Islam and Modern Times: Is There a Case For Reinterpretation?

Re: # 321
Thanks beena for appreciating my article. I have always appreciated your sincere efforts in cultivating a culture of liberalism and self introspection.

Thanks for writing this piece.
The bottom line is that no one should impose their interpretation on others. When one interpretation leads to violence against others, the state has to move in - the instigators and perpetrators must be charged, tried and punished in the regular criminal courts. There has to be zero tolerance for any kind of violence, even when committed in the name of religion or honour.

Thanks for writing this piece.
The bottom line is that no one should impose their interpretation on others. When one interpretation leads to violence against others, the state has to move in - the instigators and perpetrators must be charged, tried and punished in the regular criminal courts. There has to be zero tolerance for any kind of violence, even when committed in the name of religion or honour.

Re: # 292

sattar2

"Allama Iqbal eulogized the death of the Queen with some heart-wrenching poetry, rendering the sad event as if the shade of god (saya-e-khudda) has left Hindustan, that the heavens are in tears, that the glory of Hindustan has passed away. Iqbal even compared the time to the time of month of Muhurram (Baq’yat-e-Iqbal; publisher: Ayena-e-Adab, Anar Kali, Lahore, p. 73, 76, 81, 90)."

I had seen the above mentioned book containing 'Qassaaids' of Allama Iqbal in respect of Queen Victoria with somebody in Peshawar long ago and could not believe my eyes. I thought it to be a fake published by the Congressites to defame Iqbal. This book provides the explanation why Iqbal could become both 'Hakeemul Ummat' and 'Sir' at the same time.

I would like to have a copy of this book. Will you please help?

Re: # 256

sattar2

"Quran asks Muslims to “slay the disbelievers”. And this is what anti-Muslim web-sites keep repeating. However, the full context reveals that these are the disbelievers who are actively engaged in violent hostilities against the Muslims at the fall of Mecca."

So do you believe 'disbelievers' and 'hostiles' mean the same thing. What do you think about 'Non-Ahmadi' muslims, especially those in Pakistan: Will you treat them as 'disbelievers' or 'hostiles' or both, fit to be slain?

Re: # 162

MatloobZaman

So you mean woman is a property. It may be so in the Arabian traiders' culture but one can get a permanent license to use it by paying some mehr, by purchasing or by grabbing in a war as a slave or use for a limited period just by paying the fees in Hira Mandi.

My point actually was that this perception of mehram and non-mehram has ceated a lot of problems in our present day culture.

I quote an instance:

One day I went to see a very close friend of mine with whom I had family like relations. I used to go into their house without annoucement or permission but that day I found their door locked. He came to the door to receive me on hearing my bell but asked me to wait for a while. He came again and took me into their drawing room. There he started to tell me the circumstance which made him keep me waiting at the door. He told me about a serious change in the behaviour of her daughter who started observing strict 'purdah'. She was sitting in the drawing room and we were discussing the problem created by this change in her in-laws' family. He said his daughter who was serving as an engineer left her job and started observing strict 'purdah'. He said her husband came yesterday to complain about her 'Hijab' and said, "You know Daddy we live in a joint family but my wife has started observing purdah even from my younger brother, her 'dewar', treating him 'na-mehram', which has created a serious problem in our family". Upon this he added,"I dismissed him by reminding him that it were you who, when you had come for seeking 'rishta' had insisted that your wife should be one observing strictly the tenets of religion." But,he said, I am worried about her future now.

zee bhai, I read your response in the latest i-log …

... you’ve rambled on and on … but you’ve failed to cite any reference to support your claim regarding what Mirza wrote ("good and appropriate reward" from the British over jihad issue).

So all we have is your word … and nothing more. And I am not sure if that’s adequate. No hard feelings, I hope (grin) …

sattar2,

Look at the latest iLog for the answer :)

zee bhai …

.. you still have not provided the reference to the quote … where Mirza Sahib claimed to have forbidden jihad against the British for an “appropriate and good reward” (#201).

I have asked you 7-8 times … but to no avail. What should I make of your silence … ?

Note that it is ok to make a mistake … to misquote … or to not have the reference … or to have the wrong reference. One can make a mistake - no issues. But you should be honest enough to admit your mistake. But your silence, followed by your diversionary tactics, says a lot about you (and perhaps your ullema as well).

So my dear berader, it is not the error, but the following deception that is the issue. Comments … ???

bulleya,

Thanks for raising some relevant issues … my responses are a bit longish ... so please ignore the typos ...

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

1. Parallels I have drawn are based on the point I am trying to make ...

-----

1a. At times I have compared Ahmadi-Muslims to early Muslims… to show the parallels between the two groups … and also to highlight ullema’s double-standards. For example, kalima was the declaration of faith for early Muslims … for which they were persecuted. The same kalima is declaration of faith for Ahmadi-Muslims, for which they are being persecuted. Note the parallel.

Ullema justify this persecution of Ahmadis on basis of the legal and criminal code. Fine, they have a point. But then these ullema should also accept persecution of early Muslims, as justifiable, on the basis of Arab customs 1400 years ago. Right? Note ullema’s double-standard on this issue.

Furthemore, Ahmadi-Muslims are not allowed to openly offer prayer, perform haj, or express their faith in Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Early Muslims were punished over these identical issues. Note the parallel.

My main point is to show … that the hurdles faced by the community of Muslims when Islam was born … are the same hurdles faced by the Muslim community as Islam is being revived.

-----

1b. At the same time, there are differences between early Muslims and Ahmadi-Muslims … in that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) brought new Law (Quran) and Mirza Sahib’s mission is to bring people back to the message of Quran.

A non-Law bearing prophet raised by Allah, in order to revive the true teachings of Allah’s Law, is supported by Quran also. Not every prophet brought a new Law - some did, while others came to guide people according to the existing Law. Moses brought a new Law (Torah) and Jesus’ mission was to guide people, who had gone astray, according to the teachings of Torah.

In this regard, Mirza parallels Jesus … who appeared 1400 years after Moses, when Israelites were ruled over by the Romans. Mirza appeared 1400 after Muhammad when Muslims were occupied by the British. Neither prophet brought a new Law, but their mission was to bring people back to then existing Law. Both emphasized peaceful aspects of the Law and condemned corruption amongst the ullema and to soften the violent tendencies that had seeped into their outlook.

This may explain why Prophet Muhammad referred to this latter prophet as Issa (that is, if you want to consider ahadith that may shine light on this issue from a different angle). It simply means that the mission of this future prophet of Islam would bear resemblance to the mission of Jesus.

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

2. Quran does not declare Muhammad (pbuh) the last prophet. This however does not prove that Mirza is a prophet, I agree. But it raises a critical issue …

Since Muhammad (pbuh) is not the last prophet, the question arises: Who will be a new prophet and how can he be recognized?

But before asking this question, one has to ask a bigger question: Who were the prophets of the past (esp. those named in Quran) … and how were people supposed to recognize them … Lot, Noah, Jesus, Shoaib …?

In other words, Mirza is not important in this context. The issue involves the very institution of prophethood. What’s the answer? Forget Mirza for a moment.

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

3. This is where interpretation of Quranic guidance, earlier prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) come into play. The issue is somewhat subjective … but I’ll point out a few aspects that may provide some explanation:

-----

3a. According to Quran (if I recall correctly), if Muhammad (pbuh) had associated any lies with Allah Almighty, Allah would have grabbed him by the Right Hand and severed his jugular vein.

This has been interpreted for ages, to mean that a false claimant of propoehthood would be severely humiliated, perhaps even killed, in this world. Throughout the history of Islam, I am not aware of any person who claimed to be a prophet and lived out his life fully … except Mirza Sahib. He boldly claimed something like … “I declare in the name of Allah, in Whose Hand is my life, that I am the long awaited Issa … “.

This also explains the gross and insulting rumors about how Mirza Sahib died. When opponents could not point to any divine harm coming to Mirza, Mirza’s death was their only chance to revile him on this earth in order to discredit him. And they did so by spreading rumors about how he died.

These rumors are an implicit acknowledgement by the ullema ... that they can't point to anything to discredit Mirza. Mirza lived a full life and that his death is ullema's last chance to discredit him on this earth. What followed was propaganda based on lies and fabrication ... which even Urstruly eventually admitted to being baseless.

-----

3b. According to historical records (ahadith), Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) foretold that in the latter days, one group among his ummah would be against the 72 other groups, and that this one group would be the one on the right path.

This is a recorded prophecy. Who knows whether it was correctly recorded … or perhaps it was a fabrication or mistake. But later on, events unfolded in an unusual harmony to this recorded prophecy. You decide if it is a sheer coincidence … or was there some element of truth in the recorded ahadith. Read on …

When Ahmadis were declared non-Muslim, a major newspaper (Nawa-e-Waqt) reported that all 72 sects of Islam have agreed that Ahamdis are non-Muslims … and that this type of unanimity across all the branches of Islam has probably never been witnessed before.

While “non-Muslim” declaration was a political defeat, it handed to Ahmadis a moral victory. A grand and mysterious prophecy, made 1400 year ago by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), came true in 1974, during Ahmadiyya hearings. The prophecy was fulfilled in a way that the ullema did not even realize that their verdict actually favored Ahmadis … and handed to the Ahmadis the ultimate victory in a historical conflict.

Ironically, ummah is now divided in more than 72 sects. History shows that the number of sects in any religion … only increases with time. It is now almost impossible to have a 72-versus-1 split between the ummah on any issue. Time has put a seal on Ahmadi victory here …

Here’s a link:

http://alislam.org/library/73divisions/index.html

There’s more … but I’ll pause here for now.

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

4. Yes, this is what Mirza claimed about Jesus. And this is another cornerstone of Mirza Sahib’s mission: that Jesus was nailed to the cross, that he was taken down alive, nursed back to health, and that Jesus left Jerusalem in search of tribes of Israel, and eventually died in Kashmir where he is buried.

Jesus having died naturally, and not risen to heavens, and not coming back … would be a major shock for the Christian, Jewish, as well as mainstream Muslim theologies. It would also be a blow to super-natural ideas being associated with prophets, and would result in a deeper understanding of teachings of Quran.

[This aspect of Mirza's mission is consistent with the hadith suggesting that the Massih will break the Cross.]

Note that during the times of Jesus, only 2 out of 12 tribes of Israel resided in Jerusalem. The remaining 10 tribes had migrated eastwards, due to wars and persecution … and were spread as far as Kashmir. Kashmiris of this day trace their ancestry back to the Israelites … even Kashmiris names of this day resemble those mentioned in the Bible.

zee,

… once again you are getting ahead of yourself …

Before I look into your latest quote of Mirza Sahib, let’s revisit the earlier one … where you claimed that … Mirza forbade jihad against the British for an appropriate and good reward (#187 and #201).

But you refused to provide the reference. And don’t worry about my ignorance of Mirza’s writings … rather, ponder over your own reluctance to provide the reference. Eventually you acknowledged that you got this information from irshad.org (btw, did you look up the reference to verify??).

Your brothers at irshad.org also claim that Dr. Salam won the Nobel Prize due to a Jewish-Qadiyyani conspiracy. Do you believe this too?

Let’s square this away before moving on. Note that you made these claims … and are now running away from them.

sattar#...setting aside the debate on whether ahmedis can or should be declared non-muslims or whether they should be allowed to preach (two issues on which i have already expressed my views), i think it will be important for you to engage in an academic debate, on the general teaching of mirza ghulam ahmed, to make your point(s)......

at the very least, we should know, what he preached and did not preach, and how he justified his stance as being a prophet.....this is, obviously, not a small claim......something, which, at least in my opinion, impacts the very foundation of islam......this will also allow people to get their facts straight.......

i have four questions/disagreements:

1. you tend to relate mirza ghulam ahmad's preaching of his ideas to be similar to those of muhammad, i.e. someone trying to reform a system/religion, as a minority.......however, i see one distinct difference......while muhammad wanted to reform the society around him, he seemed to have no intentions of reforming the religion around him......he brought in a completely new religion, and totally discarded the current one as false.......wouldn't this make his teachings very different from mirza ghulam ahmed.....muhammad did not declare himself a prophet of the current religion.......

2. in your opinion, the quran does not say that muhammad was the final prophet......this forms the basis of your argument that mirza ghulam ahmed was a prophet.....let's assume your argument, regarding the quran not stating that muhammad being the last prophet to be correct.......

how does this, however, prove that mirza ghulam ahmed was a prophet.......all it proves is that there can be prophets after muhammad.....it does not prove that, specifically, the prophet after muhammad would be mirza ghulam ahmed.......billions of people have come and gone after muhammad.......couldn't anyone of them have claimed they were a prophet?.....

3. if my understanding is correct, mirza ghulam ahmed claimed to be the rebirth of christ.......mehdi......there are other people in the world (christians and muslims) who have made similar claims......assuming there is going to be only one rebirth of christ, why would it be mirza ghulam ahmed?...what makes his claim more superior?

4. this point is not based on two much research......but from what i have read, mirza ghulam ahmed claimed that jesus did not die at the cross......he went on to live a full life....and then came to kashmir and died........this is described in his treatise titled, "Jesus in India" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_India_(book)"

...would this not contradict christian and muslim beliefs that Jesus did not live a full life after crucification and, thus, never went to kashmir.......

hence, if it turns out that Jesus never lived a full life after crucification and never went to kashmir, would that, then make mirza ghulam ahmed's claims of being mehdi controversial..........

**again, my interests are purely academic.....i want to see what information about mirza ghulam ahmed is accurate and what is not...and whether my contention that there is a distinct defining difference between what ahmedis believe and what i believe is correct or incorrect.......

... here's the direct link:

http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/74238/30081

sattar Bhai,

Your defense of Mirza Bhai is admirable, even more so consdiering your admitted ignorance of Mirza Bhai's writings.

You argue on semantics with Urstruly, while being completely unaware what words Mirza used for even Jesus Christ and his family - let alone the others.

Would you like me to post a screen capture of Vol 11, page 291 of 'Roohaney Khazain', one of the most revered books of Mirzayees written by Mirza Bhai, where he terms Jesus's paternal and maternal grandmothers as prostitutes and fornicators, refers to Mary Magdelene as 'kanjari', and reviles Jesus for being in her 'sohbat' and letting her massage his head with the perfume acquired with the proceeds of her 'zana kari'?

I think I'll post it anyway. Let's see you defend that, and advise us of it's true 'context'. That should be quite amusing :)

Look at the iLog section because images can't be posted here)

anil (#303),

There are two sides to this issue that need to be carefully balanced.

Unfortunately, human existence is a dilemma that sometimes necessitates violence. Violence, esp. at a large scale, upsets the social order for ages, scars generations to come, and leads to unimaginable human harm and suffering. Every effort must be made to avoid such conflicts - through resolutions, compromises, treaties, etc. It is much better to give up one half, than to go to war over the other half. If possible, it is at times much better to leave a land and to migrate … then to go to war over persecution and violation of one’s rights etc.

When faced with imminent and outright attacks and violence, a people have the right to pick up arms to defend themselves. And a reasonable ideology, religious or political, would accommodate such possibilities, I’d reckon.

Islam too recognizes this reality and allows self-defense, but severely curtails the scope of this jihad and circumstances under which it may be carried out. While Quran allows fighting jihad, over and over again it warns Muslims to not cross the lines, to not transgress, to continuously give peace a chance …

… and this is what ullema seem to have forgotten … as they have become all too eager to wage jihad over issues that may be resolved much better through patience and compromise.

Urstruly MiaN,

I don’t think you get it … I’ll try again …

That Mirza Sahib called his opponents “zuriayat-ul-bhagiyya” … was never an issue. The issue however, was the meaning of this phrase.

Twice you’ve argued that it means “children of prostitutes”. But each time you realized your error when I explained it to you. Your ullema misled you … and you ended up putting your foot in your mouth. Good going, little genius …!

Now, your buddy zee is quoting Mirza Sahib … but cleverly hiding references. What does this mean? You decide.

When I pressed zee, he eventually admitted that his source is Irshad.org guys! This website also claims that Dr. Salam won Nobel Prize due to some Jewish-Qadiyyni conspiracy. Do you believe this shit? Well, these are zee’s sources …! What can I say …?

And this makes me wonder: Where did you learn that “zuriayat-ul-bhagiyya” means “children of prostitutes”? Was it the same irshad and alhafeez guys? Do you have the galls to admit it? Or will you now do your cute dance around the issue ...?
(wide grin)