In Search of the Moderate Muslim

[url= http://www.rushessay.com/master-papers.php]
master papers[url/]

A research paper written by students is considered as [http://www.rushessay.com/master-papers.php |master papers]over an academic term or semester which accounts for a large amount of a grade and makes up much of the course. Term papers are generally intended to describe an event or concept or argue a point. There is much overlap between the terms "research paper" and "term paper".

According to some research paper that a

/*Whatever we do is OUR choice, granted to us by the Indian Constitution. */

---

True

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

Ref prath #: 582

[A high quality closet fundamentalist. Push them a little and they come out in the open with fangs bared and spewing venom. Fazrana is one such person.A classy one too. This is what happens when you are articulate and have a fundamentalist bent of mind. Fazrana I need to ask you a question is there something called as moderate in what you have written. If you are so incensed by what is happening today try to get a little back into history and see who crossed the limits all the time]

Exactly what VS Naipaul had talked about in his book `Among the Believers`.

The search for the moderate Muslim, in Las Vegas :

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Nov-18-Sun-2001/opinion/17463519.html

shankar/sigalph,

I live in the the UK cos I like it here. I admire many things about western culture which i would like to see in the Muslim world too such as real accountability of rulers, freedom of thought,excellent healthcar,education etc. I am proud of my british nationality. what i dont agree with is the double standards of these countries to the muslim world. I have never though supported any terrorist groups or terrorist actions ever either on this forum or anywhere and i keep on repeating that I am a Barelvi-Sufi Muslim who have always been adamantly opposed to the rigid interpretation of the Wahabi-Deobandi schools which OBL,the Taliban and other terrorists follow. I AM for the correct implementation of shar`iah law in Muslim countries but it would be v. different to that taliban`s version. as i wrote on chowk recently i believe the key to muslim revival is education-both scientific,secular,and traditional. My ideal Muslim is someone like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf who as you know has been advising Pres. Bush on this campaign. He is what i mean by a moderate Muslim.

A high quality closet fundamentalist. Push them a little and they come out in the open with fangs bared and spewing venom. Fazrana is one such person.A classy one too. This is what happens when you are articulate and have a fundamentalist bent of mind. Fazrana I need to ask you a question is there something called as moderate in what you have written. If you are so incensed by what is happening today try to get a little back into history and see who crossed the limits all the time

re. hamzad afaqui #577

Hamzad, you`re welcome. Compliment? hummm.. really not; just neutral observation. Take it as you wish. :)

``The concordance is merely incidental but not exclusive.``

don`t understand, sir. What concordance?

``Please understand this as a fine gentleman that you are and resist the temptation;).``

Why, thank you. errrr... Was `gentleman` meant as a compliment? :)

Reply #: 544

AAmir

``

You make a grave mistake by expecting 1.2 bn muslim to act whenever some one in Indonesia to Morocco & Saudi to Bangladesh starts movement ,politics or expedition in the name of ISLAM.

Its one thing to do somthing locally, but impossible to effect influence say over other country .

``

-- Well these sames muslims from the same countries ARE voicing their opinions when it comes to issues such as Palestine, Afghanisthan and Kashmir. There were RIOTS in Indonesia when the bombs started hitting Kabul. Even the moderate Malayasians protested. So YES, I do expect muslims to stand up and take charge when someone from their own faith makes false statements in their name.

I expected Indian Muslims to protest against the ban imposed by the Congress govt. for fear of hurting the muslim sentiments. Indian muslims could have set up an unprecendeted example by saying that their religon and their faith in their beliefs was strong enough to withstand the writings of Salman Rushdie. Doing so, would have enabled them to stand for democracy and the right of free speech and earned the respect of the right wingers.

``

As far as condemning ,i think most ppl. will condemn misuse of religion,exploitation of ones religion & mass suicide or massacre in war in the false cause of religion.

``

-- Wrong again. If you ever notice, most muslims are silent when crimes against humanity are perpertrated in the name of Islam. Why else would they celebrate the falling of the WTC towers ? Why would they send their sons to fight against the US, in Afghanisthan. Aamir, wake up and smell the roses.

``

I like to challenge the same to other religion .the Majority silent hindu who let relatively minority RSS,Shiv Sena run down indian muslims .That is most deplorable b/c it not only involves religion but country of the same nationality as opposed to muslim ummah trying to prevent bangladesh riots or Osama in Afghanistan by kwaity muslim.I hope you see the disparity of influence.

``

-- Aamir, this is something that I will FULLY agree with you. In fact in my earlier post I went ahead and confessed that the fall of the Babri majsid was the FIRST time in recent histroy that Hindus actually resorted to terrorism, and that too with popular support of Hindus across the country. The feeling was pretty similar to the 1.2 billion muslims who don`t directly take part in issuing Fatwas or dying for Jihad, but who morally support such acts.

The difference is that the sacking of the Babri majsid was widely critiized by a large segment of the Hindu intelligencia. As a Hindu, I am not afraid to admit that what was done was wrong. However, you won`t find this kind of criticism in the muslim world, when they prosecute their miniorities. Forget that, you won`t muslims criticizing thier own brothers in our own country, India.

Why else would muslims protest against the ban of SIMI ? Why aren`t prominent muslims except Shabana Azmi, criticizing the Imam of Jama Majsid, Delhi for asking Indian muslims to go to Jihad against the US ?

Aamir, its ONLY through introspection that ones betters oneself. And before introspection can begin, one must first face the truth....and accept it.

ad

Shall we say that majority of Muslims are ``Moderate`` which means Maatherat or ``Maather---ds``, when translated to Urdu.

Shall we say that majority of Muslims are ``Moderate`` which means ``Maather---ds``, when translated to Urdu.

PM---#569

You said:

{``There is no limit to the amount of BS that otherwise intelligent men can put out in the name of `philosophy` (usually in an attempt to lend intellectual credibility to biases they have imbibed on the laps of their mothers). The history of Western philosophy and theology is a testament to this fact if nothing else. (Just ask Farangi Kush or hamzad afaqui :) )``}.



PM thanks very much.Is it meant as a compliment?

The concordance is merely incidental but not exclusive.Please understand this as a fine gentleman that you are and resist the temptation;).

Mr.Naqshbandi the scientist that he is by profession still seems not to have grasped the concepts of the scientific method.He does himself a disfavour by calling the scrutiny of hadith as a science.It is like justifting the meraj as space-travel.

Fatimah, I did not see that report. Thanks for posting it, although it makes me more sad.

Sigalph, I am not going to address any more post to you. And I do not wish to see a reply from you. People can see for themselves, it took merely three posts for you to bring the Kashmir card. Why, Hindus in Bangladesh are asking to separate, is it? That`s a news.

If a regime which gets charge of the state for more than two decades and then ruin industry, education, law and order, what credibility does that regime have? West Bengal`s performance is there to see for everybody, I am not hiding or exaggerating anything.

So you mean to say Bangladeshi media should not be beleived.

I can see what Eklavya and Dost-mittar were trying to say.

sigalph #546 ``I think both of us realize that you are going way out of context here. The initial question was one of Bengalis vis-a-vis their religion. Your comment, as pointed as it is, would have been better suited to a gender-related discussion.``

When someone says that what he said in black and white is taken out of context, it is often an indication of that person being in denial. Your statement about kinship to other Bengalis regardless of religion indicated chauvinism of one kind (ethnic) even as you stated your being above chauvinism of another kind (religious). I was merely pointing that out. As for my example of the wife-beater, I clearly said this was an example to illustrte the point that there is low-life in all groups of people. I could just as well have used the example of, say, a robber or a murderer which would have nothing to do with gender.

Having read some of your other posts on chowk, I dont think you are a dyed-in-the-wool (or whatever the phrase is) ethnic chauvinist though. But we all have our slip-ups and best to recognize that rather than go into denial.

Prem #559 Agreed. Religion should be no more, and no less (!!), than a means for character building and for raising consciousness in the individual of a universe represented by a blade of grass and by the star-filled night. When it is converted into a means for gaining power or becoming wealthy or (in the worst case) to fuel hatreds and violence, religion becomes a parody of the truth. A fallen angel.

re fatimah

``If you need Islam ,take it or leave it.THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION.``

And what is the penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam) in Islam?

re reply 557

Chowk editors,

I am not sure whose michief this is, but that post is not mine; please be kind enough to delete it and/or fix the obvious system problem that let this happen with MY username. Not to mention that the language employed should not have been allowed on the board per your own policy.

Re: Musharraf`s UN address

Guys,

I heard the address and thought Mushy did rather well. It is obvious that the Americans are impressed by his anti-Taliban stand. Mushy however was playing to his home gallery when he spoke harsh words about India, calling it a terrorist nation. Those are harsh words. He knows the world (especially US)needs him today and are willing to listen to his rhetoric, however stupid and unfounded they may be, only to humor him. His harsh words on India regarding Kashmir goes well with fudos in Pakistan who are not happy with him for siding with USA.

Following is Jim Hoagland`s article that says it all. URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59013-2001Nov7.html

``A Test of True Allies

By Jim Hoagland

Thursday, November 8, 2001; Page A31

The United States made many demands on allies and friends in launching military operations in Afghanistan. None has been more difficult to field than the request made to Israel and to India: Restrain your own wars against terror so we can get on with ours.

American diplomats are careful not to put the request that way. To do so would make it sound as if they attach a more urgent priority to American lives lost to terrorism than to those of Indians, Israelis and others targeted by suicide bombers and gunmen. That is inevitably true -- but politically unacceptable to say.

Nor do officials blurt out another reality: These U.S. appeals for restraint cater to Pakistani and Arab public opinion -- that is, they try to shore up shaky dictatorships that can provide help and political cover in the bombing of Afghanistan -- while leaving democratic governments in Jerusalem and New Delhi to fend for themselves.

Unfair? Certainly. But not surprising. War runs on expediency, not on logic or morality. The Pentagon needs bases to carry out the mission of destroying Osama bin Laden, his terror network and the Taliban.

But the outcome of the global campaign forced on the United States by bin Laden`s group will do much more than prove the prowess or incapacity of President Bush and his generals to use force abroad.

The way in which the campaign is conducted, and the long-term goals it serves, can establish new organizing principles and priorities for international relations for years or decades to come. The roles that democracies and dictatorships will be called on to play in the American agenda of the 21st century will be made clearer by this conflict.

Bush and his aides should keep that big picture in mind as they pursue the immediate demands of combat. Crises of this nature turn politicians into statesmen and reshape world politics -- if the big opportunities are seized.

India and Israel are the most vibrant democracies in a vast swath of countries from North Africa through the Himalayas that should now be seen as a single strategic region. Jerusalem and New Delhi are also end points of the U.S. campaign. If the struggles in Kashmir and the West Bank and Gaza are not reshaped and defused by America`s war on terrorism, those bitter conflicts will feed new waves of international terrorism for the future.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, due at the White House on Friday, is still open to the much closer strategic relationship that Bush promised on coming to office. But that drive has stalled as Bush has been urged by the bureaucracy to concentrate on the short-term advantages of a Faustian bargain with Pakistani ruler Pervez Musharraf.

Vajpayee arrives just as that bargain`s shortcomings become apparent. The promise by Pakistan`s intelligence services to foment uprisings in southern Afghanistan and to arrange defections from the Taliban and bin Laden`s network have fallen flat, even as Bush heaps more economic aid and political forgiveness on Musharraf.

This may not be simple incompetence. Olivier Roy, a French political scientist and Europe`s leading authority on Afghanistan, predicts that the Pakistanis will cooperate with the American effort to oust the Taliban just enough to be able to sabotage it when they choose.

``What Musharraf and the army care about are keeping their nuclear weapons and their ability to intervene in Kashmir, and having a friendly government in Afghanistan,`` Roy said at a Brookings Institution seminar here this week. To protect the first two goals, they will go through the motions of compromising on the makeup of a new regime in Afghanistan ``until the Americans leave. The calculation of every regime in the area is that they can all outlast an American presence that will be short-term.``

Vajpayee will not engage Bush directly on Pakistan`s current role, I am told. He will instead probe whether this White House seems ready to repeat one of the fundamental mistakes of the Cold War, which was to convert tactical relationships with dictators into ideological, strategic alliances.

Dictators snap the whip and seem to make things happen quickly. But they own only the moment. That is why they clutch the present so fiercely. The future belongs to democratic leaders, who can build and sustain consensus and commitment to ideas and values. They are Bush`s true allies, however difficult dealing with them can be at a moment of crisis.``.

So, i say, let Mushy boy savour his moment. Such moments are hard to come by for a dictator, especially one from a third world country on the verge of economic collapse. Let him say his bit. The world and US will listen to him and tolerate him as long as he ``plays ball`` the way they want it. The question is will Mushy be allowed to ``play ball`` by the fundamentalist elements in Pakistan and if he is indeed allowed, will he ``play ball`` fair and square.

Sridhar

WHILE JIZYAH MAY HAVE BEEN EXPLOITED MISSUSED & MISS APPLIED BY ORDINARY KINGS & EMPERRORS IN THERE 1000 YRS REIGN IN INDIA ITSELF,HINDUS HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD IT EITHER B/C OF COMMUNALISM ,HATRED & HATE MONGERING INCITED BY HINDU MAHASABHA FANATICS .

Below is a short extract on Jizyah and how it was applied to the tribe of

Taghlib.

:

``Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe

not in Allah, nor the Last Day; and forbid not that which Allah hath

forbidden by His Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth until they

pay the tribute (Jizyah) readily, being brought low. ``

[Surah at Tauba (9): verse 29]

It has been proved that the Prophet ordered to take Jizyah from the

Magians. Moreover, it has been reported that during the life?time of the

Prophet, Jizyah was realised at the rate of one dinar from every adult, free

or slave, male or female. Umar levied it on the dhimmis at the rate of four

dinars on every rich man, or forty dirhams, and did impose nothing on the

women and the slaves; and he levied on those who were not rich at the rate

of two dinars or twenty dirhams per head, and on those who were still less

wealthy at the rate of one dinar or ten dirhams in case they belonged to

`the people of silver` (ahl al?Waraq). To this rate he added bushels of

olive oil and entertainment (hospitality) of Muslims for three days.

Imam Malik and his followers, therefore, followed the practice of Umar and

interpret that his practice is not against the practice of the Prophet. Umar

deviated from the early practice as mentioned earlier only on account of the

wealth of these persons. So he levied on every individual according to his

capacity. Undoubtedly this was the interpretation of Umar. Malik and his

followers hold that nothing is to be increased upon what is prescribed by

Umar and I think they may be excused of entertainment that sometimes prove

too much for them.

Ibn Idris opines that no dinar is to be added to one dinar. Another group of

scholars holds that it is up to the Imam: If he thinks it proper to enhance

it on account of their abundant wealth, he can enhance it as Umar enhanced.

It has been reported that Banu Taghlib, who were Christians, disliked paying

Jizyah. Before it was levied on them, they offered to pay one fifth of their

harvest as well as that of the produce of the land, and accordingly an

agreement was concluded with them. Some of our authorities however refuse to

accept this from them comparing the case with that of Zakah because Zakah is

realised only from the Muslims to purify them, and Jizyah is realised from

the disbelievers to protect/subdue them.

This has been taken in the sense of a peace?treaty not in the sense of

Zakah. Had they been aware of the tradition mentioned above, would not have

surely opposed it, since, to conclude a peace?treaty on this term is

permissible.

[Ref: Kitab al Amwal, al-Daudi (402 AH/ 1011 AD)]

Notes:

1. Jizyah: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which

became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not

accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and

were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the

Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in

acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn

not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi`i

suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the

Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the

poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and

for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it

was in a sense a commutation for military service.

2. An-Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The

Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military

service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous,

its symbolic character predominated.

3. Throughout history the Jizyah would apply to non-Muslims living under

Muslim rule; referred to as `dhimmis`. This income could NOT be spent on the

Muslims, rather it was spend on the non-Muslims e.g. building

infrastructure, developing education etc. At the same time, any tax which a

Muslim paid to the treasury, part of this would also be allocated to the non

Muslims.

4. Zakah: this is the `duty` which a Muslim must pay on his property /

income. The reservation above of not wishing to accept produce as Jizyah is

based on the similarity it bears to Zakah, and I suspect the scholars wished

to distinguish between Zakah and Jizyah.

5. A Dinar is a gold coin, a Dirham is a silver coin

DOWN GIRL FLEEING BANGLA BACKLASH



FROM PROBIR PRAMANIK



Siliguri, Nov. 10:

The policy muddle on telling between “infiltrators” and “refugees” lay stained in blood today as a 12-year-old girl fleeing persecutors in Bangladesh fell to BSF bullets after crossing over to India.

Daya Rani Khatri was killed and her 15-year-old brother, Shanto, injured when BSF soldiers, unable to ascertain whether they are intruders or refugees, opened fire.

A steady stream of Bangladeshis has been escaping to Bengal since a change of government in Dhaka triggered a violent backlash on minorities. However, in the absence of clear-cut government guidelines, officials in India have been unable to define a “refugee” and an “infiltrator”, a sensitive issue in power politics.

Chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who is leaving for Delhi next week to attend an inter-state council meeting convened by the Prime Minister, is expected to raise the influx issue with the Centre .

The state government has sought a report from the district magistrate on the BSF firing.

The five-member Khatri family and two other families from Khanoga village in Thakurgaon had decided to sneak into Bengal under the cover of darkness on Friday.

The group of about 15 people crossed the porous border at Bashalgram under Haripur police station of Bangladesh and entered Baharbindol in Uttar Dinajpur on the Indian side without much trouble.

However, almost 200 metres inside Indian territory, the group was challenged by a BSF night patrol. “It was pitch-dark when we crossed over to the Indian side and some people opened fire. All I remember is being hit in the stomach and losing consciousness. I don’t know what happened to my father and elder brother, or where my mother is,” Shanto said.

The teenager, who was hit in the stomach, is now recuperating in the general ward of the Raigunj Sadar Hospital where the BSF rushed him last night. His father, Subash Khatri, and elder brother Satya, 18, are reported missing. The whereabouts of their mother Savitri is not known.

“Some people in this hospital told me that my sister, Daya, has been killed in the firing,” said Shanto between sobs.

The commandant of the 97th battalion posted at the Haripur-Bashalgram border, Raj Singh, said the border patrol had challenged the group well within Indian territory and asked it to halt before opening fire.

“The patrol warned the group to stop, but they did not heed. The jawans then opened fire. While a minor girl was killed, another boy was injured. We rushed him to the hospital with bullet injuries. The other members of the group managed to escape,” Singh said.

Singh did not clarify whether the fleeing Bangladeshis were “intruders or refugees”. “Anyone found entering Indian territory without valid documents is treated as an intruder by us,” he said.

Balcony collapse kills 4

Four persons, including a child, died after the balcony of a temple on Strand Road, near Howrah Bridge, collapsed tonight. The victims were sleeping on the pavement under the balcony, which collapsed after a truck rammed into the pillars of the 125-year-old temple.

re. Asif N. #465

````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.``

Get one thing straight -- it is NOT a science! It is a philosophy, since even its basic premisses have not axiomatic acceptance (the reason, in fact, some of your scholars like Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali were able to be declared heretics by vested interests -- i.e, they questioned some of the basic premisses).

There is no limit to the amount of BS that otherwise intelligent men can put out in the name of `philosophy` (usually in an attempt to lend intellectual credibility to biases they have imbibed on the laps of their mothers). The history of Western philosophy and theology is a testament to this fact if nothing else. (Just ask Farangi Kush or hamzad afaqui :) )

There is little reason why anyone should suppose the Islamic scholars, erudite as they might have been, to be any different in ultimate persuation!

rgds,

PM

Sigalph, sorry for hounding you. But, you are the only Bangladeshi gracing these boards.

Regarding calling you a majority I am convinced that you are of Muslim faith.

Sigalph, 15,000 people is more than enough to call it an exodus.

Every such incident is politically motivated. Even the partition was such an incident. So, let`s not dismiss this as something only politicians indulge in.

Every riot, every massacre is initiated by politicians who exploit the underlying currents of mistrust and hate (riots against sikhs in Delhi is one such case).

Bangladesh seems to have plenty of that at the moment.

Call it a trivial issue has what led to a decrease of minority population from 24% to the current 10%.

hoo0N tannae mail karsoo chhokrii..ayaaN badhee hell has broken loose and DO NOT TOUCH my pringles

likhsoo,

anNy

FartsAnna said [If we want to read blasphemous books, who is to stop us?]

Don`t tell me you have already forgotten who is to stop you.

Ayatollah the Asahollah, for one.

Rajiv Gandhi, who was so afraid that the Indian Muslims will take to the streets and riot and burn public property, and so banned `The Satanic Verses` in India.

Does any good doctor on Chowk (hey, Shrinker, this does NOT include you, Asahollah) know of any cure for selective amnesia?

We already know the CAUSES of selective amnesia.

It is all documented in articles such as `Let us destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas` and `Let us destroy the WTC Towers`.

Or, we can all read the interacts which express condemnation of such acts but with caveats such as `The Palestinians...`. `The Kashmiris.....`, `The Bosnians.....`.

Why not just come out and say, `The Muslims will do this because they are enjoined by their mullahs to do so and their mullahs quote the Quran in support and none of us ``moderate`` Muslims have the balls to tell the mullahs to shut up.`

You all want to be moderate when you want your green card so you can be a doctor in New Jersey, an engineer in Silicon Valley, or a stock broker on Wall Street and earn the big bucks and marry a girl young enough to be your daughter once you get tired of your wives.

If your mullahs preach hatred for the kaffirs and you don`t agree with it, why do you go to the mosque? Even better, why do you send your kids to the mosque?

So that, like that Pakistani from Long Island who has gone off to fight the Great Satan in Afghanistan side by side with Mullah Omar though his mother was rescued from the rubble of the WTC towers by infidels, you too can derive joy by creating one more automaton for Allah?

Pathetic!

Ref Fatuous-Ass #: 556

[If you need Islam ,take it or leave it.THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION.]

Yes, there IS compulsion in Islam.

The punishment for apostasy is DEATH.

Only in Islam.

Not in Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or any other religion.

But once you have recited the Kalima and become a Muslim, you and your descendants are condemned to be Muslims for ever and ever.

The only escape is to the liberal West where nobody bothers you and you can get a restraining order against the local Imam if he insists on visiting you to tell you that you should attend Friday prayers.

Don`t believe me? Try going to Friday prayers at a major mosque in Karachi and declaring that you are no longer a Muslim.

(http://salon.com/news/feature/2001/11/10/musharraf/index.html

a little on the gushy side but an interesting read, nevertheless

My crush on Musharraf

With his dogs, drinking, frameless glasses and Armani suits, he`s reviled by extremists

By Asra Q. Nomani

Nov. 10, 2001 | KARACHI, Pakistan -- Uzma Asim, 35, is a modern Muslim woman, a vice president of operations of Anmar Associates, a garment exporter. Her office is replete with glass tables, leather sofas, just ordered-in Kentucky Fried Chicken and a quiet room for women to pray, with rugs folded neatly on the floor. She sweeps before me, a burst of energy in a modest white cotton shalwar kameeze with black block print.

A mane of curly, raven black hair descends upon her shoulders, a thin line of kajal flutters upon her upper eyelid and her eyes sparkle when she talks about her president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Asim is an international globetrotter, touching down in London, Paris, Frankfurt and Dubai in her travels. Fine works by Pakistani artists hang on the walls and a Louis Vuitton bag sits open at her side as she taps at her keyboard. And who stares back at us from her screensaver? Musharraf.

She salutes him, flicking her hand against her forehead. Then she stands and opens a long closet door that conceals locker-like shelving. Musharraf is looking over his left shoulder, wearing a purple tie, white shirt and gray suit that falls well-sculptured on his shoulders. Asim has glued this photo of the general onto the inside of the door.

``Look at him,`` Asim says, punching her fist in the air. ``Confident. Certain. Determined.`` Her raves continue: ``He`s a magnetic person.``

``I love him,`` she gushes. Asim doesn`t want there to be any confusion. ``I`m happily married,`` she says. But as the rest of the world sees many of the furious turban-wearing fundamentalists burning Musharraf in effigy in the streets (they will likely be out in full force now with Musharraf out of the country, preparing to meet with President Bush and address the United Nations in New York) another part of the population feels quite differently.

There are no Gallup polls measuring public opinion here -- approval is best measured by silence in the streets, which for Pakistan has largely been the case, even since U.S.-led forces began bombing Afghanistan a month ago. And for modern Muslims here who eagerly seek to embrace a global culture, Musharraf incongruously manages to be a military dictator and yet also a symbol of modernity. He breaks taboos with his pet dogs and consumption of alcohol -- not to mention his penchant for Armani suits and golf.

Now, with his measured support of U.S. strikes on the neighboring Taliban -- a government he had supported up until Sept. 11 -- he has made a dramatic pro-West shift in his polices, most notably ditching hard-line elements from the country`s powerful intelligence agency. And his most avid followers are modern Muslims.

OK and fine, I`ll be honest. I was relieved to find Asim, because I, too, have developed a thing for Musharraf. When we realize our shared interest, we squeeze each other`s hands like soul sisters. I knew I couldn`t be the only one who watched him on television, playing host as a parade of world leaders took turns across from him while he sank into a nicely upholstered sofa, like a new Homecoming King. He is Muslim and a man of the world. At a time when the world sees images of crazed Muslims who not only want segregation from, but to decree violence on, nonbelievers, Musharraf is reassuring, inclusive and strong.

The photo that Asim has in her closet was shot from an unusual tour he took in July to India and the city of the Taj Mahal, where he and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee politically arm-wrestled over the disputed territory of Kashmir. It was on that tour that Musharraf won a special place in many a heart. He proved to be aggressive politically, personally sentimental and thoroughly hypnotizing. He ditched his usual military uniform to wear a cherwani, the trousers matched with a long coat and high collar that many have associated with the jacket popularized by Jawaharlal Nehru.

At the time, he made a side trip to visit his ancestral haveli (``big house``) in the Old Delhi neighborhood of Daryaganj where he was born. Early in his childhood, his family left it behind and called Pakistan their new home after India won independence from the British in 1947 and its north was sliced out to create a nation for Muslims. During the trip, he reached out to the people, Clinton-like, and hugged a very elderly woman servant who said she remembered him as a child. He showed none of the restraint of the most conservative of Muslim men, who try to avoid touching a woman unrelated to them, no matter what the age. ``He was so sympathetic to the old lady,`` remembers Asim fondly.

The love that dare not bark its name

Then, when he faced off with India`s journalists, they wanted to ask him questions about anything other than Kashmir, so they could at least get to know the man on friendlier terms. He responded that they could, but it wouldn`t make much of a friendship. He proceeded to answer each journalist`s questions so precisely, viewers back home were impressed. A critic in an Indian newspaper complained that India`s tough journalists had turned into ``salivating puppies and purring kittens.`` (Musharraf manages to turn up on TV quite frequently. When he does, Asim says, her husband calls her over with an eager shout: ``Your boyfriend is on TV!``)

Musharraf made an impression on me in an interview last spring when he admitted that he had trouble with an expanding waistline since taking office (just like Clinton), a sweet tooth (ditto) and with security detail -- because he appreciates spontaneity. He said: ``I think my natural self is the best. I just behave normally, what I like, I like. Whatever I don`t like, I don`t like.``



He said he didn`t really like pop bands (``I find them very stupid and silly``), but admitted liking Sufi music and ghazals, poetic Muslim songs (like the ones my mother used to hum at the kitchen sink when I was growing up) and a band called Junoon. What? I first saw Junoon, a Pakistani rock band inspired by Sufism, in a Central Park concert a few years back when very cute and hip teenage Pakistani-American boys from New Jersey moshed in Tommy Hilfiger shirts to the band`s Urdu chants of ``Allahu, Allahu, Allahu`` -- belief in only one Allah.

And when Musharraf made his tour through India, I had just returned from visiting India and staying in my ancestral haveli, a sweeping white palace of a home called Latif Manzil in the village of Jaigahan in Jaunpur District in Uttar Pradesh. To be in your ancestral home is to feel the pulse of ancestors who seem very much alive, if only in the clouds that pass overhead from the courtyards. Maybe it seems, in the West, typical, perhaps calculated, for him to travel to his ancestral haveli during his short diplomatic mission. But to me and others at the time, it seemed to speak wonders about his soul.

He is a Rudy Guliani figure whose fans fear will leave office at some point (no problem there -- as a military dictator, he could be dislodged only by a junta, although he has promised an election that many of his fans wish wouldn`t happen). While he hasn`t quite reached the sex symbol status of the shaggy-haired prime minister of Japan, he has become a bit of a fashion icon. A retired senior army officer recalled running into him at the Islamabad Marriott before the war and admiring his Armani suit. (Though it`s not so rare here, or even imported from Italy; Armani suits that get stitched here for export, like Bally shoes, are very inexpensive.) And, like some Western pols, he`s followed by rumors in higher society circles linking him with starlets and other ladies.

Musharraf is known among the younger set as a gentle uncle figure, tapping his daughter`s friends with a gentle touch on the shoulder. Years ago, Musharraf, his wife and two children used to visit his very progressive mother, who lived in the upper-middle-class neighborhood of F-7/1 in Islamabad, and was known to neighborhood children as mother dado, (a play off dadi, grandmother), who played traditional Indian subcontinent music with harmoniums and tabla instruments while Musharraf`s daughter bicycled around the neighborhood free as a kite. By listening to music, and caring for a pet dog inside her house, she openly violated taboos on two things that the strictest of Muslims abhor: music and dogs.

The dog issue, in fact, seems to hound Musharraf. In India, a columnist refers to Musharraf as ``a dog-loving nattily uniformed general.`` Musharraf boldly posed holding his two dogs for his photo-op after taking over the country. Go figure. The man knew that many Muslims go running when a dog starts approaching them, even with its tail wagging, especially with its slobbery pink tongue hanging out of its mouth. We have to do something called wuzu, a ritual washing, before doing namaz. We`re taught that touching a dog makes you dirty for namaz, so that you shouldn`t keep a dog in the house. Others interpret what is said in the Quran more liberally, though.

Daring to go where few -- including Bhutto -- have gone before

I had Pluto, the Majumdars` Pekinese, to initiate me; when I was 11, the Majumdars, who practiced Hinduism, gave me something like $5 a week to walk him in Morgantown, W.V., when they were on vacation. My mother was trained early as a Muslim girl to distrust dogs (she claims because they were wild in India). She refused to get near Pluto, backing away from the reach of his chain when he would scamper toward us when he visited for dinners with Majumdar Aunty and Majumdar Uncle. Then there was Nikita, a beautiful Samoyed with soft white fur that moved in across the street, leaping whenever he could on Denise Pickle and me, both of us thrilled by his eager soft self. But my Athar Chacha, my father`s brother, here in Karachi goes running even when a little dachshund approaches him. Among Muslims here, that`s quite common.

Not surprisingly, Musharraf`s dog antics don`t play well with many people. But they do play well with moderate Pakistanis. One liberal woman repeated with glee seeing Musharraf allowing one of his furry companions seats at the breakfast table. They`re tired of the hypocrisy in a nation where people hide behind a veil of piety. They see it with the mullahs, who are often uneducated religious leaders who rally those in the lower class to despise modernity.

To understand how Musharraf fits into Pakistan is to understand the disenfranchisement of middle-class families from mullahs and political leaders. Many Pakistanis have gotten only false promises from political leaders who somehow manage to build their wealth and bank accounts.

This is the history as they tell it: Musharraf joined the Pakistan Military Academy in 1961 and was commissioned in an elite artillery regiment in 1964 while Ayub Khan was in power. The Pakistani armed forces were modeled after the British military, and Pakistani military culture had with the same values of dancing, drinking and dating found in its Western counterpart.

In 1965, Pakistan went to war with India. That war marked a turning point; the military became more conservative as more religious generals came into power. But Musharraf was part of the more liberal earlier graduating class. The very liberal Zulfiqar Bhutto came to power after Pakistan fought another war with India in 1971. Pakistanis remember his proud declaration that he drank alcohol at a public meeting as the natural end to an exhausting day. Society turned more conservative with the 1977 coup d`état of General Muhammad Zia-ul Haq, who presented himself as a religious man, shutting down nightclubs and raiding parties where alcohol flowed.

With Zia`s death in a mysterious plane crash, the liberal Benazir Bhutto came to power after elections in 1989, loosely drawing a dupatta over her head to appease conservative Muslims though it wasn`t the liberal image of her days studying in the West. To this day, I remember a friend of mine, an aide in the U.S. Congress, shocked at how U.S. congressmen and senators fell over themselves in front of the seductive image of this woman with a dupatta. But she left many in the middle class of Pakistan disenfranchised after growing evidence of corruption drove her from office. She was eventually followed by Nawaz Sharif, another leader hounded out of office amid findings of corruption, this time in the coup that blasted Musharraf to power.

In this highly polarized country where immigrants from India have formed a political party to demand more immigrant (mohajir) rights, it`s a coup of sorts for this group that Musharraf, himself a mohajir, has risen to power. Even Musharraf`s wife, Sehba, is nothing like a mullah`s wife. Unlike Bhutto, she doesn`t feel the need to drape a dupatta over her head, wearing it over her shoulders instead in elegant outfits. She is considered loyal and devoted -- and the woman behind this man`s success. Even bolder, he`s known to prefer Johnny Walker Black Label scotch.

By all accounts, the Musharrafs lived a modest life, not filled with fancy upholstered sofas. At one time, according to a family friend, their furniture included a simple padded low wooden platform with a red fabric over it and big pillows upon which to rest. Their furniture often had ``MES`` printed on the back, standing for government-issued stock from the Military Engineering Services. His eldest daughter, Ayla, pursued an unconventional field in Pakistan for women -- architecture -- going to National College of Art in Lahore. There, she was courted by a man she eventually wed in a ``love`` marriage, as opposed to an arranged one, also not the norm in this culture. Even more surprising: The Musharrafs are Sunnis, and their daughter married a Shiite. By accepting the marriage, they also transcended many of the hangups of families who don`t allow their children to marry out of their specific group.

Another ``protest,`` another Musharraf victory

Friday`s much-hyped ``strike,`` organized by religious extremists against Musharraf`s alliance with America, was all about those who take issue with Musharraf`s modern lifestyle. I hopped behind my cousin Ali on his beat-up Honda CD-70 and sped off to the protests. This is what I noted: A young man tossed a ball menacingly in his hand as he crossed the street before us. Would he throw it at us? Not quite. No, he was crossing the street to get to the park where hundreds of young men and boys already had converged. My cousin brother Ali explained: ``Today is a nice day. No school. No work.`` It was a national holiday, the first in years, for Pakistan`s great poet Allama Iqbal.

Flatbed trucks passed us with flags unfurled. A truck full of police followed quickly behind. A juice walla stood at the roadside spinning sugar-cane juice. The windows of a Subway sandwich shop on I.I. Chandigar Street were covered with black fabric, a trick businesses use to somehow disguise their windows from rocks flung by mobs. As if they wouldn`t just aim at the sheets instead. We glided through the empty streets at Fresco Chowk Roundabout, known for the famous Fresco food store a few stores down from the corner. A boy was picking his nose.

Ali surveys the crowd. He knows what most Pakistanis know. The crowd is mostly filled with Afghan refugees, Pathans (the Pashto speakers, many of them with relatives across the border in Afghanistan) and boys driven in from the madrasas of the religious right that supports the Taliban. The voice over the loudspeaker trashes Musharraf, and welcomes a leader from one of the madrasas outside Karachi.

I`m the only woman there. I chose to keep my dupatta off my head today so I draw plenty of stares, though I spread it modestly over my tunic-like kurta. There is Taj Mohammad, a white-haired elderly man. He`s carrying a big plastic bag filled with smaller plastic bags of salty snacks, and reminds me of the peanut vendor at a Yankees game. A young man with bleary eyes comes toward us as we take pictures and tries to act menacing, saying someone is following us. Whatever. Ultimately, it`s a less than menacing turnout, even though images on TV will look frightening.

When I come back to my hotel I see Musharraf on TV, and admire his stylish frameless glasses, such a departure from the OSHA-approved-style safety glasses more common with men his age. I wonder what he should do with his hair. And I know that in a living room in the other side of Karachi, a husband is saying to his wife, ``Your boyfriend is on TV.``

Shima,is this the incident in Bangladesh you were talking about .

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?sid=1&fname=Bangla+Refugees+%28F%29&fodname=20011119&secname=International





BANGLADESHI REFUGEES

The Damned And The Forgotten

With attention focused on the war westwards, there`s none to heed the plight of Hindus fleeing the excesses of BNP rule

[]

ASHIS K. BISWAS



Hounded out of his property by an armed mob in Bangladesh on October 8 and facing imminent arrest as an illegal alien in West Bengal, Bidhubhusan Das (45) is not even a statistical entity today. Cowering in a dark hideout somewhere in Habra in North 24 Parganas, Das and his faceless associates are a shattered lot. ``Only days ago, I owned a merchandise store in the Bhola area of Barisal district, employing 15 men. This morning, I am cutting grass here as a daily wage labourer! Even my shirt is borrowed; I`ve been feeding off the locals. I just about managed to escape hiding in the fields during the day, walking endlessly during the night with the other escapees.``

[]

[] []

It began with provocative slogans; the floodgates opened soon after a BNP win looked certain.

[] []

[]

[]

Bidhu`s account is typical of the horror tales told to the local media by most of the estimated 15,000 people who have fled here illegally from Bangladesh in the last one month. Their experience is indicative of the kind of existence the





minority Hindus can expect in a BNP-ruled Bangladesh. Ever since Khaleda Zia came to power in October, the minority communities, particularly Hindus, have had to face the wrath of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaati activists who have gone on a rampage against them. Fearing for their lives, Hindus are fleeing Bangladesh in the thousands.

It was all planned prior to the October 1 polls. Consider the BNP/Jamaat election slogan critical of `Hindu-friendly` Sheikh Hasina: Hare Krishna hare Ram, Hasinar baper naam; Hindu jodi bachte chao, Bangla chere Bharat jao (Hasina`s father is Hare Krishna, Hare Ram, if you want to survive, Hindus leave Bangladesh and go to India). The supposedly neutral caretaker regime did not take the slightest notice of the deteriorating communal situation and rising tension despite repeated complaints. Recalls refugee Rubel Das: ``We used to cower every time a procession went past our houses, shouting these slogans, with the hotheads rattling our doors or shattering our window panes.``

Das recalls his experience on voting day. ``I was initially scared to vote but curiosity prevailed and I went to the booth. I saw local policemen driving out bunches of Hindu women in the queue, twice at least, so they could not vote. On the other hand, a batch of burqa-clad ladies cast their vote several times, voting and rejoining the queue at the head, no ink being applied to their fingers. It was a mockery of elections, the crudest form of rigging.``

The floodgates opened the next day onwards, as a BNP win looked certain. Communal violence erupted with reports coming in from at least 40 out of 64 districts. The police, alleges refugee Sunil De, turned a blind eye. The newly-elected BNP and Jamaat MPs began issuing diktats. In Barisal, two BNP MPs announced that no sale of property or bank transaction would be conducted sans their approval. ``The Hindus have no right here,`` declared a Bhola MP, urging the police not to be too harsh with ``young boys having a bit of fun``!

Swapan Das, member of the Bangladesh Udbastu Unnayan Sangstha (BUUS), the only group that looks after the refugees, points to Shefali Das, 40: ``She is a rape victim.`` The woman who crossed over with two girls (aged 10 and 8) and a boy (6), stares vacantly and answers questions vaguely. Yes, she`d seen some women raped, often by their neighbours. ``Even in normal times, Muslims, even young kids, openly abuse and taunt us.`` Their house, in Padmamansa village in Barisal, was attacked on October 3.

Das and Bimal Majumdar, another BUUS office-bearer, refugees themselves, are expectedly angry over official apathy for the new refugees``.



contd.i lost the link due to crash plz try the url there is page 2

re: Godot # 550

Godot, I am unaware of your religious affiliation but we hold identical views on this matter. Islam`s simplicity is its great strength. That simplicity, and the very sound principle of human equality is what set the religion apart when it appeared in Arabia. Yet by surrendering their God-given right to think for themselves according to the need of the times, people have turned this Islamic simplicity into its great weakness. What could be a potent source of human liberation has been turned into justification for widespread conformity, inbuilt hostility to progress, and blind suspicion toward everything supposedly ``nonIslamic.`` Were Muhammad alive today, he would be hard put to recognize his religion.

P.S. You are right about the nature of Eastern philosophies - some of these can be very taxing for even intellectually gifted people.

re audio vidoe 541

``Arafat is the biggest snake of all. Nobel prize - nonsense.``

Right on! One of Clinton`s nastiest legacies is that he conferred respectability on two of the most notorious terrorists of our times: Yasir Arafat and Gerry Adams.

Neptune bandor janna,tor ma kookur deya poida ,

Ref veeresh #: 545

[Great injustice is being done to the Hindus and Muslims of Gondwanaland who were stuck on the South Pacific Islands after the two poles reversed polarities.]

I think all right-thinking persons should put their weight behind the movement to re-unite Gondwanaland.

veeresh,

#545

Yow! that statement came right out the left field for me & whoooooosh ---went right over my head!!!:)

I sense that there was some profound analogy you were making; but unfortunely I did`nt get it:)

I was wondering if you could be kind enough to take the trouble to rexplain it to someone who is..er, intellectually challenged--like me?:)

re maheshG

``Sigalph Bhai, why are you calling me a Hindu extremist when I merely brought your attention to the exodus of Hindus that is being prompted by selected assaults on Hindus by Muslim radicals in Bangladesh.``

I do not recall using the term`Hindu extremist` to describe you. If, in error I have, I do apologize. Generally I am not into that kind of language.

My objection is to using the word `exodus` and thus sensationalizing a delicate matter whic is still under investigation by authorities on both sides of the Radcliffe line. None of that means that it is a trivial issue or that some migration has not taken place. But placing responsibility for these acts is not as cut-and-dry as you and some others have suggested in a knee-jerk fashion. There have been allegations of Awami League leaders(including Hindus) turning on those Hindus who voted for the BNP and deserted `their` party. Late last month police in southern Satkhira district arrested a man caught setting fire to Hindu homes. Turns out he was the upazilla(sub-district) Awami secretary.The whole point of this missive is that firstly we are hearing a lot of exaggeration and secondly that the actual miscreants may not be the one at whom the first fingers are pointed. Let the investigation proceed with calm and cool heads and then judge the guilty.

``You are a majority in your country and are in no way affected.``

Don`t assume so blindly based on nothing more than pre-set conjectures. I will not go into details but I doubt you`ll find any of my posts on CHOWK declaring my religious beliefs(if that`s what you meant by majority/minority)

Parag Vohra: Per Sadna`s post below, are you Stuka?? If so, good hunting with your strafing of extremism and hate in any shape or form...

Sigalph Bhai, why are you calling me a Hindu extremist when I merely brought your attention to the exodus of Hindus that is being prompted by selected assaults on Hindus by Muslim radicals in Bangladesh.

You quote staines etc to show bigotry in India. No bigotry in India has caused mass exodus of minorities from India to either Bangladesh or Pakistan.

Why is that the movement of minorities is always a one-way traffic into India?

As I had pointed out to you earlier. In 1971 Bangladesh has 24% Hindus. Now they number merely 10% of the whole population. What would cause such a mass exodus? Don`t just dismiss this as an exxageration. It is easy for you to dismiss such reports. You are a majority in your country and are in no way affected.

Re: Asif Naqsgbandi, #465

``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.``

That`s an escape! Religion is not exactly quantum mechanics that you need a physicist to explain the sub-atomic world to a layman.

It is probably only Zen Buddhism (and to a certain extent the Hindu philosophy at its core) that requires a master to explain it to common people. That is because Eastern Way of Thinking is highly esoteric and thus beyond the comprehension of most laymen. Only the initiated ones can understand it, and there are not too many of them around. Keep in mind that Eastern philosophies are philosophies and not religions.

As for the monotheistic religions, ie, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they are simple religions. Islam in particular is quite simplistic and requires no expert for it to be explained. It is Islam`s simplicity that has attracted so many people to it.

You have not answered any of the questions I asked you in my posts. You keep falling back on the ``tradition`` of what others have said. To a rational and thinking mind, what others have said in matters of religion is not acceptable. To blindly accept and acquiesce to statements others have made is not a sign of progress.

Just like its sister religions, Judaism and Christianity, when it comes to Islam one has to do his own thinking, expert or not. To me that is the core of the problem with orthodox and fundamentalist Islam: they cannot--or do not want to--think.

Re: Romair

``...In essence, in Islam, the state and the church do not need to be separated. But the church has absolutely no right to take control of the state...``

In your otherwise well-thought article, the above is the weakest passage. The first sentence may contradict the second. To avoid any ambiguity whatsoever, the Western world decided to completely separate the church and the state. They faced the same issues that you are grappling with (after all monoatheisitc Islam and Christianity do have a lot in common). Let each focus entirely on its own domain, and each reach higher levels of development without interference from the other. Politics should be about the public domain, religion should be about the private domain.

re shima

``? West Bengal is run by despotic regime. ``

If one doesn`t agree with your perception of things it is despotic. But the Bangladesh media, who you claim to quote, is quite accurate apparently. Do you realize how silly you sound?

I am ashamed of every instance of any discrimination in Bangladesh. Whether the media champions it or not and whether the Communists in Calcutta pay heed or not is irrelevant to me. I think the new govt can do far more to fix the perception rapidly with heavy handed measures to punish the scattered miscreants. But the new govt`s job isn`t made easier by the Opposition which wants to reverse its polls defeat by playing the cheap communal card at home and abroad.

Stop being paternalistic about Bangladeshi Hindus or Bangladeshi Muslims or what not. And take the canard of `slaughter` to some place where it is a reality, ie Kashmir.

re tahmed

``I think you can do better than that. Do you really feel greater kinship to a Bengali wife beater (to take an example) than to a normal man (who would never hurt a woman) be he Rajput or a bedouin or whoever?``

I think both of us realize that you are going way out of context here. The initial question was one of Bengalis vis-a-vis their religion. Your comment, as pointed as it is, would have been better suited to a gender-related discussion.

Great injustice is being done to the Hindus and Muslims of Gondwanaland who were stuck on the South Pacific Islands after the two poles reversed polarities.

Is anybody bothered about them?

Or is it just the goats on Diego Garcia?

Eklavya, PM etc Ill get back to u guyz in a few days....

Just wanted to build on something else...

The Fundamental FLAW within ISLAM:

Very simple: MOST Muslims are more connected with BOOKS and MEN than GOD. Most dont have a personal relationship with God, and I dont mean that in the most abstract sense. See, if you are among those who SENSE that a higher reality exists, you rely moreso upon the RIGHT brain, and deal with things such as inuition, Vibrations, feeling, and hopefully, u balance these ideas with left brain logic, and COMMON SENSE...

This flaw stems from the beginning of Islam, and is found within MOST religions (thus its an attribute of the human condition, in my opinion).

The people muhammed was trying to elevate were not highly spiritual, so he had to spend a lot of time TEACHING and GUIDING them, showing HOW things are to be done, basically laying down RULES for them.

Muslims then had a basic groundwork from which to learn about God. But they didn`t. They learned about HOW to worship God, how to PLEASE God and how to FEAR God.... not about HER (love compassion-the very Essence of the One.

The STREAM (ISLAM) became more important than what it leads to: the OCEAN (ALLAH).

After Muhammed`s death, they said, `we can turn to Islam for guidance` not to look WITHIN. They constructed rules based on the SPIRITUALITY of ONE MAN (I believe that there are many ways to the top of a mountain, yet the view form the top is the same.... Muhammed`s way was HIS way, we all can use examples from him, but its on US to find our own way. The things he went through, the lessons he learned may not apply to everyone else.

SO anyways, they took his rules and made a religion out of them, to the point where IMO Islam has largely become a FOOLS` religion (or one for people on lower spiritual levels-maybe I should stick with the latter idea...)

NOW, we have BRAIN DEAD ROBOTS saying...

-You cant sh1t w/your right hand...

-Must wake up on your right side...

-Must say this verse when doing this and this....

Islam has become HIGHLY STRUCTURED or... LEFT BRAIN DOMINANT.

Muslims now cannot come up with this absurdity that killing is wrong. They must form this opinion on the basis of books and ``scholars`` (In quotes cuz anyone who`s ever been to a mosque knows there`s no such thing as a Muslim scholar...)

They say that if all the Qurans were burnt, our Hafiz` would rewrite them based on their memory alone!

God help us if something happened to our Hafiz.`

We would have to start thinking...

PS: I emphasize that this flaw is not limited to Islam. Hinduism always knew about it and tried to address it, yet look how highly structured it has now become...

sigalph,

{{{re Asif:

But since you believe that nonsense, why are you in England? The same shariat demands that you migrate to a country ruled by the `righteous`.}}}

Thank you! thank you!! thank you!!!

I`ve been asking this question REPEATEDLY to Asif (& previously to that character Farangi Kush). For these two, in particular, (& Urstruly to a great extent), to actually live in the west (even temporarily) should be an anenthema.

They have a right to their views (no matter how supercilious I find them) ; but it baffles the heck out of me why all 3 of them CHOOSE to live in the West?!! I mean, has someone in the West put a gun to their heads & force them to live there?!

Maybe I`m paranoid, folks. But their stony silence about this question makes me wonder if they actually have Al-Qeeda connections!:)

Jeeze! I`m sounding like Sen.McCarthy now!:)

Hamzed

``What I am trying to understand here the inherent/learnt concept of evil in itself.``

Although I disagree with almost all your ideas, I too have an interest in understanding the nature of evil (or for that matter, the nature of good). I will watch with interest as your ideas develop.

Regards.

Truth # 522

Dost-Mittar and others have answered some of the issues you raised. I will merely add a brief comment.

The laws of morality work at different conceptual levels. There is a morality fit for the children: thou shalt always tell the truth. Later, we may realize that if some would-be murderers were pursuing a helpless person hiding in a cave, it may not be moral to guide them to their trembling quarry if you know the person is innocent. At the level of groups and nations, morality becomes an even more ambiguous concept because our actions affect not only our own lives but also the welfare and lives of millions of others.

Regards.

EK

sigalph,

Passion is the fire within us that keeps us going. Sometimes we are sad, sometimes we are mad; if we didn`t give in to our passions once in a while, we wouldn`t be human, and we would be very very boring creatures.

So three cheers for passions; three cheers for common sense; and three cheers for the ability and willingness of all to live together.

P.S. And three cheers for RSaxena who is now going to accuse me again of ``holding hands and ....`` :)

sigalph #534 ``A Hindu, Christian, or Muslim Bengali is far more a kinsman than some bedouin from Saudi Arabia or some Rajput from the Thar.``

I think you can do better than that. Do you really feel greater kinship to a Bengali wife beater (to take an example) than to a normal man (who would never hurt a woman) be he Rajput or a bedouin or whoever?

Dear Eklavya, Dost-Mittarji and others,

I also have mentioned if you have noticed that India should not be directly involved. But who will stop the slaughter? International media is busy with Afgan war. Surprisingly, most news is coming from Bangladesh media itself. As of day before yesterday, a priest in port-town Chittagong was shot dead and the temple along with about 50 houses were burnt down.

Don`t forget that the root of partition was sowed in East Bengal as Fatimah duly pointed out. While many of the Muslims in West Pakistan may have ancestorial connection with Arabs/Turks, almost all of East Pakistan Muslims are converted Hindus. Some were converted because of the unjust cast policies of Hindus. These people still possess bitter resentment for the Hindus and never let go a chance of slaughter. That is why riot has been so frequent in this part of the world.

Sigaplh, you know Staines and Bujrang Dal did not create mass exodus of any minority of India. When initially riot broke out in Bangladesh, I mentioned it in a post in Chowk, you snubbed me with your cheap rhetoric and giving the example of Staines. Since then more than a month passed, what BNP has done to restore normalcy? West Bengal is run by despotic regime. What do you expect from them? We also know ``kato Dhane Kato Chaal``. As myself or any other Indian in Chowk can not be held responsible for Staines murder, you are not responsible for the slaughter of Hindus in your country. That does not mean, you snub me or anybody else saying it is an exaggeration. It would have been gentlemanly if you had accepted that this problem should not have been errupted in the first place. And honestly, we count on people like you. I wanted a true depiction of people`s mindframe from a Bangladeshi point of view. I don`t think I wanted to show any hegemony.

Regards.

re eklavya 515

THank you for your calm and encouraging words. Those are words to live by. In my and Shima`s interactions I guess you see the ugly side of an otherwise gentle people- too much passion on occasion. But make no mistake, we are still one people, separated but never divided. I have said this before and will dare repeat it that I`d rather see every trace of organized religion disappear from Bengal than the other way round. A Hindu, Christian, or Muslim Bengali is far more a kinsman than some bedouin from Saudi Arabia or some Rajput from the Thar.

re fatimah

``Most of the idiot bangladesh ministers are monkies anyway ```

Ministers in most of South Asia are scum. No need to insult self-respecting apes by such comparison.

``I have never seen a bangladeshy worthy of my intellectual appreciation.Can you name one.``

They are intellectual enough to spell properly and use accurate grammar and syntax. Perhaps you should have stuck to using your Bangla.

``So bangladesh is not islam or typical muslims hatred for non muslims but group of pl. who hate there own mother.``

The inherent bigotry is beneath me to answer. But the last part of the sentence reminds me of the final stanza of Tagore`s `Amar Sonar Bangla`:

``Din furaale sondhya holay, ghore prodip jaalo

Tokhon khlela dhula shokol chhere tomar kolay,

Maago tomar kolay chhutay aashi``

(At the day`s end when evening descends

You light a light at home

Then I leave it all, O Mother,

And run back to your bosom)

re: hamzad afaqui # 527

``actions(deeds)do find their origin in thoughts & beliefs.``

I agree. For example, the willingness to kill another person who does not worship the same way as oneself arises from certain strongly ingrained beliefs. So, some beliefs are certainly more dangerous and in human terms inferior than others. The question is: Which beliefs are the dangerous and inferior ones?

``The ultimate sin(shirk)means that such a person is not a muslim.``

Whoa. I am sorry but I am already most sinful. If you can be less sinful than me without having to be a better human being than me, I must say you have got it all made :)

``Telling a tyrant or a tyrant state that it is not omnipotent and has no control whatsoever over oneself is a firm affirmation of this faith.Expressing gratitude to the point of worship to someone who thinks that one would be a nobody without him(or the state)is also tantamount to assign partners to Allah.For any bounty & blessing one would always express gratefulness & prayers to Allah.To the temporal being or instituition simple thanks are sufficient.To believe that he also is the Provider is simply compromising ones` faith.``

Hamzad, for any of this one does not need any of the beliefs you have cited. If those help you, then fine, but these are not the only ones.

Consider the following concept. The essence of any one of us, any human being is his or her soul or the Atma. This soul is beyond destruction, it bends before none, it is the inextinguishable fire that connects us to the divinity, it makes each one of us part of the larger universe around us. Since the soul, the atma, the divine fire in each one of us is the same, there is no high, no low amongst us. In materialistic terms we are measured by our deeds, but beyond that, in our essence there is no hierarchy.

``And this is an extremely potent & liberating concept.This does translate into deeds accordingly.

La Ilaha(The is none whatsoever)

Il Al Lah(except for Allah)``

That is a wonderful concept IF it is applied correctly. If not, it is a sure prescription for fanaticism, cruelty, and irrationality.

The correct application is to realize that no human being need necessarily bow down to another. This is what you emphasized earlier.

Another application is to take the line to mean that the only way to worship God to call Him Allah. That is the fascist way.

So, amzad, that one concept can lead to many kinds of deeds. It is your responsibility to choose according to the intelligence granted to you by God Almighty.

Regards.

Asif Naqshbandi #503: ``Ofcourse many of the ulama were also eminently qualified judges, diplomats etc and so filled these posts too. that is what the difference between those ulama and todays ulama is and what i was lamenting...``

In a sense we are back to square one. This is the point I was attempting to refute by giving you the examples of Muhammad, and his associates. Very few, if any, of them were ulema, in their professional lives. They were shepherds, businessmen, salesmen etc., who understood religion. How many prominent sahaba can you name who were professional ulema? If God had intended Islamic countries to be ruled by religious ulema, He would have ensured Muhammad was professional aalim.

You need to go to the source to get the answers. Don`t stop at the Imams who came hundreds of years after Muhammad. Go back to the time of Muhammad, to find your answers.

Islam does not dictate that ulema be given the posts of judges, diplomats etc. on the basis of being ulema. Professional ulema only have one domain, and that is the university classroom. The moment they step out of that classroom to enter another profession, their religious knowledge should neither be considered a liability nor an asset.

``But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!``

Once again, I would like to point out that the Shariat itself does not dictate a, ``religious ruler`` for Islamic countries. Please look at the life of Muhammad. He was a, ``ruler who understood religion,`` not a, ``professional religious person who ruled.`` And what exactly is a, ``religious ruler,`` to begin with. The religious ulema of all persuations have never been able to agree within themselves what Islam exactly is, and who is a, ``religious ruler.`` Many ulema hate each other.

So how does one decide who is an aalim and who isn`t? What if half the population of an Islamic country considers someone to be an aalim, and the other half doesn`t? If every Muslim could agree to the same set of uleman, then there wouldn`t so many sects, and sects within sects in Islam. Can you name one aalim, of present day or past days, whom every Muslim on Chowk would unanimously agree was a legitimate aalim that should be followed? Some would like one, the others would like someone else. If ten Muslims on Chowk cannot agree to one, then what are the odds of 140 million Pakistanis agreeing on one, or 1.2 billion Muslims agreeing on one?

Islam is a way of life. This is its beauty. This means it provides abstract high-level guidelines to be applied to everyday lives, i.e. one should live one`s life and use religion as a reference to discuss and solve issues, problems, etc. This whole process does not even require an aalim. One should not attempt to do the opposite, and try to fit everyday life into religious interpretations of ulema. The former makes Islam a religion of logic. The later makes it a religion of rituals.

There is no concept of clergy in positions of power in Islam. That is, if one believes in the Islam of Muhammad`s days, and not the Islam that was put into practice centuries after him. How many of the greatest men and women to accept Islam, after Muhammad, belonged to the clergy of any kind? How many of them changed their professions and became professional ulema, after accepting Islam?

Khadija was a businesswoman. Abu Bakr, Usman, Umar, Ali, Khalid bin Waleed, etc. were all traders, soldiers, beaurecrats, etc. Why weren`t the important positions of Islam, during the prophet`s days given to anyone solely on their qualifications as professional clergy?

Was Khalid Bin Waleed made the commander of the military, because he had the greatest knowledge of the Quran, or because he had the greatest military leadership and planning abilities? Was Abu Bakr made the first Caliph because of he earned his living as the clergy, or because he was the best statesman available? Their must have been Sahaba whose profession was solely reading and writing and learning the Quran (i.e. they had no professional business, military etc. experience). They must have been respected, but why weren`t any of them given positions outside their domains?

It would only be centuries later when, ``Imams`` and scholars would step outside their domain, and attempt to take over positions which had nothing to do with their religious knowledge. They would use their religious status as a stepping stone to positions of power. In essence, they would portray to the Islamic world that they were closer to religion and to God than other Muslims (this in itself, is disallowed in Islam, if you ask me), and thus should be the executives and legislatures of societies with majority Muslim populations. This goes completely against what was the practice during the time of Muhammad.

In Islam, the corps commander should also lead the prayers. The person leading the prayers should not try to become the corps commander. In Islam, the head of the stock exchange, should also give the Friday sermon in the accompanying stock exchange mosque. The person giving the Friday sermon should not claim to be the head of the stock exchange. In Islam, the President of the country should have enough know-how to lead the Eid prayers. The person leading the Eid prayers should not claim, he has enough know-how to become the President.

In essence, in Islam, the state and the church do not need to be separated. But the church has absolutely no right to take control of the state. It only has the right to do religious R&D (ijtehad) for the state (the 99.9999% of the country who do not practice religion as a profession). After that, it is upto the state to do what it wants to with this R&D. If the state decides not to implement it, the people carrying out the religious R&D do not have a right to attempt to take over the state. Just like the state does not have the right to disallow religious scholars from carrying out peaceful religious R&D.

The best religious scholars are the ones who do exactly what their name implies, i.e. they scholarize about religion. They don`t attempt to claim anything more than that. If they want to become fighter pilots, they accept the fact that knowing the Quran is not going to help them, one way or the other, in flying a plane. They have to learn the trade of flying. Similarly, if they want to become the President, they should understand that religious knowledge is not synonymous with knowledge of being a stateman. Infact, using religious knowledge as stepping stone to any kind of power, makes them a hypocrite, of the highest order. Who can be a bigger hypocrite than someone who uses religion to commit hypocrisy, and gain some kind of power?

If you don`t believe me, just look back to the time of Muhammad. Any references given from days after that do not carry any weight in front of the references from the times of Muhammad.

Some interesting statistics:

``In the 1997 general elections, the JUI(F) won 2 seats and a total of 327,683 votes or 1.83% of the total valid votes polled. In the 1993 general elections, Islami Jamhoori Mahaz (IJM) obtained 483,007 votes or 2.36% of the total vote. In the 1990 elections, the JUI(F) got 62,214 votes or 0.29% of the total while the Jama’at Ahl-e-Sunnat (JAS) managed 1,992 votes. In the 1988 elections, the JUI(F) polled 360,526 votes or 1.84% of the total and Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Fiqah-e-Jafria (TNFJ), now TJP, got 42,216 or 0.22% of the total. As a matter of record, some of the non-Muslim parties have been able to poll more votes.`` (The Friday Times)

Why British Women are turning to Islam

THE SPREAD OF A WORLD CREED

The Times - Tuesday, 9th November 1993 -Home-news Page

Lucy Berrington finds the Muslim Faith is winning Western admirers despite hostile media coverage



Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches.

The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country.[1] ``Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought th e faith here``, says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: ``Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own``. Islam i s also spreading fast on the continent and in America.

The surge in conversions to Islam has taken place despite the negative image of the faith in the Western press. Indeed, the pace of conversions has accelerated since publicity over the Salman Rushdie affair, the Gulf War[2] and the plight of the Muslims in Bosnia. It is even more ironic that most British converts should be women, given the widespread view in the west that Islam treats women poorly. In the United States, women converts outnumber men by four to one, and in Britain make up the bulk of the es timated 10, 000 to 20, 000 converts, forming part of a Muslim community of 1 to 1.5 million. Many of Britains ``New Muslims`` are from middle-class backgrounds. They include Matthew Wilkinson, a former head boy of Eton who went on to Cambridge, and a son an d daughter of Lord Justice Scott, the judge heading the arms-to-Iraq enquiry.

A small scale survey by the Islamic Foundation in Leicester suggests that most converts are aged 30 to 50. Younger muslims point to many conversions among students and highlight the intellectual thrust of Islam. ``Muhammad`` said, ``The light of Islam will rise in the West`` and I think that is what is happening in our day`` says Aliya Haeri, an American-born psychologist who converted 15 years ago. She is a consultant to the Zahra Trust, a charity publishing spiritual literature and is one of Britain`s promin ent Islamic speakers. She adds: ``Western converts are coming to Islam with fresh eyes, without all the habits of the East, avoiding much of what is culturally wrong. The purest tradition is finding itself strongest in the West.``[3]

Some say the conversions are prompted by the rise of comparative religious education. The British media, offering what Muslims describe as a relentless bad press on all things Islamic, is also said to have helped. Westerners despairing of their own societ y - rising in crime, family breakdown, drugs and alcoholism[4] - have come to admire the discipline and security of Islam. Many converts are former Christians disillusioned by the uncertainty of the church and unhappy with the concept of the Trinity and d eification of Jesus.

Quest of the Convert - Why Change?

Other converts describe a search for a religious identity. Many had previously been practising Christians but found intellectual satisfaction in Islam. ``I was a theology student and it was the academic argument that led to my conversion.`` Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher and author, said she objected to the concept of the original sin: ``Under Islam, the sins of the fathers aren`t visited on the sons. The idea that God is not always forgiving is blasphemous to Muslims.

Maimuna, 39, was raised as a High Anglican and confirmed at 15 at the peak of her religious devotion. ``I was entranced by the ritual of the High Church and thought about taking the veil.`` Her crisis came when a prayer was not answered. She slammed the door on visiting vicars but travelled to convents for discussions with nuns. ``My belief came back stronger, but not for the Church, the institution or the dogma.`` She researched every Christian denomination, plus Judaism, Buddhism and Krishna Consciousness, before turning to Islam.

Many converts from Christianity reject the ecclesiastical heirarchy emphasising Muslims` direct relationship with God. They sense a lack of leadership in the Church of England and are suspicious of its apparent flexibility. ``Muslims don`t keep shifting their goal-posts ,`` says Huda Khattab, 28, author of The Muslim Woman`s Handbook, published this year by Ta-Ha. She converted ten years ago while studying Arabic at university. ``Christianity changes, like the way some have said pre-marital se is okay if its with the person you`re going to marry. It seems so wishy-washy. Islam was constant about sex, about praying five times a day. The prayer makes you conscious of God all the time. You`re continually touching base.

Footnotes:

1.This is one of the reasons why there is an onslaught of bad press against Islam and the Muslims. Whoever considers Islam carefully with its principle belief Tawheed (the Uniqueness of Allaah, His and His sole right to subservience, worship and legislation), the sum total of its injunctions, formulated by Allaah (which are harmonic and define the true nature, position, rights and responsibilities of both sexes), and its justice in every sphere of life (social, economical and political) for all categor ies of people - wives, husbands, children, orphans, women, the poor and indigent, the poverty-stricken - will realise why it poses a threat to the leading elite of the western civilisations (i.e. those who benefit most from the unfair and unjust forms by which the people are governed). It is in the hands of such people that the control of peoples beliefs and ideas lie (via television, Magazines, Films, Education) and naturally this advantage is used to maintain the existing status quo. Muslims are not g overned by and enslaved the false beliefs and ideas of humans, they are enslaved to and governed by Allaah alone. This is the essence of Islam - That enslavement is to none but to Allaah alone and everything besides Him is undeserving of worship and subse rvience.

2 It is now an established fact that around 5,000 of the US Troops who were stationed in Saudi Arabia became Muslims during and shortly after the Gulf War.

3 Much of the alleged oppression of women is due to localised culture which is based on a superstition that is more akin to Hinduism. It is, however, portrays it as being Islamic in origin which in turn seriously affects the `independence of thought` of those who do not bother to pursue the matter in an objective manner - which includes most people.

4 One of the biggest industries in the West is that of entertainment and amusement. This is essential to maintain the false idea of progress, that what comes next is better and worth enduring for. Peoples minds are preoccupied with their own pleasures and other pursuits while others are being murdered, slaughtered, women raped, innocent babies and children butchered with axes and knives, innocent by-standers in robberies and muggings killed, the aged battered to death by adolescents, thousands dying of drug abuse, thousands of innocent lives destroyed by the consumption of alcohol, drunkards beating their women and children... the list is endless. The entertainments industry is one of the effective tools in the `normalisation of the thought process`, the `desensitization of the humanistic concern`, and the intensification of the `my pleasure and gratification is what is most important` syndrome.

MAZARE SHARIF MAZARE SHARIF MAZARE SHARIF

LIBERATED LIBERATED LIBERATED

BEGINNING OF THE END OF SCOURGE CALLED TALIBANS

Thank you George Bush!!

Thank you Northern Alliance!!!

Thank you our American Pilots!!!!

For liberating the WOMEN OF MAZARE SHARIF.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Eklavya---512:

Yes you can say that.It is a belief system.But then actions(deeds)do find their origin in thoughts & beliefs.

Belief in not harming animals or not going across the black-waters is manifested in the actions & ethos of a certain society.If someone choose not to abide then obviously they have traded any promised future `benefit` for the one immediate.They are not accountable to anyone except themselves.

The ultimate sin(shirk)means that such a person is not a muslim.He is still free to act according to his conscience and do good or bad deeds and get rewarded/penalised accordingly in the secular-temporal society.

Telling a tyrant or a tyrant state that it is not omnipotent and has no control whatsoever over oneself is a firm affirmation of this faith.Expressing gratitude to the point of worship to someone who thinks that one would be a nobody without him(or the state)is also tantamount to assign partners to Allah.For any bounty & blessing one would always express gratefulness & prayers to Allah.To the temporal being or instituition simple thanks are sufficient.To believe that he also is the Provider is simply compromising ones` faith.Such compromise is ``Shirk`` if one desires to be within the precincts of Islam.

And this is an extremely potent & liberating concept.This does translate into deeds accordingly.

La Ilaha(The is none whatsoever)

Il Al Lah(except for Allah)

Reply #: 470

AAmir

``

If Iranians themselves ,could not go against Ayatollah even though you know there are dissident Iranians ,do you think Pakistani muslims have any say in it??

``

-- Well that`s the problem that I am trying to identify. Muslims tend not to speak out when fanatics and dictators implement their own policies in the name of ISLAM.

If they did not speak out against an Ayotollah, what right do they have to speak out against a Milosevic or the cause of Kashmir ? Muslims need to introspect cause that is the only way to imporve oneself. All great religons have gone through it. The Reformation in Christanity and the Bhakti movement in Hindusim are 2 such examples.

``

If you talk about free speech of Salman Rushdie,as a Muslim ,i think he has bartered too much not only his religion (imaan) for whatever prize ,money fame he might have gotten out of it .

I realize he is a very talented man .....

through the ardous route making unnecessary enemies.

``

-- Aamir, as a human being, as a consumer as a critic/journalist you have every right to show your displeasure by boycotting Rushdie or Naipaul or any other person. However, keeping quiet when a certain segment of muslims call for the ban of the book, in the name of ALL muslims (including you) takes away your right to protest against anything else either.

If not, then you become as duplitious as the USA is, in choosing your battles. As moral human beings, it is our obligation... no our DUTY to stand up against immoral acts, especially if they are done in our name.

AD

dost-mittar--520

You say:

[Because historically, the side-effects of organized religions have been lethal. And please don`t bother to tell me that the fault is not of the religions but their faulty interpretations by their followers...what good are revealed messages if they are not clear, unambiguous and subject to multiple, often contradictory interpretations?]

Let me assert that no religion organised or not has never waged a war.Just as no scientist has ever ventured to discover/invent anything for the express purpose of annihilation of mankind.They cannot be held responsible for the use of their research.

Absolute Monarchs,even god-kings,who created their own world & were never part of any organised religion,Nimrod,Shaddad,Firaun, who thought they were divine & did not allow any ``organised`` religion as such were overthrown by those who ``organised`` themselves against such tyrants viz Hazrat Ibrahim or Hazrat Musa etc.

The present day protests by the Environmentalists & GreenPeace people is another representation of ``organised`` belief.Would you rather have people do their bit by just whimpering,whining & supplicating to the CEO of such ``Organised`` belief of Exploitation & Greed a.k.a Multi-National Corporations(heathens to GreenPeace).

Is G-8 not organised Heathenism or Satanism?Is UN not an organised Religion,by intent,if not in output?Is not the getting together for the purpose of goodness rather than to cater to the base & dark aspects of Man?

What I am trying to understand here the inherent/learnt concept of evil in itself.All siblings turn out to be different(more or less--as it should be).Even by discipline and exhortations by very virtuous parents(of whatever belief--organised or not)some offspring do choose to go their own path.From where does this light or darkness come from?where do ideas originate from?Most actions are preceded by an Idea.This Idea is never a conscious deliberate thought process by Design.From where does this idea originate to lead us to a certain path.Almost all scientific discoveries are ``accidents``.The light-bulb icon to represent getting of an idea expresses well what I just said.Where is the Switch-Connection-Battery of this bulb.

.

The rambling is a soliloquay.I hope you understand.

let`s pick our battles carefully...there is a much bigger and more dangerous battle to fight on the West..leave Bangladesh and its Hindus to figure out their problems...India`s responsibility is to its citizens, not the citizens of Bangladesh or of any other country..

..as far as refugees are concerned, if we can`t seal and guard our borders, that`s our problem...India cannot afford refugees from anywhere...period.

Eklavya:

I think your desire not to interfere in Bangladesh`s affairs because others may interfere in ours is immoral. We should welcome everybody`s criticism, if appropriate, and we should be willing to offer ours. It would be one thing if the Bajrang Dal started interfering in Bangladesh given their anti-minority record in India but for secular Indians to be quiet (assuming that there is a problem) is cowardice. Similarly, if the Edhi foundation were to criticize India, I would welcome the criticism or if Mohd Yunus of Grameen Bank were to criticize India, I would welcome it (assuming valid criticism). If on the other hand, it came from the Taliban or Lashkar, frankly, my dear, I couldnt give a damn. If it came from Govts, it would depend on the laws of the country offering the criticism. If it came from Dubai which would confiscate a Buddha statue if it found you bringing it in at the airport, frankly, my dear, I couldnt give a damn.

If Muslim Afghani`s need our help, we should offer it.

If Hindu Bangladeshi`s need our help, we should offer it.

If Muslim Indians need help from overseas Muslims, they should receive it.

To the best of our ability and capability.

This of course does not preclude the help an Afghani will receive from another Afghani or Muslim.

It does not preclude the help a Bangladeshi Hindu will receive from a Muslim Bangladeshi.

It does not preclude the help a Muslim Indian will receive from a Hindu Indian.

The fewer walls and boundaries, the less us vs them, the better. Furthermore, if people are getting help elsewhere, our moral imperative to provide help decreases. For example, for India to offer help for World Trade Center victims beyond symbolic gestures is redundant. Americans have rallied to help the victims. The same cannot be said if there is a cyclone in Bangladesh or drought in Afghanistan - India, if it can, should offer more than symbolic help. To take the point further, if Bangladeshi Hindus need help and are not receiving it elsewhere, the moral burden on India increases. This logic did not apply to Kenyan Indians since most were absorbed in UK, US and Canada. But if they were expelled and couldnt find a home, our burden rises. Same for Fijians.

I have to confess I havent read all the interacts, so if I`m repeating, I apologize.

Sigalph:

Thank you for your kind words about India.

Zafar,

Thanks for the reply to my earlier queries re. `who is a Muslim`. Interesting!

Eklavay, hamzad, thanks for enlightening/ provoking deeper thoughts.

....Now if only I can find the time to read all those seemingly interesting -- but long! -- excerpts and reproductions here...

take care guys...

PM

re asif n

``But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!``

I bet Mulla Omar said that when he got away with `marrying` that `teenage` bride of his. But since you believe that nonsense, why are you in England? The same shariat demands that you migrate to a country ruled by the `righteous`.

ew shima

``I wish Sigalph could post a balanced view on this matter, not giving the examples of Staines and Bujrung Dal in India. It is a sad sad world...``

Didi, that encapsulates the entire mentality. Just because I am raised in East Bengal, I cannot post a balanced view but you can by virtue of being from `opaar Bangla`? Have you ever wondered if it is that kind of Punjabi-style attitude that leads some in East Bengal to be resentful? You guys can give exaggerated examples of spurious propaganda of defeated Awami League(which even the West Bengal CM thinks exaggerated) but I cannot bring up Staines and Bajrang Dal?

I won`t embarass you about your comment on the trade benefits between India and Bangaldesh: feel free to check the balance yourself.

Not that any of trade and fiscal stuff is that important. What is important is that Bengalis generally have been amongst the most tolerant ethnic groups, in terms of religion, in all of S. Asia. Comments like `she shares a name with Ziaul Haque` are only cheap, juvenile, and low shots at a delicate situation. Such comments bespeak more of the character of the speaker than the subject.

My ancestry goes back to Murshidabad and 24 Parganas. Our cultural `kabaa` is Calcutta. But I`ll be darned if I believe that someone from across the Radcliffe line is more of a Bengali than I am. Koto dhane koto chaal, amraao jani!

Jay...483

YLH is a very sweet & passionate young man.There is no need for you to ridicule him or Pakistan.I am sure you can make your point without giving Kerala a bad name.

Parents,countries,religion,race,profession and so many other things we hold so dear is simply because we are part of it.Even the `bad` aspects we can be vehemently unhappy or critical about but when any outsider ridicules us,even under the garb of a do-gooder or from behind a veil of sympathy most of us resent it...unless of course credibilty,trust,and a complete faith has been earned by the critic or advisor.

Until that is established one must always have a tryst at the border.:)

Please do not lose weight or sleep on the affairs of Pakistan.From Kerala you can educate us about some wonderful anecdotes & history which might make us understand each other better.

For example I was happy to that in the recent elections the Muslim League,as a party,has scored big & has perhaps formed a coalition government.(I do not remember the facts---please enlighten).For me that itself was an eye opener & a revelation that there was even a Muslim League there.A visiting communist Indian friend gave me some information when he visited me this summer)

Human-ness begins where logic ends.

.

I am curious to know if Calicut is KaaliGhaat and does it have anything in common with Kolkotta?Were there two Kaalighaats?In south too.Are there many?...but then how come there was Somnaath & not another Ghaat there?

I hope you won`t mind my words.

Thanks.

Sigalph da and Shima di,

Oh Oh...It is no fun seeing two good Bengalis sad, and that too at the same time.

Shima di, I know you are highlighting genuine problems but then Bengalis, I hear, are the last people to despair. It will be terribly hard-hearted, even brutish, to minimize the gravity of those problems. So I will absolutely not do that. But the very fact that the two of you expressed sadness at the same time is a sure and strong sign of real optimism in the face of a common challenge. We (many people in India and Bangladesh) have the goodwill. We agree on what kind of societies we want to live in. Together, we need not lose hope even confronted with the biggest challenges.

Shima, I am sure sighalph da and people like him will do all they can to help the people who you rightly describe as largely helpless and unfortunate. On our part we should help people like sigalph da. While part of the problem is certainly indigenous to Bangladesh, I can not help but think that a part of the problem also lies with us Indians. Think about it, Shima di, is it not just shameful that a country of our size can not protect its interests (if that is what we fears is happening) in Bangladesh, not by manipulating and coercing Bangladeshis but by working with them?!

I read somewhere (I may be wrong) that Indians have been very slow and inept in keeping up with changes taking places in the political landscape of Bangladesh, that we continue to deal with Bangladesh through some Calcutta based bureaucrats who live in their own fantasy worlds.

If both Indians and Bangladeshis work together, all those problems can be solved, but working together is KEY; and for India, it is important to fire all those who have been handling our Bangladesh policy and get some new blood on board.

It does seem, then, that we should be grateful to Babu for introducing the topic. If India wakes up to some of its own shortcomings and Bangladesh is strengthened at the same time, we will have to thank people like Babu for giving us the warning signs. Only, I add again, we have to deal with these warning signs carefully.

Regards to both of you.

Stuka #497:

``Why should India be concerned for Bangladeshi Hindus? It`s an internal affair of Bangladesh. Are the Hindus of any country our responsibility? If they are, then the Muslims of any country are our responsibility too, right?``

Tough question. They are coming in as refugees into India - that makes it our concern. Second, as someone pointed out, people in West Bengal have relatives across the border. But our aim should be to make them go back - we dont want them overcrowding the North East, be they BD Hindus or Muslims.

In the future, I think India is going to be concerned about the fate of Indian (not Hindu) diaspora everywhere, even if they are not Indian citizens. Examples are the Gulf, the West, Fiji etc.

#509

``The tell-tale sign of what became Pakistan`s menace is there in Bangladesh too. Being a Bengalee myself I do associate with many Bangladeshi friends and most of them are very warm and proud people. They are always extremely courteous and good hosts in one-to-one interaction, but when it comes to the community, they never fail to criticize India (if you really do not know Bengalees, they really can bring storms in tea-cups)and that hurts. However, our best bets are still these people who really are forward looking, hard working proud Bengalees. Hope Khaleda Zia (who shares part of the name of Zia-Ul-Haq), realises how dangerous is to play with fire and control those Jamatis before they create a havoc in the country and World.``



AAmi jantam na ,aapni bangali ,Aami bangla,likhte ,porrhte ar bujhte paari .But i ll reply in English for the benefit of Eklavia & others.

The dynamics of refugees on both sides is totally different.Whereas ,refugees from Bangladesh(e.Pakistan)& west Pakistan to India have been taken in by Far greater than from India to Pakistan & Bangladesh.Refugee Joyti Basu reigned 18yrs as c.m. of Bengal,.A indian muslim refugee cant dream of becoming C.M or Gov. of any province of Pakistan.Musharaf became through separate military connection. So for all practical purposes Pakistan was not made for Indian muslims.Whether ,India could be home of all the hindu of Pakistan & Bangladesh would depend upon India wanting to remain Secular or Hindu Rashtr for hindu.I dont care ,but i speak only for my self.

India in gen & Bengal in Particular have always avoided refugee resettlement rehabilitation by passing the buck to atroceties of Pakistan .

Bangladesh creation was one argument for sealing the exodus of hindus from east bengal once & for all.I personally abhor & despise those noakhali mymen singh & komilla rioters.If you ask me , i probably hate those bengali muslim for maltreating hindu minoreties than Sangh Parivar.Atleast Sangh Parivar are equally hindutva to Victor banerjee to Khanna & Advani ,but thses bengali muslim first formed Muslim league .Initiates riots in noakhali & when Gandhi went there to stop it they stole his goat .

Then few years later ,Mujibur Rehman ,who was a 3rd grade student of Calcutta University living in Baker Hostel .colluded with his pre partition buddy to decide otherwise causing millions of peoples death.

We cannot undo the partition ,but if we dont people accountable for proper & gentelmanly word of honour all those voting & democracy i care two pence for .Most of the idiot bangladesh ministers are monkies anyway .I have never seen a bangladeshy worthy of my intellectual appreciation.Can you name one.

So bangladesh is not islam or typical muslims hatred for non muslims but group of pl. who hate there own mother.

re: hamzad afaqui # 508

Dualism is just one of the many ways of answering the question of the unknown. Do you mean to say that the ultimate sin is a philosophy, not evil behavior?!

Stuka, India should never interfere with Bangladesh as long as the situation is not conducive for mass migration of the Hindus. And Hindus should not believe in universal Hindu brotherhood also as this is a recipe for trouble and mayhem as you can see worldwide now, rather one should look for universal brotherhood. However, the situation is bit different when India-Pakistan-Bangladesh are concerned. Because of partition, there are still enough people in West Bengal who have relatives left behind in Bangladesh, and it is only natural that these people will worry for the well-being of the loved ones. You just have to go to see those people in Ranaghat, Chakdah, Siliguri, etc. areas and just feel the worry and anguish. Have these people done anything to create trouble in Bangladesh? None. Is there a Kashmir style self determination of the Hindus in Bangladesh? No, because there is not enough left to do that either. So what will be their fate? Just take chance and stay behind? Or should also they migrate to India? Then, how we can stay indifferent?

Just to add one positive note, situation is not as bad as in cities as it is in the villages.

Dear Eklavya,

My objection to your post to Babu was that when most of us are presenting their own views in Chowk, he was merely presenting a fact, which should not be restricted. People can form their own opinion with a bit of salt. I pointed out your concern about Indian muslims just to make a point. I also believe peace and harmony should be the first step to work together.

Things are bit more complex than what you perceive. Why do you think Pakistani rulers could create such an all-pervasive hate against India for generations to come? You know the answer. The same thing is happening in Bangladesh now. I had been to Bangladesh in 1972 just after the independence, the sort of warmth one Indian could experience is gone now. Why? because, the same trick is being played by the politicians, that all the woes of Bangladesh are because of India. And somehow this plays very well with the general population. I can think of two obvious reasons: economy and religion. While Indira Gandhi was worshipped in 1972, in 1974 she was accused of robbing Bangladesh, the saying was ``indure sab dhan laiya gelo`` meaning the rats are taking all the rice. Whereas ground reality was different and still different, that Bangladesh has enjoyed a good business relationship with India, is seldom highlighted in mainstream media. For example, beef in Bangladesh would have been so much costlier if India was not there. The tell-tale sign of what became Pakistan`s menace is there in Bangladesh too. Being a Bengalee myself I do associate with many Bangladeshi friends and most of them are very warm and proud people. They are always extremely courteous and good hosts in one-to-one interaction, but when it comes to the community, they never fail to criticize India (if you really do not know Bengalees, they really can bring storms in tea-cups)and that hurts. However, our best bets are still these people who really are forward looking, hard working proud Bengalees. Hope Khaleda Zia (who shares part of the name of Zia-Ul-Haq), realises how dangerous is to play with fire and control those Jamatis before they create a havoc in the country and World.

There are people in Afganisthan who are suffering beacuse of their leadership, and whole world is praying for them. What is the fault of these Hindus in Bangladesh? These are very timid, surrendered group of people without any voice. Every time something happens in external world, they are the victims, whether it is Babri Musjid or Bombing of Afganisthan. Who will speak for them? You have Bukhari in India, do you have a Bal-Thackere in Bangladesh? No, no way...

Farzana, that is the difference my friend.

I wish Sigalph could post a balanced view on this matter, not giving the examples of Staines and Bujrung Dal in India. It is a sad sad world...

Regards

Search for moderate pakistani, to give visa.

from dawn of today

Visas for Pakistanis

After September 11 attacks on the US, the whole scenario has changed around the world. Pakistanis have been the most affected.

Many countries are not giving visas to Pakistanis. Even UAE, which is a Muslim country, is also not issuing visit visas.

It is worth mentioning that no Pakistani was involved in the attacks on WTC but we are being victimized.

The government must take this issue seriously and try to pursue the matter specially in Muslim countries, so that visa restrictions are lifted.

AFTAB AHMED

Hyderabad

karakoram---500

You said:

{There is no Other, there is only the One. and the One is the source of everything: good and evil. There would be no evil in the world if the One did not will it. The One produces good but he also creates evil. The One is weird, because he is beyond our comprehension. The One is the weirdest because there can be no limits when it comes to the One. Am I making sense ? Its like yin and yang, a balance, the karmic cycle, zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance... think about it in private.}



You are right.Except that it is the zoroastrian viewpoint & their way to understand & explain it.

Ahura Mazda and Ahriman.--the duality.

In Islam He is the Rehmaan and Raheem.Iblees or shaitaan is the one who has been given a free hand to tempt His followers.Iblees is still one of creations like malaaika & Insaan.Humans alone are the benefactors of Qazaa as well as qadr---meaning pre-ordination and free-will.

Duality is the ultimate sin in Islam!

....

dost-mittar:

Marxism/atheism is not a western or modern concept.Mazdak of Iran,pre-Islamic,established a society based on joint ownership of all resources including men & women.Relying on the philosophy that evils like greed,avarice,covetness,theft and have-not-ness would disappear if every one was equal.

Needless to say that some did manage to prove that some are more equal than others.

Capitalist/atheism subscribes to the view that to whet the `evil`in humans and therefore exalts those inherent desires like greed,avarice..(etc as above) and declares that there are no crooks; only stupids.

They soon find out that humans do not live by bread alone.

Mind you both examples are of the extreme forms just to bring home the point.

...

When a child at 2 or 3 cannot figure out if he is stealing when he is helping himself with another

childs toy or is being jealous that the other child should not have what he wants;is he acting natural & innocent or are these things taught?If taught(or not taught) then how do these thoughts originate in the mind of the teacher(parent)who happens to be an atheist?Is there or can there be a Natural Born Atheist?

Is the animal kingdom not supreme in the art of social contract?No species hurt their own kind(to killing) and are ``respectful`` of each other and do not do what they not want to be done to themselves.So can we conclude that they have a very high level of `understanding` good or evil.

Is it only restricted to survival for secular needs?Is the behaviour of a dog as a fire-fighter to save its master out of gratitude(doing good) or observing the social contract.Is there an element of individuality,ego,or personna of the dog involved at anytime(yes I do sound naive here)?

Got to go!Later

romair---you are right.the word ``ensure`` by me was not meant to mean ``legally enforce`` and the ulamas role was only advisory. but in traditional islamic societies the law was based on shar`iah and the top ulama were often very close to the rulers or and/or very influential and so a ruler could not hope to be very popular if he ignored the advice of the ulama.

Ofcourse many of the ulama were also eminently qualified judges, diplomats etc and so filled these posts too. that is what the difference between those ulama and todays ulama is and what i was lamenting...

But having a religious ruler and shar`iat as the Law to start of with does help!

See,we agree on most things!

:-)

Re Asif Naqshbandi Sahib (#465):

You are making two critical mistakes.

You are abrogating a few Quranic verses. Secondly, you are assigning the responsibility of understanding Quran (and its selected abrogation) strictly to scholars, while limiting yourself only to following what the ullema tell you.

As a Muslim, I firmly believe that none of the Quranic verses can be abrogated. In Quran Allah Almighty has promised the believers that He is the Guardian over this Book. History is a witness to the truthfulness of this promise. Quran has existed in its original form for 1400 years … all over the world. No book or writing in the history of mankind shares this distinction. And now, these mullahs want to change the word of Allah! You think they can win against Allah Almighty? I do not think so.

Your claim that understanding Quran, and its selective abrogation, is for scholars only, and is beyond the reach of a layman, does not make sense either.

Quran was revealed for all believers … not just religious scholars. It addresses the believers over and over again, and not only the “scholars” or the “learned ones”. Allah revealed Quran to guide us all. Read it … ponder over it … practice it. But do not ignore it. Do not let someone else think for you. Knowledge and wisdom are for all to gain … not only a few select people.

You are giving preference to the works of scholars over the Word of God. The corrupt “scholars” have turned Quran into a tool with which they control people’s lives and their thoughts. This has led all religions to their downfall. Islam here is no exception.

Asad

PS: One interesting question for Urstruly Sahib (if he is peaking from behind the curtains ….):

Ahmadi-Muslims are considered kaffirs, since they interpret some words of Quran differently from the mainstream Muslims. Now that Naqshbandi Sahib and his army of “ullema” are reportedly abrogating a few Quranic verses, what does that make them? Enlightened Muslims, kaffirs, heretics, or apostates? Feel free to comment.

re asif n

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

They may be tiny, insignificant, and a minority. But they`re the future. It is the pampered defenders of bigoted obscurantism(excuse me, I mean the `classical scholars) who will be found in the dusty history books of the future alongside other `classical scholars` like Dr Goebbels, PW Botha and Mullah Omar. For you see asif, freedom is always the wave of the future. The small number of vocal, concientious Muslims like Sattar are the nucleus of the coming Reformation of Islam. That day we will bury the evil ghosts of Ghazalli and Ibn Tamiyya and Abdul Wahab together forever.

re aamir 470

I still didn`t see a straightforward defense of Rushdie`s right to free speech.

re eklavya 484

Hard headed, realism at its best. Sad but true.

re: Stuka # 497

Stuka, this question must be answered at two levels. One, India should be concerned with the welfare of Bangladeshi minorities, Hindus or Buddhists, only to the extent that they try to enter India as refugees. Otherwise, we really have no business poking our nose in any other country`s internal affairs. Two, India has a vital interest in helping Bangladesh stay on the path of moderation and communal harmony, just as we do. If, God forbid, there is widespread massacres of minorities in Bangladesh (a hypothetical situation, because I don`t at all believe any such tragedy is around the corner), that could put tremendous strain on communal relations in parts of our own country.

You see, I am a selfish man driven not by emotions but what I perceive to be the long-term interests of India. And I believe the best way to secure the interests of India is, to the extent possible, create win-win solutions to our problems with all neighbors.

Regards.

Asif Naqshbandi: #465: ``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. * *``

I agree with a lot of what you have stated in the reply to my queries. I disagree with two parts, however.

I do think it is the job of the ulema to advise the rulers, but I do not think they have any authority, nor should they have any authority, to, ``ensure,`` anything. This is where all the problems start. This allows the ulema to become part of the judiciary, the legistalature, or ultimately the executive, purely on the basis of their religious knowledge. Their only capacity should be an advisory role in the realm of religion. Because frankly speaking, that is all they know about. If they develop the skills to beocome statesmen, generals, etc., only then should they be allowed to occupy those position.

If the religious education of ulema does not give them enough qualification to fly a simple Cessna aircraft, or drive a truck, how can they claim a more important position, outside religion, on the basis of purely religious education.

The second point is that it is impossible to give a firm decision on who is a great aalim and who is not. It is a subjective decision, and not a scientific one. Maybe someone whom you consider to be a great aalim is considered a hypocrite by another person, and vice-versa. This is why religious leaders are always in a state of conflict with each other. So one cannot state in a blanket fashion that the ideas of such and such aalim should be followed by everyone. One can only apply the ulema`s knowledge on one`s own self.

The position of ulema in an Islamic society, where the shepherds and the salesmen have not bothered to study religion, should be that of a science professor in a univeristy. He/she studies a subject, and presents his ideas. He advises people who seek advice from him. He cannot force or prosecute anyone who disagrees with him, or decides not to follow him. He, does not automatically get any legislative, judicial or executive power, on the basis of his scientific knowledge, alone. He has to do that separately, with a separate set of skills and qualifications.

The above is not a separation of church and state, nor is it a modern Shariah. It is simply keeping people`s authorities within their areas of qualification.

TALIBAN ARE OUR CHILDREN - ISI CHIEF

http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/07/top18.htm

Riyadh recognized Taliban govt on Islamabad`s advice: Prince Turki

By Our Correspondent

RIYADH, Nov 6: Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal, who remained deeply involved in the Afghanistan issue for almost 25 years, ever since the Soviet invasion, told the local Saudi daily Arab News that Saudi Arabia had recognized the Taliban government in 1997 `` on the advice of our Pakistani brothers.``

In the third part of an exclusive interview jointly conducted by Arab News and the MBC Television, carried on Tuesday, Prince Turki said the former Pakistani interior minister Naseerullah Babar had introduced the Taliban in an interesting way. ``He had said they are my children.``

Recognizing the Taliban regime was a hasty decision, he said. One of the reasons`` why we recognized the Taliban government was the agreement between the Kingdom and Pakistan since the time of President Zia-ul-Haq on consulting and coordinating on all matters concerning Afghanistan. It was a result of this agreement and the advice of our Pakistani brothers that we recognized the Taliban.``

Further, until ``that time the Taliban had not created any controversy. It was controlling 95 per cent of the territory when the Kingdom accorded recognition to the Taliban regime in 1997. It was also providing security and stability in the region. We recognized them several months after they captured Kabul.``

During the interview the prince confirmed that Sudan, at one time, had agreed to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the Kingdom before he returned to Afghanistan in 1996. ``Pesident Bashir (of Sudan) had asked for guarantees that Osama would not be prosecuted.

The prince said Bashir was told that no one was above the law and that`` we could not give any such guarantees.`` He also hinted that, at a point in time, Mulla Omar had also given positive signals to the Saudi demand that Osama be handed over to the Saudi government.

In his first of the two meetings with Mulla Omar, Dr Abdullah Al-Turki, the current secretary general of the Muslim World League, had also accompanied the prince. `` Mulla Omar did not object to Sheikh Al-Turki`s arguments on the extradition of the Al-Qaeda chief to the Kingdom and I thought he agreed with Al-Turki`s arguments on the basis of Shariat. At the second meeting,after the US embassy bombings in Africa, however, Mulla Omar was not in a mood to listen to any one,`` the prince said.

He could not recall Mulla Omar`s exact words, except that he had used an abusive language to criticize the Kingdom`s leadership during the meeting.

Prince Turki pointed out that after the Russian withdrawal, the United States` interest in Afghanistan had dwindled. However, he said, the US wanted to see some sort of stability in the region. It kept monitoring the activities of the oil companies which were working for establishing a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea through Afghanistan and Pakistan, he added.

``There were only three choices: the pipeline could either go through Russia, but the Caucasus mountains and the Chechen crisis obstructed the project; or through Iran to Bandar Abbas. But the American firms were banned by the US administration from operating in Iran. So the only viable option left was through the war-torn Afghanistan.``

The prince hinted (that in order to secure support for the pipeline project) some of the oil companies might have even provided funds to the Taliban regime. `` These (oil) companies had contacted the Taliban and I cannot rule out that they had offered their support to the Taliban. In such cases, the assistance could have been in millions or in the form of a promise,`` he added.

Hamzad: ``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.``

Me:

There is no Other, there is only the One. and the One is the source of everything: good and evil. There would be no evil in the world if the One did not will it. The One produces good but he also creates evil. The One is weird, because he is beyond our comprehension. The One is the weirdest because there can be no limits when it comes to the One. Am I making sense ? Its like yin and yang, a balance, the karmic cycle, zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance... think about it in private.

Hamzad: ``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``

Me:

No, no Hamzad, let me thank you for sharing your daring ideas in public, so that we may ponder over them in private. To keep them alive though you may have to do more than that i.e. interact in public :)

Zafar # 479

And you thaught 1500 years Islam just did Namaz.What more proof you want of INTROCPECTION,didactics,debate,in Islam.You have had only dose of dvaita & Advaitya as only example of intellect.

The Arts of Disputation and Polemics

Case Study We will read selections from two practioners of the kalam: al-Ashari (d. 935), who was originally Mutazilite in his sympathies and



then rejected the Mutazilite position and articulated the Sunni response to the claims of the Mutazilites;

and Saadiah Gaon, (d. 942) Egyptian born head of the Rabbinic academy at Sura who adopted the techniques of kalam to articulate Jewish Rabbinic idenitity.

al-Ashari The two texts we`ll read deal respectively with the problem of the Vision of God, which the Mutazilites rejected, and the problem of anthropomorphism. As you read the two discussions please keep the following questions in mind:

What is at issue on the question of visibility, how is the Quran 6:103 approached by the two sides?

In the second passage, it is the Jahmiyya, who were a movement related to the Mutazilites, are under attack. What is their position? Why is it related to Christianity? ta`til is a technical term for the denial of all attributes.

How does Ashari treat the authority of the Quran and ijma` in determining the interpretation of the questions of God`s hands?

Kalam proceeds through a series of questions and responses and is usually seen as the origin of the Scholastic mode of argumentation that dominates medieval Christianity. How would you characterize the march of the argument about God`s visibility and His hands?

Saadiah Gaon Saadiah`s great work on Beliefs and Opinions is a systematic presentation of Jewish theology. The two sections you`ll read deal respectively with the role of doubt and disagreement in the religious community and with the doctrine of God and his attributes. We`ll discuss the following questions:

Why is doubt such a central feature of Saadiah`s age and how is it resolved?

Why do you think Saadiah treats Islam as a version of Christian trinitarianism?

How would compare Saadiah and al-Ashari on the problem of anthropomorphism?

How does Saadiah differ in his treatment of the notions of quantity and quality with respect of God?

References

W. Montogomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, 1973

Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam, 1976

re: dost-mittar # 488

Very well said. That is the most important single consideration for anything to be considered good. The rest is all fraud and evil.

Sadna,

Certainly. Denial of a problem doesn`t help. Also, as you correctly point out, we may not have here a strictly religious problem. So, we need to frame it correctly.

Eklavya:

Why should India be concerned for Bangladeshi Hindus? It`s an internal affair of Bangladesh. Are the Hindus of any country our responsibility? If they are, then the Muslims of any country are our responsibility too, right?

Naqshbandi writes: ``It should read:

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 at the same time the Beloved (and still IS) of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one.

(The ``was`` in capitals could have been interpreted to mean that i meant that Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam no longer held those unique positions and I ask Allah`s forgiveness for writing something which could have even suggested that. AStaghfirullah!)``

Me:

Sarcasm begins: I think you deserve to die for this blasphemy. What sharia court do you prefer ? or do you prefer that some Muslim cleric declare a fatwa against you and some of the more zealous followers take matters into their own hands ?

audio-video-radio:

you are wrong about farid zakaria: he and his brother, arshad, are sons of Rafiq and Fatma Zakaria. Whether Farid considers himself Muslim or not, he comes from a Muslim background, not a Parsi background.

RE Asif N`s incomprehensible correxion [sic]:

the man above has told me to assure you that he has noted your correction and not to worry, your quota of pleasures awaiting you in the afterlife will not be cut.

Eklavya #484
``Let`s work with decent Bangladeshis to solve a real problem that has arisen recently``

We have to begin by refraining from denials that a problem exists. Next, its not `religious affiliation` that is the driving factor here, its real live immigrants crossing over, reportedly even Awami League`rs.

Zafar Al Talib # 479

Read about the Mutazila many years ago and the

information may be sketchy at best.During the last

days of the Omayyads, religious schism had started

creeping into Islam.At this point of time the

Kharejites had become a political and religious

force(they were the original Shiaan-e-Ali) who

lateron rebelled against Ali and his family.At this time(8th century) we come across the Mutazila who were a rival to the Kharejites.The muslim world was coming in contact with the outside world and by the start of 9th century AD Greek philosophy had found a place under the Abbasids.

Mamun ur Rashid (s/o. Harun Rashid) took over in 819 AD and established his famous ``School of Translation``wherein all kind of scientific, social,religious, and medical works were translated from Latin into Arabic.The interaction with Greek thoughts and philosophy gave rise to logical reasoning of all problems by the scholars of the time and they found the rigid sharia to be incompatible with the Divine Predestination for the human and his actions.

All questions were solved through logic and the rest was discounted. Mamun himself became a convert to Mutazilite School of thought.Mutazila prospered under his rule and continued to receive state patronage till the end of Abbasid period.

However,by the 10th century their power waned against a new challenger Ali Al Ash`ari (873-935),

who founded the Asharite School of thought which

rejected logic from faith and Sharia and followed the four school:Hanafi,Maalki,Shafei and Hambali.

The Asharites went on to become the spokesperson of the Sunni Islam thereafter.The Mutazilite were

persecuted and the school died in a short time.

I hope this little information helps,however,if

there is any error,the fault lies squarely at my

shoulders.

Regards.

correxion: in my post 465 I wrote:

[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.]

It should read:

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 at the same time the Beloved (and still IS) of The Divine and also The Lawgiver as well as being the political head of the Muslims all in one.

(The ``was`` in capitals could have been interpreted to mean that i meant that Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam no longer held those unique positions and I ask Allah`s forgiveness for writing something which could have even suggested that. AStaghfirullah!)

Re: rushdie

``I think there is no more sad case than Rushdie.He could have been all that & more without going through the ardous route making unnecessary enemies.``

dude, give it a rest...he doesn`t like many aspects of Islam and that`s his right...it probably puts a thorn in your side because you know he`s right

Sigalph235 #477:

Just to add - the presence of Communist parties in power in West Bengal and Kerala does not make these states/India Communist either.

One correction to your post: RSS is not a political party. It has zero parliamentary seats. Probably you were referring to the BJP...

Zafar,

The following is from Beliefnet. I am actually amazed at the history of these folks....

Mutazila (moo-uh-ta`zi-luh; Arab)

A rational school of theology in Islam. It was first connected with the names of Wasil ibn Ata (d. 748) and Amr ibn Ubayd (d. 761), who taught in the city of Basra, Iraq. A second group of Mutazilites flourished in Baghdad. Each group had its successive disciples and distinctive, subtle differences on points of doctrine. The controversial issue that led them to isolate themselves (Arab. itazala; hence the name Mutazila) from other theologians was whether the grave sinner was to be considered a believer or an unbeliever? Wasil`s answer was that the grave sinner was neither a believer nor an unbeliever but was in an intermediate position: a reprobate. By ca. 900, the Mutazila--who referred to themselves as ``The People of Justice and Unicity``--had come to express their doctrine in five fundamental principles, affirming (1) the unicity of God, (2) God`s justice, (3) God`s commitment to carrying out His threats of punishment to the wicked and promises of reward to the faithful, (4) that the grave sinner is neither a believer nor an unbeliever, but in ``an intermediate position,`` and (5) commanding the good and forbidding the evil.

Discussion of the first principle logically led the Mutazilites to deny that God has essential attributes and affirm that God is living, all-knowing, all-powerful, willing, speaking, etc., in virtue of his essence. Consequently, the Qur`an is not uncreated, as mainline theologians held, but created. The principle of God`s justice led them to reject the doctrine of predestination and affirm human free will and an individual`s power over one`s actions. Furthermore, the adherence of the Mutazila to human free will and personal responsibility and accountability, and to the fifth principle (above) led them to espouse the political view that a sinful caliph should be deposed, and if he resists then rebellion against him is lawful and so is killing him.

The Mutazilite doctrine of the created Qur`an was upheld by three Abbasid caliphs: al-Mamun, al-Mutasim, and al-Wathiq (who ruled in succession from 813 to 847). They attempted to enforce Mutazilite doctrine on society by compelling the leading religious thinkers to subscribe to it. Resistance led to an inquisition, which caused many uncompromising scholars suffering and imprisonment. The most famous example is Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). This episode ended when al-Mutawakkil succeeded to the caliphate in 847; persecution then was reversed and traditionalism restored. The Mutazila were weakened but continued to produce great scholars such as Abd al-Jabbar (d. 1025) and al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144). Although Mutazilism seemed to collapse by the time the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, Mutazilite doctrines (with the exception of their doctrine regarding the caliphate/imamate) were adopted by the Zaydiyya branch of the Shia, which flourished in Yemen, where it still survives. Although the Mutazilites are often characterized as heterodox thinkers, their attempt to place Islamic religious belief on a rational basis in conjunction with revelation has found some support among twentieth-century Muslim intellectuals.

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!

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

Bina:447

People irritate each other in various ways.

Some by shoving down latest fads & fashions,Cars & houses AND then look down upon those who are either not or refuse to be part of such cattle ranch[this,the ``creed`` of consumerism & those who follow are fanatics & the promoters-- the `mullas` of this religion]

In a similar way there are other ``Creeds`` too where the `tyrants` & ``terrorists`` gloat about their `way of life` and consider those not blindly following such creed as quaint,exotic,weird,crazy,fanatic ...blah blah blah.

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.

Laughter without happiness,Discomfort in prosperity,Distrust amid frienship etc etc.No prosperity or acievement is worthwhile if it can make one so completely `independant` that the need to `help` & `look after` and `be friends with` becomes a chore rather than a need or desire.



Sign on a door when exiting:

``All visitors make us happy---------some by coming,some by going``.

For Jay:

About Cheraman Perumal & the masjid:

It takes us back to the 5th century when Prophet Mohammed sent his disciples to the rest of the world. 13 followers under the leadership of Malik Bin Dinar took off to the peninsular Indian coast and reached Kudangaloor (then `Musiris`) which was a famous port on the Spice Route.

The then ruler of Kodungaloor, Sri Cheraman Perumal, warmly received these travelers. He offered them houses and encouraged inter - caste marriages with the lower castes, which the king was sympathetic about.

The first mosque in India was built at Kodungaloor and was called Cheraman Masjid. This mosque even today has typical features of a temple. Later, Cheraman Perumal also became a follower of Islam and he went to Mecca.

A brutal caste system existed in Kerala way back in the 5th century where people were divided into 4 castes, viz. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and the Sudras. Brahmins were considered holy disciples of God; Kshatriyas; the rules and Vaishyas as well as Sudras formed the laborers of the system. Vaishyas and the Sudras were not allowed any freedom in the state and they were not even allowed to wear tops in front of the landlords. And the Christian and the Muslim evangelistic were a blessing to this working class.



Many from the Vaishya and Sudra community followed Malik Bin Dinar and Cheraman Perumal. Slowly the Muslim community flourished. Unbelievingly they received enough support from the rulers of the era. These fresh converts and their generation held many offices in the kingdom of Hindu Rulers especially because of their skills in war front and business.

Trade Monopoly of Malabar Muslims

The Muslims essentially monopolized trade for the simple reason that most of it was carried out through sea. According to Hindu mythology, one is not supposed to cross the sea and this kept the majority away from trading relations with the rest of the world. There had to be a mediator who could cross waters. This led to the economic development of Malabar. Ports like Kozhikode, Beypore, Kodungallor and Cranganore were in their peak performance at this era. Produced from the entire South India found their way abroad through these ports. The community flourished. Muslims remained the prime middlemen on the Spice Route between the 11th and the 14th century. During this time the Mappila population grew rapidly with the happy and fantastic acceptance of large families and early marriages.

The British rule and trade restrictions marked a decline in trade as well as the lives of the people. Despite past glory, Malabar, now remains economically and educationally stagnant as compared to the rest of Kerala. It had been classified as a backward area by the government until recently. Marine and timber products contribute the major share to enonomy.

Zafar #426

``Mansarovar Parikrama subsidy!!``

Are you sure? How much is this subsidy?

These days it seems the definition of a moderate Muslim is one who is pro-Western. I think the most moderate Muslims I`ve ever seen are the ones who pay utmost attention to their own din but make no attempts to tell anyone else how to do it.

rjanjua #423 ``I think ``islam khatray may hay`` & ``islam aik mukamal zabta hayat hay`` are the most popular slogans of these nutcases. Someone ought to tell these idiots that the ``Almighty`` and His message does`nt need any protection.``

The mullahs in Pakistan would do well to read these words every morning and every evening until they get the concept in their heads.

Hatred and fear are two sides of the same coin - insecurity. And insecurity comes from a man who does not have faith in himself, in his fellow human beings, and in God Himself. And mullahs proclaim this insecurity over the loudspeaker when they can (``islam khatray main hay``, ``islam aik mukamal zabatai hayat hai``).

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.``

I think I agree with you on this one. One thing that MUST BE KEPT IN MIND is that the 1984 riots were not conducted by the Hindu parties. No, the so called ``Hindu`` parties are not the guilty ones. The riots were conducted by the so called ``SECULAR`` Congress. The failure of the Indian state to convict even one individual is a blot on every Indian citizen.

BTW, I know you have often been confused about my turban. Suffice to say I am clean-shaven.

Sigalph:

``nd the killers of Sopore.``

Who is Sopore? Are you referring to the town in Kahmir? Who was killed there?

Zafar:

PS Haj subsidy, Mansarovar Parikrama subsidy, what’s the difference? And what`s your point?

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

Romair #416:

Interestingly, your post is equally applicable to the concept of Brahminism in Hinduism. There too, power was acquired by the Brahmin, purely on the basis of religious knowledge, and then extended into the temporal realm.

The Sikhs recognized the cancer of Brahminism, and made sure that theirs was an egalitarian society. There have also been constant reform movements, the last in the late 19th, early century, when the Mahants (basically Hindus who had taken up the role of Sikh Priesthood) were cleared out of the Gurudwaras.

{Reply #: 435

sigalph235

Lets get rid of this Shariat nonsense. To you your shariat to me mine.}



I am still reeling & trying to recover from the profoundness of the above statement.It does reflect the higher foreign(always means english:not chinese,Japanese,arabic)education you have managed to imbibe.

re: Babu # 436

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.

Regards.

EK

Re: sigalph

``Thank you fot the support. Between the naqshbandi-urstruly Jamaat and the vipul-gowardhan-maheshG Dal, I sometimes feel like a small, small, minority.``

I`ve always made the distinction between institutionalized bigotry as seen in Pakistan (and Arab states) and incident-based bigotry that happens in all countries, including India, Bangladesh, and even the US...,subtle but big difference.

``BTW, Saxenaji, I`ll tell you that although I`m an unabashed GOPer, this MArk Green fellow looks very attractive as Mayor.``

Just when we agreed on something you had to say this...Bloomberg all the way...lesser of two evils...I`m still horrified at Rudy leaving...I don`t trust these other clowns...

I have no issues with the GOP other than its obsession with religion and constant need to shove puritanism down the country`s throat...

---

Thousands flee Bangladesh to escape attacks



HABRA: Thousands of Hindus from Bangladesh are crossing over to India, to escape from large-scale attacks on minorities in that country.

``The true picture is not known to the outside world. It is a free for all so far it goes to torturing minority Hindus. Women and property are the prime targets - hundreds of Hindu women are hospitalised, many were killed after being raped,`` Bidhu Bhusan Das, one of the migrants from Barishal, who fled leaving behind his relatives, said.

The local municipality pretends ignorance as do the police and the administration, but the migrants are moving in daily via Hakimpur, Bongaon (Petrapole) borders and dispersing to districts like Bardhaman and Midnapore - even to far-off places like the Andamans via Kolkata.

``It is a war against the Hindus. Awami League could not protect us, even worse, they are now joining hands with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party cadres with the sole aim to butcher Hindu minorities,`` a group of migrants from Barishal and Bhola districts of Bangladesh, who have taken shelter in this town, 12 km from the Hakimpur border, said.

The situation after the October 1 elections, the migrants said, ``are worse than that in 1992``, when the Babri Masjid demolition in India led to communal tension in the neighbouring country.

Das, who himself was targeted for his close association with a local Awami League leader, had sought help from a Muslim friend the day the election results were declared, but was refused as ``those who shelter Hindus, will not be spared... The ruling party cadres have formed assault groups, who intrude into residences of minorities in the late hours, torture women, loot valuables, and slash tongues of the livestock.``

``These assailants come later with a tape recorder to record our voice and instruct us to recite that we are fine,`` a panic-stricken Sefali Roy, who fled with her three young daughter under the cover of darkness, said.

Many of these migrants from Barishal, Bhola and Patuakhali come to the border onboard the Chakladar bus service, a private transport company. They gather near border points at Petrapol, Gede, Panchpota, Hakimpur on pre-decided dates, mostly on Tuesday.

Local touts, who cannot generally enter the localities, are helping them to cross the border.

As per the claims of the migrants and Habra Bangladeshi Udbastu Samity, a non-government organisation, over 1,500 people from across the border were now in Habra alone, while a huge number have dispersed to other places.

Habra municipality chairperson and local Trinamul Congress MLA Tapati Datta, however, said, ``We have heard that some people have come, but there is no official report, neither from the police nor from locals``.

The locals, particularly those residing at colonies in Banipur, Bholapara, Hirapol, were sympathetic towards the migrants.

In fact, many of them, who settled down in India after the 1971 riots in Bangladesh, actually got prior information about the arrival of the groups.

Another 400 were expected shortly, said Bimal Majumder, who runs an association of refugees.

Sources at the Habra police station said, ``It is primarily the responsiblity of the BSF to detect and detain the migrants.``

The Habra police reportedly apprehended 82 people last week and the Gaighata police station 80 others.

Asked if the infiltration problem was posing a threat, police sources said, ``infiltration in these areas is a regular feature all through the year, it may take serious proportions as per reports of atrocities on minorities there``.

The authorities of the municipality, which set up over 30 relief camps for flood victims last year, said, ``We will make similar arrangements for the migrants if the government issues orders``.

Nripen Sarkar, who managed to escape two days after the polls, said, ``it is difficult even to flee as they keep vigil on your movements``.

``Hindus are not allowed to withdraw money from banks or sell property. You need permission from a BNP minister to sell your land. Any Muslim who buys a Hindu`s land is punished,`` another migrant Priya Mohan Roy said.

Terming the BNP regime as `Taliban raj`, Roy said, ``Hindus have to compulsorily take part in rallies brought out in support of Osama Bin Laden``.

Describing his horrific experiences, Sarkar said, ``Even the little boys used to scare us by shouting slogans like `Ekta ekta Hindu dhar, Hindu Dhare tiffin kor` (catch the hindus, and have them for tiffin)``.

The Bangladesh police will not register any case brought by minorities. Moreover, any Hindu, who had earlier filed a case against a Muslim, had to pay fine for past mistakes.

The Hindus did not want to hold the Durga puja festival. ``The BNP cadres insisted that we do organise the puja, so that they can show the world that everything is fine in Bangladesh``, Priya Mohan said.

``Even now, over a lakh of Hindus are on the run, hiding in the forest area in Gounadi. The worst incidents of torture on women took place at Lalmon police station area. Many of them are missing... Just visit the hospitals and you can see for yourself,`` the migrants said.

They also said ``after the polls, at least 16 journalists were attacked by BNP supporters. Two of them died. You won`t know what is going on inside``.

re hamza afaqui #418

Dude, are there any people with normal, regular, qualifications on this Sharia Board? Seems everyone mentioned on that site is a product of the largesse of Saudi-financed make-believe education and phony investment companies!

Nothing against them, but if there are Muslims to look upto in the professional world, I`d much rather look at people like the late Fazlur Rahman Khan(architect Sears Tower and John Hancock) and Muhammad Sacirbey (top stock broker, former Bosnian Ambassador) and Fareed Zakaria (scholar par excellence).

Lets get rid of this Shariat nonsense. To you your shariat to me mine.

I have often felt Asif came to take religion seriously later in life, not from childhood. Just a feeling, heartfelt apologies to Asif if not. The reason I say it is, IMO childhood on, the variety of life generally has time to lend proper perspective to lines in religious books.

Jay 432

The Perumal masjid still exists somewhere in Kerala.I have a picture of it from a magazine.

It is said to be the first masjid in India.I`ll try to locate the story that was printed alongwith that picture---and I did read it but now cannot recall much.It was a fascinating story;only that I remember.

The culture,humanity,and general demeanour of the South Indian rulers has been praised immensely by that great traveller & chronicler Ibn Batuta(1200 0r so?)of Tunisia.He made it a point to contrast it to the tyranny of the Sultan of Delhi.

The genial nature of the South Indians can still be easily discerned & appreciated by those who do not mistake softness for timidness.

Sometimes I think that the aborgines anywhere in the world are the most cultured & civilised people.It is precisely the ``progressiveness`` and ``advancement`` which has the germ of aggression & hence boorishness dormant in it.

Maybe I`m totally wrong & just a romantic.

``If God had wanted people, whose sole profession is religion, to run Islamic societies, don`t you think most of Muhammad`s colleagues would have had religion as their profession; or Muhammad himself would have been part of the clergy?

This does not mean studying religion is not a good thing in an Islamic society. But no where, in Muhammad`s life, is it indicated that the Islamic clergy, by definition, is to have the authority to pass fatwas, laws, and decide how an Islamic state is to be governed.`` (Romair)

Good point, Romair.

You are exactly right -- Mohammad never claimed anything more than being a mortal human -- and never defined a place for clergy in Islam – just the opposite -- he deliberately avoided emulation of Rabbinical or Christian priesthood.

In fact Islam in some ways was an earliest revolt against the priestly splendor and decadence of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christian church.

In my opinion the genius of Mohammed was to present Islam -- 1000 years before Luther, and Calvin -- as first attempt at ``Protestant Reformation`` of Christianity and Judaism -- (by declaring Jesus a mortal human being not God)-- and by keeping the religion away from the clutches of a corrupt burgeoning hierarchy of Popes, Cardinals Bishops and Rabbis.

That REFORM -- because it was so radical and so well ahead of its time -- failed to influence Christianity or Judaism of that era -- instead ushered into a new religion -- Islam.

Nevertheless it did finally influence Christianity by giving birth to Protestantism in 1500 AD.

Ironically it was approximately the same time that Islam retrograded itself into the hands of Muftis, Ayetollahs, Pirs, Mullahs, Maulanas and Maulvis.

Gymno 376,

KERALA MUSLIMS,

The conversion of the ruler of kerala, Cheraman Perumal, to islam by the very man himself is from ``kerala Charitram`` ( means history of kerala) by T.K. Gangadharan, Published by Calicut University Press.

Now that I have re-read it after decades, let me elaborate,

Story of this conversion is from a book Origin of kerala ( keralolpathi) origianaly in palm leaves, but first published by Hermann Gundert in 1843. Perumal married the sister of an Arab king, changed his name to Tajuddin.

Shaik Saineddin, an arab traveller who came to calicut in 11 cetury records the above story as as `` a common and ancient tradition ( tradition is not the exact word, it ``parambariam`` if you know malayalam).

Logan Williams, `` malabar Manual 1951, reviewed the historical evidence of the story and confirmed it.

So Gymno, the bottom line is, having known the north indian muslims, and extensive interaction with the pakistanis on chowk, I can assure you, the islam of kerala is very different from any other. It is asthough, a different religion. The fatwas and the jihad they have no hesitaion to redicule as irrelevant, while the years of education have failed even the YLH, he even shivers at the thought of writing about abdus salam a kafir, and it is fatwable in pakistan.

regards

jay

Infact the islam of indonesia is very similar to the kerala version, the arab merchants apparently went furthe on to indonesia.

Drumz,

If you read # 412, you should get a flavor of the argument I made in my last post. Asif Naqshbandi is surely an honorable man who is, on a personal level, nonviolent. I intend no disrespect toward him. What I would like to point out is that his is not a lone voice. He represents a nontrivial group of British people who could not be accused of penury or extreme material deprivation. Anyone who doubts the veracity of that assertion, should check out a few old issues of some of the youth magazines coming out of the U.K. or even Australia.

Again, my argument is not Islam-specific. It is a general argument that cuts across religions. Religious fanaticism has its own dynamic. Material conditions can be (and are) exploited in the service of religious fanaticism, but they are not the causal factors leading to religious fanaticism.

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectNh.asp?cid=151449

Islam Is For Peace And Not Terrorism



FIROZ BAKHT AHMED



O umpteen non-Muslim friends of mine, Islam is an intolerant and aggressively proselytising religion whose followers enforce conversion under the threat of death, destroy shrines and idols of other religions and indulge in terrorism in the name of religion.

This is because religions are often judged by what their most debased, fanatical and intolerant followers do.

This holds true in the case of Islam. Whenever there’s a tragedy of the kind like the Afghan war, the Babri Masjid imbroglio, the triple talaq or the cases of fatwas against author Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja, a quarrel over Islam begins and it appears that there are many Islams and as many forms of jehad.

There is the Islam that Osama bin Laden follows. Then there is the Islam adhered to by the Muslim intellectuals or moderate clerics like Mufti Mukarram, the Imam of the ‘Shahi’ Masjid Fatehpuri.

Yet another form is propagated by politicians. The question is what exactly is real Islam? Whatever the answer to that may be, Islam is certainly not what the Osama bin Ladens practise or what the so-called Kashmiri jehadis espouse.

Some might even ask whether Islam is a conglomeration of all these forms? Certainly not. Islam propagates peace. It means submission before the Almighty. It is not submission to terrorism.

Besides, terrorists are neither Muslims nor Christians; neither Hindus nor Sikhs. The religion of terror is quite unlike the traditional religions. It’s altogether a different concept.

Terrorism is the murder of the innocent as happened in the case of mass murder at the World Trade Center. It is the violence American forces are perpetrating on innocent Afghan civilians.

There can be no excuse for such acts whichever quarter they may come from.

Besides, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means.

All acts of terror are anti-Islam and anti-jehad. The terrorist will claim one or another religious or social grievances as a cover for his insidious and ulterior motives. All killers do so ‘‘for building a better world’’.

It is mentioned in the holy Qur’an that the needy, the handicapped, the orphans and the hapless be helped. It has never said that a follower of Islam should be not helped or sympathised with.

In fact, it is bigotry and hatred that results in enmity. A man blinded by nationalistic bigotry can never be tolerant and sympathetic towards other religions and nations.

Islam is opposed to this. It considers all creatures of God as one family. Prophet Mohammed once told Hazrat Mohammed Abdullah bin Masood that all creatures constitute the family of God and man is God’s most beloved. It finally implies that he who serves God’s creation, is nearest to Him.

When we speak of human rights, peace and service to mankind in Islam, we really mean that these rights have been granted to us by God and not by any king or any legislative assembly.

Therefore, no one has the right to abrogate or withdraw them. They are not like basic human rights that are written on paper and denied in actual life.

They are concrete sets of laws for peace and mutual co-existence. They are not like the shariah courts.

True, Islam symbolises the security of life and property, protection of honour and the right to protest against tyranny towards men, women and children.

For the eternal goal, the path is that our faith must be true and sincere. We must be prepared to show it in deeds of charity to our fellow beings no matter what faith they follow. We must be good, law-abiding citizens supporting social causes and organisations.

Our own individual soul must be firm and unshaken in all circumstances. This is the standard by which a particular mode of conduct is judged as good or bad.

This standard of judgment provides the nucleus around which the entire moral conduct should revolve. Thus by setting God’s pleasure as the objective of man’s life, Islam has furnished the highest possible standard of morality.

And God is most pleased when he sees that humanity is involved in mutual co-operation and harmonious co-existence.

This is bound to provide limitless avenues for the moral evolution of our race. It ensures that the affairs of life, instead of being dominated by selfish desires and petty interests, must be regulated by norms of compatibility.

DRUMZ # 415

Drumz, the linkage between poverty or war and religious extremism is at best a tenuous one. There are people, second or third generation British subjects, travelling from the United Kingdom to fight along side Taliban in Afganistan. The hijackers of the four American airplanes were not poor people, at least not as poor as many people in the villages of Bihar or Mexico.

Even within India, religious fanaticism is found not in the poor villages and towns of Bihar or Orrisa but in major Indian towns, among the affluent. On average, the financial holdings of RSS members or BJP members are probably highest among all political groups in India. Both Muslim Leagues and Akali Dal represent, largely, the interests of the relatively better off segments of their communities.

Drumz, IMO, there is a huge and massive misunderstanding among some and delibate misrepresentation on the part of others that fanaticism is a function primarily of the material conditions. That is a Marxist approach to viewing the world, and although I have nothing against Marxism per se, Marxism never did understand religion. The problem, Drumz, isn`t so much with the twenty year old kid who goes wearing a mask and blows himself up thinking he is part of some religious war. The problem resides with the people who recruit such kids, train them, and fund them, and then use them as cannon fodder. These are not poor people.

On the other hand, some of the most peaceful people on earth are also among the poorest. Widespread fanaticism or murderous rage is, above all, an ideological condition, not a material one.

Reply PM # 408, 410

`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.”

Theologically, just say the shahadath three times (witnesses?) and you’re in.

Historically, apostasy (very slippery concept) is you DECLARING that you are no longer in.

Recently there has been a fashion for using fatwas declaring people apostate as tools to silence critics within the Muslim community.

Can’t think of their names but there are a couple of Egyptian intellectuals who have had fatwas of apostacy issued against them by some reactionary toad in Al-Azhar. Following which they have had to leave the country to avoid being killed. A nasty side effect of this is that this means that their marriages are declared annulled. It’s a nasty business and has NO theological backing – as far as I know - it’s entirely a method of control by “gande naali ke keede”.

Glad to hear that you are safe, and feeling secure. I am very glad that (based on what you tell me) the ordinary people of Pakistan are not being swayed by the jahils who commited that recent crime against minorities. Stay safe!!!!

“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.”

If not I would like to know why not. And I’ll be asking – here on Chowk.

Zafar

Reply AD # 411

AD

“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.”

Do we? Do we REALLY? Who have you been talking to - some unrepresentative soundbite addict like Bukhari?

Buddy, believe me when I say most Muslims in India would be DELIGHTED AND RELIEVED if the only problems they faced were of their own making. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Just as you advise Indian Muslims to introspect about their own behaviour in contributing to the community’s problems rather than focusing exclusively on external factors, let me invite you to

1) Introspect about your own community’s behaviour within itself (whatever your community is, and not how it deals with ther religious communities btw) as a factor contributing to its problems, AND since you bring it up, to

2) Introspect about the external factors contributing to the problems of the Muslim community in India. (One of which MAY be segments of your community – whatever it is.)

Please note – I am NOT saying that the problems of any group of people are all internally or externally caused. But we should each think about what we can most readily have an influence on by changing our own behavior before we start offering other people specific advice on how to change theirs. That would be less comfortable, but far more decent, behaviour.

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS Haj subsidy, Mansarovar Parikrama subsidy, what’s the difference? And what`s your point?

Reply AD # 411

AD

“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.”

Do we? Do we REALLY?

Buddy, believe me when I say most Muslims in India would be DELIGHTED AND RELIEVED if the only problems they faced were of their own making. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Just as you advise Indian Muslims to introspect about their own behaviour in contributing to the community’s problems rather than focusing exclusively on external factors, let me invite you to

1) Introspect about your own community’s behaviour within itself (whatever your community is, and not how it deals with ther religious communities btw) as a factor contributing to its problems rather than focusing on convincing yourself that Muslims were responsible for all the bad things, AND since you bring it up, to

2) Introspect HONESTLY about the external factors contributing to the problems of the Muslim community in India. (One of which MAY be segments of your community – whatever it is.)

Please note – I am NOT saying that the problems of any group of people are all internally or externally caused. But we should each think first about what we can most readily by changing our own behavior BEFORE we start offering other people specific advice on how to change theirs. That would be less comfortable, but far more decent, behaviour.

Best wishes,

Zafar

PS Haj subsidy, Mansarovar Parikrama subsidy, what’s the difference? What`s your point?

re: PM

I thought I had the irrationality covered in the ``mental problems`` part :-). You are ofcourse right - But along with irrationality there is insecurity, fear and downright ignorance. The origin of Shariah itself is in fear (according to Iqbal) - The Gods of Naqshbandi, i.e., his Imams wrote the Shariah out of fear of early Islamic rationalists, such as ibn Rushd and ibn Sina. They went to great details to ensure that there was no room left for any revision. They thought that they were protecting and defending Islam. That`s the other problem of fanatics in every religion - Somehow they are convinced that their religion is in perpetual danger and needs their defense. I think ``islam khatray may hay`` & ``islam aik mukamal zabta hayat hay`` are the most popular slogans of these nutcases. Someone ought to tell these idiots that the ``Almighty`` and His message does`nt need any protection.

Regards.

re: sattar2

The treatment of Ahmedis and other minotities in Pakistan is despicable. I agree with all of what you say. I also think its time for the silent majority in Pakistan to become a bit vocal and also do something. It would be great if people stop signing that ridiculous application for passport.

Reagrds.

re: PM

I thought I had the irrationality covered in the ``mental problems`` part :-). You are ofcourse right - But along with irrationality there is insecurity, fear and downright ignorance. The origin of Shariah itself is in fear (according to Iqbal) - The Gods of Naqshbandi, i.e., his Imams wrote the Shariah out of fear of early Islamic rationalists, such as ibn Rushd and ibn Sina. They went to great details to ensure that there was no room left for any revision. They thought that they were protecting and defending Islam. That`s the other problem of fanatics in every religion - Somehow they are convinced that their religion is in perpetual danger and needs their defense. I think ``islam khatray may hay`` & ``islam aik mukamal zabta hayat hay`` are the most popular slogans of these nutcases. Someone ought to tell these idiots that the ``Almighty`` and His message does`nt need any protection.

Regards.

re: sattar2

The treatment of Ahmedis and other minotities in Pakistan is despicable. I agree with all of what you say. I also think its time for the silent majority in Pakistan to become a bit vocal and also do something. It would be great if people stop signing that ridiculous application for passport.

Reagrds.

re rsaxena 400

Thank you fot the support. Between the naqshbandi-urstruly Jamaat and the vipul-gowardhan-maheshG Dal, I sometimes feel like a small, small, minority.

BTW, Saxenaji, I`ll tell you that although I`m an unabashed GOPer, this MArk Green fellow looks very attractive as Mayor.

re maheshG 401

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

I have already signed on to the petition of BAFI(BD-US Foundation) urging the Home Minister to vigilantly prosecute those who are taking law into their own hands. Yesterday I had a chat with Ambassador Karim(e-chat) on the issue as well and asked him to raise it with the Foreign Minister who is in Washington.

But none of this I do because I love Hindus or Muslims or because I agree to this sensational `ethnic cleansing` bit some of you find convenient. I believe every life is sacred and the Republic has a duty to protect it, no matter what the motive of the perpetrators.

That said, in the same spirit as your request, I hope you sign the AI petition asking the Govt of India to prosecute fully the murderers of the STaines, the burners of the Gujrati churches, and the killers of Sopore.

You see, Indians do not have a monopoly on clean hands when it comes to bigotry.

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

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

Why wait fro government to enforce sharia laws.Here is a good example of handling sharia matters as pertains to banking,economics,and finance.

An isntituition or nation is good enough as its members or people who are the beneficiaries and/or enforcers.



Please visit www.islamiQ.com ----for some eyepopping happenings.

IslamiQ.com`s Shari`ah Board

IslamiQ.com`s credibility and acceptance within the global Islamic community is based on the strength of its Shari`ah Board, which is composed of three internationally-renowned Shari`ah scholars. Together with the IslamiQ.com`s Shari`ah Advisor, the Shari`ah Board is empowered to develop rules and practices relating to Islamic financial products and services that are in accordance with Islamic principles.

The members of IslamiQ.com`s Shari`ah Board are:

Justice Mohammad Taqi Usmani

Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Chairman of IslamiQ.com.com`s Shari`ah Board, is a well-known and highly-respected figure in the field of Shari`ah, particularly within the area of global finance. He currently holds various advisory positions within the Islamic finance industry.

Muhammad Taqi Usmani has vast experience in Islamic Shari`ah, given his 39 years of teaching various subjects on Islam and having served as a Judge in the Shariat Appellate Bench, Supreme Court of Pakistan since 1982.

Since 1990, he has edited magazines in English and Urdu, as well as contributed articles and write-ups on various issues in leading Pakistani newspapers.

Born in Pakistan, Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani received his LLB from Karachi University in the late 60s and also graduated from Punjab University in 1970. Prior to that, he received his tertiary education from Darul Uloom, Karachi.

Among the other positions which he currently holds are:

Deputy Chairman/Permanent Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jeddah

Vice President, Darul Uloom Karachi

Chairman; Center for Islamic Economics Pakistan since 1991

Member, Commission for Islamization of Economy, Govt. of Pakistan

Member, Council of the Islamic Research Institute, Govt. of Pakistan

Chairman, Shari`ah Board Saudi American Bank, Jeddah

Chairman, Shari`ah Board Ibn Khaldoun International Islamic Equity Fund, London

Chairman, Shari`ah Board Robert Fleming Oasis Fund, Luxembourg

Chairman, Shari`ah Board Citi Islamic Investment Bank, Bahrain

Chairman, Shari`ah Board Amana Investments Ltd., Sri Lanka

Vice Chairman, Shari`ah Board Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank, Abu Dhabi

Dr Abdul Sattar Abu Ghuddah

Aside from his position in IslamiQ.com`s Shari`ah Board, Dr. Abdul Sattar Abu Ghuddah currently holds a dual post at Al-Baraka Investment & Development Company as the Director of its Department of Financial Instruments as well as a Shari`ah Board member. He has been Shari`ah advisor of the Dallah Al-Baraka Group, since 1991. He is also an active member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah and the Accounting & Auditing Standards Board of Islamic Financial Institutions.

Dr. Abdul Sattar began his career by teaching Islamic studies and Arabic language. He has since taught Fiqh, Islamic studies and Arabic in Riyadh and cultivated an expertise in researching and compiling information for the Fiqh Encyclopedia in the Ministry of Awqaf (Endowments) and Islamic Affairs in Kuwait. Consequently he became a member of the Fatwa Board in the Ministry from 1982 to 1990. During the 80s, he was also seconded as a lecturer to the Faculty of Law and Shari`ah in Kuwait University.

Dr. Abdul Sattar has BAs in Islamic Shari`ah and in Law from Damascus University. He then went on to earn his MA in Shari`ah and Hadith from the renowned Azhar University before attaining his Ph.D. in Shari`ah and Comparative Fiqh from the same university.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohd. Daud Bakar

``Dr. Mohd. Daud Bakar has played an instrumental role in the development of IslamiQ`s financial portals and products. An Associate Professor at the Department of Islamic and Family Law at the International Islamic University, Malaysia, Dr Mohd Daud obtained his Bachelor of Shari`ah from the University of Kuwait in 1988 and was later conferred with a Ph.D. from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He is now the Dean of the Centre for Postgraduate Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia. Besides his teaching and research assignments, Dr Mohd Daud has been engaged primarily in providing Shari’ah consultancy, structuring and advisory services to various Islamic financial institutions.

Some commitments are noted below:

Member, Shari`ah Advisory Council of the Securities Commission, Malaysia

Member, Shari`ah Advisory Council, Central Bank of Malaysia

Shari`ah Advisor, Takaful Nasional Berhad

Shari`ah Advisor, HSBC Bank Malaysia

Shari’ah Advisor, Keppel Insurance (Takaful) Ltd, Singapore

Investment Committee Member, Dana Aman, Pacific Mutual Fund

Shari’ah Advisor, Malaysian Rating Corporation``

IslamiQ.com`s Shari`ah adviser

Dr Muhammad Imran Ashraf Usmani

Dr. Muhammad Imran, who has been actively involved with IslamiQ.com`s products since its inception, holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Economics. He is also the Shari`ah consultant for Al-Meezan Investment Bank Limited in Pakistan, which is a joint venture bank between Pakistan-Kuwait Investment Co. and Islamic Investment Company of Gulf, Bahrain.

Before pursuing his Ph.D., Dr Muhammad Imran received his M Phil in Islamic Economics, M.A in Arabic and Islamic studies, and a B.A in Economics and Political Science from the Karachi University, Pakistan. He began his career at the First Islamic Bank.

Dr Muhammad Imran has been teaching various aspects of Islam for the past 10 years in Jamia Darul Uloom University in Karachi, Pakistan. He also spends much of his time providing Shari`ah advice to several other Islamic banks and institutions and has written a number of books on Islam.

Asif Naqshbandi: #378: I vaguely remember reading a story in third grade about a woman who used to throw garbage on Prophet Muhammad, everytime he passed by her house. Do you recall how that story ended? Did Muhammad end up killing her? Any thoughts on why he did or did not kill her?

I have a pretty strong belief that Islam is one religion which does not ask for nor require a clergy. The clergy should be a reference for Muslims, it should not become the authority, or a layer of buerecracy between Muslims and God.

One only needs to go back to the life of Muhammad to get the answers. Unfortunately, people are unwilling to go that far, when they define Islam. They tend to stop at the Imams and, ``scholars,`` who came centuries after him. Forget about what people rightly or wrongly said after him. Look at what he did.

How did Muhammad earn his living? Was Muhammad a priest, or part of the clergy? Was that his profession? It never was. In his whole lifetime, he never became a priest/maulvi/clergy. He was a shepherd in his early life, then he became a travelling salesman, they he became a govt. servant/general/political leader. He never devoted his life to becoming a priest or maulvi.

If you look at the most prominent Muslims during the lifetime of Muhammad, you will find hardly any, if any, of them to be priests. Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali etc. were all businessmen, professionals, soldiers etc.

If God had wanted people, whose sole profession is religion, to run Islamic societies, don`t you think most of Muhammad`s colleagues would have had religion as their profession; or Muhammad himself would have been part of the clergy?

This does not mean studying religion is not a good thing in an Islamic society. But no where, in Muhammad`s life, is it indicated that the Islamic clergy, by definiton, is to have the authority to pass fatwas, laws, and decide how an Islamic state is to be governed. This is the job of the shepherds, the travelling salesmen, the businessmen, the soldiers, etc. of the Muslim society to decide. They should, of course, have knowledge of their religion, as well (this is where these groups lack nowdays).

Islam, by definition, combines state and religion; but it does so exactly in the opposite manner of what is being advocated, nowdays. It never declares the clergy should also run the country or decide what is wrong and right. It declares the shepherds, and the travelling salesmen etc. should also run the religion, a la Prophet Muhammad. This group should have knowledge of religion, as well. And it should use the clergy as a reference, if required. But it should always outrank the clergy in matters of state and society. Infact, in my opinion, in an ideal Islamic society, there would be no professional clergy.

Based on that, I do not agree with your concept of contacting, changing and following professinal imams and religious scholars. Religous scholars in Islam were never meant to be followed. It is not a leadership position of any kind in an Islamic society. If it were, then the biggest religious scholars would have become the Khalifas, after Muhammad. Religious scholars should be used as reference, much like professors are used as reference. They should not be used as leaders, or be considered decision makers. Unfortunately, many people in Islamic societies have elevated religious scholars beyond the domain they should enjoy in Islam. Many religious scholars have themselves attempted to indulge in politics and power accumulation, and have attempted to use their religious knowledge not to educate (like a professor) but to obtain power through religion. This is something that has destroyed Islamic societies. A person whose only professional knowledge is studying religion should be respected. However, his religious knowledge is about as relevant in running and leading a society, as it is relevant in flying an airplane. He is no different than a professor who has studied physics his whole life. Both their domains should be the univeristy classroom; not the presidency nor the supreme court.

I would be interested in your thoughts....

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.

Arrested

Whatever Parsis may have suffered at the hands of Muslims in Iran as you suggest, they have been model citizens of Pakistan. In fact, they have been excellent citizens of both India and Pakistan.

Please learn something about Zoroastrianism. That religion has excercised profound influence on the development of a great many religious traditions that came later. It is amazing that this faith has survived, given its unfortunate circumstances, and that it continues to produce absolutely outstanding individuals, both men and women.

Godot #5 ``gave Pakistan about 15 years max to survive.``

I am intrigued by the frequent comment (over the past few decades now) that Pakistan will not survive. What happens if Pakistan does not survive? Will there be a sudden flash and a hole will appear on the ground where there used to be Pakistan? Or maybe there will be 8-10 different countries where there used to be one, some with nuclear bombs, some without. And each with it`s own little petty tyrant. Altaf ``torture cell`` Bhai in Karachistan, some Sindhi Wadera in Sindhistan, half-brain Nawaz Sharif the MardiMomin in the Lahoristan, Bacha Saqa in Peshawar, Mullah Omar in Baluchistan, and so on. Or perhaps India will try to exert control, only to find itself fighting a guerilla war that will make Afghanistan war against the Russians seem like a petty skirmish.

Or perhaps (at least as likely as the other scenarios) maybe there will be a flash - a flash of a nuclear bomb going off - a first in a a series of flashes in BOTH India and in Pakistan. And then only the unlucky (the ones doomed to die of radiation poisoning or it`s other longer term effects) will survive in both countries.

So, I am not sure what people mean when they say Pakistan wont survive. And why they have been saying this ever since I can remember - as I recall this was in fact a prediction Nehru made in 1947.

re viyas vipul 387 quoting rediff

``Why are Hindus being raped and killed in Bangladesh at a faster rate since Khaleda Zia`s victory? ``

I don`t know but the `rate` is probably no different than the killing in cold blood of Chrisitan missionaries, Dalit untouchables, and Muslim pedestrians.

News outlets and their champions put their own credibility on the line when they start plucking partisan news and sensationalizing it to the point, where in this article, WTC is compared to Bangladesh.

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.

PM

Further to my previous post.

Another good analogy would be to categorize a muslim like a brand of gasoline:regular,premium,or supreme....and maybe a custom-blended one too.Grrrreaat,as long as they drive within speedlimits & not cause accidents.

The state should have no place in the bedroom of the nation(as somebody famous said).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.

re: Naqshbandi

Please read #388. My iman is fine, thank you - and not weak enough to be threatened by the existence of Ahmedis who believe in something different than myself or by the preaching of christian missionaries or by Rushdie`s artsy-fartsy Satanic crap - 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.

PM--381

If he says he is a muslim,he is!

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

Funny,that the word moderate or moderation has gained currency only lately and harkens unwittingly to the act of drinking liquor.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?

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).

I might prefer the words like staunch and nominal but only if applied either by the person to himself or to be used for such person when he is not within the hearing/reading distance.

What do you say?

Truth (#383):

I would be more than happy to drop the subject, because I did not make a huge issue of it to begin with. Since your first post on this Board, this is all that has interested you The question of proving Dr. Zakaria guilty or otherwise does not arise. You will most certainly give him the benefit of doubt – but I strongly object to your statement, “until I read direct quotes from a credible source”. I have quoted the newspaper in which it appeared, the dates and there are copies of it. My credibility is above board here. Yes, you may like to read direct quotes. I wish that your search for ‘truth’ extended to other individuals, considered lesser mortals, who have baseless allegations made against them. I have never seen you ask for credible sources and direct quotes on such occasions.

I trust that you have indeed dropped the subject and the quotes fall on your lap from the heavens above.

Asif: You disappoint me with your beliefs. Not as a Muslim but as a Sufi. I know everyone is on his own level in this life game but DAMN, your position makes a brutha wanna put his head down. Even Muhammed didnt kill people who disrespected him.

Anyways, PEACE be with you in your studies. Ive learned how to respect the beliefs of people like u. Ive learned that people like you dont actually come up with these opinions on your own, but that

your confined to the practices of the ``scholars`` of your day. Regardless, If our paths crossed, Id take your head off before I`d let u kill an ``infidel.`` Trust that. Wasalaam.

PM: Such thought is indicative of one who`s been to the tops of the pyramids. Near the foundation is where they bicker about which path up is ``right.`` The middle is where the fundamentalists and moderates battle, in search of a miraged openning leading to the one. The Peak is spirituality at its earthly zenith-When labels and words and interpretations become meaningless. Where everything is nothing... The field where Rumi recieves instructions from Krishna...

Zafar: I couldnt respond to the last message, we`ll BUILD in the future!

Trillium:

``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.

The real reason ursturly is off the board:

http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33342.htm

A fascinating article by Farrukh Dhondy

http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_our_islamic.html

re asif n`s

``i did say that 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. ``

That Her Majesty tolerates that kind of crassness is a testament to the greatness of Anglo-American civilization. Say that kind of stuff in public in London, outside of Hyde Park.Then we`ll see how much integrity there is in yourself.

Before you guys establish your kind of Traditional Sunni Orthodoxy in any part of the world, I`d rather have Ram Raj established in that part of the globe.

God, I miss the Great Turk Kemal Pasha`s treatment of these soft-spoken bigots. No wonder that Kazi Nazrul Islam (another one termed a Kafir) said

``Kamal, tu ney kya Kamal kiya bhai``

Interesting Article from Rediff:

Varsha Bhosle

One word: Khilafat

On October 7, 1996, PTI reported a symposium held at the Haj House in Mumbai and organised by the (now belatedly banned) Students Islamic Movement of India to call for the establishment of Khilafat, the Quranic concept of a world government based on moral principles laid down in the Sunnah. The symposium was but a prelude to a 10-day, nationwide campaign to be launched a month later, and was attended by delegates from Myanmar, Palestine and Iran. The organiser of the campaign, Mohammed Adil Khot, urged Muslims worldwide to strive for Khilafat as, without it, Islam is incomplete; for, under it, all humankind obeys the commandments of Allah. Khot decried the evils of nationalism, which had manifested in world wars, massacre of innocents in Chechnya and Bosnia, etc, etc, etc.

Khilafat, or caliphate, urges all Muslims to unite into a single nation devoid of geographical boundaries and regional loyalties. Meaning, an Indian Muslim must identify more with an Afghan Muslim than with his own Hindu neighbour. And if he must respect a temporal government, it should be one such as Saudi Arabia`s: The Muslim ethos must always supersede the Indian one.

There`s another aspect to Khilafat, that which is tacit and understood by the `believers`, and without also which Islam remains incomplete: Its ultimate aim is the Islamisation of the world. Like Christianity, and unlike Hinduism, Islam is a proselytising religion. However, whereas the West sends in overtly gentle missionaries, there are no such self-constraints on the desert states. So, the world saw a new Islamic fundamentalist government pop up in October 1996... The Taleban.

The SIMI symposium came close at the heels of another pan-Islamic conference called in London by Syrian cleric Sheikh Omar Bakhri. In the UK, there was a major to-do over it, and permissions were initially denied since the delegates included suspected terrorists from Lebanon, Algeria, Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan and, of course, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Finally, the organisers cancelled the event, saying, ``There has been an adverse press campaign and demonstrations were planned outside the arena by Hindu groups, Jewish groups...`` (`Hindu` as in non-secularist/pinko).

The Sunday Times of August 18, 1996, reported: ``Leading figures of international terrorism who will speak at the rally include Sheikh Osama bin Laden, the multi-millionaire terrorist financier linked to the murder of more than 30 American servicemen in the Middle East... Laden, 40, filmed at a secret location, calls for an international campaign against Western imperialism in his 10-minute speech. He has advocated an all-out war between Muslims and America.`` Bin Laden had also issued a 12-page memorandum declaring open war on US forces in Arabia as an occupying force.

The august company couldn`t possibly have organised the get-together to swap recipes and knitting techniques.

Point is, this Rally for Islamic Revival was to be held at the London Arena, hosting some 7,000 to 14,000 Islamic activists, and Britain would be granting visas to the delegates... The same Britain which has begun monitoring the activities of Sheikh Omar Bakhri after he issued a fatwa ordering the death of General Pervez Musharraf, and declared that ``using any biological weapons in self-defence is, in Islam, permissible, and I believe that we are currently operating under a defensive jihad``. The same Britain whose prime minister is now... well, we may as well start calling Tony Blair the US secretary of state.

Another point is, the first six paragraphs of this column are simply a précis of my article written in October 1996. Which is why I didn`t write these past some months. Hell, even I can tire of repeating myself and saying: I`d told you so...

So what`s my world like now? Why are the Islahe Muashera committees of Andhra Pradesh asking Muslim women to wear burqas, men to grow beards, households to shun cable teelvision, all of which is mandatory as per the tenets of Islam to ``bring about an improvement in society``? Why do bombs continue to explode in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir? Why are Hindus being raped and killed in Bangladesh at a faster rate since Khaleda Zia`s victory? Why is UP rocked by riots over the ban on SIMI -- whose legal adviser, Khalid Shaikh, declared on September 13: ``Peace will come only when Islam rules``...?

In a word: Khilafat. That which generates the mentality that cannot stomach the return of merely 3 Hindu temples from the thousands desecrated and turned into mosques by invaders.

Why is Malegaon in Maharashtra burning over bin Laden? Why do Muslim youth burst crackers, distribute sweets and take out processions with the posters of bin Laden in Talaq Mahal, Beconganj and Chamanganj areas of Kanpur when the WTC towers collapse...? Why have communal riots broken out in Jalgaon? Why are VCDs of bin Laden`s infidel-hating speeches being sold and bought in Assam? Why do Muslims rampage in Patna when an effigy of bin Laden is burnt...? Why do tens of thousands of young Muslims chant in Delhi`s Jama Masjid: ``Taleban, Taleban, we salute you!``? Why are India`s mullahs exhorting people to boycott Coke and Pepsi to protest against the US air strikes, and why do 800 Muslim hoteliers of Bombay ban these in their establishments? Why are 60 policemen injured as a crowd of Muslims stone them during an anti-US rally in Hyderabad? Why does Imam Bukhari still demand proof of bin Laden`s involvement in terrorism? Doesn`t he read the papers? Can`t he hear Osama`s own exhortations...?

One word: Khilafat. The call to extend Allah`s empire. You see, when the Americans bombed Iraq, there was no such outcry from the Muslims in the Philippines or Indonesia or Britain or Pakistan or India. Those Iraqi civilians were also ``innocent`` Muslims. But Saddam (a Leftist, btw), made the mistake of not invoking an Islam-under-attack. As for the ``innocent Afghan brothers`` that India`s Islamists keep invoking -- where is this sensitivity for victims when hundreds of people are slaughtered in Bangladesh and thousands are baked in New York??

In the meantime, Mulayam Singh Yadav demands an immediate withdrawal of the ban on SIMI because ``the BJP wants to divide Hindus and Muslims and polarise votes``, and the oh-so-respected Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, vice-president of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, does likewise. The Italian`s Congress is taken with setting up an attack against the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance so that Lashkar-e-Tayiba and Co may continue their attacks freely. And the Leftists? They are busy agitating against India`s support to the US for its strikes on an Islamic fundamentalist state which is harbouring a terrorist who continues to advise every Muslim in the world to murder every kafir...

In the meantime, the US re-discovers the concepts of patriotism and nationalism and seriously begins questioning the advantages of political correctness -- which it has forced upon the rest of the world (or, at least, India). After the Berkeley City Council approved a resolution demanding that the US government stop bombing Afghanistan, Americans cancelled hotel reservations they had made in Berkeley, terminated a number of business contracts and shunned Berkeley`s shops and restaurants -- forcing the city`s mayor to wring her hands in public. Point is, the resolution narrowly passed by 5 votes on the 9-member council. And, five of the council members are Leftists.

Notwithstanding the unprecedented gratis ad campaign for ``peaceful`` Islam running non-stop on television (with President Bush as spokesman), Americans are also beginning to discover the driving force of khilafat:

``Islamic fundamentalists have launched a Jihad against the entire non-Muslim world. This Jihad is being fought on three fronts. The first front is the war against secular or nominally Islamic governments. The second front is the war against all nations who are either on the fringe of the Islamic world or who have substantial Muslim minorities. The third front is the war against the predominantly non-Muslim US and other Western countries... The sooner we stop pussyfooting around and recognize the nature of the enemy, the sooner we can start winning... The Qu`ran clearly commands the faithful to engage in war against the infidels`` -- Chuck A Morse, nationally syndicated talk show host.

``We have now Islam to deal with. We do not need to make the point that its political and economic record is miserable, that only one of 18 Muslim states (Turkey) is democratically governed... The Taleban has taken unmarried women detected in pregnancy and buried them to neck level before execution. Where is Islamic condemnation of such practices? For that matter, where is condemnation of Saudis chopping pickpockets` hands off? It is all very well for individual Muslim spokesmen to assert the misjudgment of the terrorist, but the Islamic world is substantially made up of countries that ignore, or countenance, or support terrorist activity`` -- William F Buckley, Jr.

``The point is these folks could not have operated for so long in America without a support system -- one provided willingly by Islamicist (sic) supporters right here in the US... How vast is that network today? I hope it is not 5%, but if it is, consider the fact that estimates of the number of Muslims in the US today is as high as 7 million. Do the math. That would translate to a fifth-column army of 350,000`` -- Joseph Farah, editor: World Net Daily.

Well, the conscious among Hindus always knew this stuff; good to know that Americans are waking up, too.

The first thing to do is make people accept that what`s shaking the world *is * Islamic terrorism -- no more, no less. Shabana Azmi says, ``The pan-Islamic ummah is a myth... It is strange that the Hiroshima bombings were never called Christian terrorism, the LTTE`s action is never called Hindu terrorism.`` Well, Sri Lanka`s militant Tamils -- who include Hindus, Christians and Muslims, btw -- don`t quote the Gita to justify their terrorism, nor were the A-bombs dropped in the name of Christ. But then again, Shabana also found Sunny Deol`s Gadar offensive to Muslims...

The question that vexes most of us is, do all Muslims support Khilafat...? Naaah, bull. For instance, Aamir Khan, who backed Sarfarosh so solidly, can`t possibly be an Islamist; and I can`t even imagine Dr Abdul Kalam getting into a fit over ``our Pakistani brothers``. I know too many Muslims who are Indians first and foremost. Too, the Islamic Council of Australia has just declared: ``We don`t take any orders from overseas calling us to war, it`s just not acceptable anyone here would even think about having anything called a holy war in Australia.`` (Zafar, now I know why we are friends :-).) Nonetheless, at least in India, I do believe that the live-and-let-live kind of Muslims are a minuscule minority. The rest are the reason why Malegaon is still burning.

One of the biggest myths perpetrated by pinkos is that poverty and lack of opportunity breeds crime. Which myth has been blown to smithereens by the profiles of the fidayeen who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, not to speak of bin Laden`s own. What monetary problems did Sanjay Dutt have when he accepted a delivery of arms from Samir Hingora and Hanif Kadawala? Just last night, I saw on television a Muslim teenager hold forth on ``our Afghan brothers`` and ``what does America think it is`` outside a mosque in Delhi. He was vociferously supported by prosperous-looking, English-speaking elders in his rant against India`s support to the US and his defence of the terrorist bin Laden...

It`s not poverty and all that crap. Don`t Christians have the New Testament?

Varsha Bhosle

FYI. Another article about the same subject. A Canadian looking for moderates in Pakistan. Go to http://www.thestar.ca and search for ``Where are the moderates``

Here`re some excerpts:

{{The conversation turns to terrorism and I ask, delicately, how the suspected perpetrators managed to so misconstrue Islam`s message of tolerance. Fatima puts down her teacup and stares quizzically at me through heavy eyes.

There is a long silence, broken only by the unceasing drone of a fan, until finally she tries to close off the discussion: Where is the evidence that Osama bin laden - or any Muslim - was involved?

``There is no proof,`` she says firmly.}}

{{Khaled Ahmed, one of the country`s most trenchant columnists at the Friday Times, seems bemused by my quest for the moderate face of Islam. In his cluttered offices above one of Lahore`s most popular bookstores, he is scathing about Pakistan`s academic world.

``When they talk to the West, they are lying - they become defensive,`` Ahmed says, peering through half-rimmed spectacles. ``They say the fundamentalists don`t represent us Muslims. But when it comes to challenging the fundamentalists, they fall quiet.``}}

http://www.secularislam.org/visitors/guest28.htm

This event occurred in Pakistan in April 1994

Hafiz Sajjad Tariq of Gujranwala in Pakistan, accidentally dropped a copy of the Koran in a fireplace. As it caught fire, people of the locality became aflame with rage. Not caring that Sajjad was a pious Muslim devoted to exalt holiness of the Scripture (Koran), they alleged that he had desecrated the Word of God. As mullahs of the area heard of it, they instantly issued Fatwas of apostacy against Sajjad. Like hawks, the fundamentalists swooped down on him, each hoping that his blow would despatch the victim to hell assuring him (the assailant) a seat in paradise. As they were hitting him, someone shouted that he was being dished out an un-Islamic punishment because he must be stoned to death. By then, they had broken his ribs and he was not able to walk. A gallant police officer intervened and locked him up with a view to saving him from mob-violence. As the news spread, a large crowd of frenzied Muslims appeared before the local police- station demanding his immediate release. The Police Inspector, instead of enforcing the law, fell for the temptation of establishing himself as the champion of Islam and handed Sajjad to the attackers. They started stoning him mercilessly and thereafter set his body on fire. If this were not enough, they tied his corpse to a powerful motor-cycle and dragged it through the streets for two hours! After a pious show of Islamic morality, they felt that they had done enough to avenge the honour of the Prophet whom the Koran had been revealed.

PM, nice to see your posts. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Regards

Zafar

farzana:

i had already tried the net. i tried again based on information you provided. couldnt find anything. since i believe in ``innocent till proven guilty``, i will give Rafiq Zakaria the benefit of the doubt until i read direct quotes from a credible source. lets drop the topic.

Hats off to the 10,000 Delhi `untouchables` who converted to Buddhism over the weekend (the Pakistani feudals refer to their own `untouchables) as ``those people``). Refreshing

to have one remaining religion that doesn`t

dangerously claim to have `God` in its hip pocket.

DALITS BREAK SANGH WALL FOR BUDDHA



FROM KAY BENEDICT



New Delhi, Nov. 4:

Ten thousand Dalits today crammed Ambedkar Bhavan in the capital and embraced Buddhism, scaling obstacles laid by suspected supporters of the Sangh parivar and a section of the government.

The bold bid to challenge the caste system in Hinduism also saw the rise of a new Dalit leader, Ram Raj, who has set sights on the preserves of Kanshi Ram, Mayavati and Ramvilas Paswan.

The mass conversion did not come close to the originally projected million-man-mark. But the administration’s overdrive to seal roads to the capital and a “mysterious” misinformation campaign to turn the Dalits back betrayed the nervousness among opponents of the conversion.

Ram Raj dropped the ‘Ram’ in his name and rechristened himself Udit Raj. So did another leader, Neth Ram, who became Neth Raj.

Udit Raj, a deputy director with the income-tax department and chief of a confederation of scheduled castes and tribes that boasts a membership of 40 lakh, said three lakh people could not reach Delhi as they were stopped at the border by police.

He said rumours of violence, misleading information and cancellation of permission by the police to hold the ceremony at the Ramlila grounds led to the thin attendance. An activist showed a “mysterious banner” announcing cancellation of the ceremony, several of which were plastered along the route to the venue.

Udit Raj was the first to convert to Buddhism amid chanting of mantras in the ancient language of Pali by monks before a brass Buddha statue and photograph of B.R. Ambedkar, who had pulled off a mass-conversion coup nearly half a century ago.

Udit Raj’s family members followed next. Udit Raj and several others who took part in the conversion tonsured, too. “The name change and tonsuring are not compulsory,” said Prakash Kumar from Bihar, who changed his name to Buddha Prakash.

Udit Raj had earlier said he would convert one million Dalits to express their rage against social stratification. However, after objections from the Sangh parivar and the government became pronounced, he scaled down the target to one lakh.

The venue was changed to Ambedkar Bhavan at the last minute as the police cancelled permission for the ceremony at the Ramlila grounds. The assembled thousands were told to raise their hand in affirmation and take five vows as hundreds of riot police stood outside. The five don’ts: Harming any living being, telling lies, committing adultery, drinking and worshipping idols.

Udit Raj said the police withdrew permission to use the Ramlila Grounds “at the behest of the RSS and VHP”.

A few Christian leaders also addressed the Dalits.

re. hamza afaqui and `moderate` Muslims

afaqui... quite agree with you there. I`ve always felt moderation was for the irresolute or the wishy-washy.

However, would you call a Muslim who chooses to follow the spirit but not always the letter of the book a Muslim or not? A moderate?

rgds,

PM

re. #361

Eklavya, you wrote:

``For that to happen, he has to demonstrate that he has some genuine long-term vision and the guts to fight for that vision, INDEPENDENT of the current crisis and INDEPENDENT of international compulsions. In managerial terminology, he has to bring about what the nation desperately needs - a bout of internally generated ``second loop learning.`` If he doesn`t do that, we will be worshipping another god with feet of clay.``

Well said! So far Mushy`s `right` moves have been really the only ones he could make under the cirsumstances. The true tests lie ahead. Maybe.

rgds,

Pat

[Ab kya bataaye, babu...if you and Shirin, Kiran, Temporal are around I may break into that old chirpy number, ``Paan khaaye saiyyan hamaro, saavli sooratiya, honth laal-laal, Hae-hae mulmul ka kurta...``]

Lol! Sahi ji, Farzana aur gaana....yaar mujhey saath to nahi deina parey ga...can`t really sing na. Problem hojaye gi. Shirin aur Temporal sey poochtey hein, if they can carry a tune? And speaking of temporal, mausoof ki vacation lambi nahi hogi, kehaan nikal gaye? Naqaar-khaaney mein unki barri kammi hay.

That Rummi translation was beautiful. Haunting imagery. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Kiran :)

anNY: Thanks. I am glad you have christian friends who discuss their concerns. Simple words and gestures of support from ordinary people of the majority community mean a lot to the minority community in troubled times anywhere. So, thanks on behalf of minorities everywhere.

shankar: Thanks for the kind words. There are people more deserving than myself of these words -anNy of course, rjanjua and 135 million other Pakistanis. There are bigots, but I really dont think Pakistan enjoys a greater share of bigots than any other society.

asif #349 ``because all those who reject belief in Allah AND His Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the basic tenets of Islam (the ``zaruriyat-e-deen``) are kaafirs [`those who reject`/infidels/non-believers]. ``

Read the Quran. It says over and over again that determining who is right and who is wrong is God`s business, to be conducted on the Judgement Day, not that of man. But you and urstruly obviously think you have an authority that the Quran clearly says is not given even to the Prophet. I assume therefore that you have been given the Power of Attorney by God to pass judgement on whether someone is a kafir or not. And that you will be able to present it to God at the time. Given your faith in intercessors to ``guide`` to in matters of religion, given your self-proclaimed ``guilty as charged`` on assuming an authority denied by God to even the Holy Prophet, I think my friend you will be sitting on a hot seat one day. If you believe in the Judgement Day and the Quran that is.

As for yours having missed urstruly`s crude and insulting way of referring to people of a certain religion on chowk, it is convenient sometimes to look the other way, right? This violates another Quranic injunction - honesty.

If you had a traffic ticket for every time you violated the Quran, by now your car would have been towed away and your driver`s licence revoked.

For anyone who missed it, here`s Arundhati Roy`s second article (since 9/11) on tehelka....

War is Peaceon a War Footing

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/commentary/2001/oct/27/printable/com102701warpr.htm

enjoy!

rajajanjua sahib--i never said that anyone who doesn`t agree with my islamic beliefs should be killed--that is a lie and a slander against me and you know it. i did say that 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. 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. it is you modernists who want to change islam to suit your worldview.

finally it surprises me how someone can call Allah`s Revealed Law (Shar`iat) as ``idiotic`` and stupid and still claim to be a Muslim in the same breath...?

Doesn`t the Qur`an say, ``Obey Allah and obey the Messenger`` ? and ``Whatever the (beloved) Messenger

gives you take, and whatever he stops you from, refrain?

you should seriously learn islam from someone who knows and renew your iman.

[Ab kya bataaye, babu...if you and Shirin, Kiran, Temporal are around I may break into that old chirpy number, ``Paan khaaye saiyyan hamaro, saavli sooratiya, honth laal-laal, Hae-hae mulmul ka kurta...``]

Lol! Sahi ji, Farzana aur gaana....yaar mujhey saath to nahi deina parey ga...can`t really sing na. Problem hojaye gi. Shirin aur Temporal sey poochtey hein, if they can carry a tune? And speaking of temporal, mausoof ki vacation lambi nahi hogi, kehaan nikal gaye? Naqaar-khaaney mein unki barri kammi hay.

That Rummi translation was beautiful. Haunting imagery. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,

Kiran :)

Ref Jay #: 318

d[One of the rulers of kerala, Cheraman Perumal distributed all his wealth, went to saudi, converted to islam, and married a close relative, some say the sister of the man himself. It is said in history books of kerala that his tomb is still there and is preserved by the saudis.]

Didn`t hear the story of Cheraman Perumal when I was in Kerala.

[keralites also claim that St thomas, the asal deciple of christ came to kerala and converted the hindus. So the christians and muslims of kerala are as old as any where else.]

There was actually a documentary on PBS. One Englishman decided to trace the path of St. Thomas the Apostle through Kerala and Tamil Nadu and filmed his journey through South India. St. Thomas is believed to be buried at St. Thomas`s Mount in Madras. The Kerala Christians do not belong to either the Roman Catholic Church or the various Protestant denominations. Theirs is the Mar Thoma Syrian Orthodox Church, which even used to ask the Patriarch of Antioch to nominate their Metropolitan (Archbishop) when the old one died. So there is considerable evidence that Christianity in Kerala is very ancient.

Also, the Jews landed in Kerala in 297 AD at Cranganore. They were received by the local King and granted a charter (inscribed in copper plates) that granted them freedom of worship. One of their synagogues, built in 1600, still stands in Cochin and Jew Town in Cochin is now the spice trading center of the area.

Truth (#356):

My article was not about Dr. Zakaria; there is something called ‘debate by association’. The readers have always come to their own conclusions, often as absurd as (if not more than) you accuse me of. I think I went out of my way to clarify that this was a non-recorded conversation. To counter that I mentioned a subject that was on record – his offer to get Muslims to pay jaziya to “guarantee their safety”. If you want to play policeman, please do so. There is something called the search engine. I wonder if the archives can take you back to news items of around Jan-Feb 1993. My column titled, ‘Save your skins’, opposing his statement, appeared on Feb. 13, 1993 (Mid-day). Responses to it are there in the issues dated Feb 17 and 27.

Dr. Zakaria initiated a meeting after this. I went over to his Bombay flat. There is no record of whether I had tea or coffee, but I think there were some biscuits. And he said some flattering things too :) Of course, I cannot provide evidence of any of these…

“My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.” Bernard Shaw.

Regards,

Farzana

Eklavya (#329):

Interesting post, prompting a few observations…regarding of course the ignorant segment. It starts with the incredulous, “But you speak English!!” When I am in one of those moods, I do turn around and say, yes, I most certainly do. And you speak American, don’t you? Then the conversation could proceed:

1.Do they know the difference between Brahmins and shudras? (I do not mention my religion on my travels, unless the conversation demands it, so the next step is – “oh, there are Moslems there too!” I must confess the idea of somebody being unaware of ‘Aurangzeb’s aulaads’ for a change makes me happy.

2.If Moslems do not burn brides, what do you do with them? (Being better chefs, I suppose I can safely state we kinda cook them – in a covered dish of course.)

3.There was a time when I had turned vegetarian, so the question was, “Aww, are they trying to make you into Indoos?”

4.Then there are the usual enquiries about cow worship, snakes, maharajahs, elephants, rickshaw-pullers, sadhus.

At the end of it, I am feeling pretty exotique and exhausted.

And hey, now with so many amenities available IN India, you are returning, I assume :)

dost-mittarji (#351):

Just ask for Dilli Haat, I don’t know where it is…

About my ashram, I can manage quite a few Rajneeshi sanyasins (they are my friends)…and here anything that rocks will roll (or vice versa!), so it will be a hit. NOIDA property…Let me see how much I want to invest to deny myself the simple pleasures of life to reach nirvana!

If Punjabis turn paan into rasgullas, I eat it like a sandwich – just can’t stuff the whole thing in my mouth.

“Vakhri”…do you too have to test me?! As far as ‘different’ goes, agar aapko bataaye kya-kya vakhri cheezon ke baare mein likha hai, shaayad aap scandalise ho jaaye.

Regards,

Farzana

Farzana,

Slowly, as I have said, political correctness is giving way to the good old truth. It is religious terrorism now, islamic terrorism, no no he is referring to the budhist terrorism by the tibetans in india.

Religious terrorism has emerged as main danger in new century: Vajpayee

V.S. Chandrasekar (PTI)

(St Petersburg, November 5)







Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee today said that religious terrorism has emerged as the ``new menace`` and the ``main danger`` to peace, stability and civilised world order in the new century and called for the fight against it on the basis of ``widest possible`` international cooperation.

On the second day of his three-nation tour to focus on the global campaign against the scourge, he spoke candidly to a group of Russian intellectuals and ideologists saying the horrendous Sep 11 terrorist attacks on the United States have highlighted the evil face of this new menace to all peace loving and right thinking people around the world.

Eklavya

“I have even been asked whether we get enough to eat in India, or if there are post offices in India!”

….no kidding…one bright soul even inquired whether there were any houses in pakistan…

Asif Naqshbandi

“As for those who make silly comments to women on Chowk the best reply to them is silence. As the Persian proverb goes, ``Jawaab-i jaahilaaN khamushi baashad.`` (Silence is the best reply to the idiots).”

…..golden words to live by…..

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

re: sattar

``If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.``

Sattar Sahib, The best way to describe Naqshbandi Sahib is as a ``dangerous idiot`` - If he would have left out the death sentences he can be ignored, after all he has a right to have his opinions - But since his types advocate violence against anyone who does`nt agree with their religious beliefs I think they should be dealt with accordingly.

I personally think that the whole imposition of Shariah business is a disgrace to humanity and especially three things ``declaration of Ahmedis as non-Muslims``, ``Hudood Ordinance`` and ``Blasphemy Laws`` stand out as examples of how low humans can go in the name of religion.

nasah

Eklviya and Dostmittar are two most polite people on Chowk. I prefer your * carrion eaters * for describing these dirty chaddhi wearing fascists.

ylh

Like other civilized countries India also always sees debate about its history. History is always controversial which can not be settled easily. The quality of our debate is different from Pakistani history in which Hindus are openly called names, described as cowards, liers, cheaters, untrustworthy and no minister or general has courage to raise the issue. Udaykumar`s qualification only he knows. Chowk has published articles even by you. No intelligence or honesty is needed.

See this article for important debate on Indian history. Indian people are worried *before * wrong things may happen. When they write wrong things there will be big uproar in India. If they call Muslims liers cheaters untrustworthy, I will denounce and fight them, not you. In Pakistan fools like you spend time fighting Indians instead of having courage to challenge your lies taught to Pakistani young people -

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1822/18220820.htm

CONTROVERSY

History and sensibilities

The government`s censorship of the NCERT`s Class XI history textbook following a hue and cry by the Sikh community over the depiction of Guru Tegh Bahadur angers social scientists.

NAUNIDHI KAUR

History should not be commanded to any direction that the writer fancies. Discuss.

ANY undergraduate student of history answering this question in the present context will perhaps find a case study in the controversy raging over the depiction of the ninth Sikh guru, Tegh Bahadur, as a plunderer in the Class XI Medieval India history textbook authored by Professor Satish Chandra. After scrutinising the debate on the use of sources by historians to write history, the student would no doubt be disappointed with the Human Resource Development Ministry`s response of quashing the debate with a fiat to delete the controversial paragraphs. Worse still, any scholar would be concerned, as most social scientists now are, about the secrecy being maintained by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in writing new history books.

S. SUBRAMANIUM

Professor Satish Chandra.

``Hurt by the account`` in the textbook, Arvinder Singh Lovely, a Congress legislator, raised the matter in the Delhi Assembly on September 28. The Congress members called the use of Persian sources, which gave a ``distorted`` account of the Guru, ``an act of sacrilege``. Talking to Frontline, Arvinder Singh said that Satish Chandra referred to Persian sources as the official account, completely ignoring religious sources.

The passage that has been found objectionable in the textbook reads: ``However, in 1675, Guru Tegh Bahadur was arrested with five of his followers, brought to Delhi and executed. The official explanation for this as given in some later Persian sources is that after his return from Assam, the Guru, in association with one Hafiz Adam, a follower of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, had resorted to plunder and rapine, laying waste the province of the Punjab.``

Satish Chandra, a former Professor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, clarified that he called the Persian source an ``official account, or the official justification, because for a historian, official accounts are generally full of evasion and distortion to justify official action.``

He said that he did not want to hurt the sentiments of any community and that he was willing to change the wordings in one of the objectionable passages. ``My emphasis has been to present the social, economic and religious factors to the students.`` Religion was just one of the factors that are instrumental in the study of history, not the only factor, he said. ``The social and economic factors are very important. Students need to be made aware of these factors so that they can think independently,`` he explained.

Apparently, the controversy has provided the HRD Ministry a golden opportunity to place history books before religious teachers. Outraged by the Ministry`s knee-jerk reaction, social scientists said that the vetting of texts by religious leaders would curtail scientific inquiry, which starts on the premise that there are always more than one viewpoint. Historians have objected to HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi`s directive to the NCERT to have the portion on the Sikh Guru deleted.

``If sentiments are the criteria for deleting portions from history books, then what would happen to scientific inquiry? Reason has to prevail in history, not sentiments,`` said K.M. Shrimali of Delhi University. ``We strongly object to the directive of putting history textbooks to the censorship of religious leaders. Such a decision is reprehensible in a country committed to secular values and cannot be accepted by any historian or social scientist worth the name,`` said eminent historian Irfan Habib at a media conference organised to condemn the government`s action.

``It remains to be seen what kind of people would qualify to be religious teachers,`` said Dr. Arjun Dev, former head of the Department of Social Science and Humanities in the NCERT. ``The government is bent upon destroying history as a branch of knowledge,`` he said.

Historians are also concerned about the secrecy with which the NCERT has been handling the new syllabus. This view was endorsed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on October 12 asking the government to demystify the process of changing the syllabus. ``I believe such secrecy in academic matters is unprecedented,`` she wrote.

In the process, the debate on the use of sources in presenting historical facts has been silenced. Objections to the depiction of Tegh Bahadur are not new and are a part of the debate on the use of Persian sources in the study of Sikh and Mughal history. The Persian source referred by Satish Chandra is Siyar-ul-Mutakharin, written in 1783 by Ghulam Husain Taba-Tabai. Historians who have discouraged the use of the text have pointed out that it was written more than a century after Guru Tegh Bahadur`s death. And Ghulam Husain lived far away from Punjab. Also, the Guru`s association with Hafiz Adam is anachronistic. Hafiz Adam died in Medina in A.D. 1643, 21 years before Tegh Bahadur attained the status of Guru. Further, they point out that according to Ghulam Husain, Tegh Bahadur was confined in Gwalior, where, under imperial orders, his body was ``cut into four quarters`` and hung at the four gates of the fortress. Critics say that Tegh Bahadur was executed in Delhi where the Sisganj Gurudwara is situated at present.

Further, there are various translations of Ghulam Husain`s text. The historian, Joseph Davey Cunningham (A History of Sikhs; London, 1842) has used Raymond`s translation, on which Satish Chandra has also relied.

There is another translation of the same text, which is more precise and less derisive of Tegh Bahadur. This has been used by noted Sikh historian Ganda Singh in his works.

It reads: ``Tegh Bahadur, gathering many disciples, became powerful, and thousands of people accompanied him. A contemporary of his, Hafiz Adam, who was a fakir belonging to the order of Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, had gathered about him a great multitude of followers. Both of these took to the practice of levying forcible exactions and moved about in the land of the Punjab. Tegh Bahadur took money from Hindus and Hafiz Adam from Mussalmans. The royal news writers wrote to the Emperor that the two fakirs, one Hindu and the other Muslim named so-and-so, had taken to the practice. It would not be strange if, with the increase of their influence, they created trouble.`` This translation which makes no mention of ``subsisting by plunder`` has been accepted as more accurate by historians such as Harbans Singh and Norman Gerald Barrier in The Punjab: Past and Present: Essays in Honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, Khushwant Singh in `A History of the Sikhs` and A.C.Banerjee.

Satish Chandra said he would have no objections in using this translation in the NCERT book in place of the ``objectionable`` one. He said: ``If it is a question of changing a few words I would be a very happy person. I have never wanted to hurt the sentiments of any community. Unfortunately, at the time that I wrote the NCERT book I did not have the Persian translation and I relied on Cunningham`s translation. Later I came across other accounts that I have found more convincing.``

The second point of controversy refers to the following passage in the textbook: ``According to Sikh tradition, the execution was due to intrigues of some members of his (Guru Tegh Bahadur`s) family who disputed his succession, and by others who had joined them. But we are also told that Aurangzeb was annoyed because the Guru had converted a few Muslims to Sikhism. There is also the tradition that the Guru was punished because he had raised a protest against the religious persecution of the Hindus in Kashmir by the local governor. However, the persecution of the Hindus is not mentioned in any of the histories of Kashmir, including the one written by Narayan Kaul in 1710. Saif Khan, the Mughal governor of Kashmir, is famous as a builder of bridges. He was a humane and broad-minded person who had appointed a Hindu to advise him in administrative matters. His successor after 1671, Iftekhar Khan, was anti-Shia but there are no references to his persecuting the Hindus.``

The Congress legislators objected to the negation of the Guru as the protector of Kashmiri Pandits. However Satish Chandra says: ``I have treated this issue in a slightly different manner. My focus was to render a constructive interpretation of tradition. Hence I have concluded that the Guru was giving expression to the discontent and disaffection of the Hindus of the region over Aurangzeb`s decision to break some long-standing temples.`` He has used Sohan Lal Suri`s Umdat-ut-Tawarikh to come to this conclusion. Satish Chandra has however concluded in the textbook: ``Whatever the reasons, Aurangzeb`s action was unjustified from any point of view and betrayed a narrow approach,`` and that ``the Guru gave up his life for cherished principles.``

Historians, including Max Arthur Macauliffe, who support the role of Tegh Bahadur as a saviour of Kashmiri Pandits, quote Bachittar Natak written by Tegh Bahadur`s son and the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh. Tegh Bahadur is described as the protector of the sacred marks (tilak) and the sacred thread (janju) of Hindus. The book also states that the Guru courted martyrdom to uphold his religious beliefs.

Satish Chandra questions the use of Bachittar Natak as a contemporary source. ``Bachittar Natak is a religious account. It is not history in the strict sense. Moreover, it does not say explicitly that Hindus came to the Guru and protested. It does not even mention the important historical fact that Tegh Bahadur was asked by Emperor Aurangzeb to perform a miracle,`` to prove his divine powers. These controversies have cropped up because the details regarding Guru Tegh Bahadur`s execution are shrouded in mystery. Historians use hagiographic accounts in the contemporary and near-contemporary sources to buttress their accounts. As a result, there are competing Muslim and Sikh claims about Tegh Bahadur`s activities and capture. The Persian sources maintain that the Guru was a bandit and was justly executed for his rebel activity. The Sikh narratives hold that Tegh Bahadur died during an attempt to secure the rights of all the people, particularly, the Brahmins of Kashmir, to practise their religion and don their religious symbols in good conscience. By using Persian sources or emphasising Kashmiri sources, Satish Chandra has not been ambiguous in his stand. Hence, even his worst critics cannot accuse him of suspending judgment.

Satish Chandra told Frontline: ``There is no occasion for creating and nursing the feeling that in the textbook the Guru has been maligned or that an attempt has been made to hurt Sikh sentiments. On the other hand, the book places Guru Tegh Bahadur on a very high pedestal.`` For other historians, honouring or dishonouring historical figures is not so much the point as understanding them in their social and political contexts.

Satish Chandra has objected to NCERT Director J.S. Rajput`s statement that the deplorable tradition of denigrating minorities by some historians who are working hand-in-glove with the destabilising forces must end. He said: ``If some historian, or for that matter any individual, acts in collusion with destabilising forces, the Government of India has the authority to act against them. It is hardly the NCERT Director`s job to make such allegations, thereby creating unnecessary tension and importing politics into what was a historical debate.``

Historians have reacted strongly to the NCERT`s decision to ask Dr. T.P. Verma, formerly of the Benaras Hindu University, and Makkhan Lal, Director, Institute of Heritage Research and Management, for writing the Class XI Ancient India textbook. They point to the saffron hues that were apparent in Verma`s Ayodhya ka Itihaas Evam Puratattva and Makkhan Lal`s tacit approval of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Arjun Dev said: ``Apart from ideological leanings, the quality of the works produced by such experts in questionable. Dr. Lal specialises in the archaeological branch of painted greyware. He does not seem to have a general background in ancient Indian history that would have helped him write the volume. There is more to ancient India than archaeology.``

The NCERT`s response to the controversy over the Medieval India textbook and naming of Verma and Makkhan Lal as writers of the Ancient India books shows that the NCERT has made up its mind to ``rewrite history with a completely different ideological leaning,`` Arjun Dev said. Questioning Dr. Verma`s credentials, Dr. Shrimali said: ``He has only one research monograph to his credit. If writing pamphlets for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is a credential, then it would reflect on the end results as well. All this is a very serious matter. We shudder to think of the future and remain wary of where we are being led.``

shankar #348: ``I`ve also changed my opinion about Mushy. I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.``

I said this on day one, after the coup. I had no idea who Musharraf was before he became the COAS. And I had no idea what he would do after the coup. But, after working with, for and meeting enough Pakistani generals in my life, it is quite easy to pick out the sincere ones from the non-sincere ones.

Within the limited maneouvring space available to him, he has made mostly the right decisions. The wrong ones have been due to lack of experience and not due to lack of intent. Now he has a lot of room to maneouvre, and Pakistan`s condition should improve. He is somewhat of a hero in the Western world. I bet he gets VIP treatment on his visit to the US. Perhaps a standing ovation or two.

People had stated, he was running Pakistan with his corps commanders. I had said, he was running it with the core members of his cabinet. So far, he has replaced (or they have retired on their own) nearly all the corps commanders, he came in with. Including the ones who carried out the coup. He has replaced many of the governors. He has replaced the members of the National Security Council.

However, the core cabinet members are still there. These include Shaukut Aziz (the most successful Pakistani and perhaps South Asian, banker in the world, and the second most powerful man in Pakistan; a candidate for the Prime Minster position), Razzaq Dawood (on the board of directors of Imran Khan`s cancer hospital), Omar Asghar (Cambridge educated head of a well-known philathrapic organization, and son of the father of the PAF, Asghar Khan), Abdus Sattar (don`t know much about him), Ata-ur-Rahman (the most accomplished scientist in Pakistan), etc. I think Maleeha Lodhi has a lot of input also (I believe her brother is absconding and is wanted by NAB; this indicates the honesty of this regime).

Musharraf wants Imran Khan or Asghar Khan to be the next PM. However, that is not possible in the feudal Pakistani politics. So, the next PM will either be Shaukut Aziz (through some Presidential action), or a non-feudal relatively honest leader from the either of the two parties that will win the next elections, i.e. PPP or PML.

I have been stating all along that Musharraf and Vajpayee have the Kashmir problem solved between them. I like Vajpayee also. I think he is willing to allow some sort of self-determination for Kashmiris. I have stated that quite often. Musharraf being the dictator can get Pakistan to accept his solution on Kashmir. Now if the BJP fundoos would get off Vajpayee`s back, he could do something. Unfortunately, the BJP hardliners have dominated him now, and once Vajpayee goes, Indo-Pak relations will be down the tube even furthur.

Indians would be well-advised to deal with a mild-mannered, balanced Muhajir in authority like Musharraf, on Kashmir. Otherwise, they will be stuck with people like myself (ill-educated Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathans and Kashmiris leaders in positions of power in Pakistan). I said this two years ago. And Pakistan`s position on Kashmir is getting stronger and stronger. Ten years from now, Musharraf may not be around, and Pakistanis may be in a such a strong position that they maybe unwilling to negotiate.

Dear Asif Naqshbandi:

You write to tahmed:

“urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view … if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged.

Asif mian -- you DO stand “guilty as charged” -- of crassness and bigotry -- calling the Hindu interactors on Chowk -- Kaafirs. You ARE deluded to think that YOU have the MONOPOLY on “ islamic point of view” – YOU DO NOT.

On the other hand -- if, as a “GOOD MUSLIM” -- you are trying to collect some RAIN-CHECKS from God -- through Tableegh of this “islamic point of view” -- in order for you to build let`s say -- a free mansion in JUNNUT -- with houris and ghilmans as free slaves, serving you plenty of free wine – then why don’t you take your “Islamic preaching” -- on the SUNNI.ORG – where you can get far more dividends for far less effort of yours.



What a Zahid like you doing in a Tavern like Chowk – you should be among the Believers.

Speaking of “Moderate Muslim” … I am engaged in a debate regarding Blasphemy Laws with Naqshbandi Sahib on another board (India’s Communal Gamble, under Civic Center). Naqshbandi Sahib insists on being an “open-minded Muslim who is free from hatred”, but does not hesitate to condemn to death those who blaspheme against Quran and Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

If this is a “moderate” Muslim, then Islam may as well be a cult of devil worshippers.

I have pointed out the verses of Quran that ask believers to merely sever social ties with those who blaspheme against signs of Allah, but Naqshbandi Sahib insists on deriving conclusions based on the works of scholars who concluded very differently. Quran tells us to “ignore and avoid” such people, whereas Naqshbandi Sahib wants to kill these people, in the name of Islam. Our dear Urstruly has equally idiotic ideas, the reasoning behind which can only be understood by a dumb-wit … like he himself, or his cousin Naqshbandi, or his illetrate doodh-waala.

Such “jahil” mullahs have distorted the face of Islam, and the fanatic element in the population continues to follow them. These animals have caused much bloodshed in the past, and continue to do so even today. As long as Muslims of the world are guided by such corrupt, “jahil” mullahs, they will remain in the bottom of the social order across the world.

Asad

A muslim is a muslim.There is no such a thing as a moderate or immoderate muslim.Just as there is no such a thing as a patriotic & kinda-patriotic American or a fundamentalist scientist and jumpingjack scientist.

______________

Sunday Telegraph

May 28, 1995

HEADLINE: Why I chose Islam, by bride Jemima Goldsmith

---------

When Jemima Goldsmith, the 21-year-old daughter of billionaire Sir James, married Imran Khan she embraced not only the world`s most handsome sportsman but also the Muslim faith, taking the name Haiqa. Here, in an exclusive account, she tells how she journeyed from the glamorous society of London to the austere religion of Lahore

By Jemima Goldsmith



THE media present me as a naive, besotted 21-year-old who has made a hasty decision without really considering the consequences - thus effectively condemning herself to a life of interminable subservience, misery and isolation. Although I must confess I have rather enjoyed the various depictions of a veiled and miserable ``Haiqa Khan`` incarcerated in chains, the reality is somewhat different. Contrary to current opinion, my decision to convert to Islam was entirely my own choice and in no way hurried. Whilst the act of conversion itself is surprisingly quick - entailing the simple assertion that ``there is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet`` - the preparation is not necessarily so speedy a process. In my case, this began last July, whilst the actual conversion took place in early February - three months before the Nikkah in Paris.

During that time, I studied in depth both the Quran and the works of various Islamic scholars (Gai Eaton, the Bosnian president Alia Izetbegovic, Muhammad Asad) , thus giving me ample time to reflect before making my decision. What began as intellectual curiosity slowly ripened into a dawning realisation of the universal and eternal truth that is Islam. In the statement given out a week ago, I particularly stressed that I had converted to Islam entirely ``through my own convictions``. The significance of this has been largely ignored by the press. The point is that my conversion was not, as so many have assumed, a pre-requisite to my marriage. It was entirely my own choice. Religiously speaking, there was absolutely no compulsion for me to convert prior to my marriage. As it explicitly states in the Quran, a Muslim is permitted to marry from ``the People of the Book`` - in other words, either a Christian or a Jew. Indeed, the Sunnah - which describes the life of the Prophet - shows that the messenger of Islam himself married both a Christian and a Jew during his lifetime.

I believe that much of this hostility towards my marriage and conversion stems from widespread misconceptions about an alien culture and religion. Not only is there a huge gulf between the Western view of Islam and the reality, but there is in some cases also a significant distinction between Islam based directly on the Quran and the Sunnah and that practised by some Islamic societies. During the last year I have had the opportunity to visit Pakistan on three separate occasions and have observed Islamic family life in practice. Thus, to some extent I now feel qualified to judge for myself the true role and position of women in the religion. At the risk of sounding defensive, I would like to point out that Islam is not a religion which subjugates women whilst elevating men to the status of mini-dictators in their own homes.

I was able to see this first-hand when I met Imran`s sisters in Lahore: they are all highly educated professional women. His oldest sister, Robina, is an alumnus of the LSE and holds a senior position in the United Nations in New York. Another sister, Aleema, has a master`s degree in business administration and runs a successful business; Uzma is a highly qualified surgeon working in a Lahore hospital, whilst Rani is a university graduate who co-ordinates charity work. They can hardly be seen as ``women in chains`` dominated by tyrannical husbands. On the contrary, they are strong-minded independent women - yet at the same time they remain deeply committed both to their families and their religion. Thus, I was able to see - in theory and in practice - how Islam promotes the essential notion of the family unit without subjugating its female members.

I am nevertheless fully aware that women are sometimes exploited and oppressed in Islamic societies, as in other parts of the world. Judging by some of the articles which have appeared in the press, it would seem that a Western woman`s happiness hinges largely upon her access to nightclubs, alcohol and revealing clothes; and the absence of such apparent freedom and luxuries in Islamic societies is seen as an infringement of her basic rights. However, as we all know, such superficialities have very little to do with true happiness. Besides, without in any way wishing to disparage the culture of the Western world, into which I was born, I am more than willing to forego the transient pleasures derived from alcohol and nightclubs; and as for the clothes I will be wearing, I find the traditional shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) worn by most Pakistani women far more elegant and feminine than anything in my wardrobe.

Finally, it seems futile to speculate on my chances of marital success. Marriage, as Imran`s father has been quoted as saying, is indeed ``a gamble``. However, when I see that in a society based on family life the divorce rate is just a fraction of that in European or American society, I cannot see that my chances of success are any less than if I had chosen to marry a Westerner. I am all too aware of the enormous task of adapting to a new and radically different culture. But with the love of my husband and the support of his family I look forward to the challenge wholeheartedly, and would like to feel that people wish me well. Whilst I do appreciate the genuine concerns of many, I must confess to feeling somewhat bewildered by all of the commotion.

re: shankar # 348

``I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.``

I hope my Pakistani friends will excuse me, but that is no great commendation. For some Goddamn reason, Pakistan just hasn`t produced leaders of any worth. It surely isn`t the nature of Pakisani people holding them back: anNy and tahmed together will make better leaders than any we have had in India.

But, Shankar, I wouldn`t go overboard with Musharraf yet. He does have my support for the moment. The more important question is: Will he prove to be the kind of leader who can help Pakistan after this crisis abates a little.

For that to happen, he has to demonstrate that he has some genuine long-term vision and the guts to fight for that vision, INDEPENDENT of the current crisis and INDEPENDENT of international compulsions. In managerial terminology, he has to bring about what the nation desperately needs - a bout of internally generated ``second loop learning.`` If he doesn`t do that, we will be worshipping another god with feet of clay.

So let us be enthusiastic about him, but let us also temper our enthusiasm with a healthy dose of cynicism. That way we will be better judge of men and matters.

Regards.

Pyar,

Let me turn the question around. What do you or I do to help the ``moderate`` Muslims you are looking for? Or, more appropriately, what do we do to help ``moderate`` anything, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh?

Pyar, the pull of extremism is very strong (believe me, being a hot-blooded man, I have been there). It becomes even stronger among the young. If you notice, almost all the bombings, murders are carried out by people under 30. If the broader ideological framework condones violence under any pretext, things easily get pathologically out of hand. One type of extremism feeds on another kind. The answer may lie in a simultaneous drive to root out extremism everywhere.

nasah # 354

My dear friend, you made me hang my head in shame for even sharing my religion with such people as these. Your father`s story reinforces my belief: The harder these forces of darkness push, the harder we have to push them back.

There is no sitting on the fence so far as forces of religious bigotry are concerned. You are either against them or for them. Those who deny this fact are living in a world of dreams.

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

Farzana:

You are the one who made the original reference to the ``informal chat`` and drew some rather absurd conclusions about Rafiq Zakaria - conclusions that are hard for a reader to follow from the facts you presented. The issue is not Rafiq Zakaria, but your own powers of logical discourse. I`m happy to drop the topic but you have raised a new one - that Rafiq Zakaria was in favor of Muslims paying jaziya. Please provide us some evidence to back that accusation. I will wait for your response before I comment further.

Maybe there IS hope after-all.Is ignorance of the Western mind receding?Is there a silver-lining behind the rubble-cloud?

Let us keep hoping & praying



Fundamentalism, as such a phenomenon, is deemed incomprehensible to many. Many Americans were and are taught to equate theocracy with medievalism and medievalism with backwardness and intolerance. Fundamentalist or so-called Islamic movements are, by definition, according to classical western historians, backward-looking. And to many people - especially Americans - the idea of history moving backwards is irrational. It is as if after being kissed, Sleeping Beauty rolled over and closed her eyes again. People, once exposed to new ideas, are supposed to discard old ways of thinking. Classical scholarship, steeped in ideas of western superiority and ``progress`` and influenced by social Darwinism, was unable to account for modern movements advocating an Islamic resurgence. Faced with the problem of having to explain the refusal of Islamic societies to consign Islam to the political sidelines, as was done with Christianity in Europe, some have clung more to the old historiography and sought answers there. The fundamentalists, we are told, wish to return to the glory of Harun al Rashid.

But fundamentalism makes more sense with regard to the 19th and 20th centuries than to the 9th or 10th centuries. Classical Western scholarship of the Middle East treats the period of Western imperialism as one which, on balance, was beneficial to the development of those societies.

According to this tradition the Middle East was in a period of such deep stagnation that it required a rude awakening to move it toward the future. We have no way of knowing what course their history would have taken had European powers not politically dominated the Middle East in the 19th century.

However, we do history a disservice by ignoring the ugly truths of the era. Never mind the elegant colonial lifestyle portrayed ad nauseam in movies and miniseries. History tells us that the imperial powers forced their way into these countries and ran the political systems and economies to their own advantage. They murdered or exiled opposition leaders and limited educational opportunities. Finally, they denigrated the religion and culture and placed foreigners and foreign interests in a separate legal universe, which made them unanswerable to local authority in personal matters and in business affairs. It`s worth remembering that, while we preach democracy and secularism to these countries, most of these ``foreigners`` were natives of the country who were removed from the legal authority of the local power by the European imperial powers because they were non-Muslims. Not to mention that all major European powers claimed to be protecting religious minorities, thus reinforcing the concept of non-secular citizenship.

As we seek to use history in our understanding of the region we might consider that the Western rather than the Arab imperial past has been the major influence on fundamentalists as they fight their political-cultural war. And there is no hiding that the United States is tainted by that legacy in the eyes of many in the Middle East. Indeed, what is seen as a change in world leadership from colonialist Europeans to democratic Americans, others may see as continuity under a different flag. For example:

The replacement of the centuries old British-Russian rivalry in the Middle East and elsewhere with the U.S.-Soviet rivalry.

The accumulated debts of the mid- to late-19th century, in particular, of Middle Eastern rulers owed to European banks compared with the tremendous debts now owed to the United States and institutions where the United States is prominent.

Bickering between Americans and Europeans over contracts in Kuwait following the Gulf War, which bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the centuries-old conflict among Europeans over capitulations in the Ottoman empire with which they also had a protective relationship.

The merits of these comparisons are less important than that past events appearing to have contemporary parallels influence the perception of the United States in the area. There is no question that all Arab countries harbor some form of anti-Americanism. In many cases it is officially sanctioned - even by governments friendly to the United States - to preserve governments from unflattering comparisons with the vulnerability of their 19th-century predecessors. In that sense, America`s strength is also its weakness, for if the United States was a lesser power, governments would be less anxious about whether cordiality will be interpreted by political enemies as a display of weakness. A corollary to this somewhat defensive attitude is the admiration in the Middle East for stridently anti-American leaders. The idea is that, however oppressive they are, such leaders represent the desire to ``stand up to the United States.`` A desire intensified, in their eyes, by American support for Israel over the years. One of America`s diplomatic difficulties is cutting through this perception. Only bullies need to be ``stood up to`` and Americans do not see their country as a bully. Moreover, U.S. policy of helping to spread democracy has overall made little impact in the Middle East. It is a source of frustration that Islamists continue to gain ground.

Although skirmishes continue to occur, Islam - though not fundamentalism - has a respected place in Western scholarship. Interest in Islamic legal opinions and court decisions is spreading rapidly and solidifying the argument of scholars who claim that the Middle East was developing fine, even without the West. Documents, such as court records dating from the period before Western penetration, show that women had control over economic resources, engaged in business relationships and created client networks just like the men did. Recent works also indicate that Jews and Christians had business partnerships with Muslims. Such research supports the view that Islam was, as a system, flexible, rather than inflexible.

It is certainly important for the United States to have friends in the Middle East, but is it really useful for U.S. diplomats to engage in hand-wringing over how to influence those cultures to their advantage? The United States is neither the demon nor the bully that it has been made out to be in many Arab countries, but, on the other hand, the attitude of some Middle East diplomats and historians is not one of total respect for Middle Eastern societies. All too often, so-called ``experts`` try to dictate to Muslims what their religion really requires in obligations and duties. As an example, in writings against fundamentalism, Arabs generally come in for the greater share of censure, in part because many detractors of Islam write off the Shi`a sect as an aberration or just a minority in Islam. But historians are beginning to question the usefulness of the rigid Sunni-Shi`a division, given the number of the societies in which both were present. The same is true for the four main schools of law. The desire to control and define Arabic culture is part of Arabs` residual superiority complex inherited from the era of imperialism, which impairs America`s ability to sift information properly and to treat people with respect.

Americans must also seriously ask themselves if the frustration in the United States over Islamic movements does not in part stem from anxiety over the increasing visibility of Muslims in Western countries. Overseas the United States preaches secularism and encourages others to place religion in the private not public sphere - but in the United States, Christian groups challenge the notion of separation of church and state. Certainly secularism is not everyone`s creed in America. One of the ambassadors I worked for held official prayer breakfasts. His wife began a ``Jump for Jesus`` aerobics class at the residence that she advertised on the embassy bulletin board. I was stunned, but someone explained, ``don`t think of it in terms of church and state, think of it as American.`` And she was right, of course.

Official U.S. culture, like the official cultures of many countries, is often at odds with ``the people,`` and in many societies, including America, the popular culture is becoming more and more official. As the new Middle East history shows us, religion is an important part of culture and the strength of culture is that it is constantly changing, even though fundamentalists seek to support their position by calling upon ``tradition.`` This is a fascinating and complicated process which is at the moment overturning once obvious truths about the meaning of progress and modernization.

The complexity of issues involving tradition vs. modernization was recently demonstrated in France, where three Muslim girls were expelled from school for refusing to remove their scarves, which were banned in school because they were considered religious symbols. There was a television discussion with one of the expelled girls, another Muslim immigrant girl who had renounced the scarf, and a Frenchwoman married to a Muslim, who now wore a scarf. The scarfless immigrant girl, after listening to much praise by the host and other French panelists for her ``courage,`` admitted that she stopped wearing the scarf because none of her French classmates would speak to her. The Muslim husband of the French Muslim woman tried to talk but could not get a word as his wife argued for traditional values in Islam, including the woman remaining in ``her place.`` The girl who had refused to remove her scarf was asked what she wanted to do with her life. With great dignity, she replied that she had plans to become a doctor and that she had the full support of her father. No one bothered to ask the other girl her plans, perhaps because she was wearing jeans and a T-shirt and so clearly was ``modern.``

If Americans can learn to stop trying to explain other people to themselves, to stop telling others how to practice their religion and to divest ourselves of 19th-century ideas about what is ``modern`` and what is ``backward,`` they might alter their image abroad of being a cultural bully. Better yet, Americans might begin to better understand what is happening in these countries. A rereading of Middle East history can help Americans stop putting people in categories that mean nothing to them.

At the very end of the French television discussion, the father who had insisted his daughter wear her scarf to school finally spoke up. He looked entirely bewildered by the proceedings and said in a pleading voice, ``Everyone keeps calling me a fundamentalist but I don`t belong to any political group. I`m just trying to raise my daughter. Why does everyone keep calling me a fundamentalist?`` Why, indeed?



Carol Madison Graham is a former FSO who left the Foreign Service in 1988 after eight years at the U.S. Information Agency. She served in Tunis, Beirut, Paris and Abu Dhabi. She now lives in London, where she is a doctoral student in Mideast history and a professor of Mideast politics at Richmond College.

Dear Eklavya and Dost-mittar:

Ah these RSS scoundrels -- these ``CARION EATERS`` with jet balck caps on their heads and jet black hearts in their chests -- are today`s ``super-patriots`` it`s so FUNNY -- I remember those days -- when these vultures were sitting on the fence or picking on the Hindu-Muslim riot victims -- when my father -- a journalist -- was carrying out armed struggle with JP`s socialist wing -- against the British in 1942 -- he escaped hanging on a technicality thanks to an Indian magistrate`s judicial knit picking -- and was jailed for 4 years along with JP.

He came out of Jail in 1946 -- and became a Jama Masjid refugee in his own FREE country in 1947!!!

You two are very generous with these Indian brand of Talibani good-for-nothing mongrels.

hasan

re: Dost-Mittar # 350

Dost, I am glad these nitwits don`t have a better dress sense. If they did, imagine the horror: they might have a greater appeal for the sheep that passes for much of our humanity.

RSS distorts the traditional Hindu approach to Sikhism. Most Hindus have a deep reverence for Sikh Gurus. Like many of my Hindu friends, I too have gone to Gurudwaras for ``Maatha Tekne.`` Despite these close bonds, few Hindus would deny Sikhs their separate identity. By their behavior, RSS zealots threaten what has turned out to, for the most, a beautiful co-existence between Hindus and Sikhs, extremists on both sides and the eternally shameful Delhi riots notwithstanding.

One more point about those riots. I used to get mad that someone like Dawood Ibrahim lives a life of utter luxury and power in Karachi under the protection of ISI. But then I had no face to hold onto that anger when someone on Chowk reminded us how we have the vermin that instigated Delhi riots roaming free in India. How can we blame others when we ourselves don`t do what we expect others to do?

Do you know the legal status of some of those riot cases? Specially cases against some Congress bigwigs?

330 tahmed321,

i admit i do not follow every thread on chowk so perhaps urstruly said something offensive to hindus and i missed it; but if he calls them ``kaafirs`` then that, as far as i am considered, is not an insult from an islamic point of view because all those who reject belief in Allah AND His Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) and the basic tenets of Islam (the ``zaruriyat-e-deen``) are kaafirs [`those who reject`/infidels/non-believers].

if that is what you mean by my condoning him then i am guilty as charged but if it is something else he said then i admit i may be wrong.

:-)

anNy, Tahmed,

#345

Its because of people like you (& many others on Chowk) I believe that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are not fanatical ogres.

I`ve also changed my opinion about Mushy. I think he`s probably the best Pakistani leader I`ve seen in my lifetime.

Re: Eklayva

best to stay out of America`s redneck belt...stick to the Northeast or California and you`ll be fine...the rest of the country is good for producing food, but that`s about it...

tahmedsaab:

``And the truth is that worshippers in a church were killed in Pakistan. Everything else is speculation. And speculation simply detracts from the crime itself. We should be less concerned about Pakistan`s image and more concerned about the realities in Pakistan themselves``

that needed to be reproduced..the christian population is very scared..or atleast the ones i am acquainted with...some of them are passing it off with a `ohooo..bad bad...you guys are killing us now..kitnee buree baat hae..sab kuRantae mar gaye tau` etc etc...but every single