Perfidy, Qur’anic Apostasy or Hermeneutics?

It seems like these otherwise learned and capable fellows have a lot of time to kill in chasing ghosts. What a loss of precious intellectual resources.

This pathological obsession with Quran and Islam is a reflection of doubt and unease in faithfuls. It doesn`t concern the world what theoretical Islam is, practiced Islam is a real threat to the world. Just visualize for second all the Middle-East either as Christian or Buddhist, and see for yourself what a paradigm change in attitude you will note.

Abdul Arif, you write <<< Indeed, as Muqtader Khan of Adrian College says “In an Islamic democracy every individual is a vicegerent of God (Qur’an 2:30) and therefore has the legitimate authority to act in God’s name.”. >>>

The freedom granted by the Quran is much greater than that granted by any modern so-called ``secular`` system- that are in actuality rife with ideologies and mythologies; what you write above is also confirmed by the purpose of life, according to the Quran, ``...to see which one of you is best in deed..`` (67:2). If there is no freedom, then such judgment which assumes free-choice in its wording would be meaningless.

See attached under my article ``Quran & Democracy``. Since Chowk is in a habit of censoring most ``critical of USA`` articles, I`m posting it here; sorry for the extra space this post will take.

Quran & Democracy
Are they compatible?

Thursday 22nd September 2005, by M. Asadi

(http://articles.asadi.org)

What has happened in modern bureaucratic societies, that parade as democracies (like the USA), is that the chance to reason and the ability to be free has been lost (see http://robots.asadi.org) that is the nature of a bureaucratic society: a society where standardization is the norm and the person is surrounded by rules that govern behavior from birth to death. Such ``democracies`` exists in form only and not in essence, here choices are not formulated by a ``public`` but rather insinuated upon a highly propagandized ``mass society`` that knows next to nothing regarding public issues. This is achieved by control of the ``cultural apparatus`` by a small aristocracy, the Power Elite. The ``cultural apparatus``- language, education, status and technology- with the media and the formal educational institutions playing a dominant role, thus ensures that this elite achieves cultural hegemony. The person thinks he or she is free and living under a ``democracy`` but the reality of the situation is much different.

A democratic society assumes an ``informed`` public, as against a propagandized ``mass society``. Those in a ``mass society`` have their hopes and aspirations conditioned by what others have told them and unconsciously acquired habits based upon such conditioning. Those in a public formulate their values and choices themselves based on substantive reason, as C. Wright Mills explained in the 1950s and as the Quran made clear fourteen centuries back: ``Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike?`` (Quran 39:9)

Under a system where the ``mass society`` has not yet gained enough information to make choices, to transform itself into a ``public``, democracy in essence is impossible. Hence the Quranic statement: ``And if you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess`` (Quran 6:116). A ``majority of those on earth`` does not constitute an ``informed Islamic public`` and never will (according to the Quranic statement). Further we are told: ``None can inform you like the one who is aware`` (Quran 35:14), a similar recommendation is the case with Quran 25:59.

Once we have a semblance of a ``public`` emerging, as happened after the first community of Muslims emerged out of the previously existing ``mass society`` in Arabia (Quran 3:110), even the prophet was told to: ``. consult with them upon the conduct of affairs.`` (Quran 3:159). We are also told how the process of governance is to be conducted in a society of similar publics: ``And whose rule is based upon consultation (Shura) among themselves`` (Quran 42:38). This consultation (Shura) is to be totally in the public record and not secret (Quran 58:10). Therefore, we can conclude that an Islamic society would have a counsel where the public consults with the decision makers, the decision makers would be the ones ``who know`` (as deduced above) i.e. are qualified in the area in which they are making decisions. The decision makers would be numerous, unless one person claims to know everything in all fields, which is impossible. A counsel of intellectuals with no limit to their numbers that are in constant touch with the public and consult with them is thus the Islamic form of government. This would be democracy in essence, since the entire society including the decision makers would have equal status and would participate in the decision making process. The criteria for assigning status in such a society would not be material possessions rather it would be the level of social consciousness that an individual possesses (see Quran 49:13).

The framework under which decisions are to be made would be the Quran (see 6:114 etc), and specifically its ``mohkam`` (or standard setting) statements (see Quran 3:7). These standard setting statements are called the ``mother of the book`` (Ummul Kitaab) in the Quran (Quran 3:7). Based upon these verses not only are our new laws going to be interpreted but also the other verses of the Quran itself, ``the motashabey`` (the allegorical or consimilar). The ``mohkam`` verses number a lot less than the entire Quran, therefore the amount of freedom that the Quran grants us is much greater than any that is granted by a bureaucratized society, where laws govern every aspect of life. What traditionalists have done is to canonize their own (extra Quranic) laws as a bureaucratized form of ``Islam``, this is exactly what the Quran warns against (Quran 42:21), because this not only stifles reason but prevents freedom in that it reduces the ``consultation`` part of governance and does not take into consideration the historical era and the social structure that exists in that era.

The Quran thus grants greater freedom and the resulting ability to reason compared to any (bureaucratized) system that exists in the current epoch: ``Those who avoid the greater (Kabair) crimes and shameful deeds...`` (Quran 42:37). The greater crimes are less than a handful and can be extracted from Quran’s description of crimes, those are the only ones we are told to avoid. Here the Quran is not concerned about the smaller details that keep the traditionalist ``Islamic scholars`` busy, even as they ignore the bigger public issues that are causing great problems among humankind. A truly Islamic society would be one in which freedom and reason flourishes and laws are minimal, it would be a truly democratic society, where democracy is practiced in essence and not just by slogan. Hence, the purpose and judgment of life based upon choice ``...to determine which of you is best in deeds.`` (Quran 67:2).

A couple of clarifications before I say anything at all. Although both my parents are Hindu I don`t consider myself to be Hindu. And although most supporters of the Hindu Right in India are ,for all practical purposes of the faith, non-Hindus I am no supporter of the Hindu Right.

And secondly, I haven`t read the Qur`an, although I`d love to do that sooner rather than later.

All interpretive frameworks and attempts regarding the Qur`an make one mistake. The Qur`an unlike other religious texts is purported to be the literal `voice` of god. And therein lies the problem. The Qur`an is purportedly the literal truth. This is one reason why, say, a translated version does not carry the same validity as the `original` Arabic one. Every act of interpretation is an act of translation and vice versa. Therefore no `interpretive` sleight of hand is going to take one very far.

This is something I have found very hard to digest. It is preposterous to presume that god (if he/she exists) can propound the truth only in Arabic, that this particular revelation is some how more valid than other revelations and that the Qur`an is the last such revelation. Still more preposterous is the claim that it ceases to be the absolute truth when translated. Perhaps the only religious claim that is equally preposterous are the claims for the divine origins of the caste system and untouchability in Hinduism.

One can not of course lightly dismiss all those who have claimed to have heard the voice of god. But if any one ever makes an exclusive claim then it as as good a ground as any to dismiss such a claim.

Re: # 2

``imagine the history of India over the last two thousand years if India were predominantly Buddhist rather than Hindu``. This statement is as ridiculous as the ones that you have made.

Islam as a practical religion has as much to do with the nature of those societies in the middle east as much as it has to do with the religion of these nations and peoples.

It`s funny to see prejudice masquerading as commentary.

#4 you write: <<< This is something I have found very hard to digest. It is preposterous to presume that god (if he/she exists) can propound the truth only in Arabic, that this particular revelation is some how more valid than other revelations and that the Qur`an is the last such revelation. Still more preposterous is the claim that it ceases to be the absolute truth when translated >>>

The Quran and Arabic have a unique connection, something that is not parallelled in other languages as connected to a book. The rules governing writting Arabic were extracted from the Quran itself. Further, linguists find Arabic to be a unique language, a language built upon mathematical principles. Since math is the pure language of the universe, which is reflected, as far as human languages go, in Arabic more than any other language- based upon its construction & that the rules governing this language, the written part that transcends history, were extrated from this book of revelation~ are good enough reasons why the Quran is in Arabic or God chose Arabic.

Bertrand Russell envisioned forming a ``logical/Mathematical`` language that would fix the shortcomings in the other languages as a communication tool for humankind- he apparently wasn`t familiar with the language structure of the Quran. My point in stating this here is that what is stated above is something that philosophers of science, like Russell recognize~ the need for a logical/mathematical language. You might also be interested in this article http://godel.rationalreality.com

Another reference:

``Arabic most precise and primitive of the Semitic languages, shows signs of being originally a constructed language. It is built up upon mathematical principles- phenomena not paralleled by any other language`` (Thomas Cleary, 1998)

Translations reflect the translators biases, schools of thought etc~ this takes us into the realm of the subjective, as a result to fully understand the meaning the Arabic ofcourse is the most accurate- same as for any other book that is translated- something is always lost in the translation. That said, Thomas Cleary`s translation is the one I found easiest to read and closest to the cross-referenced text of the Quran.

Re: # 4

Sailen, you are wasting time here. Neither am I a Hindu. The smugness with which every faith holder argues superiority of his faith is appalling.

#4 ``One can not of course lightly dismiss all those who have claimed to have heard the voice of god.``

Why not, personally if some one told me so, i would advocate immediate institutionalisation.

Now is the time for a few more clarifications.

About Arabic being a `pure`, scientific language.... similar claims have been made for Sanskrit (an equally absurd claim) and for any number of other languages. Languages vary, and some languages have a few characteristics or properties that make them more amneble for a few things. Granted. But that does not make then either `pure` or `scientific` compared to other languages. Any claims for `purity` are essentially racist in nature.

And about translations. Something is definitely lost in the process of translation. But it is not such a unidirectional and simple process. This view of translation is essentially a `spatial` and `western` view of the translation that sees translation as `carrying over`. The word for translation in most indian languages in `anubada`, which literally means repeating again and again, annotating and thus is essentially a `temporal` process. In such a framework a process of translation (as mentioned earlier) is a process of interpretation and vice versa. Something is lost in the process, but something immeasurably more significant is gained too.

My point was very simple (if there was any point at all). All processes of interpretation are acts of translation. And Qur`an does not seem to be lending itself to this interpretive process. Islam is a humane, egalitarian religion. But it is based on absolutist truth claims of the Qur`an. I find these truth claims and any such truth claims contained in any text (be it religious or secular) impossible to accept.

I rest my case.

Mr Sailen
apart from your points, the fundamental problem with the propositions and claims in the Torah, Bible and Quran is that they are self contradictory (from the same text can emerge an Abul Kalam Azad, a Nizammudin Auliya and an Osama bin Laden) which is not surprising since most works of litreature of that length would be expected to be, thus one man`s Islam differs from another mans depending on how one views it, or maybe has been conditioned to view it.

Re: # 7

Practical Christianity has meant the inquisition, the crusades and all the unnameable horrors of Europe in the middle ages.

Practical Hinduism has mean the perpetual subjugation of twenty crore human beings in India in the name of Karma and ritual purity.

Practical Buddhism means the horrors of Sinhalese nationalism..... i can go on.

It is impossible to see `practical religion` of any kind outside a particular historical context. Therefore it does not make any sense, to me at least, to do name calling while having a dialogue about religions. Islam is a force for oppression for in many parts of the world right now. But it was also one of the liberating forces of human history that made a unique flowering of human civilization possible once upon a time. There is nothing `essential` about Islam that makes it more oppressive a religion as compared to other religions.

In the same vein that one talks about the middle east and Islam, one can talk about North Ireland and Christianity and pernicious effects of Christian missionary acticvities on indigenous peoples all over the world and the dangers of Fascism in India arising from the self proclaimed `Hindu Nationalists`....

Is hamaam me sab nange hain.....

Re: # 7

Practical Christianity has meant the inquisition, the crusades and all the unnameable horrors of Europe in the middle ages.

Practical Hinduism has mean the perpetual subjugation of twenty crore human beings in India in the name of Karma and ritual purity.

Practical Buddhism means the horrors of Sinhalese nationalism..... i can go on.

It is impossible to see `practical religion` of any kind outside a particular historical context. Therefore it does not make any sense, to me at least, to do name calling while having a dialogue about religions. Islam is a force for oppression for in many parts of the world right now. But it was also one of the liberating forces of human history that made a unique flowering of human civilization possible once upon a time. There is nothing `essential` about Islam that makes it more oppressive a religion as compared to other religions.

In the same vein that one talks about the middle east and Islam, one can talk about North Ireland and Christianity and pernicious effects of Christian missionary acticvities on indigenous peoples all over the world and the dangers of Fascism in India arising from the self proclaimed `Hindu Nationalists`....

Is hamaam me sab nange hain.....

Re: # 10

Dear Hindvi!

The same logic applies to the Bhagbat Gita also. The same religious tradition produced a Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi and Narendra Modi.

#9, the uniqueness of Arabic being constructed viz a viz a book is an unparallelled phenomenon in the world of linguistics~ it is not a question of purity but construction based upon mathematical principles. This is a fact well documented. That such was desired by a modern logician philosopher like Russell is also a fact.

Now, regarding the absolute truths claims made by the Quran, when it makes claims of a social nature, it makes them in particular contexts with particular criteria, eg justice, truth etc. All these are open to testing and the book invites testing, (4:82), using the only criteria we have to validly arrive at truth, the system of science; the Quran does not seek nor ask for unreasoned faith- `blind faith` is a concept alien to the Quran.

This is a question I ask all Muslims those who want to believe blindly, as I ask all believers in other religions that want to believe based upon blind faith: If you believe that the Quran is God’s word, the one who created all, then when it discusses human creation or reproduction or any other natural phenomena, it should not make errors. Simple straightforward logic demands that. Do not say that the Quran cannot contain scientific facts and then also say, in the same breath, that it came from the maker of all things.

Believing in God, as a reality can never come through blind-faith unless you “kill” your mind either through drugging yourself or such rigorous programming that all alternative thoughts are filtered by internalized “faith” criteria before they enter your mind. Those internalized “faith” criteria might be contradictory or belong to any system, but they get accepted without reason nonetheless. How is “blind faith” in Christianity truer than “blind faith” in Hinduism or Islam? This is a legitimate question that the proponents of ``blind faith`` have absolutely no answer for.

Here is a related article titled Quran & Critical Rationalism, http://rationalreality.50webs.com/sci.htm

Re: # 14

It is impossible to reason with people who have made idols of reason.

I recant my lord....not in blind faith.... that Arabic is the most scietific language of the world....

that the Qur`an is the direct product of a hotline from the lord god.

and that all the contradictions in texts such as the Qur`an can be resolved by `appealing` to `reason` and not to `blind faith`....

#15, you talk about contradictions but you haven`t even read the book, please give a few examples. When I give references regarding the mathematical construction of the Quran, you make up a nonsense polemic? Who is being unreasonable here?

When I read quran, I specially pondered over its construction of relations between a man and wife. I realized that it completely fails to acknowledge that one of the basis of such a relation is love. According to quran, the relation between the two is a very practical one, of giving and taking of sexual organs, and the money involved and the children resulting. It delibrately ignores any component of love present in the relation.

I think research should focus on the reasons why the faithful, so fervently, insist on the reveletion being real. It is only after missing this point, making a huge assumption, that they set out to bend all the realities in favour of its stipulations. Ironically, this is exactly what einstein did to classical physics.

#17, apparently you did not read the Quran closely enough

``And among God`s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect (Koran 30:21)
Since the ONLY valid way for humanity to arrive at truth is the system of science, why can`t we use it when it come to theological claims to extract truth from falsehood? If there is another valid way to get truth, let me know.

Re: # 18

``Theological truth`` is an oxymoron.

God either talks to every one. Or he does not talk to any one.

Neither is the Qur`an the revealed truth, nor are the Torah, Gita or the Bible.

There can be no reasoning with people who believe in something as ridiculous as an exclusive revelation.

Period.

The case is henceforth closed.

#19, Unfortunately for you, you are showing fanaticism and your ramblings are only disproving your own point. The book of nature talks to everyone as well, yet in order to decipher what is in fact rather than what is claimed we need the method of science. There is no oxymoron involved only a ``moron`` and that by your comments is you.

Masadi you are terrified of the truth, for you have seen the abyss. their is no shame in acknowledging so, it has terrified most of us, but it is a price you have to pay if u seek the truth and/ or consider all humans to be apriori equal. But if you seek to be happy than continue to believe your ancestral myths.

Re: # 21

Well said

#21 & #22, what truth have you showed me? So far you come up with claims, I dismantle your claims and then you come up with absurd statements like ``case closed``- without presenting one iota of evidence. You all are not at the liberty of opening and closing cases at will without presenting any evidence or refuting what totally dismantles your absurdities. So far all your attacks on the Quran, like the many Scuds that Saddam let loose in 1991, have failed miserably- they amount to be a pathetic joke. Be honest with yourselves; #17 had an outright lie about the Quran, and your friend sailen has been rambling without presenting any evidence and making grand claims without even reading the Quran (as he himself claims). Now I know you both admire George Bush but that doesn`t mean you should lie pathetically like he does.

Forget about hermeneutics and other scholarly refinements. We are talking about basics here: the Quran clearly says things that are the opposite of the general muslim culture today. For example, to look at the issues raised in this article:

1. Myth: As expressed in a modest manner in this article - ``Raised in a Muslim family and as an unthinking person in matters of faith, I have generally never questioned the validity of my parents’ faith``.
Fact: The Quran explicitly says that in matters of faith it is the individual`s responsibility before God AND that if that the individual may reject the faith of his parents (while maintaining, of course, his love and respect for them).

2. Myth: The Quran is meant for all people.
Fact: The Quran explicitly says that it is the ``ARABIC Quran``, meant for a people (i.e. Arabs) who did not understand other languages in which the message had been previously revealed (i.e. Aramaic, Hebrew etc.). Does this mean that those who do not understand Arabic cannot be muslims? Of course not - AS LONG AS they read the Quran the way it was meant to be read, i.e. as a book to be understood. Not as a magical incantation to be repeated in hopes of obtaining ``sawab``.

Let me restate #24 since one of the sentences is messed up:

Forget about hermeneutics and other scholarly refinements. We are talking about basics here: the Quran clearly says things that are the opposite of the general muslim culture today. For example, to look at the issues raised in this article:

1. Myth: As expressed in a modest manner in this article - ``Raised in a Muslim family and as an unthinking person in matters of faith, I have generally never questioned the validity of my parents’ faith``.

Fact: The Quran explicitly says that in matters of faith it is the individual`s responsibility before God to distinguish between right and wrong AND if the faith of his parents does not make sense, it is the responsibility of that individual to reject the faith of his parents (while maintaining, of course, his love and respect for them). I have found the Quran to be most liberating in the sense that it reinforces my belief in using my common sense and in the importance of individual responsibility. Of course, common sense is quite uncommon, as someone said. Particularly in the muslim world.

2. Myth: The Quran is meant for all people.

Fact: The Quran explicitly says that it is the ``ARABIC Quran``, meant for a people (i.e. Arabs) who did not understand other languages in which the message had been previously revealed (i.e. Aramaic, Hebrew etc.). Does this mean that those who do not understand Arabic cannot be muslims? Of course not - AS LONG AS they read the Quran the way it was meant to be read, i.e. as a book to be understood. Not as a magical incantation to be repeated in hopes of obtaining ``sawab``.

#25, From the Quran itself:


``Whether it is Arabic or non-Arabic, say, ``For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, they will be deaf and blind to it, as if they are being addressed from faraway.`` (Quran 41:44)

This may be of interest:

The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam`s holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical.

masadi #26 This is a very relevant quote indeed that you provide. The verse is reveals a very human peculiarity that is well recognized by psychologists too I think - Back in 1986, I attended a management training seminar (organized by a top-knotch international agency) where they told us about how the human mind ``filters out`` information that is contrary to its preconceived notions. Put simply, we tend to hear what only we like to hear.

This Quranic verse you provide resonates that idea - thus, in case of the first example of ``muslim myths`` that I provide in #25 (i.e. individual responsibility to use one`s common sense, even if it goes contrary to generally accepted traditions and conventions), people who are afraid to think for themselves and are tradition bound cannot be accepted to believe the Quran when it says otherwise. Similarly for the second myth, i.e. that muslims are something special, insecure people cannot be expected to believe the Quran when it says that there is nothing special about being a muslim and that all religions come from God.

Of course, these ``filters`` apply to everyone - not just to those who fall in the category of ``traditional muslims`` in Pakistan, but to you and me as well. Thus, this verse you provide is a reminder that we need to retain an open mind to all information and to take responsibility for reaching reasonable conclusions based on this. But to ``believe`` the verse, we need to have the basic mindset (through training, education and so forth) to do so. It is a Catch-22 situation in a way, but one where there is a way out if one has faith in oneself.

#28, correct, similarly another verse of the Quran states ``seeing they see not, hearing they hear not..`` which refers to the same phenomenon you talk about. Also note in that verse that the idea of believing and rejecting comes after argumentation (the context), thus the believing does not refer to label or being born Muslim etc.

#27, Ali Sina is having a field day with that news report. He has declared victory over Islam. Many of his trolls roam Chowk as well, randomly firing at Islam. However, the Pentagon should read the Old Testament for radicalism

EZEKIEL 6:12-13 The Lord says: ``... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak....``

Or Maybe they should raid Pat Robertson`s mansion for his New Testament has this quote:

``For those enemies of mine who would not have me reign over them bring them here and slay them before me.`` (Jesus Christ in Luke 19:27)

Good day to you all.

`` Nasrudin decided to go in search of some new meditation techniques. He saddled his donkey, went to India, China and Mongolia, talked to the great masters, but found nothing.
He heard tell of a wise man in Nepal: he journeyed there, but as he was climbing the mountain to meet him, his donkey died of exhaustion. Nasrudin buried him there and then, and wept sadly. Someone passed by and commented:
- You came in search of a saint, this must be his tomb and you are lamenting his death.
- No, this is the place where I buried my donkey, who died of exhaustion.
- I don`t believe it - said the new arrival. - No one weeps over a dead donkey. This must be a place where miracles occur, and you want to keep them for yourself.
Although Nasrudin explained again and again, it was no use. The man went to the next village and spread the story of a great master who cured people at his tomb, and soon the pilgrims began to arrive.
Gradually, news of the discovery of the Wise Man of Silent Mourning spread throughout Nepal - and crowds rushed to the place. A wealthy man came, thought his prayers had been answered, and built an imposing monument where Nasrudin had buried his ``master``.
In view of everything, Nasrudin decided to leave things as they were. But he learned once and for all, that when someone wants to believe a lie, no one can convince him otherwise. ``

From - www.warriorofthelight.com

``The devil was talking to his friends when they noticed a man walking along a road. They watched him pass and saw that he bent down to pick something up.
- What did he find? - asked one of the friends.
- A piece of Truth - answered the devil.
The friends were very concerned. After all, a piece of Truth might save that man`s soul - one less in Hell. But the devil remained unmoved, gazing at the view.
- Aren`t you worried? - said one of his companions. - He found a piece of Truth!
- I`m not worried - answered the devil. - Do you know what he`ll do with the piece? As usual, he`ll create a new religion. And he`ll succeed in distancing even more people from the whole Truth.``

From www.thewarriorofthelight.com

Re: # 31

sorry

it`s

www.warriorofthelight.com

A Weltanschauung solves all the problems of existence uniformly on the basis of one overriding hypothesis leaving no question unanswered. In Science uniformity of explanation of universe is assumed but not as a completed task rather as a programme which furnishes progressively more accurate version of truth. While Science is doing its work the truth is known approximately and that state of affairs remains in Science forever. Therefore, the term “Scientific Weltanschauung” is oxymoron.

Religion tries to give a Weltanschauung; a complete system of thought. Since the birth of Science even a littlest acceptance of science’s methods is bound to lead to rejection of any Weltanschauung type of thinking.

........ just curious ...

........ is there any ``proof`` that the koran is the word of god ?...... were there any witnesses to the event ?.... did anyone, other than mo of mecca, see the winged creature in the cave ?........... are ali and khadija reliable witnesses ?........

.......... anyhow, it doesn`t really matter whether it is the word of god or not ..... what matters is that a billion people believe in it and are beginning to become a real pain in the collective keester of the rest of the world ...........

Re: # 33

thanks

Is it possible that Muhammad hallucinated all or at least some revelations? From what I know of his circumstance at the time it happened he was starving or eating certain food. If you eat same type of food over and over you may deprive yourself of some essential nutrient and then you may have frank psychiatric symptoms. It is possible.

The point is, if God really does exist, it would be easy to prove, as there would be tangible evidence. What we have instead is standard mass delusion.

Religion exists solely because people don`t understand stuff and look for meaning, even though all that does is move the problem elsewhere. (I.e. where did God come from)

The actual religions and the sources they`re based on are totally irrational, not least because each one claims to be right. That shows just how hard it is to understand `God`s will`.

Once you alight on the reasonable assertion that religion is *just* organised mass delusion, everything fits neatly into place.

God won`t save the poor from devastation because there is no God.

Rama, Mohamed and Jesus, The Holy Ramayana, The Holy Quran and The Holy Bible, didn`t save the human race, because there`s no saving to be done. Hell and Heaven don`t exist. Full Stop.

#36 - most people dont like to believe it. It is cretainly in the realm of possibility (i remember my mushroom experience quite vividly :=)). There is a lot of ``believing`` and much of it blind if this is not considered a possibility. I dont want to hurt anyones feelings but at a pure discussion level, this possibility needs to be recognized. Similarly, one must ask the question, is God the dad of Jesus and how? I mean we have serious problems - doesnt matter if you are of any religion. There are plenty of bizarre expectations made from people who follow faith. This article and similar efforts are needed badly to help people see inside their so-called blind-spots. Only if there is talk can people overcome their inhibitions and lifelong brain washing. There is no way that there are different gods handling different religions - we all connect somewhere. We must strive to cross our repective chasms and connect.

#37 Parthaab, Sailen, Einsteinwallah, macgupta and other Hindus:

The very reason why Hindus are able to make a few mental jumps which the mullah muslims find very hard to make is coz hindu philosophy has no DOGMAS which tells that the hindus will go to some imaginary hell if they jump the Hindu ship of myths. So this gives infinitely more freedom to think out of the box for a hindu. So it gives an average hindu enough leverage and gives them a chance to adapt and change faster. Thats the reason for their longevity(5000+ years of civilizational continuity) despite huge odds. The same reason applies to the taoist chinese. That and Huge Indian/Chinese resources and size are the reasons why the ALL CONQUERING Christianity and Islam which conquered the entire Europe, Americas, Africa, Parts of asia came to a grinding halt when they faced the hindu-taoist-buddhist INDIA-CHINA-Japan. Other than this 2.5 billion mega group, the rest are all either christian or muslim for the most part.

It is infinitely difficult for mullahs like masadi and tahmed to make the same jump coz the arab tribal dogmas threaten them with fatwas and death and hell if they jump the arab ship of myths. We all what happened to the Dinausaurs which didn`t or couldn`t adapt. Islam and Christianity wont survive this century with their dogmas. They will eventually get diluted and they will become more spiritual.

#39 - ``.. what happened to the Dinausaurs which didn`t or couldn`t adapt. Islam and Christianity wont survive this century with their dogmas. They will eventually get diluted and they will become more spiritual. ``

Good point. May you be right. As a born muslim I would prefer to have a belief system that creates peace and harmony. I always thought my religion did that until I took the trouble of reading it and asking questions. Now I am rudderless and find solace in philosophy, humility and other such things. My world is simple.

Hermeneutics and other gimmics - a boobytrap?
Allah Mian says:


02:23:
SHAKIR: And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

02:24:
SHAKIR: But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

#41 - also called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Damned if you do and damned if you dont. This dust is certainly raw!

#40 flatlanders:

A belief system is still a strong motivator for the humans to tide off the tough times in life. Somebody with belief in god can always fare better during moments of utter crisis and desperation for the very survival since people can always gain strength in the power of God. So there is nothing wrong with the inherent belief in something that is superhuman. We dont have to debate if that Super-human god is present or not. It is beyond our vision.

That super-human god can have any name you want, depending on your own culture or language or environment. Calling god by Hindi or arabic or mandarin doesn`t change the super-human nature of god. Neither does seeking strength by prayer in a temple or mosque or church change the super-human nature of god. Also, it doesn`t change the super-human nature of god if you call urself muslim or hindu or christian. This is the essence of Hindu philosophy WHICH is misconstrued and demonized as Polytheism by the ignorant tribal arabs and hebrew tribals. So the point is the belief in god per se is not wrong. But calling others as evil/satan and believing they go to hell gets into the realm of dogmas and tribal myths.

Is the Hindu philosophy divine and given by god to Humans. NO. Knowledgeable Hindus enlightened by years of rational questions about god and universe have evolved to be tolerant and inclusive since they had the luxury of wealth and huge resources to afford to be inclusive. But the tribal hebrews and arabs living in resource poor deserts CANNOT afford to be inclusive since the desert environment cant provide for everybody. So they had to closely identify who is their tribe and who is not to use their mimimal resource more usefully. Thats the reason for the, if you are not one of us you are evil/satan theory. In a tribal world with minimal resources if one tribe raids another and runs away with their stored food then it means death during a harsh summer. So no wonder they called those who are not themselves as evil. They are constantly fighting for their very survival year in and year out. The same applies to the COLD Europe and Christianity and their satan myths.

Whereas in a resource rich India(and China) , you have year round crops since the land is fertile and you can afford to be inclusive and one single act of plunder doesn`t mean death. It only means bad karma. Now people who evolve with this luxury of assured resources year round have the time to think about philosophy, growth and developement INSTEAD of always fighting for survival. It becomes a cyclical evolution.

There is NO other land in the whole earth with the combination of right environment, size, huge resources and the resultant huge numbers. Thats the reason why whenever India was attacked they could go south re-group and come back and attack the muslims. Thats the reason why the muslim invaders never could conquer India one last time like they could with a desert Persia or a desert Egypt. Same applies to Europe, Americas and Africa. But not to India and China. Both had the luxury of size and resources spread almost evenly in their huge land mass. If the southern India had been a desert then the story could be much like the Persians. So its always RESOURCES the stupid.

Now, to try to come to such solution you need to READ a lot and research and analyze a lot. How can a muslim who is taught that Koran is the source of all the GENIUS of the world read something else and learn and evolve. Whereas a hindu growing up with a culture of question everything including GITA adapts and changes faster and are ready to dump GITA if it doesn`t serve them to move on.

Watch the growth of the Europeans after the mass that makes a difference dumped the Bible and moved on. Muslims never had that kind of opportunity or leadership to make the jump on their own. But now they dont have a choice and will be made to jump kicking and screaming by the rest of the world.

To add to #43:

The very concept of Un-believers is proof enough that When Mohamad came and told the people in his village that he had visions from god, then obviously nobody believed him and those became un-believers. Mo regularly had delusions of god and him being prophet. Initially he was laughed at and ridiculed but then events took a turn and favored him. He went to Medina with his men and luckily he won a battle with fewer men. It always happens. There are various factors for it. The major one maybe the fearlessness of his followers for they are assured HEAVEN and 72 virgins if they die in the battle field. Now the tribals without education or means for a living THAT promise itself is indeed heaven.

Then his job becomes easier to convince the IGNORANT tribals that he indeed is the prophet. Then you dont even have to have delusions anymore. All you need is say whatever you want as gods words and thats it. Now with a bigger force behind Mo, he comes back and conquers Mecca and the people who ridiculed him. Maybe we atleast should give him credit for being a decent warrior. Heck, Hitler COULD pull it off in 1940s in the midst of full blown science and technological development and educated people. Why couldn`t Mo not have done it in an il-literate, ignorant arabia?

#44

``........Hitler COULD pull it off in 1940.......``


And Bush is pulling it off .... right in front of us....

On the heaps of lies and deciet and plain arrogance.....

Re: # 18: the reason you can`t use your basis of argument is that your logic is circular. QUran is the word of god..why..because it says so in the quran. Nice logic...

why do you folks need to prove faith? it is asinine..makes mockery of islam.

Re: # 41

A somewhat similar chllenge was made by Ustad Imam Din, a Punjabi poet of Gujerat, but nobody seems to have dared to accept that challenge to this day. Why? The questioon is who will be the Judge? Mind dear Quran also says that those who do not use their `aql` (the gretest gift of Allah to humans) are worse than animals.

masadi,

..... the more i think about it, the more curious i get ....... is there any proof that the koran is the word of god ? ..... witnesses, eye witness reports, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, etc. etc ? ........ the usual stuff, you know ......from what i have heard, the only witnesses were ali, his nephew, and khadija who bankrolled the venture and therefore had a vested interest in propagating the company line ...........

..... it is hard to believe that god could write such a book...... today i doubt any serious publisher would take a second look at the manuscript, and god would have to find another line of work to make a living - writing is obviously not his strong suite ....

I think the best chapter/verses in Quran is 33, revelations from Allah regarding Prophet`s wives..

I was ROFL`ing.. when Allah would ``reveal`` it is Ok for the Prophet to take as many wives but limiting the choices to other ``believers``.. and also instruct ``Prophet`s wives`` on how they will get ``double rewards`` / ``double punishments``.. Looks like even the ``carrot and stick`` policy is invented by Quran.. :-))

---

033.028
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: ``If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.

033.029
YUSUFALI: But if ye seek Allah and His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.

033.030
YUSUFALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

033.031
YUSUFALI: But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

033.032
YUSUFALI: O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

033.033
YUSUFALI: And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.


033.050
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

033.051
YUSUFALI: Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.

#48 - I think you have to believe. There is no evidence for the more profound things.

How did Morpheus know that Neo was the one? I mean, come on. Not everyone is a blithering idiot. Some of us know - just like Morpheus did. And Neo saved Zion! [refer to Matrix series]

Moving on ...

Almost 1.5 Billion people believe that there was immaculate conception 2006 years ago.

Over 1 Billion believe that God was deeply interested in Arabic verses about 600 years later.

Several thousand years before that we are told Moses was up to the same tricks.

The colorful Hindus have no shortage of their own indigenous wonders. I mean why would anyone leave the Hindu fold? They have everything that anyone could need.

We all know that there is no evidence that can be produced. Just like there is no evidence that Bush has a brain, Gates is a genius, Diana is dead or alive OR did she even exist, and so on.

Amazing amount of BS and speculation and Ad Hominem attacks you all have produced in just a few hours. How can you all live your lives like this? Not one of your contentions is backed up by any reference, not a single one makes a case using anything factual. You construct straw men, throw out few random verses and mix them up in Ad Hominem attacks against the prophet and then you assume you’ve disproven Islam. You pretend to be anthropologist, psychologist, historian at the same time, yet don’t present a single iota of reference literature.

#32, #33- Great going you use fictional tales to disprove something you know nothing about- great going; amazing methodology to decipher the truth.

#33 you write <<>>

Great methods of argumentation, define the opposing argument yourself as a straw man, and then dismantle the straw man. Religion doesn’t give a complete system of thought it just points you in the correct direction, so that you see the inter connectedness between all things- there is nothing unscientific in that. The universe began as a singularity.

#34 there is ample proof see http://www.rationalreality.com and follow the linked articles. Read them first before blabbering on here how it is all nonsense.

#36~ amazing move, from being a philosopher of science you move into the realm of psychology and give your diagnosis. That is the sorry case of you Quran deniers- which is that you have no case besides illogical Ad Hominem arguments.

#37, to decipher evolution scientists look at indirect evidence. Whatever you see in the Universe forms less than 10% of matter, the rest is dark matter and dark energy- what is the tangible ``direct`` proof that they exist- you cannot see them? Ample indirect evidence exists in support of the god hypothesis see http://god.rationalreality.com

#38 you say <<< Only if there is talk can people overcome their inhibitions and lifelong brain washing >>> true, if you read the Quran properly you’d recognize its methodology is the same, give argumentation, point to nature, discuss using logic so that the blinders that people develop living in their society are removed for something that is based on reality. When the corporate media feeds you BS about Islam 24/7, chances are you’ll be brain washed. All these damn fools and idiots came out of the woodwork after 9/11, all claiming to ``know`` Islam when they know damn all about it.

#39 really, you mean to tell me there is no concept of Justice in Hinduism, you can go on a killing spree and no one will punish you? How about you give up Hindu mythology and find yourself reincarnated as a monkey? That shouldn’t stop you from giving up the mythology since monkeys live a freer life than what is offered to humans in America.

“Is Qura’n meant for Arabs only? ”
I did not find a succinct answer to the authors own question.
Of course it is not only for Arabs. No book or any written statement is , unless stamped “Strictly Confidential” ; irrespective of what language it is written in. Magna Carta, for example, though meant for English gentry and written in their language had a profound effect on the peoples of the world. ‘Thought’ has no language of its own but has to be expressed in the thinker’s language and place of abode, and so it is with Qura’n.
However the question itself is of immance significance.
The institution of Church, thrives on ‘icons’ and invents them for its sustenance and strength. This is the case with every thing Arabic. Suffice it to say that by propagating the holiness of the locale and the language, the Muslim ‘piety industry’ as a whole and its patrons the Arabs have, and are benefiting enormously at the expense of the ignorant multitude. Even the Arab dress is now concidered ``Islamic``.
To elaborate on the above, I was told of the following incident that occurred in Cairo:
“ While walking on the street my companion picked up a sheet of paper, dusted it, kissed it and put it in his pocket to dispose of it appropriately by setting it alight at home”—on questioning his action he informed that the page has Arabic writing on it and “it is sinful to step on it”. The sheet happened to be a page from a girly Arabic magazine!
Rashid

#52, capitalism survives on mythology and symbols too, and many of those symbols and status enhancing bs is being used by IT proponents on here as well. Common myths of capitalism that is nurtured upon inequality are 1. US is classless society 2. There is equal opportunity for all 3. Education is the great equalizer and so on. 4. Developing countries are not developed because of their own faults, they have equal opportunities compared to developed countries etc. All myths that perpetuate a capitalist world system.

Qur`an must be an interesting and wonderful text full of valid guidance for leading a fulfilling life. And like any other text it is also open to interpretation. No one can argue with that. One is making a very simple and humble, but one hopes, yet pertinent point.

It is impossible for any person to analyse a text in an interpretative framework if the same person holds the same text to be infalliable.

This holds true for Qur`an also. One cannot hold the belief that Qur`an is the literal word of god and then analyze it also. Interpretation involves being `scientific` , which means believing that all human attempts at truth are approximations of a reality out there.

#54, infallibility, is item specific and is itself a claim that is very open to testing. Where it comes to social recommendations the criteria is benefit to humanity and not infallibility there can be no true or false policy and so on.

The analysis part comes first, the word of God (based on assumptions associated with that claim), follows only later, after it is established scientifically. What is so difficult to understand in this? Just like a hypothesis is tested scientifically before being accepted or discarded, we can test the hypothesis of the Quran being from an all-knowing creator before we accept its claim of being from a creator: the claim comes with certain assumptions about the concepts involved in the claim, those can be logically and scientifically tested; unless you don`t accept the scientific system of inquiry. In that case you will have to show me a better way at arriving at truth~ so far the method of science is the only valid system that people can use to get to the truth and facts.

#50 you write <<< Almost 1.5 Billion people believe that there was immaculate conception 2006 years ago.

Over 1 Billion believe that God was deeply interested in Arabic verses about 600 years later.

Several thousand years before that we are told Moses was up to the same tricks. >>>

No big deal about the immaculate conception, as fact it can be reproduced in the lab today. How the constants of nature have the values they have for no natural reason, which led to the universe having a particular shape and being fit for life is a much bigger wonder and miracle than any immaculate conception.

Your comments about Muslims is an incoherent ramble and not much else. The Quran was revealed to the Arab society at first, it was in Arabic, they were expected to take it to the rest of the world, humankind, just like other communities had had thier messengers, same message but different language, what`s so difficult to understand about that?
What tricks was moses up to?

All this reveals is that you have absolutely no clue about what you`re talking about.

Re: # 55
There is science. And there is scietism. I rest my case. Hopefully finally this time!!!

Re: # 57

sorry. that should have been scientism.

#58, evolutionists practice scientism, science as an ideology rather than a method, I practice science as method, I rest my case as well.

Understanding Quran (and that too in Arabic) is a joke considering that the average literacy rates among muslims fluctuates between 3 and 19%. You guys are waving your lantern without any burner or lite in it.

Is religion a net benefit to society? i.e. has it done more harm than good? I think today, at least in Pakistan, there is no question that religion (not Islam per se, which is very simple and straightforward matter, but the meal that has been made out of it in muslim countries) is a major impediment to social, political and economic progress.

Most people pray because they are dead-scared of hell and so try to balance off their debits (sins) with credits - not because they find prayer to be a healthy source of reflection. Most people do the hajj for the same reason.

The above is bad enough. It gets worse when men try to gain political power by using Islam. Most people accept any bs that is put forward under the label of ``Islam`` (whether it is piree faqeeri, or justification for dictatorships, or creation of a legal basis for tyranny over the poor) in Pakistan not because they are stupid but because they are scared of hell. Power hungry men exploit this moral weakness, and so have created hellish conditions for the poor in Pakistan, and probably will end up in hell themselves anyway as a result. Poetic justice.

kulharee: ``You guys are waving your lantern without any burner or lite in it. ``

ha! ha! you come up with good ones sometimes, esteemed mr. kulharee.

tahmed32:

I sense that you are in the process of making an idealogical shift towards a better alternative. You are still in early stages of doing that but the change can be sensed.

For me, it is good to see that. Just don`t let personal reasons come in the way.

malikjahanzeb #63 I dont think there is any change in my basic views - i.e. while I have always been very comfortable (and remain comfortable) with my being a muslim, this is based on MY understanding of the message of Islam, NOT the one that I admit is prevalent in the muslim world, is preached in mosques, practiced at homes (e.g. in the form of ``magic emblems`` to ward of evil in the form of ayaats from the Quran), and certainly not the one emphasized by power hungry men. I realize that this view is not what commonly passes for Islam today in any muslim country in the world, and that is fine since I am not interested in convincing anyone to sharing my views (although I am happy to discuss it on chowk, of course).

What you find different is my reference to the practical implications for what is considered to be Islam by most people. And there I agree that it has proved to be a major impediment to progress in Pakistan and the root of many evils.

#60 & #64 yes, religion (not only what is labelled Islamic) has unfortunately become a joke in today`s world due to the political and moral default of its purported practitioners. Instead of being concerned with the end result of what the Quran desires, a socially conscious, humanitarian, free human being, the believers have become busy with formulas, they have converted means (eg the ritual of prayer) into ends and lost touch with the actual end purpose . In that capacity religion becomes merely a distraction from reality and a total distortion of what actually is Islam according to the Quran.

Kulharee sahib, the burner was deliberately extinguished through generations of colonization, and now neo-colonization where buying F-16s worth billions and howitzers worth tens of millions is more important for pleasing the American masters, than social services and education. IMF/WB requirements dictate much the same.

Re: # 65

If burner was extinguished by colonization and neo-colonization, then logically it makes sense to remove the effects that caused so. In other words we cannot benefit the social aspect of our religion as long as there is a disconnect between our beliefs and the demand they put on us (socially). If our understanding is correct then this disconnect can only be repaired if not only we break the shackles and chains neo-colonialists but also eliminate the social class among us that has been propped up by them as the custodian of their interests.

#66 great point

Quran is a great book. It being user oriented has every thing for every body - Hadood for the despot and the tyrant; and rituals and terrorism for the Taghooti Mullah. As for common Muslim meaning `Maghloob` like me is Soora Maoon as interpretted hereunder:-


SMALL KINDNESSES ( Soora-e-Maoon, 107)

Have you seen that who belies deen (as it enjoins human welfare)?

That is he who repels the orphan (i.e. indigent).

And urges not the feeding of the needy.

Ah, woe unto worshipers (That is, ‘Musallin’ who call themselves ‘Namazi’)

Who are heedless of the real objective of the Salaat (which they call ‘Namaaz’)

Whose purpose is to make a show of their worship (To impress people with their religiosity)

Yet refuse (obstruct) small kindnesses (selfless human welfare)

Re: # 64

Tahmad Sahib:

Is it then correct that you also seem to belive and practice that religious belief belong in the personal space?

Anil Kapuria

#66 by Urstruly

[If burner was extinguished by colonization and neo-colonization, then logically it makes sense to remove the effects that caused so.]

How very logical! Even more logical would be your move back to Pakistan, or more specifically the NWFP where your MMA chums are in power.

Being colonized by force is bad enough, but going abroad to get colonized like you have done is worse. I wish proponents of Islamic rule here like you and masadi had the experience of living under the Taliban in Afghanistan and seen first-hand the wonders of an Islamic (Riba-free) economy sans foreign influence.

Contextualization of the text is indeed the most important ingredient in an `understanding` of the text. Much of `religious scholarship` of the likes of Dr. Israr Ahmeds and Moudidis consist of spreading the political propoganda than praising the almighty...............................all worded in the form of political propagandas to achieve domination over other humans in the guise of spreading brotherhood..............................such contextualization of the texts takes away the agenda of domination over other discourses by espousing certain `immutable discourses` by the likes of Mr. Masadi......................

this guy has gathered so many things in one article and i believe on each thing which he tried to gather......an article can be written.....and in the end he just fluctuate the article rather gathering it.......
and would like to say islam is a religion of practice instead making comments or writing articles....i ain`t saying writing articles on islam or QURRAN either is a bad thing....but i am trying to say practicing islamic values is a good things....this is the big threat for other people around you belong to other religions if you practice exactly what ALLAH has said in QURRAN and hazrat MUHAMMAD SAW has done in his life....but we muslims just make comments....this is why today american soldiers are disgracing islam by putting QURRAN PAK in toilet.....(sorry to say but this is truth,and no one can deny this bitter truth)so in the end i am pleating my post by saying it again islam is the religion of practice......that`s it

#68, the Quran contains God`s message/system for humanity. It does not contain everything for everybody unless it is distorted. The Sura you quote does away with the mullah version of Islam, it is stating very clearly that your ``namaz`` is totally worthless if people`s basic needs are not being met. That my friend is the humanitarian message of the Quran, unsurpassed in either the religious or the secular worlds- expressed in just a few words.

#71, you apparently have no idea about contexulization of the text, so the rest of your rambling is immaterial. Learn what it means first. Religion as a dependent variable has been used and abused by those in command postions of the economic and political domains, it has happened for all religions iincluding Islam. George Bush talks to ``god`` often as well. Contexualization of the text means reading the Quran within the logical boundaries of interpretation that it has defined for itself, which is closely related to the use of words and ideas within the text of the Quran itslef. Unlike Maudoodi and Israr, it does not associate other words with the words of the Quran~ it doesnt accept that baggage that entered Islam under the banner of hadith and fiqh to start with.

#72, pondering, reflection, arguing is a major part of the Quran`s invocations, therefore writing is a big part of Islam, as is reading and reasoning

#70, the Taliban had a context and a cause, that cause can be found more in the CIA and America than in the Quran- I rest my (damn) case.

masadi #73 good points in your responses to posts #68/71/72.

On #72 the facts point in the other direction: i.e. the basic determinants underlying the dysfunctional rule of the taliban were (1) the casting of primitive traditions as ``Islam``, when in fact they are often a violation of the basic teachings of Islam, which of course is a broader problem pervading all muslim societies; and (2) the role of the Pakistan military. The CIA no doubt provided arms throughout the 1980`s - but those arms were to fight the soviet invaders. Once the last soviet soldier had left (1989 I think), the US moved on to far bigger things - namely the breakdown of the soviet empire itself. Guess who stepped into the power vacuum? our own pakistan military, which proceeded to help the taliban (arms, advisers) that helped them take Kabul within a couple of years of the soviet departure.

These facts are important to keep straight, since they point to the great importance of ending the confusion over religion that exists in Pakistan. We will never have a working democracy as long as military interference in politics (i.e. 2 above) as well as ignorance of the peaceful message of Quranic teachings among muslims (i.e. 1 above) exists. Blaming CIA for the above, as for every other problem on earth, is a convenient thing to do - but is a cop out from the real causes of these problems.

In #74, the second sentence should start ``On #70...``, and not ``On #72...``. sorry.

#74, the military in Pakistan has always proved to be convenient to the US,- the Taliban were merely the faction that the US and its indigeneous base in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army supported. The CIA/Mujahedeen connection was the rise of the distorted Islam gaining power in the political arena of Afghanistan, so I would blame them.

Religion, be it distorted forms of it, have been used by the political and economic institutions for their various agendas, such was the case behind the US indoctrination of the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets; therein the Taliban had their origin. We see a complete absence of such a phenomenon in the pre-Mujahideen era.

anil #69 religion is indeed a personal matter between the individual and God. It has been forced into the public sphere by those seeking to earn a living by conducting religious rituals, and (when they get more ambitious) to seek power over society by setting themselves up as the spokesmen for God. The latter has turned religion into a dysfunctional factor in society. That is my view.

masadi #75 I think sir that you need to read a good book (or books) on the Soviet-Afghanistan War and its aftermath. Your are not clear on the facts of the situation by any means.

this may have been before your time, but contrary to your belief that ``Taliban were merely the faction that the US and its indigeneous base in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army supported``, the fact is that no one had heard of the taliban until after the soviets were out in 1989 or so. Far from supporting the taliban, the US at best tolerated the Pakistan support to them in the 1990`s. in the mid-1990`s, the US even launched in fact lauched a missile strike against ben ladin inside taliban-ruled afghanistan. in addition, according to accounts i have read, it is clear that the UK was directly supporting massoud in the 1990`s - who was clearly the leading figure in the struggle against the soviets and later against the taliban. This was while pakistan was supporting the taliban. It is only after the US told pakistan ``you are either with us or against us`` that pakistan finally relinquished its support for this evil regime.

Also, you are not correct when refer to the ``the US indoctrination of the mujahideen``, and indeed unduly belittle the legitimate desire for freedom of the afghan people that feuled this war. Contrary to your understanding that the afghan freedom fighters had started their resistance war in 1979 before the US stepped in in any significant way. They were running into trouble due to soviet use of the Hind helicopter in particular. The US then stepped in in a big way around 1982 to provide the mujahedeen an effective countermeasure to the Hind, namely the Stinger missile, along with massive increases in aid. Read ``Charlie Wilson`s War`` (Charlie Wilson being the congressman who spearheaded the US increased funding for the war, and also rounded up funds from the saudis, as well as weapons from countries around the world - egypt and so forth).

it is OK to have differences of opinions. But not OK to not be aware of basic facts and to form opinions based on hearsay. I suggest you study the history of the Soviet-Afghan war and its aftermath before reaching conclusions, the same way as you have done wrt the Quran.

#76, religion when understood as a strictly personal matter leads to atrocities not when it is understood as a public ``humanitarian`` matter. When religion has defaulted its moral and political mooring is when it has been used as a reactionary force by the powers that be for their various ends. When religion is reduced to the realm of the private it becomes merely symbolic and then its symbols are exploited by the powers that be

#78. It was a proxy cold war that the US had been fighting with the soviets in Afghanistan long before the Soviets were lured in there, via Iran and the Shah. The US started its indoctrination campaign at least 5 months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. President Carter authorized this direct support (as have various US regimes to the rightists fighting the leftists) and was told by Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter ````I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.``- you can read his interview here
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/104868

The US/CIA covert operation there was clearly aimed at indoctrination, that is how they work. The other name associated with this campaign was of Zalmay Khalilzad, the same Neo-Con reactionary who was pushing for war with Iraq. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were wars of liberation being supported by the US. You are also forgetting the role of Iran after the US left a power vacuum there. The Masud group was being supported by Iran and the US provided implicit support to the Taliban, even invited a delegation to visit the US for oil/gas talks. The Clinton missile attacks you mention were for home consumption, they had no military significance. They were a joke, more or less.

The ``evil`` regime you mention did no more ``evil`` than the Mujahideen were doing in Afghanistan before they reappeared under the title of ``Taliban``. You point me to a biased source, even back then the US was denying helping the Mujahideen when it clearly was, like the lies that revealed Iran/Contra. You have to look at the socio-political context that gave birth to the Taliban, it is the same context that gave rise to the Afghan ``holy war`` which started long before the soviet invasion, it was the same context that removed Bhutto and brought Zia to power. It stinks of US intervention by fact and proxy.

You are also forgetting that regardless of label (Tiliban or Mujahideen), those people had their origin in the same area and the same camps that fueled the Jihadist atmosphere during the soviet/afghan war. That pipeline was constructed, maintained and radicalized by the US.