An Ode to Euthanasia

Dear Salim...

The smart leader that Ataturk was, his pre-1921 statements are replete with calls to Islamic solidarity, Jehad and the Prophet... He was a clever man who raised the Anatolian Muslims to defeat the forces of Greece and other allies... ofcourse his final aim was Modern Turkey with or without Islam.

Also- you seem to suggest that Ataturk banned the Azan. As far as I know that happened under Ismet Inonu in 1939... Ataturk did ask for the Friday Khutbas to be in Turkish... today Friday sermon is always in the local language... and it was so in South Asia even before Ataturk

Re: # 29

dost-mittar

Welcome dear DM, I have been missing you for many days. You have, as usual, wonderfully put forth the dilemma, the so called Umma is facing, vis-a-vis, Islam and the Quran. It can provide motivation and even a convenient handle to OBL`s terrorism on the one hand and to `Moderation and Enlightenment` of Musharraf brand on the other. As you pointed out the Hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and the sectarian hate-mongering Mulla are also the result of the vast scope of the divergent interpretations to which the Quran and Sunna can be subjected.

salim:
i respect your assertions in the face of 1400 years long history of islamic jurisprudence .

Having said that, your assertion cannot be taken as a defense for statements like :

``The universal message of Islam, as with any other religion, is peace, respect and tolerance``

Because islam when in power (eg. medinah state) never practiced that universal message of tolerance, peace and respect.

Therefore, a little bit of attitude correction perhaps a mix of irony is in order for people who have to make these patently wrong statements, i.e., if they absolutely have to.

regards.

DM Sahib #29, {``In my admittedly prejudiced opinion, the quran provides the parameter for Islam and that has proven to be straitjacket, esp. the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places. By inclination, most people are moderates but that particlular clause makes it very difficult for moderates to stand their ground when challenged.``}

DM Sahib,
I am glad that you made this comment. I may not be an expert, but I believe that the Holy Koran is very specific about what it says - Each verse needs to be taken within the context of the time, place, circumstance, and purpose of its revelation to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). After all, God was speaking to Mohammed (PBUH) at that time, place, and for a specific purpose. Sure, we are free to draw conclusions about the applicability of these verses to our own lives today, here, and for various purposes. In my opinion, we cannot just start quoting from the Holy Koran to justify how we want to behave and how we want people to ratify our behavior. If taken out of context, without regard to occasion, timing, place, and purpose, many verses in the Holy Koran actually contradict themselves. I am sure that everyone knows about the ``There is no compulsion in religion`` verse, but then there are other verses such as ``Slay them where you find them...`` It is up to us to apply God`s advice to our lives. Seeking religious or Koranic ratification for what we know is evil kind of defeats the purpose - and that is why UBL and Al-Kayda/Tally Ban are wrong. Thanks,

DM Ji:
that comment by ferozek you pointed out is patently incorrect - lemme invite Allah mian to counter ferozek:


003.080
YUSUFALI: Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (To Allah in Islam)?

003.081
YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: ``I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help.`` Allah said: ``Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?`` They said: ``We agree.`` He said: ``Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.``

003.082
YUSUFALI: If any turn back after this, they are perverted transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Then whosoever after this shall turn away: they will be miscreants.
SHAKIR: Whoever therefore turns back after this, these it is that are the transgressors.

003.083
YUSUFALI: Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah?-while all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (Accepted Islam), and to Him shall they all be brought back.

003.084
YUSUFALI: Say: ``We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).``

003.085
YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).


003.086
YUSUFALI: How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.


003.087
YUSUFALI: Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;-

003.088
YUSUFALI: In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);-


003.089
YUSUFALI: Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

on Apostates:

003.090
YUSUFALI: But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

003.091
YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.

Hi Feroz:

As a non-practising non-muslim, I am of somewhat different opinion. Ten years ago, I used to think, as you put it:
``The universal message of Islam, as with any other religion, is peace, respect and tolerance, but this religious message is diluted by the principle of power politics which generally operates on the notions of a zero-sum game.``
Now I am not so sure. I still believe that most muslims are peaceful, tolerant and show respect towards others but I dont believe the same is true of Islam as a doctrine.

In the last ten years, I have read more and more about Islam, including the primary sources of the quran and ahadith. In my asmittedly prejudiced opinion, the quran provides the parameter for Islam and that has proven to be straitjacket, esp. the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places. By inclination, most people are moderates but that particlular clause makes it very difficult for moderates to stand their ground when challenged. Indeed, the quran has a despicable word for muslims who want to pick and choose- Munafiqeen. Many Muslims, from Mutazlites in Arabia to Kabir in India, tried to moderate the message of Islam and that appealed to a lot of people but, in the end, the stirring passages of the quran with their exhorations of jihad and hatred for the kafir, murtaad and munafiqeen are a tool that the likes of OBL, Hamaz or Maudoodi can always use with devastating effect to uphold the ultimate superiority of nizam-e-mustafa. Those particular words, I do not think, are there in the quran but the commandment to obey the quran and hold the Prophet as the role model can be used to justify everything that political islam wants to achieve.

If the moderates really want a moderate Islam, they should have the courage to confront the puritans with a clear-cut rejection that everything in the quran has universal validity without getting into convoluted arguments about the contextual relevance of certain passages. In other words, what the moderates need is a New Testament. However, showing such courage may carry too high a price.

Interesting tactic.

Speak highly of religion, and claim that in order to keep it prestine...we need to protect it from the evils of politics.

That`s a one-trick poney my friend.

On the contrary, what the religious need to do is drop their know-all attitudes, and admit that from time to time, the answer isn`t evident to a problem...and that perchance we may have to take a chance once and a while. And to admit, that *gasp*...failure might be a possibility.

Imperfect people can`t implement perfect systems. Once that realization hits us, the ummah will flourish, and Islamic politics will be viable.

Secularism is an excuse to eliminate religion from the public sphere.

#26, jang {``in short, it has been a symbiotic relationship. so, its unfair to claim purity of intent for the religion while damning the religious. ``}

I submit that having a hammer around is quite handy. Using that hammer to crack heads open is not what I consider handy.

#8 by Salim_Chauhan
{I agree with the essence of your presentation that power-hungry and selfish Muslims must stop exploiting and maligning Islam as they stomp on everything Islamic to attain their unIslamic goals. }

hmmm..this is whitewashing..many religions were used by states, and religions and conquering flourished hand-in-hand (feroze has written a lot on this in his war dispatches). so there is a large history of evidence of gain from religions (and certainly FOR religions by gaining them adherents ). in short, it has been a symbiotic relationship. so, its unfair to claim purity of intent for the religion while damning the religious.

#22, Manto
The Turks of the 1920s were more against Arab influence than they were against Islam. Because of the infidelity of the Arabs, the Turks lost WWI by being stabbed in the back - in the south, where they were not expecting an attack. They had taken care of the British in Gallipoli and the Russians in Armenia.
The anti-Arabic bandwagon just took on an anti-Islamic tone with the ban of calls to prayer, religious laws, etc. More than anything, Ataturk wanted to modernize the Turks. His mother was herself a very devout Muslim. Turks are strange when it comes to Islam - alcohol and sexual activity have always been part of Turkish culture - pre-revolution and post-revolution.

Re: # 23

Madani,

Unless Akhtar is doing both of your daughters, there`s no need to sing unnecessary praises of him. He took only two wickets compared to Asif and Razzaq.

Bowling O M R W ER Nb Wb
S Akhtar 16 3 70 2 4.38 4 0
M Asif 19.1 1 78 4 4.07 6 0
A Razzaq 16 3 67 3 4.19 7 0
S Afridi 3 0 12 1 4.00 0 0

Re: # no reference
As predicted India defeated by 7 runs by home team. Indian management total failure. Test is won almost as shoeb Akhtar reaching 157KM/HR. Major indian batsman can not face Express just throw and run away. Sad only indian bowlers have to bad.

Feroz..

An excellent article as usual.


Salim Chauhan,

Being a Turko-phile like myself you must have read the history of the Turkish Revolution.
The rallying cry, under Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, there was Islam and Jehad more than anywhere else and look what they did after that.

Re: # 20
No reference:
It looks pindi express will indian team out of misery . Indian team has no chance again management failure of Indian captain.

on the inside joke:
i came across this guy who was comparing characters in Heinrich Heine`s poem Marie Antoinette with muslims. In the poem, ghosts of Marie Antoinette the famous french queen entertains her guests in the strictest ettiquettes or so it seemed to the ``Guests``. The irony was that all the guests and the Queen were headless (as the scene was transpiring after the French Revolution) and since they were headless they didnt have their brains intact to realise that they were headless... ! eek!

Muslims are pretty much in the same headless state with the ghost of Muhammad haunting them.

ferozek:
i think pakistani state is emulating the Medinah State, the ideal state founded by the Prophet, in one very imporant area.

And that is the lack of any sort of succession principle in force in Pakistan just like Mohammad left it open ended for his followers to duke it out among them once he was dead - well here we are - in 1400 Hijrah-century and Pakistani state is strictly following the Sunnah of the Prophet with extreme reverence.