An Ode to Euthanasia

#44, Mantolives {``Salim
I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...``}

Manto Bhai,
I agree with you in general. However, Ataturk, whose own mother Zubayda was a devout Muslim, was very suspicious and negative about the pervasive role of religion in government, education, commerce, and the military. Being a man of his times, he concentrated on what was ailing his beloved Turkey and why Turks were losing in all departments from the 18th century to the 20th. To him an emphasis on Islam in all matters worked as detriment to Turkey`s progress - especially in comparison to the secular focus of its European rivals. Being a European himself, Ataturk never felt inferior to Christian Europeans, instead he blamed his country`s misfortunes on its antiquated legal, educational, governmental, commercial, and military institutions. All of them had suffered thanks to inflexible and often irrational influence of religion.

#45 by haroonellahi {Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return. }

this is incorrect and threfore should not be propagated if real progress is to be achieved. islam has flourished with politics and politics with islam. it has been a very successful relationship and partnership in the past. there is no invasion by politics per se. try a different cleaner slate and maybe there is a possibility.

south america is catholic. there is an acknowledgement that spreading christianity was one of the proclaimed church principles, pope gave charters to spain and portugal, and conquest happend with bible in one hand and sord in other. once one acknowledged the truth, its hard to hijack in the future..else history shall repeat. in south america there still is poverty, inequality, but noone is looking at christianity for material salvation. this is possible because of acknowledging the truth perhaps.

in islam the view of the majority is not authority.

this article is sheer poison dressed up in honey and nice words; it is a sword attempting to strike at the very heart of islam. it is a call to castrate islam.

the author claims that political islam was dreamed up by the mullahs in power to keep them there! in reality islam and politics have gone hand in hand since the very beginning. the model state was that of Madina under the Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam then under the 5 caliphs upto and including Imam e Hassan alayhisalam.

The ideal political system in islam is the Caliphate; the only valid caliphs are from the Quraysh tribe (``Caliphate is for the Quraysh``-hadith i sharif). Until the re-establishment of the caliphate republics are a good a system as any as long as the rules of the land are in accordance with the shariah. because of this secularism and islam are opposites. democracy to an extent is islamic except no laws can be passed which contradict the established shariah. the interpretation and application of shariah to new situations/problems is the preserve and job of the traditional scholars [ulama] who alone are qualified to do so. this process is ijtihad. ijtihad itself has its own rules and not every area of shariah is susceptible to ijtihad. e.g. aqaid (doctrine) cannot be changed. no ijtihad is valid if it goes against quran or sunnah and so on...

iran is a good model of a modern democracy which is still islamic.

Islam and politics should be removed complete and totally from each other. Politics has invaded the river bed of Islam, has effectively polluted it and threatens to corrupt our religion to the point of no return.

However, my view regarding the seperation of state and mosque is limited to the national level only.

Have our wise scholars ever thought about the fact that even though most of the Western World has adopted secular paradigms, they still remained united under different agreements such as NATO and other umberallas?

Universal Equality of all citizens, seperation of religious Islam and politics, and secularization of the Constitution should take place at the national level. However, I still feel that pan-Islamic unity is a good thing for the Ummah. In this respect, although Muslim majority countries should become secular countries, they should keep their distinct Muslim authority by placing clauses in their Constitution promoting Muslim heritage. Furthermore, there should be a section in every Muslim-Majority Constitution, it can be our version of the English Bill of Rights, The Islamic Bill of Rights. It should have clauses directly reflecting Islamic values, ethics, and morality. Furthermore, once this process has been done, the Muslim World, which should become internally secular, must retain it`s inherent Islamic identity.

The European Union is not based on ethnic or linguistic ties. It is built purely on religious grounds. That is why our very own Salim`s Turkey keeps on getting the red stamp from the European Union.

We need to ensure that mutual trade, mutual cultural links, and mutual economic links are enhanced amongst the Muslim world to promote our ability to achieve our true status amongst the comity of civilizations.

Salim

I don`t think Ataturk was against Islam at all...

Dost,

The same message will neccessarily have different interpretations in terms of applicability to differing circumstance. Universalism cannotes universally binding, not universally applicable, or universally actualized. Thus, the clarity of the message is not what is at issue here...or at least, should not be.

Using words such as `true` Islam, and implying that OBL is closer to it than anyone else is a validation of the latter`s theology. The point is, any interpretation only need be self-consistent and well argued. Your chiming in is neither. It`s for this reason why I think Muslims should be self-concerned, and really not solicit or take advice from outsiders (nothing personal, I assure you).

As for Mr. Bush, the point was why is his actions a personal failure for him and not of an entire political system? A bit of a double standard, it seems.

#39 DM Sahib, {`` The verses are not preceded by a qualifier whether a particular verse is addressed to the Prophet or to all Muslims or to both. Nor does it clarify whether the message is meant for the Arabs who were the Prophet`s contemporaries or for all humanity. ..
Secondly, would it be possible for an organisation like the OIC to come up with a consensus on which verses in the quran were meant only for the 7th century Arabia and are no longer valid?``}

DM Sahib,
Again, you deserve the front row in any mosque. :) The questions you raise and the ideas you project deserve serious responses and even more serious consideration.

What most Muslims, especially the Mullahs, forget is that the revelations or supernatural experience of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) happened to him and were all intended for him. These were messages to him about what to observe, what to say, how to prioritize, in his dealings with the people of Mecca and then Medina. The Holy Koran, as compiled today, is not in chronological or topical sequence. It is merely organized by the length of the suras. The earlier revelations in Mecca were meant to warn the Holy Prophet (PBUH), to encourage him, to advise him, and even to chastise him. There are verses telling him to stand up to the unbeleivers and not to be timid. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was a non-violent man and quite humble by nature - apparently God wanted him to be more assertive, more aggressive, and even confrontational at times. He did what he was instructed to do. Also, he passed on his revelations to his followers. Not everything that was incumbent on him is necessarily incumbent on all of us - 1400 years later. The Holy Koran is there for reference and not to be blindly followed for all issues. I give the analogy of the Pathan tribesmen in NWFP who used to raid hospitals to steal the medecines, because they knew that medecines cured diseases. :) It`s just not that simple. You always have to know what is applicable and what is not.

Your suggestion about the OIC, or any other representative organization, doing a study and coming up with a consensus about the applicability of Koranic verses is an excellent one. Not only does this need to happen, but such consensus needs to be updated periodically. Therein lies the problem. Who would represent the various factions and how can they agree on a change management approach. Thanks.

``the provision that everything in the quran is valid for all times and places.`` (Dost-mitter)

that`s our Achilles’ heel dost-mitter ji -- that`s our nightmare.....that`s our Mount Arafat where the devil resides forever blocking the gates to the 21st century….

every year we will throw helplessly stones at the Devil and get trampled in the process and die -- but that mountain will remain blocking the highway to the heaven of the modern century......modern times

we have no New Testaments -- only our Old Testaments -- will be getting Older and Older -- neverchanging -- in the everchanging Newer and Newer World...

we have no Martin Luther -- we will never have one -- only ‘Narcissistic’ Nasreens and ‘Rabble Rouser` Rushdies -- only to be chased away by the blood thirsty glass breaking beard-flowing rabble....

there is no redemption for us Muslims -- we are frozen in quranic time and space......thanks for reminding....

Re: # 40

nasah

``every year we will throw helplessly stones at the Devil and get trampled in the process and die -- but that mountain will remain blocking the highway to the heaven of the modern century......modern times``

No, dear nasah, their throwing of pebbles (not stoes) at the Devil has not in any way blocked their highway to the modern times. They do possess weapons of 21st century from rocket-propelled grenade and klashinkof to the atom bomb but these are all meant for human beings only, even those who call themselves Muslims. As for the satan they are not allowed even to hit it with a pebble larger than a gram and to do this they have sometimes to sacrifice their lives.

Salim_Chauhan#31:

Your comments take the usual moderate line. I would address them in two ways. First, Allah says in the quran that He is delivering this message in Arabic so that simple folks can understand and follow it. However, to someone like me, it seems to be anything but simple. The verses are not preceded by a qualifier whether a particular verse is addressed to the Prophet or to all Muslims or to both. Nor does it clarify whether the message is meant for the Arabs who were the Prophet`s contemporaries or for all humanity. This leaves the verses anything but clear and subject to different interpretations. Why would Allah say He is delivering a clear message but then create interpretational confusion? A believer has every right to accept everything based on his or faith but these questions do cause doubts in the minds of a non-believer reading the quran.

Secondly, would it be possible for an organisation like the OIC to come up with a consensus on which verses in the quran were meant only for the 7th century Arabia and are no longer valid? This would certainly clear the air. I don`t think that he quran is unique in having some contextual and other universal passages. Urstruly pointed out in an earlier post that even the most fanatic hindutva nut would not ask that Manusmriti be used as a legal code in India although I would think (I haven`t read Manusmriti) that it still has some passages which are relevant today.

_digit#36:
Some of my response to Salim applies to your post as well.

``Careful now. By validating a particular theology, you are then beholden to it (even if you yourself do not practice it). By stating such a thing, the onus is on you to validate your position; why is OBL`s theology more valid than, say, Asghar Ali Engineer`s? Do you really want to play that game, or is proclamation based on gut feeling enough?``

No, I did not validate Islamic theology, only Muslims as people. I could make the same statement about Hindus without validating Hindu theology either. Between OBL and Asghar Engineer, the latter`s version is much more palatable to me as a non-muslim than that of OBL. But, I wonder if true Islam would accept the validity of Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism as Engineer would; as you know, there is that little problem with the practice of shirk (not sikhism) or agnosticism (Buddhism) and a belief that all living beings have a soul that transmigrates. So, if I am a true believer in the quran, I dont see how I can accept these religions to be true religions when the quran says that its message is the only true message.

``Why do we Muslims need moderates, yet portions of the secular West who have mobilized their war machines not? Spare us, dost.``

Here, you are preaching to the convert. I agree that the West`s (more correctly Bush`s) use of its war machine is illegitimate and, indeed, counterproductive to achieving its purpose.

teshah#33:
Shahji, Aap tau yoon-hi sharminda kar rahe hain!

Urstruly#38:
I am not confused in this matter because I do not consider Islam to be just another religion. I might agree with you to some extent that Islam could be compared to Communism but would not say the same thing about Capitalism, as the latter is largely restricted to an economic philosophy even though it does require a minimum set of rules (property rights, etc.) to function. As of now, capitalism is flourishing in such diverse political regimes as in largely irreligious China, Russia, former Soviet republics and deeply religious India. And I do not see much incompatibility between Islam and Capitalism either; Saudi Arabia practices both sharia and capitalism, doesn`t it?

Re: # 39

dost-mittar,

the science of tafsir [`ilm al tafsir] addresses exactly the questions you ask; these questions have been answered millenia ago by the classical scholars. they are valid questions but they have been answered (which verses apply when and to whom). you just need to sit down with a traditional scholar and ask e.g. shaykh pir sayyid abd al qadir shah jilani sahib. (www.yanabi.com) or www.sunniport.com or www.sunnipath.com

#34 Manto, {``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...``}

Manto,
I think that you are right. In any case, the Azan in Arabic is alive and well in today`s Turkey. :) With so many mosques, Turkey is the marathon of azans.

Ataturk used the tradition of Ottoman Ghazis to motivate the Anatolian resistance against the Greeks. I really think that Ataturk was just against Arabs and Arabic and not that much against Islam. Probably his disappointments in Syria and Libya had a lot to do with his hatred.

Dost-mittar,

``As a non-practising non-muslim...``

You will excuse me if I say that this is exactly why your opinion will be, and should be, ignored. But I`m baited, so I`ll continue.

``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.``

Careful now. By validating a particular theology, you are then beholden to it (even if you yourself do not practice it). By stating such a thing, the onus is on you to validate your position; why is OBL`s theology more valid than, say, Asghar Ali Engineer`s? Do you really want to play that game, or is proclamation based on gut feeling enough?

The idea that it is the universalistic interpretations of the Quran that are motivating the masses to give legitimacy to OBL and his likes is too simplistic and one-sided. Why do we Muslims need moderates, yet portions of the secular West who have mobilized their war machines not? Spare us, dost.

The fact is, when OBL invokes the Quran, he invokes Islamic history as well. He attempts to draw equivalences between the genocidal anti-Muslim pagans of the 6th century, and modern western civilization. How about stop helping him make these links? Jejune analysis of the Quran, and moreover dismissing any attempts at contextualizing it inspite of the importance of the context, intellectually dishonest at best. Musing about the psycological ``infleucnce`` of the Quranic passages that deal with the war`s the Prophet (pbuh) fought are, from my point of view, daft.

The problems in the Muslim world are by far and wide modern problems rooted in modern conflicts. All this talk of reform and what not from critics of Islam and Muslims, when in fact the Muslims are doing nothing worse than those who criticize them, can`t be taken seriously.

---

We do need reform, but not exactly the kind being advocated here.

I think. I can`t tell, Feroz is being rather vague in his use of the term secuarlism and exactly what it implies for Muslim/Islamic socities.

re: Dost-Mittar

Thanks for your comments, which were quite cogently expressed.

Ciao

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