Chowk Special
Chowk P Room January 13, 1999
#59 Posted by Altaf on January 21, 1999 1:07:28 am
Anita: Re: Ali`s anti-millitary stance...: Ali says in the Nahjul Balagah ``
``Do not call to combat but respond if you are called to it, for the provocateur is an oppresssor, and an oppressor is to be felled.`` (From translation by Thomas Cleary, Living and Dying with Grace) -Altaf
``Do not call to combat but respond if you are called to it, for the provocateur is an oppresssor, and an oppressor is to be felled.`` (From translation by Thomas Cleary, Living and Dying with Grace) -Altaf
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#58 Posted by noor on January 21, 1999 1:07:28 am
``I quite agree. Maybe I wasn`t explicit that I also think that is not the differences in religion between the two, but the sanctimoniousness (is that a word? For me, a combo of pompous and sanctity:) of ours that has stagnated us. The west discovered the ego, whereas we sublimated it. We live a unique hypocrisy of a life as a result.``
Okay, so I guess we are in agreement on this point: that the distinction between `Eastern` and `Western` religions is not about religions per se, but about the extent of influences that they wield in society today.
There is a subtle but deep difference between divine sanction and collective good. Collective good would lead to a humanistic and democratic society, because society would be clearly seen as an immediate beneficiary. Specifically, how does roza bring a society together? However it is seen as divinely good. Society is secondary, belief and faith are all-important. Eg., Roza derives its ethics from the fact that God wants it not from the idea that your neighbor needs help.
Yes yes yes. Very good point Saima. I think religions could only have survived because they contain normative injunctions to keep a stable society. That includes ethics as well as some kind of a social contract or constitution. The thrust of this normative code is towards suppression of `self-interest` for the sake of `collective survival`. Every religion that can survive has to have this component.
But who determines what`s `collective good`? It is here that charlatans and demagogues have arrogated themselves to the custodian-ship of collective good. Either because they think the masses to be too stupid, or because they are out to dupe the masses and more often because of a combination of both, normative code is determined by cooking up some hocus pocus explanation. Because such a method involves the priest`s/prophet`s own whim without any room for dialogue and debate, personal quirks find their way into morality and rituals. Like you have the ritual of Haj, slaughtering of animals, etc. etc.
A society that is secular recognizes that every individual is capable of thinking and has an equal right to contribute towards the debate that shapes the social contract. There`s no room for invoking god, angels or spirits. The society we live in, is thankfully closer to this ideal than the other one. And regretfully, that cannot be said for the society we were born and brought up in.
``I am sorry but I insist that in our own society we ARE little robots who accept any kind of bilge in the name of religion.``
I don`t disagree with you. I just said that this characteristic is caused by more temporary factors than the alleged difference in character between `Eastern` and `Western` religions.
`Pardon any misquotes. In the same vein the leniency of poetry contrasts with the moral stand. But the contrast is superficial to an extent; no-matter how much is written about wine and women it does not challenge the basic idea that women are objects of pleasure borne out in the Q as well; and male pleasure is definitely catered to in Islam. `
Okay. I think back in those days pretty much every man was either a misogynist or considered women inferior. This view that you allude to, was equally prevalent among the religious and `free-thinking` men. Is hammaam mein sab nangay thay :-). I think religion just re-inforced the social biases of those times.
Hedonism and craving for carnal pleasure so prevalent in Urdu Hindi and Faarsi poetry IS a vestige of the ancient Arab hedonism. When religious pietism encroached on the private life of an individual, talking about these pleasures was one way to vent your angst in a sense. Poetry served that purpose. But it also served as a way to rebel against religion, to articulate humanist thought, all in a cryptic way. I don`t think this is a shallow observation. I find great gems of humanist wisdom in Ghalib`s poetry, as well as Hafez`s. Maybe they weren`t great champions of women`s rights, but one has to consider the times they lived in before indicting them for crimes of which the whole society was guilty.
Faiz, Iqbal etc. are a completely different story. These gentlemen were exposed to the post-Rennaissance European thought. Much of their poetry is influenced by that. Their literary style, metaphors etc also show the influence of English literature. And so in this century we see the style and thought of Urdu poetry being influenced so much by English; the decline of traditional classical ghazal. Less emphasis on hedonism as well as `ramziyyat`. All this I think reflects the social change we have undergone by exposing ourselves to the West.
Temporal:
Regarding your question:
Human reason is not perfect, but the best thing we have. It certainly does better than blind faith or tossing a coin or blindly adhering to what others tell you, which is the hallmark of religious believers.
Okay, so I guess we are in agreement on this point: that the distinction between `Eastern` and `Western` religions is not about religions per se, but about the extent of influences that they wield in society today.
There is a subtle but deep difference between divine sanction and collective good. Collective good would lead to a humanistic and democratic society, because society would be clearly seen as an immediate beneficiary. Specifically, how does roza bring a society together? However it is seen as divinely good. Society is secondary, belief and faith are all-important. Eg., Roza derives its ethics from the fact that God wants it not from the idea that your neighbor needs help.
Yes yes yes. Very good point Saima. I think religions could only have survived because they contain normative injunctions to keep a stable society. That includes ethics as well as some kind of a social contract or constitution. The thrust of this normative code is towards suppression of `self-interest` for the sake of `collective survival`. Every religion that can survive has to have this component.
But who determines what`s `collective good`? It is here that charlatans and demagogues have arrogated themselves to the custodian-ship of collective good. Either because they think the masses to be too stupid, or because they are out to dupe the masses and more often because of a combination of both, normative code is determined by cooking up some hocus pocus explanation. Because such a method involves the priest`s/prophet`s own whim without any room for dialogue and debate, personal quirks find their way into morality and rituals. Like you have the ritual of Haj, slaughtering of animals, etc. etc.
A society that is secular recognizes that every individual is capable of thinking and has an equal right to contribute towards the debate that shapes the social contract. There`s no room for invoking god, angels or spirits. The society we live in, is thankfully closer to this ideal than the other one. And regretfully, that cannot be said for the society we were born and brought up in.
``I am sorry but I insist that in our own society we ARE little robots who accept any kind of bilge in the name of religion.``
I don`t disagree with you. I just said that this characteristic is caused by more temporary factors than the alleged difference in character between `Eastern` and `Western` religions.
`Pardon any misquotes. In the same vein the leniency of poetry contrasts with the moral stand. But the contrast is superficial to an extent; no-matter how much is written about wine and women it does not challenge the basic idea that women are objects of pleasure borne out in the Q as well; and male pleasure is definitely catered to in Islam. `
Okay. I think back in those days pretty much every man was either a misogynist or considered women inferior. This view that you allude to, was equally prevalent among the religious and `free-thinking` men. Is hammaam mein sab nangay thay :-). I think religion just re-inforced the social biases of those times.
Hedonism and craving for carnal pleasure so prevalent in Urdu Hindi and Faarsi poetry IS a vestige of the ancient Arab hedonism. When religious pietism encroached on the private life of an individual, talking about these pleasures was one way to vent your angst in a sense. Poetry served that purpose. But it also served as a way to rebel against religion, to articulate humanist thought, all in a cryptic way. I don`t think this is a shallow observation. I find great gems of humanist wisdom in Ghalib`s poetry, as well as Hafez`s. Maybe they weren`t great champions of women`s rights, but one has to consider the times they lived in before indicting them for crimes of which the whole society was guilty.
Faiz, Iqbal etc. are a completely different story. These gentlemen were exposed to the post-Rennaissance European thought. Much of their poetry is influenced by that. Their literary style, metaphors etc also show the influence of English literature. And so in this century we see the style and thought of Urdu poetry being influenced so much by English; the decline of traditional classical ghazal. Less emphasis on hedonism as well as `ramziyyat`. All this I think reflects the social change we have undergone by exposing ourselves to the West.
Temporal:
Regarding your question:
Human reason is not perfect, but the best thing we have. It certainly does better than blind faith or tossing a coin or blindly adhering to what others tell you, which is the hallmark of religious believers.
#57 Posted by Kafir on January 21, 1999 12:02:02 am
Noor:
As an atheist secular humanist convert myself, I`m glad to see you defending reason in the midst of this religious debate. You write that ``normative code [in religion] is determined by cooking up some hocus pocus explanation`` concocted by the priests/prophets in power. Do you then think that ethics and morality are simply social constructs with no basis in `reality` (i.e., an ethical relativist position)? Or could the moral codes promulgated by religion have a basis in human biology, a set of behaviors and mental inclinations favored by biological-cultural evoltion as a means of survival? Could there not be a deep-rooted human morality which forms the root of historial religion, not denying that organized religion often perverts this core morality through its political manifestation?
Wasiq:
I grow more respectful of your knowledge, wisdom, and fair-mindedness with every InterAct discussion you participate in. With all sincerity and respect, I`m curious to know how you reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific understanding. How can one sincerely believe in the divine mission of Muhammad while confidently rejecting the divine claims of other self-proclaimed prophets (like Ghulam Ahmed, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith) and at the same time subscribe to the materialist assumptions of scientific epistemology? Doesn`t that lead to intellectual schizophrenia? In my case, my heart craved religion but my mind rejected it, until my heart let go of fear and discovered the joy of creating meaning in my life for myself rather than inheriting it from a historically-constructed metaphysics. At last, I feel like I`ve attained some form of intellectual integrity in my personal belief system, and I sleep well at night :). How do you do it?
Regards,
K
As an atheist secular humanist convert myself, I`m glad to see you defending reason in the midst of this religious debate. You write that ``normative code [in religion] is determined by cooking up some hocus pocus explanation`` concocted by the priests/prophets in power. Do you then think that ethics and morality are simply social constructs with no basis in `reality` (i.e., an ethical relativist position)? Or could the moral codes promulgated by religion have a basis in human biology, a set of behaviors and mental inclinations favored by biological-cultural evoltion as a means of survival? Could there not be a deep-rooted human morality which forms the root of historial religion, not denying that organized religion often perverts this core morality through its political manifestation?
Wasiq:
I grow more respectful of your knowledge, wisdom, and fair-mindedness with every InterAct discussion you participate in. With all sincerity and respect, I`m curious to know how you reconcile your religious beliefs with your scientific understanding. How can one sincerely believe in the divine mission of Muhammad while confidently rejecting the divine claims of other self-proclaimed prophets (like Ghulam Ahmed, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith) and at the same time subscribe to the materialist assumptions of scientific epistemology? Doesn`t that lead to intellectual schizophrenia? In my case, my heart craved religion but my mind rejected it, until my heart let go of fear and discovered the joy of creating meaning in my life for myself rather than inheriting it from a historically-constructed metaphysics. At last, I feel like I`ve attained some form of intellectual integrity in my personal belief system, and I sleep well at night :). How do you do it?
Regards,
K
#56 Posted by ferozk on January 20, 1999 7:54:38 pm
Thanks Wasiq for an excellent, detailed and highly comphrehensive eludication on the topic!
I am amazed at the scope and intensity of the debate on this issue. Taking this small cadre of Chowkwallahs, why can not we, as Pakistanis, engage in a similar debate on a national level. Just look what has been accomplished: an intelligent dicussion that has educated all us!
Re: Saima Shah
I agree with your insightful observations. We have to start thinking ourselves and not let others, who have a private agenda of their own, do our thinking for us! You are absolutely correct in saying that the present disease in Islam can be traced to the point when we stopped thinking and simply become intellectually inactive, instead of reactive, to what going around us.
Your post reminded me of a scene from Lawerence of Arabia. During one scene when Lawerence wanted to attack the Turkish fort of Aqaba from the desert, he was told by his Arab allies that it could not be done, because it was written such.
Lawerence`s reply was: nothing is written unless you write it yourself! He convinced the Arabs to attack and it was huge success; the Turks never expected attack from the desert and thus, lost the whole of the Sinai to the British!
This is not a perfect analogy, but in a more reflective sense, that scene tells a lot about the Muslim mind set. We, Muslims, tend to be fatalistic and blame or praise everthing that happens to the will of Allah. It is as if we have stopped taking responsibility for own consequences and seem content to pass the blame, of our misfortunes, on to Allah. We do not seem interested in changing our lives for the better by our own actions, but seem to be waiting for an devine intervention to solve our problems!
I think in this sense, Godot`s anger at a lack of Muslim response to the Jugoslav crisis is so glaring. What is happening there is not Allah`s will, but an example of our own indifference. Another thing that escapes me is why are Muslims so eager to prepare for a better life in the hearafter, that they seem to forget living in the present?
I think, personally, this apathy irks my anger more than anything else. It is high time we stopped attributing every thing to the will of God and take charge of our own lives! We can either join the race, or we left behind and if we chose to be left behind, the fault is entirely ours. Lets start the process by thinking for ourselves, because only when we will shed the cowwebs of our mind, will the light of reason bathe our mental darkness away and cleanse our thoughts!
I am amazed at the scope and intensity of the debate on this issue. Taking this small cadre of Chowkwallahs, why can not we, as Pakistanis, engage in a similar debate on a national level. Just look what has been accomplished: an intelligent dicussion that has educated all us!
Re: Saima Shah
I agree with your insightful observations. We have to start thinking ourselves and not let others, who have a private agenda of their own, do our thinking for us! You are absolutely correct in saying that the present disease in Islam can be traced to the point when we stopped thinking and simply become intellectually inactive, instead of reactive, to what going around us.
Your post reminded me of a scene from Lawerence of Arabia. During one scene when Lawerence wanted to attack the Turkish fort of Aqaba from the desert, he was told by his Arab allies that it could not be done, because it was written such.
Lawerence`s reply was: nothing is written unless you write it yourself! He convinced the Arabs to attack and it was huge success; the Turks never expected attack from the desert and thus, lost the whole of the Sinai to the British!
This is not a perfect analogy, but in a more reflective sense, that scene tells a lot about the Muslim mind set. We, Muslims, tend to be fatalistic and blame or praise everthing that happens to the will of Allah. It is as if we have stopped taking responsibility for own consequences and seem content to pass the blame, of our misfortunes, on to Allah. We do not seem interested in changing our lives for the better by our own actions, but seem to be waiting for an devine intervention to solve our problems!
I think in this sense, Godot`s anger at a lack of Muslim response to the Jugoslav crisis is so glaring. What is happening there is not Allah`s will, but an example of our own indifference. Another thing that escapes me is why are Muslims so eager to prepare for a better life in the hearafter, that they seem to forget living in the present?
I think, personally, this apathy irks my anger more than anything else. It is high time we stopped attributing every thing to the will of God and take charge of our own lives! We can either join the race, or we left behind and if we chose to be left behind, the fault is entirely ours. Lets start the process by thinking for ourselves, because only when we will shed the cowwebs of our mind, will the light of reason bathe our mental darkness away and cleanse our thoughts!
#55 Posted by wasiq on January 20, 1999 12:45:25 pm
Re: Goga (48)
Actually there is a very important difference between the two cases.
The image of the Prophet, presented in Sahih Bukhari and elsewhere, is that of a bumbling fool, who happened to chance upon prophethood. Let me give so some examples:
1) A tradition related to Omar bin Al-Khattab says that Muhammed, Abu Bakr and I were like race horses, he was ahead of us by a little amount and got the Prophethood.
2) Another version of this sentiment is expressed as a tradition falsely attributed to the Prophet. If there was a Prophet after me, it would be Abu Bakr, and after him Omar.
3) Sahih Bukhari has multiple examples where the Prophet spontaneously loses his mind. Like for instance he starts praying facing the wrong way, or forgets the basics of salaat. At all times, the heroic saviours Abu Bakr and Omar intercede and set him right (notice no one else does).
That is to be compared to the shrewdness he consistently showed throughout his life in dealing with enemies much more powerful than him.
Also within the context of Islam, according to the Quran, the Prophet does not say a single word unless it is revealed to him. So everything that he does is completely in accordance with divine intelligence. Clearly there is a big paradox here regarding how the Quran esteems the Prophet and how his companions do.
4) The infamous Hadith of Paper is related by Sahih Bukhari also.
On his death-bed, caliphate hopefuls were hanging around him like vultures. They denied his requests to speak out loud and instruct them on the future of the community. Finally he asked them to get him a piece of paper and a pen so that he could dictate his last wishes. Omar violently rejected that request and exclaimed that ``This man is delusioned and is spewing nonsense!``. After that the vultures started arguing loudly amongst themselves and the Prophet ordered everyone out from his room.
These are but a few examples. Now notice the consistent pattern.
a) The Prophet has been openly and publicly ridiculed.
b) He has been presented as a clown and a buffoon.
c) There is a clear difference between what one would expect the Prophet to be and what some of his companions insist on making him.
Now let us come back to the incident that you mention. First of all, the incident that you mention, is the most authenticated Hadith known. The number of trusted sources for that Hadith exceed that of any other, including that of Sura Fatiha. Despite that, the Hadith did not make into Sahih Bukhari because it was politically damaging. On the other hand, hundreds of Hadith were accepted, from SINGLE individuals, without cross check including all of Aisha`s sexual fantasies that fill Sahih Bukhari, narrations from Abu Hurraira and even from people who converted to Islam after the fall of Makkah. As I have mentioned before the number of hadith attributed to the family and some of the oldest ansars are a handful.
In this incident, the context of the Hadith is as follows. The Prophet consistently proved that he was a good manager. He understood the importance of the chain of command. During his lifetime, it was his habit that for every expedition, he would not only nominate the leader, but also two or three back-ups in successive order, in case the leader was killed. When he would leave for an extended expedition, he would appoint a person to be in charge behind him.
The question then arises why did he not clearly and openly do so for the time after his death? He did not die suddenly, he certainly had plenty of time. The traditional response to this has been that he only made vague comments and gestures about who would be the successor during the time of his illness, but never before that. That explanation is clearly nonsense if one follows his habits regarding the chain of command.
The only viable explanation that stands then is that he did nominate his successor, except that he knew that in doing so he would be infuriating many people who were already in silent revolt against him. That is the reason the tradition of the appointment of Ali is not accepted despite being the most authentic hadith in existence.
Now consider what you brought up. You interpret it to be undermining the courage and faithfulness of the Prophet, I do not agree with that. The Prophet was going to do his duty regardless. The purpose of the verse is to elucidate to the people present the importance of this duty. The purpose of the verse is to inform you and me that this final act was of supreme importance in preserving the fabric of the community. Therefore, after leaving from the last Hajj, the Prophet ordered everyone to stop and asked that a dais be made by piling the blankets and canopies one puts on camels. Then he ascended this stage, along with Ali so that everyone could see them clearly. Then he asked them, ``Am I your lord and master?`` The answer was ``yes``. Then he said, ``Mun kuntu maula, fa-haza Ali`un maula`` (As I am your lord and master, Ali is your lord and master). Once this was done, a verse was revealed that told him that he had finished his duty well, by appointing a successor which would carry on the practices of the Prophet.
There is no demeaning of the Prophet here, he is doing what was revealed. But by alluding to the anger of the people, the Quran is recording the treachery of those people. It is not pointing to the Prophet. There is an interesting analogy here, again Quranic. Moses wanted to make Aaron in charge while he was away, but was afraid of the reaction of the people since Aaron was a mild guy. The situation is exactly analogous, it does not implicate Moses but is a commentary on the treachery of the people who Moses had saved but had reverted back to idolatory.
Therefore the analogy that you draw is wrong. Nowehere in the Shia scholarship will you find anything even remotely approaching the level of ridicule and deconstruction that is seen in the Sunni sources. Pick up and read any twenty pages of Sahih Bukhari for instance, you will find mutually conflicting traditions from the Prophet. You will not find anything analogous in the Shia traditions.
Let me give you a little bit more on this horror show, you can readily confirm it through your own scholarship. After the death of the Prophet, EVERYONE except the family of the Prophet (ALi, Fatima,etc.) and some of his devoted ansar, abandoned his dead body and made their way to Saqeefa banu Saida, a village outside of Medina. Everyone, of course except the family of the Prophet and devoted ansar, went and haggled over who would be the successor. So eager were these people that they could not wait for a single day to bury the Prophet and then to pursue their political greed. The wrestling match that ensued there between these gentlemen and resulted in the complete alienation of the ansar is yet another story, but needless to say the AbuBakr-Omar coalition was already strong.
One day after the burial, these gentlemen returned to find that the Prophet had been buried. They insisted that the Prophet be dug up again so that these fools could offer their prayers, at which point Ali sat astride the Prophet`s grave with his unsheathed sword and warned everyone to stay away. Thankfully the Prophet was saved from this final disgrace at the hands of these people.
Notice these very people later on exclaimed that ``The Prophet wanted to make Ali his successor but God wanted something else!`` (related to Omar) which implies an astounding break between God and his Prophet. One of these very gentlemen was also the architect of the slogan that ``Caliphate and Prophethood cannot go into the same family``, because they understood Caliphate only as a kingship.
The Shia scholars on the other hand have insisted that Caliphate is the institution of the successive chain of knowledge. A caliph is the protector and supreme scholar of the moral core of Islam -the closest analogy being the concept of the rule of philosophers that was enunciated by Plato. That is why the Shiite imams place primary importance on knowledge and recognize that the sole inheritance of any prophet is his store of divine knowledge. This is the basis of the esoteric tradtion in Islam, which was later adopted by Sufism that considers Muhammed and Ali to be their prime sources.
Actually there is a very important difference between the two cases.
The image of the Prophet, presented in Sahih Bukhari and elsewhere, is that of a bumbling fool, who happened to chance upon prophethood. Let me give so some examples:
1) A tradition related to Omar bin Al-Khattab says that Muhammed, Abu Bakr and I were like race horses, he was ahead of us by a little amount and got the Prophethood.
2) Another version of this sentiment is expressed as a tradition falsely attributed to the Prophet. If there was a Prophet after me, it would be Abu Bakr, and after him Omar.
3) Sahih Bukhari has multiple examples where the Prophet spontaneously loses his mind. Like for instance he starts praying facing the wrong way, or forgets the basics of salaat. At all times, the heroic saviours Abu Bakr and Omar intercede and set him right (notice no one else does).
That is to be compared to the shrewdness he consistently showed throughout his life in dealing with enemies much more powerful than him.
Also within the context of Islam, according to the Quran, the Prophet does not say a single word unless it is revealed to him. So everything that he does is completely in accordance with divine intelligence. Clearly there is a big paradox here regarding how the Quran esteems the Prophet and how his companions do.
4) The infamous Hadith of Paper is related by Sahih Bukhari also.
On his death-bed, caliphate hopefuls were hanging around him like vultures. They denied his requests to speak out loud and instruct them on the future of the community. Finally he asked them to get him a piece of paper and a pen so that he could dictate his last wishes. Omar violently rejected that request and exclaimed that ``This man is delusioned and is spewing nonsense!``. After that the vultures started arguing loudly amongst themselves and the Prophet ordered everyone out from his room.
These are but a few examples. Now notice the consistent pattern.
a) The Prophet has been openly and publicly ridiculed.
b) He has been presented as a clown and a buffoon.
c) There is a clear difference between what one would expect the Prophet to be and what some of his companions insist on making him.
Now let us come back to the incident that you mention. First of all, the incident that you mention, is the most authenticated Hadith known. The number of trusted sources for that Hadith exceed that of any other, including that of Sura Fatiha. Despite that, the Hadith did not make into Sahih Bukhari because it was politically damaging. On the other hand, hundreds of Hadith were accepted, from SINGLE individuals, without cross check including all of Aisha`s sexual fantasies that fill Sahih Bukhari, narrations from Abu Hurraira and even from people who converted to Islam after the fall of Makkah. As I have mentioned before the number of hadith attributed to the family and some of the oldest ansars are a handful.
In this incident, the context of the Hadith is as follows. The Prophet consistently proved that he was a good manager. He understood the importance of the chain of command. During his lifetime, it was his habit that for every expedition, he would not only nominate the leader, but also two or three back-ups in successive order, in case the leader was killed. When he would leave for an extended expedition, he would appoint a person to be in charge behind him.
The question then arises why did he not clearly and openly do so for the time after his death? He did not die suddenly, he certainly had plenty of time. The traditional response to this has been that he only made vague comments and gestures about who would be the successor during the time of his illness, but never before that. That explanation is clearly nonsense if one follows his habits regarding the chain of command.
The only viable explanation that stands then is that he did nominate his successor, except that he knew that in doing so he would be infuriating many people who were already in silent revolt against him. That is the reason the tradition of the appointment of Ali is not accepted despite being the most authentic hadith in existence.
Now consider what you brought up. You interpret it to be undermining the courage and faithfulness of the Prophet, I do not agree with that. The Prophet was going to do his duty regardless. The purpose of the verse is to elucidate to the people present the importance of this duty. The purpose of the verse is to inform you and me that this final act was of supreme importance in preserving the fabric of the community. Therefore, after leaving from the last Hajj, the Prophet ordered everyone to stop and asked that a dais be made by piling the blankets and canopies one puts on camels. Then he ascended this stage, along with Ali so that everyone could see them clearly. Then he asked them, ``Am I your lord and master?`` The answer was ``yes``. Then he said, ``Mun kuntu maula, fa-haza Ali`un maula`` (As I am your lord and master, Ali is your lord and master). Once this was done, a verse was revealed that told him that he had finished his duty well, by appointing a successor which would carry on the practices of the Prophet.
There is no demeaning of the Prophet here, he is doing what was revealed. But by alluding to the anger of the people, the Quran is recording the treachery of those people. It is not pointing to the Prophet. There is an interesting analogy here, again Quranic. Moses wanted to make Aaron in charge while he was away, but was afraid of the reaction of the people since Aaron was a mild guy. The situation is exactly analogous, it does not implicate Moses but is a commentary on the treachery of the people who Moses had saved but had reverted back to idolatory.
Therefore the analogy that you draw is wrong. Nowehere in the Shia scholarship will you find anything even remotely approaching the level of ridicule and deconstruction that is seen in the Sunni sources. Pick up and read any twenty pages of Sahih Bukhari for instance, you will find mutually conflicting traditions from the Prophet. You will not find anything analogous in the Shia traditions.
Let me give you a little bit more on this horror show, you can readily confirm it through your own scholarship. After the death of the Prophet, EVERYONE except the family of the Prophet (ALi, Fatima,etc.) and some of his devoted ansar, abandoned his dead body and made their way to Saqeefa banu Saida, a village outside of Medina. Everyone, of course except the family of the Prophet and devoted ansar, went and haggled over who would be the successor. So eager were these people that they could not wait for a single day to bury the Prophet and then to pursue their political greed. The wrestling match that ensued there between these gentlemen and resulted in the complete alienation of the ansar is yet another story, but needless to say the AbuBakr-Omar coalition was already strong.
One day after the burial, these gentlemen returned to find that the Prophet had been buried. They insisted that the Prophet be dug up again so that these fools could offer their prayers, at which point Ali sat astride the Prophet`s grave with his unsheathed sword and warned everyone to stay away. Thankfully the Prophet was saved from this final disgrace at the hands of these people.
Notice these very people later on exclaimed that ``The Prophet wanted to make Ali his successor but God wanted something else!`` (related to Omar) which implies an astounding break between God and his Prophet. One of these very gentlemen was also the architect of the slogan that ``Caliphate and Prophethood cannot go into the same family``, because they understood Caliphate only as a kingship.
The Shia scholars on the other hand have insisted that Caliphate is the institution of the successive chain of knowledge. A caliph is the protector and supreme scholar of the moral core of Islam -the closest analogy being the concept of the rule of philosophers that was enunciated by Plato. That is why the Shiite imams place primary importance on knowledge and recognize that the sole inheritance of any prophet is his store of divine knowledge. This is the basis of the esoteric tradtion in Islam, which was later adopted by Sufism that considers Muhammed and Ali to be their prime sources.
#54 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 20, 1999 7:52:22 am
Re: the shia perspective:
Here are a few more dates and ironies from me.
Uthman became caliph in 644 AD. Exhibiting incredible nepotism, all governorships of conquered lands were given to the Ummayyads, while Marwan ran the show at home. The Ansaar were systematically excluded from the political process. When Uthman was murdered 656 AD, and Ali became caliph, Mauwiya (now the most powerful Ummayyad, and governor of Syria), refused to accept Ali`s caliphate and launched into battle against Ali at Siffin in 657AD (the second Islamic civil war), advancing his independent claim for caliphate centered at Damascus.
Here`s the irony. In a brief space of a few years after the Prophet`s death, Abu Sufiyan, through his family was able to achieve what he wasn`t during his life time (which he spent fighting against Mohammad, accepting Islam only after the conquest of Mecca)- Ummayyad rule all over Arabia and the Near-east, destruction of Mohammad`s family (Karbala happened in 680 AD), and a perpetual divide and infighting among the Muslim community.
So deep is the divide that when Mawdudi, not a Shia supporter by ANY stretch of the imagination, concluded in his Khilafat`u mulukiyat that Uthman was perhaps not `rightly guided` during his khilafat, he was labeled `Husain parast`!
Wasiq, do you have any references to support Ali’s anti-military stance? Did he actually say he was against this in the Nahujul Balagha. I have misplaced my copy.
Anita
Here are a few more dates and ironies from me.
Uthman became caliph in 644 AD. Exhibiting incredible nepotism, all governorships of conquered lands were given to the Ummayyads, while Marwan ran the show at home. The Ansaar were systematically excluded from the political process. When Uthman was murdered 656 AD, and Ali became caliph, Mauwiya (now the most powerful Ummayyad, and governor of Syria), refused to accept Ali`s caliphate and launched into battle against Ali at Siffin in 657AD (the second Islamic civil war), advancing his independent claim for caliphate centered at Damascus.
Here`s the irony. In a brief space of a few years after the Prophet`s death, Abu Sufiyan, through his family was able to achieve what he wasn`t during his life time (which he spent fighting against Mohammad, accepting Islam only after the conquest of Mecca)- Ummayyad rule all over Arabia and the Near-east, destruction of Mohammad`s family (Karbala happened in 680 AD), and a perpetual divide and infighting among the Muslim community.
So deep is the divide that when Mawdudi, not a Shia supporter by ANY stretch of the imagination, concluded in his Khilafat`u mulukiyat that Uthman was perhaps not `rightly guided` during his khilafat, he was labeled `Husain parast`!
Wasiq, do you have any references to support Ali’s anti-military stance? Did he actually say he was against this in the Nahujul Balagha. I have misplaced my copy.
Anita
#53 Posted by SaimaShah on January 20, 1999 5:48:31 am
Re: Noor
``I guess I didn`t make myself clear. Pure science or philosophy is the hobby of an elite. That elite has carried the torch of reason in times of mass indifference or antipathy. This elite has to show to the society how their science can impact the
lives of the common people. And only if they are able to show that, will they be taken seriously.``
You made yourself quite clear and you have a logical argument. What I would like to say is that the probable reason that the elite did not pursue creative thought to the level of science was the East`s emphasis on religion as the only true avenue of thought. I don`t like the East West label either. For me it is only a geographical line and not an inherent difference. Our scholars and thinkers were from an early age conditioned and directed towards an after-life, self denial etc. The HQ was considered the divine word therefore it precluded and excluded human endeavor. I appreciate your desire to open the mind beyond these borders, but well, the similarities will be written out after the differences (if ever). For instance in war, the Muslims relied on concepts of jihad and belief/faith rather than cold thought and planning; the oft-quoted reason for victory was the will of God, Inshallah etc. Even today whenever a Pakistani /team wins, it is the will of God, or thanks to God.
``So IMO religion IS about control, about the precedence of collective good over individual good. No religion tells you to go and do whatever makes you happy. Individual has been marginalized in every environment. ``
There is a subtle but deep difference between divine sanction and collective good. Collective good would lead to a humanistic and democratic society, because society would be clearly seen as an immediate beneficiary. Specifically, how does roza bring a society together? However it is seen as divinely good. Society is secondary, belief and faith are all-important. Eg., Roza derives its ethics from the fact that God wants it not from the idea that your neighbor needs help.
``It is not a matter of difference between Eastern and Western religions but the developments that led to the banishment of religion from Western society. ``
I quite agree. Maybe I wasn`t explicit that I also think that is not the differences in religion between the two, but the sanctimoniousness (is that a word? For me, a combo of pompous and sanctity:) of ours that has stagnated us. The west discovered the ego, whereas we sublimated it. We live a unique hypocrisy of a life as a result.
I am sorry but I insist that in our own society we ARE little robots who accept any kind of bilge in the name of religion. The Mullah down our street on the Eid day fatwa said that the Eid hug is non-islamic. The tragedy was that NO-ONE got up to challenge it. And this is in Masjids where women aren`t allowed as a matter of piety. And then you tell me that we aren`t all that bad? I THINK WE ARE WORSE! The men have western/rational education, half my street went to US to work/study, we have access to the internet, there are more and more women in the work-place, there are more women graduates, yet no-body gets up to say anything. Centuries of unquestioning obeisance has made us a nation of sycophants.
And lastly I admire Ghalib for many reasons but one I will quote.`` Aisi janat ka kiya kijye jisme lakhon baras ki hoorain hoon ``. Pardon any misquotes. In the same vein the leniency of poetry contrasts with the moral stand. But the contrast is superficial to an extent; no-matter how much is written about wine and women it does not challenge the basic idea that women are objects of pleasure borne out in the Q as well; and male pleasure is definitely catered to in Islam. The form ghazal means a woman`s praise. It tailors well with feudalism. Political poetry was virtually absent in those days; if you notice it was Faiz who went to jail for his poems--who was not a hedonist, and challenged the status quo.
Re; Pervez Manzoor
There can be no argument when belief is used as an absolute. Please at least try to understand what is wrong with Islam before you criticize the rest of the world. It is embarrassing to see a Muslim exhibit the very trait that people criticize them for; and use it to defend a poor argument. I.E., bigoted narrow-mindedness. Doubt is fundamentalist when belief is not tolerated or accepted. I see no-body telling any Muslim not to believe in the Prophet. They are merely telling why `they` do not believe in the Prophet or asking why?. The world of Islam proves to be quite fragile and insecure when people who should set examples of tolerance, instead exhibit defensiveness.
``I guess I didn`t make myself clear. Pure science or philosophy is the hobby of an elite. That elite has carried the torch of reason in times of mass indifference or antipathy. This elite has to show to the society how their science can impact the
lives of the common people. And only if they are able to show that, will they be taken seriously.``
You made yourself quite clear and you have a logical argument. What I would like to say is that the probable reason that the elite did not pursue creative thought to the level of science was the East`s emphasis on religion as the only true avenue of thought. I don`t like the East West label either. For me it is only a geographical line and not an inherent difference. Our scholars and thinkers were from an early age conditioned and directed towards an after-life, self denial etc. The HQ was considered the divine word therefore it precluded and excluded human endeavor. I appreciate your desire to open the mind beyond these borders, but well, the similarities will be written out after the differences (if ever). For instance in war, the Muslims relied on concepts of jihad and belief/faith rather than cold thought and planning; the oft-quoted reason for victory was the will of God, Inshallah etc. Even today whenever a Pakistani /team wins, it is the will of God, or thanks to God.
``So IMO religion IS about control, about the precedence of collective good over individual good. No religion tells you to go and do whatever makes you happy. Individual has been marginalized in every environment. ``
There is a subtle but deep difference between divine sanction and collective good. Collective good would lead to a humanistic and democratic society, because society would be clearly seen as an immediate beneficiary. Specifically, how does roza bring a society together? However it is seen as divinely good. Society is secondary, belief and faith are all-important. Eg., Roza derives its ethics from the fact that God wants it not from the idea that your neighbor needs help.
``It is not a matter of difference between Eastern and Western religions but the developments that led to the banishment of religion from Western society. ``
I quite agree. Maybe I wasn`t explicit that I also think that is not the differences in religion between the two, but the sanctimoniousness (is that a word? For me, a combo of pompous and sanctity:) of ours that has stagnated us. The west discovered the ego, whereas we sublimated it. We live a unique hypocrisy of a life as a result.
I am sorry but I insist that in our own society we ARE little robots who accept any kind of bilge in the name of religion. The Mullah down our street on the Eid day fatwa said that the Eid hug is non-islamic. The tragedy was that NO-ONE got up to challenge it. And this is in Masjids where women aren`t allowed as a matter of piety. And then you tell me that we aren`t all that bad? I THINK WE ARE WORSE! The men have western/rational education, half my street went to US to work/study, we have access to the internet, there are more and more women in the work-place, there are more women graduates, yet no-body gets up to say anything. Centuries of unquestioning obeisance has made us a nation of sycophants.
And lastly I admire Ghalib for many reasons but one I will quote.`` Aisi janat ka kiya kijye jisme lakhon baras ki hoorain hoon ``. Pardon any misquotes. In the same vein the leniency of poetry contrasts with the moral stand. But the contrast is superficial to an extent; no-matter how much is written about wine and women it does not challenge the basic idea that women are objects of pleasure borne out in the Q as well; and male pleasure is definitely catered to in Islam. The form ghazal means a woman`s praise. It tailors well with feudalism. Political poetry was virtually absent in those days; if you notice it was Faiz who went to jail for his poems--who was not a hedonist, and challenged the status quo.
Re; Pervez Manzoor
There can be no argument when belief is used as an absolute. Please at least try to understand what is wrong with Islam before you criticize the rest of the world. It is embarrassing to see a Muslim exhibit the very trait that people criticize them for; and use it to defend a poor argument. I.E., bigoted narrow-mindedness. Doubt is fundamentalist when belief is not tolerated or accepted. I see no-body telling any Muslim not to believe in the Prophet. They are merely telling why `they` do not believe in the Prophet or asking why?. The world of Islam proves to be quite fragile and insecure when people who should set examples of tolerance, instead exhibit defensiveness.
#52 Posted by wasiq on January 20, 1999 1:52:17 am
Re: Matha (47)
Well this one is not a problem ...
First question about correct sources ...
Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?
Actually we should use the little time machine that we carry inside our heads more often.
Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.
There are three main reasons.
First, it is not easy to do so. It requires the presence of a de facto power to abrogate something as important as the HQ and introduce another one. For example, which U.S president could have introduced a revised version of the Declaration of Independence? Replacing one standard with another, especially very soon after the first is not very easy.
Second, he chose not to, because it would have led to a complete rift in the Islamic community and there would have been an outright civil war whose only beneficiary would have been our conniving little friend in Syria, Muawiya. The essentials in the HQ were there to define the community.
Now coming to the third reason, which is extremely important. COnsider his term of Caliphate (35 A.H to 40 A.H), which lasted five years. At the start of his Caliphate, as was his right, he appointed his governors to Egypt, Iraq, Arabia and Syria. Muawiya not only refused to leave his governorship but also threatened a direct assault on Medina. At this point, he could have defeated Muawiya directly however, curiously, Aisha unlawfully instigated the first civil war of Islam which resulted in the death of thousands of Muslims, only because SHE wanted her cousin Talha to be the next Caliph instead of Ali despite the fact that Medina had begged and pleaded Ali to become the Caliph. The alleged charge was that ALi had gotten Uthman killed, which was wrong. This unfortunate incident resulted in the fact that he could turn to Muawiya until 36 A.H after the defeat of Aisha`s army. That defeat in itself caused a rift between people. After he got done with the war, he turned his attention to Muawiya who had unlawfully revolted and denied the order of the Caliph to hand over the governorship of Syria to the newly appointed governor. The confrontation which started in 37 A.H. led to an almost victory for Ali. This was followed by a period of resolution which was sabotaged by the arbiter appointed from the side of Muawiya. Finally Ali returned to Iraq and started to prepare for another assault on Syria, all the while aware that Imperialism was coming into Islam in the name of Muawiya. Egypt and Northern Africa were lost to Muawiya and finally Ali himself was martyred in 40 A.H.
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??
It would really help to read the relevant history of that time period. Pick up Maudoodi`s book for instance. If nothing else, for the references. I am amazed that he accomplished so much else given the fact that he was desperately fighting the spectre of Imperialism and the death of Islam as people knew it.
During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism: FOr example in one of his khutbas (38 A.H), ``By God, if these people become your rulers they will rule like Caesar on you``. In another khutba (39 A.H), ``Come fight with these people, who are fighting you so that they become cruel kings and enslave the people of God``.
Of course, the very people who scoffed at his dire predictions during his lifetime, regretted their decisions not to heed him after his death. Abdullah bin Umar: ``My biggest mistake in life was not to have sided with Ali`` and Abdullah bin Umar bin Al-Aas ``My biggest mistake in life was to have taken part in battle with Muawiya against Ali``.
This was the point when this whole Imperialistic mess in Islam started, which has hounded our history to this day.
cheers
Well this one is not a problem ...
First question about correct sources ...
Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?
Actually we should use the little time machine that we carry inside our heads more often.
Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.
There are three main reasons.
First, it is not easy to do so. It requires the presence of a de facto power to abrogate something as important as the HQ and introduce another one. For example, which U.S president could have introduced a revised version of the Declaration of Independence? Replacing one standard with another, especially very soon after the first is not very easy.
Second, he chose not to, because it would have led to a complete rift in the Islamic community and there would have been an outright civil war whose only beneficiary would have been our conniving little friend in Syria, Muawiya. The essentials in the HQ were there to define the community.
Now coming to the third reason, which is extremely important. COnsider his term of Caliphate (35 A.H to 40 A.H), which lasted five years. At the start of his Caliphate, as was his right, he appointed his governors to Egypt, Iraq, Arabia and Syria. Muawiya not only refused to leave his governorship but also threatened a direct assault on Medina. At this point, he could have defeated Muawiya directly however, curiously, Aisha unlawfully instigated the first civil war of Islam which resulted in the death of thousands of Muslims, only because SHE wanted her cousin Talha to be the next Caliph instead of Ali despite the fact that Medina had begged and pleaded Ali to become the Caliph. The alleged charge was that ALi had gotten Uthman killed, which was wrong. This unfortunate incident resulted in the fact that he could turn to Muawiya until 36 A.H after the defeat of Aisha`s army. That defeat in itself caused a rift between people. After he got done with the war, he turned his attention to Muawiya who had unlawfully revolted and denied the order of the Caliph to hand over the governorship of Syria to the newly appointed governor. The confrontation which started in 37 A.H. led to an almost victory for Ali. This was followed by a period of resolution which was sabotaged by the arbiter appointed from the side of Muawiya. Finally Ali returned to Iraq and started to prepare for another assault on Syria, all the while aware that Imperialism was coming into Islam in the name of Muawiya. Egypt and Northern Africa were lost to Muawiya and finally Ali himself was martyred in 40 A.H.
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??
It would really help to read the relevant history of that time period. Pick up Maudoodi`s book for instance. If nothing else, for the references. I am amazed that he accomplished so much else given the fact that he was desperately fighting the spectre of Imperialism and the death of Islam as people knew it.
During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism: FOr example in one of his khutbas (38 A.H), ``By God, if these people become your rulers they will rule like Caesar on you``. In another khutba (39 A.H), ``Come fight with these people, who are fighting you so that they become cruel kings and enslave the people of God``.
Of course, the very people who scoffed at his dire predictions during his lifetime, regretted their decisions not to heed him after his death. Abdullah bin Umar: ``My biggest mistake in life was not to have sided with Ali`` and Abdullah bin Umar bin Al-Aas ``My biggest mistake in life was to have taken part in battle with Muawiya against Ali``.
This was the point when this whole Imperialistic mess in Islam started, which has hounded our history to this day.
cheers
#51 Posted by wasiq on January 20, 1999 12:43:22 am
Re: Godot
I realize that you are a very realistic person who has genuine concern about the Islamic world and the Muslims. I am sorry if you thought I implied that you were not, and your anger clearly derives how much you feel for the Muslims across the world.
About Hussein, I can only say, what I have gathered from my own interpretations and from my education. You will of course make your own judgements.
I think that Hussein was the real saviour of Islam after Muhammed. Islam, the religion for the poor fell hostage to the very same Makkan elite who had hounded Muhammed from his earliest days. There was first an episode of hidden imperialism and then finally of outright imperialism (Uthman). If Islam is anything, it is its moral core. That very core defines the Islamic universe where people are ranked relative to each other in a moral universe. It defines the scope of actions in this world such that one does not lose on the Hereafter. This very core of Islam was in danger of immediate and complete destruction, forever, with the rise of imperialism. Had Muawiya or Yazid succeded, I doubt if we would even know of the name Muhammed today. Think about it, people under the fist of the Banu Umayya would have either reverted back to their original religion, or some mish-mash combination of the pagan religions along with fragments of Islam. There is a long succession of kings in the past who enforced their own religions or dogmas, and that is what we would have received today, a religion whose prophet was Muawiya or Yazid, whose moral core would be absent.
Think about it for a second: What level of decay must the Islamic world would have been for them to contemplate the family of the Prophet barely fifty years after his death? Imagine yourself to be in that situation, you offer prayers and send salutations to Muhammed and his family, and yet you are willing to kill his family? After the family, it would have been Muhammed himself. Who would have stopped it, all the temporal power rested completely and absolutely in the hands of the state.
In these circumstances, Hussein`s adamant stand NOT to give in to state pressure clearly defined the separation of the religion from the state. It clearly said that the moral core of a religion CANNOT be defined by fiat by the state. Obviously he and his believers believed thoroughly and deeply in this, they sacrificed their lives for this. But in doing so, due to the sheer tragedy of their sacrifice, due to their stature in Islamic tradition to that point and due to the subsequent realization of the importance of Karbala, he saved Islam from the whims of the State.
Let me give a little bit of what happened after the tragedy of Karbala. The news of the tragedy (whose details I will not go into) slowly spread in Iraq. During his life Hussein had written to people in Basra, Medina etc. to join him in combating Yazid who was openly flouting Islam. All those people had decided not to join him because they feared the power of the State. After his death, when they realized their mistake, since the death of Hussein had left a spiritual and moral void in their times, they rose up against the Banu Umayya. This led to one of the most astonishing events in all of Islamic history. In Basra, where hundreds of potential Hussein sympathizers had been pre-emptively imprisoned by the Governor of Iraq and Iran before Kerbala, there was a mutiny, where these prisoners escaped and vowed to avenge the death of Hussein. This bunch of rag-tag escapees from underground dungeons over a period of several years, at great loss to themselves, but at a terrible loss to Banu Umayya, avenged the death of Hussein by destroying the Iraq-Iran garrison and killing the governor. This move dealt a long lasting blow to the power and legitimacy of the Banu Umayya.
Moreover, due to Hussein, the family of Muawiya did not stay in power. The son of Yazid, Muawiya bin Yazid was so disgusted by the acts of his father that he effectively distanced himself from the throne. The power moved into the hands of the family of Marwan, where it stayed for another fifty or so years.
The Abbasid revolution derived its popular support from the tragedy of Kerbala and the fact that the family of the Prophet had been poorly treated. Ironically, the Abbasids reneged on their claims and were statistically even bigger oppressors than the Umayyids.
If there was no Hussein, I think you would not be a Muslim today, and Islam as we know it would probably not exist.
One of the people of this century who has very poignantly pointed out the importance of Hussein in Islam is none other than Iqbal himself. In Israr-o-Ramuz (in Dar ma-niyay hurriyat-e Islamia wa sirr-e hadsa-e Kerbala) he does not mince any words (I can send you the Farsi also, but it will take me long to type all of that up, so I am just including some of my rough translation of some of the verses):
Moses and Pharoah, Hussein and Yazid, these are two opposite forces in life from the beginning.
Truth is alive today because of the strength of Hussein while evil has been defeated.
Until the end of the world he stopped imperialism. His blood flourished a new garden.
The ocean of truth mingled with sand and blood to make the foundation of La-Illaha.
The secret of the Quran is taught by Hussein. He engenders a fire within me.
And so on ...
best
I realize that you are a very realistic person who has genuine concern about the Islamic world and the Muslims. I am sorry if you thought I implied that you were not, and your anger clearly derives how much you feel for the Muslims across the world.
About Hussein, I can only say, what I have gathered from my own interpretations and from my education. You will of course make your own judgements.
I think that Hussein was the real saviour of Islam after Muhammed. Islam, the religion for the poor fell hostage to the very same Makkan elite who had hounded Muhammed from his earliest days. There was first an episode of hidden imperialism and then finally of outright imperialism (Uthman). If Islam is anything, it is its moral core. That very core defines the Islamic universe where people are ranked relative to each other in a moral universe. It defines the scope of actions in this world such that one does not lose on the Hereafter. This very core of Islam was in danger of immediate and complete destruction, forever, with the rise of imperialism. Had Muawiya or Yazid succeded, I doubt if we would even know of the name Muhammed today. Think about it, people under the fist of the Banu Umayya would have either reverted back to their original religion, or some mish-mash combination of the pagan religions along with fragments of Islam. There is a long succession of kings in the past who enforced their own religions or dogmas, and that is what we would have received today, a religion whose prophet was Muawiya or Yazid, whose moral core would be absent.
Think about it for a second: What level of decay must the Islamic world would have been for them to contemplate the family of the Prophet barely fifty years after his death? Imagine yourself to be in that situation, you offer prayers and send salutations to Muhammed and his family, and yet you are willing to kill his family? After the family, it would have been Muhammed himself. Who would have stopped it, all the temporal power rested completely and absolutely in the hands of the state.
In these circumstances, Hussein`s adamant stand NOT to give in to state pressure clearly defined the separation of the religion from the state. It clearly said that the moral core of a religion CANNOT be defined by fiat by the state. Obviously he and his believers believed thoroughly and deeply in this, they sacrificed their lives for this. But in doing so, due to the sheer tragedy of their sacrifice, due to their stature in Islamic tradition to that point and due to the subsequent realization of the importance of Karbala, he saved Islam from the whims of the State.
Let me give a little bit of what happened after the tragedy of Karbala. The news of the tragedy (whose details I will not go into) slowly spread in Iraq. During his life Hussein had written to people in Basra, Medina etc. to join him in combating Yazid who was openly flouting Islam. All those people had decided not to join him because they feared the power of the State. After his death, when they realized their mistake, since the death of Hussein had left a spiritual and moral void in their times, they rose up against the Banu Umayya. This led to one of the most astonishing events in all of Islamic history. In Basra, where hundreds of potential Hussein sympathizers had been pre-emptively imprisoned by the Governor of Iraq and Iran before Kerbala, there was a mutiny, where these prisoners escaped and vowed to avenge the death of Hussein. This bunch of rag-tag escapees from underground dungeons over a period of several years, at great loss to themselves, but at a terrible loss to Banu Umayya, avenged the death of Hussein by destroying the Iraq-Iran garrison and killing the governor. This move dealt a long lasting blow to the power and legitimacy of the Banu Umayya.
Moreover, due to Hussein, the family of Muawiya did not stay in power. The son of Yazid, Muawiya bin Yazid was so disgusted by the acts of his father that he effectively distanced himself from the throne. The power moved into the hands of the family of Marwan, where it stayed for another fifty or so years.
The Abbasid revolution derived its popular support from the tragedy of Kerbala and the fact that the family of the Prophet had been poorly treated. Ironically, the Abbasids reneged on their claims and were statistically even bigger oppressors than the Umayyids.
If there was no Hussein, I think you would not be a Muslim today, and Islam as we know it would probably not exist.
One of the people of this century who has very poignantly pointed out the importance of Hussein in Islam is none other than Iqbal himself. In Israr-o-Ramuz (in Dar ma-niyay hurriyat-e Islamia wa sirr-e hadsa-e Kerbala) he does not mince any words (I can send you the Farsi also, but it will take me long to type all of that up, so I am just including some of my rough translation of some of the verses):
Moses and Pharoah, Hussein and Yazid, these are two opposite forces in life from the beginning.
Truth is alive today because of the strength of Hussein while evil has been defeated.
Until the end of the world he stopped imperialism. His blood flourished a new garden.
The ocean of truth mingled with sand and blood to make the foundation of La-Illaha.
The secret of the Quran is taught by Hussein. He engenders a fire within me.
And so on ...
best
#50 Posted by wasiq on January 19, 1999 11:35:43 pm
Re: Noor (49)
I would agree completely with Godot that the actual life and times of the era of the Prophet were no different when seen up close, from the daily lives of today, in terms of the personal politicking etc. My reply only served to present the point of view that all that we consider to be ethically sublime or base has grown from this very matrix. The very presence of a conflict does not imply the absence of an ethical dimension. Everyone whom I respect as a great teacher of humanity has had to deal with the rest of the world, and by definition successfully enough to have been noticed by history. And if there is anything at all that humans can be proud of ethically it has come out of this conflict between the ideals and the reality.
Even if one does not consider the Prophet to have any divine guidance, one can safely say that he had certain convictions and ethics that he professed and lived by. Those personal rules defined the ``good`` and ``evil`` of his moral universe, and hence by extension of Islam. If the pagan tribes had won, they would have forgotten about a ``rebellious orphan`` called Muhammed. We would probably have been followers of some Indian or Persian religion. But that did not happen, and therefore, within an Islamic context, we should not shy away from accommodating BOTH the realpolitik and the ethics/spirituality.
As far as I understand it, Islam does not condone monasticism or becoming dissociated from the society. People are supposed to be both spiritual and practical. So we need to understand the definition of spirituality of Islam and its relation to the mundane and often disconcerting affairs of life.
There is a very interesting analogy to this from outside of Islam. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna teaches Arjun the importance of his duty (which implied waging war against his mentors and relatives) for the greater good that derived from ethics. There also one sees a clear overlap between the mundane life and the spiritual life (represented by the presence of Krishna and his elaboration of right vs wrong). Clearly faith has to provide a venue for spiritualism within the context of a practical world, and to provide workable models for accommodating both. That is what I think a Muslim can see in the real life struggle of the Prophet and those who stuck with him, which as such forms a beautiful and inspirational story of struggle, prevalence, defeat and faith -the ingredients of real life, and a fitting foundation to a faith.
I would agree completely with Godot that the actual life and times of the era of the Prophet were no different when seen up close, from the daily lives of today, in terms of the personal politicking etc. My reply only served to present the point of view that all that we consider to be ethically sublime or base has grown from this very matrix. The very presence of a conflict does not imply the absence of an ethical dimension. Everyone whom I respect as a great teacher of humanity has had to deal with the rest of the world, and by definition successfully enough to have been noticed by history. And if there is anything at all that humans can be proud of ethically it has come out of this conflict between the ideals and the reality.
Even if one does not consider the Prophet to have any divine guidance, one can safely say that he had certain convictions and ethics that he professed and lived by. Those personal rules defined the ``good`` and ``evil`` of his moral universe, and hence by extension of Islam. If the pagan tribes had won, they would have forgotten about a ``rebellious orphan`` called Muhammed. We would probably have been followers of some Indian or Persian religion. But that did not happen, and therefore, within an Islamic context, we should not shy away from accommodating BOTH the realpolitik and the ethics/spirituality.
As far as I understand it, Islam does not condone monasticism or becoming dissociated from the society. People are supposed to be both spiritual and practical. So we need to understand the definition of spirituality of Islam and its relation to the mundane and often disconcerting affairs of life.
There is a very interesting analogy to this from outside of Islam. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna teaches Arjun the importance of his duty (which implied waging war against his mentors and relatives) for the greater good that derived from ethics. There also one sees a clear overlap between the mundane life and the spiritual life (represented by the presence of Krishna and his elaboration of right vs wrong). Clearly faith has to provide a venue for spiritualism within the context of a practical world, and to provide workable models for accommodating both. That is what I think a Muslim can see in the real life struggle of the Prophet and those who stuck with him, which as such forms a beautiful and inspirational story of struggle, prevalence, defeat and faith -the ingredients of real life, and a fitting foundation to a faith.
#49 Posted by temporal on January 19, 1999 10:39:42 pm
Sohail, Wasiq, Noor, Saad and others:
Please help me with a personal query. In my mind it is related to this discussion.
IS HU(WO)MAN INTELLIGENCE PERFECT?
(We been pushing the threshold of intelligence farther and farther. Have we reached the end? How far have we travelled? How far to go? Is it fallible? Can we ever claim to have arrived at the final limits? Is it possible for other `forms` to be more intelligent?)
regards
Please help me with a personal query. In my mind it is related to this discussion.
IS HU(WO)MAN INTELLIGENCE PERFECT?
(We been pushing the threshold of intelligence farther and farther. Have we reached the end? How far have we travelled? How far to go? Is it fallible? Can we ever claim to have arrived at the final limits? Is it possible for other `forms` to be more intelligent?)
regards
#48 Posted by Godot on January 19, 1999 8:20:40 pm
Re: Wasiq (42)
You are correct. I was impetuous in my denunciation of the Arabs. No, they are not pea-brained. It does anger me, however, that with all their wealth they are so impotent in the world affairs. What have they done to stop the atrocities committed against the Muslims world over? If I were an Arab leader of a country of immense wealth and arms, I would sure organize an army of Muslims, give the Serbs an ultimatum, and run over them if necessary, even if that meant confronting Nato. You think Israel will keep a low profile if the Jews were slaughtered somewhere? If the Arabs did not have the oil, one wonders what would have happened to them. As for their past glories, well, how many years ago was that? At any rate, that still does not justify me insulting them. I apologize for that.
On this you are not right. Yes, the current sorry state of the Islamic world does bother me a great deal. I do not live in an idealized world of fairy tales, though. On the contrary. I have lived a difficult life. Perhaps that is why I am so angry. The reason I don`t give a crap about what followed Mohammad is that those event have done nothing but have divided the Muslims and done a great harm to Islam. The Caliphs were humans capable of petty jealousies. Sunni/Shia divide is political, not Islam. Look at the damage it is doing to Pakistan. Why should one care about whether it should have been Ali or Omar, or Usman, or, worse, Hussain (what was his contribution to Islam, one wonders)? Mohammad was a prophet, not a king that after him his family were to carry the torch of Islam.
You are correct. I was impetuous in my denunciation of the Arabs. No, they are not pea-brained. It does anger me, however, that with all their wealth they are so impotent in the world affairs. What have they done to stop the atrocities committed against the Muslims world over? If I were an Arab leader of a country of immense wealth and arms, I would sure organize an army of Muslims, give the Serbs an ultimatum, and run over them if necessary, even if that meant confronting Nato. You think Israel will keep a low profile if the Jews were slaughtered somewhere? If the Arabs did not have the oil, one wonders what would have happened to them. As for their past glories, well, how many years ago was that? At any rate, that still does not justify me insulting them. I apologize for that.
On this you are not right. Yes, the current sorry state of the Islamic world does bother me a great deal. I do not live in an idealized world of fairy tales, though. On the contrary. I have lived a difficult life. Perhaps that is why I am so angry. The reason I don`t give a crap about what followed Mohammad is that those event have done nothing but have divided the Muslims and done a great harm to Islam. The Caliphs were humans capable of petty jealousies. Sunni/Shia divide is political, not Islam. Look at the damage it is doing to Pakistan. Why should one care about whether it should have been Ali or Omar, or Usman, or, worse, Hussain (what was his contribution to Islam, one wonders)? Mohammad was a prophet, not a king that after him his family were to carry the torch of Islam.
#47 Posted by noor on January 19, 1999 8:00:11 pm
Saima Shah:
``The idea that the absence of practical gains from rationalism was the primary reason why renaissaince did not happen begs the question; We must remember that it was `reason` that yielded practical S and T.and not the other way round.``
I guess I didn`t make myself clear. Pure science or philosophy is the hobby of an elite. That elite has carried the torch of reason in times of mass indifference or antipathy. This elite has to show to the society how their science can impact the lives of the common people. And only if they are able to show that, will they be taken seriously. Pure science will then be encouraged, and more advances would take place due to allocation of more resources. So yes, `reason` is the cause for S and T. But unless `reason` does produce S and T, it will not capture the common imagination and support for `reason` will peter out.
``What is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy? The first is that in theEast, the individual ego is negated. Self-negation and denial is considered spiritual nirvana whereasthe West had self-affirmation and the value of the individual. Instead of ethics our morality was derived from ratified belief. Instead of plato`s greater good = ethical, we had divine good = ethical.Instead of society sanctioning and defining ethics we had an obscure God approving or disapproving behaviour.``
I think this view is popular, but I don`t agree with it. Dictators like Mahatir Muhammad and Lee Kwon Yoo have been the most vocal proponents of this simplistic theory. So let me just discard this `East/West` label for a second, if you don`t mind.
Religions appeal to the individual`s selfish instincts and all religions try equally hard to pretend not to do so. Self-denial and social discipline is emphasized in every religion. That is the raison d`etre of religions in a sense. The instinct of the individual IS selfish. So theology tends to spawn self-denial and control USING the individual`s selfish instincts. Usually that`s done by appealing to an after-life. You hold off in this life, and you`ll get more in the after-life. That pattern is prevalent in all religions. It could be the threat of hell, enticement of heaven, the spectre of being re-born as a pig or a dog, or the attainment of Nirvana. Reward for self-denial and self-control now, is deferred to after death, or some punishment is promised for not doing that: carrot and stick. So IMO religion IS about control, about the precedence of collective good over individual good. No religion tells you to go and do whatever makes you happy. Individual has been marginalized in every environment.
The importance of the individual in the current Western society is a fruit of the Rennaisance and the humanism it spawned. The social contract is now based on the right of the individual. ``All men are created equal.....``. It is not a matter of difference between Eastern and Western religions but the developments that led to the banishment of religion from Western society.
You are right though, that marginalization of the individual seems to stagnate the process of creative thought. But the cause of this marginalization is IMO not the Western-ness or Eastern-ness of a religion. That`d be the point of view of Sam Huntington types. They`d argue that all the Eastern `civilizations` produced un-creative robots. That is demonstrably not the case. In present time, we seem to be in our stagnant phase, but that is IMO a result of more temporary factors.
About your thoughts on Ghalib...
Urdu poetry is certainly indirect. `Ramziyyat` is supposed to be the sign of a good couplet in Faarsi, Arabic and Urdu. But all poetic traditions are not like that. Wordsworth isn`t half as obscure as Ghalib is. This quality in the literature of these three languages MIGHT be there because dissent was ruthlessly punished in the host societies. Eventually I think rebellion in poetry became so common that it stopped being taken seriously. It is sort of seen as an escape from the strictures of religion, and therefore considered separate from it. So you have examples of bearded fundamentalists like Hasrat Mohani and Zafar Ali Khan talking of wine and women. I think Ghalib benefitted not only from the indirect nature of poetry, but also the tolerance accorded to poetic thoughts. For example, Ghalib would have surely been lynched for saying: ``Khuda kay waastay pardah na ka`bay say utha zaalim, kahiN aisa na ho yaaN bhi wo hi kaafir sanam niklay`` in prose.
Pervez Manzoor
Quite frankly, I find your excessively verbose diatribe hard to understand.
Kalaam-e-Mir samjheiN, ya kalaam-e-meerza samheiN
apna kaha khud aap samjheiN ya khuda samjhay
Hence, unless we totally submit to the immanent truth of historicism, or like the postmodernists discard all distinctions between `fact` and `fiction`, we are obliged to resist any disfigurement of our history in the name of a morally vagrant and non-committal relativism.
I think you are the one who is guilty of relativisim when you talk about `disfigurement of our history`. For you, history is about `us` and `them`. There is `your` truth and there is `their` truth. Maybe `they` think like that too. I don`t know. But if there is an objective history -and by that I mean a series of events in the past - then you shouldn`t be launching this attack. It would be far more appropriate for you to do what you refuse to do i.e. raise questions about their methods; without the dramatic rhetoric, thank you.
You leave that task for a non-Muslim.
``We do not even have academically competent scholars of Arabic any more! In our intellectual hierarchy, the scientist and the technician rank much higher than the historian and the humanist. Let no one forget, however, that the nation that prefers its topmost brains to become nuclear physicists may acquire the Bomb, but it is sure to loose its soul.``
Great scientists are, and have been great humanists as well. Our society is not short of humanists. There are many of them, thankfully. But your idea of a historian or a humanist is someone who has a pre-determined agenda to counter the `modernist` assault on Islam. That`s not humanism, it`s war; war by the godly-righteous to use and abuse scholarship in their partisan bickering. As regards the bomb, the most famous physicist from Pakistan is vehemently and staunchly against the bomb. It is the partisan warriors in the guise of humanists and historians who spur conflict and incite war.
Wasiq:
Life is not a fairy-tale, it is the ugly day to day life that we live today. It was the same thing fourteen hundred years ago. Ethics, divinity, ``good`` and ``evil`` all arise from this mundane muck. Welcome to reality!
I think you just re-inforced Godot`s point. Islamic history is made out to be a fairy tale by those who claim that it`s the history of a divine religion, inspired by the perfect human i.e.Muhammad. That up close, this history looks like Jerry Springer Show, points to the fact that this revolution, great as it was, was neither spurred by divine sanction nor carried by divine will.
Mohammad Noorul Islam
``The idea that the absence of practical gains from rationalism was the primary reason why renaissaince did not happen begs the question; We must remember that it was `reason` that yielded practical S and T.and not the other way round.``
I guess I didn`t make myself clear. Pure science or philosophy is the hobby of an elite. That elite has carried the torch of reason in times of mass indifference or antipathy. This elite has to show to the society how their science can impact the lives of the common people. And only if they are able to show that, will they be taken seriously. Pure science will then be encouraged, and more advances would take place due to allocation of more resources. So yes, `reason` is the cause for S and T. But unless `reason` does produce S and T, it will not capture the common imagination and support for `reason` will peter out.
``What is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy? The first is that in theEast, the individual ego is negated. Self-negation and denial is considered spiritual nirvana whereasthe West had self-affirmation and the value of the individual. Instead of ethics our morality was derived from ratified belief. Instead of plato`s greater good = ethical, we had divine good = ethical.Instead of society sanctioning and defining ethics we had an obscure God approving or disapproving behaviour.``
I think this view is popular, but I don`t agree with it. Dictators like Mahatir Muhammad and Lee Kwon Yoo have been the most vocal proponents of this simplistic theory. So let me just discard this `East/West` label for a second, if you don`t mind.
Religions appeal to the individual`s selfish instincts and all religions try equally hard to pretend not to do so. Self-denial and social discipline is emphasized in every religion. That is the raison d`etre of religions in a sense. The instinct of the individual IS selfish. So theology tends to spawn self-denial and control USING the individual`s selfish instincts. Usually that`s done by appealing to an after-life. You hold off in this life, and you`ll get more in the after-life. That pattern is prevalent in all religions. It could be the threat of hell, enticement of heaven, the spectre of being re-born as a pig or a dog, or the attainment of Nirvana. Reward for self-denial and self-control now, is deferred to after death, or some punishment is promised for not doing that: carrot and stick. So IMO religion IS about control, about the precedence of collective good over individual good. No religion tells you to go and do whatever makes you happy. Individual has been marginalized in every environment.
The importance of the individual in the current Western society is a fruit of the Rennaisance and the humanism it spawned. The social contract is now based on the right of the individual. ``All men are created equal.....``. It is not a matter of difference between Eastern and Western religions but the developments that led to the banishment of religion from Western society.
You are right though, that marginalization of the individual seems to stagnate the process of creative thought. But the cause of this marginalization is IMO not the Western-ness or Eastern-ness of a religion. That`d be the point of view of Sam Huntington types. They`d argue that all the Eastern `civilizations` produced un-creative robots. That is demonstrably not the case. In present time, we seem to be in our stagnant phase, but that is IMO a result of more temporary factors.
About your thoughts on Ghalib...
Urdu poetry is certainly indirect. `Ramziyyat` is supposed to be the sign of a good couplet in Faarsi, Arabic and Urdu. But all poetic traditions are not like that. Wordsworth isn`t half as obscure as Ghalib is. This quality in the literature of these three languages MIGHT be there because dissent was ruthlessly punished in the host societies. Eventually I think rebellion in poetry became so common that it stopped being taken seriously. It is sort of seen as an escape from the strictures of religion, and therefore considered separate from it. So you have examples of bearded fundamentalists like Hasrat Mohani and Zafar Ali Khan talking of wine and women. I think Ghalib benefitted not only from the indirect nature of poetry, but also the tolerance accorded to poetic thoughts. For example, Ghalib would have surely been lynched for saying: ``Khuda kay waastay pardah na ka`bay say utha zaalim, kahiN aisa na ho yaaN bhi wo hi kaafir sanam niklay`` in prose.
Pervez Manzoor
Quite frankly, I find your excessively verbose diatribe hard to understand.
Kalaam-e-Mir samjheiN, ya kalaam-e-meerza samheiN
apna kaha khud aap samjheiN ya khuda samjhay
Hence, unless we totally submit to the immanent truth of historicism, or like the postmodernists discard all distinctions between `fact` and `fiction`, we are obliged to resist any disfigurement of our history in the name of a morally vagrant and non-committal relativism.
I think you are the one who is guilty of relativisim when you talk about `disfigurement of our history`. For you, history is about `us` and `them`. There is `your` truth and there is `their` truth. Maybe `they` think like that too. I don`t know. But if there is an objective history -and by that I mean a series of events in the past - then you shouldn`t be launching this attack. It would be far more appropriate for you to do what you refuse to do i.e. raise questions about their methods; without the dramatic rhetoric, thank you.
You leave that task for a non-Muslim.
``We do not even have academically competent scholars of Arabic any more! In our intellectual hierarchy, the scientist and the technician rank much higher than the historian and the humanist. Let no one forget, however, that the nation that prefers its topmost brains to become nuclear physicists may acquire the Bomb, but it is sure to loose its soul.``
Great scientists are, and have been great humanists as well. Our society is not short of humanists. There are many of them, thankfully. But your idea of a historian or a humanist is someone who has a pre-determined agenda to counter the `modernist` assault on Islam. That`s not humanism, it`s war; war by the godly-righteous to use and abuse scholarship in their partisan bickering. As regards the bomb, the most famous physicist from Pakistan is vehemently and staunchly against the bomb. It is the partisan warriors in the guise of humanists and historians who spur conflict and incite war.
Wasiq:
Life is not a fairy-tale, it is the ugly day to day life that we live today. It was the same thing fourteen hundred years ago. Ethics, divinity, ``good`` and ``evil`` all arise from this mundane muck. Welcome to reality!
I think you just re-inforced Godot`s point. Islamic history is made out to be a fairy tale by those who claim that it`s the history of a divine religion, inspired by the perfect human i.e.Muhammad. That up close, this history looks like Jerry Springer Show, points to the fact that this revolution, great as it was, was neither spurred by divine sanction nor carried by divine will.
Mohammad Noorul Islam
#46 Posted by Goga on January 19, 1999 8:00:11 pm
Saima Shah (35):
You said: ``One reason why change or any form of Ijtehad is extremely difficult in the Islamic world is the belief that the Q as is, is the entire word of God.``
I do not agree since many kind of Ijtehad is being practiced in the Muslim world in to case of issues like those related to genetics and global economy. As far as women`s status goes, there is a lot being done by scholars like Azziza al-Hibari the founder of Qarama (http://karamah.org/). I will suggest that you listen to:
By Azziza al-Hibari:
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/lctr015a.ram
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/lctr014a.ram
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/khtb081a.ram
By the former head of OPEC and oil minister of Saudi Arabia Shaikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani:
http://islam.org/audio/Yamani1.ram
By the way in the Shia`ite creed, the term Ijtehad is replaced by Aqal which might have some basic or subtle differences; I don`t know.
Shafqat (33):
There is a general consensus that among the Islam scholars that a part of the hadith literature is apocryphalic in nature. Sadly, sometimes this is done on the basis of political and other personal motives.
Quran, however, is another story. In Quran it is God who is speaking to mankind. Prophet was very careful in ditinguish what God releaved to him and what he, himself, said to people. The forms of speech is different so much that even common people can distinguish them.
Many scholars, even from the West (e.g. Annmary Shimel) find Bible (especially N.T. which is the written record of what Christ did)) similar to the Hadith literature not Quran. Hadith has never been claimed to be infallible.
I also do not see any other personality assuming a prophetic role besides Mohammad (PBUH) in Islam. So we have different situation concerning the history of early Islam than Christianity.
Wasiq (42):
I don`t see Marwan`s name being mentioned in the hadith I posted (Goga-40). am I missing someting?
I do not know how the hadith that I posted undermine the speriority of the Prophet. But if it a general conclusion of yours from reading the Bukahri then that is another story. But I will take it with a pinch of salt and also refer you to the situation as desribed below:
``O Messenger, announce what has reached you from you lord, for if you do not, you will not have delivered His message. God will preserve you from men; for God does not guide those who do not believe.`` (Quran 5:67)
It is said by the Shia`ite authorities that ``Announce what has reached you`` is concerning Ali and in fact the verse inculded ``concerning Ali.``
In the collection of al-Tabarsi, it is said on the authority of ibn Abbas and Jabir ibn Abdallah that God commanded the prophet to place Ali before men and to (publicly) inform them of his guardianship (over them). The prophet, however, was afraid that they would say: ``He is protecting his cousin,`` and that a group of his companian might find this distressing. Verse 5:67 came down regarding this. On the following day, the Prophet took Ali gently by the hand and said: ``Whose protector I am, their protector (also) is Ali.`` Then he recited the verse in question. (Kashi)
From the above situation it is clear that even Shia`ite authorities have undermined the courage and the faithfulness of the Prophet in order to claim that Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) was done wrong.
You said: ``One reason why change or any form of Ijtehad is extremely difficult in the Islamic world is the belief that the Q as is, is the entire word of God.``
I do not agree since many kind of Ijtehad is being practiced in the Muslim world in to case of issues like those related to genetics and global economy. As far as women`s status goes, there is a lot being done by scholars like Azziza al-Hibari the founder of Qarama (http://karamah.org/). I will suggest that you listen to:
By Azziza al-Hibari:
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/lctr015a.ram
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/lctr014a.ram
http://www.islam.org/voi/ram/khtb081a.ram
By the former head of OPEC and oil minister of Saudi Arabia Shaikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani:
http://islam.org/audio/Yamani1.ram
By the way in the Shia`ite creed, the term Ijtehad is replaced by Aqal which might have some basic or subtle differences; I don`t know.
Shafqat (33):
There is a general consensus that among the Islam scholars that a part of the hadith literature is apocryphalic in nature. Sadly, sometimes this is done on the basis of political and other personal motives.
Quran, however, is another story. In Quran it is God who is speaking to mankind. Prophet was very careful in ditinguish what God releaved to him and what he, himself, said to people. The forms of speech is different so much that even common people can distinguish them.
Many scholars, even from the West (e.g. Annmary Shimel) find Bible (especially N.T. which is the written record of what Christ did)) similar to the Hadith literature not Quran. Hadith has never been claimed to be infallible.
I also do not see any other personality assuming a prophetic role besides Mohammad (PBUH) in Islam. So we have different situation concerning the history of early Islam than Christianity.
Wasiq (42):
I don`t see Marwan`s name being mentioned in the hadith I posted (Goga-40). am I missing someting?
I do not know how the hadith that I posted undermine the speriority of the Prophet. But if it a general conclusion of yours from reading the Bukahri then that is another story. But I will take it with a pinch of salt and also refer you to the situation as desribed below:
``O Messenger, announce what has reached you from you lord, for if you do not, you will not have delivered His message. God will preserve you from men; for God does not guide those who do not believe.`` (Quran 5:67)
It is said by the Shia`ite authorities that ``Announce what has reached you`` is concerning Ali and in fact the verse inculded ``concerning Ali.``
In the collection of al-Tabarsi, it is said on the authority of ibn Abbas and Jabir ibn Abdallah that God commanded the prophet to place Ali before men and to (publicly) inform them of his guardianship (over them). The prophet, however, was afraid that they would say: ``He is protecting his cousin,`` and that a group of his companian might find this distressing. Verse 5:67 came down regarding this. On the following day, the Prophet took Ali gently by the hand and said: ``Whose protector I am, their protector (also) is Ali.`` Then he recited the verse in question. (Kashi)
From the above situation it is clear that even Shia`ite authorities have undermined the courage and the faithfulness of the Prophet in order to claim that Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) was done wrong.
#45 Posted by maTha on January 19, 1999 8:00:11 pm
RE: Wasiq (#32 and others)
So you finally did find the authentic and accurate historical accounts of early
Islam! Oay! Koyee tam-mashine tay nee istaymaal
keetee see?
Are you suggesting that Ali knew about a (put in your favorite word for milaawaT-shuda) compilation of the Quran, and then stuck with it during his
caliphate, and somehow we can blame the haalaat?
Baqaul shayir:
Woh scientific discourse kiya huwa?
What is wrong with the explanation involving alien hera-pheri? Have you ever heard the Arabic they speak on sub-space frequencies?
maTha
So you finally did find the authentic and accurate historical accounts of early
Islam! Oay! Koyee tam-mashine tay nee istaymaal
keetee see?
Are you suggesting that Ali knew about a (put in your favorite word for milaawaT-shuda) compilation of the Quran, and then stuck with it during his
caliphate, and somehow we can blame the haalaat?
Baqaul shayir:
Woh scientific discourse kiya huwa?
What is wrong with the explanation involving alien hera-pheri? Have you ever heard the Arabic they speak on sub-space frequencies?
maTha
#44 Posted by ferozk on January 19, 1999 7:15:30 pm
Re: Altaf post # 43
I can not speak for Wasiq et al, but I think that no one is questioning the wisdom or the spirituality of the Quran. That fact, established over 1400 years, can not so easily be dis-constructed. The views expressed by many, including myself and please correct if I am wrong, is that in order to really appreciate the Quran, we need to understand how it was complied.
I can not speak for Wasiq et al, but I think that no one is questioning the wisdom or the spirituality of the Quran. That fact, established over 1400 years, can not so easily be dis-constructed. The views expressed by many, including myself and please correct if I am wrong, is that in order to really appreciate the Quran, we need to understand how it was complied.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58; parthaab... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- stuka: And yes, I do... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- stuka: Zeejah yaar, tu tau... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- BJ2: Re: # 313 Pinku, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #312 Posted by tahmed32... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #304 "You can... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #303 er...well..ok.
... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal - tahmed32: masadi #308 thanks for... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
