Status of Parents in Al-Quran

Actually I found the tangential dialogue very appealing. One of those little treasures you find buried within an innocent looking interaction on Chowk. Not intellectual posturing as some may think but good absorbing facts. Besides, I would understand someone`s ``wrath`` if that person actually contributed a thought to the discussion and was anxiously waiting for the thread to be picked up. It is a bit haughty of an observer to regulate the doers simply so that what he observes is to his liking.

But to get back to the article at hand, I think Obaid raises an interesting point about who is the muslim closer to the Lord`s heart - the convert, the born again, or the by-default. Considering going against your parents wishes in choosing a college (tut-tut), or choosing a spouse (wallah! Ustaghfaar) being as tough as they are, renouncing their religion (esp. if they be religious folks) seems to show quest and courage. It seems that there needs to be a premium on quest - quest should be rewarded above the ``luck`` of being born in the ``right`` religion. Is it?

Re: Muzaffar Qazilbash

In this, dear Muzaffar, (whether Damascus was invaded by the Mongols or not) I am a more feckless debater than you. I just assumed from the fact that Syria came under the Mamluks in 1260 that it never got invaded, not as you rightly point out that it got invaded by the Mongols who were then driven out soon afterwards by Baybars.

Humbly,

Anita

A good article. I am wondering if Quran makes the concession that it IS more difficult for people to renounce their ancestrel faith for say Islam, than to be born muslim. So who if any, is more ``cherished` or held higher:
-a convert or
-someone who is born muslim but never questions (or cares) and remains one by default
-or one who is born muslim and after lots of soulsearching remains a muslim (born-again?) .

Re: Salim Kundi

``...while Mongolian hordes were knocking at the doors of Damascus and Baghdad, philosophers within the city walls were vociferously and happily debating away the eggs and chicken.``

Just a small academic point. As one who probably would have been vociferously debating the chicken or egg first scenario, I feel obliged to point out that thanks to the Mamluk sultan Baybars, the Mongols never got to knock on the doors of Damascus. They were defeated at Aayn Jalut, in modern day Palestinian territory.

Respectfully,

Anita

Maybe I`m not in the right frame of mind.
Maybe I`ve had enough of quotations.
Maybe I was expecting individual delberation.
Maybe I was thinking what maybe going
thru the minds of others reading this.

Further points to deliberate.

Muslims are the single continuous miracle
of MUHAMMAD, saw. The book of hikmah,
al Quran, Quran al Hakim that exhorts time
and again for Muslims to deliberate, ponder
think over its injunctions, and over the last
fifteen hundered years Muslims have multiplied
to over a billion now--- without by and large
reading, pondering , assimillating the message.
That is the Prophet`s continuous miracle.

How have these injunctions affected us?

There are thousands of scenarios that affect
us as parents and children in different parts
of this world. When can we discuss them?
It is easy to take the high moral ground.

To illustrate. Suppose my worldy duties and
obligations do not allow me to look after my
infirm or senile parents and I instituionalize
them. As one with sub-continental prejudices
and cultural traits what would you think of
me. What would my friends think of my dilemma?

Am I one for dwelling in the past?
Or shall we start shooting from the hip?
Or shall we turn on the lights, collectively,
and start deliberating not reciting.

Enough for today

Shehzada sahib:

Your faith and diligence are laudable but you are walking at the edge of a very slippery precipice. It is one thing to have faith and believe in the veracity of one’s “Revealed Scripture”, it is quite another to take a logical microscope to it.

One of the fundamental dictums of common sense says that any conclusions which one draws after studying a pool of information cannot be justly evaluated and confirmed by drawing upon the same information pool. In other words, if you want to seek proof of your theory you must not look at the same data-set upon the basis of which you concluded the theory in the first place. You must have confirmation from independent sources. If you don’t do that, your conclusions may be internally consistent, but they may not have objective validity. You cannot quote scripture to prove scripture and expect to be taken seriously by those who are not inspired by a priori faith.

Therefore, if you wish to tell those who already wholeheartedly believe that:
(1) there is such a being as Allah, and that
(2) He sent a Special body of literature to a man named Mohammed, and that
(3) that body of literature is The Word of Allah and is preserved in the Quran,
then there is no problem and no argument whatsoever.

However, the trouble begins when you start to claim that one can “...analyze those beliefs by reason or evaluate them critically and intelligently...” There is no room for such a “critical analysis” IF you take the words of Quran LITERALLY. The whole things collapses in the face of what has occurred within the last 1400 years. We have to look at the Quran as an ancient text which houses a lot of wisdom, but which was a product of a certain time and a certain culture. Many of its principles are still valid, but unless you look at it as a collection of poetic literature that tells stories allegorically, many portions of it become irrelevant and even nonsensical today.

In the three centuries prior to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad when the Muslims excelled in the arts and the sciences, there were similar tendencies developing as among the Muslims of today who have acquainted themselves with the knowledge of worldly realities. There, in Baghdad, arose a “sect” among many of the learned called the “Dahiryya” (dialectical materialists, in today`s lingo). These were Muslims like me (and some others found here on the CHOWK) who simply didn’t buy any of the “Allah said this, and Allah said that” logic unless it was also backed by more reasonable arguments. This tendency to question and critically analyze was ruthlessly crushed by the more orthodox elements of society (who controlled the military) inspired by the teachings of Imam Ghazali, and all critical thinking was forced “underground”. This resulted in a “revival of faith” and thus the power and prominence of that society eroded and was eventually lost.

My whole point here is that if you want to claim “critical thinking” then you cannot do that and still hold as absolute and unassailable truth the proposition that the Quran is literally the Word of Allah.

Let us rigidly stick to what is known. Let us just say that the Quran is a collection of the sayings of Prophet Mohammed while he was in a certain kind of state of trance which overtook him from time to time and he reported having visions of an angel coming to him and saying things which he then repeated and the followers recorded. Now let’s see where we go from here and apply your standards of proof.

What, for example, is Quran’s view of the structure of the Universe? Islamic Astronomy, if you will. How does that fit with modern ideas? That’s just one area. There are several more.

Respectfully,

...SR

Re: Ailani
It seemed to me that the article was about the status of both parents. I didn`t get the impression that Mr.Shehzada focused on fathers only.

Re: Kashif Ahmed Shehzada
Ailani has a point. Qur`an only pays lip service to reason. If reason is to be used, it is to be free of pressure. Appeals to reason are hypocritical when they`re accompanied by threats of gruesome punishments if reason leads somewhere else.

Religion - any religion - is the antithesis of reason. Reason works well when it`s unbridled and free of any preference for one conclusion than another. Otherwise it`s rationalization or cheap apologetics. The argument is often presented that reason, if used correctly, will inexorably lead to confirmation of some hallowed ``truth``. Such predictions undercut the spirit of FREE thought and betray the rigidity and arrogance of those who make them.

Regards
mni