unflinching idealism ... since 1997 archivessitemapabouthelpfeedback
where paths intersect
  • Home
  • InFocus
  • Themes
  • Columns
  • Articles
  • Fiction
  • iLogs
  • Gallery
  • Unplugged
  • Writers
  • Interactors
  • Tags
Sign in | Join Chowk
web chowk
  • Article
  • Interact
  • read writer comments
  • add to favorites
  • get rss feeds
  • print
  • email this link

Muharram 10: ’Ashura: Commemorating Imam Hussain- The Prince of Martyrs

Asif Naqshbandi January 29, 2007

Latest comments   flat   threaded   latest   oldest   all
listing 1-16   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

#199 Posted by hexelite on June 4, 2007 11:12:44 pm
Allah Humma Salle Alla Muhammadin Wa alle Mohammad.
Sayings of Mohammad (SAW)Peace be Upon Him: I leaving two things behing, for all Muslims One THe Holy Quran Second The Allul Bait (The Family of Moahmad SAW).
We do Belive on Both Quran and Ahlul Bait.
Onother Saying of Our Great Mohammad (SAW) Peace be Upon Him : Mai Ilm ka Shehr hu aur Ali us ka Derwza Hai. it means if you want to Know Islam you have to go to Rasool (SAW) Peace be Upon Him, but before you go to Rasool (SAW) Peace be Upon Him, You have to go to Hazrat Ali (Alleh Salam).

One more thing for that Adha Muslim adha Hindu:
There is nothing Half in this world Either you are a Animal or a Human.
Either You are a Male or a Female.
A Woman is Eithe rPregnent or Not, but no Half Pregnent/
Either there is a Day or Night.
So Muslim is a Complete Muslim, and a Muslim is Never Half Muslim or Hindu.
A Muslim who is divided into several religion is called a MUNAFIQ! Plz do not mention your self Half Muslim again.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#198 Posted by sattar2 on February 13, 2007 2:31:54 pm

… ok, I’ll bite …

Naqsh miaN, verse you quoted seems to suggest that in addition to Allah and His apostle, a believer may also pray to other believers … not independently of Allah, of course …

… which means you may pray to your local imam, your uncle seeking Australian visa, or your cousin in his third attempt at USMLE. And while we are at it, let’s not forget Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ashfaq Ahmad, Cat Stevens, and Hakeem Olajuwan of Detroit Pistons …

… Urstruly’s point is that Islam should be used only for blowing people up, waging jihad against white man, killing jews, circumcising believing women ... and executing a sufi divine every now and then ...

I personally like your version better … but hear that bhang at Hajweri urs could be of better quality … which makes me wonder … where is all that knee-deep stacks of money that Urstruly keeps complaining about, going. And if the gaddinasheens still cannot tell good charas from bad, can we really trust them to faithfully convey our prayers to the imam sahib …? Just a thought …
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#197 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 12, 2007 7:06:58 am
Proof from the Koran why it is permissible to believe that the Prophet and the saintly people and, in particular, Hazrat Ali, can help Muslims.

The verse is:

5.55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Apostle and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow. [MH Shakir translation]

-emphasis mine.

This clearly shows that Allah is the helper [wali] of the believers and the Prophet is a helper and those who believe are helpers and `pay the poor-rate while they bow` refers first of all to Hazrat Ali. This is the exegesis of ALL the classical commentators that the first object [misdaaq]
of `hum raak`uun` [while they bow] is Ali alayhisalam. This is because this verse was revealed when Hazrat Ali gave a man in the Masjid Nabvi his ring in charity whilst he was doing ruku [bowing down] in namaz when the man asked for something and no one else gave him anything. He ran to the Prophet and told him about it and the Prophet said, subhan Allah. It is Ali!

This is absolute evidence [nass qati] that Ali alayhisalam is a madadgaar [wali: helper] of the Muslim till qayamat and why we can say Ya Ali madad!. The word wali has been translated with this meaning of helper by over 100 mufassireen so it is mass transmitted with this meaning.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#196 Posted by ZahraJ on February 10, 2007 1:02:20 am
1. [What is currently a war of sects must become a war of ideas.]

2. [First, Islam must make space for differing views about what makes a good Muslim. Then it will be able to take the next step and accept the diversity among religions, each true in its own way.]

3. [We should encourage the diversity within Islam, which has the potential to divide our enemies. But more important, we should encourage the emerging debate within it. In the end it was not murder but Martin Luther that made the Reformation matter. ]

I considered the above 3 points as key take-aways. Everything boils down to debate among muslims and acceptance of differing views. Unfortunately, someone will have to define what is acceptable to be discussed under differing views.

Sattar - I agree with your take on Christianity`s reformation. Interestingly, there are several schools of thought among christians as well, but they can co-exist without causing harm to each other. I am not saying that is true historically. In last week`s local newspaper, I found the cover page full of news between shia/sunni fiascos(on saddam`s hanging) in Detroit/Dearborn. The actual incident may not be that severe, but the media took advantage of bringing it to the lime-light giving the key message - war among the muslims even in the west.


Urs - I completely understand where you are coming from, but what`s the conclusion of your take. Should we eliminate all those who attend urs and other ceremonies at a saint`s shrine? Why is it important to police those who do not follow the rituals and practices you or others believe in? What`s the gain? Trying to inculcate common understanding of the faith??? Making sure everyone follows Islamic concepts in only one way. How many Muslims are there all over the world? If we follow your drift that means we must ignore 1000s of muslims who practice Islamic rituals/beliefs slightly differently. I guess the real danger is in the interpretation of things. I have never truly understood the rationale behind ``ijtehad``. That`s also very misleading. What if your ijtehad may lead you to your nirvana, but is against what others believe in? That means hours, months, years of convincing each other????What if there is no common ground? Why not agree to disagree with each other? Why isn`t this concept promoted in the growth and development of ummah? I am not talking about specifics of tauheed. I am talking in much broader sense.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#195 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 9, 2007 6:16:59 pm
urstruly,

this is my last comment on this topic as you seem as willing to label anything as `shirk` as any other `salafi` [in reality `talafi` i.e. one who is cut off]. firstly, what you described at the roza of data sahib shaykh ali hijwiri is nothing approaching shirk since no one who goes there worships data sahib as the Creator or as an Ilah. It is just ta`zeem --something wahabis, who lack adab, will never understand. even if someone was to ask the shaykh directly for help it still will not be shirk as long as he or she believes the shaykh can only help by the will of Allah. As for the monetary issue, what is wrong with people donating to these darbars? is that shirk too?! but giving to terrorist organisations like sipah e sahaba or maudoodi`s one is not shirk?! at most one can say some people at some shrines may be involved in some financial improprieties. I dont believe that either rather it is just your excuse for calling muslims as mushriks.

Allah`s Habib said in the hadith i have already quoted, I DO NOT FEAR MY UMMAH WILL FALL INTO SHIRK after me but for people like you shirk is everywhere. are you suggesting the tens of thousands of gaddinasheens at all the shrines are happy for people to be mushriks so they can get money? la`anat on the wahabi mentality. then again, for people who openly disrespect the Messenger in their books, and who consider Yazid khabis as the rightful caliph and who consider imam hussain a baaghi, it is not surprising.

please dont go to the darbars. you might get some spiritual benefit!
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#194 Posted by sattar2 on February 9, 2007 12:04:30 pm

Zahra, it makes some thought provoking points. A few comments …

I don’t think Christianity ever got reformed. It was mainly told to shut up and to stay out of politics. Given the opportunity, Christian fanaticism would grow again and repeat Crusades of the past. Nazism surfaced not too long ago. Then there is KKK still lurking in the background. Mel Gibson’s rants too were very telling, not to mention how much anxiety his “Passion of Christ” caused among Jewish community who feared stirring up of anti-Jew emotions among people.

Zakaria’s point is that … Islamic ideology has become so violent that its supporters are now turning against each other … a point I have been making for quite some time now (”pass the halwa and load the AK47”).

Zakaria is further suggesting that ... once fanatics have killed each other, there may be room for diverging viewpoints within Muslim community. If this is correct, then get ready for a century of violence and bloodshed on a massive scale. Note that west is now already involved in this conflict, which, as a consequence, may no longer be strictly contained within the Muslim community.

++++

Naqsh, you give yourself too much importance by assuming I am trying to be accepted as a Muslim by parasites like you. My Islam is my business. Take a hike, pal ...

... I am simply a bystander enjoying a pissing contest between brothers in faith. Note that it is not me, but your brother Urstruly who supports execution of your divine al-Hallaj. Get real, idiot …

Shia Sunnis are now going at each other’s throats. It is time to get over your hang-ups. Your irrational hatred is hurting you more than anyone else. This applies to Urstruly as well ...

+++

Urstruly, and you think hatred for minorities, Maudoodi’s threats of war against non-Muslim countries, executing apostates will invite people to Islam? Is this what you call righteous path? Are you nuts??

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#193 Posted by Urstruly on February 9, 2007 10:23:38 am

Re: # 192

In my last post, I wrote ``Those people who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo are afraid of this movement and try to malign it.`` Just to give you an idea what I mean by `vested interests`, consider this:

In Lahore, there is a shrine of Ali Hajweri, where hundereds of millions of people go every year. This shrine had an avarage daily income of Rs. 3-5 million, as they published sometime in mid 80`s. When I was young and ignorant I happened to visit the shrine once and I saw the room where they count the money (anyone could see it at that time). The room was about 10`x12` and there were about 6-8 people sitting on the floor who were sorting and counting money. Some other workers would bring sacks of money from different collection terminals and empty the currency right on the floor. The sacks were not ordinary sacks but one of those jute sacks used for storing wheat, commonly known as ``dou mann ki bori``. There was so much money on the floor that the people who were counting money inside were knee deep into it; not to mention the counted money stacked against the wall like bricks.

Now please tell me, would these people, who run this racket, invite people to righteous path of God or towards the grave worship of long dead people. Isn`t it in their interest to keep the people Jahil, ignorant, and superstitious? Wouldn`t they try to malign every voice that is raised against this clear shirk? I can understand an illiterate person but what about these supposedly literate people who are so much in love with their jihalat that they fail to recognaize the diffrence between shirk and Tauheed?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#192 Posted by Urstruly on February 9, 2007 8:00:13 am
Re: # 189 ZahraJ

My take is this that, about 1200 years ago when Islam started spreading beyond the Arabian penninsula the early missionaries, preacers, and sufis did an informal ijtehad and allowed new converts to continue certain sultural practices of theirs to after baptizing the practices. This includes several Hindu marriage and death rites and their religious practices etc. For example Hindus have a religious practice of saying and counting mantra on date pits or on chickpeas when someone dies. The Muslim mujtahid of that time allowed this practice to new converts but by replacing mantra with Muslim prayers. Similarly, Hindu culture has a very strong religious practice of Bhajjan; as a matter of fact their religious practices are incomplete without singing and dancing. So Sufis baptized the practice into Quwwali. Elsewhere, the cultural practices of extreme form of pardah resulted in the current quagmire of pardah, niqab, and hijab. Over the time such practices (I must emphasize, `cultural practices`) have become a religion itself; which it is not. It was Ijtehad and new Ijtehad can replace an older Ijtehad.

So even though the ijtehad of that time can be sanctified as according to Qura`n and sunnah it has brought Muslims of different parts of world at odd with each other in current times. For example, a Morrocon Muslim has no clue what Quwwali is and similarly we wouldn`t understand the reason behind the female circumcision in Africa. So in order to counter these differences there is a world wide movement going on among Muslims to isolate the cultural practices that were allowed in faith from the pure unadulterated faith. A new informal ijtehad is underway. Those people who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo are afraid of this movement and try to malign it. Calling it rise of wahabism is just one such effort.

The proof of existence of such movement and how it is working is the North American model of Mosque. In these very mosques all people belonging to those very sects who would never ever go to each others mosque in their native lands stand shoulder to shoulder. No one minds if the guy standing next to you has wrapped his hands at the navel or at the chest. No one cares if someone is saying Amin in loud voice or in a whisper. There have been attempts to bring in the prejudices and jihalat of the old world here as well but an overwhelming majority of Muslims have rejected it.

I don`t know about Europe but the overwhelming majority of immigrants in North America have much higher rate of literacy then their European counterparts. In addition, it is a different time as well. The media and internet has eliminated the distances. Hence there is a greater need for uniformity and uniformity can only be achieved through going back to the basics. Whether we like it or not, this change is inevitable, the new order, and new ijtehad is bound to emerge, inshallah.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#191 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 9, 2007 6:37:28 am
sattar´
like all qadianis
is desperate for Muslims to accept him as one of their own. We never will. I pity him. May Allah guide him to the Haqq.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#190 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 9, 2007 6:35:20 am
ZahraJ:
Interesting article. However there are 2 points I wish to make. Historically, though Shia and Sunnis have always had differences of opinion they have generally lived and let live while considering each other to be wrong in their interpretation. Even when they have anathemized each other it has only been on an intellectual, scholarly level. This current killing is unprecedented and disgusting. It is directly due to the rise in the past 200 years or so, and especially since the oil boom, of Wahabist ideology. They consider all Muslims who dont follow their narrow interpretation to be mushriks (polytheists) and therefore out of the pale. They therefore especially hate Shiites and consider them ALL kafirs. Sadly the Wahabis call themselves Sunnis and, in retatiliation, some extremist Shias consider all Sunnis Whabis and therefore kill them too. The tradition Sunnis have never had any record of violence against Shia or vice´versa. We consider them in thev wrong but do not advocate killing them. The proof is in the record: traditional sunni communities are not involved in shia killing or vice´versa. Where Wahabism has gotten a foothold you see killing.

As for Reformation, Islam does not need it
only revival. I respect people like Tariq Ramadan but not those modernists who call for complete change a la the Reformation for Christianity.

But,alas, I think it will come. However a group of Muslims will always remain on the true path of traditional Ahlus Sunnah.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#189 Posted by ZahraJ on February 8, 2007 11:18:20 pm
Re: # 114

URS - I have been meaning to comment on this post. I agree with you about the core concept of tauheed and the fact that it brings the muslims all over the world together. In fact, that is a beautiful concept. On the one end, the concept of tauheed brings us together. But on the other end, there are issues and concerns where all Muslims do not see each other eye to eye. This should be acceptable as well. For if you won`t have the tolerance to accept different point of views among your own people, then there is no way that you will be open to entertaining people and opinions outside your own faith. In pluralistic societies, this will not take you anywhere. You will be creating more gaps than bridging the outstanding gaps. In addition, you will deprive yourself of the opportunity to learn as well as enlighten people who do not follow your faith.

What`s your take on that?

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#188 Posted by ZahraJ on February 8, 2007 10:42:31 pm
Asif and Urstruly: You guys may like to read the following and provide your perspectives on the ``Reformation Theory``. I think you need a new topic for discussion.

Sattar: Once you are done with repeating the same stance again and again and again, feel free to read the article.



Zakaria: The Road to Reformation
Al Qaeda had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world against the West, but now it is in the middle of a dirty sectarian war within Islam.
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek

Feb. 12, 2007 issue - For those in the West asking when Islam will have its Reformation, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the process appears to have begun. The bad news is it`s been marked by calumny, hatred and bloody violence. In this way it mirrors the Reformation itself, which we now remember in a highly sanitized way. During that era, Christians of differing sects massacred each other as they fought to own the true interpretation of their religion. No analogy is exact, but something similar seems to be happening within Islam. Here the divide is between the Sunnis, who make up 85 percent of the Muslim world, and the Shiites, who represent most of the other 15 percent.

The dominant new reality in the Middle East today is the growing schism between these two groups. Look at the daily sectarian killings in Iraq, listen to the dark warnings of Saudi and Jordanian leaders about a ``Shia crescent,`` watch the power struggles in Lebanon. Islam`s quiet cleavage has come out into the open. At a recent demonstration in the Palestinian territories, opponents of Hamas taunted the Sunni Islamists as ``Shiites`` because of their links to Iranian-backed Hizbullah.

We in the United States have spent much time asking what all this means for Iraq, for U.S. troops in the midst of this free-for-all and for America more generally. But think, for a moment, about what the trend means for Al Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, both Sunnis, created Al Qaeda to be a Pan-Islamic organization, uniting all Muslims as it battled the West, Israel and Western-allied regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Neither Zawahiri nor bin Laden was animated by hatred of Shiites. In its original fatwas and other statements, Al Qaeda makes no mention of them, condemning only the ``Crusaders`` and ``Jews.``

But all ideologies change as they encounter reality. When bin Laden moved to Peshawar in the 1980s to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, he allied with radical Sunnis who had a long history of oppressing Afghanistan`s Shiite minority, the Hazaras. (The novel ``The Kite Runner`` is about a young Hazara boy.) Even then, bin Laden didn`t sanction anti-Shiite violence, nor did he add anti-Shiite accusations to his messages. But after the Sunni Taliban took power, Arab fighters under his command did support his hosts` anti-Shiite pogroms.


Iraq was the real turning point. The self-appointed leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had a poisonous attitude toward Shiites. In a letter to bin Laden, written in February 2004, he described Iraq`s Shiite majority as ``the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy ... The danger from the Shia ... is greater ... than the Americans ... I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shia with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis.`` Zarqawi was drawing on Wahhabi Islam—and its offshoot Deobandism in South Asia—in which there is a deep and oppressive strain of anti-Shiite ideology.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri were clearly uncomfortable with this new line, and the latter reproached Zarqawi directly. Bin Laden remained largely silent on the matter, but by the end of 2004, both had decided that Al Qaeda in Iraq was too strong to rebuke. And, rousing anti-Shiite feelings seemed the only way to mobilize Iraq`s Sunni minority. It also, crucially, made them see Al Qaeda as an ally. The trouble for Al Qaeda is that as a practical matter, loathing Shiites works in only a few places: principally Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and some parts of the gulf. Most of the rest of the world`s 1.3 billion Muslims are turned off by attacks on their co-religionists.

So, an organization that had hoped to rally the entire Muslim world to jihad against the West has been dragged instead into a dirty internal war within Islam. Bin Laden began his struggle hoping to topple the Saudi regime. He is now aligned with the Saudi monarchy as it organizes against Shiite domination. This necessarily limits Al Qaeda`s broader appeal and complicates its basic anti-Western strategy.

These emerging divisions weaken Al Qaeda, but they will help most Muslims only if this story ends as the Reformation did. What is currently a war of sects must become a war of ideas. First, Islam must make space for differing views about what makes a good Muslim. Then it will be able to take the next step and accept the diversity among religions, each true in its own way.

The United States should avoid taking sides in this sectarian struggle and aim instead to move the debate to this broader plain. We should encourage the diversity within Islam, which has the potential to divide our enemies. But more important, we should encourage the emerging debate within it. In the end it was not murder but Martin Luther that made the Reformation matter.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960410/site/newsweek/

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#187 Posted by sattar2 on February 8, 2007 3:28:30 pm

… and btw, Naqsh is saying that 1400 years of scholarship is on his side, and not yours. Tough luck, pal!

You clowns are still debating the very first article of faith. And it’s been 1400 years! And apparently there are 35 more articles to go. And besides the 2 sects you two clowns belong to, there are at least 70 more.

... there seems to be no end to this silliness …

[Like I said, pass the halwa and load the AK47 ... ahem, ahem ...]
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#186 Posted by sattar2 on February 8, 2007 3:19:05 pm

Urstruly,

You are trying to make an invalid point. You continue to ignore the following:

Benchmark: If Quran is the benchmark, then door to prophethood remains open. Ahadith fully support this view.

On precedence: Allah has raised prophets throughout history of mankind … and Quran attests to this truth. Is that enough precedence for you???

Several well-reputed ullama throughout history of Islam supported continuation of prophethood. Your denial is your problem.

Click [Continuation of prophethood]

+++

Naqsh blindly follows his ancestors, you blindly follow your ullema. No difference …

I say this since in (almost?) all our arguments, your final position has been that … since my ullema can’t be wrong, sattar must be wrong.

I hope you see the parallel … that’s my point.

+++

Your “ant and Solomon” story is right up there … with prophets parting the ocean, flying at night to meet god, reviving the dead … and my fav … Issa-ibne-Marriam residing above clouds. Feel free to believe whatever … just don’t expect me to take you clowns seriously …

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#185 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 8, 2007 1:49:28 pm
urstruly bhai, i think that the argument of 1400
+ years of scholarship derived from quran and sunnah as its source plus 1400 years of practise
is on my side. i.e the side of ahlus sunnah w`al jamaah.


as for the qadiani, just ignore him.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#184 Posted by Urstruly on February 8, 2007 11:54:00 am

Re: # 176

I knew that you would try to weasel into this argument, but the argument is not valid for you. The core of the argument is not the issue of precedence set by ancestors but the issue is the invention in the religion as compared to the benchmarks set by Qura`n and Hadith and non conformance of precedents set by ``ancestors`` to that benchmark. My issue with Naqshbandi is that the precedents set by ``ancestors`` must also conform to the benchmark. His contention is that the precedent for his aqaid already conforms to the benchmark, against which I have qualified disagreement. In your case, Mirza Sahib`s invention fails on both accounts - benchmark and precedent. That is the reason for your bitterness and shananigans and that is the reason you call ALL ullema (precedent) of Islam corrupt, all ahadith (benchmark) corrupt, and refuse to accept even the verses of Qura`n (benchmark)which are clear as day light - remember the verse of Ant and Solomom (pbuh)??
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#183 Posted by abu_safwaan on February 7, 2007 7:07:01 pm
Re: # 179

Re: # 179

Barray bhai masla yeah darpaysh hayy kayy aapp logg nabi-e-kareem (PBUH) tak ruktayy naheen hein naa. Pehlay nabi (SAW) say mangein gay, phir ghous pak aayein gay, phir ahmed raza nazil hogga, aaqir mein marhoom nana jaan kii baarii aayegii, sabb say mangna hayy..nahii mangna too ayk Allah swt sayy nahii mangana. Subhan Allah janab

Aqal ko khirad, khirad ko aqal karay,
Jo chahay soo aapka husne karshima saaz karay
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#182 Posted by abu_safwaan on February 7, 2007 6:52:11 pm
Re: # 179

Barray bhai masla yeah darpaysh hayy kayy aapp logg nabi-e-kareem (PBUH) tak ruktayy naheen hein naa. Pehlay nabi (SAW) say mangein gay, phir ghous pak aayein gay, phir ahmed raza nazil hogga, aaqir mein marhoom nana jaan kii baarii aayegii, sabb say mangna hayy..nahii mangna too ayk Allah swt sayy nahii mangana. Subhan Allah janab

Aqal ko khirad, khirad ko aqal karay,
Jo chahay soo aapka karshima saaz karay
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#181 Posted by sattar2 on February 7, 2007 5:08:03 pm

Naqsh,

Like I said, I totally agree with you. The Prophet (pbuh) made it clear that ummah will not fall into shirk. I believe the prophet … and not the cursed wahabis, nasibis, yazidis, or maudoodiites. Alhamdu’lillah …

… those who accuse our sufian-e-karaam of shirk are accursed. These lufangay-baaz wahabis can’t be trusted … see what they did to our master Mansur al-Hallaj? … and now they want to abolish our Ahle-Sunnah Maliki Wallahu Barelvi Hanafi traditions. Taubah, taubah …

It pains my heart to see brother Urstuly has fallen in shame and disgrace. I say we offer a bakra at pir sahib’s grave and pray to him to save Urstruly’s soul. What do you say …?

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#180 Posted by abu_safwaan on February 7, 2007 4:28:25 pm
Re: # 175

Sattariyyaa is that ugly girl in the school that doesn’t get asked out at PROM. Some of those ugly girls find salvation in food. Some become bitter, annoying and chatty. They draw attention to them by acting stupid and by talking trash. World still keeps on ignoring them and then eventually they go insane. Poor sattariiiyyaa, parents didn’t love him, he kept on dancing, noone paid attention, and now here on chowk he keeps on yapping but everyone keeps ignoring, you can’t blame them either, who has time for this insanity, its rather sad really. I’ll listen to u sattariyaa, ill payy attention when u dance, go on sattariyaaa, dance for us, they’ll eventually come around.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#179 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 7, 2007 4:17:22 pm
Let me cleanse this forum by quoting from the poetry of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi al Hanafi al Qadiri :

Dushman-e Ahmad pe shiddat kijiye
Mulhidon ki kya murrawat kijiye


Zikr unka cheriye har baat mein
Cherna Shaytaan ka aadat kijiye


Misl-e Fars zalzalay hoon Najd mein
Zikr-e Aayaat-e Walaadat kijiye


Ghaiz mein jal jaa-ein be Deeno ke dil
Yaa Rasool Allah ki Kasrat kijiye


Kijiye charcha unhee ka subh-o shaam
Jaan-e Kaafir par Qayamat kijiye


Shirk thehre jis mein ta`zeem-e Habeeb
Us bureh mazhab pe laanat kijiye


Zaalimo! Mahboob ka haqq tha yehi?
Ishq ke badle adaawat kijiye


Ghaus-e-Azam aap se faryaad he
Zinda phir ye paak Millat kijiye


Mere Aaqa Hazrat Achche Mian
Ho Raza Accha wo Soorat kijiye

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#178 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 7, 2007 4:11:40 pm
Let me repeat that again using the Arabic words:

Said Rasool Allah alayhisalatuwasalam, as narrated by Muslim and Bukhari in their Sahih:


`I do NOT fear shirk for my umma...`

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#177 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 7, 2007 4:08:16 pm
urstuly bhai

there is a crucial hole in the centre of your argument and it is your comparing the mushriks of pre-islamic arabia with muslims based on a flawed analogy. To really cut the legs from under the argument you use--which is a common Wahabi one is the following hadith by the Holy Prophet (alayhisalatuwasalam wa alaa Aalihi tayyibina wa taahireen):

`Uqba ibn Amir (radi-Allahu `anh), the relater of the hadith ash-Sharif, said, `Rasulullah (sall-Allahu ta`ala `alaihi wa sallam), ascended the minbar. It was the last time I saw him on the minbar. He declared: ``I do not fear whether you will become polytheists after I die. I fear that you, because of worldly interests, will kill one another and thus be destroyed like ancient tribes.``

-[Sahih of Bukhari and Muslim]


This hadith demolishes Waahbism from its roots since all they do is accuse Muslims of shirk!

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#176 Posted by sattar2 on February 7, 2007 3:23:13 pm

Urstruly (re #174),

You criticized naqsh’s thinking as follows …

``how could we be wrong; our ancestors had been doing the same thing since forever; our traditions can`t be wrong`` …

And …

”… I am asking you to question the way of your ancestors …”

+++

Replace ancestors with ullema, and it sums up my criticism of your views. Got it, little genius?

In almost all our arguments, your final defense has been to insist …so many of our ullema throughout history can’t be wrong, so Ahmadis must be wrong.

+++

You and Naqsh are one and same. He looks up to his ancestors, you to your ullema … both violate Quran, both are devoid of reason and integrity.

On the other hand Naqsh is not the bloodthirsty animal that you are … and that perhaps is the difference between two of you … (although I am not sure what to make of this goon, abu safwaan, here …)

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#175 Posted by sattar2 on February 7, 2007 11:06:38 am

Urstruly,

I told you … don’t fall for this soft sufi side of Naqsh. The guy is a badmaash of highest order. This berather-shirader thing he keeps uttering is just to confuse pious wahabis. But I am glad you see through it ...

... and that Mansur guy got what he deserved. The bugger asked for it … damn straight! I say we hang a few more of them hallucinating sufis who invoke god’s name in vain. That ought to teach them Brelvis a lesson … I kid you not ... I too hate those bastards …

+++

Re #173 … no seriously, who named you abu_safwaan …??

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#174 Posted by Urstruly on February 7, 2007 7:26:52 am

Naqshbandi

When Holy Prophet (pbuh) started his mission in Mecca, the pagans, the Quresh, and the people of the book had only one response - ``how could we be wrong; our ancestors had been doing the same thing since forever; our traditions can`t be wrong``. But when Holy Prophet (pbuh) presented them with irrefutable arguments, you know, how did they respond? They started abusing him, cursing him, and called him a sorceror.

I would very humbly, as a brother, point you to your own behavior. Do you see any parallel here?First you take refuge behind the tradition of ``our ancestors - our auliya`` and then you start cussing those who invite you to nothing but the righteous ways of Qura`n and Hadith. Your anger would have been justified had I tried to misguide you into any other thing but Qura`n and Hadith; but your anger is not because of that but it is because I am asking you to question the way of your ancestors.

Please keep in mind that our only ancestor should be Holy Prophet (pbuh) and no one else, and our only Guilding Light should be Qura`n and nothing else. Don`t you see, when you have these two, everything and every Moududi, Abdulwahab, Ahmad reza khan, and shibli become irrelevant? Every label becomes meaningless?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#173 Posted by abu_safwaan on February 6, 2007 11:47:15 pm
Re: # 172

Only if sattariiiyyyyaaaa`s parents hugged him a lil more he wudn`t be this annoying. Abbay dheett, noone even finds u worthy enough to address ur insanities so shut up already. Koii baatt karayy na karayy bidanand bachoon kii tarah beachh meinn kood parta hayy nalayiq.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#172 Posted by sattar2 on February 6, 2007 5:43:48 pm

Naqsh,

… I totally agree … these salafi bastards are not worth the time. And neither are these wahabhis … be them ahle hadith or deobandis. These lufangae baaz poke fun at teachings of sufi auliyyan-e-karam … and refuse to visit graves of pirs or ask for their intercession… tauba, tauba …

… yes indeed, true Islam lies with Ahle-Sunnah Ala Hazrat Imam Malik Wallahu Barelvi Sufian-e-karam W`ahle ba`it traditional Hanafis … something I’ve been saying all along … I am glad we agree ...

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#171 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 6, 2007 4:10:48 pm
i`m afraid urstruly i don`t buy your argument--however good your intentions; under the slogan of `lets go back to quran and hadith` wahabis of all forms--and lets not be PC here, mawdoodi was basically a wahabi, ahle hadith are wahabis, deobandis too are moderate wahabis in aqaid...all these people have in common belittling traditional islam of ahlus sunnah as `common man`s islam`, `shirk` etc. when the reality is that this is the real islam which is practised from morocco to indonesia in the majority even now.

that is why i dont have time for salafists or salafi sympathisers. you are a clever guy, a sincere guy, who i believe wishes well for muslims. therefore i urge you to go and find yourself a shaykh or read the books of al ghazali.

leave israar ahmed and others of his ilk in their darkness.

the reality is all the awliya of islam have ALL been on the aqeeda of ahlus sunnah as representee by the sunni MASSES of the world till this day. which is why in every single muslim country the majority of the muslims visit the graves of the saints, ask for intercession, read durood, say YA RASOOL Allah, do milad and so on. From Morocco to Indonesia it is the case.



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#170 Posted by sattar2 on February 6, 2007 2:50:22 pm

Naqsh,

I cut through Ustruly’s bs to summarize his point …

”… we will continue to hang, stone, and behead your divines just like we did Mansur al-Hallaj. Soon it will be your turn if you don’t straighten yourself out …insha’allah …”

+++

Urstruly, you are a sick man, a pathetic soul …

People like you poisoned Socrates, chased Aristotle out of Athens, tortured Galileo, ganged up against Muhammad, crucified Jesus, killed Imam Hussain, executed Mansur al-Hallaj, and much more …

+++

And you both refer to each other as “brother in faith” …
……………… no wonder ummah is going to the dogs …

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#169 Posted by sattar2 on February 6, 2007 10:41:27 am

nasah,

… don’t be down on expletives … they succinctly sum up a range of complex emotions and bring a man in harmony with the topic at hand, thus crystallizing erudite metaphors and myriad of salient allegories from deep subliminal human consciousness into revelations fitting for scholars and visionaries. Did you write this down ... ?

Here’s an example: In #168 Ustruly is grappling with subtle issues, trying to appear reasonable so as not to piss off this brother in faith … while actually drawing a sharp ideological distinction between Brelvi aqaid and Maudoodiite viewpoint. I foretold Urstruly’s position very early on, in #30 … where I basically summed it up as … ``Naqsh, fuck you`` …

I hope it is now clear …
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#168 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 8:39:21 pm

Naqshbandi

I do not consider brelvi aqaid (ways) to be wrong because in some cases Ijtehad done to carry them out has served their purpose. For example, an Ijtehad by early sufis and ulema to matmorph the local hindu rites and customs into their Islamic versions have worked very well. For example, replacing Diwali with Shab-Bara`t, incorporating Hindu funeral and wedding rites in Muslim rites; and changing the hindu tradition of bhajjan into Quwali has helped spread the message of Tauheed to the far and wide corner of the Hindustan and elsewhere. But such ijtehad needed tremendous amount of control and overseeing by ulema and sufis which over the years have deteriorated. Hence these very rituals are replacing the core belif system of Islam. For example, an ordinary person with minimal education considers Quwali to be a valid form of worship; which it is absolutely not. The only valid worship is that which was taught by Holy Prophet (pbuh).

With the changing and shrinking world the ijtehad that sufis and ulema did about a 1000 years ago is losing its benefit and doing more harm than good. So there is a need to revert back to the core of the Islamic teaching so that we become a cohesive unit as the the geography is shriking. There is a greater need for us to revert back to Qura`n and Hadith and re-interpret them as new Ijtehad. The Ijtehad that was done 1000 years ago served its purpose very well and so should the new Ijtehad.

I hope this will help you understand my position.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#167 Posted by nasah on February 5, 2007 7:58:47 pm
``and I am on your side on the Mansur al-Hallaj issue.`` (Sattar)

Sattar sahib -- you may include me as well -- minus the expletives.....:)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#166 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 6:07:20 pm

Naqsh, furthermore …

Your ullema are imprisoning Ahmadis for practicing Islam, and you think I need to mind my business! Are you nuts? It is these fucking haramee ullema who need to mind their business …

… and I am on your side on the Mansur al-Hallaj issue. I see no reason to kill a person who claims to have achieved Oneness with the Almighty. It is between him and Allah, and he has the right to proclaim any connection he feels with God.

And get this …

… it is your own brother in faith, Urstruly, who supports execution of Mansur al-Hallaj. And this is probably what he himself would have ordered if he was presiding over the trial. And you consider this leech your brother in faith ...?

... get real, you idiot …!

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#165 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 4:49:42 pm

Naqsh,

If this is love, then I guess shia-sunni riots are merely brothers loving each other a bit too much. What can I say ... ?

… after 1400 years of Islam, you two morons are still cussing each other over its first article of faith. And you have another 35-or-so articles to go. Multiply this over 70+ sects and 1400 years of degeneration, and you get the picture. When will this nonsense end? Pass the halwa please (and load the AK47) …

… no wonder ummah is going to the dogs …
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#164 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 5, 2007 4:38:16 pm
sattar...urstruly is like a brother and sometimes brothers argue and even fight and use harsh words
it is all out of my love for him...Allah guide us all....but internecine fights happen and it doesn`t give outsiders like you the right to butt in. so please keep your qadianis opinions to yourself.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#163 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 5, 2007 4:31:36 pm
For Kaalchakra, urstruly (despite my earlier outburst), nasah and all others interested.

This is a beautiful, traditional Sunni-Sufi exegesis of the beautiful verses quoted earlier from Surah Ikhlas by a direct descendent of the Beloved Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam), Shaykh Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Ninowy. It is in English:



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#162 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 4:15:13 pm

Naqsh, you were on the right track with this “pearls before swine” analogy … even as it applies forward as well as backward ...

Urstruly, are you going to put up with this?? Look now, he is calling you and your ullema lowly names. Like I’ve maintained, you simply can’t trust these Ahle-Sunnah Ala Hazrat Imam Malik Wallahu Barelvi Sufian-e-karam W`ahle-ba`it traditional Hanafi bastards …

BTW, if the Prophet can fly at night to meet Allah and Moses can part the ocean … a wali can surely offer 1,000 rakats in one night … no? Your 16-hour calculation is impressive … but isn’t that kind of analysis a sign of weakness of faith?? Perhaps time stands still when a wali is offering prayers? No? Just a thought …
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#161 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 5, 2007 3:51:52 pm
as for the 1000 rakah -- it is not plausible for maudoodites, yazidis, nasibis and other gustaakhs and wahabis but for the awliya of Allah he makes it easy for them. imam abu hanifa and imam zayn al abidin also used to pray 1000 rakah per night (from isha to fajr); of course shibli baymaani doesn`t believe it either. abu jahl didn`t believe in the miraj of the prophet either.
abu bakr alayhisalam did--which is why he is called as-siddiq.

from the aqeedah tahawiyyah--which is also taught in your madrassahs:

`` we believe in the karamaat of the awliya``


reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#160 Posted by nasah on February 5, 2007 3:49:25 pm
Kal -- sorry to hear about the tragedy in your family in India. My heartfelt condolences to you and your family for the untimely demise of your favorite sister. She must have been a gentle soul like you are. What a loss. Please come back soon -- it`s an immense pleasure to converse with a rare intellect like you. Best wishes with best regards.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#159 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 3:28:08 pm

Urstruly (#157),

Death sentences have been passed against many a prophet of god. If fanatics had their way, Jesus and Muhammad too would have been executed … let alone Mirza Sahib!

More you argue, more you fit the pattern of fanatics outlined in Quran …

Furthermore, the Pharaoh got killed as he chased a prophet and his people. Similar fate was met by Bhutto, Faisal, Zia … pharaohs of our times.

Ummah is now engaged in a futile battle, blowing up innocents and even its own. Your continued obsession with Ahmadi-Muslims underscores ummah’s moral and intellectual decline.

No wonder Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) called your kind “Allah’s vilest creation …”

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#158 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 5, 2007 3:16:27 pm
Re: # 157

My fault: Isa alayhisalam said, ``Oh my disciples do not cast pearls before swine``--not that I am accusing you of being the latter. I should not expect a disciple of Mawdoodi to understand the karamat of awliya.

If you want to understand the phenomenon please listen to the following speech. It is in English. It is not by a `Barelwi`. He is from Nineveh in Iraq (aka as Karbala) and an Arab Sunni.

May Allah guide us all. ameen.
http://www.lailahailallah.net/Khutbahs/Khutbah108.wma -- part 1

http://www.lailahailallah.net/Khutbahs/Khutbah109.wma part 2

http://www.lailahailallah.net/Khutbahs/Khutbah110.wma part 3



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#157 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 1:46:07 pm
Re: # 156

Naqsh

Plz, lets not make up things which are not even plausible. Divulging a secret between him and Allah? 1000 Rakat of namaz?

Assuming that it takes 1 minute to say one rakaat, which is pretty standard timing, it must take 16 hours straight non stop to finish 1000 rakaats, which seems humanly impossible. And who was taking count of all the rakaats. Did he tell his disciples next morning?

I have read the biographies of various auliyas in Farishta and Attar, which are considered standard among a certain sect and found it to be some alif laila. Almost all auliya in these books can fly, they have telepathic communication powers, they can be at two or more places at once, the infants fast from dusk to dawn, they raise the dead, walk through fires, talk to God, prophets, and other dead people, teleport, and just by looking at them people turn Muslims. Okay I accept that to be true because a miracles is a miracle because we do not understand the mechanism through which it works. But what I really find interesting is the fact that if you read the books written by these very auliya they themselves seem to be absolutely oblivious of their own powers. For example, Kashaf-al-mahjoob written by Ali Hajwairi does not mention any such miracles that are attributed to him. He does mention about Mansur Hallaj in his book but he is very clear that in his opinion Hallaj had an experience of Ma`araft (connection with Allah), which in his opinion is a state of mind, rather than an actual connection. There is a difference. It reminds me of an urdu saying that ``Pir Sahib nahiN urtay, mureed ki aqeedat unko uRatee hay``.

In case of Hallaj, I think from juristic point of view the Qazi of the time acted according to the Shariah law. If it were an Islamic government in India at the time, Mirza Quadiani would have been executed too. Mirza only claimed to be a mere prophet but Mansur claimed to be god himself (nauozubillahe min zalik)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#156 Posted by Naqshbandi on February 5, 2007 1:00:17 pm
Kaal:

My condolences.

About Hussain ibn Mansur al Hallaj (rahmatullah alayhi) -- to those who have spoken ill of this great saint of Allah and accused him of being all sorts of things and against Shariat please wash out your mouths and fear Allah! He said about the saints: Verily upon the Friend of Allah (saints) there is no fear and nor do they grieve. Most of the people of Ahl al Sunnah have considered al-Hallaj to be one of the saints of Islam who was punished by Allah for divulging a Secret which was between him and Allah alone.

Those ignoramuses who think he broke Shariah or didn`t respect it dont know that even on the day he was martyred, he prayed 1000 rakahs of namaz the night before.

He is listed in all of the classical biographical catalogues of the saints [awliya] such as the classic Tadhkirat al Awliya by Attar and Data Ali Hijiwiri`s Kashf al Mahjub.

Therefore it is better to be silent on matters way way beyond your (our) knowledge.

A drop of Hussain ibn Mansur`s understanding of Tawhid is more than all of ours combined.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#155 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:42:30 pm
Kaal,

I just recited Surah-e-Fatiha for your Dear Sister. May she rest in peace. Ameen.

What you said:

Sooner or later, all of us run up against the hard edge of reason, and that is where different kinds of ``faiths`` are born....

.... is worth being written in gold.

Bye my friend ... for now.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#154 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 12:42:08 pm
Having messed up the atmosphere here and with work waiting to be done, I will sign off from this board too. Catch you all some other time, later :)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#153 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 12:34:38 pm
Zee, Philosopher

Thanks again. Not to misuse this board for matam, but it hurts so much that I was not even in India when she suddenly fell sick and passed away. You are right. We seek solace in saying: From God, to God; or as I would have recited had I been able to carry her dead body: Only God`s name is true. The rest is all mud.

Anyways, it`s too painful. May I request all friends to not mention it anymore. Thanks a bunch to everyone in advance.

See you later, Zee.




reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#152 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:31:09 pm
Before I sign off, Kaal, I shall pray for your dear sister. May Allah grant you the serenity and forbearance to face this irreperable loss.

With profound Regards.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#151 Posted by philosopher on February 5, 2007 12:30:51 pm
Re: # 143kalchakraa

i am realy sorry to know about your sister.

may her soul rest in peace.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#150 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 12:25:07 pm
Urstruly

Sorry, didn`t mean to offend any sufi who is fully committed to Islam.

Non-Muslims have a very screwed up idea of Sufism. That is what I meant by nautanki. Otherwise Sufism is one of the most useful tools of Islam and fits in perfectly within Islam`s overall spirit and objectives.

(Thanks for the condolences...It`s been difficult.)



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#149 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:24:58 pm
#148 by kaalchakra

Kaal, as we Muslims say ``From Allah we come, and to Him we shall return``.

That gives us solace for loss of loved ones.

We should be thankful for whatever time they spent with us, and wish them well in the hereafter.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#148 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 12:18:36 pm
Thanks, Zee. It`s been a few weeks. I can`t even believe it, let alone understand it. But we move on... Sooner or later, all of us run up against the hard edge of reason, and that is where different kinds of ``faiths`` are born....

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#147 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 12:14:57 pm

kaal

I am sorry to read about your sister, may Allah grant her eternal peace and tranquility.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#146 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 12:12:11 pm
Re: # 143

Sufism is not nautanki; it is true and valid as long as it remains with in the well defined limits.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#145 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:11:51 pm
#143 by kaalchakra

(Having just lost my younger sister - I loved her very much - )

Kaal. I am sorry. May the Dear Departed Soul Rest in Eternal Peace.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#144 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:05:49 pm
#142 by Urstruly

Again, Urstruly is right. Learning from experience, one gets to the knowledge that there are many things beyond a person`s will and reach no matter what, and indeed a person is quite helpless at times till he calls upon Allah. And then, miracles begin to occur.

There have been many such instances in my life. Whenever I have called upon Allah to help when I was in dire straits, I have always come out ahead through doors opening from all directions clearly showing me which to take, when it would have been a matter of seconds for me to miss them altogether and back to misery.

So, I have Faith. That is enough. Intellect counts for nothing. Allah does. Too many questions lead to kufr. I really believe that.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#143 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 11:59:27 am
Zee

can`t claim to comprehend the Great Buddha`s mind, and some Buddhist would know better, but it may be related to the basic Indian idea that God/Ultimate Reality can be ``known`` ONLY through negation....the moment you begin to ``describe`` God, you have fully lost Him/It.

So the Indian sages would traditionally describe the absolute, the transcendental, infinite reality as neti, neti (not this, not this).

May be the Buddha was telling us that the question of existence or nonexistence cannot be settled by us humans in an absolute sense, since absolute knowledge is simply beyond human ken. (Having just lost my younger sister - I loved her very much - I think I have a sense of what he meant, although I do not ``understand`` it).



Urstruly

I know...there is a reason why this whole nautanki of Sufism is beneath contempt.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#142 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 11:50:22 am
Zeemax & Kaal

Even if we give the benefit of doubt to Hallaj and assume that he was only being too philosophical (being on opium or bhang, being too full of himself, or simply having mind altering delusions could be some other possible explanations) it is no brainer that he violated another one of the oath that a Muslim makes with Allah. The oath is in the Chapter Al-Kafiroon (Atheists; Disbelievers). Here is the translation of the Chapter/oath:


AL-KAFIROON (THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS)

Say: O unbelievers!

I do not serve that which you serve,

Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:

Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,

Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:

You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.



This oath stipulates in no uncertain terms, our relationship with God and this relationship is only and only that of a servant or a worshipper; no matter what we do we cannot become Him or part of Him. Mansur Hallaj claimed to be the Absolute Truth, which violates the first oath that we discussed in the post below, because only Absolute is the Allah Himself.

Look at the title of this Chapter i.e. Atheists or Disbelivers. Almost every Ateists whom you will ask will claim that he belives in nothing, but in fact that is his belief. Hence Qura`n puts forth such a forcefull and irrefutable argument to atheists that only a stubborn one would claim that he can`t see the point. Elsewhere in Qura`n Allah challenges atheists that this Cosmos is the proof of His existence, what is the proof that you have. Such challenge can only come from the Devine. The text of the chapter makes it clear how disbelivers worship their own stubborness and hold it as a god itself.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#141 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:42:20 am
Kaal,

I`m still pondering over this:

The Fourfold Negation:
The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist.


Do you know what it`s about?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#140 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:38:51 am
#138 by kaalchakra

No. Iqbal was not a poet at all. Iqbal was a Mussalman ... no other Mussalman like him.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#139 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:37:37 am
#136 by kaalchakra

(Finger waving icon)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#138 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 11:33:32 am
Zee, Iqbal was a poet.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#137 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:24:25 am
... add on #135 ... (forgot to write).

Still, Iqbal`s ``Khudi ko kar bulund itna key har taqdeer sey pehley; Khuda bandey sey khud poochey bata teri raza kya hai?`` makes one wonder what the hell did he mean by that?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#136 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 11:20:14 am
Just to show how far poor Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj had strayed from Islam consider the basic mahavakyas (Great Aphorisms) of Hinduism - which is complete polytheism and full shirk:

Aphorism 1: The Ultimate Knowledge/Truth/Consciousness is God.
Aphorism 2: I am God.
Aphorism 3: You are That.
Aphorism 4: This Atman is God.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#135 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 11:19:19 am
#133 by kaalchakra

Kaal,

He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.

I`m not too sure about that. Perhaps he didn`t. Perhaps he did. I don`t know.

I once mentioned on these boards that my Father is an Islamic scholar (He used to be an agnostic whilst living in Quebec in the 50s but that`s another story). I never believed him nor listened to him but when he turned 70 (Mashallah he is still kicking ass at 83), he thought he was going to die soon. So he wrote a letter (no phonecall ... but a letter) to all of us sons and a daughter living abroad as well as our young cousins etc. In those six pages he explained what it was all about. What I felt striking and somewhat repelling was that he did not state anything as expression of any opinions of his, but a statement of the absolute reality. I confronted him over this and invoked Al-Hallaj. Here he stopped me firmly with a lot of sadness in his eyes. He said that where Al-Hallaj had reached, don`t even tread towards that path. Because one step further, is `Kufr`.

I took him on his word. I don`t go towards that direction anymore. I didn`t ask him to elaborate further though I wanted to, but I saw clearly he was badly shaken.

Kaalchakra, this is a very complex matter. The further you peel off the layers, the further you get into an abyss. I would rather take the blind faith in Allah & conduct as prescribed by Him. It is sufficient for me.

When Kerry Packer was dead for 8 minutes, and people asked him about it, he had said `` I was on the other side, and there was nothing there``.

Again my profuse apologies should I have treaded on any sensitive issues.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#134 Posted by sattar2 on February 5, 2007 10:58:23 am

Re #103 Kulharee,

Relevant issues … although not expected to get straight answers from ullema and faithful members of the ummah here ...

Dear Prophet (pbuh) and early Muslims too faced similar persecution as they followed message of Islam. The system then had become too corrupt to be reformed from within, and was eventually dismantled with patience, effort, sacrifices, and more. Same is the case now.

This explains the manner in which ullema have united against Ahmadi-Muslims. Ullema have thrown Quran behind their backs and continue to violate Islamic teachings in most basic manner. This underscores how teachings of Islam have suffered at the hands of its own followers … very much the way teachings of Judaism had suffered at the hands of its own ullema during the times of Christ (pbuh). And hence the ahadith about reappearance of Christ …

In context of reappearance of Christ, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesized that ullema of his followers in the latter days would be Allah’s vilest creations. Your post supports fulfillment of the Prophet’s words … even as they continue to humor Zahra …

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#133 Posted by KaalChakra on February 5, 2007 10:54:47 am
Zee, it was great that you wrote #132. I typed in the following a little while ago but didn`t post it, not wanting to appear to be putting words in your mouth. But please do feel free to provide corrections where necessary. Regards.



Ustruly

That was a great post. ``The only god is allah whose prophet is Mohammad`` indeeds seems to be the uniquely Islamic understanding of tauheed.

Without putting words in his mouth, Zee, IMHO, is unlikely to have any basic disagreement with that Islamic claim. Nor would he interpret tauheed to mean the actual freedom (in any real Islamic society) to assert that one is Allah. As such Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj represented much more than just a heresy. He actually represented a full return to non-Islam.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#132 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 10:37:50 am
#131 by Urstruly,

...the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism.

I stand humbly corrected. Though it was never the intention behind my reproducing Nasah`s interpretation of All in One and One in All. I just thought it is a simple way of describing the contention of Allah that ``I am closer to you than your jugular vein``.

But I sincerely apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. What you have said is correct.

Rgds.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#131 Posted by Urstruly on February 5, 2007 8:04:31 am
Kalchakra

The concept of Tauheed i.e. Oneness of Creator is the raison d`etre of Islam and Qura`n. Tauheed is the message that was brought by close to 124,000 Prohets of God to every nation of humanity, starting from Adam (pbuh) and ending at Mohammad (pbuh).

In particular, Qura`n emphasises on no other concept more than the Tauheed. Qura`n has presented unrefutable arguments to every possible set of people - atheists, agnostics, deniers, Christians, Jews, naturalists, the people who look into macrocosm to find God, people who look into the microcosm to find God, and polytheists etc. each argument is different and tailored to address the people from these mindsets.

The first two set of beliefs that Islam puts forth are that ``There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad (pbuh) is his Prophet``. All other beliefs (close to 36) are a subset of this core belief. The third belief in this list is that ``Allah is Absolute``; which means that one has to have a belief that any idea that contrdicts the Absoluteness of Allah must be wrong. Therefore, such questions, where one asks whether God have parents, siblings, or offspring; does He eat, sleep, or procreate; what was before Him or what will be after Him; what is inside of Him or what is Outside of Him; is He bound by time and space are all invalid questions because such questions contradict His absoluteness. By the same token we Muslims are very sensitive to the notion of One in all and All in one (Zeemax should have been careful) because the extrapolation of this idea is the core reason behind Polytheism. Instead we Muslims prefer to say that everything belongs to Allah. Similarly, a question is why can`t we see God, the answer is that it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness. Similarly, why can`t God have an image, because it contrdicts the principle of Absoluteness.

The Chapter of Qura`n which has been discussed in several posts below is an affirmation of one`s belif in the Absoluteness of Allah. It is like an oath and that is the reason it starts with the word SAY:. It is an oath of one`s sincerity to the belief in Tauheed and Absoluteness. Hence the name of the chapter is ``Sincerity``. Here is the translation:

Sincerity (Al-Ikhlas) 112: 1-4

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

And there is none like unto Him.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by zeemax on February 5, 2007 12:40:04 am
kaalchakra,

Nasah is pretty spot on with his translation of Al-Ikhlas, though Urstruly is right that in Quran the third person singular is used. Nasah is also right that this is the `intellectual` understanding of this verse, while the `Mullah` understanding is what you lament that how did it get translated into ``there is only one true god and his name is allah?``.

Al-Ikhlas, to me, is the most effectively condensed explanation of man`s relationship with time & space, and with the ultimate reality of his existence. Further references towards each of this Surah`s individual components are sprinkled all over Quran.

The statement of ``He has no beginning, He has no end -- He is the ALL in ONE and He is the ONE in ALL`` relates to statements like ``He is Everywhere and He is Nowhere`` and ``He is Omnipotent and He is the Most Humble`` quoted several times in Quran (though perhaps not in this exact form) as well as the 99 names (or descriptions) of Allah. It all translates, at-least to me, to what I had said in # 105 that nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God.

This brings us to the question of what Tauheed actually means. Going by the above argument that according to Al-Ikhlas, nothing separates any animate or inanimate object from God, it would mean `Oneness with Allah`, or `Total Submission to Allah`. This same interpretation is the basis of the Sufi literature in which it is called `Falsafa-e-Wahdanyat`
or `Philosophy of Unity with a single reality`. But Naqsh is more of an expert on the subject.

You may be familiar with Hussain Mansour bin Al-Hallaj, the great Islamic Saint said to be the founder of the Sufi train of thought to whom many miracles are attributed. He was declared a heretic for repeatedly uttering the words `Ana-ul-Haq` meaning `I am the Truth`. This was taken to mean that he was claiming to be God. He was ordered to either recant or go to the gallows but he still kept saying the same thing. It goes in Islamic tradition (Zikratul Anbia) that his limbs were torn apart, put in a sack, burnt and the ashes thrown in the Euphrates, but still the sound of Ana-ul-Haq kept resonating from his ashes. This episode is very controversial in modern Islam and references to Al-Hallaj are mostly considered heretical and bordering on Kufr. However it appears to me he had reached that ultimate state of `Unity with God` whereby he felt compelled to say `I am the Truth`.

Re use of the word in Quran, tauheed is a derivative of the arabic `Wahda` which simply means `One`, and is used several times, and explained, such as in the following prayer recited at Hajj:

``La ilaha illa Allah wahdahu la shareeka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-hamdu wa huwa `ala kulli shai`in qadir.``

(There is no god but Allah. He is One and has no partners. To Him belongs the sovereignty and all praise. He has ultimate and absolute power over all things.)

Finally, the word Allah is not interchangeable with God, again because of Al-Ikhlas`s definition that Allah is incomparable to anything, and unique. I believe that Allah is the `mysterious tune` that Einstein referred to in his famous quote.

Thanks all for your interest. Would love to have more insight from our learned interactors on the subject. I apologise to anyone to whom my sometimes unconventional interpretations may seem abhorrent.

Rgds.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#129 Posted by ZahraJ on February 5, 2007 12:10:11 am
Re: # 103

You have a great sense of humor. I guess sometimes it is a little misplaced :)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#128 Posted by KaalChakra on February 4, 2007 8:48:23 pm
Urstruly

Does the Quran use the word tauheed and explain what it is? What meaning/explaination is provided?
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#127 Posted by KaalChakra on February 4, 2007 8:43:28 pm
Beautiful! What a wonderful verse praising the infiniteness of god in time and space....

How did that utterly compelling idea get translated into ``there is only one true god and his name is allah?!``
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#126 Posted by Urstruly on February 4, 2007 8:39:10 pm
Re: # 125

This is wrong translation. In the correct version Allah addresses Himself as a third person singular and not the first person. The correct translation is the one that Philosopher poted in one of his earlier post.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#125 Posted by nasah on February 4, 2007 7:16:48 pm
Kal -- the real translation for YOU......:

I (Allah) am the ONE (Ahad) -- I am the ABSOLUTE (the Samad) -- I am not born of any (lum yalid) nor any is born of me (wa lum yoolud) -- that is ( I have no beginning I have no end) -- I am the Kull (ALL in ONE) and I am the Ahad (ONE in ALL).

and this is the Tawheed/Tauheed of intellectual Islam........not the mullah Islam.......:)
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#124 Posted by philosopher on February 4, 2007 6:22:16 pm
Re: # 123kaalchakra sahib

you are the most serious man i have seen on this site.i realy respect you friend.

[does Islam/Quran also preach the concept that Naqsh called tawheed: Allah is the only true god/God?]

as for as your Question is concerned;well off course Quran and islam do teach tauheed that naqashbandi has mentioned.

Allah is only the arabic word for God almighty.its not that Allah is different God.

the glorious Quran says;Call HIM by rehmaan or raheem,to HIM belong all the beautifull names.

some people have misconception that its different god from God.the arabic Quran is only the verbal menifestation of the ``insparational revelation`` that our beloved prophet[pbuh] got from Allah, symbolised by the angel gabriel[the reflection of Allah] so that even an ordinary man can understand it.

we use arabic words only because the prophet`s intution is menifested in it not coz its a sacred language.

Religious language is symbolic by nature.Quran itself has made a very important distinction between ``categorical verses and allegorical verses``in sura 3:7.

All the verses describing transcendental reality are allegorical like;hell , paradise,angels,jins,satan,so that even a layman can understand these concepts.

regards.


reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#123 Posted by KaalChakra on February 4, 2007 5:40:13 pm
Thanks Naqshbandi, philosopher, ustruly, and particularly, nasah ji. Since Tauheed is so central to Islam, it will be great to understand it as clearly and specifically as possible. In addition, does Islam/Quran also preach the concept that Naqsh called tawheed: Allah is the only true god/God? Is tawheed a different concept from tauheed, or was Naqsh just pulling my leg? :) Thanks in advance.

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#122 Posted by mohar11 on February 4, 2007 5:35:07 pm
Re: # 121
[....I was an agnostic a couple years back but these magical words of the glorious Quran just captivate my soul.i just can not come out of this magic...]

Damn, a born-again paki...
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#121 Posted by philosopher on February 4, 2007 3:01:50 pm
nasah;

MEANING OF TAUHEED;


GOD is one

`` There is none worthy of worship besides Allah,

He has no partner.

His is the Kingdom
and for Him is all praise.
He gives life and causes death.
In His hands is all good.
And He has power over everything. ``

Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.``2:255

I was an agnostic a couple years back but these magical words of the glorious Quran just captivate my soul.i just can not come out of this magic.

regards



reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#120 Posted by nasah on February 4, 2007 2:50:34 pm
Naqsh, Zee and Urs -- there is no better explanation of Tauheed than surah Ikhlas -- why don`t you guys explain Ikhlas to Kal as to what Tauheed is -- Philo has explained his and that`s really good -- but there is more to it than meets the eye in this masterpiece of mystery...

.....especially I would like to know how our bright chap Naqsh understands these verses.

my dear Kal -- there is a `translation` of this Surah in Bhagavad Gita (11 hundred years earlier):

You are the One Creator of all the worlds,
and of that which moves and that which does not move,
You alone are fit for worship, You are the highest Teacher,
In all the worlds there is none equal to You.

- Bhagavad-Gita 11:43

but even that doesn`t do the justice to the intellectual heights of these astounding verses....:)

reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#119 Posted by philosopher on February 4, 2007 12:52:36 pm
Re: # 118nasah sahib

[but try a little harder on the last line -- ``wa lum Ya KULLahoo kofowan AHAD`` -- because that is the ESSENCE]

yap off course;

God is incomprehensible but according to the Quran you can find HIM in your own ``self``

the Quran says;And in your selves-do you not see?

please read #117 .
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#118 Posted by nasah on February 4, 2007 12:37:56 pm
Philosopher -- good -- but try a little harder on the last line -- ``wa lum Ya KULLahoo kofowan AHAD`` -- because that is the ESSENCE (in American slang the punch line ) of the great Surah.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#117 Posted by philosopher on February 4, 2007 12:35:42 pm
Re: # 115nasah
[Surah that is the pulsating heart of Quran -- surah AL-IKHLAS -- explaining the kind of unity God is -- in a form so exquisite so precise yet so voluminous -- that even a skeptic like me cannot help but wonder if it is indeed Devine].

the Glorious Quran says;

``Deaf, dumb and blind; and they return not``2:18;

Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined all around him, Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not see.2:17.

think about it.
reply to this interact write a new interact add to favorites flag objectionable content
#116 Posted by