In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Shima,

I fully sympathise with people who have suffered after recent Bangladeshi elections. I do not minimize their trauma at all. I hope and pray what has happened to them never happens to me or to my dear ones, Hindu or Muslim. And I perhaps was a bit rude to Babu in accusing him of sensanationalism.

I also accept the fact that to some extent Islamists have increased their strength in Bangladesh, and that should be a major cause for worry for all right thinking men and women in Bangladesh itself.

But please rest assured, Shima, it is not saintliness that guides me (at least not most of the time :)); it is hard headed realism and logic as I see it. If I frame the situation a bit differently, you may see what I mean.

Consider the welfare of muslim Indians. You said that I advocate their cause. I surely do. And that is why I worry whenever I see nationals from other countries becoming too aggessively ``concerned`` with the welfare of Muslim Indians. I worry that this kind of involvement, well-intended or not, can easily lead to the sharpening of divisions between Muslim Indians and non Muslim Indians. Should that happen, Muslim Indians will suffer greatly, as will all other Indians. The only people who will NOT suffer are outsiders.

I apply the same logic to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has still not gone the theocratic, fundamentalist way. There is a fight there, as everywhere else, between obscurantist, violent, and divisive forces on the one hand, and the people who would like to follow progressive and humanistic ideals like the rest of us. In this situation, India should, IMO, follow two objectives.

One, we should do all we can, short of directly interfering in the affairs of Bangladesh, to strengthen those forces that are forward looking, tolerant, and have a modern vision. These people are not confined to any one political party, and we should not walk into the trap of supporting or appearing to support one party to the exclusion of others. One effective way of doing this is to assure Bangladeshis of all hues, except the most rabid religious ones (I do not believe that one can hold a dialogue or reach an understanding with religious fanatics of any faith), that India is a genuine friend. It doesnt mean we surrender our interests, but it means being more sensitive to some of their concerns whatever they may be, building bridges with them.

The second thing that India can and should do is to work behind the scenes with the powers that be in Bangladesh to make sure Bangladeshis themselves take the protection of their minorities more seriously, which they will. No fundamentalist, whether in Indian, Pakistan, or Bangladesh will ever listen to reason, but secularist, progressive, and enlightened people will, if they feel strong enough. One of the most frustrating things I find about Pakistan for instance is that their #@ *$ ``silent majority`` has the backbone of a two-year old. Why? Because for the last fifty plus years, it has not felt strong enough to take on the Mulla Military minority that rules over them. If we do things that sharpen Hindu-Muslim divide in Bangladesh, that will weaken the forces of reason and moderation in that country too. That will be a prescription for disaster for Bangladeshis themselves and for everone else.

Again, Shima, please don`t think I am indifferent to the problems Hindus have faced in Bangladesh. I am not. As I have argued on Chowk before, a certain feeling of kinship exists along religious lines, which we should explicitly acknowledge for everybody. But we should be very very careful about how we utilize this feeling of kinship. I don`t think it is wise for us to do in Bangladesh what we don`t want, say, Pakistanis to do in India - poke our nose too deeply and too visibly into the affairs of another country. I fear that that can be counterproductive. Let`s work with decent Bangladeshis to solve a real problem that has arisen recently. If we are smart about it, the problem will go away or at least abate. If we give in to our emotions (which you and I may feel are perfectly justified), we may end up harming the very causes we hold dear.

I look forward to hearing your views.

Regards.

EK

hamzad,

I am happy to know that there is one more person who knows that the crap from the pak.com history is total nonsense. If the YLH of the world knew about the hsistory of muslims in india, they wont be writing about sher sha suri and his tomb.

What annoys me about the pakistanis is thei limited understanding and the know all attitude about islam, and their belief that they are the custodians of islam in india.

Education do not seem to make an iota of difference to the pak thinking. Talk of blasphemy laws, they feel so what , it is thei country, but are incensed by babri masjid. The idea of ummah seem to be ingrained more than the k for kafir. May be there is U for ummah.

regards

jay

Zafar....479

I hope this helps.I just breezed through it myself.Details later.

Haroon had declared it the official doctrine but later reverted.Maamoon,his son,buried Imam Raza next to him(Haroon) to show his respect & allegiance to the Imam but who would have known that few will remember that where Haroon is buried.

Among the Mu`tezilis no subject was beyond enquiry and scrutiny including the existence or absence of a God.But it must be remembered that it was for learning & not for blasphemy and all the brotherhood was very serious in the debate.Islam allows for serious inquiry,nay encourages it but the intent is the key---just like other matters in life.It is like discussing anatomy for clinical reasons or for pornography.

Niaz Fatehpuri of Nigaar & Shevanyaat fame, & some others were ardent mu`tazilis--perhaps even Josh Malihabaadi.



THEOLOGICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN MU‘TAZILA AND SUNNI:

A STUDY OF AL-JAHIZ’S REFUTATION AGAINST ANTHROPOMORPHISTS

By: Masdar Hilmy



Introduction

The problem of anthropomorphism is one of the most sensitive one within a certain religion, such as in Judaism, Christian, Islam, and so forth. There have usually been, at least, two polarized sides within a certain religion fighting to each other in defending their own standing points of anthropomorphism. It is usually between orthodoxy and modern sect which going through polemical argumentation on such a matter. In Islam, for example, the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an has been a great theological problem throughout the history of Islam. This discourse has invited Muslims to dispute to each other at the level of intellectual circles, even this prompted to further emotional conflict leading to an inevitable political contention between these two factions.

The history of Islam can be served as a mirror in looking at this theological polemics. The most famous one is the conflict between the orthodoxy (as represented by Sunni Islam, with special reference to Ash‘ari and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) and the so-called adored to rational sect, Mu‘tazila. Among big issues disputed by the two sects is the problem of the different interpretation of Anthropomorphic expressions (ayat al-tashbih/tajsim) in the Qur’an. The orthodox Sunni tried to be consistent in interpreting them; they interpret them as they are, because they do not want to go further beyond the meaning of them. On the other hand, Mu‘tazila tried to make a contradictory interpretation to Sunni’s interpretation on the anthropomorphic ayat in the Qur’an which is going in line with the logic. By using their intellectual strength, Mu‘tazila always put every single theological matter in the context of whether or not it is compatible with the regulation of logic.

Judging from this theological position held by each of them, they, indeed, refute to each other in interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions of the Qur’an. When they some to speak of anthropomorphist questions, the Sunni heap all their scorn on the rationalists (Mu‘tazila) who seek figurative explanations for the concrete terms of the holy scripture. As an orthodox sect, the Sunni would not agree but a literal understanding of the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur‘an and the traditional texts. On the other side, the Mu‘tazila could not accept the literal interpretation of anthropomorphic expression given by the Sunni. Regarding the concept of God, they gave metaphorical interpretation and spiritual sense to every anthropomorphic expression in the sacred writings. Out of such endeavors a new method of Qur’anic exegesis arose, which was called by the old term ta’wil (in the sense of figurative interpretation).



Al-Jahiz: His Significance to the Mu‘tazila

Al-Jahiz (his complete name is Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr b. Bahr al-Jahiz) was born in Basra in 160 A.H. (776 A.D.) and died in the same place in 255 A.H. (869 A.D.). He was called ``al-Jahiz`` on account of his ``goggled-eyes``. Some sources say that he was a Negro, probably of Abyssinian, but because of his remarkable talents he became the most genial writer of the age in Arabic literature. According to his own estimation, however, al-Jahiz was very much a member of the Arab community, and standing as he did in the relationship of client to the Banu Furqaim, a branch of the Kinana, he was always strong in its defense.

He studied Arabic philology and poetry under the leading teachers in Basra, and was admitted to the Mu‘tazilite discussions of Kalam. Among the personalities responsible for laying the foundations of his Arabic education, three famous names of the period stand out: Abu ‘Ubaida, al-Asma’ and Abu Zayd al-Ansari. All three were philologists and scholars who made a fundamental contribution to the development of Arabic culture. It is said that he also studied grammar under Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash, Hadith under Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and others, and theology under Thumama b. Ashras and more especially al-Nazzam. But it was a little later, in Baghdad, that the influence of the two latter, who were compatriots of him, became predominant. Al-Jahiz was the master of the culture of his time to such a degree that one modern scholar has referred to the period as ``the age of al-Jahiz``.

Al-Jahiz has made a great contribution to the Mu‘tazila. He has written a great deal of books, both on account of Mu‘tazili doctrine (theology and philosophy) and Arabic literature. He was also in touch with the significant political, religious and cultural tendencies of his time. Al-Jahiz had a special relationship with the ‘Abbasi government. This relationship to the concerns of government is clearly to be seen in his books on the Imamah about which he reports in al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin. He claimed that the Khalifah al-Ma’mun himself had read these books and been pleased with them because they were in accordance with his policy. Al-Jahiz had a close contact with the great wazir Ibn al-Zayyat who was the wazir of al-Mu‘tasim and then al-Wathiq. In his writings, therefore, one can see a reflection of the political currents of the age. He was, however, in favor of the ‘Abbasi regime. But in theology, al-Jahiz shows himself a resolute Mu‘tazili, that is an apologist of the Abbasids against the pro-Umayyad movement of Nabita, the Shu‘ubis and the Shi‘a.

In the context of religion, there was a considerable liberty during the age of al-Jahiz. The subjects of concern to the Mu‘tazili school, to which al-Jahiz belonged, evidence the existence of many controversies among different sects, both Muslim and non-Muslim. One controversy arose between the mutakallimun with their rational attitude and the Sunni orthodoxy with their traditional views. Among the mutakallimun still another kind of dispute emerged, as reflected in the controversies between Mu‘tazila and Rafida. Religious controversies spread on a large scale among the mutakallimun, the Manawiyah, the Dahriyyah and followers of other religious doctrines. Al-Jahiz lived in the midst of all these currents and controversies that were derived from them. In his writings, with particular to his book Kitab al-Hayawan, such controversies and religious discussions could be found.

Due to the mixture of nations which formed the population of Iraq (as a center of ‘Abbasi government), there was a mingling of cultures in the new Islamic civilization which took shape in the ‘Abbasi era. The constituent elements were in the Arabic, Persian and Greek. During this period, translation of Persian and Greek was greatly accelerated.



C. Mu‘tazila’s Attitude towards Anthropomorphists

The different point of view in interpreting the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an is one of the most obvious sources of theological conflict between Mu‘tazila and Sunni anthropomorphists. The heart of difficulty here, as Watt says, was that the Qur’an itself used anthropomorphic terms. No one could deny that the Qur’an contains an abundance of imagery and description of God’s way and nature that reflects attributes of His creatures. For example, the ``throne`` of God is mentioned, which suggests that He sits on it as a cosmic ruler (2:255). In other places the Qur’an speaks of God’s hand (3:73; 36:71), His eyes (11:37), His face (2:115), and His speaking, hearing and seeing, these last three were frequently reiterated. The Sunni theologian and the former Mu‘tazili, al-Ash‘ari (d. 935) no doubt recorded faithfully essential elements of his erstwhile colleagues’ creed when he wrote:

The Mu‘tazila agree that God is one; there is no thing like him; hearing, seeing; he is not a body, not a form, not flesh and blood, not an individual, not substance nor attribute; he has no color, taste, smell, feel, no heat, cold, moisture, nor dryness, no length, breadth nor depth, no joining together nor separation, no movement, rest nor division … no place comprehends him, no time passes over him … not begetting nor begotten … he is not comparable with men and does not resemble creatures in any respect … he is unlike whatever occurs to the mind or is pictured in the imagination … he is ceaselessly knowing, powerful, living, and will not cease to be so; eyes do not see him, sight does not attain him, imagination does not comprehend him; he is heard by hearing; (he is) a thing not as things, knowing, powerful, living, not as (men are) knowing, powerful, living; he is eternal alone, and there is no eternal except him, no deity apart from him; he has no partner in his rule, no vizier (sharing) in his authority, no assistant in producing what he produced and creating what he created … he may not experience benefit or harm, joy or gladness, hurt or pain … he may not cease to exist nor become weak or lacking; he is too holy to be touched by women or to have consort or children.



In this context, Sunni, with special reference to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, demanded the literal meaning of the text; they interpreted the anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an as they are, and without asking how (bila kayfa). The Hanbali school fought against the anthropomorphic concept forwarded by the Mu‘tazila, which they considered sunna. At best, these most conservative believers were willing to admit that while they demanded a literal understanding of the words of the text, they could not precisely say how one was to envision the reality to which such conceptions corresponded. They, therefore, argued that God is ``flesh and blood``, with limbs, so long as one added that these may not at all be thought of as resembling those of man, following the Qur’an verse; ``Nothing is like him; He is the one who hears and sees`` (42:11). But, in their view, one could not think of anything as really existing that is not substance. The conception of God as a purely spiritual being is for these people tantamount to atheism.

On the other hand, Mu‘tazila tried to seek the ``inward`` meaning of the anthropomorphic expressions of the Qur’an. They used ta’wil (metaphoric interpretation) in interpreting who God is as depicted in the Qur’an. More precisely this meant that they claimed they were justified in interpreting single words in a Qur’anic text with the basis of a secondary or metaphorical meaning found elsewhere in the Qur’an or in pre-Islamic poetry. Thus in the phrase (38.75) about God ``creating with his hands`` they argued that hands meant ``grace`` (ni‘ma), and justified this by a usage roughly parallel to our colloquial phrase ``I’ll give you a hand``. Likewise, wajh (face), was said to mean ``essence``. Verses which spoke of God being seen in the hereafter were, therefore, interpreted by Mu‘tazila in the light of other verses where ``see`` did not mean physical sight.

The Mu‘tazila recognized well the ``otherness`` and transcendence of God so that they maintained that all creatures must be different from God. In this case, those who differed from the Mu‘tazila were accused of holding the false doctrines of tashbih, anthropomorphism, and tajsim, and were called Mushabbiha and Mujassima. The Mujassima was applied to men who held that God was a jism, ``body``, and according to Ash‘ari these included Hisham ibn al-Hakam, Hisham al-Jawaliqi, Muqatil ibn Sulayman and others. In some ways this method of interpretation is artificial; but, in Watt’s opinion, at least it keeps thinkers at the grass roots of religious experience and away from an abstract academic discussion of the relations between attributes and essence.





Al-Jahiz’s Refutation Against Anthropomorphists

As mentioned above, the God of the Mu‘tazila is uncircumscrible, not deportable in human terms; the Qur’anic anthropomorphism, therefore, can only be interpreted metaphorically. The Qur’anic anthropomorphism translated for the believer ``the awesomely distant loving-kindness of God into the reassuring precision of a human face``. It is also to be emphasized again that the Mu‘tazila aroused the popular ire due primarily to their hostility to anthropomorphists. The sometime polemicist of the Mu‘tazila, the scathing essayist al-Jahiz, appears to have directed more of his fire against anthropomorphists. For al-Jahiz, anthropomorphism, despite ``its adherents of great numbers and manifest power``, constituted ``the great sin, the monstrous falsehood``.

Al-Jahiz’s strong refutation against anthropomorphists can be traced from his risala (letter) addressed to Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, tells him of the writing of a book against anthropomorphists. The author expresses various views on the common people, complains the treatment meted out to the mutakallimun, who have now, thanks to Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, been brought under the protection of the authorities, and comes to the point of his letter. The risala says as follows:

``… You know that although the supporters of anthropomorphism have been crushed, reduced and subjected to the inquisition, their numbers have not decreased, the majority have not changed their views, and only a tiny minority are dead. There is no advantage to be gained from the hypocrites among them, nor can we count on the suspects or put any trust in the waverers. Though their arrogance is less, their hearts are more tainted than ever. Time was when they relied on power, strength, numbers and good fortune, on the allegiance of ruffians and the dregs of the populace; today, having failed to maintain their powerful position with the support of the rabble and of labourers, merchants and disaffected officials, they have become more amenable and open to argument; their hearts are full and their souls troubled. This is a situation in which cunning and persuasion are called for, since force and violence are ineffectual …

My reason for wishing to move against them is that they have started to debate with us and challenge our friends, after insulting us, to pay great defence to us after forbidding us to speak, to sit with us after turning us a deaf ear, to listen to us after abusing us …

I have therefore written a book in refutation of the anthropomorphists which will be neither beneath the notice of scholars and educated men nor above the heads of tyros.



From the text above, we can see how al-Jahiz angrily scorned the vast crowd of believers who were largely anthropomorphists. The political hostility between Mu‘tazila and anthropomorphists, especially during al-Ma’mun’s caliphate, reached its peak and became an official agenda at that time. Al-Ma’mun himself was a foremost proponent of Mu‘tazili movement and patronized all theological creed of the Mu‘tazila, including al-Jahiz’s refutation against anthropomorphists. Al-Ma’mun’s attitude towards anthropomorphists is reflected by his scorn as follows:

The Commander of the Faithful knows that the great multitude, the vast majority of the vulgar herd, the riffraff of common folk, who are without insight, reflection and reasoning pointing to God and His guidance and [without] illumination through knowledge and its proof, are, in all lands and regions, a people ignorant of God, blind to Him, lost to the reality of His religion … and, because of the weakness of their judgement, the deficiency of their intelligence and their antipathy toward thought and reflection, are [unable] to distinguish between Him and His creation …



Sourdel, however, has observed that the fury of al-Ma’mun’s attack upon the traditionist leaders and the vast believers who clung to them was exceeded only by al-Jahiz in his epistle, written during the reign of al-Mu‘tasim (833-842), refuting the anthropomorphism dear to these leaders and to the great majority of the faithful. Al-Jahiz attributed the abiding strength of anthropomorphism ``to the adherence of the masses and to the proclivity of the mean and base. Even though al-Jahiz wrote during the era of the Mihna, he could nonetheless lament that ``the elite have no authority over the masses nor the prominent over the lowly.`` To be sure, the ``partisans [of anthropomorphism] are suppressed and put to the Mihna … [but] the conscience of most of them remains where it was … and we have profited nothing from the hypocrite….``

Of the Mihna, that mini-inquisition launched by al-Ma’mun shortly before his death in 833 and upheld by his successors until 848, most of the religious and lay notables subjected to the ``test`` signalled quickly their credence in a Qur’an created and impervious to anthropomorphic interpretation. When the Mihna was applied to ‘Ali ibn Abi Muqatil, he soon capitulated with these words: ``… should the Commander of the Faithful command us, we will hear and obey him``.

From the basis of the explanation above, it is obvious that al-Ma’mun, one of ‘Abbasi caliph, rejected the idea of anthropomorphism forwarded largely by traditionalists (Sunni Islam), due to the fact that he is the foremost advocate of Mu‘tazili theological creeds. Consequently, Al-Jahiz, as a concerned proponent of Mu‘tazila, was politically buttressed by al-Ma’mun’s regime. Through his patronage, al-Jahiz even refuted more bitterly against the anthropomorphists than al-Ma’mun did. The political hostility between the Mu‘tazila, in particular al-Jahiz, and the traditionalists which was represented by the anthropomorphists, was not simply as a difference of academic point of view, but also inevitably led to more serious political conflict between them. As a ruling power which was administered officially by caliphate, the Mu‘tazila had a strong legitimacy to wage contention against the anthropomorphists. They tried to wipe out the advocate of anthropomorphists through an institution established by al-Ma’mun, called the Mihna, by torturing or with threatening with death whoever propounded the idea of anthropomorphism.







Conclusion

To conclude the explanation above, we can safely suggest that al-Jahiz was, beside a remarkable adib (man of literature), he was also a great Mu‘tazili theologian at the time of al-Ma’mun period. As an adib, he has written many collections of literature. Even though he was not an original Arab, he became a talented expert in Arabic literature. And as a theologian, he has done many things in favor of the Mu‘tazila. In the case of the latter, he refuted all traditionalist theological creeds, including their anthropomorphic creed. Through his writings and his epistles (risala) addressed to some Islamic authorities, al-Jahiz defended the Mu‘tazili theological stand point of anthropomorphism and fought bitterly against the anthropomorphists.

The Mu‘tazila’s theological foundation of anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an is based on their strength of rationality. Al-Jahiz, as one of the Mu‘tazili advocate, based his anthropomorphic interpretation on the strength of rational interpretation (ta’wil). According to him, it is a great sin to interpret anthropomorphic expressions in the Qur’an with the traditional way, i.e. by adopting the literal meaning of the text without asking how (bi-la kayfa). But one should, he argued, uses the metaphorical interpretation of the text in order to avoid the compromising God’s unity with His creatures (human). By this method, he contended, one would be safe from the greatest sin of mushrik, i.e. assimilating God’s attributes with human being.



The writer is a graduate of Tarbiyah Faculty of IAIN Sunan Ampel

and at present in accomplishment of his study of Masters degree

at McGill University of Canada

Romair #416

….well said….

Reply #: 454

Romair

``Do or Die For the Pakistani Religious Parties``

``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.``

Would you go further and discuss this little jihad/power struggle within the ranks and how it falls along economic lines? Who are they?

Can you give us a demographic? Rich? Poor? Middle Class? Or, are there no combined, meaningful economic factors at all? Thanks

...why is romair obsessed with india?...most of his drivel on chowk, including this article, is focused on india...why oh why this inferiority complex?...

Sorry, Eklavya, one more at:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/07gp.htm

Eklavya, I found something for you at,

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/nov/07bangla.htm

Ekalavya #438,

``Those problems, if any, should be resolved at the local level, along with the cooperation of progressive Bangladeshis. Whether your report is true or not, such broadcasts serve to sensationalize religious issues, and create resentment where resentment may not be entirely justified. No one is helped in the process.``

Dear Eklavya, this is sad and duplicity, especially when it is coming from you. If you do not know what is happening in Bangladesh aftermath of the election, you should keep quiet. There are people in Calcutta, whose realtives are the victim of these latest atrocities in Bangladesh, you should go and talk to these people. How come you can see every single problem that exists in India? but bestow your saintly advice to someone who is merely reporting what is really happening in a neighbouring country, by which West Bengal is continuously affected? Apparently the situation this time around is much worse than 1992 riot after Babri Musjid. The problem will not go away since people were not paying any attention, when the problem was in its bud. While you constantly fight(in cyber space) to the causes of minorities of India (which is admirable), should you not be senstive also to those people who are being constantly told to go to their country (India)? The least you could do is to shut your mouth since you do not have any power to remove the pains of neither the minority muslims in India, nor the Hindus in Bangladesh. Hasn`t Babu done the same thing which Farzana did? Pointing out the problems, then how Babu`s report becomes a sensational news while Farzana`s is a case worthy your support? See the duplicity?

Regards.

Question for anybody:

I am looking for information on the Mutazilites - who they were, what they believed, what happened to them and why, history, etc.

Can anybody help?

Zafar

PM # 459

Dear PM,

I agree with Bell, and by implication with Weber. Like communism, capitalism too fails to understand the logic and the power of religion. However, Bell takes too passive a view of religion. ``Religion as thread`` metaphor can only take us so far. Religion in the hands of ``religious people`` becomes an active force. It is clear that religion can not be ignored anymore. The key questions now, IMO, PM, are who will control this force, and to what uses this force will be put.

Re romair

``Compare that with the number of seats religious parties win in the three countries surrouding Pakistan, i.e. India, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Comparing India with those three other countries is quite a disingenous sleight of the keyboard. While proportionally the RSS and Shiv Sena may have won more than the JI/JU folks in Pakistan, that is far outweighed by the fact that India is not a `Hindu` Republic while all the other three countries are officially religious polities. I don`t think that there is much of a difference between the bigotry of JI, the IRP of Iran and the RSS/Sena. But what makes a crucial difference is the arena: India is a secular Republic where there are a lot of bigots while the other three countries are theocratic polities with some(Iran), few (Afghanistan) and many (Pakistan) secularists active in the field. The compasrison will be valid when Pakistan aborgates its apartheid election laws, Iran selects a Parsi Chief Justice, and Afghanistan becomes civilized. Until then, India is in a different league whether we like it or not.

Zafar Al Talib # 464

``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?)``

I also remember having read this article,wherein

the writer tells us about this subsidy business

which was started by Narasimha Rao,after the

destruction of the Babri Masjid to appease the

muslims in general and the Members of the All India Haj Board in particular,who were pocketing

a hefty commission out of each person`s subsidy.

Regards.

Sattar2 sahib,

[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].

please name one classical Muslim scholar who was of the opinion that the insulter of the Prophet alayhisalatosalam was not to be killed?! On THIS issue no scholar has disagreed! Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hazm and a few others ( a handful out of 1400 years of scholars!!) disagreed with the Sunni orthodoxy on OTHER issues but on this one they AGREED. Ibn Taymiyya even wrote a book on it, ``Al-Sayf al Maslul `Ala Shaatim ar-Rasul`` ! Name one Shi`ite scholar who disagreed on *this * matter? Name one of the Muslim philosophers who disagreed on *this * issue?!

The fact remains that ONLY modernists like yourself-- a a tiny, insignificant minority-- disagree on this issue.

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

PM....459

Thanks for the link.

Actual the claim by secular democracies about separation of church & state is not correct.Today,the state continues its assault on church(generic use) in matters of abortion,homosexuality,transplant,blood donation,seat belt use,smoking,liquor sale/purchase restrictions,drug use,polygamy etc etc..actually the list can be very long.It is amazing how we have been anaesthetised by the ``naturalness`` of this all.

.

Are Amish or Quakers ``backward`` barbarians who want to take their society to the brass age?Are their womenfolk & children persecuted & brainwashed that they must dress-up like muslims & are forbidden to use any ``modern`` gadget or machine---and horror of horrors!right in the midst of plenty:where freedom reigns(these days is reined in)supreme & the riches rain so much that no humor is left dry anymore.

Just squeezing out my anguish,nothing serious here folks!