"Robert Houghton" <***@f2s.com> wrote in message news:000701c897f2$8f3a1f90$***@houghtona6bc7e...
<snip> ...
Post by Robert HoughtonPeace, for orthodox Muslims, is just an interlude in the war which will make
all the world Dar al-Islam: ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which just goes to prove that Patricia Crone was correct when she rightly
said:-
<Quote> ...
Jihad is a subject that non-Muslims find difficult to understand. In fact,
there is nothing particularly outlandish about it. All one has to remember
is that holy war is not the opposite of pacifism, but rather of secular
war - fighting in pursuit of aims lying outside religion. Whether people are
militant or not in its pursuit is another matter. [Patricia Crone]
<Unquote> ...
But intelligent readers should read Patricia Crone's illuminating article in
full before making up their minds about the spurious and question begging
"Peace, for orthodox Muslims" proposition, concerning "the abode of war" and
"abode of Islam" (see link below), to discover the plausible but false
nature of this deceitful "peace treaty" spin.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/jihad_4579.jsp#three
What comparative distinctions and fallacies do discerning readers discover
between Patricia Crone assessment and the thinly-veiled plagiarisation,
lifted from Patrick Sookhdeo's latest book, that's being artfully posted to
this forum as anti-Muslimism spin by its author?
<snip> ...
Post by Robert Houghton"Peace, moreover, is war in effect where the interest of the Mussulmans
requires it, since the design of war is the removal of evil and this is
obtained by means of peace." ("The Hedaya" Vol 2, book 9, ch 3, p.150).
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is the present day relevance of "The Hedaya" (al-Hidaya), an
"Anglo-Muhammadan Law" manual, by Charles Hamilton in 1791 (can you
believe), for colonial administrative use by the British Raj in India? Is
this an accurate and reliable depiction of "Mussalmans" ideas on war and
peace? Is this 'highly selective' source, "The Hedaya", being used as an
'authority' to bamboozle unaware readers about "Islamic Peace treaties"?
Note the: "Their inadequacies and blatant errors have been partially
recorded in court cases and commentaries, but sustained research on the
ideological biases of their rendering remains to be pursued. Even a basic
text on the usul al-fiqh, or roots of jurisprudence, that would be basic to
any detailed understanding of Islamic law, did not appear until 1911.",
contained in the learned SOAS paper cited below.
For an interesting digest on this colonial subject, discerning readers might
want to spend a little of their valuable time in studying this unbiased
article "Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India" by Michael
R. Anderson. Published in Arnold, David and Peter Robb (Eds.). "Institutions
and Ideologies: A SOAS South Asia Reader."; (London: Curzon Press Ltd.)
1993, pp. 165-185. Full article can be found at this freely available link:-
http://www.wluml.org/english/pubs/pdf/occpaper/OCP-07.pdf
<Quote> ...
Since the formidable amount of legal scholarship that accumulated under
British rule was produced in an explicit complicity with colonialism,
questions of its bias and validily are bound to be asked. What role did
Anglo-Muhammadan scholarship assume in defining and mobilising colonial
power? By what techniques was this scholarship created? How did the process
of creating the Anglo-Muhammadan law affect its substantive content and
application? In
which ways did the substantive content mesh with understandings of identity
and social order among the colonised peoples? ...
I. Indigenous law and the early colonial state
The imperatives of the Company's account-books required that administrators
remain mindful of two broad goals first, to extract economic surplus, in the
form of revenue, from the agrarian economy, and second, to maintain
effective political control with minimal military involvement. For the most
part, the various administrators of the East India Company (and later, the
British Crown), followed the path of least resistance, relying upon co-opted
indigenous intermediaries as well as military and police power to secure
control. Throughout the subcontinent, the British exercised power by
adapting themselves to the contours of pre-colonial political systems,
including law. The result was that in many of its structural features, as
well as its substantive policies, the colonial state sustained what were
essentially pre-colonial political
forms until well into the nineteenth century. Although lacking in military
and financial power, the edifice of the Mughal empire provided a source of
de jure authority long after its de facto demise. Mughal administrative
ranks, honours, rituals, and terminology persisted in muted although
significant form even after Crown had supplanted Durbar in 1858. Yet while
recent historiography has emphasised the continuities between the ancien
régime and the early colonial state, it is clear that colonial rule brought
a host of entirely new political
institutions, and that when indigenous mechanisms were adapted to
colonial purposes, they were incorporated within new institutional fora. ...
Translations
Given the assumed centrality of legal text, and a persistent distrust of
native law officers, it followed that legal administrators were eager to
have Islamic texts in English translation so that indigenous laws could be
applied directly by British judges. Sir William Jones, the great polymath of
early Orientalism, proposed that Hastings should endeavour to compile 'a
complete Digest of Hindu and Muhammad laws after the model of Justinian's
inestimable Pandects'. The model of the Roman legal system lent credence to
the emphasis on a rule-based legality. At the insistence of Hastings,
al-Hidaya, the influential compilation of Hanafi opinion, was translated by
three maulavis from Arabic to Persian, and then into English by Charles
Hamilton in 1791. But al-Hidaya lacked any treatment of inheritance,
regarded by the British as the most intractable and politically important of
Muhammadan law subjects. Accordingly, in 1792, al-Sirajiyya, a treatise on
inheritance, was translated direct from the Arabic by Jones personally.
The courts continued to rely upon advice from indigenous legal specialists
for some time, so the translations made little impact on colonial
administration until the early nineteenth century. Their primary
significance lay in the understandings they engendered of an essentialist,
static Islam incapable of change from within. They established, in the
crucible of colonial rule, that a proper knowledge of India - and of the
Orient more generally - could be had only through a detailed study of the
classical legal texts.
The translations had greater legal effect as judges began to rely upon them
more directly. Although produced in haste, and with imperfect language
skills, the unrevised eighteenth-century translations remained
authoritative. A number of translating errors were discovered in Al-Hidaya
but corrections were made only to the Persian version in 1807. The English
version remains uncorrected. The project of translating a broader range of
texts, including non-Hanafi texts, never reached fruition, and was cancelled
due to financial constraints in 1808. The nineteenth century saw only one
additional major translation - an
abbreviated version of the fatwa Alamgiri and a portion of an Itna 'Ashariya
(Shi'a) text - translated by Neil Baillie and published in 1865 under the
title of A Digest of Mohummudan Law.
Together, these three translations formed the textual basis of
Anglo-Muhammadan law. Their inadequacies and blatant errors have been
partially recorded in court cases and commentaries, but sustained research
on the ideological biases of their rendering remains to be pursued. Even a
basic text on the usul al-fiqh, or roots of jurisprudence, that would be
basic to any detailed understanding of Islamic law, did not appear until
1911. It is not surprising that those few texts which were translated came
to be treated as authoritative codes rather than as discrete statements
within a larger spectrum of scholarly debate.
<Unquote> ...
Further reading see: "Framed, Blamed and Renamed: The Recasting of Islamic
Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia" by Scott Alan Klugle.
<snip> ...
Post by Robert HoughtonWhen I have, on this forum, said that Muslims are not bound by their
treaties I have been contradicted, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And where have you done this? Can you give us the relevant link from the SRI
archives about "Islamic Peace Treaties" that you have posted? This is the
search result that I did which only came up with this current thread. Here's
the proof:-
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=author%***@f2s.com+%22peace+treaties
Isn't this another prime example of your spurious; "When I have, on this
forum, said that", which has subsequently proved to be untrue, unreliable or
inaccurate?
--
Peace
--
For malice will with joy the lie receive, Report, and what it wishes true
believe. [Rev. Thomas Yalden]
Zuiko Azumazi.
***@gmail.com