Chowk Special
Chowk P Room January 13, 1999
#75 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 21, 1999 4:14:08 pm
Btw, Noor, Saima, Kafir, and Temporal:
An excellent parallel thread.
Anita
An excellent parallel thread.
Anita
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#74 Posted by wasiq on January 21, 1999 4:09:28 pm
Re: Saima (62)
Well, there are a lot of issues about the philosophy of caliphate that I am neither capable of discussing, nor have the time to go into. HOwever, I have presented how I compare caliphate to a monarchy in another reply (66), which also refutes your contention about aristocracy. The caliph does not construct a material base that empowers him to maintain a permanent economic disparity with the rest of the citizens and therefore lay the foundation of an aristocracy.
In fact, this extreme aristocracy, or Imperialism, was exactly what Ali was fighting against, as I have already referred to in reply 53 (starting from ``During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism ...`` third last para).
I do not think that ``religious morality`` is anything separate from ``justice``. Religions strive to fulfill this desire for justice, and try to set up societal level institutions that realize the concept of justice as understood within the context of the religion. Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former.
Even when you talk about ``justice`` and ``morality`` you are talking within some context, with some prototypical (or typical) model in your head, perhaps a Western or secular or Islamic or Platonic or whatever model of what constitutes justice. (After all none of us are born with an owner`s manual!) The natural question is whether there exists something like objective justice or inherent justice or absolute justice that is not dependent within the human mind on some model, and therefore is the ``true`` ideal to strive for? I do not think that exists, but you may have a different opinion.
By definition, Islam would take the divine justice as that absolute justice and consider itself based upon that, as does every religion.
The question about caliphate is best posed by looking at the importance and relevance of inspired leadership for a community. We are capable of understanding that, and some of us live in a society that has chosen democracy as the method to fulfill the need for leadership. Plato`s philosophy also arises to answer the same need, and my analogy to Plato was entirely within that context, shouldn`t one choose the brightest, ablest, wisest and the most learned to lead the society? After all a society is nothing more than what it holds sacred.
There is a clear reason why caliphate is not analogous to papacy in my mind. That is because papacy derives its legitimacy from its role as an intercessor. Institutionalized intercession is not present in Islam. In addition, a caliph fulfills all the demands of any other citizen, unlike monasticism that is required in papacy.
best
Well, there are a lot of issues about the philosophy of caliphate that I am neither capable of discussing, nor have the time to go into. HOwever, I have presented how I compare caliphate to a monarchy in another reply (66), which also refutes your contention about aristocracy. The caliph does not construct a material base that empowers him to maintain a permanent economic disparity with the rest of the citizens and therefore lay the foundation of an aristocracy.
In fact, this extreme aristocracy, or Imperialism, was exactly what Ali was fighting against, as I have already referred to in reply 53 (starting from ``During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism ...`` third last para).
I do not think that ``religious morality`` is anything separate from ``justice``. Religions strive to fulfill this desire for justice, and try to set up societal level institutions that realize the concept of justice as understood within the context of the religion. Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former.
Even when you talk about ``justice`` and ``morality`` you are talking within some context, with some prototypical (or typical) model in your head, perhaps a Western or secular or Islamic or Platonic or whatever model of what constitutes justice. (After all none of us are born with an owner`s manual!) The natural question is whether there exists something like objective justice or inherent justice or absolute justice that is not dependent within the human mind on some model, and therefore is the ``true`` ideal to strive for? I do not think that exists, but you may have a different opinion.
By definition, Islam would take the divine justice as that absolute justice and consider itself based upon that, as does every religion.
The question about caliphate is best posed by looking at the importance and relevance of inspired leadership for a community. We are capable of understanding that, and some of us live in a society that has chosen democracy as the method to fulfill the need for leadership. Plato`s philosophy also arises to answer the same need, and my analogy to Plato was entirely within that context, shouldn`t one choose the brightest, ablest, wisest and the most learned to lead the society? After all a society is nothing more than what it holds sacred.
There is a clear reason why caliphate is not analogous to papacy in my mind. That is because papacy derives its legitimacy from its role as an intercessor. Institutionalized intercession is not present in Islam. In addition, a caliph fulfills all the demands of any other citizen, unlike monasticism that is required in papacy.
best
#73 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 21, 1999 3:51:48 pm
Re: MaTha (#60)
Good questions. To answer them, some more background is in order.
It seems clear that other than Mohammad’s declaration at Ghadir Khumm of ‘man kuntu mawlahu fa- Ali mawlahu’ (He of whom I am the guide, of him Ali is also the guide) a few months before his death, he left no clear-cut instructions of what the nature of the state should be after his death - neither does the Quran (at least the version that we have of it) elucidate this point further.
It is also clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had a vision of an Islamic state that involved unity under a single leader and that was militarist in nature. The evidence also suggests that Ali (rightly or wrongly) did not support the first two khalifas in their military ambitions. He in fact declined khilafat when it was offered to him on the death of Umar, when Abdur-Rahman (to whom Umar had given the casting vote among the council of 6 men who were to decide the next khalifa), because it was offered on the condition that ‘Ali should rule in accordance with the Quran, the example of the Prophet, AND the precedents established by the first two khalifas. According to the Shia viewpoint, Ali was more interested in further elucidation and esoteric exploration of Islamic teachings and tenets- an inward look if you will, rather than an outward spread of Islam.
In addition to aggressive campaigns to bring the ‘apostasized’ Bedouin tribes back under submission, full scale conquests of settled lands were launched to replace their governments with Muslim rule. A military garrison was formed in each town that was conquered, with a commander representing the khalifa from Mecca - and charged with leading the prayers, launching further military expeditions from there, and managing the jaziya and booty collected, which was distributed among the conquering armies, as well as a portion remitted to the Muslims living in Mecca and Medina (there is no evidence that Abu Bakr or Umar personally amassed any wealth from the conquests). According to Hodgson (In the first volume of the 3 volume, The Venture of Islam): ``with the distribution of booty as the most attractive physical resource of the state, it was obviously desirable to continue the conquests; and though this may not have been Umar’s intention, yet the conquests did continue and no doubt helped with their heady results to make Umar’s arrangements workable.``
Uthman, on accepting Abdur-Rahman’s (his cousin) conditions for khalifat, continued Umar’s policies, but he lacked Umar’s skills or vision, and was greatly influenced by his Ummayyid clansmen and so initiated the beginnings of the Ummayyid Khilafat. The soldier-tribesmen living in their garrison towns were to be governed by men of the Ummayyid family, to whom they had to keep giving revenues that they were collecting. The Ummayyids started traveling to the various town posts and engaging in unfair business practices with the protection of the state, and at the expense of the local Muslim communities. Complaints mounted, many towns rioted. Further military expeditions decreased and so did booty, raising the level of discontent. In the face of this widespread dissatisfaction about Ummayyid rule from Medina many delegations came to Ali requesting him to show some resistance to Uthman’s rule, most notably from the garrison town of Kufah in Iraq, sowing the seeds for the first Islamic civil war.
According to Hodgson, again, ``as a pledge of Arab unity was Uthman’s insistence on the use in all garrison towns of a single standardized collection of the Quranic verses. He caused all deviant editions to be burnt. This aroused considerable resentment among the Quran reciters, many of whom had their own versions, varying in minor details.`` Soon afterwards (656 AD), Uthman was murdered, most likely by mutineers from Egypt.
Evidence suggests that at this point, given the widespread disaffection of Muslims living in conquered lands, Ali was reluctant to accept the khilafat, but was persuaded by a strange alliance of individuals - those who were of the opinion that Ali should have been the successor in the first place, and those among the Ansaar, Iraqis (Kufans and Basrans), and others belonging to garrison towns in other conquered parts who wanted revenge against Ummayid policies in their towns.
Ali was khalifa for almost 5 years, all five of which were characterized by constant strife among the Muslim community. Shortly after assuming leadership, Ayesha, on the encouragement of Talha and Zubair launched into battle (656AD), to avenge Ali’s lack of punishment of Uthman’s killers. Meanwhile, the Ummayyid Mauwiya , the previously appointed governor of Syria, refused to relinquish his post and started his own attack in 657AD, also to avenge Uthman’s murder. A lengthy and bloody battle at Siffin followed, which was finally ended by arbitration in 658 AD (when Mauwiya’s army started to lose, they raised the Quran on their swords and called for negotiation according to God’s word, which Ali accepted, appointing a mediator from among the Kufans). However, many of the Kufans felt that justice had not been served and the Ummayids not been punished enough for their actions during Uthman’s rule. These (the Khawaraj or Seceders) became bitterly opposed to the decision to accept arbitration and let Mauwiya stay in power in Syria. They formed their own party and engaged in battle against Ali, one of them eventually murdering him in 661AD. Meanwhile, Mauwiya, also conquering Egypt started official Ummayyid khilafat from Damascus in 660 AD, comprising of Egypt and Syria (later of course including all the other middle-eastern territories). Here it is important to point out, that upon Ali’s death, Mauwiya was able to reach an agreement with Ali’s son, Hasan (some say he was bribed, the Shia say he had no choice but to accept since Mauwiya heavily bribed Hasan’s supporters, so that he was left without much of a following) that he would not have any political voice in the Muslim community, and in return would be allowed to live in Medina with a financial settlement or pension.
With this backdrop, to answer your question:
Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?
If there was an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran, Ali certainly would have known of it because he was the most highly regarded Quranic scholar of the time. So then what follows is either:
a) there was no difference. This seems unlikely since there are numerous references that say Uthman had all differing Quranic versions burnt, and one standardized version accepted during his khilafat.
b) there were minor differences which Ali chose to ignore. Also seems unlikely given Ali’s character and reputation, but perhaps he did, in the interest of not exacerbating further strife and giving more voice to the puritan Khawarij. Here, one should also consider that many of the Prophet’s companions had urged Ali to declare himself as the rightful successor to Mohammad, rather than accept Abu Bakr and Umar as khalifas, but he refused to consider it - if he had wanted, he could have challenged their authority to rule, and plunged the fledgling Islam into mortal danger - but he didn’t. He overlooked his own interests (and perhaps those of the Prophet), in the larger interest of the Islamic community. He may have used similar reasoning, if he considered the Quranic differences minor.
c) there were minor (or significant) Quranic differences which Ali pointed out during and after the final compilation of the Quran. However, since after Ali’s death, Hasan was neutralized, Hussain was killed, the Ummayids held absolute power for another 90 years and relentlessly persecuted anyone who dared to support the Shia viewpoint, it is possible that all such evidence was simply destroyed.
Then you ask: was it (the ``correct version of the HQ) ever introduced? Seems like it wasn’t a good time to introduce it then and it isn’t a good time now either!
I believe the first part of the question is answered in the background above. I do not see the logic in the second statement. What would you do, IF these Yemeni Qurans turn out to be slightly different from the Uthmanic Quran? Destroy them like Uthman did? Why can’t those who want to, live with an alternative version? And why should those who are interested in exploring alternate versions of the Quran purely for historical reasons be denied the opportunity to do so.
Then you ask: did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue? Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy? Perhaps the posheeda imam has a notorized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!``
Shias and Sunnis are divided on the basis of differing views on the succession to Mohammad, and what early Islam should have concerned itself with. If anyone can be blamed it should be Allah and Mohammad for not making such important issues as the form of government under which Muslims live, clear. On the other hand, as many modern Islamic scholars have pointed out, this leaves modern Muslims with considerable freedom to decide their own political systems.
On the question of whether the posheeda Imam has the ``correct`` version of the Quran, it depends on whether one believes in the Occultation. If one does, one would tend to believe that he would have the ``correct`` version, if indeed the current one is ``incorrect`` Since Wasiq hasn’t stated whether he believes in the Occultation (a whole different discussion), I can’t really say.
Finally, you ask ``how would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?
This is somewhat unanswerable since it didn’t happen. I would like to think that it would have been closer to an esoteric Sufi interpretation of Islam, but of course this is pure speculation. On the other hand, there is no doubt about what did happen when Mauwiya interpreted the role of khalifa (which means representative or messenger of Mohammad) in conventional imperialistic terms - we inherited a situation no different, for example, from the Saudi Arabian monarchy today.
Anita
Good questions. To answer them, some more background is in order.
It seems clear that other than Mohammad’s declaration at Ghadir Khumm of ‘man kuntu mawlahu fa- Ali mawlahu’ (He of whom I am the guide, of him Ali is also the guide) a few months before his death, he left no clear-cut instructions of what the nature of the state should be after his death - neither does the Quran (at least the version that we have of it) elucidate this point further.
It is also clear that Abu Bakr and Umar had a vision of an Islamic state that involved unity under a single leader and that was militarist in nature. The evidence also suggests that Ali (rightly or wrongly) did not support the first two khalifas in their military ambitions. He in fact declined khilafat when it was offered to him on the death of Umar, when Abdur-Rahman (to whom Umar had given the casting vote among the council of 6 men who were to decide the next khalifa), because it was offered on the condition that ‘Ali should rule in accordance with the Quran, the example of the Prophet, AND the precedents established by the first two khalifas. According to the Shia viewpoint, Ali was more interested in further elucidation and esoteric exploration of Islamic teachings and tenets- an inward look if you will, rather than an outward spread of Islam.
In addition to aggressive campaigns to bring the ‘apostasized’ Bedouin tribes back under submission, full scale conquests of settled lands were launched to replace their governments with Muslim rule. A military garrison was formed in each town that was conquered, with a commander representing the khalifa from Mecca - and charged with leading the prayers, launching further military expeditions from there, and managing the jaziya and booty collected, which was distributed among the conquering armies, as well as a portion remitted to the Muslims living in Mecca and Medina (there is no evidence that Abu Bakr or Umar personally amassed any wealth from the conquests). According to Hodgson (In the first volume of the 3 volume, The Venture of Islam): ``with the distribution of booty as the most attractive physical resource of the state, it was obviously desirable to continue the conquests; and though this may not have been Umar’s intention, yet the conquests did continue and no doubt helped with their heady results to make Umar’s arrangements workable.``
Uthman, on accepting Abdur-Rahman’s (his cousin) conditions for khalifat, continued Umar’s policies, but he lacked Umar’s skills or vision, and was greatly influenced by his Ummayyid clansmen and so initiated the beginnings of the Ummayyid Khilafat. The soldier-tribesmen living in their garrison towns were to be governed by men of the Ummayyid family, to whom they had to keep giving revenues that they were collecting. The Ummayyids started traveling to the various town posts and engaging in unfair business practices with the protection of the state, and at the expense of the local Muslim communities. Complaints mounted, many towns rioted. Further military expeditions decreased and so did booty, raising the level of discontent. In the face of this widespread dissatisfaction about Ummayyid rule from Medina many delegations came to Ali requesting him to show some resistance to Uthman’s rule, most notably from the garrison town of Kufah in Iraq, sowing the seeds for the first Islamic civil war.
According to Hodgson, again, ``as a pledge of Arab unity was Uthman’s insistence on the use in all garrison towns of a single standardized collection of the Quranic verses. He caused all deviant editions to be burnt. This aroused considerable resentment among the Quran reciters, many of whom had their own versions, varying in minor details.`` Soon afterwards (656 AD), Uthman was murdered, most likely by mutineers from Egypt.
Evidence suggests that at this point, given the widespread disaffection of Muslims living in conquered lands, Ali was reluctant to accept the khilafat, but was persuaded by a strange alliance of individuals - those who were of the opinion that Ali should have been the successor in the first place, and those among the Ansaar, Iraqis (Kufans and Basrans), and others belonging to garrison towns in other conquered parts who wanted revenge against Ummayid policies in their towns.
Ali was khalifa for almost 5 years, all five of which were characterized by constant strife among the Muslim community. Shortly after assuming leadership, Ayesha, on the encouragement of Talha and Zubair launched into battle (656AD), to avenge Ali’s lack of punishment of Uthman’s killers. Meanwhile, the Ummayyid Mauwiya , the previously appointed governor of Syria, refused to relinquish his post and started his own attack in 657AD, also to avenge Uthman’s murder. A lengthy and bloody battle at Siffin followed, which was finally ended by arbitration in 658 AD (when Mauwiya’s army started to lose, they raised the Quran on their swords and called for negotiation according to God’s word, which Ali accepted, appointing a mediator from among the Kufans). However, many of the Kufans felt that justice had not been served and the Ummayids not been punished enough for their actions during Uthman’s rule. These (the Khawaraj or Seceders) became bitterly opposed to the decision to accept arbitration and let Mauwiya stay in power in Syria. They formed their own party and engaged in battle against Ali, one of them eventually murdering him in 661AD. Meanwhile, Mauwiya, also conquering Egypt started official Ummayyid khilafat from Damascus in 660 AD, comprising of Egypt and Syria (later of course including all the other middle-eastern territories). Here it is important to point out, that upon Ali’s death, Mauwiya was able to reach an agreement with Ali’s son, Hasan (some say he was bribed, the Shia say he had no choice but to accept since Mauwiya heavily bribed Hasan’s supporters, so that he was left without much of a following) that he would not have any political voice in the Muslim community, and in return would be allowed to live in Medina with a financial settlement or pension.
With this backdrop, to answer your question:
Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?
If there was an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran, Ali certainly would have known of it because he was the most highly regarded Quranic scholar of the time. So then what follows is either:
a) there was no difference. This seems unlikely since there are numerous references that say Uthman had all differing Quranic versions burnt, and one standardized version accepted during his khilafat.
b) there were minor differences which Ali chose to ignore. Also seems unlikely given Ali’s character and reputation, but perhaps he did, in the interest of not exacerbating further strife and giving more voice to the puritan Khawarij. Here, one should also consider that many of the Prophet’s companions had urged Ali to declare himself as the rightful successor to Mohammad, rather than accept Abu Bakr and Umar as khalifas, but he refused to consider it - if he had wanted, he could have challenged their authority to rule, and plunged the fledgling Islam into mortal danger - but he didn’t. He overlooked his own interests (and perhaps those of the Prophet), in the larger interest of the Islamic community. He may have used similar reasoning, if he considered the Quranic differences minor.
c) there were minor (or significant) Quranic differences which Ali pointed out during and after the final compilation of the Quran. However, since after Ali’s death, Hasan was neutralized, Hussain was killed, the Ummayids held absolute power for another 90 years and relentlessly persecuted anyone who dared to support the Shia viewpoint, it is possible that all such evidence was simply destroyed.
Then you ask: was it (the ``correct version of the HQ) ever introduced? Seems like it wasn’t a good time to introduce it then and it isn’t a good time now either!
I believe the first part of the question is answered in the background above. I do not see the logic in the second statement. What would you do, IF these Yemeni Qurans turn out to be slightly different from the Uthmanic Quran? Destroy them like Uthman did? Why can’t those who want to, live with an alternative version? And why should those who are interested in exploring alternate versions of the Quran purely for historical reasons be denied the opportunity to do so.
Then you ask: did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue? Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy? Perhaps the posheeda imam has a notorized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!``
Shias and Sunnis are divided on the basis of differing views on the succession to Mohammad, and what early Islam should have concerned itself with. If anyone can be blamed it should be Allah and Mohammad for not making such important issues as the form of government under which Muslims live, clear. On the other hand, as many modern Islamic scholars have pointed out, this leaves modern Muslims with considerable freedom to decide their own political systems.
On the question of whether the posheeda Imam has the ``correct`` version of the Quran, it depends on whether one believes in the Occultation. If one does, one would tend to believe that he would have the ``correct`` version, if indeed the current one is ``incorrect`` Since Wasiq hasn’t stated whether he believes in the Occultation (a whole different discussion), I can’t really say.
Finally, you ask ``how would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?
This is somewhat unanswerable since it didn’t happen. I would like to think that it would have been closer to an esoteric Sufi interpretation of Islam, but of course this is pure speculation. On the other hand, there is no doubt about what did happen when Mauwiya interpreted the role of khalifa (which means representative or messenger of Mohammad) in conventional imperialistic terms - we inherited a situation no different, for example, from the Saudi Arabian monarchy today.
Anita
#71 Posted by Kafir on January 21, 1999 3:51:20 pm
Re: Wasiq (71) please ignore last post- it was sent prematurely
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical? ``Subjective`` knowledge, IMHO, just seems like an ignorant or lazy attempt at explaining the complexity of experience and reality without the rigors of objective inquiry.
Also, objective knowledge is coherent across time and cultures. Darwin, Einstein, Dirac, Gauss, etc., do not contradict one another. The proponents of ``subjective`` knowledge, like Muhammad, Buddha, Jesus, Baha`u`llah, Ghulam Ahmed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc, often do contradict one another. If subjective knowledge is just as ``true`` as objective knowledge, why the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the former?
`` Our methods for attaining subjective knowledge fall under the rubric of religions..`` And I would also add Art to that, though Art doesn`t make claims to absolute truths as does religion (and thus, IMO, is much more valuable, leaving absolute truths to the realm of objective scientific inquiry).
``I believe that there is more than what begets the eye, that there are unknown knowledges, both objective and subjective, which I call the Underlying Unknown.``
Could you entertain the idea that this belief in the Underlying Unknown is itself the result of your biological and cultural heritage, and not a transcendent, independent truth?
``I am very happy for you that you have let your heart lead your mind. To me, just that instinctive distinction within us between the heart and the mind, shows that we still have a long way to go before we say we understand. ``
Actually, I was referring to heart and mind in a metaphorical sense; heart being the emotional element and mind the rational one. In truth, I see both elements as products of the brain, and the distinction between the two is not very great. Brain science is slowly dissolving this distinction, allowing us to understand the physiological basis of these phenomena.
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical? ``Subjective`` knowledge, IMHO, just seems like an ignorant or lazy attempt at explaining the complexity of experience and reality without the rigors of objective inquiry.
Also, objective knowledge is coherent across time and cultures. Darwin, Einstein, Dirac, Gauss, etc., do not contradict one another. The proponents of ``subjective`` knowledge, like Muhammad, Buddha, Jesus, Baha`u`llah, Ghulam Ahmed, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, etc, often do contradict one another. If subjective knowledge is just as ``true`` as objective knowledge, why the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the former?
`` Our methods for attaining subjective knowledge fall under the rubric of religions..`` And I would also add Art to that, though Art doesn`t make claims to absolute truths as does religion (and thus, IMO, is much more valuable, leaving absolute truths to the realm of objective scientific inquiry).
``I believe that there is more than what begets the eye, that there are unknown knowledges, both objective and subjective, which I call the Underlying Unknown.``
Could you entertain the idea that this belief in the Underlying Unknown is itself the result of your biological and cultural heritage, and not a transcendent, independent truth?
``I am very happy for you that you have let your heart lead your mind. To me, just that instinctive distinction within us between the heart and the mind, shows that we still have a long way to go before we say we understand. ``
Actually, I was referring to heart and mind in a metaphorical sense; heart being the emotional element and mind the rational one. In truth, I see both elements as products of the brain, and the distinction between the two is not very great. Brain science is slowly dissolving this distinction, allowing us to understand the physiological basis of these phenomena.
#70 Posted by Kafir on January 21, 1999 3:51:20 pm
Re: Wasiq (71)
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical?
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical?
#69 Posted by Kafir on January 21, 1999 3:51:20 pm
Re: Wasiq (71)
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical?
Thanks for your thorough and honest response.
Regarding your categories of subjective and objective knowledge and your statement that ``clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method``: But aren`t these three criteria the basis for knowledge itself? If something is not definable, verifiable, or falsifiable, then what is it? Isn`t it just fantasy/ imagination? And isn`t it totally impractical?
#68 Posted by rishi on January 21, 1999 3:51:20 pm
Re: Wasiq
``This Underlying Unknown in my opinion is also called Allah, or God, or Brahman, ``
-- First time i hear a Muslim say this. Thanx
Rishi
``This Underlying Unknown in my opinion is also called Allah, or God, or Brahman, ``
-- First time i hear a Muslim say this. Thanx
Rishi
#67 Posted by rehanrizvi on January 21, 1999 3:51:20 pm
On The Authenticity of the Holy Qur`an
For overwhelming majority of ALL Islamic scholars no matter which sect they belong to, there is NO doubt that the Qur`an in it`s present form is the same Qur`an that was revealed to the Prophet, word for word. A tiny minority of scholars, both Shiah and Sunni, do believe there might have been a few subtle changes, such as Zer, Zabar, Pesh. But their opinion is not based on irrefutable facts. Here are the facts:
* First, a word of caution: For those people who question the very basis of Qur`an, i.e., Divine revelation, this argument may not be sufficient as it assumes that 1) Qur`an is the word of God, and 2) There exists a large number of authentic ahadith, accepted by both Shiah and Sunni scholars as such, with substantial references and cross-references, to corroborate this fact.
There actually exists an entire science of research and analysis of Ahadith and traditions of the Prophet. Ilm-al-Hadith and Ilm-al-Rijaal must be mastered by any Islamic scholar who wants to be considered seriously by their peers. In Ilm-al-Rijaal, every hadith is checked and cross-checked for consistency of subject and contents, the chain of narrators, number and quality of narrators, and a close study of each narrator`s life and his/her affiliations, beliefs and background to remove even an iota of doubt.
The most authentic ahadith are the ones that are narrated by several of the most reliable narrators. The collection of ahadith in the Six-Sihas includes ahadith that are considered irrefutable, to the ones that are not considered reliable enough to be considered seriously. The Four-Books of Shiah fiqh include numerous ahadith that are listed in the Six-Sihas, in addition to the ones narrated by the Ahl-al-Bayt and their followers and which for political reasones were not included in the Six-Sihas. The ahadith accepted by both Shiah and Sunni scholars as the most authentic, are the basis for proving the case for the genuineness of the Holy Qur`an here.
* It is narrated from the prophet that angel Gabriel used to recite the entire Holy Qur`an once every year to the prophet. When he once recited the Qur`an twice, the prophet said he knew that his time to leave this world had come.
* There were a number of scribes assigned to immediately write down every word of the revelation and they immediately showed it to the prophet for corrections. Among these scribes included such high-ranking companions of the prophet as Ali ibne Abi Talib, Jafar ibne Abi Talib, Mas`ab bin Umayr, Ubbay ibne Ka`ab, Abdullah ibne Abbas, Hudhayfa and others.
* Hudhayfa had memorized the entire Qur`an like many other Sahaba and recited it in it`s entirety twice before the prophet before his death.
* When an attempt was made during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar to publish an official version of the Qur`an, it was ignored by the noted sahabas who continued to circulate and teach the Qur`an that was compiled during the time of the prophet. One of the reasons was the inexperience and age of the person made in charge of the effort. Zayd was a rather young man and not famous for his scholarship of the Qur`an and had no standing at the time in the sahaba to lead such an effort. The Qur`an that he compiled was not accepted by the sahaba and it is said to be this Qur`an that was put away by Abu Bakr and a part of which was consumed by a goat at Ayesha`s residence. Both Umar and Abu Bakr never again made any attempt at it again.
* In the time of Uthman, when soldiers in the outposts of the expanding empire heard slight variations in the reciting of the Qur`an, they reported it to the authorities and thus began a second effort in the time of Uthman to publish a standard official version. Zayd again was made responsible but this time he did nothing but act on the suggestions made by Hudhayfa and made official the version that Hudhayfa had recited before the prophet in his time and which was the only version known by sahabas. This new official version was already known as the correct version and the only thing that happened was that an official stamp was put on it and it was officially published and widely made available in the length and breadth of the empire.
* Abu Zar Ghaffari criticized the practices and deviation from Qur`an and Sunnah and the usurpation of the Bayt-al-Maal by Uthman at every chance he got. And he was eventually exiled to the desert along with his family by Uthman for doing so, and where he finally breathed his last. A sahabi of his piousness, stature and record would have spoken out vehemently if there were any changes or deviations made by anyone in the Holy Qur`an before, during or after the compilation in Uthman`s administration.
* The speculations and unreliable narrations about a different Qur`an in possession of Ali ibne Abi Talib are just that. The only thing that was different in the Qur`an compiled by Ali was the commentary that he said was dictated to him by the prophet himself and which was not accepted by Abu Bakar and Umar for political reasons. He took it back and the Imams that followed him inherited that copy.
* Many people criticize Ali ibne Abi Talib for engaging Muawiah in war too soon for his own good. They say that he should have waited and consolidated his government for a few years before sending for replacement of a governer as strong as Muawiah. But Ali said he had to answer to God for every second of his rule and hence he could not let someone as corrupt as Muawiah stay in power and defy Islam for even one day while Ali was still the Caliph. Considering this background, it is illogical and irrational to say that Ali, someone who had the intent, the power and the knowledge to set straight anyone and anything that was against the Qur`an and Sunnah, let alone the Qur`an itself, not say or do anything about it, if there was anything wrong.
* Shiahs believe that there are twelve Imams who followed the prophet as his Caliphs. The administration of the government and the teaching and implementation of the true Islamic law with the help of divine guidance were two responsibilities that were part of the job of a Caliph. Their right to administer the Islamic government was usurped, but they were still responsible for teaching and implementation of the true Islamic law. Had the Qur`an compiled by Uthman been any different from the one they had inherited from Ali, they would have mentioned it repeatedly to set straight the Muslims. Or at least made enough copies to make sure that their Shiahs had the true version. The willingness to sacrifice their lives and their families for preservation of true Islam was shown in Karbala by Hussain, the second Imam of Shiahs, and by the Shahadat of every single Imam who followed him by the hands of Umayyads, Abbasids and others. If the Qur`an in circulation at the time was different from the original version, Hussain, and other Imams after him, would have at least said something if there was any doubt about the authenticity of the book they believed as the last Divine revelation and the final word of God until the day of Qayamat.
* When the prophet said in his last sermon that he was leaving two things among his followers, the book of Allah and his Ahl-al-Bayt, according to 105 different narrators in the Six-Sihas, or the book of Allah and his Sunnah, as believed by Sunnis, he was not talking about a collection of parchments, bones, hides and wood. He was referring to the book the compilation of which he had supervised personally. In the same manner that the prophet did not mean ``friend``, as interpreted by Sunnis, in his proclamation at Ghadeer when he said ``Munn koonto Maula Fa`haza Ali`un Maula,`` but his successor; similarly he did not mean some fragments and parchments, that were not even in one place as believed by some, when he said I am leaving you the book of Allah and my Ahl-al-Bayt.
* And when prophet wished for a paper and a pen so he could record his last will, and nominate his successor as speculated by Shiahs and perhaps as was feared by Umar at the time, Umar accused him of being ill and out of his mind, and proclaimed that ``Hasbuna Kitab ullah``, the book of Allah alone is sufficient for us. Surely there existed a book that he was referring to and not some fragments and parchments in possession of not one but numerous different sahabas.
There is no doubt that the Qur`an we have is the same Qur`an that was revealed to the prophet.
Well, this is all I could remember on this subject and most of it I believe I remember from reading `The Essence of Holy Qur`an`, by Ayatullah Agha Mirza Mehdi Poya. Please do correct me where necessary.
Rehan Rizvi.
For overwhelming majority of ALL Islamic scholars no matter which sect they belong to, there is NO doubt that the Qur`an in it`s present form is the same Qur`an that was revealed to the Prophet, word for word. A tiny minority of scholars, both Shiah and Sunni, do believe there might have been a few subtle changes, such as Zer, Zabar, Pesh. But their opinion is not based on irrefutable facts. Here are the facts:
* First, a word of caution: For those people who question the very basis of Qur`an, i.e., Divine revelation, this argument may not be sufficient as it assumes that 1) Qur`an is the word of God, and 2) There exists a large number of authentic ahadith, accepted by both Shiah and Sunni scholars as such, with substantial references and cross-references, to corroborate this fact.
There actually exists an entire science of research and analysis of Ahadith and traditions of the Prophet. Ilm-al-Hadith and Ilm-al-Rijaal must be mastered by any Islamic scholar who wants to be considered seriously by their peers. In Ilm-al-Rijaal, every hadith is checked and cross-checked for consistency of subject and contents, the chain of narrators, number and quality of narrators, and a close study of each narrator`s life and his/her affiliations, beliefs and background to remove even an iota of doubt.
The most authentic ahadith are the ones that are narrated by several of the most reliable narrators. The collection of ahadith in the Six-Sihas includes ahadith that are considered irrefutable, to the ones that are not considered reliable enough to be considered seriously. The Four-Books of Shiah fiqh include numerous ahadith that are listed in the Six-Sihas, in addition to the ones narrated by the Ahl-al-Bayt and their followers and which for political reasones were not included in the Six-Sihas. The ahadith accepted by both Shiah and Sunni scholars as the most authentic, are the basis for proving the case for the genuineness of the Holy Qur`an here.
* It is narrated from the prophet that angel Gabriel used to recite the entire Holy Qur`an once every year to the prophet. When he once recited the Qur`an twice, the prophet said he knew that his time to leave this world had come.
* There were a number of scribes assigned to immediately write down every word of the revelation and they immediately showed it to the prophet for corrections. Among these scribes included such high-ranking companions of the prophet as Ali ibne Abi Talib, Jafar ibne Abi Talib, Mas`ab bin Umayr, Ubbay ibne Ka`ab, Abdullah ibne Abbas, Hudhayfa and others.
* Hudhayfa had memorized the entire Qur`an like many other Sahaba and recited it in it`s entirety twice before the prophet before his death.
* When an attempt was made during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar to publish an official version of the Qur`an, it was ignored by the noted sahabas who continued to circulate and teach the Qur`an that was compiled during the time of the prophet. One of the reasons was the inexperience and age of the person made in charge of the effort. Zayd was a rather young man and not famous for his scholarship of the Qur`an and had no standing at the time in the sahaba to lead such an effort. The Qur`an that he compiled was not accepted by the sahaba and it is said to be this Qur`an that was put away by Abu Bakr and a part of which was consumed by a goat at Ayesha`s residence. Both Umar and Abu Bakr never again made any attempt at it again.
* In the time of Uthman, when soldiers in the outposts of the expanding empire heard slight variations in the reciting of the Qur`an, they reported it to the authorities and thus began a second effort in the time of Uthman to publish a standard official version. Zayd again was made responsible but this time he did nothing but act on the suggestions made by Hudhayfa and made official the version that Hudhayfa had recited before the prophet in his time and which was the only version known by sahabas. This new official version was already known as the correct version and the only thing that happened was that an official stamp was put on it and it was officially published and widely made available in the length and breadth of the empire.
* Abu Zar Ghaffari criticized the practices and deviation from Qur`an and Sunnah and the usurpation of the Bayt-al-Maal by Uthman at every chance he got. And he was eventually exiled to the desert along with his family by Uthman for doing so, and where he finally breathed his last. A sahabi of his piousness, stature and record would have spoken out vehemently if there were any changes or deviations made by anyone in the Holy Qur`an before, during or after the compilation in Uthman`s administration.
* The speculations and unreliable narrations about a different Qur`an in possession of Ali ibne Abi Talib are just that. The only thing that was different in the Qur`an compiled by Ali was the commentary that he said was dictated to him by the prophet himself and which was not accepted by Abu Bakar and Umar for political reasons. He took it back and the Imams that followed him inherited that copy.
* Many people criticize Ali ibne Abi Talib for engaging Muawiah in war too soon for his own good. They say that he should have waited and consolidated his government for a few years before sending for replacement of a governer as strong as Muawiah. But Ali said he had to answer to God for every second of his rule and hence he could not let someone as corrupt as Muawiah stay in power and defy Islam for even one day while Ali was still the Caliph. Considering this background, it is illogical and irrational to say that Ali, someone who had the intent, the power and the knowledge to set straight anyone and anything that was against the Qur`an and Sunnah, let alone the Qur`an itself, not say or do anything about it, if there was anything wrong.
* Shiahs believe that there are twelve Imams who followed the prophet as his Caliphs. The administration of the government and the teaching and implementation of the true Islamic law with the help of divine guidance were two responsibilities that were part of the job of a Caliph. Their right to administer the Islamic government was usurped, but they were still responsible for teaching and implementation of the true Islamic law. Had the Qur`an compiled by Uthman been any different from the one they had inherited from Ali, they would have mentioned it repeatedly to set straight the Muslims. Or at least made enough copies to make sure that their Shiahs had the true version. The willingness to sacrifice their lives and their families for preservation of true Islam was shown in Karbala by Hussain, the second Imam of Shiahs, and by the Shahadat of every single Imam who followed him by the hands of Umayyads, Abbasids and others. If the Qur`an in circulation at the time was different from the original version, Hussain, and other Imams after him, would have at least said something if there was any doubt about the authenticity of the book they believed as the last Divine revelation and the final word of God until the day of Qayamat.
* When the prophet said in his last sermon that he was leaving two things among his followers, the book of Allah and his Ahl-al-Bayt, according to 105 different narrators in the Six-Sihas, or the book of Allah and his Sunnah, as believed by Sunnis, he was not talking about a collection of parchments, bones, hides and wood. He was referring to the book the compilation of which he had supervised personally. In the same manner that the prophet did not mean ``friend``, as interpreted by Sunnis, in his proclamation at Ghadeer when he said ``Munn koonto Maula Fa`haza Ali`un Maula,`` but his successor; similarly he did not mean some fragments and parchments, that were not even in one place as believed by some, when he said I am leaving you the book of Allah and my Ahl-al-Bayt.
* And when prophet wished for a paper and a pen so he could record his last will, and nominate his successor as speculated by Shiahs and perhaps as was feared by Umar at the time, Umar accused him of being ill and out of his mind, and proclaimed that ``Hasbuna Kitab ullah``, the book of Allah alone is sufficient for us. Surely there existed a book that he was referring to and not some fragments and parchments in possession of not one but numerous different sahabas.
There is no doubt that the Qur`an we have is the same Qur`an that was revealed to the prophet.
Well, this is all I could remember on this subject and most of it I believe I remember from reading `The Essence of Holy Qur`an`, by Ayatullah Agha Mirza Mehdi Poya. Please do correct me where necessary.
Rehan Rizvi.
#66 Posted by wasiq on January 21, 1999 3:07:07 pm
Re: Matha(60)
``Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall ...``
Let me see, by saying this you are implying the following:
We see a person A intending to do something, yet does not do so. If I were to say that his circumstances prevented him from doing so, then I am not to be taken seriously since if the person A REALLY wanted to do it, he/she would have done it regardless of the circumstances.
This reasoning in my view is naive and spurious, befitting of a fantastic children`s fable, but not a history book.
I personally have wanted to do many things, but have not done them because: (a) Given my circumstances it was not possible (b) My doing them would cause some other factors in my life to go out of balance.
Now let me turn to our immediate history, all of these following gentlemen REALLY wanted to do something but could not do so entirely because of their circumstances: Hitler (bring in the Third Reich, prevented by the war of his own construction), Gandhi (change the rule in united India and some aspects of the caste system, prevented/influenced by the prevalent Hindu-Muslim sentiments, the sentiments of the Hindu right and his own assasination), Jinnah (presumably the definition of Pakistan as a modern nation state, prevented/influenced by the political atmosphere in the Hindu-Muslim-British triad and his own rapidly declining health) ... the list is long but you get the point.
Let me answer your comments, they have already been discussed in this forum. I will post a list of references later, since I do not recall the exact page numbers etc. off the top of my head.
Yes people were fully aware of the fact that the Quran that was compiled by Uthman was neither complete nor was the Quran that was present in the time of the Prophet. People were aware of the omissions. I am quoting some of these for your reference (excuse me for not going into more detail):
1) Allama Jalal-ud-din Suyuti quotes Ibn Umar in Kitab ul Manshur: ``A large part of the Quran has been lost``. Amongst the losses, a large part of Surah Ahzab and Ayat-e Rajam. Ayat Rajam is not present in the Quran today. See next reference.
2) Hazrat Aisha: ``In the time of the Prophet, people used to recite 200 ayats of Surah Ahzab. When Uthman compiled the Quran, we could only find what there are presently``. (Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Chapter Rajam, Musnad Imam Hunbal Vol. 1, Mota-e Imam Malik)
3) Surah Tobah in the Quran today, is only one-third or one-fourth of the one during the time of the Prophet. (Related by renowned scholars like Tibrani, Abu Shaiba, Abul-Sheikh, Ibn-AlMunzir, Jalal-ud-din Suyuti, Fakhr-ud din Razi)
4) Hazrat Aisha on the loss of Ayat-e Rajam and Ayat-e Raza` (Allama Fakhr-ud din Uthman in Al-tabian ul-Haqaiq Sharah Kinz-ul Daqaiq)
5) The nephew of Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Masoor bin Muhzima asked Abdur-Rahman bin Auf ``Do you find the ayat ... in the Quran, we do not find it.`` The answer of Auf ``This ayat was also dropped with that part of the Quran that was lost.`` (Tafseer Ut-Taqan, Kinz-ul Amal)
6) Hazrat Aisha was of the opinion that Uthman unlawfully modified the Quran (Tafseer Ut-Taqan).
All this just to show you that YES within the Muslim tradition, people did believe that the compiled Quran was not complete. (Also refer to earlier postings about the method of the collection of the Quran). Taken from this point, one should say, that the version introduced in the time of Uthman was not the complete version. (Your choice of the word ``correct`` is loaded and serves to detract from the main issue under discussion here). SOme of the missing ayahs have survived and have been commented on, but of course only within the SHi`a tradition (and not all of them deal with the family of the prophet etc. if you are wondering). However due to the order of Uthman that all differing copies be destroyed on discovery has probably made the recovery of the original revelation very difficult, if not impossible.
On the question of whether the final Shia Imam has the correct copy or not, I think that is irrelevant to this discussion, because that is a matter of faith whereas here we are talking about what we can reconstruct could have happened given our historical sources.
Now coming to your other comments:
``The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim...``
The question is not merely that of wealth hungry, but of being power hungry foremost. I have not, neither do I know of anyone, who has pointed to Abu Bakr in particular for being wealth hungry. The primary blame on these two esteemed gentlemen is that they were power hungry, and in their effort to assume leadership of the fledgling Muslim community, set into motion a set of events whose only logical outcome was that the pre-Islamic Makkan wealth should become the de facto rulers of the Islamic world in the form of Banu Umayya. This is their biggest mistake. These two gentlemen, and not merely Uthman, were directly responsible for the alienation of the Ansar, for the oppression of the Ahl-e Bait, for the rise to power of post-Makkan-conquest converts in particular the family of Abu Sufyan and lastly and most damagingly the string of military campaigns that has permanently damaged Islam.
These two gentlemen turned the focus of an immature and unsteady Muslim community into military warfare. Instead of concentrating on solidifying our moral, spiritual and philosophical roots, we started sending armies of hormone-controlled youths in their twenties to pillage and plunder all the countries around Arabia. Do you think under these circumstances these people could have come up with a MORAL or a CONCEPTUAL revolution that Islam was intended to be? The answer is no.
What happened to Islam was a tragedy as a consequence. The spiritual meaning of the religion, which should have been carefully nurtured and matured was instead immediately lost, and in turn we adopted a religion that was an ambiguous mish-mash of the ideologies of the areas that the Arab marauders conquered.
Think about it, what is the spiritual basis of the religion that people call Islam? Is it in the string of victories that every lunatic Maulvi spews from pulpits across the world? Or is it in the loads of wealth that was produced in the process of pillaging everything around Arabia? Why is it that we are turned off by these things and are instead attracted to depth and force of concepts? Because that is where the spiritual basis of a religion resides. These gentlemen destroyed that basis, and in doing so destroyed Islam. No wonder everything else happened, because the real force that rules over the hearts of people was lost.
``Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?``
Yes, I am not only implying it, but stating it. He was an orphan, who was raised by his grandfather and then his uncle Abu Talib. His wife Khadija died the year he was boycotted and exiled. His cousin Ali, son of Abu Talib, left with him to Medina. All that was left in Makkah was lost. You know all of this, you tell me what is the answer?
``...about the position that expansionism would not have happened...``
The issue is first to separate the contexts of military expeditions. The first category being battles that were either directly defensive or pre-emptively defensive or were necessary for the survival of the community. The second category being the one in question, i.e. acts of clear aggression whose only purpose was to force people to accept Islam. Muhammed categorically never used or believed in using military means for the expansion of Islam. During his lifetime his method was to send emissaries to neighbouring kingdoms so that Islam could be introduced. He believed in the tradition of exchange of argument ... ``La Iqraha fid-din``. A case in point there being the Christian group of scholars that came to argue with him, no one was forced.
Looking at the first category now, even during military campaigns within Arabia, the condition that people convert to Islam for sanctuary was never employed.
The tradition ``Islam, Jizya or war`` was an unfortunate invention during the time of military expansionism after the death of the Prophet.
``How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?``
First you have to undergo a paradigm shift. Stop thinking of khilafat as a monarchy, otherwise you would not ask this question. Second, we have to treat the term monarchy itself with care. The concept of monarchy has changed over time, but we should keep in mind that the central issue at hand, that the concept of monarchy tries to address, is the issue of the leadership and focal point of a community.
Now within the Islamic context the answer is the following as I understand it. The leadership of a community is very critical, as we will both agree. Although a leader is not the absolute and de facto master of the people, he should be the best and the most able.
The criteria used to judge this are the (a) complete command of and dedication to the spiritual core of the religion so that every decision is a direct reflection of and in accordance with the divine will and (b) the intelligence and physical ability required to deal with the ever changing demands of the state.
The caliph does not and cannot control the means of livelihood, riches and properties of the people, as instruments to further his individual self. He is not an individual source of law, polity or ideology. He, or his family, thus does not gain property or wealth, nor is he, or his family, legally treated distinctly from any other citizen of the state. His mandate derives wholly from his ability to lead a community that derives its morality and sanctity from a common spiritual source. He is a temporal representative of the communally accepted laws, morality, cosmology and ambitions of the community, that derive from a divine source. He takes advice from everyone, but being the most able, is also aware of the potential pitfalls of public opinion regarding issues and therefore is assigned to serve as a leader of the community on such issues. Finally he serves as the role model for the people.
A monarchy is defined as follows: The undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term is applied to states in which the supreme authority is vested in a single person, the monarch, who is the permanent head of the state. Frequently the monarch became an absolute ruler, the only source of law, the only mainspring of administration.
In the case of a caliph, the supreme authority is neither vested in nor derived from him. It is vested in and derives from divinity. The caliph is not the supreme source of law in the state, neither is he a de facto master of the lives of the citizens. In all cases, therefore, a caliph is not a monarch.
best regards
``Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall ...``
Let me see, by saying this you are implying the following:
We see a person A intending to do something, yet does not do so. If I were to say that his circumstances prevented him from doing so, then I am not to be taken seriously since if the person A REALLY wanted to do it, he/she would have done it regardless of the circumstances.
This reasoning in my view is naive and spurious, befitting of a fantastic children`s fable, but not a history book.
I personally have wanted to do many things, but have not done them because: (a) Given my circumstances it was not possible (b) My doing them would cause some other factors in my life to go out of balance.
Now let me turn to our immediate history, all of these following gentlemen REALLY wanted to do something but could not do so entirely because of their circumstances: Hitler (bring in the Third Reich, prevented by the war of his own construction), Gandhi (change the rule in united India and some aspects of the caste system, prevented/influenced by the prevalent Hindu-Muslim sentiments, the sentiments of the Hindu right and his own assasination), Jinnah (presumably the definition of Pakistan as a modern nation state, prevented/influenced by the political atmosphere in the Hindu-Muslim-British triad and his own rapidly declining health) ... the list is long but you get the point.
Let me answer your comments, they have already been discussed in this forum. I will post a list of references later, since I do not recall the exact page numbers etc. off the top of my head.
Yes people were fully aware of the fact that the Quran that was compiled by Uthman was neither complete nor was the Quran that was present in the time of the Prophet. People were aware of the omissions. I am quoting some of these for your reference (excuse me for not going into more detail):
1) Allama Jalal-ud-din Suyuti quotes Ibn Umar in Kitab ul Manshur: ``A large part of the Quran has been lost``. Amongst the losses, a large part of Surah Ahzab and Ayat-e Rajam. Ayat Rajam is not present in the Quran today. See next reference.
2) Hazrat Aisha: ``In the time of the Prophet, people used to recite 200 ayats of Surah Ahzab. When Uthman compiled the Quran, we could only find what there are presently``. (Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Chapter Rajam, Musnad Imam Hunbal Vol. 1, Mota-e Imam Malik)
3) Surah Tobah in the Quran today, is only one-third or one-fourth of the one during the time of the Prophet. (Related by renowned scholars like Tibrani, Abu Shaiba, Abul-Sheikh, Ibn-AlMunzir, Jalal-ud-din Suyuti, Fakhr-ud din Razi)
4) Hazrat Aisha on the loss of Ayat-e Rajam and Ayat-e Raza` (Allama Fakhr-ud din Uthman in Al-tabian ul-Haqaiq Sharah Kinz-ul Daqaiq)
5) The nephew of Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Masoor bin Muhzima asked Abdur-Rahman bin Auf ``Do you find the ayat ... in the Quran, we do not find it.`` The answer of Auf ``This ayat was also dropped with that part of the Quran that was lost.`` (Tafseer Ut-Taqan, Kinz-ul Amal)
6) Hazrat Aisha was of the opinion that Uthman unlawfully modified the Quran (Tafseer Ut-Taqan).
All this just to show you that YES within the Muslim tradition, people did believe that the compiled Quran was not complete. (Also refer to earlier postings about the method of the collection of the Quran). Taken from this point, one should say, that the version introduced in the time of Uthman was not the complete version. (Your choice of the word ``correct`` is loaded and serves to detract from the main issue under discussion here). SOme of the missing ayahs have survived and have been commented on, but of course only within the SHi`a tradition (and not all of them deal with the family of the prophet etc. if you are wondering). However due to the order of Uthman that all differing copies be destroyed on discovery has probably made the recovery of the original revelation very difficult, if not impossible.
On the question of whether the final Shia Imam has the correct copy or not, I think that is irrelevant to this discussion, because that is a matter of faith whereas here we are talking about what we can reconstruct could have happened given our historical sources.
Now coming to your other comments:
``The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim...``
The question is not merely that of wealth hungry, but of being power hungry foremost. I have not, neither do I know of anyone, who has pointed to Abu Bakr in particular for being wealth hungry. The primary blame on these two esteemed gentlemen is that they were power hungry, and in their effort to assume leadership of the fledgling Muslim community, set into motion a set of events whose only logical outcome was that the pre-Islamic Makkan wealth should become the de facto rulers of the Islamic world in the form of Banu Umayya. This is their biggest mistake. These two gentlemen, and not merely Uthman, were directly responsible for the alienation of the Ansar, for the oppression of the Ahl-e Bait, for the rise to power of post-Makkan-conquest converts in particular the family of Abu Sufyan and lastly and most damagingly the string of military campaigns that has permanently damaged Islam.
These two gentlemen turned the focus of an immature and unsteady Muslim community into military warfare. Instead of concentrating on solidifying our moral, spiritual and philosophical roots, we started sending armies of hormone-controlled youths in their twenties to pillage and plunder all the countries around Arabia. Do you think under these circumstances these people could have come up with a MORAL or a CONCEPTUAL revolution that Islam was intended to be? The answer is no.
What happened to Islam was a tragedy as a consequence. The spiritual meaning of the religion, which should have been carefully nurtured and matured was instead immediately lost, and in turn we adopted a religion that was an ambiguous mish-mash of the ideologies of the areas that the Arab marauders conquered.
Think about it, what is the spiritual basis of the religion that people call Islam? Is it in the string of victories that every lunatic Maulvi spews from pulpits across the world? Or is it in the loads of wealth that was produced in the process of pillaging everything around Arabia? Why is it that we are turned off by these things and are instead attracted to depth and force of concepts? Because that is where the spiritual basis of a religion resides. These gentlemen destroyed that basis, and in doing so destroyed Islam. No wonder everything else happened, because the real force that rules over the hearts of people was lost.
``Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?``
Yes, I am not only implying it, but stating it. He was an orphan, who was raised by his grandfather and then his uncle Abu Talib. His wife Khadija died the year he was boycotted and exiled. His cousin Ali, son of Abu Talib, left with him to Medina. All that was left in Makkah was lost. You know all of this, you tell me what is the answer?
``...about the position that expansionism would not have happened...``
The issue is first to separate the contexts of military expeditions. The first category being battles that were either directly defensive or pre-emptively defensive or were necessary for the survival of the community. The second category being the one in question, i.e. acts of clear aggression whose only purpose was to force people to accept Islam. Muhammed categorically never used or believed in using military means for the expansion of Islam. During his lifetime his method was to send emissaries to neighbouring kingdoms so that Islam could be introduced. He believed in the tradition of exchange of argument ... ``La Iqraha fid-din``. A case in point there being the Christian group of scholars that came to argue with him, no one was forced.
Looking at the first category now, even during military campaigns within Arabia, the condition that people convert to Islam for sanctuary was never employed.
The tradition ``Islam, Jizya or war`` was an unfortunate invention during the time of military expansionism after the death of the Prophet.
``How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?``
First you have to undergo a paradigm shift. Stop thinking of khilafat as a monarchy, otherwise you would not ask this question. Second, we have to treat the term monarchy itself with care. The concept of monarchy has changed over time, but we should keep in mind that the central issue at hand, that the concept of monarchy tries to address, is the issue of the leadership and focal point of a community.
Now within the Islamic context the answer is the following as I understand it. The leadership of a community is very critical, as we will both agree. Although a leader is not the absolute and de facto master of the people, he should be the best and the most able.
The criteria used to judge this are the (a) complete command of and dedication to the spiritual core of the religion so that every decision is a direct reflection of and in accordance with the divine will and (b) the intelligence and physical ability required to deal with the ever changing demands of the state.
The caliph does not and cannot control the means of livelihood, riches and properties of the people, as instruments to further his individual self. He is not an individual source of law, polity or ideology. He, or his family, thus does not gain property or wealth, nor is he, or his family, legally treated distinctly from any other citizen of the state. His mandate derives wholly from his ability to lead a community that derives its morality and sanctity from a common spiritual source. He is a temporal representative of the communally accepted laws, morality, cosmology and ambitions of the community, that derive from a divine source. He takes advice from everyone, but being the most able, is also aware of the potential pitfalls of public opinion regarding issues and therefore is assigned to serve as a leader of the community on such issues. Finally he serves as the role model for the people.
A monarchy is defined as follows: The undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term is applied to states in which the supreme authority is vested in a single person, the monarch, who is the permanent head of the state. Frequently the monarch became an absolute ruler, the only source of law, the only mainspring of administration.
In the case of a caliph, the supreme authority is neither vested in nor derived from him. It is vested in and derives from divinity. The caliph is not the supreme source of law in the state, neither is he a de facto master of the lives of the citizens. In all cases, therefore, a caliph is not a monarch.
best regards
#65 Posted by temporal on January 21, 1999 1:34:15 pm
Noor:
First off, I thank you for replying to my query re:human intelligence.
You say, `` Human reason is not perfect, but the best thing we have (sic). It certainly does better than blind faith.......which is the hallmark of religious believers.``
Are we not talking from both sides of the mouth? If human intelligence is not perfect than the arguments we find here, both the mundane and the esoteric, are suspect to a degree.
And if I may, a personal query. Somewhere, you wrote that you have found your peace. Am not sure if you are an atheist or an agnostic, and that is not relevant here either. My query is, what do you think of the believers? Are they misguided, lost, dumb, whatever?
Kafir:
Would ask you the same query.
regards
First off, I thank you for replying to my query re:human intelligence.
You say, `` Human reason is not perfect, but the best thing we have (sic). It certainly does better than blind faith.......which is the hallmark of religious believers.``
Are we not talking from both sides of the mouth? If human intelligence is not perfect than the arguments we find here, both the mundane and the esoteric, are suspect to a degree.
And if I may, a personal query. Somewhere, you wrote that you have found your peace. Am not sure if you are an atheist or an agnostic, and that is not relevant here either. My query is, what do you think of the believers? Are they misguided, lost, dumb, whatever?
Kafir:
Would ask you the same query.
regards
#64 Posted by Kafir on January 21, 1999 12:12:46 pm
Re: Saima
``... why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.``
Rationality MUST be the basis of belief, otherwise belief is merely superstition. A Muslim must convince him/herself of the truth of Muhammad`s claim of prophethood through rational proofs, don`t you think? You don`t believe just because your parents and society told you to, right? If ``blind faith`` is acceptable as a basis of belief, then what distinguishes a follower of Muhammad from a follower of David Koresh or Jim Jones? How can one be right and the other wrong when there is no basis of rational discernment?
Also, I don`t agree that rationality is relative. It is a biologically-derived human faculty that spans time and culture. It is universal. Blind faith, on the other hand, is completely relative.
It is true that every age has its dogma, and those dogmatic beliefs should be toppled if contrary evidence emerges. Scientific, rational epistemologies can accept this caveat. Religious epistemologies based on unquestioning blind faith cannot.
Re: Altaf
Thanks for the website referral. Yes, when I talk of a real ``human nature`` and human morality, I and referring to a biologically derived one, not a metaphysical, transcendent one. Recent research in experimental psychology, psychobiology, anthropology, and neurobiology is adding a great deal of credilbility to this idea.
Re: temporal
``Are we not talking from both sides of the mouth? If human intelligence is not perfect than the arguments we find here, both the mundane and the esoteric, are suspect to a degree.``
Let`s accept that for argument`s sake, that both are imperfect. The question then becomes, which is more pragmatic for today`s world? Are the politics of religion or secular humanism more beneficial to humanity today and in the future? If systems of thought and society are to be derived from either one of these imperfect worldviews, which will be the least pernicious, the most universal, the most tolerant? I think secular humanism wins hands down.
``... what do you think of the believers? Are they misguided, lost, dumb, whatever?``
No, they are merely acting out the propensity for belief in a transcendent reality that they have inherited biologically and culturally from their ancestors. I think nature selected Homo sapiens for transcendent belief because such belief ensures social cohesion, tribal loyalties, and psychological well-being in a dangerous and mortal world. BUT- and this is a big but - now that we are gaining the knowledge of the basis of belief, we can understand it for what it is (a biological adaptation) and transform it into something more consilient with a secular, rational worldview.
Regards,
K
``... why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.``
Rationality MUST be the basis of belief, otherwise belief is merely superstition. A Muslim must convince him/herself of the truth of Muhammad`s claim of prophethood through rational proofs, don`t you think? You don`t believe just because your parents and society told you to, right? If ``blind faith`` is acceptable as a basis of belief, then what distinguishes a follower of Muhammad from a follower of David Koresh or Jim Jones? How can one be right and the other wrong when there is no basis of rational discernment?
Also, I don`t agree that rationality is relative. It is a biologically-derived human faculty that spans time and culture. It is universal. Blind faith, on the other hand, is completely relative.
It is true that every age has its dogma, and those dogmatic beliefs should be toppled if contrary evidence emerges. Scientific, rational epistemologies can accept this caveat. Religious epistemologies based on unquestioning blind faith cannot.
Re: Altaf
Thanks for the website referral. Yes, when I talk of a real ``human nature`` and human morality, I and referring to a biologically derived one, not a metaphysical, transcendent one. Recent research in experimental psychology, psychobiology, anthropology, and neurobiology is adding a great deal of credilbility to this idea.
Re: temporal
``Are we not talking from both sides of the mouth? If human intelligence is not perfect than the arguments we find here, both the mundane and the esoteric, are suspect to a degree.``
Let`s accept that for argument`s sake, that both are imperfect. The question then becomes, which is more pragmatic for today`s world? Are the politics of religion or secular humanism more beneficial to humanity today and in the future? If systems of thought and society are to be derived from either one of these imperfect worldviews, which will be the least pernicious, the most universal, the most tolerant? I think secular humanism wins hands down.
``... what do you think of the believers? Are they misguided, lost, dumb, whatever?``
No, they are merely acting out the propensity for belief in a transcendent reality that they have inherited biologically and culturally from their ancestors. I think nature selected Homo sapiens for transcendent belief because such belief ensures social cohesion, tribal loyalties, and psychological well-being in a dangerous and mortal world. BUT- and this is a big but - now that we are gaining the knowledge of the basis of belief, we can understand it for what it is (a biological adaptation) and transform it into something more consilient with a secular, rational worldview.
Regards,
K
#63 Posted by maTha on January 21, 1999 9:20:39 am
RE: Wasiq (#53 continued)
In the event that Ali did not address the issue due to unavailability of time (as you suggest), is it fair to conclude that the issue itself failed to reach the state of becoming a priority for him? Based on its cornerstone nature in the structural integrity of Islam, I would suspect that it should have been a priority for a person with the intellectual and analytical capacities of Ali.
I also find your bit about the analogy to introducing a ``revised`` Declaration of Independence problematic for the following reason(s):
The Declaration of Independence was formalized by the forefathers and adopted without any dissent on July 4, 1776. It was originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson and some corrections made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were incorporated BEFORE the final adoption. Now if anybody from the
13 original signatories had a problem after the adoption that was of an important nature, it seems to me that the time to do so would have been ASAP.
Usman was caliph from 644 - 656 AD, followed by Ali. If Ali did not reject the adopted HQ when it was compiled by Marwan, then either it was fine with him, or the changes required were not important enough to justify risking a rift in the community (which is what you suggest I think). In both cases, it seeems that Ali considered the adopted HQ to be in a reasonably acceptable shape.
Otherwise, he should have felt compelled to do something about it ASAP, knowing the status of the HQ in Islam. Was that a gross miscalculation on his part? Were truly important parts of Islamic ideals left out
(maybe offensive jihad/expansionsism was prohibited and slavery was abolished and men were allowed to control their sex drives, sorry, I digress). Did he expect to introduce the changes when he had the time? As the adopted HQ became more and more the standard with the passing of each day, it would only become tougher to revise it! Did Ali adhere to some form of fatalism about the issue, sort of like the frame of mind, ``Oh well! the deed is done! Nothing can be done now!``
I hope Jerry Springer doesn`t read the Atlantic Monthly! On second thoughts, maybe that IS the kind of fodder he nourishes on.
Many regards,
maTha
In the event that Ali did not address the issue due to unavailability of time (as you suggest), is it fair to conclude that the issue itself failed to reach the state of becoming a priority for him? Based on its cornerstone nature in the structural integrity of Islam, I would suspect that it should have been a priority for a person with the intellectual and analytical capacities of Ali.
I also find your bit about the analogy to introducing a ``revised`` Declaration of Independence problematic for the following reason(s):
The Declaration of Independence was formalized by the forefathers and adopted without any dissent on July 4, 1776. It was originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson and some corrections made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were incorporated BEFORE the final adoption. Now if anybody from the
13 original signatories had a problem after the adoption that was of an important nature, it seems to me that the time to do so would have been ASAP.
Usman was caliph from 644 - 656 AD, followed by Ali. If Ali did not reject the adopted HQ when it was compiled by Marwan, then either it was fine with him, or the changes required were not important enough to justify risking a rift in the community (which is what you suggest I think). In both cases, it seeems that Ali considered the adopted HQ to be in a reasonably acceptable shape.
Otherwise, he should have felt compelled to do something about it ASAP, knowing the status of the HQ in Islam. Was that a gross miscalculation on his part? Were truly important parts of Islamic ideals left out
(maybe offensive jihad/expansionsism was prohibited and slavery was abolished and men were allowed to control their sex drives, sorry, I digress). Did he expect to introduce the changes when he had the time? As the adopted HQ became more and more the standard with the passing of each day, it would only become tougher to revise it! Did Ali adhere to some form of fatalism about the issue, sort of like the frame of mind, ``Oh well! the deed is done! Nothing can be done now!``
I hope Jerry Springer doesn`t read the Atlantic Monthly! On second thoughts, maybe that IS the kind of fodder he nourishes on.
Many regards,
maTha
#62 Posted by SaimaShah on January 21, 1999 8:43:51 am
Re: Wasiq
Your comments are very illuminating But I disagree with the idea that the Caliphate is similar to the Platonian concept of philosophers/utopia. The Caliphate to my mind is more like papal authority--about religious morality rather than justice per se. Also, if Ali had indeed become the power wielder next in line immediately, would the Caliphate not have eventually become aristocratic? Inspite of the fact that it would not have been a male line of descent?
If u notice, Plato is of the opinion that he(?) who does not wish for power and is happy in continuing the journey of discovery is the Just leader. TO my view the Caliph has reached the moral conclusion and is only constrained to prove it others, if he derives morality from a book rather than search`s for eternal justice. The only way this is possible in a religious society if people believe that the Q is ever new in meanings. That we /allow/ change. Is that possible if the book is santimonius?
Re: Noor
It seems we agree. But the shair I quoted was in my view quite satirical on the repression of sexual desire on the part of Ghalib.
About the others; ditto and more but it would be too tangential at this point in time.
Re: Kafir
I know the question is addressed to Wasiq, but I just wanted to ask why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.
Your comments are very illuminating But I disagree with the idea that the Caliphate is similar to the Platonian concept of philosophers/utopia. The Caliphate to my mind is more like papal authority--about religious morality rather than justice per se. Also, if Ali had indeed become the power wielder next in line immediately, would the Caliphate not have eventually become aristocratic? Inspite of the fact that it would not have been a male line of descent?
If u notice, Plato is of the opinion that he(?) who does not wish for power and is happy in continuing the journey of discovery is the Just leader. TO my view the Caliph has reached the moral conclusion and is only constrained to prove it others, if he derives morality from a book rather than search`s for eternal justice. The only way this is possible in a religious society if people believe that the Q is ever new in meanings. That we /allow/ change. Is that possible if the book is santimonius?
Re: Noor
It seems we agree. But the shair I quoted was in my view quite satirical on the repression of sexual desire on the part of Ghalib.
About the others; ditto and more but it would be too tangential at this point in time.
Re: Kafir
I know the question is addressed to Wasiq, but I just wanted to ask why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.
#61 Posted by Altaf on January 21, 1999 6:39:41 am
Kafir: For those interested in what Kafir is talking about ``human nature`` might want to check out a recent interview of Noam Chomsky i got linked on my home page: http://www.wco.com/
#60 Posted by maTha on January 21, 1999 1:07:28 am
Re: Wasiq (#53)
Aap nay farmaya:
Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?
Main farmata huN:
No, I am NOT saying that (even though it seems to be true most of the time).
Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall (and I knew the ``haalaat`` that were going to be blamed, I just wanted to gauge your angle)!
So we`ll go from here (especially since I am so smart):
Aap nay farmaya:
Now you are so smart dear Matha, you tell me
when did he have the time to sit down calmly much less pursue a goal to complete the Quran??
Main farmata huN:
My question was:
Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?
Your answer was: Yes.
Based on:
Aap nay farmaya:
Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.
Main farmata huN:
This was followed by blaming the haalaat...
This begs the question(s):
1. Was it (the ``correct`` version of the HQ) ever introduced?
Seems like it wasn`t a good time to
introduce it then and it isn`t a good time now either!
2. Did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue?
Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy?
Parhaps the posheeda imam has a notarized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!
RE: Wasiq (Reply # 42)
There is an implication in your commentary that the people who were ``true`` followers of Islam came from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or the prophet`s family and were the ones not interested in expansionism and material aggregation. The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim, since both these individuals didn`t lead the Beverly Hills lifestyle (Usman did, but was also independently wealthy and used to the lifestyle before the conquests began). I have never heard anybody ever accusing them (Abu Bakr and Umar) of such an interest in material wealt - is there proof on the contrary?
Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?
Finally, about the position that expansionism would not have happened (in the true spirit of
Islam), if either Muhammad stayed in power or if
true Muslims (basically his family) followed him in the chain. Can this claim be defended?
Were there not battles which were offensives between fatah-e-Makka and the death of the Prophet besides Tabuk (which was defensive)?
What about the battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif?
Either they were all defensive or were fought without the Prophet`s consent! Would the Prophet
have limited himself to deputations if they weren`t successful?
How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?
Many regards,
maTha ``historically-challenged`` ul-Mulk
Aap nay farmaya:
Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?
Main farmata huN:
No, I am NOT saying that (even though it seems to be true most of the time).
Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall (and I knew the ``haalaat`` that were going to be blamed, I just wanted to gauge your angle)!
So we`ll go from here (especially since I am so smart):
Aap nay farmaya:
Now you are so smart dear Matha, you tell me
when did he have the time to sit down calmly much less pursue a goal to complete the Quran??
Main farmata huN:
My question was:
Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?
Your answer was: Yes.
Based on:
Aap nay farmaya:
Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.
Main farmata huN:
This was followed by blaming the haalaat...
This begs the question(s):
1. Was it (the ``correct`` version of the HQ) ever introduced?
Seems like it wasn`t a good time to
introduce it then and it isn`t a good time now either!
2. Did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue?
Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy?
Parhaps the posheeda imam has a notarized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!
RE: Wasiq (Reply # 42)
There is an implication in your commentary that the people who were ``true`` followers of Islam came from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or the prophet`s family and were the ones not interested in expansionism and material aggregation. The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim, since both these individuals didn`t lead the Beverly Hills lifestyle (Usman did, but was also independently wealthy and used to the lifestyle before the conquests began). I have never heard anybody ever accusing them (Abu Bakr and Umar) of such an interest in material wealt - is there proof on the contrary?
Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?
Finally, about the position that expansionism would not have happened (in the true spirit of
Islam), if either Muhammad stayed in power or if
true Muslims (basically his family) followed him in the chain. Can this claim be defended?
Were there not battles which were offensives between fatah-e-Makka and the death of the Prophet besides Tabuk (which was defensive)?
What about the battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif?
Either they were all defensive or were fought without the Prophet`s consent! Would the Prophet
have limited himself to deputations if they weren`t successful?
How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?
Many regards,
maTha ``historically-challenged`` ul-Mulk
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- hamidm2: Re: # 70 tahmed, .... so... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: actually, i think... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: as for "falling... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm: i am neither... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 80 bubba, .... this... US Commando Strike in
- anil: #67: Hamidm sahib: "...would put bill... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 59 tahmed, ... which... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: #65 Tahmed sahib: Then you please... Why Zardari Should Be
