reforms do occur, they tend to be rather short-lived, often replaced by more vicious forms of Islam.

An editorial in the Daily Times reaches the unpleasant conclusion long drawn by cynics.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005 12 10 story_10-12-2005_pg3_1

If there is any truth in these assertions (divine proclamation does not refute them), then genuine wishers of liberal democracy have no option but to become religious reformers. After all, even casteist Hinduism was (and remains) logically contradictory of liberal, progressive democracy.

Re #51

ur view that secularism was the result of christianity`s reformation, is not the factually correct. It is alsmost like expecting gay marriages to be first solemnized in churches, and then in the constitution of USA (or any other country). It won;t happen this way, as it never happend this way.

Religion always follows social change, not the other way around. Religion, by its very definition, is passive and static. Social and economic urrents genarte demands, that are always resisted by orthodox aganets, religous or non-religous (traditions)

#50 i dont consider islamic laws as a big developmental problem for pakistan.

freesoul,

Blind I was when I was intolerant of those who associated any pride with being a Muslim.

Secularist I still am... but my understanding of the whole thing is derived from

1- Origins of secularism in Christian countries...

2- Law making in Christian countries.

English Jurisprudence and Napoleonic Code- the basis of secular laws in our time- were at point deeply rooted in christian tradition. Infact I can bring up judgement after judgement from English Common Law judges suggests that christianity was part and parcel of common law. John Locke, arguably the father of liberal democracy, modern society and hence secularism, derived his political philosophy from religion mind you.

An Islamic Reformation is necessary for the evolution of secular society in the Islamic East- just like Christian reformation- except Islam gives a way of doing it... Calvin and Luthar were groping in the dark.

Kaalchakra,

Fascinating analysis ... I see the whole issue much the same way.



Jang,

My friend... Indian Constitution was working perfectly in the Shah Bano case. You have to accept that Congress uses Deobandi mullahs as it did so in the British India for political gain ... which you call vote bank politics...

Hindu reformers did not because Hinduism like the semitic traditions is not rooted in one god one book... Hinduism, in essence, is more of a cultural experience than a religion in semitic sense...

Renaissance followed reformation... surely you don`t discount the effect that Luthar had on Europe... there would be no John Locke had there been no Martin Luthar... I am sure of it.

At a minimum, Manto`s suggestions can form the starting points of a constructive dialogue among the followers of Islam.

Let`s not forget the context. What we have here is the logical evolution of Manto`s own ideas. It`s been a few years since Manto moved from Rutgers to Pakistan. He is now more sensitive to the role of religion; more aware of the great challenges (and opportunities) religion presents; and more conscious (overtly or not - I am not sure) of some peculiarities specific to Islam and Islamic societies.

With that background, those who agree with Manto`s general direction may want to offer suggestions for tightening his thinking, or suggest better alternate ideas.

manto, many of the so called ``hindu`` reformers did not attempt to reform the hindu religion. they simply performed reformist activities like marrying widows or taking low-caste into upper-caste temples or educating women etc. they were ridiculed and ostracised, but when others saw that their aberrant behavior cause no big problems, others tried those things as well. i am not sure of the rennaissance, but i doubt if kepler tried to give any religous argument.

Re# 45

``It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform... ``

Those who use their brains have usually accepted the `individual/private interpretaion`` of religion anyways. They r not interested in changing religion for anyone, in the first place.

The ppl who want to control religion and hence blind ppl, r the ones who would be more ready to jump this bandwagon.

This proposal is inherantly childish and immature. In order to encourage free thinking in islam or any other religion, u have to free it from all groups clucthes, not form a new group to claim the so-called hijacked religion. Talk about hijacking the hijacked plane !

``It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform``

You are right there. And it would be great to have such a council. It`s just that I don`t see any practical chance of this happening. If you think about the mechanism by which such a council can come into being you would realize that anti-reformist are more likely to end up controlling it than anyone else.

``that forces the Congress Party to continuously seek support amongst Maulanas and Deobandis... ``

at the time of constitution writing it was fear. later, its congressi vote-bank politics.

It doesn`t have to be dominated by liberals... simply people who use their brains and are sincere about reform...

This proposal is rather naive. In practice, any such body would be dominated by conservatives.
Any new fiqh can be started only by a small minority and will have to gain acceptance slowly.

jang...

You want to bring the discussion back to partition... well then here is a million dollar question... the Muslims who control the AIPMLB and oppose any reform to family law in India were also the people most committed against Pakistan and the partition of India.

Don`t you understand it is not fear but an attempt to control the Muslims asking for consociationalist arrangements... that forces the Congress Party to continuously seek support amongst Maulanas and Deobandis... hence the continuation of Muslim Family Law in its most regressive form.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

manto what i mean is, the new indian nation saw full-force of use of muslim religiosity during partition. they were absolutely chicken to abolish british made civil laws for muslims. they however were not scared of hindus of sikhs or jains in the same way.

Dear Humsab,

Thank you sir for asking this question.

I converted because Ismailism (from sunnism- not Ahmadism as someone said) is the only sect in Islam that is fully cognisant of the true spirit of Islam... which places emphasis on its universality and therefore is not dogmatic. For example you`ll be surprised that at one point Ismailis in Gujurat were calling the Holy Quran ``Artha Veda`` as well.

It is by sheer good luck that Ismailism has produced some forward looking gentlemen as the Imams... but whatever the reason this sect in my opinion is the closest to the spirit of Islam and the mission of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Yassir

Sorry, it is a personal question but I am asking because you have put it up on your profile for public knowledge.
Why did you have to convert when you were a muslim and you remain a muslim?
Is it because your ideal and idol Jinaah was Ismaili or you specifically studies their philosophy to get convinced?

Regards

Great ideas for solutions but they wont work, and why do I say that they wont work? It is because Muslims unfortunately are unwilling to return to the Quran as source, unlike Pervez and Iqbal who were willing to. For the vast majority of Muslims (though only a minority know about their religion intellectually), Islam = Quran+ hadith+ fiqh+ scholars+ regional traditions, going back to the very beginning, Islam was the Quran alone; everything else post-dates the prophet by over 200 years, including all the written hadith, which are a small part of those that the collectors originally collected- they are unreliable as historical documents. First the political powers that be corrupted Islam by bringing in all that they desired to legitimize for themselves under the banner of ``Hadith``, in every age the # of hadith and contradictory hadith grew in geometric progression; then, to add to that confusion we had fiqh introduced: people claiming that what God had said was too complicated for the common person to understand, so they had to interpret and apply it for them. As if all of a sudden, God, in his desire to talk to humankind- as the Quran addresses its audience in many cases- lost his omnipotence and became dependent on these ``Faqihs``. That is what they imply when they rationalize their field-

What we need is not a ``new`` Fiqh but a return to the original Islam, the Quran and the Quran alone and then study and apply it based on the criteria it recommends, reason and reflection, logic, science, truth and justice- and which ofcourse has to be circumstance and era specific. If there is ONE unifying force among Muslims, atleast in label at the current epoch, it is the Quran, let us try to transform that abstract unity into essence by removing centuries of theological corruption that has been lumped with the Quran, by hook or by crook. Islam`s source is the Quran and the Quran alone, let us return to it.

PS:

And not just the Muslim World... but Muslims every where should have representation in such an effort... by scholars... I mean scientists, economists, physicists, biologists, chemists, neurosurgeons, mathematicians...

And if we don`t have an expert in a field... the body should be open to invite a non-Muslim as an expert witness...

Ah Al Azhar...

Al Azhar was actually a very forward looking body when it was Ismaili. Sadly, while praise worthy Saladin is for his tolerance for other non-Islamic creeds, he changed the Ismaili university into a sunni university. The idea that I have given cannot be implemented through Al Azhar with its composition at present... Al Azhar ofcourse would need to accomodate more points of view to be a truly representative body.

The body that I suggest would need to be a grand Muslim body... with thousands of scholars... housed in a white dome like structure... with delegates from every corner of the Muslim world and cultures. It would have committees and sub-committtees... it should take its time... deliberate for decades... review every piece of philosophical, scientific and historical writing ever written ... hammer out every issue... we have 1000 years to catch up on.

I like the idea of the tab being picked up by the Wahabis. :D

Secondly, what do you think about Al-Azhar as the potential institute with foundations to carry your ideas forward for the Sunni world?

Jang,

First I will address the historical fallacy: The pressure for separate family laws has come from the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind, which was formed as a follow-up to the Khilafat movement, with the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi and others. So lets give credit where its due. Blaming poor Jinnah for everything under the sun might be attractive to you but it isn`t true... (besides Muslims don`t equal Islam- so it was really about Muslims` social, political and economic state) Quite the contrary if there was ever a Muslim ready to dump all religious mumbo jumbo for a godless secular system in India across the board, it was Jinnah. He infact admired Turkey and its abolition of Muslim Family Law. As a legislator Jinnah actually got the famous India and Pakistan`s child marriages restraint act passed in face of major Muslim opposition from Deoband (yes the same people who Gandhi insisted make a party called Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind in 1924). A civil constitutional law would have been possible 1- had the British taken the unpopular decision of abolishing Hindu and Muslim law instead of codifying in the 19th century 2- Khilafat movement hadn`t been encouraged.

However... the issue here is not simply of constitutional civil law or of Jinnah or Gandhi or whoever else. Why are Muslims so attached to Muslim Family Laws ? Why are Hindus as a community more secular than Muslims today... I find this to be the case across the board? Because the late 18th century and 19th century saw the emergence of Hindu reformers... who might not have been secular themselves... but who largely influenced and updated the Hindu cultural construct... it is the part of a process.
In Christianity, we saw Luthar`s movement... which gave a new fiqh to the Christians. The whole reformation and renaissance has roots in the same idea.

Secularism in the west followed historically Christian reformation. There is no way in hell you are ever going to get a secular Islamic world without reforming Islam first. Luckily original Islamic thought gives a brilliant system of updation and upgradation... What I have suggested is not ``some sufi fiqh`` .... I suggest you read up on a fellow called Cardinal Richelieu, the Prime Minister of France and a devout Catholic Christian,... he is arguably the father of secularism as well... then you have John Locke... without Locke the formulation of liberal democratic ideal would have been an impossibility... he was an extremely devout christian.

True Secularism emerges out of the reformation of major religious discourse (i.e. Christian reformation in the 15th and 16th and Hindu reformation in the 19th centuries) Ofcourse there is another way... secularism by force. But ... in Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria etc we see secularism reversed by popular will... and in Turkey, it has only survived because state has gone beyond being secular... but has sought to control religion by making a ministry of religion that carries out much the same function as what I am suggesting this international body should do... except that Turkey`s official church is becoming increasingly dicredited in the eyes of the believers there.


Freesoul,

The only immature thinking I see on display is yours... because it is devoid of a sense of history- not Islamic- but European, especially that which pertains to the age of enlightenment. As long as this ignorance and arrogance that forces you to look down upon on those who are not ``enlightened`` as you to bcome self hating Muslims-by-birth... you will not achieve any progress. Not long ago, I, too, abused and laughed at those who took pride in Islamic history and associated themselves with Islam ...but I don`t think intolerance of any kind is mature thinking. You are free to live your life as an individual... that is your prerogative.

-YLH

why can`t you ullus just convert to chaltahaism and start living instead of praying for death.

``In my opinion, a body with Muslims extracted from all parts of the world and cultures should be formed. While a percentage of these should be experts of existing jurisprudences, a significant portion of this body should consist of eminent Muslims who have excelled in fields of science, technology, law, medicine, philosophy and even women’s issues. Each member should be the top most expert available in the field and each member should have an unimpeachable record of integrity and honesty. Most importantly, each one of them should believe in the mission of formulating a new fiqh for our times and should not be swayed by their own personal likes and dislikes.
``

Who will form it? Who will nominate them? There r many sects within Sunnis, will it be considered? what is ``top most expert``? Will it be a legitimate body in the eyes of general muslims?

It is much like when in early 80s, Zia formed majlis-e-shura.

your idea is simply a result of immature thinking. Religion is best left to indivdiuals to figure out its beliefs and its rationalization in modern world.

The Problem with muslims is not their lack of adancements in religion, but their backwardness in education, and the undue pride in islamic history (all fueled by Iqbal type poets).

Yasser:

Good thoughts. You should also think about the problem of authority. How would the body you speak of come to be recognised as authorities by lay muslims (at-least within the sunni tradition)? Further, I don`t believe it is as simple as formulating new fiqh according to the ``demands of the twenty-first century``. For that all we`d need to do is take the best ideas of western civilization and make links b/w them, the Quran, the Sunnah, and our contemporary social conditions in fiqh manuals. Is that really the solution?

Thanks.

By today’s law, Jinnah will be stoned to death in the country that he helped create, if not stoned, at least he will get some lashes. And that my friends is the subsequent interpretations of Shariah in post Jinnah Pakistan. And Manto wants to undo the old doings. A better solution will be to send Islam back to where it came from and let people live their lives without this Sharaih and Fiqh crap.

manto, with passionate sectarian differences that exist, muslim are less likely to accept a new-reform fiq. they are more likely to accept a constitutional solution, which is godless, and hence not insulting to any specific belief. if jinnah had not raised islam khatrein mein hain, a constitutional civil law would have been possible. i think it will be possible once the insecurity is lower due in time. but to force a hanafi sunni to accept some sufi fiq is impossible.

>>No essentially my attempt is exactly what India did with Hindu Family Laws in 1956 and what….

Manto… you don’t live in India, so get over it. And no one really wants to learn from an Ismaeli what they think of Islami Fiqh. You know that Jinnah was a whiskey drinking ham sandwich munching leader of the Islamic nation. If we can live with that, I am sure we can live with other discrepancies within our old Fiqh.

That’s just my opinion.

No essentially my attempt is exactly what India did with Hindu Family Laws in 1956 and what Pakistan did with Muslim Family Laws in 1961... except I propose an overhaul of the entire doctrine ...

Yasser Sahib..do you think that the old Fukas are outdated and are no longer applicable pretty muck like Islam itself?

If I am not mistaken...

The late Dr Rafique Zakaria, the archetypal Congress Muslim and ``Secularist``, once famously told our very own Farzana Versey that she would go to hell for being a bad and disobedient Muslim woman...

Some power play this new ``Secularism`` of India has ...

I see...

Ballu and other ``secular`` Indian nationalists need Imam Bukharis to keep a check on Shabana Azmis, E Ahameds, and Banatwalas... lest they get out hand...


But this article didn`t have anything to do with that...

Oh so now I have an Islamist agenda... because I say that we should update Islamic fiqh to suit the needs of modern times.... to allow Muslims to live in modern secular systems... to perhaps outlaw polygamy and give Muslim women the right to be imams ... etc

Meanwhile Congress and its toady mullahs continue to uphold reactionary and bigoted forms of Islam... where it is alright for a husband not to give alimony to his wife... but they are secular.

Beautiful logic... Ballu.

``I can see why a closet Hindu fanatic like yourself is so opposed to the idea of modernisation of the Islamic fiqh... It would mean game-set and match for those in India who seek to divide Muslims on the issue of fiqh by using Deoband Mullahs against Muslim politicians... ``

OTOH I can see you are speaking for the PAkistani Islamists...................and when you get exposed with your Islamist agendas you are willing to call others as apostate............No wonder you want to establish the grand Ulema Council and become its FOUNDING FATHER like Mr Jinnah....

No Mr Manto??

It would give you immense power to decide on the fate of the billions of muslims world wide when you would ask your Jehadi enforcers to terrorise those who do not accept the newly modern and deliberated Fiqhs of the grand modern Ulema on Shariat world wide???

You certainly suffer from the illusions of grandeaur like OBL..............just like your Mr. Jinnah!!!

About the Saudi Arabia issue..

Do you think that would be possible if Islam was allowed upgradation every 5 decades as is part of the Islamic faith.

Dear Blind man.. #18

Let me repeat what I wrote to you earlier:

I believe in complete secularisation of all states... as in states should not discriminate between citizens.. and there should be separation of church and state. This article had you cared to read had nothing to do with that. This is to modernise the workings of the ``Church`` (for the lack of a more apt description) of Islam- separately and distinctly from the state.


It is not about Fiqh vs Secularism you fool... It is about a Fiqh that accepts secularism and modernity vs a fiqh that doesn`t.

Honestly you have to incredibly stupid to even suggest that I have not brought up the question of secularism. I have harped on about secularism more than anyone else on chowk... and it is real secularism unlike your hindutva rehashed variety that you harp about.

There is no question of enforceability except through general will of the Muslims... if a fiqh is prepared ... it will go down as the fifth Sunni fiqh ... having an international council behind it would give it more credibility than the past. Your analysis is constantly couched and hindered by your rather lacking understanding of South Asian Politics...

But since you bring up the issue... let me disabuse you of some silly notions you seem to hint at. India actually has a AIMPLB which hinders progress and takes Muslims in the opposite direction... given that is dominated by the old Congress (Secular??) allies from Deoband..

Your vision is so clouded that you don`t see that ``Secular`` Congress in ``Secular`` India overturned the Shahbano case verdict... misusing old and outdated fiqhs ... I can see why a closet Hindu fanatic like yourself is so opposed to the idea of modernisation of the Islamic fiqh... It would mean game-set and match for those in India who seek to divide Muslims on the issue of fiqh by using Deoband Mullahs against Muslim politicians...

``However one thing is certain: today more than ever before Islam needs a new Fiqh to implement its Shariat. Not many Muslims today appreciate the difference between these two very important and distinct terms.``

This has been the founding principle of most of the efforts in legislation within Pakistan............how to fit the civil laws of the modern times with the Shariat...............so how is it different now??? don`t we have a huge corpus of shariat based jurisprudence within Paksitan and other Islamic countries???.........and all of them have come up with strange Fiqh.............

Read this in order to understand how the Fiqh works with the experts...........and let every body decide whether we need Fiqh or Secularism!!!!




Kerala man may lose eye under Saudi Arabian law

Kollam (Kerala): A man from Kerala jailed in Saudi Arabia for a brawl that partially blinded a Saudi national may lose an eye if the courts there decide to follow a new law.

Naushad, 34, got into a tiff with a Saudi national and damaged the latter`s eye in the ensuing fisticuffs in 2003. The Saudi man later lost his eyesight.

According to a new Saudi law, one of Naushad`s eyes could be gouged out for ``justice``.

Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy Sunday promised to look into the matter.

``I will get in touch with the authorities in Saudi Arabia through the external affairs ministry,`` Chandy told IANS.

``If he loses his eye, we will commit suicide,`` said Naushad`s wife Sulekha, 30, who is bringing up a five-year-old son and a three-year-old daughter here.

Sulekha also looks after the aged parents of Naushad, who was the family`s sole breadwinner.

``Ever since he was jailed, we have been surviving on the mercy of his friends who send us money. His mother is also suffering from a heart ailment,`` Sulekha said, weeping.

Reports from Saudi Arabia indicated that a similar verdict was handed out to an Egyptian who threw acid in the eyes of a Saudi national.

Hanifa, a former colleague of Naushad, said a favourable settlement appeared remote as the Saudi man was adamant on the issue.

The Dammam court has handed over the case to Saudi Arabia`s Supreme Court.

``The ball now rests with the Supreme Court and we are all hoping for the best,`` Hanifa said.

Re: # 16


The issue is not whether different Fiqh-s come up with different solutions for differing practices within civil or family laws of the muslims world wide ........infact every ulema of the land or the accepted scholar of the colony is good enough to use his Fiqh to bring some advice on family matters to the extent they are mere recommendations.............................

the issue is about ENFORCEABILITY..................muslim politics has always used their Fiqh of the powerful and elites to turn their interpretations as ruling of some immutable law without any possibility of appeals...................it is about POWER over the unletterd muslims..............Compare this with the Christian world.........the Pope is DUD because he cannot enforce any ruling of his on family or civil matters in any country..............................this happens because the christian counteries are mostly secular.....Can you imagine the havoc the Pope and his interpretors through the council of elders or experts would wreck upon the modern societis through their rulings which would have to be enforced by the Christian States.............if it were not for secularism.................Secularism is definitely the major issue that needs to be addressed first in your proposal and which as usual you are not trying to bring up because of obvious reasons..................

Ballu Ballu Ballu...

Understand what ... that you don`t know what you are talking about? I am not bad mouthing you ... that you do adequately yourself.

I believe in complete secularisation of all states... as in states should not discriminate between citizens.. and there should be separation of church and state. This article had you cared to read had nothing to do with that. This is to modernise the workings of the ``Church`` (for the lack of a more apt description) of Islam- separately and distinctly from the state.

This article is about the internal mechanism of a faith... which needs to be updated... That mechanism was abandoned by Sunni Muslims in the 9th century.. This has nothing to do with terrorism, communal relations, Muslims` world view etc... but generally about how to keep the Islamic tradition of updation and upgradation going on.

ICC meets routinely to modernise Cricket for example... next you are going to tell us that is against the ``Secular state``.

Re: # 14

instead of bad mouthing me now.....try to understand what I am trying to say!!!


You are peddling in wares you should not be..............

Ballu Khan,

Clearly you don`t know as usual what you are talking about. Like many Indian Hindus, you must comment without actually understanding the issue at hand.

Secularisation of states has NOTHING to do with the issue I have raised. Is India NOT a secular state? Well it probably isn`t but atleast it claims to be?

Yet India faces the same issue of Muslim Family Laws. And even if the issue of family laws was resolved... believers would associate with fiqh or that fiqh. It is not even about extremism. Catholic Christianity does have a council... it elects the pope. Pope then makes the decisions about the faith. Now tell me if major catholic countries on the planet are not secular... Anglican Church has a similar council... most churches do.

May I suggest that if you don`t understand something you refrain from commenting... and making it into a perverse Hindu-centric bigoted attack on Pakistan.

-YLH

My initial reaction.............to solve the problem of political Islam with its different variants by involving eminent (muslims only?) people in the process of Fiqh is giving an interesting twist to the whole issue.........it is going to be like a grand council of the practicing christians trying to solve the recurring issues of christian extremist thought..............this may be interesting but actually counter-productive to people who believe that the issues do not pertain to faith but involve extremists using the faith and the gory traditions to begin fascist agendas of global domination .............I would suggest that we take a much simpler way.................ask for greater secularization of the Islamic states so that they drop this theocratic pretense of establishing pure lands on the foundations of a religious faith..........this would be much effective compared to running another GeoTV speactacle between Israr Ahmed-s and the other `secular civilians` on a world wide scale................

Jang`s comments do sum up the confusion that people have about these terms.

Jang,

Shariat and Fiqh does not necessarily mean state law.

Fiqh is simply the understanding of the Islamic doctrine.

A new fiqh might make it easier

1- For Muslims to accept secular state law 2- For Muslims to accept change in their family law- a major in problem let me remind you in Secular India.

As for rigid... I don`t think so. Islam became rigid when it decided that the works of the 5 Imams in the 9th century was the be all end all.

jang,

Laws are meant to be rigid...the legal system, though, must be fluid...big difference...

Kulharee,

It`s in fact a meta-ideology that has historically, and no doubt in the future, defined a class of ideologies...trick is to find an implementation that is effective today...

why replace something rigid with something else rigid? why not just allow methods like constitution etc to rule? that may be more pragmatic and acceptable than forcing a new fiq, especailly one coming from a ahmedi-> ismaili convert ;-)

muslims are more likely to accept a secular law than messing with faith-based law.

A good article in the right direction with the right intention.

I believe the reform on Islamic society has to start form within. Only then it would be more credible and sustainable. And it`s high time that it`s kicked off. The alternative is going to be terrible for both Muslims and Non Muslims...

````In my opinion, a body with Muslims extracted from all parts of the world and cultures should be formed. ````

A non starter IMO. Creating such a body would be almost impossible and even if it is formed, it will be dominated by Wahhabists who are more likely to foot the bill.

It would be great if this reform starts at a more local level and the success is emulated by other Muslim societies,

Thanks,
Avkrishna

Kulharee...

Fiqh (Understanding) is interpretation of shariat as per the requirements of the time.

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) gave the method of Ijtehad to create new fiqhs for every new age...

Under the influence of Asharite thought (which sought to preserve Islam against the Mutazillites) Muslims abandoned the Holy Prophet`s method.

PS: I wrote this article before I converted to Ismailism... in September.

Manto..the difference between Muslims and good people is that that the good people don’t bang their snare drums about Louis Pastore being Christian or Maimonides being a Jew. They move on and accept the past advances as contributions of humans to humanity. Only fuking muslims will keep babbling about Abu Hanifa and Abu Whiskey and whatnot who no one no longer gives a crap about. By suggesting that Islam needs a new Fiqh, you are subliminally suggesting that it is a failed ideology. Which by the way may not be far from the truth.

Kaalchakra, Zakk,

Thanks for your comments.

As far as Pervez is concerned... his movement`s headquarters are based in Gulberg (25 B Gulberg on Ch. Zahoor Elahi Road)... to my knowledge he is not banned in any province... given his close links to the Pakistan movement... Prepared to be disappointed however... the ``Tolu-e-Islam`` comes across as closed to ideas as any Maududian movement today.

http://www.tolueislam.com/

Zakk

Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to discuss some of the issues involved, but not all criticism is because of ``islamophobia`` - a word that means and explains very little.

The fact of the matter is that Islam has very negative consequences for a great many people on earth. They have a right to be very cautious and careful about the claims made by its proponents (who, of course, must be its beneficiaries, and thus behave rationally in supporting it).

Manto

Haven`t read the article (yet), but must commend you in this effort.

Mantolives: I velieve Parwezs work is banned in some provinces in Pakistan? I know very little about the mans work do you have any references to his work I could look around for?
The comment about period after marriage in which a birth is considered legitimate is interesting..I wonder what is the record for the longest birth.

I would like to point out some of the legislation that some of the religo political groups support is quite progressive..the restriction on triple talaq..the outlawing of vani and the guarantee of inheritance rights to women, opposition to dowry, morrocos recent reforms are also quite progressive and have been interpreted in an Islamic context..the outlawing of polygamy using Quranic verse ..the list goes on..there are many progressive reform movements going on in the Muslim world..the Islamophobes ignore them because it doesn`t fit in with their hate filled views..and the conservative Mullahs usually can outspend them because of state power or petro dollars.