A Challenge to My Co-religionists

Being true Muslims, it is our duty to believe wholly in the Quraan and not believe it in parts. I do believe that there is always room for reformation in religion, but that comes from the interpretation of the scholars, NOT by falsifying the word of any holy Book of any religion, because that ultimately leads to chaos. If God has given a law concerning the status of women that should not be questioned but instead interpreted properly and an insight should be gained into it before questioning, as the contrary is seen here in this article. Interprtation of islamic law is a field in itself and ijtihad as the author proposes, is the solution; to make laws by ourselves.

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

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

I don’t know why there is this confusion about who a Muslim is? Had there been complicated requirements there wouldn’t have been so many Muslims on the planet today. Ladies and gentlemen: the only requirement for being a Muslim is to recite and believe in Tauheed which is: “There is only one God and Muhammad is his messenger”. So the debate about cultural Muslim, practicing Muslim, non-practicing Muslim doesn’t mean much. They are all Muslims.

BUT WHERE IS URSTRULY?

He was going to debate how Islamic laws were so fair.

“I would really welcome author or anyone who wishes to engage in a debate with me on any of the topic. For author it is a challenge.” Post # 24.

SR took his challenge and posted #48.

Urstruly hasn’t replied since.

I came in late into this article...amazing...

A non-practicing, non-beliving, and cultural muslim! and then a muslim however imperfect! ..... I find my co-religonists... er who are they? the beliving varitey or the non-practicing or cultural muslims?

What is the basis of your appeals for non-fundamentalisim, for want of a better word? just your say so?

what would you classify zionism as? homecomming or return to home? What would you classify as the ``Building of Nation`` by Lewis & Clark on their famous journey as? whose nation? built out of what? americans seem to be unconcerned by these questions. I assume the american sociologist has been blind to both of these for obvious reasons. What are your reasons for not noting these two?

What of the homecoming utopia of the America the ``God Blessed Nation`` While americans celebrate the establisment of Nationhood by Lewis & Clark they forget the existence of Nations before them in america, that this Nationhood is celeberated (which was obviously for the whites only)there are no subtexts or explanations if the context of nationhood has changed since Lewis & Clark took thier west ward journey.

the most dangerous homecoming Utopia is the ``god blessed America`` Utopia with its thousands of Nuclear Arms, the frequent threat to use them if attacked even conventionally or even unilaterly and even where there is a percetpion of future(not just present) treath. this dangerous Utopia how come it is not detected in your radar screen. last month Rumsfield declared `` Theocracy like in Iran will not be tolerated in Iraq as it is not compatible with WESTERN VALUES`` note he did not mention democratic values, or humuan values, or modern values. So nations around the world have to follow western values, not indian values, not arab values, not chinise values not humuan values not modern values, not ethical values.

This is the defiintion of most people who control the power in US as far as modern values are concerned so if you talk about the modernity or response to modernity you are actually talking about western values not humuan vaules not values rooted in local culture not ehtical values. Yet you do not like the values (or the result thereof) that rumsfield and like hold dear as you stated in your article.

I think you are more confused than the people you are trying to guide. Better if you became a talib as your name hopes you would have been. Then you can get a better grip on the facts and suggest solutions.

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

SameerJB:
I am surprised about Wahabism. I thought fundamentalism is all about believing in the literal word of Quraan!
On caste, I agree with you but only partly. Panjabis, even hindus and sikhs, practised a less harsh version of the caste system. To start with, brahmins were not the dominating caste as they were elsewhere in India. And people did not look down upon lower castes like tarkhans and gujjars as much as elsewhere, except at the poorest chooras and chamars. The real importance of the caste was its endogamous nature which was rigidly practised. And there too it has now diluted quite a bit. Now a days, more and more youngsters in urban India (e.g., majority of my nephews and nieces) are choosing their own partners and parents just do the post-arrangements, as long as the person is not from the ``scheduled`` castes and even there, if the family has a house in an upper middle class neighbourhood like Friends Colony or Vasant Vihar, the `sin` can be overlooked. Even in the matrimonial ads you would have noticed (being an expert in the area!) that many ads specify `caste no bar`.
I think Indians, muslims included, did not see anything evil in the caste based discrimination until 1920s or thereabout. Neither Muslim nor British rulers did anything to mitigate caste factors, despite the sufis and bhagats. I have seen early speeches by Jinnah and Sir Syed Ahmad, routinely talking about people of good caste, with caste being a proxy for good families. The idea of caste as something evil entered into the Indian conciousness only in the last century and for that we have to thank emancipated Hindus born in the lower strata such as Periyar and Ambedkar and, to a lesser extent, Gandhi. One of my contemporaries at Delhi School of Economics, Imtiaz Ahmed, did an extensive analysis of castism among Indian muslims and you may want to do a google search on it.

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

Reply Dilshad #111

``Bhaijan read 110 then read 107 then read 101 then read 111 ..but bhaijan just as 107 was not there before i posted 108 can you let me borrow your psychic ability...``

lol - got me!

But heading back to your original:

``Why you just quoted what we read in post #101 as #110...``

It`s called fuzzy logic...110 was typed, when 110 had not yet been posted...what could the explanation be...typing mistake in which 1 and 0 were switched...was 101 meant?....sounds right...checks, when you compare referred to author of post (moi)...fine...not worth mentioning, let`s stick to the substantive. Wokay? (You coulda done that re: posts 105 and 107 too, given what you had responded to, khair...) Just pointing out because it might be useful in future.

``Without adding any thing of your own????? ``

This is where really reading the two posts comes in. Saminashah had added, very cogently, to my point by saying (and which I had NOT said):

``Not only would ``we`` rather talk about Palestine and Kashmir than equity between Muslim genders, but when the occasion of the two dovetailing-i.e. forced burqa`ing in Kashmir to support Islamic Kashmiri secession ideology, the conversation breaks down to non response or denial. This is completely intentional, and for once, I`d like a straightfoward response on why Kashmiri Muslim woman who do NOT want to wear hijab as a symbolic act of fundo protest are being forced to with punishment of acid attack. Where in the Q`uran is this written? And where in the Q`uran is it written that debate of female equity is the intellectual domain of male Muslims?``

Which seem like good questions to me. I don`t see anybody giving her a straightforward response, either.

Vaisai, I would find psychic powers pretty useful...just saw X-Men Return (or II?) and enjoyed it.

Regards

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

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

``Why you just quoted what we read in post #101 as #110...Without adding any thing of your own????? ``


Dilshad, please READ post 101, then READ post 107, COMPARE then, then THINK, then comment (if you have something to say) without badthameezi.

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

Zafar #101
``powerlessness in the Muslim world``

I suspect your definition of powerlessness or that of those actually living in the Muslim world may be different from HisExcellency`s.

I would imagine that expats in the US often hear their local priest talk of the inevitability of `Islam ki fateh`. Then they come out of the sermon and face the stark reality and walking back to their MBs to return to their million dollar homes, they are overcome with this feeling of powerlessness.

dost-mittar:

I agree with you about allah and rasool instead of just allah but if you read wahabism, the current mutant ninja, stress on rasool is reduced in favor of allah. Wahabis do accept invoking ``ya allah`` but do not accept ya Mohammad.

Regarding dilution of caste system, I believe that it has been, in fact diluted or weakened among Muslims despite Musalli and chooRa terms you described. Most people do not know or care about caste identity in cities. It is economic class system. A lower caste based political party in Pakistan would win handful of votes as compared to BSP in northern India.

Among Pakistani Panjabis, despite majority Jatt population, the pride in Jatness is much lower than Sikh Jats as one notices in discussions on various Panjabi websites and number of songs, associations and matrimonial ads in Indian newpaper outrightly seeking particular caste or identity. You can pick out matrimonial ads from Muslims and see the clear difference. Pakistanis did make few movies with jat word. A very large number of Pakistanis do not write or do not contain caste as their last name what is so common in India. Since very few Brahmins converted, the concept of uppermost caste does not exist. The khatri converts (who do not belong to major castes of Panjab but successful in education and business) are least likely to display any casteism. It exists at village level but its influence is self-contained within that local environment and actually beneficial in identifying in the weak or negligible identification with nation, provinvince and religion.


Actually last election under Musharraf was the first time when Jat caste was openly used in Panjab to gain potential candidates and support for Chaudhries of Gujrat and their backers in government. The concept of lower caste among Mohajirs is almost non-exixtant except few people who consider themselves ``aslaf`` from the pure line of Mohammed but no political or economic power.

Calling somebody lower caste wins no support in Pakistan polity from any upper or middle caste politicians. Actually this has not been even an issue. The musallis, RangaRs and chooRha are a tiny minority and unfortunately people have kept them at the lowest level.

SameerJB:
``It was/ is Islam, obeying and pleasing God and avoiding disobeying God in their own interpretation...``
Since I am reading the Quran (its Urdu tarjuma, actually) these days, I would beg to modify ``obeying God`` into ``obeying God and his Rasool``. And since, you MUST accept what he said as He said, in effect it means obeying the Rasool only. That is why, I think that Mohammedan was not an inaccurate word for muslims. Or is it just a Kaafiraana logic? [If it is, Allah bahut mehrabaan aur reham valla hai aur sab jaanata hai!]
``It has done just one good thing in its 1000 year existance in subcontinant and that is diluting or eliminating caste system``
I beg to differ once again. About the only thing that muslims in India did not reject after conversion was the caste system. Even today, the word ChoorHa in Pakistan connotes a much greater hatred and contempt than the words like Mehtrani, jamadarni, scheduled caste, harijan etc. used by the Indians these days for the same people.