Archive for the ‘Psychological dimension of Islam’ Category

Liberalization? Not Islam.

January 14, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shakirmwp/sandbox

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they
can turn you back to disbelief, afrter you have believed.

West’s moral dilemma!

October 30, 2016

Image result for Allama Iqbal's photos

Morality, in general, is a contentious subject but ironically, it becomes even more so in the Western setting for it is thought that i) they are the most righteous. ii) It is their right to set moral standard. iii) Elevated morality by divesting it from its bedrock– Religion. iv) Their standards should be emulated by all others.

Recently I was faced with two such issues and explaining them from an Islamic perspective, proved to be like fixing a square peg into the round hole of western morality. One was about the polygamy sanctioned in Islam and the other about the permissibility, of having intimate relations with the believing women, of the vanquished enemy, taken in as captives/enslaved —“What your right-hand posses”—Qura’an.

Polygamy, in western discourse, is an oft-recurring issue. This time, it cropped up as a fall-out of an Egyptian female professor Suad Saleh of Al-Azhar University’s interview aired on Egyptian T.V Al-Hayat. It was picked up and reproduced, with distorted English translation, by INQUISITR on 16th of January 2016. Offensive words were used to exploit and rile up public sentiments which; especially in the heavily charged atmosphere due to TRUMP factor, engendered the highest level of ISLAMOPHOBIA in the history of the USA.

My immediate response to the post was as under. (Edited for grammatical accuracy)

“Surprisingly Dr. Andrew Holt (An English-speaking Anti-Islam commentator exploiting and misleading the people) did not get appalled at the rampant fornication, infidelity and out of wedlock births in the western society but got appalled and concerned about the treatment of female POWs  in a very limited context of war. This clearly exposes the height of his hypocrisy. There has been hardly any war, in the human history, in which women have not been the worst victim of sexual abuse, including the most recent ones of Vietnam and Mid East; especially Iraq) If we do it with en-masse impunity across the board it is OK but if it is done in war situations on a minuscule level is too bad! Professor is simply playing insane to exploit the situation for his advantage. The situation explained by the lady professor is taken out of context for designed exploitation. Otherwise, in earlier scriptures, women have also been treated as the property of the man. In Islam, however, this treatment extended only to those who are taken as captives/slaves. It sure sounds heinous until thought through objectively; which is not as bad as sex slavery forced upon millions around the world for profiteering. It is actually a matter of perspective. It is objective for some and exploitative for the others. It’s positive implications, in  a particular, set of circumstances, however, cannot be overemphasized”

The theme of the interview was “expunging” the extramarital sex and Modern-day slavery; in the light of Islamic “Fiqh” (jurisprudence). For Muslim men are engaging in sexual slavery by buying slave women from poor countries,

Elaboration

The logic and rationale behind the permissibility of sexual relationship with captured women in war   are multifarious. The fact is that excesses are always committed in wars. Islamic laws, therefore, ensured the elimination of inevitably unbounded mistreatment through sanctification and accordance of rights; which were not even conceivable before Islam, as women were treated like a herd of animals. Slavery under Islam is distinguishable from usual slavery in the sense that it makes it incumbent upon the master to be fully responsible for all their worldly needs, under the concept called—“kafala” The master is permitted to have sexual relations with her but if she is not willing or comfortable then he is ordered either to marry her with another slave of her choice or sell her off. A slave woman cannot be forced to have sexual relations with the master. She also cannot be forced to have sexual relations with more than one man at a time. If a woman is captured along with her husband then that marriage remains intact and no one else can have sexual relation with her. Women other than people of the book are absolutely forbidden for such intimacy before their conversion, for which she cannot be forced. Raping a slave woman is a punishable crime like raping a free woman. ( Muwatta, Book 36,Chapter 16,Narration 14).  A child born to a slave woman (in whatever state, live, still, dead, premature) grants a special status of “UMM AL WALAD” (mother of a child) hence, she cannot be sold. She gets automatically emancipated at the death of her master even if he does not manumit her in his lifetime “… the very purpose of marriage is (to make) intercourse (permissible) but the purpose of possession (of slave-women) is not intercourse.” (Al-Muntaqa Sharah al-Muwatta, Darul Kitab al-Islami, Cairo, 1332 A.H. vol.4 p.82)

 

The concept of slavery sounds gruesome but justifies the end and purport; induces them to accept Islamic faith, which would necessitate either a formal marriage followed by complete integration into the family unit and society or freedom. A pertinent anecdote of the Prophet (PBUH) himself, who married slave or captured-in-war women, named “Juwairiyah”, “Qibtiyya” & “Safiyya” would invite a-man-of-intellect to reflect on this issue objectively. As a consequence, out of respect for “Juwariyah” becoming the mother of the faithful, more than 100 women of her tribe were also emancipated. Her father, who was the leader of his tribe, also became Muslim.

 

An important fact to be kept in mind is that in Islam there is no concept of “Rape” in a husband-wife relationship. A woman has to satisfy the sexual needs of the husband unless there is a permissible reason such as menstruation or some sickness etc. A slave woman, on the other hand, seems to have been given more latitude than a free woman. Needless to say, that master/husband has to be kind and compassionate (romantic, amorous) as is established by the Prophet (PBUH)’s Sunnah. Similar kindness has to be accorded to the Captured woman. It should also be borne in mind that Islam is a religion attuned to human nature. Human nature; tendencies and inclinations along with preemptive, preventive measures are, very much at the root of its injunctions. Excesses are committed in wars and would continue to be committed, despite UN Human rights and Geneva Convention declarations. Islam, therefore, has enforced a pre-emptive system, in the face of human frailties way before these declarations and laws were even conceived.

 

POLYGAMY

Polygamy had been rampant since pre-Islamic era. Prophet Solomon (R.A) reportedly had 300+ wives. Having a large harem of women/wives had been a norm. Polygamy, before 20th Century, had been in practice among Eskimos in Northern fringes of North America and Greenland when anyone hardly even knew about them. It is still practiced in North America and elsewhere in Americas; by Mormon and some other tribal communities. In the Middle East and Africa, it is a commonplace. It’s logical reason seems to be unbridled avarice and machismo. Then Arab and African tribal societies afforded it a political flavor; marriages began being solemnized for buying the loyalties of other tribes.  At the advent of Islam however; a limit of maximum four, at any given time, was set, thereby dispensing with the custom of numerous wives and countless children simultaneously.

Non-Muslims wonder and also object, that why it was not restricted to just one wife? Divine wisdom; in some matters challenges the objectivity of our ingrained ordinary beliefs; possibly for two reasons, either to leave us at the threshold of despair, rejection, and unbelief or, to transcend to a higher level of contemplation to appreciate the efficacy of Divine wisdom. Qura’an in Surah Nisa-4, V-129 clearly states that “you do not have the capacity to be judicious among your wives regardless of how sincerely you intend to. Therefore, do not lean towards one and neglect the other, leaving her hanging. And if you do the best you can God is forgiving and merciful”. It is also said in another verse # 3 of the same Surah that “if you fear that you won’t be able to do justice Just take only ONE

Great pioneering sociologist William Graham Summer in1906 explains the customs and traditions like this— “The right way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and, therefore, contain in themselves the authority of ancestral ghost. When we come to the folkways we are at the end of the analysis”

Herodotus—Greek author of First great narrative history wrote, which is also a recurring theme in the literature of social sciences— “Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may be utterly abhorrent to the people of another group, and vice versa” judging one right and other wrong means we have an independent standard. Whereas there is no such independent standard in reality; every standard is culture-bound.

These point of views (Divine wisdom expressed through human intellect) should be convincing enough to set aside the –vehement objection– as to why the polygamy, slavery, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) have not been outlawed in Islam in one strike. Slavery and FGM are not approved in Islam. Islamic injunctions on these issues are annihilative in essence.

In the case of polygamy, however; there are several logical arguments which could be offered in its favor; but most intuitive would be that, since man belongs to the larger group of social animals hence his natural tendencies “ought” to be in line with that of the group—multiple mates. This is probably why there have always been more women than men to meet this threshold. Man, from the known history of mankind, has been endowed with the head of the family and beholder of rationality status. He has also been enjoying the companionship of numerous women to satisfy his natural propensities. The limitation of one wife seems to be unnatural, counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

Deviation from this natural order is vividly evident in the moral decay of the western, artificially constrained one-for-one, societies. The number of wives in Islam however, was restricted to rational maximum “four” commensurate with the level of social developments and level of responsibilities at the same time. (Pattern of Prophet Mohammad {PBUH}’s marriages with, more than one widow, one older than him and a business woman, divorcees, pubescent girl etc, on the one hand, sets the standard for a successful marital relationship while, on the other, proves the efficacy of more than one wife).

 

 

Historical perspective of polygamy

 Antique Egypt Law: A man could marry more than one woman under some circumstances.

Babel Law: according to Hammurabi laws if a woman could not bear a child or had a serious disease the husband could have a concubine.

Chinese Law: If the wealth of the husband were sufficient, he could marry secondary wives. Antique Brahmans: According to the book Vishnu, men could marry one, two, three or more women in accordance with their classes. In the laws of Manu, the husband had to choose his first wife from the same social class; he could marry a woman of lower classes as his second wife. Ancient Iran: Polygamy was legal.

Under Roman Law: It was permissible to have a concubine, without a legal wedding.
In The Bible (Old Testament) It is stated that Prophet Dawood (David) married several women. In Old, Testament polygamy is also mentioned in several other places. Polygamy existed in Judaism.

 

 

Blogshakir.shalimarinsurance.com
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

Psychological dimension of Qura’an

October 3, 2016

 

Image result for PICTURE OF OPEN QURAN

Qura’an’s main emphasis is on the guidance of human behavior/actions. Guidance is dispensed, mostly through general, and a few specifically, absolute, injunctions. Specifically, absolutes injunctions are called “limits” (Hudood)–which are just five. In explanation of the verses a fair use of analogy/allegory has been employed to accommodate common man’s logic and reasoning—elaborated through Ahadith and Sunnah; (words and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad-PBUH). Qura’anic verses, Ahadith and Sunnah are further interpreted and explained, by the exegetes, with reference to their contextual background presenting a coherent and cosmic perspective. (Literal translation whereof otherwise, may be misleading).

 

The importance of guidance can be gauged from the very fact that God, in the very first Surah “Al-Fath” (The-Victory), Himself taught the man how to pray and ask for guidance—for it is an embodiment of all material and spiritual benefits here and hereafter.

 

In Islamic parlance, the process of guidance is three tiered.                                                                          The first degree of guidance is given to every created thing. Qura’an (20:50) “Our Lord is He who gave unto everything its nature, then guided it aright”. Qura’an (17:44) “And there is not a thing except that it exalts God by His praise, but you do not understand their way of exalting”

The second degree of guidance is given to rational beings only through the Scriptures and Prophets explaining it. It may be accepted by some and rejected by others-hence being believers or non-believers. The tertiary degree of guidance is limited only to the Prophets and Men of God. It is of the highest degree and unlimited. It is called “Tawfeeq” which cannot be refuted or repelled by any rational being. Although the first and third degree of guidance are direct; without the medium of scripture or the prophets, yet in a matter of gradual progression from second to the third level, a rigor of the second degree (following the scripture and Prophet) would be inevitable. (The best example of “Tawfeeq” would be the endowment of Prophet-hood to Mohammad—PBUH—as he was un-lettered therefore, taught everything as a “Tawfeeq” by God).

 

 

RIGHTS fall in two domains as bifurcated below.

 

 

  • Rights of God (Allah) &   2) Rights of fellow human beings.     

                                 

Rights of God (Hudood) are absolute. There is no choice endowed to any human being regardless of his status or station; for any addition, deletion, modification or mollification. For details access the link below.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

 

Rights of fellow Human beings, on the contrary, are open to interpretations within the strictures of Qura’an, Hadith & Sunnah; available as a consensus of OPINIONS of the (competent) religious scholars. There is an avenue of “Ijtihad” (by the competent religious scholars of the highest eminence) also available to address new issues/situations, which have either, not been addressed sufficiently, or at all, in either of the sources mentioned above. The institution of Ijtihad and the presence of various School-of-thoughts, provide a scope for adaptability as well, where “Taqleed” is not adhered to. (By the way, Imam Hanbal and Imam Ibn Tamayya and many others are against “Taqleed”).

 

Although in Qura’an, there is a panoply of topics on which injunctions have been issued, this treatise, however, would be restricted to tangibility and vassal; which are least discussed and explained with specific reference to human psychology.

 

 

 

Human Psychology

Human behavior, as mentioned earlier, is the main locus of Divine guidance, which can also be divided into two areas. (Philosophical terms have also been inducted at relevant places to broaden the scope of comprehension).

  1. Instinctive or innate behavior(Phil: Idealism, Priori knowledge).

Most prominent is the conception of the Creator–the Supreme Being, followed by empathy, compassion, rage fear, gratitude, possessiveness, self-protection, suckling etc. Qura’an stresses the cleansing of the inner-self through meditation, compassion and tranquility of justice enhancing the awareness and benefits conferred by these traits. In Sufic terminology, it would be a deliberate process of subduing the lower-soul, or lower-self (Nafs). These traits, contrary to general belief, do not annihilate, for they are an integral part of the human genre, but get channeled, through the bottleneck of struggle (mujahida), into higher soul/higher-self for higher purposes.

 

  1. Learned or acquired behavior— (Phil; Empiricism, Posteriori knowledge). A litany of the behavioral attitudes fall in this category, to name a few—-Defrauding, avariciousness, vanity, tangibility, and Vassal etc. The last two traits are often faced, but least understood and discussed. Qura’an in such matters, for the most part, orders prudence, care in association and equity of behavior by enshrining the element of “awe” (generally translated as (Fear)* backed up by a retributive system. The system of retribution is mostly reserved for the hereafter (with the exception of “injustice”, which is often swiftly dealt with here as well). Justice, of the last resort, however, will be done in the hereafter without the slightest discrepancy whatsoever.(Qura’an) A very important issue, which Qura’an mentions, is that the good done by the non-believers would fetch no reward in the hereafter. It would instead be rewarded right here in this world.

 

 

Tangibility & Vassal Qura’an has not expounded on these topics exclusively as a subject matter but rather alluded to them as causative-weaknesses of human behavior.

 

Tangibility

Acquired traits of human beings are of immense consequence. Most of the aberrations in human behavior stem from these, as a consequence of upbringing, culture, education, and training etc. We, in general, become so accustomed to tangibility that often, substitutes even God (Allah SWT) with someone or something conspicuous. For example instead of relying on God and asking Him to fulfill our needs we resort to some acquaintance. We always, as an impulse, think of rich and powerful to help us rather than the one who made them rich and powerful. This behavioral aberration emanates from “cognitive easement” which triggers the instant sense of association culminating in instant reposal of trust in thus cognized entity. (This cognitive easement, however, is normally one-sided and may or may not be fortuitous). On the contrary, cognitive journey, towards an unseen or invisible entity, would require deliberated efforts and conviction to be completed and fruitful. This behavioral pattern vividly explains the difference in the approach and mindset of an unbeliever* from that of a believer. This aspect of human tangibility and vassal has been aptly articulated in Surah Zuukhruf 43, V 31 & 32.                                                      *(A professed believer could also act as an unbeliever).

 

Vassal

Pagans of Arabia often raised the objection that why Prophet Mohammad (PBUH); being of an ordinary background, has been accorded the prestige of Prophet-hood instead of some rich and powerful person of the town; who could have helped them with some mercy (compassion/favor) and put them to work. Ironically we, in our own time, often witness people coagulating around rich and powerful due to habituation with vassal and tangibility. Prophet Noah, (A.S) also complained of such an attitude of his people in Surah Nuh 71, V-21. Exegesis of Surah Tur 52, V-37 predicates the issue of similar attitude as well.

 

A couple of anecdotes, which would help bring the point home, are quoted here.

1) When Prophet Moses (A.S) journeyed to Mount Sinai (Zion) for 40 days his people, in his absence, started worshiping a “CALF” instead of God (Because it was visibly and tangibly right there).

2) When Prophet Moses (A.S) crossed river Nile and reached the other side, the first thing his people saw was; a tribe worshiping an idol, therefore, due to sudden tangibility impulse, they demanded that Prophet Moses (A.S) should make them a statue of God, like theirs. This probably was the worst example of habituation with tangibility. Prophet Moses (A.S) who just saved Israelites from the clutches of Pharaoh-god’s (tangibility/vassal): who they were forced to worship, wanted to worship an “idol” instead of God!

 

Translation (Surah Zukhruf 43, v 31, 32)

“They say! Why Qura’an is not revealed on any one of the great men of the two big cities?” “Is it they who distribute mercy of your Lord? We distributed among them their livelihood in this world and raised some of them in ranks over the others so that some of them may put some others to work. And Mercy of your Lord is much better than what they (the rich and powerful) may have accumulated” (wealth and resources etc)

 

Explanation (Exegesis)

“Mercy” here represents the Prophet (PBUH); which they objected to for being of humble background, and asked why not one of the rich men from big cities like Mecca or Taif has been chosen for this august office? God answered by admonishing them, that you can’t even handle the small economies of your cities, division of labor, distribution of resources etc, how dare you suggest, who should be chosen as a Prophet? God then declared that some of you have been accorded a higher rank; to act (like) as an Economic Manager, and that they have also been assigned resources (economy). Then He cautioned, that despite their higher ranks, do not seek favors from them (vassal) as My mercy is far better than their hoardings (wealth and resources—attractive to most human beings)” Human beings thus have been given a befitting answer with a warning about their weakness (I seek Allah’s refuge for any inadvertent misinterpretation or mistake)

 

1* – Fear (of not being able to do justice to the great task of worshiping God and recognizing His greatness). (Khashiyyah)  is the real term used, instead of fear, for its use is limited with reference to God only.  Khashiyyah} can loosely be translated as “Awe”.   “Fear” {Khawf}  ordinarily, is from  the other sentient beings.

Blogshakir.shalimarinsurance.com
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

 


%d bloggers like this: