What Constitutes Blasphemy?

Re: Sadna #643

``I personally would prefer to remain eternally adversarial toward the jihadis...``

But they are in a numerical minority everywhere (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.). The good, silent majority allows these guys to take charge. It would seem foolish to allow your policies to become hostage to the agenda of the fringe elements. Peace will have to made by moderates, who will then have to ram it down the throats of their respective extremists. Not easy, I grant you, but that is the only way. The other way is to allow the extremists dictate their agenda to you.

``but even countries like UK and USA are finding it difficult to trace and pin down in what way sectarian funds are being utilized..``

This falls in the same category of things like wireless sets in India -- the government disallows them because they can be used for criminal or other `improper` uses (God knows what purpose, but the GOI is paranoid) while denying the public from gainfully employing them for far greater and purposeful uses at construction sites, hospitals, etc. No activitiy is entirely risk-free, you just have to manage to cost/benefits. Likewise, you have to run the risk of a few outlying elements misusing religious funds just so that a majority of the remaining population is spared the indignity of the government taking a peek into their religious life.

Shammi and others,

I am glad to find out that most Indians dont believe in this BS. However, bjp.org is also one such site, and they won more than 2.8%.

In Pakistan, fundamentalism is a rising problem, but the fundamentalist have rarely won more than 2 seats out of 207 seats in the national assembley and did so only in alliance with a mainstream party like the PPP or the PML. Interestingly enough, religious hard core parties were inherently opposed to the creation of Pakistan, eg

Jamaat e Islami, Majlis-e-Ahrar etc.

Majority anywhere are moderates.... thats not the problem. People who most often than not win elections in both our countries are Moderates, but

parties like the RSS(murderers of Gandhi), Shiv Sena and Jamaat e Islami and Ahrar (those who called Quaid e Azam kafir e Azam) usually force the Moderates to adopt an agenda more reactionary than they would otherwise.

Its an interesting phenomenon,

YLH

Reply #: 629: tahmed321

AOA

Dear tahmad u r making a conclusion with which I simply do not agree. I explained to u in detail that u cannot pull out verses fron the Quran out of context and simply give them the meaning u want. Whether I failed or not is not for u to decide cos I can say the same thing abt ur argument which I consider full of fallacies, these i also ponted out.

I have asked 2 ques. in an earlier post pl. reply I will try to correct ur incorrect interpretation of Allah`s book,

An interpretation which is against 1400 yrs of

muslim beliefs.

Your earlier postings were better wherein u did not try to push ur ideas like this and simply explined them now u r outting words in my mouth.

wassalaam

adnan

# 609 : Zakkk

wht ur point ?

adnan

krashid

My dear fellow

Two questions and i`ll answer ur poston the Qanoon e Shahadat

1. Clearly explain ur point of view on this so nothing is left unclear and u cant back out of this version

2. Whenever u mention any hadith pl. quote ut, same reason as above. So quote!

Finally a little observation, make up ur mind abt wht u want to discuss, u seem to go off in tangents all the time

I would suggest u read ``Symbolic Logic`` by Copi so that u know how circular ur arguments are

adnan

Reply #: 579

ahmadb

CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION

Dear ahmadb:

AOA

this fellow from Rabwah is really a true representative of the ahmadi religion.

Either is has not read history and is simply babbling nonsense or (and this to me is more likely) he is trying to mislead muslims.

``a Abdullah bib Ubbi`` was not ``a`` he was ``the¨ person chosen by Aws and Khizraj to be their king before the prophet established the ``Islamic State`` in Medina.

He was a very influential person. His murder could have sparked off infighting b/w the muslims and this was to avoided at all costs in the nascent Islamic State.

And there are several instances when death penalty was awarded to ppl. for having insulted the Prophet (SAW). See Tabari for instance.

May Allah bless u for pointing out such misrep.

wassalaam

adnan

Dear tahmad:

AOA

I will inshallah have some time today and try to answer ur posting on the role of prophethood.

But pl. be kind enough to answer my questions below so the arguments i give shall have premises acceptable to all.

1. Do u think hadith have a role to play in any interpretation of the quran or any role at all in our lives

2. Do any of the original (ist and 2nd century

) commentaries have any significance at this time.

I kinda have a feeling of ur views but i want U to state them clearly so we may better understand each others point of view.

wassalaam`

adnan

Dear sattar

I simply poited out wht u ppl. do. First u pose a no. of questions, I answer them point out the fallacies in ur arguments, then ask u to explain those; instead I get a new batch of questions.

That is not the way to debate or put forth ur point of veiw.

Now abt Mr Mirza, he in no uncertain terms called all those who did not believe in his prophethood non muslims.

I agree with the general principal btw. We muslims consider christians and jews non believers because amongst other things they do not believe in Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

IF IF IF IF Mr Mirza was the prophet those not believing him would indeed perish in hell (as he says!)

Now back to the verse. In ur earlier posting u mentioned that the Khatm e Nabuwwat verse has long history of various interpretations, this is a blatant LIE, pl. give references for this.

All muslims have been united in the meaning of this verse and it is precisely for this reason thatall sects of the muslim ummah are unanimous in declaring the followers of Mr Mirza non muslims.

Why did i raise this issue here? The simple answer is I did not. Many misled muslims on chowk believe that ahmadis are another sect of the muslims and stated this.

It was to refute this claim that I was forced to post the little write up.

Back to our discussion.

1. Here we have a discussion abt the Prophets (SAW) marriage and suddenly we shift to another topic, tch tch wont work!

2. U say live and let live, I AGREE 100%. However this trouble was started by ur ppl. They called the rest of the muslims kafirs.

3. Wht can be done now, well u ppl. shd accept that u r not muslims, u have ur beliefs, I respect them, but do not fool the world by calling urselves muslims.

4. I gave def. from the arabic lexicon reciprocate that to suport u point of view.

5. Finally NEVER argue with points like ``see we r so successful, so we must be right``. I avoid comment on tyhis line of reasoning but next time watch out.

Finallt i try not to be harsh in arguments, pl. accept my apologies if any of my comments sounded harsh to u.

Adnan

Re tahmed Sahib (#602 and #635):

Thanks indeed for your interest.

In the Reply section of the article that I provided the link to, in Reply #197 I explained my point of view (i.e. Ahmadi-Muslim point of view) on the issue of prophethood. In the second-half of that reply I have tried to explain the “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” verse.

Also, in this tread, in reply #616 I have discussed the “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” verse, perhaps in a little more detail than in the earlier post.

Good luck and best regards,

Asad Sattar

Re: Eklavya, #636

Arafat is as brilliant a terrorist as he is an incompetent leader. Without much of a brain, like a cockroach, he knows how to survive. He is the one who has single-handedly destroyed the Palestanians and all their hopes for a peaceful existence, not the Israelis. And it is Pakistan`s relentless support to that demagogue and his ``cause`` that has created a lot of problems for Pakistan. For what? What does Pakistan gain? Nothing, Zilch, Zero, Cipher. But Pakistan suffers tremendously from that mighty AIPAC in the US. That is why Arafat is on my list as one of Pakistan`s worst enemies

In response to Godot (Reply # 619)
Dear Godot:

In response to your Reply # 601, I wrote:

“I think, I fall in both the categories of “Pakistan’s True Friends”and “Pakistan’s Worst Enemies” (as identified by you). Why? Because I “want to see Pakistan become a part of the civilized world and a country that is at peace within and without” and I “believe that, given Pakistan`s current situation, Pakistan has a future and a hope for tomorrow” (Reply # 619).

In response, you wrote: “Your contentment with the status quo (i.e, current situation) is what makes you an enemy of Pakistan.”

My reply: To say that I am still hopeful suggests: (1) my personal bent of mind for never losing hope; and (2) my understanding of the situation as well as the people of Pakistan. This position does not suggest that I am “content” with the status quo. The situation is quite the contrary. To check the veracity of my argument, please read my Chowk articles. My posts and replies clearly show that I am one of the foremost critics of the socially (and historically) created conditions in Pakistan. And, by the way, this position either does not make me an enemy of Pakistan. And to take this a step further, I am neither an enemy of Pakistan nor of India. Animosity is often a counterproductive and self-destructive state of mind.

The purpose of my previous post was not to drag my own personality into the picture. I was simply trying to argue that your two categories (as outlined by you) reflected your ideological position than, what I believe to be, the actual reality.

Godot, the situation in Pakistan is indeed bad but it is not something that can never be corrected. I am still opposed to General Musharraf’s (i.e. military’s) regime, but this regime is (somewhat single-handedly) doing its best in the midst of considerable anarchy, indifference, non-cooperation, and opposition. This regime has also, even if temporarily, realized that Pakistan needs to cut her so-called defense expenditure.

With greater awareness, transparent and democratic governance, and political-social activism, Pakistani elite will be forced to take better decisions in the interest of the people of Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

shammi #639
``The challenge for our generation is to turn adversaries into friends``

No doubt. But I personally would prefer to remain eternally adversarial toward the jihadis, and the `strategic rationale` of the Pakistani Army which gives them power. I see absolutely no reason to believe that jihadis seeking to create their own religious state and Indians like myself have ANY common goals to make peace about. Any compromise or concession to their armed status will only strengthen them further and make a bad situation worse. And if they are not even Kashmiris..

Re nationalization, you may be right about what measures would be adequate, but even countries like UK and USA are finding it difficult to trace and pin down in what way sectarian funds are being utilized. And preaching politics from the pulpit is a dangerous trend all over the world.

Sadhana

Attention sattar2: Please see my post #602

Barriseter Amir: Before this post disappears, I see you are still struggling after two weeks to come up with any Quranic basis for your outrageous contention that you understand Allah`s intent behind natural tragedies. You have also been unable to refute the verses I provided at your request to explain what should have been clear to you. Good luck, my friend, and sweet dreams to you about becoming a Khalifah.

Adnan: Before this thread disappears, as it is about to do, let me provide the following conclusion to our interaction: I thank you for the dignified manner of your interaction. You have by now I hope seen for yourself the truth in what I asserted based on the clear and repeated message of the Quran: That there can be no compulsion in religion. This simple statement strikes at the heart of the argument that religion can serve as the basis to run the state. And it is only the tip of the iceberg between the decency inherent in Islam, and the cruel, despotic, self-serving views of those who claim to be able to explain Allah`s message better than Allah himself.

I say ``I hope`` since you have not explicitly accepted this truth on this thread, but you have not been able to reject any of the Quranic verses I supplied at your request to support my assertion that there can be no compulsion in religion. I believe you have though, because it seems to me that you are an honest man who is not blinded by lust for political power or seek to use Islam to earn a living. Good luck to you, sir.

Umairr #618 ``A Turkish type of system will be set up, under which the army will have a constitutionally defined role in politics (the fans of Turkey and Ataturk should like this). All good decisions in my opinion.``

There is a constitutionally defined role for the army in all civilized countries - that role is to protect the constitution. Not be a Roman Praetorian guard.