Saturday, January 8, 2022

How does this Theologian of faulty knowledge of Islam, projecting his views as Qur'an/suna yet quoting none, misguide the public against popular/most needed reforms of Saudi society? "Every age has Its own book" - the Qur'an.

In this video, a religious theologian of Islam is criticizing Saudi Arabia on the question that the Saudi Government is allowing women to go out without hijab/mahram; allowing people to drink alcohol and gamble, and cinemas to be open in every city including Medina. 
The surprising aspect is that neither the youtube host asked him to provide any evidence from Qur'an so the public know which verse of the Qur'an says that alcohol drinking and gambling is haram; allowing people to enjoy their life within the boundaries of the law, their preference as a free person to choose cinema or mosque, or both, is haram; and those women who are not using hijab and mahram while performing outdoor activities, is forbidden? 
The human aspect of social life if the Qur'an forbid, it must be clearly mentioned it in Qur'an as حرمت علیکم not the discussion of the Qur'anic text without clear order to make it forbidden. Haram is a law maxim in the legal classification of Islamic jurisprudence, must carry the capital penalties, yet as the modern theological thought process of Islam, the offenders of hijab; Muharram; alcohol drinking; gambling and interest on the loan would not face any penalties with reference to the Qur'anic text. Is Allah is a bad lawmaker or the Islamic theological speculators had been and still are distorting the Qur'anic text?
The principle set out in the early Islam, that everything is halal until Qur'an clearly states it as forbidden حرمت علیکم as it is in the Qur'an 4:23/24 for relationship and sex, and the Qur'an 5:3 for dietary. There is no Qur'anic verse that declares alcohol drinking; gambling; interest charging; hijab; Mehram as forbidden (haram) and awards in relation to the crime with specific penalties for the offenders. Is it possible that Qur'an declared social action as a forbidden act, yet no penalty associated with such orders?  Is Islam was in the air? If these human social actions were forbidden, then there must be court cases, a list of the offenders, and a record of their penalties? Do we have the historical record of the court cases of the Prophet's time and afterward, at least for 200 years? No. The stories in the name of the Prophet and his companions were written after 200 years and added to Islam as a second source as hades literature. The fact that Abbasi Caliph Mutwakil allowed Hadees literature into Islam and Hanbilite school who were never recognized as proper jurists by their contemporaries, imposed to articulate the new narrative of Islam detached from its past with new innovation of their own. 
Today everyone inherits his or her faith of the household and culture they are borning into, not because of the Qur'anic text and sunna. The basis of historical theologies is born out of historical cultures of the specific time, space, and the prevailing environment. 
Life is subject to the law on this planet earth and everyone is answerable before the law in this life and before God in the afterlife. Life operates according to law and the violator is accountable to the society yet the violator of the religious duty is not accountable, but only to self under the free will (Qur'an 10:99; 11:118; 22:40; 50:16; 24:35). Religion is a personal matter of every individual and operates with free will. Therefore it is the law, not religion which enforces order and provides justice to the members of the societies.  
The fact that the majority of Muslims, especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh uphold the religious narrative, build after Abbasi Caliph Mutwakil. The falsification of Islam in every direction by fabricating stories in the name of Prophet and his companions recognized even at the time of Hanbal and his student Bukhari while sitting in Baghdad after 200 years and this approach had been and still continue for personal, sectarian, and political objectives. 
All of them famous for Hadees collection - Bukhari, Muslim, Nisai, Abu Dawud, Ibn Maja, Tirmizi, Mujahid, and Ibn Haban, were 1st or 2nd generation Zoroastrian, from the areas presently Iran and Central Asia.   
Qur'an 2:282 tells people to write it down if they borrow from each other to keep it as evidence, yet the Prophet's saying, doing or his approval was so unimportant, left out without written evidence. Prophet himself by using Katibs to write the Qur'anic revelation yet an extra revelation had been created in spite of the fact that the Prophet had forbidden anyone including his companions to write anything in his name other than the Qur'an "and whoever has written anything from me other than the Qur'an should erase it" (Muslim Sahih, az-Zuhd:72; Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p.4; The history of The Qur'anic Text by M.M. Al-Azami p. 69). The Qur'anic text speaks to its own demands of social necessity of environment specific to its time and space, not today. 
Qur'an 24:33 allows sex with consent only, yet it is advisory not an order to say "do not force your slave-girls into prostitution." Is the slave girls and forcing them into prostitution is possible today? It is illegal, and even the Qur'an, the Gita, The Tora, or the Injil allowed it, but, the law would decide according to its social and environmental demands and would apply to all members of the society regardless of their color, gender, ethnicity, race or religion.  
The Qur'an 4:24; 23:6; 33:50/52; 70:30 allows both Muslims and the Prophet himself to have sex other than wives with unlimited slave girls. Qur'an 4:25, if a slave girl after obtaining freedom, to marry and after marrying, she indulged in sexual activities other than her husband, her punishment after 4 eyewitnesses who had seen penetration with their own eyes, would receive half the punishment to a woman who was not a slave girl before marrying in her life. Is it possible stoning to death has half penalty too? Is it not evident that Qur'an had been fabricated by the latter-day generations? 
I would beg to offer the question, if this theologian and million others like him who day in and day out misguiding Muslim public, would say that both Qur'an and Prophet were allowing and doing as per theologians understanding about sex today, "out of wedlock was illegal and a sin?" Therefore, if we buy their interpretation, then Qur'an and the Prophet, both were sinners (nauzubillah)? If not then would these theologians would not recognize their position outside of the Qur'anic domain? 
The Qur'an and Prophet had inherited the culture of Mecca, and it was part of the culture of the land which was Priori to the Qur'an and Islam. It was a slave society and slave norms, values, ethics, and laws of its time and space become part of the Qur'anic text. Society's change, but every change is not an improvement, yet every improvement is a change. As its environment change due to the change in its means of production and development, the culture of social life is bound to change and religion is an important element of the culture not culture itself. Every culture must have to be inclusive because it is born out of social life and the development and evolution of social life is due to the law of proximity not because of color, ethnicity, sects, races, or religion of the people.   
There is nothing called shari'a in Islam, this is a modern political slogan. First time in history the term shari'a was used by Indian scholars Faizi in 1940. The law which had developed in colonial political Islam is known as Fiq and it was for its own time and environment not for today. 
The Qur'an 9:71 declared Muslim men and Muslim women are friends and do good things and forbid bad things. Why Qur'an have to issue this statement? Because the bigotry on the basis of gender discrimination had been and is an ongoing process for thousands and thousands of years of human history.  Is it possible for men and women to be friends without socialization or if there is the rule of hijab and mahram? This was the answer to those who think that meeting of man and woman mean to involve in sexual activities. That is why Qur'an is trying to remove the mindset of nagavity which is dangerous to human social life. 
The Qur'anic word اَوۡلِيَآءُ they translated except Brailvi, to all kind of different meanings but avoided to translate it a friend in Qur'an 9:71 yet the same word in Qur'an 4:144 where everyone had translated it, friend. There are many Hadees even by Bukhari that women were playing music and singing for no one else but for the Prophet himself. 
The terror machine behind the Muslim terror ideology even today trying to falsify the Qur'an, Hadees, and Prophet name. All those criticizing the Saudi reform movement, forgetting its history. 
King Abdul Aziz who had used the extremists to conquer the massive land, had crushed Ikhwani extremists by using his own army who came in the way of his reform movement. This had happened with King Faisal Ben Abdul Aziz too. He had used his army to crush those who were revolted in opposition to women's education and took arms against his government. MBS is following the footsteps of the success story of his grandfather and uncle in the historical path of his struggle to improve the social settings, better choices, and the lifestyle for his people to make it an open and free environment for its citizen's to enjoy the free choice of their life.  
Therefore the Indians, Pakistani, and others, before embarking on the stage to start barking on someone else, just need to try to obtain proper knowledge and information so as not to become a laughing stock at international public platforms.

No comments: