Muslims and The West After 11th September
Pervez Hoodbhoy December 7, 2001
#569 Posted by ucci on May 17, 2003 8:23:58 am
Hi,
I have a few comments to make on your article. Quote, `Both are divisive, embedding within us false notions of superiority and arrogant pride that are difficult to erase. We have but one choice: the path of secular humanism, based upon the principles of logic and reason. This alone offers the hope of providing everybody on this globe with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`.
The notion that nationalism breeds arrogance, pride and superiority is not fully supported. If you had said jingoism or chauvinism instead of nationalism I would understand where you are coming from but that is not the case- Nationalism by itself is not evil.
I understand the intensity that this article brings out but it seems to me that you are trying to apply logic to political agendas of US, which to me is too high a compliment that ‘it’ deserves.
Ucci.
I have a few comments to make on your article. Quote, `Both are divisive, embedding within us false notions of superiority and arrogant pride that are difficult to erase. We have but one choice: the path of secular humanism, based upon the principles of logic and reason. This alone offers the hope of providing everybody on this globe with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness`.
The notion that nationalism breeds arrogance, pride and superiority is not fully supported. If you had said jingoism or chauvinism instead of nationalism I would understand where you are coming from but that is not the case- Nationalism by itself is not evil.
I understand the intensity that this article brings out but it seems to me that you are trying to apply logic to political agendas of US, which to me is too high a compliment that ‘it’ deserves.
Ucci.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#568 Posted by mohajir on December 29, 2001 2:37:36 pm
Pakistan, India and the United States
2230 GMT, 011227
Dec 27,2001
Summary
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112272230.htm
With al Qaeda and Taliban elements fleeing Afghanistan, the United States will continue to grapple with strategic problems concerning its traditional ally, Pakistan. There are significant differences between what President Pervez Musharraf has said he will do to fight terrorism, what he intends to do and what he actually can accomplish. The threat of an imminent Indo-Pakistani war may be just the lever Washington needs to move Islamabad.
Analysis
The United States has been engaged in intense debate regarding the next steps it must take to eradicate al Qaeda. Two main strategies have emerged of late. One argues that there can be no solution to the problem of Islamic attacks on the United States until the regime of Saddam Hussein is eliminated. The other strategy argues that Iraq`s role is secondary, and that the United States` primary mission is to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a command center in some other isolated country, like Yemen or Somalia.
Obviously, the strategies are not incompatible. Equally obviously, at least from STRATFOR`S point of view, the debate misses the point entirely: the next country on the agenda is Pakistan.
When planning for the Afghan campaign began immediately after Sept. 11, it was clear -- at least from a naive standpoint -- that Pakistan, which has an extensive border with Afghanistan and a long-standing strategic relationship with the United States, would be the strategic key to the campaign. The planners` first impulse was to deploy U.S. forces in Pakistan and prosecute the campaign from there. This proved impossible. Instead, U.S. ground forces had to deploy in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, while air attacks were carried out from carriers in the Arabian Sea and from strategic bombers on Diego Garcia and elsewhere. Clearly, some forces were deployed in Pakistan, but only under tight secrecy.
The need for secrecy is the key to everything. Simply put, the Pakistani government was not in a position to permit a war against the Taliban regime to be waged from its soil. This was not simply because of substantial sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan, although that existed. Nor is it simply because Pushtuns, the foundation of Taliban power, live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, although they do.
Rather, it was because the Taliban was ultimately as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it was Afghan. In a sense, the Taliban was a Pakistani construct, designed to conclude -- on terms acceptable to Pakistan -- the civil war that raged in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan feared the ascendance of the Northern Alliance as well as other groups in Afghanistan, and saw in the Taliban a government that was congenial to Pakistan both strategically and ideologically. The ISI, Pakistan`s intelligence service, was in many ways the godfather of the Taliban government.
As the Taliban government provided al Qaeda with a secure operational base, the United States continued to parse the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that the Taliban would have been able to develop its relationship with al Qaeda without the knowledge of Pakistan`s intelligence services and government, and it is difficult to imagine that they would not have given at least implicit approval. However, the United States was not prepared to frame the issue as an Afghan-Pakistani issue -- only as an Afghan problem fundamentally distinct from Pakistan.
This policy continued after Sept. 11 and throughout the campaign, despite the clear limits Pakistan placed on cooperation with the United States. Washington clearly and rationally wanted to contain the Afghan campaign. It placed sufficient pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to force him to remove senior officials who were too closely aligned with the Taliban, to permit at least some basing of U.S. forces in Pakistan and to publicly commit himself to use Pakistani forces along the frontier to prevent Taliban forces from crossing into Pakistan.
The United States recognized that much of this was cosmetic. Support for the Taliban ran deep in the government and deeper in the country. The U.S. forces based in Pakistan were hardly strategic. Finally, whatever he promised, there were significant differences between what Musharraf said, what he actually intended to do and what he ultimately was able to do.
The United States carefully refrained from pressing the issue, afraid that excessive pressure would topple Musharraf and throw Pakistan either into chaos or into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Or if excessive pressure threatened Musharraf`s survival, he might simply reverse course and turn against the United States. In any case, the United States adopted a minimax policy -- it demanded the most it could get within the limits of what Islamabad could deliver, and it lived with the three differences: what was said, what was actually intended, what could really be delivered.
The manner in which the Afghan war concluded has suddenly rendered this policy untenable. While the Taliban has abandoned the cities, it continues to exist, both in alliances with particular warlords and in its own right. Where it exists most intensely, in fact, is in Pakistan, among Taliban sympathizers as well as among hundreds or thousands of Taliban fighters that have crossed into Pakistan during the past month. A very few have been very publicly apprehended, but most have gone to ground -- some protected by Pakistani forces.
Far more important than the fate of the Taliban is the fate of al Qaeda`s senior commanders, including Osama bin Laden, and of its fighters. It is becoming increasingly obvious that neither the Taliban`s high command nor al Qaeda`s has been captured. The release of a new videotape that appears to have been made in the past few weeks, and perhaps as recently as last week, dealt a blow to speculation that bin Laden and the others were killed at Tora Bora. It was always problematic that bin Laden would have chosen to travel from Kandahar to Tora Bora in the chaos that followed his last known taping. This would be not only dangerous but pointless. It was far more likely that he went directly to Pakistan, where supporters hid him and may still be doing so.
Whether bin Laden is in Pakistan or has traveled elsewhere, it is clear that many of his forces as well as Taliban leaders went to Pakistan and that the vast majority of those remain. In other words, apart from native support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, elements from Afghanistan are now in Pakistan and operating under the protection of, if not the government, certainly elements of the government and powerful political forces.
If we are correct in this, then the problem the United States faces in destroying al Qaeda does not concern Somalia, Yemen or Iraq, but Pakistan. Ideally, the United States would like Musharraf to use his security and military forces to destroy al Qaeda`s forces and hand senior leaders over to the United States. Certainly, this is something that Musharraf has assured the United States he would do. However, it is not clear that he is in a position to deliver on his promise -- it is not clear his orders are being obeyed. Nor, frankly, is it clear that he wishes to see these orders carried out. Certainly, he wants to placate the United States, but there is a huge gap between saying he will act, acting, and acting effectively.
A case in point is the Dec. 13 attack on India`s parliament by gunmen, which the U.S. government says were Islamic militants based in Pakistan. There are two explanations for the attack. The first is that Musharaff knew about plans for the attack and sanctioned it. The second is that he neither knew of nor sanctioned the attack. In a real sense, it doesn`t matter which it was. Either explanation raises serious questions about the course of Afghanistan.
All this creates a strategic crisis for the United States. Its fundamental goal is to defend its own territory against al Qaeda attacks and the global destruction of al Qaeda. In our view, al Qaeda has taken refuge in Pakistan -- historically an ally of the United States, and a country that poses a military challenge on an order of magnitude beyond that posed by Afghanistan. Launching a military campaign in Pakistan is possible but requires much greater resources than in Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Rather than use direct military action, the United States would prefer a more subtle lever.
The attack on India`s parliament provides precisely that lever. Obviously, the shootout was as intolerable for India as a similar attack on Congress would be for the United States. India must react. But even apart from that, India sees itself as having an unprecedented opportunity to deal not only with the Kashmir issue but with the entire issue of the nature and future of Pakistan.
Pakistan`s alliance with the United States has placed severe limits on how far India could go. However, a profound schism is developing between Washington and Islamabad as post-Sept. 11 events evolve. Clearly, both sides are doing everything to avert an open breach -- but equally clearly, if it becomes undeniable that Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda elements, a break becomes inevitable. At that moment, India would have the opening it has awaited for 50 years. The United States would be not be able to refrain from acting against Pakistan, nor could it act efficiently without Indian support and involvement. India was eager to help from the beginning; now the United States would have no choice but to accept that help.
The United States does not want an Indo-Pakistani war, but the threat of such a war is precisely what Washington needs to move Islamabad. For Pakistan, the threat of a war with India in which the United States either stood to one side or actively participated is the worst possible nightmare. By allowing the specter to rise, Washington has given Musharraf an opportunity to become more forthcoming. If he is in control but insincere, he is being shown the abyss and can change course. If he is sincere but not in control, he can show the abyss to Islamic fundamentalists in his government and bring them under control.
The problem is that many of the fundamentalists would actually welcome a war and even defeat by India. Their goal is to radicalize the Islamic world by demonstrating that Christians, Hindus and Jews have formed a vast alliance designed to crush Islam. A combined U.S.-Indian attack would be exactly what would be needed to demonstrate this to the world. The destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability -- whether by nuclear or conventional weapons -- would further illustrate the point. It is therefore no accident that Islamic fundamentalists struck India at what would normally be considered the worst possible moment. From their point of view, it was the best possible moment to act.
This indicated that Musharraf may not be able to gain control of the situation, even if he wanted to. Thus, he visited Beijing in late December. China has historically been an enemy of India and an ally of Pakistan. Beijing has been extremely cautious since Sept. 11, but it remembers both the EP-3 spy plane incident and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s redefinition of strategy toward the Pacific and against China prior to Sept. 11. Beijing is happy to see the United States diverted. It would not be happy to see India emerge without a threat on its western flank. Hence, Musharaff had a very cordial visit to Beijing.
At this point, the strategic imperative of defeating al Qaeda begins to intersect with Eurasian geopolitics. It is one thing to take Afghanistan apart, quite another to do the same with Pakistan. Afghanistan`s fate is of little significance to great powers. The fate of Pakistan matters to China, among others. At the same time, if al Qaeda is using Pakistan as a base of operations or even as a transit point and the Pakistani government can`t or won`t do anything decisive and effective about it, this strikes at a fundamental U.S. interest and cannot be tolerated.
The United States is, therefore, in the midst of a veiled crisis over Pakistan. It is an odd crisis in that Washington, fearing the consequences of a public confrontation, is trying very hard to maintain the fiction that Pakistan has been fully cooperating in the battle against al Qaeda, that it is acting effectively against the Taliban and al Qaeda and that its forces would certainly arrest senior al Qaeda leaders if they could catch them. At the same time, the United States is quietly showing Pakistan the abyss in the hopes that the plausible fiction of U.S.-Pakistani relations might thereby become reality.
The problem is that in Pakistan, there are those who prefer an open breach with the United States to accommodation. Even if we assume that Musharraf is not one of these elements, it is not clear that he can control them. If he can`t control them, the United States is faced with an extraordinary dilemma -- to go into Pakistan and get al Qaeda itself. It cannot do this without India, and India will not move unless Pakistan`s nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is not clear that U.S. precision-guided munitions are sufficient for a task that will tolerate no failure.
The rest follows logically.
2230 GMT, 011227
Dec 27,2001
Summary
http://www.stratfor.com/home/0112272230.htm
With al Qaeda and Taliban elements fleeing Afghanistan, the United States will continue to grapple with strategic problems concerning its traditional ally, Pakistan. There are significant differences between what President Pervez Musharraf has said he will do to fight terrorism, what he intends to do and what he actually can accomplish. The threat of an imminent Indo-Pakistani war may be just the lever Washington needs to move Islamabad.
Analysis
The United States has been engaged in intense debate regarding the next steps it must take to eradicate al Qaeda. Two main strategies have emerged of late. One argues that there can be no solution to the problem of Islamic attacks on the United States until the regime of Saddam Hussein is eliminated. The other strategy argues that Iraq`s role is secondary, and that the United States` primary mission is to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a command center in some other isolated country, like Yemen or Somalia.
Obviously, the strategies are not incompatible. Equally obviously, at least from STRATFOR`S point of view, the debate misses the point entirely: the next country on the agenda is Pakistan.
When planning for the Afghan campaign began immediately after Sept. 11, it was clear -- at least from a naive standpoint -- that Pakistan, which has an extensive border with Afghanistan and a long-standing strategic relationship with the United States, would be the strategic key to the campaign. The planners` first impulse was to deploy U.S. forces in Pakistan and prosecute the campaign from there. This proved impossible. Instead, U.S. ground forces had to deploy in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, while air attacks were carried out from carriers in the Arabian Sea and from strategic bombers on Diego Garcia and elsewhere. Clearly, some forces were deployed in Pakistan, but only under tight secrecy.
The need for secrecy is the key to everything. Simply put, the Pakistani government was not in a position to permit a war against the Taliban regime to be waged from its soil. This was not simply because of substantial sympathy for the Taliban in Pakistan, although that existed. Nor is it simply because Pushtuns, the foundation of Taliban power, live on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, although they do.
Rather, it was because the Taliban was ultimately as much a Pakistani phenomenon as it was Afghan. In a sense, the Taliban was a Pakistani construct, designed to conclude -- on terms acceptable to Pakistan -- the civil war that raged in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal. Pakistan feared the ascendance of the Northern Alliance as well as other groups in Afghanistan, and saw in the Taliban a government that was congenial to Pakistan both strategically and ideologically. The ISI, Pakistan`s intelligence service, was in many ways the godfather of the Taliban government.
As the Taliban government provided al Qaeda with a secure operational base, the United States continued to parse the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is inconceivable that the Taliban would have been able to develop its relationship with al Qaeda without the knowledge of Pakistan`s intelligence services and government, and it is difficult to imagine that they would not have given at least implicit approval. However, the United States was not prepared to frame the issue as an Afghan-Pakistani issue -- only as an Afghan problem fundamentally distinct from Pakistan.
This policy continued after Sept. 11 and throughout the campaign, despite the clear limits Pakistan placed on cooperation with the United States. Washington clearly and rationally wanted to contain the Afghan campaign. It placed sufficient pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to force him to remove senior officials who were too closely aligned with the Taliban, to permit at least some basing of U.S. forces in Pakistan and to publicly commit himself to use Pakistani forces along the frontier to prevent Taliban forces from crossing into Pakistan.
The United States recognized that much of this was cosmetic. Support for the Taliban ran deep in the government and deeper in the country. The U.S. forces based in Pakistan were hardly strategic. Finally, whatever he promised, there were significant differences between what Musharraf said, what he actually intended to do and what he ultimately was able to do.
The United States carefully refrained from pressing the issue, afraid that excessive pressure would topple Musharraf and throw Pakistan either into chaos or into a fundamentalist dictatorship. Or if excessive pressure threatened Musharraf`s survival, he might simply reverse course and turn against the United States. In any case, the United States adopted a minimax policy -- it demanded the most it could get within the limits of what Islamabad could deliver, and it lived with the three differences: what was said, what was actually intended, what could really be delivered.
The manner in which the Afghan war concluded has suddenly rendered this policy untenable. While the Taliban has abandoned the cities, it continues to exist, both in alliances with particular warlords and in its own right. Where it exists most intensely, in fact, is in Pakistan, among Taliban sympathizers as well as among hundreds or thousands of Taliban fighters that have crossed into Pakistan during the past month. A very few have been very publicly apprehended, but most have gone to ground -- some protected by Pakistani forces.
Far more important than the fate of the Taliban is the fate of al Qaeda`s senior commanders, including Osama bin Laden, and of its fighters. It is becoming increasingly obvious that neither the Taliban`s high command nor al Qaeda`s has been captured. The release of a new videotape that appears to have been made in the past few weeks, and perhaps as recently as last week, dealt a blow to speculation that bin Laden and the others were killed at Tora Bora. It was always problematic that bin Laden would have chosen to travel from Kandahar to Tora Bora in the chaos that followed his last known taping. This would be not only dangerous but pointless. It was far more likely that he went directly to Pakistan, where supporters hid him and may still be doing so.
Whether bin Laden is in Pakistan or has traveled elsewhere, it is clear that many of his forces as well as Taliban leaders went to Pakistan and that the vast majority of those remain. In other words, apart from native support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, elements from Afghanistan are now in Pakistan and operating under the protection of, if not the government, certainly elements of the government and powerful political forces.
If we are correct in this, then the problem the United States faces in destroying al Qaeda does not concern Somalia, Yemen or Iraq, but Pakistan. Ideally, the United States would like Musharraf to use his security and military forces to destroy al Qaeda`s forces and hand senior leaders over to the United States. Certainly, this is something that Musharraf has assured the United States he would do. However, it is not clear that he is in a position to deliver on his promise -- it is not clear his orders are being obeyed. Nor, frankly, is it clear that he wishes to see these orders carried out. Certainly, he wants to placate the United States, but there is a huge gap between saying he will act, acting, and acting effectively.
A case in point is the Dec. 13 attack on India`s parliament by gunmen, which the U.S. government says were Islamic militants based in Pakistan. There are two explanations for the attack. The first is that Musharaff knew about plans for the attack and sanctioned it. The second is that he neither knew of nor sanctioned the attack. In a real sense, it doesn`t matter which it was. Either explanation raises serious questions about the course of Afghanistan.
All this creates a strategic crisis for the United States. Its fundamental goal is to defend its own territory against al Qaeda attacks and the global destruction of al Qaeda. In our view, al Qaeda has taken refuge in Pakistan -- historically an ally of the United States, and a country that poses a military challenge on an order of magnitude beyond that posed by Afghanistan. Launching a military campaign in Pakistan is possible but requires much greater resources than in Afghanistan, as well as the destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Rather than use direct military action, the United States would prefer a more subtle lever.
The attack on India`s parliament provides precisely that lever. Obviously, the shootout was as intolerable for India as a similar attack on Congress would be for the United States. India must react. But even apart from that, India sees itself as having an unprecedented opportunity to deal not only with the Kashmir issue but with the entire issue of the nature and future of Pakistan.
Pakistan`s alliance with the United States has placed severe limits on how far India could go. However, a profound schism is developing between Washington and Islamabad as post-Sept. 11 events evolve. Clearly, both sides are doing everything to avert an open breach -- but equally clearly, if it becomes undeniable that Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda elements, a break becomes inevitable. At that moment, India would have the opening it has awaited for 50 years. The United States would be not be able to refrain from acting against Pakistan, nor could it act efficiently without Indian support and involvement. India was eager to help from the beginning; now the United States would have no choice but to accept that help.
The United States does not want an Indo-Pakistani war, but the threat of such a war is precisely what Washington needs to move Islamabad. For Pakistan, the threat of a war with India in which the United States either stood to one side or actively participated is the worst possible nightmare. By allowing the specter to rise, Washington has given Musharraf an opportunity to become more forthcoming. If he is in control but insincere, he is being shown the abyss and can change course. If he is sincere but not in control, he can show the abyss to Islamic fundamentalists in his government and bring them under control.
The problem is that many of the fundamentalists would actually welcome a war and even defeat by India. Their goal is to radicalize the Islamic world by demonstrating that Christians, Hindus and Jews have formed a vast alliance designed to crush Islam. A combined U.S.-Indian attack would be exactly what would be needed to demonstrate this to the world. The destruction of Pakistan`s nuclear capability -- whether by nuclear or conventional weapons -- would further illustrate the point. It is therefore no accident that Islamic fundamentalists struck India at what would normally be considered the worst possible moment. From their point of view, it was the best possible moment to act.
This indicated that Musharraf may not be able to gain control of the situation, even if he wanted to. Thus, he visited Beijing in late December. China has historically been an enemy of India and an ally of Pakistan. Beijing has been extremely cautious since Sept. 11, but it remembers both the EP-3 spy plane incident and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s redefinition of strategy toward the Pacific and against China prior to Sept. 11. Beijing is happy to see the United States diverted. It would not be happy to see India emerge without a threat on its western flank. Hence, Musharaff had a very cordial visit to Beijing.
At this point, the strategic imperative of defeating al Qaeda begins to intersect with Eurasian geopolitics. It is one thing to take Afghanistan apart, quite another to do the same with Pakistan. Afghanistan`s fate is of little significance to great powers. The fate of Pakistan matters to China, among others. At the same time, if al Qaeda is using Pakistan as a base of operations or even as a transit point and the Pakistani government can`t or won`t do anything decisive and effective about it, this strikes at a fundamental U.S. interest and cannot be tolerated.
The United States is, therefore, in the midst of a veiled crisis over Pakistan. It is an odd crisis in that Washington, fearing the consequences of a public confrontation, is trying very hard to maintain the fiction that Pakistan has been fully cooperating in the battle against al Qaeda, that it is acting effectively against the Taliban and al Qaeda and that its forces would certainly arrest senior al Qaeda leaders if they could catch them. At the same time, the United States is quietly showing Pakistan the abyss in the hopes that the plausible fiction of U.S.-Pakistani relations might thereby become reality.
The problem is that in Pakistan, there are those who prefer an open breach with the United States to accommodation. Even if we assume that Musharraf is not one of these elements, it is not clear that he can control them. If he can`t control them, the United States is faced with an extraordinary dilemma -- to go into Pakistan and get al Qaeda itself. It cannot do this without India, and India will not move unless Pakistan`s nuclear weapons are destroyed. It is not clear that U.S. precision-guided munitions are sufficient for a task that will tolerate no failure.
The rest follows logically.
#567 Posted by sattar2 on December 26, 2001 11:48:31 pm
Re nasah (#580):
I agree with you that Muslims need to deal with their insecurities before they can progress. They have gone too far trying to prove that they are true followers of Islam. They have patronized Islam way too much, while nursing an ever annoying “in your face” attitude towards others. This needs to end before they can be taken seriously by the world, before they can hope to bring about peace and progress in the world. Islam needs to be “de-politicized”, to begin with. Mixing religion with politics has always led to violent fanaticism, and this is one of the major ailments the Muslims world suffers from.
We seem to agree in what ails the Muslim world, but differ in our approaches towards its treatment. You are advocating a western-style secularism as a solution, while I am advocating going back to the message of Quran to draw on divine guidance from the Almighty.
One would wonder … if Christians have failed miserably in understanding the scripture correctly for the past two thousand years, and Muslims also have failed here for the past one thousand years, it would be absurd for one to advocate going back to the scripture. With so many sects in Islam as it is, and ever-present sectarian violence, politics, and “fatwas of kuffr”, going back to religion will only create havoc and result in more bloodshed. This is a legitimate concern, and needs to be addressed carefully to do justice to the matter.
Here the discussion takes a sharp turn, mainly due to my belief in Ahmadi-Islam. The current mess of the Muslim world was prophesied by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) when he mentioned that in later days mosques will be full of people, but Islam would have left people’s hearts … when the Muslim clergy will be as corrupt as the Jewish clergy was in the days of Issa-ibne-Marriam. Quran also hints at such times when the Muslim nations will be at a low point and would be eclipsed by the other nations of the world … when Islam will be spiritually dead.
Allah has always sent prophets to revive nations. These prophets purge religion of the corruption that has set in and to rejuvenate its teachings. They enjoy divine support and bring to light the truthfulness and beauties of the teachings of religion. As an Ahmadi-Muslim, I believe in one such prophet, the person of Mirza Sahib of Qadian.
Mirza Sahib is the long awaited Promised Messiah (prophesied by the dear Prophet of Islam), the Imam Mahdi of his time (the 14th century Hijri), and a prophet of God. As Ahmadi-Muslims, we believe that salvation of mankind lies in going back to pristine and original teachings of Quran, and to practice the religion of Allah with extreme love and compassion for all of Allah’s creations. I believe this is the only recipe for the salvation of mankind.
I have earlier pointed out the pitfalls of western secularism. A lot of material progress has been made, but at the price of the world getting armed to the teeth. Humanity is on the brink of an unthinkable disaster. It is only a matter of time when the unimaginable sequence of events is triggered off, resulting in death and destruction of millions. Quran hints at the possibility of such an event … and sadly enough we are going down the path of fulfilling this dreadful prophecy.
I firmly believe that there indeed is an Almighty Allah, who revealed Quran for the benefit of the mankind. He will continue to breathe life in His people by sending prophets as the decline of mankind sets in. Believing in one such recent prophet (Mirza Sahib), I am betting on revival of Islam at the hands of Ahmadiyyat. The world will see the true beauties of Quran being put into practice in the name of humanity and in the name of the love of mankind. It is only then that true progress is made by a nation … materially, as well as spiritually.
Having said that, I must point out that religion must be practiced as a personal matter, and not shoved in the faces of others. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) once reportedly pointed to his chest while stating “… taqwa resides here”. Freedom of thought cannot be stifled in the name of religion (as being done in the name of Blasphemy Laws, for example). In Islam, there is no place for persecution of minorities … no concept of “jihad” as being practiced by the fundamentalist element nowadays. It advocates accountability for one’s actions and thoughts. Without this sense of accountability, no laws, no legal codes can bring about reformation of human conduct. When practiced correctly, religion maintains one’s focus on betterment of the mankind, while reminding him that he indeed has to meet his Maker some day. It is only then that material progress can be made which truly serves the cause of humanity, without posing threats to the survival of the mankind.
Asad
I agree with you that Muslims need to deal with their insecurities before they can progress. They have gone too far trying to prove that they are true followers of Islam. They have patronized Islam way too much, while nursing an ever annoying “in your face” attitude towards others. This needs to end before they can be taken seriously by the world, before they can hope to bring about peace and progress in the world. Islam needs to be “de-politicized”, to begin with. Mixing religion with politics has always led to violent fanaticism, and this is one of the major ailments the Muslims world suffers from.
We seem to agree in what ails the Muslim world, but differ in our approaches towards its treatment. You are advocating a western-style secularism as a solution, while I am advocating going back to the message of Quran to draw on divine guidance from the Almighty.
One would wonder … if Christians have failed miserably in understanding the scripture correctly for the past two thousand years, and Muslims also have failed here for the past one thousand years, it would be absurd for one to advocate going back to the scripture. With so many sects in Islam as it is, and ever-present sectarian violence, politics, and “fatwas of kuffr”, going back to religion will only create havoc and result in more bloodshed. This is a legitimate concern, and needs to be addressed carefully to do justice to the matter.
Here the discussion takes a sharp turn, mainly due to my belief in Ahmadi-Islam. The current mess of the Muslim world was prophesied by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) when he mentioned that in later days mosques will be full of people, but Islam would have left people’s hearts … when the Muslim clergy will be as corrupt as the Jewish clergy was in the days of Issa-ibne-Marriam. Quran also hints at such times when the Muslim nations will be at a low point and would be eclipsed by the other nations of the world … when Islam will be spiritually dead.
Allah has always sent prophets to revive nations. These prophets purge religion of the corruption that has set in and to rejuvenate its teachings. They enjoy divine support and bring to light the truthfulness and beauties of the teachings of religion. As an Ahmadi-Muslim, I believe in one such prophet, the person of Mirza Sahib of Qadian.
Mirza Sahib is the long awaited Promised Messiah (prophesied by the dear Prophet of Islam), the Imam Mahdi of his time (the 14th century Hijri), and a prophet of God. As Ahmadi-Muslims, we believe that salvation of mankind lies in going back to pristine and original teachings of Quran, and to practice the religion of Allah with extreme love and compassion for all of Allah’s creations. I believe this is the only recipe for the salvation of mankind.
I have earlier pointed out the pitfalls of western secularism. A lot of material progress has been made, but at the price of the world getting armed to the teeth. Humanity is on the brink of an unthinkable disaster. It is only a matter of time when the unimaginable sequence of events is triggered off, resulting in death and destruction of millions. Quran hints at the possibility of such an event … and sadly enough we are going down the path of fulfilling this dreadful prophecy.
I firmly believe that there indeed is an Almighty Allah, who revealed Quran for the benefit of the mankind. He will continue to breathe life in His people by sending prophets as the decline of mankind sets in. Believing in one such recent prophet (Mirza Sahib), I am betting on revival of Islam at the hands of Ahmadiyyat. The world will see the true beauties of Quran being put into practice in the name of humanity and in the name of the love of mankind. It is only then that true progress is made by a nation … materially, as well as spiritually.
Having said that, I must point out that religion must be practiced as a personal matter, and not shoved in the faces of others. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) once reportedly pointed to his chest while stating “… taqwa resides here”. Freedom of thought cannot be stifled in the name of religion (as being done in the name of Blasphemy Laws, for example). In Islam, there is no place for persecution of minorities … no concept of “jihad” as being practiced by the fundamentalist element nowadays. It advocates accountability for one’s actions and thoughts. Without this sense of accountability, no laws, no legal codes can bring about reformation of human conduct. When practiced correctly, religion maintains one’s focus on betterment of the mankind, while reminding him that he indeed has to meet his Maker some day. It is only then that material progress can be made which truly serves the cause of humanity, without posing threats to the survival of the mankind.
Asad
#566 Posted by nasah on December 25, 2001 2:53:30 pm
Dear Fatimah:
You’ve asked some valid questions.
Religion by itself is not “bad” for the human being – and is not a point of contention here -- religion may even be a biological necessarily for an early thinking animal with a left and a right brain.
It may be the psycho/social lynchpin that organized the earliest human civilizations -- and was responsible for much of their progression that created law abiding societies and built magnificent monuments – all over the world.
What is being questioned here is – its blatant use in today`s politics, state affairs, jurisprudence, economics and warfare – and its use in creating blind fanaticism.
Israel is not a good example – Isreael is beset with troubles – and most of its troubles ARE due to mixing of religion with politics and real estate business.
Israel is in an unenviable position of moral turpitude with the never ending military killings of children -– mostly due to its use of a 5 thousand year old religion to claim someone else’s courtyard -- as THEIR HOLY places –
The conflict -- that Isreal is in because of this dichotomy -- by every indications -- will continue to bleed Israel morally ethically and militarily – despite the knowledge and the use of laser guided bombs to assassinate individual Palestinians.
Israel is trying the impossible with a built-in mechanism for conflict – to eat the cake and have it too – to have a modern state and also claim legitimacy over other people`s lands and lives through an ancient archaic idea of HOLY this and Holy that -- and so are its Muslim Imitators – OBL, his Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Jihadis.
regards
You’ve asked some valid questions.
Religion by itself is not “bad” for the human being – and is not a point of contention here -- religion may even be a biological necessarily for an early thinking animal with a left and a right brain.
It may be the psycho/social lynchpin that organized the earliest human civilizations -- and was responsible for much of their progression that created law abiding societies and built magnificent monuments – all over the world.
What is being questioned here is – its blatant use in today`s politics, state affairs, jurisprudence, economics and warfare – and its use in creating blind fanaticism.
Israel is not a good example – Isreael is beset with troubles – and most of its troubles ARE due to mixing of religion with politics and real estate business.
Israel is in an unenviable position of moral turpitude with the never ending military killings of children -– mostly due to its use of a 5 thousand year old religion to claim someone else’s courtyard -- as THEIR HOLY places –
The conflict -- that Isreal is in because of this dichotomy -- by every indications -- will continue to bleed Israel morally ethically and militarily – despite the knowledge and the use of laser guided bombs to assassinate individual Palestinians.
Israel is trying the impossible with a built-in mechanism for conflict – to eat the cake and have it too – to have a modern state and also claim legitimacy over other people`s lands and lives through an ancient archaic idea of HOLY this and Holy that -- and so are its Muslim Imitators – OBL, his Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Jihadis.
regards
#565 Posted by nasah on December 25, 2001 6:11:15 am
Dear Sattar:
You write:
````A Muslim on the other hand is a completely different animal. He will constantly refer to Quranic verses, ahadith, and sunnah to draw guidance or to justify his acts.````(sattar)
Indeed we use Quran -- not only in our social, political, medical, jurisprudence, scientific, commercial matters -- but in murder as well.
We Muslims badly wish to go back to the “golden era`` of medieval Islam” -- when every aspect of life was run by Quranic verses, hadith and Sunnah -- and claim the unclaimable -- that by going backward Muslims can go forward.
Yet we Muslims are in some ways not so different from those rightwing orthodox Christians that you write about:
````Christian groups in the western world that strictly follow the Bible are also severely backward and regressive in their thinking, even nowadays. These groups include the KKK, the anti-abortion activists known for bombing clinics and attempting to murder doctors, the “white militia” involved in Oklahoma City bombing (“Timothy McVeigh” group), the “religious right” known for its xenophobia and segregationist politics.````(sattar)
It shows what happens to even modern day Christians when they choose to strictly follow a two thousand year old book.
As to the remedy you are on the target when you say -- ````In the western world, besides a small segment of the population, mainstream population does not view Bible as having any significance in their lives````.
That`s how the West climbed out of their religious morass -- 100 years ago -- and this is exactly how the Muslims have to climb out of the dungeon of despair that they find themselves in --today.
We are ``only`` 100 years behind the West in understanding the dangers of mixing religion with politics and State.
To be where the West is today -- this is what we Muslims have to do -- we have to remove Islam from the affairs of State -- NOT carry Islam in our sleeves -– NOT act like an immature, insecure, attention starved, exhibitionist KID -- begging to be reassured -- by showing his few worn out -- (Pedarum Sultan Bood) - Islamic marbles – to Western ADULTS for approval and affirmation -- and if the Westerners don’t pay attention -– NOT threaten them with Jihad.
Do we see many mainstream Christians doing this sort of thing -- declaring from the soap box day and night -- as to -- what a bunch of good and great Christians they are -- or naming their country Christian Republic of the United States?
The question is – do we have to bring Islam in every aspect of our lives? – really -- do we have to name -- every dictator Islamic -– every power grabber Islamic -- every Constitution Islamic -- every country Islamic -- every politician Islamic -- every political party Islamic – every army Islamic – every war Islamic -- every bomb Islamic – every missile Islamic –– every police Islamic -- every criminal Islamic -- every school Islamic – every teacher Islamic -- every medicine Islamic – every doctor Islamic – every science Islamic – every scientist Islamic – every bank Islamic -- every banking system Islamic -- -- every lawyer Islamic -- every law Islamic –- every clothing Islamic – every scarf Islamic – every burlap bag over a woman`s head Islamic -- every food Islamic -- every burp Islamic –- every sneeze Islamic – how many times in the day we Muslims have to use the word Islamic – Islamic – Islamic.
Don’t we ever get tired of repeating the woed Islamic - how much reassurance do we need day and night? – the world IS getting tired of the word Islamic to a point of open hostility -– why can’t we get tired of parroting the same word over and over again -- like a broken record.
The fact is that -- unless -- we make our Islam an item of private and personal choice -- secularize it and confine it inside our hearts and masjids -– and NOT mix it with our political, governmental, judicial, military and economic lives –- we are destined to be thrown into the dustbin of the unforgiving history –- as a failed community – living in the past -- unable to reform a religion and a society -- that should have been much easier to reform than any world religion including Christianity.
regards
You write:
````A Muslim on the other hand is a completely different animal. He will constantly refer to Quranic verses, ahadith, and sunnah to draw guidance or to justify his acts.````(sattar)
Indeed we use Quran -- not only in our social, political, medical, jurisprudence, scientific, commercial matters -- but in murder as well.
We Muslims badly wish to go back to the “golden era`` of medieval Islam” -- when every aspect of life was run by Quranic verses, hadith and Sunnah -- and claim the unclaimable -- that by going backward Muslims can go forward.
Yet we Muslims are in some ways not so different from those rightwing orthodox Christians that you write about:
````Christian groups in the western world that strictly follow the Bible are also severely backward and regressive in their thinking, even nowadays. These groups include the KKK, the anti-abortion activists known for bombing clinics and attempting to murder doctors, the “white militia” involved in Oklahoma City bombing (“Timothy McVeigh” group), the “religious right” known for its xenophobia and segregationist politics.````(sattar)
It shows what happens to even modern day Christians when they choose to strictly follow a two thousand year old book.
As to the remedy you are on the target when you say -- ````In the western world, besides a small segment of the population, mainstream population does not view Bible as having any significance in their lives````.
That`s how the West climbed out of their religious morass -- 100 years ago -- and this is exactly how the Muslims have to climb out of the dungeon of despair that they find themselves in --today.
We are ``only`` 100 years behind the West in understanding the dangers of mixing religion with politics and State.
To be where the West is today -- this is what we Muslims have to do -- we have to remove Islam from the affairs of State -- NOT carry Islam in our sleeves -– NOT act like an immature, insecure, attention starved, exhibitionist KID -- begging to be reassured -- by showing his few worn out -- (Pedarum Sultan Bood) - Islamic marbles – to Western ADULTS for approval and affirmation -- and if the Westerners don’t pay attention -– NOT threaten them with Jihad.
Do we see many mainstream Christians doing this sort of thing -- declaring from the soap box day and night -- as to -- what a bunch of good and great Christians they are -- or naming their country Christian Republic of the United States?
The question is – do we have to bring Islam in every aspect of our lives? – really -- do we have to name -- every dictator Islamic -– every power grabber Islamic -- every Constitution Islamic -- every country Islamic -- every politician Islamic -- every political party Islamic – every army Islamic – every war Islamic -- every bomb Islamic – every missile Islamic –– every police Islamic -- every criminal Islamic -- every school Islamic – every teacher Islamic -- every medicine Islamic – every doctor Islamic – every science Islamic – every scientist Islamic – every bank Islamic -- every banking system Islamic -- -- every lawyer Islamic -- every law Islamic –- every clothing Islamic – every scarf Islamic – every burlap bag over a woman`s head Islamic -- every food Islamic -- every burp Islamic –- every sneeze Islamic – how many times in the day we Muslims have to use the word Islamic – Islamic – Islamic.
Don’t we ever get tired of repeating the woed Islamic - how much reassurance do we need day and night? – the world IS getting tired of the word Islamic to a point of open hostility -– why can’t we get tired of parroting the same word over and over again -- like a broken record.
The fact is that -- unless -- we make our Islam an item of private and personal choice -- secularize it and confine it inside our hearts and masjids -– and NOT mix it with our political, governmental, judicial, military and economic lives –- we are destined to be thrown into the dustbin of the unforgiving history –- as a failed community – living in the past -- unable to reform a religion and a society -- that should have been much easier to reform than any world religion including Christianity.
regards
#564 Posted by sattar2 on December 24, 2001 3:57:59 pm
Re nasah (#576):
As I have understood it, material progress of the western nations is not helped by modifications in the bible. Actually, they have divorced religion from rationality, and completely separated “faith” from their daily lives. A westerner does not usually refer to the scripture to decide how to handle various mundane issues.
A Muslim on the other hand is a completely different animal. He will constantly refer to Quranic verses, ahadith, and sunnah to draw guidance or to justify his acts. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is critical that scripture be correctly understood. Otherwise it becomes basis for absurdities and violence.
Christian groups in the western world that strictly follow the Bible are also severely backward and regressive in their thinking, even nowadays. These groups include the KKK, the anti-abortion activists known for bombing clinics and attempting to murder doctors, the “white militia” involved in Oklahoma City bombing (“Timothy McVeigh” group), the “religious right” known for its xenophobia and segregationist politics. The Third Reich and the Nazi Germany ideologies were based upon the teachings of the Bible. The main problem is not with the Bible, but with these groups misinterpreting it.
In the western world, besides a small segment of the population, mainstream population does not view Bible as having any significance in their lives. The scientific and the technology communities have a visible atheistic/agnostic or a “don’t-care” bend in their thought process.
Is religion good, or bad for the society? In my opinion, religion, if understood properly, yields the best results. Early history of Islam is a good example, where Muslims contributed heavily in the fields of medicine, mathematics, engineering, and more. Second best alternative is secularism, which is quite visible in the present-day western societies. The worst alternative is to incorrectly interpret religion, mix it with politics, and shove it down people’s throats. Recent world events attest to this disaster.
The “second best” approach of western secularism has its problems. Human greed and will to power knows no bounds. Without a sense of the divine in our lives, our animalistic desires get the better of us. Crime rate, teenage pregnancies, substance abuse are constantly rising in the west. However, a lot of these problems have been covered up by the economic success of these nations. But it is interesting that signs of economic strains in the society are starting to become visible … at individual levels as well as national level, here in the USA also.
As a result of human greed and struggle for the control of resources, we see that nations have armed themselves to the teeth. The world is on the brink of nuclear and biological warfare. If ever such a war breaks out, millions will get killed in a matter of a few minutes. The prospects are indeed very scary. On two separate occasions we have witnessed the havoc atomic bombs can play. A-bombs made nowadays are 100+ times more deadly than the ones dropped on Japan to end the Second World War.
Western nations have more or less completely divorced religion from their lives. As a result they have made great material progress … but at what price? I do not doubt that the path the world is going on will lead us to massive death and destruction. It is just a matter of time when some lunatic presses the red button and starts the unthinkable.
I am the opinion that getting the religion “right” is the only viable, long-term solution for the mankind. All other paths will eventually lead to destruction. But then again … I happen to have a religious bend in my thinking …
Asad
As I have understood it, material progress of the western nations is not helped by modifications in the bible. Actually, they have divorced religion from rationality, and completely separated “faith” from their daily lives. A westerner does not usually refer to the scripture to decide how to handle various mundane issues.
A Muslim on the other hand is a completely different animal. He will constantly refer to Quranic verses, ahadith, and sunnah to draw guidance or to justify his acts. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is critical that scripture be correctly understood. Otherwise it becomes basis for absurdities and violence.
Christian groups in the western world that strictly follow the Bible are also severely backward and regressive in their thinking, even nowadays. These groups include the KKK, the anti-abortion activists known for bombing clinics and attempting to murder doctors, the “white militia” involved in Oklahoma City bombing (“Timothy McVeigh” group), the “religious right” known for its xenophobia and segregationist politics. The Third Reich and the Nazi Germany ideologies were based upon the teachings of the Bible. The main problem is not with the Bible, but with these groups misinterpreting it.
In the western world, besides a small segment of the population, mainstream population does not view Bible as having any significance in their lives. The scientific and the technology communities have a visible atheistic/agnostic or a “don’t-care” bend in their thought process.
Is religion good, or bad for the society? In my opinion, religion, if understood properly, yields the best results. Early history of Islam is a good example, where Muslims contributed heavily in the fields of medicine, mathematics, engineering, and more. Second best alternative is secularism, which is quite visible in the present-day western societies. The worst alternative is to incorrectly interpret religion, mix it with politics, and shove it down people’s throats. Recent world events attest to this disaster.
The “second best” approach of western secularism has its problems. Human greed and will to power knows no bounds. Without a sense of the divine in our lives, our animalistic desires get the better of us. Crime rate, teenage pregnancies, substance abuse are constantly rising in the west. However, a lot of these problems have been covered up by the economic success of these nations. But it is interesting that signs of economic strains in the society are starting to become visible … at individual levels as well as national level, here in the USA also.
As a result of human greed and struggle for the control of resources, we see that nations have armed themselves to the teeth. The world is on the brink of nuclear and biological warfare. If ever such a war breaks out, millions will get killed in a matter of a few minutes. The prospects are indeed very scary. On two separate occasions we have witnessed the havoc atomic bombs can play. A-bombs made nowadays are 100+ times more deadly than the ones dropped on Japan to end the Second World War.
Western nations have more or less completely divorced religion from their lives. As a result they have made great material progress … but at what price? I do not doubt that the path the world is going on will lead us to massive death and destruction. It is just a matter of time when some lunatic presses the red button and starts the unthinkable.
I am the opinion that getting the religion “right” is the only viable, long-term solution for the mankind. All other paths will eventually lead to destruction. But then again … I happen to have a religious bend in my thinking …
Asad
#563 Posted by nasah on December 24, 2001 2:41:34 am
Dear Sattar mian:
You write:
``Bible has undergone changes at the hands of its followers, who at times modified the scripture for self-serving interests.``
And just look where the Christians with their ``timely`` modifications of bible -- and where we are with the ``permanence`` of our Quran! -- how come?
Are you sure ``permanence`` is necessarily a blessing?
You write:
``Bible has undergone changes at the hands of its followers, who at times modified the scripture for self-serving interests.``
And just look where the Christians with their ``timely`` modifications of bible -- and where we are with the ``permanence`` of our Quran! -- how come?
Are you sure ``permanence`` is necessarily a blessing?
#562 Posted by sattar2 on December 24, 2001 2:41:34 am
Anny (#529):
It is saddening to read your post about the persecution of Shias in Pakistan. It is disheartening to see people being singled out and harassed in the name of the very religion which was revealed to serve the humanity.
As for the situation in Pakistan, I wish I had a good answer. There are a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone. There are a great many people in Pakistan full of understanding and compassion for others. I do hope and pray for the betterment of our nation … not only for those being persecuted, but also for the few misguided ones who perpetuate this cycle of violence and hatred. My own efforts here in northern California are focused on spreading the message of Islam … by holding “information tables” in local malls, displaying Islamic literature, answering peoples questions about “jihad” and Islam, organizing “interfaith conference” where people of various faiths can have a dialogue and better understand each other. This keeps me busy with activities I deeply cherish … creating harmony between all people … from varied nations, religions, and ethnicity.
Sorry about the delayed response …I got tied up with some household activities. Through the tough times that your community is experiencing in Pakistan, do not lose hope and continue to pray to Allah and ask for His help and blessings. He surely listens to His people, especially the innocent ones who have been wronged. I wish you, your family, and your community my heartfelt support and best wishes and will remember you all in my prayers.
Warm wishes and best regards,
Asad
It is saddening to read your post about the persecution of Shias in Pakistan. It is disheartening to see people being singled out and harassed in the name of the very religion which was revealed to serve the humanity.
As for the situation in Pakistan, I wish I had a good answer. There are a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone. There are a great many people in Pakistan full of understanding and compassion for others. I do hope and pray for the betterment of our nation … not only for those being persecuted, but also for the few misguided ones who perpetuate this cycle of violence and hatred. My own efforts here in northern California are focused on spreading the message of Islam … by holding “information tables” in local malls, displaying Islamic literature, answering peoples questions about “jihad” and Islam, organizing “interfaith conference” where people of various faiths can have a dialogue and better understand each other. This keeps me busy with activities I deeply cherish … creating harmony between all people … from varied nations, religions, and ethnicity.
Sorry about the delayed response …I got tied up with some household activities. Through the tough times that your community is experiencing in Pakistan, do not lose hope and continue to pray to Allah and ask for His help and blessings. He surely listens to His people, especially the innocent ones who have been wronged. I wish you, your family, and your community my heartfelt support and best wishes and will remember you all in my prayers.
Warm wishes and best regards,
Asad
#561 Posted by anNy on December 23, 2001 3:35:10 pm
shammisahab:
understood Sir- and if youd just call me anNy
understood Sir- and if youd just call me anNy
#560 Posted by sattar2 on December 23, 2001 3:35:10 pm
Re nasah (#555):
“Permanence” may not necessarily be divine. Here, the point I am trying to make is that Quranic claim of “permanence”, which has remained fulfilled so far against all odds, is strong evidence of divine support, and thus its divine origins.
“Permanence” is important from another aspect also. Quran, as originally revealed, is the Word of Allah … rich with divine guidance and wisdom. If Quran loses its “permanence” and gets changed by humans, the message will eventually mislead the followers, since human understanding and motives are far from being perfect.
Bible has undergone changes at the hands of its followers, who at times modified the scripture for self-serving interests. One shocking example is the change in the Old Testament that resulted in Prophet Lot consorting with his own daughters (Genesis, chapter 19). This is but one of many examples of human intervention in the scripture. Such changes seem to be deliberately introduced to validate some of the harmful and damaging customs prevalent in the society. Imagine the impact on the followers and their norms when the scripture validates such horrible acts by associating them with divine prophets. The “holy” scripture is not so holy any more. The Book sent for guidance of the followers is now bound to lead them astray, to horrid and most damaging customs. Therefore, “permanence” in the form of protection from human interpolation is a blessing, a safety net, for our own benefits.
On the issue of frail, human attributes, associated with God, here are some thoughts. It is not possible for a human, being imperfect, to intellectually completely grasp the true attributes of Allah. Therefore, Allah is explained in Quran in terms that may be understood by humans. Same hold for concepts of heaven and hell, one described as gardens with abundant fruits and streams, and the other as a raging fire. Following arguments will illustrate this point further …
Humans evolved from pre-biotic organisms over billions of years. This is consistent with Quranic teachings, and scientific discoveries. These pre-biotic organisms were probably similar to the green algae growing in humid environments. It would be been impossible for this algae to “imagine” that one day it will evolve into a highly complex being … with a very wide range of emotions. These beings will discover quantum mechanics and Relativity, while getting irritated when the morning newspaper is delivered late … some will bear a lifetime of pain and suffering and yet forgive, some will send man to the moon, and some will send thousands to their graves over minor disputes. The algae simply could not have grasped such concepts. Humans are still evolving, and will probably evolve a lot more over the next billions of years. We cannot imagine what humans will be like in later stages of development. If we extrapolate on this principle, it is not difficult to see that humans cannot fully grasp the true attributes of God either (if God exists in one’s opinion, that is).
A few more points worth considering …
Humans have evolved from very basic organisms. Adam was not the first human created instantaneously out of clay … that is only a metaphor. Adam, who lived approx. 6000 years ago was one of the first modern humans intellectually evolved enough to grasp basic divine commandments. Therefore he is considered the “first” prophet. There is a hadith that indicates there being a hundred thousand “Adams”. Perhaps this indicates that during each stage of development, there was an “Adam”, the first of its kind. Perhaps some sort of divine commandments have been revealed to humans in each stage of development. If this indeed is the case, it should be expected that humans will someday enter a new phase of development. Then there would be another “Adam”, another sequence of divine revelations, and another “Quran”.
One more point worth considering is that … Quran hints at the existence of other life forms in the universe. Quran also hints that contact between these beings and humans will take place at a “prescribed” point in time, as “willed” by Allah. Allah is the Lord of all worlds, as proclaimed in Quran. In all likelihood these “beings” have their own system of evolution and development … they have their own “Adams” and their own sequence of divine revelations.
So the “permanence” of Quran should be understood in a relative context. It is “absolutely” permanent, in a “relative” sort of way, as I have been able to understand thus far.
I hope some of this makes some sense to the reader. Best regards,
Asad
“Permanence” may not necessarily be divine. Here, the point I am trying to make is that Quranic claim of “permanence”, which has remained fulfilled so far against all odds, is strong evidence of divine support, and thus its divine origins.
“Permanence” is important from another aspect also. Quran, as originally revealed, is the Word of Allah … rich with divine guidance and wisdom. If Quran loses its “permanence” and gets changed by humans, the message will eventually mislead the followers, since human understanding and motives are far from being perfect.
Bible has undergone changes at the hands of its followers, who at times modified the scripture for self-serving interests. One shocking example is the change in the Old Testament that resulted in Prophet Lot consorting with his own daughters (Genesis, chapter 19). This is but one of many examples of human intervention in the scripture. Such changes seem to be deliberately introduced to validate some of the harmful and damaging customs prevalent in the society. Imagine the impact on the followers and their norms when the scripture validates such horrible acts by associating them with divine prophets. The “holy” scripture is not so holy any more. The Book sent for guidance of the followers is now bound to lead them astray, to horrid and most damaging customs. Therefore, “permanence” in the form of protection from human interpolation is a blessing, a safety net, for our own benefits.
On the issue of frail, human attributes, associated with God, here are some thoughts. It is not possible for a human, being imperfect, to intellectually completely grasp the true attributes of Allah. Therefore, Allah is explained in Quran in terms that may be understood by humans. Same hold for concepts of heaven and hell, one described as gardens with abundant fruits and streams, and the other as a raging fire. Following arguments will illustrate this point further …
Humans evolved from pre-biotic organisms over billions of years. This is consistent with Quranic teachings, and scientific discoveries. These pre-biotic organisms were probably similar to the green algae growing in humid environments. It would be been impossible for this algae to “imagine” that one day it will evolve into a highly complex being … with a very wide range of emotions. These beings will discover quantum mechanics and Relativity, while getting irritated when the morning newspaper is delivered late … some will bear a lifetime of pain and suffering and yet forgive, some will send man to the moon, and some will send thousands to their graves over minor disputes. The algae simply could not have grasped such concepts. Humans are still evolving, and will probably evolve a lot more over the next billions of years. We cannot imagine what humans will be like in later stages of development. If we extrapolate on this principle, it is not difficult to see that humans cannot fully grasp the true attributes of God either (if God exists in one’s opinion, that is).
A few more points worth considering …
Humans have evolved from very basic organisms. Adam was not the first human created instantaneously out of clay … that is only a metaphor. Adam, who lived approx. 6000 years ago was one of the first modern humans intellectually evolved enough to grasp basic divine commandments. Therefore he is considered the “first” prophet. There is a hadith that indicates there being a hundred thousand “Adams”. Perhaps this indicates that during each stage of development, there was an “Adam”, the first of its kind. Perhaps some sort of divine commandments have been revealed to humans in each stage of development. If this indeed is the case, it should be expected that humans will someday enter a new phase of development. Then there would be another “Adam”, another sequence of divine revelations, and another “Quran”.
One more point worth considering is that … Quran hints at the existence of other life forms in the universe. Quran also hints that contact between these beings and humans will take place at a “prescribed” point in time, as “willed” by Allah. Allah is the Lord of all worlds, as proclaimed in Quran. In all likelihood these “beings” have their own system of evolution and development … they have their own “Adams” and their own sequence of divine revelations.
So the “permanence” of Quran should be understood in a relative context. It is “absolutely” permanent, in a “relative” sort of way, as I have been able to understand thus far.
I hope some of this makes some sense to the reader. Best regards,
Asad
#559 Posted by shammi on December 23, 2001 11:01:58 am
AnNY Sahiba:
What I meant was that `Shia as a minority` description would be anathema to Jinnah who once described the Muslims of India as a `nation`, not a `minority`. Any suggestions that this `nation` would have a `minority` of Shias would be very disturbing to him, especially in light of his Aug. 11, `47 speech. If he knew that Shias were going to go around calling themselves minorities in Pakistan, the very thought would be revolting to him. If you don`t believe me, check with YLH.
What I meant was that `Shia as a minority` description would be anathema to Jinnah who once described the Muslims of India as a `nation`, not a `minority`. Any suggestions that this `nation` would have a `minority` of Shias would be very disturbing to him, especially in light of his Aug. 11, `47 speech. If he knew that Shias were going to go around calling themselves minorities in Pakistan, the very thought would be revolting to him. If you don`t believe me, check with YLH.
#557 Posted by Prem on December 22, 2001 8:19:22 pm
tahmed321 # 561
Thanks, my friend. But for some sane voices like yours, it would be impossible to put up with foul-mouthed bumpkins, quick-to-offend bird-brains, and fire-and-brimstone buffoons who have come to populate Chowk in increasing numbers.
Regards.
Thanks, my friend. But for some sane voices like yours, it would be impossible to put up with foul-mouthed bumpkins, quick-to-offend bird-brains, and fire-and-brimstone buffoons who have come to populate Chowk in increasing numbers.
Regards.
#556 Posted by DRUMZ on December 22, 2001 8:19:22 pm
Trillium: http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/menus/ancienthmenu.html
This has a little bit on higgins and some other stuff. His book was available online, but now i cant find it. He`s great with etemology but his info on Islam was quite poor. Like many scholars, he believed true islam was kept alive by the ahle-bait (shi`as) and he`s probably right...
Esoterics like Bacon and newton studied the DNA and believed the twin snakes represented the duality of life (man/woman, good/evil Zarathustra, Allah/Iblis, magnetism etc). U will notice that almost ALL religions began with the worship of a feminine Goddess (everything I had on Allat was deleted...) Almost simultaneously, all religions replaced the feminine God with the masculine (the stupidest example is in the King james Bible where they replaced a quote ``suc.k the breats of the Queen`` with King, LOL). If u look at the original Hebrew God ELOHIM it is the feminine singluar ELOH, with the masculine plural HIM. The original cross was called the egyptian ankh which had an ``O`` halfway on top of an ``I`` (the male and female sex organs). This symbolized creation and the balance of opposites, good/bad.
The school of HERMETICS taught EQUILIBRIUM (the Balance of the male/female). The protagonist of the ``magic flute`` (an egyptian play) aimed for balance, this was the story behind mozarts composition of the same name. They valued the CAT cuz it was passive like women and aggressive like men (The whole thing about 9 lives come from nine being the # of balance).
What im saying is focus on the feminine, with the goal of balancing it with the masculine. This is why there is no diety but the ONE - the two are really one) - yin/yang. I cant speak anymore, im trying to learn about sacred geometry thee days and dont know where to start - islam would be a good place...
Sattar: The thing about islamic law was brilliant!
This has a little bit on higgins and some other stuff. His book was available online, but now i cant find it. He`s great with etemology but his info on Islam was quite poor. Like many scholars, he believed true islam was kept alive by the ahle-bait (shi`as) and he`s probably right...
Esoterics like Bacon and newton studied the DNA and believed the twin snakes represented the duality of life (man/woman, good/evil Zarathustra, Allah/Iblis, magnetism etc). U will notice that almost ALL religions began with the worship of a feminine Goddess (everything I had on Allat was deleted...) Almost simultaneously, all religions replaced the feminine God with the masculine (the stupidest example is in the King james Bible where they replaced a quote ``suc.k the breats of the Queen`` with King, LOL). If u look at the original Hebrew God ELOHIM it is the feminine singluar ELOH, with the masculine plural HIM. The original cross was called the egyptian ankh which had an ``O`` halfway on top of an ``I`` (the male and female sex organs). This symbolized creation and the balance of opposites, good/bad.
The school of HERMETICS taught EQUILIBRIUM (the Balance of the male/female). The protagonist of the ``magic flute`` (an egyptian play) aimed for balance, this was the story behind mozarts composition of the same name. They valued the CAT cuz it was passive like women and aggressive like men (The whole thing about 9 lives come from nine being the # of balance).
What im saying is focus on the feminine, with the goal of balancing it with the masculine. This is why there is no diety but the ONE - the two are really one) - yin/yang. I cant speak anymore, im trying to learn about sacred geometry thee days and dont know where to start - islam would be a good place...
Sattar: The thing about islamic law was brilliant!
#555 Posted by rajanjua on December 22, 2001 2:47:50 pm
``Shooting down your ``unarmed`` military aircraft was payback for the 1965 shooting down of a Cessna carrying the Chief Minister of Gujarat.``
Hmmm.. This is amusing indeed - So the Pakistanis should expect the ``surgical strikes`` and other ``punitive measures`` around 2035.
Personally I think the special ops should be sent to Pakistan now. That`s the need of the hour. We want to see the brave Indian commandos in action, besides that jackass advani will tell you that its also the right thing to do ``morally``.
Hmmm.. This is amusing indeed - So the Pakistanis should expect the ``surgical strikes`` and other ``punitive measures`` around 2035.
Personally I think the special ops should be sent to Pakistan now. That`s the need of the hour. We want to see the brave Indian commandos in action, besides that jackass advani will tell you that its also the right thing to do ``morally``.
#554 Posted by audio-video-rad on December 22, 2001 1:00:54 pm
Lucy #302 As a new poster (albeit a self-confessed longtime lurker) on chowk you certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, your first two posts (the second basically repeating the same two points as the first one) are not encouraging, as follows:
a. you write ``As I have said, most Chowk posters produce manure. You are the only exception - a real gem amongst them.``
Such a broad generalization and condemnation is worthless (or ``manure``, to use your pleasant wording). There are a variety of viewpoints, depths of thinking, humor or lack thereof, and so on in chowk posts (say on this board). You may agree or disagree with them, you may condemn specific things in individual posts, but you cant sit on a pedestal and grandly past such judgements.
b. you write to shankar ``Do share more about yourself. I am very curious to know more about you.``
I like shankar`s posts, and think he is balanced and courageous and does not care for personal insults which are sometimes directed towards him. And I have noted that on several occassions. But I dont think most chowk posters come here to learn more about the personal lives of strangers. Nevertheless, since that is what you seem interested in, I hope shankar will do you a favor and provide you his email address so you can get to know him better. Since clearly the issues being discussed on chowk hold no meaning to you, and clearly you have nothing to contribute other than meaningless condemnations of chowks posts.
a. you write ``As I have said, most Chowk posters produce manure. You are the only exception - a real gem amongst them.``
Such a broad generalization and condemnation is worthless (or ``manure``, to use your pleasant wording). There are a variety of viewpoints, depths of thinking, humor or lack thereof, and so on in chowk posts (say on this board). You may agree or disagree with them, you may condemn specific things in individual posts, but you cant sit on a pedestal and grandly past such judgements.
b. you write to shankar ``Do share more about yourself. I am very curious to know more about you.``
I like shankar`s posts, and think he is balanced and courageous and does not care for personal insults which are sometimes directed towards him. And I have noted that on several occassions. But I dont think most chowk posters come here to learn more about the personal lives of strangers. Nevertheless, since that is what you seem interested in, I hope shankar will do you a favor and provide you his email address so you can get to know him better. Since clearly the issues being discussed on chowk hold no meaning to you, and clearly you have nothing to contribute other than meaningless condemnations of chowks posts.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- mullah_toofani: Tahir baitay, If you see... Translation of a (Love)
- tahir: Welcome to ChowQ, Mukherjee. Be... Roshni
- tahir: Re: # 6 Too-'fani' "He... Translation of a (Love)
- aaendra: Re: # 1 So typical... Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo!
- aaendra: Re: # 2 Mullah Sahab... Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo!
- tahir: Re: # 411 Non-Starter "tahir... Of Medical Students, Passports
- tahir: Re: # 412 Zaman... Of Medical Students, Passports
- majumdar: Ahmed madani sahib, Re: 67 Interesting... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
