Messages

76

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: February 02, 2014, 03:38:23 PM »

Allah has used the following verse to summarize what He has forbidden:
 006.145
“Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine - for indeed, that surely is impure - or that which is a transgression, is dedicated to other than God. But whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor transgressing the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Notice that Allah mentions 'swine'. He could have mentioned other animals by name or category, if he wanted to forbid them. He does not run out of words nor does He forget  

Salaam!

There is one point I missed to mention in post number 50 about your comment (I have highlighted in blue above).  Your comment here is not convincing at all.    Just like the dead animals forbidden in 5:3 is linked to the category of permissible grazing livestock mentioned in 5:1,  the dead animals prohibited in verse 6:145 is linked to 6:143-44 from the discussion of grazing livestock, including certain categories of grazing livestock people themselves have prohibited without any mandate from Allah.   What Quran is highlighting in 6:145 is that people cannot whimsically prohibit permissible grazing livestock except the dead, blood poured forth, etc. 

Please note, the Quran is completely  consistant at both places (5:1-3 & 6:143-145) which is the reason why Swine is mentioned at both places as prohibited.  If we consider your logic and conclude from this verse that all animals are allowed, except dead, flowing blood poured forth, flesh of swine and dedicated to other than God, it would make many Quran verses like 6.142  and 16:8 inconsistent where Quran clearly says horses, mules and donkeys for us to ride and for use for show and not for meat.   

By the way, the Quran says that we should eat only that meat on which Allah’s name has been pronounced at the time of the animal’s slaughter (6:119).  Are you going to make people slaughter cats, mouse, rats, etc mentioning Allah's name and eat, like we slaughter and eat other animals?

Regards,
Optimist

77

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: February 02, 2014, 01:06:29 PM »

Salaam.

Saba says: "Why did Allah mention grazing animals for lawfulness in verse 5-1 if all animals were halal anyway?"

Because they are lawful, and, because, they are the ones generally consumed all over the world, or at least in the then Arabia.

Salaam,

Use logic brother Ismail before posting..!!.   You are saying they are specifically mentioned because they are lawful.   Why other categories of animals are not mentioned since they are also lawful (according to you), say dogs, cats, rats, etc.   Actually, if the logic of mentioning is "they are lawful and they are the one generally consumed all over the world", more than the need to mention about permissibility of grazing animals, (since they are already considered as lawful by people and even a silence on this point could be taken to mean as permissibility), the Quran should have specified about permissibility of eating dogs, cats, rats,  etc (feel like vomiting!) since they are generally considered as unlawful and not good.

Regards,
Optimist

78

General Discussions / Re: Critique - DOES THE QURAN ALLOW ... DOGS, CATS, RATS ETC? by Arman Aziz

« on: February 01, 2014, 07:32:30 PM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Dear Nura - congratulations for surrenderring to the will and words of the Master of the Universe. For everyone else - I only have to offer you the clears words from Our Master, [recheck the translation though and feel free to use any other translation of your choise]. Emphasis added.

Surah Al-An-am (Grazing Livestock); Verses 145-147

6:145   Say, “I do not find in what has been inspired to me anything prohibited to an eater who eats – except – that it happens to be dead, or poured-out blood or flesh of swine; then indeed it is pollution or willful disobedience originating for other than Allah with it.” Then whoever is compelled - neither coveting nor recurring; then indeed your Master is Relenting, Kind.

6:146   And upon those who are Yahudi We prohibited every (creature) with claws; and of the cows and the sheep We prohibited upon them their fat/lipid  except what carried their backs or their entrails or whatever is joined with the bones – that is their repayment for their envious acts. And indeed We surely are sincere.

6:147   Then if they deny you then say, “Your Master is vastly full of mercy but His pressure will not turn away from a criminal people.”

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Till our paths meet again ... Fee Amanillah.

Arman

Allah has used the following verse to summarize what He has forbidden:
 006.145
“Say: I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine - for indeed, that surely is impure - or that which is a transgression, is dedicated to other than God. But whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor transgressing the limit, then surely your Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Salaam!

Firstly let me state that, I completely agree with Brother Joseph Islam for his comments; ...that verse 6:145 is a clear response to the unwarranted claims in the previous verses (6:143-44) where some have forbidden certain animals from within the category of grazing livestock (bahimatul-anaam)";  .............."It is with a view to counter these unwarranted, self imposed restrictions within the category of ‘grazing livestock’ that verse 6:145 responds"........

http://quransmessage.com/articles/food%20restrictions%20FM3.htm

One simple question to both of you based on your above comments for 6:145.   Kindly inform us what is your explanation for the following verses?  Is it allowed in the light of the following verses to eat the meat of horses, mules, and donkeys?
 
006.142
"Of the cattle (Arabic: Anaam) are some for burden and some for meat: eat what God has provided for you, and follow not the footsteps of Satan: for he is to you an avowed enemy"
 
016.008
"And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride (Arabic: Litarkabuha) and use for show (Arabic: Wazinatan); and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge"

Regards,
Optimist

79

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 27, 2014, 11:07:43 PM »

Individuals not only efficiently handle huge, welfare works, but also efficiently organize colossal welfare projects.

Salaam!

Actually you do not know what you are talking about. 

I was asking you about cases which only individuals can effectively undertake under their individual capacity without the need for collective effort.  The cases should be such that if collective effort is there it will make the project less effective.  Also my point was not regarding  whether individuals can organise colossal welfare projects through collective effort (this even a child knows), because you said, I quote: "A government's only duty is to organize the delivery of only that portion of the general welfare, which is beyond the scope of individuals".    So my questions:

1. In a society, what are the things that can be classified as individuals can do it under their individual capacity (in a more efficient way) without the need to organize and if collectively done that would make the things less effective.

2. In a society, what are the things that individuals can not do in an efficient manner  under their individual capacity, but requires a system or government to do it in a more efficient way?

Kindly answer.  Also I would like to know if you have any comments for my last post (which is connected to the point).

Regards
Optimist

80

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 27, 2014, 06:50:37 PM »

Salaam Optimist,

Can you clarify more about this, that it is the duty of the State to enforce of Islamic laws of the Sharia.  Are you talking from the Quran perspective on what Allah asks us to do or on what Islamic States should do?

Wa'saalam

We all know any law which is not backed by force is no more than pious advice.  Law must be enforced if the social order is to be maintained.  For this, the power vested in the state/ authority should be used to maintain law and order and as a defense against those who threaten its independence.  The Quran says;

"Make ready for your opponents all you can of armed forces and of horses tethered, that thereby you may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beside whom you know not". (8:60).

The Quran, therefore, is in favor of the state maintaining sufficient power to enforce its laws. The state should not use its power to oppress the weaker nations. It should use its power to create conditions in which the way of life ordained by Allah can be followed.

Surah Hadeed says in this context: that "Allah sent the prophets and sent the Holy Books with them" and then Allah goes on to state that He also sent IRON (the sword) too; It means that a society will be established in which Quranic laws will be implemented: this force has been symbolized by the sword (Iron): the force that is responsible for enforcing adl (justice) in this world and the force which could be used against the destructive forces of evil.   This is what a true Quranic system is: i.e. the code of permanent laws from God (the al-kitaab) and a system in order to establish this code. About IRON it is said: feehi baasun shadeeduw wa manafi-ul lin naas: 57:25 meaning its strength does away with the forces or elements which create chaos and disharmony in the society: and thus its strength is for benefit of man. 

Note: By stating The Quran and The sword together it does not mean that the Quran should be made acceptable on the basis of the sword.

Regards,
Optimist

81

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 27, 2014, 03:33:58 AM »

The corruption-free government's only duty is to organize the delivery of only that portion of the general welfare, which is beyond the scope of individuals.

Salaam,

You are desperately trying to dilute the role of government.  I challenge you to list down to me examples which can be handled in an efficient manner (for the purpose of promoting general welfare) that are within the scope of individuals. Please also list down examples that are beyond the scope of individuals and has to be handled by a government.  I will wait for the two lists. OK 

Let me staste in brief the responsibilities of an Islamic government;

1. Provision of Basic Necessities of Life :-  It is primary duty of the Islamic state that it should provide the basic necessities of life like, food, clothing, shelter and education to every citizen living in the country.

2. Enforcement of Islamic Law :- It is the duty of the state it should enforce the laws of Shariah.

3. Ensuring social and economic justice, It is the duty of the Islamic State that it should provide equal chances of employment and economic development to all the people irrespective of colour and caste.

4. Social Security :-  Islamic state must provide, the security of life and property. There should be peace and property.  The state shall be responsible for maintaining law and order in the country.

5. Social Justice :- It is the duty of the state to make full utilization of economic resources for the economic welfare of the people. Social justice must be provided.

6. Full utilization of resources  & Stability in the Price Level :- The state is responsible to maintain stable prices in the country. In this regard a government can frame a fiscal and monetary policy to control inflation.

7.  Protection of the state from outside and inside enemies.

8.  Harmonious .relations with other countries.

Basic Human Rights an Islamic government shall be responsible for

1. Every human child is equally worthy of respect, thus on account of one's genesis there can be no discrimination; there is no difference between one man and the other: (17:70)

2. In the Islamic Social Order, criterion of determining status of its people shall be their personal deeds and merit: (46:19)

3. No human being can be subservient to another. Nobody can have the right to rule other people (3:78)

4. None shall seize the labour of another person by force, every worker shall get the full recompense of his labour; (39:70)

5. Everyone shall be treated justly: (16:90)

6. Not only justice, if someone lags behind in spite of his best efforts, his deficiency has to be made good by
others to restore the disturbed balance in society. That is called 'Ihsaan'. That is why it is said: (70:24-
25) "Those who are indigents or are incapacitated, have a recognised right in the wealth of society".

7. The right of sustenance: To provide means of sustenance to every individual is the responsibility of the system raised on Divine Injunctions: (6:152).

8. Security and safety of life.

9. Protection of Wealth.

10. Protection of dwellings.

11. Protection of chastity.

12. Protection of aesthetics. It means the right to satisfy one's taste for the beauties of this life remaining within
the limits of the law.

13. Right of the freedom of religion.

14. Right of redress of grievances to the oppressed.

15. The right of a person not to bear the burden of another.

Regards,
Optimist

82

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 26, 2014, 07:08:01 PM »

Salaam.

The fellow was not focusing on the moral aspects of the great epic. Like the following academic stuff:

"...Then of course there is the Jain Ramayana, which other than following the rough outline of Valmiki’s is an entirely independent work. The Thai Ramayana differs greatly from the Indonesian one, not just in what it says but in its story line, and both are very different from Valmiki’s. And when I say different, I mean really different. In one version Ravana is the hero, not Rama. In some versions Sita is Rama’s sister, not his wife. The Malay Ramayana, Hikayat Seri Rama, and the Lao version, Phra Lak Phra Lam, make Lakshmana the hero and Rama his sidekick." Quote from:

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ramayana

It is not required to do deep investigation dear Ismail.  What I stated is generally used as a proverb.

The bane of my country is the all pervading corruption, and not at all, ownership of lands, or saving of money in banks.

Do you know if private ownership on lands is taken away and if people can not save or hoard money in banks, there will be no corruption (because it would be impossible for those involved in corruption to keep the money they illegally earn).   It is private ownership on lands and the permissibility to save and hoard money that facilitate people to do corruption.  If there rights are taken away, there will be no corruption in teh society.  I hope you still believe  "if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that".

Regards,
Optimist

83

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 24, 2014, 12:28:39 PM »

Salaam.

You said:

"My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals."

I said in my last post:

"The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding."

Please clarify, so that I may not stray.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Wassalam,

Your above comment make me think about someone who after reading Ramayana from beginning till end, still asked someone to clarify who is Sita to Raman.  You may kindly read just my initial post.   Also, I have explained repeatedly at several places about different stages through which an Islamic society moves forward, though the Quran has stipulated certain laws to cater to the needs of certain circumstances,  in the final stage,  when an Islamic state is fully established, every individual works to full capacity, but keeps only what he needs, whilst leaving the remainder of his earnings open for the benefit of society under the administration of the state and at this stage the administration takes up the responsibility of ensuring that sustenance reaches each and every member of society. My case has been all along that under Islamic state lands and its resources shall be under the collective administration of the state and there is no question of permitting people to hoard or to save wealth under individual capacity (except under collective administration by the state).

Anyhow, you said: "if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that".   As you aware, in a country like India;

1. Majority of the people live in poverty and find it difficult to meet their needs
2. As under any capitalist system, the wealth is concentrated among few individuals
3. The land and it resources are getting accumulated by rich individuals (due to this reason the price increase is more than 10 to 15 times in the last 5 years alone at many places).  And it has now become impossible for majority of people to buy even 5 cents of land for building a house for themselves and their families.

This is a grave situation the people are going through.  The moot question: Will the state be justified if it abolishes private ownership on lands if it is established that this as an appropriate solution under the above circumstances?

Regards,
Optimist

84

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 23, 2014, 04:35:13 PM »

Dear Ismail,  Assalamu alaikum

I kindly request you to focus on your statements since I notice there is no consistency in your statements

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Citizen's rights were suspended is just your assumption.  For this you have to prove first all citizen's were holding the land and its resources in their individual capacity and suddenly because of grave emergency the rights were taken away.

That means, if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that.

May I deduct from your above statement the following;

It shall be the decision of the government to decide whether land ownership should be given to individuals or to be taken out from them to bring it under overall administrative control of the state, based on different circumstances.   This stand is closer (closer only) to what I have been posting under this thread.  My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals.

It neither means that land and its resources were owned by their legitimate owners, nor that the government had nationalized it.

Not a logical statement.  If the land and the resources were not owned by the individuals (it is implied in your above statement there is no evidence for this), since there was a state (kingdom) in existence (this is a fact), by default, all lands and its resources were owned by the state (kingdom).  This is simple common sense.

I mean that there is no proof that before, during, or after Nabi Yusuf took over, ownership of land or its resources was abolished. Nor even that just to tide over the grave situation, the  government took over all the land and it's resources temporarily.

Again, before you to talk about abolition, you have to prove first the ownership was with individuals.   To tide over of the grave situation is just your justification and that is the reason why I mentioned the word "temporarily" (because based on your logic, naturally, once the grave situation is over, the state has no reason to keep it under its control.  The land and its resources should be reverted back to individuals).   

However, my contention is that land and its resources were never under individual control at any point of time during prophet Yousuf's time and therefore, there was no issue of suspending or abolishing any individual rights.   Prophet Yousuf was entrusted with the responsibility to tide over the issue, being a trustworthy person, expert, and as a person who was completely aware about all circumstances.

Regards
Optimist

85

Women / Re: Critique: Marrying 4 wives in Islam

« on: January 23, 2014, 02:56:10 AM »

It is CLEAR evident to ANYONE who reads any of Brother Joseph’s writings; he is Beyond blessed from Allah, MashaAllah, May Allah Protect him and give him wisdom beyond description to keep on teaching and spreading the word of Allah to the human race.

Alhamdulillah always

86

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 23, 2014, 02:24:19 AM »

Salaam.

You said regarding Nabi Yusuf (taking over the administration of the treasures of the country):

 "This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolize the land and it resources)."

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Even so, in the narrative of Sura Yusuf, there is no clear evidence that such suspension occurred, let alone abolition of land ownership rights for ever.

(Before talking about suspension occurred and temporary abolition of land ownership) firstly you may kindly prove that the land and its resources were owned by the people, instead of the state (the kingdom).

87

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 22, 2014, 08:02:08 PM »

The point is, when we are going to organize people to solve a certain problem, or to achieve something, like governing a province, how can we ensure that the members of our organization are God-fearing or not?

Just to make a comment differently (actually I feel clarity problem in your question), let me state that in order to solve a certain problem in an organized way, it is not necessary every member in the organisation to be God-fearing.  If we entrust the duty to people who are capable to carry out the task with sufficient authority, it is possible to solve the problem.

For instance, we have good example from prophet Yousuf when the King entrused prophet Yousuf to take care of the enonomy for the upcoming 7 difficult years.   Prophet Yousuf said: 'Appoint me over the treasures of the land, for I am a good keeper, and possessed of knowledge of these matters"(12:55).   This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolise the land and it resources).   

Regards,
Optimist

88

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 22, 2014, 01:48:00 AM »

Salaam.

The point is, when we are going to organize people to solve a certain problem, or to achieve something, like governing a province, how can we ensure that the members of our organization are God-fearing or not?

The answer is simple...The instruction to organize and collectively solve the problems is directed to only God fearing people....

89

General Discussions / Re: In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

« on: January 21, 2014, 09:35:02 PM »

Of course, prosperity and organized effort aid us in fulfilling our responsibilities.

Salaam,

This is natural law and just a simple common sense, not even a one single person in a million not likely to disagree.  Thanks

But organized effort creates more problems than it solves, if the members of the organization are not God-fearing.

This argument does not hold any value in Islam.  In Islam,  Laws and instructions are made and intended only for God fearing people.   Never in the history of humanity, Allah made Laws intended for people who are not God-fearing.   Your concern stands dismissed on this account alone. 

Regards,
Optimist

90

General Discussions / Re: World's 85 richest people own half of global wealth..!!

« on: January 21, 2014, 03:03:32 AM »

Why are you bothered ? It is the order of the day one can not undo it. The 85 people may grow more ? How can we stop it? Don't bother about these issues

Don't worry!  Just watching only.  It heralds the collapse of capitalism and an awesome revolution which is a must and will come to pass, sonner or later.  Insha Allah