In Search of the Moderate Muslim

Miss Farzana Versey,

Identity crisis problems? Me personally am the ``kafir muslim``. That makes me a non muslim. I question hence a non-muslim. I came, I thought, and I rejected.

The problem you are refering to is not because of other people trying to quantify muslims but because lots of muslims try to live the modern world while trying to adhere to 7th Century ideals of a land far far away.

So how about a ``cliche``. Who are you? That article really indicated that a few questions would confuse some of chowk`s prolific writers.

NotAMullah

You should try Muslims in Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia where they are adept at cliterodectomies thereby putting a just end to your hysterical writings.
Then there is sex- it is another antidote.

You are an epitome of the Muslim woman who wants to stuff her cake into both her mouth and her behind.

You want to live with contradictions.

You SHALL NOT circumcize young boys and girls and then go off to a rally against child-abuse.
You SHALL NOT force your holy book in other people`s faces and want freedom to burn every other book.
You SHALL NOT wear hijabs and trumpet piety and then join an orgy with the Imams after Isha.
You SHALL NOT accuse others of violence while suicide bombing their homes and offices.
You SHALL NOT accuse others of cruelty while beating women, raping minors, shooting women in jeans, crucifying rebels against Allah, stoning, lashing and chopping off people with different sexual orientation.

There is a word for your kind of schizophrenia : it is called hypocrisy! you SHALL NOT be allowed to hypocritcally do as you please and impose another set of values for others. You SHALL co-exist with civility and compassion OR you shall weave your constipated,angry delusions in some backwater like Afghanistan.

THE CHALLENGE

Dost_Mitter # 114 (Shammi, Eklavya and others)

The Urdu equivalent of this proverb is ``Doodh meiN maingniaN dalna``. Thanks for the Punjabi version.

The rest of your thesis was interesting, however, I do not agree with the conclusions you have drawn from it. When we talk about culture-religious interaction, especially in the context of a religion, which is not just a religion by birth but it is a religion by choice as well, we must understand two points first:

1. The adoption and absorption of cultural values into the religion.
2. The integration of religious values into a culture.

My last post (#53) was only dealing with point# 2 in a restricted sense. I agree with your contention that no ideology or a religion can exist for long unless #1 happens to an extent. I am a proponent of this idea, and also mentioned this aspect in one of my recent articles on Jihad. I found your post, however, very confusing when in the beginning you say Islam is ``my way or highway`` and in the end you mention the Sufi Islam. So which one is it?

The point is that nothing in this world is black and white. Everything is gray. The phenomenon as mentioned in point # 1 can be understood in the context of two school of thoughts that have emerged indigenously in subcontinent. One school of thought is called Brelvi and other Deobandi. The Brelvi school of thought is more open to integration and most often derive its philosophy from the Sufi Ullema. Whereas, Deobandi school of thought is not as open to the said integration. It is not orthodox but you can say it is more fundamentalist- i.e. one which sticks with the basics. An interesting example to understand the difference between the two is the dispute over the issue of Quwwali. If we go little bit back into the history we see that when Muslims first established their stronghold in the subcontinent they saw a people (local) who had music as their second religion. The Sufi Ulema of the time understood this phenomenon and allowed a Muslim version of music called Quwaali. The main goal was to attract the local populace into a new ideology. So a cultural norm was thus adopted as a religious value. If we discuss the issue of Qawwali on merit it is absolutely not unIslamic even though it is not an Islamic tenet. But for a greater good it was adopted. Debandis on the other hand consider any such adaptation as un-Islamic. Their contention is that any such addition over the time will ultimately corrupt the fundamentals of the religion.

In the past, the Ulema, the Sufis, and Muslim nation in general had a different kind of challenge. The challenge was to increase the number of believers. Thus in the past such adaptations, though frowned upon, were tolerated. Such adaptations thus have corrupted the religion by adopting cultural superstitions and rituals. Islam is also a unique religion in the sense ;) that it strictly forbids any superstitions and rituals (to be adopted as a way of worship). These superstitions and rituals are those which hamidm usually refer to as fairy tales and hobgoblins and stuff. These things have absolutely no place in Islam. Islam came to cull such rituals. The relationship between man and God is very simple and very direct and God himself has made it crystal clear as to what are His rights (Haqooq ullah) and what are the rights of man (Haqooq ul Ibad). And God has also made crystal clear as to what to do to fulfill the rights of God in the form of worship; (Namaz, Roza, Hajj, Zakat etc.). That leaves absolutely no room for any rituals. You cannot summons Gods favors by beating a drum and harmonium and 10 guys clapping in the background. All you have to do is to pray-it is as simple as that. But still Quwwali is not un-Islamic. If it doesn’t waste your time and doesn’t keep you away from God`s worship its great. But it cannot be a substitute of the Namaz.

So as the times have changed the Challenge to the Ullemas, Sufis, and Muslims in general have also changed. Today the challenge is not how many you convert, the challenge is how much a better Muslim you have made. In order to do that a movement with in the Muslim nation is taking place. This movement has a goal in its mind to distinguish (and not separate, I repeat not separate) the cultural norms and the religious norms; Especially those cultural norms which have been adopted over the years and have become religious norms. And an interesting thing is that there is no name and no leader for such movement. It is self propelled. As the Muslim of the world is getting educated, never mind what system of education, he is beginning to realize the need for such ``purity``. Some conservatives (by conservatives I mean the people who want to maintain the status quo) are resisting such change. They find the bogyman sometime in the form of Deobandis, sometimes as Wahabis, and sometimes as ``Saudis influence`` (since all three are more fundamentalist). It is interesting to note that the people who are at the forefront of this change are mostly expatriates from all over the world living in West. It is hard to tell whether Western thought has influenced this metamorphosis in any way but it is happening. Please read Bina Shah`s recent article Book Review: American Muslims. Today the Muslims in this part of the world have let go of the superstition and he has no qualms saying his prayer along with a Muslim of different school of thought. He is able to differentiate between the cultural norms and the religious norms. So the Muslim is up to the challenge of evolution and he has shown a spectacular progress.

Now please read my post again after keeping in mind my point # 2. You will get your answer to your contention me promoting absolutism. Probably now you will undersatnd that I am not promoting abslutism but fundamentalism

Godot #78: My definitions of good and bad Muslms were tongue-in-cheek definitions, according to my point no. 2 and 3. Thus a rational and decent human being like yourself is a bad Muslim for not devouring the tasteless, unhealthy mumbo-jumbo like gulf coast gumbo soup (shrimps, okra and hot spicies) because Islam is not a buffet religion. It is one dish, with no visible ingredients but you have to eat it to feel it, next day in the morning in the bathroom.

We now have definitions of good Muslims, bad Muslims (Urstruly #53), liberal Muslims (dost-mittar`s post), secular Muslim, kafir Muslim (Not A Mullah). May be I should include another as former Muslim, one who does not believe and does not want to be labelled with the suffix ``Muslim``.

I think, shammi has summed up Urstruly definition of good Muslim the best way, ``non-compromising, inflexible, mutually exclusive,.....``. Although it seems currently that it is Islam versus west but in reality it is Islam versus rest. The rigidity of non-buffet type was the best part of Islam suited for elite and monarchs. It subdued Muslim subject to the whims of the monarchs as never before in the history. They extracted the best out of Islam from the total submission hypothesis. If you notice history, it was Abbassi who claiming to be Qureshis who overthrew Amavis with the help of newly Persian converts and not the masses. It was mongols who destroyed Abbasi empire and not Muslim nmasses. Muslims almost always clinged on to the empire in the name of mumbo-jumbo absolute submission. The total submission in reality turned out to be the real opiate for Muslim masses dealing with Muslim monarchies. It is precisely this opiate concoction that deobandis and wahabis are running with. It leads to total paralysis of human mind in almost every worthwhile cause for progress or decent living, and appears as rage with a fury against liberalism, secularism, communnism, western civilization or to put it summarily-against rest of the world. Lastly, they are never satisfied with being a minority all around the world, not realizing that there are many ways to preserve their interests, short of waging rebellion-aka jehad.

Due to above mentioned exclusively pathetic nature, Islamic fundamentalism is markedly different than Hindu fundamentalism, in practice. Hindu fundamentalism is fascist and hurts non-conformist minorites only whereas Islamic fundamentalism is facing-forward-marching-backward, blindly following the best of Arab tribal culture is detrimental to the majority population more tham the minorities. Hindu fundamentalism is local and Islamic one is international. Why would any person kill 200+ poor Kenyans, just to kill 12 Americans. The collateral damage to Islamic fundamentalist has no limits. Similarly, I disagree with people comparing Veitnamese struggle with Afghan struggle. There are so many differences that I do not want to go through them here. The Afghan Islamic revolution and jehad has actually more similarities with Pol Pot of Kampuchea and his plans to create an ideal society. Mullah Omar and Pol Pot have too much in common in terms of their world-view.

I have seen two different reports, one from Houston Texas and one from London, about calls to Muslim youth to try to seduce Kafir women as a way to bring them to Islam.

Would this count as extreme or moderate ?

Also of interest - a western reporter wandering in Rawalpindi`s bazaars found

``And a 1990 Pakistani social studies textbook, ``First Steps in Our History,`` calls the people of Hindustan ``weak and lazy.````

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011028/wl/attacks_postcard_from_pindi_1.html

Is that extreme, moderate or liberal ?

Just wondering,

Arun Gupta

Apologies for the delay in replying. Please give me some time, okay?

And Shammi, thanks for the addy. The letter is on its way...

An interview with V.S. Naipaul in sunday`s NY Times magazine

Questions for V.S. Naipaul on His Contentious Relationship to Islam

By ADAM SHATZ

Although your prose has been universally praised, you remain an object of considerable controversy. You have been charged with insensitivity and pandering to Western prejudices in your writings about Islam.

Well, that is the trouble with writing about Muslim people. There are people of the universities who want to run you out of town, and they`re paid to, and so they pay no attention to what you actually say.

You have described the Taliban as vermin.

No, that`s my wife! She`s a Pakistani journalist who for many years wrote a column. She writes from that kind of perspective.

Are you surprised by Osama bin Laden`s support in Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran -- countries you wrote about in your travel books on Islam?

No, because these are the converted peoples of Islam. To put it brutally, these are the people who are not Arabs. Part of the neurosis of the convert is that he always has to prove himself. He has to be more royalist than the king, as the French say.

Is this what you mean when you write about Islam`s imperial drive to extend its reach and root out the unbeliever?

Yes. It is not the unbeliever as the other person so much as the remnant of the unbeliever in one`s customs and in one`s ways of thinking. It`s this wish to destroy the past, the ancient soul, the unregenerate soul. This is the great neurosis of the converted.

more at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/28/magazine/28QUESTIONS.html

Re: Solitude #123

touche!!!!

(The following is quoted from the Wall Street Journal, Nancy deWolf Smith, Oct 23)

``It seems there was this fabric seller in a Kandahar bazaar. One day he noticed that an Indian-born merchant nearby was selling his material at cut-rate prices the Muslim couldn`t match. So he took his problem to the elders of his tribe: ``I`ll go under if I have to compete with this new guy, so would it be OK if I reminded customers that he`s a Hindu?`` It didn`t take the elders long to answer. ``No, that`s not nice,`` they said. ``But tell them he`s a Wahhabi. Then nobody will buy from him.``

So which of these mentioned here is extreme ? Moderate ? Liberal ?

-Arun Gupta

Farzana,

Islam needs a complete make-over or transformation to be of relevance in 21st century and beyond.

Transformation comes when elements in Quran are re-visited and/or modified. There are many hateful messages in the scripture and I do not blame the students in madrassas for that. After all, they are applying what they are reading.

I admit that many religions propagate extreme fundamentalism. The difference is that other religions have a mechanism to evolve; on the contrary, the islamic ``scholars`` want to hijack the islam to medieval 6/7th century and wish to implement an utopian model which by definition is barbaric to put it mildly.

There has to be a mechanism in Islam to excommunicate someone preaching hate. Unfortunately, all I hear from even the moderate islamic scholars is that ``islam is peaceful this and peaceful that`` and that Osama has to face his creator on judgement date. What about NOW?

I do have a solution though. An entreprising individual can come up with different versions of Quran just like there are boot-legged copies of software available on the cheap. Just like American dictionary is evolving and forces changes in the Oxford dictionary with drastic new words, etc, there could be various versions of Quran. For instance, paras where the call is made to ``kill the infidels`` that para could be changed to ``love the non-believers``.

One advantage is that down the line, say, in a madrassa where the mullah is teaching the Quran and there are 20 students with 10 students having one version, 5 students having a diff version and still another remaining students possessing totally diff versions. If the mullah is to propagate hate, it will be very difficult because the students are going to question the mullah.

If the mullah says, ``kill the infidels`` the student can raise his/her hand and say, that is not what is written and would say, ``love the non-believers``. It will be inconceivable for the mullah to take a hardline posture given the diff versions.

I expect these kinds of transformations to take place in the near future. This is what I meant by 2nd testament. And who knows, there could a true Quran sitting at the bottom of the ocean, just like someone finding the dead-sea scrolls(hint!hint!) which propagates harmony among all religions.

Thanks

Re: Urstruly

``...You cannot summons Gods favors by beating a drum and harmonium and 10 guys clapping in the background...``

LOL:) How about by standing waist deep in the river Yamuna in the dead of winter for 40 days (as was the penance required of many sufis)? Just kidding.

I read your post, understood only some parts of it. As a practical matter, I do not understand why religious dogma allows certain strictures that appear to have become out of date with time to be upheld in perpetuity (e.g. avoiding interest/usury in Islam that may be impractical in today`s world, banning cow-slaughter in Hinduism when N.Indian roads are covered with the filth of 100 million cattle, etc.). An insecure society may want to revert to fundamentalism for lack of anything better, but that can hardly pass as an excuse for not modernizing.

Suxena #118,

Hey, I didn`t mention your name either but judging from your response, are you admitting to being the moron I was referring to?

Your slipping sister and it ain`t pretty...

The Islamic Verdict on Suicide Bombings

Question

What is the ruling regarding acts of jihaad by means of suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy, whereby he

knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this action?

Response

Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has killed himself (committed suicide), and as a result he shall be punished in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam).

[((Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever)), [Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]].

However, one who is ignorant and does not know, and assumes his action was good and pleasing to Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala), then

we hope Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta`aala) forgives him for that which he did out of (ignorant) ijtihaad, even though I do not find any excuse

for him in the present day. This is because this type of suicide is well known and widespread amongst the people, so it is upon the

person to ask the people of knowledge (scholars) regarding it, until the right guidance for him is differentiated from the error.

And from that which is surprising, is that these people kill themselves despite Allaah having fordbidden this, as He (Subhaanahu

wa Ta`aala) says:

{And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allaah is Most Merciful to you}, [Soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29].

And many amongst them do not desire anything except revenge of the enemy, by whatever means, be it halaal or haraam. So they only want

to satisfy their thirst for revenge.

We ask Allaah to bless us with foresight in His Deen and action(s) which please Him, indeed He is all Powerful over all things.

Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymeen *

Kayfa Nu`aalij Waaqi`unaa al-Aleem - Page 119

*One of the greatest scholars of this century, from Saudi Arabia

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

sites deserving recognition on their efforts to spread Islam

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.islamunity.homestead.com

www.musedserv.com

www.ekuhtba.com

www.islamworld.net

www.aicp.org

www.ummah.net

http://www.almuslim.org/articles/l_main.htm

www.iad.org

www.dawanet.com

http://www.analyzeislam.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/islamicparadise

http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/societies/islamic/index.htm

http://www.pressroom.com/

Re; Naqshbandi

Correction. There are muslims and then there are muslim nutcases like you - That`s a fair distinction and sooner the nutcases go to the houriland, better it will be for the rest of the world.

All this discussion between Hindus and Muslims. Oye taan hee mai kainda hun saarey Sikh banjao. It is the true synthesis of both religions.

Wahey Guruji ka Khalsa

Wahey Guruji ke Fateh

Raj Karega Khalsa

Aaquie Bachey Na Koi

Stuka

P.S.:This is not an attempt to undermine any one`s opinion/religion. Just that my knowledge of Hindu-Muslim relations in India is rather dated, but I did want to contribute something to the board ;)

P.S.S: Hey Farzana thanks for calling me a feudal on the other board. I`ll have you know that the Delhi Gymkhana kicked out Feudal Raja of Manda ex-prime minister VP Singhs Jee Maharaj for wearing pajamas to the club. LOL LOL Very anti feudal the Delhi Gym is.

Questions for V.S. Naipaul on His Contentious Relationship to Islam

By ADAM SHATZ



A:Although your prose has been universally praised, you remain an object of considerable controversy. You have been charged with insensitivity and pandering to Western prejudices in your writings about Islam.

N:Well, that is the trouble with writing about Muslim people. There are people of the universities who want to run you out of town, and they`re paid to, and so they pay no attention to what you actually say.

A:You have described the Taliban as vermin.

N:No, that`s my wife! She`s a Pakistani journalist who for many years wrote a column. She writes from that kind of perspective.

A:Are you surprised by Osama bin Laden`s support in Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran -- countries you wrote about in your travel books on Islam?

N:No, because these are the converted peoples of Islam. To put it brutally, these are the people who are not Arabs. Part of the neurosis of the convert is that he always has to prove himself. He has to be more royalist than the king, as the French say.

A:Is this what you mean when you write about Islam`s imperial drive to extend its reach and root out the unbeliever?

N:Yes. It is not the unbeliever as the other person so much as the remnant of the unbeliever in one`s customs and in one`s ways of thinking. It`s this wish to destroy the past, the ancient soul, the unregenerate soul. This is the great neurosis of the converted.

A:What then makes Islam`s appeal so potent?

N:I`ll tell you something from the eighth century. The first province of India to be conquered was the province of Sindh, which is today part of Pakistan. The king of Sindh resisted quite well. Then one day it was reported to him how the invaders said their prayers in unity as one man, and the king became frightened. He understood that this was a new force in the world, and it is what in fact Muslims are very proud of: the union of people. That idea of brotherhood is very powerful.

A:What about nonfundamentalist Islam?

N:I think it is a contradiction. It can always be called up to drown and overwhelm every movement. The idea in Islam, the most important thing, is paradise. No one can be a moderate in wishing to go to paradise.

The idea of a moderate state is something cooked up by politicians looking to get a few loans here and there.

A:What do you think were the causes of Sept. 11?

N:It had no cause. Religious hate, religious motivation, was the primary thing. I don`t think it was because of American foreign policy. There is a passage in one of the Conrad short stories of the East Indies where the savage finds himself with his hands bare in the world, and he lets out a howl of anger. I think that, in its essence, is what is happening. The world is getting more and more out of reach of simple people who have only religion. And the more they depend on religion, which of course solves nothing, the more the world gets out of reach. The oil money in the 70`s gave the illusion that power had come to the Islamic world.

It was as though up there was a divine supermarket, and at last it had become open to people in the Muslim world. They didn`t understand that the goods that gave them power in the end were made by another civilization. That was intolerable to accept, and it remains intolerable.

A:Do you think the events of Sept. 11 influenced the committee`s decision to give you the Nobel Prize?

N:I don`t know. I thought beginning in 1973 that I was being considered. And then I felt that great campaigns had been waged against me, quite successfully.

A:By whom?

N:People who were pillorying me as a racist and anti the third world.

A:Do you find the controversy around your work exhausting?

N:No, it doesn`t bother me at all. It`s important for writers to generate this kind of hostility. If a writer doesn`t generate hostility, he is dead.

A:You have admitted that you are no historian of Islam. Which scholars of Islam do you rely on?

N:No, no, no! I travel, and I meet people, and they tell me about their lives. I don`t need to read the scholars. If I travel in India or Africa, the best way to go is with a very blank mind and let the facts emerge.

A scholar would look at these people and draw conclusions. I don`t do that. The reader looks at these people and makes a pattern, and the pattern depends on the reader.

X