[quote]
Originally posted by google:
**Anyone care to define blasphemy?
Or do we lump everything under blasphemy and get death penalty to just about everyone who dare to criticize our faith?**
[/quote]
I recall reading the Pak penal code laws for blasphemey and it covers even the sahaba & wives of the prophet. So, you are correct!
[quote]
Originally posted by Abdali:
** This has nothing to do with Islam.... Stoned to death is part of jewish faith.**
[/quote]
Try telling that to the scholars of ahl as sunnah was jamaat! It might be construed as BLASPHEMY!
They have concluded otherwise and included that or RAJM as an enforceable sharia.
Hafeez, I was looking for those specific verses regarding blasphemy! Thanks
Try making sense out of your posts. How does this gang rape qualify as Qisas when both boy and girl belong to same family and both of them were assaulted sexually by same tribe?
Yes, so? whats the point? There was no revenge here in this case, try to read the whole story again and again to grasp it.
Perhaps killing you can also be justified
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
. Everyone can make up excuses, does not necessarily mean that excuse is a genuine. Try thinking, stop listening.
Yes, you are right, you have no idea what you are talking about
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
May Allah SWT guide us all towards right and help us follow the right
[quote]
Originally posted by hafeez123:
** Try telling that to the scholars of ahl as sunnah was jamaat! It might be construed as BLASPHEMY!
They have concluded otherwise and included that or RAJM as an enforceable sharia.**
[/quote]
I am not interested in mullahs or fundos but the bottom line. Islam has noting to do with it.
[quote]
Originally posted by ahmadjee:
***Hafeez, I was looking for those specific verses regarding blasphemy! Thanks*
[/quote]
[al-Baqarah 2:208] O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.
[at-Taubah 9:74] They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their Surrender (to Allah). And they purposed that which they could not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by His messenger should enrich them of His bounty. If they repent it will be better for them; and if they turn away, Allah will afflict them with a painful doom in the world and the Hereafter, and they have no protecting friend nor helper in the earth.
[an-Nahl 16:106] Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.
[al-Ahzab 33:36] And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.
[ad-Dahr 76:4] For the Rejecters we have prepared chains, yokes, and a blazing Fire.
[at-Taubah 9:73] O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
[al-Anfal 8:60] Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
Hafeez,
They are not even close to be anything specific; and stretching them towards Blasphemy will be an impossible task.
Just quoting verses does not make an argument, I hope you understand that.
People can use (and abuse) the same above verses to anything their heart contents.
[quote]
Originally posted by ahmadjee:
***Hafeez*,
They are not even close to be anything specific; and stretching them towards Blasphemy will be an impossible task.
Just quoting verses does not make an argument, I hope you understand that.
People can use (and abuse) the same above verses to anything their heart contents.**
[/quote]
The core message coming from your comments, Abdali & pyari gurdia, for example, is that you prefer to USE the INTELLECT in interpreting the scriptures and what is right from wrong!
You should know that the taqleeds and fiqhs disallow one from excersing their own Intellect.
It has a laid-out interpretations or sharia on all matters, the laws of blasphemy & adultery being the two, for one to follow or to do taqleed!
Whether this is a good thing or not is up to the individuals to decide!
It would definitely MOVE islam from a position of rigidity to flexibility and intellectual reflection!
Pakistan's 'shariah' doesn't judge by shariah anyway so why all the fuss about it.
Pakistan speaks about becoming a secular state and that is what it is.
'Nobody has the right invested in him to establish anything fron the Hudood without the Sultan'( Imam Bayhaqi )
A sultan had to rule fully by Islam. Saudi is another example. People think it is Islamic but its banking is done unislamically,it's penal, judicial, economics are all done unislamically and then they implement an Islamic punishment system.
It's a farce...if you want the Hudood in place ask for everything to be in place.
The only way for any rules to be implemented properly is to be ruled by shariah hollistically.
Imam Abu Hanifa once said 'the Khilafah was the mother of all Farz' in that by ruling by shariah then you can implement Islam not bits and pieces like it is now.
'And rule between them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you' Surah al Ma'idah verse 48
actually thinking and intellect is highly prized in Islam, contradictory to the impression one gets from Talibaan-oriented groups.
And if you check out the rules laid out in the Quran, they're pretty detailed, but they certainly dont cover every situation that could POSSIBLY happen to a human, and neither do the hadith cover the entire human experience 100%.
You've probably experienced sometihng that was never addressed by the Quran or the Hadith DIRECTLY. Thus, we take the rules of RIGHT vs. WRONG and use that to guide us through.
Secondly, gang raping the sister of a boy who has been WRONGFULLY accused, does not fall under eye for an eye theory.
The sister had nothing to do with the crime - in Islam, only the perpetrators get punished for the crime - tell me of one instance where someone was justly punished for another's crime according to the Quran(exception being falsified evidence, etc)?
If there is an evidence such as Quran then intellect can not be used in the matter as it is the words of our legislator and it is definite. What we have noe is Muslims using intellect to decide what they can and can't do. Quran is definite so we lsiten to it.
We are limited and as human beings can not comprehend for example Jannat.
'Whosoever interprets the Quran according to his opinion, let him seek his abode in the fire' (narrated by Imam Tirmidhi)
However if you mean intellect as in discussing an Islamic concept like the existence of Allah or for example the benefits of Islam's social policies then that is fine as it is good to understand Islam and it's benefits eg 'marry early to protect ones piety' its a hadith not sure which but one can see the benefit.
However to decide for example whether Islam's ruling on for example pre marital sex being halal for example is one using intellect as you are disagreeing with a definite text unless you have an evidence in which then you are judging by shariah not intellect and that is how we must always judge.
Imam Shafii and Imam Abu Hanifa used to debate all the time and they were intellectuals who would debate using SHARIAH evidence. In terms of legislation it is wrong to use ones intellect.
I hope that is helpful.
Hafeez what would be useful is if you had the Tafsir of these ayats.
The way you have made out is you take everything at face value. Well the scholars worked out what the meaning was of each ayat and hadith etc and gave tafseer. This is not intellect but it is simply examining Islam through Islam much like debating evidence with another evidence. It is debating with Islam and not using intellect.
If you were then to add tafseer of the ayat then it would make your argument more conclusive.
[quote]
Originally posted by s_H_e_I_k_H:
If there is an evidence such as Quran then intellect can not be used in the matter as it is the words of our legislator and it is definite. What we have noe is Muslims using intellect to decide what they can and can't do. Quran is definite so we lsiten to it.
[/quote]
Thank you sheilh,
I am aware that the taqleeds does NOT allow using the INTELLECT in deciding what is right from wrong! I STATED that in my previous post!
So - to those who say:
Stoning,
death for blasphemy,
etc
Are not Islamic, they are both correct & incorect!
**
They are correct** if they use their intellect.
They are incorrectif they are followers of any of those taqleeds!
[quote]
from Sheikh:
"We are limited and as human beings can not comprehend for example Jannat.
'Whosoever interprets the Quran according to his opinion, let him seek his abode in the fire' (narrated by Imam Tirmidhi)
However if you mean intellect as in discussing an Islamic concept like the existence of Allah or for example the benefits of Islam's social policies then that is fine as it is good to understand Islam and it's benefits eg 'marry early to protect ones piety' its a hadith not sure which but one can see the benefit.
However to decide for example whether Islam's ruling on for example pre marital sex being halal for example is one using intellect as you are disagreeing with a definite text unless you have an evidence in which then you are judging by shariah not intellect and that is how we must always judge.
Imam Shafii and Imam Abu Hanifa used to debate all the time and they were intellectuals who would debate using SHARIAH evidence. In terms of legislation it is wrong to use ones intellect.
I hope that is helpful.
[/quote]
Dear sheikh,
I mean - using Intelligence/ Aql to decide what the laws of Islam should be or not be.
And, not BLINDLY following what scholars have, per their UNDERSTANDINGS, laid out the practise of Islam and SHUT OFF any intellectual discussions and or ijtihaad!
FINALLY,
If intellect is continued to be BANNED from Islam then EXPECT the same STATUS for Islam and majority of its followers!
[quote]
Originally posted by s_H_e_I_k_H:
Hafeez what would be useful is if you had the Tafsir of these ayats.
The way you have made out is you take everything at face value. Well the scholars worked out what the meaning was of each ayat and hadith etc and gave tafseer. This is not intellect but it is simply examining Islam through Islam much like debating evidence with another evidence. It is debating with Islam and not using intellect.
If you were then to add tafseer of the ayat then it would make your argument more conclusive.
[/quote]
Dear sheikh,
For majority - Islam is to be followed LITERALLY as explained in their taqleeds or fiqhs. No criticism or INTELLECTUAL discussion allowed!
The tafseers that you talk about, more orc less, does the same or EMPHASIZE the literal following of the sharia as laid out in the fiqhs of islam!
Readers do need to understand for their own benefit that -Intellect or intellectual quiry is BANNED in Orthodox Islam!
If you read what i said carefully i am agreeing that intellect is not to be used and i even gave a hadeeth to show it.
What i am saying is that there is a difference between using akl and there is a difference between debating evidences.
When you use akl you use just that and you are using your mind to legislate.
If you however debate an evidence with an evidence then that is using Islam as your basis and not the intellect. To illustrate my point different madhab have different methods of prayer as they have studied the sunnat differently. Hanafi put hands under navel, Shafii on chest for example.
I never said that the scholars took something blind. I said clearly they used to debate using EVIDENCE and that is allowed in Islam.
However what you seem to be suggesting is to blindly follow something if you are told it. If you told me something and i had a stronger evidence eg a longer chain of narration i can debate that. That is not using intellect but is using Islam as legislation. This is what the Muslim scholars used to do all the time. If Yousef Qardawi told me riba is halal which he has said publicly i would oppose this and tackle him with an evidence. This is not me using intellect but me using Islam.
Since when was everything literal. Scholars are those who are capable to differ between which is a command and which is a request for example. I am not able to tell from an evidence exactly what it means. That is why the scholars have given tafsir so you can understand the meaning of the Ayat.
Most on this board did not know what each ayat suggested and what i suggested to you was to add Tafsir as it would give exactly the scholars commentary of what the ayat means and what we as Muslims should take from it.
I hope i have made myself and my points clear as you misunderstood a lot of what i said in my first posts.
If you read what i said carefully i am agreeing that intellect is not to be used in legislation and i even gave a hadeeth to show it.
What i am saying is that there is a difference between using akl and there is a difference between debating evidences.
When you use akl you use just that and you are using your mind to legislate.
If you however debate an evidence with an evidence then that is using Islam as your basis and not the intellect. To illustrate my point different madhab have different methods of prayer as they have studied the sunnat differently. Hanafi put hands under navel, Shafii on chest for example.
I never said that the scholars took something blind. I said clearly they used to debate using EVIDENCE and that is allowed in Islam.
However what you seem to be suggesting is to blindly follow something if you are told it. If you told me something and i had a stronger evidence eg a longer chain of narration i can debate that. That is not using intellect but is using Islam as legislation. This is what the Muslim scholars used to do all the time. If Yousef Qardawi told me riba is halal which he has said publicly i would oppose this and tackle him with an evidence. This is not me using intellect but me using Islam.
Since when was everything literal. Scholars are those who are capable to differ between which is a command and which is a request for example. I am not able to tell from an evidence exactly what it means. That is why the scholars have given tafsir so you can understand the meaning of the Ayat.
Most on this board did not know what each ayat suggested and what i suggested to you was to add Tafsir as it would give exactly the scholars commentary of what the ayat means and what we as Muslims should take from it.
The fact is that unless you are a scholar you are using INTELLECT by deciding which evidences are correct and which aren't. I cannot use an evidence unless i am a scholar or i have a tafsir as me myself am not capable of using Islam so therfore am using intellect.
You are saying to everyone that INTELLECT is not allowed in Islam so why are you using it. I said clearly that INTELLECT over hukms and evidences is unislamic and the only ones capable of making a judgement are the qualified scholars.
The fact that you disagreed with my point you used intellect. intellect is the power of reason using sensory perception and that is what you used to disagree with my points.
Intellect is not haram unless you legislate by it and follow evidences using it.
You use intellect to decide whether to cross a road or wait for a car to pass by.
Intellect is something man uses all the time and IS ALLOWED TO USE.
Deciding between muba issues is using intellect.
As long as you don't follow evidences based on intellect then it is fine. Intellect as a concept is fine.
I hope my points are clear.
P.S The sura i used i have a scholars opinion on that evidence so i passed it on. I am not capable of judging an evidence myself and will not try to.
Thats why i suggest you guve some tafsir and not use INTELLECT in deciding hukms because that my brother is not allowed. If you are a scholar or have a scholar opinion then fine. If not then you are not capable.
IGNORE THE FIRST POST I HAVE ADJUSTED IT.
REFER TO THE ONE AFTER IT.
[quote]
Originally posted by s_H_e_I_k_H:
If you read what i said carefully i am agreeing that intellect is not to be used and i even gave a hadeeth to show it.
What i am saying is that there is a difference between using akl and there is a difference between debating evidences.
When you use akl you use just that and you are using your mind to legislate.
If you however debate an evidence with an evidence then that is using Islam as your basis and not the intellect. To illustrate my point different madhab have different methods of prayer as they have studied the sunnat differently. Hanafi put hands under navel, Shafii on chest for example.
I never said that the scholars took something blind. I said clearly they used to debate using EVIDENCE and that is allowed in Islam.
However what you seem to be suggesting is to blindly follow something if you are told it. If you told me something and i had a stronger evidence eg a longer chain of narration i can debate that. That is not using intellect but is using Islam as legislation. This is what the Muslim scholars used to do all the time. If Yousef Qardawi told me riba is halal which he has said publicly i would oppose this and tackle him with an evidence. This is not me using intellect but me using Islam.
Since when was everything literal. Scholars are those who are capable to differ between which is a command and which is a request for example. I am not able to tell from an evidence exactly what it means. That is why the scholars have given tafsir so you can understand the meaning of the Ayat.
Most on this board did not know what each ayat suggested and what i suggested to you was to add Tafsir as it would give exactly the scholars commentary of what the ayat means and what we as Muslims should take from it.
I hope i have made myself and my points clear as you misunderstood a lot of what i said in my first posts.
[/quote]
Dear sheikh,
I have no confusion in what you are saying and as a matter of fact that is precisely what I 've been saying all alone.
According to the established sharia:
Intellectual discussion can be around the established shariat BUT NEVER on ways of changing those laws as the case would be on:
STONING!
DEATH for blasphemy!
LOWLY status of women!
for example.
I have no confusion on what you are saying; though I would disagree with you and say that Intellect should be the basis of all islamic practises. If a practise does not meet the criteria of the Intellect then it is unIslamic!
I also fully realize that the above position of mine would be DEEMED Kufr and blasphemous with its obligatory punishment of death!
I just would like the readers like abdali, ahmadjee, piyari gurdia, and others who have insisted, in various discussion, that certain practises are UNISLAMICwhen they are, INDEED, Islamic as per the sharia of their own school of thought!
I agree with you that intellect should be the basis of Islamic practice as long as it within the shariah as i believe you have agreed with. I don't believe i disagreed with this.
One thing i will say specifically about the panchayat case is that there are other things that need to be looked into before a decision can be made eg witnesses etc. so the ruling itself is definite for the crime yet the crime needs to be decided before the punishment is given.
And the punishment can only be given when somewhere is ruled by Islam. I gave a hadeeth earlier about the only right being with the Sultan so it is haram for me to cut a thief's hand as the hudood can only be implemented by a Khaleef so although the punishment is definite from Qur'an where there is no dispute one needs to see the circumstance eg darul Kufr or darul Islam, witnesses etc.
I don't think people disagreed with the actual evidence but the disagreement was with whether it applied to this case.
But it's good that we both agree on how and when intellect is to be used.
[quote]
Originally posted by s_H_e_I_k_H:
I agree with you that intellect should be the basis of Islamic practice as long as it within the shariah as i believe you have agreed with. I don't believe i disagreed with this.
[/quote]
DEAR SHEIKH,
No, this is not what I said!
If you read my comments again, you will see that I disagree with all laws that go against the Intellect! And, there would be quite a lot of laws in the present sharia'h that go against the intellect like stoning, death for blasphemy, lowly status for women, etc!
I futher stated that I understand that this position of mine would be seen as Kufr & blasphemous!
[quote]
One thing i will say specifically about the panchayat case is that there are other things that need to be looked into before a decision can be made eg witnesses etc. so the ruling itself is definite for the crime yet the crime needs to be decided before the punishment is given.
And the punishment can only be given when somewhere is ruled by Islam. I gave a hadeeth earlier about the only right being with the Sultan so it is haram for me to cut a thief's hand as the hudood can only be implemented by a Khaleef so although the punishment is definite from Qur'an where there is no dispute one needs to see the circumstance eg darul Kufr or darul Islam, witnesses etc.
I don't think people disagreed with the actual evidence but the disagreement was with whether it applied to this case.
But it's good that we both agree on how and when intellect is to be used.
[/quote]
dear sheikh,
You seem to be saying that the panchayat rape case could be deemed a punishment under the laws of qisAs. Do you have any edicts or hadiths other than the one you cited that would substantiate this!