Dodging Pakistani Sleuths to Cover a War and a Coup

"The makers of the bottle of shampoo are required to provide a proof "

This is an extremely slippery slope. If we follow this logic then whole social structure that humanity has worked so hard for 10s of thousands of years to establish falls on its face. So if we go by your logic a teenager might ask his parents for the proof of their worthiness for respect. A friend may ask you to prove your worthiness to be loyal to you. And horror of horror a mother may question whether her new born is worthy of her love or should she abort her. If we follow this logic no one will vacate a seat in the bus for an elderly; no one will remove a rock from the pathway so that others won't starddle. We would be like bacteria in petri dish; who eat procreate and die.

Human beings are not bottles of shampoo. They are not lizards either who do not have hypothelamus that generate feelings - any feelings. We are unique in the sense that we hurt when somone sys something to us in hurtfull manner. A person who says that he is never hurt by hearing something potentially hurtful is either a liar or a lizzard. There are certain abstract aspects of human nature that cannot be rationalized; they can only be felt. That is what makes us so unique in the known universe. We must respect and cultivate what has made us rise above baboons and bacteria; not that we should strife back to being unicellular organisms.

Religions and only religions have contributed to the evolution of human psyche while keeping it on the right course. It has made us humans from just being men.

bulleya:

"quite simple......give religions the same rights as a bottle of shampoo......."

I am, if you are. The makers of the bottle of shampoo are required to provide a proof of their ingredients; moreover they can be sued for false advertising of their claims. Would you like religions to bear a similar burden of proof? For example, can it be proved that Jesus was born through immaculate conception or that he was resuscitated after crucification?

Re: # 100

Yeah and you also told us that "people used to call him by his name, i.e. muhammad........"

Bhai sahib in addition to Ahadith I have also quoted Quranic verses which explicitly lay down the ettiquettes of addressing Holy Prophet (pbuh). Your arrogance sometimes amazes me- it is at par with that of Abu Jehl.

all i am saying is that religions should not have a right to a religious figure or a religion should have the same right as a bottle of shampoo, i.e. if one is hell-bent upon demeaning it, one should be able to prove one's facts.......

if tom cruise falls under libel laws, then why not religions? its quite the double standard......

you are stuck on the west's definition of everything.....the defintion of what constitutes, "hate" is different for different people and cultures......what you may consider hateful, i may not, and vice-versa.....

what is simialr amongst everyone is facts....so people should present the facts and then comment to their heart's desire.......if the purpose is simply ridicule, without fact(which some cultures consider to be hate), then their should be laws protecting against that.......

quite simple......give religions the same rights as a bottle of shampoo.......

urstruly #: ......as i have mentioned to you earlier, hadith, even within islam, are considered man-made.....there is no historical context to them....they were authored hundreds of years after the death of prophet muhammad.....and uptil now i have been unable to find a single one that can, factually, be traced back to its source......nor have you been able to provide me with when such traceable hadith, when i have requested you to provide one.....

bulleya#99:

I think that we have gone over this issue before. Matters of faith or non-faith cannot be subject to libel laws because they are not based on verifiable facts. All churches, mosques and temples would have to close down if they were asked to "prove" their claims about their respective faiths before "pedaling their wares". The problem is that while the faith people have, even in the West until recently, had an open season on non-believers with laws like blasphemy, the Western societies in general have leveled the playing field in that religions do not have any special immunity from criticism and mockery.

But one must be careful to distinguish between a religion and its practitioners; thus while one should be free to mock, criticise and even insult religious philosophies at par with non-religious ideologies, any attempt to incite hatred against any identifiable faith group cannot be accepted and is, indeed, covered by hate laws in most countries. I realise that what I am saying puts Muslims at a disadvantage as, unlike Christians and Jews who no longer treat their religious icons as beyond ridicule, Muslims continue to take religion (not only their own but others' as well) very seriously. Therefore, others can ridicule Islam while Muslims won't do the same to others' religious beliefs.

Re: # 99 "also, from what i know, people used to call him by his name, i.e. muhammad........

i am quite sure he would be surprised if he were to arrive today and see what people have turned his legend into.....
"

Although what you say is true that people used to call prophet (pbuh) by his name but it was something that illiterate beduins used to do and Allah himself disliked it. Here are some of the ettiquettes for properly addressing the name of Holy Prophet (pbuh) as ordained by Allah and his Prophet himself.



The following verses refer to the practice of beduins who used to yell outside Holy prophet's house in medina:

"Allah Ta’ala states, ‘O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam], nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be rendered fruitless while you perceive not. Verily, those who lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s messenger [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam], they are the ones whose hearts Allah has tested for piety. For them is forgiveness and a great reward. Verily those who call you from behind the dwellings, most of them have no sense.’ (Al-Hujuraat 2-4)


Furthermore, we are not supposed to address the Prophet [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] by his name. It is be very bad manners. Allah Ta’ala states, ‘Make not the calling of the messenger [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] among you as your calling one of another.’ (An-Noor 63)

It is not proper to address the prophet as ‘O Muhammad’ or ‘O Ahmad’. We should address him by his titles, ‘Yaa Nabiyy, ‘Yaa Rasoolullah’, ‘Yaa Khayr khalqillaah’ or other similar titles keeping our voice very low. Allah has praised such people in above verses and gave them good tidings of forgiveness and tremendous reward for observing good manners around His respected prophet. Those who call the prophet by name and with loud voice are definitely foolish people according to the above verse.

HADITH

The deep respect for the Prophet must be observed not only in his lifetime but also after his death. Abu Bakr [Radhiallaahu anhu] said, ‘Raising voice around the prophet of Allah is not permissible during his life and afterward too.’ (Wafa ul Wafa 2:559)

Similarly, Imaam Maalik [ra] always talked with a low voice in the Prophet’s mosque and said that this respect for the Prophet is mandatory during his life and afterward too. (Tafseer ibn Kathir 6:370)

In order to remind us the following verse of the Qur’aan is written on the Sacred Chamber where we often offer salutation to Prophet Muhammad [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam]. Allah Ta’ala states, ‘Verily, those who lower their voices in the presence of Allah’s Messenger [Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam] they are the ones who hearts Allah has tested for piety. For them is forgiveness and a great reward.’ (Al-Hujuraat 3)

Of course, this form of respect must be displayed throughout the Prophet’s mosque. As mentioned in Bukhari, Said ibn Yazeed [Radhiallaahu anhu] said, ‘Someone him me with a pebble while I was standing in the Prophet’s mosque. I turned around and found that it happened to be Khalif Umar [Radhiallaahu anhu].’ He said to me, ‘Bring these two persons to me.’ I brought them to him. Khalif Umar [Radhiallahu anhu] asked them, ‘Who are you and where do you come from?’ they said, ‘We are from Taif city.’ Khalif said, ‘I would have punished you if you were residents of Madina since you are raising your voice in the Prophet’s mosque.’ (Bukhari 8:470)

Muhammad ibn Muslim [Radhiallaahu anhu] said, ‘Any voice which distracts those who are offering Salaat in Prophet’s mosque is not allowed.’ (Ash-sha, Qadi Ayyaad 2:680)

"

kaalchakra #70....quite accurate....

dost-mittar#.....i am, actually, quite against demeaning any religion......in all my years on this site, i doubt you have ever seen me demean any religion; even though i debate it quite a bit......

i think there should be laws that protect against such demeaning.......interestingly, in western societies, if one makes a false statement about a bottle of shampoo, one can get sued.......or if one says that tom cruise is gay, he/she can get sued......but one can make any statement about religion, without having to prove its truthfulness......

.......any statement about any religion and religious figure should fall under the same set of laws as (at least) a bottle of shampoo or tom cruise......certainly, religion impacts the life of most people far more than shampoo and tom cruise.....if someone can prove the correctness of the statement, it should be fine......if someone cannot, they should be liable to being sued and punished.....doesn't matter what the religion happens to be.......

.......islam, by its design, is a religion that encourages debate of religion.....the quran is so abstract that its interpretation has to be based on debate.....such debates take place a lot in private circles......however, you are correct, it is impossible to carry out such a public debate......

......not quite sure, why.....perhaps it is due to the domination of clergy.....even though, by design, in islam, there is supposed to be no clergy.......quite strange.....

there is story that one studies in third grade, or so, in pakistan......there was a lady who used to throw garbage on prophet muhammad, yet he never harmed or complained.....until one day, she did not show up to throw garbage.....so he checked up on her......

if this is true, then i assumed muhammad was quite open to criticism.......all great leaders are......

also, from what i know, people used to call him by his name, i.e. muhammad........

i am quite sure he would be surprised if he were to arrive today and see what people have turned his legend into.....

Of course, mullah hussain ahmed or mullah fazloo or mullah "burqa" aziz are no Erdagans. But Turkey shows how a Islam can be a progressive force which extends friendship to all, rather than a tool for bearded or uniformed clowns greedy for power pointing fingers at the west while ignoring their own responsibilities.

"Muslim Democracy in Action"
By Jackson Diehl
Washington Post, August 27, 2007

The notion that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible is about to get a resounding rebuke...
Barring a last-minute surprise -- such as a military coup -- a liberal and pro-Western politician named Abdullah Gul will be elected president of Turkey by the country's parliament tomorrow. Gul speaks fluent English and has been a steady if somewhat quiet friend of the United States during more than four years as foreign minister. He also identifies himself as a religious Muslim in a country with an 85-year history of militant secularism. His wife wears a headscarf, which is banned from public offices, universities and -- until now -- the president's Cankaya Palace in Ankara.
...Yet in the byzantine five-month power struggle that has preceded tomorrow's election, the sides in Turkey have been reversed. The Islamists have stood not only for democracy but also for compromise and moderation. The threat to Turkey's political stability has come from the professed secularists, who have employed street demonstrations and twisted court rulings and pulled off what has come to be known as the world's first Internet coup.
...Erdogan called a general election. By forcing a vote, he invited Turks to consider the record of his party in office, as opposed to the dark scenarios of creeping Islamization sketched by the opposition and the military.

That was a brilliant maneuver. After all, Erdogan's government has been one of the most liberal and modernizing regimes in recent Turkish history. Under Gul's leadership, it pressed for membership talks with the European Union and in the name of winning them enacted a series of legal and human rights reforms. Minority Kurds and women won greater rights; the death penalty was abolished. The economy was liberalized and foreign investment welcomed, touching off a boom that has turned Turkey from a basket case in the International Monetary Fund's emergency ward to an emerging tiger with annual growth rates over 7 percent.

GT #91 "Lets not get into a peeing match (couched in intellectual jargon) over the contribution of some of the bravest guys in the sub-continent. "

Well said. Very well said!!

arjun#90 I didnt know that in addition to being an expert in American slang (or at least of the three phrases that you think is American slang) you are also capable of reading urdu newspapers. You are truly a very learned amreekan man.

dost mittar #94 "One can routinely deny the existence of God in the presence of Muslims without any consequences but cannot make critical remarks about the Prophet without risking his or her health in the presence of even nominal Muslims. "

Very true. And this is proof that those who call themselves "muslims" but attribute de facto divinity to the prophet cannot rationally be defined as muslim, given that monotheism is a defining characteristic of a muslim.

anil:

I used the term "hindian" and not hindus. Hindian is a chowk term which, to me, means Indians who think mainstream. Thus non-hindus like arjun, ballukhan and faruk are hindians while the JNU type hindus are not.

Tolkinin#93:

I was thinking of the mindset and not sharia. One can routinely deny the existence of God in the presence of Muslims without any consequences but cannot make critical remarks about the Prophet without risking his or her health in the presence of even nominal Muslims.

GT, we should know more about those journalists. Our knowledge does seem confined to well-coiffed lot.

#83

"all Muslims (with very very few exceptions) will quietly accept or even indulge in Kufr while blasphemy is a strict no, no. It's in the DNA"

If Kufr is acceptable or indulged in one is blashphemous,whether are not you are accountable for that is whether you live in Shariat law country
Even in Shariat country not every kufr can be persecuted b/c if done privately and even if it remains in your mind..if it is dna ... does the Dna change overnight in revert converts who declare themselves muslim at there own liking without any screening or censor

Kaal and HP (Jawed too):

What are you guys really talking about? Newspapers that we read? If so then fine. If not then check out the number of missing or killed journalists in Bihar, Chattisgarh, Andhra, Kashmir(?) and Assam in India and the tribal areas in Pakistan. (Or is it the case that google does not offer statistics). Lets not get into a peeing match (couched in intellectual jargon) over the contribution of some of the bravest guys in the sub-continent. People like Jawed, Baruah and Praveen Swamy may rule the English media and that is fine. But they operate in the secondary market. Jawed should know better ... Instead of only talking about Amit he could have talked about Parag (I am sure Jawed knew him or knew of him) and Parag like journalists in pakistan.

... Sorry am just pissed.