The Good, the Bad and the Anxiety

Hi Mac, here we go again! May I mentor you?

Here are a few methods for getting people to believe you ... a collection of proof techniques that will prove invaluable to both you and participants here on Chowk.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #1 - `Proof By Induction`

1. Obtain a large power transformer.

2. Find someone who does not believe your theorem.

3. Get this person to hold the terminals on the HV side of the transformer.

4. Apply 25000 volts AC to the LV side of the transformer.

5. Repeat step (4) until they agree with the theorem.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #2 - `Proof By Contradiction`

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Contradict them.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #3 - Fire Proof

1. Summon all you consider inferior to you for a chowk hall meeting.

2. Present your theorem.

3. Bazooka those who disagree.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #4 - The Famous Water Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Wait for someone to disagree.

3. Drown them. (This is closely related to the `bullet` proof, but is easier to make look like an accident).

PROOF TECHNIQUE #5 - Idiot Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Write exhaustive ramblings with glossy quotations and poisoned arrows.

3. Challenge anyone to not understand it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #6 - Child Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Encapsulate it in epoxy and shape it into an ellipsoid.

3. Put it in a jar with all the other proofs (one with one of those Press-to-Open lids).

4. Give it to Omair or Safwan and challenge them to open it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #7 - Rabbit Proof

1. Generate theorems at an altogether startling rate, much faster than anybody is able to refute them. Use up everybody else`s paper and time. Run away at the slightest sign of danger.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #8 - Fool Proof

1. State your theorem.

2. Invite chowkwalas to comment.

3. If they don`t agree, exclaim loudly, ``You Fools!``

Re: Bad Girl`s comment

As far as my concern I try of my best to follow the rules and regulations set by Allah and shown by Muhammad (pbuh) and since I believe Muhammad (pbuh) being the last prophet, follow the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) and never believe on anyone else (i.e. preacher) I consider myself a Muslim. I sense you demur on Quran and you think there is no true translation available of `real Quran`. You also suspect all fellows of Muhammad (pbuh), great religious scholars of all time and all the muslims since the emergence of Islam and you mean to say that men translated Quran and `ammended` whatever they wanted. Alas this point is inexplicable and beyond of my understanding to respond, but I like to ask you only question `Who you believe beside you?`. If you like to associate with any religion you have to believe someone and comply all the compulsions of the dogma. You cant deny Islam saying `who knows what had happened 1400 years ago and what the original shape was` this is typical feminism who `afraid of` men and their superior rights given in Islam and expounded in Quran and this is only thing which strikes you and preclude to accept Islam as a whole. As I told you I dont know your religion but I suspect you are not in believers of Muhammad (pbuh).

I didnt identify any group or sect who would be propelled in the hell I just quoted the verse and any sect who `fulfils` the `pre-requisites` to get in the hell can count itself.

I am not a religious scholar nor associate with any religious team but only a science student and I only believe on realism and never run after illusion. This world is illusion and elusive and Islam is a reality where you could find the solutions of all problems and composure.

I agree with your last para and of course this should not be happened in a muslim country as Islam is religion of peace and never teach to kill innocent people without any reason. But fanatic people are everywhere and this is the responsibility of the government to provide security to its citizen by enforcing laws (as you can see in Saudi Arabia there are no attrocities like that). This is another chapter to be discussed.

RE: the debate

I am glad that my piece seems to have spun off into an argument over interpretation of Islma what it means to be a Muslim. I wish some of the other themes could be explored, but the debate on Muslim/Islam has been particularly useful and informative for me. It is also heartening to know that there are thoughtful and open-minded Muslims out there, who dont reject, apologize for, or wholeheartedly embrace the religion, but try to make sense of it for themselves, while acknowledging the issues they may have either with the religion (the book, the sunnah, etc.) or with its practitioners. Maybe, someone could do an article on an Islamic theme and carry on the debate. Thanks, ya`all.

RE MAK
Thank you MAK for continuing to present your point of view. On the one hand, you adequately illustrate the issue that I was griping about in my article, and on the other hand, you force me to think about Islam and what it means to be a Muslim.

I want to ask you something: How can you be so absolutely sure that your sect or version or following of Islam is the perfect, the correct one? Are you a complete and perfect Muslim with perfect understanding of the Quran and Islam? Can you read and understand the Quran in its original classical Arabic? Have you verified that each Hadith ascribed to the Prophet is actually true beyond a doubt? Where does your faith in your own ability to judge who is right and who is wrong come from?

You quoted ``a verse in Quran where Allah clearly said some people wont believe islam and would argue and raise several points to justify themselves and those people would be compelled in the hell soon which is dire place to live``

How can you be so sure that YOU can identify who these people are. Isnt it rather a daunting task left to Allah?

Finally, as Saima Shah pointed out, why do people use Islam to justify suppressing women? Where are these enforcers of the faith when Shia`s are massacred in Lahore? when innocent civilians are tortured and killed by the police? when women and little children (boys and girls) are raped? when our so called leaders milk the qaumi khazaana dry? Is it more harmful for a society if its women have the right of divorce or if its citizens dont have basic human rights? Can we please point our fingers at the real criminals and transgressors of our society?

Re: Saima Shah`s comments

Interpretation/re-interpretation needed where ambiguity exists. Islam is som simple, transparent and well-explained that only islamic inimicals strive to tarnish the reflections of islam. Allah bestowed islam as one religion and Muhammad (pbuh) expounded and showed the right path but some selfish people betook their own way based on their interests and still ascribe to muslims. These people and their offsprings continued to `interprete` the term of islam with change in time as other religions and relevant scriptures have been altered.

Regarding what sect of islam (I still persist on one Islam) is legitimate lets see what Muhammad (pbuh) said 1400 years ago. Muhammad (pbuh) once said there would be 72 sects near the day of judgement and each sect would claim legitimate itself but only one would be the legitimate among them then fellows asked which one that would be? `The one who follows me` replied the prophet (pbuh). Now each sect should check whether following the path shown by Muhammad (pbuh) or has explored `new horizons`.

The idea of `re-defining` islamic practice with time seems prodigious. This means islamic practices should have altered with the passage of time since the advent of Islam 1400 years ago. What you mean to say is that Allah `forgot` to bestow islam for all time and He `didnt know` that after 1400 years a technological epoch would emerge and people would demand a modern islam to meet their needs of that time. Since Allah `couldnt do that` some people took that responsibility to show the `right path` and to `overhaul` Islam to fix that up according to modern regime (Bravo!!).

Regarding Iqbal`s equality philosphy you completely misunderstood what he intended to say. Mahmud was a king and Ayaz his servant and Iqbal described equality with perspective of well off and poor people and not men-men equality, however this reflects how our women always think of `being deprived` or superiority of men. Nevertheless, superiority of men is testified in Quran and if you read Quran (if you believe on that) then open chapter 5 and verse 34 where you see Allah clearly declared that women have been subjugated so that they comply their men and take care of their belongings.

This is evident that Allah didnt send any woman prophet among 124,000 prophets, no women has led prayers in any time, no women angel and no women led in Ghazwas (jehad). Similarly man has been considered more reliable than woman and therefore two women witnesses equal to one one man`s (chapter 1 verse 281). No matter whether women have more amount of rationality or `shaoor` than men
facts are given in Quran and despite of that some muslim westernized women insist on their notion of `freedom` and `equality` without (or with) knowing the dire consequences.

I would say `Islamists` (strange term to me but I guess means believers of Muhammad (pbuh) ) describe what Quran says and quoted by Muhammad (pbuh). This is is nature of muslim men that whenever they notice any repulsive plight or vulgarity being done by a muslim woman they intervene to preclude her which is not a social injustice but according to Islam.

Re: The reinterpretation of Islam (the debate so far)

The interesting thing is that re-interpretation is considered by each sect as legitimate in the name of True Islmaic Values. In this situation an objective judgement is impossible and it is a matter of opinion who thinks which sect is more legitimate. Mr/Ms MAk should also pay attention to the interesting fact that most of the interpretation/re-interpretation revolves around secondary issues. That the fundamental five tenets of Islam remain a point of consistency between all types of Islam.

The idea of re-defining Islamic `practice` to social institutions is valid and has been expounded by many scholars and philosophers other than Badgirl. One of those is Allama Iqbal who said:

Kya kaha? ``bahre-musalmaan hai faqt waada-e-hoor``,
Shikwa beja bhi kare koi to lazim hai shaoor!

In Jawab-e Shikwa, Iqbal receives the answer upon questioning Islam that if anyone alleges that Islam is about Heavan alone and inactive passive obeisance is all it takes to get the proverbial 4 houris than he should at least think a little bit. It is clear that mindless ritual is an insult to Islam.

Let us also remember that Islam is about spiritual equality:

``Eik hi saf mein khare ho gaye mahmud-o-ayaz,
Na koi banda raha aur na koi banda nawaz``

Both mahmud and ayaz stand in the same row alike
No one is inferior and no-one superior

Perhaps some-one here will iterate that this `equality` is about men only. I don`t think so. The reason is because I believe in merit for the sake of merit and also the fact women have `shaoor`. If nature intended us to be less rational/less able,there would not be so many talented women out there. I think controlling women in the name of so-called morality is social injustice.

A question for Mr Mak is ``why is it that Islam is most quoted by the `Islamists` when it come to subjugating women?`` In other areas, life goes on. Interest is termed mark-up and we offer rates of return competing with the world on our debt instruments/demand accounts etc etc. Why is an equivalent right of divorce so rare? Surely, it is the vested interests of our men and not the fault of Islam.

Iqbal also said:

``Shor hai ho gaye duniya se musalmaan naabod,
Hum ye kahte hain ke the kahin Muslim Maujood?``

There is a great noise that true Muslims have vanished from the Earth
I say, were they ever there?

and,

Zamaane ke andaaz badle gaye;
Naya raag hai, saaz badley gaye

The times have changed their style
there is a new music, the instruments have changed

Re: Synic`s comments

The definition of muslim around the globe is intact since the birth of Islam and I think you are well aware of the five pillars of Islam. In Quran Allah clearly declared Muhammad (pbuh) as the last prophet and whoever declines to believe him is infidel (very simple to understand isnt it). What does it mean? Believe Muhammad (pbuh) as the last prophet and comply all of his sayings without any demur and strictures if you do you are muslim if you dont you`re non-muslim. But as the time passed some stern people within muslims who were delittante to `enjoy` their lives despounded with the `severe` boundaries of islam and started to raise points within islamic rules to make some room to get `relief` themselves. They prevalented their own ludicrous rules beyond the realm of islam and piffled against the `strict` redulations of islam. They `invented` their self-made dogma and religious emissaries and spreaded out to persuade people of vulnerable doctrines towards `freedom` who welcomed those malicious people and their prodigious notions fervently. There is no sects, no divisions in Islam, Islam has been the only one religion Believe it or Leave it, one way or another dont hang between muslim and infidel. At this point I remember a verse in Quran where Allah clearly said some people wont believe islam and would argue and raise several points to justify themselves and those people would be compelled in the hell soon which is dire place to live. May Allah bless all muslims.

RE: maTha (Thu Jan 29 10:11:20 1998)

* * *
...claiming to be a ``Muslim,`` ... depending on ...their Shajra-e-nasab ...our ``other`` heritages are pretty important (and active) too! Our identity as Pakistanis in diaspora is very much altering every day.
* * *

Yes, we do have rather complex and multifarious identities, of which being muslim is an integral (though not exclusive, or even predominant) part. Besides being a muslim (by birth), I consider myself a son of the Punjab, a social product of the quasi-westernized urban middle class of erstwhile-Pakistan (my premise being that the original country NO LONGER exists, toady’s Pakistan being a sham), and a Naturalized American of Indian origin. (The word “Indian” here is taken generically. India was the name coined by the ancient west, for all the lands that lay beyond the river Indus. Thus, technically speaking, the so-called Pakistan has a greater claim to the name “India”, than does Hindustan. Of course, tradition has taken root and no one is likely to heed to this logical suggestion regarding nomenclature.)


* * *
The Uzbek president`s belief of being a Muslim without believing in God makes a nice
anecdote but I wouldn`t stress it as a tribute to Islam`s open-mindedness.

Imagine what would have happened to him in Medina in the early days of Islamic glory? Are we promoting the munafiqeen? :)
* * *

The anecdote is indeed interesting. In the same article I also read that he started the meeting (it was an informal meeting with a delegation from Iran) by raising a toast of vodka... “to the unity of the Islamic world”. The ayatollahs must not have been too amused.

He would probably have done all right in the early days of Islam, depending upon how far back in time you transported him. If you took him to the early Medina days prior to the conquest of Mecca, his fate would have depended on whether or not anyone showed up with ransom to pay Mohammed in exchange for his release. For that is what was done to captured non-believers. The fact that he acknowledged being a muslim, yet denies belief in Allah would not necessarily have cost him his life as you seem to imply. That noble practice began afterwards. In early Medina days “ransom” money usually got you off the hook. Abbas, who was Mohammed’s uncle, along with his two nephews, Aqil and Nawfal, was a captive in Medina (after Badr), and even though he vehemently claimed to be a muslim the Prophet refused to exempt his ransom payment. He was told that if his belief was indeed true Allah will compensate him later, however, if he was muslim only in name (as the Prophet suspected) then he needed to arrange payment for himself and his nephews, because Abbas, the Prophet knew, was one of the richest men.


* * *
Ironically, I agree with you Sohail, without really compromising my viewpoint.
* * *

What do you mean by “without really compromising my viewpoint.” Are you saying you will not tell us what your point of view really is and that you will speak with a forked tongue? Why? Are you really so concerned that the Inquisitioners will declare anyone who speaks his or her mind a “murtad” (an apostate) and thus “vajib ul-qatal” (to be necessarily killed)? Relax my friend! Though it may not appear to be so in places, rest assured, that the Middle Ages are long gone and we are about to enter the Third Millennium. Try as they may, the retrograde forces cannot turn back the wheel of time. Reading between the lines, I can tell that you are not the Rai-wind walla that you sometimes try to sound like, perhaps to confuse the Rai-wind wallas. Come out of the closet and speak your mind, you are safe behind the veil of your pseudonym. It is through discourses like these that the world of Islam may see its much needed Reformation fomented by Muslims who are not afraid to think for themselves.


* * *
Dogmas have the same status in religions, as axioms in geometry.
* * *

Yes, but there are several versions of geometry too. Euclidean geometry’s axioms are not necessary if you are working non-Euclidean theorems. But its still geometry.

* * *
....This is what I refer to as calling it something else... why insist on calling oneself ``Muslim?``
...As far as I am concerned, one can be a ``Muslim`` only religiously and a ``Muslim`` culturally only by its extention.... It`s commonly claimed that what makes you a “Muslim” is the utterance of the ``Shahada`` (in Arabic), so where do we put the ``Muslims`` who are unwilling to do so or just uninterested in such rituals?
* * *

Claiming to be a muslim is a birth-right which I don’t intend to give up. Whether or not I believe that Allah is asleep on the job, or has taken off on vacation to another parallel universe, or has Willed Himself out of existence, is besides the point. I have Jewish friends who don’t believe in the gibberish of the orthodox rabbi any more than I believe in the mullah’s bullchit. There are many Christians today who don’t take the son-of-god crap any more seriously than I take vaqia-i-miraj. The point is that the meaning of these titles (Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc.,) has evolved and it is a very medieval mind-set that insists on rigid definitions and employs exclusionary criteria to those who don’t fit into their favorite definitions. Thus you have all the Ahmadi sect of Muslims declared non-muslim. The Shia’s will probably be next. What about the Agahkhanis? If you keep applying such litmus tests there is going to be no end and only the Wahabis will be left (assuming they are the ones doing the counting).

Hi folks,

Read replies section and would love to respond but am obliged to travel on business for a fortnight and am a little buried in preparations.

Thanks for asking and see you guys all at the end of Feb.

Tahnoon

Re: synic`s comments

I never meant anything but to know the religion and faith of the Bad Girl so people can read her article with the relavent perspective and dont go astray.

Re: MAK

``reveal your identity`` ???

See what I mean? There you go trying to peg me... What does it matter, like synic said (right on, synic!), lets argue on the issues.

Re: Bad Girl`s comments

Right is given to those who deserve that. I`m not a Mullah nor a religious entourage but I know one thing whoever repudiates, invents or demurs in saying by our loving prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is non-muslim and has no right to be called as muslim. Muslim emerged from Islam and whoever denies, ammends or try to overhaul the religion is non-muslim. If you fall in anyone of above categoricaly then say so and reveal your identity so everyone knows you.

Tahnoon, where are you when the chowk needs you?

RE: MAK

Qadianis have a right to call themselves Muslim if that is what they believe they are. I certainly dont feel equipped to judge who is a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

First the Qadianis were accused of being non-Muslims, is it going to be the Shias next? and then anyone who doesnt wear a hijaab or keep a beard or? Where does this end -- this judging and persecuting?

Re: Bad Girl`s comments

Thanks rendering me the lesson of learning even you unaware of me. I dont want to be perplexed despite of your impeling gestures. Nothing can be susceptible on whose dogma in dilemma. By the way Qadianis also proclaim as `muslims` and strive to inflict fundamental beliefs of muslims. I suggest you please avoide to publish your `personal experiences` on net as they accessible at large and may prelude to any conflicts in future.

RE: Chowk Watch ``... Hey Monsieur Moe and Mademoiselle Saima, what`s this complimenting each other in other peoples articles...???
What is this the Dating Network Or What?
Kotwaal is watching!!!!!!!

Ooops! Sorry, Mister Chowk :)- Got carried
away in the heat of my passion for poetry.
Am conditioned now to control my reflexes better :)-

Re: Sohail Rabbani

Regarding the identity crisis basis of claiming to be a ``Muslim,`` for natives of South Asia, depending on how long ago in their Shajra-e-nasab did they actually
become Muslim, our ``other`` heritages are
pretty important (and active) too! Our identity as Pakistanis in diaspora is very much altering every day. Many of us cannot
identify, already, with our counterparts who
never came abroad or didn`t have similar
``enlightening`` experiences. We just believe that we do because it helps in further believing that we understand their problems and have all the right solutions for them.

The Uzbek president`s belief of being a Muslim without believing in God makes a nice
anecdote but I wouldn`t stress it as a tribute to Islam`s open-mindedness. Imagine
what would have happened to him in Medina
in the early days of Islamic glory?

Are we promoting the munafiqeen? :)