|
This Articles is a response
to One Thirsty Fish. It was posted in The
Society Forislamic Humanists message #1642
By Lysium
In my previous postings when I wrote that
If a Muslim steals, I don’t hold Islam responsible for
his act but when a Moslem treats women as second class
citizens or a Muslim discriminates a non-Muslim on the
basis of his religion, I blame Islam, Thirsty_fish
Responded
>>You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You
start by declaring that, in the case of the thief, the
faith is independent of the practitioner. Then, you
immediately declare the opposite by stating not only that
Islam is to be blamed for discrimination against women and
non-Muslims, but also that these teachings are to be found
in the Qur’an. In your first example, the trespass is
caused by one individual (thief). In the others, we are
talking about trespasses that are socially widespread
(sexism, intolerance). However, in both cases the
perpetrators are humans, and in both cases the
‘reason’ for the crime is a faulty interpretation of a
religion. Furthermore, your distinction between the two
cases is quite arbitrary: you give no persuasive argument
as to why we should hold humans responsible in one case
but Islam in the other. <<
If a person does an act on his own, which is not mentioned
or specifically prohibited in a religion, religion is not
responsible for that act. But if a person does an act in
accordance with a religious tenet, then religion is
responsible for the action though the act is done by a
person. Your claim that both the crimes are results of
faulty interpretation of religion, is wrong. No body
interprets any religion advocating stealing. Islam forbade
stealing. No one interpreted Islam as advocating stealing.
More importantly the Muslim who is stealing, believes that
he is going against the preaching of Islam. But the other
matters for which I hold Islam responsible are not similar
to stealing. These are directly interpreted from Quran,
Hadith and Sunna. These crimes (if you consider them as
crimes) practiced throughout the Muslim countries through
out the time. The entire Islamic Jurisprudence clearly
advocates these policies as Islamic law. More importantly
people who practice these things believe these are
“true” Islamic teachings.
If you consider that all these people are engaged in the
practices which are un- Islamic then it is a different
matter. Now the question is how do you know that your
interpretation of Islam is true and what is practiced
throughout the Islamic countries is unislamic? If a
principle is not clear and can be interpreted in different
and often contradicting ways, how can you show that your
interpretation represents the exact meaning of the
principle? At the most you can show that your
interpretation is more suitable to the present or more
useful but, you can not tell others that they are
misinterpreting. They are interpreting in a different way.
Thirty_fish wrote
>>Your second claim is that these teachings stem
from the Qur’an. There again you are misinformed. The
Qur’an is the only scripture that gives rights to women,
and that distinguishes between humans not by their gender,
but by their moral uprightness. The Qur’an also enjoins
Muslims to say to non-Muslims: To you your religion, to me
mine. You will hardly find a more tolerant statement in
other scriptures. Why must we hold the Qur’an
accountable for the thick-headedness of humans?<<
Again and again Muslims claim that it is Islam that first
granted property rights to women. Let us examine the
issue. Even from the Islamic sources, we know that prior
to establishment of Islamic rule prophet worked as an
employee of a rich widow whom he married later. Didn’t
it signify any thing? Even before Islamic rule, women
owned property; hired people conducted businesses in
Arabia! I do not know what were the exact laws governing
property rights of women of Arabia in those days. Whether
women were entitled equal share with men which was reduced
to half later by Islam or they were entitled less than
half which was increased to half by Islam. (I would be
happy if any one can provide any information in this
regard)
Our discussion is not about whether Quran is superior or
inferior to any other scripture. Our discussion is whether
the “rights” given to women in Islam are comparable to
the equal rights of present secular and democratic
countries? Even we are not accusing Islam for granting
only half of the rights to women keeping in view of the
times it proclaimed. What we are accusing is why should we
hang on to the “half rights” when the world is moving
to “equal rights”? If you truly believe that granting
equal status to women (i.e. equal job opportunities, equal
inheritance, equal legal status like one women witness is
equal to one male witness etc.) then you have to set aside
the Islamic laws and start making your own laws. It will
not pose any problem as long as you view the Islamic laws
as evolving social laws. But Islam, by its very nature can
not accommodate change, stating it is the final word of
god. It tries to guide the changing with unchanged laws.
Viewed from this angle you have only two choices. Either
accept what Quran preaches as good or reinterpret Quran to
suite your ideas. But this second approach does not work
always.
For example you wrote that Quran does not discriminate on
the basis of gender then how can you explain:
“ Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made
the one of them to excel the other,”
“Two women witnesses are equal to one male witness”(
4:34)
Men have a degree of advantage over women." (2:28)
Women get half that of man from inheritance
Can Islam give equal status to a non-Muslim? Forget about
the thickheaded human being; see even how God treats an
unbeliever as per Islam
1) Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. ( The Cow: 15 )
2) On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. (The Cow: 161)
3) The worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the
ungrateful, who will not believe. (Spoils of War: 55)
And see what it preaches about unbelievers
1). Oh ye who believe! the non-Muslims are unclean.
(Repentance:17)
2). Oh believers, do not treat your fathers and mothers as
your friends, if they prefer unbelief to
belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are
evil-doers. (Repentance: 20)
3) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they
surrender and pay tribute. ( Repentance: 29
You can accuse me of misinterpreting Islam or quoting out
of context. If you read Hadiths you will find even more
intolerant preaching. In whatever way you try to interpret
and in whatever context you apply the above preaching, the
tone is unmistakably intolerant towards non-Muslims.
(Once I had a discussion with a fanatic who was arguing
that killing a non-believer is a holy act as per Islam and
he quoted
“Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and
let them find harshness in you. (Repentance: 123) “
in support of his argument. Till then I was under the
impression that murdering non-believer is applicable to
war situations and can not be applicable to peace times. I
mentioned the same. His line of argument is like this.
That no where in Quran it is mentioned that this is
applicable to war situations. Every verse, every word is
perfect in Quran. God did not use wrong words. If it is
for war situation god would have used “enemy” instead
of “disbeliever” since disbeliever is not logically
related to war as enemy is related to war. . Even if it is
interpreted for war situation, what does war situation
means? Is it a time of direct conflict or anticipation of
attack by enemies? The entire Islamic world is in a state
of constant war with non-Muslim world till entire world is
brought under Islamic rule. He even produced many hadiths
in support of his claim. This I am giving as an example to
show how far people can go in interpreting religion.
Neither it is an isolated individual trend of aberration)
Thirsty_fish wrote
>>Whether you believe the Qur’an is the word of
God or not is your business. However, I would like to
argue that it is not divine discourse that is constrained
by ‘socioeconomic conditions.’ It is the
INTERPRETATION of that discourse that is. The interesting
thing is that the Qur’an seems to be aware of this, and
therefore advises us to use our reasoning to interpret the
signs of God (there is no compulsion in religion, right?
We must come to it through reasoning and mystical
experience). The Qur’an never assumes that its message
should endure through the ages without having to be
reinterpreted. It is our failure as humans to reinterpret
the Qur’an that is to blame for whatever injustices are
committed in the name of Islam. It is of course EASIER to
blame Islam as a whole and wash our hands off from any
responsibility to oppose incorrect interpretations, even
if they are socially widespread.<<
If there is some abstract principle called “X” which
nobody knows what it is exactly, except what they
interpret according to their own interests, and when ever
social situation changes if there is a need to reinterpret
the “X”, then why to hang on to the “X”? Any
guiding principle should be clear in what it says. If it
is not clear but entirely depended on its interpretation,
if it is misinterpreted from the beginning abused from its
inception, practiced contrary to its projected aims
throughout the world, Then clearly something is wrong
either in its content or in its presentation or both.
Still it boasts that God had revealed in a very clear
manner!
For all the evils of Islamic society, You
blame our inability to reinterpret Quran in the light of
modern values. But there is a limit to interpretation. You
can not go against the basics, which are beyond
interpretations. You can interpret where there is
ambiguity or chance to interpret. Or if there is a general
principle the application of which you can interpret in
your own way. But specifics can not be changed. For
example you can interpret the preaching “Kill the
apostate” in a mystical way stating that, it means
killing an apostate in the self (killing apostatic
thoughts in our mind) but specific applications of
principles like two women witnesses are equal to one male
witness or woman should get half the share that of man,
are beyond interpretation. The basic assumptions of
inferior status of women mentioned in the Quran are
manifested in the above two specific applications.
There is one more problem with the reinterpretation.
Religious beliefs and practices are concrete
manifestations of some values, which are derived from the
interpretation of religion. When a believer is told that
whatever he is following so far is wrong based on the
different interpretation, he wouldn’t believe it. Even
if some people do believe, still there will be a clash
between old interpretation and new interpretation.
That’s the way all religions disintegrate into sects and
groups.
Unlike other religions, it is more difficult to reform
Islam because of its link with state power from its
inception. In the case of other religions, people make
legislation keeping in view of their needs and do not
bother much whether these are strictly according to their
religion or not. Even if their religion does not grant any
property right to women, they do not find any resistance
from their religious quarters when they legally grant
equal rights to women. If today any one demands right for
women to drive a car in Saudi Arabia, he will be branded
as anti-Islamic. I know that Quran neither specifically
prohibits women from driving nor allows. You can
“deduce” it in either way from the Islamic sources.
This practice is derived from the Islamic principle of
women’s inferior status. As long as Islam treats women
inferior to men, in principle, any kind of discriminatory
legislation which are in practice throughout Islamic
countries today, are specific application of that
principle.
With out special Islamic dress women can
not come out in any Islamic country. I do not know whether
Hijab is obligatory in your version of Islam or not but,
it is obligatory in the most of the Islamic world.
The obligatory nature of Hijab, as per Islam, can not be
proved or disproved directly from Quran. But, if you
follow from what prophet practiced and what early Islamic
scholars deduced, and from Hadiths. It is clear that
Islam, as a religion, is responsible for this practice. If
there is no compulsion in religion, there should not be
any compulsion in the interpretation of religion also. A
women should have right to decide to wear Hijab or not,
for herself. Then why there is no such right in any
Islamic country ? You may say that they are not following
true Islam. This raises an interesting question.
I advocate equal rights to all irrespective of religion
gender or race. Every one should have freedom to practice
any religion the way he likes as long as it is not harmful
to others.
If you believe that these are good principles and true
Islam also advocates these principles, then in your view,
who is better, a confessed apostate like me who is
following “True Islamic “ principle ( at least in
these matters) or the so called Muslims who are following
wrong principles?
The actual problem is not about brands or names like Islam
or humanism etc. but about the values they represent. If
you believe that True Islam preaches equal status to
women, to non-Muslims and
freedom in the matters of religion etc. then we both are
advocating same thing under different names!
So let us debate about the values we represent. There are
so many issues, so many “wrong” practices in the
Islamic world.
1) Confining women within four walls of house
2) Preventing women from social interaction
3) Hijab
4) Only half legal rights to women
5) Discriminatory treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic
countries
6) Barbaric punishments for trivial crimes
7) Lack of civil rights in Islamic countries
8) Polygamy
9) Muslims’ resistance to birth control
And many more
Our primary aim is not to establish that all the above
evil practices of Islamic societies are direct results of
Quran or prophet. Our primary aim, is to show that these
practices “ ARE EVIL”. There are so many good and
honest Muslims who sincerely believe that the above
practices are dictated by God and they follow without a
question. Whether these practices are direct results of
Islam or misrepresentation of Islam, is not so important.
What is important, is to show that these practices are
social evils and to show our people how they are in a
disadvantageous position because of these practices. If
some one thinks that the above practices are not evil but
glorious deeds, then I invite such people for a debate to
show me why these are not evil.
Regards.
Lysium.
Response to this article
One
Thirsty Fish
|
