Changing times: Ijtihad and other questions Muslims must revisit

[jamahir]

But among the Sunnis, there has been no undisputed mujtahid since the mid-tenth century.

no... the mujtahid was among us for quite a while... muammar gaddafi... not so strange that his enemies among "muslims" spoke the same language that modern crusaders ( nato ) also spoke.

muammar gaddafi was imaam of all muslims and he said... "i am not sunni, i am not shia, i am just a muslim"... please do read his writings and speeches on islam and jesus ( hazrat isa ).

real islam is a continuation of real christianity and of every sensible revolution in far history... i ask @Multani to contribute to this... but we humans must move beyond religion... we must have a post-religion humanity whose only basis is socialism and who live in a communist system... communism is the natural response of any sensible and deep-thinking person... but as muammar gaddafi and others have said... "communism has not arrived yet"... ( Muammar Qaddafi: Is communism truly dead? ).

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan he was not the prophet of islam that if he done anything against islam we should follow him blindly. We have our role model and he is Hazrat Muhammad saww. Quid a azam was a great man but we should follow our prophet saww first.

what r u talking about? he is our personal lord and savior. he will save us seculars from the flames of hells because he gets to overrule 7th century imagination of mohamet & his laws. So feel free to be fags, eat pork, drink & womanize as nothing can touch you progressive moslums!

 

[syedali73]

LOL. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad made several prophecies regarding Pakistan which all came true including dismemberment of Pakistan into Bangladesh and West Pakistan:
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: The Man Who Knew The Future Of Pakistan Before Its Creation, Books and Documents, Shorish Kashmiri, Matbooat Chattan, Lahore, New Age Islam

He was first president of India and cannot be compared with irrational, narrow-minded bigot like Maudidi who envisioned and forced his followers into practicing near totalitarian view of Islam:

I can see you need lots of brushing when it comes to Islamic history so I would not like to engage with you there. Moulana Moudoodi was one hell of a scholar of his time and only an ignorant would call him a bigot. Please refrain from using this kind of language for those who are better than you both in taqwa and in knowledge of Islam. Please get to learn Islam, research on it, and refute his logic (which can be flawed) with better logic, thats the preferred way and not abusing someone.

 

[Bratva]

No everyone is not free even Sahabas didn't did it those matters answered in Quran and Sunnah no ijtihad is done on them and on new matters they are decided in light off Quran and Sunnah

This exposes your narrow understanding of Islam. Please before contributing more in this thread, Do research on Ijtihad done by Caliph Hazrat Umar (RA) on Mutaa marriage and the inclusion of a single line in Prayer Fajr, A Surah from Quran was excluded and temporary suspension of all the Quranic Punishments during the great calamity when people were forced to steal food and water and He banned hand chopping, whipping people on the basis Islamic government is incapable of providing relief to the people hence are in no position to give punishments

 

[Arya Desa]

Islam cannot and will not have reforms because Islam is perfect. It is the perfect message of Allah given to Mohammed. To ask for change in Islam is to go against it, and by extension, to go against Allah.

 

[utraash]

Nope after prophet passed away his wives and daughters were more knowledgeable than any man alive....but none led a single prayer between men and women...yes they can lead for women only!

To my shock is people are not ready to go by today's time needs n persists about some verses written some 1400 yrs ago.
Give me a logic why women cant lead a prayer in mosque for women n men ?
Sorry i am not here to bash religion n i even spare my religion for criticizing if it biased against humanity..... I have seen your earlier post too which are defiance of some Islamic verses not humanitarian n humans......
If any religious verses(Bible or Islam or Hindu) are so absolute then y brain exist inside human head which talk on the basis of reasoning n logic instead we could have simply dos n dons n human life would not have so miserable as we see it today.....

Doubt everything find your own light.....Bhudha...

 

[Zarvan]

To my shock is people are not ready to go by today's time needs n persists about some verses written some 1400 yrs ago.
Give me a logic why women cant lead a prayer in mosque for women n men ?
Sorry i am not here to bash religion n i even spare my religion for criticizing if it biased against humanity..... I have seen your earlier post too which are defiance of some Islamic verses not humanitarian n humans......
If any religious verses(Bible or Islam or Hindu) are so absolute then y brain exist inside human head which talk on the basis of reasoning n logic instead we could have simply dos n dons n human life would not have so miserable as we see it today.....

Doubt everything find your own light.....Bhudha...

Sorry Islam was completed 1400 years ago new matters which arise we decide them in light off Quran and Sunnah those who have left religion most face serious mental health issues most miserable lives and GOD knows better than your mind and live in denial Death will make you realize what the reality is

 

[Zarvan]

I can see you need lots of brushing when it comes to Islamic history so I would not like to engage with you there. Moulana Moudoodi was one hell of a scholar of his time and only an ignorant would call him a bigot. Please refrain from using this kind of language for those who are better than you both in taqwa and in knowledge of Islam. Please get to learn Islam, research on it, and refute his logic (which can be flawed) with better logic, thats the preferred way and not abusing someone.

He think he knows Islam better than Sahabas and wives off PROPHET SAW what else you expect

 

[syedali73]

This exposes your narrow understanding of Islam. Please before contributing more in this thread, Do research on Ijtihad done by Caliph Hazrat Umar (RA) on Mutaa marriage and the inclusion of a single line in Prayer Fajr, A Surah from Quran was excluded and temporary suspension of all the Quranic Punishments during the great calamity when people were forced to steal food and water and He banned hand chopping, whipping people on the basis Islamic government is incapable of providing relief to the people hence are in no position to give punishments

There is no record in history of making any ijtihad on the inclusion of 'Assalat o khair um minnan naoom' by Hazrat Umar. It was his personal decision, which was not apposed by many (though not all) sahabah. His decisions on Mutaa' (nothing but a form of zina'), and suspending (not canceling) the taazir on stealing food during famine are all fine examples of his understanding of Islam.

 

[Mav3rick]

Acceptably so. You make a valid point.
But in this case, the people of Pakistan can not (or rather should not) make rights which contravene human rights.

An example of which I gave you - that in Pakistan it is illegal to leave Islam, a crime punishable by (upto) death and yet it is not illegal to convert from other religions. Essentially that a human can not choose his own religion.

Pakistan, as an Islamic country, had adopted an incomplete and intermixed constitution based part on Shariat and part on the British system. It is basically neither here and there and that is why we may have problems. The constitution should be redefined with proper interpretations and instances in the history based on Shariat and Shariat alone.

As far as I understand, death is the shariat sanctioned punishment for anyone who embraces Islam and then leaves it, there are also sanctioned punishments of amputations and execution for crimes such as stealing, raping (Zina Bin Raza) etc.But those sanctioned punishments cannot just be taken literally and at face value. First and foremost they are meant to deter and then there is always the element of forgiveness, not by the state but by the aggrieved party. Islam is a complete code of conduct and way of living, it is full of compassion and justice. One only need understand it.

 

[Judge]

Pakistan, as an Islamic country, had adopted an incomplete and intermixed constitution based part on Shariat and part on the British system. It is basically neither here and there and that is why we may have problems. The constitution should be redefined with proper interpretations and instances in the history based on Shariat and Shariat alone.

As far as I understand, death is the shariat sanctioned punishment for anyone who embraces Islam and then leaves it, there are also sanctioned punishments of amputations and execution for crimes such as stealing, raping (Zina Bin Raza) etc.But those sanctioned punishments cannot just be taken literally and at face value. First and foremost they are meant to deter and then there is always the element of forgiveness, not by the state but by the aggrieved party. Islam is a complete code of conduct and way of living, it is full of compassion and justice. One only need understand it.

Here, your post seems muddled to me as you have not answered in a straightforward manner.

1. Do you agree that death for leaving Islam is a contravention of human rights of an individual to choose his/her own religion freely?

2. And consequently, should it be abolished for being no less discriminatory than the apartheid. The only difference was apartheid was based on colour, this rule is based on religion.

 

[Mav3rick]

They do. Judaism:
Reform Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity:
Reformation (Christianity) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Where is similar reform in Islam, loser?

Now that I am exposing your true intentions and posting response after response to your lies and propaganda, I am a loser? Ah well....

Instead of playing out with words, tell me a single instance where Judaism or Christianity has changed from the time these religions were revealed through their holy Prophets?? I do realize how hard you must have had to work, drives based on ulterior motives often have that effect. What you have actually attempted to do is to replace the word 'Progressive' with 'Reform' and although both may be used in similar purposes, there literal purpose changes with the 'use'.

Nonetheless, Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, is progressive but divine religions, laws and guidelines do not require 'updates' like some of us think.

LOL. Western welfare states are not modeled after Islamic model of the past:
Welfare state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free medical, dole to those who are unable to earn, pension for the elderly, war allowance and exemptions and many many more.....all you need to do is read up on their early days of Islam. Actually, the tenure of Hazrat Omer (RA), 2nd Caliph, alone would suffice.

And honestly, I'd rather not waste my time on productions of Wikipedia!!

Where? Examples?

Read my post again, get someone to interpret it for you, explain it to you.

LLOL. Just because Hindus did not have majority representation, their rights could be suppressed by Islamic constitution? Stupid!

Give me a single right that has been suppressed. And I am quite confident, since I understand your 'kind' very well, that you will neither be ashamed nor be humbled after your repeated failures to find any!

 

[Mav3rick]

Here, your post seems muddled to me as you have not answered in a straightforward manner.

1. Do you agree that death for leaving Islam is a contravention of human rights of an individual to choose his/her own religion freely?

2. And consequently, should it be abolished for being no less discriminatory than the apartheid. The only difference was apartheid was based on colour, this rule is based on religion.

My post may appear muddled to you because you do not share the same faith and do not understand the basics.

1. My agreement is inconsequential as my knowledge and my intelligence are extremely limited and incomparable to that of Allah. But let me tell you this that Islamic scholars may be able to interpret this better. I don't know whether this punishment is mandatory and applicable on all such cases or is dependent upon some prerequisite as in someone who embraces Islam only as a ploy to later on revert back and attempt to humiliate Islam.

2. Again, divine law is beyond our intelligence and understanding. It cannot be changed.

 

[Judge]

My post may appear muddled to you because you do not share the same faith and do not understand the basics.

1. My agreement is inconsequential as my knowledge and my intelligence are extremely limited and incomparable to that of Allah. But let me tell you this that Islamic scholars may be able to interpret this better. I don't know whether this punishment is mandatory and applicable on all such cases or is dependent upon some prerequisite as in someone who embraces Islam only as a ploy to later on revert back and attempt to humiliate Islam.

2. Again, divine law is beyond our intelligence and understanding. It cannot be changed.

1. Your agreement is of importance regardless of what Ulema or others decide. My question is straight forward to you.
Even if Islam calls for death on those who leave Islam, do you as a modern- educated- human being agree that any who leave Islam should be killed. Do you as modern educated human being agree that relgion or faith is intensely personal and you have NO rights to enforce it on anyone.

2. Essentially you are willing to agree to anything which is 'divine law' even if it is contradictory to human rights.

 

[Mav3rick]

1. Your agreement is of importance regardless of what Ulema or others decide. My question is straight forward to you.
Even if Islam calls for death on those who leave Islam, do you as a modern- educated- human being agree that any who leave Islam should be killed. Do you as modern educated human being agree that relgion or faith is intensely personal and you have NO rights to enforce it on anyone.

2. Essentially you are willing to agree to anything which is 'divine law' even if it is contradictory to human rights.

1. You want me to be blunt, I cannot be. Take prayers for an example. I do not understand why it is compulsory for Muslims to pray 5 times a day, every day while the Christians and Jews have to go to Church only once or twice every week. But although it may not make sense to me, does it mean there is no sense to it? All it means is that my level of understanding or intelligence is not there 'yet'.

2. Correct. Because divine law cannot be contradictory to human rights. It is meant to protect them.