In Search of the Moderate Muslim

PM 408

Two sites might be of some help to you.

www.al-islam.org and www.islamonline.com

The former is a shia site & the latter a sunni site.(So that we can benefit from both).

The first site is awesome in its web page design & access methods.Whole books chapter by chapter can be accessed.The Quran in arabic as well as several multilingual translations & different translators too!Just type in /blasphemy & viola!

I do not see any prescribed punishment for blasphemy except that which Allah himself has warned about that He will dispense both here as well as in the hereafter.

Can Mr.Naqshbandi be kind enough to give specific shariah-court rulings from case studies anywhere around the world now or in past during muslim rule.Mob lynchings(if at all or any) NOT acceptable as evidence.The most recent application of strict shariah law was in India in various states especially those of Rajputana & the Khudaa Bukhsh library has all the records preserved.

A call to the Nigerian embassy or even saudi embassy could be helpful.

The earliest case of blasphemy,slander and pillage,rampage & destruction by the evil `caliph` Yezeed who ransacked the Kaaba & masjid-e nabavi & set it afire.The guy died a natural death.Even if the Judges were corrupy or coward even then not a single muslim rose in revolt---such was the reign of terror & tyranny.

The blasphemy laws in the Indo-subcontinent is a remnant of the British laws.In fact they still exist in the British books but are applied selectively especially to those who slander anglican church & christ.Muslims of Britain are fighting to include their case also in such statutes.

Ironically,you`ll notice that most of the ayaats in the Quraan relate to the blasphemy regarding Jesus Christ by non-muslims(triniy etc) and a warning to muslims who trivialise their own belief.

Buddha said that wisdom lies in the middle. Lets consider that before we JUDGE the mullahs. It seems that people are giving them too much credit. Their role in both politics and culture is close to nill in the majority of nations on earth.

That and SOME so called mullahs do have a legitamate gripe with the west. Though the west cannot be blamed for all of the problems of the muslim world, it must take cedit for doing more harm than any religious group-as do the numerous sell out politicians we famously cultivate.

I think we, living in the west, tend to see the world with eyes of equity. Though this sort of judging is easy for us to do as we lay back in our leather chairs, we need to be reminded that these young men who do kill themselves have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Who the hell am I to question the religious practices of a 20 year old Afghani male when each day he lives through what can only be described as HELL. These people dont have hours to sit around ponder the issues of salvation and the after life. They`re to busy pondering their chances for survival untill tommorow. And I know that not all EXTREMISTS live under such conditions, but enough of them live far worse then I do. Would I still have my ideals to strive for if Im living through a civil war? Would you?

Just when you think chowk has become too routine and boring. One of my fav topics - sarees - and I miss out the entire dishcussion - drat and double drat. They look so very elegant but such a hassle to wear. It is like going to a wedding - fun if it is someone else`s, not so if its your own. However I was impressed with this new version out in the market - where the the entire thing is all stitched up - all you have to do is just step into it and zzzzip it up and you are all set. Like instant food. A bit straight-jackety, takes all the romance out of it but you are ready for any eventuality.

And re talibanisation of chowk - my sincere advice ladies - either tell these posters to back off OR ignore them OR pls take a break yourself(no pt letting anyone get to you so much. heard stress is bad for the hair). Anything else would just send them on an ego-trip.

As for people leaving this site - well have any of you to date been able to stay away??

nope did not think so : )

aicha

Reply #: 276

Aamir

The article and its author are mistaken. When Prabhakaran incites his LTTE cadres to become suscide bombers, he does it in the name of a Tamil nation.... not in the name of Hindusim.

Similiarly, when Hindus killed Sikhs, firstly it was not a mass agitaion against Sikhs... as majority of the Hindus did not feel anger at the Sikhs.. and secondly, again it was not on the basis of religon.

Both the above examples are examples of politics.

The only example that one could cite as ``Hindu Terrorism`` is the sacking of the Babri majsid.

That was the first incident which was done in the name of Hinduism and was supported (in spirit) by a large number of Hindus, all over India.

Ad

Godot wrote:

[``[I] believe 100% in the TRADITIONAL ORTHODOX SUNNI view that anyone who insults Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam should be killed if proven guilty.``

- Why?]

Why? Because that is the belief held by every Sunni Muslim from the time of the Prophet alayhisalatosalaam to the present and because it is based on the Qur`an and Sunnah.

[If you are willing and ready to kill anyone who insults the Prophet, it proves four things to me: a) you are extremely insecure with your beliefs, Islam, and the Prophet; b) you do not value human life; c) you are very violent, again a sign of extreme insecurity; d) you have a psychological problem.]

You are twisting my words. Thw law doesn`t say Muslims can act in as vigilante manner--the accused goes through a shar`iat court and is killed if found guilty by the Islamic state. I have never even hit someone in my life Muslim or non-Muslim (excluding a few playground scraps many years ago!) and in no way would either. Yet I believe that the insulter of Allah and His Messenger(s) should be killed by the Islamic State. This is because Islam tells me to have this belief and it is the belief which has been communicated throughout the ages starting with the time of Allah`s Messenger sal allahu alayhi wa sallam himself. 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.

[``THat is not a new belief made up by me or by 20th century ``mullahs`` it is what Muslims have believed and acted on since the time of the Prophet alayhisalatosalam himself.``

- Why do Muslims believe that? Where in Islam does it say to kill those who insult the Prophet? What is the source of this hideous statement? And please don`t quote me some ignorant psychopath who claims he was talking in behalf of Islam.]

The source is the Qur`an and hadith themselves. The ``ignorant psychopaths`` (naudhubillaH; astaghfirullah) are every Muslim scholar then from Hazrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq to the orthodox ulama of today. If you want to READ the evidence yourself you can go to www.masud.co.uk and click on the section ``In Honour of The Prophet`` and see it there in detail from the QURAN and the PROPHET alayhisalatosalaam himself. I hope, you, unlike others on here, will actually READ it. But I dont think you will still be convinced because to you anything which you doesn`t agree with YOUR view is wrong. I hope I am wrong in my assessment of you.



[``[It] is you modernists who want to change islam to suit your worldview.``

- Asif, what is Islam? How do you define it? And why is your interpretation--and it is an ``interpretation``--of Islam better than mine? Do you understand the concept of Allah? Do you know what Divinity is? Mohammad--and he himself knew it--is no match to Allah. They are completely different ``beings``. By elevating Mohammad, the human, to Divinity itself you are insulting Allah. You talk about the cost of insulting Mohammad the human. How about the cost of insulting Allah the Divine? Now, according to you, anyone who insults Allah should...]

I`m sorry to say this passage of yours shows your own ignorance about Islam. Islam is to belief in your heart and with your tongue that which has been revealed to the Prophet alayhisalatosalam by Allah and to have the SAME understanding of it AS THE PROPHET AND THE COMPANIONS as it has been taught to the Prophet alayhisalam by Allah who taught it to the Companions, who taught it to the Successors to the Followers who taught it to the Salaf....etc right through to our age. In our age this is the aqeedah of Imam`s Ash`ari/Maturidi and follow one of the 4 schools of law. The actual detailed points which one has to believe in are called ``aqeedah`` and they deal with Allah, His Attributes, Prophethood, its attributes, The Prophet MUhammad sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam and his quallities, the angels and their attributes, the Books, the DAy of JUdgement, and the details about Qada and Qadar. Collectively these are called the ``Zaruriyat e Deen`` Anyone who does not believe in any one of these Zaruriyat is either a kafir or a heretic as it means to denounce that which has been revealed by Allah and His Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. The detailed beliefs are to be found at www.masud.co.uk (see Aqidah Tahawiyyah) and at www.sunnirazvi.org in the Doctrine section.

When you have read this you will realise that no Muslim makes the Beloved Prophet alayhisalatosalam a partner to Allah. Rather, he (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) is Allah`s Beloved Servant and His most perfect CREATION such that it is impossible for any created being to fathom his greatness such that only Allah knows his true value and exaltedness. Allah has linked belief in Himself with belief with His Beloved in the very kalimah itself! Yet, despite our limited minds not being able to fathom RAsul Allah`s greatness, we still believe him to be Allah`s perfect servant and creation and who is dependent on Allah. Allah of course is independent of all. What a stupendous difference which you cannot fathom.

Now, I have written more than i intended but PLEASE I implore you READ the links before you come back to me!

Reply #: 271

Farzana Versey

``

Not most Muslims, maybe some and that too when they feel they are being let down and threatened. About negative publicity, I think the media barons must be asked this : The Parsis and Jains keep their coffers full with their sponsorships; the Buddhists hardly count. Also, do remember the large numbers of Muslims spread across the world. I think the newspapers and television would be woefully denuded were they denied the colourful Islamic presence.

``

-- Farzana you wrote the above in reply to my contention that Buddhists/Jain etc do not cause the same kind of troubles as muslims do.

I think your explaination is a bit simplistic. Do you really think hindus are not targetting the Parsis and Jains becasue they keep `` our coffers full `` ?

come on Farzana, I thought you would have more insight into India and Indians than that. Hinduism as a religon is inherently tolerant. With so many different sects within Hinduism, its not difficult to see why hindus would be tolerant when it comes to religous beliefs.

Muslims on the other hand, need some reason or the other to FEEL insecure. Instead of introspection, instead of a religous revival where they rexamine the Islam of the 7th century, they look at non muslims as the source of all their problems.

In any relationship, be it between a husband and a wife or between a citizen and his/her country, their should be a symbiotics relationship. Below one asks for rights, one should fullfil certain duties. This is not so, in the case of Indian muslims. They are poorly educated and backward thinking simply because they sent their kids to study Islamic studies instead of Physics.

In this way they do not contribute to the economy of the country. But they still want Haj subsidies and funds for education institites that turn out Jehadi students.

So before you start claiming all your rights as an equal citizen of India, try meeting your obligations to the state, also.

AD

Zafarji,

Thanks for the concern and welcome. I`m well enough... just (interestingly) busy enough to have time to read but not say much on these threads these days.

Since you asked after my welfare, I think it would not be completely out of place to mention that, living in Karachi, I have encountered absolutely no difference in how others treat or relate to me, as a Christian. Others who KNOW I am Christian that is; and i don`t just mean my friends. --- Though I understand there are these cowardly idiots going around pasting posters threatening to kill two Christians for every Muslim killed in Afghanistan.

Wonder if these despicable actions are denounced in Friday khutbas? Or if these extremist nuts will see acquiesence in the silence of the `moral` silent majority.

rgds,

Patrick Masih

re. rajanjua #394, to asif naqshbandi

``You and your imams are the one`s who have all sorts of emotional and mental problems - They are afraid of women (not even allowing them in mosques against the sunnat of the Prophet), they will not let others preach their religions becuase they are afraid they might convert, they get offended by every other silly thing (enough to warrant death sentences) and the list goes on and on.``

Janjua sahib, although much of what asif says make me squirm, I think it is not fear (of women, or of other religions) that keeps him steadfast in his beliefs and gets issuing death warrants nonchallantly. His is a classic example of irrationality taken to well, irrational heights. There is a bit of the non-rational in all of us, that we allow (must allow) within `rational` (i.e. safe) limits. Asif`s most basic premise, i.e, his unwavering acceptance of the Shariah as absolute, unquestionable truth, and the Imams as its perfected interpretors, is something I suspect is based not in reason at all, but operators completely through fear -- the simple fear of being condemned to hellfire for even questioning this belief. All his convictions, and all his and passions, are, I am willing to bet, derivatives of this fundamental fear. All his professions of love for the Prophet and the Imams are hoplessly second hand and artifical, even if VERY strong! The tragedy, IMO, is that asif cannot know true love of the Prophet (a la the sufis) becasue he knows only awesome deference, which he calls love.

It is true that most religions operate on the principal of fear. However, there is usually enough elbow room for reason to operate and often `moderate` the essentially AMORAL basic convictions and enable us to be real human beings. (More on that amorality later). Sometimes, though, non-rational fear takes up all the seats in the room, and we end up with veritable religious automatons instead of thinking, sentient humans.

Of course I could be wrong. I *could * have Asif pegged down all wrong. In the end, ``Allah knows best``. But no harm, and only good, can come out of such speculation, nO?

Right, DRUMZ? :)

rgds,

PM

re. hamza afaqui #393:

``If he says he is a muslim,he is!

After that how he practices it is betweem him and his Allah.``

This is your take on the who-is-a-believer issue. Fine! Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Shariah has strict stipulations re. who may be considered a Muslim. Yes or No? Janjua sahib, Naqshbandi, feel free to jump in here. It may be possible that this cannot be answered in a few words, so feel free to expound. The question, again, is, `To what extent is being a Muslim AND being recognized as one a matter on which Islamic jurispendence can be brought to bear? Hisorically/tradionally/theologically, that is.

``So if someone is an alcoholic would we refer to him as a fundamentalist wino? or a connosseiur(sp?) of good spirits as an orthodox imbiber/spiritualist?``

hmmmm.... the clever humor is appreciated! But aren`t you alread y using a label in referring to the person as an `alcoholic`? `Fundamentalist` is merely another helpful description, the sort of which we need to use for convenience. Verbal language almost by definition runs the risk of `losing the essence`. Right, DRUMZ?

``I believe that it is a present day curse that language usage,in this case the english language,has gone to the dogs(any reference to the Americans is purely incidental).``

hehehe! That wasn`t a nice thing to say! But I agree, present-day language, to the extent that it attempts to create neat little `identities` and faux categories robs us of all appreciation of nuance and ultimately of life (living!) itself. Right, DRUMZ? :)

``To this,let me add (an unknown that I am) that no one should cast aspersions on the citizenship & loyalty of those who took the oath(immigrants) or those who were born into the citizenship of a country ....or CREED``.

But you DO know that while creed might be a personal affair between you and your creator, citizenship -- ESPECIALLY naturalized citizenship -- proffers you no such privacy. Did you not once suugest that blasphemy was committed the instant something `blasphemous` was put to paper (or entertained in one`s mind)?? So what is wrong in telling it like it is? Would you be happier if I said you were ``being hypocritcal``, rather than CALL you a hypocrite? (hypothetical question)

rgds,

PM

Re rajanjua (#367):

I agree with you that Naqshbandi Sahib has the right to have an opinion, and it is only when his clan of “scholars” start handing out death sentences to others, that we end with a real problem in our hands.

These bigoted mullahs twist the meaning of scriptures and go on to perpetrate violence against others. These animals condemned Gallileo, had Jesus crucified, persecuted each and every one of God’s prophets, victimized and killed countless innocent people throughout history, and more.

In the case of Islam, they have declared blasphemy and apostasy as crimes punishable by death. These fanatics go on to declare other sects as non-Muslims, incite hatred against them, and continue the bloodshed of innocents in the name of Allah. They have made it a crime for an Ahmadi to say “bismillah” in Pakistan on grounds that he is “posing” as a Muslim. Some even declared Ahmadi-Muslims as wajib-e-qatal (deserving of being killed) because of their beliefs.



These mullahs are the curse of Satan on the mankind. Their hearts are barren and they have no compassion for the mankind. Since the day of Adam they have led nations down the path of bloodshed and destruction for their own political gains. It is these mullahs who are the biggest threat to Islam.

Asad

Re: Asif Naqshbandi, #378

``[I] believe 100% in the TRADITIONAL ORTHODOX SUNNI view that anyone who insults Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam should be killed if proven guilty.``

- Why? If you are willing and ready to kill anyone who insults the Prophet, it proves four things to me: a) you are extremely insecure with your beliefs, Islam, and the Prophet; b) you do not value human life; c) you are very violent, again a sign of extreme insecurity; d) you have a psychological problem.

``THat is not a new belief made up by me or by 20th century ``mullahs`` it is what Muslims have believed and acted on since the time of the Prophet alayhisalatosalam himself.``

- Why do Muslims believe that? Where in Islam does it say to kill those who insult the Prophet? What is the source of this hideous statement? And please don`t quote me some ignorant psychopath who claims he was talking in behalf of Islam.

``[It] is you modernists who want to change islam to suit your worldview.``

- Asif, what is Islam? How do you define it? And why is your interpretation--and it is an ``interpretation``--of Islam better than mine? Do you understand the concept of Allah? Do you know what Divinity is? Mohammad--and he himself knew it--is no match to Allah. They are completely different ``beings``. By elevating Mohammad, the human, to Divinity itself you are insulting Allah. You talk about the cost of insulting Mohammad the human. How about the cost of insulting Allah the Divine? Now, according to you, anyone who insults Allah should...

Ref Stuka #: 390

[``Hats off to the 10,000 Delhi `untouchables` who converted to Buddhism over the weekend``

Yeah, but poor chaps won`t be able to eat meat anymore. Might as well become Christian, at least you`re allowed to eat and drink what you want.]

Also, something to be said for living in the 20th/21st century. It was reported that a convert to Christianity in the 19th century refused to sit at the same table with other converts saying, ``I may have changed my religion but I haven`t changed my caste.`` (In those days, people of different castes did not eat together.)

Farzana:

It is impossible for me to access Mid-day in New York. Can you scan your articles and email them to me? My email is truthatchowk@yahoo.com

As for my not demanding direct quotes from others, I rarely talk about individuals at Chowk -I talk about ideologies and ideas. If I talk about individuals, I talk about the larger purpose of their life, be it Jinnah`s two nation theory or Advani`s rath yatra where direct quotes are unnecessary.

http://www.petitiononline.com/HRCBM101/

Farzana,

A question for you.

Do you agree that India is many shades better than our two neighbours?

Do you agree that India could have easily been turned into a Hindu state going by the example that our two neighbours set?

Do you agree that it was because of the secular bent of the majority in India that has prevented this from happening?

Please reply yes or no.

http://www.petitiononline.com/HRCBM101/

Sigalph, I hope you will sign the petition against ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh.

Re: sigalph

``Our enemies are religious zealots. Attacking friendly democracies on spurious charges and then exaggerating them only undermines the essential unity of purpose necessary to defeat evil. Thankfully most of official India does not succumb to such nonsense as comparing the globe`s sixth biggest democracy to rogue bandits like the Taliban.``

I agree. India (South Asia`s) problems lie to its West, not its East.