Your
response to Farzana has confused me. Are you
'for' literal meaning of Quranic verses
which very clearly encourages animosity
against Jews and Christians, sanctions
cutting hands of thieves, flogging
adulterers, also allows slavery, wife
beating, propagates inferiority of women
over men.
But If you are not in favor of imposition of
literal meaning as you mentioned "I do agree
with the use of “reason and revelation—a
principle endorsed by the Quran” then please
tell me who should do the reasoning or
choose which of the two ayats on the same
subject but with quite different literal
meanings applies to one particular
situation, who? "Ten, twenty or thirty
undemocratically self appointed members of a
forum or congress? Or by Golden hands of
Royals of Arabia? " Also if a mujthahid a
somewhat educated Muslim (99% Canadian
Muslims may claim to be somewhat educated)
is allowed by you to make up his own ruling
for himself (which is quite a liberal
approach) unless is appointed by a Sharia
Government or God.” Which Sharia Sunni, Shia,
Ismaili, Bohri, Alawi, and what do you mean
"(appointed by) God". It is the God's word
in Quran which is causing this controversy.
Also I am confused why you included nuclear
bombs and number of inmates in US prisons in
this enlightening discussion on extreme
punishments and discriminations in Islam. Do
you mean if we could impose Sharia law in US
number of inmates will reduce?
Bringing atrocities committed by other
communities to justify or water down similar
acts by followers of our religion is neither
in line with this discussion (Muslim
jurisprudence) not a good argument that if
we are bad then they are even worse.
I think I may have missed something in your
well researched article. I will be happy to
correct myself
Syed H. Haider