بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ



In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

The introduction to the debate and Naik Gaikwad's opening statement can be read at here

A`uwudhu billah (As-Sa mee'u, Al-'Aleem) iminash Shaitan ir Rajeem.
I seek refuge with Allah (The All Hearing, The All-Knowing) from Satan, the rejected.
Bis mil llahir-Rahmanir-Raheem
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
It is You we worship and You we ask for help.
Guide us to the straight path –
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.


Mr. Gaikwar's opening statement is available at www.apyem.blogspot.com

MY OPENING STATEMENT 

Opus, Mr. Gaikwar and other audience, it is more than an honor for me to share my views on a topic which has had very much hype these days.

Mr. Gaikwar has shared his view about it in a precise manner which I will God willingly (insha allah) reply to in my rebuttal. I will not be calling points he raised baseless till I present my rebuttal. It is nice that I have got a chance of clearing doubts of youth who will be reading this note.
Shariah law  is the moral code (or the religious law) of Islam. As my Mr. Gaikwar says, it is derived from Quran and the example set forth by Prophet Muhammad (saw). Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Where it has official status, sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. Now this is important, note my words “WHERE IT HAS OFFICIAL STATUS, SHARIAH IS APPLIED BY ISLAMIC JUDGES, OR QADIS”. This means that the law can’t be implemented by any tom, dick or harry nor has a group of people any right to implement. This removes all the allegations which the modern world has against Shariah.  The executions carried out by Al-Qaeda don’t come under Shariah similarly many other things which happen in the world in the name of Islam are actually alien to Islam. Take for example the terrorism in the name of religion, it is alien to Islam. If my friend Gaikwarh associates these with Islam I would like to respond in my rebuttal. And also if he takes Saudi Arabia or Iran or any other society as using Shariah I would like to respond in my rebuttals.

I would like to ask  Mr. Gaikwar a simple question, “WHAT DO YOU CONCIDER GOOD OR BAD AND WHY SO”.  Alas, he will be answerless. Why? Because atheism is amoral. Who decides what is good or what is bad? In fact nothing is good and nothing is bad. What is good for him can be bad for me. Some people like their sisters to be simulated as being raped in movies. This might be good for him and his sister (not Gaikwar's), for doing this she may be called a “star”. But when I ask my sister about it she replies that she would prefer dying than even being touched. Some people like this simulation to be real and they call it porn. This might be good for a person who loves the current world order. This makes his sister a porn star. But when we ask our sisters they say they would prefer dying instead of doing such things. The forerunners are the Americans, 8% out of whom commit incest. Believe me no backward nation on earth does so. Incest; father having sex with his daughter, brother with sister, mother with son. This may sound good to ones whose soul has died but no mortal will ever accept it if he has a heart. I ask what does the current social order have a solution to it. No wonder Jimmy Swaggart writes in his book “AMERICA GOD WILL JUDGE YOU (DESTROY YOU). IF HE DOESN’T, HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGISE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH FOR WHAT HE HAD DONE WITH THEM”. Problems, problems, problems. Problems to which the current social order has no solutions. Who doesn’t love wearing sexy jackets with a woman in bikini printed on it? I ask which brother would like that picture to be of his mother’s or sisters. You may like it but we Muslims have not reached such sickness. Shariah offers solutions to your problems which you don’t accept. Illegal sex, who doesn’t want to do it,  Alas, no one wants his sister or mother to be victim of it. Who is to decide what is good or what is bad. Pornography might sound good to you but it shakes my soul. Should it be banned or allowed. Who is to decide?  For us Muslims we believe God is the one who is to decide it. And for us Muslims he has decided it and we follow it. For you, you have a problem. The one who decided it becomes supreme while everyone has to be equal according to social order, moreover what is good for one can be bad for other. Moreover how to decide what is good and what is bad.

Shariah or Current World Order. How to decide which one should we prefer. Is the current world order better than Shariah? Or is it shariah which holds an upper hand? We all know Shariah is a law which was best followed under the times of Muhammad (saw) and the rightly guided Caliphs. In no means is the current world order better that Shariah because the results we saw when Shariah was implemented are far more better that what we see with the current world order. Ask any secular historian which is the golden age of the world and without a slight hesitation he will reply it was the GOLDEN AGE of Islam which was the golden age of the world. We can proudly say that we are the genesis of this world. In fact we are the genesis of the current social order which according our brother is better than Shariah. Science flourished under us, we created a revolution and the result can be seen that the nomads, un-noticed in the remote corners of a desert became the world noticeable. Alexander passed them by, the Roman left them by, the Persians didn’t bother to rule over them. They were an abomination to carry with. See what happens, the un-noticeable become the world great. An everlasting civilization is created which in faith and in arms ruled over 1/3rd of the then known world. No other social order in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience. It was the genius of Muhammad, the Shariah, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. History makes it clear that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.

The current social order has now come up with what US calls the Social Security, which the UK calls National Insurance. Isn’t this the borrowed concept of Zakah which Shariah promises to poor. I wonder which poor person won’t like to live under Shariah when he gets zakah. No, no, no, zakah is not charity, but rather an obligation owed by the eligible Muslim to the poor of the community. I wonder why wont he live under Shariah if he is given loans at Zero interest.

Under shariah  the husband must pay for the wife's expenses, the wibe has no obligation (except moral) towards the family. I wonder how can a woman reject living under Shariah which guards her modesty. What more does a female need. Under Shariah any Muslim woman may demand her guardian marry her to a Muslim male, provided he is suitable. If the guardian refuses, a judge will effect the marriage. Without the permission of the girl, marriage is considered invalid in Islam. What more does a woman need?

The most criticized part of Shariah is the ruling regarding crime. That’s why I will be touching this one in detail. There are three categories of crimes in sharia law, qisas, hudud, and tazir. Qisas involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery. A qisas offense is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If the accused party is found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost; or compensation (diyya) for the loss of life/limb/injury. The sharia judge can convict for and legally punish only qesas crimes on his own authority. However, the state itself may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the qisas offense. If the victim's family pardons the criminal, in addition to the sharia punishment he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence (such as ten to twenty years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and so forth.
The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hudud crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Quran, and are considered to be "claims against God". The hudud crimes are:
  • adultery (zina), which includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, rape, and pimping
  • apostasy/blasphemy
  • defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things)
  • sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape)
  • theft
  • use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use)
  • "waging war against God and society
Hudud penalties for these cases are not punishments tailored to the offense, but are intended to be deterrents, setting an example for the general public and prosecuting the most flagrant violations. The process is extremely exacting: at least two witnesses are required to corroborate the evidence, with four witnesses required in the case of sex crimes, so that in most such cases the most severe penalties are difficult, if not impossible, to impose. When the severest penalties are imposed, the case is usually so obvious, obscene or flagrant that conviction is virtually inevitable. Very often, we mistake hudud punishment for the punishment regularly given under sharia law, but that is inaccurate; hudud punishments are only meant as a deterrent for rare cases. Most punishments are given under tazir rules. Tazir covers all other offenses not mentioned already. It is a "claim of the state" and it receives a discretionary sentence. The punishment may not be more severe than the punishment of a hudud crime.

Modern secular law has failed miserably in almost every field of life.  Raping is a sin according to all religious scriptures and modern social order will accept that it is not good to rape. But what is the use of this claim, every sensible human knows it. Islam moves a step further by showing us a way for making a society where no one rapes. How does it do it doesn’t go down the throat of certain people. I ask them, do they have a better opinion. If they have why have they failed miserably so far. Similarly, everyone labels robbing as a crime. But here again Islam goes a step further and shows us a way to make a society where no one robs. Again the way Islam does it is not acceptable to modern societies. Please tell us Muslims what is the condition of the world which is under your modern secular law. Islam has been able to eradicate social evils like racism, gender bias, dowry, unlimited polygamy, prostitution, rape, porn, incest which no social order has been able to do. Be it communism, nationalism, secularism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianism, Atheism, any other ism. All isms have failed while Islam is the solution to these problems. The most developed countries are the biggest failures. No wonder USA has the highest rape count, followed by United Kingdom, France, Germany and Russia. In fact all the countries in top twenty are Muslim minority. And the lowest rape count is found in Saudi Arabia followed by Azerbhaijan, Yemen and Indonesia which are all Muslim majority. Same is the case with crime rates, though with slight variations. You apply Sharia you get results.

Western penologists have admitted that the penal system has failed utterly in reforming and rehabilitating criminals. Petty criminals enter the system and exit as well trained hardened criminals. Society ends up paying for the crimes committed against it by being obliged to provide food, clothing and shelter to criminals.


Rebuttal to Mr. Gaikwar’s opening statement:


Most of the points raised are based on a Muslim’s personal law. Now that’s a matter of choice, if you are a non-muslim living under shariah, it doesn’t apply to you. For example taking the consent of guardian for marriage. Most of your arguments thus fail miserably, but I would still like to tell you reasons for such laws just to inform my muslim audience.

Mr. Gaikwar tells us that choosing between the two is  “which is better” problem. He says “It all depends on what you prize most, freedom and equality or faith; progress or dogma.”

 “Freedom and Equality” OR “Faith, progress and Dogma” . Well there is no “OR” there, The Laws and rulings of the Sharriah are based upon Freedom and Equality, which is Explained by the Creator.

Mr.Gaikwar tells us “practicality matters”. Yes, it is true in case of current social order which shows failure at every step but not for Shariah. Dear, I can’t be accountable for what People do in the name of Sharriah , So I would Like you to prove what the Prophet did and what he told us to do., People may bomb themselves and claim themselves to be “muslims”, I am not to be responsible for them, I answer the actions and sayings of our Prophet PBUH and NOT any people across the corner claiming themselves to be “Muslims”. Thus people, who follow the actions and sayings of our Prophet PBUH, are whom I am responsible for.

Mr. Gaikwarh tells us “Freedom of expression is breached by the blasphemy laws; freedom of religion is breached by jizyah and killing of apostates. There is no equality as people are discriminated based on their religion and gender.”

No man you got it wrong here.  THE FREEDOM OF RELIGEON IS GIVEN BY THE JIZYAH and not breached by the Jizyah. Jizyah is the tax extracted non-muslims to profess their faith freely. Jizyah is placed upon those who do not have to pay the Zakaat. You pay Jiziya, we pay zakat. Bingo. The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam, states:

"This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith, but was paid by them in common with the other Thimmies or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Mussalmans, (i.e. the Muslims). When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this Jizyah on condition that: 'The Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.’"

In his covenant with the people of certain cities near Al-Hayrah, Khaalid bin Al-Waleed may Allaah be pleased with him recorded: “If we are able to protect you, we deserve the collection of Jizyah; otherwise, we shall not offer you protection."

The seriousness with which the Muslims took their covenants with the non-Muslims is well illustrated by the following incident. During the reign of the second caliph, ‘Umar bin al-Khattaab may Allaah be pleased with him the Roman emperor, Heraclius, raised a huge army to repel the Muslim forces. It was, thus, incumbent upon the Muslims to concentrate their efforts on the battle. When the commander of the Muslims, Abu ‘Ubaydah may Allaah be pleased with him heard this news, he wrote to his officials in all conquered cities in Syria and ordered them to return the Jizyah which had been levied in those cities. He also addressed the public saying; “We are returning your money because we know that the enemy has gathered troops. By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfil these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us. We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allaah helps us to rout the enemy”. Thus, a huge amount was taken from the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed: “May Allaah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, rather they would have taken all our remaining property!"

If any one Blasphemes, what are Muslims supposed to do? See what Quran has to say about it at 4:140, 7:199,  9:74,  16:128, 20:130, 25:63, 28:55, 73:10, 45:14, 50:39. Point the finger towards the Quran and then tell me this Quranic teaching is wrong. Don’t tell me about what Pakistan has in its constitution. Anyways you should also know that disturbing social order is a crime which can lead to riots and that’s what a blasphemy can lead to in a Muslim majority area. And if Shariah calls for death in that case, I won’t be surprised.

Apostasy: Even though the subject of apostasy occurs no less than 20 times in the Qur'an, the Holy Book remained silent on death as a punishment. Surah An-Nisa', 4:137-138, state that "Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path. Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment." If indeed it was Allah's intention to impose the death penalty for apostasy, then such occasion of repeated apostasy could have provoked such a punishment. But neither the first instance of apostasy, nor repeated apostasy brought about capital punishment. So as you can see there is NOT A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QURAN which says that the apostates should be killed, rather there are verses contrary to it. On some instances prophet ordered the killing of apostates when they were a threat to the Muslim community. So in the end I would just like to say, that is Islam Apostasy is not a capital punishment, it is only on some instances. It should be kept in mind that when capital punishment for murder was abolished in UK in 1965 it was retained for treason and piracy with violence. So Mr. Gaikwar needs to change the current social order according to his own judgement.

Mr. Gaikwar doesn’t like the punishment which Shariah has for rape and murder. The  reason is they are same.  Well, the reason for this is that both acts are inhumane. Every one rapes and murders, whats the matter. Islam is based on giving Equality, Justice, and Protection to the SOCIETY. That’s why death for both.

My opponent doesn’t like polygamy. Well no problem. “MARRY ONLY ONE” (Surah Nisa). There is no other scripture on the face of earth which has this statement. Anyways let me inform Mr. Gaikwar that Shariah didn’t introduce polygamy. Shariah only regulates it by limiting the number of wives and establishing responsibility in its practice. Let me have a laugh at the social order which Mr. Gaikwar loves. If a man wishes to have a second wife (even if for sexual desires) whom he takes care of and whose children carry his name and he provides for is considered a criminal who can be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children it is legal. Isn’t it worth laughing. Having extra marital sex is okey. But giving full rights to the one who you have it with is not okey. Mr. Gaikwar your logic is carcinogenic.  Why men only? Because men are normally more and in Shariah financial obligations are on men, the men receive more inheritance, women need protection. That’s why. Simple, isn’t it?

Mr. Gaikwar isn’t impressed with “arranged marriages” or he thinks women consent is not important in Islam. Sorry to say, this is the case with many modern societies while Shariah has something else to say. In fact permission of virgins is must for her marriage under shariah and a previously married woman has the right to choose for herself. Muslims are encouraged to help their children find a suitable marital partner since males and females are raised separately in society. Now what is wrong with that Mr. Gaiwar.

Islamic law requires consent of guardian for a child’s marriage (this comes under personal law) which for modern law lovers seems unthinkable. But the truth is the Muslim woman lives a sheltered life. She is not used to dealing with men outside her blood relatives (again personal). The father will be more capable of judging a young man objectively. If the guardian refuses proposals for illegitimate reasons like the persons tribe, race, color, the lady has right to seek redress from court.

The next topic which Mr. Gaikwar touched was child marriages. In his short paragraph on this he claims Prophet married and had sex with a child. I don’t know what his definition of child is. I don’t know why he wrote “had sex”. Anyways I would like to ask Mr. Gaikwar if Muhammad (saw) if Aisha was willing, who are you to question their marriage. Your modern secular law doesn’t need to interfere in personal choices. I may like a bride 10 years younger than me. A girl of 8 may like a person of 60s who are you and I to interfere. We have absolutely no right. Why did Muhammad do it is a different issue. It is not that Shariah wants you to do it.  Muhammad (saw) also married a woman a decade and a half older than him. Does that bother you? Personal choices man. He married widows. Does that bother you. Personal choices man. Please tell us what you mean by a child and I would love to see if Islam allows child marriage or not.
Then Mr. Gaikwarh touches inheritance. Again a law which depends on ones choice of following Islam. Anyways before going into details I would like to ask him, In how many countries of the current world order are woman given right to own any property. My opponent is actually arguing on points which favors Shariah. The  right for woman to inherit and own property isn’t universal as yet and Mr. Gaikwar is arguing Islam gives woman less. He tells me I give woman less, I ask him do you even give her anything. Let us have a laugh once again on the current social order. In the social order which makes Gaikwar boast, a person can legally write a will giving all of their wealth to their dog or cat and exclude their wife or children. You are arguing for your sister who will get half as much you will get under our rule while your father can throw you out of the window without even saying why he did so. Why are men given more? In Islam men are responsible for maintenance of women, that’s why. Simple, isn’t it? A woman has no financial obligations over her children and her family in Islam. Anyways, it may come as a shock to you that the two to one division is not applied in all cases. See Quran 4:11

My opponent shot his foot by talking about Interest free economy which Shariah encourages. I won’t reply him because he has already been replied by recession where the least hit were Islamic Banks. If you don’t believe me you need to argue with Indian experts who are forcing government to open Islamic Banks. Shocking is the fact that this very news was the cover story of OUTLOOK magazine this week only. My opponent got it totally wrong here. Anyways I pardon him. He says a poor can’t dream of cars or houses. Pure lack of information. It is actually the other way round. He can now start dreaming of a new house and a new car because he will have interest free loans. Today Islamic banking is recognized as a leading financial institution and the vast majority of international banks (e.g. Citicorp, Deutshe Bank) have Islamic investment accounts and portfolios. Even with its strict codes, Islamic banking is growing at the rate of 15% annually more than any other banks.

No retirement funds – (Debatable) No need, the inheritance rules are there to support the old and moreover the financial obligations are on sons.

Divorce laws are discriminatory according to Mr. Gaikwar. This is again the matter or choosing Islam as ones faith. You can live as a dhimmi under Shariah and you can give divorce whichever way you want. Anyways, what about the Islamic law? Let us have a laugh once again. The Islamic method of divorce is the best possible. There are certain conditions which must be fulfilled even before its proceedings can begin. Firstly, divorce cannot be pronounced while a woman is menstruating. In order to ensure that the reason is not the behavioral changes due to PMS, divorce pronouncement during menses is prohibited. Also, divorce cannot be pronounced during the period between menses in which the couple had sexual relations. The pronouncement is considered invalid if the man was in a rage. After the pronouncement, the divorce does not come into effect until the woman has had three subsequent menstrual cycles. The husband is required to maintain her during this period. Thus Islamic system gives enough time for reconciliation which modern secular law can’t even think of. In fact Mexican divorce is famous, it is matter of minutes.  Why men only? Because he is the head of the family on whom all the financial obligations rest. It wasn’t too difficult. Anyways the truth is the wife can also divorce but through a Qadhi. Now don’t tell me court procedures take time. We are talking about Shariah not your courts where cases can last for decades without any pronouncement of judgment.

Mr. Gaikwar appeals the society to accept homosexuals who he thinks are natural (though I being a medical student can tell you it is illness and I have ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS backing me). Now if your world order is not ready to accept it what is your problem with Shariah.When your world accepts it, we will think of what to do with Shariah. It should be noted that Islamic Shariah did not introduce anti-gay legislature to the world, the texts of torah are full of clear condemnation of such practices. The consequence of AIDS is enough to prove that homosexuality is evil and dangerous to the society. The early spread of AIDS was concentrated among the homosexual community. It later spread to the heterosexual community through blood transfusions and all. Homosexuality is the result of choice. Inclinations can exist within humans for various natural and un natural acts, from fornication to rape and from necrophilia to bestiality. These inclinations are product of current world order which may be because of media influence or even from human whisperings. Human beings are not robots who only do what they are programmed to do. Currently, scientists are even claiming cannibalism is of genetic origin. To accept that would mean to excuse murderers and tolerate murder.

I would request Mr. Gaikwar to tell us why he thinks certain things are are good and certain are bad. What are thae basis of such assumptions? And I would also request him to keep personal law away from debate. It is like asking why do you say "ASSALAMU ALAIKUM" why not saying Hi or hello.

I end this paper of mine with the following verses of the Glorious Quran.
“When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes. Because falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.”

Thanks for reading.

Mr. Gaikwar's response can be read here.

Reactions: 
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Response to "What is better for current society, the current social order or Shariah? A Debate. Part 2"

  1. Mohammed Omar Shah Said,

    Superbly said brother ! May Allah reward u :)

    Posted on 21 December 2011 at 03:53

     
  2. meer93 Said,

    Awesome piece Shah Saaib, I read the opening statement of your opponent roughly, but it seems there was no need to read any opening statement of opponent, as you have covered all the points stated efficiently and straight forwardly, mashaAllah, honestly, your God gifted. May Allah bless you.

    Posted on 30 December 2011 at 10:51

     

Post a Comment