We exposed Puniyani & Mustafa Et al. on certain points in Part – 3 article, We shall continue exposing deception of Puniyani & Et al. in next article too but before that in this article we will expose Puniyani & Mustafa Et al. silence on concept of abrogation, and also discuss concepts of Ijma and need to be extra careful in case of agreements.
Silence of Puniyani & Et al. on abrogation (Naskh)?
At this point either pseudos are very ignorant or not sincere to their self proclaimed (exclusivist) intellectualism, that they do not inform readers about theory of abrogation (Naskh) in ABCD which had it’s some of grave impacts, because of which humanity has been suffering since last fourteen centuries, note again ’14 centuries’. While many in ABCD (conservative mainstream) consider ‘later’ (under the microscope) verses do abrogate the ‘earlier’ peaceful ones, and there the question ‘?‘ marks do exist.
These later abrogation verses not only create issues sanctifying and normalizing ‘unpleasant violence’ over ‘peace’, but also validate considerable gender bias issues along with perpetual binaries discriminating against non-ABCD and other gender identities and preferences. (Refs: 1, 2) That very much amounts to setting boundaries on egalitarianism leading to breaks on maximum positivity.
(*Footnote: Words ‘later’ and ‘earlier’ are just relative terms for verses in the same texts as per claimed chronology of revelations)
If one wants to challenge ABCD orthodoxy with intellectual rationality, then identifying breaks on positivity in ABCD and amplifying them would remain one of the most important tools of reformation; and discriminatory usage of abrogation (Naskh) has been such one break which needs to studied, exposed, highlighted, questioned and get reformed by all those who support any measure of rationality.
There is as much in issue of ‘Kafir’ and ‘concept of abrogation’ those deserves special articles. But Puniyani & Mustafa Et al. do not want readers to know even a single word about ‘concept of abrogation’; where as ThePrint’s latest well meaning Najmul Hoda Et al can give unexpected goosebumps to most who know the topic, by expecting process of ‘abrogation’ to work 180 degrees opposite to what it has been working in last 1400 years, by giving prominence to rationality over text.
While Najmul Hoda Et al diverts 180 degree to expect entirely opposite result out of ‘concept of abrogation’ which has been in vogue for centuries together, we will come to it’s practicality later, but Hoda’s description of concept is helpful for novice to the topic,
(*Footnote: Any textual reconciliations would have called in stress on one’s own free thought, by valuing reason over text, to work out innovative solutions to address inherent contradictions and incompatibilities; but so far not allowed by orthodox, as Bidʻah innovations in ‘ABCD’ are not supposed to be allowed)
While Those who intend to make more peaceful interpretations there constructive efforts are welcome but not enough without formal Ijmāʿ(consensus) from each of Indian and Islamic bodies in India and abroad; or else doors remain open for any sundry fanatic extremist to always take ABCD and the humanity several centuries back in time and not in humanitarian and pleasant ways.
Why encourage a positivity consensus rather than just relying on agreements?
To water down trouble of some trouble some verses & uncomfortable interpretations there of, one of the suggestion by Najmul Hoda Et al is to seek Ijmāʿ(community consensus), achieving consensus is usually difficult and time consuming process but any reformist proposal to benefit non-ABCD in consistent way the reliable solution is Ijmāʿ(community consensus). For the knowledge of the neophytes, Ijmāʿ(community consensus) has some level of value in ABCD, so just being satisfied with some positive interpretation of some moderate or pseudo is not enough without consensus from all segments in form of Ijmāʿ(community consensus). When one asks for Ijma if any one is just pretending gets exposed.
There is another way to make follow particular way from ABCD followers is ‘agreements’, they (ABCD followers) would largely follow agreements; still without being too meticulous sans an iota of vagueness, to ensure non-ABCD interest; reaching agreement with ABCD followers remains fraught with risks of conflicts because any one can say it is contrary to their inviolable texts or any later minor disagreement non implementation risks to be reason that validates conflicts. To get consensus may be difficult but ijma is less risky because that is their own commitment to themselves. Way back in 1924, prominent Indian freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai from Punjab seems to be well aware of risks agreements come with so he insists change of hearts on part of ABCD instead of mechanism of agreement with ABCD communities and institutions. But the fact is change of hearts in ABCD is not enough but need ijma consensus to make any commitment of reform reliable.
For example, The agreement made by Donald Trump administration with Afghan militants to not attack NATO forces if NATO withdraws itself by 1st May 2021 already had loopholes that Taliban continued different kind of attacks without engaging in peace dialogue with dispensation in the Government whole heartedly. Secondly subsequent Biden administration could not keep the date of 1st of May to withdraw forces but postponed by few months, so even after full withdrawal takes after few months whatever commitments Trump administration had extracted are in risk of going for the toss (One cane see signs in latest news 1, 2), the point is religious ideology leaves scope for conflict open. Where as if Trump administration would have asked for clear cut Ijmāʿ(community consensus) from Militants, it would have remained more reliable even without an agreement. So while engaging in agreement ABCD leadership know these nuances but non-ABCD would not know and this ignorance helps ABCD negotiators to get non-ABCD into trap.
In upcoming 2 articles we will be discussing a latest case of Algerian Professor Djabelkhir and just to say issue should be sorted among scholars remains difficult without supportive society, law, judiciary and the state. The next article in this series exposes Puniyani & Mustafa Et al. on usage of word Kafir and how Indonesian Yahya Cholil Staquf are approaching the issue more pragmatically and constructively where as Indian pseudo continue to deflect the important issue of religious discrimination and hate speech emanating from their side.
- ‘ABCD’: Are metaphorical fundamentalist ideologies which believe that any alphabets like ‘ABCD’ are god given including chronology and writing of the alphabet can not be changed even if any rational need arises.
Pl. Continued to (5)