Questions on Your Revised Views
After publishing the brief about my revised views, as expected, I received a number of questions. I am in the process of sharing detailed reasons for my revised views very soon so am looking forward for a more extensive and detailed dialogue with the visitors of this website in near future. For now, I thought it will be easier to answer all the questions that I received in one writing. Questions (in blue) and my answers follow:
- Why would God give different rules to different community? Wouldn't that go against God's law of universal justice?
You are asking whether giving different rules to different communities goes agaist God’s law of universal justice. My answer is, ‘not at all’. The other way round would be against universal justice. Would it be justice if God would disregard the cultural and social norms and structures of different communities and treat them all the same by giving them one set of rules? To make the matter worse, would it be even anywhere close to justice if the rules that were tailored for a specific community in the past and was built based on their own social norms and regulations, was to be introduced as universal rules for all communities and all times to come?
God's justice is in the concept of La Yukallifullah Nafsan Illa Wus'aha (God does not demand a soul more than its capability, 2:286). Different rules for different communities is indeed for this purpose.
Also please note that all the above is just intellectual discussion. You will see in an article that I am writing and will be made available soon that my revised understanding of guidance of the Almighty is all based on reasoning from the Qur'anic verses.
- You said "the Qur’an and the prophet (pbuh) are guides only for the community of Muslims." can you further elaborate on this.
I did not write that. The above would mean that the Qur'an or the prophet (pbuh) can in no way guide non-Muslims. I wrote: "the Qur’an and the prophet (pbuh) are sent as guides only for the community of Muslims."
This means (based on the verses of the Qur'an) I do not believe that the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) were sent to become 'the' book of guidance and 'the' prophet for the whole mankind. They were sent only for Arabs in Arabia at the time, just like any other prophet was sent only to his own nation. Since some other nations also joined those Arabs, therefore the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) are equally guides for them as well. Any one else who joins the fold of Muslims will also have the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) as his/her guides.
- What is written in the Torah and the Gospel are laws for all people who believe in God, not just the ones that their prophet addressed. I could site numerous examples of this but for brevity only one which I am currently trying to uphold myself. Both the Torah and the Quran tell us to seek justice for those slain unjustly and done great wrongs or damage to in this life.
Seeking justice is not a law. It is a moral principle shared by every human being and every reasonable ideology and system of belief. However the method of seeking justice can be different for each nation or community. You will see my reasoning from the Qur'an to support my views. It will be interesting to see your supporting evidences as well, i.e. explicit verses of the Qur'an (primarily, and then also Bible) that informs us that the shari'ah of the Almighty in Islam or Judaism is and was supposed to be adopted by all mankind.
- If meat is obtained from an animal that is slaughtered by non Muslim without God's name on it, that meat would also be full of blood as only Muslims slaughters and drains blood. So is that animal's meat still allowed for Muslims?
Before answering your question I would like to make a couple of points first:
I. It is not accurate to say only Muslims slaughter and drain blood of the animal. First, non-Muslims also slaughter and drain the blood, but they do so after stunning the animal. Second, in many non-Muslim countries even Muslims are legally bound to do so.
II. According to scientific research, there is no evidence to show that slaughtering after stunning results in less blood drained. See this and this journal articles that prove based on scientific tests that there is no difference between the amount of the blood drained with or without stunning the animal.
Now answer to your question: That blood that we are not supposed to have is poured blood (6:145), not the blood that remains in the body. Note that no matter how much you drain the blood it is still there, unless you go for kosher where they use a process using salt to almost fully drain out the blood.
- Before I started going to Quran class I was of the same view as you but as I went into details with my teacher Mr. …, I changed my views according to his. You have touched upon the rationale in your writing but I would be grateful for more detail. God bless you.
Your teacher is my friend. He obviously follows Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's view on riba which I am reasonably aware of. It helps if you send me specific questions about the subject to allow me to give you relevant answers. However to briefly and generally address this, there are three problems in that view, in my opinion:
One is that instead of defining riba based on the verses of the Qur'an and the social context within which these verses were revealed it attempts to interpret riba based on its literal meaning. Therefore they conclude that any additional charge as interest is in fact the same riba that the Qur’an condemns.
The other is that there is a total dismissing attitude to the huge difference between the economic basis of the Arabia 1400 years ago and that of today's modern age. Without paying enough attention to these differences, there is an attempt to match the economics of the two eras.
The third is that they are adopting a legal perspective to a subject that is raised primarily as a moral subject in the Qur’an.
If you are interested in reading some detailed work on the concept if riba, I recommend the book "Islamic Banking and Interest" by Abdullah Saeed.
- All revelations speak against interest and we know about the incident of Isa and the money changers in the Temple.
The point to study is not whether interest is haram or not, but whether the riba that the Qur'an and the Bible have made haram is equal to interest. It is my understanding that riba refers to an interest that can exploit the borrower (usury). Therefore not every kind of interest to me is equal to riba.
**********
Assalamu Alaiqum
I appreciate you publishing your revised views. After reading them, they have triggered some question which I always had in my mind but was not completely convinced of the answers (and still am not). I'll like to point out those questions to you by questioning some of your views with an intention that you will be able to provide some answers which I couldn't get after limited research. I'll really appreciate if you can take time to answer my questions. Thank You
The Sunnah of the Almighty in sending guides
I've heard one of the lectures of Javed Ghamidi and as per him Allah had divided the communities in this world based on the lineage from the man side. As per him, currently the entire world can be divided into three groups based on the three sons of Noah. The Samites (this right now is Bani Israel and bani Ishmael basically the Persian Gulf and Israel region), Japeth (This right is Gog and Magog, that is Indian Subcontinent, Asians, North and South America, Russia and Europe) and the last being Ham (Black Community). As per him, Prophets were sent to all the three communities till Abraham and since Abraham they were limited to the Samites. I always felt that some of the directives in the Qur'an makes more sense only in the Arab region (Eg Fasting times) for the rest a lot of derivation is needed. Based on this and the verse talking about Ummat-e-wasata, I had derived that Qur'an is for the samites only and for the rest if they accept Qur'an and become Muslims are free to customize the shari'a to reach the deeper wisdom of Shari'a. But this customization can not be done by the Samites.
Based on this I'll like to ask three questions
- How do you define the community of Muslims?
Assalamu Alaykum. The community of Muslims comprises of anyone who has voluntarily or by birth entered the fold of Islam, whether the person is from Bani Ishmael or not.
- I'll like to know if you give any importance to such division of community by Javed Ghamidi.
I think what Javed Ghamidi states, as you quoted, is indeed very interesting. However my problem with this view is that I cannot see any explicit verses of the Qur’an or any clearly relevant historical evidence for it. So it remains as a mere interesting opinion to me.
In particular the idea that prophets were used to be sent to all nations before Ibrahim (pbuh) and then were sent only to the descendants of Ibrahim (pbuh) to me contradicts the Qur’an. The Qur’an says very clearly that every nation has or had their own guides (13:7).
Ummatan Wasata (2:143) in my understanding refers to the companions of the prophet (pbuh) who served as witnesses to the truth for the rest of Bani Ismael at the time.
- Based on your research, if possible, can you provide your disagreement with the above assumptions/opinions of mine. If you feel it's not covered in the answers of the above two questions.
You wrote:
“Qur'an is for the Ismailits only and for the rest if they accept Qur'an and become Muslims are free to customize the shari'a to reach the deeper wisdom of Shari'a. But this customization can not be done by the Ishmailites.”
I agree that the Qur’an was sent to guide the Ummiin (you may call them Bani Ishmael, although some may disagree that all Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula at the time were Bani Ishmael). Any individual or community who joined/joins Ummiin as Muslims will also have the Qur’an as the guide.
The rest of the communities do not have to convert and make the Qur’an as their guide, although this does not mean that there is no guidance for them in the Qur’an. The general message of Tawhid, being mindful of the hereafter and doing righteous things can be a guide for any human being. This of course is the same message that can be found in other divine books as well.
As for customising the shari’ah, I think what you mean by this is to evolve those part of the form of the shari’ah that no longer serve their purpose (wisdom) due to the evolvement of civilisations. In my understanding there is no difference in this between Ummiin and their generations and the rest of the Muslims. Shari’ah was revealed based on the norms and regulations of the Arab society at the time. Vast majority of the non-worship shari’ah was simply what the Arabs used to practice anyway, but with some adjustments to make it just and moral. The form of Shari’ah was evolving even while the Qur’an was revealed (abrogation) and was evolved in the hands of the first Caliphs of Islam. There is no reason why it should not be evolved as time passes and as human civilisation changes. To say that Bani Ishmael have to keep the same form of shari’ah that was in practice 1400 years ago is to say that they are not allowed to evolve in their way of life and civilisation. This is not fair, neither it is practical.
The form versus the wisdom of shari’ah
- There is the point in Qur'an where Allah is discouraging the Sahaba to ask too many details while Shari'a is being revealed. The reason being that they will be answered and hence the laws will be fixed. If Shari'a was free to be customized then why do we see such restriction being encouraged by Allah?
The reason they were discouraged to ask too many questions was not that this would result in the law that they already had to be fixed. Rather, it was because it would result in revealing more level of detail of the law. This would definitely put people in trouble. We are talking about two different dimensions here. Fixed versus Evolving is one dimension, Outline versus Detailed is another. The verse concern was the latter (outline versus detailed, look at verses 2:67-71 to see what I mean).
Zakah, Interest, Marriage with non-Muslim, Halal Meat
- As per my understanding of Ghamidi, the minimum rate of Zakah is fixed. The state can ask more but has to provide Justification. When you say you disagree that it's fixed I'm understanding that you disagree that the minimum rate is fixed. That is, if the state feels appropriate then it can decrease the rate of Zakah and if the citizes feel appropriate they can request for decrease in the Zakah rate by the state. I'll appreciate if you can tell me if my understanding of your view is accurate. Also, we know from the history of Sahaba we know that Abu Bakr implemented the Zakah very strongly when the Muslims of that time requested some reduction. I'll like to know how you see this event.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi made a significant breakthrough in understanding the concept of zakah by arguing that zakah and tax are in principle the same. However while he considers the nisab (minimum amount of money or product that is due for zakah) to be changeable, he considers the rate of zakah to be fixed. Therefore he concludes that you need to see how much zakah is due on you based on these rates, and then see how much tax you have paid. You then only need to pay the balance, if there is any.
The above is my departure point, meaning that I fully agree with Javed Ahmad Ghamidi that zakah and tax are in principle same concepts. I however believe that the rates of zakah are not fixed and that it is the responsibility of the state to determine these rates. The state may consider the requests and concerns of the citizens but it will be the state’s decision to determine what the rate of zakah (or tax) has to be. Of course in doing so, the same principles as in the time of the prophet (pbuh) need to be adopted, that is, no one should face difficulty in paying zakah and the general rule is that the more you earn the more you pay. In my understanding the rates of zakah was instructed by the prophet (pbuh) as the head of the state and not as a divine instruction.
If you are referring to the battles of Riddah, the issue there was not just about not paying zakah. Those who did not want to pay zakah were in fact questioning the authority of the state of Islam. Abubkar had the view that they had to be fought against, while some other companions had the view that they should not be fought against. May God be satisfied with the family of the Prophet (pbuh) and his pious companions.
- Can this Interest be taken by Indviduals who give Loan to friends and family if the rate is tightly-regulated and monitored (this also including complete removal of interest and even the principle if the lendee is not in a position to pay)
In my view, in principle and theoretically the answer is yes. If one can make sure that there will not be any exploitation of the borrower, which can turn a simple interest to usury, then I do not see a problem with this. However in practice I would avoid that and I would strongly advise others to avoid that as well. This is because the Qur’an encourages us to give sadaqah (free money) instead of usury. Therefore for a good Muslim, not giving usury should mean giving sadaqah, not giving low rate interest. Of course demanding the same value to be returned based on the inflation rate is another thing and is totally acceptable in my view.
On the other hand, if the lending of the money is going to be on the basis of reasonable interest and very much regulated, as you stated, then why not encouraging the person to lend this money from a well established and highly regulated financial institute? This can eliminate the risk of any misunderstanding or ill treatment in between friends and families.
- Marriage with Mushrik. As per Javed Ghamidi this is not allowed because such drastically different views cannot be nurtured under one roof. Is your reason behind this law similar?
Yes, this is my current understanding. Note mushrikin here means anyone who confesses that he has more than one God. There can be people who have aspects of shirk in their beliefs but do believe in one God only. They cannot be considered as Mushrik.
I am aware of a view that says even mushrikin that the Qur’an forbids marriage with, were limited to the mushrikin of the time in Arabia. I am not yet fully convinced about this view.
- What in your opinion is the wisdom behind saying the name of Allah before slaughtering?
I am glad that you put the word ‘opinion’ there. People refer to wisdom behind this practice as if they are reading it from the Qur’an. In my opinion the wisdom behind saying the Name before killing an animal is to remind ourselves about God and Tawhid. This was very much an issue at the time of the prophet (pbuh) where slaughtering animals for idols was a common practice in Arabia. It is not the same today, yet, like any other act that we are advised to say the name of God for it, such remembrance is always beneficial for one’s soul and those who hear it. However, as I wrote in the brief about my revised view, while I consider saying the Name to be sunnah, based on the Qur'an I do not consider the meat that is product of a slaughter without saying the Name, haram. This is unless the slaughter was made in the name of idols.
--------
September 2016
- Why would God give different rules to different community? Wouldn't that go against God's law of universal justice?
You are asking whether giving different rules to different communities goes agaist God’s law of universal justice. My answer is, ‘not at all’. The other way round would be against universal justice. Would it be justice if God would disregard the cultural and social norms and structures of different communities and treat them all the same by giving them one set of rules? To make the matter worse, would it be even anywhere close to justice if the rules that were tailored for a specific community in the past and was built based on their own social norms and regulations, was to be introduced as universal rules for all communities and all times to come?
God's justice is in the concept of La Yukallifullah Nafsan Illa Wus'aha (God does not demand a soul more than its capability, 2:286). Different rules for different communities is indeed for this purpose.
Also please note that all the above is just intellectual discussion. You will see in an article that I am writing and will be made available soon that my revised understanding of guidance of the Almighty is all based on reasoning from the Qur'anic verses.
- You said "the Qur’an and the prophet (pbuh) are guides only for the community of Muslims." can you further elaborate on this.
I did not write that. The above would mean that the Qur'an or the prophet (pbuh) can in no way guide non-Muslims. I wrote: "the Qur’an and the prophet (pbuh) are sent as guides only for the community of Muslims."
This means (based on the verses of the Qur'an) I do not believe that the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) were sent to become 'the' book of guidance and 'the' prophet for the whole mankind. They were sent only for Arabs in Arabia at the time, just like any other prophet was sent only to his own nation. Since some other nations also joined those Arabs, therefore the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) are equally guides for them as well. Any one else who joins the fold of Muslims will also have the Qur'an and the prophet (pbuh) as his/her guides.
- What is written in the Torah and the Gospel are laws for all people who believe in God, not just the ones that their prophet addressed. I could site numerous examples of this but for brevity only one which I am currently trying to uphold myself. Both the Torah and the Quran tell us to seek justice for those slain unjustly and done great wrongs or damage to in this life.
Seeking justice is not a law. It is a moral principle shared by every human being and every reasonable ideology and system of belief. However the method of seeking justice can be different for each nation or community. You will see my reasoning from the Qur'an to support my views. It will be interesting to see your supporting evidences as well, i.e. explicit verses of the Qur'an (primarily, and then also Bible) that informs us that the shari'ah of the Almighty in Islam or Judaism is and was supposed to be adopted by all mankind.
- If meat is obtained from an animal that is slaughtered by non Muslim without God's name on it, that meat would also be full of blood as only Muslims slaughters and drains blood. So is that animal's meat still allowed for Muslims?
Before answering your question I would like to make a couple of points first:
I. It is not accurate to say only Muslims slaughter and drain blood of the animal. First, non-Muslims also slaughter and drain the blood, but they do so after stunning the animal. Second, in many non-Muslim countries even Muslims are legally bound to do so.
II. According to scientific research, there is no evidence to show that slaughtering after stunning results in less blood drained. See this and this journal articles that prove based on scientific tests that there is no difference between the amount of the blood drained with or without stunning the animal.
Now answer to your question: That blood that we are not supposed to have is poured blood (6:145), not the blood that remains in the body. Note that no matter how much you drain the blood it is still there, unless you go for kosher where they use a process using salt to almost fully drain out the blood.
- Before I started going to Quran class I was of the same view as you but as I went into details with my teacher Mr. …, I changed my views according to his. You have touched upon the rationale in your writing but I would be grateful for more detail. God bless you.
Your teacher is my friend. He obviously follows Javed Ahmad Ghamidi's view on riba which I am reasonably aware of. It helps if you send me specific questions about the subject to allow me to give you relevant answers. However to briefly and generally address this, there are three problems in that view, in my opinion:
One is that instead of defining riba based on the verses of the Qur'an and the social context within which these verses were revealed it attempts to interpret riba based on its literal meaning. Therefore they conclude that any additional charge as interest is in fact the same riba that the Qur’an condemns.
The other is that there is a total dismissing attitude to the huge difference between the economic basis of the Arabia 1400 years ago and that of today's modern age. Without paying enough attention to these differences, there is an attempt to match the economics of the two eras.
The third is that they are adopting a legal perspective to a subject that is raised primarily as a moral subject in the Qur’an.
If you are interested in reading some detailed work on the concept if riba, I recommend the book "Islamic Banking and Interest" by Abdullah Saeed.
- All revelations speak against interest and we know about the incident of Isa and the money changers in the Temple.
The point to study is not whether interest is haram or not, but whether the riba that the Qur'an and the Bible have made haram is equal to interest. It is my understanding that riba refers to an interest that can exploit the borrower (usury). Therefore not every kind of interest to me is equal to riba.
**********
Assalamu Alaiqum
I appreciate you publishing your revised views. After reading them, they have triggered some question which I always had in my mind but was not completely convinced of the answers (and still am not). I'll like to point out those questions to you by questioning some of your views with an intention that you will be able to provide some answers which I couldn't get after limited research. I'll really appreciate if you can take time to answer my questions. Thank You
The Sunnah of the Almighty in sending guides
I've heard one of the lectures of Javed Ghamidi and as per him Allah had divided the communities in this world based on the lineage from the man side. As per him, currently the entire world can be divided into three groups based on the three sons of Noah. The Samites (this right now is Bani Israel and bani Ishmael basically the Persian Gulf and Israel region), Japeth (This right is Gog and Magog, that is Indian Subcontinent, Asians, North and South America, Russia and Europe) and the last being Ham (Black Community). As per him, Prophets were sent to all the three communities till Abraham and since Abraham they were limited to the Samites. I always felt that some of the directives in the Qur'an makes more sense only in the Arab region (Eg Fasting times) for the rest a lot of derivation is needed. Based on this and the verse talking about Ummat-e-wasata, I had derived that Qur'an is for the samites only and for the rest if they accept Qur'an and become Muslims are free to customize the shari'a to reach the deeper wisdom of Shari'a. But this customization can not be done by the Samites.
Based on this I'll like to ask three questions
- How do you define the community of Muslims?
Assalamu Alaykum. The community of Muslims comprises of anyone who has voluntarily or by birth entered the fold of Islam, whether the person is from Bani Ishmael or not.
- I'll like to know if you give any importance to such division of community by Javed Ghamidi.
I think what Javed Ghamidi states, as you quoted, is indeed very interesting. However my problem with this view is that I cannot see any explicit verses of the Qur’an or any clearly relevant historical evidence for it. So it remains as a mere interesting opinion to me.
In particular the idea that prophets were used to be sent to all nations before Ibrahim (pbuh) and then were sent only to the descendants of Ibrahim (pbuh) to me contradicts the Qur’an. The Qur’an says very clearly that every nation has or had their own guides (13:7).
Ummatan Wasata (2:143) in my understanding refers to the companions of the prophet (pbuh) who served as witnesses to the truth for the rest of Bani Ismael at the time.
- Based on your research, if possible, can you provide your disagreement with the above assumptions/opinions of mine. If you feel it's not covered in the answers of the above two questions.
You wrote:
“Qur'an is for the Ismailits only and for the rest if they accept Qur'an and become Muslims are free to customize the shari'a to reach the deeper wisdom of Shari'a. But this customization can not be done by the Ishmailites.”
I agree that the Qur’an was sent to guide the Ummiin (you may call them Bani Ishmael, although some may disagree that all Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula at the time were Bani Ishmael). Any individual or community who joined/joins Ummiin as Muslims will also have the Qur’an as the guide.
The rest of the communities do not have to convert and make the Qur’an as their guide, although this does not mean that there is no guidance for them in the Qur’an. The general message of Tawhid, being mindful of the hereafter and doing righteous things can be a guide for any human being. This of course is the same message that can be found in other divine books as well.
As for customising the shari’ah, I think what you mean by this is to evolve those part of the form of the shari’ah that no longer serve their purpose (wisdom) due to the evolvement of civilisations. In my understanding there is no difference in this between Ummiin and their generations and the rest of the Muslims. Shari’ah was revealed based on the norms and regulations of the Arab society at the time. Vast majority of the non-worship shari’ah was simply what the Arabs used to practice anyway, but with some adjustments to make it just and moral. The form of Shari’ah was evolving even while the Qur’an was revealed (abrogation) and was evolved in the hands of the first Caliphs of Islam. There is no reason why it should not be evolved as time passes and as human civilisation changes. To say that Bani Ishmael have to keep the same form of shari’ah that was in practice 1400 years ago is to say that they are not allowed to evolve in their way of life and civilisation. This is not fair, neither it is practical.
The form versus the wisdom of shari’ah
- There is the point in Qur'an where Allah is discouraging the Sahaba to ask too many details while Shari'a is being revealed. The reason being that they will be answered and hence the laws will be fixed. If Shari'a was free to be customized then why do we see such restriction being encouraged by Allah?
The reason they were discouraged to ask too many questions was not that this would result in the law that they already had to be fixed. Rather, it was because it would result in revealing more level of detail of the law. This would definitely put people in trouble. We are talking about two different dimensions here. Fixed versus Evolving is one dimension, Outline versus Detailed is another. The verse concern was the latter (outline versus detailed, look at verses 2:67-71 to see what I mean).
Zakah, Interest, Marriage with non-Muslim, Halal Meat
- As per my understanding of Ghamidi, the minimum rate of Zakah is fixed. The state can ask more but has to provide Justification. When you say you disagree that it's fixed I'm understanding that you disagree that the minimum rate is fixed. That is, if the state feels appropriate then it can decrease the rate of Zakah and if the citizes feel appropriate they can request for decrease in the Zakah rate by the state. I'll appreciate if you can tell me if my understanding of your view is accurate. Also, we know from the history of Sahaba we know that Abu Bakr implemented the Zakah very strongly when the Muslims of that time requested some reduction. I'll like to know how you see this event.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi made a significant breakthrough in understanding the concept of zakah by arguing that zakah and tax are in principle the same. However while he considers the nisab (minimum amount of money or product that is due for zakah) to be changeable, he considers the rate of zakah to be fixed. Therefore he concludes that you need to see how much zakah is due on you based on these rates, and then see how much tax you have paid. You then only need to pay the balance, if there is any.
The above is my departure point, meaning that I fully agree with Javed Ahmad Ghamidi that zakah and tax are in principle same concepts. I however believe that the rates of zakah are not fixed and that it is the responsibility of the state to determine these rates. The state may consider the requests and concerns of the citizens but it will be the state’s decision to determine what the rate of zakah (or tax) has to be. Of course in doing so, the same principles as in the time of the prophet (pbuh) need to be adopted, that is, no one should face difficulty in paying zakah and the general rule is that the more you earn the more you pay. In my understanding the rates of zakah was instructed by the prophet (pbuh) as the head of the state and not as a divine instruction.
If you are referring to the battles of Riddah, the issue there was not just about not paying zakah. Those who did not want to pay zakah were in fact questioning the authority of the state of Islam. Abubkar had the view that they had to be fought against, while some other companions had the view that they should not be fought against. May God be satisfied with the family of the Prophet (pbuh) and his pious companions.
- Can this Interest be taken by Indviduals who give Loan to friends and family if the rate is tightly-regulated and monitored (this also including complete removal of interest and even the principle if the lendee is not in a position to pay)
In my view, in principle and theoretically the answer is yes. If one can make sure that there will not be any exploitation of the borrower, which can turn a simple interest to usury, then I do not see a problem with this. However in practice I would avoid that and I would strongly advise others to avoid that as well. This is because the Qur’an encourages us to give sadaqah (free money) instead of usury. Therefore for a good Muslim, not giving usury should mean giving sadaqah, not giving low rate interest. Of course demanding the same value to be returned based on the inflation rate is another thing and is totally acceptable in my view.
On the other hand, if the lending of the money is going to be on the basis of reasonable interest and very much regulated, as you stated, then why not encouraging the person to lend this money from a well established and highly regulated financial institute? This can eliminate the risk of any misunderstanding or ill treatment in between friends and families.
- Marriage with Mushrik. As per Javed Ghamidi this is not allowed because such drastically different views cannot be nurtured under one roof. Is your reason behind this law similar?
Yes, this is my current understanding. Note mushrikin here means anyone who confesses that he has more than one God. There can be people who have aspects of shirk in their beliefs but do believe in one God only. They cannot be considered as Mushrik.
I am aware of a view that says even mushrikin that the Qur’an forbids marriage with, were limited to the mushrikin of the time in Arabia. I am not yet fully convinced about this view.
- What in your opinion is the wisdom behind saying the name of Allah before slaughtering?
I am glad that you put the word ‘opinion’ there. People refer to wisdom behind this practice as if they are reading it from the Qur’an. In my opinion the wisdom behind saying the Name before killing an animal is to remind ourselves about God and Tawhid. This was very much an issue at the time of the prophet (pbuh) where slaughtering animals for idols was a common practice in Arabia. It is not the same today, yet, like any other act that we are advised to say the name of God for it, such remembrance is always beneficial for one’s soul and those who hear it. However, as I wrote in the brief about my revised view, while I consider saying the Name to be sunnah, based on the Qur'an I do not consider the meat that is product of a slaughter without saying the Name, haram. This is unless the slaughter was made in the name of idols.
--------
September 2016