Tweet
I had discussions with few friends on the subject of Quran that the main focus of Quran is religious aspects of life( beliefs, worship and morality). They think that Quran is a complete code of life and is a constitution for Muslims. Following is the last post of my friend on this issue. I copy it here and then I will try to reply to that in subsequent posts. The purpose of this thread is a detailed research and discussion on the subjects of Quran.
You are so wrong, even empirically, that you are relying on repitition of an error to validate it.
Even by your own offered experiment you fail. Take Surah Baqarah for instance. Its length is greater, if I recall than 2/30th of the Quran itself. A rather massive portion (certainly >10%) of that surah alone is direct orders on business transactions, etiquettes of war, dispensation of charity, divorce law, prescription of prayers, fasting, orders of the hajj.
Once again, you are assuming that I am advocating for the utilization of religion in governance. I am not doing that. I am merely pointing out that you are grossly wrong when it comes to the Islamic paradigm of governance as envisioned by the Quran itself.
One of the examples of where real life and Islamic law collided was the communist attempt at land redistribution in Afghanistan proper. While in theory, I may agree that this approach may actually have been righting a wrong, it directly conflicted with how land is distributed and inherited. Pakistan's provinces are more deserving of a land redistribution schema than any part of Afghanistan due to the actual direct collusion of the landed Khans with the British and the fact that Khans that were antagonistic to the Brits were killed/deprived of land and the land was given to another landlord who would comply with British occupation.
You are not refining the argument, but where one might agree with you is the notion that a misapplication of divine law can lead to devastating consequences. Just as if say 100 uneducated Americans went to some random island and attempted to replicate the intricate governance that the constitution endows and the penal code gives life to, the likelihood for misapplication is very high. There was a recent article in the NY Times about how in many situations of FBI entrapment, the accused are able to get off free, but in the case of Muslims its been a 100% conviction rate. This is obviously because trial by jury/peers has become problematic in an environment where not everyone is as informed about the conflict as a michael scheuer or a bernard lewis.
Even then though, there are details of the the divine law, if the constitution of Islam is the Quran, and the jurists writings and the Prophet's example are used as refinements/applicability of the law that permits for more leverage. Take for instance the land redistribution scheme. There were instances where the first two caliphs did have land dealings that broke the typical inheritance patterns. There were, as I mentioned previously instances where the penal code was modified in particular settings based on prophetic example. Finally, Muhammad (S) himself appears to have done quiet a bit of separating the individual from the state. There were two prominent examples: A man came to him to try and admit adultery and the prophet repeatedly turned away from and only instigated questioning when the man insisted he be punished by the state. In yet other instances he indicated that believers ought not air their dirty laundry/sins out in the public and approach God for forgiveness. In yet a final instance/example he indicated that he strongly preferred the believers come to congregation prayers and was extremely angry about their nonattendance but indicated that he would not execute a punishment on them.
With respect to Zaman Shah and brutality etc. Brutality was done due to injustice being rendered. Killing Painda Khan in such a brutal way was unbefitting and tyrannical. But that has nothing to do with Islamic law.
Even in the West there is a very vibrant debate as the USA, the state you worship, is viewed by Europeans to be a barbaric state that punishes crimes with capital punishment. The Europeans also criticize the Americans for not being secular enough.
But once again, the foolish crux of your argument has nothing at all to do with what the Quran is. Its your clear cut goal of subverting it so that Osho can do whatever osho wants. If Osho wants to drink alcohol or do heroine, Osho doesnt want the Quran in the way (even though interestingly enough the Americans themselves played with the concept of prohibition and there is a severe punishment for accessing illegial opioids.)
As I noted, the burden of proof, i.e. proving that the Quranic prescriptions are exactly the same as the spiritual motifs of the new testament has not been at all proven by you.
Your ridiculous repitition of the same 10% argument ought to be reprimanded by the moderators as you simply are repeating an invalid point. E.g. if only 10% of a physics book is Ohms law does that make it less important or valid????
Please come back when you find a way to not parrot ridiculous commentary to validate your own insecurities.
With respect to the caliphs and the Ummayads and Abbasids, your view of them has nothing to do with whether say, Umar bin Abdul Aziz executed the punishments with justice or not. You asked for examples post the Caliphate Rashidun of executioners of the laws of the Quran and we provided it.
You are so wrong, even empirically, that you are relying on repitition of an error to validate it.
Even by your own offered experiment you fail. Take Surah Baqarah for instance. Its length is greater, if I recall than 2/30th of the Quran itself. A rather massive portion (certainly >10%) of that surah alone is direct orders on business transactions, etiquettes of war, dispensation of charity, divorce law, prescription of prayers, fasting, orders of the hajj.
Once again, you are assuming that I am advocating for the utilization of religion in governance. I am not doing that. I am merely pointing out that you are grossly wrong when it comes to the Islamic paradigm of governance as envisioned by the Quran itself.
One of the examples of where real life and Islamic law collided was the communist attempt at land redistribution in Afghanistan proper. While in theory, I may agree that this approach may actually have been righting a wrong, it directly conflicted with how land is distributed and inherited. Pakistan's provinces are more deserving of a land redistribution schema than any part of Afghanistan due to the actual direct collusion of the landed Khans with the British and the fact that Khans that were antagonistic to the Brits were killed/deprived of land and the land was given to another landlord who would comply with British occupation.
You are not refining the argument, but where one might agree with you is the notion that a misapplication of divine law can lead to devastating consequences. Just as if say 100 uneducated Americans went to some random island and attempted to replicate the intricate governance that the constitution endows and the penal code gives life to, the likelihood for misapplication is very high. There was a recent article in the NY Times about how in many situations of FBI entrapment, the accused are able to get off free, but in the case of Muslims its been a 100% conviction rate. This is obviously because trial by jury/peers has become problematic in an environment where not everyone is as informed about the conflict as a michael scheuer or a bernard lewis.
Even then though, there are details of the the divine law, if the constitution of Islam is the Quran, and the jurists writings and the Prophet's example are used as refinements/applicability of the law that permits for more leverage. Take for instance the land redistribution scheme. There were instances where the first two caliphs did have land dealings that broke the typical inheritance patterns. There were, as I mentioned previously instances where the penal code was modified in particular settings based on prophetic example. Finally, Muhammad (S) himself appears to have done quiet a bit of separating the individual from the state. There were two prominent examples: A man came to him to try and admit adultery and the prophet repeatedly turned away from and only instigated questioning when the man insisted he be punished by the state. In yet other instances he indicated that believers ought not air their dirty laundry/sins out in the public and approach God for forgiveness. In yet a final instance/example he indicated that he strongly preferred the believers come to congregation prayers and was extremely angry about their nonattendance but indicated that he would not execute a punishment on them.
With respect to Zaman Shah and brutality etc. Brutality was done due to injustice being rendered. Killing Painda Khan in such a brutal way was unbefitting and tyrannical. But that has nothing to do with Islamic law.
Even in the West there is a very vibrant debate as the USA, the state you worship, is viewed by Europeans to be a barbaric state that punishes crimes with capital punishment. The Europeans also criticize the Americans for not being secular enough.
But once again, the foolish crux of your argument has nothing at all to do with what the Quran is. Its your clear cut goal of subverting it so that Osho can do whatever osho wants. If Osho wants to drink alcohol or do heroine, Osho doesnt want the Quran in the way (even though interestingly enough the Americans themselves played with the concept of prohibition and there is a severe punishment for accessing illegial opioids.)
As I noted, the burden of proof, i.e. proving that the Quranic prescriptions are exactly the same as the spiritual motifs of the new testament has not been at all proven by you.
Your ridiculous repitition of the same 10% argument ought to be reprimanded by the moderators as you simply are repeating an invalid point. E.g. if only 10% of a physics book is Ohms law does that make it less important or valid????
Please come back when you find a way to not parrot ridiculous commentary to validate your own insecurities.
With respect to the caliphs and the Ummayads and Abbasids, your view of them has nothing to do with whether say, Umar bin Abdul Aziz executed the punishments with justice or not. You asked for examples post the Caliphate Rashidun of executioners of the laws of the Quran and we provided it.
Comment