What Constitutes Blasphemy?

``Jinnah sahib (we respect him for his efforts in creating pakistan but he is not a religious authority!! ditto allamah iqbal sahib;``

Most of your ala-Hazrats should`nt even be compared with the juN that lived on Iqbal`s khaba tatta, let alone him.

re adnan# 474

Frankly, I agree with most of what you say in this post. You mention, however,

``The problem with ur reasoning as i see it is that u beleive taht in islam state and religion are separate. Just read Islamic History ull find out otherwise. I strongly recommend ``Seerat un Nabi by Shibi & Suliman Nadwi``.

No, sir, that is the problem with the Islamist thinking, not mine. In the holy communion between man and God there is no space for a third, be it a state, clergy, or political party. Any ideology that contravenes that simple humanitarian principle is the one which is based on flawed reasoning and fake rationale.

I thank you for your straightforward answer about the Quaid-e-Azam. At least now we know publicly what some so-called Pakistanis and Muslims think of the man who created the first haven for Muslims in the modern world.

You guys are to be congratulated. Your version of Islam has triumphed in Iran and Saudi Arabia and Mauritania and seems on the brink of victory in Pakistan. But be careful. The rest may not be that easy. There are many other societies like Algeria and Bangladesh where we will fight turbaned tyranny till h * * * freezes over and then we will fight on ice. We will not let you guys take us back to 7th century barbarism. Pakistan may well be the zenith of Islamist mob-rule.

Zahra,

I believe that Allama Iqbal also declared that Secularism is an acceptable form of Govt in his book ``Reconstruction of religious thought``....

By mixing religion and politics together, you leave it to be exploited. Indeed, even with the best of intention, like that of Gandhi, religion spoils the entire game.

Yasser

zahra#498

AOA

I was not willing to exchange polemics on this. I stated this at the very sart. Wht is not tolerable is the fact that some misled confused individuals, having read junk by the likes of Pervaiz, Syed Ahmad Khan etc etc use these borrowed ideas to bash ppl. who they have never even read first hand. This onsluaght goes on and on. My pt was bashing is easy. Be just and objective in criticisms

wassalaam

adnan

Some interesting news. Talk about tough measures; ````I am giving clear orders to the police that if they see anyone displaying arms, stop them, warn them and if they don`t listen just shoot them,`` (NEWS, Pakistan). This should be interesting.

``Govt bans fund-raising by Jihadi groups

Moin directs removal of banners about Jihad fund-raising; orders police to shoot people displaying arms; national policy for sectarian harmony being formulated

KARACHI: Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider on Monday announced tough measures against religious extremists, including restrictions on raising funds for Jihad by militant groups.

Moin told reporters he had ordered that banners on display in the city about Jihad fund-raising be removed. He said he was seeking proposals from Islamic parties on sectarian harmony and would soon unveil a firm policy on the activities of radical groups. ``No one will be allowed to display arms whether he belongs to a Jihadi or religious group or force people to give donations for the purchase of weapons in the name of Jihad,`` Moin said.

Hinting at a crackdown against Islamic militants, he said: ``There is no Jihad going on in Karachi or in Pakistan that these organisations be allowed to do whatever they like to do. ``I am giving clear orders to the police that if they see anyone displaying arms, stop them, warn them and if they don`t listen just shoot them,`` he said. ``No one is above the law. Directives have been given to the concerned agencies to apprehend those involved in wall chalking or display of arms,`` he added.... (NEWS, Pakistan)

Remaining article at http://jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html

ON THE FINALITY OF PROPHETHOOD

AOA

I wanted to avoid this issue as much has been written on this by very learned scholars.

Yet I find ppl. refusing to read their works out of bias.

However some of these ppl. genuinely want to know the factual position.

Briefly I will highlight this BASIC ISLAMIC DOCTRINE in the light of

1. Quran

2. Hadith

3. Ijmah of Shahaba

Quran: ``O people ! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.`` (Surah Al Ahzab: 40)

The term in question is Khatim un nabiyyin: (The Ahmadis twist the meaning0, However please note:According to Arabic lexicon and the linguistic usage Khatam means to affix seal; to close, to come to an end; and to carry something to its ultimate end.

Khatama al-`Amala is equivalent to `Faragha min al-`Almali` which means `to get over with the task.` `Khatama al-Ina` bears the meaning `The vessel has been closed and sealed so that nothing can go into it, nor can its contents spill out.`

`Khatam-al-kitab` conveys the meaning `The letter has been enclosed and sealed so that it is finally secured.`

`Khatama-`Ala-al-Qalb` means `The heart has been sealed so that it cannot perceive anything new nor can it forswear what it has already imbibed.`

`Khitamu-Kulli-Mashrubin` implies `the final taste that is left in the mouth when the drink is over.`

Katimatu Kulli Shaiinn `Aqibatuhu wa Akhiratuhu means ``The end in the case of everything denotes its doom and ultimate finish.`` Khatm-ul-Shaii Balagha Akhirahu conveys the sense, ``To end a thing means to carry it to its ultimate limit.``

The term Khatam-i-Qur`an is used in the similar sense and the closing verses of Qur`anic Surahs are referred to as Khawatim. Khatim-ul-Qaum Akhirhuum means ``The last man in the tribe.`` (Refer to Lisan-ul-`Arab; Qamus and Aqrab-ul- Muwarid).

Hadith: ``The tribe of Israel was guided by prophets. When a prophet passed away, another prophet succeeded him. But no prophet will come after me; only caliphs will succeed me.`` (Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Manaqib).

Ijmah of the Companions (RA): All authentic historical traditions reveal that the companions of the prophet (PBUH) had unanimously waged a war on the claimants to the prophethood and their adherents after the demise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Musailma Kazzaab and Taliha are two examples.

Furthermore all Uluma are unamimous from the time of Tabiyyin to the year 2001 in this intepretation.

I will not quote them as ppl. towards whom this posting is directed are allergic to their works.

ALL AHMADIS AND AHMADI SUPPORTERS RESPOND TO THESE.

wassalaam

adnan

PS: If nyone needs a reading list on this please let me know at adnan_672@yahoo.com

Well said, Macgupta.....

It is slaps from critics like you that will awaken us from our deep slumber.

Yasser Hamdani

re. fawad79 #488

``The writing is on the wall [fools]:Islam is out, secularism is in.``

I don`t know what exactly it is you`re trying to whip up here, but I`d suggest you cool it with the Islam-bashing, even if you *ARE * a muslims and hence above castigation for doing so here :)

But my gripe is with your flawed reasoning... to suggest that Islam necessarily exits the scene when secularism enters is to do injustice to the priciples of secularism -- the very reason so many of the devout seem to loathe and fear the ``s`` word so.

Secularism does NOT call for the extermination of religon in either public or private life. Religious observation in private life is a no brainer. Now, in even the most liberal of nations and polities, the law is a reflection of the values of the people, which at least in some measure is a reflection of their religious sentiments. So, the secularism of Japan may have little in common with the secularism of the US, each a reflection of worldviews and values inherited through the eons. If the secularism of say Denmark appears to lack a `religious` element it is because of the influence of their pagan religions.

In Pakistan, a secular polity would naturally have a decidely Islamic flavour to it, a reflection of the taste of the people.

But that is quite a different thing from enforcing the Shariah upon the state, not through democratic means. Yes, yes, Urstruly will point out the `falsehood` of that statement, conveiently ignoring the failure of the democractic process (will of the PEOPLE) in Pakistan, or overlooking the fact that the only reason the passing of the Laws met with no opposition is because it is a holy cow in a land where people are by and large held hostage to their religious identity, and certain things cannot be challenged no matter how undesired.

Barrister Amir and Farangi_Kush like to portray secularism as a fundmentalist stance, thereby equating it with Islam (in terms of validity as basis for polity). However, there is an error. They are alike ony in that both have a fundamental premise --as ANY PHILOSOPHY worth it salt must!!.

Where they differ is in terms of mutabilty. Indeed, the presence of the Good Barrister serves to show that Huntingson (sp?) was not so wrong after all. The basic world views of at least some Muslims are worlds removed from the most of the rest of the world -- even from other devout Muslims`. Also, a secular nation may be democratic or undemocratic. An Islamic one, as Barrister Amir has pointed out, can take only one path. Moreover , the constituion of a secular govt. may be amended. The `constitution` of Islam may not. `Fundamental` differences.

Farangi_Kush represents, IMO, the terribly confused lot, who believe that an a secular Islamic nation can come into being, leaving the likes of the good Barrister Amir, Asif N and the L-i-T out in the cold. Or a world in which proud Hindus and fundamentalist Muslims can live in the kind of `harmony` as they once did. Jews and Christians too. Such a romanticised view of religious tolerance can only come from the faulty assumption that the relatively free citizens of today would have the psyche of the subjugated masses of yore. If there were fewer clashes between Muslims and Hindus in Pre-colonial India, it was because the rulers were more interested in jostling for power any which way they could. Those leaders were effectively secular, worldly power being their true god. If achieveing that end meant sleeping with the enemy, so it was.

The subjects -- Muslims and Hindus alike -- would have always been too busy worrying about their week-to-week existence to have to truck with philosophical differences with their neighbours. That luxury was reserved for the better off. Only when, through Independence, dissent was legitimized and `ordinary` folks found they could have a voice and some power, did the uglier sides of their religious prejudices start to surface. Our friend, F_K, as always reminiscing on the days of yore, would have us believe that the current religious disharmony is caused entirely through the legacy of the British thugs and the ill-effects of present day secularism.

Comforting thought. To think things would be a-ok if we could just turn back the clock.

The world is changing... always has always been. Perhaps faster now than ever before. (Perhaps too fast for our own good) Any reading of Islam that cannot recognize this and adapt (perhaps necesaarily jettisoning some premise, but retaining it`s spirit) is bound to cause massive discomfort. One has only to imagine an Asif Naqshbandi as Prime Minister (or worse-- as CE!) to see that.

rgds



re. bahmad #496

``I understand that Prophet Mohammad never killed anyone for insulting him.``

Perhaps not with his own hands, no. But there are sahih ahadith relating his acquiesnce to the murder of a couple of poets who ridiculed him.

Sorry, Bilal, but one must not sanitize everything as per ones desires. The frightening thing (for someone living in Pakistan) is that Asif N & Co. find scriptural basis for much of what they propose. Urstruly would like to have us believe that there is no room for vigilante-ism in an Islamic state-- that the law must take it`s due course. However, that is so much of wishful thinking when one considers (contrary) precedents from the hadith and sunnah, and the weight they carry in the hearts/minds of the more `devout`.

Shalom!

Dear Bilal sahib,

please define to me what is ``good`` in your view?

Is it what has been commanded by Allah and His Messenger sal allahu alayhi wa sallam or is it some other criteria you use? Thank you.

Bilal sahib,

Indeed Allah`s Habib alayhisalatosalaam is the Rahatulilaalameen. Know however that Allah`s Messenger sal allahu alayhi wa sallam taught us certain laws and commandments alongside the commandments in the Qur`an, which are the hadith. Everything he [sal allahu alayhi wa sallam] uttered from his blessed mouth was a wahi from Allah. Now, amongst these commandments is the commandment to kill those who insult Allah`s Messenger [sal allahu alayhi wa sallam].Surely you will agree that Hazrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq is a far greater Muslim than anyone alive? And this applies to the other Sahaba too.Well, in my earlier posts I posted an excerpt from Qadi `Iyad`s Ash-Shifa which quoted Hazrat Abu Bakr Sadeeq as saying that the death penalty was for someone who insulted Allah`s Messenger sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. You have to understand that the shar`iat was not the same for us as it was for Allah`s Darling sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. For example, for us, 4 wives is the absolute limit--for Allah`s Messenger there IS no limit. Jitnee biwiyaaN chaahein karein sal allahu alayhi wa sallam, humaaray liye paanch namazein farz hain, Aaqa alayhisalatosalaam keliye che, yaani tahajjud bhi farz hai...

Honestly brother Bilal, if you read the words of the Sahaba and the Taba`een and the Taba` Taba`een and the Salaf as-Saaliheen you will see how strict they were in matters to do with the adab of the Blessed Prophet sal allahu alayhi wa sallam. And yet they were such good Muslims that people converted in droves to Islam. When we follow the Sunnah with ikhlaas we will become good Muslims for it will soften our hearts. * * * * * * *

Farangi-Kush sahib. I am in agreement with many of your views but at the same time I do not understand why you say that you abhor some of my fundamental premises. Please expand. All I have ever done on Chowk is to propound the views of Sunni orthodoxy/orthopraxy as accepted by ijma for the past 1400 years i.e. Ash`ari/Maturidi aqeedah with the fiqh of the 4 madhhabs and also including the Sufi tariqats. I do not know what you can have against it since in your posts you are obviously an ``islamist``. Can I ask you which madhhab you are?

wa sallam

In response to Farangi_Kush (Reply # 484)
Dear Sir:

You may be a very good person, but your writing style and content tells a different story. This is what I was trying to convey to you for quite some time.

My understanding of Mullahs and neem-Mullahs is based primarily upon my life-time experience. Suffice it to say that, in view of my family background, I had the honor of meeting a good number of highly enlightened human beings of both strong and soft religious orientation

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. My I ask why a person of your age and background needs to hide behind the veil of anonymity? Please take a few risks if you really want to change this world to your liking.

To all active warriors: It seems a civil war is due any time. Just keep in mind:
---

ahmadb #466

Thanks for your references. The conclusion I reach is : as long as people relate to each other on religious basis in public affairs, all arguments on all topics even far removed from religion will essentially be the same, the gentlest to the most violent, ie getting others to be better believers.

The only difference in these common arguments would be, what are socially acceptable methods for enforcement of religious norms:

a. That it should be left to individual and/or collective discretion thus respecting sanctity of choice and variety in matters of faith and social norms as well as where and when to apply these

b. That norms should be enforced with legislation not quite respecting freedom of choice or variety but tempered with rational application(say NOT in electricity generation) and modern scruples about sanctity of life and limb and

c. That norms should be enforced with legislation NOT tempered with any scruples about choice, variety or sanctity of life and limb or rationale about relevance of religious precepts

d. The faith designated `truest` which justifies use of even extra-legislative or non-consensus methods of enforcement at all costs including violence and armed intimidation and in all spheres of activity without exception

Of these choices:
a is close to separating religion and state.

b and c require consensus on what are religious norms and who is a Muslim(or Hindu or Jew or Christian). The contention over defination of a Jew in Israel is very illustrative of pitfalls in trying to apply `common` definations over communities which have been geographically and historically divergent for many generations.

d. requires primacy to be granted to some identified religious authority. For that consensus is again required, for who constitutes religious authority. Is it usually violence/influence/money which is the determining factor, given again the huge and historical variations in norms and beliefs among any population, whether Israel or Iran or Pakistan.

I suggest, those contemplating bringing their religion into public life ought to:

I. make up their minds where they stand a,b,c,or d and how comfortable they feel with this choice wrt their adherence to religious precepts and their fellow citiens

II. If among the moderates, find a name or label for your particular collection or complexion of beliefs so that it can become a identifiable movement which other people can join or support.

Sadhana

In response to Asif Naqshbandi (Reply # 482)
Dear Asif:

Most people who have been writing against you, Adnan, Urstruly, and several others are basically reacting on the basis of their life experiences and worldviews. While making a distinction between a neem-Mullah and Mullah, I also pointed out the factor of reaction as well as getting carried away. When you or somebody else writes (quoting from Quran or some religious authority) that anyone who engages in blasphemy against Prophet Mohammad should be killed, many people (myself included) right away reject such an idea. Let me give you my reason for doing so: I understand that Prophet Mohammad never killed anyone for insulting him. Moreover, if we believe that Prophet Mohammad was Rahmat-ul-Alamin, then we as Muslims (and as human beings) spread the message of love, peace, kindness, friendship such that others willingly say: “Yes, Muslims are good people.”

Let us not unnecessarily complicate Islam. Let us show by our actions that Muslims are good people. A lot of things will automatically change.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

What seems obvious is that far too many of you have made an ideology of religion. Instead of a fellowship of devotion, where the fellowship transcends ideological differences, you have a fellowship of ideology with all the attendant schisms and fractures, falling out with each other at every opportunity.

You pride yourself on having no idols but you anthropomorphize God into the pathetic image of a drill sergeant, prison warden or tyrannical school master.

You claim your religion liberates the spirit, but then you weigh down man with accumulated centuries of legalisms, which it would take a lifetime and a half to master.

You claim that there is no intermediary between you and God in your religion, and then you interpose all kinds of intermediaries telling you what to do, upto and including the State.

You say your religion is the straight path; but Arabs would still be debating on what is haraam and what is not, and would not have stepped outside of Mecca-Medina if they had to check all the injunctions you have littered the path with.

Cease and desist ! You are dragging down yourself and the rest of the world as well.

adnan_672 #413 aoa

You write ``i requested u to read the verses preceeding the ones u quoted and also the ones following.``

I went back to your earlier posts, and realized that I did indeed not follow up to your advice to read the verses preceding 6:159 that you had mentioned in post #304, and you had specifically mentioned verses 6:154-158. I went back to the Holy Quran and did that. I find nothing there to qualify the clear message in 6:159 that we should not ``divide their religion and break up into sects``. The closest those verses come to this is in 6:154 which reads ``Moreover, We gave Moses The Book, completing (Our favour) to those Who would do right, And explaining our things...``. Even if we were to accept (which is clearly what you indicate) that this passage against sectarianism applies only to divisions with other people (followers of Moses), then by any reasonable standard, this applies with all the greater force to promoting sectariansim within Islam. On the other two verses that you had rejected (2:256 and 3:144) I have already done as you suggested and reached similar conclusions in my earlier post.

Let me now recapitulate where we are in our discussion:

I had stated (post #23) that my understanding of the Quran was that there could be no compulsion in religion, that being a matter between the individual and Allah. You had challenged this (post #41) asking me to quote verses to back this statement. I did so, and provided six verses (and there are many more that I could have included, but thought this should be enough). You ignored three of them, and rejected the other three as being our of context. I have now (as discussed above) gone back to the three that you rejected, and reviewed the Quran, and come to the conclusion that you had no reasonable basis for claiming that these were out of context - not only are they in context, the statement I originally made in #23 is in keeping with the message that is consistently, directly and explicitly repeated over and over again in the Quran. Like a clever lawyer, you are looking for loopholes to do the opposite of what is clearly and explicitly and consistently stated over and over and over again in the Quran.

The most important question for you to ask yourself, I think, is: why is it so hard for you to believe the Quran? Is it (a) a lifelong spent reading those books you recommend to others in order to understand Islam, rather than the Holy Quran itself? Those books obviously result in a weakening of faith, and may Allah have mercy on the writers on Judgement Day. Or is it (b) that you are so hungry for political power, a hunger that allows you to overcome a fear of Allah and blinds you to what is in plain text before you? Or is it (c) that you are in fact no different from the millions of other products of the Pakistani education system - an education system that saps the young persons confidence in his own eyes and his own brains (in violation of the Quran, I may add) and to look around to ``scholars`` for help?

I wish you no ill, and I have no interest in making you change your beliefs. You seem like a good man, but terribly, terribly misled like so many others in Pakistan. The Quran warns that it is the job of Iblis to mislead people, and he has clearly succeeded when muslims are discouraged from reading the Quran and from having faith in themselves. Please distinguish between the Words of Allah on the one hand and books and human culture on the other.

The Quran refers to the seal that has been put on the hearts of the unbelievers, so they fail to accept what their eyes tell them. Break this seal heart and open your heart to the message of Allah. Study the Quran carefully and with an open mind, unbefogged by preconceived notions and words of other men. It is a message that will set you at peace with yourself and with your fellow human beings across the world. You will find the strength of character that will make you successful in this life and prepare you for the Judgement Day. And on Judgement Day you will be glad you repented while you still had the chance to do so.

Wassalam.