Powered by
UI
Techs
Home
>
Forums
>
>
General Discussion
>
Democracy in Question
Post Reply
Username
Invalid Username or Password
Password
Format
Andale Mono
Arial
Arial Black
Book Antiqua
Century Gothic
Comic Sans MS
Courier New
Georgia
Impact
Tahoma
Times New Roman
Trebuchet MS
Script MT Bold
Stencil
Verdana
Lucida Console
1
2
3
4
5
6
Message Icon
Message
- Forum Code is ON
- HTML is OFF
Smilies
[quote][My reponse to Mr. Zamir's comments is pasted below] Assalamu alaykum Yes, I do see your point and what you really want to assert. We do not doubt your sincerity either and this is why we are trying our best to explain to you the reasons why we translated the verse in the way we did. We do realize the fact that translating the Holy Qur’an and explaining its meaning is a delicate as well as a demanding job. One must be very careful regarding what he explains about the Book of Allah. In this respect, I share same concerns with you. The Book of the Lord should not be used to propagate the ‘agenda’ of an individual or a group of individuals. It should be explained and presented as it is. I however would like to place before you very humbly that it is actually the linguistic arguments and other contextual evidence that lead the reader to discern the meaning of a piece of material. A student/reader should have the permission to disseminate what he has understood of the Book of God. You have primarily raised two questions again. The first is about translating the word ‘Amr’ as ‘affairs of state’ and the second is about how supposedly the verse 42:38 could in conjunction with the so called secular system of Democracy. Please allow me to say that though you have raised an objection regarding our translation, you have missed your previous assertion that no translator has used the word MUTUAL CONSULTATION for the words of the verse. I quote your statement: “There is no bit of mutual consultation. And certainly there is no issue of ruling as well. This is literally meaning Muslims should take counsel (seek help) amongst themselves about matters and should not spend more than what Allah has given us. Where did mutual consultation come from here??????????” (stress added) I am not using this point to corroborate my point of view. I am just referring to one type of mistake that you may be making without knowing it. As I quoted other translations, you raised the objection that these translation do not now mention the words “affairs of state’. But the point is that I did not try to prove the appropriateness of the words used in our translation. In simple words, what I strived to show was that your interpretation of the verse in the light of Mr. Shakir’s translation was not right. I quote your point: “This is taken in a wrong context. To run a country, the KHALIF of the Islamic State is not bound by the decision or recommendation of 'Majlish e Sura'. I.E when it comes to decision making the Khilafa is the absolute power holder and no other body or system.” Thus, your assertion that running a country disregarding the opinions of other members of the Shura seemed quite amazing to me. What I tried to do was that I showed you other translations of the verse did not leave room for your assertion. ‘Conduct their affairs by mutual consultation’ definitely means to run the affairs on the basis of consultation. This was to negate the notions that Khalifah is all in all. In short, I did not try to prove the accuracy of our translation, I in fact tried to show you the inappropriateness your assertion. As you now want to know why we used the words ‘the affairs of state’, I will concentrate on the point. I would also request you to please remain confined to this point in your next email. If you want to raise any objection, I would suggest that you address the only two points that you have discussed in this email. Your claim is that using the words ‘affairs of state’ is actually mistranslating the Holy Qur’an. As you know very well, the Holy Qur’an has been revealed in Arabic language and it is the usage of the word in the Arabic language and the context where it has been placed which will determine whether it has been rightly translated or not. You have quoted three translations and none of them is cent per cent the same as the other. This shows that giving allowance to the usage of the words and the context, a student has the right to translate the words of the Holy Qur’an to communicate its message. Having said that, I will assert that the word ‘Amr’ has indeed been used in the exact sense of ‘affairs of state’ in the Arabic language. To give you an example, I will quote one couplet of Safiyya-Binti-Muttalib: ‘alaa man mublighun ‘anna Quraishan Fafeemal ‘amru feenaa wal eemaaroo Hark! who will deliver our message to the Quraysh that as they do not accept our social position, so they should tell us that why are the affairs of state in our hands and why are we considered worthy of consultation. This couplet should give you an example regarding the usage of the word. Obviously, this does not talk about their ‘rule’ or ‘principle’. Rather, it talks about running the collective affairs belonging to general people. The construction of the verse also support of our translation. The pronoun ‘hum’ does relate to the collective affairs of the Muslims. I fail to understand why you insist on relating it to the affairs of the individuals. Certainly, the guidance provided in this verse can be benefited in individual affairs but it should never be confined to the individual affairs alone. To explain my point, I quoted Imam Bin Kathir. I do no know why you ignored his explanation. I have seen Imam Razi as well in this regard. He says: Whenever an important event took place, they would get together and take counsel among them. So Allah praised them (saying Amru hum Shura Baina Hum). This means that they do not get alienated with one opinion but they REACH a CONSENSUS or they would not take any step. (Razi, vol 27 P 177) Now you please decide whether this whole paragraph relates to the collective affairs or otherwise? Brother, please allow me to say that I do find it inappropriate to disregard the explanations of our early scholars without any reason or logic. You may also see Mulana Mududi as well in this regard. As regards your question about democracy, I feel compelled to say that you have reacted without understanding our viewpoint. We never maintain that democracy is acceptable in all forms and manifestations. We have said that Islamic system of consultation is in conjunction with democracy in so far laws are not enacted against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In other words, the affairs of state are surely run by majority opinion of the Shura but even then the Shura cannot legislate anything which goes against the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah. My statement before ‘but’ describes a system which is similar to democracy; however the statement after ‘but’ definitely shows that the state system envisaged by Islam is not Democracy in its entirety. This is what was asserted in the weekly message of Studying Islam. Regards, Jhangeer [/quote]
Mode
Prompt
Help
Basic
Check here to be notified by email whenever someone replies to your topic
Show Preview
Share
|
Copyright
Studying-Islam
© 2003-7 |
Privacy Policy
|
Code of Conduct
|
An Affiliate of
Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®
Top