NOTE: I wrote the following a few hours ago and didnt have time to post until now so the conversation has evolved farther , but whatever
One can hardly argue that laws and ?values? are both topics that merit immense discussion. It would be safe then to assume that they shall be subjected to pristine reasoning.
Trouble is when ?Religion? figures as the corner stone of one?s reasoning it subsequently and inevitably becomes impossible to communicate his/her thoughts to an audience whose belief system is constituted of different sets of ethics. And since ?values? by definition require more emotional investment than analytic thought, more often than not, the rhetorician might appear victorious over the scientist. However since it?s an ?intellectual discourse? we are pretending to have here why not rid ourselves of the persuasive language and adopt a more logical an approach?
To deem ?sex? a crime on basis that ?it soils the honour of the culprit?s family? is baseless if we take in consideration that honour is subjective by it?s very nature. And what of those persons of whom can be found no living family members, Are they then after being accused to be vindicated of all charges once that fact is established? And talking of ?subjective?, allow me an attempt at a bit of ?subjective? analysis.
The comparison should have ran something like this:
Adolph Eichmann. : Adhered, participated, and oversaw inhumane maltreatment and deportation of Austrian Jews to concentration camps in Poland, advocated the use of Zyklon B and gas chambers as means of exterminating the Jews of Europe, Escaped prosecution to settle in Argentina from 1946-60?
?. (The rap sheet goes on)
Amina Lawal. : Had sex
Eichmann: = tried and convicted of crimes against humanity
Lawal: = tried and convicted of crimes against?
There is No denying that ?punishments?
?.that involve stoning, amputation and flogging are meant to deter people from committing those crimes.? And I for one will be scared sh*tless to be condemned to such a brutal fate as ?death by stoning?
My frustration however is: do laws function merely as a method of scaring the hell out of a person while denying him/her the basic right to challenge the logic behind them?
Or is the aim of a law: to provide the human kind with a lucid sense of duty, responsibility, and personal integrity in preserving a condition of social order and justice?
Usman11 ( Big ups ! for the guts :wink: )
On the question of Prophet Mohammad?s (PBUH) domestic affairs, its indeed a very sensitive topic and I will do the best I can to comment without stirring up any unrest, a person of an Islamic background understandbly often finds himself posed in a defensive or apologetic posture when confronted with the topic,
As any dyed in the wool evangelist would for his Christ, or a Communist for his Marx.
But facts remain facts and must be presented since this is an ?intellectual? conversation, which (I?m confident that we can all agree) knows not taboos or boundaries. Besides the question has been raised, thus must be met with an answer however bitter.
The instance you made reference to, did in fact take place
The ?adopted son? in question is none other than Zaid (or ?Zayad? depending on the source). Zaid was a servant of the prophet (PBUH) and the divorcee.
The woman being Zainab, who was indeed married to Zaid,
And the prophet did marry her after her divorce.
There is a brief mention of the event in the holy Qur?an
Sura: 33 (the clans) ayah 36 ? 39
[33.36] And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.
[33.37] And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom you had shown a favour: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, we gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.
[33.38] There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute:
[33.39] Those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear any one but Allah; and Allah is sufficient to take account.
The next Ayah however counters that Zaid figures as a son to the prophet.
? wa maa kaana Muhammadun abaa ahadin mi rijalikum wa laakin rasulullahi?
[33.40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things
There go the data, how one process it entirely depends on the person
Its critical however to note that for eons the incident has been discussed at length, and although I do not defy the possibility of negation, I doubt that any ?breakthrough? or general consensus on the matter is within reach. As its true of all topics of such nature to command a great deal of emotional uproar, repression, good faith, and loyalty, not understanding (thus unfit for intellectual discourse which denounces both the personal opinions of a religious enthusiast or the dreamlike ramblings of an inconsequential visionary )
One can sit and biker over Jesus (PBUH) ?intellectual deficiency?, contradiction, Or tire himself with endless arguments on Mohammad (PBUH) and his marriage to a 7 year old or a so called adopted-step-daughter-in-law at the end of the day these things remain facts to be considered studied and regarded within the time frame.