Who is a Muslim?

apologies in advance for this late intrusion on this query...

Who is a Muslim? asks Mohammad Gill

my answer: who cares....ok apologise again if you feel am being facetious...what really matters should be...subscribing to whatever religious or value system...are we better insaans or not...rest is academic and irrelevant...

rgds,

t

Romair # 70

This is where I found myself about 10 years ago. As I made peace with God as an individual, I also felt free like you. But the moment only lasted for a little while. Unfortunately that was not the end of my quest. It was a no brainer to figure out that we as human beings do not live in isolated bubbles. We are social animals and our inner peace is as vulnerable as a bubble. How could there be peace inside you when there is tumult, oppression, and injustice all around you. I sought answers from God. He was very clear about it that His directives are not only for individuals but also for society, community and nations as well - for what we as human beings exhibit as our personal traits, we also exhibit them as groups as well. As a nation and society we can be as unjust, corrupt, violent, greedy, and indignant as an individual. The peace in human society cannot come if we all confine ourselves in our bubbles but it can only happen if we stop the injustices by our hands as individual and as society. The word of God gives us the direction to be righteous and just and leads us to make peace as societies and as nations.

That is the reason I try to find political solutions to our problems that will lead us to peace through a path of least resistence.

hossp # 66

I think our discourse is not going anywhere inspite of us keep posting links to justify our positions to death. So let us take this debate to another level.

Let us suppose that your contention that ``various versions of Quar`n`` existed prior to Osman RA is correct, then would I be justified to ask you for a documentry proof to prove your contention? Unless you do that, your contention is mere speculation which is baseless unless supported by proof.

Logically, various versions of a book can not exist unless they are compiled and published first. The first person who compiled and published this book was Osman. So logically variants can only exist AFTER the first book come into being. The historical evidence however, supports the following:

1. Prior to Osman, Qura`n existed only in manuscripts and in the heart of companions of Prophet (pbuh).

2. Holy Prophet himself took pains to make his companions memorize Qura`n and all the manuscripts that were written were written under his own supervision.

3. It was Holy Prophet himself who named the chapters (surahs); arranged their sequence, but not only that he himself also arranged the sequence of verses himself. There are certain surahs a part of which was revealed in early part of Meccan life while some of the verses were included at the order of Holy Prophet from his Medinite period. So the contention that it was Osman who compiled Qura`n is also not true in a sense.

4. Despite these known facts people argue that since human mind and memory is imperfect then there are chances that their memory might have got corrupted. Yes there is chance but only if you beleive that God is so helpless to protect his own word despite his promise. You can argue that you do not believe in my God but then I can also argue that then why your speculation be given more weight than my belief.

Keeping these points in mind lets get back to your contention that there existed ``various versions of Qura`n`` prior to Osman. Then the question is what has prevented various versions to emerge after Osman in the past 1500 years. Printing press was only invented some 500 years ago. I would rather beleive in the evidence that I can see and touch rather than an unsubstantiated speculation.

Why not leave this issue to GOD. It is his job.

Islamic Ideology Council people are as fallible as you & me.

(I know at least one of them)

hamidm #73 ditto that. What urstruly needs to do is download a MacFee virus killer into his head and run it a few times. He should be fine after that.

Post # 70

``This has to be the most obnoxious post I have ever read on this board.
Why did I even bother!

Buddy! you are acting like your sh!t didn`t stink!!!

What are you guy; a rug muncher???? ``.......

hossp, well said......months ago i had proposed that romair should be banished from the chowk..........

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

#70 by Romair on March 2, 2004 9:04pm PT
Very nice! I am in complete agreement with you. The fact of the matter is that when people make religion and its interpretion as their ``profession`` then we find them using interpretation as a route to temporal power either for themselves or for others. What we lack is the courage to leave those interpretations (beliefs) which appear to be contrary to the scientific propositions.

The `Munir Inquiry Report` was the first objective inquiry to find the definition of Islam and the Muslim. As was expected the inquiry failed to find any consensus. The sectarian Mulla however continued with their `Fatwabaazi` and `kufrsazi` unabated and ultimately as a result of their movement, which was more political than religious, they got a `Fatwa` from the parliament that the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian who called them muslims were not muslims. This opend the door for `Fatwabazi` at the State level and thus made the religion comletely subject to politics with all its grotesque cosequnces in both the political and the religious life of the pakistani nation. For instance, if a person says he is Ahmadi they will believe in him but if he says he is a Muslim he will have to submit a `Hallaf nama` as prescribed by some body God knows who. How insulting for a person calling himsef a Muslim and having even a physical stamp of muslimhood in his pants! Is it not yazeediat par excelence? In fac it is only God who knows and can therefore determine the faith of a human being. It is a `Taghooti` or `Mushrikana` act if a human being tries to do the same. Isn`t it so?

............ i can see that nobody missed a beat on this board even though more than 200 ``twelve imamers`` were killed today ............. and now urstruly, the real muslim, wants the qadianis to stop calling themselves muslim, or else................ or else what?............ people like him make me want to puke!

Romair #69 Fully agree.

Post # 70

This has to be the most obnoxious post I have ever read on this board.
Why did I even bother!

Buddy! you are acting like your sh!t didn`t stink!!!

What are you guy; a rug muncher????

Urstruly #68: ``The second issue is about your ``sect-less`` Islam which I termed as Ideology-less idealism. This is an impossiblity because it contradicts the basic human evolution for the past 1 million years. Why is it so - because you answered it yourself when you wrote ``The reason is simple. All of this is subject to interpretation. It is far too subjective.`` It contradicts your original aspiration of having a sect-less Islam. A prudent and pragmatic approach still exists. We can still bring the sects together if we address the commonalities rather than differences. For that we will have to return to the basics and re-examine our respective faiths through 4:59.``

I spend a better portion of my free time, studying two things: One is my profession, i.e. Software. The other is my religion, i.e. Islam. So the conclusions I have reached were not arrived at over night.

A long time ago, I decided that I would study my religion, completely independently of any following of any person. I picked up the Quran, and went through it line by line, and then started my research, without any influence from any particular, ``aalim.`` My aim was to turn myself into an aalim. You could call it the anti-Asif Naqshbandi approach of studying Islam.

The other thing I did not want to do was to end up like those lost souls who disagree with Islam, but do not have the courage to leave it, and thus spend most of their time ridiculing it, to satisfy their own insecurities. Nor did I want to end up like the self-righteous folks who feel they understand Islam so well, that they can describe Islam for everyone, and thus have the authority to declare others to be Muslims and non-Muslims. Nor did I want to end up like the self-righteous folks, who after having left Islam, are bent on throwing dirt on it, to justify the wrong decisions they themselves took in their lives.

So I decided, if my religion conflicted with my scientific beliefs, then I would have enough courage to give up on my religion. And then forget completely about it, and leave it for others i.e. we would part as friends. So far that day has yet to arrive. If anything, my religious beliefs have gotten stronger, due to my scientific beliefs, and vice-versa.

It has been truly a liberating experience. And I feel at total peace with my spiritual and material world, i.e. my faith and my science. The key has been applying all my understanding to myself, and not to others. And becoming comfortable with the conclusions I have reached. And following the religion, and not, ``ulema`` who interpret the religion. And letting others, inlcuding, ``ulema`` find their own spiritual utopia. After all, the purpose of any philosophy or religion is to bring peace to the individual. Not to spew hatred and ridicule onto others. If I am happy with how I see it, then why should I care what anyone else thinks about me or about my beliefs. And vice-versa.

I have no idea what school of thought I belong to. I don`t know if I am a Hanafi, Wahabi, Bralevi, Naqshbandi, etc. I have deliberately made it a point to not find out. I was born a Sunni Muslim. But I do not consider Sunni-ism my sect. I consider it, at best, a part of my culture. I only consider Islam my faith, irrespective of sects.

This is why I stated that I appreciate a sect-less Islam. The problem is that there are too many people who want others to share the same views they have. They cannot live and let live. I don`t share the views of Ahmedis. In fact, I consider some of those views to be contradictory to my understanding of Islam. But I only have a right to apply that understanding onto myself. I can disagree with them, but I cannot declare them Muslim or non-Muslim, even if I think their views to be in contradiction to Islam.

Who knows maybe they are right and I am wrong?

There are, unfortunately, two groups of people who now dominate all debates on Islam. Those who ridicule it, and those who try to impose their own view onto others. Both these groups are suffering from insecurity. If they weren`t, they would be happy in their own skins.

I have found two things about Islam to be great. One is its in-built egalatarian teachings, which were, if not 1500 years ahead of its time, at least 1400 years ahead of its time. The other is the fact that it, at least in my opinion, does away with the concept of a, ``superior`` clergy. Every human being can be a clergy in Islam. There is only one religious leadership position in Islam, and that is the position of Imam leading the prayer. And anyone, by design, can occupy that position, on any given day. It could be you one day, me the next, and the judge of the FSC the third day. Neither is superior to the other. No one can thus, claim any political authority or pesonal superiority in Islam, based on their religious knowledge or religious power. It can only be claimed by the content of one`s character and deeds. Not by adapting religion as a profession. After all, religion was not the profession of Prophet Muhammad, nor of any of the first Caliphs. They were all urban professionals, like salesman, businessman, soldier, beaurecrat etc.

Hence, no politically appointed religious authority can decide who is and is not a Muslim, at an official level. That is an individual interpretation. I can respect your personal view considering Ahmedis not being Muslims. You have every right to hold that view. However, I cannot respect your views of declaring them to be officially and Islamically non-Muslims. You do not have that right. Any you, like me, will be at much more peace, if you restrict your interpretations to your personal and individual sphere.

Urstruly #68: Thanks for the explanation.

Your argument, boils down to the following:

- In the pre-colonial days, it was the, ``Faqih and Muftis were learned people who had knowledge of religion and its tennets along with the Islamic law and so their opinion was considered learned and was respected`` who decided who is a Muslim.

- Now, at least in Pakistan, it is the, ``Islamic Ideological Council.... Federal Shariat Court.....This institution works under Ministry of Law. These two institutions have authority to decalre someone non-Muslim. They work under the authority of Constitution of Paksitan which recognizes the sovereignity of Allah over state and its people. Their legal opinion is based on rigorous examination of an issue through Islamic law`` which has this authority.


There is absolutely no Islamic basis to any of the arguments you are making....You have yet to use the Quran to justify any of your statements. Give me one place in the Quran, where it says that FSC or CII have the authorities you are giving them.

Could you let me know, from where they have gotten this authority. They are politically appointed authorities. What about before the time of Zia, when some of these institutions did not exist? What about Islamic countries that do not have these institutions? What about Islamic countries, that don`t have elected bodies (a majority of Islamic countries in the world)?

If these two instituitons did not exist, does the defintion of Muslim cease to exist? And are there any Ahmedis who sit in these institutions. And what about people like me, who think the Federal Shariat Court should be dissolved, all together.

YThe govt. of Pakistan is not an authority, according to the Quran itself, to declare anyone through its religions to be a Muslim. Suppose tomorrow, the FSC declares all Shias to be non-Muslims? According to your logic, Shias would become non-Muslims. Suppose the Iranian equivalent, declares Sunnis to be non-Muslims. Do Sunnis become non-Muslims in Iran? Do you think Ahmedis would be non-Muslims in Pakistan, if 90% of the population of Pakistan was Ahmedis, and all the members of the FSC were thus Ahmedis?

Declaring someone an Muslim or non-Muslim is no joke. And it cannot be done by a group of politically appointed people in a Shariah Court. The State itself, doesn`t recognize their rulings on issues like interest. They are there because Zia-ul-Haq put them there. Most Pakistanis cannot name a single judge on the FSC. How in the world can it decide if they are Muslims or not.

One of the judges in the FSC used to be a Lt. Col. at one of the bases I was stationed at. He was a nice guy, but had reached the end of his career. So a person of average skills. One fine day, I was in Karachi, and this dark black shining Honda Accord, with flags pulls up. Out steps, this gentleman. It turns out he is now a judge on the FSC.

Had his boss given him a couple of adverse reports, while in the military, it is quite possible he would not have been able to get another govt. job. Now he can decide whether his own boss is a Muslim or not.

Kindly show me one place in the Quran, where it states that such politically appointed individuals have a right to decide who is a Muslim and who is not?

Romair

You address too many issues in one post but I will concentrate only on two that are directly related to the debate at hand.

The first issue is who can declare one non-Muslim and under whose authority.

Frankly speaking any one can declare another non-Muslim as it is done in Muslim world everyday. But this is at the personal level and it amounts to nothing. It has no legal standing. Traditionally, prior to the demise of Ottoman Caliphate and before colonial powers occupied Muslim land, the state authorized a Faqih or Mufti (Jurists) to decide on whether a person in question can be considered Muslim or not. These Faqih or Muslims were not employee of the state but they really were teachers at Kuliat (colleges) and Jamiat (universities). In order to enforce such declaration a Qazi (Magistrate) had the authority who approched Faqih in case he found himself not competent enough to make such declaration. While Faqih`s opinion was not binding on Qazi, the declaration of Mufti was. The Faqih and Muftis were learned people who had knowledge of religion and its tennets along with the Islamic law and so their opinion was considered learned and was respected.

After colonial powers physically removed themselves and granted limited independence to Muslim lands Muslims were challenged to form a new system of governance where Caliphates and kingships had no place. So in Muslim world the institutions that were to replace kings and old system begin to emerge. Some progress has been made in this regard despite the meddling from the puppet despots and direct attacks from the colonial powers on our lands. In Paksitan this progress has taken place in leaps and bounds despite an abysmal political record. Currently there are two institutions that have replaced Faqihs and Muftis. Islamic Ideological Council is one such institution that works as an advisory board though it has no enforcement authority. I think it is not under Ministry of Religious Affairs and works under the direct authority of Senate. The second institution is Federal Shariat Court which has enforcement authority as well as an authority for a judicial review. This institution works under Ministry of Law. These two institutions have authority to decalre someone non-Muslim. They work under the authority of Constitution of Paksitan which recognizes the sovereignity of Allah over state and its people. Their legal opinion is based on rigorous examination of an issue through Islamic law.


The second issue is about your ``sect-less`` Islam which I termed as Ideology-less idealism. This is an impossiblity because it contradicts the basic human evolution for the past 1 million years. Why is it so - because you answered it yourself when you wrote ``The reason is simple. All of this is subject to interpretation. It is far too subjective.`` It contradicts your original aspiration of having a sect-less Islam. A prudent and pragmatic approach still exists. We can still bring the sects together if we address the commonalities rather than differences. For that we will have to return to the basics and re-examine our respective faiths through 4:59.

I will have no problem calling a Quadiani my brother and a fellow ummatti if in return he will only stop calling himself a Muslim. The world is running on the principles of give and take. Why should a Quadiani be ashamed of calling himself Quadiani because him calling himself a Muslim hurts my feelings. So if we are to live in good faith with each other we must grant each other some leeway and respect each others feelings. Why it is always me who is expected to sacrifice his faith - what has a Quadiani to offer me in return?

Urstruly,

I think you are totally confused. I would not harass you but I would like to make a few things in your post and to some extent in tahamd’s post clear.

Here I quote an Islamic scholar as he did a better job about the editing and compilation of the Quran by Hazrat Osman. (Your story from the Grade three Islamiat books the Hazrat Osman worte it by hand! BTW, Hazrat Osman did not know how to write!!!) If this is of some interest to you, there is no record of any Saahabi being an expert of written Arabic. A few had very basic writing skills. Most of the Quran was memorized. Very little of the Quran was written thus problems in authenticity!

Here is the quote:
“In the early decades of the Arab conquests many Muhammad’s (PBUH) companions were killed, and with them died valuable knowledge of the Koranic revelations. Muslims at the edges of the empire began arguing over what was Koranic scripture and what was not. An army general returning from Azerbaijan expressed his fears about sectarian controversy to the Caliph (Hazrat) `Uthman (644-656) -- the third Islamic ruler to succeed Muhammad (PBUH) -- and is said to have entreated him to ``overtake this people before they differ over the Koran the way the Jews and Christians differ over their Scripture.`` (Hazrat) `Uthman convened an editorial committee of sorts that carefully gathered the various pieces of scripture that had been memorized or written down by Muhammad’s (PBUH) companions. The result was a standard written version of the Koran. (Hazrat) `Uthman ordered all incomplete and ``imperfect`` collections of the Koranic scripture destroyed, and the new version was quickly distributed to the major centers of the rapidly burgeoning empire.”

“The Koran is divided into 114 sections, known as suras, that vary dramatically in length and form. The book`s organizing principle is neither chronological nor thematic -- for the most part the suras are arranged from beginning to end in descending order of length.”
End of Quote.

This also goes to show that there were “other versions” of the Quran before Hazrat Osman had the Quran recompiled.


#53 by shobuz

Do your own research!!!!