Protest in New York!

Dear Fairdinkum,

``Arabs were rightfully proud of their language and ``rightfully`` called all non-Arabs as ``Ajami`` i.e dumb or mute.``

If you had read that sentence carefully you could notice that the word ``rightfully`` used second time is with in the commas. Which means that I intended to deliver more than literal meanings of the the word. I thought that it was a common practice. When we have the word of the Prophet who cares what Arabs think of themselves. Read the following paragraph which is taken from the last sermon of Prophet.


QUOTE:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white - except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before Allah and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah (Hadith), and if you follow these you will never go astray.

END QUOTE

It is interesting to note that Prophet (pbuh) has not used the word Khatam unNabiyyin in the Arabic text.

sattar,

Your statements:

``If your long-awaited Issa-ibne-Marriam ever decides to descend to this planet, send me an e-mail.``

``Also, do not forget to offer Issa-ibne-Marriam something to eat. You see, he has not had a meal in two thousand years.``

Your above statements are uncalled for. Whereas it is a tradition amongst Pakistani Muslims to ridicule other religions and regard all human beings other than Muslims as inferior, you are a follower of Miza Sahib. Is not incumbent upon you to respect the beliefs of others?

Anyway, it was good to talk to you. I must say that I am not convinced by your argument vis-à-vis Prophet hood of Mirza sahib. I, however, don`t consider your arguments to be representative of Ahmedi community, and would prefer to read literature by someone who is considered an authority on this matter (within your community). Interpretations of Quranic verses in various, and differing ways, still remains an impediment to clearly understand this issue. Your interpretation of surah-e-fatihaah as proof of continuation of prophet hood after Mohammed is just as unclear, and confusing as anything urstruly says about Arabic language:)

I still believe we would have been better off discussing the legitimacy or otherwise of blasphemy laws (on moral, ethical, legal, and religious grounds) rather than the validity or otherwise of Prophet hood of Mirza sahib. Perhaps my earlier post asking you to concentrate on blasphemy laws makes more sense now?

You take care of yourself. And we hope to see you more often on chowk.

Kind regards,
Fairdinkum


Janjua,
Yar you are making good use of Al Tabari aren`t you :)

we are in the semi finals now... I hope we go all the way and win the gold medal this time.. I will be there to watch the semi final.

Urstruly #211

Your statement:

``You must understand the fact that the Holy Qur`an is not a dictionary or a book of phrases where you expect to find each and every word, idiom, phrase, and proverb ever spoken in Arabic Language.``

I do :) perhaps symbolism is something you should look at when you have some time…Also, make some effort to understand the difference between the classic, literary, eloquent, symbolic Arabic of Quran and household Arabic of Jahil Arabs.

``Arabs were rightfully proud of their language and ``rightfully`` called all non-Arabs as ``Ajami`` i.e dumb or mute.``

Rightfully? Are you serious man?

No wonder things are still where they were 1500 years ago… They still regard everybody as dumb and inferior - especially Phillipino maids and Hindis (which includes Pakistanis). Only people with white skin, no matter what language they speak, deserve their respect and are considered not mute or inferior.

And I suppose they ``rightfully`` ``buried`` their daughters alive too? And that is why the current treatment of women in Afghanistan is justified?
What about all the verses in Quran, which suggest that Arab claims of superiority were/are wrong? And what about Mohammed`s last sermon?

And what about Mohammed`s decision to give prominent roles to non-Arabs like salman-e-farsi, the dumb who came up with the idea of Khandaq while superior Arabs were shivering with the thought of defeat? And how about he ugly black Bilal-e-Habshi? Wasn`t he a dumb? And yet Mohammed appointed him as the moaazan of his mosque. Are you suggesting that Mohammed failed to deliver the message? - that all claims of superiority by ``Arabs`` over ``Ajamis`` were/are false? Isn`t it blasphemous to suggest that? What section of blasphemy laws should we apply on you? I reckon 298-C :)

Re: krashid

On the day Ammar b. Yasir died at Siffin, he said: Men, let us go directly against those who seek vengeance for the blood of Ibn `Affan and claim that he was killed unjustly. By God, they are not after vengeance for his blood but have tasted this world and liked and enjoyed it. They know that, if they have to accept the truth, it will be a barrier between them and the worldly things in which they are wallowing. They have no precedence in Islam by which they might deserve obedience from the people or exercise authority over them. They duped their followers by saying that their Imam had been killed unjustly so that they could be tyrants and kings, and by this trickery they have got where you see them. If it were not for that not even two men would have followed them....``

That day when Ammar bin Yasir was killed, the news of his death spread quickly in both camps. They were aware of Rasool-Allah`s prophecy. In the camp of Muawiyah, a worried Abdullah bin `Amr reported to his father:` Father you have killed this man in your fighting today, even though the Messenger of God has said what about him?`` `Amr bin Al-As asked what was that, and his son said:``Were you not with us while we were building the mosque and everyone was moving stone by stone and brick by brick while `Ammar brought two stones and two bricks at a time? The effort caused him to faint, and the Messenger of God came to him and began wiping the dust from his face, saying, `Alas for you, Ibn Sumayyah (i.e., Ammar bin Yasir)! The people transport stone by stone and brick by brick while you move two stones and two bricks at a time, desiring (divine) reward. In spite of that the usurping party will kill you. Alas for you.``` `Amr pushed Abdullah`s horse away and pulled Muawiyah towards him. He said,``Muawiyah, do you not hear what `Abdullah is saying?`` Muawiyah asked what it was, and `Amr reported the story. Muawiyah said:`` You stupid old man. You keep on telling stories while you slither about in your piss. Was it we who killed `Ammar? It was only those who brought him here.``

Ammar bin. Yasir`s parents (Yasir & Sumayyah) were the first martyrs of Islam and he himself was one of the earliest converts to Islam, had suffered teriibly at the hands of Kuffar during the early parts of the nuboowat and fought in three battles alongside the Prophet (Badr, Uhad and Hunayn).

The Battle at Siffin was fierce and the casualties were high on both sides. It raged for quite some time with a break for the month of Muharram. It was the tradition of Arabs from the times of Jahiliyah not to fight during Muharram.

When Ammar was killed, Ali said to the Rabi`ah and the Hamadan (two of the tribes fighting alongside Ali), ``You are my armor and my spear!`` He and they attacked together as one man and punched a hole in the Syrian lines and reached close to where Muawiyah was, and Ali challanged him: ``I strike them but Muawiyah do not see, he of the bulging eye and the great belly. Why are the people being killed in our quarrel? Come, I will entrust God with the decision between us. Whichever of us kills the other, authority will remain for him.`` `Amr b. Al-As said, ``The man has made you a fair offer``, but Muawiyah replied:``I have not been made a fair offer. You know that he has killed everyone whom he has challenged to combat``. `Amr said, ``But it is not fitting that you should not accept the challenge and fight him.`` Muawiyah said, ``You cannot wait to get power after my death.``

The battle had swung in Ali`s favor and the demoralised Syrians were being overwhelmed by Ali`s forces in every direction.

When `Amr b. al-As saw that the position of Iraqis had strengthened and was afraid that it would lead to destruction, he said to Muawiyah,``What if I put something to you that can only increase our unity and their division?`` ``All right``, said Muawiyah. `Amr said, ``We will raise the `masahif` and say, `their contents are to be authoritative in our dispute`. Even if some of them refuse to accept it, you will find that some of them will say, `Indeed, yes, we must accept`, and there will be a division between them. If on the other hand, they say, `Yes indeed, we accept what is in it`, then we will have disburdened ourselves of this fighting and this warfare until an appointed time or a latter occasion.`` So they raised the masahif on lances and said:``This is the Book of God between us and you.``

The effect was achieved-some of the men from Ali`s side got double-minded and accepted the call for arbitration. Ali and his commanders tried to explain to them that it was a cunning ploy to divide them but they refused. The fight (which Ali would have won) was stopped and negotiations started on who would be the representatives. `Amr b. Al-As was chosen from Muawiyah`s side and Muawiyah would`nt accept anyone but Abu Musa al-Ash`ari from Ali`s side. Ali said that he did`nt trust al-Ash`ari and would prefer Ibn `Abbas. Muawiyah refused saying that Ibn `Abbas was not neutral enough for him. In the end Ali was forced to accept Abu Musa al-Ash`ari. The Iraqis who betrayed Ali (Khawarijis) would later betray his son at Kebala.

Source: History of Al-Tabari

-----

More on the arbitration later, if you like.

Urstruly Sahib,

You seem to have betrayed the spirit of discourse by stating to the effect that all the issues you (sattar) have raised have been adequately answered by the ullema, and are available on the net, and the bottom line is that Ahmadi interpretation is basically an attempt at forgery. If the idea was to merely point to the web-sites, I wish I had known. Then I would have just as easily stated that “every thing you say is wrong; and if you ever doubt this, go ahead and read the Ahmadi literature”.

I am willing to bet one dollar that the points I raised did make sense to you at a basic level. Or that they will make sense to an unbiased reader. But you seem to be too preoccupied with over-rated opinions of the righteousness of the mullahs to think carefully. If you are so convinced of the truth of the mullah’s interpretation, then ask yourself, why is it that the transcripts of the “Ahmadiyya” hearings have not been made public? Only the decision has been made public. What are the govt. of Pakistan and the “enlightened” mullahs hiding?

Speaking of despicable deaths of the 3 “kings” … I definitely “want to go there”. I believe in the Promised Messiah and the Mahdi, and I therefore see the end-result of King Faisal, Bhutto, and Zia as signs of divine support for the Ahmadiyya community. You are free to view this as you choose to, I’ll stick with my own interpretation of these events.

I think this discussion is winding down. I have presented my arguments, and you have made your case. Enough for now. Curious readers can read these responses and make up their own minds.

By the way, if you ever have Gabriel come to you, let me assure you, you are eating way too many shami kababs. If your long-awaited Issa-ibne-Marriam ever decides to descend to this planet, send me an e-mail. I’ll be the first one to denounce Mirza Sahib. Also, do not forget to offer Issa-ibne-Marriam something to eat. You see, he has not had a meal in two thousand years.

Good luck.

Asad Sattar

Major Discovery!

HamidM is actually Salman Rushdie! Hence these Satanic Verses ...:)

RaJanjua!

When there was a fight between Muawiya RZAH and Ali RZAH, Muawiya`s army was in bad shape. They put Koran on their sword and told Ali`s army that it will decide between us.

Ali RZAH sent his arbiters and Muawiya RZAH his. One on the arbiter from Ali RZAH side became angry with Ali RZAH and joined Muawiya`s rank. He was I think Abu-Musa Asshari. Such is the Islamic History.

I was also thinking why Hadith had not been accumulated in early periods, but later on. My thinking is that to proove their points, different groups must be using Hadith of prophet PBUH true or false to their advantage indiscriminately (This is also known from history that many false Hadith came into being). Literally making Hadith in Drawing rooms. Probably this is the reason for need to have authentic Hadith and the mammoth task taken by Bukhari etc.

Same I think with Fiqh. When Muslim rule consolidated, there was need for laws according to Islamic society.

As we know that need for Koran in single form was realized, when Koran was started to be recited in different dialects according to local condition.

It also is an indication that it was political struggle all along, with each side not only presenting arguments in their favor according to Islam, but also had great contribution to spread and consolidation of Islam.

The whole episode of Imam Hussain`s martyrdom at Kufa by Yazid army is a very good reading, regarding the type of society at that time.

RE: Hamidm

Let me make it easy for you. I urge you to look at the Pakistani flag.You will notice that the ``Danda`` of this flag is sheethed in the white portion, which represents the non-muslim minorities of this country. The purpose of this discussion is to make the feel of that ``danda`` as painless as possible besides our efforts to take that ``danda`` out altogether.

RE: Fairdinkum

Dear Fairdinkum

You must understand the fact that the Holy Qur’an is not a dictionary or a book of phrases where you expect to find each and every word, idiom, phrase, and proverb ever spoken in Arabic Language. Anyway, my contention was about those words, phrases and idioms that we find in Qur’an. My reference is based on the following source:

A collection of Lectures by Dr. Ahmad Hamid Ullah
Khutbat-e-Bahalpur
Institute of Islamic Research, Islamabad

He writes and I translate it for you. This pertains to the Chapter titled “History of Qura’n”

TRANSLATION:

……. Now we will see how Qura’n has reached us in an un-corrupted manner. But first I would like to say something about the Arabic Language. Why this language was chosen for the last Prophet (pbuh)? It is an established fact that all languages undergo through changes with time. Take an example of Urdu. Similarly we can say the same thing about other languages. Take for example, English; the book written by Chaucer (of the Canterburry Tales) about 500 years ago is comprehensible only to the University level teachers. We can say the same thing about other languages that they change and as time progresses they become incomprehensible. If God’s message had come in one of such languages, that change with time, then He might had to send a new book to us, the people of the 20th century. The only language that is an exception to this rule is the Arabic. It is a fact that the Arabic that was contemporary to our Prophet (pbuh) and the language that we hear today on the radio and that which we read in the newspaper is no different in syntax, spelling, pronunciation and the meaning. If the Holy Prophet were alive today and I got a chance to speak with him, he would have understood each and every word; and if he (pbuh) answered me back I would have been able to comprehend everything; because there is no difference in two languages. So I infer that the Last Book should be in a language that doesn’t change- therefore Arabic was chosen.

I would like to say that other than eloquence, beauty, and tone (poor translation of Fasahat, blaghat, and tarunum) it is the nature of this language that it doesn’t change. For that we must be thankful to the Arabs that they did not adopt the languages of different lands and kept using the same language for literacy and for writing that was being used in the times of Holy Prophet (pbuh).

END TRANSLATION

Fairdinkum,

I suggest that you double-check your hypothesis about changing languages. Dr Hamid-ullah’s lecture makes perfect sense when you understand the Arabic language. What can you say about a language that has two hundred synonyms for the word “Sword”. Allama Talib Johari once described all those names in one of his lectures. Arabs were rightfully proud of their language and “rightfully” called all non-Arabs as “Ajami” i.e dumb or mute.

......it breaks my heart to see grown men arguing about the difference between a chooha ( mouse ) and a chachundar ( mole)......... so what difference does it make if an Ahmedi is a Muslim or a Kafir? ..... my feeble mind is unable to grasp the significance of this discussion ..... and who are these people - Umar, Uthman, Ali and Noah and Moses and Cain and Abel and Adam ? how are they relevant to the price of Dal and the shortage of onions and the fate of Romanian gymnasts? does it make any difference whether Lazarus rose from the dead...... do we really care if his faith-healer walked on water and had a virgin mother ..... so what if Nau-Gaza Pir in Quetta was only twenty feet tall or Sarah`s son was saved from the knife and not our own Ibrahim .............. it is all so silly, so theatrical, so irrelevant, so divisive and so utterly worthless .......... Russell or John Lennon ???????

``I wish to propose for the reader`s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.``

Imagine there`s no heaven

It`s easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today...

Imagine there`s no countries

It isn`t hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

................take your pick .....and stop whining on and on and on about long dead prophets, flighty angels and people who lived in a fish....

yes there are companies showing that Hockey game .. I ll try and find out ... but they are definitely on paper view...

Inshallah PAKISTAN will win ..

It is imperative that I jump in at this point...

The issue of Khatam and Khatim can go on for a very long time... whether it means the stamp or it means the ``last`` is what you can argue ....

However I know that in Islamic tradition the different between Prophet and messenger is that Prophet is someone who brings ``warning`` or ``good news`` ... Nabi means the one who brings news. Rasool refers to ``law bearing`` prophet or messenger...

The verse is ``Khatamulnabiyeen`` ... so I think you can argue bout the word Khatam but you cant deny that the Quran talks about Naboowat and not rasalat in that verse...

As for Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, once again I respect some of his views ... because I believe that he was like Sir Syed an Islamic Modernist... but I refuse to give any significance to his Naboowat claims ... he probably was sincere as in he was delusional and imagined things ... but nothing more...

Whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not is another question .. to me anyone who says the Kalima should be a Muslim but as a Pakistani I am, unfortunately constitutionally bound to say otherwise ...

If there would be any Mahdis it would be people like Ataturk and Jinnah ... Not some religious spiritualist who was delusional...

Re: krashid

``One day Abu Musa Asshari is a pure Momin and next day he is a pure Hypocrite.``

What in the hell are you taking about?

Are any of the sattelite companies showing the Pakistan hockey semi-final in the US?

urstruly #204

Urstruly,
I doubt if a language can be so static that it has not developed a modern dilect by developing/absorbing from other languages new terms, words, phrases, idioms, new/refined vocab. in 1500 years. If Arabic is really that static, then surely, Arabic is a dying language. I very much doubt your assertion though. What is the source of your assertion?

Language of Quran is classic or literary Arabic. It is not and never was the household language of Arab world as you suggest. You then have colloquial Arabic, which includes numerous dialects - some of them are mutually unintelligible. And then you the modern Arabic which again is not the same as classical Arabic of Quran. Modern Arabic, spoken widely in Arabian Peninsular, North Africa, and Middle East is the household language of Arab world. It has gone through the normal developmental process/stages that any modern, healthy, surviving language would go through in 1500 years. For example:

“There are three cases (nominative, genitive, and accusative) in the declensional system of Classical Arabic nouns; nouns are no longer declined in the modern dialects. Pronouns occur both as suffixes and as independent words.
In Classical Arabic there is no dual form and no gender differentiation in the first person, and the modern dialects have lost all dual forms. The classical language also has forms for the passive voice.” Encyclopaedia Britanica

RE: Fairdinkum and Sattar

Fairdinkum:

I would say that you failed to comprehend the meaning of my ``multi-layered symbolic post``. I am referring to the second point that you raised about the nature of Arabic language as being the common household language. I fully concur with your response with this little addition that what I meant to say was that, there has been no change in the words, their actual and metaphorical meanings, and context over the period of time. They are still spoken (in non-religious speak) with the same exact meaning as they were spoken in the earlier times. That makes Arabic a unique language.

Sattar:

It was a no-brainer that you would quote a list of hadiths with your reply. As expected you did. There has been theses and articles written by various Muslim Ulemas in response to each and every hadith and the contexts and backgrounds that you have given. The information is available on the net. The bottom line is that, the Muslim Ulema regardless of their sect do not consider your versions as authentic and they are considered a forgery. That proves the point#1 that was raised in my last post # 203. I think now this discussion will take a meaningful turn; since we have established that we have irreconcilable religious differences.

But before that I offer my un-conditional apologies if my words have caused you any disrespect. I am aware where I slipped.

Speaking of despicable deaths, I tell you that you don’t want to go there-if you know what I mean. If you don’t just ignore this sentence.

Thank you very much for your offer. But to tell you the truth even if Gabriel himself comes to me and tells me that Allah has said that from now on religion XYZ is The religion, I would say, ``Say Walaikum-us-salam to Him and tell Him that this temporal was born as a slave of Mohammad (peace be upon him) and will die as one-thank you very much``.

PS. The last sentence is a borrowed sentence, I am forgetting the authors name-my apologies.