From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: re Islamic Justice and ....
Date: 6 Apr 1992 14:47:48 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr3.220909.2584@vax1.umkc.edu> memon@acsu.buffalo.edu writes:

>          My point is as you said the "the severity of some punishment defies
>any sense of humanity".Those words definitly qualify my use of the word
>"barbarism". If you see someone being stoned for adultery,won't you feel
>that it is a primitive and barbaric way to put a person to death especially
>if there are more humane means of doing so.Secondly, don't you think that
>stoning some one just for adultery is both wrong and evil.

No not at all. "Adultery" is a curse and evil for which stoning is
the only appropriate "punishment". "Adultery", casual sex, uninhibited
sex, sex without assuming all the consequent responsibilities, is
an "evil" for which the West, and USA in particular is only, now,
begining to understand the costs. Appended to this posting, you
will find all the "evil consequences" of "adultery" which West
has now come to condone. That article was written in reply to some
one asking what is wrong with having a little relationship and
or sex. Right now, I am in the process of gathering a research 
group to substantiate my claims with actual figures and dollor
values. Even without those, you will see how "adultery" results
in consequences to the society, which become un-bearable if
allowed without appropriate controls.

>If that is Islamic
>"justice" then I would definitly call it primitive and abhorrent to mordern
>man.

Read the article and see for your self whether punsihing "adultery"
is "primitive" or allowing it is "primitive and abhorrent". What
                  --------
is this "modern man", by the way? I see no difference in this
condoning, and in fact, promotion of "adultery" and all the
accompanying ware, with the famous, historical "orgies of the Greek"?
It seems history is going to repeat itself with another
Pompei, perhaps!

>The Mayans used to sacrifice humans to their gods.The humans they
>sacrificed were criminals and prisoners of war.It was sanctioned by their
>religion,does that mean that you also have to do all what that the koran
>says.I'm a layman when concerned with Islamic law and I "lack understanding
>of the nature of the societies that you(I) seem to be making a judgement
>about". 

Here is the abject fallacy of your above argument: But first let
me restate your reasoning (correct me if I am wrong):

Because Mayans' had a religion which
condoned "sacrifice of humans", this implies that "ALL" religions
condone  such "barbaric acts". Since,  Islam is a religion, it
also condone  such "barbaric acts". Hence, it is concluded
that Islam is also "barbaric".

Show this reasoning to any one and he will rip your argument apart.
The basic fallacy orginates from your being a  "layman when concerned 
with Islamic law" (as you yourself stated).

One, Islam is NOT a religion, never was, and will never
be. It is and has remained for ever a "deen". (Refer to another
posting for explanation, or see some standard text in Islam. You
seem to seriously require it).


>So naturally I just see whats on the surface and it seems to me
>so ruthless that you can't blame me for forming such opinions.I know 
>there are a lot of people who think like me and plus there is the news
>media ,and people who have seen Islamic "justice" in action who would 
>disagree with you.A thousand lies won't change the truth.Don't delude your
>selves, Islamic Justice is not  JUSTICE!
>
>P.S.:Islamic Justice is not the only injustice that should be banished from
>this world there are other kinds to, e.g. aparthied, but opinions must change
>first.                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>

Here is another instance of people who don't even look around
themselves and understand what is happening around themselves.
Then they have the audacity to criticize Islam, the knowledge
about which they themselves confess to, of being like a "layman".  
Is this the concept of "rationalism and objectivity" which
is held so dear by the "modern man", who by repeating
the history, pretends to be claimant of "originality"!!!!!
Ask any Muslim about the 'Islamic "justice" in action' which
you have seen from your media. A media which terms, unabashedly,
with so much truth, its "news" to be nothing but STORIES!

Read the following article and tell me whether you want to banish
Islamci Justice or the so called man-made-gods-of-reason and
their consequent curses:

		===========================
		ANATOMY OF A FREE LUNCH AND
		     ITS CONSEQUENCES
		     ================

In article (nadeem.696912396@deathstar) nadeem\@deathstar.Stanford.EDU (Nadeem Hussain) writes:

	Since I didn't get any answers I'm posting again.\\  
	WHAT IS WRONG WITH HAVING A RELATIONSHIP AND/OR SEX? \\ 
	I hope the answer isn't just "well its un-Islamic."

You asked for it! So, here it is in detail, explaining what is wrong
with having relationship and/or sex AND the answer is not just that
it is ``un-Islamic''!!!!! Don't get disparage with the discourse, it
is all necessary to lay the context in which all ``relationships''
are perceived in an Islamic society.

	{Relationships in an Islamic society}
        =====================================
 We will observe the elegance of  
relationships as conceived in an Islamic society by  comparing them to
a  set of concentric circles. This 
will be in contrast to the  popular Western notions which considers a 
society as a set of 
two disjoint circles; one representing the ``individual'' and the 
other representing the ``state''. The premise for making them disjoint
is that each of the disjoint circles has no bearing or influence on 
the other circle and both can be considered as independent of 
each other!


{The core of all Relationships}
-----------------------------
The core of the concentric circles representing an Islamic society
is its nucleus \_\_ God or Allah.  
The relationship between
Allah and HIS creation \_\_ human, has been defined by HIM in Quran.
All relationships of a human being revolves around the objectives
as set forth by Allah: 

	``Wa Maa khaluqtul Jin-na wal Insa 
					illa leYa'budoon''\\
	(HE didn't create man or jinn except to obey HIM)


{Relationships of an Individual}
-------------------------------
The innermost circle, of an Islamic society, just around the 
core,  denotes the individual himself. Area in the circle stands for
his rights and his responsibilities. This circle has a great 
responsibility \_\_ responsibility towards his own self. All his actions
have a direct bearing on his own salvation. What ever he does, whatever
he acts, he
is responsible for that. He will be asked on the day of judgment 
about each and every action, whether done in the open or in the
confines of the darkness of the darkest cellars. He owes his
existence to ALLAH and is, therefore, responsible to HIM for what he
does with his own self.
Whatever he does has no bearing 
on the core (Allah-us-Samad), but only on his own self and those
around him (the outer circles).

His responsibilities flow outwards from the circle denoting the
individual. The intensity with which his actions influence those 
around
him in the outer enveloping (concentric) circles varies at a 
diminishing rate. Those farthest to him are affected the least, but
nevertheless, they are affected. This is the case in general, barring
disasters, or cataclysmic events.

{Relationship with his family}
-----------------------------
The circle just around the one denoting the  
responsibilities and rights of his own self, is the one denoting
the responsibilities and rights of his family (this is the second 
circle from
the nucleus). This is his immediate family. Herein lies his rights,
that he enjoys, and the responsibilities, he is obligated with
towards his parents, spouse, children, brothers, and sisters \_\_
his immediate family. To illustrate our arguments about your question,
we will start by exploring the meaning and utility of mutuality among
relationships by the following mutuality
which exists between parents and children. 

An individual has a right to be well reared 
and nurtured by the parents (and other family members) during the 
early years of his life till he reaches maturity. Later on, he is 
obligated  to reciprocate the benefits that were accrued on him
during his childhood by his parents. When his parents reach the age 
where they can't take care of themselves (if you have seen some old 
people you would realize that ageds are  just like little babies, 
needing to be fed, clothed, entertained, 
washed etc.) it is then the obligation of the child to take care of
them. Such mutual  rights and responsibilities exist vis-a-vis
each member of the family. It is not just a one way traffic where you
only enjoy the benefits of rights without fulfilling 
the responsibilities for which you are obligated.

This, for instance, offers
solutions to the numerous problems faced by the aged in USA. 
Baby boomers are the larger chunk of the population and will very soon 
join the ranks of those entitled to ``medi-care''. This represents
another of the serious looming budgetary problems. One must reflect at
the unavoidable spending costs which emphasize the 
budgetary woes of US. The major chunk of the spendings goes
to medi-care and is, therefore, only expected to increase substantially 
and there are  no signs of controlling it. Islamic way of apportioning 
reponsibility where it rightly belongs, is the most judicious 
way of dealing with this problem. Children, who 
in fact, enjoyed the benefits of having parents, when they were little,
must be made responsible for taking care of their parents, when they are
old. Why should an average tax-payer, who is taking care of
his own parents, bear the costs of maintaining the old parents of others?
Isn't this a violation of  the concept of ``nothing like a free lunch''? 
A concept so well know in the West, and so easily forgotten, when it comes
to the care of aged. A person refusing to look after the parents,
in fact, enjoyed a free lunch while he/she  was a child and not
able to take care of him/her-self.

This mutuality among the family relationships  offers
elegant solutions to so many of the US rampant problems:
of child abuse in day care centers, child abuse by step fathers, 
rising costs of day care, demands
for the govt. to support day-care, demands for paid leave during 
pregnancy, lousy and substandard upbringing of the children, falling
education standards, unproductivity and
other problems in USA \_\_ burdens increasingly being taken
up by the government as more and more families keep relinquishing
their responsibilities!

{Relationship with other people}
------------------------------
Then comes the enveloping circle of our neighbors and our
relatives. These are the people to whom we can not refuse
small things (like when they come to borrow a little sugar,
a cup of milk, use of a plier etc). These are referred in
Quran as Al-Ma'oon. They are the people who are especially
helpful to us in our time of need, emergencies, sickness
etc. They can be entrusted with the care of your child
while you are away on an errand or are trying to cope with
some emergency like some one having died, or is sick, or
some other every day non-serious emergency. They keep an
eye on the environment of the locality, where you live, warn 
you of any suspicious characters, or suspicious characters with
which your child may be associating. You reciprocate
by offering similar small services. It is again mutual,
nothing is explicitly defined, only recommended strongly
for or discouraged against. This circle takes care of the
problems encountered in the big cities like drug neighbor
hoods, neighborhood safety, healthy neighborhood, 
and rampant crime in big city areas of USA. After the brief
flirtation with the ``individual'', ``alone'', ``no-intervention''
concepts about the neighbors, the Americans are rediscovering
the benefits of the neighborhood watch (watchful eye of
the neighbor!)

After this circle, comes the circle of your city where you live in,
your country or the society in general. The outermost circle 
envelops all the human beings and so
on.

	{What is wrong with a relationship and having sex?}
	--------------------------------------------------
Now that you have got the sense of where I am leading, let me
clarify two points before I take up your question:

{Fallacy of Composition and Cause and Effect}
--------------------------------------------
[Fallacy of Composition] 
	There is a principle of ``fallacy of composition'' which is
	frequently used in economics. It denotes the principle that
	``what is good for one may not be good for all!'' The common
	example is that of an individual, who in a crowded stadium,
	stands up to have a better view. Of course, he will
	get a good view when he stands up, but the same would not be
	true if all the people in the stadium were to stand up!
	Similarly, if few children in a society are raised without 
	proper care and supervision, it is not going to matter much.
	However, if all  
	children in the society are neglected and ignored, then you
	can well imagine what the fate of the society would be!

[Cause and Effect] 
	Every action in this world DOES have some effect \_\_ great, small or
	insignificant. Such small, apparently insignificant, actions
	do accumulate and may bring about phenomenal changes 
	which in fact  have given the shape and contours to our 
	mother earth. Even a semblance of  wind, not capable
	of even fluttering a feather, may have serious consequences,
	in a sufficiently large time-span.


We note that your question pertains to the third circle (or
probably the fourth one) around the individual. It pertains to
relationship with people  who do not fall in our
direct family. They may even be beyond our relations and neighbors. They
comprise of people we happen to meet just because of geographical
proximity. Referring to the  ``inverse square law of intensity'', 
they lie in a circle whose distance with the individual (distance
of the mutual relationship) is 
(probably) too great, to exhibit directly, the cause and effects we
normally observe in other relationships.  
Just like the flutter of a wind, which is so gentle that it 
doesn't even disturb a feather, their
relationship may not exhibit any change (apparently) on our
mutual rights and responsibilities. Although, at a glance
it looks so, it is not so!

		{A Case Study}
		--------------
Let's see the case where the above distance was considered so great
as not to exhibit any relationship i.e. separation of ``individual''
actions from those of the  ``state'' policy was considered so great
so as not to have any impact. In the fifties, it was thought, naively
in  USA, that what harm is there in a chance encounter
on the back seat of a car in a drive-in. A little kissing and a little
pecking was all it was supposed to signify (just like the 
seemingly innocent interjection, now, about what-is-wrong-with-a-
little-sex-or-relationship). Well, in a little over thirty years,
these innocently looking little peckings, which used to culminate
in marriages during the fifties,
have grown into full-fledge extensive relationships, without bounds
and embarrassment \_\_ co-living without marriage or just one night
stands. Even little girls
of  12, 13, or 14 years undergo relationships, that result in 
fruition. The number of girls  bearing children
and wanting to bear children increases at an alarming rate.
Ironically, these are the very girls, who being unable to face
 the trauma accompanying such cataclysmic
changes to their bodies, unable to face the pain of the person
walking right away, breaking the relationship,  opt
for babies instead of simply having an abortion. They have 
no way of taking care of the babies and the mounting responsibilities.
Such teen agers are doomed. They don't have a supporter or a legal 
provider. Their destiny and very well that of their offsprings are the
inner-city, crime infested ghettos and slums as they remain as single
parents. Such teenagers,  without any career or education,
 are doomed to subsist on  social welfare, and will have 
no way of breaking out of the spiral.

{Free Lunch and Single Parent Families}
--------------------------------------
Single parent families are increasingly becoming a large proportion
of the population in USA. Why should an average taxpayer
support all millions of single parents, when all that the government
has to do, is to ask the parties to that " fleeting moment
of pleasure", to bear all the responsibility? The couple enjoying
that relationship in the confines of the privacy of what ever
nook, corner or street should be and must be made to bear all the natural
consequences of their actions. The legal way of doing this is 
nothing new. It has been practiced from time im-memorable, and is
easily understood in one word \_\_  ``marriage''. Ain't the couples
enjoying the fleeting bliss having a ``free lunch'' when
they walk away, after the one-night stand, leaving an average
tax payer to pay for the litigations, support, child-care, and
other subsistence problems of a  single parent? 
Why should an average tax payer pay for the 
social welfare of such people, when the responsible parties can
be easily apprehended and made responsible for all the expenses, 
duties, and problems that emanated from the ``pleasure'' they had. 
If an average American has to pay for the pleasure of a trip
to an amusement park, why should not he pay for the ``sexual
pleasure''??????????

{Spread of Aids}
----------------
Why should the frolicking of ``magic Johnson'' result in an increase
of my taxes, when all Johnson had to do was to restrain himself to
curtail the spread of Aids? Why should I be paying for the spread
of Aids resulting from  the one-night stands of the thousands in LA?
People, I have never met or seen or heard. People who contain 
some AIDS patients, who are bent upon taking revenge as they
wreak vengeance on others by trying to pay back in kind what they have 
acquired from an unsuspecting ``what-is-wrong-with-a-little-sex'' 
type of a chance encounter!!!!!!

{Abortion Issue: A Chicken and Egg Paradox}
------------------------------------------
Why should I be made to bear the cost of millions of state dollars
and Fedral money being spent on the useless controversy surrounding
the abortion issue? In fact, abortion issue is nothing but a
consequence of your refusal to consider any implications of your
individual actions. A refusal that is based on 
the ridiculousness of the hypothesis that
individual and state are two disjoint entities! It is a result
of this hoodwinking of the fundamental issue that has culminated
in  chicken and the egg 
paradox. Whose rights are first? mother's or child's? Doesn't it
sound very much like who was first? chicken or egg? Such ridiculous
situations are but a natural consequence of  your refusal
 to address the fundamental
problem underlying the ``abortion issue'' \_\_ make the parties
involved in the pleasure seeking activity responsible for
whatever is the consequence of that act.

IF it is possible for the man to easily walk away from such
consequences, and there is just
an equally good possibility, for  the women to walk
away too, THEN why should one worry about the fundamental problem:
``there is nothing like a free lunch''. Abortion issue is nothing
except women's effort to enjoy that lunch of a ``one-
night-stand'' free, which men are already enjoying. The complication
is due to the injustice arising on account of letting one party 
(men) being allowed to enjoy the free lunch while refusing the
other party (women) from enjoying it too. ``Pregnancy'',
 ``babies'' and
what you do with your bodies are ONLY the costs, appropriately
termed in economics as the ``external costs''. Some one HAS to
pay for the lunch. Either the poor ``little unborn child'' is 
going to pay with his fragile life, or the ``society'' picks 
up the tag, thereby, resulting in extra taxes for people who 
then have to pay 
for the pleasure which others have enjoyed. 
In short, abortion issue is, but, a reflection of  the
consequence of the American people trying to manufacture a 
free lunch !!!!!!! 

How to solve the controversy? Just make
the parties, man and woman both who enjoyed the lunch, 
pay for whatever is the 
consequence; a child, child-care, health of the mother,
career of the mother or career of the father or whatever.
A simple term summarizing such  accountability is ``marriage''.

{Accumulating Costs}
--------------------
Now, come to the fallacy of composition: If a chance encounter
of the type ``what-is-wrong-about-having-a-little-relationship
or/and-sex'' results in nothing, a person may, plausibly,
think that such actions do not have any cost. Right? 
Wrong! Consider, if all the 
people in the country are taking the same chances then odds are
very high that such encounters WILL result in something and 
DOES result in many things  \_\_ unwanted pregnancies, unwanted
children, abortion and other multitude issues or whatever. Today the 
problems gripping the USA could be all traced back to such
a simple solution: ``make every one pay for the lunch they
have enjoyed''! 

Look at the 
number of single parents and the problem of uncared children, 
children abandoned by addicted mothers, problems of adjustment
of such addicted children in school, additional costs for 
such problems, rehabilitation costs, etc. etc. etc.
They all testify, nay, scream at the fallacy of composition you
are the supreme proponent of. Why should an average tax payer
bear the costs of such ``what-is-wrong...'' type encounters,
when it is possible for the society to very easily find the
culprit parties, and make them pay for it? The mode of payment
can be easily prescribed. Make them
bear the consequences by
making it either culpable under the law, or allow the society to
enforce it morally. Islam takes both these measures. It not
only makes it a serious offense to commit adultery, but provides
moral incentives to marry early to avoid such temptations, and
thereby, avoid such implications to the society.

		{Islam: The Just Way}
		=====================
Considering the moral and economical implications of the 
consequences of such so called ``individual'' actions,
Islam provides a perfectly just way by making the parties
pay for the lunch they have enjoyed and whose costs may later
have to be picked up by the ordinary, tax-budened masses!!!

Last, but not least, it must be stressed that whenever Islam 
prohibits some thing as bad and detrimental to the society, 
it cordons off
all ways leading up to it. You can not protect your nuclear
installation by allowing a free access to all and 
sundry. Hence,
Islam prohibits, although superficially it looks too stringently,
free uncontrolled relationships between
the opposite sexes. However, a little introspections will
tell us that this is the right way: kill the problem at its
source of origin rather than trying to hopelessly treat
the symptoms as USA is frantically trying to do \_\_
an impossible undertaking.

In the end, we must examine how Islam perceives the act which
has been ``trivialized'' to such an extent and bandied 
so carelessly, by the proponents of this modern
civilization (aptly referred to as the ``Barbaric West'' in
the acclaimed PBS series, LEGACY, which just premiered). This
thing which is now referred to as a one-night stand or by just
a conjecture ``what-is-wrong-with-a (little)-sex''.

Quran considers this act to be one of the most clear manifestations
of Allah's might and omnipotence. The act is referred to again
and again to highlight the bounties HE has bestowed upon us. It
is this moment when we are probably the nearest, we can be, to
the ``creation'' process. It is a supreme ``Ayah'' \& sign for those
who reflect and ponder over this life and its meaning.
Repeated again and again ``have you not pondered at your self
when you were just a drop, which was sprinkled in, and then 
you were just a shapeless mass of congealed blood, that was
then shaped .......''
The act is used to remind us about our own insignificance when
we started on this journey of life. How that insignificance is
transformed into wonder of wonders, the supreme shape of the
human being, endowed with the faculty to reason and ponder...

However, it is sign only for those who reflect and ponder and
do good deeds. The bounties of Allah are not for the 
arrogants and the disbelievers, who see such signs and then
hide the truth (literal meaning of ``kufr'').

May Allah guide us on the straight path;
	path of those who were blessed by HIM,
	not of those who received the ghazab.

[Syed Irfan Hyder]


Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan