In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth
Mohammad Gill April 22, 2007
#412 Posted by Folio on May 4, 2007 2:26:12 pm
Punjab was not the hodbed of resistence to British rule, then why they needed a stooge in the form of Mirza Ghulan Ahmed? If at all they needed, they`d have needed one in UP and Delhi. Mirza didnt preach in UP.
Even the Pak movement was spearheaded by UP (Aligarhites) Muslims. When did Muslim Paunjabis became politically aware and active (collectively)? Political resistence is alien to them. Wasnt it? For an evidence we shud see the post-47 history of Pakistan. They are very good stooges to powers-that-be. Eg. leaders working for Musharraf.
Even the Pak movement was spearheaded by UP (Aligarhites) Muslims. When did Muslim Paunjabis became politically aware and active (collectively)? Political resistence is alien to them. Wasnt it? For an evidence we shud see the post-47 history of Pakistan. They are very good stooges to powers-that-be. Eg. leaders working for Musharraf.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#411 Posted by echoboom on May 4, 2007 12:37:40 pm
Urstruly:
Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.
Well said
MiTTee kee muhabbat meiN, hUm aashuftaa saroaN neiN
voh Qarz chuukaa-eN haiN, jo vaajib bhee naheeN thhay
tr:
In our love for the earthly-dust, we the crazy headstrong ones
have been paying off the debts, which were not even legit.
iftikhar arif
Beware of the Raushan-khayals & moderates...the westoxicated scum.
Oh How the Munafiquoon Musharraf has turned Raushan-khayal into a four-letter word.
Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.
Well said
MiTTee kee muhabbat meiN, hUm aashuftaa saroaN neiN
voh Qarz chuukaa-eN haiN, jo vaajib bhee naheeN thhay
tr:
In our love for the earthly-dust, we the crazy headstrong ones
have been paying off the debts, which were not even legit.
iftikhar arif
Beware of the Raushan-khayals & moderates...the westoxicated scum.
Oh How the Munafiquoon Musharraf has turned Raushan-khayal into a four-letter word.
#407 Posted by dost_mittar on May 4, 2007 11:18:18 am
Urstruly#402:
Yes, it is the same song. No wonder it was popular in Lyallpur during my childhood.
Yes, it is the same song. No wonder it was popular in Lyallpur during my childhood.
#406 Posted by sattar2 on May 4, 2007 11:17:53 am
khuram (#392),
This is correct from what I also know. This is also in accord with the hadith that Issa will break the cross … meaning that he will convincingly refute the fundamental Christian doctrine (just wanted to rub this in onto our ullema here – grin).
+++
Urstruly (#401),
I remain unclear regarding your claim that … ”khuram’s argument is good but it contradicts historical facts”.
In #392 khuram discussed debates between Mirza Sahib and Christians. How does your post #401 negate it?
#410 Posted by Urstruly on May 4, 2007 12:28:39 pm
Re: # 406
Khurram`s comment lacked the basic background of the ``emergence` of Mirza Sahib as the Mahdi, Issa, and miscelleneous. The missing fact is that that at that time british Empire was facing a formidable challenge in Africa at the hands of Mohammad Ahmad Mahdi Sudani, who organized a global Jihad against British Empire in Sudan. He proclaimed himself as the promised Mahdi and organized an army of Jihadists that decimated British in Sudan. Unfortunately, Sudani died (a natural death) soon after he had established Mumlikat-e-Islamia. After his death british re-occupied Sudan with the help of enlightened moderate Egyptians. But the Empire learned a lesson in ideological strength of Islam and especially the concept of promised Massiah in it. In order to close this ``Messiah`` chapter forever, British promoted Mirza sahib who was very well versed in not only Islam but also Christianity as well. British needed a pacifist ``Messiah`` who would not challenge their authority anywhere and yet keep the general Muslim population under control. Mirza Sahib had all those qualities. Don`t forget that before he proclaimed his ``Prophethood` (and other innanities) he was the rising star in the religious circles of India because of his aggressive style with which he used to counter Christian Missionaries in the debates (munazras). But when he switched sides he became even more aggressive to prove his loyalty to his new masters. Not only did he proclaimed to be the Mahdi but Jesus Reincarnate (Masih Mo`ood) as well. He should have chosen to be one of them, criminy! because according to the Prophecies Mahdi and Masih are two different personalities.
Khurram`s comment lacked the basic background of the ``emergence` of Mirza Sahib as the Mahdi, Issa, and miscelleneous. The missing fact is that that at that time british Empire was facing a formidable challenge in Africa at the hands of Mohammad Ahmad Mahdi Sudani, who organized a global Jihad against British Empire in Sudan. He proclaimed himself as the promised Mahdi and organized an army of Jihadists that decimated British in Sudan. Unfortunately, Sudani died (a natural death) soon after he had established Mumlikat-e-Islamia. After his death british re-occupied Sudan with the help of enlightened moderate Egyptians. But the Empire learned a lesson in ideological strength of Islam and especially the concept of promised Massiah in it. In order to close this ``Messiah`` chapter forever, British promoted Mirza sahib who was very well versed in not only Islam but also Christianity as well. British needed a pacifist ``Messiah`` who would not challenge their authority anywhere and yet keep the general Muslim population under control. Mirza Sahib had all those qualities. Don`t forget that before he proclaimed his ``Prophethood` (and other innanities) he was the rising star in the religious circles of India because of his aggressive style with which he used to counter Christian Missionaries in the debates (munazras). But when he switched sides he became even more aggressive to prove his loyalty to his new masters. Not only did he proclaimed to be the Mahdi but Jesus Reincarnate (Masih Mo`ood) as well. He should have chosen to be one of them, criminy! because according to the Prophecies Mahdi and Masih are two different personalities.
#405 Posted by zeemax on May 4, 2007 10:50:59 am
#401 by Urstruly,
Excellent post. Thanks.
Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.
Indeed. So we must not compound the sins of our forefathers. Enough has been enough I guess .. and the caravan moves on ... :)
Excellent post. Thanks.
Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become.
Indeed. So we must not compound the sins of our forefathers. Enough has been enough I guess .. and the caravan moves on ... :)
#404 Posted by zeemax on May 4, 2007 10:45:59 am
#397 by khuram.
Khuram, you have brought out an interesting correlation of Syed Ahmed with the Mutazillah faith which didn`t survive long. But have you taken into account why?
It was because Mutazillah was an elitist faith, limited to the ruling class of the time, professing that Qura`an had descended but was not eternal. And they sought to attach interpretations to it. That was its downfall alongwith the entire Abbasid dynasty.
Does anyone think anything has changed now?
Regards.
Khuram, you have brought out an interesting correlation of Syed Ahmed with the Mutazillah faith which didn`t survive long. But have you taken into account why?
It was because Mutazillah was an elitist faith, limited to the ruling class of the time, professing that Qura`an had descended but was not eternal. And they sought to attach interpretations to it. That was its downfall alongwith the entire Abbasid dynasty.
Does anyone think anything has changed now?
Regards.
#408 Posted by khuram on May 4, 2007 11:36:59 am
Re: # 404
Yes because Mutazillah ideology was philosophical type and was bit difficult for general public to comprehend and adopt. Actually Sir Syed had written some letters which are the proofs that he was trying to collect necessary information about the basic points of Mutazzillah faith. In one of the letters, he writes that only Mutazillah`s points were worthy of merit for his task.
Yes because Mutazillah ideology was philosophical type and was bit difficult for general public to comprehend and adopt. Actually Sir Syed had written some letters which are the proofs that he was trying to collect necessary information about the basic points of Mutazzillah faith. In one of the letters, he writes that only Mutazillah`s points were worthy of merit for his task.
#403 Posted by sattar2 on May 4, 2007 10:23:04 am
khuram (#385, 391),
Good write up. It is easy to quote something without the context. And in most cases, context makes all the difference … for example, whether Quran is asking to kill disbelievers or to kill disbelievers who are actively engaged in violent hostilities against Muslim community (from Surah-e-Taubah, I think)
From what I also know, pre-British Sikh rule in places in Punjab was quite brutal towards Muslims. In some places Muslims were not even allowed to give azaan.
When the British took over, Muslims gained freedom to freely practice Islam. This struck out the need for fighting jihad against the British. Addressing social, economic grievances against the British was a different issue, which did not require fighting jihad.
It seems several Muslim leaders were content with British government’s stance on religious issues, alhough some ullema wanted to wage fighting jihad. There were perhaps on-going discussions along these lines with not much consensus.
Yes, Mirza Sahib did participate in open discussions against Christian clergy. He also wrote books and pamphlets in order to highlight superiority and completeness of Islam. He was indeed considered a champion of Islam by Muslims (perhaps non-Muslims too). It was his claims of prophethood that turned ullema against him.
Heck, once even Urstruly agreed on Mirza Sahib’s services to cause of Islam!!
#401 Posted by Urstruly on May 4, 2007 9:36:52 am
Khuram and Zeemax
Re: # 392
Khurram`s argument is good but it contradicts the historical facts. The truth of the matter is that about 50 years before the war of independence in 1857 there was a sort of invasion of Christian evangelist missionaries in the subcontinent. They did have some success in southern coastal parts of India which were essentially Portuguese and French occupations and hence mostly Catholic conversions. The British started from Bengal (a Muslim dominant region and had control of most of Northern India (mostly Hindu dominated). They were not successful in conversions as compared to their Portuguese & French counterparts. But close to about 15 years near 1857 they became very aggressive as British had gained decisive control over Delhi and the Emperor.
At this stage they started challenging Muslims to the debates (Munazras) with a cheering crowd of Hindus. As the tradition continues to this day those debates were usually just insults hurled at Islam and Holy prophet (pbuh). A missionary wrote sometime in early 19th century with utter disappointment that 200 years of their presence in Hindustan and they could not convert more than 500 Muslims.
But British missionaries - even though the East India Company, was enjoying complete cooperation of Hindu business class who had complete control over Muslim nobility finance and accounting - did not spare Hindus either. A Hindu living under Muslim rule for 1000 years never suffered such aggressive invasion on his religion before. This created resentment in both Hindus and Muslims alike and erupted into the First War of Independence in 1857. Syed Ahmad Khan in his Asbaab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind has pointed out to the core reason of ``mutiny`` to the fact that missionaries were attacking local religions. East India Company, as a business concern raised the issue with British government and later passed a parliamentary act in 1869, based on the recommendations of people like Sir Syed and local British, and abolished the state sponsorship of propagation of Christianity.
But between 1857 and 1869, the era was really bad for Muslims. When British took over, they nationalized all schools, colleges and universities. These institutions throughout the history of Muslims were funded by private donations and income from trusted properties. They were never owned by any government. British not only nationalized them but confiscated their trusted property as well. Tens of thousands of institutions across the land withered and closed and only those survived which were the nationalized ones.
At that time Christian missionaries became very aggressive against Muslims and most of their Munazras were now held in the public school grounds where they insulted Islam and Prophet with no holds barred. The Muslim ulemma first try to engage them in those debates but then soon realized that the purpose of those debates was not an exchange of dialogue but it was one sided attack on Muslim faith with pot shots just like it happens today. So Ulemma advised Muslims to keep their kids away from those schools. It was a double edged sword from Muslims - damned if you do and damned if you don`t. In those 10 years a whole generation of Muslims fell victim to the merciless military, political, and ideological aggression of British imperialism.
So if we give Sir Syed the benefit of doubt, the Muslims really did not have a choice. Had Sir Syed not done it, some other Muslim would have. Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become. Iqbal has captured those debates of Mehdi, Issa (pbuh), and resurrection in these immortal words:
Quomon ki hayat unkay takhayyul pay hai moqoof
Yeh zouq Sikhata hai adab murgh-e-cahman ko
Majzoob-e-Farangi nay ba-andaaz-e- farangi
Mehdi kay takhayyul say kiya zinda watan ko
Ay tu kai jo Mehdi kay takhayyul say hai bey zaar
Nomeed na kar ahu-e-mushkeen say khatan ko
Ho zinda kufan posh to murda ussay samjhein
ya chak karein mardak-e-nadaan kay kufan ko
Re: # 392
Khurram`s argument is good but it contradicts the historical facts. The truth of the matter is that about 50 years before the war of independence in 1857 there was a sort of invasion of Christian evangelist missionaries in the subcontinent. They did have some success in southern coastal parts of India which were essentially Portuguese and French occupations and hence mostly Catholic conversions. The British started from Bengal (a Muslim dominant region and had control of most of Northern India (mostly Hindu dominated). They were not successful in conversions as compared to their Portuguese & French counterparts. But close to about 15 years near 1857 they became very aggressive as British had gained decisive control over Delhi and the Emperor.
At this stage they started challenging Muslims to the debates (Munazras) with a cheering crowd of Hindus. As the tradition continues to this day those debates were usually just insults hurled at Islam and Holy prophet (pbuh). A missionary wrote sometime in early 19th century with utter disappointment that 200 years of their presence in Hindustan and they could not convert more than 500 Muslims.
But British missionaries - even though the East India Company, was enjoying complete cooperation of Hindu business class who had complete control over Muslim nobility finance and accounting - did not spare Hindus either. A Hindu living under Muslim rule for 1000 years never suffered such aggressive invasion on his religion before. This created resentment in both Hindus and Muslims alike and erupted into the First War of Independence in 1857. Syed Ahmad Khan in his Asbaab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind has pointed out to the core reason of ``mutiny`` to the fact that missionaries were attacking local religions. East India Company, as a business concern raised the issue with British government and later passed a parliamentary act in 1869, based on the recommendations of people like Sir Syed and local British, and abolished the state sponsorship of propagation of Christianity.
But between 1857 and 1869, the era was really bad for Muslims. When British took over, they nationalized all schools, colleges and universities. These institutions throughout the history of Muslims were funded by private donations and income from trusted properties. They were never owned by any government. British not only nationalized them but confiscated their trusted property as well. Tens of thousands of institutions across the land withered and closed and only those survived which were the nationalized ones.
At that time Christian missionaries became very aggressive against Muslims and most of their Munazras were now held in the public school grounds where they insulted Islam and Prophet with no holds barred. The Muslim ulemma first try to engage them in those debates but then soon realized that the purpose of those debates was not an exchange of dialogue but it was one sided attack on Muslim faith with pot shots just like it happens today. So Ulemma advised Muslims to keep their kids away from those schools. It was a double edged sword from Muslims - damned if you do and damned if you don`t. In those 10 years a whole generation of Muslims fell victim to the merciless military, political, and ideological aggression of British imperialism.
So if we give Sir Syed the benefit of doubt, the Muslims really did not have a choice. Had Sir Syed not done it, some other Muslim would have. Those were the wages of the sins of our forefathers. And we suffer them to this day with out realizing that longer we have those shackles and chains of mental slavery around our necks the more miserable we would become. Iqbal has captured those debates of Mehdi, Issa (pbuh), and resurrection in these immortal words:
Quomon ki hayat unkay takhayyul pay hai moqoof
Yeh zouq Sikhata hai adab murgh-e-cahman ko
Majzoob-e-Farangi nay ba-andaaz-e- farangi
Mehdi kay takhayyul say kiya zinda watan ko
Ay tu kai jo Mehdi kay takhayyul say hai bey zaar
Nomeed na kar ahu-e-mushkeen say khatan ko
Ho zinda kufan posh to murda ussay samjhein
ya chak karein mardak-e-nadaan kay kufan ko
#400 Posted by sattar2 on May 4, 2007 9:31:43 am
khuram (#382),
Excellent post! Your point about various dimensions of Quranic teachings is right on. Different circumstances require different traits. These may include compassion, firmness, violence, and so on. Abolishing any one trait can lead to a crisis when it is direly needed.
Despite what ullema say about Ahmadis … truth is that Ahamdi-Muslims are not against fighting jihad. Our position has always been that Quran outlines conditions required for fighting jihad. If these conditions are not met, fighting jihad is not called for.
You may want to recommend “Philosophy of teachings of Islam” to Urstruly and zeemax. They won’t accept it from me, but you stand a better chance …
#399 Posted by sattar2 on May 4, 2007 9:20:45 am
teshah (#380),
If I am not mistaken, mainstream Muslim view is that both nabi (prophet) and rasool (messenger) are recipients of divine revelation, with divine missions to reform people. And that rasool necessarily brings new shairah, but nabi does not. This suggests that every rasool is a nabi, but not every nabi is a rasool.
Ahmadi-Muslim view is that rasool and nabi are somewhat interchangeable terms. These two terms emphasize two different aspects of the same position: one aspect relates to receiving divine message (“risalaat” meaning message, suggesting reception of message) and the other to convey divine messages to people (“nubuwah” meaning conveying of a message).
Perhaps it is for this reason that when Quran uses both terms together for a divine reformer, it lists the term rasool first, followed by the term nabi. That is, this reformer first receives divine message and then conveys it to others.
As for claimants of risalat, I guess they can claim to be Muslims! More power to them. But now that you have mentioned it, Urstruly may start losing sleep over the issue … I guess he can never be satisfied … !!!
#398 Posted by dost_mittar on May 4, 2007 9:01:24 am
echoboom@395:
That was hilarious. But even I , a thet Punjabi, could not understand their inglish.
urstruly#389:
Jugga is an unusual name for a Muslim. I always presumed he was a Sikh. A popular song during our childhood was:
Jugga jamya te milan vadhaayian
vada ho kay daake maarda
That was hilarious. But even I , a thet Punjabi, could not understand their inglish.
urstruly#389:
Jugga is an unusual name for a Muslim. I always presumed he was a Sikh. A popular song during our childhood was:
Jugga jamya te milan vadhaayian
vada ho kay daake maarda
#402 Posted by Urstruly on May 4, 2007 9:51:58 am
Re: # 398 Dost
To the best of my knowledge based mostly on childhood stories told to me by my grandmother, jagga was a Muslim, but I cannot say for sure. My grandmother was from Lyallpur Jhang area, which was the traditional Jagga terrotory. In those stories Jagga used to kill oppressive angraiz and his toutes and helped poor and helpless. The name Jagga has now gained notoriety because of its association with extrotion and racketeering which is usually referred to as Jagga tax. A variant ``Jaggi`` is a popular nickname in rural areas of Punjab.
Here is a modern version of a tribute to Jagga. May God bless his soul regardless of whether he was a Muslim or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha6AwUYEwtE
To the best of my knowledge based mostly on childhood stories told to me by my grandmother, jagga was a Muslim, but I cannot say for sure. My grandmother was from Lyallpur Jhang area, which was the traditional Jagga terrotory. In those stories Jagga used to kill oppressive angraiz and his toutes and helped poor and helpless. The name Jagga has now gained notoriety because of its association with extrotion and racketeering which is usually referred to as Jagga tax. A variant ``Jaggi`` is a popular nickname in rural areas of Punjab.
Here is a modern version of a tribute to Jagga. May God bless his soul regardless of whether he was a Muslim or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha6AwUYEwtE
#397 Posted by khuram on May 4, 2007 8:40:16 am
Re: # 387 Zeemax
I consider Syed Ahmed Khan no better than Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.
Your point re context of time is taken. How would you evaluate Iqbal in the context of his time?
Sir Syed was a part of Nobel class of Indian Muslims. He was concerned that Muslim Nobel class would not be able to compete with more educated Hindus in getting of superior government jobs under the British rule. The only solution was to launch a dedicated education spreading movement among Indian Muslims. But Indian Muslims despised western education because of religious beliefs. So first of all Sir Syed had to make-up Muslim mind for the adoptation of western education. That was the time of complete darkness of illeteracy and ignorance. Muslims were unaware of basic teachings of Islam as well and had been trapped into ignorant type superstitious beliefs like ancient prophets were many thousand feet tall etc. etc. Sir Syed had realized the poor and backward state of Muslim beliefs. Western thought of that time was dominated by Rationalism. Sir Syed realized the need of interpreting Islamic beliefs on rational footings. In the glorious period of early Muslim rule (i.e. early period of Abbasid Caliphate), a well known early Muslim sect ``Al-Mutazillah`` already had attempted to perform the task of interpreting Islamic beliefs on rational footings. The importance of that early sect can be realized by the fact that the first ever Rational Muslim Philosopher i.e. Yaqoob Alkindi belonged to Mutazillah faith. Later giant Muslim Philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina just had extended the views of Alkindi into further depths. That sect however could not survive for long and their works were also destroyed by the later dominent sects.
Sir Syed had got inspirations from that early sect. Some fragments of scattered work of that early sect could be made available. So Sir Syed undertook the heavy task of interpreting Islamic beliefs on strong rational footings in this way. Another early Shia sect ``Batania`` also influenced the thought of Sir Syed . Perhaps Sir Syed learned allegorical type interpretations of Islamic beliefs from ``Batania`` sect. Basic idea of Sir Syed was that Quran is the Word of God and functioning of Physical world is the Act of God. According to him, there could be no contradiction between Word of God and Act of God. In this way, Sir Syed gave `allegorical` meanings to all those things of Islamic belief system which could not be seen in the Physical world. For example, he allegorically interpreted the existence of angels, paradize and hell. On similar lines, he also denied the physical meanings of miracles of Prophets as well as denied the physical meanings of Hazrat Issa (RA) being alive in heavens. He took allegorical meanings of all these things. In this way, he tried to rationalize Islamic belief system. He could not complete this task. Secondly his work did not affect the orthodox momentum of Islamic beliefs.
About Allama Iqbal:
Allama Iqbal was concerned with the over-all backwardness of Muslim Nation as compared with Western Nations. Allama Iqbal`s time context was different from Mirza Qadiani and Sir Syed. Some Muslim Scholars like Syed Ameer Ali and Maulana Shibli Naumani etc. already had adopted some psychological ``escape`` strategies. Instead of facing the challenges of real world, they started finding charms in the false pride of past glory of Muslims. Allama Iqbal used same strategy with a positive mission i.e. with the view to give some confidence to Muslim Nation. Through his beutiful poetry, Allama Iqbal projected the past glory of Muslims and tried to invoke new spirit (Zinda Tamanna) in a dead nation. Allama Iqbal made the nation more ``emotional`` rather than making ``rational``.
Allama Iqbal also was deeply influenced by the popular Western Philosophies of his time like he was inspired by such Philosophers as Rausseau, Bergson, Fitche, Loyed Magon, Prof. Alexander and Nietzsche etc. etc. Allama Iqbal`s philosophical views are dominated by these philosophies. His ``Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` is an attempt to show that either above type of philosophies were already a part of Islamic ideology or that Islamic beliefs could be modernized on these lines.
Regards!
I consider Syed Ahmed Khan no better than Mirza Ghulam Qadiani.
Your point re context of time is taken. How would you evaluate Iqbal in the context of his time?
Sir Syed was a part of Nobel class of Indian Muslims. He was concerned that Muslim Nobel class would not be able to compete with more educated Hindus in getting of superior government jobs under the British rule. The only solution was to launch a dedicated education spreading movement among Indian Muslims. But Indian Muslims despised western education because of religious beliefs. So first of all Sir Syed had to make-up Muslim mind for the adoptation of western education. That was the time of complete darkness of illeteracy and ignorance. Muslims were unaware of basic teachings of Islam as well and had been trapped into ignorant type superstitious beliefs like ancient prophets were many thousand feet tall etc. etc. Sir Syed had realized the poor and backward state of Muslim beliefs. Western thought of that time was dominated by Rationalism. Sir Syed realized the need of interpreting Islamic beliefs on rational footings. In the glorious period of early Muslim rule (i.e. early period of Abbasid Caliphate), a well known early Muslim sect ``Al-Mutazillah`` already had attempted to perform the task of interpreting Islamic beliefs on rational footings. The importance of that early sect can be realized by the fact that the first ever Rational Muslim Philosopher i.e. Yaqoob Alkindi belonged to Mutazillah faith. Later giant Muslim Philosophers like Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina just had extended the views of Alkindi into further depths. That sect however could not survive for long and their works were also destroyed by the later dominent sects.
Sir Syed had got inspirations from that early sect. Some fragments of scattered work of that early sect could be made available. So Sir Syed undertook the heavy task of interpreting Islamic beliefs on strong rational footings in this way. Another early Shia sect ``Batania`` also influenced the thought of Sir Syed . Perhaps Sir Syed learned allegorical type interpretations of Islamic beliefs from ``Batania`` sect. Basic idea of Sir Syed was that Quran is the Word of God and functioning of Physical world is the Act of God. According to him, there could be no contradiction between Word of God and Act of God. In this way, Sir Syed gave `allegorical` meanings to all those things of Islamic belief system which could not be seen in the Physical world. For example, he allegorically interpreted the existence of angels, paradize and hell. On similar lines, he also denied the physical meanings of miracles of Prophets as well as denied the physical meanings of Hazrat Issa (RA) being alive in heavens. He took allegorical meanings of all these things. In this way, he tried to rationalize Islamic belief system. He could not complete this task. Secondly his work did not affect the orthodox momentum of Islamic beliefs.
About Allama Iqbal:
Allama Iqbal was concerned with the over-all backwardness of Muslim Nation as compared with Western Nations. Allama Iqbal`s time context was different from Mirza Qadiani and Sir Syed. Some Muslim Scholars like Syed Ameer Ali and Maulana Shibli Naumani etc. already had adopted some psychological ``escape`` strategies. Instead of facing the challenges of real world, they started finding charms in the false pride of past glory of Muslims. Allama Iqbal used same strategy with a positive mission i.e. with the view to give some confidence to Muslim Nation. Through his beutiful poetry, Allama Iqbal projected the past glory of Muslims and tried to invoke new spirit (Zinda Tamanna) in a dead nation. Allama Iqbal made the nation more ``emotional`` rather than making ``rational``.
Allama Iqbal also was deeply influenced by the popular Western Philosophies of his time like he was inspired by such Philosophers as Rausseau, Bergson, Fitche, Loyed Magon, Prof. Alexander and Nietzsche etc. etc. Allama Iqbal`s philosophical views are dominated by these philosophies. His ``Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` is an attempt to show that either above type of philosophies were already a part of Islamic ideology or that Islamic beliefs could be modernized on these lines.
Regards!
#396 Posted by zeemax on May 4, 2007 7:57:18 am
#392 by khuram,
This post is quite confusing. You say:
In those days missioneries used to argue ... Jesus was superior to Prophet of Islam. ... it was Mirza alone who fought this argument of missioneries. ... Mirza had various ``manazras`` with Christien Bishops ... and he e... broke the basic argument of Christian missioneries.
But to what purpose? Christian missionaries were not converting Muslims. All they were doing was converting harijans. Why go to all this trouble of Manazaras and all?
My questions is simply that, what is Mirza`s essential teaching different from Islam other than claiming to be the second coming of Christ and expunging Jihad for his followers?
Syed Ahmed did the same thing, but he thought better not to invent a new religion to do that but found a noble means of education to achieve his ends which was not easy to reject.
However, it was precisely that Syed Ahmed whose designs resulted in the Urdu Medium/ English Medium divide, and exclusion of the vastly major bulk of the population from integrating into a single mainstream identity, with catastrophic results which you see now.
There are two Pakistans, not one. One Pakistan is which the English educated think they own because its they who get all jobs and opportunities; while the other is which obviously many on this site know nothing about. That is the Urdu-medium and Madrassa educated Pakistan.
Regards
This post is quite confusing. You say:
In those days missioneries used to argue ... Jesus was superior to Prophet of Islam. ... it was Mirza alone who fought this argument of missioneries. ... Mirza had various ``manazras`` with Christien Bishops ... and he e... broke the basic argument of Christian missioneries.
But to what purpose? Christian missionaries were not converting Muslims. All they were doing was converting harijans. Why go to all this trouble of Manazaras and all?
My questions is simply that, what is Mirza`s essential teaching different from Islam other than claiming to be the second coming of Christ and expunging Jihad for his followers?
Syed Ahmed did the same thing, but he thought better not to invent a new religion to do that but found a noble means of education to achieve his ends which was not easy to reject.
However, it was precisely that Syed Ahmed whose designs resulted in the Urdu Medium/ English Medium divide, and exclusion of the vastly major bulk of the population from integrating into a single mainstream identity, with catastrophic results which you see now.
There are two Pakistans, not one. One Pakistan is which the English educated think they own because its they who get all jobs and opportunities; while the other is which obviously many on this site know nothing about. That is the Urdu-medium and Madrassa educated Pakistan.
Regards
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- masadi: HP writes "Asadi sahib,... There is no ‘honour’
- HP: "Sounds like you're repeating... There is no ‘honour’
- HP: " how aggressive capitalism... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: later....... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: HP writes "It is... There is no ‘honour’
- masadi: HP writes "Come out... There is no ‘honour’
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 90 Mr.... US Commando Strike in
- HP: "Did the CIA contact... There is no ‘honour’
