The question what is immoral or unethical is also
based on different human perceptions. The humans of the past considered several
things to be ethical but now after changing circumstances most of them have
unethical for common humans. To cooperate with many such things, classical Islamic
concepts of ‘Maaruf’ “umume balwa” and “welfare of societies” etc are employed
in order to benefit all humans.
Death for “apostasy” is not only referred to
Islamic state but also to Bible of both Christians and Jews etc. Though in
general Hinduism is more tolerant to apostasy, than other religions, and though
Islamic verse ‘there is no compulsion in Religion’ is meant only for non-Muslims
and not for “traitor apostates”, it should be noted that we are living in
democratic countries under certain laws, hence death punishment is not allowed.
So I think it is not better for me to quote all the relevant texts of religions;
Islam, Christanity, Judaism and Hinduism. People who reveal such texts in
unsystematic or un-academic manner willingly or unwillingly give a chance to
common readers to get confused or fall prey to it.
Apostasy plus treason was the reason of death
punishment in the state governed by Islamic law. Those who were apostates were actually
the traitors therefore they were punished to death. Now this law is not
applicable in the democratic countries. Hence there is no use repeatedly crying
over death punishment for apostates. Islamophobic extremists and Islamist
extremists use such texts for their vested interests. Hence we should not pay
attention to it nor should we give space to their ideology in our forum.
Ignorance is playing into the hands of groups like
ISIS or Islamophobes who are keen on burying the truth of the Quran and pushing
down their own agendas instead.
Slavery was never promoted or endorsed by Islamic texts.
Slavery was inherited from pre-Islamic cultures that required to be voluntarily
and gradually weeded out of society through manumission, which was highly
encouraged (Quran: 24:32-33 and 16:71). In Islamic texts we find a plethora of
evidences which encourage to free slaves as it was seen as a highly virtuous
We do not find any evidence in Islamic texts on how
to make slaves. What we find is always on eradicating slavery system.
As for capturing
women in war or otherwise to rape as sex slaves, this is not Islamic and hence it
is immoral. The Quran says, “And successful are the believers who guard their
chastity … except from their wives or those that their right hands possess.”
(23:1-6). This reference is interpreted about sexual relations which are
extremely forbidden with any woman unless she is a spouse or ‘those their right
hands possess’. Clearly speaking this means a concubine, bondmaid or a slave,
but intercourse has to be consensual. Rape is forbidden as it is violent and
Islamic texts demanded for the proper and respectable treatment of slaves. Even
the consensual sexual relations with a slave were not permissible if it caused
harm and abuse elsewhere (e.g. to a wife) as all parties involved would be
to note is that now after the slavery system has been completely eliminated; no
man is allowed to make any free man or woman slave.
One should also
be clear that the sexual relationship made during live-in relationships is also
forbidden as per Islam, be it consensual or abusive.
Why are we stuck with jizya which does not exist in
our era? Historically speaking, jizya was not an instituation created by Islam.
Jizya as an institution was imposed even before Islam in different nations of
different prophets, which protected minorities in exchange for a tributary tax.
After the advent of Islam, Jizya was demanded from permanent non-Muslim
citizens of a state governed by Islamic law in order to fund the public
expenditures of the state including welfare of the poor and needy, whereas the
Muslims were and are obliged to pay zakat, khums and ‘ushr. Jizya, a per capita
yearly taxation, was demaned only from those non-Muslim citizens who could
afford to pay. Non-Muslim women, children, elders, handicapped, the ill, the
insane, monks, hermits, slaves, mustamins and those non Muslims who could not
afford to pay jizay tax were exempted from payment. We do not accept that jizya
was a state of humiliation of non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not accepting
Islam, because if it were true, the monks, the clergy, and those non-Muslims
who could not afford to pay, would not have been exempted.
Today taxation system has completely turned into
several forms and we are obliged now to pay tax in every purchase. So such
debates are not healthy but for those who want to spread notion of humiliation
and state of hatred between two communities.
Yes we observe some of the people who claim to use
their rational faculty but fail to accept what should be acceptable to truly
rational faculty. The accepted method of attaining the Cognitive Affirmation
(Tasdeeq-e-Nazari) is that one should arrange the Simple Affirmations
(Tasdeeq-e-Badeehi) in such a way that they take the one to attain the
Cognitive Affirmation. But this method is not arranged and in some cases if arranged, then
done with irrational methods. Anyway here two masters opposing each other can fight over and their skills
of reasoning will never stop working.
We forget to reason that Affirmation (tasdeeq) is
of two types; (1) Simple Affirmation which is clearly known, such as, the fire
is hot and ice is cold and similar concepts (2) Cognitive Affirmation which is
not clearly known and requires contemplation and thinking, such as the earth is
created or the Creator of man is God Almighty.
Here come some ‘rationalists’ who even succeed to
attain the Cognitive Affirmation that God has created the creation but few of
them again take a step ahead and ask that if God has created everything then "who has
created ‘God’?". Here ends the light of one's mind to attain the fact and then a person with that has to take the support of light of heart and he can
lighten up his heart so perfectly that he attains perfection in his faith and says God is uncreated. His light of heart here has worked in so much more
convincing and affirmative way that none can darken his highest form of faith by using so-called 'rationality' This light takes one to attain the highest form
of Cognitive Affirmation. Several Ahadith also support one to solve the
irrational thought which attacks a person when he starts thinking “who has created
God”. Ahadith say, such thoughts strike minds of the people which are captured
and overcome by the devils. It is the place where the believers achieve so mcuh affirmation that they stop thinking
and instead remain being satisfied with the highest form of affirmation, saying “we believe that
God is uncreated and it is He Alone Who has created everything”. This is the
place where the heart and mind both have worked well. (This is what i once referred to in one of my comments). Let me also make it clear
that the scholars of the past who prevented one from taking one’s thought to
such extreme of irrationaliy was because they had realized the facts with the highest form of
affirmation and it was, in accordance with them, good for the common people who
lack ability of using rational faculty not to take such thoughts which urge one
to think “who has created God”. They taught that one should not use ‘reason’
which creates doubt about God. This teaching was actually the result of good
rationality supported by heart’s faculty but when we do not understand such
people, we blame them not to use reason.
But the question is what about those in this age, who want to
resolve such questions based on their sole faculty of ‘reasoning’ or ‘rationality’?
Shall we help them solve such questions or will it be forcible nature on our part to ask
them to realize the facts on truly factual grounds, in the ways employed by the
scholars of the past. The questions and doubts mostly created today were already answered in the past. except for few, most of doubts are old. Before the people could solve such questions and reach
the higher culmination of rational and mental development, the world has
trapped them including us into debates over “Jihadism and Extremism”. So finally we should first resolve problems of all
round extremism, not just one type confined to ‘Jihadists’.
hate sins not the sinners. Gunah se nafrat kijiye lekin gunahgar se nahi. Kyonki
gunahgar me ek insane bhi rahta hai, jabki gunah insan ka body nahi. This was
common among the spiritual people who explored the world with different sight.
(The New York Times) “Jews are being attacked on the streets of New York. New Yorkers can’t
stand for that. What is called for now is a mass show of solidarity and
rejection of anti-Semitism, which is among the oldest, most insidious hatreds
on the planet.”
inherent attributes of human beings. One can have extreme faith in
fundamentalism but has no right to hate others. Spiritual exploration of
Islamic theories does not have sense of disgusting and hate for any human
the acts may be wrong but the actors still deserve respect.