Author Topic: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam  (Read 617 times)

morbidenigma

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1055
  • Karma: -23
Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« on: January 08, 2010, 07:58:53 PM »
now this isn't no character assassination, but is it true the prophet(PBUH) married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consumated their marriage when she was 9 years old ?

Ii asked someone who knows more about Islamic history then myself and he told me the prophet(PBUH) consummated their marriage when she was between 9-12 and it was justifiable. He gave the justification that it was a normal part of Arab 'Lifestyle' at that time.   Having sex with a 9-12 year would be seen as immoral, unethical, illegal and vulgar practice in 2010, so clearly the Islam at the time was based on the way people lived back then.

Now if you go by the example i've given in the vast difference between now and should it be realistic that Islam should be 100% applied the same way as it was back then ? If you look at it objectively, no one can deny (however you want to spin it or twist it)that a lot of Islam is based on the culture and lifestyles of people living in Mecca at that time. For example the fasting guidelines and how men were solely responsible for supporting their families financially, which i will will elaborate on below.

1) Fasting guidelines were implemented on the fact that Meccans were traders who  basically worked when they chose to, the equivalent of what you'd call self employed in this day and age. Also it was normal(even now for many) at the time for Meccans to sleep 5-6 hours a day in the hot weather, normally during the period between Fajr-Zuhr, Zuhr-Asr, Asr-Maghrib. Now should there be the same fasting guidelines for Muslims who live in much different working and environmental lifestyles to that of Mecca 1400 years ago ?

2) The instruction on men supporting their families were based on the fact that Mecca was full of rich merchants who could easily support their family financially without the need for women and children having to go out to work. Now we all know in the real world unless your last name is Hilton the chances are that you will have to go out work.
 

THETRUTHUG

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
  • Karma: 9
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2010, 06:28:50 AM »
heres a lil video about the marriage with Aisha

 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2010, 04:49:40 AM »
Let me get my theological bang on. IMO,


Muhammad was a reformer.


Although he worked with what immediately faced him at the time, he intended for Islam to change, evolve and adapt with the times as human customs and thinking evolves.



The problem with Islam today is that the gates of itijihad have been thrown shut...


And the gates of itijihad are only open in countries where religious freedom reigns.


Originally, that is, the O.G Islam was intended to be open to interpretation and was a lot more personal and not as rigid as it is today. It has become stagnant the same way Catholicism stagnated Jesus's movement when it codified and corporatized it.


It is inevitable that in the coming century a sort of reformation of Islamic thought will take place as muslims reject the shopping holiday that has become the Hajj, and likewise the rigid fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamist extremists and the oligarchial Arab-centricism...then individual muslims will throw open the gates of itijihad and begin a flourishing of new Islamic sects and thought.





 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10908
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2010, 01:28:04 AM »
Let me get my theological bang on. IMO,


Muhammad was a reformer.


Although he worked with what immediately faced him at the time, he intended for Islam to change, evolve and adapt with the times as human customs and thinking evolves.



The problem with Islam today is that the gates of itijihad have been thrown shut...


And the gates of itijihad are only open in countries where religious freedom reigns.


Originally, that is, the O.G Islam was intended to be open to interpretation and was a lot more personal and not as rigid as it is today. It has become stagnant the same way Catholicism stagnated Jesus's movement when it codified and corporatized it.


It is inevitable that in the coming century a sort of reformation of Islamic thought will take place as muslims reject the shopping holiday that has become the Hajj, and likewise the rigid fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamist extremists and the oligarchial Arab-centricism...then individual muslims will throw open the gates of itijihad and begin a flourishing of new Islamic sects and thought.


Nice post.  Yes, if you notice the Qu'ran is ambiguous, while the Shariah and traditional Sunni sects can be rigid.  The 4 major Sunni scholars formulated their jurisprudence around 100-200 years after the Prophet Muhammad had passed away.  Scholars are jealous in gaining followers and having their rulings respected and accepted.  Also, like you said it can get codified by the state much the way it did under the Abbassids in 9th century Baghdad.  

Still, I don't know why you disrespected Hajj as being a shopping holiday?  Have you been to Hajj?   Because I have been to Hajj and that is a gross characterization to call it a shopping holiday.  In fact, the Qu'ran does not restrain people from engaging in business while in Mekkah, many people pay their way to Hajj and feed their families by work and trading in Mekkah and Medina.  I didn't see it as being any distraction, or taking away from the struggle and sacrifice of Hajj.  It's not like Mekkah is Paris or New York or anything, it is still very humble and earnest.

...also, as a side note, if you notice the Qu'ran says the Hajj is for the sacred monthS.  Notice the (S) makes it plural.  Their were 4 sacred months, and I personally believe that the original intent was never to insist that everybody had to go at the same time of the year during the month of Thul-Hijjah.

2:197

Hajj shall be observed in the specified months. Whoever sets out to observe Hajj shall refrain from sexual intercourse, misconduct, and arguments throughout Hajj. Whatever good you do, GOD is fully aware thereof. As you prepare your provisions for the journey, the best provision is righteousness. You shall observe Me, O you who possess intelligence.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 01:29:57 AM by Infinite... Be and It Is »
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10908
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2010, 01:33:33 AM »
now this isn't no character assassination, but is it true the prophet(PBUH) married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consumated their marriage when she was 9 years old ?

Ii asked someone who knows more about Islamic history then myself and he told me the prophet(PBUH) consummated their marriage when she was between 9-12 and it was justifiable. He gave the justification that it was a normal part of Arab 'Lifestyle' at that time.   Having sex with a 9-12 year would be seen as immoral, unethical, illegal and vulgar practice in 2010, so clearly the Islam at the time was based on the way people lived back then.

Now if you go by the example i've given in the vast difference between now and should it be realistic that Islam should be 100% applied the same way as it was back then ? If you look at it objectively, no one can deny (however you want to spin it or twist it)that a lot of Islam is based on the culture and lifestyles of people living in Mecca at that time. For example the fasting guidelines and how men were solely responsible for supporting their families financially, which i will will elaborate on below.

1) Fasting guidelines were implemented on the fact that Meccans were traders who  basically worked when they chose to, the equivalent of what you'd call self employed in this day and age. Also it was normal(even now for many) at the time for Meccans to sleep 5-6 hours a day in the hot weather, normally during the period between Fajr-Zuhr, Zuhr-Asr, Asr-Maghrib. Now should there be the same fasting guidelines for Muslims who live in much different working and environmental lifestyles to that of Mecca 1400 years ago ?

2) The instruction on men supporting their families were based on the fact that Mecca was full of rich merchants who could easily support their family financially without the need for women and children having to go out to work. Now we all know in the real world unless your last name is Hilton the chances are that you will have to go out work.

You have the right idea.  Scholars and their followers wanted to prevent other interpretations from entering the arena of ideas/scholarship.  So therefore the Shariah and 4 Sunni schools of the thought that were formulated and developed 200 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad were very rigid and confining.

You have the right idea that it is foolish for Muslims to take Muhammad's life out of context and insist that we try to live like it's still the 7th century, and that certain Hadiths weren't specific to those times and conditions.
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2010, 06:14:27 AM »
Yes I'm most probably wrong about the whole 'Hajj is a shopping holiday' thing, when I wrote that my mind was in bang mode out to smear, destroy and create, so my apologies, my bad.  ;)

Last year I did some reading on Sharia law in colonial Britain for a comparative law subject and I was surprised to learn that Islam originally was not rigid in iinterpretations at all. The British colonialists were the first to ever codify Sharia law, that is, particular interpretations of the Koran were first taken together and, written down and applied as State law by non-Muslims (the British colonialist magistrates) even though Muslims today in ex-British colonies defend Sharia law as if it is 'Islamic law', it is infact not Sharia law but what was once called 'Anglo-Mohammadan Law' in colonial times, and codification favored particular interpretations for sake of creating a coherent legal system at the expense of itijihad. The State called it Muslim Law and so over the years identity with what it is to be a Muslim became synonymous with the State laws that were enforced as 'Sharia Law'. So in the British colonies the magistrates would enforce polygamous marriage on muslims even though some Muslims may not have followed such an interpretation of Islam. Today, Muslims defend their 'right' to polygamous marriage as if it is Islamic Law, however polygamous marriage (and child marriage) is only justified by a specific interpretative school of thought on Islam, not in general by a reading of the Koran itself, for instance, in Indonesia (ex-colony of Portugal) the country with the largest Muslim population, polygamous and child marriage is considered abnormal by Indonesian Muslims, as illustrated this is helped along by the State favoring particular interpretations with codification into law and State enforcement helps define for it's subjects what it means to be a Muslim as citizens associate what it is to be a Muslim with their legal rights as a Muslim.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2010, 06:54:25 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10908
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2010, 10:16:29 PM »
Yes I'm most probably wrong about the whole 'Hajj is a shopping holiday' thing, when I wrote that my mind was in bang mode out to smear, destroy and create, so my apologies, my bad.  ;)

Last year I did some reading on Sharia law in colonial Britain for a comparative law subject and I was surprised to learn that Islam originally was not rigid in iinterpretations at all. The British colonialists were the first to ever codify Sharia law, that is, particular interpretations of the Koran were first taken together and, written down and applied as State law by non-Muslims (the British colonialist magistrates) even though Muslims today in ex-British colonies defend Sharia law as if it is 'Islamic law', it is infact not Sharia law but what was once called 'Anglo-Mohammadan Law' in colonial times, and codification favored particular interpretations for sake of creating a coherent legal system at the expense of itijihad. The State called it Muslim Law and so over the years identity with what it is to be a Muslim became synonymous with the State laws that were enforced as 'Sharia Law'. So in the British colonies the magistrates would enforce polygamous marriage on muslims even though some Muslims may not have followed such an interpretation of Islam. Today, Muslims defend their 'right' to polygamous marriage as if it is Islamic Law, however polygamous marriage (and child marriage) is only justified by a specific interpretative school of thought on Islam, not in general by a reading of the Koran itself, for instance, in Indonesia (ex-colony of Portugal) the country with the largest Muslim population, polygamous and child marriage is considered abnormal by Indonesian Muslims, as illustrated this is helped along by the State favoring particular interpretations with codification into law and State enforcement helps define for it's subjects what it means to be a Muslim as citizens associate what it is to be a Muslim with their legal rights as a Muslim.

Bottom line for me is that I don't support Shariah (what has come to be known as Islamic law) as a legal system.  Religion is such a personal and subjective thing, that I don't think it can be an affective form of government.  It's possible when the Prophet Muhammad was alive to be the governor/judge/president in legal matters that it was affective, and in comparison to Midevil Christianity the Islamic system thrived over Christianity because it recognized the religions of the Christians and Jews and in many ways allowed progress where Christian law remained stagnant. 

As for your post, I think I differ with you on many of the details.  For example your interpretation of polygamy, and also the idea that Shariah (Islamic Law) is something that was interpreted and formulated by the British.  They may have played a role in helping to standardize, document, and perpetuate certain ideas... but you will find in the Middle Ages when Muslims were dominant in the world the Shariah was being used in many parts of the world by Muslim governments.

 
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2010, 01:06:27 AM »
Well yes what I meant and should have specified is that through the British colonial magistrates, for the first time in history, Islamic law was codified and translated from the Arabic interpretive tradition.  Through codification of Islamic law, the British altered and made Islamic law more rigid through application of the doctrine of precedent; stare decisis, a concept foreign to Islam.  As the traditional Sharia way of applying and making law is called itijihad: instead of relying on precedent, the mufti would reach a decision on a case through independent interpretation of the Qur'an in regards to the particularities of a case.  However, through applying the doctrine of precedent to the Muslims in their territories the British magistrates side-stepped this relativist approach to applying law and contributed to the closure of the gates of itijihad. This was probably not done purposefully to alter a living faith, more for the sake of control and efficient governance, the British contributed and influenced (along with particular Islamic schools of thought) into making what could have been and should be a very personal faith into a religion with much more rigid and dogmatic interpretive traditions.




Moving on, what do you disagree with what I said about polygamy and Islam?

Verse IV: 3, known as the ‘Verse of Polygamy’ in the Qur’an says:
‘Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice’.

Through this interpretation, Sharia law allows for marriage of up to four wives and this is the classical interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence. However, other interpretations of the Qur’an advocate a prohibition on polygamy, as later in the Qur’an Verse IV: 129 says:
‘Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire’.

Modernist Islamic jurisprudence claims that as a man can never do justice among multiple wives, the Qur’an virtually prohibits polygamy.  For the modernists, justice among wives is not to be taken to simply mean in terms of food, lodging and clothing, but equality in love and affection; and this is impossible as Verse IV: 12 says, so for the modernists the Qur’an by implication prohibits polygamy.  

Therefore as I was saying, polygamous marriage is not generally advocated by the Koran, rather polygamy is only advocated by specific interpretive Islamic schools of thought, not generally by the Koran; as we can see from the contradictory verses. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan) even though some Muslims may not have even subscribed to that particular interpretation of the Koran, the gates of interpretation were helped closed and a living faith stagnated.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2010, 01:33:12 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10908
  • Thanked: 37 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2010, 11:38:14 PM »
Well yes what I meant and should have specified is that through the British colonial magistrates, for the first time in history, Islamic law was codified and translated from the Arabic interpretive tradition.  Through codification of Islamic law, the British altered and made Islamic law more rigid through application of the doctrine of precedent; stare decisis, a concept foreign to Islam.  As the traditional Sharia way of applying and making law is called itijihad: instead of relying on precedent, the mufti would reach a decision on a case through independent interpretation of the Qur'an in regards to the particularities of a case.  However, through applying the doctrine of precedent to the Muslims in their territories the British magistrates side-stepped this relativist approach to applying law and contributed to the closure of the gates of itijihad. This was probably not done purposefully to alter a living faith, more for the sake of control and efficient governance, the British contributed and influenced (along with particular Islamic schools of thought) into making what could have been and should be a very personal faith into a religion with much more rigid and dogmatic interpretive traditions.




Moving on, what do you disagree with what I said about polygamy and Islam?

Verse IV: 3, known as the ‘Verse of Polygamy’ in the Qur’an says:
‘Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice’.

Through this interpretation, Sharia law allows for marriage of up to four wives and this is the classical interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence. However, other interpretations of the Qur’an advocate a prohibition on polygamy, as later in the Qur’an Verse IV: 129 says:
‘Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire’.

Modernist Islamic jurisprudence claims that as a man can never do justice among multiple wives, the Qur’an virtually prohibits polygamy.  For the modernists, justice among wives is not to be taken to simply mean in terms of food, lodging and clothing, but equality in love and affection; and this is impossible as Verse IV: 12 says, so for the modernists the Qur’an by implication prohibits polygamy.  

Therefore as I was saying, polygamous marriage is not generally advocated by the Koran, rather polygamy is only advocated by specific interpretive Islamic schools of thought, not generally by the Koran; as we can see from the contradictory verses. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan) even though some Muslims may not have even subscribed to that particular interpretation of the Koran, the gates of interpretation were helped closed and a living faith stagnated.

word.. nice explanation.
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

morbidenigma

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1055
  • Karma: -23
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2010, 01:30:14 AM »
Some good replies, does anywhere know where i can read up more on how British colonial magistrates altered Islam
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2010, 06:31:53 AM »
I wrote a law essay on it for a comparative law subject, heres some links I referenced that you could peep:


R.Upadhyay, ‘MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW: Should it be politicised’, South Asia Analysis Group, 21 April, 2003, Paper no. 666, http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper666.html

Sri Bipin Bihari Ratho, ‘Uniform Civil Code – A Reflection’, (Gaurav Ghosh: 2000), http://www.hvk.org/articles/0900/124.html




But also heres some of what I wrote, if you read this you should have an understanding of it:

Muslim personal law is applied by the regular Indian court system and descends from British codification of Islamic law during the mid to late 1700s. Before India’s independence the current legal system of Muslim personal law was referred to as ‘Anglo-Muhammadan’ law. Originally, British colonialist courts applied personal law in accordance with the religion of the parties, as the British colonial Regulation II of 1772 stated: ‘in all suits regarding inheritance, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mahomedans, and those of the Shaster with respect to the Gentoos [Hindus] shall be invariably adhered to’.  However, British judges usually had little to no specialised training in Sharia law and being unfamiliar with the Arabic technical expressions due to their exact meaning being lost in translation through codification into English; the judges were often reluctant to apply Muslim law and instead would resort back to English law in deciding a case between Muslim parties. One such case is Moonshee Buzloor v. Shumsoonnissa Begum 1867, when the British colonial magistrates refused to apply Sharia law in regards to a Muslim marriage and instead decided the case on the basis of English law.   Originally the British colonial magistrates in India relied on local mufti’s interpretations to apply Islamic law to the Muslim sections of the population.  Given the huge variety of opinion and difference of interpretation between the muftis; the British later codified Islamic law to make it more accessible to British judges. The codification of Islamic law ended British magistrate’s reliance on the mufti’s interpretations and in 1864 the muftis attached to the courts were withdrawn.  As a result, for the first time in history Islamic law was codified and translated from the Arabic interpretive tradition.  Through codification of Islamic law, the British altered and made Islamic law more rigid through application of the doctrine of precedent; stare decisis, a concept foreign to Islam.  The traditional Sharia way of applying and making law is called ijtihad, and instead of relying on precedent, the mufti would reach a decision on a case through independent interpretation of the Qur'an in regards to the particularities of a case.  However, through the doctrine of precedent the British magistrates side-stepped this relativist approach to applying law. Islamic law as applied by the British magistrate in India was not always strictly Sharia as it was often applied with Western legal influences, such as precedent and codification.  Because of this a chief criticism amongst legal reformers in Indian is that Muslim personal law is not Islamic law anyway, even though Islamic legal conservatives tend to defend it as such. *ref needed* Anglo-Muhammadan lawyers and judges were required under the doctrine of precedent to look to the decisions of higher courts; the highest being the Privy Council, that sat in London. The Privy Council later justified the introduction of the doctrine of precedent with Islamic jurisprudence in regards to the Islamic concept of taqlid that commands obedience to the pronouncements of classical Islamic jurists. Following the doctrine of taqlid, The Privy Council laid down rules of interpretation for the lower British Courts in applying Islamic law; the first being that the courts should not construct or interpret Sharia law in a different way to how it is traditionally interpreted from the classical Islamic jurisprudence.  The Privy Council specified these sources as The Hedaya, the Fatawa Alamgiri and the Shara’ai’ al-Islam.  Also, in administering Sharia law the Privy Council ruled that the British Courts should not introduce new rules and concepts, even through interpretation of the ancient Islamic texts.   The Hedaya interpretation of the Qur’an allows for Muslims to marry up to four wives, it states:
‘It is lawful for a freeman to marry four wives whether free or slaves; but it is not lawful for him to marry more than four, because God has commanded in the Koran, saying “Ye may marry whatsoever women are agreeable to you, two, three, or four”’.
Polygamy was then allowed in India for Muslims and upheld by the British magistrates for Muslim men to marry up to four wives. The British magistrates also upheld the right of a Muslim wife to divorce her husband having entered into a pre- or post-nuptial agreement with the husband that she could divorce him should he take on another wife.  As the British gradually introduced uniform codes Anglo-Muhammadan law became confined to areas such as marriage, family relations, status, divorce, maintenance, property.  Throughout India there was different local customs concerning the application of Sharia law to Muslim life, in response the British passed the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act in 1937 in order to abrogate local customary law and create a uniform code of law for Muslims in India.  With India’s independence and the founding of the Indian Constitution there has been little change to Muslim personal law in India. The Indian Constitution was unable to provide for a uniform civil code, although Article 44 committed the State to pursue the promotion, development and implementation of one. A study done by the Women Resource and Action Group showed that 56% of Indian Muslim women want changes to Muslim personal law such as the abolition of polygamy, and that such changes should come from within interpretation of the Qur’an.  Today in India, the issue of a uniform civil code and Muslim personal law remains highly contentious and polygamous marriage represents a flash point between Islamic legal conservatives and calls for a uniform civil code or theological reformation of Muslim personal law in India.


Generally in Muslim society monogamy is the norm and polygamy the exception. Verse IV: 3, known as the ‘Verse of Polygamy’ in the Qur’an says:
‘Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice’.
Through this interpretation, Sharia law allows for marriage of up to four wives and this is the classical interpretation in Islamic jurisprudence. However, other interpretations of the Qur’an advocate a prohibition on polygamy, as later in the Qur’an Verse IV: 129 says:
‘Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire’.
Modernist Islamic jurisprudence claims that as a man can never do justice among multiple wives, the Qur’an virtually prohibits polygamy.  For the modernists, justice among wives is not to be taken to simply mean in terms of food, lodging and clothing, but equality in love and affection; and this is impossible as Verse IV: 12 says so for the modernists the Qur’an by implication prohibits polygamy.  However the classical tradition within Islamic jurisprudence from where Anglo-Mohammadan law and, by extension Muslim personal in India today draws the majority of its textual authority, contends that the requirement of justice by the husband between wives only applies to maintenance and lodgement, and therefore there is no such prohibition on polygamy.  Instead, the condition of justice between wives is rather a private recommendation or a moral precept.  As a result, in India a Muslim man can contract a polygamous marriage whenever he likes. The classical Islamic schools differ in their approach to dealing with inequality in matters other than love within a polygamous marriage. In Hanafi law, a judge would have no power to dissolve a marriage where there was unequal treatment by the husband towards a wife in matters such as lodgement and maintenance.  Whereas in Maliki law, the marriage may be dissolved in the event of unequal material treatment of a wife within a polygamous marriage.  However, as illustrated earlier, the British colonial magistrates in India upheld the right of the wife to divorce a husband if he had violated a marriage contract not to take another wife.  In Sainuddin v Latifanness Bibi (1918), the British colonial magistrate in Calcutta ruled that a wife who had divorced herself from her husband after he took a second wife was empowered to do so through her reliance on a verbal post-nuptial agreement she had made with the husband not to take a second wife.  Despite the continuance of these rights under Muslim personal law, the codification of Islamic law by the British colonial magistrate in India likewise contributed to the ‘closure of the gate of ijtihad’ as fresh interpretation in response to the changing social fabric was rendered stagnant.



Today in independent India polygamy is legal for Muslims due to continued application of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 from the British period. Paragraph 2 of the Act states:
‘In all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding…marriage…the rule of decision in case where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)’.
Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 is British colonial legislation that remained in force following India’s independence and adoption of its Constitution. The Constitution Draft Committee that developed the Indian constitution favoured the enactment of a common civil code however; this was strongly opposed by Hindus and Muslims resulting in a failure to reach a consensus on a civil code. The particular religious personal laws, such as Muslim personal law, were left untouched by the Indian Constitution that came into force on 26th January 1950.  Considering the Constitution Draft Committee’s failure to reach consensus for a civil code under the Indian Constitution, a compromise was reached under Article 44 that commits the State of India to endeavour towards the implementation of a uniform civil code for all Indian citizens. At the time of drafting of the Indian Constitution, members of the Constitution Draft Committee dissented at the exclusion of a provision for the establishment of a uniform civil code on the premise that separate personal laws, based on religion, would hold India back from developing nationhood and unity.  Article 44 of Indian Constitution says- "The State shall endeavour to secure the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India".  The introduction of uniform civil code would have created a common law for all Indian citizens in relation to marriage, divorce, maintenance, etc, regardless of religious persuasion. Under Article 13, the Indian Constitution provided that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, remains in force so long as they are not inconsistent with the Constitution.  Due to the absence of a provision for a uniform civil code, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act  of 1937 remained consistent with the Constitution and, as a result continues in operation, upheld by the Indian Supreme Court.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2010, 06:37:17 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2010, 11:47:39 PM »
. However, the British enforced polygamy and upheld it for Muslims in their colonial territories (what today are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan)

No sir
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2010, 05:35:48 AM »
^
acknowledged.

Probably best to peep my essay on it above, should be more airtight.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2010, 07:36:27 AM »

Its not that the British 'created' Sharia law, rather they favored a political Koranic interpretive vein of thought in governance of their territories, that in turn helped define that religion's traditions. Muslim polygamy in India today, for instance, legally stems from colonial  British codification of the Arabic literature and interpretive tradition among Muslims in India. So for you to personally be a Muslim, polygamy is enforced upon you by the State as per your religious status. No longer then did itijihad apply..

My original point was about itijihad and it's demise in history.  



Itijihad was like the free thinking of Islam, that flame of consciousness within Islam, that light that spark [insert illuminati, paranoia invoking light/dark symbolism here]  ;)


Its like Islam loses constitutional right rep points when that gate is closed; when dogma and tyranny become mutually symbiotic. Its not just that though, its anything....


Democratic government and liberalism can pick up where religion falls off to provide an overall rule of law within where thought can habitate.  

Of course you can say the same type of loss of itijihad happens with democracy and liberalism....and BOOM post-modernism cuts through like a lobotomy.



'Not even the golden arthritis of King Midas can buy peace for the righteous'.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 07:39:13 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

basudec1509

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: -1
Re: Questions about the prophet(PBUH)and Islam
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2010, 11:41:18 AM »
hello guys ...


its really nice and informative post....


i just liked it....


thanks for your information guys ...........