Critical engagement because of response with ‘Mezan
Translated by Dr. Sohail Ansari
“It is my
humble submission that the points/topics highlighted in the blog are not at all
the basic content of the chapter respected sir read and commented. To know
details and references about worship you are advised to go over chapter law of worship page 263-404 under the unit ‘Al-Kitab/
Shariyah; and for the details of edible , kindly read ‘dietary law page
629-638) it will truly be appreciable if you comment after going over it.
Further writer have taught all these chapters and are available on website with
detailed question and answer session. “One should read pages 263 to 404. 629-
638 before commenting’’.
Response of salman to analysis of book ‘Mezan’ by Prof Inyat (via Sms on 7th of Feb 2016 to dr sohail )
Response of Prof
Inyat to response of Salman
Salman means that pages analyzed are the
(further) explanation not the content itself. Response implies something quite
opposite to what it should. Response should be: pages analyzed are the basic
content of a book; therefore reading explanation (explanation of content) would
clarify. Problem can occur if analysis is restricted only to basic content
therefore, one is suggested to read explanation to grip the content in its
entirety; but Salam says that analysis (of pages 45, 46, 63) was of explanation;
if he is right then logically no problem should occur.
Regardless of the logical flaw in response,
the suggestion to read pages 263 to 404. 629- 638 implies that answers of
questions posed in the analysis of pages 45, 46, 63 are in the suggested pages.
Reading suggested pages turned out to be not only exercise in futility in a
sense that pursuit of answers ended in failure but also I got an impression that
pages from 274 to 281 were the explanation.
I quote lines
from my previous analysis:
Muslim narrates
that Abu Zar was consistent in praying namaz in pre-conversion period. …..” P45
‘To
know details and references about worship you are advised to go over chapter
law of worship page 263-404 under the unit ‘Al-Kitab/ Shariyah’
I
followed advice and that read suggested pages.
Below I quote page 276
‘Abu
Zar he had been observing Namaz three years before meeting Prophet (peace be
upon him) he was inquired for who he was worshiping for? He replied for God.’
Question I raised in my previous analysis:
(1)
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.
(2)
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.
(3)
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?
Readers
should decide that how far the deficit of knowledge on page 45 is compensated
by page 276
through meeting questions raised in previous
analysis.
Reading page 276 added one more
deficit:
(4) Similarity of a word does not
mean similarity of an image word creates. People those believe in incarnation
or anthropomorphism keep the image of God that is different from image of God
Muslim keep. Infidels of Mecca believed in God but the image they had of God
was not endorsed by Islam.
People belonging to different religions associate different
characteristics and attributes to God; therefore all people believes in God but
everyone has its own God; and true God according to our belief is God
introduced by prophet (P.B.U.H); therefore suggesting that Abu Zar believed in
God before the advent of prophet does not prove that he believed in the God
that was later introduced by prophet (P.B.U.H).
If Abu Zar believed in God that had attributes same as
those of God introduced by prophet (P.B.U.H).), then how he knew those
attributes?
‘‘History of
Namaz (P 274 to 277)’’
‘The
history of namaz is as old as that of religion. It existed is all religion and
its pattern and timings were somewhat determined…..’ text states that ‘all
prophets of God underscored the importance of Namaz…..’ text further quotes different prophets urging their children or their
people to observe Namaz. Text quotes Prophet Zakariya ‘he was standing and praying
namaz’. On page 276
book quotes a couplet ‘worship day and night…’ ‘The Namaz of
Christen and Jews is mentioned time and again in Bible and Bible interprets
Namaz in a way Quran interprets as praying, recitation, genuflecting and
prostrating….. ‘Sea belongs to Him….
Let’s genuflect and prostrate’
One rule should be
remembered that there is no evolution in the teaching of prophet and of Satan.
Teachings of different prophets in different periods and time in history have
always been same so the grounds Satan used to tempt people. Book therefore proves something
(prophets were praying and worshipping) that is already proven.
Question is: If teachings are same then why
different prophets in different periods to repeat same thing? As first prophet
in the beginning taught things and then teaching must have passed on from
generation to generation as book suggest.
Answer is: Things
do not pass from generation to generation. People grow far removed from the
teaching with the passage of time and thus need prophet to remind them.
One another thing
should be remembered that though there is no evolution in teaching but there
has always been variation on the theme (in message/substance) and in form in
accordance to the needs and dictates of time.
Genuflecting and prostration can be different as well.
Question
I raised in my previous analysis:
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. Page 45
I followed advice that
read suggested pages
from 356 to 358.
Pages
from 356 to 358 are really interesting. All quotes are from Bible to prove that
fast was in existence and practiced among the people of the book and then book
concludes: ‘This history of fast proves that fast was as known to the addresses of the Quran as Namaz and Zakat.
The
immediate and primary addresses of Quran were the infidels of Mecca; not the
people of the book. It is interesting as quotes proves the practice of fast
among ‘people of the book’ but
author says that practice among the ‘people of book’ proves that fast was known
and practiced by the infidels.
Page 358 states: “the addresses of Quran not only knew
the status of fast but also all the conditions and pre-requites associated with
it; addresses of Quran therefore are not given any detail of its conditions and
pre-requisites (of fast); and instructed instead to keep fast as they knew
it’’.
Page 358 grows more and more
interesting as it proceeds, one cannot help feeling that prophet (P.B.U.H) was
born among people fully conversant with all articles of faith and really cannot
help wondering what Prophet (P.B.U.H) was born for?
Knowing something by name (as
infidel) knew God by name does not mean knowing it with all its characteristics
and conditions. Quran did not give details to highlight the importance of
Hadith as Hadith had to explain things/injunctions.
The question is: If addresses of the Quran knew every condition and
prerequisite of fast, why Hadith had details of everything article of faith
including fast?
‘Arab had the word for fast in pre-Islamic
period proves that they were knowing fast….356
Question I raised in my previous analysis
regarding Friday prayer can be applied to fast and begs for answer that how
knowing something by name means knowing it by substance:
’…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 mentions different article
of faith and states that they were already in practice and prophet (P.B.U.H)
continued them with certain amendments.
Verbal unity between one practice
in two different periods in history does not necessarily mean that practice in
both periods was same in form and substance. To prove that verbal unity means
that practice in two different periods was same in form and substance, writer
has to answer a few questions.
1)
Did article of faith exist in the same form and substance as required?
2)
What kinds of the amendment Prophet made? Were these amendments dealt
with fundamentals (substance or with forms).
It is important to explain as
worship can exist in definition and practice that runs counter to the purpose
it was enjoined to followers.
Readers should decide that how far the deficit of
knowledge on page 45 is compensated by page 356 to 358.
‘History
of Zakat P 345
‘Zakat
was as enjoined as Namaz to followers of every prophet; therefore Muslims were
not stranger to it when they were instructed by divine injunction to pay it. It
was sunnat already in existence; therefore, prophet continued it with certain
man amendments in the light of divine commands.’
Muslim
were infidels in pre-conversion period; they were not follower of any chief
religion of the world. Lines logically should be: when Muslims were instructed to pay zakat that was quite known to Jews
and christen as people of book were fully conversant with zakat.
(for the details of edible, kindly read ‘dietary law
page 629-638). I followed advice
‘Man guided by nature discriminates good from bad therefore
he always knows (by instinct) that lion, leopard… snakes, scorpions are not fit
for human consumption. Page 629-630’
Questions I raised in my previous analysis on page
60:
“…man always knows that lion, leopard…donkey
are not made for consumption’’P60
1) 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?
2) The line on page 60 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.
3) 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.
Readers should decide that how far the deficit of knowledge on page 60
is compensated by pages 629-630
through meeting questions raised in previous analysis of P 60
Reading pages 629-630 added more
deficits:
My point is that human intellect cannot determine the
difference between permissible and non-permissible; and if author of book
thinks otherwise so he must answer few questions:
1)
Hedonism as the philosophy of life is in existence in west,
why ‘enlightened people’ of west cannot know the perniciousness of this
philosophy?
2)
If human intellect can discriminate between right and
wrong, why there have always been divine
Do's and don'ts?
3)
Why 1374.6 million people of
china are unguided by nature in eating snakes and scorpions?
4)
Why pig is popular dish in non
Muslim community?
‘Further writer have taught all these chapters and are
available on website with detailed question and answer session’.
Questions I raised in my previous analysis
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.
Comments
Post a Comment