Wahabism in Centers of Learning

Re #108 urstruly,

Supreme courts interpret laws and constitutions that are made by the elected legisatures.
In that sense they are subservient to the elected legislatures.

Are you suggesting that elected parliaments define what the Islamic injuctions are that cannot be violated by its laws in a manner similar to how laws cannot violate provisions of a constitution?

Urstruly (#108):

``Intelligence of your ullema`` (cough, cough) is underscored by their belief in a two-thousand year old prophet residing above clouds, that Prophet flew above clouds to meet Allah, that Moses parted the ocean by waving his hand, that apostates and adulterers should be killed, that Ahmadis should be locked up for practicing Islam, and much more.

Such morons can`t be trusted with running a country. If this is the best the ummah can offer, their miserable state is not unexpected.

And if makes you feel better, note that Pentagon too went through procedures on Iraqi WMD issue. There were flow charts and procedures and it all sounded well. Same is the case with your Shariah Courts: a load of crap, but with feel-good terms and procedures.

Devil is in the details ... and that`s where your mullahs fall flat on their faces. The rest is good old-fashioned hatred and violence perpetuated in the name of God.

Dear Osama,

I am quite stunned by your biased view of the religious-minded students in Pakistani universities. You are trying to potray ``green turban wearing students flocking together to one of the several mosques`` as it these were some drug mafia guys flocking in some university no-go area. Just look at your sentence that follows this one. Quote``mullah mafia is slowly and inexorably overthrowing ....``. What is the logical link between the two. Just because some people (which mind you are not a very big majority) perfer to offer prayers in the mosque (which is their right as free citizens) and fewer still also perfer to wear a green turban, somehow gave you this conculsion that they are the cause of all problems that plagues the world today.

There are several grounds on which I beg to disagree.

Firstly, if you take an unbiased look at the universities you will see a more open and expressive atmosphere for both ends of thoughts. While there are more people being attracted towards religion today, there are certainly also more dates on-campus today than their would have been 5 years ago. Go to any public university and ask a students or teacher who has been there for 4 years and just ask him how things have changed over these years. He will tell you that students today are more confident to make their own decisions. When some want to go to mosque for prayers ther prefer to do so without any hesitation or thinking ``what will others say``. Same is true for the other bunch of class who are much less shy today to ask a girl out on a date as compared to the students 5-10 years ago. Both of them have a simple base. People today are more democratic in their thinking and feel more confident of themselves.

It is odd that you talk about the freedom of religion for every citizen. Yet regular offering of prayers in the mosque is not seen as a act covered under freedom of religious practise, but rather a crime against stae.

As for the role models, it is absolutely wrong for someone to say that the people look up to maulvis as a role model. Pakistanis has never voted a religious party leader to be the PM. Inspite of the people´s strong belief in Islam, they do not appreciate the conduct of the mullah themselves. Their lack of confidence is clear from their voting records.

When talking of Abaya, somehow you totally forgot about the burqa ???

I am actually stunned by your biased analysis of the situation. I really wonder if you have been to any of these universities at all.

#112 This khasi must have heard lies in his mother`s womb.

If one has to see a despicable person posting lies read post no 112 by this one ass of a person

1. There are no “Mulsim only cars” in Pakistan there never were.
2. There was no “West Pakistan Railroad’ In 1992 in fact, there has never been any West Pakistan Railroad in Pakistan ever. It was called West Pakistan Railway until 1973 after that it is called Pakistan Railways.
3. There is no the Separate Car Act in Pakistan. If there was one it would have gotten mention in the press.
This harrami kutay ki aulad is pulling this info from the web and changing names.

Matherchod Khasi.
As Manto would say a typical Gandhi follower.


The story shows up here and it is abt the US….
http://www.bcri.org/education_programs/curriculum_guide/plessy.htm

In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the ``Separate Car Act``. This law declared that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana had to provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.
Homer Plessy was a 30-year-old shoemaker and a resident of Louisiana. In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway, from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. Although Plessy was only one-eighth black, under Louisiana law he was considered black. Therefore, he was required to sit in the ``Colored`` car. Instead, Plessy sat in the car for ``White`` passengers. When he refused to move, he was jailed.
Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the government treat people equally. John Howard Ferguson, the judge hearing the case, had stated in a previous court decision that the Separate Car Act was unconstitutional if applied to trains running outside of Louisiana. In this case, however, he declared that the law was constitutional for trains running within the state. Ferguson found Plessy guilty of not leaving the whites-only car.


Before Judge Ferguson made his decision, Plessy filed a petition to ask the Louisiana State Supreme Court (a higher court) to stop the judge from making his decision. Plessy argued in this separate case that his ancestry was seven-eighths Caucasian and only one-eighth African and that he should be treated like any white man.
The Louisiana State Supreme Court asked Judge Ferguson to answer Plessy`s petition. Ferguson said that the Separate Car Act was constitutional and that Plessy refused to admit that he was a black man. The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with Judge Ferguson that the Separate Car Act was constitutional. Plessy then took his case, Plessy v. Ferguson, to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country. Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case because he had been named in the petition to the Louisiana State Supreme Court, not because he was a party to the initial lawsuit.

The ummah`s greatest achievement over the past millennium has undoubtedly been its internal intellectual cohesion. From the fifth century of the Hijra almost to the present day, and despite the outward drama of the clash of dynasties, the Sunni Muslims have maintained an almost unfailing attitude of religious respect and brotherhood among themselves. It is a striking fact that virtually no religious wars, riots or persecutions divided them during this extended period, so difficult in other ways.

The history of religious movements suggests that this is an unusual outcome. The normal sociological view, as expounded by Max Weber and his disciples, is that religions enjoy an initial period of unity, and then descend into an increasingly bitter factionalism led by rival hierarchies. Christianity has furnished the most obvious example of this; but one could add many others, including secular faiths such as Marxism. On the face of it, Islam`s ability to avoid this fate is astonishing, and demands careful analysis.

[...]


Like Shi`ism, Kharijism caused much instability in Iraq and Central Asia, and on occasion elsewhere, until the fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. At that point, something of historic moment occurred. Sunnism managed to unite itself into a detailed system that was now so well worked-out, and so obviously the way of the great majority of ulama, that the attraction of the rival movements diminished sharply.

What happened was this. Sunni Islam, occupying the middle ground between the two extremes of egalitarian Kharijism and hierarchical Shi`ism, had long been preoccupied with disputes over its own concept of authority. For the Sunnis, authority was, by definition, vested in the Quran and Sunnah. But confronted with the enormous body of hadiths, which had been scattered in various forms and narrations throughout the length and breadth of the Islamic world following the migrations of the Companions and Followers, the Sunnah sometimes proved difficult to interpret. Even when the sound hadiths had been sifted out from this great body of material, which totalled several hundred thousand hadith reports, there were some hadiths which appeared to conflict with each other, or even with verses of the Quran. It was obvious that simplistic approaches such as that of the Kharijites, namely, establishing a small corpus of hadiths and deriving doctrines and law from them directly, was not going to work. The internal contradictions were too numerous, and the interpretations placed on them too complex, for the qadis (judges) to be able to dish out judgements simply by opening the Quran and hadith collections to an appropriate page.
[....]

A third image might also be deployed. An ancient building, for instance the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, might seem imperfect to some who worship in it. Young enthusiasts, burning with a desire to make the building still more exquisite and well-made (and no doubt more in conformity with their own time-bound preferences), might gain access to the crypts and basements which lie under the structure, and, on the basis of their own understanding of the principles of architecture, try to adjust the foundations and pillars which support the great edifice above them. They will not, of course, bother to consult professional architects, except perhaps one or two whose rhetoric pleases them nor will they be guided by the books and memoirs of those who have maintained the structure over the centuries. Their zeal and pride leaves them with no time for that. Groping through the basements, they bring out their picks and drills, and set to work with their usual enthusiasm.
[...]
There is a real danger that Sunni Islam is being treated in a similar fashion. The edifice has stood for centuries, withstanding the most bitter blows of its enemies. Only from within can it be weakened. No doubt, Islam has its intelligent foes among whom this fact is well-known. The spectacle of the disunity and fitnas which divided the early Muslims despite their superior piety, and the solidity and cohesiveness of Sunnism after the final codification of the Shariah in the four Schools of the great Imams, must have put ideas into many a malevolent head. This is not to suggest in any way that those who attack the great madhhabs are the conscious tools of Islam’s enemies. But it may go some way to explaining why they will continue to be well-publicised and well-funded, while the orthodox alternative is starved of resources. With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised. [74]
-excerpts from Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad [TJ Winter] `s article which can be read here: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/newmadhh.htm

****

Basically, Wahabism is the most insidious new sect to have arisen for many a century. The reason I have quoted from AHM`s article above is to emphasise that Wahabis are the Kharijites of the modern era, rejecting all authority except their own, giving extremely literal interpretations of Islam and considering all who disagree with them as `kafirs` or heretics.

Without going into the theological areas where they disagree with orthodox Sunni Islam their salient features are these: (1) An anthropomorphic understanding of God -based on their literalism (2) Denigration of the Blessed Prophet peace be upon him to a status of `just another Muslim`. Shah Ismail Dihlavi--the person who brought this fitna to India wrote `Respect him only as much as you respect your elder brother--or even less` in his utterly burnable Taqwiyat al Iman which was a translation in Urdu of Ibn Abd al Wahab Najdi`s Kitab al Tawhid (3) Hatred of the Prophet`s Family (4) Considering respecting the Prophets and the Saints as polytheism--indeed they charge most of the Ummah with this label. (5) Disregarding the classical Sunni scholarship and the Schools of Thought.

Because they think most Muslims are polytheists, they deem it permissible to kill anyone who disagrees with them! Hence the killings throughout their infamous history.

**
Until recently, calling someone a Wahabi was a big insult. Until petro dollars made this previously insignificant sect internationally infamous.

#116 by HP

Ama yaar HP,

Now, now, now….

Just because the analogy in that hypothetical description cuts a bit too close to home is no reason to get abusive and run rough-shod all over the chowk guidelines (tsk, tsk!). In getting stuck over the superficial details (whether there are separate railroad cars, or separate restrooms, or separate graveyards (oops, scratch that one out – perhaps I spoke too soon!)) you remain on the superficial and miss the underlying point entirely!

The underlying point of that whole interact was ….

“Separate but equal” is a falsity!

It is a fraud – which is pushed with ulterior motives!

There never was a “separate but equal” situation in the black versus white issue in the USA – there is none in the “Muslim versus non-Muslim” issue in Pakistan!

It was a falsity in the USA and it IS a falsity in Pakistan – because once you start separating people into groups (and subgroups after you start running out of groups) there is absolutely no way to ensure equal treatment under law! Therefore it is a fraud and a falsity!

And it was a falsity in the pre-partition subcontinent!

Yes, that’s right – your guru – the vamp was full of falsity – he was a faker – who specialized in falsities! And your baap’s baap and your dadas fell for it – and are paying a heavy price ever since!

And you guys still continue to think you are on the right track! Who is the utter idiot, tell me now!

And by the way – next time you read an interact, read the whole thing and especially do not miss out the last two lines! Otherwise, you only look like the chump that you invariably prove yourself to be!

#117 Dear Wolf

In my humble opinion, the question ought not to be WHETHER the Wahabis are the big bad wolves that the non-Wahabi world claims that they are, but:

(1) What are the non-Wahabi Muslims doing to counter their influence. (Alternate phrase: how does one spell “precious nothing”?! )

(2) What did the non-Wahabi Muslims do to speak against the Wahabis, especially those living in Europe and the USA and especially before 9/11 - when the immigration agents were rather lenient? (Alternate phrase: how does one spell big bad La Migra?)

(3) Where are the angry hoardes of non-Wahabi Muslims protesting in the streets against the Wahabis?! (Alternate phrase: When is the right time for the men folks (men - defined as creatures with dangling genitals between their legs and little else) to don burqas and hide inside their houses?)

#117 Wolfy (contd.)

Partial answer to (3) - don`t look for them on the Punjab University campus, as per #32!

Re: # 113 Khurram

``Supreme courts interpret laws and constitutions that are made by the elected legisatures.
In that sense they are subservient to the elected legislatures.``

The basic premis in your question here is wrong. In modern democracies Judiciary is independent of Executive and Legislative branches of the government so that they can work independently. But it does not mean that they are not accounatble to anyone. If you live in one of the Western countries you know how these three branches of goverment work independently and yet cohesively and maintain a check and balance among themsleves. So no one is subservient to other but each is accountable to other.

In 1400 years of Islamic history until the collapse of Ottoman Empire judiciary has always worked and evolved independently. Fiqa (law) and jurisprudence always had evolved independently in schools and universities by scolars, students and teachers. The Judiciary (i.e. Qazi) were bound to obey the then interpretation of Fiqah by these scholars.

In the present day legislative only acts as a forum for formal Ijtehad whereas an actual law may be propposed by a civilian or educational entity in the society. For example in West various laws regarding women rights, abortion rights, are first proposed by an entity or pressure group in the society. Then it is adopted by the legislature as a formal bill. It is debated and contested while the pressure groups on either side help in debate; a consensus is reached and bill is passed. The bill then goes to Ministry of Law (or Fed Shariat Court) which examines it whther it is consistent with the constitution or not. The ministry also translates the law into a legal document using legal jargon and appropriate reference and law is then sent to the Senate that examine s the final version of the law. It is again debated and either approved or sent back to either lower house or to Ministry for ammendments. The pressure groups during this process keep a tab on the whole process and advice their respective candidates as to whether it is consistent with the letter and spirit of their demand or not.

An Islamic law is no different. Most of the interpretation work was completed centuries ago and energed as five jurisprudence schools of thought. The law was in practice for centuries and it has been only disrupted for a century or less because of the colonial occupation and later by the occupation by the corrupt vassal class. The only difference between now and then is that in the past the institution for ijtehad and ijtemah (jurisprudence and consensus) was school/madrassa and now it is formalized as a legislative. Remeber it will always be the men who will do any kind of interpretation with their warts and all and it will be the men who will hold them accountable with warts and all. There is not a new prophet coming again to interpret any thing for us anew until the end of the days.

Re: # 117

1. The Cohesion is the result of an elaborate system of forced piety, using peer pressure to subdue dissent in religious discussions, open espousal of belligerence and threats of violence to maintain a specific interpretations and exegesis - all of these are easily seen in African or Asian tribal orders some of which are alive. Many such tribal orders still believe that the earth is flat and the whites are devils because of the the forced ``consensus`` over these ``matters of fact`` which were established by their traditions. I doubt Max Weber`s analyses would work in such cases.

2
whahabism is like a child`s belief that the ball disappears and the then reappears when you hide it in a magical way and that there is no persistence of this ball. It is this simplicity of literalist interpretation that makes people believe is all those mythical entities that they visualize in their minds. It is easy to `understand` and hence its immense popularity but falls flat on analyses simply because of its insistence upon a literalist interpretation of the revelations it is open to empirical falsification.

3.``With every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised.``

More conspiracy theories!! Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad is obviously going to lose his prized position as a ``Shaykh`` . He is going to stop getting those funds from the gullible muslims who dotes these Ayotollahs and Shaykhs. Obviously he is going to create this doomsday secenerio about Islam which would even without this `Shaykh`` continue to show light to the billions of faithfuls spiritually and would not remain a hand maiden of these Shaykhs and Mullahs.

Constituition of Islamic Republic of Iran

This could be easily adapted and adopted. The only major requirement is to replace Ja`afri Fique with the Hanafi Fiqhue.

The sooner the brainwashing done by the western systems is spurned & hurled into oblivion
the earlier we can de-colonise our minds.

and here is one of the very first clauses of the constituition of the bhangi-farangi..the so-called superpower ( Hyper-power now?).
The rest of the world especially the superior civilisations must feel good. In India & Pakistan most of those elected to the highest offices were not only born elsewhere but more than less in the ``enemy`` country.

Talk about self-loathing by the slaves who would rather pay or beg borrow and steal to grovel at the white-master`s feet.

``We know english now, we might become white one day``.....the delusion of the slaves.


Requirements for holding office [ U.S constituition]

[ `` but yaar they are goraa goraa ; they`ve ruled over us. How can they be wrong! Mullah bad bad; KanjarR good good``]

Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that President must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), at least 35 years of age, and resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.[2]

Indians/Pakistanis are past-fixated. Not only do they revel in past glory (islamic, hindu, sikh, etc) but the future is also seen as a going back to past glory, not future per se. Like walking forward while facing backward. Obviously one can`t get far.

The white man has no past-fixation because he has no past...and that appears to be his saving grace.
He concentrates his energies ONLY in the current...and the future.

So naturally he leads and everyone else follows.

Naqshbandi/Urstruly

Since this is a discussion about Wahabism, and therefore religious beliefs, I would like someone deeply knowledgeable in Islam like yourselves to answer this for me:

Is it indeed true that 72 virgin ``Houries`` and an unknown number of ghilmans (who I understand are little boys) are going to be available to those muslims who follow the Koran to a T? Or is this yest another example of how the non-Muslims are trying to smear Islam`s good name?

I`ve heard different answers, so I would like to find out for sure.

Thanks....

Re: # 121 by Urstruly on November 3, 2006 6:43pm PT

Dear Urstruly:

You continuously insert ``dhool`` in the eyes of the unsuspecting mind. You continue to assert the notion that Islamic law and jurisprudence is somewhat similar (?) or even better (?) than the secular system of governance of modern times.

And you know better. Why?

Do you want to say that in the 1400 years of Islamic rule, there were non-muslim judges? or law-makers? Just by changing names of Judges to Qazis, does not impress a non-muslim.

Then, somewhere else on this site, you mentioned that you do not accept muslims converting non-muslims, etc. What rubbish thought is that? Muslims have always converted people by force.

Would it be alright for muslims to get out of Islam? Or then you will be the first person to voice your opinion about application of the ``murtad law`` started by Khalid-Bin-Walid? When a General goes around killing people, then where was the piety of the rulers you claim to be pious? What piousness are you ranting about? eh!

Please, urstruly, do not promote values of your Islamic history that can not be validated by your history.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: #126 by myself

And furthermore, will you also tell me about the pious Muslim ladies like the ones on Chowk like Zeena etc.? What about them? If the Islamic gents are going to be rewarded with the Houris (some say 72 raisins - although I don`t see how that could be more than a snack) and Ghilmans, how about the pious ladies? What is their reward? Shah Rukh Khan-type gents? Shah Rukh Khan AND Musharraf? Shah Rukh Khan and Musharraf AND Osama?

What do THEY have to look forward to? I looked through the Koran, but I couldn`t find anything encouraging.

I would appreciate if you would clarify this important point for me.

Thanks...