Bullhe Shah and His Veil of “Meem”

Criticism of Ghulam Ahmad Parvaiz is correct as this 'merging of self with God (Atma aur Pramatma)' and 'I am the Truth' are purely Indian philosophical thoughts.
Regards

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Arabic Meem is म which is also a reference to माया (Maya) .

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

"Masjad dha dey, mandar dha dey, dha dey jo kuchh dhai’n da
Par kissi da dil na dhai’n, Rabb dilaa’n vich rehnda

(Demolish the mosque, demolish the temple and demolish what else you can, But do not break anybody’s heart because God dwells in there.)"

God dwelling in the "heart" is a very Hindu concept. For example Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4:4.22-23 says-

"The soul is not born, but always exists. It is the consciousness of life, and dwells in every "heart"; it is the master of all, the lord of all."

"Masjad dha dey, mandar dha dey, dha dey jo kuchh dhai’n da
Par kissi da dil na dhai’n, Rabb dilaa’n vich rehnda

(Demolish the mosque, demolish the temple and demolish what else you can, But do not break anybody’s heart because God dwells in there.)"

God dwelling in the "heart" is a very Hindu concept. For example Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4:4.22-23 says-

"The soul is not born, but always exists. It is the consciousness of life, and dwells in every "heart"; it is the master of all, the lord of all."

"If you see the soul in every living being, you see truly. If you see immortality in the heart of every mortal being, you see truly. If you see God within every man and woman, then you can never do harm to any man or woman. If you see God in yourself, then you attain perfection."

Gita

The soul is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. Thus the "heart" has room for the soul. The soul is also larger than the earth, larger than the sky, larger than the entire universe.

Chandogya Upanishad 3: 14.1-4

Mr. Gill,are you condoning and promoting Sufic actions and thought here? Are you in love with deviant 'saints'?
Happy whirling.

tahir, what's so 'saintly' about any of this? Is merely whirling enough to turn someone into an Islamic 'saint'?

-------------

laddu, eight consecutive posts! You may be getting unnecessarily enthused.

Any pre-pubscent Hindu teen knows and understands things better. There is no need to bring in the Gita or the Upnishads here.

The only thing 'good' one can say about BS was that although he was an Arab, being born in Pujab, he provided some political help to indigenous peoples, and was something of a poet (and dancer?).

Even that assumes, unfairly, that Arabs and/or Muslims cannot be generous and poetic (and dance-loving) without being 'saints.'

Re: # 11

Oye,

"Any pre-pubscent Hindu teen knows and understands things better. There is no need to bring in the Gita or the Upnishads here."

You are a Paki and probably do not know about "things" here.
Not to talk about Gita or Upanishad about which you probably have no idea!!

Re: # 11

"tahir, what's so 'saintly' about any of this? Is merely whirling enough to turn someone into an Islamic 'saint'?"

Now you are exposing too much of your ignorance.
You probably have no idea about sufism or philosophia perennis or gnostic traditions across civilizations.

You are too much, laddu :)

Be fair. People don't need to read the Gita or the Upnishads or philosophia pennis to act as 'good' human beings. One can live in the jungles of Borneo and read nothing but messages encoded in bird droppings in order to help others and break into a dance every now and then.

#12/13 Posted by laddu

You are a Paki and probably do not know about "things" here. Not to talk about Gita or Upanishad about which you probably have no idea!!Now you are exposing too much of your ignorance. You probably have no idea about sufism or philosophia perennis or gnostic traditions across civilizations.

Haha!

Eklavya,

I knew if this board doesn't draw you in, nothing will!

But honestly, to be fair to Gill Saheb, my impression on reading this article was that he resolved a genuine curiosity in his own mind, did research, and felt elated on finding the answer - which is admirable.

The other possibility is having given up on atheism, he's now exploring sufigiri. That would be some progress I guess if it was true!

zee, I have (almost) completely abandoned activity on chowk (to think over some important matters first), but a few topics just reel me in, and you know what they are :)

---------

The way this article has been presented, it is a real credit to Gill Sahib. He sought an answer and having found it, he honestly accepted it for what it was. As you know, that is just not how novice sufi mind works. The first reaction would have been to find a way to criticize Mr. Parvez.

On the other hand, it is a bit surprising that so many very well-informed Muslims themselves are not clear on such matters. There is no harm being a sufi AFTER one understands what it is, and takes care to not fall through its deadly cracks.

#17 Posted by Eklavya,

it is a bit surprising that so many very well-informed Muslims themselves are not clear on such matters.

True. It's not easy being a Muslim. There're many convenient escapes.

Gill Sahib,

I remember your article from 4 years ago when you referred to 'purdah-e-meem' and other mystical stuff and called it all 'obfuscation'

http://www.chowk.com/articles/7194

Have your views changed?

a nice write-up Gill Sahib although one does get the feeling that perhaps here you are out of your depth with all due respect. The mystery of the Veil of Meem "Pardah e Meem" is one for the Saints to know the reality of. Anyway, it is actually based upon a hadith qudsi (these are extra-koranic revelations from Allah directly to his Beloved Prophet Muhammad i.e. Allah spoke through the tongue of His Messenger). Scholars have collected such Hadith Qudsi just as they have collected regular hadith (the collections of the Prophet's own words [although everything he said was 'divinely inspired' anyway: it is all wahy) .e.g. Imam Nawawi has a famous collection of Forty such extra-Koranic direct revelations.

In one of these Allah says through His Prophet's mouth:
"Ana Ahmad bila Meem"
I am Ahmad without the 'M' i.e. Ahad. (The One).

This hadith qudsi is the basis of the Mystery of Meem which all orthodox Sufis of Ahlus Sunnah have meditated and commented on since the time of the Prophet. It is not due to any Indian influence.

It can be an interesting discussion.

:-)

Haqq Bahu!

In the interests of scholarly honesty and integrity I should also add that this hadith qudsi is controversial in regards to its authenticity. ie. hadith experts are divided over it. Obviously saints like Bulleh Shah and Rumi believed it to be authentic.

To paraphrase, Allah says that the difference between Me and My Beloved Ahmad [Muhammad] (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) is the letter 'M'.

ummmmm .... let me see now: if we remove the two s's, one of the a's and the i from massadi, you are left with 'mad'! ..... damn!... so, same same

gill sahib ,

.... are you okay? ..... or do you just have a lot of time to burn ?

pyaray loko,

there is nothing heretical about what bulleh shah spoke of.

There is no mystery...

The difference between the infinite and the finite is that the finite assumes there is a difference.

When "me" is annihilated, all that is left is oneness.

I don't like to visit FP that much, so feel free to continue to discuss without me.

If I am needed, you can find me on UP.

thanks

BTW Gill sahib,

your curiosity on the "meem" is interesting, but the consequent article that you have written is tepid indeed.

kind regards and with utmost respect, I remain, sincerely,

hurricane

Various Interactors:

Did I write anything in the article to suggest that "purdah-e-meem" was real and not obfuscation? I wrote this article to show how apocryphal sufistic thought is, if you take it seriously.

Ahmad (Muhammed) can not be Ahad (God) by any stretch of human imagination. According to Chapter 112 (Unity0 of the Holy Quran, "He (Allah) begetteth not, nor is He begotten." On the other hand, Prophet Muhammed was begotten by his father, Abdullah. Ponder, Mr. Naqshbandi.

The trick of removing a letter from a word, transforms the word Arab into Rab, if A is removed from Arab. Does it mean that a piece of land is God?

In response to hamidm2, #23, I want to reassure him that I am okay (both mentally and physically). True, I have a lot of time at my disposal to burn.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Dear Freethinker,

The only difference between your thinking and the tally-ban thinking is that yours is consistent and repetitive.

Oh wait, the same is true of their thinking :o

"Lakir Kay Fakir"

Gill Sahib, the entire goal of Sufism may be to short-circuit human thinking (annihilation, in hurricane's terms) and create only human being in the service/'love' of Allah. Sufis are right in that in that state of 'annihilated being' it shouldn't logically matter whether Allah is Prophet Muhammad or Prophet Muhammad is Allah.

-----------

Laddu, again, PLEASE don't confuse any of this for Hindu Yogic stuff, or with identity of Atma and Parmatma. Sufi 'elevation' is a very different effort, focused exclusively on 'man's love' for Allah/Prophet Muhammad.

Those who think "I am Ahmad without the M" means some sort of equivalence between Allah and His Beloved Prophet Ah(mad) (upon him and his Aal be peace) are totally lost and should give up trying to understand the concept of Fana fillah and Baqabillah. The Lord remains the Lord and the Slave remains the slave although both can be joined in Love--but it is NOT a physical union. It is a mystery which points towards Man as the Microcosm and since Prophet Muhammad was the Insan al Kamil [Perfect Man], the Raison d'Etre of Creation, Allah spoke these words through the mouth of His Habib.

Remember, there is no difference in true love between lover and beloved. Thus Baba Waris Shah Sahib has Heer say, "Ranjha Ranjha kehndi main aap Ranjha hoi!" [Saying "Ranjha, Ranjha" I myself became Ranjha!]. In the same way the great Sunni jurist, Hanafi mufti, faqih, mujaddid, scholar par excellence and Sufi, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (d.1921) of Bareilly--who was very strict on the Sharian and an expert on Islamic Law--could write, addressing the Prophet:

Main tau malik hi kahoonga ke ho Malik kay Habib!
Ya'ani Muhibb o Mahboob mein nahin, 'mera, tera'!

I shall call you 'Lord' for thou art the Lord's Beloved!
That is, between Lover and Beloved there is no 'Yours and mine'.

If we interpret the hadith qudsi in these terms we arrive at an interpretation which is consistent with Islamic orthodoxy and Baba Bulleh Shah was a Hanafi scholar as well as a Sufi of the strictly Shariah-compliant Qadiri Order of Sufis.

This hadith qudsi is a declaration, by Allah, of the unimaginable proximity in love that exists between Him and Prophet Muhammad, his beloved Slave. It is naat of the Prophet NOT an excuse for incarnationism or any other doctrine against Islamic orthodoxy and has nothing to do with Allah being One and Unique.

Gill Sahib, it doesn't say, Ahmad IS Ahad (which would be against monotheism) it says 'that which separates Ahmad and I (Allah) is the Meem.

What a stupendous thing this Meem must be then. It is surely the Divine Secret which He discloses to those whom He Wills!
I'd suggest reading al-Ghazzali and then Ibn Arabi. Both available in excellent English translations.

Naqsh, #29 is one of the best thought-out posts on Islamic Sufism. Yes, sufism seems to be all about love for Allah (and his Prophet), which makes Islamic sainthood possible, with degrees of love defining gradation of the wali.

In short form, one can even define Islamic sufism as annihilation of the human self through love for and identification with allah (and his Prophet).

--------------

Excuse the term Islamic sufism since there is a ton of unIslamic sufism that people like my friend laddu enthusiastically propound, in utter ignorance, IMHO.

Kaal chakra bhai,

you are trying to hold the ocean in a tea cup.

You are trying to examine the soul by dissecting the body.

Kaal chadd day ilm kitaban da.
tainay chayaee bar azaban da

your "logic", my friend, will not work. Alas. It is a sad fact. This strange world we live in. Where we feel that we can prove everything by logic, and then there is always that one thing that breaks all logic apart.

sigh.

but such is the mystery of existence.

In any case, I am not a sufi, nor do I pretend to be one on chowk.

For all matter sufiana, please contact walli ullah rehmatulla Naqshbandi. May his rutba be buland and his khutba be long (ameen)

Naqshbandi: #30

In your earlier post, you wrote:
"Ana Ahmad bila Meem"
I am Ahmad without the 'M' i.e. Ahad. (The One).
It's quite a definitive statement; it doesn't seem to be figurative as you implied in your post # 29.

Similarly, Bullhe Shah's statement is quite definitive. It is quoted in my article as follows:
“Ahad, Ahmad wich farq nah Bullya
Ikk ratti bhar marodee da”
(There is no difference between Ahad and Ahmad but of a nominal ‘rounding’ [meem}.)

Mohammad Gill

Gill Sahib, the sufi answer to that should be that nobody knows what M/rounding stands for. It could be nothing, or it could be everything, depending upon your own state of love (not understanding).

hurricane bhai,

:)

Re: # 31

"Excuse the term Islamic sufism since there is a ton of unIslamic sufism that people like my friend laddu enthusiastically propound, in utter ignorance, IMHO."

Sufism , is not a trade mark belonging to Qadari or Naqshabandi order just as "Islam" is not a trademark belonging to the Wahaabs. As I said there are two kinds of Sufis - one that accepts the regular politcial Islam and its Sharia in toto - and the other that does not accept and hence seems to be indulging in Kufr, bidda and Haram. That type of 'sufism' drew from Advaitic and hindu ascetic traditions of Nath, Avadhoot, Bharti etc. Such sufism NEVER aligned itself with the mullahs or accepted a paedophile as the the source of sufism. They rejected Mohammad but accepted the formless Brahman through adopting mystical guru-shishya menthod of imparting the knowledge of formless Brahman. Only such sufism were killed by political Islamists in the past - rest of the so called psuedo-sufism remained part of the darabari culture, political Islam and hence Shariat.

The problem with you Pakistanis is that even sufism is relegated to your mullah's "Islamic principles" just like your Paki constitution.

Lahol!!

Re: # 35

You guys do not understand that "Meem" refers to "Maya" . Maya is ALWAYS considered to be "veiling" and as an "Avarana". which leads to another "Meem" which is "MaMatva" (Ego) .

You Pakis can never reach the truth - because even if the Allah comes before you and asks you to reject Mohammad you would only express allegiance to that rapist ans pedophile than accept Allah.

hamid
amid
mid
ami
ham
id
had
hid
haid
.......... even after lifting all theses veils, the closest i could get is 'ham' as in a 'ham sandwich' ...... oh well, i guess i am not god after all ... unless some sufi can help me out

....... this discussion reminds me of the discussions i used to have with the malangs at bari imam ..... high on the finest bhang made from the finest cannabis from the himalayan foothills i searched for god and i think i found him on a couple of occassions ...... it is a good thing, this version of islam .... a lot better than the wahabis who want to blow themselves up so that they can have sex with virgins .......

laddu,

stop insulting our prophet (pbuh and his camel)! ....... if we want him insulted, we will do it ourselves .. we don't need your help

"even if the Allah comes before you and asks you to reject Mohammad you would only express allegiance to that rapist ans pedophile than accept Allah....."

:(

laddu, I am an Indian, and a Hindu (at least nominally). I am requesting you to PLEASE not confuse your Hinduism for Sufism. Some "Sufi" has really messed up your head.

It's probably some 'sufism-means-love-one-and-all' type of sufi who is behind this total carnage. It should be a crime to cause such havoc among good people.

Re: # 40

"am requesting you to PLEASE not confuse your Hinduism for Sufism. Some "Sufi" has really messed up your head."

Bhai Mere, you have not understood the linkages between various gnostic-ascetic traditions. You are all messed up. And how come you spout dhimmi and momeen arse licking statements about that blood thirsty Allah all the time.
Have you even red real Quran? In what sense you are a hindu?

if you are one then negate the kalima. I have challenged you many times to do it and you refused because you are obviously a momeen indulging in taquiyya with this hindu sounding name.

Re: # 39

Hmm, you make sense. So I leave the stage for you.

YouTube ban in Pakistan because of blaspheme

Can anyone please download the so-called balsphemous video and send it to me as an email attachment?

My address is INABBAR at G mail dot com .. I'll appreciate it.

...SR

Re: # 39

Hey , I thought momens were proud that Mohammad married Ayesha at 6 and consummated when she was 9.
And he "married" so many women on the same day after killing their husbands !! Those were all 'forced-consent' to marriage when they were infact grieving for the slaughter of their near and dear ones. Such forced consent is called "rape".
Momeens are all proud of all that Mohammad did to idolators of Arabia.

Allah miaN thallay aa


http://www.apnaorg.com/poetry/saain-akhtar/

Page 6 and onwards is a classic poem by Sain Akhtar, who is one of the more famous pupils of Ustad Daman.

...SR

dear friends,

i am looking at religions in general and islam in particular and doing comparative studies especially focusing on the proponents and opponents of islam and carefuly weighing their views...to arrive at my own judgement..

i have come across ali sina, ibn warraq etc who have questioned islam and i have also looked at muslim responses to their tirade..... i must admit if i take an unbiased view, keeping aside my parental religious/cultural legacy, i am unconvinced by the response to the arguments of ali sina etc.... in fact, both sides use different perspectives and styles of arguments, which are akin to comparing apples with oranges.... for example, the muslims always refer to Quran... resulting in circular reasoning...etc

I think this post is the right forum to discuss this situation....

views from the highly opinionated and seemingly well-read participants of this forum might help me in this....

i also want to make it clear that i am not a "trol" of any kind ...hence not acting as devil's advocate...

thanks

#46 Posted by TaureanKhanm

Why don't you search chowk archives? Use keywords. I don't think anyone will be interested to help you here, except the hindoo monkeys or a few Pakistani murtids.

Re: # 47

Come on Mard-e-Momeen , help this guy redeem his faith!!

Has any one ever wondered about the following:

If a book (the Qur’an in this situation) is meant to be from God/Allah, why do two individuals of equivalent intelligence always come up with different interpretations of the text?

There are many contradictions in the Quran; the only people unable to see them are those completely brainwashed and have lost the ability to think rationally. They come up with all sorts of historical/non-historical justifications for these such as the arabic language/literary peculiarities etc. nothing substantial or scientific; perhaps they are not aware of this concept.

There are literally billions and billions of galaxies and star systems in our “known” universe; supposedly we are talking about a creator that is well beyond the confines of any material boundaries; why would such a “person” even care about what goes on in individual hearts and minds on a teeny weeny planet! Why would he be upset about, for example, a woman showing off a bit of skin or someone not observing some ritual exactly how it was prescribed (when there are literally hundreds of such, very contradictory, rituals in Islam amongst the sects; not to quote countless other similar examples.

If the “Loh-e-Mahfouz” was the first thing created with the deeds of all living things and their fate already prescribed, what the hell is the meaning of “the free will”?!

If a ruler of my country wanted me to abide by ceratin rules, I would expect them to be laid down explicitly and clearly for all to understand. Otherwise, I would think they were unjust in prosecuting me for misgivings; why are there so many ambiguities as to what the “true Islam” is; that definition is certainly not unanimous by anyone’s standards as we ll know; the interpretations are so varied and far apart at times that it is mind boggling!

According to the Quran, Allah gave his blessings to the Bani Israel but they betrayed his trust many a times, so he went off them completely and chose a different people for revival of his “Only and True Message”! Are we thinking that an omniscient and omnipotent God, with the inherent knowledge of everything, transcendent through the confines of time, made a mistake!! Then he tried to correct it by chosing arabia for his chosen messanger! How odd!!

Prayer is such a contradictory term, don’t you think. If all is already decided, does God change his mind if we were to grovel before him and grants us our desires as a reward; very confusing!!

The only answers I ever got for these as a child, and many other similar questions, was that we CANNOT work out God’s will and he is the only one who does; what the hell are we doing with our assess up in the air five times a day then!!

All of the above seem to be the desires of the needy and not fullfilled “persona” (to quote Al-Razi); Is it that we have created this “persona” is OUR OWN IMAGE rather than the other way around?

Is our “conflict” with the rest of the world sheer paranoia “they are out to get us”!! and the only reason we cannot accept this is our inherent “sense of pride” so deeply indoctrinated that we cannot listen to reason.

The reason I am talking about the Islamic context here is because that is my background and I wish to discuss the very foundations of this faith. It is all very well to hide behind the “good aspects” of Islamic history and ignore the other “less desirable” aspects, but the question is what it is all based on; without foundation, there is nothing left. I criticise any dogma based on “faith” and th other so-called faiths are no exception to this; however, I prefer people from those cultures to comment on their own cultural heritages.

Problem with being “moderate” is that moderation, whatever it might mean, harbours and nurtures extremist elemnts. Extremists to me mean people who are trying to follow their “faiths” down to the last letter. This Sufism etc have nothing to do with what Islam actually is; it is a digression from the mainstream. Sufis were always at the fringes of mainstream society and their ideas of “Sulha-e-kul” etc have nothing to do with the message of Islam; though I do admit it can make Islam a bit more palatable!

If we had all the “knowledge/Ilm” in the Quran, why would we strive for more; the whole idea of “the completeness” of “Deen/way of life” is not compatible with modernity of any kind, however that is defined. Of course we can cherry pick and find quotes to justify absolutely anything that WE WANT TO; that itself is the biggest weakness of religious dogma; interpretable with vast differences of opinions between individuals of equivalent intelligence!

Surely, they can't ALL be true!!!

Re: # 49

akcheema,

you are a murtid and therefore wajib-ul-qatl

......... i thought i would remind you of that before you get yourself into trouble with the rabid followers of the moon god and his bedouin beloved ......

..... having said that, let me try and answer your blasphemous questions with an excerpt of an actual conversation between the moon god, al-lah, and his mailman, gabby ......


why do you love him more than you love me

as usual, al-lah mian and his favourite angel, gabby, are sitting on fluffy cushions of clouds in courtyard of the seventh heaven, drinking meccan date wine and munching on peyote pakoras

al-lah: gabby, you have to get me some decent wine from california next time you go down .... i am sick and tired of drinking this crap ... tastes like camel piss ..

gabby (preening his wings with his beak): al-lah mian, but you are the one who refuses to let me go back since you fell in love with that boy from meccca .... i still don't understand what you see in that bedouin ... look at the mess he and his foolwers have made on earth - it is worse than plant u-3450 in galaxy m-32 which is full of nasty jinns and the vicious hajooj and the mahjooj ......... how do you manage to make such a mess of things when you are the almighty, the all-knowing, the all-everything ?

al-lah (ruffling the feathers on gabby's head): come here, my little angel - are you jealous?

gabby: you aree damn right, i am! .... i have spent eons worshipping you and running errands for you and taking the wax out of your ears and you love him more than you love me !

al-lah (looking a little sad, his single eye drooping in the middle of his vast forehead) gabby, you know i work in mysterios and wonderous ways .... there is always a good reaosn why i do things even if sometimes, i foreget it myself ..... i know there is a good reason why i chose muhammad as my beloved and last prophet ......

gabby (jumping up): last prophet! ... are you sure about that?... if he is the last prophet then why did you make me go and talk to mirza ghulam ahmed and joseph smith and that naked guy who sits under the pipal tree in pindora throwing feces at people walking by ? ... why?

al-lah ( smiling ): did i do that?

gabby (exasperated): don't give me that!... i know you are a gazillion eons old, but you don't forget anything .... remember you are god, you created yourself out of nothing

al-lah: nothing? ... what is that?

gabby: now don't try to skirt the subject - why do you love mo of mecca more than you love me? .... i am here all the time, taking care of your needs, running errands, washing your feet ... gabby do this-gabby do that, while he is there behind that door cavorting with seventy virgins and you know how many pretty boys ! ....... and if that is okay, then why did you destroy sodom and gamorrah ...

al-lah (looking a little worried): gabby, are you okay? ... i have never seen you like this ..... you know that i know everything and that there is a good reason i do what i do ... no? ... i have been a father to you .. when you asked me to throw out iblees and put you in charge of the mail, didn't i do it? when you asked me to destroy the klingons and dismatle the united federation of planets, didn't i do it? ...... tell me, what do you want?

gabby: i want you get rid of masadi and love me more than you love mo ... that's all i want, and that last peyote pakora .....

al-lah mian (picking up the pakora with his sole finger and popping it into gabby's beak): there! ... you know i love you more than anyone .... i was just messing with the humans when i told them that he was my beloved - you know that kind of thing doesn't float my boat ... if it wasn't for the wine i would have destroyed san francisco a long time ago .........

gabby (happily muching on the pakora): oh al-lah mian, i love you so ..... i am sorry for doubting your infinte wisdom ...

al-lah: now, who is this masadi guy ?

Re: # 13
Dear Laddu,

Still bitter? If reading all about deviant saints amounts to 'not having any idea', then I'm guilty of only one thing: not joining the ranks of their admirers!

Quick, now show me how to whirl.

Shanti.

Re: # 20
"It is actually based upon a hadith qudsi (these are extra-koranic revelations from Allah directly to his Beloved Prophet Muhammad"

Extra-Quranic revelations? What extra, if not the Sufi Cola, are you referring to Mr.Naqshbandi? Surely, you don't believe that the Quran is incomplete?

The first step is to label men's conflicting utterings as 'sahih', then wear wooly clothes, and finally mislead simple folks by mystic esoteric meanings! What a death-trap? Go to the SOURCE please; you won't regret it.

Haqq yes, 'an al-haqq' no!

Re: # 50

Thanks for the insight! I know who I am; I have been a non-believer since I was 14/15 and never had time for the religious claptrap. This aversion, however, extends to most things super-natural and Islam is by no means singled out in my mind as I tried to explain in my earlier comment. I feel this pretentious Religion of Sufism is just as dangerous as it allows for a continuum of the super-natural theme and is in sharp contrast with rationalism.

This "M" crap is even more annoying; just what the hell does it mean? Just because one can put forward some reasonably coherent and grammatically correct sentence, it doesn't make it a valid argument for anything for crying out loud!

I feel the dogma of "faith" should be completely demolished for good, but with reasoning not rhetoric. I live an intellectually fulfilled life which is morally sound, but that morality comes from within; its part of being human. It has nothing whatsoever to do with trying to suck up to some higher being, but comes from simply treating others like one wishes to be treated oneself.

Sufis were essentially atheists hiding behind the veil of pantheism! All this non-sense of god living in all of us or living in the human heart, or god being the universe and vice versa (wahdat-ul-wujud etc) were just ploys to try to explain it all. With advances in scientific knowledge, it is now possible to be intellectually fulfilled without this rubbish. And for those who say that science doesn't have answers for everything, well if science can't explain something then what makes you think that you can! The substitute for rational thinking CANNOT BE fairytales and ancient mythology!

For those who confuse all this and start harping on about "the golden age of islam"; what the hell has that golden age to do with Islam? Its like trying to give the credit for current science to Judeo-Christian mythology! The two could not be at more opposite ends of the spectrum!

Re: # 30
al-Ghazzali and Ibn Arabi and your own profile makes sense now!

Those who place themselves above the prophets, claim to know the secrets or possess powers, only mislead mankind. Their cases are well-documented, thank you.

Burn that wooly garb now.

Re: # 44
Untrue! Want to know how old she really was?

tahir #51, laddu bhai addressed that specific remark to me. He is sure I am a Muslim, and as a Muslim, like you, I don't understand Sufism as perfectly, as he, as a good Hindu, does.
--------------------------

"Sufis were essentially atheists hiding behind the veil of pantheism!"

akcheema, you are right in that Sufism is only a means. But as a means it is put to many more uses than that.

Non-Muslims who are caught within Muslim lands or Muslim surroundings use Sufism to pass off as Muslims. Muslim lay people who for whatever reasons find themselves among non-Muslims and don't wish to seem like Muslims use sufism. Muslim scholars and committed people use sufism to ease non-Muslims' interface and interaction with Islam. Lazy people and people lacking discipline use it naturally as a means of escape.

Multiple uses. What's common is that nobody other than good Hindus and some totally deluded western liberals considers sufism as the ultimate goal, or anything more than a means to other more important goals.

Naqshbandi is a good Muslim who would find it hard, if not impossible, to be a good Muslim without sufism and its love. (Naqsh, that is an assumption. If you disagree, please let us know.)

Re: # 53

akcheema,

.... i feel your pain, but there is nothing you or i can do about this 'claptrap' ..... religion, like prostitution is a big industry and as long as there is a demand for it we will have to put up with it ...... although, unlike prostitution which provides an essential service, i don't see any real value in religion ...... so we will have to live with it - it is like living with hemmaroids; once in a while they flare up but most of the time they are just a pain in the rear .......

........ but i wouldn't throw out santa claus and the tooth fairy with the aab-i-zamzam ...... they can be fun - egg nog for the adults, and shiny dollars for the kids .......

Re: # 56

eklavya,

.... so sufism is a "means"? .... a means to what? ... a means to finding 'god'? ....and why do we need to do that? if he wants to find us, i am sure he has our address ....... it seems that you are suggesting that sufism is like a drug - a hallucinogen ..... if that is the case i am okay with it since i support the legalization of all drugs .......

hamidm2, yes.

I must confess, at 36 years of age, this is the very first time I am participating in any web debate. I apologise if my inexperience shows.

Here are just some of the reasons the evil of "faith" has to be tackled head on:

In my part of the world (Pakistan), faith leads to inertia. The process of scientific thinking and progress has come to a complete standstill. There is no new independent thinking, something taken for granted in the west, and the same old "circular reasoning" continues since time immemorial.

There are real people that suffer, especially women. They live restricted and pathetic lives for the most part, and that is not all. The religious brainwashing is so complete that being submissive in that role is actually regarded a virtue by many and a passive acceptance of "fate" is universal.

I love my country! I feel that some serious attempts at liberating a few minds may go a long way in the future of the progression of rational thought in the "muslim" world.

The more people are exposed to genuine critique of Islam, the less they feel themselves to get involved in this discussion. When they see that all hell hasn't broken loose if I criticised Mohammed or his divine pal, it generates a kind of self-confidence in others.

Re: # 53

"Sufis were essentially atheists hiding behind the veil of pantheism! All this non-sense of god living in all of us or living in the human heart, or god being the universe and vice versa (wahdat-ul-wujud etc) were just ploys to try to explain it all."

As I said there are two types of Sufis - those who accpet the Shariah and Sunnat in toto an the other who do not.
The statement you make above is with reference to the hindu/non-muslim ascetics pretending to be muslims when surrounding by Islamic gulangs.
The first types are Naqshabandis - who infact ran away from Akbar's darbar to Afghanistan and started bad mouthing him when he started his own din-e-Aql. Naqshabandi accept Sunnat in toto and are actually darbari sufis!!

akcheema: #60

You are doing quite well. At age 36, you are critically probing the issues which majority of the Muslims are afraid even to think about.

Let me see what I was doing at age 36. I was more than half way through with my Ph.D. work, I had published my first research paper in the Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineering,and was thinking of other problems in my line of research. I had critically thought on religion (like you) but had shelved it so that I could focus on my research interests without any distraction. I hadn't written anything about religion at that time and wouldn't do it for another 25 years or so.

I have written several articles on Science and the Muslim world at Chowk. One of these is:

Decline of Science in the Muslim World
Mohammad Gill September 1, 2005

You might be interested to read it.

I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

laddu, didn't know of actual Hindu/non-Muslim ascetics using sufism to pretend being Muslims. But that would be consistent with expectation, Sufism being purely a means to other politico-religious ends.

--------------------

akcheema, welcome. I can give you the perspective of an outsider.

Faith, so long as it is not focused totally on annhilating of the self, as sufism obviously is, need not be destructive.

Real religion can have very positive impact. Islam itself certainly doesn't stop scientific inquiry by or progress for those who agree to abide by its clear guidance. But it does provide a unique and comprehensive moral/ethical framework (for scientific inquiry, as for all other aspects of life) that demands adherence. It doesnt seem to be very kind to those hyper-smart people who instead of following it (or rejecting it by becoming non-Muslims), seek to insult it by putting their own desires into it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Thanks. I have read most of those and I tend to agree with most of the points raised, especially the decline of science in the muslim world. I disagree with the concept of moral frameworks suggested by Eklavya as I always found religious (especially Judeo-Christio-Islamic) concept of morality ro revolve around matters of sexual nature rather than what is really good and evil as far as humanity is concerned. To me, take away the sexualisation of the west, most muslims will not have any problems "assimmilating"; the sexual liberation, especially of women, is the main barrier preventing social integration! I suppose they never gave any thoughts to how all of them managed to grace this planet in the first place!!

I didn't think discussions on religious matters were a distraction at all. I am a surgeon with qualifications and fellowships from the UK and Australia. I have travelled extensively and religion was never something I paid any attention to despite coming from a conservative sunni family (of punjabi jatt background). I told my parents, despite living in Pakistan at the time, that I was an atheist when I was 15 and I didn't have any major social setbacks. I used to have friendly discussions with my parents, siblings, cousins etc (most have a background in science) and nobody minded provided you "knew the boundaries". Since that age, I never even bothered to attend the yearly Eid prayers, let alone any other rituals. I guess, from that point of view, the experience was overall positive.

However, in the last 10 years alone, the atmosphere, at least I felt, got a lot more Islamised. Many of my cousins now support beards and my ususal taunts, that used to either go unnoticed or be dealt with a smile, were treated with suspicion. Perhaps times have changed a bit! And it is these times that call for a different approach to the problem.

I also get the impression that majority of people on these blogs happen to be Pakistanis/Indians living overseas; I hope they become more popular within their native lands so the process is not just confined to the diaspora communities but where it really matters!

"However, in the last 10 years alone, the atmosphere, at least I felt, got a lot more Islamised. Many of my cousins now support beards and my ususal taunts, that used to either go unnoticed or be dealt with a smile, were treated with suspicion. Perhaps times have changed a bit! And it is these times that call for a different approach to the problem."

Just check how many madarassas have mushroomed in last 10 years.........yuo get the answer about the impending Talibanization of Pakistan....

akcheema, before developing a better appreciation of semitic religious frameworks (Judeo-Christio-Islamic), I used to jokingly describe those as "religions of the groin". It seemed to me that that was where all their morality and thinking developed out of, and remained focused on.

But IMHO, I was completely wrong. These religions, Islam in most perfect manner, do provide alternative, comprehensive moral/ethical frameworks, of which sexuality is just one aspect.
--------------------

Thankfully, you yourself acknowledge that so long as you did not cross certain boundaries nobody came in the way of your scientific studies or pursuing whatever research you chose to pursue. Wouldn't it better if you gave the same respect to those who grow beards and not dismiss doing so as a sign of backwardness. Could it be that intolerance lies more within you than within the hearts of your cousins? That is a question, not an accusation.
---------------

True, there need not be, or perhaps there cannot be, much understanding (let alone respect or tolerance) across religious frameworks, but if you as a Muslim need understanding (and respect) from other Muslims, then you probably will have to start by giving other Muslims, inlcluding the bearded ones, the madrassa going ones, that understanding and respect.

laddu, there is nothing wrong with "mushrooming" of madrasas in Pakistan, just as there can be nothing wrong with the mushrooming of paathshalas and shishu mandirs in India. Why do we wish to raise nations of robots with no knolwedge of their own selves?

Looks like you got it all wrong; I get on fine with everyone; perhaps that is the self-contradictory social setup we have in the sub-continent. I respect "their right" to believe in whatever they want, including growing beards etc. However, no ideology has a right to be immune to criticism. I have always welcomed criticism of my own ideas because I find it stimulating; its not reciprocated to the same extent though! My previous encounters used to be more using euphemisms; you can't be explicitly critical of the foundation of the faith, and its founder for example, as that is the boundary!

I don't accept the previlaged position that religious ideology seems to have that gives it immunity to critique. That is where the conflict begins.

Respecting someone's right to do something is not the same as actually having respect for what they do!!

Re: # 68

"Islam in most perfect manner, do provide alternative, comprehensive moral/ethical frameworks, of which sexuality is just one aspect."

What morality are you talking about Mr. Kaale Khan. Go and live in Taliban Land!! If you are in India then you need to be kicked out of here.

In semitic traditions (you can reject those traditions if you can't stand them), the divine, or close to divine, is totally privileged. You are most welcome to criticize people's *UNDERSTANDING* of the divine. Islam in particular gives you the right to argue that nobody ultimately understands the DIVINE. But you cannot directly criticize the DIVINE (specifically, Allah, His Prophet, and His Message) nor blame those for your own or the society's problems.

That restriction is not as pressing as one might assume. On chowk EVERY POSSIBLE position is passionately taken and doggedly defended all in the name of the same Message, and the same Prophet.

--------

Now, if you are the kind of person who simply cannot accept privileged positions, you should simply consider quitting that religio-political framework, without forcing those who have no such issues having to abandon their faith for your convenience.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

laddu bhai, both in Madrasas and paathshalas/shishu mandirs people teach what is important to them, without bothering about our opinions. Now, you and I might want to force our own views on them politically, but that is a different matter, simply fascism.

Kaale Kahn Saheb,

Yeh gol mol baat mat karo. Be specific about issues and what you think. What is it that Madarasa teaches without bothering about your opinion??
Please be specific than try to confuse others with your dhimmi talk.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Eklavya:
The assertion you make, if I phrase it correctly:

Calling oneself a muslim and retaining the right to directly criticize the articles of faith(see below) are not possible simultaneously.

Articles of Faith:

Allah Mian,
His Oneness,
His Fallibility,
Mohammad's as the Sacred Person.


But there is a self-referentiality involved in this because of "Calling oneself a Muslim". Therefore, the argument short-circuits itself because the guy who retains the right to define himself a Muslim hence putting his understanding of the faith can also in the same breath limit the definition of his faith in such a way that it makes it possible for him to brand Mohammad in the vilest of terms (for example) and still see this as not infrgining on his faith.

I think we go over this before, so now that guy in question ad you have to bring an external source to arbitrate on the articles of Faith which means Eklavya has to put the guy in corner and have a debate on scriptures.

But akcheema sahib might not be interested in this. All he (as i figure) might be interested in is only the social aspect of having the space to get the critique going and mullah vigilantism and Allah Mian ki Lathi be eliminated for some reasons dear to him.

raw_ :)

Yes, if defining that 'understanding' is done PRIOR to calling oneself Muslim, and latter association is made explicitly contingent upon that understanding.

Otherwise, temporal and social/public issues arise (choice made at one time constrain choices later, and choice set of x becomes constrained by choice set of y).

Partly, consider the context of BDSM, or the slave-master context of sufism. The slave has a theoretical RIGHT to make his/her relationship contingent upon specific conditions being met, but that has to be done very clearly PRIOR TO entering into that relationship.

Secondly, when there already exist, lots and lots of other slaves, it is a slave's duty to educate himself or herself fully on what kind of understanding these other slaves have with the master, and among themselves.

Because, unless the Master can be repeatedly reached for involvement and saving one's behind, there is no way of knowing or controlling, or even logically opposing, how OTHER slaves will behave, nor can one expect to enforce some standard slave behavior.

Now, one can argue that the decision is not always consciously made as a matter of choice or in full knowledge/acceptance of its implications, and those things do complicate matters....

---------

Sorry, obviously, that is not at all a reasonable analogy (except in the sufi context). Nor was that meant to offend anyone. But at least similar issues arise, IMO.

-------------------

I used to have a cd of the great master nusrat fateh ali in which he sung beautifully of his 'slavery' to medina and mohammad. So again, these words are used with caution and with due respect to normal people who have strong faith.

Look, please don't argue and agree to disagree here. My intention was not to start off a fight here. Let me explain myself with one or two examples:

Albert Einstein was, despite what people might have you believe, openly atheistic but still very proud of his Jewish roots. As a matter of fact, most liberal western Jews have very similar views and tend to retain communal bonds despite not even at times having a belief in god. People would have you believe this is all to do with ancestery; not so I am afraid. There is a communal element to our social structure as humans.

More than 45% of the British population claims not to belong a religion or have beliefs in the super-natural. They don't at once stop celebrating Christmas and Easter etc. They still retain and celebrate virtually all important landmarks of their history without getting ridiculous about it.

Why is it so hard for me to retain some ritualistic elements for the purpose of cultural solidarity and celebrate them as part of my heritage! Why can't I spend Eid day with my family, same as someone with christian heritage on christmas day, and not get all silly about the "faith" element of it. Their is a difference here and I don't think it is that hard to comprehend.

I have "Hindu" friends who are radical atheists; doesn't stop them from celebrating Diwali though! We all enjoy the tales of the Greek and Roman gods; they are all celebrated as an integral part of western civilisation; by the believers and non-believers alike! It doesn't turn people in to pagans, or does it?

If I see injustices in the name of Islam, with clear Quranic verses in its support, I am not going to stand by and just accept it! But I still wouldn't mind sharing "sawayyan" on Eid day cooked by my mother! But I am not just going to see millions of animals being slaughtered on Eid-ul-Adha as comemmoration of Abraham's alleged attempted sacrifice of his son and not comment on the sheer brutality of it all!

I hope people can see this distinction.

Re: # 60

akcheema mian,

"I feel that some serious attempts at liberating a few minds may go a long way in the future of the progression of rational thought in the "muslim" world. " ......

.... i think it is a brilliant idea - there are quite a few 'minds' on this forum that need to be liberated .... gill sahib and i have been trying to do it for many many years, but these people just won't listen to reason ..... i have even written a line by line tafseer of the koran to show them the folly of their ways, but these people have been obdurate and pigheaded ..... verily, they are doomed

.... now it up to you to liberate these pitiful creatures ... they include: urstruly, zeemax, naqshbandi and tahmed ...actually tahmed considers himself to be some sort of a reformer so i would start with him first ....... but you have to be careful - these people are very tricky and it is quite possible that they might convert and pervert you ..... these insidious folks have managed to convert perfectly nice horrible hindoos like eklavya with threats of hellfire and brimstone, and promises of virgins and pretty boys ........... beware

If hamidm2 will excuse me, one last comment for akcheema ji for now :)

You are at complete liberty to criticize anything human or any human practise at any time at any place. In fact, you have a duty to oppose human injustice where you see it (there comes the public element of faith).

You just have to base your criticism on divine authority, and make sure to criticize the human element, not the divine element.

That's the easiest thing to do in every case.

Essentially, the whole thing has to do with maintaining the faith anchor completely safe.

The very fact that a book would need tafsir after tafsir to attempt to explain its "hidden" meanings (and them being different from one another in many ways - my very first post to this site) speaks volumes about its inadequacies. The mind of a "believer" is like pupil of the eye; the more light you shine upon it, the more it constricts!

hamidm mian and other islamophobes --witty like hamidm or just ignorant and hateful like laddu--

this article could have generated lots of discussion--intelligent discussion!--but i am reminded of the
saying of that other great Messenger of Allah, the Son of Mary, upon them both be peace, who said: "O' my disciples do not cast pearl before swine..."

I feel that is appropriate here methinks.
ps. hamidm i am saddened to be lumped in with rabid wahabis like zeemax, urstruly and necharis like tahmed...

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/B/BullehShah/index.htm

http://strayreflections.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/hz-bulle-shah-ra/

Regarding the need for religion:

Life is strange! on the one hand we need faith of some kind.. it has beneficial outcomes (proven by science in terms of the calming effect on humans).... but faith also creates "inertia" a al akcheema.... and creates dogma ...and stops critical thinking etc....... so "how much" faith is good????? is that of the sufi kind? certainly not the Wahabi literalist one which might focus on Quranic injunctions of "beating up of wives" if they err, killing of unbelievers etc...

is it true that the verses which came after the attainment of power by the prophet are harsher and more violent as compared to the time when muslims were persecuted?

Regarding the need for religion:

Life is strange! on the one hand we need faith of some kind.. it has beneficial outcomes (proven by science in terms of the calming effect on humans).... but faith also creates "inertia" a al akcheema.... and creates dogma ...and stops critical thinking etc....... so "how much" faith is good????? is that of the sufi kind? certainly not the Wahabi literalist one which might focus on Quranic injunctions of "beating up of wives" if they err, killing of unbelievers etc...

is it true that the verses which came after the attainment of power by the prophet are harsher and more violent as compared to the time when muslims were persecuted?

Re: # 82

eklavya,

.......please explain why we can't crtiticize the 'divine'? what puts it above everything else ?.... if we can abuse sheikh rashid, president bush and brittany spears, why can't we curse this great spirit in the sky who rules our imagination .... what makes him divine and poor iblees profane, when he created the poor bastar&d in the first place - it is sick to chew out the creation for the poor mistakes of the creator ...... divine! ... my ass !

Re: # 84

naqshbandi,

.... i apologize for lumping you with wild-eyed wahabis like urstruly and zeemax - you are a good man and if i ever decide to revert to the insanity of my former faith i will join your order ........ i have always wanted to put on a skirt and whirl around until i puke .......

Re: # 66

"I hope they become more popular within their native lands so the process is not just confined to the diaspora communities but where it really matters!"


hahhaha!! are you kidding.... you will get a fatwa against you or legal proceedings under blasphemy laws!!!... or find yourself linched by a screaming mob chanting "kafir, kafir"...

Re: # 89

Hamidm Sahib:

"...this great spirit in the sky who rules our imagination .... "

Is God the best imagination of man, or man is the best creation of God?

Does the above mean you too have this question in your belief system?

Re: # 90

Hamidm Sahib:

"..i will join your order ........ "

Have you not promised the same to tahmed sahib too?

What is going on, all these changes?

anil ji, only in jest....but hamidm2 sees prophethood for tahmed ji and wali status for naqsh bhai. :)

----------------

hamidm2

"why we can't crtiticize the 'divine'?"

I guess, I will offer the same arguments as in # 79.

A Muslim can't criticize/blame/question the divine owing to the nature of his/her 'contract' with 'God' (and the nature of Muslims' God).

Now, it may seem that, as raw argued, a Muslim may want to go back and 're-write' that contract, but other Muslims, who have their own individual 'contracts' with the same God are likely to feel contract-bound to not let that happen.
--------

It's a very specific thing. One can easily imagine other kinds of contracts with other kinds of Gods, where the latter are not so protected.

If raw reads this, I would love to know if any of this seems logical to him.

I may add one more thing. Some 'Muslims' may (unjustifiably) feel a bit shortchanged because their God and their contract with their God does not allow revisions. But that would ignore enormous benefits that come with signing that contract.

Wish I could quote from a beautiful post that salim wrote about the benefits that accrue when one signs up. One suddenly gets about a billion human beings - men and women - who become more willing to help. That is an indescribably gain and assurance. This does not even include the psychic benefits of knowing that one is correctly leading life as desired by the true God in His final message.

Now, of course, in order to fully receive those benefits one has to do one's part fully as well. And these benefits beyond description cannot come without any costs, which might have to be paid in other ways.

Muslims, or those who wish to be Muslims, are generally willing to pay those costs. Look at Ahmedis, for instance!!

Eklavya,

The water carriers and the flag bearers like the new entrant akcheema will rant and rave and rack their minds with all sorts of queries, arguments, justifications, logic, criticisms, research - and what not - but they'll never leave the Caravan. The system which Islam is makes bloody sure of that!

Now do attempt to explain to cheema what the 'Caravan' and its 'self-maintaining/self-adjusting/self-generating' juggernaut Islam is!

(P.S. Just to annoy the people wondering whether the recent votes were for 'less Islam', Nawaz Sharif has said in a rally yesterday at Mansehra "Pakistan will be governed by the principles established by Allah and His Rasool". Haha ... sorry Laddu!)

"is it true that the verses which came after the attainment of power by the prophet are harsher and more violent as compared to the time when muslims were persecuted?"

As an idolator I need not think about "keeping the fsith anchor safe" or avoid "criticism of devine" that troll Islamist Kaale Khan aka Eklavya, this is called Quranic warfare - when momeen are supposed to feel good about their power their "Jazba-e-Jehad" is supposed to increase. Quran just reflects that because "Allh is merciful" but momeens are supposed to act like terrorists and only giving them booties and jizya would please Allh to be merciful towards idolators.

Re: # 95

"