Mohammad Who?

re: More riots, more deaths in Pak
Pak has proved that it is part of the muslim ummah when its people (some, not all) predictably reacted to the cartoons with violence.
As some die during riots in Lahore one wonders if this was the modern Pak that Manto was talking about in another forum.
Sridhar

re:#321 by kaalchakra on February 15, 2006 11:21am PT
(Behram, you are a loving man, a...)
Behram dude is being lovey dovey in this forum but go to other forums to know what he thinks of hindus and indians.
Sridhar

re: Manto`s modern Pakistan up in flames!
Just a few cartoons published in a Danish newspaper has caused Pakis to riot. They are burning KFCs, embassies, killing people on the street!
Nearly 40000 rioters took to streets to protest the cartoons.
As this plunder and loot continues in the name of Islam, one wonders if this is the modern Pakistan that Manto was envisioning!
Sridhar

#321

Very good analysis. As a matter of fact the Muslims are the most politically motivated people, with a tinge both of fascism and opportunism. There were times during the British Raj when the Muslims were called `Mohammadans` and they did not object but even adopted this name themselves. I remember there was a famous Mohammadan Football Club, Calcutta and Barkat Ali Mohammadan Hall at Lahore. Then they usually wrote the name `Mohammad` in its abreviated form `Mohd` but with an abreviatd symbol of `Soullilah o Ilehiwasalam (head of Urdu alphbet `Suaad` which I could not insert here)` as though every name was the name of the prophet. Today the name `Mohammad` is not assumed necessarily to have any link with the prophet (and it should not be). As only this name is written on the Danish cartoons without any indication of its being that of prophet`s, why link it unnecessarily to the prophet and take it as blasphemy especially when we cannot check it but only propagate it by our slf-dectructive protests.

#317 Bheram1``{But the point remains that even if one does not accept Zaratushtra as a prophet.``
In my book ``To every people was sent an apostle 10-47`` and ``some WE have named and not others 40-78`` leads to the conclusion that ``..believe in some and to reject others....they in truth are unbelievers 4-150``.
Mankind has progressed in its intellectual journey of maturity hand in hand with and led by many messangers over time. Each prophet brought the same message and in their mission were treat as equal, I am told. The difference in language and style not withstanding. The fallibility of humans to grasp the message is no fault of the messanger.
Did not Iqbal call Ram imam-e-Hind?
Rashid

Re: # 278 by zeemax {``... some kind of drastic change in the Islamic mindset is indeed required.

... didn`t the appearance of the revisionist Mu`tazalli school of thought contribute to some degree in what is mostly termed as the `Golden` period of Islam? ...``}

The so-called Golden Age of Islam is quite a bit of hot air and smoke, at least according to one angry Iranian named Farzad, who says it was only marginally better than the Dark Ages of Christiandom at the time.

Farzad seems to be quite fed up with the Iranian theocracy so his bias is understandable. But he is not the only one. The former Bosnian spokesman and human rights activist Serge Trifkoviæ has written a book The Sword of the Prophet which is very unflattering of the so-called Golden Age. But then Serge Trifkoviæ has been accused of being an islamophobe.

I believe that the so-called Golden Age in the Muslim World was not because of Islam per se, but inspite of it.

Be that as it may, the Mutazilli`s were actually very dangerous people. This masadi character could be an example of a mutazilli... It is a misconception to think of them as ``logical`` and ``common sense`` oriented in same meaning as we understand logic and common sense today. These mutazillis claimed, like masadi, that blind faith was not the way to understand Quran and Islam, because Quran and Islam were logical and rational and based on knowledge etc, etc. The only time there was an actual Catholic church style inquisition (Mihna) in Muslim history was at the behest of the Mutazallis...

(Ibn Rashd, for instance, was bannished, as were several other dahriya. The Dahriya were not a sect as such but it was just a term loosely applied to those who were of this world, meaning, materialists. They were generally the scientists and intellectuals who made the contributions to art, literature, astronomy, maths etc that led to the Gold Age. The fundamentalist of the day hounded them until they were silenced and a dark cloud of Islamic ignorance and silence descended on the Muslim World.)

Today`s kattar-wahabbis (Maudoodi style) can be likened to the mutazallis of that era. Later on however, there was a ``libralization`` of sorts, if one wishes to interpret it that way because they claimed that Qur`an was revealed by God for the particular circumstances of the early Muslim community, and reason must be used to apply it to new contexts... so yes, the concept of ijtihad can be credited to them.

Lastly, yes, a serious change in the average mind-set is a necessity if the Muslim world has any future prospects of getting ahead in the world.

...SR

#318, behram1, the reactions you refer too are not ``Islam inspired``, Muslims are on the defensive more as well because non-Muslim attacks against their religion have hovered around the personality of the prophet (Ad Hominem attacks), fictitiously perfected by the crusaders, past and present. As traditionalists have gained over the rationalists, politically, such reactions have become fermented and Muslims, those that deviate from the traditionalist views are attacked moreso than any non-Muslim.

#319- unfortunately I do not have access to cable at 8pm or I would have watched that program. You can post the gist of it here for all to read.

Where is YLH? Anybody seen him today?..... I told him to get his non-mulsim ahemdi-a$$ out of there...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 02 16 story_16-2-2006_pg3_1

``On the Mall rioters torched hundreds of cars and motorcycles and damaged government buildings and private businesses. Outlets of foreign fast food companies McDonald’s, KFC and Pizza Hut as well as several local restaurants and businesses were attacked and set on fire. Several shops and travel agencies were broken into and looted. The demonstrators entered the Punjab Assembly and torched a room next to the opposition leader’s chamber.``....

SR, zeemax:
Thanks alot.

Dear kaalchakra and sattar2:

If I may combine the two posts together, for my response. Personally, I have no qualms one-way or the another whether people respect Zarathushtra or not. I firmly believe in the taste of the pudding and not what the recipe says. Having said that I have always noticed that those who follow the a particular religion do not accept the authenticity of the following religion`s leaders. For example Jews do not consider that Christ was authentic, and of course Christians do not consider that Mohammed was authentic, and nowadays Muslims do not consider Bahaullah as authentic. And this cylce goes on and on.

There is also a tendency only amongst Jesus freaks who go about thumping their bibles that Jesus would not do this or that. And frankly, some fanatic Muslims behave the same way. However, when you say Jesus freaks, the other bystander Christians do not make a big deal about it, whereas unfortunately muslim bystanders get involved explaining why this is not a proper way to describe a Prophet. In my opinion, being judgmental to some Muslim is his Allah given right. He has taken upon himself to be the judge, jury, and executioner all in one package. And that is what is so troubling in relationships with those Muslims.

It is also my opinion, that some of us do not consider actual phrases spoken, as indicative of respect or disrespect. For example, Pakistanis usually call elders as Behram Bhai, etc. as a sign of respect, or Janab Atashband Sahib is commonly used. However, Americans shy away from such salutations. I usually do not go around calling my friends wife`s as bhabhi etc.

Frankly, I usually behave as Americans do.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram, you are a loving man, and you have already made your point very effectively :) But, if you don`t mind, may I include the following rather lengthy post, written just a while ago, reinforcing your views. This issue was/is important to me too. We have a case where creationg a mutual understanding between Muslims and non Muslims should not be difficult, and will be beneficial for both.

---

First, can we agree, taking into account all the pitfalls of group-level generalizations, that there is a difference in Muslim expectations of appropriate social behavior from Muslims and from non Muslims? Behram believes, I think, and I agree that there is.

For evidence, Behram mentions a problem faced by non Muslims that has become more acute than it was, and is apparently becoming worse by the day. At one time nobody would have minded if Mohammad was simply referred to as Mohammad (just as Zaratushtra is mentioned, rightly or wrongly, as Zarathustra and Krishna is mentioned as Krishna). One was free to agree with Mohammad`s prophethood. Others could simply consider him a great man. Then, in dialogue with Muslims, non Muslims began to receive cues that Mohammad must be referred to as Prophet Mohammad. Simple `Mohammad` became `disrespectful.`

Irrespective of what one`s own stand toward Mohammad was, this was an unwelcome imposition on non Muslims. It presumed agreement with Mohammad`s prophethood. The sticking point was that barring exceptional cases, in general Muslim dialogue, agreement with the religious claims of non Muslim leaders is rarely made. Even Jesus, who is pretty much a koranic figure, would rarely be referred to by any Muslim as the Son of God.

Actually, such an expectation should not even be made. It is unreasonable. One doesn`t have to show respect only by following Islamic or Koranic norms, or norms of any other religion. And if such an expectation is made, it should be done only when the favor is returned.

Now, pbuh is becoming all rage among Muslims. Makes no sense at all. Not because I don`t respect the man, but because I believe this to be a very very unhealthy practice, no matter which prophet or God we are talking about.

This trend leaves (some) non Muslims very uneasy. We seem to be getting pushed into a world of one-way, and to some of us, very unreasonable, expectations. One does wonder where all this will stop.

We should be able to find a way out in which we can all be respectful and polite without being forced to do for others what we wouldn`t expect from them for us.

Behram, if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your views on this subject, please correct me. Thanks, everyone who is following this discussion, for giving a thought to this problem.

---

From responses to Behram, it seems the issue is grasped by at least some people. That`s a good start.

Behram (#317):

Yes, calling Parsis (is that the correct term ... ?) fire-worshippers in jest is insulting indeed.

Over time, respect or disrespect one harbors towards others comes back around. Some call it divine retribution, some call it karma. If I recall correctly, according to a saying of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), when one curses another, angels in heavens say to God Almighty …“let the same apply to him”. And when wishes well to others, angels say to God Almighty … “let the same apply to him”.

Angels, heavens here are spiritual metaphors. My understanding is that when one wishes good or bad to others, it leaves an imprint on one’s own soul, mind, psyche. Such an imprint impacts one’s thoughts, his actions, his persona. Eventually good wishes bring about peace and harmony in one’s life, and vice versa. Furthermore, appreciating the finely tuned mechanism of “divine retribution” is one noble way for a believer to praise his Creator.

It seems that followers of every religion have gone through phases of civilized, as well as uncouth behavior. One can argue that ummah, collectively, esp. their leadership, is going through a bad phase … in very obvious ways. And by doing so ummah continues to barter away respect and regard from others, as they continue to strive for political power. And that is not a good tradeoff after all …

Masadi,

Please watch the Scarborough show tonight at 9:00 p.m. Central Time, on MSNBC to get to know about Harry Whittington, my client, the Austin lawyer who was accidentally shot by V.P. Cheney.

Mr. Whittington is the most authentic person that I know. And that is how love is created.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 294

Dear masadi:

{The point being that damn fools and idiots are widely represented under all labels imaginable, and Muslims certainly are not the only ones who have monopolized membership of fools and idiots.}

Of course not. You are correct. But, I deal with muslims more than with any other religious group. Isn`t there some sort of responsibility on the part of muslims?

Please do not deflect the main issue. For muslims, to gain widespread acceptance and admiration throughout the world muslims must learn how to be loved and admired.

And I do love muslims.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 315

Dear sattar2:

{Respect originates from one’s heart, and that’s what counts mainly. } Yes, and that is what is lacking, in my opinion by muslims, generally. I do not think that is part of any of your scripts. However, when those idiotic muslims who gang up on the innocent non-muslim (in modern times), why are the other muslims only by-standers?

{But the point remains that even if one does not accept Zaratushtra as a prophet, it does not justify one making insulting comments towards him or his followers. } And muslims (not all of them of course) calling us fire worshippers. Is that not a form of insult?

{Urstruly has a point ... in that each group has its share of uncouth people ... and life goes on ...} Yes, indeed life does go on. But, muslims are left all alone to defend for themselves. And that is the sad commentary for all of us.

Respectfully submitted,

Ref:#305 by Urstruly on February 15, 2006 6:03am PT

Thank you for a response.

{Your comment about Zorthustra is perpostrous in general, even though there sure are uncouth people among Muslims as well.}

My comment of Zarathushtra was my own personal experience with some muslims, and of course only I would know. That particular comment did not need a judgment comment from you.

{Having said that, one can still be respectful even if one does not use the salutations; similarly one can be still disrespectful even with using the salutations. Its all in ones heart - disdain, meanspiritedness, prejudice, and hatered - even when he submits respectfully.}

Here you are correct as a general rule for humans to behave.

However, most muslims from Pakistan, who came to the US in late 1980`s, expected a specific form of salutation from a non-muslim like myself. And that is what generated my comment.

The implication of your post suggests that respect, etc. can be read between the lines even when posts are ``submitted respectfully.`` When it comes to matters of heart, are you suggesting that the muslim interlocutor can decipher the intent of the post?

Respectfully submitted,