Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, from an Islamic perspective.

[cooterhein]

I've just become aware of this. It was the codification of Islamic law in India during the Mughal Empire, based on Sunni Hanafi Sharia law, its impact on all of south Asia stretching from the 18th to early 20th centuries. I have been able to find- pretty easily- descriptions of its content and application that would easily define it as one of the main reasons why Hindus on the subcontinent of India dislike their Muslim neighbors so much. What I haven't been able to find as easily is the Muslim side of the story. I did try, a little bit, but then I decided this would be easier and also far more effective. I'm assuming there are some Muslim scholars and historians out there who will argue that for reasons, this thing was not so bad, don't demonize us please, it was actually like this. I'm trying to see exactly what that looks like.

On a separate but slightly related note, if anyone knows the exact year that slavery (by law, if not in fact) was officially ended in India, I would appreciate that as well. It was in effect when British rule began, and it was almost outlawed in all of the British empire but an exception was made for India. So I still haven't come up with an end date, I'm not even sure if the question was still in play at the time of the partition.

This might be a pretty quick thread, I'm hoping this is an easy and familiar topic for one or two people.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

So, I think you've gotten the "main reason" as to why Hindus and Muslims dislike one another in the subcontinent entirely wrong: It is famed throughout Indian history and Indian cultural cinema that Ram (Hindu name) and Rahim (Muslim name) were like "blood-brother type friends"
before the British Empire decided to have a "Divide and Conquer" strategy in order to ease their way in dominating the land. For example, In the book Secularism & Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives written by Barry Alexander Kosmin and Ariela Keysarthe, the following is written on pg. 151 under the heading "Emergence of Competitive Politics:

"However, the entire social, economic and political scenario changed after the advent of British rule in the 19th century. Differences between the Hindu and Muslim elites began to emerge for various socio-cultural, economic, and political reasons. The British rules, adopting the policy of divide and conquer, distorted medieval Indian history to make Muslim rulers appear as tyrants to the Hindu elite. This distorted history was taught in the new school system established by the British rulers.

"Economic and political competition also developed between the Hindu and Muslim elites, leading to communal tensions. The Hindu elite were quick to adjust to new realities and took to modern education, commerce, and industries. The Muslim ruling elite resisted teh new secular education and did not take to commerce and industry. They were thus left far behind in the race for progress."

Moreover, you're also ignoring that despite India being touted as a democracy, the truth well-known in Indian politics and known to Indians worldwide is that goons (i.e. politicians) run the country and it is democracy only in a very superficial sense that it is officially called that but the truth is that there is very little law and order in the country and people are not allowed to say or do whatever they want because they can either be killed by police or politicians in a way that they forever disappear without anyone of their family the wiser about their whereabouts. It is, after all, a third-world country for a reason, and politicians use the Great Hindu-Muslim divide that never healed after British rule to incite riots and blame Hindu killings on Muslims and Muslim killings on Hindus when it is well-known both by Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Sikhs that live there that the instigators of the riots are politicians who send their hired guns to do so. In fact, many scandals have been uncovered with politicians having done so but not being prosecuted because it is a country in which graft is a way of life and people are easily able to buy their way out of whatever they want.

Secondly, you mention Fatawa-e-Alamgiri in the context of ill feelings between the two religious groups which leads me to speculate that you are specifically referring to the destruction of Hindu temples? Anyway, in the book Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilisation from the Past written by Firas Alkhateeb, the following is written which would shed light on this matter on pg. 170:

"With regards to relations with non-Muslims, Emperor Aurangzeb has achieved a modern reputation as a bigot ted and intolerant sovereign. His legacy is indicative of the impact that modern politics has on how people understand the past. Worthy of particular scrutiny is the fact that numerous Hindu temples across India were destroyed during his reign. The historical fact, coupled with his intense devotion to Islam, has led many historians and writers in the modern era to refer to him as intolerant and oppressive ruler. But the reason behind his destruction of Hindu temples must be analyzed to understand what kind of ruler he was, and more generally, the nature of Mughal rule itself. During the seventeenth century, temples in India were commonly used as political centers as well as places of worship. Temple leaders regularly served the Mughal Empire as political officers in their respective jurisdictions, helping maintain order and imperial control. The temples destroyed by Aurangzeb correspond to political revolts against Mughal rule led by temple officials, a trend that increased during his reign, especially with teh creation of the Maratha Confederacy that arose in the late 1600s. Thus, in the eyes of the Mughal Empire in the seventeenth century, destroying a temple was not an act of religious oppression, but of political survival. In fact, during Aurangzeb's reign, numerous new temples were built throughout India, and many of his top advisors were Hindus. One of the dangers of a supericial study of history[....]."

I've just become aware of this. It was the codification of Islamic law in India during the Mughal Empire, based on Sunni Hanafi Sharia law, its impact on all of south Asia stretching from the 18th to early 20th centuries. I have been able to find- pretty easily- descriptions of its content and application that would easily define it as one of the main reasons why Hindus on the subcontinent of India dislike their Muslim neighbors so much. What I haven't been able to find as easily is the Muslim side of the story. I did try, a little bit, but then I decided this would be easier and also far more effective. I'm assuming there are some Muslim scholars and historians out there who will argue that for reasons, this thing was not so bad, don't demonize us please, it was actually like this. I'm trying to see exactly what that looks like.

On a separate but slightly related note, if anyone knows the exact year that slavery (by law, if not in fact) was officially ended in India, I would appreciate that as well. It was in effect when British rule began, and it was almost outlawed in all of the British empire but an exception was made for India. So I still haven't come up with an end date, I'm not even sure if the question was still in play at the time of the partition.

This might be a pretty quick thread, I'm hoping this is an easy and familiar topic for one or two people.

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

So, I think you've gotten the "main reason" as to why Hindus and Muslims dislike one another in the subcontinent entirely wrong: It is famed throughout Indian history and Indian cultural cinema that Ram (Hindu name) and Rahim (Muslim name) were like "blood-brother type friends"
before the British Empire decided to have a "Divide and Conquer" strategy in order to ease their way in dominating the land. For example, In the book Secularism & Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives written by Barry Alexander Kosmin and Ariela Keysarthe, the following is written on pg. 151 under the heading "Emergence of Competitive Politics:

"However, the entire social, economic and political scenario changed after the advent of British rule in the 19th century. Differences between the Hindu and Muslim elites began to emerge for various socio-cultural, economic, and political reasons. The British rules, adopting the policy of divide and conquer, distorted medieval Indian history to make Muslim rulers appear as tyrants to the Hindu elite. This distorted history was taught in the new school system established by the British rulers.

"Economic and political competition also developed between the Hindu and Muslim elites, leading to communal tensions. The Hindu elite were quick to adjust to new realities and took to modern education, commerce, and industries. The Muslim ruling elite resisted teh new secular education and did not take to commerce and industry. They were thus left far behind in the race for progress."

Moreover, you're also ignoring that despite India being touted as a democracy, the truth well-known in Indian politics and known to Indians worldwide is that goons (i.e. politicians) run the country and it is democracy only in a very superficial sense that it is officially called that but the truth is that there is very little law and order in the country and people are not allowed to say or do whatever they want because they can either be killed by police or politicians in a way that they forever disappear without anyone of their family the wiser about their whereabouts. It is, after all, a third-world country for a reason, and politicians use the Great Hindu-Muslim divide that never healed after British rule to incite riots and blame Hindu killings on Muslims and Muslim killings on Hindus when it is well-known both by Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Sikhs that live there that the instigators of the riots are politicians who send their hired guns to do so. In fact, many scandals have been uncovered with politicians having done so but not being prosecuted because it is a country in which graft is a way of life and people are easily able to buy their way out of whatever they want.

Secondly, you mention Fatawa-e-Alamgiri in the context of ill feelings between the two religious groups which leads me to speculate that you are specifically referring to the destruction of Hindu temples? Anyway, in the book Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilisation from the Past written by Firas Alkhateeb, the following is written which would shed light on this matter on pg. 170:

"With regards to relations with non-Muslims, Emperor Aurangzeb has achieved a modern reputation as a bigot ted and intolerant sovereign. His legacy is indicative of the impact that modern politics has on how people understand the past. Worthy of particular scrutiny is the fact that numerous Hindu temples across India were destroyed during his reign. The historical fact, coupled with his intense devotion to Islam, has led many historians and writers in the modern era to refer to him as intolerant and oppressive ruler. But the reason behind his destruction of Hindu temples must be analyzed to understand what kind of ruler he was, and more generally, the nature of Mughal rule itself. During the seventeenth century, temples in India were commonly used as political centers as well as places of worship. Temple leaders regularly served the Mughal Empire as political officers in their respective jurisdictions, helping maintain order and imperial control. The temples destroyed by Aurangzeb correspond to political revolts against Mughal rule led by temple officials, a trend that increased during his reign, especially with teh creation of the Maratha Confederacy that arose in the late 1600s. Thus, in the eyes of the Mughal Empire in the seventeenth century, destroying a temple was not an act of religious oppression, but of political survival. In fact, during Aurangzeb's reign, numerous new temples were built throughout India, and many of his top advisors were Hindus. One of the dangers of a supericial study of history[....]."

Well, in part, this is is a Hanafi sharia-based law document formalizing slavery of non-Muslims in South Asia in general and on the Indian subcontinent in particular, running roughly from the early 18th century to the early 20th. That would be the thing about it that makes Hindus not like Muslims in this area- the formalized rules of slavery whereby Muslims enslave Hindus. Blood-brother type friends indeed.

No I didn't get this from an Islamophobic site, no I didn't get this from American cinema. I got this from getting curious about the extent and timetable of the Arab slave trade, and as it turns out this is the document in which Sharia law pertaining to the enslavement of South Asian people is found. (During this empire, at least). Were you aware that this particular compilation of law includes extensive sections related to slavery and pillaging? It's there. In the thing. It also includes copious supporting references to other Hanafi texts. It was created and compiled by 500 experts in Islamic jurisprudence from Medinah, Baghdad, Delhi and Lahore. Of course it dealt with every kind of Islamic law, but some of it had to do with slavery and pillaging, specifically when Muslims would enslave and/or pillage Hindus, which I'm sure was of some interest to those Hindus.

So. The slavery and pillaging privileges codified therein. What do you suppose that was like? How would you describe that to a non Muslim? Are you going to tell me it's not really a big thing?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, due to my father's job as a civil engineer who was into building projects, we traveled the globe frequently. And I have been to India and have lived in India too. So, I think I know when I am referencing "Ram" and "Rahim" I'm not talking out of thin air because it's a Hindi cultural reference that is still used today in Indian cinema that is known as Bollywood to outsiders. And this cultural reference is also part of how Muslims and Hindus who are not into the religious-feud-mentality speak when talking nostalgically about the matter before British rule ruined the memorialized friendship. In fact, even in this article which is not related specifically to your post but is a side pertinent discussion, you'd find what I'm talking about: "Cutting Across Barriers: Ram and Rahim are one, say villagers in this obscure village."

As to the slavery aspect, while I am familiar with the Arab slave trade, I am not familiar with the slavery or pillaging aspect of this Hanafi shariah-based law document and therefore I cannot comment on that specifically. Certainly, I feel I would be talking out of turn as I don't know the specifics of the slavery aspect of this document as to the law or context.

Also, I believe you when you say you didn't get this from an Islamophobic site, but it's hard for me to be able to explain something that I myself do not have any familiarity with specifically in regards the slavery issue of this document and therefore cannot tell you validly anything about the matter. What I did know I shared with you, and I honestly thought that it was the temple thing because that's one of the Islamophobic claims that I've seen floated around on the Internet and so I thought that would be what you're trying to understand.

Thanks for sharing this aspect of the document; and I'd love to get back to you in a week or so when I compile some reading material on this subject and peruse them as it's an interesting topic.

Well, in part, this is is a Hanafi sharia-based law document formalizing slavery of non-Muslims in South Asia in general and on the Indian subcontinent in particular, running roughly from the early 18th century to the early 20th. That would be the thing about it that makes Hindus not like Muslims in this area- the formalized rules of slavery whereby Muslims enslave Hindus. Blood-brother type friends indeed.

No I didn't get this from an Islamophobic site, no I didn't get this from American cinema. I got this from getting curious about the extent and timetable of the Arab slave trade, and as it turns out this is the document in which Sharia law pertaining to the enslavement of South Asian people is found. (During this empire, at least). Were you aware that this particular compilation of law includes extensive sections related to slavery and pillaging? It's there. In the thing. It also includes copious supporting references to other Hanafi texts. It was created and compiled by 500 experts in Islamic jurisprudence from Medinah, Baghdad, Delhi and Lahore. Of course it dealt with every kind of Islamic law, but some of it had to do with slavery and pillaging, specifically when Muslims would enslave and/or pillage Hindus, which I'm sure was of some interest to those Hindus.

So. The slavery and pillaging privileges codified therein. What do you suppose that was like? How would you describe that to a non Muslim? Are you going to tell me it's not really a big thing?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, due to my father's job as a civil engineer who was into building projects, we traveled the globe frequently. And I have been to India and have lived in India too. So, I think I know when I am referencing "Ram" and "Rahim" I'm not talking out of thin air because it's a Hindi cultural reference that is still used today in Indian cinema that is known as Bollywood to outsiders. And this cultural reference is also part of how Muslims and Hindus who are not into the religious-feud-mentality speak when talking nostalgically about the matter before British rule ruined the memorialized friendship. In fact, even in this article which is not related specifically to your post but is a side pertinent discussion, you'd find what I'm talking about: "Cutting Across Barriers: Ram and Rahim are one, say villagers in this obscure village."

As to the slavery aspect, while I am familiar with the Arab slave trade, I am not familiar with the slavery or pillaging aspect of this Hanafi shariah-based law document and therefore I cannot comment on that specifically. Certainly, I feel I would be talking out of turn as I don't know the specifics of the slavery aspect of this document as to the law or context.

Also, I believe you when you say you didn't get this from an Islamophobic site, but it's hard for me to be able to explain something that I myself do not have any familiarity with specifically in regards the slavery issue of this document and therefore cannot tell you validly anything about the matter. What I did know I shared with you, and I honestly thought that it was the temple thing because that's one of the Islamophobic claims that I've seen floated around on the Internet and so I thought that would be what you're trying to understand.

Thanks for sharing this aspect of the document; and I'd love to get back to you in a week or so when I compile some reading material on this subject and peruse them as it's an interesting topic.

Ok, so here's a fairly user friendly link. https://books.google.com/books?id=NB...dom%22&f=false

Of particular note to me are the following portions.

From chapter one- it is the duty of all men to embrace Islam, and if they don't do this or submit to Muslims, they are Hurbees, or enemies, and considered moobah, or optional. According to the footnote, "optional" means you're fair game to become a slave.

Also from chapter one, it is "proper" to inform the people you're about to invade that they must convert in order to avoid being killed or becoming slaves, but no penalty is incurred by the neglect of this precaution.

If two or more Muslims should leave their territory and enter someone else's just to pillage, they may do this without getting anyone's specific permission. Anything they are able to bring back and secure within Islamic territory is theirs. It would seem that this is applicable to the foreigners themselves, who as already discussed are moobah along with their property.

Then we learn what Room is- a part of the Greek empire under control of the Turks, who at this time are not Muslims. Even if there is a peace treaty in effect, conquer and pillage as you will, is what it basically says.

The following things are recognized as slaves. Non-Muslims from outside the territory brought there against their will, and their descendants. (Unless they convert to Islam or pay a lot of money for their freedom). A freeman, if a Muslim, may not be subjected to slavery under any circumstances.

In chapter 2, it says if a master kills his slave, he is not subject to retaliation. And if he has a female slave (the vast majority of slaves taken were female), he has milk-i-mootat, or right of enjoyment. This sounds an awful lot like rape.

Slaves can obtain licenses to do business on their master's behalf, and there are different words for differently licensed slaves.

After this, we get into qualified slavery.

This is some horrible law right here, and this was in use from the early 1700s through the early 1900s, although British colonialism put a bit of a damper on it. According to this Hanafi Sharia law, which 500 Islamic scholars worked together on, Muslims in India were permitted to enslave and pillage as much and as many people as they could without needing special permission to go and do it, and although they were advised to inform their neighbors of the offer to convert, they weren't penalized by anyone for giving no warning.

This is absolutely monstrous. And as it applies to Pakistani Muslims, 81% of these people in particular believe that Sharia is the revealed word of God. 84% Still! favor making Sharia the official law of the land, despite having this bit of Sharia in their history. And 76% of Pakistani Muslims favor the death penalty for leaving Islam.

It is altogether likely that in a completely average Pakistani family tree, Islam entered their family when a conquering Muslim enslaved and raped a female ancestor, then she may have converted in order to be free, but either way she was forced to raise Muslim children. I find it hard to believe that any Muslim from south Asia could be proud of this history and of this particular bit of Sharia law, and I am incredulous at the notion that anyone could know this was in play but still tell me a story about how Hindus loved their Muslim-invader brothers, it was really the British that screwed things up by slowing down the rate of enslavement and introducing democracy.

Given that this total lack of restrictions was codified in Sharia law, what in the world do you think Muslims in South Asia did with these broad permissions?

Now, for any Muslim who's seeing what I'm seeing, and especially for any Muslim who believes there's nothing particularly wrong or offensive when it comes to the Sharia that I am seeing right here. Do you think you can explain this to the satisfaction of a horrified non-Muslim? If so, please speak up.

[LaSorcia]

I don't know the answer to your specific questions, but I do know that every culture and religion has had its shameful moments in history. Although God's revelation is perfect, it is lived out by imperfect people.

There is so much evil in our world, we need to try to look for reasons to get along, and find what we have in common. I'm not saying that you asked your questions in bad faith; only God knows our hearts.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)


@cooterhein

There are so many things in your post that needs addressing that I'm not quite sure where to start. Okay. Like I told you, I'm still researching the specifics of the slavery issue of the document Fatwa-e-Alamgiri and I have compiled some scholarly articles on the subject that I'm compiling in my TBR pile. So, I'm still going to be getting back to you as I'd said originally when I have read all of the materials and have a better grasp on the subject matter.

You have to realize religious authorities that a state often had religious figures make rulings that pleased the kingship or ruler but were not correct per Islam. Two famous examples of this that I would include is how religious figures, out of greed and political aspiration, made a fatwa (legal ruling) that said that Abdul Hamid II would no longer be the Caliph of the Muslim world, thereby enabling him to be humiliated out of the palace and thrown into the streets to hear jeers of Arabs who were happy to see him fall from grace because the British Empire had roused the Arabs with "the divide and conquer method" to ensure that Arabs were no longer willing to subject themselves to a ruler who was a Turk. Now, racism is considered abhorrent in Islam and a form of satanic pride. The second famous example of this is how the House of Saud was convinced by Islamic cleric Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab that he'd gain power and prestige from God if he led the fight against other Muslims who were corrupting Tawheed, the Oneness of God. Consequently, many, many, many Muslims were killed because the cleric in charge of this politicized mission had made issues of fiqh (Islamic law) into issues of aqeedah (belief). Killing Muslims by declaring them as falsely kaffir is of course considered haram (forbidden).

Thirdly, while I am not familiar with Fatwa-e-Alamgiri's specifics, I am well aware of Islam's stance on slavery. Also, I know about the Arab slave trade. So, while I am still researching the specifics of that document which concerns the topic and the thread title, I can safely explain to you the issue of slavery in the context of Islam.

When Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) began receiving Revelation, slavery already existed in pagan Arabia as a vestige of "jahilliyah" (ignorance) in the hierarchical social structure, and this hierarchy could not have been eradicated without also creating an economic collapse (like the one that occurred after Civil War in U.S.) or human beings turning away from the Message of Islam.

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) for first 13 years only preached Tawheed, the Oneness of God, because only after accepting the existence of God as the legislator and arbiter of laws could believers be given injunctions that had to be followed. So, after the Message of Islam had been propagated in terms of Tawhid and the Message garnered strong believers did God command him :saws: to speak about freeing slaves as one of the best acts in the eyes of God that would earn reward and infinite pleasure of Allah.

It must be noted again that Islam neither endorsed nor encouraged slavery but that slavery was already in preexistence in Arabia just as it was in other parts of the world. Islam introduced many safeguards for the rights of slaves, the bulk of which rested on treating slaves as one would treat oneself as a means of recognizing their humanity and worth. Human rights, as we recognize today, to be honest, historically is most notable in Islam.

The specific steps to eradicate slavery happened during the time of Prophet :saws: himself with his Sunnah, and the encouraged acts as well as the edict based in the rightly guided understanding of Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him) led to the eradication of slavery in Arabia, and this is a historical fact. This is a notable accomplishment of Islam, because during the Civil War in America, for example, the sudden eradication of slavery led to an economic collapse in the South (within America). Poverty ensued in the South due to this, and yet the wisdom of Islam did not let that happen to early Muslims.

That said, the eradication of slavery in the Islamic world couldn't be sustained by Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him) even though slavery was eradicated by his own issued edict. Now, this edict is important in Islamic scholarship because specifically the four Caliphs are known in hadiths to uniquely have the rightly guided understanding of Islam. For example, Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) had said most notably Umar (may God be pleased with him) that would lead us to understand that this edict was also guided by the correct understanding of Islam: Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) had said, "God has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart."

However, due to the expansion that kept happening and especially when Muslims engaged in the Persian War, the abolition could not be sustained. The paradox is that the encouragements within the Sunnah of freeing of slaves couldn't be sustained in time of warfare that induced the expansion and therefore slavery again became an economic institution within the Islamic world. Muslim scholars and thinkers as well as colonial powers argued strongly for abolition of slavery, but the abolishing of slavery didn't happen in some places within the Islamic world until the 19th century.

I believe you do have an Islamophobic understanding of Shariah (Islamic law) and have probably been taught or been lead to assume that Shariah is the boogeman that Muslims want to forcefully implement on you. Ugh, no. Shariah cannot be implemented on people of other religion or no religion, and we as Muslims should already know this because in the time of the 5th Caliph in Islamic history the Caliph was disturbed to find that Zoroastrians in the land of Persia marry their biological mothers and biological sisters and in Islam that is considered incest. So, the 5th Caliph consulted the famed religious Islamic figure Hasan al-Basri about the matter and Hasan Al-Basri replied that Islam's rules cannot be implemented on Zoroastrians in this matter as their religion allowed the practice and therefore the practice must be accepted as a means of respecting the faith of those people. So, I'd actually recommend you to read the treatise Understanding Islamic Law.

Finally, I'd remind you that slavery existed in Judaism and Christianity as well. Though Wikipedia is not to be used if you are writing an academic paper, certainly for our discussion purposes, I'd direct you to the topic Slavery and Religion in Wikipedia. And then you can tell me as a horrified person (yes, I'm making fun of you!) how you would justify this matter to atheists or agnostics to their satisfaction the matter of slavery in Christianity, my friend, and for fun (yes since I can be a horrible person sometimes...) I'd actually challenge you to post your justifications on an atheist/agnostic board and share the results for fun!

[ardianto]

One non-Muslim in forum said that Qur'an and hadith can be used to justify almost anything. It's true.

Indeed, there are Muslims who follow Qur'an and hadith, there are Muslims who make Qur'an and hadith follow them. They make an opinion, then quote some verses or hadith to justify their opinion, although their opinion is actually wrong. And Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is example which Qur'an and hadith was used to justify something that actually wrong.

[LaSorcia]

One non-Muslim in forum said that Qur'an and hadith can be used to justify almost anything. It's true.

Indeed, there are Muslims who follow Qur'an and hadith, there are Muslims who make Qur'an and hadith follow them. They make an opinion, then quote some verses or hadith to justify their opinion, although their opinion is actually wrong. And Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is example which Qur'an and hadith was used to justify something that actually wrong.

Alas, replace Quran and hadith with bible, and Christians have been guilty of this as well.

[cooterhein]

You have to realize religious authorities that a state often had religious figures make rulings that pleased the kingship or ruler but were not correct per Islam.

500 scholars from Delhi, Lahore, Baghdad, and Medina were responsible for this particular thing. It wasn't a fringe or marginal ruling, Aurangzeb, emperor of the Mughal Empire, wanted some definitive and extremely authoritative Sharia for his lands, and that is what he got.

It's the Muslim equivalent of an ecumenical council for Christians. Well, maybe not the Muslim equivalent, but the Hanafi Sunni equivalent for sure.

Finally, I'd remind you that slavery existed in Judaism and Christianity as well.

That's a technically imprecise statement, slavery existed by rule of law in places where Jews and Christians lived. There is a very important distinction between that, and extremely authoritative religious teaching (specifically religious teaching) that encourages it in an unrestricted fashion, and in this case it remained in effect to a certain extent into the middle of the 20th century.

Although there were a great many Protestants and Catholics who owned slaves, you can't show me any document created by hundreds of their most prominent religious leaders that expresses a great deal of support for slavery with the full backing of their religious authority. That is exactly what I am showing you when it comes to Sharia law in the Mughal Empire.

[cooterhein]

Alas, replace Quran and hadith with bible, and Christians have been guilty of this as well.

You can't replace the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri with anything comparable from Christianity. As it so happens, that is the focus of this thread.

[cooterhein]

One non-Muslim in forum said that Qur'an and hadith can be used to justify almost anything. It's true.

Indeed, there are Muslims who follow Qur'an and hadith, there are Muslims who make Qur'an and hadith follow them. They make an opinion, then quote some verses or hadith to justify their opinion, although their opinion is actually wrong. And Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is example which Qur'an and hadith was used to justify something that actually wrong.

It was used by 500 Of The Leading Islamic Scholars at the time, from Four Different Major Centers of Islamic Teaching, in order to justify the unrestricted practice of enslaving and pillaging non-Muslims in South Asia.

How do those guys put something together that is so completely despicable and wrong? I mean, this was not some marginal opinion, this was Actual Sharia, exactly the kind that most Pakistani Muslims would say is "of God" and not "a product of man's reasoning."

[cooterhein]

However, due to the expansion that kept happening and especially when Muslims engaged in the Persian War, the abolition could not be sustained. The paradox is that the encouragements within the Sunnah of freeing of slaves couldn't be sustained in time of warfare that induced the expansion and therefore slavery again became an economic institution within the Islamic world. Muslim scholars and thinkers as well as colonial powers argued strongly for abolition of slavery, but the abolishing of slavery didn't happen in some places within the Islamic world until the 19th century.

Heh, the 19th century? Try the 20th. For Saudi, Yemen, and Oman, you're looking at the mid-1950's and 1960.

During certain portions of conquest in South Asia, it was mandatory for 20% of enslaved people to be sent to the Arab peninsula. They kept the slaves coming in even well after there were no more slaves nearby for them to capture.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I am incredulous at the notion that anyone could know this was in play but still tell me a story about how Hindus loved their Muslim-invader brothers, it was really the British that screwed things up by slowing down the rate of enslavement and introducing democracy.

Are you sure you are an American? Because last time I checked, we in our own American history witnessed slavery of black peoples. Fast forward some centuries, do you think all blacks still hate all whites? Do you think if I tell you a story of how blacks love their white friends, I'd be delusional or lying? Well, same is the case of Hindus loving their Muslim friends.

For example, while we do have BLM protests going on, but that I chalk up to valid instances of police shamefully not doing their job well and executing blacks. We also have shameful two instances now in our current situation where we've had executions by vets of police officers due to the racial tensions that have risen. But for the most part, I do think blacks and whites are okay with one another today.

And so in that same way, I do think that there are many Hindus in India that would love their Muslim friends just as there would be Muslim friends that love their Hindu friends - it doesn't mean that Hindus or Muslims do not have tensions that arise in the modern world in modern India - of course, tensions rise even in the modern world but the truth is that Time heals but at the same time shaitaan (satan) is given reprieve by God until Resurrection Day to create havoc in lands between human beings and that won't change.

[ardianto]

It was used by 500 Of The Leading Islamic Scholars at the time, from Four Different Major Centers of Islamic Teaching, in order to justify the unrestricted practice of enslaving and pillaging non-Muslims in South Asia.

How do those guys put something together that is so completely despicable and wrong? I mean, this was not some marginal opinion, this was Actual Sharia, exactly the kind that most Pakistani Muslims would say is "of God" and not "a product of man's reasoning."

There's no compulsion to embrace a religion. But unfortunately there are missionaries who believe that if other people are not willing to embrace a religion, they should be forced. And those 500 scholars were missionaries like that.

Fatawa-e-Alamgiri was a verdict that give supremacy for Muslims over Hindus and other non-Muslims with purpose to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam. Actually it's not justified, because someone should not be forced to embrace Islam without his own willingness.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

500 scholars from Delhi, Lahore, Baghdad, and Medina were responsible for this particular thing. It wasn't a fringe or marginal ruling, Aurangzeb, emperor of the Mughal Empire, wanted some definitive and extremely authoritative Sharia for his lands, and that is what he got.

Didn't I say the same type of thing? Any time scholars ally with political figures, the political figures do have a say in what types of religious edicts or rulings come out. How that should be surprising for you is a surprise to me personally because I would think that you'd be able to reason out for yourself that this would happen.

It's the Muslim equivalent of an ecumenical council for Christians. Well, maybe not the Muslim equivalent, but the Hanafi Sunni equivalent for sure.

500 scholars are interpreters of shariah based on Quran and Sunnah, but they themselves are not regarded as infallible in Islam. In fact, there are hadiths that show that sincere scholars should not align themselves with any ruler:

For example, Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "And no one increases in nearness to the king except that he becomes further away from Allah."

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) also said, "Indeed some people from my Ummah will boast religious knowledge and will recite the Qur'an and will say, 'We will enter upon the rulers and attain a share of their worldly riches, but will remain in separate from them with our religion.' But that will not be the case just as nothing will be harvested from the thorny bush al-Qatad except thorns. Likewise nothing will be gained from nearness to them except sins."

That's a technically imprecise statement, slavery existed by rule of law in places where Jews and Christians lived. There is a very important distinction between that, and extremely authoritative religious teaching (specifically religious teaching) that encourages it in an unrestricted fashion, and in this case it remained in effect to a certain extent into the middle of the 20th century.

Although there were a great many Protestants and Catholics who owned slaves, you can't show me any document created by hundreds of their most prominent religious leaders that expresses a great deal of support for slavery with the full backing of their religious authority. That is exactly what I am showing you when it comes to Sharia law in the Mughal Empire.

You either do not know Judaic or Christian history in which slavery was justified with Scriptures or you do not think that it is a fair comparison to Islamic history, but either way, I do not accept what you've said as one of the books in my TBR pile is called The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and it even from the back cover summary shows that what you've said is blatantly false.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Heh, the 19th century? Try the 20th. For Saudi, Yemen, and Oman, you're looking at the mid-1950's and 1960.

During certain portions of conquest in South Asia, it was mandatory for 20% of enslaved people to be sent to the Arab peninsula. They kept the slaves coming in even well after there were no more slaves nearby for them to capture.

Well, my reading material said it was in the 19th century. But I'm sure as you said in other places it was even later. However, that doesn't change things substantially, does it, for the purposes of our discussion? For example, integration of schools didn't happen despite our abolishing of slavery until Brown v. Board of Education mandated that integration of schools begin. I think frankly your recent posts are myopic and yes, I'll call you on it, Islamophobic. About the only thing that I find redeeming is what I hope is your concern for peoples to live a life free from subjugation.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

It was used by 500 Of The Leading Islamic Scholars at the time, from Four Different Major Centers of Islamic Teaching, in order to justify the unrestricted practice of enslaving and pillaging non-Muslims in South Asia.

How do those guys put something together that is so completely despicable and wrong? I mean, this was not some marginal opinion, this was Actual Sharia, exactly the kind that most Pakistani Muslims would say is "of God" and not "a product of man's reasoning."

Well, 500 is just a number; it is not proof of righteousness or correctness. For example, with the number 500, I have questions like what scholars were chosen and why? What scholars were not picked or invited for the construction of this document and why? Hey, maybe they were righteous or maybe they were not. But there is no way for me to actually judge their intention and so I'm going to leave this to God.

I also partially think that maybe we're being anachronistic in our assessment of the document and there were probably social, religious, cultural, governmental and psychological factors that led to the construction of this document as well, and some of that might just be that our way of thinking in the modern world has changed so much that we cannot digest things that we regard today as entirely heinous, but maybe in their time it made sense to them. I'm not sure, but so I don't think the right academic approach should be automatic condemnation but a striving to understand all these factors as well.

Quran and Sunnah is from God. So, yes, shariah is formed from the basis of Quran and Sunnah, but that is filtered through Islamic scholarship and it is widely known that Islamic scholarship is not infallible

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



Well, 500 is just a number; it is not proof of righteousness or correctness. For example, with the number 500, I have questions like what scholars were chosen and why? What scholars were not picked or invited for the construction of this document and why? Hey, maybe they were righteous or maybe they were not. But there is no way for me to actually judge their intention and so I'm going to leave this to God.

I also partially think that maybe we're being anachronistic in our assessment of the document and there were probably social, religious, cultural, governmental and psychological factors that led to the construction of this document as well, and some of that might just be that our way of thinking in the modern world has changed so much that we cannot digest things that we regard today as entirely heinous, but maybe in their time it made sense to them. I'm not sure, but so I don't think the right academic approach should be automatic condemnation but a striving to understand all these factors as well.

Quran and Sunnah is from God. So, yes, shariah is formed from the basis of Quran and Sunnah, but that is filtered through Islamic scholarship and it is widely known that Islamic scholarship is not infallible

The whole point of what this emperor wanted to do, is that he wanted to have the best and most authoritative Sharia possible. There was an effort to pick the best Islamic scholars from everywhere, not just in South Asia although that was included, but in the entire Islamic world (when it came to Hanafi Sunni Islam). That's why scholars from Medinah and Baghdad were brought together with everyone else. It wasn't just random people out of a hat, and you certainly don't arrange for hundreds of people to travel from the Middle East to South Asia in the early 18th century unless you're absolutely sure that they serve a very useful purpose. I'll also point out that it was Hundreds of scholars that were brought together, enough from out of the area that you would literally have to send way more than just one boat in order to get them all there. It's not like only a handful were there and "What about all these other qualified people?" No, all the qualified people were there, that's a lot of people. If anyone was not there, it was because they were either not Hanafi, not Sunni, or not extremely well qualified as scholars.

I'm sure it did make sense to them at the time, but it shouldn't have. Do I get to cast judgment on things that happened a long time ago? Yes I do. I'll acknowledge that things were different, and there are various factors that lead to different outcomes that wouldn't be able to happen now. I will acknowledge that there are things to understand that allow me to do more than just throw up my hands and say I don't understand. But I can still judge things as right, wrong, or heinous at any point on the timeline, there is no point on the timeline where I feel the need to become disoriented from a moral standpoint.

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



Well, my reading material said it was in the 19th century. But I'm sure as you said in other places it was even later. However, that doesn't change things substantially, does it, for the purposes of our discussion? For example, integration of schools didn't happen despite our abolishing of slavery until Brown v. Board of Education mandated that integration of schools begin. I think frankly your recent posts are myopic and yes, I'll call you on it, Islamophobic. About the only thing that I find redeeming is what I hope is your concern for peoples to live a life free from subjugation.

Excuse me, I misremembered one thing. In Yemen and Oman, slavery was made illegal in 1970. Saudi ended it four years earlier.
http://histclo.com/country/me/oman/hist/oh-slave.html
Why exactly is this Islamophobic? I believe I am justified in holding Islam, as a religion, responsible for some Sharia law that is morally reprehensible. It wasn't political, it wasn't society or culture, it was religious scholars doing something with their religious authority that was awful. What is it that makes this Islamophobic? Do you find that to be a term that's useful and precise, or is it just a word that you use when someone makes you feel criticized, regardless of whether the criticism is well-founded?

Do you acknowledge that Islam- as a religion, as far as its religious leaders go- is sometimes at fault, and sometimes deserving of well-founded criticism? Or is this something that you consider categorically outside the bounds of reality, something that can only come from a diseased mind or a wrong way of thinking?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

The whole point of what this emperor wanted to do, is that he wanted to have the best and most authoritative Sharia possible. There was an effort to pick the best Islamic scholars from everywhere, not just in South Asia although that was included, but in the entire Islamic world (when it came to Hanafi Sunni Islam). That's why scholars from Medinah and Baghdad were brought together with everyone else. It wasn't just random people out of a hat, and you certainly don't arrange for hundreds of people to travel from the Middle East to South Asia in the early 18th century unless you're absolutely sure that they serve a very useful purpose. I'll also point out that it was Hundreds of scholars that were brought together, enough from out of the area that you would literally have to send way more than just one boat in order to get them all there. It's not like only a handful were there and "What about all these other qualified people?" No, all the qualified people were there, that's a lot of people.

First of all, I do not accept what you've said here because despite Aurangzeb's desire to have "best and authoritative shariah possible" as you say he created, he made two Islamic no-nos: (1) The document allowed the ruler to issue legal doctrine that overruled fatwas (legal rulings). (2) Islamic scholars were not allowed to issue discretionary fatwas (legal rulings). Both of these aspects I personally consider Islamically unacceptable and reprehensible for two reasons: (a) Islamically, a ruler is subject to Islam, and Islam cannot be made subject to the ruler or his worldview. (b) Islamically, scholars are allowed to use discretionary fatwas - in fact, the entire point is that they are able to review religious proofs in favor or against a position and then make the best determination at their discretion. Why eliminate this discretion that is the right of the Islamic scholar?

If anyone was not there, it was because they were either not Hanafi, not Sunni, or not extremely well qualified as scholars.

That's your assumption. What's the proof, mate? Also, I question what type of Islamic scholar be okay with the two things above that I've enumerated for you in the above paragraph. It raises my eyebrows for obvious reasons.

Also, what I'd note is that this document was created at a time by Aurangzeb when religious conservatism was ripe to be adopted. Why do I say this? Because nothing happens in a vacuum: There are always many factors at play out of the view that lead a ruler or a country to the path in which they find themselves. For Aurangzeb, I think that meant the construction of this document because as the sixth Emperor he was not pleased with the direction in which the Empire had moved in historical terms: Emperor Akbar, the third Emperor, had created a new religion called Din-i Ilahi instead of ruling by Islam and up to the Shah Jahan, fifth Emperor, who despite moving away from the liberalism of the third Emperor, had moved so in a token manner. Aurangzeb, however, seems to have a clear vision of how things should be in his Empire and that included bringing in religious conservationism because he was unhappy with liberal policies.

You have a right to be disoriented from a moral standpoint; but I'd also like to point out that we should remember that we do not have the moral high ground here: It's not like we didn't have slavery in Christianity and Judaism, and it's also not like we didn't have slavery in America. Glass houses and all that.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Why exactly is this Islamophobic?

Glad you asked.

It's the tone and the recent posts - not this one post, btw, which you quoted - things like when you say you're incredulous at Muslims-Hindus being friends in the words "still tell me a story about how Hindus loved their Muslim-invader brothers, it was really the British that screwed things up by slowing down the rate of enslavement and introducing democracy." Uhhh, no. Like I explained to you by analogy, blacks enslaved by whites in America vs. the situation today with blacks and whites. Not to mention, yes, the British did screw it up and that book which I'd quoted to explain to you this matter was completely rubbished when it is a fact based on historical research conducted by authors well-oriented in Indian history.

Also, what world is the one in which you're living in which the British introduced democracy to India? The British did not bring democracy to India but rather subjugated India to British Raj and rule. Not to mention, the British were hated in India to the point that Muslims and Hindus (whom you refused to see could be friends!) even united to fight the British domination that led to India's Independence in 1947.

I believe I am justified in holding Islam, as a religion, responsible for some Sharia law that is morally reprehensible. It wasn't political, it wasn't society or culture, it was religious scholars doing something with their religious authority that was awful. What is it that makes this Islamophobic? Do you find that to be a term that's useful and precise, or is it just a word that you use when someone makes you feel criticized, regardless of whether the criticism is well-founded?

Again, I disagree with you. Despite me giving you hadiths that clearly show Islamic scholars should not align themselves with any rulers, you still say it wasn't political. Hell, yes, it was political.

No, I don't mind criticism. It's the tone of your posts that I called Islamophobic. For example, sis LaSorcia, who btw is a Christian kindly called your attention to the fact that Christians have similarly seen slavery justified in the name of religion and you shut her down. Now, you may think you were reminding her to stay on topic. I think you were doing that but also something like...when X who is a Muslim does it, you think it's wrong and cringe-worthy. But when it's Y who is a Christian justifies something in the name of religion, I'm assuming you think there is a good explanation as your subsequent posts showed when you offered me those "good" explanations about slavery in the context of Christian history:

For example, you say, "That's a technically imprecise statement, slavery existed by rule of law in places where Jews and Christians lived. There is a very important distinction between that, and extremely authoritative religious teaching (specifically religious teaching)[....]" And of course, I called you out on it in a subsequent post with the link to the book in my TBR pile that shows you are incorrect.

Next, you also admit in the same post which I mentioned that Protestants and Catholics owned slaves in another breath but then go on again to tell me how it is different. What do you think I should conclude from your posts?

I'll tell you why I used the term Islamophobic to describe your tone and recent posts: Let's switch places for a second: I'm the Christian now and you're the Muslim. Do you think your argument about explaining away slavery in the context of Christian history is more justifiable and more okay than the Muslim history? It's still slavery at the end of the day.

Yes, we can switch places again and you can breathe a sigh of relief that you no longer have to be in my shoes *tongue-in-cheek.*

Islamophobia I'd say at its most benign form is a term used to describe a close-minded prejudice against this religion and/or its adherents. Well, I'd say you in many places equate Islamic history with Islam, hence, I used the term Islamphobic. Do you think the Inquisition is representative of Christianity? If not, right there is your answer.

I'm sure you have in the past encountered atheists/agnostics equating such in Christian history as therefore proof of how the religion is itself horrifying and therefore to be eschewed. You'd not fare well if you discussed Christian history or the Biblical exegesis in an atheist/agnostic board, mate; so, I also find your criticisms not oriented in anything but a hair-trigger mentality that does not apply the same logic and reasoning to Islamic history or Islam. This is what I meant when I called you Islamophobic - a term I used in exactitude of what I felt from and observed in your posts.

Do you acknowledge that Islam- as a religion, as far as its religious leaders go- is sometimes at fault, and sometimes deserving of well-founded criticism?

I think frankly think no one should be immune from criticism. For example, Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him) used to walk the nights in the street concealing his identity to see how the subjects under his rule were faring because he cared and thought that no injustice should happen under his rule. Once he heard a woman who was complaining and vilifying Caliph Umar without knowing that he's that man, and he patiently listened to her without telling her anything. The reason this woman was complaining and hating on him was because she and her baby were hungry, and so Caliph Umar dressed as an ordinary man carried the bag of grain to her home all the way so that she and her child would not remain hungry and left without telling her his identity. However, she later found out. Frankly, this to me is Islam.

Or is this something that you consider categorically outside the bounds of reality, something that can only come from a diseased mind or a wrong way of thinking?

Like I've explained, I do not consider criticizing Islamic scholars something that necessarily comes from a diseased mind or a wrong way of thinking. I think frankly there have been many times absurd fatwas (legal rulings) which have been issued by Islamic scholars. For example, one that comes to mind is the fatwa that came from the Indian subcontinent in the 1900s that said learning English is kufr (disbelief) and haram (forbidden). There are more examples of these types of fatwas, but this is one that I could think off of the top of my head. And of course, unsurprisingly, if I actually believed this fatwa or if the administrators or moderators of IB believed this fatwa, we would not have even be having this discussion because IB would probably not exist as an English-speaking board.

[LaSorcia]

You can't replace the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri with anything comparable from Christianity. As it so happens, that is the focus of this thread.

Maybe not, but I was responding to Adrianto. And the Malleus Maleficarum was a pretty horrible equivalent of a fatwa, encouraging the hatred and slaughter of thousands of women.

Anyway, "Finally brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things."

Also, "love is not rude, is not selfish, and does not get upset with others. Love does not count up wrongs that have been done."

I didn't find anyone here trying to justify wrongs that had been done in reply to your OP.

Peace and blessings to you.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Also, "love is not rude, is not selfish, and does not get upset with others. Love does not count up wrongs that have been done."

*OMG* The words reminds me of my favorite movie A Walk to Remember in which the girl reads *sighs* to her guy from the Bible and says, "Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful or conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes."

*Post approved*

[LaSorcia]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



*OMG* The words reminds me of my favorite movie A Walk to Remember in which the girl reads *sighs* to her guy from the Bible and says, "Love is always patient and kind. It is never jealous. Love is never boastful or conceited. It is never rude or selfish. It does not take offense and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure in other people’s sins, but delights in the truth. It is always ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes."

*Post approved*

I almost quoted that one as well lol, but I didn't want to lay it on too thick.;D

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



First of all, I do not accept what you've said here because despite Aurangzeb's desire to have "best and authoritative shariah possible" as you say he created, he made two Islamic no-nos: (1) The document allowed the ruler to issue legal doctrine that overruled fatwas (legal rulings). (2) Islamic scholars were not allowed to issue discretionary fatwas (legal rulings). Both of these aspects I personally consider Islamically unacceptable and reprehensible for two reasons: (a) Islamically, a ruler is subject to Islam, and Islam cannot be made subject to the ruler or his worldview. (b) Islamically, scholars are allowed to use discretionary fatwas - in fact, the entire point is that they are able to review religious proofs in favor or against a position and then make the best determination at their discretion. Why eliminate this discretion that is the right of the Islamic scholar?

Ok, first, I have just recently learned that Aurangzeb was an Islamic scholar in his own right. Which is to say, along with being a powerful ruler, he was also recognized as an actual scholar, and then instead of creating all this Sharia himself (or at the very least dominating the process), he went out of his way to bring in 100 scholars from Medinah and 100 scholars from Baghdad, joining 300 scholars from South Asia in order to put this together.

So why would he as a ruler take it on himself to overrule fatwahs and exclude discretionary fatwahs from other scholars? Perhaps because he, as an actual scholar himself, was in a unique situation for a ruler. Such a ruler is not usually a scholar himself, correct? And perhaps he wished to exclude any further input from Medinah and Baghdad, limiting those scholars to their role in the initial creation of this Sharia. Have you read it carefully enough to determine if these unique powers were just for him, or if they were tied to his position for all time? Do you know if all other scholars were excluded from their usual discretionary fatwahs, or is it possible that it only limited the scholars who were not actually from there?

That's your assumption. What's the proof, mate? Also, I question what type of Islamic scholar be okay with the two things above that I've enumerated for you in the above paragraph. It raises my eyebrows for obvious reasons.

At that time, in that situation, and considering how much trouble it was to transport that many people over that type of distance and to coordinate such a large meeting, those 200 scholars from the Middle East (and the other 300 that had less of a journey) must have had an extremely valuable service to render upon arrival, if someone is going to all that trouble in order to get them there. When searching for the service that might be so valuable, it is entirely reasonable to observe that they did exactly one thing once they got there which was the stated goal all along, and to conclude that they were well regarded as being extremely valuable in this exact capacity.

It's a solid assumption. Why would you want to assume something else?

Also, what I'd note is that this document was created at a time by Aurangzeb when religious conservatism was ripe to be adopted. Why do I say this? Because nothing happens in a vacuum: There are always many factors at play out of the view that lead a ruler or a country to the path in which they find themselves. For Aurangzeb, I think that meant the construction of this document because as the sixth Emperor he was not pleased with the direction in which the Empire had moved in historical terms: Emperor Akbar, the third Emperor, had created a new religion called Din-i Ilahi instead of ruling by Islam and up to the Shah Jahan, fifth Emperor, who despite moving away from the liberalism of the third Emperor, had moved so in a token manner. Aurangzeb, however, seems to have a clear vision of how things should be in his Empire and that included bringing in religious conservationism because he was unhappy with liberal policies.

Very nice, I was not aware of this Din-i Ilahi. I didn't know that any emperors in India tried the path of syncretism. Good to know.

So by contrast, Aurangzeb was not at all syncretic, he was very much a defender of pure unadulterated Islam, and he gathered 500 Hanafi Sunni scholars to himself so that true Islam and nothing else would be spoken taught and propagated.

You know, this puts the onus pretty squarely on Islam and literally nothing else. If you had told me (just hypothetically) that Aurangzeb is not reduced to a staunch defender of Islam, and that he had other religious motives or some sort of syncretic bent, then I would have to conclude that it's not just Islam we're looking at here. He's brought something else to the equation. But instead, we have a series of explanations that restate and reaffirm the idea that it's Islam, it's Islam, and it's Islam. Is it something else? Anything else? No, just Islam.

You have a right to be disoriented from a moral standpoint; but I'd also like to point out that we should remember that we do not have the moral high ground here: It's not like we didn't have slavery in Christianity and Judaism, and it's also not like we didn't have slavery in America. Glass houses and all that.

I actually wasn't defending my right to be disoriented, I was defending my right to consistently say I am not disoriented, because I know what's right and I know when it's time to take responsibility for something that's wrong. That might have been a typo from you though, I'm not sure.

We did have slavery in America. What we did not have was any sort of meeting of prominent US Christian scholars who issued a resolution that slavery is OK with them, here's where everyone signed it. That document does not exist, such a meeting does not exist, and although there is always some credence to the glass houses caution in religious dialogue, Christian scholars of the United States 1700-1900 do not remotely occupy the same situation as Hanafi Sunni Islamic scholars from India and the Middle East 1700-1900. Separation of church and state is quite significant, their roles were completely not the same and these two different types of scholars do not remotely compare in terms of what they did, or even in terms of what they were capable of doing. In what alternate reality is a sitting United States President going to relieve Congress of its legislative duties and put it in the hands of a group of Christian scholars? It's just not going to happen, it doesn't even become a conversation that involves such scholars in a meaningful decision-making legislative role.

Now, with regard to when that really might happen, there are some jokes that could be made about Ted Cruz....I will acknowledge that he seems like the kind of person who might actually like the idea in principle, but even someone like him wouldn't be able to bring it off. That's where the Supreme Court comes in.

Just to summarize, it is not appropriate to hold Christianity responsible for legislative decisions that are made in a secular democracy that happens to be mostly Christian, unless there is a clear trend of support for a controversial issue among its scholars. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to hold Islam responsible for its Sharia law, and with it the Islamic scholars who created it. That is not the same as looking at Muslims who behave badly, and hold Islam responsible for them. That is not right. Looking at a technically-Islamic ruler who favored syncretism, and holding Islam responsible for his actions- that is not right. But when Islamic scholars create Sharia law, which to this day is regarded by most Pakistani Muslims as originating from God himself rather than from the crude work of mere men, that is exactly what Islam can, is, and ought to be held responsible for.

[cooterhein]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)


Glad you asked.

It's the tone and the recent posts - not this one post, btw, which you quoted - things like when you say you're incredulous at Muslims-Hindus being friends in the words "still tell me a story about how Hindus loved their Muslim-invader brothers, it was really the British that screwed things up by slowing down the rate of enslavement and introducing democracy." Uhhh, no. Like I explained to you by analogy, blacks enslaved by whites in America vs. the situation today with blacks and whites. Not to mention, yes, the British did screw it up and that book which I'd quoted to explain to you this matter was completely rubbished when it is a fact based on historical research conducted by authors well-oriented in Indian history.

Also, what world is the one in which you're living in which the British introduced democracy to India? The British did not bring democracy to India but rather subjugated India to British Raj and rule. Not to mention, the British were hated in India to the point that Muslims and Hindus (whom you refused to see could be friends!) even united to fight the British domination that led to India's Independence in 1947.

That's an excellent point about the British, I was careless in how I was talking about it.

It has come to my attention, however, that the fate of religious minorities was very different in India than it was in Pakistan or Bangladesh (east and west Pakistan at the time). The Muslim majority undertook a cleansing of the Christians, Sikhs, and yes Hindus. In India, there was no cleansing and religious minorities were treated with decency- by comparison at least. If that was the fault of the British....well, I don't really think that part was, to be quite honest.

Again, I disagree with you. Despite me giving you hadiths that clearly show Islamic scholars should not align themselves with any rulers, you still say it wasn't political. Hell, yes, it was political.

Were you aware that Aurangzeb was a scholar himself? I will also point out that, as per the information you gave me (and thank you for that), he was readjusting a previously syncretic course, and perhaps he wanted to ensure that scholars in favor of syncretism would be minimized.

No, I don't mind criticism. It's the tone of your posts that I called Islamophobic. For example, sis LaSorcia, who btw is a Christian kindly called your attention to the fact that Christians have similarly seen slavery justified in the name of religion and you shut her down. Now, you may think you were reminding her to stay on topic. I think you were doing that but also something like...when X who is a Muslim does it, you think it's wrong and cringe-worthy. But when it's Y who is a Christian justifies something in the name of religion, I'm assuming you think there is a good explanation as your subsequent posts showed when you offered me those "good" explanations about slavery in the context of Christian history:

For example, you say, "That's a technically imprecise statement, slavery existed by rule of law in places where Jews and Christians lived. There is a very important distinction between that, and extremely authoritative religious teaching (specifically religious teaching)[....]" And of course, I called you out on it in a subsequent post with the link to the book in my TBR pile that shows you are incorrect.

Oh come now. Christians have never ever ever demonstrated unity in their scholarship when it comes to the issue of slavery, and in the US at least, they haven't been positioned to create and enact laws relevant to that.

This is not an exercise in looking at similar outcomes and seeing if there are people of any given religion nearby. This is about agency, it is about responsibility, it is about determining the extent to which those who speak for a religion are responsible, directly or otherwise, for some of the evil things that happen in the world. Christians were half wrong in an indirect sense for supporting slavery or for remaining silent, but with the OP in question, Islamic scholars were directly and completely responsible for what happened.

I'll say it again, it is not appropriate to hold Christianity responsible for legislative decisions that are made in a secular democracy that happens to be mostly Christian, unless there is a clear trend of support for a controversial issue among its scholars. On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate to hold Islam responsible for its Sharia law, and with it the Islamic scholars who created it. Additionally, just by having this particular bit of Sharia in its regional history, Pakistani Muslims absolutely Must rethink their favored position on Sharia as if it were something divine that originated from God.

Next, you also admit in the same post which I mentioned that Protestants and Catholics owned slaves in another breath but then go on again to tell me how it is different. What do you think I should conclude from your posts?

I hope you conclude that it's a well thought out position that is clearly explained.

I'll tell you why I used the term Islamophobic to describe your tone and recent posts: Let's switch places for a second: I'm the Christian now and you're the Muslim. Do you think your argument about explaining away slavery in the context of Christian history is more justifiable and more okay than the Muslim history? It's still slavery at the end of the day.

It is slavery- well, not just the same exactly, one is racial slavery and the other is slavery that can easily end if you'll just submit to Islam and be a Muslim. Of course slavery is slavery, but there are different types of slavery and one type of slavery gets religion involved right from the outset, just in terms of what it is.

And as I said before, this is an exercise in determining agency and the degree of responsibility for a given outcome from one religion to another. If we had switched positions, I don't know how I would go about removing responsibility from Aurangzeb and the 500 Islamic scholars. And I don't think I would be able to place the same sort of responsibility on Christian scholars in the US. They didn't create an American version of Sharia, thankfully. That is relevant.

Yes, we can switch places again and you can breathe a sigh of relief that you no longer have to be in my shoes *tongue-in-cheek.*

Ah, that's nice, In all honesty though- and you may not like this- I actually am, without joking at all, quite glad that I am not a Pakistani Muslim, or any other Muslim on the subcontinent. If I was, and if I knew my history, I would probably have to assume that Islam entered my family tree when a conqueror forced one of my ancestors to convert. Or....when a conqueror took one of my ancestors as a slave, raped her, and then became one of my ancestors too. Or....when a conqueror enslaved one of my ancestors and she agreed to convert and become free, as one of his many wives, and in all these different permutations the children of the conquered people are forced to be Muslim and killed if they leave, their children are forced to be Muslim and killed if they leave, and now I am forced to be Muslim and potentially killed by an extra-judicial knife-wielding maniac if I leave. And of course I am expected to raise my children to be Muslims and prevent them from ever leaving it too.

If I was in your shoes- especially if I was from any of the regions where mass enslavement was integral to the spread of Islam- I would feel like I was trapped in a religion, and that my ancestry was some combination of slave and oppressor.

In complete honesty, I am very glad to have my religious freedom, and I am even more glad that I don't have to think about whether any of my ancestors were slaves, or if slavery was the route by which I eventually acquired my religion.

It really is nice to be in my shoes, thank you for reminding me.

Islamophobia I'd say at its most benign form is a term used to describe a close-minded prejudice against this religion and/or its adherents. Well, I'd say you in many places equate Islamic history with Islam, hence, I used the term Islamphobic.

Well, I am making a point of identifying something that a massive amount of Islamic scholars were responsible for, and they are in effect responsible for speaking and acting on behalf of Islam, to the point where the things they say and do (so long as there is consensus) is one and the same as the things for which Islam, qua Islam, can be rightly evaluated.

I am really zeroing in on a particular bit of Sharia here. I'm not just saying "Well Muslims did this." I am saying 500 Muslim (Sunni Hanafi) scholars created this, which is the obvious reason why Muslims did exactly what they were told to within it, and their actions are consequently not just incidental to their religion, but the exact reason for it. Again, Islam qua Islam.

Islam is not responsible for random nutjobs. Islam is responsible for its Sharia, provided that this Sharia is truly the product of Islamic scholars speaking on behalf of Islam and determining what Muslims will do in obedience to these teachings. These are the limitations, and I think you haven't properly understood exactly what it is I'm dong here. You must have been thinking I was flailing wildly at this, and look, anyone can flail wildly at a religion. Look at me as I flail back at you, and isn't that what you were doing in the first place? No, actually, it was not.

Do you think the Inquisition is representative of Christianity? If not, right there is your answer.

Ah, but the Inquisition is representative of Christianity. Who else would it be representative of? I'm glad that I'm a Protestant, which is a reform movement that came into existence after the Inquisition, but at that point in time the Inquisition represented all of Christianity proper and there is no one else it could possibly be.

Fortunately, since that time Christianity has differentiated itself and there's many different branches that have split off in different directions, and it would not be a bad summary to suggest that they did so in order to escape association with the excesses and wrongdoings of the Catholic Church.

So yes, the Inquisition does represent all of Christianity, in the West at least (remember that I also specified Sunni and Hanafi on several occasions when it was going the other way). It was horrible, and in western Europe, it did effectively represent all of Christianity. The proper thing to do in response to that is have reform movements and create different branches of your religion that will move you away from the awful thing, and I will acknowledge that the Ahmadi community in Pakistan has been doing just that. So just in order to temper what I said about Pakistani Muslims earlier, I will now add that I don't hold Ahmadi Muslims responsible for anything that happened before 1889, and I commend them for putting some distance between themselves and some of the awful things in their family history.

I'm sure you have in the past encountered atheists/agnostics equating such in Christian history as therefore proof of how the religion is itself horrifying and therefore to be eschewed.

Of course.

You'd not fare well if you discussed Christian history or the Biblical exegesis in an atheist/agnostic board, mate;

You might be surprised. My biggest problem in those situations has been disruptive trolls who just derail things, but I have also been able to engage in some private conversations over a period of time that actually went quite well for both of us.

so, I also find your criticisms not oriented in anything but a hair-trigger mentality that does not apply the same logic and reasoning to Islamic history or Islam.

Respectfully, you reached that conclusion well before you properly asked me to do any sort of analysis of Christian history.

I think frankly think no one should be immune from criticism. For example, Caliph Umar (may God be pleased with him) used to walk the nights in the street concealing his identity to see how the subjects under his rule were faring because he cared and thought that no injustice should happen under his rule. Once he heard a woman who was complaining and vilifying Caliph Umar without knowing that he's that man, and he patiently listened to her without telling her anything. The reason this woman was complaining and hating on him was because she and her baby were hungry, and so Caliph Umar dressed as an ordinary man carried the bag of grain to her home all the way so that she and her child would not remain hungry and left without telling her his identity. However, she later found out. Frankly, this to me is Islam.

That sounds like a very nice thing, and I would assume that his good actions can be traced to Islamic scholars who issued Islamic law that he faithfully followed and implemented in his life.

I would assume that to be the case, and I recommend that you include that part of the process in your argument. A Muslim who happens to be nice may be a coincidence, what you want to demonstrate is that the official teachings of Islam and the actual laws and guidance of Islam caused him to do this, because he chose to be a faithful Muslim and go where that was supposed to take him.

I hope that you can follow the same sort of logic when All of That is in place, but it leads to a horrible conclusion and the obvious reason is horrible Sharia. Agency, responsibility, causality. That is the analysis. Why do you think I chose to hone in on Sharia law that was created by 500 Hanafi Sunni scholars?

Like I've explained, I do not consider criticizing Islamic scholars something that necessarily comes from a diseased mind or a wrong way of thinking. I think frankly there have been many times absurd fatwas (legal rulings) which have been issued by Islamic scholars. For example, one that comes to mind is the fatwa that came from the Indian subcontinent in the 1900s that said learning English is kufr (disbelief) and haram (forbidden).

I can see why. Learning English, especially if Western education comes along with it, does wind up being a pretty reliable path out of Islam. If you want to find the most Christian states in India, for example, start with the states in India where English is spoken by the most people. There's a couple of states in southern India and several in the seven sister states region right by Bangladesh, Nagaland seems to be the best example of things happening there. So I can understand the strategy from a protectionist standpoint....setting aside for the moment that protectionism is wrong in and of itself, even if your religion is completely right.

There are more examples of these types of fatwas, but this is one that I could think off of the top of my head. And of course, unsurprisingly, if I actually believed this fatwa or if the administrators or moderators of IB believed this fatwa, we would not have even be having this discussion because IB would probably not exist as an English-speaking board.

Well, that's true. But with this particular fatwah, can you think of any reasons why it would not properly represent Islam as a whole? Aside from the fact that it's bad teaching, of course, or your own personal judgment. Is there a real reason that allows you to know this is not something that Islam must claim responsibility for?

Edit- on the topic of atheist and agnostic type forums, would you care to test your theory and visit one together? We can see just exactly how it really does go. It's not like I haven't done this sort of thing before, but getting involved with that alongside a Muslim would be quite a new experience. I see what you do, and you see what I do. Then we don't have to guess.