Justice for Half a Man

``against someone who is
charged with such offense is a witness account of four adult males
[8], of
impeccable character, who must have seen the act of penetration in person``
***********
Why would 4 male members with impeccable characters have to witness the penetration.
Isn`t that by in itself a crime. Watching a crime and not doing anything about it right away.
whatever happened to civic sense or duty of a citizen?

Someone watching that kind of crime is a criminal himself.

I would like refer the readers here to Gulberg article written by me on the general issue of ``Women in Religious Scriptures.`` 5-15-2003

Sattar2 # 76

I did reply and address your question but you did not like my answer. You are entitled to your disagreement.

You cannot blame mullahs and especially mohadatheen (the people who compiled ahadith) with ulterior motives and quote that hadith in your post at the same time. If mullahs had ulterior motives then the first thing they must have done were to hide or delete such ahadith, one of which you have quoted. But that would have been dishonesty, woudn`t it.

Similarly take for example this hadith often quoted by know-it-all people like yourself when trying to make a case against Islam:

Book 38, Number 4356:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

Some people raided the camels of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), drove them off, and apostatised. They killed the herdsman of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who was a believer. He (the Prophet) sent (people) in pursuit of them and they were caught. He had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes put out. The verse regarding fighting against Allah and His Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was then revealed. These were the people about whom Anas ibn Malik informed al-Hajjaj when he asked him.

Wouldn`t it be more beneficial for all Muslims if we just reject such embarassing ahadith as false or fabrication? But that is not the case; what happened was happened, and it had to be reported. That is the burden of responsibility that we have to bear. At the face value such ahadith if you literally take them must cause embarassment as long as you do not have enough knowledge about what is the background of each hadith. We get the background knowledge from ilm-ul hadith.

The background of above quoted hadith is that the people who attacked and killed the herdsman of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) belonged to a Jewish tribe (whose name I cannot recall). When they killed the herdsman they put his eyes out and cut his hands and feet as well. When these poeple were caught and brought before Prophet, he prescribed the Mosaic punishment of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This law was the law of the perpetrators themselves. Keeping this background in mind the only thing it proves is that the Mosaic law as it was practiced in those days was barbaric and not Islam. Moreover, keep in mind that after this incident the divinity revealed thru Quranic verses the new law for Muslims called Qisas as explained above in this article. After the law of Qisas was established the old Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth was annulled forever.

Please also keep in mind that in the very beginning when prophet started spreading his message there were established no state institutions. Sometime he was on the run or in exile in Sha`ab abi talib canyon where he remained exiled for three years. But when he migrated to medina after 13 years of suffering and as Muslims started gaining political power the new set of laws were revealed and institutions to enforce those laws also started developing gradually. The incident that you have mentioned in your post is also from an earlier time when Prophet was facing the harshest criticism and opposition while he had no political power base. Now put yourself in his shoes and think what would you do if a person came to you and told that he had killed his wife because she was disrespectful to you? Hand him over to police? what police? You might say oh! I would have at least raprimanded the man for taking a human life. But what you know. Let me write down another such incident and let you decide what you would have done.

When Prophet migrated to Medina and slowly started gaing the political power, one day a friend of him from the days when he himself used to go on trade routes, met him and accepted Islam. This man was a very influential person and used to control the supply of grain to Mecca. This man offered Prophet that he would stop the supply of grains to mecca from now on to punish them for inflicting a war on Prophet every other year. propphet agreed. The man stopped sending food grain to mecca. A famine emerged in Mecca and people were near starvation when leader of Meccans Abu Sufian sent a message to prophet that ``you call yourself rehmat-ul-lil-alamin (blessing on heaven and earth) and you are starving your own people?`` At this prophet allowed the continuation of supply of grain to mecca. prophet was a human being like you and me.

The spectrum of people who beleive in Islam is wide. Each has his own reasons. Some have supernatural reasons and some have down to earth reasons. For supernatural reasons there is a proverb in Urdu ``Pir sahib nahiN uRRtay, aqeedatmand ki aqeedat unhaiN uRRati hay``

For now that is enough. I know you will not like my answer again. And Quadianis are non-Muslims whether you breath fire or fly on cloud, they will remain non-Muslims.

Urstruly (#34):

It seems that the crux of my argument … based on clear Quranic verses limiting punishment for adultery to lashes … and contradictions in traditions … remains unanswered.

Apparently the consensus of ullema is your last defense for death for adultery. These ullema failed to refer to Quran … and overlooked obvious contradictions in traditions. Here’s a hadith you may find interesting. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

Judging by such traditions, one cannot fault Jerry Falwell in stating that Islam is a barbaric religion and that Mohammad was a violent brute. While I disagree with Jerry and Dr. Hamidullah, I fault Dr. Hamidullah primarily for ascribing barbarism to the Prophet … and calling it Islam. Jerry is an opportunist, who is exploiting a weakness in Islam … an opportunity provided to him by the unwitting ullema.

I hinted at the problem of the ullema’s consensus … when I mentioned their beliefs in … one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey and prophets practicing magic, raising the dead, and flying over clouds to meet god. Clearly these cannot be the teachings of a religion fit for the mankind. Apparently, the ullema swear by these fairy-tales. Even cousin Naqshbandi thinks that some pir Sahib of his would not allow the sun to set at his will … while he himself awaits the descent of Issa-ibne-Marriam from the sky. It is not surprising that he helped you with this article.

Finally … in the past, you referred to some aspects of anti-Ahmadi legislation unanimously supported by the ullema as … “the most dishonest, stupid and anti-Islamic attempt by the fat-butt lethargic mullahs”. Clearly the consensus of ullema is not kosher … according to your own admission. Add to this the unanimous verdict of Jewish clergy in crucifying Jesus … and the verdict of the Christian clergy for insisting that the earth is flat … and the “consensus of ullema” becomes a highly dubious card you are attempting to play here.

Yagacho # 70: isnt it reasonable to say that we need to look at islamic laws in the present context. i mean dont you thinking chopping off a persons arm for theft is too harsh?

I don`t know Yagacho, this ``too harsh`` is very subjective. For example, for some the California`s Three-Strikes law is barbaric and draconian but it makes too much sense to overwhelming majority of Californians. Please keep in mind that California is considered the liberal capital of the world. Similarly for some the Roe vs, Wade is an ultimate expression of freedom and for me and millions other it is a death warrant to massacre the helpless, speechless, and defenseless.

This 80 years of disconnect has created a lot of misinformation about the punishment of amputation for theft. This issue was discussed in detail at my article on Blasphemy law. Please check the following replies:

535,

537,

542, and

551


Please check these responses and we carry our discussion from there.

ferozk#55

There is not much to disagree with your post, all of your assessments are correct. However, I will disagree on one issue when you say that ``Urstruly, Islamic law and women`s right is a geographic and demographic issue and it cannot be generalized. `` In the rest of your post you yourself discredit your assertion by actually providing the examples (burka). Islamic principles, Islamic laws, and application of those laws are three different things. One should not take one for the other. Islamic principles, as stipulated in Qura`n and Hadith are universal whereas (some of the) laws formualted by interpretting those principles may or may not be society specific. In other words we have a large playing field while we interpret those principles. This gives as flexibility and adaptability.

Throughout the Muslim world, those cultural practices, which were not forbidden by Islam when it came to those cultures, became ``derivative`` Islamic practices or in other words those cultural practices that were dear to the indegenous people were given a religious sanctity by those people. For example, music was (and still is) an integral part of the life in Hindustan. It is even an integral part of the prayer rituals. So when Muslims (especially sufi/saints) came to Hindustan they realized that they could reach a wider range of audience if they used music as a tool of communication. Necessity is mother of invention. Thus the Quwali was invented. So basically what happened here is that the references to Hindu gods and religious figures were changed to Muslim God and Muslim religious figures. The main theme and content remained the same as that of bhajjan. So the saints/sufis in their opinion realized that introducing a bida`h (new addition) in Islam would actually benefit the cause of Islam rather than hurt it. Their ijtehad gave religious sanctity to the Quwali. Some people will even die and kill if they are told that Quwali is and was never a part of Islamic principles.

But in the past 25-30 years as the modes of transport and mass media has shrunk the world into a small village people/Muslims have started realizing what were the basic principles of Islam and what part of it was derived and added to as a bida`h (new addition) under cultural pressures. So there is a world wide voluntary movemnet going on to revert back to the original message and discard the ``new additions``. Because Muslims have figured out that these ``new additions`` craete rift rather than unity. So what was a diversity in unity is now slowly changing to unity in diversity. People are giving up cultural practices or at least they have started recognizing the differnece between cultural practices and Islamic principles. Some people refer to this reversion back to original message as Wahabism, since Wahabis vehemently reject anything additional and stick themselves to the original message of principles, but it is not. This, I am afraid is not Wahabism, but it is the inevitable future that technology has brought upon us.

rafay # 72:

I have written an article on this exact subject (where is it, Chowk Editors?)

…for page one chowk editors can reply to your query…it did appear in an obscure by-lane of chowk;)…

http://www.chowk.com/show_forum_topic_post_list.cgi?channel=&tid=00002615&start=20&end=29&page=3&chapter=1

I can`t say I`m impressed by the article. When gender inequality was ``recognized`` by Islam, it was well before the Industrial Revolution, when economies revolved around agriculture and trade generated from the trade of the same (and slavery). It`s fairly obvious that, at that time and indeed now, that a woman could not lift as many bales of hay or harvest as much land as a man. (However, given some of the advances in biotechnology, this may no longer be the case). But that has changed. The world now works on the basis of ideas generated in board rooms. It is based on information. Now you can`t, in all honesty, say that a woman (who has had the same university training as a man) can`t comprehend the intricacies of international trade because she should be at home making babies. The justification seems to be ridiculous.

I have written an article on this exact subject (where is it, Chowk Editors?) which discusses the contraditions in the state`s mentality when enforcing the laws relating to evidence. The law prescribes witnesses (and the derogatory provision requiring one man and two women to give witness to an agreement containing financial or future obligations) as Islamic in all personal transactions, but does away with the requirement in its banking laws (see s. 18 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001). When it comes to taking its citizen`s money, the state has no problems in discarding the requirements of Islam.

Also, I discuss the provisions of Surah Baqarah (upon which the requirements of evidence are based). Both I and Mr. Justice (Retired) Mamun Qazi (in an article written in DAWN in January 2001) agree that the provisions in the Quran seems to stress the requirement of documenting agreement, and does not prescribe anything in relation to the procedure of giving evidence.

Looking at this whole issue from afar, it seems to me to no longer be a discussion of religion. No religion - and by religion I mean a set of Divine Decrees regulating behaviour - can be interpreted in today`s world as implying a disparity in the abilities in the two sexes. After all, the measure of those abilities have shifted dramatically in the last 50 years. The world no longer requires strong men. It needs smart women.

Rafay Alam

Ref ali87 #69

[about 400 years in Andalus and how many crosses???]

How about hundreds of thousands of Christians killed in Armenia and another 1.5 million expelled by the Turks? Or doesn`t that count, the victims being Christians?

What was it, 54 Shiites in Quetta just one Friday? Almost equalling the 59 Hindus killed in Godhra when you thugs burnt up the train.

[give it up harimau.. ]

Just one last sally... how about the couple of million Hindus in West Pakistan who are nowhere to be seen? In case you don`t remember, they made it across the border in August 1947.

[Which is why you wallow in the pity of Minority Apeasement, Historical Muslim Genocides albiet in a more sophisticated way.]

As opposed to you who is wallowing in SELF-pity over historical injustices to Muslims, the loss of the Mughal Empire, the conspiracy of the Yehudas, the treachery of the bania-brahmin complex, etc.

[If you and you likes had any selfesteem you would have either been playing a different role on fourms like these or not been here at all.]

My role is to correct deliberate falsifications of history that are trumpeted ad nauseam on Chowk by the likes of you. If you want an a$$-kissing Hindu, I notice that the headshrinker is back.

urstruly, couple of questions for you.

as you mentioned that islamic laws were practiced until 1924. so we can say there has been a timespan of roughly 80 years since then. isnt it reasonable to say that we need to look at islamic laws in the present context. i mean dont you thinking chopping off a persons arm for theft is too harsh? for there to be four witnesses to actual act of penetration that act has to be carried out in public and that is rarely the case, is this a reasonable requirement?

#59 by harimau on July 20, 2003 5:34pm PT

about 400 years in Andalus and how many crosses???

give it up harimau..


Asains need not look through American glasses either. Very little can be expected from people with low self esteem in terms of reformation, rising up to the challenges.... Which is why you wallow in the pity of Minority Apeasement, Historical Muslim Genocides albiet in a more sophisticated way. If you and you likes had any selfesteem you would have either been playing a different role on fourms like these or not been here at all.

zahraj # 60

That was a good example. Here is a hadith I read recently. Hadith is narrated by Ayesh (ra). She says that once she and Prophet were walking down a street or somewhere when Prophet asked her to run a race with him. She says that at that time she was slim and agile so she outran Prophet that time. Then she continues that years after that incident once again we were walking down the street when prophet asked her to race again. That time, she says, that she had become a little heavier and little bit lazy and therefore prophet outran her. She says that prophet was very happy at his victory and told her that it was the revenge (sic) of the previous defeat. This tells the very human nature of the greatest man ever who graced this earth. In a society where birth of girl was mourned and men used to burry their daughters alive. This would have been the greatest of an example set by an extraordinary role model. Muslims of present day should look into their lives and see where they stand with their women.

I think I have already answered on Muslim Society in the section ``Gender Equity vs. Gender Equality - an argument of Sociology`` . I think it details the working of Muslim society well though it has more focus on relationship of men and women rather than as individuals in society. We can take a start from there. I await your comments.

There are some questions that are still in the air. I would never get into questioning line by line items in this piece. This is an academic effort vs. how things are from practical standpoint. These are guidelines. All of us have some ideals, a world that we want to see for us and for our loved ones. But we want that to happen in real life vs. reading that in an academic piece. If you believe in something then make sure that you do that. There should be guilt when you disappoint your own self. By accepting the prevalent trend that has a leaning towards an a la carte menu, we are not letting our religion be mocked at. We are just being honest to ourselves. I think the day acceptance kicks in a lot will be seen from a realistic point of view.

Romair # 48


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


I havenot avoided the topic, however, you have avoided to read my last answer to this regard. I did list the mechanism of collecting the hadith in the form of link to the Dr. Mohammad hamidullah`s book An Introduction to Qura`n and I even provided the link to the chapter on preservation of hadith. The mechanism is detailed in there. I can also cut and paste if it is too hard to just clik the mouse button. As Dr. writes the process of collection and documentation of hadith started during the life time of Prophet (pbuh) when certain of his companions started writing journals with Prophet`s expressed permission. The process of documentation kept on going after his death. several of his companions wrote papers way before the final compilation. This account by Dr. is also confirmed by Moududi in his Tafheem-ul-Qura`n and also by a book by Dr. Yousaf Guraya titled Islamic Jurisprudence in the Modren World and many many other books in English and urdu. So it is not like that 200 hundered years after the death of Holy Prophet suddenly it dawned on someone that the ahadith should be collected. The methods by which ahadith were collected and verified was regourous and painstaking. That is the reason only about 1% of total body of hadith which numbers somewhere between 650k to 700k is considered authentic. Which means that what we have is 99% accurate. That makes it pretty reliable source of info.


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


This statement is rhetoric at best, I don`t see a scientific merit to it keeping in mind the Science of Statistics. You are merely speculating without providing an evidence. If you think that something is wrong you must provide the evidence to prove your case. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

I think you need a good book to start from to search on this topic. I have listed three. There are ten others. Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi/Shibli Nomani`s Sirat-un-Nabi is one more though it does not elaborate the topic from juristic point of view.

Alephnull # 49

Qura`n is a strange kind of book. Instead of demanding an unquestionable obedience and submission it stresses people to look around and figure out the ways to recognize the divinity by themselves. You will be surprised to know that there are only 193 verses in whole book that describe the rights of God, meaning, recognizing Him and offer prayers etc. to Him. As compared to that there are 673 verses in Qura`n which describe the rights of man i.e. how we should live as individuals, as a society, and a nation. And as compared to the above two catagories there are 750 verses that stresses on us to seek kowledge of the cosmos which ranges from the product of conception in mothers womb to the formation of stars; and through that knowledge recognize the Lord. As compared to all other divine books this is the strangest of the approaches which tells people that if you want to find God then look around. And even then there is no compulsion it is left upon man to choose the right path when God showes him both right and the wrong ways. The final choice is that of man`s.

Here is how He shows the way through verses 2:255-256

Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

ali87 # 58

This article is not a comparative study of religions or a thesis on differences between Hinduism and Isalm. The only religion under scrutiny here is Islam or more precisely the Islamic jurisprudence as applied to women. harimou has every write to express his opinion. When the time will come we can ask him how he formed his opinion. May be we can learn something from him.