Chowk Special

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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

``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.

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

Re: Wasiq (#53)

Aap nay farmaya:

Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?

Main farmata huN:

No, I am NOT saying that (even though it seems to be true most of the time).

Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall (and I knew the ``haalaat`` that were going to be blamed, I just wanted to gauge your angle)!

So we`ll go from here (especially since I am so smart):

Aap nay farmaya:

Now you are so smart dear Matha, you tell me

when did he have the time to sit down calmly much less pursue a goal to complete the Quran??

Main farmata huN:

My question was:

Did Ali know about an incorrect/incomplete/misleading compilation of the Quran?

Your answer was: Yes.

Based on:

Aap nay farmaya:

Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.

Main farmata huN:

This was followed by blaming the haalaat...

This begs the question(s):

1. Was it (the ``correct`` version of the HQ) ever introduced?

Seems like it wasn`t a good time to

introduce it then and it isn`t a good time now either!

2. Did Ali (since he was rather busy saving the Muslim Ummah from itself, and of course from the likes of Ayesha and Abu Sufiyan) leave a legacy to address the issue?

Is the Shia/Sunni divide proof of this legacy?

Parhaps the posheeda imam has a notarized copy of the ``correct`` version of the HQ!

RE: Wasiq (Reply # 42)

There is an implication in your commentary that the people who were ``true`` followers of Islam came from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or the prophet`s family and were the ones not interested in expansionism and material aggregation. The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim, since both these individuals didn`t lead the Beverly Hills lifestyle (Usman did, but was also independently wealthy and used to the lifestyle before the conquests began). I have never heard anybody ever accusing them (Abu Bakr and Umar) of such an interest in material wealt - is there proof on the contrary?

Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?

Finally, about the position that expansionism would not have happened (in the true spirit of

Islam), if either Muhammad stayed in power or if

true Muslims (basically his family) followed him in the chain. Can this claim be defended?

Were there not battles which were offensives between fatah-e-Makka and the death of the Prophet besides Tabuk (which was defensive)?

What about the battles of Hunsin, Auras, and Taif?

Either they were all defensive or were fought without the Prophet`s consent! Would the Prophet

have limited himself to deputations if they weren`t successful?

How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?



Many regards,

maTha ``historically-challenged`` ul-Mulk

Kafir: For those interested in what Kafir is talking about ``human nature`` might want to check out a recent interview of Noam Chomsky i got linked on my home page: http://www.wco.com/

Re: Wasiq

Your comments are very illuminating But I disagree with the idea that the Caliphate is similar to the Platonian concept of philosophers/utopia. The Caliphate to my mind is more like papal authority--about religious morality rather than justice per se. Also, if Ali had indeed become the power wielder next in line immediately, would the Caliphate not have eventually become aristocratic? Inspite of the fact that it would not have been a male line of descent?

If u notice, Plato is of the opinion that he(?) who does not wish for power and is happy in continuing the journey of discovery is the Just leader. TO my view the Caliph has reached the moral conclusion and is only constrained to prove it others, if he derives morality from a book rather than search`s for eternal justice. The only way this is possible in a religious society if people believe that the Q is ever new in meanings. That we /allow/ change. Is that possible if the book is santimonius?

Re: Noor

It seems we agree. But the shair I quoted was in my view quite satirical on the repression of sexual desire on the part of Ghalib.

About the others; ditto and more but it would be too tangential at this point in time.

Re: Kafir

I know the question is addressed to Wasiq, but I just wanted to ask why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.

RE: Wasiq (#53 continued)

In the event that Ali did not address the issue due to unavailability of time (as you suggest), is it fair to conclude that the issue itself failed to reach the state of becoming a priority for him? Based on its cornerstone nature in the structural integrity of Islam, I would suspect that it should have been a priority for a person with the intellectual and analytical capacities of Ali.

I also find your bit about the analogy to introducing a ``revised`` Declaration of Independence problematic for the following reason(s):

The Declaration of Independence was formalized by the forefathers and adopted without any dissent on July 4, 1776. It was originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson and some corrections made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were incorporated BEFORE the final adoption. Now if anybody from the

13 original signatories had a problem after the adoption that was of an important nature, it seems to me that the time to do so would have been ASAP.

Usman was caliph from 644 - 656 AD, followed by Ali. If Ali did not reject the adopted HQ when it was compiled by Marwan, then either it was fine with him, or the changes required were not important enough to justify risking a rift in the community (which is what you suggest I think). In both cases, it seeems that Ali considered the adopted HQ to be in a reasonably acceptable shape.

Otherwise, he should have felt compelled to do something about it ASAP, knowing the status of the HQ in Islam. Was that a gross miscalculation on his part? Were truly important parts of Islamic ideals left out

(maybe offensive jihad/expansionsism was prohibited and slavery was abolished and men were allowed to control their sex drives, sorry, I digress). Did he expect to introduce the changes when he had the time? As the adopted HQ became more and more the standard with the passing of each day, it would only become tougher to revise it! Did Ali adhere to some form of fatalism about the issue, sort of like the frame of mind, ``Oh well! the deed is done! Nothing can be done now!``



I hope Jerry Springer doesn`t read the Atlantic Monthly! On second thoughts, maybe that IS the kind of fodder he nourishes on.

Many regards,

maTha

Re: Saima

``... why do you think that rationality must preclude belief? Rationality is also relative and it recognizes that; so there is room for belief. Also, in every age there is dogma. The West subscribes heavily to the dogma of capitalism amongst other things.``

Rationality MUST be the basis of belief, otherwise belief is merely superstition. A Muslim must convince him/herself of the truth of Muhammad`s claim of prophethood through rational proofs, don`t you think? You don`t believe just because your parents and society told you to, right? If ``blind faith`` is acceptable as a basis of belief, then what distinguishes a follower of Muhammad from a follower of David Koresh or Jim Jones? How can one be right and the other wrong when there is no basis of rational discernment?

Also, I don`t agree that rationality is relative. It is a biologically-derived human faculty that spans time and culture. It is universal. Blind faith, on the other hand, is completely relative.

It is true that every age has its dogma, and those dogmatic beliefs should be toppled if contrary evidence emerges. Scientific, rational epistemologies can accept this caveat. Religious epistemologies based on unquestioning blind faith cannot.

Re: Altaf

Thanks for the website referral. Yes, when I talk of a real ``human nature`` and human morality, I and referring to a biologically derived one, not a metaphysical, transcendent one. Recent research in experimental psychology, psychobiology, anthropology, and neurobiology is adding a great deal of credilbility to this idea.

Re: temporal

``Are we not talking from both sides of the mouth? If human intelligence is not perfect than the arguments we find here, both the mundane and the esoteric, are suspect to a degree.``

Let`s accept that for argument`s sake, that both are imperfect. The question then becomes, which is more pragmatic for today`s world? Are the politics of religion or secular humanism more beneficial to humanity today and in the future? If systems of thought and society are to be derived from either one of these imperfect worldviews, which will be the least pernicious, the most universal, the most tolerant? I think secular humanism wins hands down.

``... what do you think of the believers? Are they misguided, lost, dumb, whatever?``

No, they are merely acting out the propensity for belief in a transcendent reality that they have inherited biologically and culturally from their ancestors. I think nature selected Homo sapiens for transcendent belief because such belief ensures social cohesion, tribal loyalties, and psychological well-being in a dangerous and mortal world. BUT- and this is a big but - now that we are gaining the knowledge of the basis of belief, we can understand it for what it is (a biological adaptation) and transform it into something more consilient with a secular, rational worldview.

Regards,

K