Standing Alone in Mecca by Asra Q. Nomani

Urstruly #143: ``But how do you argue with a person who argues that Roman Empire never existed. And every evidence you provide to prove that Roman Empire did exist is nothing but a fabrication and a lie to him.``

You have not provided one shred of evidence. Not one single piece. What proof have you provided to indicate that even two person`s in any chain in the hadith, actually did pass on the information correctly to each other? That is impossible to prove, since they are dead, and never wrote anything down...........If I tell you that my great-grandfather orally told something to my grandfather, and both are dead, how in the world will you ever prove it?

You can only prove it, if it is written down. Or recorded is some non-oral format. Then you can check the authenticity of the writing, to see if it is actually from him........

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........

Dost-mittar #132: `` would say that you are rather simple in doubting their authenticity. The technique he uses is the same that we as researchers call multiple lines of evidence in evaluation.``

Yes, this is the technique he uses. Though not in as much detail as you are suggesting. And I would not call it multiple lines of evidence. There is no evidence. i have asked Urstruly and NTSyed and Naqshabandi for the evidence. They have yet to provide me with any. Urstruly hinted that it was in a Turkish museum, then backed off. Now NTSyed has stated that it was written and recorded, but won`t tell me where it is, either. He is tired and needs to say his Fajr prayers. Naqshbandi stopped debating with me, when I asked him.

None of them will tell me, because there isn`t any. And they know there isn`t.

It is actually multiple lines of hearsay. When I go to my village, the village historian uses the same technique. He can, verbatim, give me the whole history of our village, back to the founders. As can a few others in the village. However, every time we meet, the history is slightly different. After one generation, it will be even more different. And will keep changing, after every year or so........

I have no problems with that, as long as it is only used for history. However, I would have problems with it if it was used for jurisprudence. There is no court in the world, including Sharia courts, which would allow hearsay as the basis of jurisprudence. If ten of us say you killed someone. You cannot get convicted, until there is supporting evidence.

This is the point. Hence, Bukhari`s work should be considered a work of history, in which due to oral traditions, there are bound to be many errors. There is not logical way that 7200 exact quotes can survive over 200 years, through multiple countries, just on hearsay. It doesn`t matter how many multiple lines of evidence (read hearsay) one uses.........

NtSyed #138: ``thus the books do not merit your reading them but allow you to pass judgement on them nevertheless.......You`ll have all the answers to your questions if you read Bukhari and the books/works he references in his compilations.......that you`ve never bothered to read the compilation of Ahadith by Bukhari.``

How have you come to the conclusion that I have not read the books. You are now making up things. I have actually the read the books. I own copies of them. I started reading them in my early 20s. The only judgement I am passing is that I cannot see how, over 200 years, someone can claim authenticity just through hearsay. And that too of poeple one never met. This would not hold even in a Shariah court. Those courst demand proof.

I am also asking you to clarify to me, how I could be wrong. Can you point to things that are not hearsay and have actual historical artifacts, related to them. You have been unable to do so.........

``thus you continue to dance around Quran being abstract, and Bukhari being a Jurist (when in fact he was and still is considered a top notch Islamic historian),``

I am not dancing around anything. I am being quite straightforward. I try to argue in the language of the individual I am debating. The Quran is an abstract book. There is no way such a small book could cover every detail of every affair in the world.

Where did I say that Bukhari was a jurist? Kindly point it out. What I said was that other individuals have used his books as basis of jurisprudence.

NtSyed #136: ``NO sire, you haven`t! Not the specific question I posted to you.``

I believe I have answered it. Perhaps I misunderstood it. Kindly ask it again, and I will answer it again....On the other hand you have not answered either of my questions. Nor will you answer them. This is usually the point, where individuals stop answering the questions, as I had mentioned earlier. I will, however, ask the question again, with the hope that you will answer it:

1. ``Can you tell me where those written copies are, if what you say is true?``
2. ``I challenge you to take any random hadith out of 7200 or so of Bukhari. And tell me what information you have on the chain of individuals who are mentioned.``

#140 by pmishra2 on September 17, 2005 3:53pm PT
{``phew, what a bunch of nut jobs!
Compared to this, worshipping a monkey or an elephant image is a form of pure rationality. I feel much better know.``}

Mishra,
LOL - Man, that comment was funny. I laughed quite a bit.
Don`t disturb them. This is advanced Religion 401. It`s kind of like debating whether one kisses the monkey on the rump or the elephant on the tusk and how many times one must wash oneself before the kiss. :)

teshah

In order to understand the basics of the Islamic penal law and to understand the difference between Hadd and Ta`azeer, please consult the first part of my article at:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00002336&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

Sattar:

Here is the answer to your contention that Qura’n prescribes the punishment of 100 stripes for both adulterers and fornicators. Whereas my contention is that the punishment of 100stripes is applicable to unmarried fornicators only AND Qura’n does not specify any punishment for adulterers AND that the punishment for adulterers is stonning to death and it comes from Hadiths where Prophet (pbuh) re-validated the Mosaic law and made it applicable to Muslims also.

My case is based on following four verses. To make it simple I have categorized verse 4:15 & 4:16 as “A”, verse 4:25 as “B” and 24:2 as “C”; these are the three verses in Qura’n where punishment for fornication is established. Here is the text of these verses:


A: The Women 4:15-4:16

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

B: The Women 4:25 “ If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

C: The Light 24:2 (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.


Now lets analyze the above verses:


The verse A prescribes a punishment for fornicators without specifying whether they are married or not, so it is safe to assume that it applies to both. The chronology of this verse is well known, as opposed to your contention that no one knows when Holy Prophet delivered his verdicts in the cases of fornication and adultery that were brought before him. This verse was revealed in the 3rd year of his migration to Medina in that city. At that time Muslim state was not established and there were no institutions of justice established yet; so this Quranic injunction was established more of as a family measure than a cognizable law.

The verse B is the key to my whole argument so read carefully. This verse specifies the punishment for an adulteress woman who is taken into wedlock from captivity (slavery) and she fornicates after being married. As Qura’n suggests in that verse “when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women.”. So the question is what is “HALF” the punishment of a free woman. If we look at verse 4:15 the punishment prescribed over there is “confinement in the house till death” so what is the half of that punishment? How is one to determine the half-life of an individual? So logic suggests that in order to find out the punishment for an adulteress slave girl we must look somewhere else. That brings us to verse C and logically 50 leashes which is half the number of leashes suggested for a free women makes sense.

Now the question is how do we know that whether the punishment prescribed in verse C is meant for unmarried fornicators or for married ones, since Qura’n uses the word ‘Zani” which is applicable in both case. So in order to sort that out we revert back to verse B.

If one looks at the first line of the verse B.it says “ If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women…”; here the Qura’n uses the word “Muhsinaat” for “free believing women”. Logically, one cannot marry an already married women so by word “Mohsinaat” Qura’n is referring to “unmarried free believing woman”.

So now when we have established the meaning of word “Mohsinaat” (which is plural of Mohsinah) as “unmarried free believing woman”lets rephrase the verse B replacing the word Mohsinah or Mohsinat with this meaning:

B: The Women 4:25 “ If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed Mohsinaat = unmarried free believing woman, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for “Mohsinaat = unmarried free believing woman”. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

So now that we have logically established that the punishment of 100 leashes are for unmarried fornicators only, we should double-check it. If we accept that our thesis that Holy Prophet’s verdict that the punishment of married adulterers is stoning to death is correct, then the question is what is the half of the punishment of stoning to death? So here again logic affirms that our original thesis that the punishment of 100 stripes is meant only and only for unmarried fornicators alone.

But in Islamic jurisprudence, logic is not enough. The second step is always that we verify our logic with Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) interpretations of the law. Upon verification thru ahadith we come to know that Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his successors all prescribed 100 stripes for unmarried fornicators and stoning to death to adulterers. Hence our conclusion is correct.

Re: # 139

ntsyed

You seem to be well submerged in Islam. Can you or any chowky friend please tell me what is this `Tahzeer` which can be resorted to as an alternative to `Shariah` to punish an accused who cannot be punished under `Hadood`.

I think it is infinitely easy to argue with a person who argues that God does or does not exist, or with that who argues that chicken came before egg. But how do you argue with a person who argues that Roman Empire never existed. And every evidence you provide to prove that Roman Empire did exist is nothing but a fabrication and a lie to him.

Jawahara #141: ``Romair, after railing against too much religion on chowk, you`ve really jumped into the fray with great relish here. :-)``

If Wendy`s is the only restaurant in town and one, thus, decides to go there, one has to eat what is served at the buffet. So I have little choice. If I were the management of Chowk, I would ban everything related to relgion and its twin sister secularism, for six months, so that people could spend their energies on discussing other more important things...........The two most bankrupt and clueless groups in Pakistan (and on this site) are the ones constantly pushing religion and secularism.......Each considers the other to be idiotic. I agree with both. I think both groups are idiotic........So every now and then, someone has to burst both their respective bubbles........

Having said that, I can tolerate, with some frustration, people singing Britney Spears songs, all the time. However, I go nuts when the sing them out of tune and get the words backwards. Similarly, while I do get marginally irrirated by all the discussions on religion and secularism, I get completely irritated when people do so without any knowledge of the subject, and try to pull a fast one on everybody. This could be anything from equating secularism with humanism to portraying Jinnah to be a good father, to claiming that Bukhari got all the hadith correct, even though he had not even met the (dead) people, whose chain, he somehow or the other, established, over a period of 200 years......

It is equivalent to going to Wendy`s, and forcing oneself to the buffet, and realizing that Wendy`s is trying to pass of their Thousand Islands dressing as Ranch........The buffet is bad enough as it is, now the customer is being hoodwinked by the management, also.......

#138 ntsyed

I`m going to stay out of this one. It`s much more fun to read the back and forth. All I can say is, Romair, after railing against too much religion on chowk, you`ve really jumped into the fray with great relish here. :-)

phew, what a bunch of nut jobs!

Compared to this, worshipping a monkey or an elephant image is a form of pure rationality. I feel much better know.

Re: # 137

You`ll have all the answers to your questions if you read Bukhari and the books/works he references in his compilations.

Other than that, kindly review your post again to see that what you`re using to poke holes in my arguments are actually holes themselves.

I wish I could walk you through each of them, but it`s past midnight here on the Arabian peninsula and waking up for Fajr is more important than identifying your holes. May be some other time I will....each of one of them.

I can give you one hint: read #132 by DM. Then read, #s 128, 129, 136, & 137 by yourself to see how loud you`re screaming (without shouting) that you`ve never bothered to read the compilation of Ahadith by Bukhari.

Rest of my response remains as the 2nd para of #138.

:-)~~

Re: # 136

NO sire, you haven`t! Not the specific question I posted to you.

Your current orientation does not allow you to broaden your vision, thus you continue to dance around Quran being abstract, and Bukhari being a Jurist (when in fact he was and still is considered a top notch Islamic historian), and that his compilations consist of hearsay from people he never met, thus the books do not merit your reading them but allow you to pass judgement on them nevertheless.

Where is Jawahara when you need her? Jawahara, don`t you think this guy needs a similar scathing critique?

But that`s okay, Romair... like I said... to you your way and to me mine.

:-)~~

NtSyed #130: Now let me ask you some questions and highlight the holes in your argument. For the time being, kindly answer these two questions............Please answer them directly with facts. Everytime I get into such debates with Urstruly, Naqshbandi etc., they refuse to answer questions , and either disappear, or go on and on about things other than the questions.

hear·say n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

1. ``Everything the Prophet (pbuh) did and said was recorded by the companions (R.A); i.e. a lot of them were in written form and the rest were passed down generations.``

Can you tell me where those written copies are, if what you say is true? Urstruly had put up the same argument and then stated that they were sitting in a museum in Turkey. Then he refused to tell me where exactly in which museum? If they are written, then why did Bukhari have to establish a chain of oral traceability. Why didn`t he just publish the written copies?

2. ``but after studying the characters of the Companions (R.A) one does not have an excuse not to believe them.``

The hadith traceability does not only involve the companions of the Prophet. It involves 200 years of individuals, over many generations. Very few of him were even alive during the Prophet`s time. I don`t think you can even name who these people in the chain were. Are you familiar with their characters? Is belieivng in a person`s character enough to consider his words to be law? If I go to a court, can I just say, since I have good character, everyone should believe me? Or will the jury ask for proof.

I challenge you to take any random hadith out of 7200 or so of Bukhari. And tell me what information you have on the chain of individuals who are mentioned. What do you know about them? The whole chain. Not just the first person. Do you even know if the people ever met each? What did they say to each other when they met

ntsyed #130: ``you’ve done a lot of song-n-dance around the first question I posed to you in #123. But you`ve not really addressed the Question 2``

I have answered every question you have asked. Speaking from an Islamic point of view, there is nothing else needed, other than the Quran. It is of the size and length that it was meant to be. Had God wanted it to be bigger, he would would have made it so. Islam is complete after the Quran....

````This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam.`` (Quran, Surah [5:3])``

The religion has been, ``perfected.`` Why are other individuals like Bukhari needed, if it is already perfected? They should just be considered historians who may be wrong or maybe right. We are supposed to follow the life of Muhammad, according to Islam. And he followed the Quran. Whatever there is about him and whatever there is in the Quran, is all that is needed. The rest one comes up through ijtehad, based on the Quran. Not on any man-made book. Quran lays out the abstract, be good etc. Islam was never meant to be a religon, which laid everything out in so much detail. When you can fart, when you cannot etc. This should answer your question.......

``Taking your approach would mean that, among other things, anal-sex with one`s wife is not prohibited (haram) in Islam, rather it is permissible (halal) since there are no clear verses in the Quran prohibiting such a vile practice.``

Why is it that first thing everyone argues towards is sex? If anal sex is not mentioned in the Quran, then it wasn`t meant to be mentioned. As I said, Quran is, by design, written at a very abstract level. Societies should decide on their own whether it is permissible or not. We don`t need Bukhari to tell us? Specially if he is writing after 200 years, based on word of mouth (this is hearsay), of people he never even met, most of whom are dead.......

The information not mentioned in the Quran is not be filled in by Bukhari or anyone else.......What was happening in the 200 years before Bukhari was born, regarding anal sex? And other things, if he is the one who eventually came in and completed Islam? Were Muslims aimlessly wandering around, in sin, waiting for Bukhari to arrive? Wasn`t the religion complete already.........