Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Although this video has been posted in the video section by somone, I think that it shoud’ve been discussed here. Its on Youtube also. Watch it when you have time to concentrate. Its about 38 minutes long.

Iftikhar Ahmed is excellent host. He does his homewrok, well. Its an excellent conversation between him and Dr. Israar. Good points brought up from both sides.

He started by asking about the role/reponsibilities of Ulema in spreading Islam in Indo-pak and then discussed Dr. Israar’s interpration of Islamic state and what not

I am not going to post the link. You can do a key word search on "Israar " through the search button on top of this page and watch it yourself.

Its worth watching.

I dont think that I am violating any rules of GS by advertising another post in another section, as I am not. I just want to continue that discussion (which actually never happened, only 2 replies to that post), in this forum, as it rightly belongs to this foum

Also, I watched the video on Youtube, wanted to post it here, realized that it has already been posted earlier, and thought that we can discuss it here, without me reposting it

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

It would have been nice if you could have posted the link here. Anyway thanks for opening the discussion, now I am aware of it and let me go find the video. :)

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

^^ Youtube link

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

I am just half way watching the interview. I would like to say Dr. Israr is a very well knowledgeable person and its very interesting to watch Iftikhar interviewing him.

As per your post Iftikhar does his homework and the way he started the conversation with Dr. sahib I must say Iftikhar got a pretty good responce from Dr. sahib and thats why he leaned back otherwise he was ready to "try" to preasurise Dr. sahib. Specially the way Iftikhar opened the questionairs.

I love the use of words by Dr. Israr.

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

I respect Dr israr but i dont agree with his theory of Islamic state , specially the treatment he mentioned for non muslims living under islamic state

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

^^ He probably should not have used the term "2nd grade citizens"

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Plus his stance that he doesnt mind if non muslim countries like india , USA , Uk deal same ( regard and deal Muslims as 2nd class citizen ) in pay back .

This is Ruthless .

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

^^ But then he said at the end that dont just listen to me (as Iftikhar brought up objections of Ulema upon him) saying that we should always have another Tafseer under our study, for cross checks

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Dr Israar is perhaps one of the rearist gems amongst Ulemas. When he put across his point of view he himself is admitting perhaps he got this point wrong and we should consult other tafseers as well. This is a very rare quality amongst general mullahs who do not hesitate to issuue fatwas of somebody becoming a murtid and discourage the use of logic and debate to find the truth.

The most liberal Alim on the issue of treatment of non muslims is Dr. Ghamidi, he I find adjusts his stand according to the gatherings he is adressing. If he has a liberal audience he change is stance totally. However going by his book he has written following version:

[Ghamidi, Javed A. (2005); “The Islamic Shari’ah of Jihad” translated by Shehzad Saleem; pp. 3-5; Lahore : Al-Mawrid, Institute of Islamic Sciences ]

Peace and freedom are two essential requirements of a society. Just as various penal measures help in protecting a society from the evils and excesses committed by an individual, resorting to armed offensives sometimes becomes essential to curb the evils perpetrated by countries and nations. As long as diplomatic relations and negotiations can be used to resolve matters, no one would endorse the use of force for settling affairs. However, if a nation threatens to disrupt the peace and freedom of the world and its arrogance and haughtiness exceed all bounds, a stage may come when the use of force and power becomes essential to keep it in check. In such cases, it is the inalienable right of humankind to forcibly stop its subversive activities until peace and freedom of the world are restored. The Qur’an asserts that if the use of force had not been allowed in such cases, the disruption and disorder caused by insurgent nations would have reached the extent that the places of worship would have become deserted and forsaken, not to mention the disruption of the society itself:
“And had it not been that Allah set aside one people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would be utterly destroyed.” (22:40)

This use of force is called jihad.

This use of force is called jihad, and in the Qur’an it can be classified in two distinct categories:
Firstly, it is done against injustice and oppression.
Secondly, it is done against the deniers of the Prophet (sws) after the truth of his message had become evident to them.

The first type of jihad is an eternal directive of the shari‘ah (Islamic law). As stated earlier, it is launched to curb oppression and injustice.

The second type, however, is specific to people whom the Almighty selects for delivering the truth as an obligation. They are termed as witnesses to the truth; the implication being that they bear witness to the truth before other people in such a complete and ultimate manner that no one is left with an excuse to deny the truth. Bearing witness to the truth in such a manner is called shahadah. In the history of mankind, for the very last time this status was conferred on the Prophet Muhammad (sws) and his nation, the Banu Isma‘il (the children of Ishmael, the elder son of Abraham):

“And similarly, We have made you an intermediate community so that you bear witness [to this religion] before the nations, and the rasul bear such a witness before you.” (2:143)

Once the process of shahadah is complete, the truth is unveiled to a people in its ultimate form, and, if they still deny it in spite of being convinced about it, they are punished in this very world. At times, this punishment is through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, while, at others, it emanates from the swords of the believers. As a result, those who have denied the truth are totally vanquished in their land and the truth reigns supreme in it. In the case of Prophet Muhammad (sws), the Divine scourge took this very form. Consequently, just as his Companions (rta) were asked to wage war against oppression and injustice, they were also asked to wage war to punish the rejecters of his truth once it had become totally manifest to his addressees. This was actually a Divine plan executed through human beings. They themselves were not authorized to even think of such an undertaking. It is to this very fact which the following words of the Qur’an allude:
“Fight them and God will punish them by your hands.” (9:14)
For the second objective, the words used in Surah Baqarah and Surah Anfal (the second and the eighth chapters of the Qur’an) are “Allah’s religion reigns supreme” and “all of Allah’s religion reigns supreme” respectively. Prior to them, the word “fight them” directs the Muslims to wage war. The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in this statement is the Idolaters of Arabia . Consequently, these expressions mean that in the land of Arabia the religion of Islam would reign supreme. This purpose could only have been achieved in two ways: either the followers of all other religions were to be put to death or they were to be subdued and subjugated completely. Consequently, after many phases interspersed with periods of both war and peace when the disbelievers were totally humiliated, both these ways were adopted. Muslims were directed to kill the Idolaters of Arabia if they did not accept faith and to let the Jews and Christians live on their own religions if they accepted to pay jizyah (the non-Muslim tax) and live a life of total subjugation to the Islamic state established in Arabia .However, the active adversaries among them were put to death or exiled whenever it became possible.
It has been written at the very beginning of this article that the various measures adopted by the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) including warfare were all Divinely ordained. These measures do not belong to the common shar’iah law of Islam. Rather they belong to a specific law that can be termed as the law of itmam al-hujjah (unveiling of truth in an undeniable form). This law can be summarized thus: When the truth of a rasul’s (messenger’s) message is unveiled to a people in its ultimate form such that no one has any excuse to deny it, the rejecters of this truth are punished in this very world.

Mr. Ghamidi in liberal congregations takes the stance contrary to what he has written in his book that the directives to kill or exile the idolters and subduing the people of the book was time specific.

The general stance of mullahs and even Dr. Israar is that these directives are not time specific and we are directed to subdue people of the book to second class citizens even today. Dr. Israar and Mr. Iftikhar did not talk about killing or exiling the idolters purposely as it would sound too gory. However going by this logic that is the second part of the directive and is regularly implented by Al Quaeeda type whose favourite method of execution is slaying. (9:05)

Dr Israar is an exception who advises you to study different versions on this topic, general mullahs will declare you murtid if you deviate from this stance. This is the very reason Mr. Ghamidi does not take a clear cut stance in public on the issue.

There is a growing movement of reformist muslims who do not come out in open in the fear of getting killed by the followers of these fundo mullah types. This movemnt wants to liberalise the Islam from these mullah type champions of Islam. We believe in reforming Islam from these mullah versions, incorporate the use of logic as a principal of sunnah. Please read my opening post in the thread mullhism vs real Islam....

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Dr. Israr wants to implement a failed system - the one that lasted hardly only 40 years! Or for some 2 and half years during U Aziz period.

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

^^ Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think it was not the system that failed but the people themselves who failed. Big difference. :)

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

I dont agree with your comment that the 40 year system was a failed system. It was the foundation of what we see as Islamic community and the world 3rd (or is it 2nd) biggest religion

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Western democracies are probably the best system so far this world has seen. Although it is still evolving since the 15th century.

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

It lasted 40 years as it was meant to last for that period. It was time specific to establish Islam as a major religion in the world. After the objective was achieved the guidance for us is in true understanding of Quran and principals of sunnah...

It's not that the system prevailing in those 40years failed. It was simply required.

It's the understanding of Isalm by our clergy in subsequent periods which failed.....

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Let's evalute your statement in the light of principals of sunnah:

1) Actions should be for the betterment of Islam.
2) Actions should be for the moral uplift of humankind.
3) Actions should be logical.

Like I argued abolishing slavery although not practised by Holy Prophet in his life time due to situations prevailing at that time can be endorsed according to sunnah.

In the same way can we argue equality for all humankind irrespective of their colour, creed, religion, gender, breed in line with the principals of sunnah.

Here I will make a very bold statement. In my opinion according to the times and circumstances prevailing today it is exactly in line with these principals of sunnah....

Only a secular system and democratic system ensures equality to all haumankind irrespective of somebody's religion, therefore is the only Islamic system in accordance with the principals of sunnah....

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Yazdi.. You don't have to hide your association with Al-Mawrid

Anyway....You said: "Only a secular system and democratic system ensures equality to all haumankind irrespective of somebody's religion, therefore is the only Islamic system in accordance with the principals of sunnah."

How would you justify what you said. EIther its secular or its Islamic. Islam is a system , yes...that translates into laws made by Allah , told in the Quran and explained in SUnnah. So how can a system be Islamic and yet secular?

Secondly, what makes you think, Islamic system does not ensure equality of mankind? All are children of Adam and then some are different.

A Muslim cannot be equal to a non-Muslim. Thats because two are different but have equal rights as citizens of a state. I do disagree with Dr. Israr on his stance regarding minorities.

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Actually both of us are advocating equality of humankind and giving it different names. We are both advocating to follow Quran and principles of sunnah in the right context. Tell me specifically the point of difference in your views and mine.

Of course muslims and non muslims are not equal as far as their faith is concerned, and may be they are not equal in the eyes of God (and for that also I have my doubts), but any discrimination on the basis of religion to be carried out by state is in my opinion unislamic, and from your post i understand you agree...

You are also calling the system of equality Islamic, I am doing the same. However if you study the Islamic concept of state put forward by our clergy, all Darul Islam and Darul Harb concept, for me is against the principles of sunnah. What's unislamic about secularism (where you are free to follow any religion). If you come out of this abrogation business and study Quran in the light of principles of sunnah:

  1. Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously. (Q.73:10)
  2. To you be your religion, and to me my religion. (Q. 109:6)
  3. Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of your Lord. (Q.20:103)
  4. Speak good to men. (Q.2:83)
  5. We well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them. (Q.50:45)
  6. Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant. (Q.7:119)
  7. Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning. (Q.15:85) Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of Allâh. (Q.45:14)
  8. Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians - any who believe in Allâh and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Q.2:62)
  9. And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best. (Q.29:46)

Concept of secularism is according to the teachings of Quran. Tell me anything in secularism (where state does not adopt any religion), and democracy(which gives equal say to every individual irrespective of their belief) unislamic and against sunnah. If you like to name it Islamic system I have no objection, rather I believe you have really understood correctly...

As far as Al-Mawrid is concerned, yes they are trying to free Islam from mullahs to some extent, but in my opinion they are not doing enough....

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

Thanks for the reply. I agree we are thinking alike. However, I disagree on the secularism part. For example. in secularism there is no religion of the state. Islam is a complete way of life that guides us on economics , society as well as law making. Thing such as disputes in land, family matters, marriage, divorce, etc. etc.,.. have laws in Islam that can be implemented by the state. If they are implemented by the state, than there is no room for secularism. Another example, due to which i do not like secularism is, about Turkey. In Turkey so much hue and cry and fuss was made about Hijab and it not being allowed in public offices. That clearly in my opinion is a violation of basic human rights. They claim that it is to protect the secular system. It is quite sad that they are going to that extreme.

Even in the US they do not penalize anyone on wearing hijab. With a few reservations, their system is quite good and quite close to Islam.

Why do you have to say about that? I would like to know.

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

defence pacts with hindus are legal ? Hah .... i like israr but he is sadly mistaken here ....also he mentions the pious caliphate on one hand and praises the enemies of the fourth caliph .....

Re: Dr. Israar on Jawab Deyh

State and religion are two different things, This is not only true for Islam but any other religious doctrine. Religion should be taken as more of a personal matter than any state adopting a particular religion. However mullahism explaination of Islam is quite different on the subject as they have their own political motives behind it. The only time when state adopted religion in the life of Holy Prophet was in a war situation and should not be mistaken as position of Islam in state affairs....

Secularism is a free choice of an individual to follow any religion.
Democracy is to give equal say to every individual in the matters of state.

Both these concepts are in accordance with principles of sunnah.

Marriage, divorce, inheritence, and family matters are personal matters, and state should decide these matters keeping in view the religion any person has adopted with his free will. We can not apply our marriage/divorce laws on non muslims who are a part of our community.

Economics, social behaviour are dealt in a democratic society through law making which is the right of the majority of the people. In muslim majority societies of course law making is the right of muslims who can ensure no law is passed which is not in accordance with princples of sunnah. However any law making which does not protect the rights of minorities is not desirable and is against the principles of sunnah.

Restrictions on Hijab are against basic human rights, you don't need ISLAMIC STATE to stop these things. You have yourself given the example of USA which is a secular state.

Restrictions on wearing Hijab, like Saudi Arabia and taliban's Afghanistan is also against basic human rights.....

Reasonable personal matters should be left to individual choices and not implemented by state...