Blowing Up People and Property is Not Islam

Inquirer:

Thanks for you post. Us ``moderates`` (to use your words, although I think ``moderate`` is a inappropriate term, and ``normal people`` is more appropriate) need to stick together, and not allow the hate-mongerers in our respective communities to create divisions.

Regarding impeachment - I dont hold any public office from which I can be impeached. And even if I did, I doubt if any mullah in Pakistan would dare to challenge the Quranic words, which is what I consider to be the authentic ``message of Islam`` as opposed to the ``sharia law`` and other sources that they have used to replace the message of Islam with the ``message of the Calph/Dictator/King``.

The `` military-mullah complex`` is a separate issue for Pakistan whereby individuals are using Islam cynically to gain power, nothing else. They couldnt care less about what the Quran has to say, since their goal is not to understand Islam but merely to use it to stay in power. So, even they would not get worked up on this issue.

As for your encouragement to speak up - thanks for that. Actually, that is what I have been doing all my years on chowk with fellow muslims who seem to think otherwise. Last month or so on chowk, e.g., there was a gentlemen named NTSyed with whom I had a somewhat heated exchange on this very issue (although we ended the discussion as friends, I think). And while I am not sure how fully convinced he was by what I wrote about the equality of all indivduals (regardless of religion) before God in Islam, he certainly did not consider this to be sacriligeous by any means.

The only ones in fact whom I have seen get worked up on chowk when I present this ``moderate view`` of Islam (as you call it) in fact are your fellow Indians who seem to consider anyone who presents Islam in a positive light to be an enemy. And that is fine with me - such individuals or their name-calling and personal insults dont bother me either. Although it has served to educate me on the reality of hindu hatred for Islam which I had considered to be a fiction in some people`s minds until now.

wrt the quote from 2:62 includes not just the ``semitic`` religions but to all religions, with christianity and judaism being used (as you correctly note) given the proximity of christian and jewish tribes. Thus the Sabians (a third religion noted there) was the religon of the Yemenites (a much older civilization, traces of which in the form of towns and roads have recently been identified in satellite images). The Sabians were a polytheistic tribe - and the quran speaks glowingly of the queen Sheba (who was not just in the polytheistic tradition bu also a female head of state as well - and thus a represents a Quranic double slap in the face of the maulvis of Pakistan who promote hatred for other religions and also try to keep women down as second class citizens)

Re: # 242,tahmed32:
Thanks alot for your response. Your quotation, 2.62, shows that Koran is addressing and limiting itself to the Semitic religions. That, per se, is understandable but must be recognized as a limitation of the scope of Koranic teachings. For an Egyptian, it is insignificant but for India and Pakistan it is a central deficiency or region of limbo. In the context of India and Pakistan this issue has to be addressed before the definition of Islamic tolerance can be formulated.

Friend, you should not run from taking stand on this if you claim that you belong to the tolerant wing, or if you say the wing exists. So what, if a religious argument explodes. Do you have the knowledge and the conviction to uphold your belief?? That is what I meant when I said can you take an unpopular stand?? Or do you cave in to the dictatorship of the Mullah-Military combine??? (You might need to read Rafique Zakaria`s Where Indian Muslims have gone Wrong.)

I am afraid you are showing the signs of the fear of impeachment by the organized clique. It is this lack of tenability of tolerance in Islam that has to be addressed. It may take you to Hazrat Mohammad and his 37 wars. Non-Muslims can not, particularly in India and Pakistan, close their eyes to reality and potentiality of it.

Inquirer: In response to your question, the Quran is full of references that make it clear that all religions are legit. There is a whole surah that calls for muslims not to argue with non-muslims on matters of religon, but to simply say ``to you be your way, and to me be mine`` (Suratul Kafiroon). There are exhortations to mankind to view all religions as coming from God, and therefore not to fight or argue over religious differences. The Quran specifically referes to itself as the Arabic Quran, ``meant for a people unfamiliar with languages the earlier books were revealed``. It says that prophets were sent to all people. So on and so forth. One particular verse I have often used on chowk is the follows: ``Those who believe (in the Qur`an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.`` 2: 62.

Hope this helps. I dont want to start a religious argument here with anyone, though, and am simply providing the above in response to your request.

Re: # 240
Yeah and some beliefs that seemed perfectly good and logical in one period , in one economic system, becomes a threat in another day and age. The point is whether one should hold onto that belief with respect , tolerate it or discard it. In some cases discarding it with respect it is better than tolerating it.

#239 i guess i would separate belief and action when it comes to abolition, but i get the point.

Re: # 237
Jang, that`s rubbish. In a civil society you respect some beliefs , you tolerate some and you disregard nay abolish some. Tolerance alone will get you nowhere. Civil societies were never formed from just tolerance.

Re: # 232, tahmed32:
Friend, If you can find time would you provide quotations from Quran that would document your statements in this response? Specifically for:
a. ``to the Quran where it specifically acknowledges (to use your words) ``the feasibility of all religions``
b. ``simple proposition (which is clearly and unequivocally taught in the Quran``
with enough references for traceability.

And yes, tell jang it is twentyfirst not eighteenth century!!!! Hurry, and wake him up!!!!!!!!!

tahmed, all i know is i will disregard a demand or request from you to respect your religious belief, its not that important. all i need in a civil society is tolerance.

the previous post is addressed to jang, but any comments from any other chowkie would be welcome.

jang: If we dig under the term ``Religion``, we will find that it consists of three parts, namely customs and traditions, beliefs, and religious affiliation.

1. Customs and traditions can quickly become dysfunctional due to socio-economic change, are amoral in essence, and so can and should be reviewed and modified as needed.

2. Beliefs have to do primarily in faith in the Creator - which people have to varying degrees within all religions, and no one can claim to be able to measure anyone`s ``Belief Index``, nor is there any particular moral issue related to this (and in the Quran it is explicitly stated that this is a matter between the individual and God and no one else`s business).

3. Religous affiliation is how people identify themselves - and it is perfectly understandable for people to identify themselves with the community in which they were born and raised in. It is thus closely linked to other dimensions in which people identify themselves, e.g. nationality, linguistic, racial, and so forth.

It is clear from chowk interactions, that by far the most relevant aspect of religion in most people`s minds is 3 . Some exceptions, like hamidm (if he will excuse me for using his example), focus on 1 as is obvious from his posts. Thus, hamidm may rant against 1. and 2. among muslims (and sometimes hindus) (and very often rightly so), but has yet to give up his muslim name or identity - and I would be very surprised if he ever did.

Hope this makes some sense, since I just spent 10 minutes writing this us. Now back to some real work. :-)

#231 that is an unfair demand..why would anyone have to respect a religion of sati and caste? tolerate is fair enough. if (some) hindus want to respect all religions, that is their prerogative.

Re: # 214

It`s very to clear to the readers of these pages who the real joker is. You wear emperor`s clothes. Enoy your ignorance. If you pretend to be ignorant then I leave you there in the slush as a mad dog.

#231 Inquirer: You write ``You, I mean the tolerant wing of Islam if it exists, has to unequivocally acknowledge the feasibility of all religions.``

Please read my posts (if you have the time) over the past several years that I have been around on chowk, and you will find dozens of posts from me that do exactly this, i.e. ``unequivocally acknowledge the feasibility of all religions.`` And those posts are almost always addressed to ``muslims`` who are confused - or simply wrong - on this question, and those posts are almost always based on references to the Quran where it specifically acknowledges (to use your words) ``the feasibility of all religions``.

I realize that there is no shortage of muslims who (among other irrational or plainly stupid things like the conspiracy theories they weave) are unaware or unwilling to acknowledge this simple proposition (which is clearly and unequivocally taught in the Quran), and so to some extent can understand why you seem so surprised that any muslim should consider respect for all other religions as being part of his faith. But there it is. So, I am on your corner, my friend, on this issue.

Re: # 229,tahmad32:
My items 4 and 5 refer to not any particular set of interactions (190 to 200) referred to by you, probabaly.
I am seeking an unabiguous recognition of all religions other than Islam to exist and practice.
So far, all Muslims seem to be one in declaring that other religions are just the wrong ways of worshipping Allah.
You, I mean the tolerant wing of Islam if it exists, has to unequivocally acknowledge the feasibility of all religions.

Re: # 225
Zeemax
As a matter of interest I searched the Nova website after Fuzair`s post and found some stuff. I haven`t read it yet and perhaps everybody here with some interest can do so. There is also a bunch of discussions on the theory.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

There is other stuff here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Inquirer #222 I am glad that you unequivocally acknowledge the role of hindu communalists on chowk. And I checked your profile as you suggested, and you certainly express noble sentiments there, particularly the last part about the ``rational development of humanity``. Unfortunately, from the posts below (by indians as well as by pakistanis), it is clear that the Age of Reason has yet to dawn upon Chowk. Here it is still midnight.

I am puzzled as to why you feel the need to ask me to take an open and unequivocal stand ``to set the record straight``. I thought this is what I have been doing all these years - see my interactions below with zeemax e.g. Is there something less than clear in my stand in my posts below?