بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

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

The introduction to the debate and Mr. Gaikwad's opening statement can be found here. Shah Saaib Ahmed Rabbani's opening statement and response to Mr. Gaikwad's opening statement can be found here.

This is Mr. Gaikwad's first rebuttal and counter rebuttal to Saaib Ahmed's opening statement and rebuttal.

I’d like to start my reply by informing you that you are misspelling my name. While it isn’t relevant to the topic in discussion, it’s still irritating when you insist on calling me Gaikwar throughout the article. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s start. Excerpts from your post are within //  //.

What difference does this make? The answer is no difference. My original post never claimed it was interpreted or applied by non scholars. The qualifications of people applying this law are just an extreme study of the Quran and hadiths. As opposed to actual judges who have to study multiple law books with precise laws and proceedings of earlier benchmark cases. But that’s a different topic altogether.

You are unwilling to consider the Al Qaeda interpretation of Sharia, and probably the Taliban interpretation too (which you didn’t mention). This is a classic “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Do you honestly believe these organizations don’t have Islamic scholars backing them up? I must remind you once more what I had said in my first post; it’s PRACTICALITY that matters. Karl Marx has great ideas when he came up with communism. But practically it failed due to human nature. People are easily corrupted. These scholars you speak of are given tremendous power which means corruption is imminent. Can you name a single state which has successfully implemented the “pure” form of Sharia? If not then either it’s impractical or Muslims are incapable of applying it.

//“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.”//
Oh but I do have an answer. My judgment of good and bad is based on empathy, experience and situation. It’s flexible and has plenty of grey areas. Just like morality, which too is subjective rather than objective.  Atheism is obviously amoral because it is just a lack of belief and not a moral code or philosophy, so we are in agreement there.

Next you attacked pornography, which I should remind you is between consenting adults. Bestiality, child pornography etc are illegal. Consent is the key. If my sister wants to become a “pornstar” I will not be happy, but then again it’s NOT MY DECISION, it’s her. Her life her decision, this is called freedom. Lets imagine your sister did actually say she wanted to be a pornstar, what you do? Lock her up, maybe even beat her? Please don’t deny it, it’s obvious. Then you cannot boast that your sisters don’t want to do a particular thing, be it becoming a pornstar or wearing ANYTHING other than a burkha. They know the consequences, which are becoming a social outcast and most probably receiving death threats (see. Veena Malik).

//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.//
This made me laugh. Two words: Adam, Eve. Explain how they populated the earth without incest. Or even Noah’s family after the flood. But seriously, modern society frowns upon incest. And I don’t know where you got your information from (since you didn’t mention) but most states in USA have laws against incest.

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition.[30] However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989,[30] Ohio only targets parental figures,[30] and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.[30] Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins[30] and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and in-laws.[30](Wikipedia)

// Pornography might sound good to you but it shakes my soul. Should it be banned or allowed. Who is to decide?//
This comes under the category of “your problem”. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be banned. I don’t like the loud prayers my neighborhood mosque holds, I’m not asking them to be banned.

As for “the golden age” argument, Mecca was already a major trading post where ideas were exchanged freely. I fail to see how the implementation of Sharia acted as any kind of catalyst for this. Maybe you can elaborate on this and point out which laws encouraged this.  I would love to discuss whether Islam was spread by the sword or not, but that would take us on a tangent.
No, social security is not equivalent to zakat. One is non discriminatory tax, while the other isn’t. Zakat is only taken from Muslims and given to Muslims. The only exception of this is people who are on the verge of conversion or show willingness to convert. While jizyah is taken from non-muslims as poll tax for muslims. Sadaqah or infaq can be given to non-muslims, but isn’t a compulsory tax.
You next went on to state that a woman has no financial obligation to the family, under sharia. Here, you assumed that women wouldn’t like to work and earn for themselves. Many women prefer to earn their own money. Besides wouldn’t this mean women don’t require formal education? And wouldn’t this mean there would be no female doctors or more importantly female gynecologists? Since Sharia doesn’t allow women to show their bare body to males, how exactly would this work?

//What more does a woman need?//
Freedom, equality, security from own husband/family. There is very important point I’d like to raise at this time. Why does islam consider the relation between man and female to be only sexual in nature? I have many female friends who I would never dream about having sex with. Why this type of relation is never considered? Doesn’t this imply it views women as being just objects for sex? 

// There are three categories of crimes in sharia law…………………… The punishment may not be more severe than the punishment of a hudud crime.//
As I read this I had a faint sense of déjà vu. I had read this before in these exact words.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Legal_and_court_proceedings.

If you’re going to copy paste 420 words worth of material, atleast mention you have done so. Otherwise it’s just plagiarism (yes even if it’s Wikipedia). Although, reading it and explaining in your own words would have been fairer.
The qisas system of judgement where victim or victim’s family decides the punishment is terribly unfair. Judges should ALWAYS be unbiased in their judgment for a fair trial to take place. Here, Sharia again shows its lack of grasp of basic judicial logic.

I fail to see how adultery, theft, using intoxicants and homosexuality are “claims against god”, but I’ll take your (or rather Wikipedia’s) word for it.

// When the severest penalties are imposed, the case is usually so obvious, obscene or flagrant that
conviction is virtually inevitable.//
I would like you to explain extreme cases of adultery, theft, using intoxicants and homosexuality which make severe penalties justified. Deterrent punishments like these rob us of our humanity and decency.

// Islam moves a step further by showing us a way for making a society where no one rapes.//
Wait, this sounds like you’re claiming there are NO rapes under Sharia. Surely you jest. Unless you’re counting only reported rapes, you are either lying or misinformed. But of course, no country has applied the pure Sharia, am I right? Thus, making this just a fantasy dream which has no real practical results. I’ll put this right here: http://europenews.dk/en/node/22631.
And the quran actually allows muslims to rape people when it allows sex slaves.

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. Qur'an 4:24

This is in reference to this hadith:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150

I have a much better solution. Teaching men to respect women and empowering women to know their rights. Maybe training women in self defense (pepper sprays work too). Not putting so many sexual limitations on society so that they grow sexually frustrated and lash out. All these are practical solutions which do not oppress a single gender or restrict its freedoms.

//But here again Islam goes a step further and shows us a way to make a society where no one robs.//
Once again, are there no robberies in Sharia states? If no, then this assertion is dismissed. Infact Muhammad himself didn’t find anything in plundering caravans or looting captured cities. Which implies that Sharia DOES allow robberies in certain cases.

//Please tell us Muslims what is the condition of the world which is under your modern secular law.//
 Satisfactory. I’m happy with the state of things. Sure there is room for improvement, but the current system is the best as I have fundamental rights.

// 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.//
Instead of racism we have discrimination based on religion. The quran tells muslims not to take unbelievers as friends in preference to believers. So discrimination is intact. No gender bias? That’s funny, it really actually is funny. But I’ve already touched the subject earlier you can just look back. Dowry does exist. Its paid by groom to bride. I don’t see how limited polygamy is too much better than unlimited polygamy. 4 wives is still unfair. Prostitution may be banned but islam does allow sex slaves, which is infinitely worse as the former is with consent while the latter is without. Rape, porn and incest have already been discussed.

// 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.//
Let me explain something. Rape is the most unreported crime, especially in countries where women are oppressed and reporting rape means being a social outcast and being killed by family for bringing dishonor. It’s not surprising therefore that the more women-friendly countries have high reported rapes because women there are independent and confident enough to seek help without fearing for their lives. In countries like Saudi and iran women can be jailed for being raped for “adultery” (unless the accused confesses). She may also be forced to marry the assailant to maintain her honor.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/01/afghan-woman-freed-marry-rapist

Now we’ll move onto your rebuttals to my 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.//
What laws will apply to me then? This would mean Sharia is utterly useless for me. It is also another discriminatory factor. Separate laws for different religions.

// The Laws and rulings of the Sharriah are based upon Freedom and Equality//
I don’t even know what to say to this. This is willful dishonesty. Punishment for apostasy and discrimination between the sexes. That’s all I need to say to refute this ridiculous claim.

You once again performed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by distancing yourself from people who didn’t view Sharia as you did. You want me to judge islam based on Muhammad? That brings out a more horrible picture.

Sahih Muslim
Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
No, this doesn’t even need a context. Anyone with pubic hair was killed. It is impossible to justify this. I have already mentioned his command to his followers to rape captive women in front of their husband, which too is unjustifiable.

// 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.//
Except FREEDOM is supposed to be FREE. If you have to pay for it, it’s not freedom. It breaches equality since muslims and non-muslims pay different tax.
This is what quran says about Jizyah:
9(29) Fight those people of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not prohibit what God and His Apostle have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay protective tax in submission.
Jizyah is comparable to the mafia’s extortion money collected for “protection”.

//The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his Call to Islam……………………….If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, rather they would have taken all our remaining property!"//
Once again this is copied word to word from a website, without naming the source. Read above about plagiarism. http://islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=134383
I want more reliable references about this story. It sounds suspicious especially the part where the Christians chorused “If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, rather they would have taken all our remaining property!".

// 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.//
Do you know about the Westborough Baptist Church? They are highly insulting towards all religions including Christianity (other sects). They even show up at funerals with offensive signs. But the western people are mentally mature enough to deal with it. This is called freedom. Sharia would mean no freedom. People like Vincent Van Gogh (who’s already killed), Salman Rushdie, creators of southpark etc will be unable to exist. Nor will I be able to be an outspoken atheist, as its impossible to be an outspoken atheist without committing blasphemy.

As for killing apostates in quran:
Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."  

// On some instances prophet ordered the killing of apostates when they were a threat to the Muslim community.//
Not really.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
I didn’t understand the comparison between apostasy and treason. Who exactly suffers due to apostasy? Allah?

// 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.//
You failed to address my objection to this. It is logical to have different levels of punishment for these crimes as it will motivate the culprit to let the victim live. That is pure logic, which allah didn’t seem to be able to grasp.
You seem to have some weird ideas about the current order. Having mistresses isn’t allowed. You can be prosecuted and/or sued for this. Having extramarital relations is allowed since MARRIAGE ITSELF IS MANMADE. It’s just a ceremony. Something used to declare love and make promises. It isn’t a requirement but rather a convenience. And it is again infinitely better than having sex slaves.

// 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.//
I’m defining child as a non-adult between the periods of infancy and maturity (decline of puberty). Being a medical student I hope you know that puberty doesn’t equate to menarche. That’s just the onset of puberty. It is a complete process where growth is accelerated. Fat tissue increases to a greater percentage of the body composition than in males, especially in the typical female distribution of breasts, hips, buttocks, thighs, upper arms, and pubis. These sexual features of enlarged breasts and larger hip ratio is what makes NORMAL males attracted towards the females. I hope you learnt that in medical school, because I learnt this in the 7th grade. If you’re attracted to girls who haven fully developed physically and mentally, then there’s something wrong with you. You have a DISEASE. And I think that the “ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS” would back me up on this.
 As for why I said they “had sex”, its stated multiple times in the hadiths that Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 (Sahih Muslim 8:3310, Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64). A nine year old is not an adult. The hadiths also explain how she used to play with dolls when she was living with Muhammad. Children play with dolls and its haram for adults to do so in Islam.

Your next statement surprised me. You were asking us to abandon children’s rights and were being a hypocrite at the same time. You say we shouldn’t interfere if the child is willing, yet think it’s perfectly alright to interfere when two adults of the same sex want to have sex. What’s the logic behind this? God said so? Well then you’re god is a hypocrite too.
And before you try to justify child sex by using homosexuality in comparison let me explain the core difference. Children are not mature enough to give consent. That is why they are not punishable for crimes, cannot vote use harmful substances (like tobacco). We have the right to interfere when one of the parties is not qualified to give consent. I can trick an 8 year old into signing a contract for almost anything. We interfere to protect their rights.

// 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.//
Muhammad was 25 when he married khadija. That doesn’t sound very young to me. Both were consenting adults, therefore I see no problem there. As for widows, yes I have a problem with one particular widow he married. Actually he was the reason she was a widow. He killed the family of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, took her captive, and married here on the same day.

// In how many countries of the current world order are woman given right to own any property//
All the secular countries. All the democratic countries. We even let women drive, fancy that!

// 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. //
You fail to realize that a property of an individual is solely his own. It does NOT belong to anyone else unless he decides to give it to them. A person is financially responsible to his kids until the kid is able (willing doesn’t come into the picture) to earn his own. A person may just leave all his income to charities excluding his family completely; it’s his right, since it’s his money.
Next you mentioned Islamic banking. Can you explain how Islamic banks sustain themselves if they aren’t charging interests? What pays for the premises, staff, equipment, utilities etc? This is what Wikipedia had to say on the issue:
“The majority of Islamic banking clients are found in the Gulf states and in developed countries. With 60% of Muslims living in poverty, Islamic banking is of little benefit to the general population. The majority of financial institutions that offer Islamic banking services are majority owned by Non-Muslims. With Muslims working within these organizations being employed in the marketing of these services and having little input into the actual day to day management, the veracity of these institutions and their services are viewed with suspicion. One Malaysian Bank offering Islamic based investment funds was found to have the majority of these funds invested in the gaming industry; the managers administering these funds were non Muslim.[45] These types of stories contribute to the general impression within the Muslim populace that Islamic banking is simply another means for banks to increase profits through growth of deposits and that only the rich derive benefits from implementation of Islamic Banking principles.
Hence, the controversy that surrounds Islamic Banking continues. The question of whether or not Islamic banking really is Islamic is still a matter of debate among the Muslim academia.”
The conclusion:
The pros: it raises some awareness for Islam as a complete system, including an economic system.

The cons: "Islamic" banking is a fraud. It's just another way for people with more money than others to make EVEN more money just as a reward for already having more money. That's why interest (riba) is haram. The "Islamic" banks simply find loopholes and exploit them so they can do things just as bad as riba, but which ulema say aren't "technically" haram. 

// Let us have a laugh once again. The Islamic method of divorce is the best possible.//
Oh, I’m laughing alright. That assertion was hilariously absurd.  

//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.//
What does it matter when a husband cannot declare divorce? He can do it easily by waiting for a month (he even has 3 more wives to keep him satisfied until then). And how does one find out if the husband was angry when he declared it? I can hide my anger easily, so can any normal human being. And the husband has to provide for the wife (ex) for three months? Big deal! She’s still screwed 3 months later. Modern secular society has options like marriage counseling. Also marriages in our society tend to be after people have gotten to know and love each other, not before.

// 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.//
What does finance have anything to do with divorce? Making women powerless and helpless, then stating they don’t have rights because they’re powerless is called “creating your own problems”. Quick or not, the procedure for a divorce is different. Much easier for males, while females have to go through the courts which may, or may not rule in her favor.

//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). //
adjective /ˈnaCHərəl/ 
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind (Google dictionary)
Now here is a list of known species which also show homosexuality:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Maybe the Association of Psychiatrists needs to redefine illness.

//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.//
Well my country has already legalized homosexuality. So have a number of other secular countries. And no you cannot change Sharia, so “we will think of what to do with Shariah” are just empty words. The texts of the torah are written by homophobic bigots as well, so I’m neither surprised nor do I care.    

 // 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//
I cannot believe a medical student can make this claim. Can you tell me how HIV spreads? Let’s ignore the non sexual methods. Unprotected sex is how it spreads. Since homosexuals didn’t have to care about unprotected sex, it spread rapidly in that community. This is common sense. We know that heterosexual intercourse infects you with this virus as well, so I fail to see how this is a homosexual problem. And anyhow, HIV was nonexistent before the 20th century. So again, your argument fails, unless you are claiming that homosexuality is a recent “trend”.

// 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.//
See, here you imply homosexuality is a recent occurrence. Please confirm this is your stance so I can provide examples. Also please elaborate what “human whisperings” are.

// Currently, scientists are even claiming cannibalism is of genetic origin. To accept that would mean to excuse murderers and tolerate murder.//
You’re equating murder and mutilation with consensual sex. That’s just plain wrong and misleading.
I would like you to elaborate what you mean when you say “personal law”. Also name a single state which has implemented pure sharia or anything remotely close to it. Also explain why islam considers the relation between man and woman to be purely sexual in nature.
I would like to end this article with a quote from a man who I viewed as a great mentor. The late great Hitch.

“Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet – who was only another male mammal – is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.”
-Christopher Hitchens.

Saaib Ahmed's final response is here.

Contact Saaib Ahmed at www.facebook.com/saaibahmed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

0 Response to "What is better for current society, the current social order or Shariah? A Debate. Part 3"

Post a Comment