Is Jehad Passe’?

sattar2 #142 To summarize: We both agree then that the current state of muslims is one of backwardness and jehalat. The way out of this state, in my view, is through education (broadly speaking to include knowledge, character-building, rational thinking). The way out of this state, in your view, is by following prophets (all prophets, and they continue to be born from time to time, per your view). You think my view is wishful thinking, I think your view will guarantee the continued existence of muslims in the state they find themselves.

Let us agree to disagree then, and best wishes for the new year.

Re Tahmed Sahib (#140):

I maintain that prophets are not mere messengers, but besides delivering the message, they also set shining examples for others to follow.



This is supported by Quran where Prophet Mohammd (pbuh) is called an excellent model for others (Surah-e-Ahzab). In several other places in Quran the Prophet is praised for his various attributes. This is counter to your claim that “Muhammed`s personality is hardly of significance anywhere in the Quran”.

This is also supported by the Quranic requirement of belief in all prophets of God. If only the message is important, Muslims would have been commanded to believe in revealed scriptures only, and not the prophets.

According to Quran, Moses was given the Law of Torah, and later, other prophets were also sent to the Israelites. This indicates that due to the weaknesses in human intellect and lapses in understanding, people go astray, and prophets serve to bring them back to the right path. The later prophets did not give a new law, rather they showed by setting examples the correct interpretation and application of Torah. If such human frailties do not exist, the question remains that why were these prophets needed. This is one of the reasons I argue that prophets will continue to be raised as Muslims go astray, to bring them back to the pristine teachings of Islam.

Reflection on human behavior provides further evidence of the point I am trying to make. A student may have in his possession a book on “Fundamental of Physics”. But to better understand the subject-matter, it would help if he attends lectures. During lectures, the student exercises his own intellect, but the instructor also helps him fully develop his understanding and skills.

One may argue that since he already has the book, the student does not need to go to school. This would be a naïve argument and cannot be applied to a large cross-section of people without serious setbacks in their collective academic performance.

Similarly, people who are high-achievers serve to inspire others in their respective fields. For example, the “Society of Physicists” will try to have a Nobel laureate give a keynote address in the annual convention. One may argue that since the message is all that is important, a similar speech may as well be read-out by an office clerk. Common experience will attest that the speech, if delivered by a clerk, will not have nearly as much of an impact on the audience. What is missing is the decades of study, research, and hard work of the Nobel scholar, which makes his message appealing and his personality a source of inspiration for others.

Moving on ...

You mention that Muslims of the world may get out of their current turmoil by human development, education, and rational thinking. You seem to be taking the easy way out by mentioning these concepts, without explaining how all this will be executed. In other words, why has this not worked thus far? It is easy to give a vague overview of what needs to be done … but it is another matter to articulate and execute a workable strategy for delivering this tall order … especially when all such claims thus far have failed miserably … a fact attested to by the sheer lack of progress in the Muslim world.

Similarly you state that prophethood will be unimportant if Islamic fanatics are transformed into caring, compassionate individuals who can apply logic and reasoning. The only weaknesses in this plan are … details and implementation! If this has not transpired over the past thousand years, how do you imagine this will work now?

You state that “Quran is neither necessary nor sufficient to make muslims a progressive people”, it basically gives some basics about decency and education etc., and does away with superstition, hypocrisy that has passed for Islam for centuries.

It is worth noting that all these superstitions and hypocrisy sneaked into the teachings of mainstream Islam, while Quran existed and was regularly “studied”, “understood”, and “practiced” by the scholars and others! Look at the divisions in the Islamic schools of thought … and you’ll see that Quran has already failed for the past few centuries at reforming Muslims. If Quran could not prevent this corruption from entering the Islamic teachings in the first place, how will the Quran rid the Islamic world of this corruption now?

You have incorrectly stated that I (Sattar) say that education, learning, and thinking rationally are not important. This is wrong. You seem to have derived this incorrectly from your preconceived notions regarding “orthodox” Muslims. While I believe in education, and learning, and rationality, I firmly believe that human endeavors, if not guided by divine law, are bound to lead the followers to path of destruction and turmoil. Potential hazards of nuclear arms race and genetic engineering are but a few such examples.

Quran is essential for the true progress of mankind. While it does not delineate laws of classical physics, it encourages the believer to explore the world around him and to discover principles of science. Quran provides the framework within which, for example, science and technology may be practiced in a manner that is beneficial for the mankind, without posing threats to the survival of the human race. Quran bluntly claims to be the “perfect book” and the “book without any crookedness”. It is the summit of evolution of revealed law, which provides the perfect framework for reforming human thoughts and conduct, all geared towards the benefit of the mankind.

The points you attempted to make regarding no need for messengers, how Muslims may get out of their current state by education, Islamic fanatics turning into caring and rational individuals, and Quran ridding the Islamic world of superstition and hypocrisy … constitute wishful thinking at best. These plans are based upon fantasy, they have not worked for the past thousand-or-so years, and they can no longer be expected to solve the dilemma of the Muslim world.

However, you continue to pin your hopes on such unrealistic ideas. This, I find baffling.

Re nasah (#138):

Sahib, as I pointed out earlier, you may have conflicts with the sheer content of Islamic teachings. That however, does not give you the right to ridicule me for my personal beliefs as a Muslim. We have had intelligent discussions in the past … and this silly attitude of yours needs to go.

Indeed there are problems within the Muslim world. Projecting these problems on all Muslims is not very smart and such generalizations should be avoided in the name of intelligence.



Asad

Re: soysauce

``...Undermine him (Musharraf), not the pak citizens...``

Agreed. But how?

NOTE: This post is a slightly edited version of my next post (see below after this post) which I had sent which is a bit confusing in terms of the way I have cut and paste some quotes from the post I am responding to. So please ignore my next post.

sattar2 #136

You write: ``You oversimplify things when you exclaim that being a decent, caring human being is important, while being concerned with prophethood is not.`` No I do not. If all the Islamic fanatics were transformed into decent, caring, merciful, affecitonate human beings would that be unimportant? If all muslims, fanatics and the silent majority, were to become educated and knowledgable and capable of reaching logical conclusions, would that be unimportant? Whether someone believes that the Quran is the final message from God or that messages come after that, becomes an academic issue once you have a population that is rational and knowledgeable. What I am saying is not what you have been led to believe, but trust your own abilities to think for yourself and then tell me if I am wrong in stressing the central importance of being a good human being.

You write: ``Prophets are men of pristine belief in God, they are divinely guided and protected, and they set shinning examples for their followers.`` Wrong. They are mere messengers. Uneducated people and low intellects think in terms of personalities, and it requires a certain level of intellectual focus to think in terms of ideas. Religion is about ideas and concepts, not personalities. Muhammed`s personality is hardly of significance anywhere in the Quran.

You write: ``Islamic world of today also suffers from rampant sin and moral decay.`` This is a blanket statement that is meaningless.

You write ``Muslims have stopped making headlines in scientific journals.`` Prophets wont teach them science. Muslims will make headlines when they focus on what you say is unimportant - education and learning and most important, thinking rationally.

You write: ``There is no power on earth that can get the Muslims out of their current state of corruption and moral decay. If one disagrees with this, I would like to hear how he thinks reformation of the Muslims will ever come about. ``

Through human development - education, rational thinking.

You write: ``How Quran, a book that mainstream Muslims either no longer understand, or do not care to follow, will make them see the light? How is Quran, a stack of bound, printed papers, alone expected to help people who have gone astray and are neck-deep in a social and spiritual turmoil? ``

The Quran is neither necessary nor sufficient to make muslims a progressive people. It does provide some basic concepts - stress on decency, education etc. - that would clear the confusion caused by centuries of superstition, hypocrisy, and lies that pass for Islam in Pakistan. It can serve to clear that confusion, and put muslims where more progressive people have already reached their own conclusions. The Quran itself is quite modest about itself as well as about the place of muslims relative to other people of the world. It is only muslims who have created their own version of religion that is directly in contradiction to the Quran. Even a person as thoughtful as you thinks that ``mullah issues`` like the finality of the prophet are more important than substantive issues like living a decent, useful life.

You write: ``However, it is worth noting that you felt strongly enough about “finality” to declare my position “wrong” on this issue.`` I said you were factually wrong in your position. That does not mean I feel strongly about this issue which, to repeat myself, is a ``mullah issue`` that is of importance only to those who are confused about what religion is all about.

sattar2 #136

You write: ``You oversimplify things when you exclaim that being a decent, caring human being is important, while being concerned with prophethood is not.`` No I do not. If all the Islamic fanatics were transformed into decent, caring, merciful, affecitonate human beings would that be unimportant? If all muslims, fanatics and the silent majority, were to become educated and knowledgable and capable of reaching logical conclusions, would that be unimportant? Whether someone believes that the Quran is the final message from God or that messages come after that, becomes an academic issue once you have a population that is rational and knowledgeable. What I am saying is not what you have been led to believe, but trust your own abilities to think for yourself and then tell me if I am wrong in stressing the central importance of being a good human being.

You write: ``Prophets are men of pristine belief in God, they are divinely guided and protected, and they set shinning examples for their followers.`` Wrong. They are mere messengers. Uneducated people and low intellects think in terms of personalities, and it requires a certain level of intellectual focus to think in terms of ideas. Religion is about ideas and concepts, not personalities. Muhammed`s personality is hardly of significance anywhere in the Quran.

You write: ``Islamic world of today also suffers from rampant sin and moral decay.`` This is a blanket statement that is meaningless.

You write ``Muslims have stopped making headlines in scientific journals.`` Prophets wont teach them science. Muslims will make headlines when they focus on what you say is unimportant - education and learning and most important, thinking rationally.

You write: ``There is no power on earth that can get the Muslims out of their current state of corruption and moral decay. If one disagrees with this, I would like to hear how he thinks reformation of the Muslims will ever come about. ``

Through human development - education, rational thinking.

You write: ``How Quran, a book that mainstream Muslims either no longer understand, or do not care to follow, will make them see the light? How is Quran, a stack of bound, printed papers, alone expected to help people who have gone astray and are neck-deep in a social and spiritual turmoil? ``

The Quran is neither necessary nor sufficient to make muslims a progressive people. It does provide some basic concepts - stress on decency, education etc. - that would clear the confusion caused by centuries of superstition, hypocrisy, and lies that pass for Islam in Pakistan. It can serve to clear that confusion, and put muslims where more progressive people have already reached their own conclusions. The Quran itself is quite modest about itself as well as about the place of muslims relative to other people of the world. It is only muslims who have created their own version of religion that is directly in contradiction to the Quran. Even a person as thoughtful as you thinks that ``mullah issues`` like the finality of the prophet are more important than substantive issues like living a decent, useful life.

Quran has been there all along … if it has not worked all this time … why would it work now?

You write: ``However, it is worth noting that you felt strongly enough about “finality” to declare my position “wrong” on this issue.`` I said you were factually wrong in your position. That does not mean I feel strongly about this issue which, to repeat myself, is a ``mullah issue`` that is of importance only to those who are confused about what religion is all about.

“”Allah raises prophets according to His divine plans and commands obedience from us.

Allah breathes spiritual life, His spirit in people when He raises a prophet to guide them. Prophets are sent as people go astray from the path of righteousness and when corruption and moral decay sets in. Prophets are men of pristine belief in God, they are divinely guided and protected, and they set shinning examples for their followers. They remove the cover of darkness from the hearts of the people and bring to light the truth and beauty of the message of God. Quran mentions many such prophets … Lot, Hud, Ishmail, Solomon, David, Issac, Shoaib, Jonah, Joseph, Zackariya, John, Jesus … to name a few. Through these prophets God provided humans with much needed guidance and saved mankind from sin and moral decay.”” (Sattar).

There you go Sattar Mian -- in the “Religious Mode” -- sounding just like another one of our board preachers -- Sunni maulana Naqshbandi -- with intellectualism awashed in a pint of Allah’s spirit.

You’re INDEED -- a True Muslim.

Dear Sigalph:

You are 100% right when you write:

``I am ashamed to say that Muslims in minorities (and their patrons in the Middle East and OIC) demand the same rights for themselves that they will NEVER willingly give to minorities in Muslim countries.

The problem is that the world is now waking up to this double standard where mosques can be lavishly built in sight of the White House and St Peter`s BAscillica but a Christian can be beheaded for entering Mecca and Copts have to wait for police permission (for fifteen years sometimes) to fix the bathrooms in their churches.

If Muslims in the predominantly Christian countries were treated like the way Christians are in most Muslim countries, there will a human rights disaster in our hands.````(sigalph)

Isn`t it amazing -- how we can get away with murder!

Specially notorious are those pious Saudi B$st$rds -- in their Islamic piety an fervor they love to build lavish mosques from Madrid to Washington DC -- in everybody elses backyard -- but no Christian or Hindu can have a prayer place in their ``Holy`` Land -- not even a Christian army stationed to save Saudi fatsos derrieres -- can have a church in their compound -- and the amazingly US army complies with that immoral injunction!

In short the Saudi version of that famous saying -- go ahead and DO unto others -- what you DON`T ALLOW -- others -- to do unto you.

And you are right -- the ``others`` are now waking up -- and have started -- ``to do unto us`` -- all over the world – what we have been doing unto them – from Bosnia to Afghanistan..

Re tahmed (#132):

Quran requires us to believe in all prophets of God. This includes belief in prophets raised since the times of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), if that is indeed possible. This “possibility” should be given its due consideration.



You oversimplify things when you exclaim that being a decent, caring human being is important, while being concerned with prophethood is not. Imagine this type of simplification by a “decent, caring” Jew at the time of Issa-ibne-Marriam. This Jew would end up viewing Issa’s prophethood as largely irrelevant. It is only in hindsight that we better appreciate the prophethood of Issa-ibne-Marriam. Clearly being a caring and decent human is important, but a true prophet should be accepted by one since Allah raises prophets according to His divine plans and commands obedience from us.

Allah breathes spiritual life, His spirit in people when He raises a prophet to guide them. Prophets are sent as people go astray from the path of righteousness and when corruption and moral decay sets in. Prophets are men of pristine belief in God, they are divinely guided and protected, and they set shinning examples for their followers. They remove the cover of darkness from the hearts of the people and bring to light the truth and beauty of the message of God. Quran mentions many such prophets … Lot, Hud, Ishmail, Solomon, David, Issac, Shoaib, Jonah, Joseph, Zackariya, John, Jesus … to name a few. Through these prophets God provided humans with much needed guidance and saved mankind from sin and moral decay.

Islamic world of today also suffers from rampant sin and moral decay. It is at one of its lowest points in its 1400 years of history. It has become infested with corruption, dogma, and sectarian differences. Belief in a Glorious and Magnificent God has been replaced by belief in a trickster God whose prophets parted the ocean, raised the dead, flew from one city to another, were taken up to the skies to meet God, controlled jinns, spoke with animals, reside in the sky even after two thousand years of birth, and more. Muslims are trying to please maulvis or pir Sahibs. Islamic traditions of piety and simplicity are replaced by extravagant social customs … stuffing ourselves with food and exploding fireworks, instead of spending time in remembrance of Allah and giving to the needy … whether it is eid, Shabe-Qadar, ramadan, Mohorram, or any other event …

Muslims have stopped making headlines in scientific journals. Most Muslim countries are surviving on foreign aid and are getting ever closer to bankruptcy. Dig this … all our scholars are actually waiting for a two-thousand year old prophet to descend down from the sky, fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey, convert the world to Islam, and lead the religion of Allah to its final victory.

A handful of Muslims do not subscribe to such absurd ideas, but they are small in number. Ironically they are probably outnumbered by those who claim to be Muslims but in reality are not much interested in Islam anymore. Islam has been split into 70+ sects … each is full of hatred for the other … each is heavily politicized … several are heavily armed. Muslims of the world are not sure of Islamic teachings regarding befriending Jews and Christians, if/how to punish an apostate, what is an “Islamic” state, what should be the rights of minorities in an “Islamic” state, when/where/who to wage jihad against, scope/need of blasphemy laws … heck, they cannot even decide who is a Muslim … and that if they even need to decide who is and who isn’t a Muslim.

When decline has set in this deep, on a scale this large, only a prophet of God can deliver the people from corruption and moral decay. Otherwise Islam will continue to become a fairy-tale religion of dogma and absurd ideologies, divorced from the realities of life, that one can no longer apply to one’s life.

There is no power on earth that can get the Muslims out of their current state of corruption and moral decay. If one disagrees with this, I would like to hear how he thinks reformation of the Muslims will ever come about. How Quran, a book that mainstream Muslims either no longer understand, or do not care to follow, will make them see the light? How is Quran, a stack of bound, printed papers, alone expected to help people who have gone astray and are neck-deep in a social and spiritual turmoil? Quran has been there all along … if it has not worked all this time … why would it work now?

If you do not care about the finality of prophethood or are not interested in spending your time rating prophets (as you stated), then feel free to ignore this post. However, it is worth noting that you felt strongly enough about “finality” to declare my position “wrong” on this issue. I firmly differ, and would state once again that finality of prophethood has no Quranic basis at all. It remains one of the many concepts misunderstood by the mainstream Muslims and can be negated in the light of Quranic verses with relatively simple arguments.

There is a lot more to this issue that needs to be understood … perhaps more than you may have realized thus far. But that’s enough for now …



Asad

Sattar2 #119 #120

Re Fatimah (#109):

In a brief response to your post … yes, both shia and sunni Muslim sects believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the final, last prophet. Ahmadi-Muslims disagree with both sects in this interpretation.

Since I follow Quran where Allah has chosen the word “Islam” for my faith, I consider myself a Muslim. Therefore I cannot accept as valid any claims calling me a non-Muslim. Discrimination against Ahmadis, or any other sect, or religion has basis in Islam.

AsadSb.

Assalam Aleikum

Whereas i wanted to dileanate the crux of difference ,I would be telling lie if i meant DISCRIMINATING against you,Ahmedie or any other religion judeaism,zorasthtreianism,christianity ,Hindu ....you name it .

There is lot of maliceous hate being spread against muslims by Hindians mostly by implying that Muslims ENDORSE discrimination against non muslims & other religions.You perhaps can do me a favour to explain from Ahmedie victim point of view that muslims as a majority ,do not have anything against Ahmedie or any non muslims by religion.

re harimau 116

Don`t you know that if Muslims do it it is okay but if others do it, it is persecution and discrimination?

Look around the world. I am ashamed to say that Muslims in minorities (and their patrons in the Middle East and OIC) demand the same rights for themselves that they will NEVER willingly give to minorities in Muslim countries. The problem is that the world is now waking up to this double standard where mosques can be lavishly built in sight of the White House and St Peter`s BAscillica but a Christian can be beheaded for entering Mecca and Copts have to wait for police permission (for fifteen years sometimes) to fix the bathrooms in their churches.

If Muslims in the predominantly Christian countries were treated like the way Christians are in most Muslim countries, there will a human rights disaster in our hands.

sattar2 #119 I think you are complicating the issue by stating your recollection of what we discussed and what you think we agreed or disagreed on. In fact to me issues like the finality of prophethood as what I call ``mullah issues`` (interest issue is another one, and the goal is to make the mullah the power-broker in muslim societies) - they are red herrings that are not important. The important issue is: do you live your life like a decent human being, do you care for your fellow man, do you exercise your intellectual capacity (the reason God created man, per the Quran), do you think for yourself or do you follow other men, and so on. Since mullahs fail in all these respects, they have created issues that are clearly of minor concern in the Quran. So, I dont care whether you are right or wrong in the question of the finality of the prophethood, and I dont care to spend my time rating prophets either. Prophets were mere messengers, and by focussing on them you are not focusing on the substance of religion which to my understanding is as I have stated above.

narain, shammi

BJP has been making a lot of noise, i suppose for domestic consumption more than anything else, and comes across either as bellicose or immature or both.

I would like india to have a plan (frankly i don`t know what it would be not being an expert on these things) and carry that out instead of making a lot of noise. Prove that you mean business. Do not antagonize the pak citizens. They and we have a common enemy - the pak military. Their military`s clout derives from having an enemy in india. Neutralize that clout. Render them defenseless. Attack their navy, their GHQ in response to terrorist attacks. I realize these are easier said than done. IMO india`s gravest mistake was to legitimize mushy`s rule by talking to him. He is our implacable foe. He is the one that has the blood of hundreds of indian soldiers on his hands and he epitomizes everything that`s wrong in indo-pak relations. Undermine him, not the pak citizens.

Instead our approach thus far has been to hit out at ordinary pakistanis.

Sorry i don`t have any pat answers.

Vajpayee MUST meet Mr. Musharraf in Nepal.

And tell him -- face to face -- that the attack on Indian Parliament by Musharraf`s countrymen -- was an unbridled -- ACT OF WAR.

And ask Mushrraf if he understands the GRAVITY of that ACT.

And ask how it could happen -- again -- even after a personal WARNING that was coveyed to Mushrraf -- after the attack on J&K Assembly that -- that kind of ``stuff`` was -- WAY OUT OF LINE.

Vajpayee must ask Mushrraf -- who is in-charge in Pakistan -- Musharraf or that CONVICT Azhar?

Vajpayee must ask Musharraf -- man to man -- one simple question -- do you want A WAR with India, general?

If you want a war -- you WILL have a WAR with India -- if you don’t want A WAR -- then go home and crush your home grown Jihadis -- and show the world the EVIDENCE that you did that -- no TOKENISM

Tell him that the use of Jihadi ``forces`` -- as an instrument of Pakitan`s foreign policy -- to achieve political and regional goals -- is a BANKRUPT idea -- whose time -- that never was --has passed.

To use Lashkariyas and Jaishi -- Jihadi “forces” -- to ``bleed`` Kashmir or ``bleed`` India -- will bring NOTHING BUT WAR and DESTRUCTION for Pakistan -- as it did for AFGHANISTAN.

Ask Musharraf -- if he has drawn proper conclusions -- from post September Afghanistan -- that the country -- or the government -- that HOSTED and EXPORTED Jihadism outside its borders -- was literally torn into bits and pieces by its own extremism -- and by a WORLD’s -- Daisy Cutters -- that would finally have none of it – any longer.

Shouldn`t that be an eye-opener and a LESSON for those in Pakistan -- who dream of such bloody dreams.

And for you Mr. Vajpayee -- for heavens sake -- DON`T stop the SUMJHAUTA TRAINS and the BUS SERVICE between the crying families of India and Pakistan -- for the follies of some demented generals of the Pakistan army.

It`s NOT the fault of the people of India and Pakistan.

WAR is – NOT or NEVER -- was an option for the impoverished masses of India and Pakistan.



hasan

RanaRansher #112 But seriously...(my post below represents the type of attention jerks like you really deserve in my view, but anyway, here is a serious response to your serious questions):

(1) You write: ``The sexually laced dig about houris is aimed at any dim wit who believes that stuff about the Jihadi way to heaven.`` BS. This ridicule is aimed at all muslims. How many muslims on chowk do you see writing sexually-laced stuff about Islam?? You are just a smelly, low-class, muslim-baiting, sob. And a liar...as your whining about ``...dig about houris is aimed at any dim wit``.

You come to chowk with one purpose only: to mock muslims. You are incapable of having an amicable discussion, incapable of any real humor, incapable of behaving like a human being on an anonymous forum like chowk...

I think I have responded enough to your serious questions and wont waste time with your remaining post.

Ranaransher #112 The only thing more pathetic than a dimwit is a crazed dimwit.

Lie down on your back, take a deep breath, and start repeating:

``Ommmmmmm

Ranaransherrrrrrrr

May beeeeee

Moron of the Yearrrrrrrrrr

Ommmmmmmm

But

Ranransherrr is a Proud moronnnn

Ommmmmmmm

And what is tahmed???

tahmed is just a converrrrrrt

a descendant of the sudras

a damn muslimmmmmmmm

a damn pakiiiiiiiiiiii

Ommmmmmmmmmmm

But

Ranaransherrrrrrrrrrrrr is High Caste

A little slow in the cranium but...

A High Caste Chap

Proud Moron of the Yearrrrrrrrrr

Ommmmmmmmmmm Shanti

Ommmmmmmmmmm Shanti``

That should calm you down. If it still doesnt work, try standing on your head every morning and then repeating this mystical verse.

Who knows! You could even become the leader of your own cult one day!!

Dear Fatimah:

Now that`s a strange request from you to Mr. Sattar -- ``If YES ...then you must not `fight` discrimination as being mainstream muslim.``

As if Mr. Sattar -- has moved -- by his own choice -- from mainstream -- to an ``enviable`` position of a persecuted minority.

Mr. Sattar MUST FIGHT discrimination for being unfairly, immorally and forcily pushed -- by the likes of ZABs and ZIAs -- from the ``Muslim Mainstream`` ---- (if there is -- any -- anywhere -- anyway).

shammi #100 Agreed. As I said, it would be a tragedy that brave soldiers and innocent civilians on both sides were to die on account of these criminal organizations (LeT and JeM). There is no place in a civilized society for nongovernment organizations that seek to change the social order through force.

OmarAkram #104:

``I do agree that people have persecuted the Ahmedis viciously which is wrong, but there is still no denying the fact that their interpretations are quite contrary to what I have firm faith in and that does not make them muslim in my eyes...``

IN DEFENCE OF AHMEDIS:

Let me state at the outset that I am an Indian Hindu and have no stakes in how Pakistan treats its Ahmedi citizens. My comments below are purely in order to share my views in this debate. I know we in India/Hinduism ourselves have a long way to go in the way we treat our fellow-citizens/co-religionists.

I do not understand why Ahemdis have to be treated the way they are just because they do not believe in the finality of the Prophet. Those of you who have lived in the US, Canada, UK etc - how would you feel if these predominantly Christian countries persecuted those who did not believe in the finality of Jesus as the last Prophet.

Some people have objected to Ahmedis describing themselves as Muslims - who defines what a Muslim is and what a Muslim should believe? Any body who declares himself to be a Muslim (or of anyother religion), he should be respected as such. Those who would like to brand Shias, Ahmedis etc as non-Muslims must learn to live with and tolerate differences even within their own religion. Take a look around - all religions have difference sects that believe in different things. Hindus have Shaivism, VAishnavism, myriad beliefs in different Gods, Christians have Catholics, Protestants and further subdivisions, even small religions in India like Buddhism has Hinayana and Mahayana sects. Differences are inevitable - it is the nature of people. Learning to live with differences within our own religions would help us to tolerate differences with other religions, IMHO.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gul.khan/main1.jpg

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gul.khan/main1.jpg

i think this is purely case of trying to use a sledge hammer to kill a fly.Yes terrorist problem in India is not new .There are Verappan ,Dawood ,Gowle ,Naik Naxalites ,Maoist ,Bodo & many non kashmiri terrorist that India cannot manage itself ,how can it only EXPECT pakistan to do the impossible whithout showing how India itself tackled or eradicated the problem.

I think like Reagans Libyan bombing ,or Saddams War it is more question of convenience than necessaity.But god forbid if India gets nuclear burnt in this expedition it would not be a smart exoperimentation.

Look at P.M. statesman like demeanor & Indian hawkish belligerent war cry

Wonder who is commando &who is non military back ground here

http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

Pakistan will never initiate war: Musharraf





Islamabad, Dec 28

Pakistan ``stands for peace`` and will never initiate a war, its leader General Pervez Musharraf said Friday.

``Pakistan is passing through a difficult stage. There is tension on the border,`` Musharraf told a dinner gathering at the presidential palace.

``Pakistan stands for peace, we do not want war. We will never initiate a war unless it is thrust and imposed on us.

``We do not want war because we understand all the hazards that could follow,`` he said.

In another statement, Musharraf said he would be willing to meet Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee during SAARC summit in Nepal next week.

``I don`t mind meeting him (Vajpayee). But as I said once before, you can`t clap with one hand. And if there is a willingness from the other side, then there is a willingness from my side,`` he told reporters.









http://headlines.sify.com/popwin.html

It`s time for the decisive war,says Advani







New Delhi, Dec 28

Accusing Pakistan of carrying on a consistent war against India, Home Minister L K Advani Friday said New Delhi would now wage a ``decisive`` battle to put an end to Pak-sponsored terrorism.

``Although they have faced defeat at our hands several times, they never stopped fighting against us. After the three wars they fought with India, they have been waging a proxy war against us which reached up to the Parliament House,`` Advani said, while speaking at the CRPF Day here.

The neighbouring country, he said, had now crossed all limits and given India the greatest challenge ever by attacking Parliament. ``We will now wage a decisive battle against their proxy war irrespective of the support we get from other countries in this war against terrorism,`` the Home Minister said.

Asserting that India would fight this battle on its own strength, he said, ``If the other countries support us, it`s well and good. If they don`t, we are not bothered.``











UNI

While there is no error proof discision ,the good honest effort to re evaluate certain principles of Islam need to be discussed by all muslims.What if the act it self may be Non Islamic but acted on by muslim named individuals.?

tehrantimes.com

- Friday, December 28, 2001

How to Counter Terrorism?

By Dr. Mohsen Esmaeili Univ. Professor,

Holding the scientific seminar ``Terrorism and Legitimate Defense from the

View of Islam and International Law`` was an appropriate and laudable

measure taken by the Judiciary, especially considering the present

circumstances in the region and the world.

The undeniable fact to all those who are not at the service of the

illegitimate interests of global arrogance is that the fight against

terrorism, like all other noble concepts and human ideals, has

unfortunately turned into an instrument for suppressing the rightful

demands of the oppressed people throughout the world. Anyone with common

sense would surely condemn terrorism. Intentional violence with political

motives is a sharp but two-edged sword that destroys both the agent and

victim of terrorism. This ugly phenomenon is a stinking quagmire, getting

out of which is impossible.

Islam, this lofty religion, compares political assassination of one

individual with the killing of the whole mankind and considers the

ramifications of this social and political menace to be much more serious

than simple murder. Thus, it is very surprising that the Islamic school of

thought, which condemns terrorism in all its forms and with any motives,

is today charged by the real promoters of international violence with

supporting terrorism! And more painful is that some ignorant radicals or

knowledgeable but dishonest individuals prepare the ground for such

accusations.

The most bitter irony of our time is that the United States calls itself

the leader of global coalition against terrorism, while the downtrodden

nations everywhere in the world have experienced the U.S. tyranny. The

killing of 290 innocent passengers and crew on board the Iranian airliner

over the Persian Gulf by the U.S. warship Vincennes in 1988 and conferring

a medal of honor on the captain of the ship by the U.S. Administration is

just one example of the so many crimes committed by the U.S. against other

nations.

It is the United States that has fostered the occupier, aggressor and

racist regime of Israel, and it is Washington that has divided terrorism

into two categories, acceptable and unacceptable! And by doing so, the

U.S. officials have openly accepted a form of terrorism. Still, it is the

United States that has allocated funds for acts of terrorism by its agents

in other parts of the world. Therefore, the question is, what makes the

U.S. qualified to lead the global campaign against terrorism?

Indeed, as long as Washington continues to support the state-sponsored

acts of terrorism committed by the Zionist regime against Palestinians, as

long as it not only refuses to condemn these acts of terrorism, but also

vetoes the UN Security Council resolutions issued in condemnation of

Israel, and as long as the United States labels as ``terrorists`` those

Palestinians who are defending their homes and resisting Israeli

occupation, Washington lacks all legitimacy and qualification to lead the

holy struggle against terrorism.

Terrorism is an international catastrophe, whose ugly face was partly

revealed through the terrorist incidents during the recent months.

Fighting this phenomenon requires tackling its roots, and one of the most

striking roots of this phenomenon is state-sponsored terrorism.

Any strategy to fight international terrorism should, in particular,

reconsider national and international rules and place more emphasis on the

enforcement of these rules, promote international cooperation in this

regard, reject a selective approach to the issue and ultimately encourage

concerted action to condemn and firmly deal with those promoting and

defending this inhuman practice.

Humiliating submission to the founders of terrorism in the world by

proposing to recognize the ugliest manifestation of this phenomenon and

ignoring the suffering of Palestinians, who have been victims of Zionist

terrorism for the past half a century, will not help to eradicate this

menace, but will only encourage its perpetrators. This proposal is not

acceptable, even if it is submitted under the demagogic title of

``strategic studies``, and even if some try to give it a gloss from the Holy

Book and Sunna

Rana: This is a reoccuring theme in ALL religions which don`t emphasize a personal, introspective path.

If God/religion is found EXTERNALLY (books, science) and not from within, a ``believer`` has two options... (keeping in mind that we all have an innate idea of ``truth, right and wrong.``)

1. Repress your notions of what truth is and follow the religion BLINDLY. This involves adapting yourSELF(soul) to the religion - the COWARDLY approach cuz ur not being U.

2. Either leave the religion, or ADAPT it to yourself. This means u gotta accept the fact that u may go to that (fairy tale) place called ``hell.`` It means that you follow what u KNOW is right and that ur man enough to face the consequences...

The latter doesnt depend on other people`s interpretation, its less fanatical. The former is taken by a coward who thinks its the ONLY way (FOOLZ)....

Thats the REAL delineation.

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

fatimah # 98

oh fatimah...such a pretty name and such utter nonsense...i wish you`d just `shattap` for a few days

Oops ... last sentence of my previous post should read ....

``Discrimination against Ahmadis, or any other sect, or religion has NO basis in Islam.``

One little word ... made all the difference

Regards, Asad

Re tahmed (#95):

Yes, we debated this issue in the past, but did not reach a firm conclusion from what I recall.

If memory serves me right …

… We agreed that prophets do have different levels and statuses.

… I pointed out that in Surah-e-Fatiha Muslims invoke Allah’s blessings in “ … guide us on the right path, the path of those on whom Thou has bestowed Thy blessings …”. I then pointed out verse 4:69 where followers of Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) are given news that they will be among those on whom Allah has bestowed his blessings, prophets being one of the blessings.

… You did not see the connection between the blessings invoked in Surah-e-Fatha, and the blessings mentioned in 4:69. I argued that since the same Arabic word is used for “blessings” in both places, the connection is clear, and also that 4:69 may be read independently of Surah-e-Fatiha, and it still conveys the same meaning. I do not remember we pursued this any further.

… I also pointed out verse 35 in Surah-e-Araf, where coming of future messengers is hinted at to the “chileren of Adam”, but I do not recall we discussed this much either.

… I recall that the crux of your argument was that since Quran, the perfect, complete, final word of Allah is with us, there now is no need for any future prophets. It is up to us to follow it. I did not get a chance to discuss this further with you, but disagreed with your point of view.

… I do not recall discussing the interpretation of “seal of prophethood” in detail with you, unless I am being forgetful. I cannot find your earlier post on this subject, but would very much appreciate if you can provide me with a “chowk link” to those posts of yours, or re-post if you still have a soft-copy handy. I would very much appreciate your help in this matter.

Re Fatimah (#109):

In a brief response to your post … yes, both shia and sunni Muslim sects believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the final, last prophet. Ahmadi-Muslims disagree with both sects in this interpretation.

Since I follow Quran where Allah has chosen the word “Islam” for my faith, I consider myself a Muslim. Therefore I cannot accept as valid any claims calling me a non-Muslim. Discrimination against Ahmadis, or any other sect, or religion has basis in Islam.

Regards, Asad

Pakistan, India and the United States

2230 GMT, 011227

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.

Ref OmarAkram #: 104

[I too have a lot of christian colleagues and a lot of them are spanish it really broke my heart when I went to see the Al-Hambra (spanish for Al Hammra) if you want to verify you can go there your self and see the Mosque in the Palace complex first converted to a Horse stable and then later on converted to a church (this is not something I came up with it was as told/briefed to me by the spanish collegues)]

When you were in Turkey, did you go to St. Sophia`s Church there? It was a church until the 15th century when Muslims conquered Constantinople and named it Istanbul. It then became a mosque. After the Turkish Republic was proclaimed, it has become a museum.

So, pardon me if I don`t weep copious tears and my heart isn`t broken that Alhambra is no longer being used for its original function.

[I dont say we use the same tactics used against Muslims by them I do not call for out right slaughter of non-muslims, what I do call for is that if some Muslim brother or sister is in need do help him/her and help them anyway u can.]

Man, I am just so impressed that you AREN`T calling for the slaughter of non-Muslims. Where were you when we Indians needed you back in 11th century to 18th century?

[... you seek guidence from what they taught us and what they left for us as a message from Allah but is the message still intact in Bilble (Old testament, new etc. at most places donot agree at all besides majority of the bibles were written by people after Christ was lifted to Heavens as Alive, please refer to Haroon Yahya`s web site for more details www.hyahya.org) and for that matter in any other book except for Quran which is still in the same form as it was at the time of revelation...]

You wouldn`t be sh!tting me about the Quran being in the same form as when it was revealed, would you? Did you know that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was illiterate, meaning he couldn`t read or write? How did he write the Quran down? Huh?

OmarAkram:

“had hired a driver back in Middle East while I was on a project there for navigation purpose, he happened to be from Hayderabad India. I asked him how is his life there and he gave a very honest answer, they were just a few words but let me quote them to you ``If I am living with Muslims I feel secure than in Hayderabad`` then I asked him why dont you move over to Pakistan and he said ``then my relatives will be persecuted as traitors`` now thats quite a motivation isent it.”

…ever bothered asking a pakistani hindu what his/her life is like in pak. and how he’s treated by his ‘muslim’ bretheren?…i’m sure you’ll get just as honest an answer….

Your analysis was very interesting. I would just like to pull you in 2 directions. Do not Pakisthanis (and all Muslims) have to think hard on Islam, the kind of force Islam is in todays world. For Islam CANNOT dissociate itself with acts of violence cvommitted in its name (and a valid argument can easily be made staing that the people who died for what they thought was right were related to Islam in a far more serious way than Bush or Blair- ``its nothing to do with Islam``.2.Do not Pakithanis have to seriously rethink the basis of their nationhood take a hard look again, this time at History and the Muslim League (and the fact that most all the provinces of present day Pakisthan were comfortable with a united India almost till the ``last minute``

and yeah tahmed

never mind all your insults towards me and your assumptions of how I hate Muslims...answer my questions below about ``interpretations`` and why people fight over ``differing interpretations`` .

The sexually laced dig about houris is aimed at any dim wit who believes that stuff about the Jihadi way to heaven. Not all Muslims believe that. So I dont think you can assume that insult is towards ``Muslims``....... anyway lets hope you answer my question in the previous reply ......
I am but a fakir not as exalted as you YOU BELIEVER YOU.....kindly for Allahs sake answer my questions

re: tahmed
Why dont you answer my question ?

WHen 2 people read a book they can get two meanings , yes or no.....
Isn`t this what this whole Jihad is about, my interpretation is more right than yours hence my cause more HOLIER and PURER than yours.....HENCE ALLAH is on my side in this fight.
Please answer the question. Who has divine rights of interpretting what is written and meant in a book (any book/passage/verse for that matter). (FOr Allahs sake just read the many different interpretations of verses on chowk itself). I cant believe EDUCATED people go on and on about it.....
And I am stupid because I am a kafir so dont worry about me and my brain, JUST PLEASE DO ANSWER THE QUESTION. ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE ONE

#98

``SAMIR JB

2. Brand Barelvis and Shias as non-Muslims.

1. Brand Deobandis and Wahabis as non-Muslims.``

-------

Another crack pot idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AnNy you r non muslim declared so by your Saheb Jaan

#: 103

sattar2------Re Fatimah (#90):

``It is unfair of you to accuse me of double talk. Clearly you have misunderstood my posts and were too quick to jump to wrong conclusions.``

I am only educating MYSELF.So tell me do you agree or not that both shia & sunni two major sect of muslims believe Mohommed is the FINAL (last)prophet .......Yes or No

If No then we have problem

If YES ...then you must not `fight`discrimination as being mainstream muslim.

WE do not have luxury of self interpreting b/c it is not syllabus or course material of university which we are more used to study.

re omarakram

``I would request anyone and everyone that, look even if you donot agree to what I said it does not make me a criminal or u a felon as I quoted earlier For you is your religion and for me is mine and as is my belief that our differences will be cleared up on the day of Judgment``

I am glad you see it that way. Problem is that I suspect most of you folks will not waste a minute, if you were in a ruling majority, to put to sword anyone who expresses a different opinion. I know the game. You guys are vehemently for civil liberties and free speech when in the minority. The minute you folks are in control, the others become murtad, dhimmis, or munafiqs(if not outright kafirs) without any free speech rights. You version of democracy is indeed one man, one vote. But it is followed by the third criteria, `one time`. We saw the game in Iran. That;s why we stopped the shenanigan in Alegeria.

Dude, does it bother you that Islamic `scholars` passed a death sentence on Salman Rushdie but cannot even decide if the Sept 11 event was wrong or not? If that is not abject perversion of morals, I don`t know what is!

Re: # 111I am sorry, I have not read the linked messages of all, nevertheless, when I read your, it appeared to me you had talked logics and as others were unable to match it properly they did not respond properly. Having said that I would like to answer some of your raised views as under:


``I would request anyone and everyone that, look even if you donot agree to what I said it does not make me a criminal or u a felon as I quoted earlier For you is your religion and for me is mine and as is my belief that our differences will be cleared up on the day of Judgment``

I fully agree with you, as it is part of the message of our Sura Al Qaferoon in Quran.

``I am glad you see it that way. Problem is that I suspect most of you folks will not waste a minute, if you were in a ruling majority, to put to sword anyone who expresses a different opinion. I know the game. You guys are vehemently for civil liberties and free speech when in the minority. The minute you folks are in control, the others become murtad, dhimmis, or munafiqs(if not outright kafirs) without any free speech rights. ``

Whether in majority or in minority, it really doesn`t matter when it cmes to abiding by the right thing in Islam. munafiq is the term I am familar with, so I can explain it to you which implies that you project yourself as someone that you are actually not, and is considered bad in Islam. Having said that, from the Sunnah I know that we are not to judge anyone`s faith, which is something that only the person in concern or Allah knows. Under these circumstances, it is recommended to accept the face value. However, if the person is exposed with evidences unrefusable and person admits as well, yeah judgement may be passed on for being Munafiq....(I don’t know if it was required by you or not...so ignore if you were not interested in this definition)

``Dude, does it bother you that Islamic `scholars` passed a death sentence on Salman Rushdie ...but cannot even decide if the Sept 11 event was wrong or not? If that is not abject perversion of morals, I don`t know what is!````

Sorry, over here you lost yourself and adopted uncivilized attitude and words, but as it appears it is an outcome of an earlier action of someone, I would prefer to overlook and still answer your question as it is the action which is more accountable than the reaction.

Salman Rushdie was sentenced, and I think rightly, for one`s freedom should ends where other`s feeling, faith, property, start. The sentence was in reaction to his writings in which he has crushed and tortured Muslim faith and feelings which he had no right to. Even if he had such feelings he should have kept it to himself, by making it public, he invited what he deserved.

Sept. 11, is a very simple case. In Islam you are instructed to save a life of an innocent, even if you have to break your salaat (prayer). Taking life is allowed only where the person has taken life of one of yours. So if the persons those died in 9/11 were involved in killings of the family members or relatives of those who made the attack, I would understand the massive move, else I would say it was a wrongful attack; all this is said and would be applicable if the assumed presumption that the Muslim militants representing Arab people did it, is true.

RSaxena`` ``yet here we have fido`s brother omkar telling us ahmediyas are lesser muslims, or they`re not muslims at all...and then there`s the sunni-shia nonsense...which is it?``

What it iz is the last 5 pages contain some of the stupidest posts ever on chowk (and that says a LOT)... Omkar has crossed the line of sanity SOO many times I wonder why people bother talking to him. His posts are sophomoric (utterly stupid) regurgitations of useless dogma. What a waste.

re Rsaxena

``all muslims are equal``

As you say, that`s sheer nonsense in practice. Have you seen how the moneyed Bedouins treat Muslims from South Asia? Or how they protrate themselves in front of the European Christians who pay them a visit? PLease. This `ummah` nonsense is only a creation of the oil-rich folks from the Gulf to get the other Muslims to respect them.

Equal? I have family that has been treated far more `equally` in the `heathen` West than in the `ummah` in the desert. These roaming nomads would go beserk if an American style Civil Rights Act was imposed on them.

Ranaransher #94 You write: ``And some pada likkhaa Muslim Pakistanis are still debating about what is written in some book...... and interpretting it many times over....what the hell...you dim wits...``

To be called a dimwit by a person of average intelligence is bad. To be called a dimwit by a dimwit (which you have proved on numerous occassions on chowk) would be really bad...until I notice the reason you provide (discussing a book).

And you obligingly explain: ``if 2 people read the same book they can get 2 different meanings...``

Duh! I never would have guessed that!!

After that you continue with the usual moronic sexually-laced insults to muslims...

What exactly did they feed you turkeys when you were growing up? brain-killing cereal?? I am beginning to understand the hatred for muslims people like you display on chowk (as your distinguished colleague on the other board noted, muslims are the descendants of low caste hindus and therefore - per his thinking - contemptible). But I will never understand what happened when your brain was being formed.

sattar2 #79 you write : ``The concept of finality of prophethood has no Quranic basis...The concept of “finality of prophethood” is derived mainly from ahadith where the Prophet (pbuh) reportedly stated that he is the last prophet. ``

Wrong. The Quran clearly says that the Prophet provides the seal of Prophethood and you and I have discussed before what this logically implies. Your explanation at the time (that there are varying levels of Prophethood, with minor prophets being permitted after the Holy Prophet) was forced and quite unconvincing, in my view.

Having said this, it is also true that sunnis who call Ahmedis kafirs are not only being insulting and mischievous, they are also violating other injunctions of the Quran which lie at the heart of Islam (namely, that it is not for a person to pass judgement on others in matters of religion, that one should respect all faiths). And those who physically attack Ahmedis are common criminals. But this does not change the fact that you are incorrect in the assertion you make in your post.

WHO WANTS PAKISTAN.

THERE IS SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT PAKISTANIS.They keep talking about the dream of jinnah, what jinnah wanted, and may be there in lies the problem. The people who live there, the mohajirs only wanted what is left behind by those who departed, and the locals never liked the carpetbaggers from afar. So it is only natural that only topic about pakistan, the vision only belonged to jinnah. The following is from dawn of today, Stanly wolpert on jinnah, also read Ayesha Jalals new book, ` the senile spokesman`.

Quaid wanted army to only defend frontiers: Wolpert speaks at AKU...

By Shamim-ur-Rahman

KARACHI, Dec 26: Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not visualize a theocratic Pakistan, but a democratic, modern, forward-looking secular homeland for the Muslims where every citizen would enjoy equal rights according to the law and where there would be no discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, etc.

Salam-o-alikum Warehmatullah,

It will be the last post from me to all of you who still look for some thing of a challenge in replying back and till now a lot of people have risen to it :)

For the record I am not from the generation who was born and bread here and unlike some of you I have seen and lived in some of the so-called Islamic and moderate Islamic cultures in Turkey, Middle East and North Africa and trust me every where someone somehow is disguising their traditional culture with Islam.

Some of you have the courtesy of redefining the definition of Finality of Prophethood well its ur opinon however I would like to say one thing if the finality of the Prophet was to be questioned then why did the muslims just after the death of the Prophet declared war on the false prophets who sprang up in the arabian penisula? besides isent it strange that we who dont even speak arabic as the first language can so definately deduce meanings of the words its remarkable but then (again i would re-quote al Kafirun)

..FOR YOU IS YOUR RELIGION AND FOR ME IS MINE....

Someone pointed out to the fact of the outcome of the war between the christians and the persians and the outcome in the future which quran predicted but remember the verse i refered to came at a later time not before the ones Mr Ali refered to. My dear besides it was also reported that Najashi died as a Muslim but that rawayat is not verified at least I am not able to verify it as yet..

I too have a lot of christian colleagues and a lot of them are spanish it really broke my heart when I went to see the Al-Hambra (spanish for Al Hammra) if you want to verify you can go there your self and see the Mosque in the Palace complex first converted to a Horse stable and then later on converted to a church (this is not something I came up with it was as told/briefed to me by the spanish collegues)

Has anyone been to the museum in Manila not many people know this but before the spanish invasion the name of Manila was Amman-ul-Allah there the spanish used the same tactic they used back in spain and you have the result now. I dont say we use the same tactics used against Muslims by them I do not call for out right slaughter of non-muslims, what I do call for is that if some Muslim brother or sister is in need do help him/her and help them anyway u can.

DO many of you know that many jews did leave the Spanish empire and settled in the Muslim Empire when the spanish inquiziotion took place (millions of jews were persecuted just because they were jews they were given refuge because they were humans unlike what they are doing right now)For example I do know the lady who wrote the famous book ``A cat named Hitler`` she is a jew and a very very nice lady but then I donot say they are my friends good acquaintances and colleagues definitely. I meet the same guy everyday who`s family was removed from their land by Israeli forces in the first Intifada. Can I call anyone my friend who did this to a muslim brother of mine but at the same time it does not give me the right to kill every jew for that matter.

It still hurts me to recall some of my Muslim and non-muslim class fellows, with whom I spent 9 years at a catholic school, died in vain on sept 11. they died as a colateral damage for some fanatics as afghans died as colateral damamge for others.

Beyond any reasonable doubt as a muslim I have faith in the prophet hood of Christ, Moses, Ibrahim and all the others which Allah Subhan wa tala sent for our guidence but you seek guidence from what they taught us and what they left for us as a message from Allah but is the message still intact in Bilble (Old testament, new etc. at most places donot agree at all besides majority of the bibles were written by people after Christ was lifted to Heavens as Alive, please refer to Haroon Yahya`s web site for more details www.hyahya.org) and for that matter in any other book except for Quran which is still in the same form as it was at the time of revelation...

enough said on this It will be grave to say that one society is better than other since this society (one in UK) has qualities both good and bad and the best one is Honesty with work which unfortunately most of the Muslims have lost quite conveniently.

I do agree that people have persecuted the Ahmedis viciously which is wrong, but there is still no denying the fact that their interpretations are quite contrary to what I have firm faith in and that does not make them muslim in my eyes...

I unfortunately never attended a religious school and for that matter just say I am a muslim who has read and by the grace of Allah is still learning my religion...

Mr. Pardesi the oldest trick in the declermation is that you come up with the name of a ``person`` and spin the story around him which strikes a cord with many and you put your point through ...

thing is often we do not like to verify the assumptions but end up accepting the facts deduced. so i would suggest to you to kindly forget about such stories. there was a small rumor about me here in the office in UK when I came to Pakistan to attend a wedding around 15th sept that Omar had gone to Pakistan maybe to fight with the Taliban well who knows someone could have written a story about me as well.

Some readers are so bent upon defending their ideas of democracy and freedom that make some amusing deductions about some of the ethnic communities in Pakistan as far as I remember the Ahmadis have a huge population somewhere in Punjab province that will bring them in the same category as some living in Indian Punjab :) I am sorry that maybe you are as gentle as I am Mr. Nasah. :)

Again people I am not here to convince anyone about anything what ever you think it ur right of opinon and what ever I think is my right and what ever differences we have they will become quite clear on the Day of Judgment.

I would like to recomend some books to anyone who would like to read them these are people who have really helped shape my life.

1. Dr. Hamid Ullah He is a pakistani scholar and the last I know of him lives somewhere in France one of His books is also called The Addresses of Bahawalpur.

2. Mr. Justice Taqi Usmani and his books and papers on Islamic Financial system and status of women in Islam(www.islamiq.com)

3. Ozturk, Ahmed Dedaad and Haroon Yahya.

And oh do read Sahih Bukhari and Muslim these are gems.

I would request anyone and everyone that, look even if you donot agree to what I said it does not make me a criminal or u a felon as I quoted earlier For you is your religion and for me is mine and as is my belief that our differences will be cleared up on the day of Judgment the only thing which worries me and for that matter everyone else is as stated in Al-Wakiah(Sec. 27)

``....There will be a lot (people who will enter in to Heaven) for the earlier (generations)and a lot lesser from the later (generations)....``

I pray for all of you as I pray for myself that we do not lose our desire to seek the right path and may Allah guide us to it and keeps us firm on it.

Salam-o-alikum Warehmatullah

Re Fatimah (#90):

I have always maintained that declaring Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) as the last prophet has does not have any Islamic basis. This is what I have consistently argued on other boards as well.

The Arabic word “khattam” means “seal”. It does not mean “last”. According to Quran, Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the “Seal of Prophethood”, which implies his status as the ultimate prophet, the prophet with the highest status ever.

This interpretation of “khattam” is consistent with other verses of Quran, including those where coming of other messengers/prophets is hinted at. There is no mention of Prophet Mohammd (pbuh) being the last prophet in Quran, or in the kalima (Muslim declaration of faith, “there is none worth of worship except Allah, and Mohammad, pbuh, is His Messenger) either.

It is unfair of you to accuse me of double talk. Clearly you have misunderstood my posts and were too quick to jump to wrong conclusions.

sigalph235 and nasah Sahib,

Thanks for your very kind and encouraging comments … your support is sincerely appreciated.

Regards,

Asad

Re: Ali1 to OmarAkram # 80

Ali1 -- you are a decent human being after all.

Re: Tahmed321

``...Let us just hope that the current crisis stops short of war breaking out between Pakistan and India...``

Let us hope AND pray. If there is even one more incident like the Parliament attack, then I think that Vajpayee`s hand will be forced even harder. Killing a top Indian leader is not impossible -- George Fernandes (for all his loathing for the trappings of power) did not have ANY kind of security at his official residence till a week before the Parliamentary attack. And as long as the LeT and the JeM roam freely, the fate of a billion people in the Subcontinent will rest in their hands. I hope that Musharraf understands the gravity of the situation. He now finds both the US and India in agreement over the nature of the JeM and LeT, and the glare of the world media is on him to see how he proceeds against them.

Soysauce #89

The important thing is not how much water supply India actually cuts, but how much it can credibly threaten to do, even if it does not follow up on its threats. Nobody likes living with a sword over their head.

And abrogating the treaty would not necessarily constitute a declaration of war, especially if India declares its intentions of seeking a more ``just`` settlement that takes into account the ``legitimate aspirations`` of Indian farmers :)Then we can drag out the talks as long as we want to.

As for Pakistan bombing any India dams, that would constitute a real act of war, and then India would be justified in retaliating. Bhai isn`t that what low-grade war is all about? Pakistan should know, right?

-narain

Here are top ten things Pakistan needs to implement to be considered as a viable and respectable nation state in the community of nations.

10. Restrict land holdings - end of Feudalism.

9. Change the name of Faisalabad back to Lyallpur as well as changing the names of rockets and satellites to native heroes and places.

8. Change Kashmir policy to non-interfering and by peaceful means only.

7. Return the country to democracy by fair and unmanipulated elections.

6. End ISI power as state within a state

5. Cut defense spending.

4. Impose a two-children per family policy

3. Ban all terrorist organizations including LeT, JeM, HUM, Al-Badar, Jui, JUP, JI, SSP and any organization whose name starts with Lashkar or Harkat.

2. Brand Barelvis and Shias as non-Muslims.

1. Brand Deobandis and Wahabis as non-Muslims.

Re: Soysauce #89

``...India would do well to make the cost of jihadi sposorship by pakistan unacceptably high WITHOUT going to war...``

Any ideas? I sure, like you, would like to avoid war. I even find your idea of `making the cost of jihadi sponsorship unacceptably high` abhorent, since inflicting punsishment (as you indicate) does not come naturally to me.

A good precedent for India/Pakistan is the gentlemen`s agreement reached over a handshake between Bush and Putin to mutually reduce their strategic nuclear warheads. No treaties were signed, and it was achieved through verbal commitments. Why can`t India and Pakistan do the same over an issue on which the entire world agrees -- terrorism is BAD? Why does Musharraf have to wait till the US tells him that the LeT and JeM are `terrorist`? Why can`t he reach the same conclusion independently, and earn kudos from the world (and India) over something that he will anyway be forced to comply with?

As regards your idea of India taking the issue to the UN, India knows that China could veto any action against Pakistan -- thus, it has shared the evidence with the US/UK, which has resulted in the stiffest condemnation yet for any group harbored by Pakistan. So, India will work with the Western democracies first, before taking the matter to the UN (which could still happen).

``...aborogating the Indus river treaty is an act of war...``

No, it is not -- read the treaty (it is on the Internet). It is a voluntary contract between Pakistan and India. Besides, if you think that Pakistan will willingly raise the stakes for a war by harboring groups such as the LeT and JeM, trash the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration, why should India give Musharraf a free ride? Let him explain to his people that his actions (or lack thereof) may force them to forgo some water. J&K politicians are already favoring the termination of the treaty. This is what Indian politicians have been saying for a while:

``Indus water treaty harming J & K Interests``

``On the political front, leaders (of J&K), including the Chief Minister, Dr Farooq Abdullah and a former Chief Minister, Mr G.M. Shah, have been favouring the scrapping of the (Indus Waters) treaty. Several BJP leaders have said it was unfortunate and an irony of fate that India “exports water to Pakistan and the latter exports terrorism to the former.”

http://www.tribuneindia.com/20010501/j&k.htm#1

`` If india starts building a dam, pakistan could blow up the dam and still not be rebuked for it, because that would be a just act...``

That is like saying that if terrorists use Pakistani territory against India, India could direct military hits against such targets, and not be rebuked for it. Your comment about Tibet is not quite valid since ALL Indus tributaries affected by the treaty pass through India. India does not have to build a dam -- just a diversion canal.

I agree with you that abrogating the treaty will be a drastic step -- and change Indo/Pak relations FOREVER. That is why treaties need to be treated with respect. In today`s climate, a treaty like the Indus Water would never be signed. Pakistan is on notice for not observing the Simla Agreement when it launched Kargil operations, and when it allows infiltrators in.

umpteen times we`ve been told on chowk that unlike in hinduism, ``all muslims are equal`` and blah blah blah ... yet here we have fido`s brother omkar telling us ahmediyas are lesser muslims, or they`re not muslims at all...and then there`s the sunni-shia nonsense...which is it?

What amazes me is the world is chruning in the beginning of a global world war which will be devastating from every point of view.
And some pada likkhaa Muslim Pakistanis are still debating about what is written in some book...... and interpretting it many times over....what the hell...you dim wits...if 2 people read the same book they can get 2 different meanings...(EVIDENCE of this is all around read the newspapers and see how different people interpret the same verses of a religious text )...you guys are doomed and sab ko le doobo ge ...and you sic people t