In Search of the Moderate Muslim

karakoram...461

Thanks for the smileys.

No,that is biblical terminology in english.Iblees & Shaitaan would have been more appropriate.

Others can substitute Rakhasish,Ahraman or mephistopheles.

Wiccans or Satanists can say saint or angel.

I just cannot think of a term Atheist would use because if The One is not there then The Other should also not exist.I guess for them there is no such thing as good or evil-----just relativism.

And that precisely is the idea.To bring up the subject & keep it alive & let one continue to analyse & interpret....in private.

The Question is the Answer!

Thanks again.

to all :

please read this article:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1100ghazali-truth.html

#460 me

``Methinks if the the situation had been turned around, that is if it were the case of

HINDUS killing SIKHS (the religious identities are essential here), there would have

been prosecutions and punishments. So much for indian secularism.``

What garbage! I meant SIKHS killing HINDUS of course! As punishment i probably should read everything sarwar and Lajwanti post..

Godot--thanks for actually reading that site :-)

Some verses of the Qur`an were abrogated [mansukh] by later verses but it is not up to the layman to decide which were and which were not! It is a detailed science which needs years of study and there are books available (in Arabic mainly!) which you can read to discover the rules and details. It is a branch of the usool-e-tafseer sciences. I am a layperson and so not qualified to comment on individual verses. I find it a non-sequitur when people cannot grasp the idea that just as you have specialists in every branch of knowledge so you also have specialists in religious knowledge and to presume that one--being a layperson--somehow knows more than them based on a reading of one or two books or an english language translation of the qu`ran is, to me, the height of arrogance.

the only thing i know about the knowledge of the science of `nasuk wa mansukh` [the abrogating and the abrogated] is that it is an established principle that any verse in which a nabi is praised cannot be abrogated. In other words nabi ko shaan mil tau sakti hai, ghaT nahin sakti! this is based on the internal evidence of the qu`ran itself [which i do not know except on verse]!

sorry if i cannot be of more help. * *i think the fundamental difference between my and your views on Islam is whether or not one can interpret islam directly for one self from the qu`ran and sunnah or whether one should consult the experts, those who devote their lives to such study * *. there is an excellent article which i will copy and paste though it is also at masud.co.uk by an American philosophy student (MA) who later converted to Islam and is famous as Shaykh Nuh Keller and who resides now, I think, in Jordan. He translated the Reliance of the Traveller.

Here it is:

* * * * * *

What is a Madhhab?

Why is it necessary to follow one?

©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 2000

The word madhhab is derived from an Arabic word meaning ``to go`` or ``to take as a way``, and refers to a mujtahid`s choice in regard to a number of interpretive possibilities in deriving the rule of Allah from the primary texts of the Qur`an and hadith on a particular question. In a larger sense, a madhhab represents the entire school of thought of a particular mujtahid Imam, such as Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi`i, or Ahmad--together with many first-rank scholars that came after each of these in their respective schools, who checked their evidences and refined and upgraded their work. The mujtahid Imams were thus explainers, who operationalized the Qur`an and sunna in the specific shari`a rulings in our lives that are collectively known as fiqh or ``jurisprudence``. In relation to our din or ``religion``, this fiqh is only part of it, for the religious knowledge each of us possesses is of three types. The first type is the general knowledge of tenets of Islamic belief in the oneness of Allah, in His angels, Books, messengers, the prophethood of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), and so on. All of us may derive this knowledge directly from the Qur`an and hadith, as is also the case with a second type of knowledge, that of general Islamic ethical principles to do good, avoid evil, cooperate with others in good works, and so forth. Every Muslim can take these general principles, which form the largest and most important part of his religion, from the Qur`an and hadith.

The third type of knowledge is that of the specific understanding of particular divine commands and prohibitions that make up the shari`a. Here, because of both the nature and the sheer number of the Qur`an and hadith texts involved, people differ in the scholarly capacity to understand and deduce rulings from them. But all of us have been commanded to live them in our lives, in obedience to Allah, and so Muslims are of two types, those who can do this by themselves, and they are the mujtahid Imams; and those who must do so by means of another, that is, by following a mujtahid Imam, in accordance with Allah`s word in Surat al-Nahl,

`` Ask those who recall, if you know not `` (Qur`an 16:43),

and in Surat al-Nisa,

`` If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter `` (Qur`an 4:83),

in which the phrase those of them whose task it is to find it out, expresses the words ``alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum``, referring to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences directly from the evidence, which is called in Arabic istinbat.

These and other verses and hadiths oblige the believer who is not at the level of istinbat or directly deriving rulings from the Qur`an and hadith to ask and follow someone in such rulings who is at this level. It is not difficult to see why Allah has obliged us to ask experts, for if each of us were personally responsible for evaluating all the primary texts relating to each question, a lifetime of study would hardly be enough for it, and one would either have to give up earning a living or give up ones din, which is why Allah says in surat al-Tawba, in the context of jihad:

`` Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain knowledge of the religion and admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning `` (Qur`an 9:122).

The slogans we hear today about ``following the Qur`an and sunna instead of following the madhhabs`` are wide of the mark, for everyone agrees that we must follow the Qur`an and the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). The point is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is no longer alive to personally teach us, and everything we have from him, whether the hadith or the Qur`an, has been conveyed to us through Islamic scholars. So it is not a question of whether or not to take our din from scholars, but rather, from which scholars. And this is the reason we have madhhabs in Islam: because the excellence and superiority of the scholarship of the mujtahid Imams--together with the traditional scholars who followed in each of their schools and evaluated and upgraded their work after them--have met the test of scholarly investigation and won the confidence of thinking and practicing Muslims for all the centuries of Islamic greatness. The reason why madhhabs exist, the benefit of them, past, present, and future, is that they furnish thousands of sound, knowledge-based answers to Muslims questions on how to obey Allah. Muslims have realized that to follow a madhhab means to follow a super scholar who not only had a comprehensive knowledge of the Qur`an and hadith texts relating to each issue he gave judgements on, but also lived in an age a millennium closer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his Companions, when taqwa or ``godfearingness`` was the norm--both of which conditions are in striking contrast to the scholarship available today.

While the call for a return to the Qur`an and sunna is an attractive slogan, in reality it is a great leap backward, a call to abandon centuries of detailed, case-by-case Islamic scholarship in finding and spelling out the commands of the Qur`an and sunna, a highly sophisticated, interdisciplinary effort by mujtahids, hadith specialists, Qur`anic exegetes, lexicographers, and other masters of the Islamic legal sciences. To abandon the fruits of this research, the Islamic shari`a, for the following of contemporary sheikhs who, despite the claims, are not at the level of their predecessors, is a replacement of something tried and proven for something at best tentative.

The rhetoric of following the shari`a without following a particular madhhab is like a person going down to a car dealer to buy a car, but insisting it not be any known make--neither a Volkswagen nor Rolls-Royce nor Chevrolet--but rather ``a car, pure and simple``. Such a person does not really know what he wants; the cars on the lot do not come like that, but only in kinds. The salesman may be forgiven a slight smile, and can only point out that sophisticated products come from sophisticated means of production, from factories with a division of labor among those who test, produce, and assemble the many parts of the finished product. It is the nature of such collective human efforts to produce something far better than any of us alone could produce from scratch, even if given a forge and tools, and fifty years, or even a thousand. And so it is with the shari`a, which is more complex than any car because it deals with the universe of human actions and a wide interpretative range of sacred texts. This is why discarding the monumental scholarship of the madhhabs in operationalizing the Qur`an and sunna in order to adopt the understanding of a contemporary sheikh is not just a mistaken opinion. It is scrapping a Mercedes for a go-cart.

* * * * *

if, after reading this, you still do not agree with my ``following scholars`` then there really isn`t any common ground on which to debate this issue and so we should drop it.

i am sure there will be other topics on chowk we can chat about! :-)

* * * * * * * *

Romair-I largely agree with you. It might surprise you but i do not agree with the ulama ruling directly. this has never happened and is not the orthodox sunni method; hence in this i am at disagreement with those who want `mullah-raaj`. thus the direct rule of khomeini in islam was heteropraxy. what the ulama HAVE traditionally done throughout islamic history is to advise the rulers and ensure that * *they do not make any laws which go against the shar`iat. * *

that is all orthodox sunni ulama want now aswell.

their job is to understand the shar`iat and explain it to those who are not experts [see article above].

(As for the blessed period of the Beloved Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam during the Islamic State in Madina it is unique as Allah`s Messenger WAS the Beloved of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one. and then the time of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen, that was a Golden Period precisely because the rulers were not only the temporal heads of state but also the most learned of the Muslims in all matters of the faith (including legal) and, in orthodox aqeedah, the greatest spiritual beings of their times too (i.e. awliya)each khalifa being the spiritual pole [qutb] as well as the amir ul momineen.

after this period the political, legal, and spiritual branches became separated and no longer were combined in one man thus consultation with specialists in each branch became necessary.

since no longer do we have political rulers who are the least interested in applying islam in their dominions (let alone being mujtahids and spiritually exalted beings!!) it is not possible to do without the ulama and let the leader interpret the Law. Besides, even the Companions would go to the most learned of them in shar`iat when faced with a matter of law as not every Companion was of the same level of understanding of spiritual station (though even the least of the Blessed Companions -Allah is pleased with them all!--is, in orthodox aqeedaH, far loftier than the greatest of the non-Companions who came after as they imbibed directly from the pure, exalted, Prophetic fount (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam!)

where we DO disagree is that you wish to ``modernise`` shar`iat and i believe it is alredy perfect and perfectly capable, within its existing (v. flexible --except on a few issues)principles, as already elucidated by the Imams of the Madhhabs and their students, of tackling * * *any * * new developments in the world.

the problem is not with the shar`iat itself, it is with the (mostly--over 95%) poor level of scholars produced nowadays by the madrassahs. the fault is not with the system but those who are using it. the same system produced world shattering geniuses like Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi`i, Ibn Sina, Imam Ghazzali, Suyuti, Ghawth al Azam, Shah Naqshband, --well every scholar ever! The last truly great scholar who thought original thoughts and of genius was Imam Ahmad Raza of India. Since him, and even at that time it was bad (he was a rare exception), the level of traditional Muslim scholarship has been-with rare exceptions--mediocre at best. As for the cause of this paucity of scholarship there are many reasons but you are suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

For example, Imam Ahmad Raza --though a maulvi (a term now almost used pejoratively) was not only interested in fiqh but in over 50 other branches of learning INCLUDING mathematics, astronomy, logic, philosophy, literature, topology, economics, history, poetry...etc. (see http://www.sunnirazvi.org/qadiri/index.htm)

[i really advise all to check this site out]

and he passed away in 1921 and was educated in the maddrassah system which you despise! It is we who are at fault not the system itself. Mediocre students will produce mediocre results in any discipline and the islamic sciences are no exception. One reason is that, traditionally, the best minds wanted to become ulama (eg Ibn Rushd was a `maulvi` too--he was the Qadi ul Qadaa of Cordoba remember, a position only for ulama but this did not prevent him from being a versatile genius) whereas nowadays parents send their brightest kids to be doctors, engineers, lawyers, IT specialists and only the drop-outs (except in rare exceptions) are sent to the madrassah to become ``maulvis``. It is not their fault either--in traditional Muslim society the ulama were always highly respected for their learning and so it was a very rewarding and stimulating career choice whereas now our societies--on the whole--look down upon the ulama. Until we change our attitudes we will go lower and lower. We need to give knowledge--and those who possess it--the correct esteem we used to and then there is no reason why we cannot produce geniuses who are both well versed in modern science and ulama at the same time!

As another genius wrote,

Rasm-e-azaaN reh gayee baaqi, ruh e Bilali na rahee

Falsafa reh gya baaqi, talqeen-e-Ghazzali na rahee!

We need to bring back the ``talqeen-e-Ghazzali``, that piercing intellect, the questioning mind, which the old ulama had and which nowadays is almost lost. At the same time we should also acknowledge--and this is where i think most of the ``modernists`` and i on chowk differ--that science/the intellect, despite its wonderful successes, is NOT qualified by its nature to comment on the metaphysical and spiritual aspects of the Universe and certainly not on the big questions such as The Creator. In other words, as Rumi, Ghazzali etc, the Sufis, put it, only the heart can know Reality!

Aql aamad deen o duniya shud kharaab!

Ishq aamad deen o duniya kaamyaab!

Do or Die For the Pakistani Religious Parties:



A lot of people seem to be pointing towards the dangers Pakistan may face from the street demonstrations that are regularly being organized by the religious parties. Everyone from the ill-informed on CNN to the well-informed in Pakistan`s driver hotels are talking about it. The, ``mullah with nukes`` scenario is the US`s ultimate nighmare. Will the mullahs take over the country?

Within this discussion, one point is being missed: In my opinion, the religious party leaders are more scared of their own future, than the govt. of Pakistan. It is infact, the religious parties that are now fighting the battle for survival. If they are unable to muster enough street power to counter the Army, they will go under themselves. This is the war that is actually being fought. Not a war for for the imposition of Shariah on Pakistan, but a war for the survival of the religious parties.

It is a well-accepted fact that historically 5% representation in Pakistan`s elected assemblies is considered a great success for the Pakistani religious parties. In the last election, all the religious parties (except JUI) ran on a combined platform, i.e. they did not put up candidates against each other. These parties, combined with JUI, ended up winning only 2 seats out of a possible 217+ in the National Assembly. That is less than 1%. Compare that with the number of seats religious parties win in the three countries surrouding Pakistan, i.e. India, Afghanistan, and Iran. These three countries have been run by religious parties for a decade or more now.

Why the relgious parties only win 1% of the seats in Pakistan, while they end up winning a majority of the seats (either outright, or through alliances) in Pakistan`s neighboring countries is a separate debate. However, it is well-accepted the only time any Pakistani govt. can be changed in Pakistan is by the actions of the common man (who votes for the other 215 candidates), or through the actions of the military.

Thus the only outlet for the electorally-frustrated Pakistani religious parties has been street power. They have a small, but extremely dedicated and disciplined cadre of followers. Using this street power, they have been able to influence the Pakistani politics and society far more than their elected strength should allow. Primarily because none of the govts. in Pakistan have been honest and dedicated enough to gain the respect of the Pakistani people, and thus these govts. remain vulnerable to street protests. The religious parties thus make a good ally, and a painful enemy. These parties have been trying to use their street power to propel themselves into electoral power. But have failed again and again. Needless to say, religious parties will never get into power directly through elections, in Pakistan.

Now the religious parties face another struggle. For the first time in my lifetime, a Pakistani govt. has taken them head-on in the street, instead of backing down and trying to avoid a confrontation. Bhutto, Zia, BB and NS all catered to these parties. However, Musharraf has done exactly the opposite. I had mentioned a year or so ago, the moment Musharraf received an economic lifeline, he would take on the religious parties. This is based on his own personal views (he is a flaming liberal, by Pakistani standards), and the fact that his govt. feels confident enought to take on the challenge. And is using the post Sept. 11 situation to do so.

Within a month, the bluff of the religious parties has been exposed. It is now well-accepted that their rallies have actually gotten smaller and not grown. And the only people participating have been their die-hard followers. The Pakistan police has been able to control the rallies (the Pakistan police can normally not control any rallies). This indicates the impotency of the rallies. It is also a well-accepted fact now, that until the average non-religious party- supporting Pakistani joins these rallies, they will not even come close to challenging the govt.

Where does this put the Pakistani religious parties? They have thrown down their only trump card, and it turned out to be nearly worthless. The fear of the unknown, i.e. what would happen to Pakistan if all the religious parties got together and took on the govt. in the street, has turned out to be a false fear. If they have been unable to get the average Pakistani behind them during an all-out war, what chance do they have of getting the average Pakistani behind them if the govt. starts getting rid of blasphemy laws and loudspeakers, etc. (much smaller items than a war against the Taliban)?

This is what is driving the religious party leaders at the moment, in their demonstrations. Their cadre may have a genuine religious motivation (as incorrect, as it maybe). However the religious leadership is watching its ship sink, and with it its influence of street power in the country. It is extremely important for these leaders to be successful in toppling the govt. or at least making the govt. change its policies. Not because it wants to get Shariah imposed on Pakistan (those days are long gone). Now they have to succeed, so the parties themselves can survive, and influence the Pakistani society through the only tool they have; their street power.

If the mainstream Pakistani political parties do not attempt to use the current religious demonstrations to get into power, and the mainstream Pakistanis continue to stay away from these demonstrations, then the goose of the religious parties is cooked. Musharraf is going to start an all out assualt against them, after the Afghan conflict is over, in my opinion. Recently, their biggest weapon, the Masjid loudspeaker has been brought under control. Normally, this would have led to street demos, however the religious parties are completely exhausted by the unsuccessful demos against this govts. recent more important policies. The next thing will be blasphemy laws, etc.

I would suggest Pakistan`s, ``democray lovers,`` who hate the Army and religious parties with equal passion, and love BB and NS (and any other idiot, who pretends to be a politician), to hold their verbal horses for a year, or so. Be patient. Let Musharraf take on these parties. He is winning. BB and NS and any other politician will never take them on.

The current uprising of the religious parties is thus now, a battle for their own influence, and dare I say survival, then a battle for the survival of Pakistan. I bet the leaders of these parties are far more scared of losing their positions and power, than Musharraf is of losing his position and power. Now only if our fake Thomas Jeffersons and Adam Smiths could step to the side for a year or so, and give Musharraf and his cabinet some more breathing space.....

Reply Stuka # 443, Layman (?)

“Dude, are the Hindus allowed subsidies for religious pilgrimages as well? Is the Mansoravar or any other Hindu pilgrimage subsidzed?”

Mundaa, my knowledge of this is from a rediff article which argued against all subsidies, including the Haj subsidy. (No other country gives one, I think, so why should India have to “buy” the loyalty of a section of its citizens?) But, to be fair, the author said that Hindutvawadis’ case against the Haj subsidy was undermined by the acceptance of a subsidy for people wanting to do the Mansarovar Parikrama – much smaller but what was at issue was the principle of a secular state subsidising religion. I think it was an article by Rajeev Srinivasan or Arvind Lavakare, but am not sure. (Personally I am against both.)

Re Godot (#453):

It is worth noting that Chapter 33 of Quran (Surah-e-Ahzab) was revealed during the times of the Battle of Ditches, when the kuffar of Quraish and other tribesmen had united, attacked the Muslims, and conspired to annihilate them. This context is clear from the earlier verses of Chapter 33. The title of this chapter, i.e. “Ahzab”, meaning “Confederates”, makes this clearer. It is in such times that those who conspire against the Muslim community are to be slain.

While I do believe that Quranic teachings are eternal, it is important to understand these teachings and their context correctly before applying them. When in doubt, one should forgive and display mercy. Surely this is noble in the eyes of God.

Incidentally Quran is explicit on the issue of blasphemy. In verses 4:140 and 6:68 believers are commanded to merely sever social ties with those who blaspheme. Unfortunately, these verses are ignored by the mullahs, who prescribe death for blasphemy.

As for the traditions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) … some of the most commonly known examples support this view. When stones were pelted on the dear Prophet (pbuh) in the streets of Taif and his shoe got filled with his own blood, he had nothing but words of prayer for the enemy. On conquest of Mecca, he forgave those who had tortured and reviled him for the longest time. In Medina he led funeral prayers for one of his worst enemies … who was called the “father of hypocrites”. Despite protests from his closest companions (I think it was Omar), the Prophet (pbuh) led the funeral prayers and begged Allah for forgiveness for the departed soul.

The following example shows how these maullahs put a “creative” spin on the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh):

Naqshbandi Sahib once gave the example of one of the Prophets companions (Abu Hurraira?), who offered to kill his own mother for blaspheming against the Prophet (pbuh). When I probed further, Naqshbandi Sahib acknowledged that the Prophet (pbuh) did not grant this permission, and instead prayed for this lady. This lady later accepted Islam.

From this example Naqshbandi concluded that we must follow the example set by the companion and kill those who blaspheme against the Prophet (pbuh). The fact, that even Naqshbandi Sahib acknowledges, that the Prophet did not grant the permission to kill and instead prayed for the lady who blasphemed against him, remains largely irrelevant for him and the mullahs.

Mullahs continue to selectively chase obscure historical records, selectively quote questionable traditions, and make out of context references to support their views. Eventually, Naqshbandi’s final decision is that since all Sunni scholars agree with his position, they must be right [Of course, those who have disagreed in the past were declared heretics and apostates and were chased out of their homes … so yes indeed, all “Sunni Muslims” agree with him here].

Past 1400 years have been wasted on these bigoted mullahs. They preach and practice the same barbarism and fanaticism that existed in the Arabian desserts before the arrival of the greatest person who ever lived. How sad this is …

Asad

A very interesting article from TIME.

Crossing Cultures at Stockholm`s House of Faith

How a former electricity plant has become a spiritual and social hub for Swedish Muslims

By AISHA LABI

PHOTO IS HERE



COMMUNITY LESSON: The mosque serves as a venue for prayer and instruction, and gives visitors insight into what it means to be Muslim



The crescent-capped minaret silhouetted against Stockholm`s pale autumn sky is a familiar beacon to Muslims the world over. Like the gold cross gleaming atop a nearby church, it beckons the faithful, a universally recognized symbol that the building beneath is a place of welcome and worship. For Muslims coming to pray for the first time at the new Stockholms Moské, however, the bronze minaret and the crescent on the building`s cupola may be the only instantly recognizable emblems of Islam. The exterior is unobtrusive, covered with the same pale stucco that adorns the façades of many buildings in Scandinavia. Passers-by may not even realize that the sprawling structure nestled on a craggy incline in the Södermalm district is the most tangible indication of the growing size and strength of Sweden`s Muslim community.

By some estimates, Islam is now the country`s second religion, with more than 300,000 adherents in a population of 9.8 million. Though almost 90% of Swedes remain at least nominally affiliated with the national Church of Sweden, a Lutheran denomination, immigration and tolerant social attitudes have transformed the country into a multiethnic, multifaith society. Stockholm`s new mosque and the community it serves are apt metaphors for that transformation.

The former electrical power plant that forms the core of the Stockholms Moské was designed in 1903 by Swedish architect Ferdinand Boberg. Like many of his fellow Art Nouveau devotees, Boberg was fascinated by Islamic themes, incorporating green and white geometric tilework and high vaulted ceilings in the interior of the cavernous building. Perhaps because of such Islamic touches, adhering to historic preservation requirements that as little as possible of the original structure be altered proved surprisingly easy for Eva Alwèn, the architect who led the project. Some of the mosque`s other characteristics can also be traced to building code exigencies. An Italian benefactor offered to donate the shiny white marble with which the congregation wanted to cover the building`s exterior, but the plan was rejected by local authorities. Flamboyant decorative touches have instead been limited to the interior, where enormous crystal chandeliers hang from the ceilings and the vaulted windows are etched with geometric Islamic patterns.

For student Johan Gillman, 22, the son of a Cuban father and a Swedish mother, the aesthetic middle ground Alwèn had to find reflects the balance that Swedish Muslims must also learn to achieve. ``The challenge is applying Islam to a Swedish context,`` says Gillman, who converted to the religion when he was 15. ``Having a profound knowledge of Swedish culture is a must if you want to practice your religion in a Swedish way.`` Someone from a small Kurdish village, for example, may come from a society in which daughters are married off without their consent at a young age. ``Traditions like these can`t be practiced in Sweden, where there is a long history of feminism,`` Gillman says. ``You can`t advocate certain elements of those traditions which are linked to Islam but are not essential to it.``

The new mosque is of central importance to this quest for a uniquely Swedish brand of Islam. The building serves not just as a place of prayer, but also as a sort of community center. Muslims from all backgrounds gather for Arabic lessons and Koranic instruction. The Swedish Muslim Council, an umbrella organization for various Islamic groups, is also headquartered here. With a bookstore, a café, an exercise facility and a sauna — the latter two strictly gender-segregated — the large building bustles with activity.

Before this mosque opened in June Stockholm`s Muslims had to restrict their public devotions to one of the several much smaller mosques in the region. ``Islam was thought of as something covert, a religion practiced in cellars or above shops,`` Gillman recalls. ``Now, with Islam being manifested in a much more open way, I don`t feel intimidated to practice my religion.``

In response to that openness, much of the local opposition that originally greeted proposals for the mosque has been replaced by acceptance and curiosity. Nora el Masri, 19, a Palestinian who has lived in Sweden most of her life, conducts occasional tours of the building and finds that most Swedes are reassured by what they see. ``They thought it would be full of fundamentalists,`` she says, ``people praying all the time.``

Eva Zetterberg, a leading member of Sweden`s Left Party and a deputy speaker of Parliament, has come to the mosque on a Saturday afternoon as part of her effort to learn more about the country`s Muslim community. ``Our population is 15% immigrants now, but only 1% or 2% of members of Parliament are immigrants,`` Zetterberg notes. Because most of Sweden`s Muslims are also immigrants, the new mosque is a focal point for Zetterberg`s ambition to get the immigrant community more involved in local affairs.

As much as Sweden`s immigrants yearn for full acceptance and participation in their adopted society, they are understandably reluctant to relinquish some of the very traits that set them apart. El Masri has had to navigate between these sometimes conflicting currents. She will begin university next year and interacts easily with her many Swedish friends but is instantly distinguishable from them by her hijab, the scarf that always covers her head in public. She began wearing it when she was eight, despite her mother`s protestations that she was too young to appreciate its significance. She has never regretted the decision. ``I feel that people look at me with respect,`` she says. Stockholm`s handsome and imposing new mosque serves a similar function for its congregation.



PHOTO: BARRY LEWIS — NETOWRK FOR TIME

Hamzad writes:

``In my humble(or daring)opinion the greatest curse upon mankind today is ``progress`` & ``advancement`` and then the insistence that the greatest exploiter of resources per unit time be called civilised & `successful`.Such a society is surely devilish by design & satanic in in defining success.``

Interesting.... but too much left to interpretation. Also, why does everyone have to have the same meaning for success. I may be satisfied and you may not (as the case may be). And finally, what is your meaning of success ? i.e. what is the alternative to ``progress`` and ``advancement``.

Thanks.

P.S: A request: please save the devil and satan for religous discussions or is your belief motivated by a unique interpretation of some religion (Don`t say Islam... please :) )

#445 stuka

Methinks if the the situation had been turned around, that is if it were the case of HINDUS killing SIKHS (the religious identities are essential here), there would have been prosecutions and punishments. So much for indian secularism.

BTW, many here seem to think you are sikh. Wonder why. Didn`t you say somewhere that you were hindu.

eklavya, DRUMZ, afaqui, dost-mittar

thought you guys miight find this interesting...

Among the Believers

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/commentary/2001/oct/25/printable/com102501palashpr.htm

Excerpt:

[An answer might be found in American sociologist Daniel Bell`s 1976 classic, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. He argues that religion provides a ``set of coherent answers to the core existential questions that confront every group.`` The secularisation of social systems has seen the `disengagement of religion from political life.`` On the other hand there has occurred a `profanation of culture`, disenchantment and the emergence of the `imperial self `. But this shrinkage of religious authority is just half the story of modernity; existential questions still remain. So new forms of religion return to a ``…search for threads which can give a person a set of ties that place him in the continuity of the dead and the living and those still to be born.`` Bell is often labelled a ``neo-conservative`` because, among other things, he forthrightly (and with help from Max Weber) acknowledges that ``such a continuity cannot be manufactured, nor a cultural revolution engineered. The thread is woven out of those experiences which give one a tragic sense of life, a life that is lived on the knife-edge of finitude and freedom``. ]

regards,

PM

Reply #: 453

Godot

``

...Today`s Muslims cannot take each word of the Quran literally. The Quran must be viewed, especially some of the suras, in the context of Islam in its infancy.....

As for the hadees, those who wrote all that were close-minded and did not know how to change with time. One can keep his religion, his spirituality, his respect, and his dignity and be a good Muslim. The most secure beliefs are those that are not threatened by meaningless insults. If one does not change with time, one perishes.

``

-- Well said. Asif and his likes are the ones who form the silent yet approving majority of the 99.99 % muslims that Aamir refers to as being innocent.

The fact is that this silent majority is supportive of the acts of barbarism that are done in the name of Islam.

AD

Reply #: 412

Asif Naqshbandi

Asif, its quite hard to understand why muslims take it upon themselves to deliver justice to their fellow humans ?

Does Islam not have a concept of divine justice ? Does Islam not have a pretty bad hell for all the idolaters and insulters of the Prophet ?

You wrote,

``

Who am I that I should disagree with some commandment of Allah and His Habib sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and the Companions and the generations of righteous Muslims who have come ever since? Do I understand Qur`an better than them?! To think so, like some do, is sheer ignorant delusion and a sign of a weak imaan (if at all). I would rather be killed myself than leave the teachings of orthodox Islam insha Allah

``

-- Come on now, if this is the belief of most muslims, then I am sorry to say that going forward there definetely will be a conflict of civilizations. Like ALL religons, ISLAM too needs a reformation. This does not mean that the religon is betrayed... its simply reexamined in today`s context.

Christanity went through it... and the Hindu religon went through it and is going through it currently.

God looks at your intentions and if they are good, I don`t think he needs humans to proctect his word.

AD

Reply #: 419

AAmir

``

However ,i disagree with you that 84 riot was not directed against Sikhs by Hindus.It was wrong not even if there was no hatred for sikhs.To punish someone else for others crime is never right anywhere EVER.

``

---- Aamir, the riots in `84 was (as you rightly pointed out) NOT out of hatred against the sikhs. It was very political in nature and any Delhite knows that for a fact.

``

There will always be crime or assaination be committed by different ppl. If the crime is committed by majority ,no body is hurt b/c no body CAN do anything ,but lest it be minority ,did you hear most muslims moan``Oh god let it not be muslims``when they first heard of the 9-11 tragedy?

What part does 99.9999 % of muslims have in it

``

-- When tragedies like the Sept 11 attacks occur, it is difficult for the people to focus on the perpertrators alone. This becomes more difficult when information such as the middle class backgrounds and normal behaviour is established. It is but natural to feel a little insecure about `` brownies`` in the area.

The 99.9999 % of the muslims did not have anything to do with this. BUT they did not oppose when Salman Rushdie was under the death threat. They did nothing when in the name of Islam, the Ayatollah started brutalizing the people of Iran.

The basic problem is that muslims do not like to introspect. Perhaps it is the nature of the religon or the nature of their indoctrination that they choose to object only to external threat perceptions... not internal ones. And their silence is taken as tacit approval by their leaders and others not of their faith.

So this is one of those examples where their hisotric silence has made them guilty... quite similar to the guilt many German civilans felt after WW 2, for the crimes committed by the Nazis in the name of the Germans.

Ad

Who is farzana referring to when she says ``imam Bukhari`` ? The Author of sahih-al-bukhari or some other individual?

Re: Asif Naqshbandi, #412

Many suras in the Quran, Asif, address the ``existing`` situation at the time of the Prophet. Is it wise to take those suras and implant them to the situations that exist today? My answer to that question is no. Circumstances in 1500 years have changed. Islam and the Prophet are no longer threatened as they were when Mohammad brought a new message.

On the killing of those who insult the Prophet, for example, the Quran says ``If the hypocrite and those who have tainted hearts and the scandal mongers of Madinah do not desist, We will rouse you against them, and their days in that city will be numbered. Cursed wherever they are found, they will be seized and put to death (33:57)`` Notice the use of the words ``Madinah`` and ``the city,`` a clear reference to the threat to the Prophet`s life and hence to Islam. Is that true today?

Asif, the world has changed. Today`s Muslims cannot take each word of the Quran literally. The Quran must be viewed, especially some of the suras, in the context of Islam in its infancy. By seeing the Quran in its literal form and applying it in today`s world, you are not doing justice either to the Book or to the Religion. Moreover, by doing that you are creating a dangerous environment, an environment the result of which the world calls terrorism. It is this today`s clinging to the threat to the Prophet and Islam of long ago that Islam and the Quran have become synonymous with terror. It is a clinging that, to me, is pointless, serves no useful purpose, and is dangerous.

As for the hadees, those who wrote all that were close-minded and did not know how to change with time. One can keep his religion, his spirituality, his respect, and his dignity and be a good Muslim. The most secure beliefs are those that are not threatened by meaningless insults. If one does not change with time, one perishes. Those who wrote all that hadees did not know that.

PS: I took your advice and checked out www.masud.co.uk