Response to Rafi Raza 

Dear Rafi Raza,

 

This is positively my last post on this subject as I firmly believe the arguments have now turned circular. It is not that I am unaware of the existence of the verses you cite therefore, I am at loss to understand what purpose your sharing them here is going to serve.

If you wish to approach these verses in a literal sense, by all means go ahead and do so. Furthermore,  I acknowledged the limitation of my approach right at the beginning of the debate therefore, you don't need to convince me that there are a number of shortcomings to it.

My responses were merely to demonstrate to you and others interested in this topic that there are different ways of looking at these issues, that there are ways of getting around the literalism that we so often encounter in religious discourse.  You can take them or leave them--your choice.

I am not providing a "convoluted" rationale simply to "win an argument". There is nothing convoluted about the concept of "Istislah." I care deeply about  Muslims.  I want us to make progress and this is my way of providing a solution to long-standing theological impasses.

Coming back to the verses, I am not denying their existence, I am simply suggesting an alternative to approaching them. This alternative involves a contextualization of the verses. Certainly the command is as clear as day to cut the hands off thieves but my argument is that it is relevant only in a particular social context. I am also not denying the existence of the hadith about Fatima Bint Mohammad. But again what was the context of the hadtih? In our contemporary world, where we have prisons, where we have a full-fledged judicial system, there is no need to administer punitive measures in this fashion.  My contention is that by substituting this punishment with prison terms I am not violating an Islamic principle--the principle being punishment for theft.

You ask why I am recommending Islamic juristic principles while at the same time appreciating Tarek's book. All I can say is that your question reflects a typical case of comparing apples with oranges. A "golden age"is discussed in the context of  advancements in Muslim culture. It has nothing to do with juristic principles which were formulated before the so-called golden age came into existence. What I am contending is that there are  principles within Islamic juristic thought that can be used to arrive at regulations that are far more benign than the ones we have seen in recent Islamic  history, particularly as evidenced in the infamous hadood laws of Pakistan.  

Again, I am not suggesting that modern laws are perfect.  Sure enough there are many social ills that are accepted by societies and by all means they should be obliterated through tougher legal measures. But as long as we have the option to debate and evaluate  laws in Parliament, there is hope that we will be able to check the incidence of these social ills, even eradicate them. What gives you the impression that I am justifying sodomy, incest and other social pathologies?  My bone however is with the rigidity with which religious law is applied. Such rigidity does not permit a discursive approach to laws and social regulations. Religious law comes  to be regarded as sacrosanct whereas temporal law, however imperfect, can still be subjected to scrutiny and hence done away with if it doesn't work.

Needless to say, I am disappointed that you and others on this forum who represent the intelligentsia don't quite get the drift of my arguments . What hope do I have then, of convincing the uneducated masses that in order to make progress, Muslims need to inject a degree of flexibility in their outlooks so as to  align their thinking with contemporary notions of what it means to be free and equal.

 

Regards,

Farzana