Understanding the Death Fatwa on Taslima Nasreen

kal, if i remember, you had very low opinion of the sufis (the chistis and such). the idea was sufis in collusion with rulers, softened the gullible population (a complex argument which i wont get into now). sufis presented a religion (not really islam) which made sure that there is little or no revolt against the new rulers. it was a very controversial arguement then..looks like you are about to propose somethign on similar lines.

kaal,

You come across as a troll, looking for useless info, trying to salvage your personal stupidity.

So far you have criticized me (and Ahmadis) on Muslim/non-Muslim issue, taken cheap shots on “finality” issue, accused me of deliberate, misleading, misinterpretation, and more. You have failed to validate your criticism, and when pressed on an issue, you have simply moved on to another issue.

You are now claiming that Ahamdis are bigots, virulent, intolerant, controlling, etc. You also admit basing all this on your “hunch” and “feeling”.

Driving away your demons is not my problem. If you have something concrete, we can discuss it. Other than that, go fuck yourself.

HP (#360),

Thanks for injecting much needed sanity in this discussion.

Muslim/non-Muslim debate is mainly a ploy by religious right to show its political muscle … it has little to do with Islam. Fatwas of kuffr have been passed against (almost?) each sect by other sects. Difference in the case of Ahmadis is that all sects unanimously declared them non-Muslim. It seems prophethood was the main sticking point for ullema.

From what I know, the 1973 ``Ahmadi hearings``, where government leaders cross-questioned Ahmadi leadership on their beliefs, were kept secret by the government, which refused to release the transcripts. Lack of transparency here raises serious questions about backroom deal-cutting between government and ullema.

+++

Your comment that ``Islam claims Muhammad (pbuh) to be the last messenger`` is a bit ambiguous. One’s conclusion may depend upon the source of Islam he refers to.

Quran calls the Prophet (pbuh) “khatam-un-nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophets). This is the only Quranic reference cited against Ahmadis on prophethood issue. Ullema claim it can only mean “end of prophethood”, but Ahamdis maintain it means “most exalted prophet”.

In another place Quran uses “khatam” to imply “perfection”. Furthermore, I have seen Arabic references of “khatam-ul-muhaqaqeen” and “khatam-ul-auliya”, that is, “Seal of Muhaqaqeen” and “Seal of Auliya” … to suggest a person’s exalted status in a given field.

Ahadith where Prophet (pbuh) called himself the “last” prophet are often cited by ullema to support their view. They overlook ahadith where the Prophet (pbuh) called his mosque the “last” mosque. Question remains: what does “last” mean??? Apparently a lot is getting lost in translation; from Arabic to English, perhaps via Urdu.

Ahadith about ``reappearcne of Issa`` is another hot button. These ahadith, if taken as credible, may very well suggest appearance of another prophet among Muslims in later days. But I’ll digress …

+++

One can go in circles on this issue. And that’s part of the point.

It is grossly incorrect for ullema to claim that “khatam-un-nabiyeen” can only mean “last prophet”. They are in denial of mounting evidence; references, documents, ahadith, that clearly weaken their claim (if not more or less negate it). Their blind denial borders on intellectual dishonesty, to say the least … and that’s part of my issue with ullema and their stooges.

Jang, this is just a hunch at this time, but it is a strong one. To see if it will turn into a conviction will require a bit of learning and studying in detail the history, environment, objectives and community-level operations of Ahmedis. My hunch is (sorry sattar sahib, I am telling it as I feel it) that Ahmedism is a considerably more bigotted, intolerant, discord-generating, blindly superstitious, virulent, and controlling religion than either Islam or Hinduism. It might even lack the essential redeeming qualities of either (am less confident of that).

Hence, both Muslims and Hindus who are concerned about their own wellbeing and the well-being of their religions, might want to be quite wary of this cult-like ideology, which comes to them wearing suites and speaking in Arabic and French.

This is not directed at Sattar bhai. But if he does feel offended, he may without hesitation abuse me, my religion, or whatever else as much as he needs to. Still, to reiterate, at this time, this view is based on nothing more than semi-deductive guess work and hunches.

Sattar bhai,

Do you have any information or reference on the numbers and religious activism of Ahmedis in Muslim countries other than Pakistan? Whichi is their next biggest base?

Thanks in advance.

HP

It would be fascinating to learn some details on the immediate context of Ahmedis being declared non-Muslims in Pakistan. At first blush, it seems like a determined display of power by the `religious class` (the term used loosely, of course) in competition with other power groups - the secular modernists, feudals, nationalists, army, bureaucrats etc. Kind of establishing of turf. In the Pakistan of 70s, most of the groups competing against the religious class might have been somewhat weakened (on a relative basis), and the religious people saw their chance to (begin to) mark their political territory.

Or, was it something entirely different? And if that`s what it was, then was this the first real dare by the religious class, or did they make other major efforts before this? Also, if you know, did any important religious scholars and figures in Pakistan stand up for Ahmedis in this battle?

[When it comes to knowing and understanding Pakistan itself, you already seem up there, among the prophets, HP. :)]

#350 by harish_hyd
“HP Sahib, isn`t it a fact that Ahmadis are persecuted in Pakistan?”
Harish,

This is like saying Muslims are persecuted in India. When I get mad I can pull up some incidents to show that Muslims are persecuted but that would not be the whole story.

Ahmedis are part of the middle class in Punjab. They are NOT some insignificant powerless people. They are well connected and completely integrated in Punjabi society. Many families in Punjab have both ahmedi and non ahmedi members. They are mostly well educated and just a handful are uneducated. You persecute a group when you take economic opportunity away from them and ghettoized them. That is not the case with Ahmedis in Pakistan. Though I must say that they are constantly, harassed by bureaucracy about their religious beliefs and obviously that multiplies their anguish.

Personally, it does not matter to me whether Mohammed was the last prophet or not. I wish I had tried hard when I was younger and by now I could have been the last prophet.

Islam does have an ambiguity in its concept of the last Prophet. Islam claims Mohammed to be the last messenger of God but it does not preclude the possibility of resurrection of Christ. Since nobody knows when that would happen and the whole thing is based on some ‘signs’ that would foretell the rebirth of Christ. Those signs are so subjectively defined that many can interpret them in different conditions and claim to be Masih e Maood. There have been many in Islam who claimed that but eventually the orthodox Muslims were able to remove those sects from the mainstream Islam.

Pretty much all sects of Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. However, they don’t have the state power to place that in the laws. Otoh, Mormons consider themselves to be better Christians. If you follow the debate here between Sattar and others, you will notice the same pattern.

My interest in that debate is minimal. However, I don’t agree with Kaal’s characterization of Sattar. I get a different read. Though, I would accept the difference of opinion between the two of us.

The Ahmedi issue was a major test for mullah to assert its political strength in Pakistan. That was the only issue that could have united the entire mullah categories and sects. Imho, ZA Bhutto committed a crime against the Pakistani society by conceding to mullah on that issue. Once he surrendered to the Mullah on the Ahmedi issue, the slippery slope of concessions to mullah has brought Pakistan to where it is in now.

In addition to #357 ...

kaal MiaN ... besides, how much Quran I read is none of your business … so go screw yourself.

Such is your typical behavior. Question asked was, why does it bother you if sattar considers himself a Muslim? Your response is that … sattar is a fanatic since he reads Quran too much.

You are a rambling fool, a fucking idiot, incapable of carrying on a remotely intelligent discussion.

And herein lies the irony …

You easily turn a blind eye towards hatred, violence zeemax preaches. At the same time you are overly concerned about how much Quran sattar reads.

If you ever get your head out of your rear, you may notice that zeemax’s Islam is causing death and destruction across the globe ... within Muslims and also against non-Muslims. Ahamdis too practice Islam, but keep it to themselves. So why are Ahmadis giving you a headache?

Your concerns are unwarranted, even idiotic. They highlight your own biases. You seem to have an axe to grind. So take your agenda and shove it up your arse ...

yeah kaal, wtf are you exactly saying? state it clearly..dont make us need hadith to interpret what you write.

kaal (#355),

You are very much mistaken in your assumptions. But that’s beside the point.

My main contention has been that … if you are going to make accusations against me, you should validate them. Merely making lose statements is like farting against the wind; it is annoying at best.

Give proper thought to what you want to say. Disagreeing, after intelligent, well-thought out discussion is alright. Just don’t ramble like a fool, when you actually seem to have an axe to grind.

harish (re #347),

Who is considered a Muslim or a non-Muslim, by whom, is somewhat inconsequential. However, when this issue is raised out of the blue, for no good reason, I at times throw my hat in the ring.

Accusations of non-Muslim have little to do with Islam, but are mainly rooted in agenda of fanaticism. They reek of hypocrisy and double-talk, and this is why I take an issue with them.

+++

krishna (#353),

Indeed, two people may read the same book and derive different conclusions.

For example, intelligence reports on Iraq were read differently by different people. Some concluded Saddam to be an imminent, grave danger and supported attacking Iraq. Others felt that a different approach was needed. And Quran is a lot more esoteric than an intelligence report.

As I explained above to harish, being accepted as a Muslim is not at all a priority for me. However, if “Muslim” definition is used as a political ploy, it becomes an issue for me.

Harish

As a Hindu and a proud rat worshipper, I will lay a wager, if between Zeemax and sattar bhai one had to pick the one real religious fanatic, one anti-Hindu bigot, one who would not pass water without consulting the Quran five times, all supposedly in ``original Arabic,`` then that would not be zeemax, his `support for violence` not withstanding.

We Hindus have an unfortunate tradition, a self-destructive habit of not really learning about other people`s beliefs any more than they tell us to our face.

Peel off Sattar bhai`s fake suites, Harish. Look underneath. And if you do not detest what you see as much as I do, I will be most glad to apologize to him.

#336 by kaalchakra

[Krishna_abcd

The reference there was to an entire logic system - which includes unique set of premises; but also the way of defining reality (basic propositions), separating fact from fiction, good/desirable from bad/undesirable (value system), understanding the effects and the operation of the self and the rest of the world (model of reality), etc. It`s an impressively finely tuned vast intellectual edifice - completely, radically different from (antithetical to) that of Hinduism, for instance, but extremely impressive in its own right. (and yes, Muhammad`s finality, as intelligent people like you would understand it, is one of its unremovable, nonnegotiable blocks). ]

And these unremovable, nonnegotiable blocks are the ``premises`` that this ``logic system`` depends upon, thus making it illogical.

But anyways....


[The word `sincerity` was meant in all sincerity. Naturally, noone in their right mind will support random killing of all innocent people. But opinions will differ on, at any time, who or what is innocent, and who all are implicated in any great crime. Furthermore, when systems clash, when one system attempts to replace another, defense of all innocent lives cannot be the top priority (except for the system which harbors or can be deceived into harboring, a death-wish of its own). ]

Okay. If you are looking at this in the broader perspective then I`ll give you that. I thought you were speaking in the context of ``Jihad`` only.

#351 by harish_hyd

[#349 by kaalchakra

That might be true in the larger scheme of things and that`s a topic for another day, but here, I just see you eager to brand Sattar a non-Muslim, when he feels he`s as Muslim as the others are. Why this insistence on your part?]

Maybe this analogy will clear up things for you, Harish. Let`s say Group A kills innocent little children whenever necessary. Or sells them as slaves to lead wretched lives if that`s what will get their goals attained. And let`s say Group B has the ideology that this is not acceptable. Could Group A and Group B be interpreting the same philosophy a tad differently?

No. That`s not possible. So Ahmedis and Muslims could not be people of the same book.

Maybe you should ask Sattar why it is so very important for him to be accepted as a ``Muslim`` by the non-Ahmedi Muslims.

Here`s a letter from today`s Daily Times which exposes the humiliating conditions under which Ahmadis have to make do. Why can`t they be allowed to live like everyone else?

---

Police unable to protect citizens?

Sir: I was shocked to read ‘Don’t fence your graveyard, police tell Ahmadis’ (Daily Times, April 21, 2007). This comes at a time when the Jamia Hafsa issue is keeping the authorities under immense pressure. The police have refrained from using force against Hafsa and there are no signs of a meaningful ultimatum for the clerics to vacate the illegally occupied land. The police again showed unexpected tolerance when local clerics gave the Ahmaddiya Community, the legal owners of the graveyard land in Handu Gujjar, an ultimatum to demolish its boundary wall. The report informs us that “they were able to gather about 150 clerics and madrassa students the next day”. Instead of taking action against them, the police asked the owners to comply. The house station officer of the police station admitted the police’s inability to protect the community. This is the police force supposedly responsible for providing security to all sections of society.

Was our country founded to be a safe haven in which religious vigilantes, unhindered by state forces, can terrorise citizens? Shouldn’t this intimidation, which has no moral or religious justification, be explicitly condemned?
FAROOQ MAHMOOD
Via email

---

#349 by kaalchakra

That might be true in the larger scheme of things and that`s a topic for another day, but here, I just see you eager to brand Sattar a non-Muslim, when he feels he`s as Muslim as the others are. Why this insistence on your part?