An Ode to Euthanasia

#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.

#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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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: Dost-Mittar

Thanks for your comments, which were quite cogently expressed.

Ciao

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.

#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.

Re: # 29 DM

The core reason of your confusion is that you still consider Islam as just another religion. As compared to other religions, Islam is more than just rituals, it is a way of life. Hence it is an ideology. Like any other ideology it seeks new recruits and it dictates a certain degree of discipline among its adherent.

Let me expalin the above lines with an example. When Bush says that `our fight is not with Islam` he is probably telling the truth. In order to support his claim he might point to thousands of mosques spread across the North American continent. People go to those mosques without any restriction or fear. He might also point out to the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Northe America. All this was not possible if he hadn`t been forthcoming. So in other words no one in the world has any problem with a ``ritual Islam``. If people, go to prayer, fast, perform Hajj etc. no one has a problem. But real problem starts when Islam starts preaching a system values that promotes universal social justice, when it starts demanding a certain degree of discipline in society, when it dictates moral values at social level; when it promotes an equitable and just distribution of wealth; when it demands everyone to be collectively responsible to curb corruption in the society. That is where all the problem begins. Now comes in the conflict of ideologies; the clash of world views; and evaluation and comparison of moral values.

This world is a competing ground of ideologies. All ideologies inherently are mutually exclusive, so is Islam. For example, in a country Capitalism and Communism cannot co-exist. As a matter of fact the deadliest and costliest conflict in the human history have been between these two.

In a uni-polar world, an individual is being restricted from its choices. A point in history has come when Muslims also have to choose between Kaaba and butkhana. As the conflict is intensifying, it is putting more pressure on individuals to choose one. Hence for an outside observer Islam is no more a religion of ``peace``. By ``peace`` people usually mean the Islam (or any religion) should always take the back seat, it must stick to its rituals and it must not compete in testing field of ideologies. If this is the criteria by which this religion is being judged, then I am afraid that you will be more than disappointed.

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?

``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....