Reinterpretation of Islam in Turkey

I am simply amazed by your shortsightedness. I guess people like you, who have just read a few Hadith 'off and on', not only make a fool of themselves but also baffle many along with them. True that Islam provides guidance to humans beings but it came to free humans(especially Arabs) who were terribly entrapped by many irrelevant conventions and traditions. It is not rooted in old customs and traditions__ it free us from them (no dowry, no slavery, no burying alive of baby girls, no cruel tradition etc etc). If you have time then just read a bit of history before Islam and then a about how Islam enlightened them to better understanding of the world.
No offense, but in this article of yours is a superb example of poor argumentation. Since you have built your points on absurd interpretations of Hadith it has become real hard for you to 'draw a line'.As far you or I will try to draw lines we will only end up with a greater mess. Islam is not about drawing lines but multiplying knowledge and to maintain a balance in Life. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made it clear that only he who is pious is nearer to Allah and 'Who is Pious?' we do not know as Allah knows only the real intention of our hearts; and Religion primarily is an affair between God and Man. Therefore whenever people try to draw lines they mess all somewhat similar to the one you have made as you have ventured to draw a line between 'relevant' and 'irrelevant' things in Islam. I hope you can see how naive your comments sound:

“The Muslim world seems to be intellectually frozen in the seventh century A.D. while rest of the world has completely changed in every respect. Our means of transportation, for example, are now mechanical in contrast to those of the early Islam (animal transportation).”
“No body could ever think of a digital computer in the seventh century. It is an essential part of human life now.”

How ridiculous!!!! Where in world Muslims are still riding camels just because in early days Arabs used to do so? Or Hello!!! there are a hell lots of things people never thought of then and yes still many things to come that even you might not have thought about or imagined about! But Where does it proves that Muslim world is frozen in 7th century?just look around you and count how many Muslims are still living is a style of 7 century? I can't believe you can write such a poor piece when you have wrote some other remarkable articles...but this is simply pathetic.

Now let me help you see that Irrelevant is not the Hadith you have quoted in a so-called brilliant manner but instead its your 'perspective' which is irrelevant. For instance Hadith you have quoted (604, (Medicine) Sahih Bukhari , regarding lice and its treatment ,no where suggests that no other solution should ever be accepted or tried to get rid of lice. Moreover head shave ,an effective way as it is, was suggested in first place. Yes , we might think what relevance does the other part of the suggestion had? Well we never know and surely we can not compete with the prudence and knowledge Allah Almighty had bestowed our Prophet (PBUH) with. For instance It is said that Aqeeqa , slaughtering of animal, actually prevents the newborn from many troubles. We sure live in a world where metaphysical elements prevail and for which we have many reference in Quran too. However, my point is that who knows what impact the other part of the suggestion might as well have but thing is Islam is a religion of common- sense and one that frees people to seek knowledge and learn better ways to adopt wisdom where ever one founds. Let me just quote a well known saying as a reminder “Wisdom is lost property of Momin, one should own it where ever one founds it'.Unfortunately you have not come across any of such quotes in Hadith and Islam and I must say your obsession that Islam is rooted in past and the idea that 'we can not go in past'(very true though) has blinded you to the reality of not only Islam but of the obvious too.
Similarly the second Hadith quoted by you merely highlights the importance of honey which was one way of cure (Shifa) in days when no painkillers were available. The statement that his stomach lies can also refer to a psychological fact where at times anxiety causes butterflies in ones' stomach .Ever seen children complaining stomach ache when going to school? If so then you might understand what I am saying.
Once again about the third hadith you have quoted regarding fever tells about curing fever by water and this is also an effective way of relieving up to this day. Islam is a religion that encompasses all aspects physical and spiritual and many Muslims also know the effectiveness of 'Sorhe Fatiha' in this regard. However, all Muslims are well aware of the fact when they have to do and use medicines ,see doctors and try what suits them best because Islam asks its believers to think and act accordingly..
You are very right that, “the task of reinterpreting and modernizing Islam is quite difficult” but you are not all right when you complete the sentence with,“because it is deeply rooted in the past.” Islam itself doesn't confine men to a frozen period of time. Its a religion that began with the word 'Iqra' and goes beyond the material reality to provide wisdom and knowledge for all walks of life. However, there are certain rigid Islamists /Mullahs who do not welcome change: No TV, No Music, No women driving cars, No ...no...no...” Ironically you might see they do not practice what they preach for example they might appear on TV to say 'no TV', and might not even bother about the movie cameras as long its picturing them, and might object at girls studying in Medical colleges with boys but want a lady doctor to show their ladies to, so on and so forth. Simple common sense tells us that they are not be followed and that this is not Islam! In Islam there is a concept of 'Ijtihad' according to which people are required to adopt ways with the changing times as long they don't fall in the category of 'Shirk'. Muslims in early days who stuck to the healthy pragmatic teachings of Islam made great contributions in field of education,medical,architecture and other branches. They led the world! I think what we actually need to get rid of, in order to create a congenial society, are two extremists: 'rigid-mullahs' and 'ridiculous-interpretors' , whose common -sense has frozen somewhere in times of 7th century__ both types who believe they know the 'Real Islam' which for them is nothing more than a mosaic of 7th century. How Absurd!

Re: # 296
Can I say you're Pakistani?"

Ans: Why people will associate with a lesser, inferior identity?
Pakistan was created with bloodshed and the concept is not very encouraging. Civilization unites in diversity. Europe, whith various language and culture have started realising it now. India has done the experiment long back. On the contrary, barbarism do the reverse; creates animosity amongst people of similar origin. Ethnically, most if the people in India( When british left) are similar. Some people follow mediaval middle east barbarism and are like half-arab. And if people have to shed his 4000 year old civilisational identity with a 50 year old Arab imitator,violent identity, people will naturally choose the first one.

Tahmed, I applaud ur enthusiasm or shall I say wishful thinking but nothing as changed. Islamists sat this election out, musharraf is still incharge, the feudlas ran the tables. This was no grass roots upswell of liberty and democracy.....this was the game of musical chairs wth the feudals back to get more.

saharanpuri#209:

My contact is nandtandan@yahoo.com

anil sahib#267 you should know that democracy that you cant rush things in a democracy - der aaye, durust ayay.

and things are proceeding very well indeed so far - the secular, democratic parties have won, the king's parties have lost. and religious parties have virtually anihilated, losing their government in NWFP and barely present in the NA (3 seats.). and despite tremendous efforts by the king's parties to break the PML-PPP partnership, those two parties have held together. Musharraf's machinations (i.e. claiming that the only alternative to him is terrorists while at the same time attacking the mainstream parties while promoting religious parties and keeping the flame of terrorism burning) have been totally exposed. and even the military is no longer willing to put up with Musharraf's games anymore, and is well aware of how they have lowered their esteem in the eyes of the public with 7 years of military rule.

and meanwhile, civil society is very much in a commanding position and keeping the politicians in the winning party honest - and this civil society - lawyers in particular- are by now folk heroes made all the more so by their refusal to bow to musharraf's attempts at bullying them.

So - der aye, durust aye.

Re: # 301
tahmed: I dont have hatred for islam. I have concern for the intellectual development of its followers like yourself.

Dharma: calling me names for not joining others in ridiculing Islam merely exposes the hatred that hindus like you have for Islam (a minority religion in India).

Thanks again to Jinnah for Pakistan! :-)

#296 Saharanpuri Sahib,
Thank you for sharing this depressingly morbid article. Sometimes, reality is much more painful even in hindsight. :(

TehsinA: I agree that islam in the hand of a jehadi becomes a tool for oppression. But - a crook can make a tool out of anything. just ask musharraf and he can show you how you can use the Supreme National Interest to destroy the very pillars of a nation - the Constitution, an independant Judiciary, Basic Right..

#297 i had chopped of a part accidentally. here is the corrected post:

akcheema #267

I agree with you that "you don't need the sky fairy to tell you what's right or wrong!", nor does the definition of Islam I provided say or imply this either. And find the real life example you provide quite interesting and relevant. Let me try to explain where I am coming from on these issues of religion: I see the term "religion" (or "islam" or any other religion) as being a composite term for certain independent concepts - namely, the concept of belief, of God, of morality, of supersition. Unless we are clear on these concepts, we will end up spending the rest of our lives "searching for the truth" (i.e. spinning wheels).

God and Belief: A belief is not a fact, or even a provable theory. And God is by definition beyond the limits of human understanding. As the Taoists say, the Tao (God) that can be named is not the true Tao. So, unless you think the earth is flat and beyond that "there be dragons", the concept of God is not as absurd as the concept of the tooth fairy or any other representation of the unknowable. So - Islam's forbidding of images is totally in line with this perfectly sensible concept.

Morality - this is simply another name of social consciousness plus doing unto others as you have them do unto you. Morality is driven by "enightened self-interest", not by carrots and sticks. While carrots and sticks (heaven and hell) may have been a great idea for the 7th century arabia for whom it was meant (as the Quran itself says), and for people living in the 7th century still, but it is not necessary for people who are smart enough to understand that "honesty is the best policy" e.g.
I find Islam perfectly relevant here too - because the core message calls for "individual responsibility to distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing".

So - while being a muslim is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a moral person, as a muslim I certainly find this core message reassuring since it reconciles what makes sense to me with the core message.

Finally superstition: This is not part of the core message by any means. Indeed this is where all the mess lies. Thus "short-cut" muslims have the convenient superstition that they can do the hajj and wash away their sins (no basis in the Quran, btw), or do some taawiz or what-not: this "supersitions-posing-as-Islam" in fact promote immorality - and thus hajj has become a multi-billion tourist industry. Same for other rituals.

Hope this explains where I am coming from. Cheers.

akcheema #267 I agree with you that "you don't need the sky fairy to tell you what's right or wrong!", nor does the definition of Islam I provided say or imply this either. And find the real life example you provide quite interesting and relevant. Let me try to explain where I am coming from on these issues of religion: I see the term "religion" (or "islam" or any other religion) as being a composite term for certain independent concepts - namely, the concept of belief, of God, of morality, of supersition. Unless we are clear on these concepts, we will end up spending the rest of our lives "searching for the truth" (i.e. spinning wheels).

Belief in Godmorality - this is simply another name of social consciousness plus doing unto others as you have them do unto you. Morality is driven by "enightened self-interest", not by carrots and sticks. While carrots and sticks (heaven and hell) may have been a great idea for the 7th century arabia for whom it was meant (as the Quran itself says), and for people living in the 7th century still, but it is not necessary for people who are smart enough to understand that "honesty is the best policy" e.g.
I find Islam perfectly relevant here too - because the core message calls for "individual responsibility to distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing".

So - while being a muslim is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a moral person, as a muslim I certainly find this core message reassuring since it reconciles what makes sense to me with the core message.

Finally, superstition This is not part of the core message by any means. Indeed this is where all the mess lies. Thus "short-cut" muslims have the convenient superstition that they can do the hajj and wash away their sins (no basis in the Quran, btw), or do some taawiz or what-not: this "supersitions-posing-as-Islam" in fact promote immorality - and thus hajj has become a multi-billion tourist industry. Same for other rituals.

Hope this explains where I am coming from. Cheers.

The Price of Freedom

After an inspiring struggle for independence, the subcontinent was freed--and then split. Fifty years later, the scars of division remain

BY ANTHONY SPAETH/NEW DELHI

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

The Indian subcontinent was created in geophysical violence. A mass of floating land collided with Asia; in the process the Himalayan mountain chain was wrenched from the earth. So tremendous was the collision that the Himalayas are still rising 50 million years later.
The subcontinent we know today was born in a moment similarly awesome, historically portentous and destructive--a moment that continues to send powerful vibrations 50 years later. On Aug. 14-15, 1947, the nearly 400 million people of the subcontinent broke the shackles of eight centuries of rule by foreign sultans, emperors and, for 200 years, British colonialists. Following India's lead, the entire globe was propelled into an era of post-colonial freedom. It was a victory for mankind all the more remarkable for its improbability: India, fractious and humblingly poor, united to evict its sophisticated conquerers--and did so without war, under the banner of Mohandas K. Gandhi's ahimsa, or nonviolence.

But then something awful happened. Unity and transcendence turned to division and blood hunger. The subcontinent itself was torn into three separate chunks. Its people, formerly nonviolent fighters for freedom, became neighborly mass murderers. Hindus and Sikhs on one side, Muslims on the other, the only thing that joined them now was hatred and a fury still difficult to explain--and not, by a far measure, universally repented. "Our chaps would kill with really good spirit," reminisces Dilawar Butt, 73, a former member of the National Guard, who admits he helped torch a market in the city of Lahore in the summer of 1947, killing several hundred Hindus. "We didn't feel anything." Such behavior was not the monopoly of any single faction.

It's now 50 years on, and the subcontinent is on the brink of a revolution. India, the region's doddering giant for decades, is shedding its seemingly pathological inferiority complex, reaching out to a modern world it maintained at a disdainful remove. An economic miracle is possible if more than a billion people get better grindstones. That would be genuine cause for a proud 50th bash.

Unhappily, the fact of partition ensures that no celebration will escape a circumscription of mourning and loss. Even at the moment of freedom, the festivities were tainted. Shortly before midnight, Aug. 14, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, who would become India's Prime Minister a few minutes later, orated eloquently on his people's successful "tryst with destiny," a reference to the glorious freedom struggle. But by the time Nehru spoke, 20,000 people had already died in violence prompted by the mere prospect of partition. In the three months after Muslim Pakistan was rent from Hindu India, forcing parallel migrations of some 12 million people, hundreds of thousands more perished--perhaps a million. (An exact count has never been possible.) There are still thousands officially missing from population rolls: occupants of unmarked graves in fertile Punjab or Bengal, cremated ashes at the bottom of rivers, or skeletons in drinking wells, into which countless raped or terrified farm wives jumped to end their lives.

Partition: an arid term for an event so drenched in blood, madness and mass tragedy. On the subcontinent, it is commonly described as a shadow from the past, some kind of ephemeral projection of grief. It is far more: a division that changed the destinies of one of the most populated parts of the earth, and that continues to do so. Partition created a country, Pakistan, with such a tenuous hold on unity that it split in half 24 years later and still can't unite its warring, armed-to-the-mustache ethnic groups. Its eastern wing became Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest, most crowded countries, its 120 million people earning an average of $247 a year. Partition and its slaughters made enemies of India and Pakistan. They have fought three fratricidal wars and continue to spend obscene sums on their militaries. Both have nuclear weapons programs (although India officially reveres the nonviolent philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi). Indians and Pakistanis share a cuisine and enjoy the same films, but there is barely any trade allowed between the two lands, and cross-border visits are as few as the authorities can manage. The alienation seems eternal: reunification is never discussed on the subcontinent. Offshore, on the tiny island of Sri Lanka, partition had little impact in 1947. (Britain governed the colony, then known as Ceylon, separately from India and didn't grant independence until 1948.) But partition's perilous political and social lessons were rapidly absorbed. A British-style parliamentary system went rotten when politicians from the majority Sinhalese community fanned animosities against minority Tamils to get votes. A Tamil insurgency has raged for 14 years, claiming at least 60,000 lives. Its demand: a partition of Sri Lanka. Within India, an assortment of disgruntled minorities--Nagas, Kashmiris, Assamese--make the same demand today, with bus bombs and ambushes, 50 years after the original partition. Which may explain why a half-century of freedom is being observed mutedly throughout the subcontinent, with soul-searching supplements in newspapers rather than fireworks and festivals.

It's impossible to overstate the impact of the nearly 50-year agitation for freedom on the subcontinent's consciousness. The movement forged a nation called India from an enormous mob of linguistic groups, ethnic identities and rival castes. Schoolbooks, grandparents' tales and popular culture have planted the story deep into the imagination of the young. Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel, published in 1989, was a recasting of the Mahabharata, India's sublime epic, with Gandhi, Nehru and other freedom-movement figures in the mythic roles. Looking Through Glass, a 1996 novel by Mukul Kesavan, is the story of an aimless modern Indian magically transported back to the more meaningful days of the freedom struggle. For many young Indians, the movement was a Golden Age they missed.

Partition has a far smaller claim on the popular imagination, having been almost psychologically detached from the uplifting events that preceded it. Partition fiction is mostly published in vernacular languages, which restricts readership, and films attempting to portray the event in all its epic tragedy have appeared on television in recent years but hardly ever on the big screen. There is a mass of historical literature on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, of course, predominantly obsessed with one question: what caused partition and the slaughters surrounding it?

There's plenty of blame to go around. When Britain decided after World War II to grant independence to the subcontinent, the population of nearly 400 million was 66% Hindu and 24% Muslim. (The latter group had been converted over centuries virtually since the advent of Islam.) It was a serious social divide. The purity requirements of Hinduism prevented intimate interaction, including marriage and even meal-sharing, and Muslims were generally poorer than their Hindu counterparts. The British encouraged separation of the groups to avoid joint rebellion, the so-called divide-and-rule policy. A highly durable theory in India, taught in textbooks, is that pernicious British fostering of Hindu-Muslim enmity led directly to partition and mass slaughter. Divide-and-rule preordained a fractured subcontinent.

But that theory ignores many significant milestones and misjudgments along the road. From 1920, Hindu India was rallied by the Indian National Congress under Gandhi, the barrister-turned-nonviolent agitator. Gandhi wanted the Muslim community in his movement--they were fiercely anti-British, though hardly committed to nonviolence--and to achieve that, he embraced the cause of the Ottoman Empire, whose Caliph was the protector of all Islamic holy sites. That tactic worked, but when the Caliphate itself was abolished in 1924, Muslims on the subcontinent lost their link to a pan-Islamic kingdom and grew acutely insecure about their place in predominantly Hindu India. In 1930, poet-philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal called for a Muslim state on the subcontinent. In 1933, a group of students at Cambridge University invented the name Pakistan, an acronym including initials from Punjab, Afghania (the current Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan), Kashmir, Sind and the last three letters of Baluchistan.

The 1930s and '40s saw some of the best moments of the freedom movement--such as Gandhi's famed Salt March, a 388 km protest walk against British taxes--along with setbacks and eternal negotiations with Britain over self-rule. In 1946, the British proposed an ambitious and intricate federation to which all parties agreed, including Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the powerful Muslim League. But Nehru, newly elected head of the Congress party, made an unfortunate remark at a press conference, saying the plans were subject to change by the Congress. Jinnah was enraged and Nehru, too proud to back down, let the statement stand. That was India's last chance at an undivided future. On Aug. 16, 1946, tens of thousands of Muslims gathered at pro-Pakistan rallies in Calcutta. Rioting led to mass murder and Hindu reprisals, and local blacksmiths worked around the clock producing weapons. Five thousand were dead in 72 hours; the gutters of Calcutta were clogged with corpses. It was mayhem unlike any India had experienced before. "The slaughter definitely made the partition inevitable," says Waheedul Haque, now an editorial writer in Dhaka. "It was the point of no return." The riots spread, and over the next year 20,000 people died as Muslims demanded Pakistan and Hindus promised a different fate: "graveyard-stan."

In March 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten, great-grandson of Queen Victoria, became the final Viceroy of India, charged with negotiating independence with Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah. The job was hurried because India seemed on the brink of civil war. On June 3, partition was formally confirmed, although the boundaries were not announced until after independence. Freedom came 30 minutes apart for the two countries on Aug. 14-15: to distinguish itself from India, Pakistan turned its clock back 30 minutes. Nehru told his people that their tryst with destiny had been achieved. It was, in fact, an assignation that was just building steam.

The refugees were on the move: poor people with humble possessions, staggering in the summer heat, in groups as large as half a million stretching 80 km. They passed each other as they made their way to new homes in Hindu India or Muslim Pakistan--or attempted to. Wajahat Husain was a 21-year-old army officer on the new border bisecting Punjab in 1947. Near the town of Jullundur, 103 km from the border, a trainload of would-be Muslim refugees had been attacked by resident Sikhs. When he reached the scene, Husain found corpses jumbled on the ground with bloodied swords and tied-up bedding. The landscape was still with death, except for one sound: in the midst of the carnage was an elderly woman, still alive and crying for her relatives; her arms and legs had been amputated. Then Husain stumbled on a mass of abandoned women's shoes. He made his way through some bushes and found naked women of all ages, dismembered and eviscerated, surrounded by crying, crawling babies.

The transfer of peoples was supposed to be as nonviolent as the freedom struggle. Gandhi, fearing trouble in hot-headed Calcutta, made a peace mission that miraculously calmed the air. Where he was absent, however, so were his principles. There were explanations later, though none sufficed on its own. Hindus were angry at Muslims for the splitting of the country. Sikhs were enraged over the loss of their lands to Pakistan. Some killings were retaliatory: a trainload of murdered Muslim refugees coming from India provoked a "ghost train" of dead Hindus going the other way. Much of the carnage was driven by rumors of atrocities that hadn't really occurred or attacks that weren't forthcoming. And, of course, everyone was doing it, including the British-trained police. "People on both sides had gone mad," says Abdullah Malik, then a 27-year-old journalist in Lahore. "Any sane person can't explain it. The entire people were caught in a frenzy."

Muhammed Ashiq was a 12-year-old boy in the city of Wazirabad in 1947. He accompanied a gang of youths determined to attack a trainload of refugees headed for India and witnessed, though didn't participate in, the brutality. The vehicle stopped at an arranged place; the passengers were told to lie down in the train. Then the boys beat and stabbed them to death. A Hindu boy was left alive, and he begged his attackers: 'Kill me too.' They obliged. "At the time it seemed OK and justified," Ashiq says, "because we were doing it in reaction to what happened in India. Now it appears wrong." Singhara Singh, 83, a farmer in Sultanwind, Punjab admits to killing at least 40 Muslims with his sword and machete in 1947. "I feel no remorse," he insists. "The Muslims were responsible for the division of the country. We needed to teach them a lesson."

Indian writer Nirad C. Chaudhuri, who turns 100 this year, blames Gandhi and his freedom struggle. He argues that the Mahatma needed a mass campaign to drive the British out, but the movement was overly narrow in scope and its foundation was the hatred shared by Hindus and Muslims for the British. He says the sophisticated, foreign-educated leaders of the freedom struggle didn't know the average Indian and ignored the masses' tendency to violence. "Mahatma Gandhi thought that his admonitions about non-violence would be listened to," Chaudhuri wrote in his 1987 memoir Thy Hand, Great Anarch! "Of course they were not and could not be." The late Dorab Patel, a former justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, reached a similar conclusion. "They had to launch mass movements," he said in an interview shortly before he died last March, "and you can't launch mass movements by talking of Charles James Fox and John Bright and William Gladstone." Patel's conclusion: "I feel that the partition was a price of the independence of India."

The mass slaughtering ended in November, abruptly and inexplicably--the partition's final mystery. And then it was time for millions to settle in their new homes. Ishrat Jahan was 11 when her family was forced to flee the foothills of the Himalayas in November 1947. "Our house was surrounded by militants carrying swords and enormous torches," she recalls. "If the Hindus attack," my father told us, "I will kill you all and then myself." Miraculously, they were spared. Their train to Pakistan was sprayed by bullets, killing most of the passengers riding on the roof, and when they finally arrived at their new home in Rawalpindi, their odyssey had a bloody coda. "Near our house there was a harsh smell," Jahan recalls. She and her sisters were sent to explore. A short distance away, they discovered a Hindu temple and a drinking well--both stuffed with corpses.

There is an argument that partition saved India as a united nation. It will always have its ethnic and caste fissiparousness, but the added strain of Pakistan and Bangladesh's hundreds of millions might have tipped the ever-delicate balance. There's a contrary argument, of course, that the subcontinent would have had a far superior 50 years by remaining a single country, a federation, or by acting like friendly neighbors. "I should imagine you would have a very powerful South Asia if they had managed to live together," says Barun Dey, director of the Maulana Azad Institute of Asia Studies, a Calcutta think tank.

Bangladesh and India today enjoy an improving equation. The partition slaughters in Bengal were lesser in scope than in Punjab, and India's military might helped secure Bangladesh's own freedom from Pakistan in 1971. Travel agents, in fact, see a booming business in people revisiting their original homes on either side of the border. Sri Lanka remains the region's odd man out, preoccupied with its own ethnic woes and of little interest to the rest of the subcontinent, especially to India, which intervened militarily in the late 1980s with catastrophic results.

Between India and Pakistan, however, the past 50 years have been long, warlike and demonstrably unhealing. "Pakistan was born with a hole in its heart," says I.A. Rehman, director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. "Afraid, afraid, afraid--the hole is fear." The country's most popular slogan once was Pakistan Zindabad, or Long Live Pakistan. Today, a more common usage is Pakistan Forever--a discernible taunt to India. On its side, India continues its provocations, large and small. It is building missiles capable of delivering atomic weapons--while Pakistan reportedly buys its from China--and still forbids direct flights from New Delhi to Islamabad to deny respect to the Pakistani capital. The Muslims that stayed behind in India, a populous 120 million, are less secure today than at any time since partition. Says Mahbub ul Haq, a former Pakistan finance minister: "The drama of partition cast a dark shadow on the evolution of these countries. They have never been able to outgrow the bitter legacy of the past."

Estrangement exists in the halls of power and on the streets, engulfing old and young. F.S. Aijazuddin, an investment banker in Lahore, recalls being on a bus in Paris when he was hailed by another subcontinental passenger. "Are you Indian?" asked the stranger. Aijazuddin, 55, said he was from Pakistan. "Oh, India-Pakistan, one and the same," replied his new friend blithely. "Then," said the banker, "can I say you're Pakistani?" The Indian man's smile faded and he turned away. The subcontinent gained freedom 50 years ago, along with borders, unimaginable bloodshed and a whole new enemy within.

Mohar #293 {"Shouldn't you muslims do a jihad on spain?... and rescue your "Great Mosque"?... "}

Mohar Bhayya,
Please don't give Mrs. Salim any ideas. :)

Hamidumdum Sahib,
Speaking purely as a barefoot historian, I must concur that the ban on alcohol has caused some significant losses for Islam. The Bulgars definitely, and the Vikings probably, would have become Muslims were it not for this intolerable prohibition. :)

As for Erdogan, even if I disagree with his party's ultimate goals, his administration and competence are something that Mushy could have successfully copied, but ...
How are things on Telegraph Road and the neighborhoods in Livonia and Plymouth? Hopefully, spring is around the corner and you can go over to Windsor to balance your Strohs with Molsons.

Re: # 291
[...frickin Catholics turned the Great Mosque of Cordoba into a Cathedral...]

Shouldn't you muslims do a jihad on spain?... and rescue your "Great Mosque"?...

Re: # 291

salim mian,

.... have you noticed how the economist always calls it the "moderately" or "miuldly" islamist government of tayyep erdogan ? ...... it is almost as if everyone is waiting for him to show his true colors and turn turkey into saudi arabia ..... even i think it is a matter of time before the turkish mutawa are out in force beating up inappropriately dressed women and shutting down bars ..... if it weren't for the army, i think it would happen sooner than later ......... islam is not like alcohol which can be good in moderation - it is intrinsically rotten ....... sorry

Hamidumdum Sahib,
Mrs. Salim is more Islamic than ever. :( We just returned from Spain and Italy and she was very upset that the frickin Catholics turned the Great Mosque of Cordoba into a Cathedral. Now she wants to turn the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul back to a mosque from the museum that it's today thanks to Ataturk.

I don't think that she is ready to concede that the Holy Koran only forbids intoxication and not alcohol. Anyway, I like this Turkish government of Tayyep Erdogan and his Islamists - very modern, honest, and good for the economy. Corruption has almost vanished. :)

Re: # 209

DM sahib

Mr Gian sarup a fellow khatri like u wants to contact u .his mail id is gsarup@verizon.net.
he is a retired professor staying in chicago n is trying to get in touch with u for quite sometime after reading your article on amazing khatris of punjab.

rgds

vivek

Re: # 288

salim mian,

.... how many times do i have to tell you that beer and wine and raki and whiskey is islamic ! .... if you don't believe me, ask tahmed ...... there is nothing in the koran that forbids drinking and just because omar was a sloppy drunk doesn't mean we have to suffer sobriety ..... mrs hamidm believes it and i am sure mrs salim will believe it too if you try and talk to her ...... if she doesn't listen then point out section 4:24 of al-lah's code

hamidumdum Sahib #272 {"salim mian,
.... it is nice to see you back and in great form ..... how long do you think it will be before the turks 'revert' and outlaw raki ? ..... as much as i would like to believe in 'moderate islam' it just seems to be an impossible oxymoron ..... cheers "}

Hamidumdum Sahib,
Thank you, sir, for the warm welcome and my apologies for any ghustaakhees. You are a good sport. I had always thought that if we left you and Urstruly Sahib alone with a bottle of Chateau Neuf du Pape, you two would solve all the problems with Islam and modernity. Now, I am more inclined to believe that all we would end up with is a pair of inebriated suicide bombers. :)

As for that raki stuff, it should have been outlawed along with that awful Turki Topi or the fez. Now, Efes Beer is something to go EVET over. Chok Guzel. :) One day, when beer is deemed Islamic, I will once again enjoy the simple pleasure of having halal kilbasa with Efes beer.

anil #276 {"Salim Sahib:
"we don't drink in the mosque and we don't pray in the bar."
How will you say this in Sanskrit, so that orange fundoos can learn? "}

Anil Bhayee,
In Sanskrit:
"Mandira madhye na nipibati Paapaatman madhye na pranaya"

In Arabic:
"Minal masjid la drinkiyoon, minal baitul sharaab la namajiyyon."

Thank me very much. :)

anil #275 {"Salim sahib:
You always amaze me of your talent. Do you plan to open a school to train? I want to attend that "School of Salim's Excellence". "}

Anil Bhayee,
I give all the credit to my many enemas. :)

Oh crap..islam is getting diluted, muddled, un-jihadified..kaal..inko bachao

Al-Qaeda is losing the war of minds
By Peter Wehner

Published: March 4 2008 18:39 | Last updated: March 4 2008 18:39

The US “surge” in Iraq has been so manifestly successful that no serious person can deny that gains have been made. Even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have (grudgingly) conceded progress. Yet both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are quick to add that progress has been purely on the military side and that those gains are ephemeral. This fits with their broader narrative – that the war has been a disaster on every front.

During a recent Democratic debate, for example, Mr Obama declared: “We are seeing al-Qaeda stronger now than at any time since 2001.” Mrs Clinton says President George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq have “emboldened our enemies”. We should leave Iraq, she says, so we can better focus on the threat of al-Qaeda.

In fact, in large measure because of what is unfolding in Iraq, the tide within the Islamic world is beginning to run strongly against al-Qaeda – and this, in turn, may be the single most important ideological development in recent years.

In November 2007 Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (“Dr Fadl”) published his book, Rationalizations on Jihad in Egypt and the World, in serialised form. Mr Sharif, who is Egyptian, argues that the use of violence to overthrow Islamic governments is religiously unlawful and practically harmful. He also recommends the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two and its ideological leader, and calls the attacks on September 11 2001 a “catastrophe for all Muslims”.

Mr Sharif’s words are significant because he was once a mentor to Mr Zawahiri. Mr Sharif, who wrote the book in a Cairo prison, is “a living legend within the global jihadist movement”, according to Jarret Brachman, a terrorism expert.

Another important event occurred in October 2007, when Sheikh Abd Al-‘Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. It states: “I urge my brothers the ulama [the top class of Muslim clergy] to clarify the truth to the public . . . to warn [youth] of the consequences of being drawn to arbitrary opinions and [religious] zeal that is not based on religious knowledge.” The target of the fatwa is obvious: Mr bin Laden.

A month earlier Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, an influential Saudi cleric whom Mr bin Laden once lionised, wrote an “open letter” condemning Mr bin Laden. “Brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocents among children, elderly, the weak, and women have been killed and made homeless in the name of al-Qaeda?” Sheikh Awdah wrote. “The ruin of an entire people, as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq ... cannot make Muslims happy.”

These criticisms by prominent voices within the jihadist movement should be seen in the context of an even more significant development: the “Anbar Awakening” now spreading throughout Iraq. Just 18 months ago Anbar province was the stronghold of al-Qaeda in Iraq; today it is known as the birthplace of an Iraqi and Islamic grass-roots uprising against al-Qaeda as an organisation and bin Ladenism as an ideology. It is an extraordinary transformation: Iraqis en masse siding with America, the “infidel” and a western “occupying power”, to defeat Islamic militants.

Not surprisingly, al-Qaeda’s stock is falling in much of the Arab and Islamic world. A recent survey found that in January less than a quarter of Pakistanis approved of Mr bin Laden, compared with 46 per cent last August, while backing for al-Qaeda fell from 33 per cent to 18 per cent.

According to a July 2007 report from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, “large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere [are] rejecting Islamic extremism”. The percentage of Muslims saying suicide bombing is justified in the defence of Islam has declined in seven of the eight Arab countries where trend data are available. In Lebanon, for example, 34 per cent of Muslims say such suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified; in 2002, 74 per cent expressed this view. We are also seeing large drops in support for Mr bin Laden. These have occurred since the Iraq war began.

Since General David Petraeus put in place his counter-insurgency strategy early last year, al-Qaeda has been dealt punishing military blows. Iraqis continue to turn against al-Qaeda and so does more of the Arab and Muslim world. In the past half-year an important new front, led by prominent Islamic clerics, has been opened. Militarily, ideologically and in terms of popular support, these are bad days for Mr bin Laden and his jihadist jackals.

If we continue to build on these developments, the Iraq war, once thought to be a colossal failure, could turn out be a positive and even a pivotal event in our struggle against militant Islam. Having paid a high cost in blood and treasure and having embraced the wrong strategy for far too long, we stayed in the fight, proving that America was not the “weak horse” Mr bin Laden believed it to be. Having stayed in the fight, we may prevail in it. The best way to subvert the appeal of bin Ladenism is to defeat those who take up the sword in its name.

We are a long way from winning in Iraq. It remains a traumatised nation and the progress made can be lost. But the trajectory of events is at last in our favour and a good outcome is within our grasp. If we succeed it will have enormously positive effects beyond Iraq.


The writer, formerly deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Re: # 246
There is nothing called age of reason. The mediaval period was dark period ( you can tell age of not reason), and that has produced barbarism like Islam. Ancient period was age of reason. In ancient Greece and India wise men used to gather and engage in discussion. Who used to provide better explanation, he used to win. They have created various streams of philosophy This tradition was destroyed in India after Islamic invastion. If, Islam provides absolute truth, it would have been self conatianed civilisation and sufficient for survival. It would not have used violence as means to establish. But history tells different story. Sword of Islam was ahead of Islam ( First moslems conquered Persia, then with subjugation and unfair means they have turned it into a Islamic nation. The same story repeated for Pakistan). If Islam was so good, it would have the other way ( Budhdism was purely spread by scholars). Islam is mainly responsible for the sad state of moslem countries of Africa and Asia. The events of Muhammed's life (looting , killing, raping, cheating) never creates a good example of human being to follow. And that have created a serious crisis of human value in islamic nations. Be it in the form of failed state index, corruption index, dismal record of human rights.

Re: # 277
cheemaji,
Trying to teach anything to tahmed is like casting pearls before a swine. He is incapable of learning. All he needs to learn, he already learned from the book. If he is given a choice to keep one book from all the compendium of human
knowledge he would undoubtedly chose the book.
Hinduism for all its faults, keeps the mind open to learning. Nothing is final. You may find a new prophet, new God or you mary find a new way to Truth or you may find that you yourself are God. It is a never ending search. There are no limits. Thats is the reason hindus do better
in learning and are more tolerant of other faiths including of non believers. Killing this love of knowledge, of seeking, is the single worst trait of religions like Islam. Ofcourse we would expect tahmeds of the world to deny that because they know no better that that is included in the book. And the information content of the book and the message it conveys is not even clear enough among the tahmeds but they still chose to believe that it is ultimate
truth while hypocritically enjoying the benefits science and the logical mind.
regards

Re: # 280

Hamidm Sahib:

You must not feel depressed for vegetarian being the recipient. Your heart in new incarnation will not have to pump so much, and certainly will say, wish Hamidm sahib was here. He was such a nice man indeed.

Re: # 278

Cheers!

I try not to lump most modern christians with "our lot"; in our study, the Anglicans and Catholics didn't do too bad; worse of the Christian group were the "Greek Orthodox"; also it was related to the "distance" from their mother countries, inversely proportional in terms of objections to the concept; something that can be explained more by culture than belief.

The Muslims were by far the worst; had tens of recipients but NOT A SINGLE donor! Also, the data showed no variations related to ethnicity, "distance" from mother culture etc. The only common factor was "belief".

To be honest with you, christianity was all but dead until recently. The newly found evangelism in some western countries has more to do with a reaction to, or a renewed interest because of the growing visible presence of muslims every where. Needless to say I find it irritating and a cause for concern.

In my part of the world (the UK), more than 45% of the general population surveyed, doesn't have a belief in a god. Same statistics can be found in the Scandenavia, Germany, Netherlands, and other western european countries. Although, a lot of these individuals would still "traditionally" identify as catholics, church of England etc, more for the sake of cultural solidarity.

There IS something special about Islam; read the Koran and there is so much emphasis on one's duty to god rather than, by comparison, our duty to our fellow man/woman.

Why is this god so needy? Why does he get so jealous if someone prostrates to another? Why does he have so many of OUR HUMAN weaknesses? Quite frankly, why is he so pathetic?!

Re: # 279

anil mian,

damn the mullah and pundit ! .... i am more worried about my liver having a miserable life - that's why i would rather donate it to a wino who will provide it with proper nourishment and take good care of it ...... like i said, i don't want it dying from withdrawal after my death .... the only thing worse would be giving my body parts to a vegetarian - they would die of boredom

Re: # 278

Hamidm Sahib:

On the other hand, consider what alchohol can do your organs and beautiful gesture.

Can you imagine a mullah or pundit may have to live rest of his knowing inside the heart or whatever else is that of Hamidm Sahib? Just think what Massaddi Mian may have to live the rest of his life.

Re: # 277

cheema sahib,

..... in my experience overtly 'religious' people - deacons in their church, sunday scool teachers, people with the mark of the devil on their forehead - are mean spirited and callous when it comes to dealing with their fellow man ...... i have always maintained that since these people feel that rhey have made peace with their lord they can f*uk over man ..... all this crap about haqooq ul this and that is hog wash ........

..... you will be glad to know that i signed up to donate all my organs when i got my driver's permit - in the states all you have to do is put it on the back of your license ...... however, i am worried about my body parts being abused by some believer in a church or mosque ..... it will be ironic if my liver dies because of withdrawal after my death ...... what a waste

Re: # 261

tahmed, you look like a decent man who is trying to find some meaning in this world.

I'd ask the same question as before; why do we need god to be good or bad? There are a lot of atheists I know who are far more moral than believers; why not just move on and find your own interpretation for every one of life's dilemmas; wouldn't that be even more liberating?

Unfortunately, muslim history ("mainstream")and current majority would disagree with your interpretation therefore its hardly something to hang your hat on for the purpose of a debate on "re-interpretation of Islam" for the entire Ummah. In this sense, Zeemax perhaps does represent the "mainstream" view of at 1 out of the 1.2 billion muslims out there.

An interesting observation I'd like to share here. During my surgical training, I also gained some experience in organ transplantation. A big chunk of the kidney transplants were performed using organs from "living-donors". Since we have access to patient's demographic data, I was astonished to find out that an overwhelming majority of "live-donors" came from the "non-believers/atheists" group; openly religious people, though gladly were the recipients in many cases, would hardly come forward to donate a kidney for an unwell relative or friend. Muslims were the worst; not a single donor in my whole year (despite a big population in Sydney and well represented on the recipient lists!). Can you explain that?

Same was also true for "deceased-donors"; after death, it was far more likely for a non-religious family to donate their loved one's organs than the religious group; again, not a single muslim despite there being many happy recipients!

My friend, you don't need the sky fairy to tell you what's right or wrong! It either comes from within or doesn't. God/religion, if anything, get in the way. Otherwise we won't have any corruption, neputism, bribary, rape, murder, stealing (just to name a few) vices in the muslim world.

Re: # 268

Salim Sahib:

"we don't drink in the mosque and we don't pray in the bar."

How will you say this in Sanskrit, so that orange fundoos can learn?

Are there other gems you can translate in Arabic to sound official for Pakistani awam?

Re: # 269

Salim sahib:

You always amaze me of your talent. Do you plan to open a school to train? I want to attend that "School of Salim's Excellence".

#273 Posted by hamidm2

OK then ...

Hamid mian zindabad.

psssst ... by the way, and I won't tell, you do miss him?

Re: # 271

GT,

.... he will be back on friday - we will see how it goes when he comes back .... if he uses the words 'us elite' even once he will be banished for life ..... we don't suffer fools easily (with the exception of arjun mian and romair who have seniority)

Re: # 268

salim mian,

.... it is nice to see you back and in great form ..... how long do you think it will be before the turks 'revert' and outlaw raki ? ..... as much as i would like to believe in 'moderate islam' it just seems to be an impossible oxymoron ..... cheers

Am I the only one missing masadi here? Serious guys, have some shame ... ganging up on someone probably younger than your kids.

Hamid mian murdabad!

260 Posted by zeemax on March 4, 2008 8:10:58 am

I don’t know why you say it’s false. God does not descend from heaven to tell us how exactly to use his book. From Khulfa e Rashidun on down this will has been interpreted by the Caliphs and subsequent kings who used their chamcha ulemas to give the King’s will the guise of Quranic sanction. Yes, there have been several examples of ulema who protested and in this process were lashed, imprisoned or put to death. I would like you to site a single example from antiquity, where such a rebellion that may have lead to a revolt, the ummah claiming true Sharia and establishing an Islamic state. Nineteenth and Twentieth century examples are nothing more then stylistic oppositions that precipitated in personality cults. I am talking about the Mehdi in Sudan and Ayatullah Khomeini.

Non-submission to anything in worldly terms is not liberty?

I think a bit of education is in order. Starting from the first fitna which occurred in Uthman’s time opposing parties have always held up the Quran and claimed whatever their viewpoint as according to the Book and claimed themselves to be the true defenders of the faith, while deriding the opposing side as Godless, against the Book and the faith, and against righteousness. Every one is happy to have others submit to their version of the Quran, in other words their will, what could be more hypocritical then that. So you always wave the Book to achieve submission to whatever idea you have.

{"Re: # 253
tahmed,
..... i really don't want to defy gravity,..."}

Hamidumdum Sahib,
While I do not pretend to have the spiritual authority of Chacha, I have to intervene to answer your very pertinent questions. My answers are in bold.

{" i just don't feel like debasing myslef five times a day and banging my head on the floor ..... most of all, it makes my ankles hurt "}

Hamidumdum Sahib, are you talking about praying or are you trying out some of those horrible Hindoo exercises detailed in the Kama Sutra? Sir, your ankles should have no part in whatever you are trying to do - that's for advanced sages and the last one died during the reign of Chandragupta. :) The main thing about prayer is that when you perform sijda, make sure that everyone behind you is also doing the same.

{"can i tell the al-lah mian to take a hike and do what i want to do (go to the bar) or do i have to submit to his will ?"}

Hamidumdum Sahib, you can tell the Bag One to do whatever you like. Whether he takes a hike or throws another log on the fire is entirely up to Him.

{"can i be like jinnah and have a ham sandwich with my beer without being cast into hell with hindoos and other undesirable characters"}

You have to get Manto's permission. What do you think this is - some Elvis impersonation contest? You can have a turkey ham sambitch with near beer if you don't want to live with horrible hindoos forever. Are you really hungry and thirsty or do you just want to be a pain in the divine arse?

{"and what about bigger things,"}

Sorry! That's a horrible Hindoo concern. Penile enlargement is not necessary for Muslims.

{"like let's say i want to listen to music, let my wife drive, pee standing up, abolish slavery or - god forbid - ban suicide bombings"}

Hamidumdum Sahib, all these things are fine as long as you remember the appropriate order of your wish list. The last thing we want is to have you listen to your wife peeing while you drive standing up as you blow up banned slaves and declare their demise a suicide.

{"can i tell defy al-lah mian and do all this without lightening striking me "}

Hamidumdum Sahib, no problemo. Many people have told Bag One to go fly a kite without attracting electricity. Of course, as the financial pundits always say, past performance is no guarantee of future results....

Gill Sahib,
Good article and very encouraging for moderate Muslims. As we say in Turkey "we don't drink in the mosque and we don't pray in the bar." :)

Re: # 188

Tahmed Sahib:

By mainstream I meant that views that majority can related.

It is my, a non-muslim perception that your views on Islam are more asbstract, and are probably better (if such a comparison is possible).

While Hamidm Mian's can be best described as the batsman at the crease, after ball that was hit out of the ballpark and lost. Hamidm Mian is still batting with with that imaginary ball. Only for the Quioxtic perception among his audience that has to include "unwashed masses" and Massaddi Mian, I cannot agree with him, but I am not into religions.

Unless he becomes the first Vegetarian Pathan, he chose not to respond to my request.

Zeemax sahib's views as he expresses here are such that I would thing simple minded muslim will catch on, therefore, I called them more mainstream.

On other issues you raised, Tahmed sahib, I believe that after destruction, reconstruction should follow. It is natural. There is no need to go for restoration.

Reconstruction, more than restoration, is the need in Pakistan, after its Awam gave such a resounding verdict.

This verdict was handed over three weeks ago. In the U.K., and India where there is a parliamentay democracy, by now president would have invited the leader of the largest party to prove strength and form the government. The leader would have been given a deadline for this show of strength. Prove it or forget it. The next leader would be called if the largest party leader failed, and so on.

I do not see such process going on. It seems leaders are at loss what Awam has gifted them. Something Hamidm Mian eludes at this board. Despite all my efforts to hedge, I have to concede this concurrence with Hamidm Mian.

Tahemd sahib, I am for resonctruction and not for restoration.

Awam has given a clear mandate so that 2/3rd majority government can be formed at the center which can go ahead with reconstrution. Restoration is neither needed, nor necessary, except for leaders with bruised egos.

Don't you think you should discard call for restoration in favor of reconstruction?

Regarding disappearancees, democracy has very long memories, Pinochet was tried almost a generation later. He tried to escape like a rat, but could not. Fujimori tried to run like a rat, but could not. Let Pakistani democracy deal its culprits, but please construct democracy first. It will take care of its rats.

Re: # 259 Posted by hamidm2 on March 4, 2008 8:09:21 am

Hamid mian,

{ without being cast into hell with hindoos and other undesirable characters ? .......}

are you implying that being with the unwashed masses who call themselves muslims is not being in hell?

Re: # 263

tahmed,

..... i think you would make a good murtid if you can get rid of the emotional baggage that you have been carrying ..... just because your father wrote a book on 'short-cut' islam does not mean you have to believe in it too ....... freedom of religion is a good thing, but 'freedom from religion' is equally, if not more, important ....... we don't want the mutawa beating up tehsin for not saying his prayers and 'pursuing happiness' instead ........

#253 Posted by tahmed32 on March 4, 2008 7:59:38 am

Submission to the will of God, as expressed by you is one thing, but it is another when it becomes as interpreted and enforced by the Khalifa ul Vaqt. This is the Taliban, Mullah Omar and the Saudi King model. Through out history and even with the current crop of Islamic rulers they all take their legitimacy from this hierarchy. Their enforcement is only tempered by their personal abilities and both internal and external pressures. So you have the right to express your freedoms till prayer time when mutawa forces you to close shop and head for the mosque.

#262 hamidm: you mean you never read that "short-cut" muslim speech I made only yesterday on chowk? :-(

Re: # 261

tahmed,

.... thanks .... so you are saying i don't have to pray, eat a ham sandwich, let my wife drive, abolish slavery, ban child marriages and basically do what i think is right without bringing al-lah into my business ..... i lkie that ... you are a good prophet

#253 hamidm: you need God's permission for all that? You think God needs your prayers? or that he will change the course of events if you pray hard enough or are sufficiently flattering? You are confusing God with Musharraf and yourself with Musharraf's lotas.

#255 Posted by TehsinA,

Again an ignorant remark.

The will of God as expressed in his Book the Quran. As interpreted and enforced by the Khalifa ul Vaqt.

Both can't be said in the same breath. The first part is true while the second is false. Rebellion against a ruler who strays from the path of Allah is encouraged, and witnessed many times.

Isn’t submission diametrically opposed to liberty?

Are you kidding? Non-submission to anything in worldly terms is not liberty? Freedom? etc ... (whatever the hell the difference is between the two which hamidm2 keeps harping about).

Re: # 253

tahmed,

..... i really don't want to defy gravity, but i just don't feel like debasing myslef five times a day and banging my head on the floor ..... most of all, it makes my ankles hurt .... can i tell the al-lah mian to take a hike and do what i want to do (go to the bar) or do i have to submit to his will ? ..... also - and this may sound trivial - can i be like jinnah and have a ham sandwich with my beer without being cast into hell with hindoos and other undesirable characters ? .......

....... and what about bigger things, like let's say i want to listen to music, let my wife drive, pee standing up, abolish slavery or - god forbid - ban suicide bombings ..... can i tell defy al-lah mian and do all this without lightening striking me ?

#250 zeemax: true. The prophet himself would not doubt have said "God save me from my followers!!".

#250 Posted by tahmed32,

You're welcome. But if you had read the last sermon, you wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place.

dm #251 you are welcome sir.

#239 Posted by zeemax on March 4, 2008

Well let me just give you an opening remark. Islam means submission. Submission to the will of God. The will of God as expressed in his Book the Quran. As interpreted and enforced by the Khalifa ul Vaqt. Isn’t submission diametrically opposed to liberty?

Rather then quipping about my ignorance why don’t you provide a scholarly refutation.

PS: this is a repeat of my 249 post where I forgot to direct it to the appropriate party.

Re: # 249

tehsin,

.... you can do better than this ! .... give him the full speech - the one that i have had to suffer so many times .... you know, the one based on the concept of 'pursuit of happiness'

TehsinA #249: I dont know who this is addressed to, but here is my comment:

It is a triviality to say Islam means submission to the will of Allah. Of course we all submit to the will of Allah - try breaking the Law of Gravity, e.g. Or try growing younger rather than older. Or try to fly a kite in a tornado. I dont need a lifetime of study or endless verses from the Quran or refernces to the sunnah to tell me that. The trouble starts when someone says "Dont use your head, just do what I tell you to because I am an Islamic scholar and you are not."

So, if you wish to define Islam based on trivialities that you have been hearing from mullahs fine and never stopped to consider a moment to think about, that is fine too.

#249 Posted by TehsinA,

When one is asked to fear no one but Allah, could there be anything more liberating?

tahmed32:

Thanks for a clear answer.

zeemax #248 Thanks for the clarification.

Well let me just give you an opening remark. Islam means submission. Submission to the will of God. The will of God as expressed in his Book the Quran. As interpreted and enforced by the Khalifa ul Vaqt. Isn’t submission diametrically opposed to liberty?

Rather then quipping about my ignorance why don’t you provide a scholarly refutation.

#247 Posted by tahmed32

I'm sure you're mistaken or misread me. Muhammad was certainly not infallible, and said so himself many times.

#242 you just did! when you were clearly distressed by my considering the prophet to be a fallible human being. gazillions of muslims have arabic calligraphy spelling out Allah and Mohammed at par - and this is nothing but making a de facto god of the prophet, a co-equal with God.

#237 TehsinA: unlike this ghamdi you mention, my search had a beginning and an end. This endless "search for the truth" by sufis and aalims is a wild goose chase, and the endless references to sunnahs, hadiths, Quranic verses (preferably in guttural "pure arabic" accent) is not Islam. It is bs. The Quran says it is a book to make things simple - and it is.

I read the Quran using my head (per #234/235), satisfied myself that I was quite correct in defining Islam the way I have and that this indeed reflected the message of the Quran. And moved on from there. The Quran is about how to live this life (i.e. tell right from wrong and do the right thing), and everything else is bs. I can move on and look for other truths (and there is a lot of wonderful new truths being unravelled today thanks to science in terms of the Book of Life, Origins of the Universe, and so on) - which is precisely what I should be doing anyway, per the Quran (i.e. God did not create mankind to worship him - rather he created mankind to learn about his Creation - in other words do what scientists and men belonging to the Age of Reason are doing.

This is a much better way to live than to be like either the hamidms of the muslims world or the urstrulys.

#237 TehsinA: unlike this ghamdi you mention, my search had a beginning and an end. This endless "search for the truth" by sufis and aalims is a wild goose chase, and the endless references to sunnahs, hadiths, Quranic verses (preferably in guttural "pure arabic" accent) is not Islam. It is bs. The Quran says it is a book to make things simple - and it is.

I read the Quran using my head (per #234/235), satisfied myself that I was quite correct in defining Islam the way I have and that this indeed reflected the message of the Quran. And moved on from there. The Quran is about how to live this life (i.e. tell right from wrong and do the right thing), and everything else is bs. I can move on and look for other truths (and there is a lot of wonderful new truths being unravelled today thanks to science in terms of the Book of Life, Origins of the Universe, and so on) - which is precisely what I should be doing anyway, per the Quran (i.e. God did not create mankind to worship him - rather he created mankind to learn about his Creation - in other words do what scientists and men belonging to the Age of Reason are doing.

This is a much better way to live than to be like either the hamidms of the muslims world or the urstrulys.

tehsin,

khabees ... do you mind educating zeemax on the difference between freedom and liberty ? ..... the man is a good murtid who has gone bad and reverted to islam .... but i think he can be 'saved'

#241 Posted by hamidm2,

Haha .. yeah I remember .... but then it appears he smelled your bacon from afar ...

#240 Posted by tahmed32 o

...while it is considered virtuous to make the propet a de facto and infallible god

Who said so? Muslims certainly don't. I know the sufis say so, which is why I consider them no more than hindus.

zeemax,

..... i am warning you - don't mess with this tehsin character unless you want socrates, plato, the us constitution, the bill of rights, french revolution and the kitchen sink thrown at you ........ the man is an imbecile but he knows the difference between freedom and liberty .....

#235 zeemax: that does not logically follow. I am merely saying what the Quran says - that the prophet is not a god, nor is his business. And while it is considered virtuous to make the propet a de facto and infallible god - this is quite contradictory to what the Quran says, and quite consistent with the way the message of other religions has been corrupted by priests (Jesus never said he was the Savior of Mankind from the original sin, mullah Augistine did that centuries later, nor did Jesus ever claim to be the son of God - all he said was that religion is about love for fellow humans).

#237 Posted by TehsinA

In Islam there is no concept of liberty ...

This is such an ignorant remark that it is quite amazing. Is it intentionally so for some reason?

Zeemax:

No my friend, this is one of the usual suspects. I guess, I should blame it on Chowk’s incompetence, for whatever reason whenever I go to sign in, my ID of Tehsinabbasi is coming as unrecognizable. I emailed their help desk but got tired of waiting for their response which hasn’t come as yet. So I figured I’d set up a new ID. I could’ve pretended to be Bluemax or Zaro, but you know me I hate pretenses.

TAhmad:

I am glad that you have defined Islam for yourself, but that is an individual interpretation not shared by the billion plus throng. So unless you plan an evangelizing mission (a reformation movement) it will be restricted to yourself. The question becomes, could any such mission how ever carefully crafted succeed?

I have observed one such heroic attempt by Mr. Ghamdi, who has put an “enlightened moderation” hue to this dilemma. But as he continues to dig deeper to find answers to never ending questions, he ends up looking like the rest of the so called ulemas who selectively quote the Quran for their particular point of view.

The real trouble why I say that the reformation window is closed is the fact that humanity has moved on. The values that inspire the world today are those of liberty and justice. Every where you go this is the battle cry of the “unwashed masses”. In Islam there is no concept of liberty, there is a concept of freedom which is also defined in a very limited sense, meaning an absence of slavery. As far as justice goes, the only couple of times that the Quran mentions justice it is in terms of the Judgement Day when God will administer justice. Selectively broadening these areas interferes both with truth and justice.

#234 Posted by tahmed32

"my" definition of Islam is not dependent on how some other individual (even the sahaba or even the prophet himself ... he was honest in conveying the message as he understood it ... I see the Quran placing severe limits on the prophet himself on matters of religion ...

Hmm ... it appears hamidm2 is right after all. You ARE vying for some sort of prophet hood indeed!

further to #234 also note that there was a "communication link" between what the prophet said and what the scribes wrote years after his death. Thus, while no doubt the closest source we have of the religious experience the prophet had, one would have to be intellectually dishonest to claim that what is written in the Quran is the precise words that were narrated to the prophet. As for the sunnah and hadith not to mention the gazillions of other traditions built up over the years - the less said the better. Why would I want to follow traditions set in primitive societies driven by kingships (the acronym for dictatorshop) and individual struggles for power in the name of religion?

So, when reading the Quran, I take into account all these factors. I look for what the Quran consistently emphasizes, I keep in mind that it was directed towards people living in the 7th century - and so look at the direction the Quran points towards keeping this in mind.

And thus, the Quran points towards individual responsibility, rationality, scientific interest (the essential contribution of the Quran in fact, per John Huston in "The Worlds Religions"_ and good cheer to fellow humans.

And that makes me very comfortable with being a muslim. Because I am no longer a slave to tradition or to any man - only to my own sense of responsibility.

Hope this helps. :-) now to do some work..

#232 ok, that helps and thanks for the explanation.

So, as I understand it, you accept my right to define Islam "as it means to me". That is all I am saying.

As I said to dost mittar below - I dont really care if I am the only person on earth who thinks that Islam is about "individual responsibility before God to distinguish between right and wrong and to do the right thing."

If someone wishes to define Islam as being a pact with the devil or a bunch of superstitions - that is fine too. one man's green is indeed another man's red, just as one man's meat is indeed another man's poison.

Note though that "my" definition of Islam is not dependant on how some other individual (even the sahaba or even the prophet himself) interpreted it - and thus I dont need to cherry pick muslim history for examples. All I need to do is go to read the Quran and try to understand it to the best of my abilities.

Having done that, I am very comfortable in my belief that the prophet had some kind of a religious experience in the cave, and that he was honest in conveying the message as he understood it (and the letter I am comfortable with because I see the Quran placing severe limits on the prophet himself on matters of religion - if the prophet wanted to use religion for political power, he would never add such a thing.

Re: # 229

I don't think there is any special need here to celebrate the loss of human life...