Who is a Muslim?

sattar mian,

........... i knew you had very good reasons for wanting to be included in the ummah ........ i buy your arguments - mine are similar.......

...........this is such a silly argument that it is a shame to see grown people discussing it so seriously ............. if it weren`t so scary, it would be funny...............

sattar: you write ``only raw, animal sex, which will be interrupted only by her trips to the kitchen to get food for us. ``

Sattar sahib,

Does begum sahiba know of what you write when you gravely tell her that you are holding important religious discourses you are in fact writing of raw, animal intercourses? Does she even imagine that underneath that demeanor august churns an ocean of lust?

Raw, animal sex indeed!! I suggest you say a hundred nuffel this evening, and pray to Allah for forgiveness.

... by Urstruly’s argument … the will of the people … it is easy to see why slavery was a good thing. Same applies to crucifixion of Jesus, persecution of early Muslims in mecca, nazism, and the fires of gujraat. Not that I can change any of it … but I do want this discussion between him and romair to continue ... while hoping that tahmed and shamsul will also join in. And of course, no discussion can be considered complete without sporadic explanations from Isphahani Sahib himself ...

Chowk staff

#62 is not mine

Very well written Kyla :)

`` I was the poster child for the new, desensitized millennium, I thought. But I guess it?s all about what we remember ? we remember the story; what we bear witness to ? we bear witness to pain; and to what we return. And there?s the rub: to what do we return? ``

- Your words say it so well.

Urstruly #58: ``The entity that gave the authority to the government of Paksitan to come up with that definition of ``Muslims`` is the people of Paksitan. They expressed their will through their elected representative, in a representative house of parliament which came into being through the most transparent elections in the history of Paksitan - and not through some fauji fingered elections.``

OK. So now we are getting somewhere.

Though you need to keep in mind that immediately after this constitution, amendments were made left and right, into the Constitution. The members of this assembly then went into the streets to get rid of the head of this same Assembly, i.e. Bhutto. And the assembly itself, came into existence, because the majority party (from East Pakistan) was not allowed to form the govt., by the leadership(s) of this same assembly.

So there were so many ethical question marks around this (and all Pakistani assemblies) assembly, that I doubt it could justify its own legitimacy, much less, make a major world-shaking decision on who is and is not a Muslim.

But lets continue with your argument. Your conclusion is that the people of Pakistan, through a voted elected assembly, have the right to decide who is a Muslim and who is not. I do not know of anything in the Quran, which gives the people of Pakistan the right to provide such a definition. If you do, then kindly point it out to me. If you cannot point it out to me, then would it be correct for me to assume that such a self-granted power to the people of Pakistan, has no religious backing, within Islam?

Infact, even the, ``ulema`` themselves in Pakistan, want a Shariah council of maulvis, like in Iran to have power of elected Assemblies. They have declared Ahmedis to be non-Muslims, regardless of what any elected Assembly of Pakistan says.

If an argument is to be considered objective, then it must survive under all possible scenarios. If even on scenario conflicts it, then it becomes invalid. So your argument that elected Pakistani assemblies have this right, needs to be upheld under all scenarios. Not only under scenarios, in which, they define Islam the way you want it to be defined.
At the same time, do the people of Pakistan only have a right to declare who is and isn`t a Muslim, within the boundaries of Pakistan? Or does that right extend beyond the boundaries of Pakistan?

And does it transcend time? For example, under Jinnah, the people of Pakistan did not have a similar definition of who is a Muslim. What was the legal defintion of Muslim at that time? Suppose, the people of Pakistan, vote into power another leadership, which undoes what was done by Bhutto`s assembly. Would the current definition, all of a sudden, become invalid?

The point I am trying to make is that you have still not been able to provide me with a single religious argument, on who has the right to decide who is a Muslim and who is not. I am arguing the point in your language, i.e. the language of Islam. Yet, you have now, switched to the language of politics and western styled democracy, where people vote to decide what should and should not get done. Within that argument, all the Ahmedis need to do is to garner enough political support and influence, to get themselves, ``voted`` back into Islam.

Doesn`t make sense to me.

The reason is simple. All of this is subject to interpretation. It is far too subjective. And interpretations tend to change over time, depending on the power of the individuals who are carrying them out. If tomorrow Sunnis become a small minority, I am quite sure, they will be declared non-Muslim by someone. Its a vicious circle, with no logical or religious arguement to justify it.

The funny (or sad) part is that there are Sunnis trying to declare Shias non-Muslims. However the same Shias are trying to declare Ahmedis non-Muslims. I don`t know who is on the next lower step of the food chain (perhaps people like myself, who believe in a sect-less Islam, which allows each individuals the freedom to interpret it, as he/she fits for himself/herself, without bothering anyone else, nor ridiculing anyone else). I suppose the Ahmedis would then be attempting to declare that entity to be non-Muslim.

You are lucky you are on top of the food chain at the moment. If you ever end up at the bottom, your own argument could be used against you....

Mr Gill,
This summary of the discussions on religion, when the US Constitution was being written, might be of interest to you:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=182

58 to romair

The entity that gave the authority to the government of Paksitan to come up with that definition of ``Muslims`` is the people of Paksitan. They expressed their will through their elected representative, in a representative house of parliament which came into being through the most transparent elections in the history of Paksitan - and not through some fauji fingered elections.

Your examples of shia Iran declaring all sunnis non muslims and a sunni pakistan declaring shias as non-muslims are unrealistic and meanspirited. Though I have no problem discussing such issues in academic sense. No one in either country except some nutcases raise such voices. And that started happening after 1979 when cia started funding anti-shia extremist to avenge their humiliation at the hands of peoples revolution. A common man understands this fact very well.

hossp# 48

The answer to all your questions is in the 2nd link in my post.

I think I was not able to convey the message with its intent. The people who recite Qura`n, they committ mistakes, but then there are others who correct them. During the prayers of Traweeh in Ramadan whole Qura`n is recited by heart by the moulvi in front of the audience and he makes mistakes but someone in the congregation corrects them. Similarly, there are `minor` printing mistakes of a missing apperand like a comma, semicolon, or `mudd` which are pointed out by the someone and are corrected. The point is that Allah has created a self-correcting mechanism to convey his unaltered message to the people thru the end of the time. Those who convey this message are human beings, those who err in delivering this message are also human beings, and those who correct those mistakes are also human beings. There are certain Quranic texts around the globe which are considered authentic. One such Quran was handwritten by third caliph Hazrat Osman RA himself and still found in topkapa museum in Istanboul. As a matter of fact Hazrat Osman had several copies written as a standard text which he sent to the far and wide corners of the world. The nature of errors that occur today while printing is very minor like missing an apperand or a comma etc. But even then it is caught.

As I was reading today`s news about more than 150 iraqis murdered by crazy suicide bombers, i couldn`t help but think.... Muslims ``as a group`` ought to be the most stupidest people on earth currently.

Every other group of people ARE VERY VERY VERY VERY BUSY trying to figure out ways to make lives better for themselves. The key phrase there is ``Atleast they are trying to make life better for themselves``.

Muslims on the other hand are hell bent on re-inventing their stupid 7th century utopia. What stupid morons these people are. Every conflict in world.... Chechnya, the whole ***ing middle east, afghanistan, etc etc etc. These days, whenever I read or hear on TV or hear on Radio about yet another stupid moron swearing on jihad I keep thinking ... where do these stupid morons have their priorities ? on some abstract faith ``imagined`` by some 7th century idiots ?

I don`t mean to bash muslims here.... infact, i truly feel sorry at their self-imposed stupidity. I feel that they are f***ing hurting themselves real bad. I feel like grabbing the nearest muslim and shaking his head violently.... `` Snap out of it you stupid moron. Your PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY is towards your wife, your children, your family. Figure out ways to make life better for them. FULFIL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. ``

hamidm Sahib,

I do it for sheer entertainment … too much fun on eid, shaab-e-barat, and mohorrom. And being able to say “assalam-o-alaikom brother” in a fake arabic accent always guarantees a bigger helping of iftari dinner at the mosque right down the street from work. But that’s not all … this path leads to satisfaction of even baser instincts … which are neatly sanctioned in the handbook of morality in the chapter named after “women” as in … (more) women (for each man).

But this is just the beginning. A little known concept known as mutah may take hold in the near future. The word has it that Hazrat Abul Ala Maudoodi (may his soul rest in peace, more so for the following reasons) elucidated and sanctified this holy practice. He profusely argued … that this blessed institution was allowed in early days of Islam, was never prohibited in Quran, was blissfully encouraged in days of the fabulous four, and hence constitutes a part of shariah. There will be no meher to worry about, no sharing of credit cards, no need to accompany her to shopping excursions to the mall. There will be no social obligations … only raw, animal sex, which will be interrupted only by her trips to the kitchen to get food for us. Sahib, we can have so much fun with this that the mormons in utah will start to look like sexually famished aliens from the red planet.

So I say, hail to the bearded chief … let’s line up right behind me … we’re all going to the promised land …

Urstruly #44:

You avoided the question.

You used a definition provided by a particular govt. of Pakistan, to define who is a Muslim. I asked you the name of the authority that had given the right to the govt. to made that defintion. You gave a vague answer about six kalmas, for some reason. So I will ask this question again, with the hope that you will provide a direct answer.

Who has given the govt. of Pakistan the right to come up with a definition of who is and is not a Muslim? Is it the Quran?

Just out of curiousity, do you feel the majority has the right to decide who is and is not a Muslim? If yes, then if the majority in Iran declares all Sunnis to be non-Muslims, would they become non-Muslims? Would they again become Muslims, if they entered Saudi Arabia? What if the Saudis declare all non-Wahabis to be non-Muslims?

Re #37: Hossp

You wrote:
“soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely -- a prospect that thrills Puin. ``So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God`s unaltered word,`` he says. ``They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana`a fragments will help us to do this.``
``

1. Let us see how literature jargon, which starts with an ambiguous notation, later becomes the tenant of a situation. You/they used the word “Prospect” and “thrill”. These two words alone proves that who ever did the research is already made up his mind either consciously or unconsciously of what to expect out of the research. Their belief on Bible, even prior to founding this treasure is it has problem with various versions. These Scientists educational background, culture, mindset and all their pursuing for truth comes from a circle that it self can be questioned on its authenticity, regardless of who hires them. When these very “authentic people” goes in research using “scientific method” how often later their proofs get nullified. Did you do any research on the “authenticity” of their method and their whereabouts? They could not stop their happiness of promoting an idea with sentence like “"So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God`s unaltered word,`` he says”. Any genuine and honest effort should come up with concrete unbiased proof to have an extraordinary claim. Yet how quick he was to be “thrilled” and “happy” to be the “first one” to prove the “stupid Muslim”.

2. You wrote:
“
In some pious Muslim circles it is held that worn-out or damaged copies of the Koran must be removed from circulation; hence the idea of a grave, which both preserves the sanctity of the texts being laid to rest and ensures that only complete and unblemished editions of the scripture will be read.
``

Lets look into this paragraph. Word “some” means minimum and not “all”. Which then means these “some” may be “incorrect” or “All minus some” may be correct. So, what “some held” may not be authentic. Next sentence is “hence the idea of grave”. First, word “some” was interjected as THE SOURCE, where “some” was not proven accurate. Yet the next sentence already giving a direction of what to think and that is “grave”. Add “these two word”, match the word “finding” conclusion becomes the “Great German Scientific Master Authenticization”.

3. Even if it is as authentic as they say, do you know about hadiths and other small pieces of “findings” that are written in Arabic and has reference of Quran or Quran like.

Here, I am not arguing on the authenticity of Quran. I am interested in knowing more about the people, their background and their method who gets so “thrilled” on “proving” or “disproving” some thing.

Do you have more sources on this quest of disproving Quran beside these color pictures? May be you should check in “Nostradamm?? prophecy” where 9-11 was mentioned. Have you ever read Quran, but of course you have to read it from humanly neutral point of view, else will always carry this uncomforting feeling to share the world with 1 billion Muslim. Even the GREAT Western Power, science, logic cannot get rid of you with the anger, unhappiness or frustration you experience due to this species call “Muslim”.

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

...............while the chowkies are debating this silly issue, urstruly`s friends are sorting out this problem :

At least 37 people have been killed and over 100 wounded in an attack on Shia Muslims in the Pakistani city of Quetta, hospital officials say.......... BBC today

More than 140 Shia Muslims die as explosions rock the cities of Karbala and Baghdad during a holy festival. .............. BBC today

............... the twelve imamers, as urstruly calls them, are being taken care of by ``real`` muslims ...............