Annaqued has failed to respond to Sunday 24 December posting (1)

Carlyle is not eligible to talk

As language evolves and expands it grows richer not only by incorporating new words in its repertoire, but also by adding new meanings to a word. One word, therefore, acquires many meanings. It is possible, a poet wanted to convey one meaning through a word, and a reader/a critic is driven to another meaning. It is possible as well that the meaning of a word was non-existent when a poet uttered a couplet.  Meaning was added later and readers of later time interpreted it in accordance with a meaning added later. The fact that a couplet is susceptible of various interpretations or more than one possible meaning does no damage except that true intentions of the poet may not be conveyed.

It is therefore definitely not always important and perhaps not all important to know what the poet means by a couplet if intentions of a poet are not at all important to know. The damage is done in case intentions of a poet are important to know.

It is often said that everyone can criticize everything. It is, however, wrong because everyone can play football but everyone does not play it. This will remain wrong, even we modify a bit and say whoever is interested in playing football can play football. Everyone has the freedom to play, however, only that individual can play who has learnt to play. One is to be physically and professionally well-equipped to do so. One does not automatically become a footballer because of being simply interested in it.

Similarly, one can do analysis of any theory, but everyone cannot do it. One is to be well-equipped to do so. One needs to know that it is definitely always important to know what the theory means by the author of a theory as rational analysis of a theory cannot begin without knowing it.

Islam is the religion that is driven from the Quran. God according to Muslim belief is the author of the Quran. One needs to understand Islam and its all other terminologies, concepts and tenets in the light of the definitions given by the Quran and their further elaboration by Hadiths. Understanding that is driven from the Quran or Hadith or from both is to be consensual: A sizable number of credible scholars believe it to be right.

 Everyone can do critical analysis of Islam,  but Islam cannot be criticized in the light of a definition that is the product of one own conjectures, whims or biases.  People quote lines from the Quran, they wish to quote and prove Islam or any of its concepts in the way they like (on desired lines) by the very words or verses of the Holy Quran. For example the word atrophy has two meanings. One is the meanings used in medicine; and another in general or in everyday English. We call the meaning used in medical as the specialized meaning; and the one used in English as the general meaning. The sentence ‘cultural life is atrophied sounds absurd if we explain it in accordance with the specialized meaning.

The terminologies of the Quran are to be understood by the specialized meanings used by the Quran not by the general meaning used in the Arabic language.

The definition cannot be right in a sense, despite being right. People take one aspect either because of ignorance or deliberate ignorance. Ignorance anyhow helps to project one aspect as the only aspect to criticize an activity. The analysis of an impact of an activity is bound to be wrong because of this missing dimension in the definition. For example, Islam has the definition of a good father: ‘A father is to be kind in manners and attitudes, but he has to be strict as well. Now one has definition that contains the part that  relates to kindness, but speaks nothing of strictness and he proceeds to analyze the impact of this definition or in other words, examines the conduct of a father in the light of the definition that is itself partially right. Corporal punishment must appear, then unjustified and a violation of the tenets of Islam; however it is not so.

Definition, therefore, has to be authentic, but also sufficiently comprehensive, comprehensive not necessarily in a sense that it leaves nothing out but in the sense that it incorporates everything essential.

An armed struggle does not become a jihad because it is waged by Muslims. It may not be a jihad if it does not match up to the Quranic definition of jihad, or may not be the perfect jihad if it doesn’t match up to all requirements given by the definition of jihad.

Criticism of jihad cannot be justified if one criticizes jihad by what he means not by what jihad actually means in the light of the Quranic definition. Citing human rights violations of one armed struggle led by Muslims to condemn jihad is illogical because Islam does not permit human right violation; therefore, this armed struggle is not at all jihad or at least not jihad in a perfect sense.

Everyone can talk, but everyone is not eligible to talk. Words carry no credibility if one is minus eligibility. A man should deliver a talk on the discipline of medicine if he is a well versed scholar of this discipline. One who does not know the meaning and purpose of an operation may begin yelling right away at operation as an operation will definitely look barbaric, heinous and diabolical act of tearing.

When one talks about jihad so he must know that it means cleansing society or the world of miscreants as when one talks about an operation, he must know that an operation is an instrument to cleanse body of a disease, otherwise it will consume a whole body. Yelling at jihad is the manifestation of ignorance as one does not know that it is an instrument to cleanse society (body) of disease (miscreant).  

Islam has addressed all three fundamental questions:

Relation between man and woman.

Relation between money and labor.

Relation between a state and its people.

Everyone has the right to have the critical analysis of the Islamic solution or  answers to these questions. But one must know what Islam says and then analyze it.

·         In terms of the relation between man and woman‘The Islamic sexual morality is fundamentally different from that of the Christian Church. This is because of the all-encompassing nature of the Islamic shari'ah.’

 ‘Islam recognizes the sexual needs of human beings and believes that the natural instincts should be nurtured, not suppressed. Islam says that the biological parts of our body have a purpose; they have not been created uselessly. No text in Islam can be found to equate sex with inherent evil or sin; whatever has been taught by the Qur'an, Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlu'l-bayt points in the opposite direction.’

Bertrand Russell says, "Great religious leaders, with the exception of Muhammad and Confucius, if he can be called religious have in general been very indifferent to social and political considerations, and have sought rather to perfect the soul by meditation, discipline and self-denial."s Marriage and Morals, p. 175-176.

Islam does not enjoin followers to perfect soul by self-denial and abstinence ‘Islam very strongly opposes celibacy and monasticism, and Islam believes that marriage is not a hindrance in spiritual wayfaring, on the contrary it helps the wayfarer.’

Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) was not supposed to practice celibacy as this was prohibited in Islam. Carlyle could criticize the Islam for its opposition of celibacy on logical grounds, but instead he criticized the Prophet (P.B.U.H) for not practicing the Christian doctrine of celibacy.   

‘To the criticisms of Muhammad’s faults, imperfections and insincerities, Carlyle argues that Muhammad lived an exemplary life into his 50’s, when he was married to his first wife, Kadijah.  “Not until he was already getting old, the prurient heat of his life all burnt out,and peace growing to be the chief thing this world could give him, did he start on the “career of ambition;”and, belying all his past character and existence, set-up as a wretched empty charlatan to acquire what he could now no longer enjoy! For my share, I have no faith whatever in that [scenario].” 

Carlyle is blatantly incompetent to speak; he even does not know the basic pre-requisites required for the critical analysis.

Charlie does not know the meaning and purpose of a marriage in Islam; and therefore the prophet appears ‘charlatan’ because he married to Kadijah.  The act of the prophet could be criticized if it is not in consonance to the religion he has introduced to the world on the grounds that the Prophet did not practice what he preached. The prophet could justly be criticized for not marrying instead of marrying.  

The act of marriage could itself be criticized but for that Carlyle had to prove that marriage constitutes impediments to spiritual fulfillments.