Autobiography of a Forgotten Indian
Aakar Patel November 5, 1999
#118 Posted by sattar2 on December 10, 1999 4:35:41 pm
Re: anarayan, #122:
I am an Ahmadi-Muslim, and following is my reply to your comments. I am not a scholar in religious affairs, but whatever little I have studied and understood about Islam, has fully appealed to me.
1) I still think the verse “Cow:192” is quoted out of context. The full context becomes clear from the previous verse:
“And fight in the way of Allah, against those who fought against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors” [Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 191]
This verse was one of the earliest verses in which permission to fight was given to Muslims. It gives the gist of conditions for religious war. (a) Such a war should be undertaken with the object of removing obstacles placed in the way of Allah i.e. for the establishment of the freedom of religious belief and practices. (b) It is to be waged only against those who first take up arms against Muslims. (c) Muslims should lay down arms as soon as the enemy desists from fighting.
When Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) started spreading the message of Allah, atrocities were inflicted upon him and his companions in Mecca for 13 years. Although I have not read extensively on this subject, my understanding is that despite being subjected to cruelties (being dragged on hot sand, tortured, and even slaughtered), the believers did not raise arms against the perpetrators. The commandment was to be patient, to persevere, and spread the message of Allah. After 13 years, the believers were commanded to migrate to Medina. When the enemy kept causing trouble and raised an army to attack the believers, the believers were commanded to fight, but strictly for self-defense.
2) In my opinion, your comment “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” lacks maturity. Taking another persons life in self-defense does not automatically make the defender a cruel beast. While Islam teaches love and compassion, it also teaches us to deal with evil with a firm hand. Not dealing with evil with firmness, does not reflect the quality being gentle, but rather the attribute of weakness. When one peacefully practices his belief, does not create mischief, and yet finds his life and life of his family/community members in jeopardy, and peaceful negotiations are not working out, then picking up arms and killing the aggressor is fully justified.
Saying that “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” is an idealistic statement and does not measure up to the harsh realities of life. It does not display gentleness, but rather misplaced compassion.
3) I certainly think that Quran gives the message of peace and compassion, and tells one how to live in accordance with divine principles and to achieve nearness to Allah. It is not authored by a human, but is the Message from Allah, which is consistent with human psyche and nature. Studying it carefully, modeling one’s life after it, combined with prayer, meditation, and sacrifice will not doubt lead one to the path of spiritual ascension.
These were my two-bits; thoughtful comments from anyone will be appreciated.
Asad
I am an Ahmadi-Muslim, and following is my reply to your comments. I am not a scholar in religious affairs, but whatever little I have studied and understood about Islam, has fully appealed to me.
1) I still think the verse “Cow:192” is quoted out of context. The full context becomes clear from the previous verse:
“And fight in the way of Allah, against those who fought against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors” [Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 191]
This verse was one of the earliest verses in which permission to fight was given to Muslims. It gives the gist of conditions for religious war. (a) Such a war should be undertaken with the object of removing obstacles placed in the way of Allah i.e. for the establishment of the freedom of religious belief and practices. (b) It is to be waged only against those who first take up arms against Muslims. (c) Muslims should lay down arms as soon as the enemy desists from fighting.
When Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) started spreading the message of Allah, atrocities were inflicted upon him and his companions in Mecca for 13 years. Although I have not read extensively on this subject, my understanding is that despite being subjected to cruelties (being dragged on hot sand, tortured, and even slaughtered), the believers did not raise arms against the perpetrators. The commandment was to be patient, to persevere, and spread the message of Allah. After 13 years, the believers were commanded to migrate to Medina. When the enemy kept causing trouble and raised an army to attack the believers, the believers were commanded to fight, but strictly for self-defense.
2) In my opinion, your comment “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” lacks maturity. Taking another persons life in self-defense does not automatically make the defender a cruel beast. While Islam teaches love and compassion, it also teaches us to deal with evil with a firm hand. Not dealing with evil with firmness, does not reflect the quality being gentle, but rather the attribute of weakness. When one peacefully practices his belief, does not create mischief, and yet finds his life and life of his family/community members in jeopardy, and peaceful negotiations are not working out, then picking up arms and killing the aggressor is fully justified.
Saying that “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” is an idealistic statement and does not measure up to the harsh realities of life. It does not display gentleness, but rather misplaced compassion.
3) I certainly think that Quran gives the message of peace and compassion, and tells one how to live in accordance with divine principles and to achieve nearness to Allah. It is not authored by a human, but is the Message from Allah, which is consistent with human psyche and nature. Studying it carefully, modeling one’s life after it, combined with prayer, meditation, and sacrifice will not doubt lead one to the path of spiritual ascension.
These were my two-bits; thoughtful comments from anyone will be appreciated.
Asad
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#117 Posted by anarayan on December 8, 1999 3:23:01 pm
Re: rajanjua #: 119
(1)
``The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers.``
I can only reply by rephrasing Khayyam (the moving finger).
All your explanation, arguements and hopes my dear Amir,
Will not change one word in that very explicit line.
``If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``
(2)
``Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence... It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.``
At the risk of annoying a whole lot of people, I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT. But this being a sensitive issue we`d better talk something else.
(3)
``The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.``
I`m an atheist - a Godless one, destined to rot in hell. To my eyes, every second page of that book seemed to spew forth hatred and fear. But that may be because I`m an unbelieving scoundrel (apologies to Russell).
Regards,
AN
(1)
``The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers.``
I can only reply by rephrasing Khayyam (the moving finger).
All your explanation, arguements and hopes my dear Amir,
Will not change one word in that very explicit line.
``If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``
(2)
``Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence... It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.``
At the risk of annoying a whole lot of people, I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT. But this being a sensitive issue we`d better talk something else.
(3)
``The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.``
I`m an atheist - a Godless one, destined to rot in hell. To my eyes, every second page of that book seemed to spew forth hatred and fear. But that may be because I`m an unbelieving scoundrel (apologies to Russell).
Regards,
AN
#116 Posted by mohajir on December 7, 1999 11:35:22 am
Dr David Taylor speaks to Muna Khan on the possibility of easing tensions between India and Pakistan
Dr David Taylor has been on the faculty of the School of Oriental and African Studies since 1970, where he is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Pro-Director for Taught Courses. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and London, Dr Taylor has made many visits to Pakistan and India.
Q: Can Pakistan and India be friends?
A: First they have to ask what are the reasons for the hostilities between them. One immediately comes to Kashmir. Then one needs to ask what Kashmir symbolises. I think that Kashmir has come to symbolise different things to different generations; for people around 55-60 years of age it still represents something to do with Partition, with the disruptions that many people had to face. For other people, it is like a dreadful football game with a Ôwe have to beat the other side` attitude which ultimately has no logic to it. It`s simply a case of one country wanting to be top dog. International systems have to find ways of coping with countries` desires to be seen as superior to the other and yet, at the same time living together, comfortably as friends. There is a similar European example: the French and the British are elbowing each other. Both countries want to be taken seriously in Europe and all that business about who should be appointed the first chairman of the European Central Bank with each country anxious to have their person as the top dog, but that didn`t stop a lot of straight forward personal level contact. Kashmir in that context could be no more than just a symbol, it could co-exist with friendship. But it won`t until some solution is found to the human rights problem. From the Pakistani perspective, they see a huge number of potential Pakistanis deserving to be treated in a better manner, whereas the Indian perspective is that Islamic fundamentalism is trying to take over Kashmir and push out the Hindus. The symbol of Kashmir does prevent the friendship from developing but it doesn`t mean that it is impossible to resolve the issue.
Q: So, is Kashmir the hurdle between better relations with India?
A: You have to develop a framework where people feel a solution is possible. Look at Northern Ireland: apart from the IRA, ordinary middle-class opinion of the south recognises that Tony Blair or John Major were making serious efforts to solve this issue. Northern Ireland was an issue but it wasn`t an insurmountable issue so that they could get over that hurdle even though that hurdle hadn`t vanished. You could have something like that in Kashmir. If you put it from an Indian point of view, the settlement is there; it is based on the Simla Agreement and the supposed agreement between Mr Bhutto and Mrs Gandhi which was to turn the line of control into an international border. May be that happened, may be that didn`t but a lot of people have subsequently said that it is the solution. From India`s point of view, that is fine but from Pakistan`s point of view, it confirms India`s illegitimate occupation. So if India wants Pakistan to recognise the line of control then it has to make a framework where Pakistanis can feel friendlier. It`s a chicken and egg situation: which comes first? It`s going to take 10-15 years for some improved difference provided they move in the right direction; if we`re lucky they will. If it moves in the wrong direction, things will stay where they are. India also has to give Kashmiris some sort of guarantee that they won`t be deprived of their special position and that economic development will be made.
Q: Pakistan highlights the Kashmir issue in international forums yet it continues to be ignored. Does the west pay heed to the problems in Kashmir?
A: The west knows that Kashmir is a conflict situation. India made a miscalculation when it detonated the first (nuclear) tests because, for a little while, it reminded the rest of the world that there was a risk of war with Pakistan over Kashmir. That led western countries to at least think about internationalising the Kashmir issue but it seems to have faded again. The rest of the world does recognise the threat; there`s always a threat of an accidental war. I don`t think there`s a high risk, it would be suicidal apart from anything else.
Q: Have the two countries taken enough measures for better ties in the future?
A: They have been talking to each other more or less even though those talks haven`t amounted to much. Take the Lahore Declaration. There`s not much in the Declaration that hasn`t been included in previous discussions between Benazir and Rajiv; yet people had forgotten. So when Vajpayee and Sharif say the same thing it is suddenly rediscovered which indicates how little progress has been made since earlier talks. In fact, the Benazir and Rajiv meeting looked just like the period where things would get a lot better but they didn`t and it looked just the same as Vajpayee`s bus trip to Pakistan.
Economic cooperation between the two countries is a step forward. The idea of Pakistan selling electricity to India is a good idea. The interesting thing is that they have a similar stance against the west in that they are both determined to show that they are not going to knuckle under all the pressure. Of course, they are doing it because of each other, because of their fear for each other but at the same time it creates a similar platform.
Q: Pakistanis seem to Ôfear` the speed at which India is growing Ð both in terms of military and economic growth. Is that fear justified, especially in light of the bomb?
A: The fears are understandable but I don`t know if the word Ôjustified` is correct. Are the Indians justified in fearing China? There`s no reason why the Chinese are going to threaten India but that situation may change in 10-15 years Ð Indian authorities may have to note the possibility seriously. In the same way, there`s no threat that India will take over Pakistan tomorrow but the threat will always remain. Pakistan has to be alert, always. India is a mightier nation so its fear of Pakistan is restricted to viewing it as a nuisance as they attribute the Kashmiri insurgency in the `90s to Pakistan.
As far as the bombs are concerned, Pakistan tested after a three-week period and a lot of pressure was put on them not to test; countries were promising to Ôlook after` them although Americans were careful not to say that they would give Pakistan a full nuclear guarantee. There were a few in Pakistan who subscribed to the view that Pakistan should prove the world wrong and not test. But on the other side, you had people like Advani who was giving speeches saying that Ôwe`re going to sort Kashmir out.`
Q: But even after the devices were tested, and talks were held, there have been random incidents of firing on the border. Plus, the Agni and Prithvi issue has reared its ugly head again. Could third party intervention solve the tension; Pakistan advocates it?
A: The cure, and there is no magic cure, has to come from themselves. This tension is not all about Kashmir, it`s about what Kashmir stands for. Both Pakistan and India are large nations ÐÊIndia is larger and it is desperately anxious to avoid this second-class status. None of the countries want another war. I genuinely believe that if you had a government in India with an overwhelming majority, like Nawaz Sharif has, than you might get some significant changes happening, for example with the Kashmir status. As long as you`ve got any coalition government, whether BJP led or Congress led, you won`t see realistic changes because each coalition is vulnerable to criticism both from within the coalition and outside just like Benazir Bhutto was always vulnerable. Sharif at least has the opposition where he wants them and has considerable sway within his own party but it takes two to play. At the same time, he can`t make too many concessions. He couldn`t say Ôokay we`ll have the line of control as a border without any major changes`; India`s not going to settle for a joint co-dominion of the valley. I don`t think third party intervention would do anything. The Indians aren`t going to accept American mediation. Pakistan would because it would prove their point of Indian aggression in Kashmir.
Q: Would economic cooperation between the countries ease the tension?
A: For Pakistan, too much cooperation is threatening because it means that the Punjabi industry is going to be overwhelmed by these developments. When I.K. Gujral was prime minister, he did make some concessions. He did not insist that Pakistan would reciprocate on everything but I can imagine Indian industrialists thinking Ôhow long will that (unequal treatment) go on`. It is difficult.
Dr David Taylor has been on the faculty of the School of Oriental and African Studies since 1970, where he is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Pro-Director for Taught Courses. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and London, Dr Taylor has made many visits to Pakistan and India.
Q: Can Pakistan and India be friends?
A: First they have to ask what are the reasons for the hostilities between them. One immediately comes to Kashmir. Then one needs to ask what Kashmir symbolises. I think that Kashmir has come to symbolise different things to different generations; for people around 55-60 years of age it still represents something to do with Partition, with the disruptions that many people had to face. For other people, it is like a dreadful football game with a Ôwe have to beat the other side` attitude which ultimately has no logic to it. It`s simply a case of one country wanting to be top dog. International systems have to find ways of coping with countries` desires to be seen as superior to the other and yet, at the same time living together, comfortably as friends. There is a similar European example: the French and the British are elbowing each other. Both countries want to be taken seriously in Europe and all that business about who should be appointed the first chairman of the European Central Bank with each country anxious to have their person as the top dog, but that didn`t stop a lot of straight forward personal level contact. Kashmir in that context could be no more than just a symbol, it could co-exist with friendship. But it won`t until some solution is found to the human rights problem. From the Pakistani perspective, they see a huge number of potential Pakistanis deserving to be treated in a better manner, whereas the Indian perspective is that Islamic fundamentalism is trying to take over Kashmir and push out the Hindus. The symbol of Kashmir does prevent the friendship from developing but it doesn`t mean that it is impossible to resolve the issue.
Q: So, is Kashmir the hurdle between better relations with India?
A: You have to develop a framework where people feel a solution is possible. Look at Northern Ireland: apart from the IRA, ordinary middle-class opinion of the south recognises that Tony Blair or John Major were making serious efforts to solve this issue. Northern Ireland was an issue but it wasn`t an insurmountable issue so that they could get over that hurdle even though that hurdle hadn`t vanished. You could have something like that in Kashmir. If you put it from an Indian point of view, the settlement is there; it is based on the Simla Agreement and the supposed agreement between Mr Bhutto and Mrs Gandhi which was to turn the line of control into an international border. May be that happened, may be that didn`t but a lot of people have subsequently said that it is the solution. From India`s point of view, that is fine but from Pakistan`s point of view, it confirms India`s illegitimate occupation. So if India wants Pakistan to recognise the line of control then it has to make a framework where Pakistanis can feel friendlier. It`s a chicken and egg situation: which comes first? It`s going to take 10-15 years for some improved difference provided they move in the right direction; if we`re lucky they will. If it moves in the wrong direction, things will stay where they are. India also has to give Kashmiris some sort of guarantee that they won`t be deprived of their special position and that economic development will be made.
Q: Pakistan highlights the Kashmir issue in international forums yet it continues to be ignored. Does the west pay heed to the problems in Kashmir?
A: The west knows that Kashmir is a conflict situation. India made a miscalculation when it detonated the first (nuclear) tests because, for a little while, it reminded the rest of the world that there was a risk of war with Pakistan over Kashmir. That led western countries to at least think about internationalising the Kashmir issue but it seems to have faded again. The rest of the world does recognise the threat; there`s always a threat of an accidental war. I don`t think there`s a high risk, it would be suicidal apart from anything else.
Q: Have the two countries taken enough measures for better ties in the future?
A: They have been talking to each other more or less even though those talks haven`t amounted to much. Take the Lahore Declaration. There`s not much in the Declaration that hasn`t been included in previous discussions between Benazir and Rajiv; yet people had forgotten. So when Vajpayee and Sharif say the same thing it is suddenly rediscovered which indicates how little progress has been made since earlier talks. In fact, the Benazir and Rajiv meeting looked just like the period where things would get a lot better but they didn`t and it looked just the same as Vajpayee`s bus trip to Pakistan.
Economic cooperation between the two countries is a step forward. The idea of Pakistan selling electricity to India is a good idea. The interesting thing is that they have a similar stance against the west in that they are both determined to show that they are not going to knuckle under all the pressure. Of course, they are doing it because of each other, because of their fear for each other but at the same time it creates a similar platform.
Q: Pakistanis seem to Ôfear` the speed at which India is growing Ð both in terms of military and economic growth. Is that fear justified, especially in light of the bomb?
A: The fears are understandable but I don`t know if the word Ôjustified` is correct. Are the Indians justified in fearing China? There`s no reason why the Chinese are going to threaten India but that situation may change in 10-15 years Ð Indian authorities may have to note the possibility seriously. In the same way, there`s no threat that India will take over Pakistan tomorrow but the threat will always remain. Pakistan has to be alert, always. India is a mightier nation so its fear of Pakistan is restricted to viewing it as a nuisance as they attribute the Kashmiri insurgency in the `90s to Pakistan.
As far as the bombs are concerned, Pakistan tested after a three-week period and a lot of pressure was put on them not to test; countries were promising to Ôlook after` them although Americans were careful not to say that they would give Pakistan a full nuclear guarantee. There were a few in Pakistan who subscribed to the view that Pakistan should prove the world wrong and not test. But on the other side, you had people like Advani who was giving speeches saying that Ôwe`re going to sort Kashmir out.`
Q: But even after the devices were tested, and talks were held, there have been random incidents of firing on the border. Plus, the Agni and Prithvi issue has reared its ugly head again. Could third party intervention solve the tension; Pakistan advocates it?
A: The cure, and there is no magic cure, has to come from themselves. This tension is not all about Kashmir, it`s about what Kashmir stands for. Both Pakistan and India are large nations ÐÊIndia is larger and it is desperately anxious to avoid this second-class status. None of the countries want another war. I genuinely believe that if you had a government in India with an overwhelming majority, like Nawaz Sharif has, than you might get some significant changes happening, for example with the Kashmir status. As long as you`ve got any coalition government, whether BJP led or Congress led, you won`t see realistic changes because each coalition is vulnerable to criticism both from within the coalition and outside just like Benazir Bhutto was always vulnerable. Sharif at least has the opposition where he wants them and has considerable sway within his own party but it takes two to play. At the same time, he can`t make too many concessions. He couldn`t say Ôokay we`ll have the line of control as a border without any major changes`; India`s not going to settle for a joint co-dominion of the valley. I don`t think third party intervention would do anything. The Indians aren`t going to accept American mediation. Pakistan would because it would prove their point of Indian aggression in Kashmir.
Q: Would economic cooperation between the countries ease the tension?
A: For Pakistan, too much cooperation is threatening because it means that the Punjabi industry is going to be overwhelmed by these developments. When I.K. Gujral was prime minister, he did make some concessions. He did not insist that Pakistan would reciprocate on everything but I can imagine Indian industrialists thinking Ôhow long will that (unequal treatment) go on`. It is difficult.
#115 Posted by rajanjua on December 7, 1999 11:35:22 am
Re:#118 anarayan
The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.
The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192
The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.
You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.
The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.
The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192
The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.
You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.
#114 Posted by rajanjua on December 7, 1999 11:35:22 am
Re:#118 anarayan
The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.
The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192
The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.
You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.
The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.
The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192
The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.
You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.
#113 Posted by anarayan on December 7, 1999 1:26:29 am
Re: UR #: 106
``narain: You stated, ``Quran at other places also admonishes the believers to kill the Kafirs.`` This is interesting. Could you quote the complete verse that states this. Thanks.``
Here is the verse in question: CHAPTER 2 - ``THE COW``.Verse 191.
``And fight those who fight you wheresoever you find them, and expel them from the place they had turned you out from. Oppression is worse than killing. Do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``
``narain: You stated, ``Quran at other places also admonishes the believers to kill the Kafirs.`` This is interesting. Could you quote the complete verse that states this. Thanks.``
Here is the verse in question: CHAPTER 2 - ``THE COW``.Verse 191.
``And fight those who fight you wheresoever you find them, and expel them from the place they had turned you out from. Oppression is worse than killing. Do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``
#112 Posted by rajanjua on November 29, 1999 5:16:38 pm
Re: #116 Asif Naqshbandi
Patched cloak and prayer carpet do not make a Sufi, nor practice or custom; the Sufi is he who is not.
-Abul Hassan Kharaqani
Sufism is beyond the schisms of sunni, shia, deobandi, etc.
Regards,
Amir Janjua
Patched cloak and prayer carpet do not make a Sufi, nor practice or custom; the Sufi is he who is not.
-Abul Hassan Kharaqani
Sufism is beyond the schisms of sunni, shia, deobandi, etc.
Regards,
Amir Janjua
#111 Posted by Naqshbandi on November 22, 1999 9:50:00 am
A good article but with some factual errors which have detracted from its worth. Indeed the author is correct in insisting that Hazrat Amir Khusrau Dehlvi alayhi rahmat was an extraordinary human being and devoted mureed of Hazrat Nizam ud Deen Awliya.
I just wanted to say that the Islam represented by Hazrat Nizam ud Din was TRUE Islam; however it should be remembered that he [alayhi rahmat] was an orthodox Sunni Hanafi too. That is why the statement that he had no time for organised religion is not true. Any serious student of Sufism [arabic: tassawuf] will now that the Sufis are the MOST careful amongst all the Muslims in observing the rules and minutes of the Shar`iah and Sunnah. It is said that Hazrat Amir Khusrau used to spend the whole night in doing nafl namaz--this is something not unusual for Sufis of that time of his stature. Indeed, to be a favourite mureed means that you are expected to have more spiritual development than the other disciples and the exercises you have to undergo are rigorous and demanding [see Imam Ghazali`s Al-Bidayah wa`n Nihaya for an account of a day of a Sufi disciple!]....so instead of not caring for organised religion [islam] the sufis are the ones most immersed in it` THAT is why they are so full of love for all and hate for none for their own sakes...
Also qawwali was not unknown before Hazrat Amir Khusrau`s time; just that it was called `sama` instead. Although the Chisti Sufis are known for their love of music, in the time of Hazrat Nizam ud Deen although the great saint did indeed listen to melodious singing of qawwalies--it was without any instrumental accompaniment (such being not allowed in shar`iah). Indeed, the saint did not even allow hand-clapping! But he did listen to beautiful singers songs...
Hazrat Amir Khusrau has written a famous couplet about his Shaykh [Nizam ud Din Awliya]:-
Har qawm raast rahay, deenay wa qibla gaahay
man qibla raast kardam, bar simt kuj kullaahay.
Every nation has a right way, a faith and a qibla
I am straightening my qibla, towards the crooked kulla [turban-hat].
[Hazrat Nizaam ud Deen were doing wuzu and the hat of his turban was at an angle on his head. Seeing this Amir Khusrau recited this verse. Allahu aalam.]
India (and Pakistan) is still very lucky that the majority of Muslims their are still following the traditional Sufi Islam of the Sunnis; the danger is that recently -in this century-there has arisen a fanatical, anti-Sufi ,movement funded (and started) by the British (initially) and now the Saudis, which is trying to distance Muslims form this great inheritance of Sufism [peeri-mureedi]. This fanaticism goes under the name of Wahaabism. In India/Pak it`s major source is the Deobandi sect and the Jamaat-e-Islami...
Efforts should be made by the govts of Indo-Pak to limit the activities of the Deobandis/other fanatics and to support the traditional Sufi Islam; in the sub-continent the upholders of Sufism are called Barelvis. These are the followers of Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan from Bareilly, U.P.
If the fanatical element can be remove by restrictions on Deobandism,JI, then relations between the communities can improve. (It is a fact that the vast majority of converts to Islam in India have been by the Sufi Shaykhd and their supporters...)
www.nfie.com and www.alahazrat.net (or .org/.com?) are good sites for further information.
Finally the `inheritors` of Amir Khusrau rahmatullah alayhi are not exclusively Indian/Pakistani but those Muslims in both countries who practise Islam as this great man did. i.e. the people like Ala Hazrat and not fanatics like Maudoodi etc.
I just wanted to say that the Islam represented by Hazrat Nizam ud Din was TRUE Islam; however it should be remembered that he [alayhi rahmat] was an orthodox Sunni Hanafi too. That is why the statement that he had no time for organised religion is not true. Any serious student of Sufism [arabic: tassawuf] will now that the Sufis are the MOST careful amongst all the Muslims in observing the rules and minutes of the Shar`iah and Sunnah. It is said that Hazrat Amir Khusrau used to spend the whole night in doing nafl namaz--this is something not unusual for Sufis of that time of his stature. Indeed, to be a favourite mureed means that you are expected to have more spiritual development than the other disciples and the exercises you have to undergo are rigorous and demanding [see Imam Ghazali`s Al-Bidayah wa`n Nihaya for an account of a day of a Sufi disciple!]....so instead of not caring for organised religion [islam] the sufis are the ones most immersed in it` THAT is why they are so full of love for all and hate for none for their own sakes...
Also qawwali was not unknown before Hazrat Amir Khusrau`s time; just that it was called `sama` instead. Although the Chisti Sufis are known for their love of music, in the time of Hazrat Nizam ud Deen although the great saint did indeed listen to melodious singing of qawwalies--it was without any instrumental accompaniment (such being not allowed in shar`iah). Indeed, the saint did not even allow hand-clapping! But he did listen to beautiful singers songs...
Hazrat Amir Khusrau has written a famous couplet about his Shaykh [Nizam ud Din Awliya]:-
Har qawm raast rahay, deenay wa qibla gaahay
man qibla raast kardam, bar simt kuj kullaahay.
Every nation has a right way, a faith and a qibla
I am straightening my qibla, towards the crooked kulla [turban-hat].
[Hazrat Nizaam ud Deen were doing wuzu and the hat of his turban was at an angle on his head. Seeing this Amir Khusrau recited this verse. Allahu aalam.]
India (and Pakistan) is still very lucky that the majority of Muslims their are still following the traditional Sufi Islam of the Sunnis; the danger is that recently -in this century-there has arisen a fanatical, anti-Sufi ,movement funded (and started) by the British (initially) and now the Saudis, which is trying to distance Muslims form this great inheritance of Sufism [peeri-mureedi]. This fanaticism goes under the name of Wahaabism. In India/Pak it`s major source is the Deobandi sect and the Jamaat-e-Islami...
Efforts should be made by the govts of Indo-Pak to limit the activities of the Deobandis/other fanatics and to support the traditional Sufi Islam; in the sub-continent the upholders of Sufism are called Barelvis. These are the followers of Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan from Bareilly, U.P.
If the fanatical element can be remove by restrictions on Deobandism,JI, then relations between the communities can improve. (It is a fact that the vast majority of converts to Islam in India have been by the Sufi Shaykhd and their supporters...)
www.nfie.com and www.alahazrat.net (or .org/.com?) are good sites for further information.
Finally the `inheritors` of Amir Khusrau rahmatullah alayhi are not exclusively Indian/Pakistani but those Muslims in both countries who practise Islam as this great man did. i.e. the people like Ala Hazrat and not fanatics like Maudoodi etc.
#110 Posted by jay on November 21, 1999 5:38:54 pm
COAS in India.
It has been mentioned on the chowk a few times about the Commander of the armed forces/services in india.
In india there is no unified command, the three forces remain seperate. The three chiefs are not supposed to meet or communicate with one another with out the presence of some one else, not below the rank of a defense secretary. The meeting has to be reported to the defense minister. The three avoid one another socially.
One thing that every aspiring `general` knows in india is to avoid the counterparts in other forces in non-oficial situations.
May be there is something for pakistan to learn to avoid coups.
It has been mentioned on the chowk a few times about the Commander of the armed forces/services in india.
In india there is no unified command, the three forces remain seperate. The three chiefs are not supposed to meet or communicate with one another with out the presence of some one else, not below the rank of a defense secretary. The meeting has to be reported to the defense minister. The three avoid one another socially.
One thing that every aspiring `general` knows in india is to avoid the counterparts in other forces in non-oficial situations.
May be there is something for pakistan to learn to avoid coups.
#109 Posted by Studebaker on November 20, 1999 6:33:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#108 Posted by amit on November 20, 1999 11:04:30 am
Re: ad#110
I strongly believe in secularism. However, secularism cannot be implemented in a vaccum. What is the context of hindu-muslim relations in India ? The two communities have had a tense 1000 year relationship. They have mostly remained isolated from each other and they have interacted primarily as opponents. They have characterized each other as mlech/kafir and they have been reluctant to even share a meal with each other. The result is a deep rooted distrust and insecurity about the other side. As hindus it is difficult for us to understand why muslims would feel insecure in India. Similarly an educated muslim in Pakistan may not be able to appreciate the insecurity of a hindu living there. You or I or the educated Pakistani may be good people, but you cannot eliminate centuries of ill-will by simply wishing it away by making laws.
Consider the case of Indians living in USA. Indians are one of the wealthiest and successful communities. Yet they are quick to take offence when someone makes an ignorant comment about Indian culture or religions. They complain about the glass ceiling and similar problems. If this happens in USA, where Indians do not have a negative history, can you imagine being a minority in a South Asian nation where you have a history of animosity ?
Therefore the first step is to be honest and acknowledge the existence of the problem, which is that hindus and muslims have always been alienated from each other. This is what resulted in partition. Next the question is what is the best way for reconciliation, given that 130 million muslims reside in India ? I suggest that we spend our energy in bringing muslims into the mainstream to implement true secularism. That means that we should forget the wedge issues like common civil code and focus on substantial issues like education, employment, enterpreneurship etc. We must increase positive interaction beween hindus and muslims at cultural and social levels. As muslims join the mainstream, it will reduce their sense of insecurity as they realize that they can be devout muslims while being a part of the mainstream. That is the only way we can build a modern nation and get out of the mental ghettos.
Your last statement was whether it was a crime to be a hindu. As a hindu, I feel that you are getting too emotional. There is a saying ``Winners never remember, Losers never forget``. By complaining all the time about Ghaznavi, Aurangzeb etc., we hindus are behaving like losers. Yes we lost at that time because we were weak and completely disunited. We allowed people like Ghazanavi to walk in and conquer us. Did you know that it was a group of hindu kings that advised Ghaznavi to attack Somnath because they were jealous of the hindu king who had the rich temple Somnath in his territory ? You surely know that Ghauri could not have beaten Prithviraj without the help of Jaichand. So let us not cry over the past. We should learn the lesson that we were our own worst enemy and build a strong, united India.
I strongly believe in secularism. However, secularism cannot be implemented in a vaccum. What is the context of hindu-muslim relations in India ? The two communities have had a tense 1000 year relationship. They have mostly remained isolated from each other and they have interacted primarily as opponents. They have characterized each other as mlech/kafir and they have been reluctant to even share a meal with each other. The result is a deep rooted distrust and insecurity about the other side. As hindus it is difficult for us to understand why muslims would feel insecure in India. Similarly an educated muslim in Pakistan may not be able to appreciate the insecurity of a hindu living there. You or I or the educated Pakistani may be good people, but you cannot eliminate centuries of ill-will by simply wishing it away by making laws.
Consider the case of Indians living in USA. Indians are one of the wealthiest and successful communities. Yet they are quick to take offence when someone makes an ignorant comment about Indian culture or religions. They complain about the glass ceiling and similar problems. If this happens in USA, where Indians do not have a negative history, can you imagine being a minority in a South Asian nation where you have a history of animosity ?
Therefore the first step is to be honest and acknowledge the existence of the problem, which is that hindus and muslims have always been alienated from each other. This is what resulted in partition. Next the question is what is the best way for reconciliation, given that 130 million muslims reside in India ? I suggest that we spend our energy in bringing muslims into the mainstream to implement true secularism. That means that we should forget the wedge issues like common civil code and focus on substantial issues like education, employment, enterpreneurship etc. We must increase positive interaction beween hindus and muslims at cultural and social levels. As muslims join the mainstream, it will reduce their sense of insecurity as they realize that they can be devout muslims while being a part of the mainstream. That is the only way we can build a modern nation and get out of the mental ghettos.
Your last statement was whether it was a crime to be a hindu. As a hindu, I feel that you are getting too emotional. There is a saying ``Winners never remember, Losers never forget``. By complaining all the time about Ghaznavi, Aurangzeb etc., we hindus are behaving like losers. Yes we lost at that time because we were weak and completely disunited. We allowed people like Ghazanavi to walk in and conquer us. Did you know that it was a group of hindu kings that advised Ghaznavi to attack Somnath because they were jealous of the hindu king who had the rich temple Somnath in his territory ? You surely know that Ghauri could not have beaten Prithviraj without the help of Jaichand. So let us not cry over the past. We should learn the lesson that we were our own worst enemy and build a strong, united India.
#107 Posted by Studebaker on November 19, 1999 3:24:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#106 Posted by Studebaker on November 19, 1999 3:24:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#105 Posted by ad on November 19, 1999 3:24:31 pm
To Amit:
#108
``I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives.``
Amit, do you believe in secularism ? Do you believe that in secular countries, the govt and religon are seperated.
If, so then how can you justify your statement that I posted above, for your convenience ?
Is it fair that muslims as citizens of INdia, demand that they are somehow special. Is it fair that the law gives in to their demands ?
Is is fair that India happens to be the only ``secular`` country which does such things ?
Is it a crime to be born a Hindu ? Is it a crime to be part of the majority ? (Even if that were so, how come other minorities do not get special laws according to their own religons.) Why is it that the civil law of one country cannot even touch the the so called ``repressed`` muslims.
AD
#108
``I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives.``
Amit, do you believe in secularism ? Do you believe that in secular countries, the govt and religon are seperated.
If, so then how can you justify your statement that I posted above, for your convenience ?
Is it fair that muslims as citizens of INdia, demand that they are somehow special. Is it fair that the law gives in to their demands ?
Is is fair that India happens to be the only ``secular`` country which does such things ?
Is it a crime to be born a Hindu ? Is it a crime to be part of the majority ? (Even if that were so, how come other minorities do not get special laws according to their own religons.) Why is it that the civil law of one country cannot even touch the the so called ``repressed`` muslims.
AD
#104 Posted by amit on November 19, 1999 12:26:54 pm
Re:adsmfg#90
I do not advocate assimilation of muslims or anyone else in India, nor did I call for intermarriage. If you read the paragraph, I explicitly mentioned that muslims need not go that far. What I would like to see is more interaction between hindus and muslims at a social and cultural level. Since it is our destiny to live as citizens of one country, it is important for us to understand and appreciate each other`s way of life. We have coexisted in the subcontinent for a 1000 years, but we have been quite isolated from each other. This leads to misconceptions and stereotypes which result in social friction.
In the past, even hindus from different regions rarely interacted with each other. As a result they held misconceptions and stereotypes about each other. Thankfully this situation has changed drastically and the barriers have come down significantly. Still Punjabis remain Punjabis and Bengalis remain Bengali. No one is getting assimilated to anything else. People are learning to live with others who are different from them. This process needs to start with muslims as well.
I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives. Heck, I have a hard time dealing with one wife! Why in the world would I want to deal with four times the problems :-) ?
Amit
I do not advocate assimilation of muslims or anyone else in India, nor did I call for intermarriage. If you read the paragraph, I explicitly mentioned that muslims need not go that far. What I would like to see is more interaction between hindus and muslims at a social and cultural level. Since it is our destiny to live as citizens of one country, it is important for us to understand and appreciate each other`s way of life. We have coexisted in the subcontinent for a 1000 years, but we have been quite isolated from each other. This leads to misconceptions and stereotypes which result in social friction.
In the past, even hindus from different regions rarely interacted with each other. As a result they held misconceptions and stereotypes about each other. Thankfully this situation has changed drastically and the barriers have come down significantly. Still Punjabis remain Punjabis and Bengalis remain Bengali. No one is getting assimilated to anything else. People are learning to live with others who are different from them. This process needs to start with muslims as well.
I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives. Heck, I have a hard time dealing with one wife! Why in the world would I want to deal with four times the problems :-) ?
Amit
#103 Posted by jay on November 19, 1999 12:26:54 pm
Studebaker,
``There is a degree to every acceptence I am sure inspite of being accomadative to the recent religions,Hindus, would not accept ..... a low caste in there house or temples.They still would be relatively tolerent without having to do those things``.
I completely agree with your above remark. Politicians have appointed one R.K.Narayan, an untouchable as the president of india, and many are refusing to accept him, the high caste hindus, as the following incidents reveal.
In the recent swearing in of the new Vajpaye govt, several high caste ministers refused to be sworn in by the untouchable, and the president had to fake an illness so that the VP could swear them in.
In the last republic day parade, many soldiers from the rajput regiment refused to accept galantry awards from an untouchable.
Last months visit to Nepal, a pure hindu kingdom, king Birendra refused to meet Narayan at the airport. All the meetings were held in the veranda of the palace, the king declared that being a pure hindu kingdom this is the limit he is ready to go. No untouchable in my palace, he asserted.
In fact Narayan is from my home town in kerala and his brother also was subjected to all sorts of humialiation. His brother R.K. Laxman dared to go to school when he was five, a teaher hit him on the head with a wood piece that he was brain damaged, lost his ability to write. He had to resort to drawing cartoons to communicate. Last I heard was that R.K. Laxman ekes out a living some were near Times of India Square in Bombay.
Thank you Studebaker, I am proud of you.
``There is a degree to every acceptence I am sure inspite of being accomadative to the recent religions,Hindus, would not accept ..... a low caste in there house or temples.They still would be relatively tolerent without having to do those things``.
I completely agree with your above remark. Politicians have appointed one R.K.Narayan, an untouchable as the president of india, and many are refusing to accept him, the high caste hindus, as the following incidents reveal.
In the recent swearing in of the new Vajpaye govt, several high caste ministers refused to be sworn in by the untouchable, and the president had to fake an illness so that the VP could swear them in.
In the last republic day parade, many soldiers from the rajput regiment refused to accept galantry awards from an untouchable.
Last months visit to Nepal, a pure hindu kingdom, king Birendra refused to meet Narayan at the airport. All the meetings were held in the veranda of the palace, the king declared that being a pure hindu kingdom this is the limit he is ready to go. No untouchable in my palace, he asserted.
In fact Narayan is from my home town in kerala and his brother also was subjected to all sorts of humialiation. His brother R.K. Laxman dared to go to school when he was five, a teaher hit him on the head with a wood piece that he was brain damaged, lost his ability to write. He had to resort to drawing cartoons to communicate. Last I heard was that R.K. Laxman ekes out a living some were near Times of India Square in Bombay.
Thank you Studebaker, I am proud of you.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun30: #51 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Urstruly: It came as a... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- chaltahai: BJ, it wasn't fear... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: badi sharafat se baat-cheet... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- tahmed32: BJ2: writes "A great... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #59 maybe india can... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: hamidm:#58: Going by his lota... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: #58 Posted by BJ2... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
