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

Your reply was interesting. It made me wonder whether you had actually read my last paper or just skimmed it without understanding. You certainly did misrepresent a huge bunch of what I have written, while continuing to ignore my more difficult questions.

The 420 words that you plagiarized didn’t have anything to do with definition of objective facts. It was an explanation. It contained the opinions of author (like like this part for example “ When the severest penalties are imposed, the case is usually so obvious, obscene or flagrant that conviction is virtually inevitable.”) This is the author’s opinion, not an “objective portion”.

// 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.//
That’s alright. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Morals are relative, different for everyone. But due to our inbuilt sense of empathy, sympathy and our social nature we tend to have similar morals. This is why we need a flexible judicial system as our morality is also ever evolving. For example, slavery was once acceptable morally. Now our morality has evolved, and we (that is to say modern society, excluding orthodox Muslims) find slavery to be repulsive. How do you not understand the fact that there IS NO MEASURING ROD. Morality is relative. The only reliable way of judging is using our empathy. You gave the example of pornography being good for some and bad for some. Yes, you obviously think it is bad. The problem is you want to ban everything that YOU think is bad. This is called intolerance. 

You’re really are good at jumping to conclusions and expecting (wrongly) what I will say aren’t you? I don’t think porn is bad. On the contrary, I enjoy porn. Maybe that’s what keeps me from lusting after every female I lay my eyes upon, but more on that later. The reason I wouldn’t like my sister becoming a porn star is because it would be uncomfortable. I would remember my sister is also a porn star when I look at porn, and that would completely ruin it for me. Yes, that’s a very selfish reason, but we all are selfish like that. Difference is whether you can keep your selfishness to yourself instead of trying to curb other people’s freedom.

Next you asked who can decide what the daughter becomes when she grows up. Neither the father nor the mother can decide what the daughter becomes. It’s the daughter’s decision. And neither can mention anything until she’s an adult or it would be sexual harassment.

Your next ask me if I would allow suicide by consent. That’s another grey area. I’m a supporter of euthanasia, but only under guidance of a professional psychiatrist.  
// A porn-stars work affects us, me, my sister, my daughter. That is it. That is my problem with it.//
There’s a very simple solution for that. Stop watching porn with your sister or daughter. It’s not like they show porn on daylight television. You have to go through some effort to view it and know where to look. There are good filters on the internet which can completely block out all pornographic content. Use them.

//Just because you lack knowledge doesn't mean that there was incest sometime. Even if it was there we need not have it today.//
Well first of all, eve was made from adam’s rib. Unless allah was just being fancy with his magic tricks, she can be called his sister. But I’ll let that slide. Let’s assume she wasn’t his sister. Who did their first kids mate with? Either their parents or their siblings since no other human existed. Same with Noah and his family, unless you say it was a local flood and after it they migrated somewhere outside the range (of the flood) and mated there. Now you say it was necessary and  since Sharia wasn’t revealed it was alright. That would mean Sharia isn’t perfect, since it cannot be applied in that scenario. That would also mean morality is indeed subjective and what was right then isn’t right anymore. Both points favor my stance.

//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.//
I’ll just take his word for it then. What else did he say? Did he say Sharia was better than modern society? I hope he didn’t otherwise I’d lose right now, since he’s obviously omniscient and doesn’t require statistics or evidence. You haven’t even presented evidence of this “epidemic levels” of good old fashioned incest going around in America.
Next we come to the penal system. You are opposed to the prison system because petty criminals leave as hardened criminals. Yea, that is a bad thing. Things that could be done to avoid this are making separate blocks depending on crime committed. This would be better than chopping people’s hands off or killing them for robberies, unless you are a sadistic human being who doesn’t really care about justice. Criminals are humans too and have rights of their own. They forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes, but never the right to a fair trial. And a trial which awards inhuman punishments like these isn’t fair in any sense of the word.

Next we come to the “golden age” of Islam. You cited numerous books by historians. And yet you ignored my main objection. What does Sharia have anything to do with that?
//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.//
 It’s like reading harry potter to become a lawyer. Others have to actually study law which is a lot more complex and structured than Quran. Although to be fair, it’s probably more interesting than the Quran.

Next you accused me of cherry picking. Well, duh! I’m arguing against Sharia, obviously I’m presenting facts against it. It’s your job to post the positive things about it. My accusation of “no true Scotsman” is valid on the other hand as the organizations you refuse to give recognition to also have their scholars and their interpretation. And you cannot just dismiss their interpretation without providing valid reasons.

//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. //
There are plenty of Islamic countries out there. Do it in your countries and impress us. Unless you can pull it off, it’s still impractical. You can’t name a SINGLE country which has even a remotely pure form a Sharia, and that says a lot about the practicality of this.

// I already had pointed out in my opening statement that people love to have illegal sex which will not be there under Sharia, that is why they don't want the particular rule.//
Don’t you mean illegal according to your stone age law. We’d rather not be lectured on sexual morality from a law which permits sex slavery.   

You next went on to accuse me of lying (or maybe just being wrong) about zakat not being given to non-muslims. So I have nice article from scholars of islam:

I know you’re going to do that “no true Scotsman” thing all over again, so let me use that verse you quoted to show you how you’re wrong. The verse mentions 8 cases in which zakat should be given. All these categories never mention faith, because it is assumed that zakat will be given only to muslims. This is clear from the fact that one of the category actually tells them to give zakat for convincing people to join Islam. Then there are verses which tell muslims not to help non-muslims, like this one: 028.086

YUSUFALI: And thou hadst not expected that the Book would be sent to thee except as a Mercy from thy Lord: Therefore lend not thou support in any way to those who reject (Allah's Message). This would be a contradiction if you decide to give zakat to the non-muslims. And no there is NO special context for this verse. It’s taken at face value.
Social security is for people of America. But the American government along with numerous other charity organizations gives aid to countries regardless of their religion. Between 2002-2010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion[7] in military and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the Obama administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7 billion.[8](Wikipedia).
Now name one non-Islamic country which receives such vast amount of aid from Islamic countries (which have any form of Sharia in place).

Next you accuse me of making a number of fallacies like “fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident”.
Well that would be true if I used the word “most”. But no, I’m cunning like that. I used the word many which has no statistical significance. I don’t know what you expected. I don’t think there are any reliable surveys asking women if they like to work or not. In any case we KNOW that MANY women do like to work by just opening our eyes and looking around (unless you live in a Sharia state where they don’t have the option). Now you say women are allowed to earn. Well aren’t the inheritance laws unfair on the women who’d like to work? Why are they getting a lesser share? Because financial “obligations” are on males? Again, what if a male wants to take care of kids and woman wants to work. Or is that taboo too?
Oh and according to Sharia women cannot work with males. They cannot play sports (it’s impractical really), they cannot handle any male clients in whatever fields they work in. All these are ridiculous conditions to work under. Muslims will have to open their own economic organizations to ever get this to work.

When I said women need freedom, its freedom to walk interact with other human beings regardless of their gender. When I spoke of equality I meant having the same status as males when it comes to inheritance and judiciary (one male witness is equal to two females in Sharia). When I spoke of security, I obviously meant security from physical abuse which Quran permits.

Now comes the funny part. You, as a medical student, diagnosed me with a probable Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), because I don’t lust after every female I know. Time for a question. Do you lust after your sister, mother, aunt, grandmom etc? Why not? Suffering from HSDD? There is no difference. The analogy is accurate. You control how you view your opposite gender. As human beings, or as objects for sex. This is what happens when you repress your sexuality and view sex as something dirty and taboo.
//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.//  
Seems like you didn’t even bother to read those 420 words you copy pasted in your last article. It mentions that the judgment on this crime is made by victim or victim’s family (if the victim is dead). Are you saying the victim or his family will be unbiased in judgment of the crime? They don’t have any training in law either. So it’s untrained and biased judges. And once again the best allah can do to make judges give fair judgment is threaten them with hell, which is pretty much nothing.

//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.//
I would like an example of such an extreme case please. I’d also like to see where the quran or hadiths says only extreme cases will receive this punishment.  
//Mr. Gaikwad should know that while I claim that the laws are infallible I do not mean humans are also the same.//
This brings us back to the practicality issue. God, having created us, should know we’re fallible. Yet he constantly expects us to be infallible by giving us infallible laws not taking into account our fallibility. What you have is a law which cannot be implemented by us, as it is meant for perfect beings, not us.
Quran says you can have sex with captives. The next part says which women are eligible for marriage, and has nothing to do with marrying captives (though it IS permitted). But you can have sex without marriage. Quran never abolishes this so your theory of gradual abolition is invalid.

You seem to think Muhammad didn’t encourage robbery. This is from historian Ibn Ishaq:
[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them." (Ibn Ishaq 423)
[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. (Ibn Ishaq 424)
You argument against this is muslims were poor and left to charity. Err…so that gave them the right to rob people? Meccans had NOT confiscated their property. You need to provide sources before making baseless claims.
Next you drop all pretense and admit that quran tells you not be friends with unbelievers (yes you actually imply that when you say jews and Christians are allied against you). How do you expect us to live with muslims under Sharia when it tells them not to take us as friends? Sharia will mean only muslims in power. So our leaders will be prejudiced against us. Great, but no thanks. This point alone shows why Sharia isn’t kafir friendly.  On the other hand, modern society treats all religions equally.  Oh and the reason Christians and jews are allied is because you hate both. Especially the jews [read Sahih Muslim 41:6985, Sahih Bukhari 4:56:791]

Banu Quraiza incident was judged by Jew? Please elaborate. This tribe was Jewish in the first place. Why did Muhammad allow this?
Surah 9:29 says you are to fight unbelievers until they pay the “bitch tax”(as in submissive dog) in submission. That’s my problem. Muslims are ordered to fight unbelievers till they pay you. This isn’t tax, its protection money. And it is extorted. Governments don’t fight people for taxes, they fine and imprison you for not paying and they certainly don’t collect taxes to make you “submit”.

Your next two quotes from historians (their opinions of course) are an attempt at making Sharia look good by using the “lesser of two evils” comparison with Christians. Yea, I get it. Christians were evil too, all religions are.

You still haven’t told me why Sharia law awards death penalty for rapes. I explained how it is more harmful for the potential victim. You don’t seem to have any objections against my reasoning against death penalty for rape. So what is it? Am I to understand god’s law is imperfect and also inferior to modern judiciary?

Next we come back to muhammad’s sexual adventures with a kid. You ask me to read your blog for more info. No thanks, maybe in another debate which doesn’t have such stringent word limits. You didn’t respond to the secondary sexual features part. As a medical student I hope you know this is what attracts us to females. And 9 year olds don’t have these. And no, girls didn’t have puberty early in the 7th century. You continue to use the argument that aisha had consented. Do you not understand that consent is not valid if the person isn’t mature enough to give it? She was already married at age 6 to a 50 year old pervert. Her parents were ok with this, how could she refuse?
You say parents don’t ask us before birthing us therefore they are financially responsible. This is hypocrisy. Do you apply same principles to god? I didn’t ask him to create me, therefore he owes me heaven. Parents only owe the responsibility to take care of us and prepare us for the outside world, nothing more.
You once again criticize interest in banking. Well explain how a bank is supposed to run without profit. Otherwise it’s just another fantasy, without a basis in reality. I asked the same exact thing in my last post.

// What if you divorce and realize she was pregnant? The child's future is at stake according to your social order.//
Then the mother can take the father to court for child support. You obviously don’t know very much about modern judiciary system.

Next you claim love marriages aren’t successful. What’s more important? Happiness of couple of success of marriage? I rest my case.

What does natural in humans mean? I thought natural meant occurring in nature. Anyways, polygamy is unnatural. In fact monogamy is unnatural too. Any form of MARRIAGE is unnatural. Marriage is a human construct. If you allow man to marry many women then it’s only fair to allow women to marry multiple men.
You again raise the cannibalism argument! Are you not reading anything? One is sex between consenting adults, other is mutilation.
//And also Homosexuality can become a threat to society because it stops reproduction.//
Maybe we should kill sterile people too. Or people who just don’t want kids.

 You again mentioned HIV argument which I have destroyed in my last article. If your partner is not infected, what are the chances of getting infected by anal sex, even without a condom? That would be 0%. And what about lesbians? They don’t have much of a risk do they?  Furthermore, HIV didn’t exist until recently whereas homosexuality has existed as long as man has.
I’ll be the first to admit I enjoy porn. I have never heard this, “human whispering like gay movies and pleasure of anal sex” you speak of.

This has been difficult for me. Not because I couldn’t answer, but I had too much to answer and a very restricting word limit. I may have skipped over a few points, for that I apologize. I have answered those points which I found most required an answer.
I end my article with another quote from hitchens.

Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever.  I am still waiting for a response to this.  It carries an incidental corollary: think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith, and you know what?  There is no tongue-tied silence at THAT point.  Everybody can instantly think of an example.
Christopher Hitchens. 

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 5"

Post a Comment