While commenting on a Tribune Express Article "Couple flogged for staying together after ‘I divorce you’" a TV anchor wrote on his FB page wrote: "Perhaps on literal reading of Quran & Sunnah the village Panchayyat is right, but such decisions make modern life impossible ... "
I believe that there is a serious contradiction with in this statement, in the first phrase Mr Anchor says that the judgement is correct as per Quran and Sunnah, ... when you say this you are agreeing with the epistemological foundation of Islam, and as a Muslim you don't have a choice either, as a Muslim is one who submits to the commandments of Allah or the divine law, and do Ijtihad in the law as per the room provided within, no questions asked (as per best of knowledge, this definition is from Quran and Sunnah) ... and once you are doing so, you assume Islam's epistemology as supreme, no other standard no matter how modern it may be is not acceptable to you over Islamic epistemology. Now if a Muslim (despite considering Quran and Sunnah as supreme) holds modern standards as supreme then would it not be plain hypocrisy, double standards etc? How come a person can claim to be following two standards? Either he is lying about his being Muslim, or is confused, or he is a plain hypocrite.
However it would be justified for a non-Muslim to hold such views as held by the TV anchor, he as wouldn't contradict with himself, simply because he is not a Muslim.
In my view the TV anchor and all those who agree to his statement need to learn the difference between internal and external critique of an epistemology, and how it is done while remaining within the limits of Shariah. Please read Maududi's article (originally written in 1936) Aqleeat ka fraib (part 1 and 2), page 89 - 113, in his book Tankeehat, republished in 2010 by Islamic Publications pvt ltd.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to Jamat-e-Islami, nor I am its fan. Maududi's articles appeal to my rationality, greatly. I have not also read the tribune article, I have just commented on the statement of TV anchor.
I believe that there is a serious contradiction with in this statement, in the first phrase Mr Anchor says that the judgement is correct as per Quran and Sunnah, ... when you say this you are agreeing with the epistemological foundation of Islam, and as a Muslim you don't have a choice either, as a Muslim is one who submits to the commandments of Allah or the divine law, and do Ijtihad in the law as per the room provided within, no questions asked (as per best of knowledge, this definition is from Quran and Sunnah) ... and once you are doing so, you assume Islam's epistemology as supreme, no other standard no matter how modern it may be is not acceptable to you over Islamic epistemology. Now if a Muslim (despite considering Quran and Sunnah as supreme) holds modern standards as supreme then would it not be plain hypocrisy, double standards etc? How come a person can claim to be following two standards? Either he is lying about his being Muslim, or is confused, or he is a plain hypocrite.
However it would be justified for a non-Muslim to hold such views as held by the TV anchor, he as wouldn't contradict with himself, simply because he is not a Muslim.
In my view the TV anchor and all those who agree to his statement need to learn the difference between internal and external critique of an epistemology, and how it is done while remaining within the limits of Shariah. Please read Maududi's article (originally written in 1936) Aqleeat ka fraib (part 1 and 2), page 89 - 113, in his book Tankeehat, republished in 2010 by Islamic Publications pvt ltd.
Disclaimer: I do not belong to Jamat-e-Islami, nor I am its fan. Maududi's articles appeal to my rationality, greatly. I have not also read the tribune article, I have just commented on the statement of TV anchor.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Use of any abusive or inappropriate language will give us a reason to delete your comment.