Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

what's up with chowk and images?what's up with chowk and images?alert('chowk security sucks')

Re: # 488

Kaal Ji

Thank you dear. I think evolution is not proceeding in a linear fashion but is going in a circle. It reminds me of a film showing the last days of Darwin on a local tv channel in London during early 90's. I was surprised to see Darwin roaming naked in his house among his family, women and children all included. Was not this a reversal to animism?

All the living ultimately die (?) and become a food for other living things and the circle goes on for ever as Ghalib says:

"Shamah har rang mein jalti he saahar hone tak"

Will there be a 'Saahar' (the morning) ever which is not followed by night?

Excuse me this rambling which is prompted by your kind and salutary response.

Regards

Of course not, or at least not necessarily, teshah ji :)

Allow me to recount a real story about a dear white American friend of mine (who has, since I last saw him, risen very rapidly to assume chaired professorship at an Ivy League university).

One day the friend came rushing, huffing and excited, and announced to me that Hindus had always known about Evolution much before everyone had any clue. Why, because he had just come across the successive incarnations of Vishnu - the Preserver of Life. These, he learnt, were -

Matsya (fish)
Kurma (tortoise)
Varaha (boar/wild pig)
Narasimha (half-man, half-lion)
Vamana (dwarf man)
Parashuram (man with an axe)
Ram (moral man)
Krishna (practical cum philosophical man)
Balaram (spiritual ? man)

Was he right? Depends on how prone one is to faith. One can take all this and declare the world's greatest faith and revelation from something called "God" (people have done a lot more with a lot less).

Or one can accept this and everything else in human stride, and go back to having faith in merely oneself.

That's just a choice. Nothing else.

kaka, God created Hanuman just to make it clear to beleivers that evolution really did occur.:-)

Newsflash: Command from God.

The last line should be explained.

"You will learn about everything except religion."

If you do all that (refer to sura/shloka #484, Revelation: Chowk) with book-based religions, of course you will learn about those religions. But if you bring the same mindset and methodology to non-book-based religions, you will learn nothing about those religions. What you will learn, given a representative enough set of books, definitely, is something about socio-economic conditions prevailing a few thousand years ago, and if you are careful, *some* religious beliefs prevalent THEN.

---------------

Poor God, He has to actually speak the language of clueless academics, these days. :(

As a real Prophet, I can't give up, though. After all, I have it directly from God Himself: He gave wisdom to even those who were/are tricked by the "Punjabi Prophet of Islam."

Here goes:

If you want to have "faith," stay with Islam. Accept its basics - whatever they be, and everything you see will flow directly and logically from those basics. Don't begin with what you personally like (or which woman you would like to personally marry/have sex with) and work backwards. That's not Islam, or any other faith, Punjabi Prophets of Islam, and their strong personal fetishes, notwithstanding.

If you don't have faith, then FORGET "scripture." Forget book-based thinking. Use your own head. You are on your own, your own Prophet.

May be not as good a prophet as me, obviously, but a small-time prophet nevertheless.

Yet, that may not be for you at all. So don't destroy the only good thing you actually have - real Islam. Go read "scripture." You will indeed find commands that you should diligently follow. Believe me, those commands are never as illogical (once you accept them on faith alone) as Ahemdis keep whining about.

Or if you think you have given up faith but can't step outside of book-based religious thinking, feed "scriptural texts" into textual-analysis computer programs. Count words. Decipher patterns. Compare syntax. Look up word meanings. And, most importantly, wonder, whether final finally means anything.

You will learn about everything except religion. :)

Typical Ahemadi talk, sattar bhai.:

--------------

People of beyond faith don't have "scriptures" like you do. That is one thing your Punjabi prophet forgot to teach you. LOL

Actually, he was clueless. I, as a real Prophet, am willing to teach you. But would you listen?

Kaal,

You were quick to abandon the realm of “beyond faith” … in order to defend the scriptures; to make palatable, to yourself and to others, this half-monkey business; to seek reason in reason of others. Apparently there is spiritual slavery, and judging from your posts, traditional slavery as well as ancestral slavery. Needless to say, you have your hands full. You have mercilessly slaughtered your own grandiose ideals … all at the feet of a monkey-god.

You may now stop justifying scriptures, stop coloring them with your preferences. You have done enough damage to your deals … and once again I have to be the one to enlighten you. And don’t worry about what a punjabi prophet accomplished. Start thinking about what your half-monkey accomplished, besides perhaps, eating half a banana!

The unsavory violence bit is aimed by the ummah, at the ummah … more than anything else. They are doing themselves in; I am only trying to talk sense to them. Don’t be so upset.

Your issue with semitic faiths is revealing. I can see how they are getting under your skin, esp. when viewed in the backdrop of central-asian invaders. Dude, your baggage is your problems. As you deal with it, feel free to leave another set of lip imprints on zee’s rear when you so desire. That would be another kind of slavery … the very thought of which grosses me out. Good luck …

By the way, that's another reason why Mirza Sahib was less a prophet than you and I. The man did nothing but a lot of textual analysis, adding just some self-seving demands from a something he called his god.

LOL, that was funny.

Look, kaka, if you leave God behind, we should take this forward. I am sure I can learn much from you. And you will, ultimately, get it too.

There is no use coming to these things with pre-conceived minds (unless you remain a person of faith, which then would be ok).

--------------------

Indic texts? What do you want to learn in those?

Conditions thousands of years ago? Sure you will learn some of that from ANY stories, depending upon which and how many books you read, and how well you read them.

Readings books is not the way to gain religious knowledge (is that your interest, anyways?).

Ask clear questions (don't jump from one question to another :)), and you will get your answers. Nobody in India "reads books" to understand these things.

And prophets should be the last ones to spend their lives doing "textual anayses."

Your question until now:

1. Were there half monkeys in real flesh and blood.

Answer: No. And I know all about the monkey being the father of man.

Your answer: reading all those texts and doing textual analysis, there were. (Well, great. so what do you want us to take away from that?).

2. What is their significance?

Answer: These are stories to teach important lessons about life. We respect them as *one* part of our tradition.

Your answer: They tell about socio-economic-political conditions thousands of years ago. (well, fine, every story teaches something about the time it was written in. But there are lots and lots of stories and you will have to read quite a few to get any fair idea. Suppose you have done all that, so?)

Are we talking of two different things? I am focused on religion (my interest). You, on socio-economics and politics (your interest)?

'Aryans pushing down south' is a commendable attempt. Even so, there is no reason to discount that some characters had tails or resembled animals. If animals can look like animals without much effort, how hard could it be for others?

You have to exclude 'God' when you interact with kaka. Apparently, you can't focus and attempt to inject ideas like god, religion, faith and hinduism in response to simple quieries about states of affair a few thousand years ago in certain geographical areas.

A simple textual analysis of Indic texts would yield a whole lot more about the states of affairs in terms of human agencies and power dynamics THAN all the gobblegook of symbolism and religion jargon. For example, you can wax on all the symbolism in the sacrifice of Punjabi/Pathaan Virgins wearing Ninja outfits, ascending to Heavens from a Red Temple at the foothills of the Top of the World, but the actual state of affairs is.. well it is extremely mundane.

Same with 911.. The angels stomped on the roofs of the towers to bring down what, sans angels, could have been just buildings with large holes. Well the number 19 was at work there.. so it could't have been all that mundane.

The point is even with all the waxed on symbolism, there was still a nature of reality which can still be described in a few paragraphs. Too bad you have no clue how to access that..

Hmmmm, Indian (and other ancient non-faith) traditions are of course full of symbolisms. Some I know, some I don't.

There is a version that Hanuman story might reflect the 'push' of 'Aryans' down south, meeting people different from themselves. But that is all speculation, and pretty irrelevant to religion as such.

Overall, the religious mindset is: you can make up your own God. The only faith needed is in oneself. Not to let any God get too big for their boots.

----------------

Ganesha's head, I suppose, symbolizes wisdom, memory, far-sightedness; but these, kaka, are micro-level details, related to specific deities.

We can think affectionately of these deities and obsess about their individual characteristics, knowing full-well in our hearts, there was/is no Ganesha in flesh and blood. :)

Aesop has a 'crow' with a dilemma to drink out of a bottle because a crow cannot lift a bottle like a monkey and guzzle away. Same with the 'vixen and grapes' story because vixens are supposed to be smart.

Orwell has ambitious pigs, 'soldier' dogs, an indifferent cat and a cynical donkey in Animal Farm, conversing with each other to convey a political message. If you ask kaka what was Orwell's message, kaka could do that in a simple paragraph involving words like Russian Revolution and Communism.

Why is Hanuman depicted as having a monkey face and a tail? A simple answer would be because he had these attributes. A 'truer' answer would use no more than a paragraph about a message.

Ganesh's elephant head.. What is the teaching encapsulated in that head?

Again, kaka is faithless and has simple questions.

Re: # 477

"Why is Hanuman depicted as having a monkey face and a tail? A simple answer would be because he had these attributes. A 'truer' answer would use no more than a paragraph about a message."


Does it not mean that the Hindus knew as a matter of fact the evolution of homo sapiens which Darwin proved much later on with so much ado.

Again, I hasten to add, faith-based traditions are different, and perfectly ok.

One may fully believe that monkeymen, half lions, flying horses, or punjabi prophets all existed in real-flesh.

What one cannot do is to use *reason* to push the argument that monekymen gods existed in real flesh, while punjabi prophets did not, or vice versa.

Only people who must rely on monkey see-monkey do way of doing things "need" those descriptions.
--------------

There is monkey man, there is wild pig, there is half-man, half lion, there are forms with many heads and many arms ---

Why are those descriptions used if they did not exist?

Those are at best stories to encapsulate teachings and messages. Call them fables if you would.

To read history in monkey men and talking lions is to be stuck in the faith tradition: Since these stories were MADE UP, they MUST be true (to some lesser or greater extent).

No, they were not true.

God is visualized in an infinite number of ways. You and I can make up another set of ways, and there need be no "real" person or people behind our stories.

Again, kaka, there were NO monkeymen, half lions and half men, men with ten heads, or whatever of that sort. We can not understand those things from the framework of faith.

'#467 Posted by KaalChakra on July 31, 2007 9:33:12 am

Those descriptions are needed'

kaal,

YOU said the word 'NEEDED'. That's why the question why 'needed'.

The key is to not to sprinkle too much 'wisdom' but to focus on the question asked. Remember kaka's background.. kaka wasn't born yesterday. Most of his questions are styled as, 'why do you think..'

Again..

Why do YOU think the monkey description is used if no monkey man in the flesh existed.

See if you can explain this without mentioning sattar..

Kaka, signficance is entirely in connecting to a tradition, in the sense of paying homage to that tradition.

God cannot be bound by monkey men or punjabi prophets (in a non-faith tradition).

kaka, nothing is "needed" in a post/non/beyond faith framework. The monkey man was just one way of doing it, one creative outlet. It could be a pig (actually, that too has been done).

"Faith" is a silly word in this context, unless we modify its meanings substantially. For faith means something entirely different to sattar sahib, who fights his battles regarding what should or should not be done in today's huamn affairs based on something eons ago.

Faith in a non-faith context is at best one way of concentrating attention, a measure of confidence, of believing that one too follows a way to connect to the Great "God."

Let me give you an example. As a little kid, my mon would ask me to go get some dirt from outside (we lived in a village). Then she will make "God" out of that before which we will "pray." Aftere we are, the little motherly masterpiece would be gotten rid of, to be made anew when another occasion arose.

"Faith" was in the methodology of worship, not in particular methods. Methods are important while they are used, not per se.

sattar, sure you may find the violence bit unsavory, when it is directed against you, but that itself does not make it undesirable for others or for mankind, does it?

Wish faith was so dependennt on what each one of us likes, but it isn't. Surprisingly, while pushing the case for faith, you don't don't get that, or prefer not to get it.

Rest of your central-asia and north-east zambia stuff is irrelevant.

kaal,

Why do you think this description of 'monkey' was 'needed' in the religious books?

What does 'faith' in this 'non-monkey' individual mean? Faith that this guy existed? Faith that this guy is significant?

Kaka,

I didn’t know that this account from Abu Sufyan was so well-known. And there is no cap on prophethood. But don’t be surprised if within the next century, Ahmadis too start chanting that Mirza Sahib was the last prophet, as they demonize the next prophet (then Ahamdi-Muslim faith would become more palatable, and very logical to kaal, I suppose … [the irony here is hard to miss!])

”Reason to believe” may mean different things to different people: some have their reasons, some don’t, and life goes on. And I am not sure what you mean by half monkey, half not-monkey … so can’t comment ...

And you may still try … mass conversions may or may not happen in your lifetime. But you may get beaten up by the nay sayers. If I were you, I’d make sure I have at least a half-decent HMO plan …

+++

Kaal miaN,

Sadly, you still don’t get it (shaking my head again yet again). This is all very disappointing. Once again I have to try to educate you … (sigh).

I don’t have a problem with zee’s faith: he may accept or reject any prophet, a half-monkey, a quarter-buffalo, or a 13% spider. It is only this violence bit that he supports that I find unsavory. That’s all …

Apparently, appearance of prophets between Adam and Muhammad was logical; but any more is illogical. Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. And the Muslim world awaits a prophet from two thousand years ago, to descend from above the clouds, on shoulders of two angels. Not that I have a problem with any of this, but you’d be better off fighting your hollow battles with them … armed with your equally hollow, though self-aggrandized, principles of logic.

But first, pray tell us more about semitic faiths insulting other faiths. What’s so illogical about it that upsets you? We may be on to something here, as it may explain your obsessive behavior.

What’s next in the cards? Are you also upset about invaders from central asia? Bhai, all that was centuries ago! It’s now time to pick up your baggage, and I dare say, to move on …

Note: That view is not to pull down anyone else's faith. Just to depict the non-faith/beyond-faith point of view.

kaka

We have monkeys even on chowk, but no there was NO monkey or half or a quarter of a monkey the way it is described in 'religious' books.

Those descriptions are needed only for other monkeys (or for the monkey within all of us). Monkey see, mokey do. People have always known that.

What can this individual do for us?

Nothing that we cannot do for ourselves. From non-faith (or call it beyond-faith, if you will) point of view, even what "faith" does, we do ourselves. We merely avoid the burdens, positive and negative, of individual responsibility.

#463

Abay, everyone knows about the 'Hazrat' Abu Sufwan testimony. It is probabaly a fabrication. Anyways, you don't have to spell out the most basic references.

While the Quran was being collected, there was little reason to believe Mohammad as a nabi; during Mirza's lifetime there wasn't sufficient proof and now kaka has to die before any mass balieving in kaka happens *sniff*. BTW, is there a cap on the prophethood, or does kaka still have a chance?

kaal,

Here's your chance to dazzle:

1. Was there, at any point in history, a half monkey, half not-monkey individual in the flesh?

2. What can this individual do for us?

sattar, you, xyz, or I may not *LIKE* Zee's faith, but zee's faith is logical GIVEN a few basics are accepted on *faith.*

Once you remove the issue of finality, you enter an entirely different (unislamic from zee's and other Muslim's point of view) world of religiosity.

Kaka has raised a key issue. All I am interested in seeing is if you are anywhere as clear about those issues as Zee (or any other Muslim) is about his religion. That's all that matters here.

Kaka,

“Mystery” may be a loaded term. That is not to say that the issue of accepting a prophet is necessarily completely cut and dry either. The claimant’s character is one aspect of it. In the case of Mirza Sahib, eclipses are another aspect of the issue (somewhat similar to “splitting of moon” by Prophet Muhammad). If ahadith mention town of Qada, that too may play a part. A natural disaster may influence people’s thinking. Character of claimant’s opponents and their propaganda may factor in as well.

Ok, so you know about Muhammadi Begum. Factor her in. Then there are Pandit Lekh Ram and Alexander Dowie, etc, to name a few. Factor in these as well.

A single piece of information or evidence does not prove or disprove much. Various pieces put together may present one scenario or another as the more plausible one. Some may call it mystery, while some may argue that there is method to this madness.

+++

I am not aware of Mirza Sahib saying anything about those who die denying him … one way or another. But my understanding is that a person is answerable to Allah alone … not to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), not to Mirza Sahib, not to anyone else.

A person may have his own reasons for rejecting a prophet. However, if he is deliberately hurtful and deceitful in his ways, that may count against him in Allah’s eyes. However, in final analysis, Allah will decide as He sees fit, based upon totality of this person’s thoughts and actions.

If a person died “proving” Mirza right, again, his salvation will rest with Allah alone. While his denial, followed by death, may support truthfulness of a prophet for some, it would be going too far to conclude that this person is now damned. This applies to people who perished in the Punjab plague, or Noah’s flood, or Battle of Badr. This also applies to Judas and father of Muhammadi Begum. In the same vein, Allah will judge Maudoodi and Israar Ahmed, in view of all their thoughts and actions, and not merely on basis of one issue alone, or another.

Merely rejecting a prophet does not doom a person … just as merely accepting a prophet does not guarantee salvation.

[A side note: I don't think Quran supports the idea of eternal damnation. Hell is a temporary abode, where one pays his dues ... before moving on.]

++++++++++++

Kaal, fair comments … which you should’ve directed to tahmed instead. And the way things seems to you may be the result of your own hang-ups; you are chasing your own tail here. But don’t worry - Don Quixote too was an entertaining character. Moving on …

Re #450: See now what you have done! You have betrayed your buddy zeemax by bashing his faith (Lord, oh Lord … what is the world coming to ?? [shaking my head]). You are starting to reveal more about yourself; we should do this more often (grin). Perhaps you should now go back to zee, apologize, and leave yet another set of lip-imprints on his rear (wide grin)! You two are simply made for each other. Good luck.

Kaka,

I will address your latest post soon. But passage below may give more insight into the matter. It sheds some light on the issue, from somewhat of a different standpoint.

This is a narrated dialogue between Abu Sufyan and Heracles, a Roman emperor. Apparently Heracles had heard about Muhammad (pbuh) and was inquiring from Abu Sufyan, who knew the Prophet (pbuh) closely, though as an enemy.

+++

Hazrat Ibn Abbas relates that Hazrat Abu Sufyan related this to him.

“During the days that the Huddabiyah Treaty was signed between us and the Holy Prophet, I went to Syria on a business trip. I was still in Syria when a letter from the Holy Prophet reached Heracles, the Roman Emperor. The letter was brought by Dahyatul Kalbi who sent it to Heracles through the ruler of Basra. When the letter reached Heracles, he asked his people, ‘Is there anyone from the people of the Arabs who claims to be a prophet?’ They said ‘yes’. Thus along with the party of Quraish I was also called to see Heracles. When we arrived in the royal court of Heracles, we were made to sit facing Heracles. Heracles asked, ‘Is anyone here a near-relative of the Arab who to claims to be a prophet?’. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that he responded, ‘I am his near-relative’. The organizers seated me (Abu Sufyan) right in front of Heracles, while the rest of the members of the group were seated behind me. Heracles called an interpreter and told him to tell the people sitting behind me that he will ask Abu Sufyan about the Arab who claimed to be a prophet. If he tells a lie you let me know through a gesture that he is telling a lie. Abu Sufyan said, ‘By God, if I was not scared that the people sitting behind me would let Heracles know that I am telling a lie, I definitely would have told lies.

Anyway, Heracles asked though his interpreter, ‘What is the lineage of your Messenger?’ Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that he responded, ‘He belongs to a very noble family’. Then Heracles asked, ‘Has there been any king in his forefathers?’ I told him, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did you ever notice him telling a lie before claiming to be a Messenger?’ I replied, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did the rich and the powerful accept his claim of the poor?’ I replied, ‘the poor and the weak have accepted his claim’. Then he asked, ‘Are his followers increasing or decreasing in numbers?’ I replied, ‘They are increasing’. Then he asked, ‘Did anyone renounce after becoming a Muslim considering it a bad religion?’ I replied, ‘No’. Then he asked, ‘Did you ever fight a battle with him?’ I told him, ‘Yes’. He asked, ‘What was the result of the battle?’ I responded, ‘Sometimes they had the upper hand, and other times we had the upper hand. Sometimes we were successful, while the other times they were successful.’ Then he asked, ‘Did he ever break an agreement or deal treacherously?’ I said, ‘Until now he has neither broken an agreement nor has dealt treacherously. However, we have just entered in a treaty with him, and I don’t know how he will behave regarding the treaty’. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said, ‘By God, throughout the conversation, except his last statement, I did not get any chance to say anything against the Holy Prophet. They he asked, ‘Did anyone else make such a claim before him in his people?’ I replied, ‘No’.

The King told his interpreter to tell me the following: ‘When I asked you about the lineage of the claimant of Prophethood, you stated that he belongs to a very noble family. Messenger always belong to noble families. I asked if there has been a king in his forefathers? You responded, no. From this I concluded that had there been a king in his forefathers, he might be desirous of regaining the kingdom of his forefathers. I asked you about his followers, where they are rich and powerful? You replied they were weak and poor. In the beginning, always the poor and weak accept the Messengers. I asked you, did you ever blame him for telling a lie before he claimed to be a prophet? You said, ‘no’. I was convinced that one who does not tell a lie to the people, how can he tell a lie about God? Then I asked you, did any of his followers apostatize after accepting Islam due to disliking of Islam? You said, ‘no’. This is the case with true faith. When someone accepts a faith with clarity of mind, it is very difficult for him to turn away from that faith. I asked you, whether they are increasing or decreasing in number? You said ‘they are increasing in number and steadfastness”. This is always the case with true faiths. I asked you, did you ever fight a battle with him? You said ‘we have fought several battles. Sometimes they had the upper hand in the battle and other times we had the upper hand. Sometimes we were successful while the other times they were successful’. This is the case with messengers of God. In the beginning, they went through many trials but ultimately they were triumphant. I asked you did he ever break an agreement or dealt treacherously? You said, no. Such is the high status of the prophets. They never break an agreement. Then I asked, did anyone from your people claim to be a prophet before him? You said, no. From this I concluded that since there had not been a prophet in his people, he is not imitating anyone. Hazrat Abu Sufyan said that then Heracles asked him “What did he command you to do?’ I said He commanded us to observe prayers, pay zakat, strengthen the ties of kinship, tell the truth, be pious and chaste”. Hearing this Heracles said, ‘If everything you have told me is true, then definitely he is a Prophet. I was expecting the coming of a Prophet. However, I did not know that the Prophet would be commissioned in your people. Had the circumstances permitted me, I certainly would have gone to see this Prophet. Had I visited him, I would have washed his feet. The kingdom of this Prophets will reach the land where I stand.’ ...

sattar,

kaka is hearing you say that it is really a mystery why anyone would think of Mirza as a prophet before all the prophecies/parallels came to pass (the same mystery should apply to kaka's believers). The gospels resolve this problem ridiculously by the 'transfiguraton' event. The booming voice from up above could have said ANYTHING about Jesus, but thankfully, it spoke to the concerns of anyone who was wondering what to make of this miracle worker.

With that in mind, (1) what did Mirza say about people who died after hearing this message, not accepting him as a prophet, like Mohammadi Begum's father did. Actually that fellow's death should be seen as a fulfilled prophecy meant to convince others (such as Mohammadi Begum's husband) that Allah was dead serious about letting peepz know about Mirza's authenticity. However, the poor fellow who died proving Mirza right, what was Mirza's informed opinion about his salvation? Here's another parallel for you to ponder: Mohammadi Begum's father was as important to Mirza's claim as was Judas was to the whole Jesus drama: they both were actors pushing the plot which was meant to be.

(2) What is your opinion of people's SALVATION not accepting Mirza as a prophet even after all the evidence presented until 2007? How about someone who lived the tareeqiyat of Mohammad (Maududi or Israar Ahmed) while disparaging Mirza? Don't get too distracted. The keywords are: YOUR OPINION, REGULAR MUSLIMS, THEIR SALVATION.

The question is; why this spiritual slavery engendering personality cult, having faith in 'reason of others'?

teshah ji, if I did not know you well enouogh, I would have suspected I wrote that myself...:)

Except that I used to be too polite to call spiritual slavery engendering personality cult a spiritual slavery engendering personality cult. I still find that unpleasant.

Arrey sattar bhai

I have ALWAYS had a lot of issues with harmful ideas. And this Ahemdi bit seems, to me, to be a very wrong and harmful idea.

And it's not personal when I say that ideas impact group behaviors and group-level characteristics.

If you notice, you have't yet answered Kaka's simple question. That's not your limitation. One is amazed how much you can personally spin based on so little.
--------------------

Why don't people leave you alone to your ideas? Just look at your ideas, sattar, and you will know. Understandably, you have always been reluctant to explain what you stand for. You should be.

ajeya (#452),

If your tone was measured, then I was mistaken … so sorry.

You seem bent upon converting me; what’s with this vehemence? We can go on citing accounts versus accounts, Quran vs. Quran, hadith versus Quran … listing pros and cons … views of different historians … Muslim and non-Muslims … and so on. I have no beef with your views; but you need to ease up. Otherwise you risk coming across as a fanatic, pushing his views. It is fruitless, and at worst, somewhat annoying.

If people are peaceful about their faith, why bother? Two individuals can look at the same information and conclude differently. And that’s fine. So pardon me if I remain reluctant to get into this pow-wow with you …

Kaal, I’ll level with you now.

Your issue with Ahamdis, as seen in your posts, seems to reflect your own issues. By your own admission you don’t know any Ahmadis, but you go ahead and disparage them anyway. This is not a healthy sign.

And here, on this board, is not the first time you’ve done this. This has gone on for several months now. Initially I was not sure what to make of it. But it now seems to be following somewhat of a disturbing pattern.

What compels you to opine on and to ridicule an unknown group of people, is puzzling. Note that I am not debating if Ahamdis are regressive or not … but I am wondering about your own insecurities. And then you demand objectivity from others! Do you see the irony? Or did I miss something?

Dude, you seem to have issues. These “circle of time” antics are cute once in a while, but they seem to be masking something disturbing. Perhaps you should pause and reflect … as you seem to be getting way over your head on this one ...

Kaka (#451), fair questions, but first, here's some more on #3:

Plague

Quran tells accounts of people who persisted in rebellion against prophets, and were therefore punished by the Almighty. Allegedly, something similar happened in the case of Mirza Sahib.

The issue is a plague that hit Punjab, around 1901. It seems that many (hundreds of thousands?) of people perished, with the plague affecting Ahmadis with a lesser severity, proportion wise. It seems Mirza Sahib, as one may expect from a claimant of prophethood, had prophesied divine punishment for those who persisted in rebellion against him. Today, verification of this plague and its affect may be a bit difficult to establish with reasonable certainty, unless, perhaps, if one decides to put much effort into it. Furthermore, could this plague be considered divine punishment?

A few months ago, a chowkie, a non-Ahmadi Muslim, mentioned this plague. Apparently he had looked into this matter with considerable effort. He was in agreement that the plague did take place and, perhaps more importantly, significant number of people accepted Mirza Sahib after this plague.

However, this chowkie was of the opinion that Mirza Sahib played on people’s fear and capitalized on the plague. Fair criticism, I thought. Then I offered an explanation, that the plague incident and Mirza Sahib have much in common with Quranic accounts of natural disasters and other prophets. E.g., Noah’s enemies got flooded; those who rebelled against Lot were punished by a natural disaster. Quran mentions some other people who rebelled against some prophet (name?) and their cities got destroyed by sand-storms.

Quran gives several accounts of prophets warning their enemies, who in turn were eventually hit by natural disasters. In that sense, Mirza Sahib is no different than those prophets mentioned in Quran.

[As a side comment, I am of opinion that … if no more prophets were to appear, Quranic accounts of prophets become somewhat irrelevant after the last prophet. However, much greater utility of these accounts is achieved if prophets were to continue to appear, as these accounts would then serve as reminders as to what may transpire, how to judge a prophet’s claims, etc. Now, one may argue that this Quran, prophet business is all hocus-pocus ... but that would be a different issue altogether.]

Eclipses

I’ll mention one more issue here.

Records indicate that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had mentioned signs for appearance of Issa. In some hadith, the place of “Qada” too is mentioned, which is similar to the orignal name of Qadian.

One of the signs mentioned by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was solar and lunar eclipses, on certain days and nights of the same month of Ramadaan, as signs of divine support for this prophet.

It is worth mentioning that in New Testament, Jesus is reported to have mentioned his second coming also. And he mentioned solar and lunar eclipses as signs of his reappearance (account of Matthew, for one). Furthermore, similar references are seemingly found in Hindu, as well as Sikh scriptures … suggesting eclipses as signs of appearance of a reformer of sorts.

When Mirza Sahib claimed to be this prophet, he was asked about these eclipses. Eventually the eclipses took place, in 1894 in the eastern hemisphere, and then in 1895, in the western hemisphere. The issue once again, is not as straightforward as it may seem … and some due diligence may be needed. Here’s a link with more details:

Click [Eclipses]

Note that there are arguments, and counter-agruments on the issue of these eclipses. You know the disclaimer: be skeptical of what you read and hear ...

Some more thoughts

What makes a person accept a claimant of prophet in person may be much more complex than that. Some people claim having visions about him before and after his claims, some are influenced by blind faith, some find some level of reason in his claims, some come along to be a part of what they perceive is a revolution. How a person chooses to connect the dots remains somewhat of a puzzle.

If one goes by the accounts, it may be difficult to fully understand why Bilal put with up extreme punishment and did not denounce Muhammad; why Omar, a fierce, staunch enemy of Muhammad, once day decided to accept him; why Israelites decided to follow Moses through the ocean and desert, even as an army chased them; why Noah’s people felt that his arc would save them from the flood. The list goes on and on. More later …

Once the "seal" is done away with, we reach very dramatic results - we open our eyes to entirely different kinds of religions - where everyone of us, each human individual, has the potential to be a "real prophet from God" - a leader to ourselves and to others. God becomes much closer to us, a concept personally accessible to each individual.

Whether that is a better appraoch to God or not is not the issue. The issue is that that kind of thinking is immeasurably beyond the head of Sattar sahib whose only contribution to "logic" has been to declare traditional Islam supposedly illogical, so he could find a way to declare Mr Mirza a new prophet. How silly one can get!

Sattar Sahib has no answers. Never did.

#447 Posted by sattar2

[ajeya, you too seem needlessly angry. I don’t get it … but keep it up, and this discussion too will go downhill.]

I thought my tone and language was very measured and polite. I hope you will not use the excuse that I am "angry" to abandon this debate/discussion. In the past many have used the excuse that I am a "hater" and "intolerant" and left the field suddenly.

Let me assure you that I am not the least bit angry.

[You are right in that “Muslim sources” have validated some very damning accounts of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Blasphemy laws, execution for adultery, killing apostates … are all based on such accounts.

Do note that these Muslim sources have also condemned Ahmadis as heretics.

My view is that Islam too has suffered at the hands of its followers, who made things up for political gains. This corruption, where patience and virtue got replaced by violence and coercion, is one of the reasons of their downfall.

Now, we can go in circles … citing one account against another, one verse of Quran against another, Quran versus ahadith, and so on. Two people reviewing the same information may come to different conclusions … and that’s ok. What is important is that people shun coercion and try to achieve peace and harmony in their communities. This is should be good enough, no?]

Actually, no - this is not good enough. As I mentioned in my previous post, instead of "going around in circles", we can be OBJECTIVE. So kindly pick ANY ONE of the accusations against your "prophet" and cite the pros and cons in the historical evidence that you have come across. This will help all of us see how you logically came to the conclusion you did. At the very least, we can see the arguments FOR and AGAINST him being guilty of THAT PARTICULAR accusation.

I think this is very fair and objective. Whatever conclusions anyone can draw, at least we can see why you feel the way you do.

So please go ahead.

And again - kindly don't abandon the discussion under the assumption that somehow I am "angry". I am not.

Thank you. (I'll even put in a smiley here - :-) )

Good work sattar!

It seems that once the roadblock of 'prophethood sealant' has been cleared, onlookers need only verify the honesty and integrity of the claimant and then decide accordingly. You must know that that should not be enough.

Suppose, the 'prophethood sealant' roadblock was not cleared even in Mirza's mind and maybe some Ahmedi (as opposed to the hard core Qadiyaani) do believe that Mirza is not a nabi (with all the bells and whistles of a full-fledged nabi). And with all the good work that Mirza did prior to his 'big premier', he still has had to have some 'light shining upon him' from the beyond in order to be accepted as more than 'just another brilliant Islamic scholar'. Do you get kaka's drift?

From another angle.. now that the 'prophethood sealant' has been removed from YOUR and most of the Qadiyanis' minds, what stops you from accepting that kaka is a prophet? Sure, you will look up kaka's felony record but what else? kaka has these dreams.. do you wanna know the content? kaka also loves dogs and upholds the truth regardless of ethnicity, gender or nationality? Please say this is not enough or KAKA IS GOING ALL OUT TO PREACH!!

sattar

You have not yet answered the very simple question: how do you know Kaka is not a Prophet from God? He is far more intelligent and more honest than some people you strongly believe in. I definitely am (is there a rule that there can be only one Prophet at a time?).

------------

You have a very self-seving belief in 'faith,' Sattar. There is no reason God should not recommend coercion when a true believer is confronted with certain types of people. God is God, after all, not your or my servant.

If you still don't see the irony of promoting faith yet insisting it be self-serving to you (yes, a whole bunch of semitic faiths are irretrivably insulting to others - perhaps you don't get that), then take it as the latest message from your own God, through me, if not from Kaka himself, your latest Prophets.

Kaka,

I did not get to #3 earlier, so here’s something now. Once again, it’s worth mentioning that this is only my take on the issue; I don’t want to assume much on your behalf.

+++

One of the things Quran mentions about prophets, when addressing people, is something like … “Allah has raised prophets from among you”.

One seeming message here is that, one will find prophets to be truthful, honest men even before they claim to be prophets. Conversely, if a person is known to be a forthright, honest, pious person all along, his claim of prophethood may be worth considering.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) started to preach openly, he gathered people and asked them if they would believe him if he told them that enemy’s army is hiding behind the hill?

People responded in affirmative, saying that they have known Muhammad to be an honest, truthful person. Then the Prophet (pbuh) went on the claim his messengership to the people.

Abu Bakr, etc.

Now, my understanding is that … much earlier, Abu Bakr, had (supposedly?) instantly accepted Muhammad (pbuh) when Muhammad (pbuh) told him about his messengership in person. And so did Khadijjah. This acceptance may not have been on blind faith completely. Having known Muhammad closely may have played some role in Abu Bakr and Khadijjah accepting his claim. Furthermore, it seems the then-existing scriptures foretold appearance of a Prophet. Abu Bakr and Khadijjah may have been familiar with those accounts. Some records seem to support the view that there was an expectation, among at least some people, about appearance of a prophet during those times.

Mirza Sahib

Now, this applies to Mirza Sahib as well, from what I know. Obviously, people who accepted him will claim that he was truthful. So was can go in circles. I”ll mention two things here:

1) Right here on Chowk, sometime ago, Urstruly was criticizing Mirza Sahib. He claimed something like … “Mirza was an honest, well-regarded person, and that he very well defended Islam against criticism raised by others (I think he used a phrase “Champion of Islam” … but I could be mistaken here) … but then Mirza got too greedy and decided to claim prophethood to further his gain, and the British supported him to create fitnah ...", and so on ….

I asked Urstruly if he understood the significance of acknowledgment that Mirza was an honest, decent man BEFORE he claimed to be a prophet. I then explained to him the issue of a prophet being well-regarded by others before he claims to be a prophet (Urstruly, correct me if needed…).

2) Conversely, I have looked into some criticisms of Mirza Sahib by his opponents … mainly related to, but not limited to, his writings. A non-Ahmadi I know had raised this issue and asked to explain obvious indecency in Mirza Sahib’s writings. I was myself puzzled, and looked up the references. There were 8-10 of them. In pretty much all the cases, merely reading the full paragraph explained away the objections.

Such false propaganda against Mirza Sahib, played in favor of Mirza Sahib, at least in my mind. Quran, from what I recall, also mentions enemy’s propaganda against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and the propaganda against Mirza Sahib seemed to fit that pattern.

I’ll pause here for now … (will be out for a day or so; will check back later)

Kaal,

Apparently this is not getting through your thick skull (Lord, have mercy on me! … [shaking my head]). OK, I’ll try again, so pay attention this time:

My issue with tahmed was not about his blind faith. Read this line 3 times. Done? Good. Here it is once again: My issue with tahmed was not about his blind faith.

My issue with tahmed had to do with him criticizing others’ faith. He has a habit of disparaging faith of Ahmadis, Sufis, Christians, etc. To add to the irony, he conveniently overlooks seeming contradictions of his own views.

If he did not criticize other faiths, would I have a problem with what he believes? Of course not! Do I have a problem with your faith? Of course not! Do you see the point???

Moving on …

If a person peacefully practices his faith, he should be left alone. Unnecessary arguments and criticism are counterproductive. This is the point I have made all along, but it seems you did not get it. This is why I pointed out your obsessive behavior. Give it up, for god’s sake.

+++

And don’t read too much into my posts to kaka. I am neither pushing my views, nor criticizing anyone else’s. And I have made this abundantly clear by repeatedly asking him remain skeptical of my views.

With his background, I can see kaka having genuine inquiries about Ahmadis (if PM had similar inquiries, I missed them). And I am responding mainly since kaka does not seem to have an axe to grind. And this is more than what can be said of your posts; which is very unfortunate.

ajeya, you too seem needlessly angry. I don’t get it … but keep it up, and this discussion too will go downhill.

You are right in that “Muslim sources” have validated some very damning accounts of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Blasphemy laws, execution for adultery, killing apostates … are all based on such accounts.

Do note that these Muslim sources have also condemned Ahmadis as heretics.

My view is that Islam too has suffered at the hands of its followers, who made things up for political gains. This corruption, where patience and virtue got replaced by violence and coercion, is one of the reasons of their downfall.

Now, we can go in circles … citing one account against another, one verse of Quran against another, Quran versus ahadith, and so on. Two people reviewing the same information may come to different conclusions … and that’s ok. What is important is that people shun coercion and try to achieve peace and harmony in their communities. This is should be good enough, no?

sattar, chalo, just pleaase answer Kaka's specific query in simple to understand terms, so we can see your criticism of tahmed's views is fair.

Kaal, holy cow man, you seem to have issues (rolling my eyes). You are getting more unhinged with each passing post. Learn to relax and to not get so obsessive. Moving on …

Your repeated offers at explaining the monkey god defeat the purpose. It is none of my business … and fails to interest me. No, seriously. Believe or worship what you want, but let’s go easy trying to impress it upon others.

And this is the point I’ve made all along: if people practice their faith in peace, it is futile, even counterproductive to criticize their faith. Apparently this did not through to you. I don’t doubt you can explain your faith quite well (… at least in your own assessment), but it’s your business, and no one else’s. So be content with what you have. Got it? Good!

Along the same lines, my responses may or may not make sense to you. And I’m still not sure what point you are tying to make. So let’s leave things at that and move on. Fair enough?

Folio

You may be right. Sattar Sahib can't seem to put together an argument the first half of which is not a plaintive, pitiable pleading about being left alone to his "faith" and the second half an ignorant comment about monkey gods.

There is a very deeply troubled and troubling group of people here, who need to be understood, and dealt with accordingly.
--------------------------

Anyways, let's all wait for our friend sattar sahib to answer Kaka's question.

Kaala Chakra,

'I will re-state my earlier guess: Ahemedi community is likely to be the among the most 'conservative' and closed-minded of all who call themselves Muslims. Among the most regressive groups of people, only they should be more likely to wear suits when travelling outside of their homes.'


U are very very close to the truth.

The pretence of ahmed/hamid's liberalism is a happenstance.

If Ahmedis are not branded as non-Muslims they'd in the forefront chanting slogans like 'death to India' & 'death to Hindus'.

Secondly their continuos rant aganit arab traditions and arab books (qoran & hadits) is another happenstance.

Trust me!

If that's not be case these guys wud NOT be naming their offspings with arabic names like Ahmed, Hamid, Yasser & Sattar.

If they truly oppose arabic books & traditions they'd be following the native names of Punjab (something similar to Indonesians who hardly use arabic names though they are Muslims).

So Ahmedis are true munafiqs (hypocrites).

Ajeya, you will have to wait very very long. You might even have to keep moving on.

--------------------------------

kaka

That question has been asked of Sattar Sahib before, by PM, by me, wihtout anyone getting any answers. There is a ...moving on...fetish at work here, whether any questions are addressed or not.

Why is your question so important, some others on Chowk might wonder. After all, our good friend Sattar keeps asking to take everything he says with a cartloads of salt? "Faith" is all he wants to be allowed to have, not reason, really.

Because, Sattar Sahib is engaging in a very poorly disguised pretense. Sattar Sahib is convinced that he has a "logically" better Islam than that of what he calls "mainstream" Islam. Not to mention, Ahemedis are spread out around the world 'logically' convincing others to their "faith," not asking others to join in their blind faith.

Nothing in Sattar Sahib's religion seems to make it anything remotely "logical." Without knowing any Ahmedis personally, and having read only Sattar Sahib here, I will re-state my earlier guess: Ahemedi community is likely to be the among the most 'conservative' and closed-minded of all who call themselves Muslims. Among the most regressive groups of people, only they should be more likely to wear suits when travelling outside of their homes.

#426 Posted by sattar2


[Oh ho bhei, itna ghussa? Your question is fair … but the way you are asking, the discussion will quickly degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Let’s proceed carefully, without jumping the gun here. ]

This is wonderful. Actually on Chowk I'm used to people just shutting up and then resurfacing after some time on some other board mouthing the same arguments they ran from the last time.

So excuse me for being slightly shrill there (in anticipation of the same thing happening).

Okay...so let's see.


[One may find contradictory records on a given historical issue. It is therefore not surprising to find some controversial accounts regarding Muhammad also. Note that history gets murky with passage of time – accounts get changed, even fabricated; evidence gets more subjective; facts become increasingly elusive, and interpretation of facts, more elusive still. Various scenarios need to be weighed against each other in efforts to come up with a one that seems more likely than others.

Muhammad was not only a (self-proclaimed?) prophet, but also a head of state of sorts. Arguably, people had good reasons to falsely associate things with him in order to validate their own agendas.

Controversial accounts, where Muhammad allegedly had people killed for leaving Islam, for blaspheming him, etc., should be juxtaposed with other accounts that bring to light a very humble, compassionate man. There is a big disparity between the volumes of these two different types of accounts, with the latter outweighing the former by a considerable margin.

It is for such reasons that I have formed my opinion in favor of Muhammad, rather than against him. And I have no beef if a person looks at the same evidence and comes up with a different conclusion. What is important is to be careful in one’s analysis and to give the benefit of doubt, as needed, within a reasonable limits.]

Yes, but whenever you judge someone dispassionately, you have to weigh things in their totality. For many many years, the accounts about muhammad by ALL AVAILABLE ACCOUNTS, by historians who are Muslims themselves, are unequivocal about the most damning accounts - in the koran or without. The weight of historical evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against your "prophet". Therefore if you come to the conclusion that he was a good man, you are not making an unbiased judgement.

If you consider yourself objective, take ANY ONE of the damning accounts, and list the evidence for him and against him. I guarantee you that you will find VERY LITTLE to substantiate your judgement.

So I'll be waiting for you to show some reason (with evidence), how you reached such a conclusion.

sattar,

Since you laid your cards up front, kaka is pouring grains of salt all over your posts to make 'em palatable:). Mashalllah, you are doing a great job articulating what makes sense to you without resorting to the Sword of Certainty. Ever since kaka's irtidaad (rejection of traditional metaphysics), kaka himself has resorted to the participation of extra-terresterials in the shapes of Zeus, Apollo, Krishna et al to fill the 'god-shaped hole'. So don't worry too much about how it all doesn't make sense..

The second part of question #3 in 431 was meant to bring the focus back to what it means to accept someone as a prophet by someone who did not live on through 1947-74. All the 'derived' parallels between ibn Muryum and Mirza notwithstanding (since it would take 1947/1974 for events to shape up to support Mirza's contention), kaka is interested in what a person not too attached with khatm-e-nabuvvat dogma (and listening to Mirza teaching in person), should accept Mirza as a significant man from Allah (it seems that the only criteria for prophethood is to prove that Mohammad was not the last one.. and as soon as you proved that.. presto!, the smart guy who proved it is the new prophet WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CONTEND).

What about kaka's claim to prophecy? Is one of the drawbacks that kaka was not born 1400 years after Mirza and talks in third person to blend in with the morons?

Reading your answers to kaka, sattar, clearly you don't give ANY clear answers, except repeating many times the request to not take your views seriously since you seem afraid to state them clearly.

tahmed may appear illogical but at least he clearly says what he says.

Perhaps you may ask me about my monkey god. I will show you what it means to give clear answers, without hums and haws, and tons of sophistry.

Again, are ANY (reasonably substantial) accounts/narratives available fron NON-Muslims? If not, if the ONLY accounts that remain are the ones from people who consider Muhammad a prophet, then for ANY unbiased person, significant doubts remain about those parts that are very favorable toward him.

That's just basic logic, nothing judgemental. You may still believe whatever you wish, that's not the point, nor it ever was.
-----------------------

"Quite possibly," "may be"....man, I was trying to keep people from concluding that you are not just engaging in sophistry here. :(

Rahul, In order to understand #380, one has to understand what precisely Masadi was saying and what zee was agreeing with.

For me, it is hard to understand Masadi bhai between all his aholes, and other curses and abuses toward everybody who has a different point of view.

In genral though, I would expect Zee to right join with/support ANY Muslim of any views against a third party who was seen attacking (the reputation) of the Prophet in any way. So that is perfectly consistent, irrespective of what Folio and Masadi were discussing and how.
----------------------

sattar, whoa, man, don't get so defensive! In case you are curious about the Monkey God, I will be happy to answer all your questions, and teach you whatever you need.

We are just trying to figure out, after your helping question tahmed sahib, whether you have any consistent stand, or whether you, Dullahbatti wondered, are just a sophist.

If you are unwilling or unable to explain your own views without repeatedly referring to Monkey Gods (whom you do not understand at all), or without repeatedly requesting to be allowed whatever you wish to (as you do in your posts to kaka), then you limit what one can conclude.

---------------

And asking everyone to give you time to smoke, or take what you say with a grain of salt is pretty silly. It might entertain, but doesn't add to your arguments :)

Here’s one more parallel between Issa and Mirza Sahib that I forgot to mention:

Ahmadis believe that Issa (Jesus Christ) eventually died, and is buried in Kashmir. Kashmir almost went to Pakistan, but slipped away in the final countdown. The town of Sirinagar, where Jesus is buried, is a few tens of miles out of Pakistan’s territory (LOC).

Mirza Sahib is buried in district Gurdaspur. This district too almost went to Pakistan, but slipped away in the final countdown. The town of Gurdaspur, where Mirza Sahib is buried, is a few tens of miles out of Pakistan’s territory.

Moving on …

Kaka, here's some more …

According to recorded ahadith, Prophet Muhammad at times drew comparisons between Jew and Muslims … in that Muslims will have lots in common with Jews. He said that Muslims would become corrupt just like Jews … to the extent that if Jews engaged in indecency with their own mothers, so would Muslims. He compared Muslims and Jews with two identical shoes … each resembling the other.

Prophecy

In one of the hadith, he prophesied that one day, his ummah would be divided, such that one sect would be against the other 72 sects. And that this one sect would be on the right path. When asked more about this particular sect, he replied that they would be like my companions (refer to Parallels heading below for details).

Now, each sect argues that they are this one sect. And so do Ahmadis.

From what I know, Jews too were divided in 72 sects when Jesus Christ appeared.

Anyway … in 1974, Ahamdis were declared non-Muslim, unanimously by all other sects (72 in number). Ahmadis took it as an endorsement of their faith, and fulfillment of an age-old prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). More on this later …

Parallels

Note that early Muslims were persecuted for declaring their faith in Allah and His messenger. They avoided giving aazan and prayed in secrecy. They were not allowed to perform hajj either. Very similar is the case with Ahmadis. They are persecuted for declaring their faith in Allah and His messenger. They are not allowed to give aazan, and are forced to pray in secrecy. And they are not allowed to perform hajj either.

Below is the recorded prophecy of the Prophet (pbuh) about 72-versus-1 one sect. Note the details. Further below is the clip of one of Pakistani newspaper, Nawa-e-Waqt. Note the details. Note how newspaper heading matches the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Abdullah bin Amar (RA) relates that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said "Surely things will happen to my people as happened earlier to Israelites, they will resemble each other like one shoe in a pair resembles the other to the extent that if anyone among the Israelites has openly committed adultery to his mother there will be some who will do this in my Ummah as well, verily the Israelites were divided into 72 sections but my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one." The companions asked, 'Who are they O Messenger of Allah,' Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "They are those who will be like me and my companions."

News-clip from Nawa-e-Waqt (October 10, 1974)

Translation: “One of the special importance of this decision has been that on it the consensus of Ummah has been in substantially correct manner. Throughout the history of Islam, such an overwhelming complete consensus has never been reached on any important topic. Other than the big religious scholars, holders of Shar'a, all the political leaders and political leaders of each group have agreed on this consensus. Other than these, all sufia karam, aarifeen Billah, the leaders of Tassawaf and practices had complete agreement. Excluding Qadianis all the rest of 72 sects which are considered to be of Muslims, agreed and are happy on the solution of this affair. Among the leaders of the nation and a'maideen, there does not appear to be any group which does not have a joyous attitude towards this decision. Nation should take a notice of this."

+++

Kaka, once again I’ll mention … not to forget skepticism on your part. Each person explains things his way … and Ahmadis, myself included, are no different. So take it with a grain of salt ...

Kaka, here’s part of my view. I cannot emphasize this enough … that it may or may not make any sense to you and others. I realize that lines between faith and reason blur easily, and I am only human. So take it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I won’t dwell on “end of prophethood” issue. For now let’s assume that Ahmadi-Muslim view has its merit.

+++

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned appearance of Issa-ibne-Marriam among his followers. Ahmadis take this as a metaphor suggesting parallels between original Issa (from 2000 years ago), and a future prophet who will appear among Muslims.

It is like calling a smart person, Einstein; or a hardnosed person, Hitler. Such names reflect attributes shared between the individual and the historical personality.

Now, we can argue validity of such ahadith, who said what, and what-not. But I’ll skip over those issues for now.

Original Issa (aka Jesus Christ) appeared 1400 years after law-bearing prophet, Moses. Jesus did not bring a new law, but his aim was to bring Jews back to the law of Moses. During his time, Jews had deviated from Torah, their clergy had become corrupt, and Jews were occupied by an outside empire (Romans). Jesus tried to soften up the Jewish attitude towards violence by emphasizing patience and forgiving aspects of Torah (“turning the other cheek”).

Mirza Sahib (the prophesied Issa-ibne-Marriam, as accepted by Ahmadis) appeared 1400 years after the law-bearing prophet, Muhammad. Mirza Sahb did not bring a new law, but his aim was to bring Muslims back to the law of Muhammad. During his time, Muslims had deviated from Quran, their clergy had become corrupt, and Muslims were occupied by an outside empire (British). Mirza Sahib too tried to soften up the Muslim attitude regarding jihad by emphasizing patience and forgiving aspects of Quran (“biggest jihad is jihad against one’s own self”).

+++

Now, my understanding is that … quite a few Muslim scholars, from different sects, were expecting “Issa” to appear before the end of 14th century Hijri (~sometime in 19th century AD; or is it 20th century AD?, I lose track sometimes).

+++

A parallel to this is found in Bible also.

Some books of the Old Testament (OT) mentioned rising of Prophet Elijah to the skies. The last book of OT (Malachi) prophecies that Elijah will descend down from the skies when Messiah (Jesus Christ, the original one) appears.

In New Testament, we find that when Jesus claimed to be this Messiah, his disciples asked him about descent of Elijah from above the clouds. Jesus responded that his contemporary, Prophet John the Baptist (Yahya for Muslims) had appeared in spirit of Elijah.

+++

Furthermore, note that OT was interpreted to suggest Elijah had been physically lifted to the skies. Then NT book of Malacho was interpreted to mean that one day, Elijah would physically descend from the skies. This is very similar to Quran being interpreted to show that Issa was physically lifted to the skies, followed by ahadith, interpreted to suggest that Issa will some day physically descend from the skies.

As it turned out, Elijah never came back. Those expecting his physical descent from above the skies, did not accept Jesus. Similarly, Muslims await physical descent of Issa from the skies, and will never accept any prophet on this basis alone.

More later …

"Kaka, we can discuss this … but must you sound like you are pointing a gun to my head? Can I at least light up a cigarette?"
lol.Its been a pleasure to read you,particularly,on this board,sattar.
kaal
"All this differs of course from what zee believes in, he being a believer not only in the Quran but also in the tradition of the Prophet."
If I may ask,is #380 consistent with this statement?

Kaka, we can discuss this … but must you sound like you are pointing a gun to my head? Can I at least light up a cigarette?

You are asking questions … those mostly do not have straight forward answers. I can try to give my personal views … which may or may not make any sense …

For starters, I am inclined to say yes to both 1 and 2. Will try to post more later … in bits and pieces … (but what’s with this third-person speech???)

Kaal,

Holy cow man, you are really dragging this issue out! You should have jumped on tahmed when he was pushing his faith like a seasoned salesman. No? I am ok with a person worshipping a monkey-god if that works for him, but what’s with this obsession of yours?

+++

Re #427: Valid point; people may very well have their own motives in spinning accounts.

I am inclined to hypothesize that most historical accounts were narrated by Muslims. While your skepticism has its place, viewing the issue from a slightly different angle may lead to somewhat of a different conclusion: what if a significant number of people had accepted Islam because they felt Muhammad, and his message, were truthful? In such case, most narrators would be Muslims, who would simply narrate what they liked in Muhammad and in his message. No?

Conversely, if we assume Muhammad to be a false prophet, question remains … how would things be different in the case of true prophet?

I’ll mostly leave out your points 1-4; but brief response for now is: (1) yes, (2) no, (3) quite possibly, (4) maybe. And #429 and #430 are somewhat speculative and unclear, so will disregard …

sattar,

kaka would like some clarification too, if you don't mind. Please don't mention tahmed when you answer back.

Just to put our cards on the table, kaka would like to mention that kaka was born and raised a Muslim in Karachi. O'level, A'levels and then majored in philosophy and religious studies upto graduate level in US.

1. Do you believe that every statement in the quran is a true statement?

2. Is all of Quran of non-Mohammad source (meaning ghaib revelation).

3. Given that Mohammad is not the last of prophets, what makes Mirza Qadiyani as another one? What specific quality would you look in kaka, if he claims to be the newest one?

4. Mention one thing that is strange to even you about Mirza Qadiyani? The most auhtentic rumor which is hard to explain away etc.

Remember kaka's background when answering. You don't have to give the details of popular references. Use Urdu/Arabic liberally.

Lord, this may seem so complicated to non-Muslims, but I will try to explain, at least once!

Actually, sattar bhai too 'disscoiates' himself from Muhammad the person - other than asserting the latter to be a great and good person. So he too is a 'Quranist' of a sort, and quite like tahmed sahib. Their difference is one of faith and logic as the basis for "rejecting" the person, and over all that's associated with Mirza Sahib in particular.

All this differs of course from what zee believes in, he being a believer not only in the Quran but also in the tradition of the Prophet.

dullabhatti, I doubt # 428 was at all helpful in answering the question you raised.

Sattar, dullabhatti was asking what you yourself believed in. Please correct us if needed, but I would say, # 427 captures your point of view as far as we can tell.

Dullah,

sattar is NOT saying that the Quran is not the word of God. He is saying that it is, AND it gives special status to Prophet Muhammad (something that tahmed and other Quranists believe God would never do, hence feel free to dissociate themselves from Prophet the person).

dullabhatti,

You seem to be coming in the middle of a discussion, trying to make sense of it all. Some background may help here:

For starters, I personally believe in Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). Moving on …

Issue started with tahmed’s claim: that Quran is true word of god, which Muhammad faithfully conveyed, since Quran does not give any special treatment to Muhammad (#196).

Thrust of this argument has some validity. If Muhammad had authored Quran on his own, for his personal gain, he could very well have included verses granting him special status. Tahmed claims that absence of such verses proves that Muhammad did not author the Quran, but only faithfully conveyed what was revealed to him. Furthermore, Quran itself limits role of Muhammad to that of only a messenger, and nothing more.

Drawback of this argument is that … in several places Quran seemingly confers special status to Muhammad, and expands his role beyond that of a mere messenger. I highlighted this in posts #220 and #225; and again in #353.

The point I have made all along is that … tahmed's criterion regarding truthfulness of Quran, is negated by Quran itself. Either Quran is fake, or tahmed’s criterion is incorrect. Tahmed Sahib has refused to respond … and seems kinda upset since then. Was it something I said? ... I dunno ...

sattar, one 'problem' that one runs into when discussing Arabic history and the role and behaviors of personalities is that most (all?) history seems to be from the followers of Prophet Muhammad - people whose entire intellectual framework depends upon recognizing him as a messenger of God, and their own role model. Am I right in that beliefs? Or, is significant amount of history available also from those who opposed him and fought wars against him?

-----------------------------

Dullabhatti

Sattar sahib walks a very fine line, so his views may be hard to grasp. He believes (correct me, if I am wrong, sattar sahib):

1. Prophet Muhammad was a messenger of God, the best one, but not the last one.

2. Great men are controversial, so we should not spend time digging into their actions and histories.

3. The message Prophet Muhammad brought, is, itself, perfect (not the messenger, as explained in 2) but the message has to be explained, clarified etc time to time, as to how it is applicable.

4. The person who brought the last message (Prophet Muhammad) and people who will explain etc this same message are special people from God. These people are assigned special roles by God, and are given special privileges (which we should take at faith value - see 2 about not getting nosy with or critical about them).


Did I get that more or less right, sattar sahib?

ajeya,

Oh ho bhei, itna ghussa? Your question is fair … but the way you are asking, the discussion will quickly degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Let’s proceed carefully, without jumping the gun here.

One may find contradictory records on a given historical issue. It is therefore not surprising to find some controversial accounts regarding Muhammad also. Note that history gets murky with passage of time – accounts get changed, even fabricated; evidence gets more subjective; facts become increasingly elusive, and interpretation of facts, more elusive still. Various scenarios need to be weighed against each other in efforts to come up with a one that seems more likely than others.

Muhammad was not only a (self-proclaimed?) prophet, but also a head of state of sorts. Arguably, people had good reasons to falsely associate things with him in order to validate their own agendas.

Controversial accounts, where Muhammad allegedly had people killed for leaving Islam, for blaspheming him, etc., should be juxtaposed with other accounts that bring to light a very humble, compassionate man. There is a big disparity between the volumes of these two different types of accounts, with the latter outweighing the former by a considerable margin.

It is for such reasons that I have formed my opinion in favor of Muhammad, rather than against him. And I have no beef if a person looks at the same evidence and comes up with a different conclusion. What is important is to be careful in one’s analysis and to give the benefit of doubt, as needed, within a reasonable limits.

Sattar Sahib, no offense but your Islam has started sounding even more sillier than Tahmed sahib's.
You are saying Quran is not word of God, Mohammad made it up as he needed etc etc and then you come back and claim "I have complete regard for Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)."
I am not sure if you are confused or being sophist.

anil,

I am not sure if the problem lies with tahmed’s Islam or with tahmed himself … but somewhere in there, Sahib has issues.

He made boastful claims about Quran and tried to prove that Quran is word of god. But as I showed, his claims are negated by Quran itself. However, Sahib conveniently ignores evidence that counters his views. I am not sure what to make of his self-aggrandizing claims of rationality and truth he has found in Quran. But that’s not all …

Since I highlighted these contradictions, Sahib has criticized and disparaged Ahmadis, Pew_Research, and myself. However, what he has NOT done is critical here: he has not even attempted to explain contradictions between his views and actual verses of Quran. Such denial borders on intellectual dishonesty. But there’s still more …

Before any of this, he was criticizing Sufis, without anyone asking. Previously he has criticized other faiths for no reason. Why the need to put down other faiths, I fail to understand. But when someone criticizes Islam, he gets very defensive. He therefore comes across as somewhat insecure and at times, even hypocritical.

I am not sure if he gets this self-righteousness from Islam, or if he has himself to blame. I guess I dunno … but I am hoping we can stop analyzing him … and move on.

#419 Posted by sattar2

[And why would you think otherwise? I have complete regard for Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This man (pbuh) patiently bore atrocities for well being of his fellow men and set the bar high for all of us. ]

So you think that raping a woman the same night that he had murdered her father and brother is setting the bar high for us lowly creatures, eh?

Is that your logic-less faith, or logical argument speaking?

Sattar Sahib:

What is wrong in discovering Tahmed Sahib's Koran and Islam, rather Osama Bin Ladin's?