I'm not sure by what you mean about it being discusses. But it is, it is all in the media.
If a person like you does not adhere to Sharia in the sense that he does not like it, and thinks man - made laws are better, then such an individual cannot be Muslim. Because Allah clearly stated in the Quran to judge by His law, and that it is the best law for mankind, and this person obviously haven't believed in that
Irrational right-wingers like you use fear-inducing and call-for-lynching-preparation words "Allah clearly said" to hide your own anti-human tendencies. The NATO-enabed criminals, druggies, psychos and boy-rapist Taliban have been ruling Afghanistan for the last one year. The country has
four million homeless people and there is large-scale starvation and no scientifically arranged employment opportunities. Instead of the Taliban building high-quality harmonious neighborhoods with free of cost and comfortable houses ( with gardens and all ) for those four million Afghans and provisioning of comfortable food and providing employment to people including males who may take to crime in an already chaotic country, essentially the Taliban creating a progressive welfare-based society which is Communist, what has been the Taliban doing ? Stealing the right of the female to education and to work and to be proud of her Nature-given appearance by rejecting the obscene and cruel burqa. The Taliban have declared that females will not be educated and must not go to work without the burqa always covering them failing which the Taliban will pay a visit to their homes and punish their male relatives. The Taliban wants this of Afghan female TV hosts. The below picture is from Maria TV, an all-burqa TV channel started by NATO-supported Egyptian terrorist movement "Muslim" Brotherhood during its NATO-brought "democratic rule between 2011 and 2013 when its president Morsi was overthrown by the Egyptian people and the "M"B was declared a terrorist group and was banned. So Maria TV for you which Taliban wants to have :
The females above don the burqa voluntarily, in filthy self-hating obeyance of the orders of the anti-Islam "Muslim" Brotherhood but the Afghan female TV hosts are being forced to, they don't want to, and it was so heartening that after that Taliban diktat these females' male colleagues wore mask in open protest of the Taliban's diktat but you sitting in some London Tableeghi mosque are remotely terrorizing these females, whether in Bangladesh or in Afghanistan. Did Allah order females to become ashamed of the form he himself gave them and that they hide it every day they are out of their houses ? If you tell the females to be ashamed of their female forms and selfhood then you and your mate
@Wergeland should just tell these females to do sex change operation to become male and join you mullahs in gay orgies. Fair ?
Now read below for some real Islamic philosophies.
My intention is not offend. The rigid nature of muslims when it comes optional/negotiable things related to Islam. They don't respect local laws/customs.
Islam is not "rigid" and regressive. Please don't see it from you having to currently see Owaisi, Burqa bibi Muskan and Taliban. It was the first philosophical and revolutionary movement to bring progressive, justice-oriented and rational ideas in the sphere of politics, social constructs, socio-economics and the divinity. I will post here bits from my posts elsewhere.
So about divinity, though I don't sit in the binary of believer in God and atheism but instead believe in the undeniable supremacy of Nature I will say that Islam simplified divine worship by asking simple questions : Who has ever seen the divinities to know their form, heard their voice and seen their magic to create humanoid or hybrid idols out of them and create elaborate and hundreds of rituals within a year for them many of whom are cruel directly ( horse sacrifice or like the Mayan or Aztecs did, sacrifice of humans ) or indirectly by the rituals becoming the entire social system itself disregarding the daily socio-economic and political evils they create for the humans. So if you have never seen the form of the divinities and heard their voices and seen their magic yourself how are you ascribing to them humanoid shapes, parents, children, specialized powers, mates and houses of gods and goddesses ? So Islam simplified this and declared god to be Allah, The God, The Single God, formless, one without a humanoid mate Islam, one who never begets nor is begotten. The early Muslims kicked and destroyed idols and declared "Look, this idol of a supposed all-powerful god or goddess is so powerless that it cannot prevent me a simple human from destroying it". Isn't this simple and rational ?
So once Islam brought in the concept of Allah, the question was about his or its worship by the Muslims. Hazrat Muhammad instituted Islam to also destroy the priest system entirely. No agent between human and God. No class called the clergy who can form a political class claiming sole authority of the religion, a class which in other religions have turned their societies oppressed. Every Muslim was encouraged to have the Islam ideas ( the slowly compiled into the Quran ) so that he or she can understand the progressive, rational religion for themselves without an opportunist priest class to corrupt the teachings. Isn't this again simple and rational ? Unfortunately the mullah, a priest really with no basis in Islam, arose time to time but he has risen especially in the last 20 years in India and corrupted a lot of Muslim society.
Islam is a simple and straightforward for it was a political, social and socio-economic revolution that erased previous laws and brought laws and conduct that were natural, things that you and I feel as humans, things that must be said and prevail without unnatural, illogical and irrational restraints whether from the family or from your community or from your country. Simple examples :
1. Why can't a female have right to ancestral property that a male does and to husband's money and property and to the right to have self-acquired money ?
2. Why can't a female choose her own husband ? Or consent or reject a groom proposed by her family ? And once married why can't she have the right to divorce ? And once divorced or widowed why can't she have the right to remarry ? And why does she need to wear silly, oppressive and irrational signs of marriage like the Hindu mangalsutra and the sindoor because not only her husband doesn't wear those ( though by fairness he should ) but also because she can divorce or be widowed and then remarry ( from her choice ) and the society should have no facility to needlessly gossip about this female as to whether she is currently married or not willing to marry or desiring to marry someone because such her married or unmarried state is her personal state with the society having no business to make gossip.
In Islam there is clear provision for the female to have what in desi culture is called
"Love marriage" :
The Quran (2:221)
[15] also states,
"And do not marry Polytheist women until they believe, And a believing slave woman is better than a Polytheist women, even though she might please you. And do not marry Polytheist men until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a Polytheist men, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember".
The Islamic marriage need not at all require the permission of the family. The minimum number of people gathering for an Islamic marriage is five - the bride and groom, the qazi and two witnesses. This family consent thing is non-Islamic. However, if it is the family arranging the marriage then the consent of the female is absolutely necessary and during the wedding procedure ( procedure and not a holy ceremony ) the female can negotiate the terms of the mahr ( you will see below ). These things of female choice and female consent go against the social norms of traditional Indian Subcontinent ( majorly formed from Hindu culture ) but the Subcontinent is not normally known for civilized and rational behavior and should be rejected in no uncertain terms. So once a wedding is decided Islam provides law to provide the female with socio-economic security. I quote from
my thread from 2015 whose OP is by an Indian Christian woman who when she married an Indian Muslim she married under Islamic marriage law ( from the Quran ) because that better secured her socio-economic future in case of divorce ( yes, the Quran gives the right of divorce to the female too and before that having the very concept of divorce in codified form ) :
One wonders why a reference to the Islamic law was not made either by the minister or other experts. Married Muslim women, we find, are often on a higher and more secure footing than their counterparts from other religions. In fact, as a Christian marrying a Muslim, I chose to marry under the Muslim personal law, even over the seemingly modern Special Marriage Act, 1954, to better secure my economic rights. My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights. My husband’s family members were witness to this document, which is registered and enforceable by law.
When we examine marriage laws in their historic context, it is interesting to note that the universally accepted notion that marriages are contractual rather than sacramental originates in Muslim law, which was accepted by the French law only in the 1800s and incorporated into the English law in the 1850s and became part of codified Hindu law as late as 1955. Today it appears to be the most practical way of dealing with the institution of marriage. Treating marriage as a sacrament which binds the parties for life has resulted in some of the most discriminatory practices against women such as sati and denial of right to divorce and remarriage, even in the most adverse conditions.
The cornerstone of a Muslim marriage is consent, ejab-o-qubul (proposal and acceptance) and requires the bride to accept the marriage proposal on her own free will. This freedom to consent (or refuse), which was given to Muslim women 1,400 years ago, is still not available under Hindu law since sacramental rituals such as saptapadi and kanya dan (seven steps round the nuptial fire and gifting of the bride to the groom) still form essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Even after the codification of Hindu law, the notion of consent is not built into the marriage ceremonies.
The contract of marriage (nikahnama) allows for negotiated terms and conditions, it can also include the right to a delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez) where the woman is delegated the right to divorce her husband if any of the negotiated terms and conditions are violated.
Mehr is another unique concept of Muslim law meant to safeguard the financial future of the wife. It is an obligation, not a choice, and can be in the form of cash, valuables or securities. While there is no ceiling, a minimum amount to provide her security after marriage must be stipulated. This is a more beneficial concept than streedhan which is given by choice and usually by the natal family. In addition to Mehr, at the time of divorce, a Muslim woman has the right to fair and reasonable settlement, and this is statutorily recognised under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as per the 2001 ruling of the Supreme Court in the Daniel Latifi case.
It is also important to address polygamy and triple talaq, two aspects of Muslim law which are generally used to discredit the community and argue in favour of a uniform civil code. While sharia law permits a man to have four wives (before 1956 Hindu law permitted unrestrained polygamy), it mandates equal treatment of all wives. If a man is not able to meet these conditions, he is not permitted to marry more than one woman. (Quran 4:3; Yusuf Ali’s translation)
On the other hand, though codification introduced monogamy for Hindus, the ground reality has not changed and Hindu men continue to be bigamous or polygamous. The most disturbing aspect is that while men in bigamous/adulterous relationships are allowed to go scot-free, it is the women who are made to pay the price. Women in invalid relationships with Hindu men are denied maintenance and protection and are referred to as “mistresses” and “concubines”, concepts specific to the uncodified Hindu law. Any attempt to codify Muslim law to bring in legal monogamy should not end up subjecting Muslim women to a plight similar to that of a Hindu second wife. This is an important concern which needs to be taken into account while reforming the Muslim law.
And lastly, the much maligned triple talaq or talaq-ul-biddat, which the Prophet himself considered as the most inappropriate form of divorce. Fortunately, in 2002, in Shamim Ara vs State of Uttar Pradesh & others, the Supreme Court laid down strict Quranic injunctions which must be followed at the time of pronouncing talaq, hence now fraudulent practices adopted by errant husbands (including email and SMS talaq) can no longer constitute valid talaq. Yet, after a decade and a half, very few know challenge the validity of such divorces in court as they are unaware about this ruling.
Though Muslim law stipulates many different ways to end a marriage, including a woman’s right to dissolve her marriage (khula), divorce by mutual consent (mubarra), delegated divorce (talaq-e-tafweez), judicial divorce (fasq) and dissolution under Muslim Marriage Act
And in Islam the daughter or the wife has the right to have family inheritance and this means that a father cannot make excuses of daughter eloping and he cutting her away from family property. I quote below
the Indian courts system's summary of Islamic inheritance law :
Muslim law recognizes two types of heirs, Sharers and Residuaries. Sharers are the ones who are entitled to a certain share in the deceased’s property and Residuaries would take up the share in the property that is left over after the sharers have taken their part.
Sharers : The Sharers are 12 in number and are as follows: (1) Husband, (2) Wife, (3) Daughter, (4) Daughter of a son (or son's son or son's son and so on), (5) Father, (6) Paternal Grandfather, (7) Mother, (8) Grandmother on the male line, (9) Full sister (10) Consanguine sister (11) Uterine sister, and (12) Uterine brother.
The share taken by each sharer will vary in certain conditions. For instance, a wife takes 1/4th of share in a case where the couple is without lineal descendants, and a one-eighth share otherwise. A husband (in the case of succession to the wife's estate) takes a half share in a case where the couple is without lineal descendants, and a one-fourth share otherwise. A sole daughter takes a half share. Where the deceased has left behind more than one daughter, all daughters jointly take two-thirds.
If the deceased had left behind son(s) and daughter(s), then, the daughters cease to be sharers and become residuaries instead, with the residue being so distributed as to ensure that each son gets double of what each daughter gets.
Non-Testamentary and Testamentary succession under Muslim law : In Non-testamentary succession, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 gets applied. On the other hand, in case of a person who dies testate i.e. 2 one who has created his will before death, the inheritance is governed under the relevant Muslim Shariat Law as applicable to the Shias and the Sunnis. In cases where the subject matter of property is an immovable property, situated in the state of West Bengal, Chennai and Bombay, the Muslims shall be bound by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This exception is only for the purposes of testamentary succession.
Birthright : Inheritance of property in Muslim law comes only after the death of a person, any child born into a Muslim family does not get his right to property on his birth. If an heir lives even after the death of the ancestor, he becomes a legal heir and is therefore entitled to a share in the property. However, if the apparent heir does not survive his ancestor, then no such right of inheritance or share in the property shall exist.
Distribution of the Property : Under the Muslim law, distribution of property can be made in two ways – per capita or per strip distribution. The per capita distribution method is majorly used in the Sunni law. According to this method, the estate left over by the ancestors gets equally distributed among the heirs. Therefore, the share of each person depends on the number of heirs. The per strip distribution method is recognised in the Shia law. According to this method of property inheritance, the property gets distributed among the heirs according to the strip they belong to. Hence the quantum of their inheritance also depends upon the branch and the number of persons that belong to the branch.
Rights of females : Muslim does not create any distinction between the rights of men and women. On the death of their ancestor, nothing can prevent both girl and boy child to become the legal heirs of inheritable property. However, it is generally found that the quantum of the share of a female heir is half of that of the male heirs. The reason 3 behind this is that under the Muslim law a female shall upon marriage receive mehr and maintenance from her husband whereas males will have only the property of the ancestors for inheritance. Also, males have the duty of maintaining their wife and children.
Widow’s right to succession : Under Muslim law, no widow is excluded from the succession. A childless Muslim widow is entitled to one-fourth of the property of the deceased husband, after meeting his funeral and legal expenses and debts. However, a widow who has children or grandchildren is entitled to one-eighth of the deceased husband's property. If a Muslim man marries during an illness and subsequently dies of that medical condition without brief recovery or consummating the marriage, his widow has no right of inheritance. But if her ailing husband divorces her and afterwards, he dies from that illness, the widow's right to a share of inheritance continues until she remarries.
A Child in the Womb : A child in the womb of its mother is competent to inherit provided it is born alive. A child in the embryo is regarded as a living person and, as such, the property vests immediately in that child. But, if such a child in the womb is not born alive, the share already vested in it is divested and, it is presumed as if there was no such heir (in the womb) at all.
Escheat : Where a deceased Muslim has no legal heir under Muslim law, his properties are inherited by Government through the process of escheat.
This is just about the female social and socio-economic rights in Islam. Islam covers other aspects of human affairs in political, social and socio-economic conduct like interest-less economics and the point that in the mosque any knowledgeable Muslim can become the "Pesh imam" ( prayer leader ) and there is no hierarchy among prayer doers - the king can pray behind the businessman who prays beside the assistant in the doctor's who prays beside the farmer. This is unlike in Hinduism where the supreme is the priest who outranks the king who outranks the businessman who outranks others in prayer. Look at the Tirupati temple where the common poor pilgrim has to give
some money to have a "darshan" ( a view ) of that god and that money is for himself or herself and each member of his or her group will have to pay darshan fee to the temple and be in a long line for the darshan and there is a special VIP darshan where the VIP ( maybe the king or the feudal or the modern politician ) will have sooner access to the god and there is also the higher fee darshan where if each pilgrim pays 12,000 rupees and each member of his or her family also pays 12,000 rupees they will have sooner darshan than the poor commoners who have paid only 250 rupees each. So social and socio-economic discrimination right where god is supposedly present. If right in front of god such social and socio-economic discrimination is done it is no surprise that India is in the ridiculous, chaotic and injustice and disparities filled state it is.
So true Islam is made up of such simple, logical, rational and deeply human questions, issues and rights.
Well when muslims attacked India, your forefathers were Hindu. You can extrapolate who stood their ground and who could not and converted to Islam.
So from the above you will understand that many people in the world in history converted to Islam not because they couldn't stand their ground but because they were troubled by their oppression-filled life that their local society like India presented and they saw the simplicity-filled radicalism of Islamic philosophy and converted. This is similar to the adoption and propagation of modern Communism and Socialism in the modern world. True islam and modern Communism appeal to the sensitive, rational, questioning, empathetic and gentle mind. Is is then a surprise that so many Muslims since the early 1900s participated in the modern Communist and Socialist movements and set up entire countries that were Communist and Socialist while extremely Capitalist India dodders on ? For instance the famous landmark called Lal Chowk in Srinagar, Kashmir, was named so by Muslim and Sikh Communists who were inspired by the area called Red Square in Communist Moscow when these Muslims and Sikhs were fighting against the Kashmir raja Hari Singh. I quote a section from
my thread from 2016 whose OP is an article by Pakistani journalist Nadeem Paracha :
During the same period (1920s-30s), another (though lesser known) Islamic scholar in undivided India got smitten by the 1917 Russian revolution and Marxism.
Hafiz Rahman Sihwarwl saw Islam and Marxism sharing five elements in common: (1) prohibition of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the privileged classes (2) organisation of the economic structure of the state to ensure social welfare (3) equality of opportunity for all human beings (4) priority of collective social interest over individual privilege and (5) prevention of the permanentising of class structure through social revolution.
The motivations for many of these themes he drew from the Qur’an, which he understood as seeking to create an economic order in which the rich pay excessive, though voluntary taxes (Zakat) to minimise differences in living standards.
In the areas that Sihwarwl saw Islam and communism diverge were Islam’s sanction of private ownership within certain limits, and in its refusal to recognise an absolutely classless basis of society.
He suggested that Islam, with its prohibition of the accumulation of wealth, is able to control the class structure through equality of opportunity.
Basically, both Sindhi and Sihwarwl had stumbled upon an Islamic concept of the social democratic welfare state.
Building upon the initial thoughts of Sindhi and Sihwarwl were perhaps South Asia’s two most ardent and articulate supporters and theoreticians of Islamic Socilaism: Ghulam Ahmed Parvez and Dr. Khalifa Abdul Hakim.
Parvez was a prominent ‘Quranist’, or an Islamic scholar who insisted that for the Muslims to make progress in the modern world, Islamic thought and laws should be entirely based on the modern interpretations of the Qu’ran and on the complete rejection of the hadith (sayings of the Prophet and his companions based on hearsay and compiled over a 100 years after the Prophet’s demise).
After studying traditional Muslim texts, as well as Sufism, Parvez claimed that almost all hadiths were fabrications by those who wanted Islam to seem like an intolerant faith and by ancient Muslim kings who used these hadiths to give divine legitimacy to their tyrannical rules.
Parvez also insisted that Muslims should spend more time studying the modern sciences instead of wasting their energies on fighting out ancient sectarian conflicts or ignoring the true egalitarian and enlightening spirit of the Qu’ran by indulging in multiple rituals handed down to them by ancient ulema, clerics and compilers of the hadith.
Understandably, Parvez was right away attacked by conservative Islamic scholars and political outfits.
But this didn’t stop famous Muslim philosopher and poet, Muhammad Iqbal, to befriend the young scholar and then introduce him to the future founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Jinnah appointed Parvez to edit a magazine, Talu-e-Islam. It was set-up to propagate the creation of a separate Muslim country and to also answer the attacks that Jinnah’s All India Muslim League had begun to face from conservative Islamic parties and ulema who accused the League of being a pseudo-Muslim organisation and Jinnah for being too westernised and ‘lacking correct Islamic behavior.’
Apart from continuing to author books and commentaries on the Qu’ran, Parvez wrote a series of articles in Talu-e-Islam that propagated a more socialistic view of the holy book.
In a series of essays for the magazine he used verses from the Qu’ran, incidents from the faith’s history and insights from the writings of Muhammad Iqbal to claim:
The clergy and conservative ulema have hijacked Islam.
They are agents of the rich people and promoters of uncontrolled Capitalism.
Socialism best enforces Qur’anic dictums on property, justice and distribution of wealth.
Islam’s main mission was the eradication of all injustices and cruelties from society. It was a socio-economic movement, and the Prophet was a leader seeking to put an end to the capitalist exploitation of the Quraysh merchants and the corrupt bureaucracy of Byzantium and Persia.
According to the Qur’an, Muslims have three main responsibilities: seeing, hearing and sensing through the agency of the mind. Consequently, real knowledge is based on empirically verifiable observation, or through the role of science.
Poverty is the punishment of God and deserved by those who ignore science.
In Muslim/Islamic societies, science, as well as agrarian reform should play leading roles in developing an industrialised economy.
A socialist path is a correction of the medieval distortion of Islam through Shari’a.
Parvez joined the government after the creation of Pakistan in 1947, but after Jinnah’s death in 1948, he was sidelined until he resigned from his post in 1956.
The mullahs you see on this thread, on the forum, on the internet and offline are anti-Islam other than of course being anti-human, irrational and Capitalist just like any right-winger.
@bluesky @Atlas
Even today Pakistan, a nation 5 times smaller than you keeps you bogged down in misery and rumination about medieval losses.
These particular women and the TJ have created a suffocating and oppressive atmosphere for those Indian Muslim women who don't want to wear the burqa, who want to be free. Again, about those voluntary burqa wearers what then is the point of their education when they chose to isolate themselves from society and not contribute to it ? The argument of choice in burqa is an illusion because the few fanatic wearers and their fanatic, misinformed and misguided male supporters will create an atmosphere where the remaining females will be under daily pressure to wear it. Among my own female relatives who didn't wear the burqa in my younger years there is a dear cousin who is a teacher and she said to her husband ( who is no more ) when I was at their house that some in her city scold females who don't wear it, so there becomes a societal pressure and most prefer to go with the pressure and convince themselves that the burqa has religious obligation instead of making the effort to change the mob-led "leaders of the community" and their street-level enforcers. Some years ago when my cousin and her husband would come to my city for her cancer treatment she would go to the hospital without the burqa and once they accompanied me to a good tea house without her wearing it and also to a clothes market. In India-administered Kashmir there is a foul all-burqa group called Dukhtaraan-e-Millat whose leader is Asiya Andrabi and they had announced more than 10 years ago that they would throw acid on those Kashmiri females who don't wear the burqa. That created a regressive and oppressive atmosphere in Kashmir whose manifestations later included rape and death threats to an all-girl trio music band in Kashmir called Pragaash and that band had to close down. So the "Hijab is my pride" marches reflect the misinformed and misguided choices of a few but an imposition and suffocation on the rest and "choice" is an illusion. 
