Headache and Heartburn

PM #144, ``First, I don`t think Solitude has ever explicitly expressed hatred for anybody.``

Please take off your rose tinted glasses and read his posts again, from the beginning.

``t a littel presumptuous on your part to presume that ``atheism/freethinking is jsut a farce``.``

:)..This is an error in reading on your part. I never said it`s a farce, I said Solitude`s stance on atheism/freethinking is a farce. Read my post again.

``Perhaps one day, someone will provide the guidelines for the `correct usage` of (a) religion and caution for signs of `incorrect use`. ``

Correct me if I`m wrong but people have different ways of practicing religion. They are ``using it correctly`` in their own concept of that idea.

Where did generalized guidelines come from?

``So, no, my dear scout, the option to just `drop it` isn`t as available as you make it sound-- and you don`t have to be psych graduate to know that either. ``

Why is it so hard? The option is available to everyone if only we`d drop the uptight pseudo-intellectualism and get down to ``real`` free-thinking.

``Or does the fact that the spirit in this case militates against something YOU hold dear (as opposed to what the Kafirs hold dear) diminish its value.``

What I hold dear since I was a kid, is respect for people`s beliefs, no matter what they may be. I`m not supporting fanatics, I`m supporting the thousands of faithful followers of religion who are peace loving and kind. Is that too hard a concept to understand?

``Now this is the sort of sorry aplogetics I often hear from religionists trying to don the garb of philosophical liberalism. ``

What`s a religionist? I don`t claim to be a liberal. Nice words to throw around aimlessly though. Makes you sound smart.

I haven`t stopped Solitude from questioning religion. I have a problem with him questioning people`s characters based on their religion. To me, that`s pretty racist. What do you think?

Solitude is bad,

Solitude is bad, he is criticising islam. How about this in an islamic republic. From dawn of today

Credit card charges

AS we see on the Internet, most of the banks in US charge barely 9 pc per annum interest on credit card loans. On the same credit card, the card-holders in Pakistan are subjected to the charge of 3.50 per cent per month that comes to almost 148 pc annual interest. This is in addition to annual fees, and in addition to the commission drawn from the merchant.

///so what islam has to say about usury, forget it, what the educated pakistanis think of this, nothing, they support the musharaff, knight in armour.

UNIQUEMNESS OF ISLAM,

The vitriol that solitude is able to extract from the allegedly educated pakistanis is a tribute to the special features of islam. Islam is a timeless, in the sense an unchanging religion, with a well developed pretective system. The first is the fatwa, any one against it is to be killed. The response of the educated to the writings of Anwar Sheik is an example, when I raised it a few years ago, I recall that Bilal Ahmeds response was that he wont talk about Anwar Sheik. That is fatwa of the intelect.

Next is that there can be no more prophets. Basically the book cannot be revised. Recently even the educated on chowk supported the decision of declaring Ahmadias as non-muslims.

The next is that no part of the book should be excluded. This prevents any selective emphasis, interest rates is a taboo, even in modern times, so are the blasphemy laws.

Next is the jihad, devastating in its simplicity. It doestnt specify the weapons, but then again, killing is eternal.

Now solitude, best wishes and happy long life if you can.

Rdesikan #152 You write: ``It was rather amusing to see all those self-righteous attack him mindlessly...You may not like his point of view, but you have to allow him the space to state it. Instead of dissenting with him point for point, you have started to attack the poor chap...However what I find entertaining here is the quality of responses attacking Solitude. It`s like seeing a dog go after his own tail with gusto.``

I see that you are continue to find it easier to preach rather than practice: You go out of your way to address your post to your favored few rather than us lesser chowkwalas whose views you dont like; and without burdening yourself with any specific point, proceed with the same generalities you condemn, with a climactic reference to us dogs chasing our tails.

I think you need to sit in front of the mirror, wag your finger before your face, and give yourself a good scolding. Every day, until full recovery.

Khan 2000

# 153

A question asking for an Answer:-

Why should Allah bless only Prophet and his descendents and not his ancestors like his parents or his uncle who brought him up?

Zahra #147

Zahra,

Thanks for your response. Some people are really getting excited on this board don’t you think? :)

I think the Verse you are referring to is:

2:256 ``Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error...``

It is a beautiful and eloquent verse.

A brief (in a nutshell) definition of murtid is as follows:

A murtid is defined as a person who, after embracing Islam, denounces it or chooses to convert to another religion thereby rejecting Islam.

According to almost all prevailing fiqahs, you do become a “murtid” just by embracing another religion. Should the religious authorities come to know of your decision/act, it is their duty to punish you for your deed. This is the position of religious law (shariah) on this matter… Most (I think all) Fiqahs endorse it. And remember rights of interpretations are reserved for Muftis/Mullahs :)

It is interesting that there are verses in Quran, which recommend death penalty for hypocrites, for example:

Verse 2:191 ``And slay them (the hypocrites) wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.``

However, I was not able to find a single verse, which recommends death penalty for apostates. The law relating to apostates or murtids is apparently based on interpretation of a Hadit rather than Quran.

During the early period of Islam, enemies of Islam adopted a strategy to embrace Islam and then reject it. They would quietly embrace Islam in large numbers, and then leave (together) with all the noise and publicity they could muster. This was to create an impression that the new religion of Mohammad (SAW) i.e. Islam was not worth adopting and that those who embraced it are leaving it in droves. Quran discusses this in the following verse:

Verse 3:72 ``A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).``

This became such a huge problem that Mohammad (SAW) had to issued an order to kill those who embrace Islam and then leave. This order effectively countered the strategy of his (Islam`s) enemies. On the face of it, it appears to be a temporary measure, however, this order was not revoked by Mohammad himself or by Quran… so the practice continues and is a part of most prevailing Fiqahs.. This is how I understand the matter. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable may be able to point me in the right direction if I am wrong.

Your statement:

“What about being in an Islamic State vs Non-Islamic State ? Aren`t the rules different there or they will be the same ? A Murtid at heart won`t be spelling out his religion and giving out the details of his conversion in a Muslim state. Would he ? Though, he shouldn`t have any problems saying that loud and open in a Non-Muslim state. True or False ?”

Neither true nor false. Beside the point.

We are not going to delve into the question of implementation… it is beyond the scope of our discussion here. We are discussing the ethics of a law, which exists and is endorsed by almost all Fiqahs of Islam.

Your statements:

“In case of heart matters, one cannot tell about a person. Can one ? One cannot know of the true connection between the human being and God.”

AND

“Anyway, there are all kinds of people who make different choices under different circumstances, but when it comes to the matters of heart - only God knows the truth.
Theek ? “

Are human beings capable of knowing what’s in another person’s heart? No. Nevertheless, human beings are burdened with the implementation of shariah laws. Shariah laws are clear about a murtid. A Muslim who denounces Islam and/or embraces another religion thereby rejecting Islam deserves to be killed. Since human beings are incapable of knowing what`s in a persons heart, Shariah laws, like secular laws, don’t care much about emotions or matters of heart. They deal in facts.

It seems that rewards are Allah’s responsibility, but Shariah/Mullahs are very enthusiastic and active about fulfilling their duty when it comes to punishment :)

Solitude (ref # 119)

How do you say that Khalifa is decided due to his tribe??

Khalifa is an elected chief of the muslim nation.

After the demise of Prophet (may Allah bless him and his descendants), Hazrat Umar(may Allah be pleased with him), nominated Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) for the post of Khalifa. And all the muslims accepted Hazrat Abu Bakr, by giving `bayt` (oath) to him. And he was the first elected Khalifa of Islam. I don`t think there can be more democratic way of electing a chief.

I think you did a crash-course in Islam, because you slip here and there a lot of things about Islam that are totally baseless.

I live in a small island nation, far away from the mainland. Ten years back one day while I was sleeping in my house with my wife and two kids, some miscreants poured gasoline over my house and set it to fire. I was badly burned when picked up by the fire fighters, but all my family members died. The grief has never left me. I still shiver at the thought of it. I sometimes wake-up in the middle of the night, sweating and shivering, reliving the same ghastly experience that occoured 10 years back.

Since then I have vowed to fight back, and never let anyone suffer what I have suffered in my life. As a first step I had filed a petition in the supreme court, asking the Govt. to ban the use of Gasoline altogether. My request was approved by the cooperative Govt. of my country, and Gasoline was banned in my country, additionally all other liquid fuels were also banned.

As a result we don`t use Gasoline anymore in my country. We don`t even use it in our cars. Instead we all bought bicycles, and cycle-rickshaws, and use them for commuting instead of cars. Of course we have bullock carts, for transporting goods. Although we face a lot of difficulty, but its ok, because with this small sacrifice, nobody will ever die in my country due to fire anymore.

What do you think about it?????

If my story is absurd, then what about the suggestion by `Solitude`, that the complete trace of Islam should be removed from the world, just because somebody misused it (sic).

as he says,

``...completely remove the idea of Islam...``

The solution is in catching the culprits and punishing them, and not in banning the objects used by them, which have great utility for us.

---------

For the others in the `Solitude` - bandwagon,

Some have said other things that religions are outdated... blah.. blah.., may be their religions are outdated but mine is not. The problem with these people is that they think they alone are smart, intelligent and reasonable, whereas muslims are real morons, because they have neither changed their religion nor their belief in Islam has changed a bit even after 14 hundred years.

Why don`t these Islam bashers, take up the challenge of Islam instead of trying to brain-wash the people unsuccessfully.

If anyone thinks that there is no GOD, and Islam is not a revealed religion, or that Muhammed (peace be on him) is not a true messenger, or that Quran is not the message of GOD, then take up the challenge of the Quran, and prove it wrong. Quran gives two challenges to those who disbelieve,

1.To produce a chapter with the same eloquence and literary quality as the chapters of Quran

2.To find an error in the Quran. (Quran talks about a lot of scientific phenomena, and events both of the past and the future, none of which is proved wrong.)

I think the challenges are fair enough.

Try this at: http://www.islam-guide.com

If you don`t succeed (and you can`t succeed) then, don`t stick out your head against Islam again. Because if you can`t disprove Islam, you can`t fight it effectively.

For others, who said that nobody gave good arguments, I hope this is more than a ``medoicre`` response to the Islam-bashers and atheists.



`kufr` - `jihad`

There is no scripturally-sanctioned penalty of death for `kufr`.

`Kafir` is not the one who disbelieves in Islam or the one who practices a religion other than Islam, but rather `Kafir` is the one who `rebels` against GOD and fights/persecutes His messengers, oppresses His worshippers.

And jihad is not the war to kill all the people who are not muslims, as some people fancy(particularly the hindus from India may tend to think that killing the hindus is the muslim jihad etc.).

Ther are two basic levels of Jihad, one is to fight ones inner self to purify oneself from ones evil habits if any, and another level of Jihad, which is a war that is waged against oppression and injustice.

Whenever a nation or a ruler terrorises the people and does gross injustice to them and does not even allow them to perform their basic religious duties, then it becomes incumbent on the people to fight the injustice and get back their religious freedom and overcome the oppression. An individual cannot declare jihad, jihad is declared by the leadership of the people, the leaders after due consultations find no other solution then they declare war (jihad) on the oppressor (nation or ruler). This is jihad-fee-sabee-lillah.



Lastly, I think we have come a long way from the point where `Solitude` said muslims are always right and Islam was always wrong, so get rid of Islam..., and now he says that some muslims are wrong and not Islam, but still get rid of Islam because thats the only solution.

I hope and pray that he will finally get to the point that Islam is the light at the end of the tunnel, that will allow us to live together respecting each others beliefs, overcoming the differences of race, colour and geography. Afterall, Islam teaches us that all humanity is from one family, as they were born from single parents Adam (pbuh) and mother Eve. And their Creator is One.

Re Solitude, Egalitarian Brahmin, Fairdinkum and PM

Couldn`t agree more with the points you have raised. Religion indeed [was it Coleridge who said that?] is the opiate of the masses. I do not believe in religion or the rituals, but I do not have a problem with others who choose to follow their faith. It`s a purely personal matter. Unfortunately, so many of the self-righteous, both in our original neck of the woods and here in the US tend to foist their view of religion as the only way. Religion, in moderation is a fine thing--something we all can raise a glass to!

It was rather amusing to see all those self-righteous attack him mindlessly. What solitude chose to do was have the courage to analyze and question what was drummed into him from childhood. And he realized that it was something he could very well live without. Power to him for arriving at that opinion. You may not like his point of view, but you have to allow him the space to state it. Instead of dissenting with him point for point, you have started to attack the poor chap.

In earlier times, religion was invented to give man a sense of ethics, purpose and to an extant, some order and pattern into life. But over time, all religions become ossified and hardened to the point that nothing is questionable. The unfortunate matter is that like in politics, the extreme right always takes control and dictates what the middle should follow, a classic recipe for authoritarian thinking and rule.

If God does indeed exist, why do his [or her] followers kill each other in the name of god, as we see in every corner of the world where religion plays a role in local disputes. And if god does exist and this god is fair, etc., why do we have droughts, famines, wars, etc.

However what I find entertaining here is the quality of responses attacking Solitude. It`s like seeing a dog go after his own tail with gusto.

Scout:

``haan voh naheen khuda purust,jaao voh bay vafaa sahee

jis ko ho deen o dill azeez,uss kee gulee mein jaey kyoon``

.GHALIB

tr:Granted that she is a non-believer& who cares if she is a heart-breaker

The one who has fear of losing his creed and cares for his heart(ache),should not even venture near her.

__________________________________________________

``Aql ayyar hay saww bhais banaa laitee hai``

Intellect,in its` chicanery,appears in many a guise.

__________________________________________________

wassalaam.

You are all the saddest bunch, of spineless, pathetic wimp-desis I have ever seen grouped together on one forum. You call yourself `Muslims` ?. Pakistanis ?.

Un-@#&(!-believable.

Cmdr Bond

re. Fuzair #142

Interesting post. Don`t really want to get into a long drawn debate on the merits and demerits of Christianity. But I should point out that a religion that is named after a Person (unlike Judaism or Islam) should base its theology and spirit primarily on his words (with all the touble we have ascertaining which were actually his and which were not! Incidentally, Jesus never preached a new Religion, separate from Judaism.)

Perhaps you may call my own definition of Christianity selective, but, with no scriptural injunction on incontrovertability of the Word, I think we (I) have that liberty. As such, I think the following best sums up the teachings of Christ

(Matthew 22:36-41)

``Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?``

Jesus replied: ```Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.``



I have personally not come accross a teaching of Jesus that could be read as encouraging of intolerance, hate or bigotry -- or even guilt for that matter.

Just FYI, present-day theologians regard the Revelations as the writing of a deranged zealot. (Even the Catholic Church long did away with the concept of the anti-Christ)

Now you might regards this as cafetaria-Christianity. Fact is, it is more a case of separating the chaff from the grain, the embellishments from the authentic. Hermaneutics (sp?) is actually quite an interesting study.

Am I preaching here? No, just trying to prevent errors of generalization, that hide important distinctions.

As for political philosophy, if I saw any more eye to eye with you there, our pupis would be touching :-) You very nicely articulated what I tried to in my last post about rights of belief.

regards,

PM

Fairdinkum:

I think someone has quoted the Ayat where the concept of `compulsion` was addressed. I agree with you on the punishment associated with leaving Islam.

Do you think embracing another religion only will suffice for being a Murtid ? What about being in an Islamic State vs Non-Islamic State ? Aren`t the rules different there or they will be the same ? A Murtid at heart won`t be spelling out his religion and giving out the details of his conversion in a Muslim state. Would he ? Though, he shouldn`t have any problems saying that loud and open in a Non-Muslim state. True or False ?

I know of two guys in person, who fall into this category - both are Pakistani. They went towards Christianity as their spouse/gf had a stronger influence on them. Both are living and breathing in US. Well, they haven`t sent the details of their personal lives to NY Times/Washington Post/Jang/Nawae Waqt till now. Oh, both grew up in Pakistan and had spent their early teens there as well. It has been few decades that they have been in US. My reason for bringing up these individuals should be simple and clear. In case of heart matters, one cannot tell about a person. Can one ? One cannot know of the true connection between the human being and God.

In another scenario, a young Lebanese woman, my ex-neighbor, told me a disturbing story few years back. The family was a staunch Shiaa family, with six brothers and three sisters. One of the brothers got married to an American woman[A Caucasian], who embraced Islam later on. Now, when the sister-in-law reached her end, she called for her mother. She requested to be buried in a Christian cemetry. Now, this was her last wish that was announced in front of the father-in-law(very elderly sheikh) who assisted this lady with the initial conversion process (Kalma). The whole family went into a state of shock, but they respected her wish. Her body was given to her family to be buried according to their respective burial rites. I have never heard of any such thing in my life - it is kind of sad to hear that. Anyway, there are all kinds of people who make different choices under different circumstances, but when it comes to the matters of heart - only God knows the truth.

Theek ?

PM #144

Thanks for writing this response. You have polished Solitude’s somewhat raw arguments into a well-defined theory. For a meaningful debate, Solitude’s theory now begs an analytical approach, and substantive counter arguments from his critics. I do think that his opposition has shown less than mediocre knowledge of religion/spirituality so far.

As for the assertion that there is no “compulsion” in religion… My question is this:

Why Islam recommends death penalty for Murtids?

Murtid = Muslims who want to go out of the fold of Islam by choosing to follow another religion

Why can’t a person after joining the religion change his/her mind and leave? Isn’t this compulsion?

egalitarian_brahmin #128

``If all children in the world were taught with amazing sincerity and convinction by their parents that there existed an invisible door-keeper outside every house and it guarded the individuals inside, and a, b, and c were the rituals you were supposed to perform on the x day of y month z number of times in order to keep him content, it would be ridiculously difficult for an outsider to convince him otherwise after he grew up. ``

Are you trying to put McDonalds, Disney, Hollywood and GMC as well as Ford Motors out of business? Forget about the fashion and advertising industry. The free world depends on modern `myths` as much as the Old World depended on ancient `myths`. One is definately an unabashed `moneymaker`.

Ultimately any religion(including rationalizations stemming from `capitalism` or `communism`) makes sense only if `uplifts` or raises its practitioner`s existence to a level HE considers higher than in its absence. Whether throughly-thought over and thousands of years old or just a hundred years old doesnot makes much difference. Its the `extra` and unwelcome trappings like say discontent and rapacious materialism (where the `religion` of free market is concerned) or burdensome outdated tradition (where more traditional religions are concerned) that merit the real attention of thinkers or you may just end up replacing one `flawed` system with another.

Sadhana

re. scout #128,

``What.Solitude.has.expressed.in.his.interacts.is.hatred...THAT.is.what.I.have.a.problem.with...Atheism/freethinking.is.just.a.farce.to.cover.his.hatred.I.know.many.atheists/agnostics.who.respect.what.others.believe.in...they.discuss.respectfully.they.speak.respectfully.``

First, I don`t think Solitude has ever explicitly expressed hatred for anybody. To the contrary, he has time and again pointed out that it is the `system` that he hates, for what it (presumably) does to people in the way of propagating intolerance and violence. I think it a littel presumptuous on your part to presume that ``atheism/freethinking is jsut a farce``. Maybe it`s even presumptuous to presume him an atheist. The man certainly believes in a purpose (``higher`` or whatever!) to life, has a vision, and is passionate about, and committed to his beliefs (--NONE OF THEM HAND-ME-DOWNS, I SHOULD EMPHASIZE)

As for the ``many atheists/agnostics who respect what others believe`` blah blah blah.... that is so much of late-twentieth century western politically correct posturing-- a gross misunderstanding of the liberal democratic principle of respecting the RIGHT of others to believe what they may. This is a world away from respecting the BELIEFS of others, something I hear many of the interactors on this site rather foolishly propound. (And I think is where a certain Farangi_Kush fails (rather conveniently, for a person of his intellect) to see a distinction).

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the spirit of jihad (the fight for what one belives to be Right). And is this not exactly what Solitude exhibits? Or does the fact that the spirit in this case militates against something YOU hold dear (as opposed to what the Kafirs hold dear) diminish its value.

As I see it, Solitude`s staunch oppostion to Islam is based on his theory that its beliefs promote undesirable actions and attitudes. So why would he want to RESPET those beliefs?

If you disagree with Solitude`s thesis, either provide a counter-thesis, or leave him alone altogether. Branding him `confused`, `hate-filled`, etc. as some have-- and as he may well be, for all we know!-- detracts from the many cogent arguments he puts forward. Such accusations, IMO, betray a discomfort at the recognition of (some) truth in what he says. Moreover, they are only easy to make when numbers are overwhelmingly on your side.

You continue: ``I.really.don`t.understand.why.people.have.to.make.religion.into.a.monster...If.used.correctly.it.can.be.quite.helpful.to.some...Everything.is.in.our.hands...If.religion.doesn`t.help.you.DROP.it.

But.don`t.insult.others.because.of.it.``

Now this is the sort of sorry aplogetics I often hear from religionists trying to don the garb of philosophical liberalism. First, going strictly by the dictates of the religion, ``everything is [NOT] in our hands``, and the advice to ``drop it`` if it ain`t working for `you` (no universailty of principle here!) is another hopless attempt at wedding archaic religiosity with liberal democratic prinicples. (And before anyone starts to quote the `there is no compulsion in religion`, be warned, Solitude will remind you of the scripturally-sanctioned penalty for `kufr`.) So, no, my dear scout, the option to just `drop it` isn`t as available as you make it sound-- and you don`t have to be psych graduate to know that either.

Second, a lot rides on the `If used correctly` clause. Perhaps one day, someone will provide the guidelines for the `correct usage` of (a) religion and caution for signs of `incorrect use`. We can then proceed to the issue (central, I believe to Solitudes mind) as to whether, given what we know of the world and human nature, more people would choose (automatically) the `correct usage` or the `incorrect` one. Maybe we`ll even flip through the pages of history for indications on how the ball has rolled thus far.

In an earlier post, I argued against Solitude`s contention that religion, or Islam in this case, can ONLY have bad results. That is because I felt that to be an unsupportable statement. However, I think that the failure by most interactors to even recognize - let alone address - his main thesis (that Religion does more harm than good) speaks of some fear. Fear that under all the extreme posturings he takes, there lies a germ of truth.

``Someone.who.prays.five.times.a.day.is.in.no.way.less.intelligent.or.less.worldly.than.a.person.who.doesn`t.``

Who suggested he/she is? Now this is really defensive/apologetic. Where`d / *IT/ * come from anyways??

regards,

PM

Umair #126

The same criteria should be applied when dealing with situations which resemble.

As me you are deep for the rights for Kashmiris for self determination. I agree.

But when it comes to people of Pakistan to choose their own destiny, one form of which is election, you seem to imply a top down approach.