Fahd is dead

[Maqari]

Ever wonder how almost every time a prominent Islamic figure (or just about anything Islamic) comes up in this forum we wind up discussing the position, actions and inter-actions of the sexes in Islam ?

Waziri,
 I?m afraid, your above assertion leaves behind a curious scent of "looking at things in black and white". How else can one understand your attempt to compare a mere formality with a fundamental human right? What further puzzles me is how you evaded the question Alhj. Aminu raised (which I echoed) by simply seeking to find a situation in the "Western culture" that serves as an example of its flaws ?as if that justifies everything?. This is a diversion from the question, because the concern was raised about something within "our culture" and must be dealt with as such. I personally, have never for a millisecond thought that human right was a "Western" idea. Nor am I speaking as a "Western" ideologue. My dilemma comes from my own culture to which I?m expected to adhere and submit, and I, as a reasoning being naturally question and expect logical explanations.

Moreover when you allow statements like (one shall be physically subjected to pain as a punishment for venting some opinion) to escape your mouth, you certainly must be ready to supply a valid argument.

And yes. Voting (as the right to chose) carries an enormous weight in the equilibrium of equality. In fact it?s right up there with equal opportunity and the rest (as the above discussant already pointed out).  Peace One.

[Maqari]

Alhj. Aminu,

Peep the Islam forum there is a character there by the username Bamalli who posted a rather lenghty discussion of "equality in islam" (apparently there isnt any, according to him).

[_Waziri_]

That was great!

I can see that Maqari, mallamt and Amin all did not agree with me that an analogy with the mode of personality identification in Western culture is not synonymous with what they called "an issue related to fundamental human right"

While the intent of my submission was to only make all see the relativity of concepts as they appear in different cultures, I also wish to point out the truth that the concept of human right from which theyare speaking is only in the way as it is seen in the Western World. And that does not necessarily mean there are no other concepts, and that the West couldn't have been wrong in its formulation or even understanding the essense in life as it relates   rights and liberties and obligations and duties.

For Amin who says:

My contention is that for substantive issues like education, franchise, inheritance, and freedom of choice (especially in marriage), women must be given equal opportunity or access.

I will say I agree with you. But if you say your codes are in the manual of FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS as defined by the West, I will say my code is Qur'an and Hadith.




The point here is it isnot only thru' voting we can justify our claim that we treat women equally with men in our society. I have somewhere above made reference to an interview witha Kuwaiti lady by Winfrey Oprah, who expounded some good things the government of Kuwait does to Women which American government doesn't.

But then, Maqari thinks I view things in black and white afterall you ppl are the ones viewing things that way. If not WHY then do you think that the story is only: WE ALLOW WOMEN TO VOTE and Justify our claim of giving them  equal treatment with men. OR WE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO VOTE and we cannot justify our claim of giving them equal treatment with women?

Why don't you think that for the same JUST and FAIR reasons women are allowed voting in WESTERN countries also Saudi Arabia could deny them that right?

I personally believe that vote or not vote,democracy or not   democracy, communal living has a rule. That is to say: from each according to their  abilities and to each according to their strength. Also people do not get what they deserve in life but rather what they negotiate.

[_Waziri_]

Now, in response to some points raised by Usman, in the issues as related to King Fahd. I must affirm here that Myself and Amin are Muslims and that ofcourse is the reason I referred to him theIslamic way of doing things. In Islam we do not say people commit adultery and fornication unless if we have witnesses to that effect. And that we do not compromise.

You see, if the economist gave that article we could not in anyway use it in our codes to justify the charges against Fahd. The economist is a Magazine operating within a different value system from us as such we must evaluate its inputs with our own gauge. We cannot assume it is credible when we know the reality that all media houses are out to project and protect their own sentiment only. Economist cannot be objective in issuesrelating to our culture, values, justice and politics. And as such the attack against the person of Fahd must be viewed as purely political expedition. It is unfortunate.

[mallamt]

You see, if the economist gave that article we could not in anyway use it in our codes to justify the charges against Fahd. The economist is a Magazine operating within a different value system from us as such we must evaluate its inputs with our own gauge.

If I may say, reading from what you are saying, i do not think the issue is adding to islamic codes.  Rather the issue is should the economist be the only witness or the only ones with the facts to show or prove the charges should we then disregard it because it is coming from the economist?  Let say two people one muslim and another a non muslim witness a muslim murder a non muslim and it the case goes to court with the muslim witness protecting his fellow muslim and thus deny that the muslim murdered the non muslim while the non muslim says the muslim did commit the murder, can we say that there was no murder even if evidence suggests otherwise eventhough the evidence is from a non muslim?

Who or what is the what that is refered to as "us"? this position is not universally accepted even amongst muslims and as such can not be presented as an absolute.

Economist cannot be objective in issuesrelating to our culture, values, justice and politics.

so who is because you are not and they are not were then lies the truth?

[_Waziri_]

Mallamt,

Cases of murder are treated differently from cases of adultery and fornication in Islam. What I discussed above are points restricted to Adultery and Fornication. And the law requires that no matter the amount of people apart from Economist newspaper and the submission of many Islamists in that regard, there must be hard witnesses to that effect. This position is not compromisable at whatever level and its the general inference as seen by scholars of Islamic jurisprudence. It is justified.

So Muslims are not allowed to cast aspersions and label charges of adultery and fornication to people anyhow. This is the crux of the matter and ofcourse, the point of departure between Islamic socio-legal cuture and the rest.

[mallamt]

_waziri_

I get your point in the case of murder okay let us take this scenario two muslims commiting adultry or fornication witnessed by a muslim and non muslim in court the non muslim decides to protect his "comrades" or fellow muslims while the non muslim witness tells the truth of what happened, does the truth coming from a non muslim account for nothing or less of truth?

[Maqari]

Waziri

Again you brought to light many more interesting items in your above respsonses. unfortunately I'm fresh out of time to respond right now. (running outta town for the weekend) I will touch this on monday.

[Nuruddeen]

Whatever. May Allah forgive him his sins and May He continue to guide us in this uncertain journey.