Why Aren’t Muslim Women Converting to Christianity?

...this verse by faraz explains the old friendship between salim chauhan, HP, behram and tahmed... once upon a time they were thick as thieves...forgive the pun...;)

apne hathoN meiN uthay hue bhari patthar
marnay aaye hain Eisa ko havari patthar

...and when i was crying on these pages about salim and his agenda these same friends of his made fun of me...and this is reflected in this peerzada qasim verse...;)

zamaana meri daastaN pay ro raha hai aaj kyun
yehi to kal suni gayee thi qahqahoN ke durmiyaN

wa ma alaina illal balaagh...;)

#392 by behram1

My family owned a house at Jehangir Road in Karachi when I was growing up. My father sold that house to take us away from the changing neighborhood in the 70s. same thing happened with our ancestral home in Hyderabad. That area was 75% Hindu before the partition. After the Hindus left, we had people from Jaipur, Ajmer Sharif and Alwar State moved into that area.

We had to leave that house before I was born.

Hyderabad is full of people from Rajasthan. I am intimately aware of people from Rajasthan and their backgrounds so no one can BS me on that.

Hyderabad also got our share of people from Agra and Altaf Bhai’s family was one of them. He started his APSMO from Hyderabad. He was a known police informer and carried that job to Karachi Student politics too.

However, I had some good experiences with Urdu speaking and I admire some of them too. Some of them are very well educated, humble and polite. But the lower class that moved to Karachi and Hyderabad from different parts of UP and Rajasthan has become a source of problem every where in Sindh.

They have difficulty coming out of their communal mindset and they treat people like they are ready to have a communal fassaad with Hindus like they used to in UP and Rajasthan.


Tahmed,
I should make it clear that educated urdu speaking middle class whether they live in Defense, gulshan, or nursery and Mohd ali society do not support MQM. In fact, most them hate MQM for its antics.

The word that you missed was ``aghlaam baaz`` let me add one more to your ever growing urdu knowledge: ``Bhabashia`` Nothing to do with shia though...

behram #392 Thanks again for contributing some light to this discussion concerning the MQM thugs and their rogue followers (of whom Mr. salim is one, I am sorry to say). There is precious little written in Pakistan on these things - the aggressive manner in which Mr. Salim has been promoting the ``stranded biharis`` indicates that the MQM agenda of completing the take over of karachi by ``muhajirs`` is very much alive.

``Except for badmaashi and dadageeri, I have not found any urdu speaker from Karachi who can conduct a decent civilized conversation in English. ``

Ahh, and the typical mindset of the Parsis, also known as Bum Lickers of the English, shines through. It matters not what your achievements, your moral standing or your sense of self is. What matters is your ability to speak English and use the right fork and knife. Jeez!!

Mr. Chauhan: When I am dead, you are very welcome to pee on my grave as you assure me you will do. Since my soul will be with God and therefore not concerned with earthly matters, and my body will be...like ``abandoned property`` of the kind you MQM types took over.

In return for these good wishes, I will wish you a long and good life. And pray that when, many, many decades from now you too have kicked the bucket, the only water that falls on your grave is rosewater sprinkled by little cherubs while angels play the harp and while bhai altaf sings and cries at the same time. (sings at the joys of the abandoned property and businesses you MQM types took over from hindus who fled for their lives in 1947 and cries at the sorrow of not being able to do likewise thirty years later with panjabis and pathans living in karachi.)

HP #378 This has indeed been a very educational board. Behram and Urstruly in particular shed a good deal of light (Urstruly by reference to his earlier articles on the subject on chowk, and Behram with his detailed knowledge of how the property of departing hindus were taken over by the incoming MQM types).

And of course I have learnt some colorful karachi lingo from your posts. :-) i.e. Phainkoo, bay purkey orranay wala, bay pur ka baaz , and I think there was one more that I need to go back and check. Very pertinent to the way Mr. Chauhan acts on chowk. So, while Mr. Chauhan may have been a waste of time, the additional light shed on the subject has certainly been well worth it.

HP, 389

I am trying to encourage good behavior among the Pakistanis. I abhor seeing Pakistanis hating and attacking each other. It saddens me.

HP and tahmed32 :

All Tuff and his goonda brigade think that they are the thekadaars of Karachi. Just look at their performance. Was it not Ishrat Abid the present Governor of Sindh, who is from MQM and who was on British government dole until he was exposed? These hate mongers have offered nothing to the honest hard working citizens of Karachi. They should make a movie on Killing Fields of Karachi.

Nobody likes these hate mongers. Their ideology of hate is foreign to local Karachites, even the mohajirs themselves. This ideology of hate can only be brought by the Biharis of East Pakistan, who came as depressed and were always violent. Just look at their behavior in the west and you will notice how disgusting these Biharis are, especially the ones who claim to be from Pakistan.

Karachi can become the next Dubai, if we can only marginalize this criminal gang of thugs and goondas.

Respectfully submitted,

HP,
Getting personal with insults and questioning one`s ethnic and religious credentials are good indications of your total rout on this subject. You know you are wrong and you are deflecting the defeat with personal attacks. I am sure that the Indians were soundly insulted in Dacca in 1971. :) Imagine a Sikh saving a Paki Punjoo from death at the hands of Bengali Muslims in Dacca. Unbelievable, even more amazing than an ``educated`` Sindhi hari in the deserts of Arizona or California.

Godot, #388,
Thank you for your absolutely correct advice. I appreciate your remark that you have noticed that I have tried to abstain from profanity, vulgarity, and filthy remarks. This has happened despite unprovoked attacks against me, my wife, my family, my religion, my ethnicity, and even my credentials as a Pakistani. Most of those who have been lewd, crude, and rather rude have been Pakistani Punjabis with a random Rustamji Sohrabji thrown in and a token Pathan and Sindhi to complete the equal opportunity hate-mongering against Mohajirs. I have tried to debate with facts. My opponents have responded with personal insults, questions regarding my identity and that of my wife, my parents, and even my grandfather. For some reason, Paki Punjabis think that if you cannot defeat your opponent`s arguments, then all you have to do is to prove his/her association with a group they consider inferior. So, while a Turk or Iranian is superior in their inferiority-laden minds, a Bihari, or Ahmedi, or even a Hindu is somehow inferior and thus lower than they, and therefore justly a loser in any debate. I hurt them where they hurt the most - being called racists, bigots, and hypocrites, which many of them are. Thanks for the advice.

Godot,
Please don`t encourage this attention seeker...A shia and a Chauhan from Jaipur...

Salim

While I admire your stand for those who you feel are down-trodden and have been left behind by the cruel world of politics, I don’t believe you can carry on an intelligent conversation and can convince others of your stand by calling those who disagree with you “Panjus” and “Ahmaqzai.”

You are an intelligent person. With more than fair share of abuse hurled at you at Chowk, you know you cannot win by insulting your opponents. By insults, you only hurt yourself and your cause.

All Pakistanis, regardless of their ethnicities, are Pakistani first and anything else second. They all love Pakistan. I’m certain all Pakistanis on this board would agree with me. I can never believe in a million years, for example, that Tahmed, HP, Ahmadzai or Urstruly are Punjabi bigots against Urdu-speaking folks. I’ve known them for a few years at Chowk. You can trust me on that. If you want to have a frank dialogue with them, stick with facts without resorting to personal insults or ethnic slurs.

Having said that, Chowk is a very dangerous place because our masks are off. We have nothing at stake here and have nothing to lose. Because at Chowk there is no body language, monotonous tone in typed-letters, and no facial expressions, things get out of hand very quickly and, if not contained immediately, it just becomes a vicious cycle.

Chowk can make a perfectly decent person abusive. If you like Chowk, set an example (it has not gone un-noticed that you are trying your very best.)

#384, Hamidum2 {``remember, in addition to controlling all the prime water front property in the world we old coots also control most of the wealth (that is according to my last tax return) ............. if you are not careful, we will cut you off !
...most punjabis who own a pair of shoes and have a fifth grade education, like to speak the language of the mohajir/bihari - urdu ``}

Hamidum Sahib,
OK OK - you got a good point about the old folks. Controlling all the prime water front property has made them all wet and, thanks to global warming, they will soon be controlling most of the oceans as well. :) Speaking of your last tax returen, did you really and honestly make all those charitable contributions to Maulana Urstruly`s tableeghi jamaat?

Now, I am sure that you don`t allow your children to speak Punjabi and that all of you guys with the fancy footwear all speak Urdu as a special favor to Altaf Bhai. Come on, my friend, you and I are having a dialogue in English and I hope you don`t think that we are doing QE II a great favor. :) Conducting formal proceedings, other than panychayat hearings, will lose their serious and formal atmosphere if you allow the participants to rant on in Punjabi or Poorbhi. :) Ooo susrah, Jhellum ka babwa, extinguised genital man from Potohar, arey wohi saala apna Tauheed ka kahat he?

Getting back on track

A very sensible write-up; Clarifies a lot of issues.

The Qur`an is Clear on Religious Freedom

There is ample evidence in the Qur`an that individuals should be able to accept or reject a particular faith on the basis of personal conviction, and that no amount of external pressure or compulsion should be permitted: ``No compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error.``(2:256) ``If it had been the Lord`s will, they would have believed – All who are on earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!`` (10:99)

By emphasizing people`s right to freely follow their conviction, the Qur`an reiterates a long standing position, which it traces back to one of the earliest known Prophets, Noah: ``He [Noah] said: O my people! See if I have a clear sign from my Lord, and that he has sent mercy unto me, but that the mercy has been obscured from your sight? Shall we compel you to accept it when you are averse to it!`` (11:28).

The message of freedom of belief and conviction, and the call to religious tolerance is reiterated time and again through various Prophets, as it is quite apparent in the message of Prophet Shuaib to his people: ``And if there is a party among you that believes in the message with which I have been sent, and a party which does not believe, hold yourselves in patience until Allah does decide between us: for He is the best to decide.`` When Shuaib`s people threatened him with expulsion, he protested strongly citing his freedom to choose his faith: ``The leaders, the arrogant party among his people, said: O Shuaib! We shall certainly drive you out of our city, and those who believe with you, or else you shall have to return to our ways and religion. He said: ``What! Even though we do not wish to do so.``(7:86-7).

Not only does the Qur`an recognize the individual`s right to freedom of conviction, but it also recognizes his/her moral freedom to act on the basis of their conviction: ``Say: O my people! Do whatever you may: I will do (my part). But soon will you know on whom an anguish of ignoring shall be visited, and on whom descends an anguish that abide``(39: 39-40). ``Say: Everyone acts according to his own disposition: But your Lord knows best who it is that is best guided on the way.`` (17:84).

The principle that the larger community has no right to interfere in one`s choices of faith and conviction can be seen, further, in the fact that the Qur`an emphasizes that the individual is accountable for the moral choices he or she makes in this life to their Creator alone: ``O you who believe! Guard your own souls: If you follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is God: It is He that will show you the truth of all that you do.`` (5:105). ``So if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted my whole self to God and so have those who follow me. And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: Do you (also) submit yourselves? If they do, they are in right guidance. But if they turn back, your duty is to convey the message; and in God`s sight are (all) His servants.``(3:20)

Indeed, one cannot find in the Qur`an any support for the ridda penalty. The Qur`an makes two references to ridda: ``Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back (commit ridda) from their faith and die in that state of unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life; and in the hereafter they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.``(2:217). ``O you who believe! If any from among you turn back (commits ridda) from his/her faith, soon will God produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him — humble with the believers mighty against the disbelievers, thriving in the way of God, and never afraid of the reproaches of detractors. That is the grace of God, he bestows on whom He please; and God encompasses all and he knows all things.`` (5:54).

In both cases the .Qur`an does not specify any physical punishment here and now, let alone a death penalty. The Qur`an rather warns those who renounce their faith of disgrace and ill-fate. To the contrary, the Qur`an provides direct evidence, albeit open to interpretation, that ridda is not punishable by death: ``Those who believe then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then increase in their disbelief – God will never forgive them nor guide them to the path.`` (4:137) Obviously, a death penalty would not permit repeated conversion from and to Islam.

Faulty Reasoning and Selective Reading

Yet despite of the Qur`anic emphasis on the freedom of conviction and moral autonomy, many classical jurists contend that a person who renounces Islam or converts to another religion commits a crime of ridda (apostasy) punishable by death. However, because the Qur`an is unequivocal in supporting religious freedom, classical jurists relied, in advocating death penalty for ridda (renouncing Islam), on two hadiths (Prophetic statement), and the precedent of the Muslims fighting against Arab apostates under the leadership of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph. Although the two hadiths are reported in Bukhari and are considered authentic, they are both shaky and do not stand to close scrutiny: ``Kill whoever changes his religion``, and ``Three acts permit the taking of a person`s life: a soul for a soul, the adultery of a married man, and renouncing religion while severing ties with the community``.

Now both hadith statements cannot stand as credible evidence because they contravene numerous Qur`anic evidence. According to most established juristic schools, a hadith can limit the application of a general Qur`anic statement, but can never negate it. In addition, the hadiths even contradict the practices of the Prophet who reportedly pardoned Muslims who committed ridda. One well-known example is that of Abdullah bin Sa‘d who was pardoned after Osman bin Affan pleaded on his behalf. Ibn Hisham narrated in his Sirah that the Prophet pardoned the people of Quraysh after Muslims entered Makkah victorious in the eighth year of the Islamic calendar. The Prophet excluded few individuals from this general pardon, whom he ordered to be killed if captured, including Abdullah bin Sa‘d.

Abdullah was one of the few persons appointed by the Prophet to write the revealed texts. After spending a while with the Muslims in Madina, he renounced Islam and returned to the religion of Quraysh. He was brought to the court of the Prophet by Osman, who appealed for his pardon. He was pardoned even though he was still, as the narration indicates, in a state of ridda and was yet to reembrace Islam. If ridda was indeed a hadd (plural hudud), neither Osman would be able to plea for him, nor the Prophet would pardon him in violation of the shari`a law. Therefore, I am inclined to the increasingly popular view among contemporary scholars, that ridda does not involve a moral act of conversion, but a military act of rebellion, whose calming justifies the use of force and the return of fire.

Theory of Right

Islamic law (shari`ah) is essentially a moral code with few legal pronouncements, and the question of which precepts are purely moral and which that have legal implications are determined through the theory of right.

The widely accepted theory of right among jurists divides rights into three types: (1) Rights of God (Huquq Allah) — These consist of all obligations that one has to discharge simply because they are divine commands, even when the human interests or utilities in undertaking them are not apparent, such as prayers, fasting, hajj, etc.; (2) Rights shared by God an his servants (Huquq Allah wa al-‘Ibad) — These include acts that are obligatory because they are demanded by God, but they are also intended to protect the public, such as hudud law, jihad, zakat, etc., and (3) Rights of God`s servants (Huquq al-‘Ibad) — These are rights intended to protect individual interests, such as fulfilling promises, paying back debts, honoring contracts. Still people are accountable for their fulfillment to God.

As it can be seen, the theory of right devised by late classical jurists – around the eighth century of Islam – emphasizes that people are ultimately answerable to God in all their dealings. However, by using the term rights of God to underscore the moral duty of the individual, and his/her accountability before God, classical jurists obscured the fact that rights are invoked to support legal claims and to enforce the interests of the right-holder. Because the Qur`an makes it abundantly clear that obeying the divine revelation does not advance the interests of God, but only those of the human being, the phrase ``rights of God`` signifies only the moral obligations of the believers towards God, and by no means should they be taken as a justification of legal claims.

It follows that the rights of God which are exclusively personal should be considered as moral obligations for which people are only answerable to God in the life to come. As such accepting or rejecting a specific interpretation or a particular religious doctrine, and observing or neglecting fundamental religious practices, including prayer or hajj, should have no legal implications whatever. A legal theory in congruence with the Qur`anic framework should distinguish between moral and legal obligations, and should confine the latter to public law that promote public interests (constitutional, criminal, etc.) and private law that advances private interests (trade, family, personal, etc.).

Unless the above legal reform is undertaken, there is no way to ensure that takfir (charging one with disbelief) and zandaqa (charging one with heresy) claims would not become a political weapon in the hands of political groups to be used as a means to eliminate rivals and opponents. Indeed there is ample evidence to show that zandaqa and takfir have been used by the political authorities during the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties to persecute political dissidents.

Reciprocity and Social Peace

The principle of reciprocity, central to all religious and secular ethics, lies at the core of the Islamic concept of justice. The Qur`an is pervaded with injunctions that encourage Muslims to reciprocate good for good and evil for evil. The principle is, similarly, epitomized in the Golden Rule of the Christian faith, and has been given a secular expression in Kant`s categorical imperative: ``Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.``

In modern society where people of different faiths live side by side, and cooperate under a system of law that recognize their equal dignity, a due attention must be given to the principle of reciprocity as the essence of justice in a multi-religious society. Any attempt by a religious community to place sanctions and apply coercion on its members who choose to convert to another religious group will place a moral obligation on the latter to defend the new comers who choose to join their faith. Muslims would feel morally obligated to defend the right of a Jew and Christian to freely embrace Islam, and would not accept any coercive measure intended to restrict the right of Jews and Christian to convert to Islam. A Christian or a Jew who converts to Islam is no more a Christian or a Jew, but a Muslim and must be respected as such. By the same token, a Muslim who converts to Christianity is no more a Muslim, but a Christian and must be respected as such.

Indeed, there are already signs that the calls by radical voices within Muslim societies to revive apostasy laws have provoked calls by others to restrict conversion to Islam of members of their communities. In December 2004, members of the Coptic community in Egypt cried foul when Coptic women converted to Islam. Coptic leaders accused Muslims of forcing the women to accept Islam, and thousands Christian Copts demonstrated ``in various parts of the nation against what they say is the government`s failure to protect them against anti-Christian crimes.``

Although medieval Christian Europe practiced coercion to force reverse conversions to Christianity, modern societies recognize the freedom of religion of all citizens. Muslim scholars have the obligation to reconsider modern reality and reject any attempt to revive historical claims rooted in classical jurisprudence that are clearly at odd with Qur`anic principles and Islamic spirit, and with modern society and international conventions and practices. It would be a tragedy, for both social peace in Muslim societies and world peace in an increasingly diverse global society, if religious communities embrace practices that limit freedom of religion, and adopt measures that rely on coercion to maintain the integrity of religious communities.

Dr. Louay M. Safi serves as the executive director of ISNA Leadership Development Center, an Indiana based organization dedicated to enhancing leadership awareness and skills among American Muslim leaders, and a founding board member of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. He writes and lectures on issues relating to Islam, American Muslims, democracy, human rights, leadership, and world peace. His commentaries are available at his Blog: http://blog.lsinsight.org

Re: # 384

I think the punjabis and potoharis with shoes and decents company are idiots. Is there any langauage on this planet that can be so comprehensive as this:

khoti kis ni bhayay ni, bhaya kis na khoti na.

Re: # 382

salim mian,

........ ``The good news is that, thanks to your advanced age, with one foot in the grave, I may have the opportunity to piss on your grave. Get lost. `` .......

.... whoa ! ..... as a person of advancing age (not nearly as advanced as old man tahmed) i resent this remark and am thinking about reporting you the aarp ......... remember, in addition to controlling all the prime water front property in the world we old coots also control most of the wealth (that is according to my last tax return) ............. if you are not careful, we will cut you off !

........... but i still don`t understand this punjabi-mohajir thing ........ what is a punjabi anyway ? ........ most, nay, all the punjabis i know don`t speak punjabi/potohari, and even if they do, they will not do so in polite company and will certainly not allow allow their children to speak it .......... most punjabis who own a pair of shoes and have a fifth grade education, like to speak the language of the mohajir/bihari - urdu ............ in the potohar (that is the land between attock and jhelum) the only people who speak potohari are the bare-footed paharias who, more often than not, use it to communicate with their domestic animals, specially donkeys (aka jackasses in impolite company) .............