Chowk Special

The Atlantic Monthly article on the Koran, I believe, justifies neither religious frenzy nor `secular` complacency! It offers, after all, a misinformed, indeed tendentious, summary of an academic debate that is far from over. Any Muslim retort of Lester`s inconclusive statement would therefore be premature. In fact, our rebuttal, even of its factual distortions and half-truths, is likely to be construed as a Muslim attempt to quell the scholarly controversy. Before anything, then, let every Muslim, speaking from the depth of Islamic conscience, affirm the academic community`s right to pursue its researches in full freedom and peace. Islam is not a faith that shuns the light of history. The believer, however, is justified in demanding from the scholars that they, prior to entering into any ideological polemics through journalistic mouthpieces, resolve the methodological and textual issues! Only then may an unqualified and frank dialogue between the historian and the believer take place; for only then can it be an enriching and sobering experience for both.

At present, however, when Muslims do not own `the free press`, retribution can only come through the good will of others! Let`s hope that some non-Muslim publicist, of impeccable integrity and erudition, responds to Lester`s slanted article in a spirit of impartiality and fairness. Let him/her bring home the fact, long accepted within the scholarly community, that what Lester projects as reputable scholarship of the Qur`an is but a rabidly fundamentalist _tariqa_ of the Orientalists. The revisionist theories of Wansbrough and his ilk, it must also come to the attention of the unsuspecting reader`s of the American journal, have been flatly rejected by an overwhelming majority of their academic peers and mentors. The revisionist stance is questionable, in other words, not because of its ideological inflamability, but because of perfectly valid epistemological, methodological and historical counter-arguments. Of course, there no denying that Wansbrough/Crone thesis is ideologically suggestive and carries great appeal for the Islamophobic zealot. Nevertheless, its reckless debunking of established authorities fails to answer the very questions that it raises. In short, there is no sound reason - academic, humanist, Western, Islamic - for surrendering to this irredeemable `fundamentalism of doubt`.

The Muslim interest in the debate, let it be spelt out unequivocally, transcends the purely academic squabbles over matters of historical detail and textual variations. It reaches to the very heart of foundational, moral and metaphysical, argument. For, it remains to be seen whether an immanentist conception of `historicity` is able to sustain any conception of `truth`, any edifice of values, or whether the atomization of history into pure - secular – temporality robs human existence of all meaning and normativity. Little wonder that our tradition conceives of historicism and temporalism (_dahriyya_) as the opposite of God-consciousness. The really stimulating debate, I believe, will start when modernity/postmodernity succeeds in superimposing the square of _norm_ on the circle of _history_ and proclaims a normative doctrine of its own! Until then, the hallowed cult of historicism may be rightfully deposed by the silent sneer of Muslim irony!



The Muslim`s stake in the history of the Revelation, let it also be spelt out, is as paramount as it is in its truth. Thus, it is not merely Muslim squeamishness that insists that of all the sacred texts of the world, Western scholarship singled out the Qur`anic revelation for carrying out its senseless acts of vandalism, an academic hooliganism that shocked even its own champions. For instance, a scholar like Ignaz Goldziher, hardly to be accused of pro-Islamic partiality, had to cry out in protest exclaiming: `What would be left of the Gospels if the Qur`anic methods were applied to them?` Given this insight, then, it is really baffling that in the face of a highly circumspect, perforce subversive, neo-Orientalist movement that seeks under the pretext of critical scholarship to untie the Muslim from his historical moorings, all that the scholars of Islam seem to be doing is to bury their heads in the proverbial sand.

Much of the present craze to dismiss early Muslim sources as `unreliable` is based on a tendentious view of Islam`s role in world history. Thus, even in purely academic studies, dealing with the first two centuries of Muslim rule in the Near East, one comes across indictments like `the ideological intransigence of Islam vis-à-vis the Western world today` (P Crone & M Hines). Or, there is a feeling of utter despair at the scholar`s ability to sift the Islamic material and reconstruct a plausible historical scenario. The Islamic source-material, we are told, `has an extraordinary capacity to resist internal criticism...: one can take the picture presented or one can leave it, but one cannot _work _ with it.` (P Crone) Occasionally, one encounters even the confessional: `The overall situation is thus an unfortunate one... _Instead of the data serving to determine our general notions, it is our general notions which determine the way in which we interpret the data_.` (M Cook.) One is reminded of Rumi`s famous tale in the Mathnawi: Like blind en feeling an elephant, each revisionist has his/her particular view of Muslim history.

For instance, Wansbrough`s own pupil, John Burton advocates, most paradoxically and more than any traditional Muslim claim, that the entirety of the Qur`an in its present textual arrangement is the work of the Prophet himself! Understandably, the Orientalist establishment has reacted with caution, circumspection and scepticism to Wansbrough`s chronology that relies not on history but on `literary analysis`. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, for instance, sums up the majority-view of the Orientalists as: `Neither [Wansbrough or Burton] has given convincing reasons for his own hypothesis, or for the shared assertion that the Muslim accounts should be rejected altogether` More outspoken dismissals of Wansbrough`s startling assertions have not been lacking either. R.B. Serjeant, for instance, expresses the gist of the counter-argument against Wansbrough as such: `An historical circumstance so public [as the appearance of the Qur`anic revelation] cannot have been invented`! Not to be overlooked in this regard is the position of the late Professor Fazlur Rahman of Chicago, whom Lester puts in the revisionist camp (!) but who delivered on more than one occasion very firm, pithy and scholarly rebuttals of Wansbrough`s `methodology`. Indeed, FR accused Wansbrough of straight-faced duplicity, `of running with the hare and hunting with the hound.`

That all historical narratives contain an irreducible element of interpretation is not a point of dispute with Islamic consciousness. Hence, the classical Muslim account of the genesis of Islam is a historical narrative that is also a criterion of revelation. The event of the Koran is simultaneously a theory of truth. For historicist consciousness and method, on the other hand, there is no God, only the world; no transcendence, only time; no truth, only history; no values, only facts. 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. Our silence in the face of the current subversive movement merely confirms the fact that our traditional intellectual establishment is incapable of meeting the modern assault. 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.



ends -

Italics are contained within _XXXX_ marks.

Wasiq: since you did bring up this point; in early Shiah traditions there are questions about the ``original Quran.`` It would indeed be intriguing to say the least, if there was a Quran out there with sustantial diffrences. Unfortuantley the Atlantic Montly article doesnt go much into this... and Muslim scholars may be too scared to go into this territory.

There is a book that explores some of the questions of a Quran with some additional verses:

The Divine Guide in Early Shiism by Mohammad ali Amir-Moezzi -This is an

excellent book to understand the esoteric tradition in Islam. The book also

briefly discusses the implications of the esoteric becoming exoteric. i.e. the

original ideas being taken over by the current jurist-ulemas.

-altaf

Re: Noor

A fascinating reply. Your response about renaissance was thought provoking. 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. My bone is that every time someone challenged basic orthodoxy, he was killed or ridiculed or the books were burnt. Belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy, would you agree? and the entire belief structure was so strong that a few dissenters could not tip the balance.

What is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy? The first is that in the East, the individual ego is negated. Self-negation and denial is considered spiritual nirvana whereas the 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.

This value fits neatly in the structure of a
feudalist society. Both co-relate and are interdependent. I feel this is the reason for the parallels between Hindu, Muslim and other Eastern society as far as marginalization of the individual is concerned.

IMO this self-negation eventually led to stagnation in intellectual, economic and cultural
institutions. If you notice, Ghalib wrote poetry not essays. Poetry is a relatively less direct
form of expression. The pre-partition intellectuals grafted more `western` ideas in their poltical ideas e.g., Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Iqbal. The process stopped after the creation
of Pakistan--which was to be the ideological utopia a la the Western model of democracy.

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 remember when I first read SNisah, I more or less accepted that I am a subordinate individual since that is the will of God and divinely legitimate. Fear is a powerful force and is easily manipulated to form belief.

I agree that we will have to be more tolerant of disbelief in order to reform and adapt to the
demands of the new era. Unfortunately historically anyone who has said this has been called a non-muslim or kafir, and therefore their arguments are rendered invalid. This is the very reason why belief suffocates what it seeks to
preserve--brotherhood and community. It is sad to see how many have seen the west as anti-east rather than just `west` or viewed them as white, therefore anti-brown.

Some questions to Temporal. We dont need common definitions to debate. I know that common
definitions are considered scientific. We will never as a society or as a community speak the
same language. We just need to recognize that fact. Social sciences are not lab experiments. The
words change with the advent of new ideas. I have a few questions for you. Is random the same
thing as irrational? Is belief the same as love? Is trust always, if ever blind?

If you said no to all these, we are on the same wave length. If you said yes than that is even
better, because you may have something new to tell us.

Thats rationality. Anything else is usually some level of bigotry or dogma.

Re: Anita and Wasiq

Thanks for the Shitte point of view. A friend recently educated me a bit on this and I find what
you said stunning. Can we conclude that it is not the Quran at fault but the lack of tolerance
of diversity within the religion?

Re: Saima Shah response to Noor

``Can we conclude that it is not the Quran at fault but the lack of tolerance
of diversity within the religion?``

I think you have nailed a very significant point which explains the lack of an internal debate within Islam itself.

Thanks for brining it up!

Saima Shah:

You ask is random the same thing as irrational? Is belief the same as love? Is trust always, if ever blind?

The way you phrase it, there is no simple yes and no answer. Qualifiers can fill pages. But I do see and appreciate your perspective.

You have said it LACK OF TOLERANCE. I`ve said the same thing in different words elsewhere on the Chowk. INTOLERANCE is the single common characterstic of the Muslims around the globe these days.

I am all for a renewal, if not a renaissance, from within, not without. That is why we need tolerance, debate & inquiry. God knows we have enough view points here to sustain a healthy debate.

regards

RE: Some more incidentals about the Shia perspective :

Usman (Uthman) was a feeble old man of almost eighty, when he was accepted as a `compromise candidate` after Omar`s assassination. The powerful families with close ties to the House of Abu Sufyan (Muawia`s father, and Yazid`s grand-papa) managed to keep the poorer but devoted followers at bay. The have-nots from among the `ansar` and the `muhajirin` (i.e., those who had given refuge to the fleeing Muslims in Medina, and those who fled Mecca, as did Mohammed himself) who had served as the front line soldiers during the persecution years, were loosely aligned with the pro-Ali forces. These more `puritanical` elements felt that they should have more of a say in determining the future of the evolving Islamic society since they were the ones who had followed the Prophet through thick and thin. These partisans represent the leftist view in early Islam as opposed to the establishment `capitalists` from the ruling elite of Mecca. They were resentful that the ruling Quresh elite who opposed the Islamic movement for years was now suddenly, after the fall of Mecca, given such importance that they had virtually taken over the Islamic movement. Abu Bakr, Omar and then Usman (though personally close to the Prophet and migrants to Mecca), all three, represent the established Mecca families with wealth and influence. Old family ties were proving stronger than the revolutionaries would have liked.

Abu Sufyan`s wife, Hinda, of course, is a hated figure by the Ali group, and one of the very few individuals whom Mohammed had to punish despite the general clemency which he issued after the conquest of Mecca. Hinda had ripped open the fallen Hamza and bit into his liver in the aftermath of the battle of Uhad. Hamza, a dear uncle of Ali (and Muhammad, of course), was the heir apparent and would likely have taken precedence over Abu Bakr had he survived and out-lived Mohammed. This sad fact the revolutionaries already begrudged.

Usman, even though he was a close relative of Abu Sufyan, was accepted as a compromise because no one viewed the decrepit old fossil as a threat and it was thought that he will soon pass away and that will clear the way for Ali. The first two, Abu Bakr and Omar had been Mohammed`s fathers-in-law, while Usman was a son-in-law. Thus the other son-in-law, Ali, who was also a first cousin, would surely have the most legitimate claim after Usman. However, upon becoming Caliph, Usman appointed his nephew, Mirwan, as his executive assistant. Mirwan, who was Muawia`s cousin, was a clever little bugger. (He, incidentally, was also Yazid`s main advisor, years later, when Ali and Fatima`s son, Hussein, was killed at Karbala.) It was this Mirwan who actually chaired the commission which was entrusted with the official compilation of the Quran.

In olden days when publishing houses didn`t exist, a `book` consisted of several serially numbered rolls of parchment assembled in a `book-bucket`. This is how the Greeks and Romans maintained `books`. Each roll of parchment was of a fixed size. Chapters and verses could overflow from one to the next, since the scrolls were only physical space delimiters, much like today`s floppy disc. It was also customary to divide things up in 40s. Forty was a convenient number for the camel herders. Presumably, that was as far as most felt comfortable counting. (Thus for example, we see `zakaat` described as one part in forty, etc.) Presumably following this thinking, it has been suggested that the original compiled Quran was divided in 40 equal physical parts (siparah), ten of which, or 25%, were lost. It is said that Mirwan had a goat and he let the goat loose on the ten siparah`s of the Quran that vanished. They were supposedly written on dried leaves which the ignorant goat mistook for gourmet, rather than God`s Book. [Was it God`s Book or was it a facsimile copy (`HQ` as one reader imaginatively suggests) of the original manuscript (he calls it `EQ`), which must be preserved in the Heavens, presumably on microfiche, since even acid free paper wouldn`t last till eternity.]

RE: Noor,

Thank you for raising the real fundamantal issues. Its good to see your name again. As long as you are there no one will get away with supersititious bullshit without being taken to task.

RE: Wasiq,

Great commentary. You hardly left anything for me to add. ``Khilafat-aur-Mulukiat`` is also available in Nasim Hijazi`s version.

In an earlier message you mentioned the evolution of the Christian creed and implied a parallel with Islam. They are somewhat different because of the respective time lapse involved. The First Council of Niece was held in 325 AD, after the Aryan controversy had been raging for some years. It was at Niece the God-the-Father, and God-the-Son issue was decided and they were deemed to be ``of the same substance``. The third leg of the Trinity did not come till the Council of 387 AD. ( If memory serves me, that was the Council of Constance.) In Islam, by contrast, most such matters were decided within a Century of the Prophet`s death. (Of course, the notable exception is that whole episode of the 12th Century when Al-Ghazali spearheaded the brutal, barbarious but successful assault against the scientific and intellectual revolution in Islam, and abolished `Ijtihad`. But that`s another story altogether.)

Jesus in his short life was not successful in establishing the Christian religion. He was, as Vidal says, only ``a renegade Jew from Bethelham``. Paul is the real founder of Christianity, not Jesus.

The Prophet, on the other hand, is a success story. He is one of only two people in history who started life as destitute orphans with absolutely nothing, and within their lifetimes became powerful founders of new empires. The other is Changiz Khan.

...SR

Zayd ibn Thabit said: Abu Bakr [Caliph 632-634 C.E.] sent to me at the time of the battle al-Yamama, and Umar ibn al-Khattab [Caliph 634-644 C.E] was with him Abu Bakr said: Umar has come to me and said: ``Death was rampant at the battle of al-Yamama and took with it many of the reciters of the Quran in the provinces and so large part of Quran be lost. I think you should give orders to collect the Quran.``

``What,`` I asked Umar, ``do you wish to do something which the Prophet of God himself did not do?``

``By God,`` replied Umar, ``it would be a good deed.``

Umar did not leave off urging me until at length God opened my heart to this and I thought as Umar did.``

Zayd continued: Abu Bakr said to me: ``You are a young man, intelligent, and we see no fault in you; more, you have already written down the revelation for the Prophet of God, may God bless and save him. Therefore go seek the Quran and collect it.``

By God if he had ordered me to move a mountain, it would not have been harder for me than his order to collect the Quran. ``What,`` I asked, ``Will you do something which the prophet of God himself, may God bless and save him, did not do?

``By God,`` Abu Bakr replied, ``it would be good deed.``

Umar did not leave urging me until God opened my heart to this as He had opened the hearts of Abu Bakr and Umar.

Then I searched out and collected the parts of the Quran, whether they were written on palm leaves of flat stones or in the hearts of men. Thus I found the end of the ``Sura of Repentance`` (Quran 9:129-130), which had been unable to find anywhere else, in the possession of Abu al-Khuzayma al-Ansari. There verses ``There came to you a Prophet from amoung yourselves. It grieves me that you sin ...`` to the end.

The (collected) leaves remained in the possession of Abu Bakr until his death, then in Umar`s for as long he lived, and then with Hafsa, Daughter of Umar.

Anas ibn Malik said: Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman accompanied Uthman [Chaliph 644-656 C.E.] when he was preparing the army of Syria together with the army of Iraq to conquer Armenia and Azarbayjan, Hudhayfa was astonished by the differences in the (two armies`) reading of Quran, and said to Uthman, ``O Commander of the faithful, catch hold of this community before they differ about their Book as do the Jews and the Christians.``

Uthman send to Hafsa to say, ``Send us the leaves. We shall copy them in codices and return them to you.``

Hafsa sent them to Uthman, who ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Sa`ad ibn al-As and Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hashim to copy them into codices. Uthman said to the three of them who were of the tribe of Quraysh, ``If you differ from Zayd ibn Thabit on anything in the Quran, write it down according to the language of Quraysh, for it is in their language the Quran was revealed.``

They did as he bade, and when they had copied the leaves in to codices, Uthman returned the leaves to Hafsa. He sent the copies of the codex which they made in all directions and gave orders to burn every leaf and codex which differ from it. (Bukhari, Sahih 3,392-394)

All this talk of Mohammad`s family and the Caliphs, and who did what to whom, sounds more like an episode of Jerry Springer Show than beginning of a great religion. I, for one, don`t give a crap. Knowing the pea-brain Arabs of today, why the Arabs of yesteryears be any different.

Re: Parvez Manzoor (34)

Your diatribe will fill the heart of the faithful with pure light. That is, if one believes in God and the Koran as His divine words. If one doesn`t, than your argument is pure silly.

You cleverly say ``...let every Muslim, speaking from the depth of Islamic conscience, affirm the academic community`s right to pursue its researches in full freedom and peace.`` Hey, wait a minute! ``from the depth of Islamic conscience``! Sounds to me like anything that questions Koran or Mohammad is not ``from the depth of Islamic conscience``! It`s more like, if a Muslim deviates ``from the depth of Islamic conscience,`` put a price on his head.

Toby Lester did an excellent job. I hope there are Muslims like him and other western infidels who are objective in their quest, yes, even when it comes to the Koran. It is only then that Islam can get out of the jihalat that it has been mired in for centuries.

Wasiq and others... if the history that Wasiq relates is correct/true, and if the current Quran we have is merely a compilation that is prone to error, and may indeed be incomplete in some ways (though we do not know to what extent). If that is so, can we or should we still look towards the Quran as a source of wisdom, or spirituality? It appears to me, and even though we have this history, the quran has played a remarkable role in developoing people`s inner being, and even with what we have, there have been profound mystics... such as Ibn `al Arabi, who`ve expounded upon the esoteric aspects of the Quran... But what are your and others thoughts? -Altaf

Re: Goga (40)

Interestingly enough Sahih Bukhari does not mention that Ali had volunteered to collect the Quran immediately after the Prophet`s death, but was forcibly disallowed to do so. The family of the Prophet always claimed to have the Quran, but they were neither consulted in the process (on the contrary were forcibly kept away from it) nor were they allowed to proceed with the compilation. Again the reason was the political clout that such an undertaking would have endowed on the person responsible.

It is ironic that Marwan was chosen by Uthman to head the compilation of the Quran. Marwan ``converted`` after the fall of Makkah, and his hypocricy and enmity to Islam was very well known. He fell into the same group of people like Hinda and Abu Sufyan. He along with his other family members were forgiven by the Prophet. Uthman superceded all scholars of the Quran and the loyal followers of the Prophet to appoint one of the biggest enemies of Islam to co-ordinate the compilation of the Quran!! Of course our neighbourhood Mullah would not let us think about this!

Another point, unfortunately Sahih Bukhari repeatedly makes the Prophet look like a complete idiot. A man of his intellectual caliber, who kept his other records (of deeds and agreements) somehow forgets to keep track of the Quran?! He who often stressed the importance of not giving in to rumors and to getting reliable information, somehow contends that the memory of people will be sufficient? This guy who was a merchant and knew the importance of accounting leaves the most important thing in his life to the memory of desert beduins?? Extremely unlikely given his achievements in his lifetime. The Prophet was ``deconstructed`` later on by the Hadith writers and inventors so that others may look larger in comparison. Who was there to defend him, his family (who had been killed off) or his trusted companions (who had been marginalized)??

Re: Godot (41)

You write:

``All this talk of Mohammad`s family and the Caliphs, and who did what to whom, sounds more like an episode of Jerry Springer Show than beginning of a great religion. I, for one, don`t give a crap. Knowing the pea-brain Arabs of today, why the Arabs of yesteryears be any different.``

Hold on Godot, that is a very simplistic, naive and arrogant statement on your part!

Is it that you are so used to an idealized and fairy-tale version of any religion that you cannot digest what happens in real life? Does the presence of ambiguity or conflict means that there is no substance whatsoever? Aren`t one`s principles illuminated precisely in an environment of conflict?

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!

The Arabs are not pea-brains today, neither were they yesterday. Arabia has produced intellects of the highest caliber. Do you really think that the Prophet`s enemies, the wealthy Meccans, were stupid people? Or that the Muslims who prevailed over them and over all the other nations in their vicinity were stupid? Think about it.

Re: SR (39)

As usual, thanks for your original and illuminating point of view. You correctly mention the difference between the ``rich`` and the ``poor`` Muslims. AFter the death of the Prophet, the ``poor`` Muslims, primarily the Ansar, who had sacrificed everything for Islam, were dispossessed by the more wealthy and well-connected people (who went on to produce the first three Caliphs). So really there was no change after all.

The very same rich Meccans who were the powerful people before the rise of Islam became the people who inherited the Caliphate (with the exception of Ali). If there had not been a popular discontent against the greed of Uthman that resulted in his assasination, he would have made sure that Ali would not have become the Caliph. The family and the supporters of the Prophet had almost resigned themselves to this, and were more interested in preserving the ideological aspects of the religion which they considered to be far more important.

It is interesting to note that right after the death of the Prophet, ``Islam`` became outrightly extroverted. The first three Caliphs, particularly Omar and Uthman started a string of military expeditions that resulted in the amassing of incredible amounts of wealth in a very short time. Islam, more than a set of deep and long term ethical principles, became more of a brain-washing doctrine that was employed by these gentlemen to send large numbers of young men to battle. This policy, apart from diverting the attention of a large population of young impressionable people (who could consequently not question the nature of popular Islam) also produced an immense amount of wealth and power for the already rich and influential. Thus the ``idealists`` were forced to either accept complete marginalization or to join in the band-wagon and make a buck for themselves.

For the record, it is interesting to note that the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of his most devoted companions were completely and utterly against the policy of military expansionism that was eagerly adopted and promoted by the Caliphs. They considered it to be a gross distortion of the message of Islam that the Prophet had tried to spread.

I thought that I should mention something interesting. Hegel`s dialectical process of history talks of alternating episodes of history whereby after a revolution, the very anti-thesis of the revolution can come into power. In the case of Islam this may be true. We find that the Prophet tried to break the old wealth, power and influence barriers through his revolution, but within a few years after his death his poor but devoted followers had been successfully marginalized, eliminated or absorbed while the more powerful ones ended up being still in power. And if we go even further then even the sorry excuse of a caliphate had been gotten rid of and imperialism (styled very much on the Roman, and to a lesser degree on the Persian model) was in place.

About your comments about the parallels between Christianity and Islam, I think you are right. I did not wish to state that there was an exact parallel between the two religions, but only to show that the presence of following of a tradition within a religion does not necessarily imply its authenticity. Any claim on my part that goes beyond that is not warranted since the amount of knowledge about Christianity in my RAM is small.

ABout your parallel between Temujin and the Prophet, I would agree that both of them were supremely successful people given their humble and disadvantaged beginnings. I personally would end the comparison there, because I think that the similarity between their military careers ends there. Islam spread meteorically (in terms of its political sphere of influence) after the death of the Prophet. The family of the Prophet, who claimed to be the heirs of the essence of Islam opposed this pointing to the fact that the Prophet himself during his lifetime had chosen peaceful missions as the method of spreading the religion (the groups that he sent to EThiopia, Iran and Rome). On the other hand, Temujin, employed war and terror as an instrument for his rise during his lifetime. The Prophet brought with him an ethical code that transcended mere military discipline and tribal unity. Temujin`s code did not have any ethical depth, it served as a source of military discipline while maintaining the old tribal traditions.

But then again, one can debate such juicy historical parallels for a long time!

Re: Altaf (43)

Even if one were to say that the present Quran is not what it should have been, there is still no denial to the fact that it contains a moral and spiritual message. To what extent one bases one`s present day society on it is a different question.

If Quranic scholars could undergo a paradigm shift that would allow them to understand this book as a product of an imperfect compilation process, and associate a history to it, then probably they could define some measure of disparity or incompleteness in its verses. That would be interesting, because that could give us clues about the source and the content.

In the case of the Bible, one can from tradition, compare the gospels coming from different sources and then do a comparative study on their styles and content. In the case of HQ one would have to be more subtle I would think, but still given honest scholarship, it should be possible.

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.

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

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.

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

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.