Who is a Muslim?

Assalam o alaikum.
your piece of writing provides substantial food for thought. however, there are a few things i would like to raise.
``..if the ulama of the various sects ...``
you mention the word sects; a word very commonly used today referring to shias, sunnis, boris, khojas, aga khanis and so on and although you can trace the birth of these ``sects`` through history, we have no proof of the existence of ANY sect during the time of the Prophet(SAW). it is thus inappropropriate to propogate an idea or belief that is not in accordance with the essence of Islam.
``“Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you ( O Muhammad SAW) have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do”
(Surah 6 Al –Anam, Verse 159)
i personally believe that such differences should not be considered anything more than different schools of opinion.
The end of the article is slightly abrupt in the sense that you succeeded in raising a valid question in our mind-What is a Muslim? but did not provide adequate insight into the answer.
I mean no offense by my criticism and hope it is taken in good faith.

Gill

I think the best is not even to get into this controversy.

If some one says that he is Christian, that should be good enough.
If some one says that he is a Buddhist, that should be good enough.
If some one says that he believes in a two-headed God, that should be good enough.
and similarly,

if some one says that he is a Muslim, that should be good enough.

Who are others to define his religion for him?

good article

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

Nazar sahab,
there are some myths about questioning. and one very widely believed is that to question means to doubt. with all due respect, to question is only to discover, rediscover, affirm or reaffirm our faith in something. Therefore, to question our identity or others is not disrespect or suspiscion but a reassurance or a fulfilment of vaccum of knowledge.

A very apt and relevant article by Hamid Mir--Pakistan`s Ace journalist. Of course writes in Urdu.

It is sad that the Paki-illiterates ( ``My urdu is weak`` type ignoramuses) cannot be as well informed because they cannot read this.

Echoboom

I think we the expatriate Paksitanis should arrange protests at Pakistani Embassies and Consulates, UN Human Rights Commission, and at other offices to force Paksiatni military to stop the massacares of Pakistani civilians and other crimes against humanity at once. As if genocide of East Paksitanis by power hungary blood thirsty military despots of Na Pak fauj was not enough for their resume and now this.... When are these despots going to stop murdering Paksitani citizens. Enough is enough

Anyone who says they are a Muslim, should be considered one. Otherwise, the majority sect of the area(s) will end up defining who is and isn`t one. After that, one has to leave it up to God to decide, whether the person who says he/she is a Muslim, actually is one.

The, ``safest`` way to look at Islam, is to look at it in its most abstract form. Which is the Quran, itself. Everything below that is beaurecracy.

The other thing that needs to be done is for every Muslim to study the Quran, by him/herself, without relying on scholars and shiekhs and sects and fiqahs, etc. That is how the Quran is supposed to have been read.

After that, every Muslim needs to indulge in some self-evaluation and a personal discovery of his/her religion. Again all by him/herself, independent of anyone else`s influence.

At that time, he/she will reach his/her own understanding of Islam. That is what he/she should follow. If he/she wants to preach it, he/she should do so. But never through any kind of force, nor in a self-righteous manner (something evident on Chowk).

If he/she is not impressed by Islam, after studying it, he/she should leave it, and become a Bhuddhist or an athiest. And should then, spend his/her time studying that. And not bother the rest of us Muslims. And not try to belittle Islam, just because it did not appeal to them (as many individuals on this site tend to do).

Being self-righteous about Islam, as well as belittling and making fun of it are too opposing acts. But both are signs of an inferiority complex and indicate a huge lack of self-confidence in the individual carrying out these activities.

Soon the gallant Pakhtun tribesmen will pick weapons in their hands to end army`s terrorist activities against its own people for good.

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

For fourteen hundered years the definition of a Muslim was not an issue until Allah decided to test our faith by putting us through the challenges of the tumult of Quadianiat and Ahmadiat. In the matter of laws, when a certain group of people is unanimously considered as out of the fold of Islam there is need to define who is considered to be a Muslim and who is not.

The Holy prophet gave us six Kalimas, believing e in which is a necessary condition to become a Muslim. These conditions are prime, unalterable, and inviolable. Muslim jurists have summarised these Kalimas under two headings called as Iman-e-Mujammil & Iman-e-Mufassal - these are basically the core set of believes which Holy Prophet stressed in his teachings throughout his life. In addition, they have also extracted all those beleives which are mentioned and required by Qura`n itself - these may be termed as `derivative beliefs` upon which one`s faith depends as much as on core beilefs but the difference is that the core set of beliefs form the foundation of `derivative believes`.

Her is a list of beliefs by three catagories. One has to have belief in every one of them to be considered a Muslim:

CORE BELIEFS

a. Iman-e-Mujammil

I believe in Allah with all His attributes as described by His names; I accept all of His orders and testify that they are true.

b. Iman-e-Muffassal

``I believe in Allah, in His Angels, His Scriptures, His Prophets, the Day of Judgement, and in the fact that every thing good or bad (in the world) is pre-destined by Allah the Exalted, and in the resurrection after death.``

DERIVATIVE BELIEFS

Derivative Beliefs i.e. the beliefs that follow the core set of beliefs but they are also specifically mentioned in Qura`n

1. Allah the Most Exalted is One.
2. None is worthy of worship and devotion except Allah.
3. There is no partner of Allah.
4. He Knows everything; nothing is hidden from Him
5. He is All Powerful and Mighty.
6. It is He who created the earth, the sky, the moon, the sun, the stars, the angels, human beings, genies and the entire universe.
7. He gives life and death. In other words, life and death of all creatures take place by His command.
8. He feeds all His creation.
9 He does not eat, drink, or sleep.
10. He is Self-existent from eternity and will last till eternity.
11. No one has created Him.
12. He has no father, no son, no daughter, no wife, or other relations. He is above all such relationships.
13. All depend on Him. He does not depend on anyone, and He has no needs.
14. He is Peerless. There is nothing like Him. Nothing resembles Him.
15. He is free from all imperfections.
16. Unlike His creatures, He does not have hands, legs, nose, ears, face and shape.
17. After creating the angels He has appointed them to carry out specific tasks, and to manage the affairs of the universe.
18. He sent messengers for the guidance of His creatures; to teach people how to follow the true religion, do good deeds, and forbid them from the evil things. Prophet Mohammad is the most exalted of all those messengers and LAST IN THE LINE OF PROPHETHOOD.

Urstruly #11: ``For fourteen hundered years the definition of a Muslim was not an issue``

This is not true. The definition of Muslim has been in a confused state, since times immemorial. It is something that is impossible to define. This is why their are so many sects, and sub-sects and schools of thoought.

There are many Sunnis who consider Shias to be non-Muslim. There are many Shias who consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims. And if there were enough Ahmedis in the world, or in any one region, I am sure they would declare someone in a smaller minority than themselves, to be non-Muslims.

So rest assured, if Pakistan were 95% Ahmedi and 5% Sunnis, then Sunnis would have been declared non-Muslims. These declarations are dependent on politcal power.

The birth of many a sect, in many a religion, actually occurs due to wars. And then, whomever wins those military or political wars, ensures their version remains in the fold of Islam. If Iran and Iraq weren`t Shia, and then number of Shia in the world was tiny, Shias would have been declared non-Muslims, universally.

Even within majority Sunni sects, there have been individuals and schools of thought that have been declared non-Muslim. For example, I do not think Islamic jurisprudence should be based on Hadith, since I am not convinced that Hadith are genuine. Hence, in my opinion, Hadith should only be used for describing history, but not as the word of the Prophet. It is logically impossible for all of them to be accurate.

What does that make me? According to many schools of thought, at the very least a partial non-Muslim. Yet I don`t believe in any school of Islamic thought to begin with. Since I consider them unnecessary beaurecracy. I think every Muslim has a right to have his/her own school of thought. Infact the clergy is not supposed to exist in Islam. The Prophet and the Khalifs were not part of the clergy. So now what do I become?

This does not mean, one cannot have his personal views on Islam. I think a Muslim is someone who belives in the Oneness of God and considers Muhammd to be the final prophet. Hence, in my book, anyone who doesn`t belive in that is violating Islam. However, I have no right to impose my view on a whole society, and get into the business of declaring that peson to be non-Muslims.

Who knows, that other person, may consider me a non-Muslim. Who is right and who is wrong? We need to leave that to God. Otherwise, if someday you end up in a situation where you are part of the minority sect, you may get declared a non-Muslim by the majority. And would be running for your life.

Before we get into defining a Muslim, it is important to establish the framework and basis for this inquiry. In my opinion, “Muslim” has two meanings …

Definition A: In general Islamic terms, a Muslim is someone who submits to the will of God.
Definition B: In places in Quran, the term “Muslim” is used to specify one who specifically believes in the message of Quran.

God raised prophets among all nations throughout the history of mankind. It is reasonable to assume that Buddha, Ram, Krishna, Zaratushtra, Christ, Mohammad, were such prophets. They conveyed the message of Unity of God … and emphasized love and compassion towards all of God’s creations. Definition “A” of a Muslim would thus apply to them and their followers, regardless of the era they lived in.

In places, Quran uses the term “Muslim” for those who subscribe to the Quranic message. Now, before one wants to know if a person is a “Definition B” Muslim or not … it is important to find out the context and nature of this inquiry.

For example … the government may want to find out how many people subscribe to which faith … in order to better allocate its resources. Labeling one’s faith may also become important in matters involving burial of the deceased, inheritance laws, etc. A simple questionnaire in this case would suffice … where a person simply specifies his faith. This is consistent with the example from the life of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) … who once asked that a survey of this nature be taken in Medina. I am sketchy on details … but from I recall reading … the criterion set by the dear Prophet (pbuh) was that … if a person claims to be a Muslim … count him as a Muslim.

While Allah Himself uses the term Muslim in Quran, He does not impart authority of declaring others as non-Muslim to anyone. In their frenzy of fanaticism, mullahs have assumed divine rights to play god and to interfere in matters that rest between an individual and Allah. As a result, the term “Muslim” has become more of a political label, with connotations of an intolerant ideology and a narrow social outlook. Reversing this trend rests in the hands of Muslims themselves, who must come forward and rid Islam of the divisive, sectarian elements that have come to plague its followers and its image all across the world.

#7 by Urstruly

Where and when, 14 days advance notice should be enough for me...

Urstruly # 7 - You wrote - ``As if genocide of East Paksitanis by power hungary blood thirsty military despots of Na Pak fauj was not enough for their resume and now this.... When are these despots going to stop murdering Paksitani citizens. Enough is enough``

I could not agree with you more. This bitch of West, otherwise known as General Whore, who goes by the name Musharraf, has let lose his dogs on Pakistani civilians. He has let foreign security agencies run free in our lands, harassing our people, murdering innocent civilians, tarnishing our heros and our army. We do not feel secure in our homes anymore. We are no longer free. Our sons are handed over to foreign agencies for questioning with nary a debate allowed.

Debate on who is NOT a muslim is a leisurely debate. The biggest and most urgetnt question that faces our ummah is, how to stop dictators like General Whore who ARE muslims. While no apologist for qadianis`, I can say with full conviction that General Whore has caused more damage to Islam and Pakistan than qadianis` could ever dream of.

Romair

I agree with you partly. It is true that various sects have (and still do) declared each other non-Muslims and certain sects which were declared heretics by the politically more powerful sects were persecuted and even killed.

But now times have changed. In the past, the nature of governments was such that either Caliphate or King had the absolute authority. His decree was the law. Some of them because of political expediency coerced the sentiments of majority (or politically powerful) segment of the society. But now times have changed. Kings and Caliphs are now being replaced by Social Contracts and Constitutions. And it is the nature of social contracts that they cannot allow a room for vagueness. In a democratic polity which submits the ultimate sovereignity to Allah, different segments of the society can only be defined by their faith (or lack thereof). It is not an impossible task. A lot of work has been done in this regard and political and ideological framework has been laid down in the past one century. This is a never-ending and evolving process as is any political process. The forces (self-propelled) that are causing this change are bringing the old issues that have plagued Muslims for centuries, to the fore. One such force is the globalization of the faith. Because of information technology and due to the shrinking world different sects or schools of thought are being exposed to each other more than ever before. The opportunities for an interfaith and an inter-sect dialogue are becoming even more possible. This is weakening the grip of traditional mullah leadership on the matters of faith. The proof of this change is self evident. In case you happen to be in a mosque in Toronto you might have seen people standing in a row praying all differently. In their own countries, in their own closed societies these people cut each others throats just for praying ``the wrong way``. What happens to these people when they come in an open society? This is a self-evident proof that a common man wants to stick to the very basics of the religion and he doesn`t care much about the doctrinal differences. That is the reason that the Wahabism has spread exponantially around the globe just because they address the very basics of the religion.

Now there are two levels to this discussion. At first level we have discussed how an evolution is rapidly taking place in the minds of Muslims throughout the globe and at the second level one may ask how this evolution is compelling Muslims to re-examine their faith and re-evaluate themselves. As an individual when a Muslim sets foot on this path of self discovery the first lesson that he learns is that in this chaos there is after all a right way:

O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end. 4-59

Ultimately, every seeker, sooner or later comes to this conclusion.

When we examine our ways through this criteria we find that some of the disputes among us are only doctrinal while some of them are actually because of the matter of faith. The doctrinal issues are those in which two people do agree with a directive but dispute on how to implement it - these disputes caused five basic sects to emerge namely hanafi, shafai, maliki, hanbali and jaafri.

And when we come to faith based disputes then we should turn to 4:59. An example is that of Twelver Shias which are called Ithna-e-Ashari Shias. They beleive in twelve imams and ascribe to them the same status as that of a prophet and beleive that these Imams have the authority to even change Quran or suspend some or all of its directives. Well, they might be right but they have to prove this through Qura`n and his prophet as 4:59 directs us. They can`t and claim that in ``original version`` of Quran there was such a directive and a goat ate that part of Qura`n. Even that contradicts 4:59 because Allah himself has taken responsibility to protect Qura`n from corruption till the End of Days and we see the living proof of that promise even now after 1500 years.

The second example is that of Quadianis. They have taken one word of Qura`n; mis-translated it and violated the Arabic usage of that word and beleive in the (false)prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani. This is the height of ignorance and an arrogant stubborness that they would not want to pick up an Arabic Dictionary and find the truth themselves. They not only vilate 4:59 but also a direct edict of Qura`n. There cannot be two (learned) opinions about them being non-Muslims.

Pardaisi

New York and Toronto. We do not have 14 days. Time to act is now. Be ready.

I have to check with Californians yet.

Political correctness aside .....The mainstream recognition of what constitutes a Muslim is debatable ... Nonthless in the theological sense THe Ahmediyyas (INdo-Pak), The Bahais ( Iran and Israel), and the Druzes (Syria and Lebanon) or Farakhan based Nation of Islam (US) are all quasi Islamic offshoots - ( not recognized by mainstream Islam) because all of them donot believe in the finality of Muhammad as the last prophet - The Nation of Islam further deviates from Islamic dogma by incroporating Several Animistic African rituals......

Nonethless, this does not justify their whole sale persecution by the majority communities in their respective countries....Most of the aforementioned communties are generally better educated and more cohesive because of their minority status ..... the Parochial attitudes of Sub-continental Muslims towards these off-shoots is primarily
based on purtanical extremism .....

As for the ``fatwas`` declared by subcontinental ``mullahs`` against competing ``mullahs`` or aginst the shiities or Ismailis or the Bohras or sufis etc etc ... Thats is primarily hogwash from an Islamic doctrinal perspective as ascertained by most scholars ....

It is particularly ironic in the case of Pakistan - since the most vociferous proponets of Pakistan were not of the Sunni sects - Jinnah ( was an Ismaili Khoja- later isna ashrii), Liaquat Ali Khan ( shiite - not sure ) .... Iqbal ( his grandfather converetd to Ahmediyya - later his father reverted to mainstream Islam) , The Aga Khan ( Ismaili) , Zafrulla Khan ( hmediyya), Haroons ( shiite), Hidayatullah ( shiite) etc etc ......

let me summarize urstruly`s dissertation:

- muslims behave better when they live in ``open`` (western) societies
- wahabism is good because it addresses the basics of islam
- shias and ahmedis are kafirs

...... did i miss anything?

................ now carry on the discussion and see what other gems he comes up with ..........

#17

sounds like it is sooner than I thought, keep me posted please, atleast I can forward your message to friends in that area

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

Gill sahib,

It was a pleasure to read your article, and certainly it is a muslim tradition that simple acknowledgement of the kalima is enough to make a person a muslim.

I would like you to explore the next steps: (a) When does an individual stop being a muslim; and (b) Is the muslim the equivalent of a Companion of the Right Hand (the ones destined for heaven, per the Quran). I have presented my views often enough on chowk, so will not burden this board with a repetition. However, I would be interested in your views on these questions.

echoboom #7

Can you please point me to the the article`s URL. I enjoy reading Hamid Mir`s articles.

It is rather easy to define ``who is a Muslims`` and who is not. First one has to decide if the definition is philosophical, practical or absolute. The best way to define a Muslim is not through Islam but through deduction. It is very common method in many other fields to come to some logical conclusions. Basically you start elimiating the possibilities one by one and ignoring the insignificant component of the equation. Lets start with god. Anybody who does not believe in the existence of one god is not a Muslim. That eliminates about 2 billion people of the world. Then anyone who believes in Jesus as son of god and trinity is excluded. Another 2 billions are excluded. Not believing in Mohammad as last messenger and Quran excludes another 1 billion. Keep doing it until you get down to 5 chowkies and 20 usernames.....or stopping earlier leaving about 1 billion people from elimination.

Are we still talking about the article here? Gill saheb your articles are certainly standing out. Keep going.

``#8 by Romair on March 1, 2004 7:54am PT
Anyone who says they are a Muslim, should be considered one.``

Indeed this was the position taken by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah who as the leader of the Muslim League refused to declare Ahmadis non-muslims despite fervent appeals by those muslims who wished to isolate this sect. According to him anyone who said he was a muslim was good enough for him and that as a Political leader he had no place to decide the personal faith of any individual... the state in Pakistan should do the same. Indeed this is the Islamic position as well... which declares that all `Kalma go` people are Muslims... and Ahmadis are indeed Kalma Go... and its not like they are in denial of the Quranic verses... they translate the word `Khatim` differently thats all... Sadly... we are neither good Pakistanis nor good muslims... in the best sense of those words... instead we are bigots and we justify our bigotry in the name of Islam.

Comments on finality of prophethood …

Urstruly has incorrectly mentioned that the definition of a Muslim has not been a debate. He also selectively refers to the views of the jurists … while ignoring other scholars who held alternate views on various matters of Islam (including finality of prophethood).

Nowhere does Quran declare Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) the last prophet of Allah. Rather, verses of Quran indicate the possibility of coming of future prophets. This view is also supported by recorded sayings of the dear Prophet (pbuh), which are ignored by the mullah. Ironically, when quoting these ahadith, the mullahs often quote only the first half, or mistranslate the saying altogether, while ignoring the other half, or other sayings that support coming of future prophets.

In one of our debates on prophethood, Urstruly Sahib cited the first half of a hadith (the famous, “I am the last prophet …” hadith) to support his claim. I drew his attention to the full hadith, including the second half, which proved the exact opposite. Urstruly finally retreated by stating to the effect that … one has to understand this hadith in context of several other ahadith to make the concept of finality “palatable”.

“Finality” is supposed to be a defining Islamic belief … but a lot of work is needed to make this concept “palatable”. Why is that so? My response is that … because this notion is being forced upon Islam, and is not a part of it.

However, if we go by what the mullahs tell us … then belief in the giant fire-breathing donkey … killing people for apostasy … torturing non-Muslims for merely preaching their faith … also becomes a part of Islam. The definition of a “Muslim” then becomes a bottomless pit. How low can one sink? Apparently, too low to be expressed verbally.

Good question.

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

echoboom:
there are not many `my urdu is weak` type ignoramuses who have actually lived in pakistan and studied the language regardless of our english medium education. so barai meherbani, stop painting certain pakistanis with the same paintbrush. your referral to us as punks and what not merely reflects on your budtameezi and more.

and i`m sure there are urdu medium types who suck at urdu literature just as english medium types sucked at english literature. you prove nothing by your attacks.

i always look forward to reading urdu, and shall have to read this when more time allows.

Urstruly #16: There is never a, 100% ``correct`` definition of right or wrong, good or bad, Muslim or non-Muslim. It has a huge dependency on the person who is providing the definition. And the impact of that person`s definition is greatly affected by how powerful he is, within the society.

For something to be the 100% known truth, it has to have no subjectivity associated with it. 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn`t matter if the whole world is Sunni, and says 2 + 2=5. Or if the whole world is Ahmedi, and says 2 + 2 = 3. And there happens to be one Shia person saying it is equal to 4. The Shia person will be correct, even if he is politically powerless.

However. religion(s) is far too subjective a subject. It`s definition will always be dictated by the majority group. If all of Pakistan was Ahmedi, then Sunnis would be non-Muslims in Pakistan. The definition of the truth would thus be changed by the power of the person making the statement. If you, yourself, were an Ahmedi, your definition of Islam, would be different from what you are currently stating.

I don`t think there is anything wrong with a person studying religion and defining it for himself. If you think Ahmedis are non-Muslims, you have every right to think that. And if someone else thinks you are a non-Muslim, they have every right to think that also. What you don`t have a right to do, is to impose your definition onto everyone else, regardless of whether you are in a majority or a minority.

The argument that, ``all of the ulema`` agree is an invalid argument. Islamic thought has never been based on, ``all of anyone`` agreeing on anything. It is not a democracy. It cannot be a democracy, if we consider it the word of God. It is a set of commandments. If we do interpret purely in democratic terms, then a state with all Ahmedis would have the democratic right to declare all Shias and Sunnis to be non-Muslims.

I personally, based on whatever I have studied about religion, do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, to be any type of a religious figure. I consider making him a religious figure a violation of my understanding of my religion. I consider Muhammad to be the last prophet in every form, way and manner.

However, that is just my belief, which I can, and do, apply on myself. I have no right to apply that belief onto someone, who happens to holds a different belief than mine. I have a right to personally consider that person to be a non-Muslim, based on my belief, if I want to. I do not, however, a right to declare that person to be a non-Muslim, at an official level.

That right only belongs to God. So why not let Him decide who is, ``officially`` a Muslim and who is not.......Who knows, maybe in the end, that person may turn out to be a bigger Muslim than I am.....

One should never try to claim ownership of a religion, beyond one`s own personal sphere. Define it for yourself to your heart`s desire. But do not define it for others. This is, in fact, one of the biggest issues I have with, ``ulema.`` They don`t preach with the power of their character. They preach with the power of their self-righteousness.

At the same time, while I have not studied the life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad much, the above is one of the issues I have with his following, as well. He could have just preached a version of religion, and then let the coming generations decide whether he was a Mahdi or a prophet. Rather than inculcating that into a version of the religion. In this sense, he tried to claim ownership of a religion, beyond his own personal sphere (I need to study this a bit more).

Another thing he could have done, was to have completely started a new religion, like Bhudda or Guru Nanak. That would have made life easier for anyone to whom his ideas appealed.

Romair, on one hand you are saying that no one person is the theyKaydaar of Islam, and cannot declare someone muslim or not due to subjectivity.(A point I whole heartedly agree from a logic perspective) Then how can a state declare someone non-muslim whereby the state is islamic in name only (highly subjective)

sattar,

............ why would anybody in their right mind want to be recognized as a muslim unless they are born into this miserable state?........... that`s why i sometimes don`t understand why the ahmedis want to bring this ignominy upon themselves .............

urstruly,

............ and how does it harm the ummah if a few million ahmedis also call themselves muslims ?............ if we can accept mike tyson and half the jail population in america as our brothers, why not the ahmedis?

[Our (Muslims’) tragedy is that when we talk to non-Muslims, we tell them that nothing can be simpler than Islam. Among ourselves, we cannot even agree on something as fundamental as the definition of a Muslim. ]

True.

But do we all need to believe in the same definition ?

Can we ? Should we ? Will we ?

#25 by zamir1 on March 1, 2004 2:35pm PT

It is my pleasure sir. Glad you asked. When the page opens, click on Idartee Safhaa. Then you will find great columnists. HH writes but not daily. Other good ones are: Abdul Qadir Hasan, Haroon Rashid, Javed Chaudhri, Orya Jaan, Ata Quasmi & many others.

Irshad Haqqani is a schlepper.

Idartee safhaa of www.jang-group.com

Right scroll down to Idartee Safhaa.

anyone who believes in the Zaruriyat e Din is a Muslim...

http://www.iqra.net/articles/creed.html

#16 by Urstruly on March 1, 2004

“Even that contradicts 4:59 because Allah himself has taken responsibility to protect Qura`n from corruption till the End of Days and we see the living proof of that promise even now after 1500 years.”

I hope you don’t mind my intrusion but how do you explain this??? Please accept this as a historical intrusion rather than the religious one. Apologize in advance if this hurts some one`s religious beliefs.

IN 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana`a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure`s inner and outer roofs stumbled across a remarkable gravesite, although they did not realize it at the time. Their ignorance was excusable: mosques do not normally house graves, and this site contained no tombstones, no human remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks, and set them aside on the staircase of one of the mosque`s minarets, where they were locked away -- and where they would probably have been forgotten once again, were it not for Qadhi Isma`il al-Akwa`, then the president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who realized the potential importance of the find.
Al-Akwa` sought international assistance in examining and preserving the fragments, and in 1979 managed to interest a visiting German scholar, who in turn persuaded the German government to organize and fund a restoration project. Soon after the project began, it became clear that the hoard was a fabulous example of what is sometimes referred to as a ``paper grave`` -- in this case the resting place for, among other things, tens of thousands of fragments from close to a thousand different parchment codices of the Koran, the Muslim holy scripture. 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.

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam`s first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What`s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.


Yemeni Koran Fragments,
as they were found in 1972.
Photograph by Ursula Dreibholz



A page from perhaps the world`s
oldest extant Koran, from before
750 A.D. Ultraviolet light reveals
even earlier Koranic writing
underneath. Photograph by
Gerd-R. Puin.

Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that 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.``

Hossp # 37

The answer to your query is two fold. The first level of answer is in the question form – the manuscripts were found in 1972, so after 32 years of researching those documents what are the conclusions that researchers have drawn? The article that you have quoted only shows the `intentions` of researchers to prove an a priori thesis. Have they proved it?

Since I have not seen the find myself and have not been involved in any such research I can only give you a speculative answer. The errors in the printing of Qura`n occur even today. I remember once the Taj Company, the largest publishers of Qura`n, recalled certain batches of Qura`n when some errors were discovered. The question is how such errors are discovered and who discovers them. An error can only be found when compared with a standard text. What is that standard text then? One has to have answers to these questions before judging anything. And how we enable ourselves to be able to make such judgment – by not only studying Qura`n but also the history of how it was compiled.

As for the article that you have posted read a short explanation here:

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features99/orientalist.htm

But even that would leave some avenues to be explored further. For that I suggest you read the history of compilation of Qura`n here:

http://www2.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/understand.html

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

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

Romair # 31

Yes I agree that life is not as simple as 2+2=4; instead it is very subjective. But even then it has not prevented man from developing sciences of logic, philosophy, jurisprudence, grammer and diction. The greatest challenge that a jurist faces is that he has to convert a very subjective issue and subject as complicated as human psychology into an objective one. There is no ultimate no final and no perfect in this endeavor. It is an evolutionary process which is being developed and progressed as the human civilization progresses. Even after three hundered years of rigorous practice even today, everyday, the supreme court in US defines and redefines the interpretation of constitution everyday as it faces new challenges. Similarly, finding the definition of ``Muslim`` is not impossible. It has actually been already done. Under Paksitani Law the following defines a Muslim:

``I.......... s/o ........ aged....... years, adult Muslim, resident of ........... hereby solemnly declare that:

i. I am Muslim and belive in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last of the prophets.

ii. I do not recognize any person who claims to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever after Muhammad (peace be upon him) or recognize such a claiment as prophet or religious reformer as a Muslim.

iii. I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Quadiani group to be non-Muslim.

---

Signature & Thumb Impression

Date...............



This contradicts your contention that a ``Muslim`` cannot be defined because it is ``so subjctive``. Well the definition is there.


The requirement for this definition emerged from a specific challenege facing the faith of Islam, so the the response to this challenge is such that it addresses that specific challenge. As I said law and jurisprudence is an emerging and evolutionary process. In future, if a differnet threat is posed to the integrity of Muslim faith (God forbids), the response will be different to address that. The definition of Muslim then again might change.

hamidm #32: ``............ why would anybody in their right mind want to be recognized as a muslim unless they are born into this miserable state?........... ``

You are fighting a losing battle. It might be a good idea to save your energy, and utilize it on a different cause. Like saving the whales or the Bengal tiger.

Like most super orthodox Muslims, who think they alone have found the promised land, your comments indicate that you, alone, have found the promised land, also. In your case, the promised land is leaving Islam. And, both you and the orthodoxes, though at opposing promised lands, seem quite agitated by the fact that others are unwilling to recognize and follow your respective discoveries of the promised lands.

Is that why preachers and athiests are the most shrill group in any society -:)

Well and good. One must congratulate you for finding your, ``cultural utopia`` (as you have congratulated me for discovering Canada).

However, what I cannot understand about the super-orthodox and those who leave Islam is why they are not content in enjoying thier cultural utopia, by themselves. Why not leave the rest of us, in our misery, and let us fall off our Islamic cliff, if we want to?

Maybe sattar2 wants to be counted as a Muslim, because that is just what he wants. Why does that bother you? In fact why does that bother you just as much as it seems to bother Urstruly. If both of you are secure in the place you are at, then you should just smile at others making fools of themselves. But why the desire to ridicule or isolate them?

Wouldn`t the world be a better place, if everyone who has found their, intellectual and cultural utopia, enjoyed it, and did not try to force others into it. If Canada is my cultural utopia, should I make fun of you, for not wanting to move there? No. So why make fun of those of us, who have not seen the light as you have, and do not want to denounce their religion, as the cause of all their misery?

Your telling a Muslim that Islam is the cause of all his problems is like telling a African-American American, that being Black is the cause of all his problems. You may be right, but your arguments will not have much affect......

Urstruly #38/41: While your argument in reply 38, makes a lot of sense, your argument in reply 41 does not. In fact, it proves my point.

You are using the definition of a Muslim, as defined by the govt. of Pakistan, to be the official definition of a Muslim. While simultaneously stating that, ``There is no ultimate no final and no perfect in this endeavor. It is an evolutionary process which is being developed and progressed as the human civilization progresses.``

First of all, who exactly has given the govt. of Pakistan the right to define what a Muslim happens to be? Is that written in the Quran that the govt. of Pakistan has this right? Please answer in a Yes or No. If not, then your argument becomes unreasonable.

What happens to an Ahmedi if he goes to Turkey? Does he become a Muslim. What if he goes to Canada? Is he Muslim again? And then comes to Lahore and becomes a non-Muslim?

Also, suppose the population of Shias in Pakistan reduced to insignificant numbers, and the govt. of Pakistan passes a law declaring Shias non-Muslim. Would that become the definition of Muslim? Would that definition apply to Iran?

Suppose the Sunni population in Pakistan decreased and the Ahmedi population increased, and Ahmedis started running the govt., and passed a definition declaring Sunnis to be non-Muslims, through the govt. Would you become a non-Muslim?

These defintions are passed under political diktats. Had Ayub or Jinnah been running Pakistan in the 70s, Ahmedis would still be Muslims. Had Azam Tariq been running Pakistan,, not only Ahmedis, but Shias would be non-Muslims. In fact, they could be legally attacked. If Wahabi Islam spreads in Pakistan, then Naqshbandi could be targeted. If Naqshbandi becomes the PM, Wahabis would be targeted.

Who is right and who is wrong?

As you stated, these definitions evolve. One of the main causes of their evolvement is the political influence of the individuals defining them. And that political influence is heavily tilted towards the majority group. Bhutto did not, all of a sudden, get a message from God, that all Ahmedis should be declared non-Muslims, even though he had considered them Muslims before.

The problem with declaring others, ``non`` or not, ``non`` is that it can come back and bite you someday. What if everyone in America declares all Muslims in America to be wajab-ul-qatal and athiests?

In such cases, the popular, ``democratic`` opinion cannot be taken to be the correct opinion. Because tomorrow someone else could end up as the majority.

Why not just let people be, and be secure where you are? Why do you (and hamidm) want others to discover the promised land, you have discovered? Define Islam for yourself and enjoy it. And let others define it for themselves and enjoy it. Or hate it and become athiests or Bhuddhists or Christians.

Romair

I think a pertinent question that needs to be answered at this stage is why and when we need the ``definition of a Muslim``. Do we stop strangers on the subways are you Muslim, if you are a Muslim then how much you are a muslim give me full description of your faith. As a matter of fact we do not require such assurances from starngers and even our acquaintances in our daily private lives. The question of ones faith hardly comes up. When when gets married the moulvi sahib asks him to renew is faith by reciting six kalimahs. 95% of the Muslims do not remember any kalimah beyond the second one and resort to paraphrasing after moulvi sahib. There faith is never put to a test.

But then there are certain proceedings in our lives where such declaration is formally required - especially in the matter of polity where the status of minorities in our society is not determined by color or race but his religion. The definition/declaration that I quoted in my last post was addressing such issues.

The utopia of absolute secularism, which you propound, is impossible. Those who propounded such ideals collapsed with collapse of two buildings. Their ideals were as strong as those buildings. So why not adopt a common sense approach. As much our military despots love it ideology-less idealism is impossible. As long as human race is alive, humans will subscribe to one ideology or the other. That is what defines us. That is what makes us humans.

A question from a non-believer:

Many of the Hindustani classical musicians invoke Hindu gods and goddesses
in their performance. Some (Allauddin Khan/Ali Akbar) actually perform Puja
at home - seems to not interfere with their Namaaz one bit.

Where do they stand in the ``being Muslim`` debate ?

After the Lahore riots of 1953 (or was it `54?), didn`t the Munir Commission come to the conclusion that there was no way to define who was and who wasn`t a Muslim because the ulemas themselves couldn`t come to any conclusion?

In Christianity, sects such as Mormons and Jehovah`s Witnesses are to Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism as Qadianis and Ismailis are to Sunnis and Shias but you don`t see any Christians in the US getting their knickers in a twist the same way that Muslims do. If these sects are indeed such an abomination, let God sort it out in the afterlife. If it truly does bother him, let him punish the offenders. Ibadat ka theka Deobandis/Mullahs ko kis nay deya? Didn`t some obscure prophet say something once about those w/out sin casting the first stone?

Live and let live... and pass the single malt, thats my motto.

hossp #37 That was an interesting piece you posted. There is clearly human intervention (in terms of writing down the message as conveyed to the prophet by gabriel, per our muslim belief) between the message and the Quran as we see it. However, this distortion is nothing compared to the vast distortion that exists at the second level: between the Quran and the message of islam as understood by the ordinary muslim.

Thus, at the first level, there are three levels of human intervention between the message of islam as relayed to the prophet by gabriel, and the message as understood by joe abdul (average muslim) today, as follows:

a. The prophet himself. He conveyed the message truthfully to those around him.
b. The prophet`s companions. They memorized and/or had a scribe write down what they heard the prophet relate.
c. usman. as caliph, upon being pressed by one of his generals who saw different copies of the quran floating around the far flung corners of the islamic empire at the time, commissioned an ``editorial board`` to come up with a standard version. The version that has been lovingly transliterated in beautiful script through the centuries by scribes across the muslim world.

All this took place within a few decades of the prophet`s death.

What happened after that was far worse - through the centuries after his death, sharia and sunnah emerged under the oversight of the local kings. And so islam got molded in ways designed to rob it of its vitality and to make it the handmaiden of kings. The Divine Right of Kings in europe was successfully challenged in western societies, and they emerged as leaders of the human race. The divinely appointed mard-i-momin is promoted to this day in muslim countries.

Thus, at the second layer - between what is in the Quran and islam that is based on what the king`s chamchas cooked up through the ages to consolidate the kings power and to create a heathen priestly class of mullahs - is thus what is truly damaging to muslim societies. If muslims are to come to par with the rest of this world, they must recognize this great fraud that has been done on them in the name of islam by caliphs and their chamcha qadis in the past, and by would be caliphs and their terrorists as well as by mullahs and military dictators in the present.

Shouldn`t the ``Who`` in the healdine be exchanged for a ``WHY?`` WHY is a Muslim? Or, for that matter, a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, Sikh ...?

Romair,

I know you mean well … but teaching civility to Urstruly is a bit like … playing symphony to a mountain goat.

One cannot ignore where these mullahs are coming from. In the past few centuries they have been chased out of Europe, out of central asia … even out of two-thirds of India … and are now holed up in a few economically bankrupt states, cursing the white man, while living off the foreign aid handed by jewish controlled banks. This is the sum total of their existence. Karachiites, being somewhat of a cosmopolitan people … do not even want to pi$$ on these mullahs. In the north, we have uncle sam breathing down their necks, and up further north, the Kashmiris want to have nothing to do with them. Their hopes of seizing power keep getting crushed by the incorrigible fauji … and they really do not have a lot to look forward to.

Their case is a bit like slavery in the south … where one of the demographic groups, a major proponent of slavery … was “poor, white, trash”. Son, if you ain’t betta’ than a nigga’, who are yoh betta’ than? … recalled Gene Hackman being told by his despondent father in “Mississippi Burning”. Every man needs to exercise control to justify his existence. If these mullahs did not have a few Ahmadis to curse and hunt every day, what would they do? … where would they go? They would turn against their own wives and daughters … and beat them and abuse them with even more vengeance. That’s where this will end up. Heck … in the west the press has some teeth and we read about the priests and the choir boys. What goes on in madrassah’s and in mullahs home … will remain hidden from the world at large.

So, if you are going to rock the boat … be mindful that someone else may become mullah’s next victim … despite all the mumbo jumbo talk about equality … women remain a few rungs below Ahmadis … who, as hamidm once pointed out, are themselves a few steps below the pink-nosed piglet …

Urstruly,

In you post #16 you said: “Allah himself has taken responsibility to protect Quran”

In your post#38 you do accept that errors occur even today. Since you are not aware of any standard text to compare Quran, there are unlimited possibilities that the Quran or the copies of Quran that are in circulation in Pakistan and India have errors or different texts than the supposedly standard text.

Especially in India and Pakistan where knowledge of Arabic or the old Arabic that has been used in Quran, is pretty much non existence, and there is not one publishing house that has seal of authority to publish Quran, the Quran or the ‘Qurans’ circulating in the subcontinent may have significant corruption. That runs contrary to what you quoted from the Quran that “Allah himself has taken responsibility to protect Quran”.

As you have said that the possibility exist that there were Qurans with error such as the one by Taj Company, why should we not assume that there were Quran from the very beginning of Islam that contained errors?

In the absence of any central authority that can pretty much guarantee the authenticity of Quran, the likelihood of Quran being not without errors increases manifold. Do you agree with my conclusion???

...............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 ...............

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

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”.

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?

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 …

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. ``

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.

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.

58 to romair

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

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....

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.

Chowk staff

#62 is not mine

... 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 ...

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.

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...............

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!!!!

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 #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 I