RE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/15951

Dear Ms. Afroza,

Please accept my apology for the mistake I have made in writing your name. I
made this mistake on account of a reason: I had a cousin and her name was
Feroza. I loved her dearly. Though she is no more with us, but her name still
lingers on in my mind, hence the unintentional mistake.

So far as I understand, Buddhism is not a religion, but a way of life. I don’
t think the Buddhists believe in a creator; this was affirmed by the Dalai
Lama in an interview he gave to one of the major TV. channels of the United
Sates.

One remark in your response has drawn my attention, and it is this: “Islam
has long history as have other religions. The problem of Buddhism, Christianity
and latest Islam is all they have claimed to present a complete revelation of
human knowledge.”

Would I be right if I concluded from your above statement that what Buddhism,
Christianity and Islam claim to be “a complete revelation of human
knowledge”
is not true? In the light of your above statement, can I have you explained
where the Quran stands?

Your following remark seems to be unrealistic, and as such, it needs to be
corrected: “In my post I have clearly mentioned from study of historical facts
of development of different Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence that the claim
made by many that Islamic [Shari`a] Laws which are in practice as viewed, are
not
divine laws but definitely are man made laws.”

It is true that men made the Sharia Laws, but what is the source they
depended on to do it?

Obviously and surely, it is the Quran. The Quran contains the divine laws,
which all Muslims are required to follow in their lives.

Because it is not convenient or possible in many case for every Muslim to
pick up, from the Quran, a specific divine law that relates to a specific issue
of their life, Muslims scholars abridged all the divine laws into a set of laws
they call the Sharia Laws. In framing the Sharia laws, Muslim scholars are
not supposed to deviate from the contents of the Quran, even if they come from
different social and cultural backgrounds. In other words, the Sharia laws have
to be based strictly on the laws God has announced in the Quran, and the
Quran is a Book that expounds the divine laws without being confined to time,
culture, traditions or space.

Let us now compare a couple of Sharia laws that have been derived from the
Quran.

The Quran says that a thief must be punished by cutting off one of his hands
on the commission of the first offence. The Saudis have incorporated this
Quranic law into their Sharia law, and they have been following it without any
deviation.

The Quran requires that a murderer must die for committing a murder. It has
also taken into consideration the financial aspect of a human life. In keeping
with it, it also permits a murderer to go scott free by paying off the deceased
’s relatives.

The above Quranic laws, incorporated in the Sharia laws, are being adhered to
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

From the above two examples, it must be noted that though humans framed the
Sharia laws, but they wholly depended on the Quran to come up with its
stipulations.

Now, if the Indonesians wanted to frame Sharia Laws for themselves, they
would have to depend on the Quran. Their culture background or ethnic divisions
are not going to play any part in the framing of the Sharia Laws. Similarly,
when the Pakistanis or the Nigerians made their Sharia Laws, they depended on
the
Quran, and came up with what we find described in their respective Sharia
laws.

Like Christians or the Jews, Muslims also have different sects. In fact, the
division among the Muslims on the basis of their own interests and priorities
had already begun in the time of Muhammad (6:159). But all Muslims,
irrespective of their sectarian affiliations, read the same Quran, which
according to
all Muslims, still maintains, and would continue to maintain in future, its
pristine nature. If the above is true, in that event, why should the Shiite’s
Sharia Laws should differ from that of the Sunnis?

Is it because of the different interpretations of the Quran? If the answer is
in affirmative, then why Muslims had begun dividing themselves into sects,
when Muhammad was still alive to give them the correct interpretations of the
Quran?

Above are some of the questions I have been struggling with for quite a long
time. My problem becomes complicated when one group of the Muslims accuses
another for not following the true Islam. Even on an individual level, two
Muslims cannot be found to agree with each other’s brand of Islam. Why is it
happening, and what are the reasons behind the schism?

Do you have any explanation for the points I have raised, or are we supposed
to believe blindly in what the so-called scholars have been telling us about
the “real” and “unreal” Islam?

Regards,
Mohammad Asghar
March 27, 2004