Half million Kashmiri Pandits, refugees in their own country
170,000 Muslims killed by Muslims in Syria, no one gives a shit100 Muslims killed by jews in Gaza, everyone loses their mind.....
This is in response to Amina Sherwani’s posts
Is A Woman’s Testimony Worth Half That of A Man?
Read the article cited above.
As far as inheritance is concerned, there is
at least one situation when a female inherits twice that of the male. If a
person is survived by only parents and no children or siblings, then the
fathers fixed share is
1/6 and mother’s 1/3. The rationale appears to be that in the absence of any
children to support them which is the case when someone dies without any living
siblings, the mother’s needs are greater than the father’s since the father can
potentially earn his keep.
In other cases, the difference is that whereas
an adult male has responsibility to support his dependent members of the family
including his wife, children, parents and siblings, a woman has no such
responsibility. If a woman spends out of her means on any member of her family,
it will count as zakat. Not so for the man. The higher inheritance must
therefore be seen in the light of the higher responsibility.
In cases where distribution according to the
law leads to injustice because of specific circumstances, the instrument of the
will can be used to alter the inheritance and make the distribution just. In
general, women have benefited from the law since there are numerous cases of
women who are supported financially by male family members other than their
father or husband and they could keep their inheritance as their own without
being made to spend it on others.
As far as marriage and polygamy are concerned,
the Quran limits the number of wives to four rather than allow/disallow
polygamy. Since the Quran is silent on the number of husbands a woman may have,
a woman may be considered free to have as many husbands as she wishes so long
as all her husbands are willing partners in the relationship. Marriage is a
civil contract and the partners are free to add any clause of their choice to
the contract such as whether the husband can take a second wife without
divorcing the first. If Islam allowed a man to take upto four wives, there were
good reasons for it.
Read any version of the history from
any source. These wars were anything but wars for or against the freedom of
conscience. It wasn't freedom of conscience that the rebels wanted but freedom
from the authority of the Caliph and freedom from paying zakat.
Even a modern day ruler of any
country will act exactly as Abu Bakr (RA) did in identical circumstances. The
rebellion were acts of sedition in the political sense rather than in the
Abu Bakr Siddiqui (RA) was among the
very first to accept Islam. He was well to do but donated everything he had to
the cause of Islam. He was the lone companion of the Prophet when he migrated
to Medina. He is among the Muslims about whom the Quran says are the best of
creatures (khair-ul-bariyati) in verse 98:7.
He is also among the Muslims
referred to in the Quran in the following verse:
(9:100) The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook
(their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them
in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him:
for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for
ever: that is the supreme felicity.
The sacrifices that Abu Bakr (RA) made are beyond compare. He is
above even a shadow of suspicion as far as motives are concerned and as far as
his knowledge of the Quran is concerned, he was given the title of Siddiq by
the Prophet himself for his depth of understanding which comes from true
knowledge. Very clearly, the Quran grants freedom of conscience and very
clearly the Quran also commanded in verse 9:29 to bring all people of the Hejaz
under the political authority of the Prophet and fight against those who rebel
or fail to submit to the political authority.
Ridda literally means “rejection” or “to go back on” and in this
case, it was rejection of the political authority of the Caliph or “to go back
on” the pledge of political support or fealty. In another context, it could be
rejection of faith or belief after having believed.
Those who believe apostasy to be punishable by death will describe
these wars as wars to put down apostasy as justification for their beliefs
since they do not find anything else to support such beliefs. To endorse the
view that the wars were wars on account of rejection (ridda) of faith rather
than rejection (ridda) of political authority of the Caliph is to support
the punishment of killing for apostasy because there is no way you can make out
Abu Bakr (RA) to have been in error when the Quran itself speaks highly of the
vanguard Muslims and he was certainly the foremost among them having been given
the title of Siddiq by the Prophet himself. While certainly no one is
infallible, but these vanguard Muslims were above any serious errors of
judgment in the matter of religion. What is therefore important is to correctly
portray these wars as not wars to put down apostasy but wars against political
As far as Quranic scholarship is concerned, the scholars treat
Mushrik, Kafir and idolator as synonyms almost without exception which includes
those from Al-Azhar also so it does not surprise me when they fail to look at
these wars as not wars to put down political sedition but as wars of apostasy
since many of the same scholars also subscribe to the punishment of killing for
Why Islam needs
a reformation now not before? Because the intersection of forces has fallen
outside supremacism and victimhood. During the time of winning streak from
Medina to Spain and to India nobody thought of reformation. There were outbursts
of supremacism. When the West captured all Islamic countries there were cries
of victimhood; Reformation was not warranted as the fault lies entirely with
the West. Now Islam is facing a new situation first time where there is neither
supremacism nor victimhood. The fault lies with Muslims themselves, especially
with the two opposing Islamic super powers Saudi Arabia and Iran. There is no
indication that this Sunni-Shia divide will be solved in the near future. If
this situation is allowed to deteriorate for another decade there is a possibility
that many Muslims would leave Islam.
It is a wise
thing that Sultan is calling for a reformation; but how many people would
listen to him or how many would curse him? Who is capable of initiating the
reformation? The percentage of success is more when Saudi Arabia and Iran
jointly initiate the reformation for the benefit of all Muslims.
First as a
preparation Islamic scholars should initiate consultation, cooperation and
achieve consensus on many minor issues such as “Who will go to heaven”? Forget
about the dirty kafir. I mean, ‘will the Shia, Sufi, Ahmadi and other Muslims
go to heaven’? Can they tell Allah in heaven “I won’t talk to Shia, Sufi