Headache and Heartburn

Mushtaq Farooqi #303

Mushtaq,

I am sorry I could not locate the post… Here is a bit which I had saved on my computer… it may not be exactly the same as my post… at any rate… I found this info to be of great help in understanding the issue.

“Total Management Principles” (TMP) were applied during the early periods of Islam to tackle the problem of slavery. This method was preferred to a decree or injunction categorically prohibiting the practice of slavery. Given the nature/structure of society in the early period of Islamic movement, TMP was probably a better/more effective strategy compared to prohibition.

Anuar Abdul Razak, Fellow, Institute of Islamic Understanding, Malaysia, in his paper titled “Islam puts an end to slavery,” explains (I am not directly quoting from his paper here because the English translation (?) of his paper is poor…. this, in essence, is his argument):
[This strategy (of total management principles) included measures such as:

-Narrowing down the sources of slavery with a view to eliminating it completely. In pre-Islamic era, major sources of slavery, apart from POWs forced into slavery, and forcible slavery through slave trading, were unpaid debts; irresponsible parents who sold their children into slavery for financial gain; being descendants of slaves, and voluntary submission to be a slave in order to get out from the miseries of life such as acute poverty. Islam, through measures, which dealt with the root causes rather than with the symptom, effectively reduced these sources.

-Islam encouraged the masters and Muslim societies at large to help in freeing the slaves. The act of freeing the slave is considered very noble, and is highly recognised and valued in Quran.

-Slaves themselves were encouraged to enter into agreements with the master to buy their independence by paying money. The society was encouraged to help in providing the freedom money.

-Islam opened a wide avenue for slaves to gain independence.

Islam initially permitted slavery from only two sources - slavery through descent and slavery from POWs of a legitimate war. However, there were stringent conditions attached. Islam imposed a condition that the offspring of a slave mother from a union with the master would take the name of the master and enjoy the rights and status of a non-slave child. In short, these children were no longer slaves. In this way the population of slaves was reduced and effectively checked.
-Islam made the act of freeing the slave a part of punishment for any criminal act as well as for non-conformity of the Islamic rituals. There are several verses in the Holy Quran, which specifically mentioned the requirement of freeing the slave as a way of meeting the punishment for wrongdoings.

-Zakat (Taxation) revenue was used as a financial source to provide funds for buying and then freeing the slaves.

Slavery through descent was effectively eliminated through measures some of which are discussed above. The provision of slavery through wars was no longer important after the Islamic civilisation redefined the mode of interaction between nations - from power struggle to peaceful and productive coexistence. Virtually, there were no longer legitimate wars to be fought between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Indirectly but effectively Islam has closed another source of slavery.

Before Islam, slaves were used in economic undertakings, as a source of entertainment by pitting them against each other & against wild animals and as a property, which determined the social status of the master. Mohammad (pubh) in his famous last sermon effectively destroyed such practices and perceptions by categorically stating the following:

“No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man any superiority over a black man, or the black man any superiority on the white man. You are all children of Adam and Adam was created from clay.”

Islam never became a force or a party that promoted and condoned slavery. A balanced analysis of this issue would recognise the wisdom of Islam in managing the heinous practice of slavery and in effectively putting an end to it.]

Mushtaq, Arab sheikhs are still exploiting the loophole though, and keeping kaneezes in their harams. A fatwa should put an end to it. But then, is the clergy going to bite the hand that feeds it?

Re:Solitude#268

You are overlooking a fundamental question about any ideology or religion - does it produce results for its followers ? When someone comes up with an attractive ideology, people may accept it in large numbers. However, the staying power of an ideology depends on the results it delivers. Communism was great on paper but failed in practice. So its followers have given it up or like the Chinese, maintain a nominal link while practicing market economics.

Consider religions like Christianity and Hinduism. Christianity has lofty principles but it produced lousy results for Europeans and kept them in the dark ages for a 1000 years. Once the Europeans realized that Christianity did not have the answers, they kept nominal links with the religion while defining a secular, rational mindset, resulting in the ultimate success of Europe. Similary Hinduism has a powerful message of tolerance but it has a fundamental weakness in not explicitly calling for equality of all men. Hence, people were able to introduce abominations like the caste system leading to complete social fragmentation and ultimately enslavement of hindus at the hands of invaders. Hindus know that their religion does not have all the answers, so India will never become a hindu state. It is fun to celebrate Holi and Diwali, but that is about it.

The situation with Islam is different. For several centuries (around 600-700 years), Islam produced phenomenal results for its followers. It changed the backward, illiterate Arabs into a dynamic, world conquering people. Besides acquiring territory and converts, they became the biggest champion of acquiring knowledge. The same backward Arabs were producing outstanding scientists, philosophers, astronomers, mathematicians etc. They openly engaged with the non-muslim world to win converts, as well as learn from them. Muslims preserved the knowledge developed by Greeks. They invited scholars from India and China in order to learn from them. Muslim scholars like Al-beruni went to India, learnt Sanskrit and read the Vedas and other scriptures to learn from them.

However, for the past several centuries, the Islamic world is on a downhill. The energy and vigor has dissipated. The same Arabs are once again backward and illiterate. There is marginal interest in education or acquiring knowledge. The muslim world has become insular and inward looking as they want to shun contact with the rest of the world. Everywhere, muslims want partitions, separations etc. to isolate themselves from others. The ultimate example is Afghanistan, where they have banned TVs to prevent information flow from outside. It is the very opposite of what Islam once symbolized.

Therefore, with such a mixed record, the jury is out on whether Islam can provide the answers to its followers in this modern era. The fundamentalists and jehadis beleive that and that is their motivation. Others are not so sure since they see that muslims are unable to compete in a world that is leaving them behind. Unless some turnaround occurs, it is likely that in 100-200 years, the muslim world will reach the same conclusions that christians did after the dark ages. They will maitain nominal links with Islam, celebrate Id etc., but they will adopt a different philosophy of secular, rational mindset, since that is the only way they can survive. You see that already in Turkey and it will become more widespread.

I almost forgot - we will add a mullah with a loudspeaker to complete the orchestra.

Solitude #282 Stop. Let me get Rodney King (``Why cant we all just get along``). We will need a violin (to provide sad background tunes) and lots of tissue paper (to catch the tears). Then we go back to #282 and start again.

Re. Assad_K:

``...its because I see such things as ‘embarrassing’, whereas a comment against Pakistan/Islam I find inflammatory, depending upon how its phrased and what the purpose behind the comment is.``

Granted, none of us is above our little biases and to expect complete impartiality may be unrealistic. Still, most (even `moderately` inclined) interactors here seem to think that a feeling of indignation at the insult of one hold dear is the prerogative only of followers of organized religion. So the likes of F_K can get away with noisome remarks on all those `` bhangee`` ``liberals `` [and what-not], and claims (effectively) that western education is the ruination of mankind, and not so much of whimper is heard from those quarters now oh-so-offended by Solitude`s ascribing of that role to Islam.

Perhaps it is asking for too much to expect religionists to appreciate that those on the other side may hold certain values as dearly as they themselves do, and that if they`re gonna dish it out they`re gonna havta take it.

Don`t get me wrong. Farangi_Kush has every right to say what he wishes, as does everyone else here. If nothing else, he adds some spice to this forum with his often brilliant, always innocuous, prose. But by the same token, so does Solitude. (Whether or not you or I think his approach is helping him reach his stated goals is another matter altogether). He hates Islam for what he believes is degrading in it (and yes, becasue it has scarred him personally too), and comes out and says so just as forcefully as you-know-who hates something else.

But since when did motivation by hatred, in itself, become so worthy of denunciation? Is he preaching this hate to our impressionable kids? Solitude has a position, a set of strong beliefs, and is merely defending it (with pretty reasoned argument, I might add). It is ridiculous for anyone to accuse him of being sacrilegious or even disrespectful of others` beliefs in a forum such as this, where one need not read what he writes. And what do they find so inflammatory? If his quotes (from the Quran and Hadith, no less -- selective as they may be) is found so offensive to some, one wonders how they might react to fabrications and libel. Or maybe that would be less less threatening?

you say ``The issue [as far as Solitude is concerned] is not ‘Does Islam need a reformation’. The issue is ‘Is Islam just plain wrong?’. And all protestations to the contrary, it is not ‘Is Organized Religion wrong’.. it is focused on Islam.``

First, he has a number of times stated his dislike of all organized religions (though I hardly see that as a necassary extension). Since he has best first hand knowledge of Islam, he would naturally focus his protestations on it, especially on a Pakistani website.

Second -- and I am honestly having difficulty understanding how this point seems to escape so many otherwise intelligent folks-- of course the issue for him is ``Islam is just plain wrong``, since his thesis is that Islam is, by virtue of it`s being `divinely revealed and complete` not open to reformation. (Except maybe in some general areas where there is room for varied interpretation.) It doesn`t take 20-30 years of study to learn that there is no room for interpretation on the issues of the inheritance of daughters, the weightage of a woman`s or minority`s witness, the four-witness requirement for rape, and assorted other issues that are quite unambiguously laid out in the Quran.

Will Muslims gradually reform these laws? Well, one certainly hopes so, but then it would be a little disingenuous to call them Islamic, wouldn`t it? Ijtehad may be fine, but will only take you so far. In the end, the literalists, fundamentalists will always have the moral (and logically sound) ground of true-to-theWord Islam. You, (with your ba-black-sheep education :-)) may be willing to remove the kingpin there (absolutism) and proceed to take what is best from the faith; other, more self-loathing and confused, products of a ba-ba-balck sheep education may convince themselves that `compromise` (a euphemsim for contradiction), is possible, and torture themselves and others trying to live with this conflict. But in the end, those not possessed with the capacity to question and reject, or the will to compromise on their most sacred beliefs, will take comfort in living consistent with the Book and the high ground by throwing It at you when you call for reform.

Is this what Solitude has been trying to say all along? Azhar?!?

Good luck in your endeavours/hopes for a Reformation, Assad. I sincerely wish to see it, but common sense prevents me from seeing how it will happen (spfk). I hope my pessimism is only so much of an outcome of my having been brought up in the less priveleged presincts of Karachi surrounded by well-meaning simple folks who take shelter from the vagaries of life in the comforting thought that if they can`t be rich, they can at least be pious, a state that calls for `utter an complete` (no hypocritical `compromises`!) submission. And who can fault them?

regards,

PM

Umairr:#293

Thanks for you acknowledgement and kind words.Fuzair & Ferozek are two very fine gentleman who share with me the anguish & aches for Pakistan,muslims and Islam.

We are on a see-saw and I have an absolute faith that none of us want to turn it into a slide.

Those who are not interested do not stop-by and bother to hang around.

__________________________________________________

WASSALAAM

Fairdinkum #

On your recent posts.

I think you are right. But what is the role of Islamic Thekedari system. Because they are the sole arbiter put by Allah to spread his real message. And each Thekedar`s version is the only correct version and rest are to be put to bullet of Klashinkov because they have failed to understand the REAL version of Islam.

For example, that great scholar of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Baaz when tries to put his foot in science in the name of God, he denies man going to moon etc.

Should Islamic scholars (more appropriately rote learner) try to interfere in a thing which they don`t understand. Koran says in many places to think on nature and its laws to have more belief in God. These Mullahs have automatically taken a duty to malign any thinking on nature as against God`s will.

How come they understand the will of God, when the will of God as understood by Christian Popes was shaterred completely.

Also you have to see the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam in historical perspective to see why Shia Islam is agitational and Sunni Islam believer in status quo with its attendant consequences.

Solitude #268

Although your reaction is understandable. But it is not them vs us. Mullahs will try to do this in the glorious tradition of justifying the corrupt rule and putting fear in the hearts of people.

But God is not theirs only. God is the God of all universe. God id theirs as well as mine.

What they have institutionalized is this. Majority Mullahs of Islam want their respect not on their own merit. But by implying that only they can understand by oral transmission over centuries the REAL MESSAGE of Islam. And anybody disagreeing with their version because of explicit ruling in Koran to understand Quran and think on it is considered ``Bida`at``.

It is true that these Mullahs have utterly failed in their mission to guide Muslims over centuries. But they also want to restrict the guidance role to them in the name of sole Interpreter of Islam or Islamic Thekedar. Which is a great contradiction.

So most of the people, like me and others, try to find their own solution and run their life according to our own understanding.

I partially agree with you. The institutionalized bigotry in the name of Islam should end.

Dear PM

You say:``Pankaj (or any other shrink out there) : Was wondering if there’s anything on karanta-envy in psych literature?

Well my friend, perhaps you think that I am a shrink. I am no shrink though I have taken a couple of psychology classes from a very intelligent(and effective teacher too) instructor.

Moreover if you carefully read my posts #227, #228, it is not difficult to guess that I have something to do with science apart from psychology and economics. I am a student of Chemical enginnering pursuing my MS. However I must say that I am disappointed as I feel my posts went largely unnoticed. I havent received any response from the intelligent people(except you) on the competitive/cooperative approach towards understanding evolution of the ``value systems``. You commented that my ``model`` was too ``simplistic``. It is always better to start with a simple model incorporating key ideas and let it evolve by refining it in the light of new information. But I think perhaps this board is too emotionally charged for a cool and calm analysis.

Sincerely

Re: Solitude

For an understanding of the practice of slavery with an emphasis on the practice in the Islamic Arabia, Please visit the following website.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

I posed this question of “slavery in Islam” sometime ago on this site. Bilal Ahmad explained the matter by stating that “Islam clearly abolished slavery in principle.” I later did some research on the matter & wrote a detailed post explaining the issue in light of Bilal`s statement. You can refer to my response to develop a slightly better understanding of the issue.

I am also looking into the question of unequal rights of inheritance for women in Islam. If nobody else comes forward to anwer it, I will post a response.

I urge you to adopt a more civilized approach/attitude so that we can have a dialogue. I request you to refrain from hurling abuse at Mohammad. Also, please do not use disrespectful/hateful language while criticizing/questioning Islamic belief system. If you agree to that, we can have a dialogue and learn from each other.

PS. Please replace ``Mohammad a tyrant`` with ``Mohammad as a tyrant`` in the last sentence.

sadna #291

“Its surprising, you will admit, given that unlike in Hinduism where access to many scriptures was traditionally restricted to the priestly class, Christians and Muslims have long been able to read and interpret their holy books for themselves, am I right? Certainly thats true in the modern day.”

Sadhana,

Not surprising at all if you read Islamic history. I will elaborate on that in a minute.
But first, your point about accessibility of common man to the scriptures in Christianity and Islam as opposed to a complete dominance of priestly class in Hinduism is an interesting one. So why were scriptures of Hinduism restricted to the priestly class and why scriptures of Islam were widely accessible to common man? Dr. Ali Shariati explains:

“Throughout history, the powerful rulers of society have been one of three groups: the powerful, the wealthy and the clergy. They exercised political and economic power with each other and control over the faith of the people. They co-operated with each other in ruling the people. Their collaboration, whether or not they shared the same views, was in order to rule the people.

All of the non-Abrahamic messengers from Indo-China to Athens were either connected on their mother`s side or their father`s side or even both sides to emperors, clergymen and aristocrats. This holds true for Confucius, Laotzu, Buddha, Zoroaster, Mani, Mazdak, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Whereas the Qoran emphasizes, ``We appointed among the ordinary people, a Prophet from themselves.`` ( 3:163 ). They were ordinary people from the masses and among the community. Thus the Abrahamic prophets arose from the mass of the people. “
“These prophets stand in contrast with the messengers of the other group or founders of intellectual and moral schools of thoughts such as those in China, India, Iran and the founders of the scientific and ethical schools of Athens. This latter group, without a single exception, were aristocrats. They arose from the noble, powerful, comfortable classes of their society.”

Islam was a reform movement, a revolution initiated by Mohammad to save the poor, the downtrodden, the dispossessed from the powerful clutches of aristocracy of Arabia. Mohammad rejected the status quo and as a result powerful in Arabia became his enemies… this also explains why he had to fight so many battles during his life.

So what happened after Mohammad? Well, aristocracy came back into power with a vengeance. Only this time they had a more powerful tool in the form of Islam at their disposal. The clergy, as usual, sided with the powerful.

Ali Shariati writes:

“Merely sixty years have passed since the migration of the Prophet. Everything earned by the Revolution has been destroyed. All of the successes earned half a century before have been abolished. The Book brought by the Prophet is placed on the spears of the Bani Omayyid. The culture and ideas which Islam had developed through jihad, struggles and efforts in the hearts and thoughts of the people became a means for explaining the Omayyid`s rule. All of the mosques are turned into support systems for polytheism, oppression, deceit and making fools of the people. All of the swords of the mojahids are put to use for the executioners. All of the income from zakat and other religious taxes is used to run the Green Palace of Mo`awiyyah. All of the words relating to reality, unity, the Prophet, the sunnah, the Qoran and Revelation are in the possession of Mo`awiyyah and his regime. All of the leaders of the community, judges, interpreters of the Qoran, reciters of the Qoran, scholars and speakers at the mosques have either been killed or pray in silence in the corners of the mosques or are propagators for the regime in Damascus (i.e. the Bani Omayyid).

The foundations of Mohammad no longer have a spokesman nor an altar nor a pulpit. Throughout the whole of this wide territory which included Rome, Iran and the Arabs, no one remains who relates to the Prophet`s family or who was of the generation of those faithful to the Revolution. The results of all of the sufferings of the Emigrants and the Companions went with the wind. The palace of Mo`awiyyah gained a treasure, easily earned.”

“ The cancer of the religious authorities paralyzes the second generation of Islam, who have not had sufficient training in the school of Islam and who have not received the language of the Qoran and Islam from the tongue of the Prophet, Ali, the Emigrants and the Helpers. Thus, they are obliged to receive their Islamic teachings second-hand from those who have sold their thoughts and ideas. It is for this reason that their awareness, findings and religious spirits are permanently poisoned with the propaganda of the religious authorities who are backed by the ruling regime. It is the strict, responsible fundamentalist Moslems, sensing their responsibility every moment `to enjoin the good and forbid the bad` (amr bil maruf va nahi anil munkar), thick-headed people who extend themselves by imbibing in both God and the devil who existed side by side, one having nothing to do with the other one.”

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in the preface to ``The Life of Sarmad, the Martyr`` writes:

``In Asia [including Arabia], politics has always been working from behind the veil of religion. Thousands of events of bloodshed were cloaked with religion. During the thirteen hundred years of Islam, the pen of the jurists has been like a naked sword. The blood of thousands of lovers of truth was shed on their verdict. Read the history of Islam of any period and you will get thousands of such examples that wherever any ruler decided to shed blood, the pen of the jurist and the sword of the general were with him. Not only the Sufis (mystics) and national leaders were made the targets, even those scholars who were critical and realistic, were made to suffer hardships at the hands of jurists, and they were relieved of their misery only after being beheaded``.

So, whereas I may agree with & join you, Solitude, PM, Fuzair and all other critics in condemning certain practices/rituals/interpretations of Islam which are clearly oppressive in nature and serve no purpose other than bringing pain and grief for ordinary people while serving (politically) the ruling classes (such as the Kings and Sheikhs of Arabia), I would be very careful & respectfully disagree in rejecting Islam as a religion and I would certainly not join you in condemning Mohammad a tyrant.

sadna #290 you ask ``To what do you ascribe existence of laws such as those in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran which impose restrictions on individuals based on what is Islamic and unIslamic? And why is there any Shariat court in any Muslim country?``

Dictatorship, not Islam. In all three countries these laws were introduced by force, and no attempt was made to determine what the general population thought. As democracy starts to creep into Iran, so does Iranian society become less restrictive. Also note non-muslim dictatorships (Cambodia, Argentina/Chile under dictators, the old Soviet dictatorships): they all had harsh laws in the name of high-sounding goals just like is being done in the name of Islam in these countries. Again, things are not black and white - India is a democracy, but I am sure a stay in an Indian jail is no picnic either, as is true for Pakistan. Economic and cultural development also come into play, and the quality of the police service.

On your other question, I dont see any logic behind having two court systems. Courts interpret the law as developed through the legislative process. The legislative process works within the Constitution. The constitution is the appropriate place for defining the role of religion within which laws can be framed.

Now, I have presented my views for what they are worth. What do you think?

Solitude #268:

[One thing I learned from watching Gone W/ The Wind and it is : You cannot change people and religions...]

--Should have heeded to what you`d learned.

As for bringing about change.... You gave the example of the US govt`s success in abolishing slavery. How did they manage this? Strict legislations and a powerful legal and civil infrastructure to implement the legislations. If the civil and legal frameworks of a state are strong, people WILL adhere to the laws, no matter how ridiculous/irrational some of them are, for fear of being persecuted. Of course, there will be the minority who will break the law but they will be punished for doing so. And of course there will be those who protest as well against the more irrational legislations.

(Digression: Isn`t this one of your arguments as well? That Islam ingrains a ``fear`` in its followers - a fear of ``punishment`` from God to prevent believers from questioning or ``breaking`` any of the ``laws`` laid down by the Quran and/or Sunnah?)

Now, you mentioned various issues that are supposedly sanctioned by Islam (maiming, issues related to females, etc). Strengthen the legal and civil force structures and introduce legislation that will render these violations as being illegal and punish any offenders (in a more ``humane`` manner). I don`t see why it shouldn`t work. One of the main reasons most of these violations are carried out in a country like Pakistan is because of it`s weak legal/civil infrastructure.

You will argue that the legal framework itself is based upon Islamic law and is thus not ``rational`` in the frist place. Well, most Islamic countries (including Pakistan) seem to be implementing upon their own tailored brand of Shariah anyway, why not ``pick and choose`` for this purpose as well? At least it will be a step in the ``right``(?) direction? (Later you can move in to remove ALL Islamic elements like you`ve been itching to. Won`t you just love to do that? What a delus-oops! ahem... Vision. :)) Not all Arab countries have adopted the Shariah in the same manner as the Taliban or Saudi Arabia. In fact, a lot of the Islamic countries don`t even give their citizens their rights as ordained by the Quran. For example in many Middle Eastern countries the women have no political standing whatsoever even though under Shariah they are supposed to be given political rights. (-All to do with their mindsets and social & cultural factors.)

PM re:238 and sundry others

Frankly, I prefer to have you on my side than against, but the chips fall where they do.. :)

Why don’t we all jump up in anger when F_K begins a diatribe, or Urstruly gets rude about Hindus? Personally, its because I see such things as ‘embarrassing’, whereas a comment against Pakistan/Islam I find inflammatory, depending upon how its phrased and what the purpose behind the comment is. The embarrassing things I ignore and hope will go away.. the inflammatory arouse a much stronger feeling and a desire to respond. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.. Is that hypocritical? To an extent, no doubt! Then again, many other Muslims/Pakistanis have long ago disavowed themselves from subscribing to the views of, say, that Naqashbandi character (and I don’t exactly see Hindus posting en masse to counter slander of Islam that gets shoveled out by Hindus!).

Here, of course, we have Muslims of all sorts of stripes joining ranks alongside F_K! Your assertion that he’s found many bedmates is true only insofar as politics making strange bedfellows goes.. its not so much that they agree with F_K than that they disagree with Solitude! And I feel that Solitude isn’t exactly presenting an ‘argument’. He’s gone well beyond questioning the validity of current Islamic practices (which is something that, again, has been done many times!) to essentially condemning Islam wholesale, anyone who adheres even marginally to its precepts (we’re either Taliban or we’re providing cover for the Taliban) and dismissed the Prophet (PBUH) as a penny-ante tyrant worse than most others (heck, I’m surprised he hasn’t brought up Ayesha as yet!). The issue is not ‘Does Islam need a reformation’. The issue is ‘Is Islam just plain wrong?’. And all protestations to the contrary, it is not ‘Is Organized Religion wrong’.. it is focused on Islam.

As someone pointed out previously, a recent episode of ‘The West Wing’ (Very highly recommended, especially since Aaron Sorkin so far doesn’t seem to be very anti-Pakistan! :) ) has the Prez pointing out various scriptures that, if taken literally, would be at least equivalent to the Quranic ayats that people point out as examples of Islam’s sheer inherent evil. I know I’m belaboring a point made previously by many, but the key IS ijtihad, moving beyond the literal interpretation into the metaphorical.

Ironically, Solitude would not support ijtihad, because for him the problem is Islam altogether, only solvable by elimination of the creed (yes, yes, we know that he supports the elimination by nonviolent means only)! A reformist cannot work within the framework of the religion, because we must eliminate this particular source and the messenger. Why not just become a scientologist or some other invented religion? The moderates whom one would assume to be the ones who would lead the religion into the future are, after all, hypocrites who are shielding the Taliban in their skirts!

Regarding the supported, documented, attacks on Islam and Muhammad (PBUH).. I could say that Martin Lings` biography contradicts his decriptions and examples of the Prophets (PBUH)character (Though I WAS amused.. had Henry been studying about the Prophet (PBUH) when he mused `Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?`) - but then perhaps Lings is a moderate ie deliberately blinding himself (though he does cover the massacre of Banu Qurayzahs menfolk.. and the assassination of one of the denigrators of the Prophets (PBUH) character.. alas, I don`t have my Lings with me!). Alternately, are the sources he presents like Aqashbandi, who presnted that example (which still makes me shudder) of the sahaba who threatened to decapitate the child who disliked a fruit that the Prophet (PBUH) liked..

More later, probably on the Ghazali board, which should soon fan the flames anew.. I think I’ve been incomprehensible enough for one day!

Farangi_Kush #279: ``Whereas other religions zealously try to win converts;muslims,sometimes over-zealously,would spare no effort to declare each other non-muslims.So a threat to quit or hang around the no man`s land is quite a waste of time with such a bunch.The corporation`s stock is soaring and investors keep flocking to it without the lure of money or medicine AND the most pathetic performance by its honchos.Imagine,what it could do with someone like you to guide & help them.``

I don`t always agree with what you write. However this reply is definitely a good one. Just goes to show, that people need to be open to other peoples` ideas, regardless of how far-fetched they may seem to them. The worst thing any self-proclaimed religious or non-religious, ``intellectual`` can do is to be convinced he/she is the only one who has seen the light.

Let`s see which one of you two is able to win over the other:-)