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.Mr Gaikwad's response to my earlier paper can be read at here. This is Saaib Ahmed's counter response.


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.

I ended the last paper with a quotation from the glorious Quran and I start this paper with the same quotation.
"When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes. As falsehood is by its nature bound to perish"

I apologize for wrongly spelling Mr. Gaikwad's name in the previous paper which wasn't intentional though. The debate is going on in a positive spirit and that is what I would call an achievement. We may differ but the decorum has to be maintained which Mr. Gaikwad did very nicely.

I have been accused of plagiarism by Mr. Gaikwad. In his article he writes "....it’s just plagiarism...". Now what is that which I plagiarized? It was the definition of some parts of Shariah (which had to be plagiarized) and the statement of a scholar and a Historic event related to jizya. All of these had to be plagiarized. Why didn't I give the source? Source is given for subjective portions not objective? Capital city of India is New Delhi (source please?????). I would have been ready with sources had my opponent differed with what I had presented. Anyways it is my thinking and you need not agree with it. You may not agree Mr. Gaikwad but for me it was not a crime to have been pointed out in the response.

Many of you might be thinking why did I dedicate a complete separate paragraph to something not that important. The reason is that I wanted to prove that a thing can be good for one and bad for others. How to decide with what is good and what is bad, what is wrong and what is right? This was what was my main argument in the opening statement which Mr. Gaikwad failed to answer. He did dedicate some sentences to it, "My judgment of good and bad is based on empathy, experience and situation". if that is the answer, let me tell you I may not agree to your judgement. The perspective with which you saw things won't matter to me. A half filled glass is half full also, depends on the way you see it, it doesn't depend on empathy, experience and situation. Blow and you make fire and blow and you extinguish it, depends on you. So Mr. Gaikwad failed miserably here. So, actually the debate is yet to start where he gives us a measuring rod to decide what is good and what is bad. Like I said, pornography can be good for a few and pornography can be bad for few. Depends on the way you take it.

He  then "defended" adult pornography while calling child pornography as illegal and the key for this is consent. Mr. Gaikwar failed to realize what I was pointing towards. I just want to know its nature. Is it good or bad. You say you won't be happy if your sister becomes a porn-star whats the reason for that. The reason is that you don't feel it is good. And why are you not with me supporting a fight against what you think is not good. She marries someone and has a daughter and who is to decide how to up-bring her. Her husband who might not like her daughter to follow her mother or the mother who wants her daughter to be a bigger porn star. Your argument of consent is hollow. Would you allow suicide by choice? What about pirates of Somalia? They are also pirates by choice. But their piracy is affecting other people, same is the case here. A porn-stars work affects us, me, my sister, my daughter. That is it. That is my problem with it. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't make that something good or bad.

Adam and Eve didn't commit incest, they were not brother and sister to each other. And moreover Incest was a necessity at that time. Ahhh, yes. I am talking to an atheist. Where did the story come in from? You don't believe in it man. If you are talking about Islam then you need to know the full story of Islam. You should have know how did Eve conceive, how many births did she give and who married whom and whats the concept of Incest according to Islam. Just because you lack knowledge doesn't mean that there was incest sometime. Even if it was there we need not have it today. Why? because we have Shariah as revealed to Muhammad today. This Shariah was not there for Adam. So you failed miserably again.

Noah's family after flood. No they didn't commit any incest. That wan't any harder.

Incest has some prohibition in America, true. When did I say no? This is actually supporting my claim that incest is prohibited in current social order and yet it has reached epidemic levels according to fellow Americans. The rate is decreasing now (as an atheist pointed out while commenting under my previous paper), thanks to the growth of Muslim population in America.

Mr. Gaikwad thinks imprisonment is a solution while we know it has actually failed and that is what I had pointed towards in my opening statement. 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.

As for the golden age of the world whatever I wrote were the statements of historians and thinkers not mine. The statement of Arabs going in-noticed in the remote corners of the desert was from Thomas Carlyle which are present in his book "Heroes and Hero Worship". The everlasting civilisation which ruled over 1/3rd of the then known world was pointed to me by Le Martine in his book "The History of Turks". A few were from James Michner's book "The Misunderstood religion". The spirit argument was from Arthur Glyn's book "Islam: Her moral and spiritual values". They are all well backed statements of historians.

Mr. Gaikwad claims that the difference between Islamic judges and common judges is that Islam judges read quran and hadiths while the others read many books on law. I don't know where does this make difference. Quran is the law book and Hadith shows us example of how to implement it. As long as he doesn't make it clear how it makes difference how can I be in a position to answer.

While he accuses me of committing the fallacy of "no true Scotsman", he himself is committing the fallacy of "cherry-picking". He accuses me of making a generalization while ruling out the examples on shaky grounds while he himself suppresses evidence by pointing towards individual cases that support his claim while ignoring a significant portion that support my claims.

I would love to point out to example where Shariah was properly imposed but you love to "cherry-pick" cases that suit your position. This wastes it all. If I say Ottomon empire practiced Shariah you will bring some cases where they did wrong and then blame Shariah for it. Though such cases do happen with your social order, you are not willing to look at them. You see a speck in my eyes but ignore the log in your own. First remove the log from your own eye then only will you be able to see properly the speck in mine. This is pure hypocrisy and there are not less that two such example in your rebuttal. One has been already pointed out and the second will be pointed out in due course.

It is not impractical just because we are not able to do it. The truth is that the current social order isn't willing to accept it. I already had pointed out in my opening statement that people love to have illegal sex which will not be there under Shariah, that is why they don't want the particular rule.

The comparison between Zakah and Social Security:
Mr. Gaikwad says (most probably lies, if he already knew) Zakah can't be given to non-muslims which is actually against Quran. The Glorious Quran says at 9:60, "Zakāh is only for the poor and the needy, and for those who are ‘āmils over it, and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled [to the truth], and for the emancipation of the slaves and for those who have been inflicted with losses and for the way of Allah and for the wayfarers." It is evident from the verse quoted above that the Quran does not discriminate between the recipients of Zakah on the basis of their beliefs or religion. In other words, Zakah money can be given to any needy person whatever his religion be, contrary to what you claimed. Consequently, the answer to your question is that you can give your Zakah money to Non-Muslims. But what about the social security. Point No 1: One is not obliged to pay it. Point No 2: It is discriminatory on basis of nationality.

I must say Mr. Gaikwad really good at fallacies. An intellectually sound person appealing to so many fallacies in just one statement seems to be a God given gift to Mr. Gaikwad. Check the following statement of his:

"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?"

This one statement of his can be concidered under fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident. I didn't assume that woman won't like to work, or did it? Please specify. Earn for themselves, yes they can and they need not spend a penny from it on their household. Besides, that doesn't mean woman don't require formal education. According to a saying of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) “It is obligatory for every Muslim, male or female, to acquire knowledge (Al-Bayhaqi).  In fact you seem very weak in Islamic history, you should have know Hazrat Aisha was one of the biggest scholars of Islam. You got it totally wrong, we do require female doctors exactly what Islam wants them to be. There is a full chapter in the Sahih Bukhari mentioning women in the battle field - Women gave water - they give first aid to the soldiers. A women in Islam, if she wishes to work she can work - There is no text in the Qur’an or the authentic Hadith which prevents or makes it prohibited for a woman to do any work, as long as it is not unlawful, as long as it is within the preview of the Islamic Shariah, as long as she maintains her Islamic dress code.

Woman. according to Mr. Gaikwad, need freedom, equality, security from own husband/family. I don't know which kind of freedom is he talking about, if it is walking naked in the marked then sorry we can't promise that. Equality, in which sense, if she wants to impregnate her husband instead of getting impregnated then sorry technology has not reached that far. Please clarify next time. Security, what kind of? Please clarify.

Mr. Gaikwad has, as he claims, many female friends who he would never dream about having sex with. Though there is no problem with that. But if this is the case then he is suffering from Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). Time to have a check-up Mr. Gaikwad. This is human nature man. Anyways there isn't any problem with talking to woman and having relation with woman (within the premise of Shariah), but what has been prohibited is things which can cause intimacy like for example spending time with a female in absence of third. Now, don't tell me that it doesn't cause arousal. If it doesn't we in medical terms call such person impotent. And the laws are made keeping in mind the worst case.

For Hudud crimes judges should ALWAYS be fair (as Mr. GAikwad says). And I agree with that. Bingo. Where is the problem? Unless you prove that there is something contrary to it in Shariah how do you expect me to reply. Some qualities were taken into account in the selection of judges to achieve justice and equality. These qualities included knowledge, piety, justice, chastity, and related qualities. The Prophet (saw) said: “Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and two to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgment will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgment for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell.” The Messenger of Allah also said: “Whoever Allah tests by letting him become a judge, should not let one party of a dispute sit near him without bringing the other party to sit near him. And he should fear Allah by his sitting, his looking to both of them and his judging to them. He should be careful not to look down to one as if the other was higher, he should be careful not to shout to one and not the other, and he should be careful of both of them.”

Mr. Gaikwad fails to understand what I mean by extreme cases. Cases where death penalty is inevitable. Wasn't that simple? It is a case where there is not a single evidence to support anything contrary. Death penalty is the last option. The judge can give any punishment up to it.

Mr. Gaikwad makes a false analogy from my statement where I said Islam shows you a way where no one rapes. Mr. Gaikwad makes the analogy that this means there are no rapes under Shariah. Mr. Gaikwad should know that while I claim that the laws are infallible I do not mean humans are also the same. This is just another case of appealing to a fallacy.

Islam allows sex with slaves. Allows doesn't mean encourages it. Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. See what Quran has to say about it in Sura Nisa (Ch 4) which interestingly Mr. Gaikwad used to prove his case which actually proves mine. He didn't read the verses he posted. The verses say that we can marry our slaves. Now what is the problem with that. This is with reference to a hadith from Abu Dawood (interestingly Mr. Gaikawad chose this Hadith to support his claim while it again supports mine). The hadith says one could have had sex with slaves after "waiting period" is over. Ahem, this waiting period is "iddah" which is the time during which no woman can marry. Iddah is over marriage is permissible. Ba boom. Again I would like to inform Mr. Gaikwad that rules are not made on just one case. The circumstances keep on changing. In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: ''Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar''

Then Mr. Gaikwad informs us about robbing of caravans. Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle." Booty of war from the battleground is altogether different. It consists of the wealth, provisions and equipment captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies and may legitimately be appropriated. (Jamaat) Anyways what he is referring to is taken out of historic context. Meccans had confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca. That is why Muhammad (saw) turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Moreover this was also important for the suvival of Muslims who would have been left with no property which would have forced them to live on charity. Your argument fails miserably here because I have already pointed out that it is prohibited.

Mr. Gaikwad tells us of some quran which tells muslims not to take unbelievers as friends in preference to believers. A lovely teaching which I was not able to find in Quran. If it is there I would really be happy. This is the teaching of every human. I personally love beef while Hindus worship cows, now where is the friendship. To be fair enough friendship isn't possible between two different religions but mutual understanding is possible, compromises and covenants are possible and this is what exactly Islam teaches us. Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, said: “If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made, or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the day of resurrection.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3052. Classified as Sahih by Albani). The nearest we come to what Mr. Gaikwad claims is a verse of Glorious Quran chapter 3. The verse actually talks about "alies" not friends. Friendship is a local case while Quran is talking about a community as a whole and it again tells us not to prefer them over Muslims. It means we can even take them as allies but we should not ignore Muslims while doing so. Same is the case with 5:51. Both the verses talk about "AULIYAS". The Quran actually tells us why shouldn't we do it in 5:51, which is exactly what we find in today's world, Jews and Christians forming allies against Muslims and you want us to make allies with you. Huh.

Rape, which puts America to shame has been justified by comparing it to the rapes within Islamic communities. Though there is no comparison, America is far ahead. And also two wrongs don't make one right. Both are wrong and both are current social orders not Shariah. One is more anti Shariah and one is portrayed as Shariah.

The Banu Quraiza incident. Dear Mr. Gaikwad please read my first paper again. You should have known that they were not judged by a Muslim Qazi but a Jew who ruled them according to Deuteronomy. Don't blame Shariah for your lack of knowledge.

Mr. Gaikwad used Surah 9:29 for some unknown reasons. Though all of us know the historical context of Surah Taubah he appeals to it and then makes a generalization. Anyways what does the verse say. The verse tells us to make them pay jiziya. So where is the problem. Govt. forces employees to pay taxes same here. And moreover it may come to you as a shock that it is only the captured territories who have to pay it. Not the ones who are already living with  you. See for example the Jews of Madina under the constitution framed by Muhammad.

About the reference about the story related to jiziya you could have referred to the book "Call to Islam" or Mohd. Asad's book "Islam at the Crossroads". Anyways Muhammad Asad had taken it from Tarikh al_tabari. It is also noted by Thomas Arnold in his "The Preaching of Islam"on page 61. Another citation is Futuh al-Baldan 1/162 another is Futuh al-Sham (ed. William N. Lees published by Baptist Mission Culcutta, 1854) pp. 137-138. Yet another one is Futuh al-Sham p. 138.
As for more on this “There is no Jizya on the kids, women and the insane. This is the view of the four imams. Ibn Munzar said, ‘I do not know anyone to have differed with them.’ Abu Muhammad ibn Qudama said in al-Mughni, ‘We do not know of any difference of opinion among the learned on this issue.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/14) “And there is no Jizya upon the aged, one suffering from chronic disease, the blind, and the patient who has no hope of recovery and has despaired of his health, even if they have enough.” (Ahkam Ahl Zimma 1/16). ‘Umar bin Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, passed by the door of a people’s dwelling. There was beggar there saying, “Extremely old person with blind eyesight [needs help!”] He [‘Umar] got hold of him from behind and asked, “Which community of the People of Book you belong to?” He said, “I am a Jew.” He asked, “What brought you to this condition that I see?” He said, “The demand of Jizya, the needs and the old age.” ‘Umar got hold of his hand and brought him to his place helped him a little and then called for the custodian of Baytul Mal and said, “Take a look at his suffering. By Allah this is not justice on our part that we extract from them in their youth and leave them helpless in their old age! … He exempted him from Jizya and similarly the likes of him. (Kitabul Kharaj 1/139). I can continue on and on and on and on and on. I can show you the differences in countless numbers but the word limit is a problem. If a group elected to serve in the state's military forces, it was exempted from the jizyah. Al-Jurajimah, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty. The Migaris, a group of Albanian Christians, were exempted from the jizyah for undertaking to watch and guard the mountain ranges of Cithaeron and Geraned (which stretch to the Gulf of Corinth). Christians who served as the vanguard of the Turkish army for road repairs, bridge construction, and so on, were exempted from the kharaj (land tax). As a reward, they were also provided with some lands, free of all taxes.

Even jaundiced-eye orientalists had no choice but to accept the reality of what I have just said.

For instance, William Montgomery Watt writes;
"In the early days of Islamic empire the Christian inhabitants of Egypt and the Fertile Crescent were probably better off as dhimmis under Muslim Arab rulers than they had been under Byzantine Greeks.”(Islamic Political Thought, The basic Concepts p. 51)

He also said, "On the whole there was more genuine toleration of non-Muslims under Islam than there was of non-Christians in medieval Christian states" (Ibid.)

As for killing of apostates I request Mr. Gaikwad not to beg to Islamic holy scriptures. There isn't death for them. Quran 9:12-12 is not talking about apostates. Try harder with that. Quoting one hadith from Sahih Bukhari doesn't prove a case. Rules are not made by just one statement. Does the narrator tell you under which conditions did the prophet utter those words. Does he tell you with respect to whom was it uttered. So the hadith actually proves nothing. As for what has treason to do with apostasy, the answer is simple. Punishment for apostasy is death if accompanied by treason .

Same is for rape and murder. The death penalty is the extreme and that is up to what the judge can judge.

As for Muhammad (saw) marriage Mr. Gaikwad is supposed to have known what my views are on this. Just because he is misinformed about the issue doesn't mean there is a problem with Islam. Anyways my argument still remains "jab miyyan biwi raazi tow kya karega qazi". I request him to read our article on this where all his accusition on this are answered. It is available on www.apyem.blogspot.com and it includes the issue like maturity of Aisha and Aisha playing with dolls.

Mr. Gaikwad should know that our parents don't ask us if we want to come into this world. The bring us here and they are responsible and that is the reason Shariah wants them to share their property with their offspring. There is no comparison here, Islamic law is far better that yours.

As for Islamic banking. (This one makes me laugh).
I leave it up to the audience to decide for themselves and choose between an economy living on Interest or choose for the Islamic concept of interest free economy. Mr Gaikwad should know that interest has been criticized by economists through ages. This is one of those points where Islam holds an upper hand. No wonder the world is turning towards the interest-free economies and the latest case being that of experts from India requesting the Govt. to do it. Let the audience be the judge in this particular case. Just google it and read the results for yourself.

Divorce: I think my argument is still valid. As for counselling, I don't think three months in less for that. You can do it. What if you divorce and realize she was pregnant? The child's future is at stake according to your social order. As for love marriages, the world knows how much successful they are. Let the audience be the judge. These are the matters where islam holds a clear cut  upper hand. As for the procedure my argument still stands.

Homosexuality: He is not ready to accept that Homosexuality IN HUMANS is not natural and for this he shows me some animal species which show homosexuality. Contradicting himself he claims polygamy is unnatural while the truth remains that most of the animals are polygamous. Why this double standard? Anyways the list proves nothing. There are species which show cannibalism, will you accept that. This is an argument where you fail miserably. And also Homosexuality can become a threat to society because it stops reproduction. Deal with that Mr. Gaikwad.

Mr. Gaikwad was shocked to see a Medical Student claiming that AIDS spreads faster in homosexual conditions but he does not bother to ask a medical student but makes his own claims. Anyways the reason for this is Anal sex which is more prone to AIDS than Vaginal sex. Read it of your own from any university journal and you can use wikipedia also. Homosexuality is on an increase because of human whispering like gay movies and pleasure of anal sex. It wasn't hard.

As for personal law you should know Islam doesn't interfere in a persons personal laws. Islam requires us to wash our parts after urinating, you need not do that under Shariah. Similarly halal and haram can be differen for different communities.

I have been typing this document in blogger thats why I don't know the word count. If it is over 5000 I am ready to deduce as much from conclusions.

Jazakallah

"When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes. As falsehood is by its nature bound to perish."

For next part i.e Mr. Gaikwad's final response please click here.
Reactions: 
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 4"

Post a Comment