Critical engagement with the book ‘Mezan’

 Translated by Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake 

 (I had an opportunity to introduce a book Mezan (printed on march 2013) by the great religious scholar Javad Ahemd Gamdi to the famous poet and intellectual Prof Inyal at his home on Friday 8th January 2016. The logical dissection that follows is of Prof inyat; I simply translated it in English and added something on my own. Analysis is deep but not wide (limited to page 45, 46, 60) because of the constraints of time: meeting lasted only for 20 minutes. The cell number of prof inyat is 03002792104)

“…The addressees of the Quran were well-acquainted with the articles of faith; Namaz; zakat; hajj were in practice. Muslim narrates that Abu Zar was consistent in praying namaz in pre-conversion period. Fast was in practice in the same form and substance as it is now…. Hajj was partly defiled through certain grafting and innovation; but as whole it was intact in purity…..” P45

The word namaz is susceptible of various interpretations; for example one school of thought defines it as the act of folding hands. Prophet determined the meaning of namaz through his act of praying and enjoined his followers: ‘pray in way I do’.   Had Abu Zar been performing the namaz in the same way (genuflecting, prostrating) or he had been simply folding hands or following some other postures? Simply stating that Abu Zar had been performing namaz does not prove that namaz of his was no different from the namaz of prophet.

Let’s suppose that namaz of Abu Zar was the same as the namaz of Prophet but Abu Zar was the only man (as text mentions only his name) but conclusion is generalized as example of one man is taken to prove that everyone was the performer of namaz.    

Text provides no information of the form (posture or pattern of namaz) and substance (recitation during namaz) of the namaz of Abu Zar.  Let’s suppose that the namaz of his was no different in form and substance to the namaz of prophet. Let’s suppose that conclusion is not generalized and every one had already been performing in the right form and substance; then why prophet asked his campaigns to learn to perform by act of observing the former praying?

Writer should have provided the detailed description of ‘certain innovations’ in Hajj. It is known that people blew whistle during performing hajj naked. Words are deceptive until and unless they are defined. Unity between words does not mean that concept underlying them is same; for example the words ‘judge’ ‘lawyer’ ‘helper’ are used for humans as well as for God; but the verbal unity does mean that judge in a court is same as God as the judge on the day of judgment. There are no details of the form and substance of Hajj to prove that the Hajj of pagan was almost same (‘’except the few grafting injected and people had taken as well exception of them’’). Reference no 31 regarding fast is from the book of history; suppose this book is as authentic as any authentic book of Hadith; details regarding the form and substance of fast are still needed.   

‘’…the addressees of the Quran were no strangers to the prayer of Friday…” P45

Infidels of Mecca were no strangers to the God as well. Abu jahil before the battle of Badr prayed to one and only God. Knowing does not mean believing or in other words, knowing does not mean believing as it is required to believe. Suppose knowing means believing as book urges readers to believe that performance of Friday prayer (again no information regarding the form and substance of Friday prayer is given) indicates that God was known and believed; so it leaves zero-scope for the advent of any prophet to revive Tuhid (oneness of God) as the concept had already been entrenched. 

            Author of a book takes his readers to conclusion: Prophet was simply charged with the mission to remove ‘grafting and innovation’ (from the form and substance of practices those pre-existed him) to restore the purity and majesty of practices. 

Views of the author of a book are not mainstream; majority thinks otherwise. There are long-established rules of rebuttal; rational course would therefore be the analysis of the underlying strength of argument to rebut them: one can reject but should give reason for rejection. Author of a book should have given his readers the exposure of views he does not endorse with detailed analysis of reasons and references supporting views he seeks to refute. Readers of a book feel that opinion of the writer of a book (opinion we must respect) is not the one but the only opinion. This intellectual dishonesty book advertently or inadvertently commits.

“…As people were already familiar with the articles of faith; Quran had  calculated elaboration…‘we command you to follow Abraham consistent and uni-directed (exclusively focused or undistracted) to God and was not among infidels.’P46

Paragraph should logically be consistent if arguments are to derive strength from them; arguments are weak as they are incomplete in a sense that they are not supported if paragraphs go in different (not necessarily in mutually exclusive) direction; for example first paragraph discusses that if exercise is performed in a certain pattern, then it gives the most wonderful result; second paragraph that follows should have the example of people who followed the recommended pattern and had the expected result. In case, the second paragraph discusses the importance of exercise or the importance of health so it will not be logically consistent; therefore arguments will be weak.

Book quotes the line from the Quran to underscore the firmness of Abraham toward unity of God; but the paragraph that precedes is about the articles of faith. How the firm belief of Abraham relates to the point author is making that article of faith pre-existed Prophet in form and substance? Author even quotes an example to prove that article of faith existed during Abraham it will not prove either that they existed among the infidels of Mecca.

“…man always knows that lion, leopard…donkey are not made for consumption’’P60

Knowing that something is bad is different from knowing that something is prohibited. Christian asserts ‘drink but do not get drunk’ and adds that when a person drinks he grows addicted so it is better not to drink at all. What percentage of Christian shuns drinking because it is bad but not bad enough to be prohibited? The line indicates the people knew that donkeys were not fit for eating; even we accept this reasoning for the sake of argument; it will not prove that people were not eating donkeys as when people can drink despite not feeling good about it, so people could eat donkeys despite having bad feeling about it, as we learn from history that people had cooked donkey but prophet asked them not eat it anymore. People stopped eating donkey because of the prohibition from prophet not because of inner abhorrence.