From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Analyzing ...: How Muslims Interpret a phenomena.
Date: 10 Apr 1992 16:13:19 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: burr.cs.utexas.edu

In article <12123@tamsun.tamu.edu> gagrawal@cs.tamu.edu (Gopal Agrawal) writes:
>In article <ku9qkfINN8t6@burr.cs.utexas.edu> hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>>	I think this is the right time to explain the way such problems
>>	are approached "within" Islam:	
			^^^^^^^

>>First Islamic proofs ("nuqli dallail") are sought.
>>	1: A given hypothesis is confirmed or refuted through Quran
>>	2: Further substantiations of the position are then
>>		obtained through Hadith, if (1) remains ambiguous.
>>	3: To further substantiate the position obtained 
>>	   from (1) and (2), a scholor tries to use his own
>>	   reasoning and intellectual abilities to find
>>           confirmations.
>>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Mr. Gopal was conducting a thought experiment GIVEN that a 
>>certain premise about "hijab"  has been found to be valid
>>within Islam, THEN would a certain person be willing to 
>>accept it. That is if the whole extent of "hijab" is proven
>>in Quran and Hadith, would some one be willing to accept it
>>without argument or would one be looking for some more
>>arguments. #3 above refers to the arguments which may 
>>follow GIVEN that Quran and Hadith are accepted as
>>"first principles".
>>
>
>Does that mean that if something is conclusively established 
>through #1 and #2, then a muslim may only seek to *corroborate*
>that established principle using method #3, but can *never* 
>contemplate on using method #3 *against* methods #1,2 ? 
>

Let me tell you where your confusion is. It is in the 
premise. You are describing the above scenerio for
a "Muslim". Muslim is one who has already "submitted"
himself to Allah and HIS prophets injunctions. So,
by professing himself he has already made his being
(including his intellect, actions, body, etc) subservient
to Quran and Sunnah ("sunnah" is made obligatory through
"quran"). Now you tell me that a person who has already
accepted the word of Allah and Mohammad as the first 
principle, then whatever conclusion he derives through
his "intellect" better be within the confines of Quran
and Sunnah. If his "intellect" comes up with a solution
that is contrary to Quran and Sunnah, then he has to
reconcile his "intellect" and "reasoning process" to
Quran and sunnah not the other way round. The reason
for last statement is that he has already accepted Allah
as omniscient and his own knowledge to be incomplete!

However, the same can not be argued for those people who
have not accepted Allah and therefore are under no 
"technical" obligation to restrict their reasoning process.
For such people, the reasoning is arrive the way Abraham
reached the truth. You will really find the posting
of Nadeem on "bad arguments for religion" and my reply
"bad arguments: Inadequcy of 'pure reason' " to
be much more appropriate for carrying out this discussion.
Unless you read those articles it would be very difficult
and time consuming for me to go all over the teritory once
again and it is also rather technical.

>I am little confused here. Now let us assume that the issue on 
>hijab has been clarified using method #1/#2. So muslim scholars
>would at best use #3 to try and find the reasons & advantages in
>support of hijab, but would in no way even contemplate on trying to
>search for a disadvantage of the hijab ?

No one can stop any one from thinking! However, a "Muslim" (in
technical sense) on encountering such dichotony will conclude
that there are some important factors that he has not
considered. It is the absence of such factors that is making
him arrive at wrong conclusions. So, he will go back on the
table and start afresh on his research. He will continue 
till he finally sees the fault in his reasoning (there is 
no cause of despair, because Allah has ensured him of 
eventually seeing the light). It is this effort of which 
we are reminded again and again in Quran. There are signs
for those who "reflect" [see my article "bad arguments: Inadequcy of
'pure reason' " for furhter detail and logic of the process]

>
>Suppose I am the muslim scholar. I am now using #3 to find all 
>possible advantages of subjecting women to hijab(purdah) because
>#1 and #2 have established beyond doubt that it is a requirement.
>What if, for just a tiny millisecond, a disadvantage of hijab also 
>flashes through my mind.  What then, should be my typical response ?
>Should I dismiss it as some evil thoughts that the devil is trying
>to infuse into me ? Can I publicly announce that thought ? Or being
>a true muslim, it is perhaps IMPOSSIBLE for a negative thought about 
>any aspect confirmed by #1,2 to cross my mind :-) ?!

No one says that there will be no "disadvantages". There will be
advantages and disadvantages. Only that advantages will be 
greater than the disadvantages. If for some reason we can't fathom
this domination of good over evil, it is (i) our own limitations
(ii) our lack of sincerity (iii) our deviation from Quran and
Sunnah. Quran warns that the "believers" will be tested both
by "affluence' as well as by "adversity". The latter may include
persecution. But this is all transitory, for eventually good
is going to overcom evil and in the hereafter we will be rewarded
for our toils.
>
>If I publicly announce that thought, would I immediately be branded 
>a kafir (or whatever is the appropriate term to be used in this context) ?

No not at all. However, there is a way of going about doing
things. One way is of serious strival for knowing the "truth".
As you are doing. No one is criticizing you for raising such
questions, is there? However, it is only the people who want
to jest about such things and do it in a crude, crass, libelious
manner who get the treatment find themselves at the receiving
end of the people who are not too good at controlling their
emotions. You see the fundamental science of "communication
theory" in management says that before you can make
a person to do or think your way is to first find out what 
'motivates. Unless you understand the 'psyche' of the
person who is the addressee, your message will fall on deaf
ears!!!!!!!!!




>
>Where can I find Mr. Nadeems "Bad arguments" ?
>

I am sending you the discussion through e-mail. In a
separate mail i will be sending you the discussion
that sparked the whole debate. This will make
you understand it mcuh better. Any one else 
wanting the articles may write to me.


P.S.
===

Any phenomena which is not covered by Quran and Sunnah is
considered allowed and is up to the discretion of
the society and the person.