What Constitutes Blasphemy?

sigalhp #713 ``Frankly one of the biggest and most cowardly self serving cop-outs in the non-Western (and Western too for that matter) intellentsia has been a rabid, knee-jerk anti-Americanism.``

Agreed 100%. America is provides a shining example of what a people who have God in their hearts, rather than on their sleeves like the fundamentalists, can accomplish.

re. sigalph235:

``...For all the tears shed for Iraq and Vietnam I wish some of us do-gooders will shed some tears for the Kuwaitis and the South Vietnamese too. As for the Cold War, I am glad that Reagan brought down the wall because I don`t speak Russian, if you follow my drift. ``

Well said! There seems to be an automatic association of culpability with power when it comes to the U.S. Perhaps some folks here forget too easily the crushing failure of the watch-and-wait tactics of the French while Hitler marched westward. And we know how costly his defeat eventually proved. Can`t blame the yankees for wanting to nip problems in the bud now. Gotta thank `em for that, if anything!

And yes... why does not one talk about the poor Kuwaitis and south Vietnamese anyway??? fairdinkum....??

re. nacheketa #697

``However what you have highlighted as reasons for B`stan`s integration into Pakistan validate my own recipe for J&K. Provide genuine political representation in Indian mainstream, invest in infrastructure like never before, and within a few generations the insurgency would be forgotten.``

Sounds like an idea, but Kashmir really isn`t Baluchistan. If the problem was solely an

(internal) insurgency, that formula might well be the solution, one that would not even take the `few generations` you estimate, but a few decdes. However, as long as there are militants that have not the Kashmiris interests at heart, but are motivated more by hatred for an enemy, I doubt any amount of genuine political representation and/or infrastructure investment is likely to lead to peace.

Some tips for gainful employment for the faithful:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/190201/detexc50.asp

``What are Islamic fundamentalists doing in porn sites? The CIA tells you... ``

My comment:
Just some more common or garde `pious` hypocrisy. Its OK to use porn sites to carry out business but moral society will collapse if a woman in Kabul showing an ankle is not severely punished. Its OK to use the Internet to collect funds for arms, but holding elections is immoral and against God and religion.

Sadhana

Ode to Adnan 672

meh mullah hoon, mein jaanta hoon sub kuch,

meh sub kee gandh mein lun daita hoon mein jaanta hoon sub kuch

Now F off.

YLH

re bahmad

Bilal saihib, you said,

``My reply: I envy your support for the US. Please recall the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam. Do you think the US is really at such a leisure to send Iraq and Libya to the Stone Age? Anyhow, militarism has many forms. What has happened so far in Iraq so far is nothing but one form of militarism. The Cold War was another form of militarism on a wider scale. ``

It is not with arrogance but humility that I confess my love for freedom. George W Bush is my president. For all the tears shed for Iraq and Vietnam I wish some of us do-gooders will shed some tears for the Kuwaitis and the South Vietnamese too. As for the Cold War, I am glad that Reagan brought down the wall because I don`t speak Russian, if you follow my drift.

Frankly one of the biggest and most cowardly self serving cop-outs in the non-Western (and Western too for that matter) intellentsia has been a rabid, knee-jerk anti-Americanism. For these people, if they found out that the Prophet(S) was an American at heart, they would start protesting the hadith!Thank God for the United States because otherwise we would be run over, successively, by the Nazis, the Commies, and the Taleban.

Fairdinkum #

I am sorry. It is post #665 of Imran Syed.

I have given the name of George Abdul Bush to our president. Next time watch Abdul taking guard of honour.

This is the beginning. Reality will soon be evident on this regime. It is not 1990.

Regards.

Shammi #699

This is a theological discussion and I do not anticipate you to have any knowledge, moreso the knowledge of Islam.

So keep your mouth shut and continue doing cut and paste job to which you are assigned.

In response to adnan_672 (Reply # 649)
Dear Adnan:

Your statement: “this fellow from Rabwah is really a true representative of the ahmadi religion.”

My reply: What is the basis of your statement? Is there anything in his letter that I had neglected? Or, is this merely a sentimental remark?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to nachiketa (Reply # 697)
Dear Friend:

Although I am a well-wisher of India and other South Asian states, I personally don’t support India’s stand on Kashmir. I am prepared to explain my position, if you want me to.

Robert D. Kaplan’s Balkan Ghost is a very well written travelogue. It, however, shows not only Kaplan’s biases and stereotypes but lacks depth and analysis. If you are really interested in the issues of integration in multicultural societies, like India and Pakistan, you may need to read some recent theoretically-informed scholarly works. For example, see: David Miller (2000). “Citizenship and National Identity”; Joseph H. Carens (2000). “Culture, Citizenship, and Community”; and Will Kymlicka and Wane Norman (2000; eds.). “Citizenship in Diverse Societies.”

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to sigalph235 (Reply # 704)
Dear Friend:

Your statement: ``. . . Secretary Powell and the Administration are quite cautitous. If there was really militarism involved, trust me, Iraq and Libya would have been sent back to the Stone Ages.``

My reply: I envy your support for the US. Please recall the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam. Do you think the US is really at such a leisure to send Iraq and Libya to the Stone Age? Anyhow, militarism has many forms. What has happened so far in Iraq so far is nothing but one form of militarism. The Cold War was another form of militarism on a wider scale.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Fairdinkum (Reply # 688)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Your statement: ``. . . are we heading for full fledged US militrism?``

My reply: No, there is no need for the same. The US knows to protect its own interests by all means, which includes militarism. It is, however, unfortunate that a country that stresses so much on human rights has violated the rights of the people of Iraq for so long.

Militarism, in its present form, is sufficient to break the backbone of Iraq (particularly the Saddam regime) in due course of time.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re tahmed Sahib (#700 and #703):

Thanks for taking the time to read my earlier posts and getting back with comments. After reading your posts, here are my thoughts:

1. In my earlier reply (on another thread) I quoted a few ahadith that seemingly support Ahmadi-Muslim point-of-view. I did this to counter the ahadith quoted by Urstruly Sahib that seemingly contradicted the Ahmadi-Muslim approach. My intention was not to “prove” Ahmadi-Muslim approach solely from hadith, but rather to indicate to Urstruly Sahib that one has to be careful in basing arguments on hadith, since apparently contradictory hadith may exist on an issue.

I am in agreement with you that resorting to ahadith may cloud the issue even more. Therefore later in the same post I attempted to provide basis for my arguments from Quran.

2. In post #703 you stated that considering a hadith to be true if it is consistent with Quran, does not logically follow. I am not sure if I understand you correctly, but I’ll attempt to explain my approach as follows:

This again goes back to my discussion with Urstruly Sahib, where he quoted some ahadith. In my reply I attempted to explain reasons why ahadith may not be fully trusted, owing to various “human” factors, and that consistency with Quran serves as a litmus test of the authenticity of a particular ahadith. Here again I am attempting to shift the focus from ahadith to the Quran to resolve this issue.

If a hadith is supported from Quran then it may be considered authentic (I am not sure why you think this does not logically follow). In any case, I agree that redundancy should be avoided and Quran should be used as a primary source to address issues.

3. In post #700, you stated that ‘…how can anyone rationally point to a reference to ``favors`` and claim to know what those favors are.’ I am not sure if I follow your point, but here is my explanation anyway:

In reciting Surah-e-Fatiha we Muslims plead to Allah Almighty to bestow “favors” upon us. My understanding is that favors from Allah come in numerous forms – these may be physical blessings (health, wealth etc.) or “social” blessings (loving family, caring spouse and children etc.) or spiritual blessings or more. It seems reasonable to assume that among all these types of favors, “spiritual” favors are of the highest kind.

Later in Quran (in verse 4:69, I think) reference is made to “favors” from Allah Almighty for the followers of Allah and His Prophet (pbuh). While the “list of favors” mentioned in verse 4:69 is not exhaustive, it very well may constitute a part of the “favors” that Allah has in store for the believers. Why would one think that these “favors” are not in reference to plea made to Allah Almighty in Surah-e-Fatiha? It seems that you are surprised that one can rationally make this connection. On the other hand I would be surprised if one does not make this connection. As I recall, the same Arabic word for “favors” is used in both places (I do not have a copy of Quran handy right at this moment, otherwise I would like to verify this once again).

In any case, if this reference does not seem reasonable to you, I think that verse 4:69 may be read without this reference, and it still conveys more-or-less the same meaning. That’s my opinion, anyway.

Best Regards,

Asad

sattar2 and adnan_672: On the question of hadith, both of you gentlemen provide arguments in support in your previous posts, and you are both wrong:

sattar2: You say that a hadith may be considered true if it is consistent with the Quran. This does not logically follow. Would you get away with such a statement in your professional life? Another logical flaw: if a hadith is consistent with the Quran, is it not redundant and something that detracts from what is said in the Quran?

adnan_672: In your previous post you quote verses from the Quran that you claim support the basis for a Hadith. However, the verses you present have no reference to hadith`s. Read them again with an open, unbefogged mind and see how wrong you are.

adnan #652 You continue to ignore the verses of the Quran by terming them out of context. In previous interactions, when I asked how those were out of context, you simply told me to read the verses preceding/succeeding these, and on reviewing them I found that they reinforced, rather than weakened or qualified the message of the verses I quoted. If you refuse to beleive the Quran and you refuse to believe your own eyes, there is nothing that I can do to make you believe. Please see my previous note to sattar2: it applies to you as well. By not having the courage to accept the Quran, you are in the same boat as the Ahmadis.

I am sorry if I sound harsh or like a preacher, since my intent in engaging in discussion with you and sattar2 was primarily to see if you could point to something I missed in the Quran. I am satisfied that neither of you gentlemen have been able to point to anything, and my faith in my eyes and in the Message of Allah is reinforced.

sattar2 With reference to my earlier post where I had stated that Quran indicates that the Holy Prophet was the ``Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets``, you had had directed me to an earlier post of yours on an earlier thread where you discussed the Ahmadi point of view at length. I have now located that post (thanks) and gone through it.

In summary, I think Amadis are making the same fundamental mistake that most (Sunni or Shia) fundamentalists make: they are ignoring the Words of Allah nor using their God-given faculties to reason.

I say this for the following reasons:

First: In that post, you refer to a number of Hadith`s where the Holy Prophet is supposed to have referred to successor prophets. Hadith`s are not the Words of Allah but of man (even the worst mullah dares not challenge this even as he goes around quoting Hadith`s to fit his personal views). So by quoting Hadith`s you simply put a cloud before the message of Islam, a cloud that has misled muslims through the ages. The Ahmadis make exactly the same mistake that their arch-enemies - the mullahs - make.

Second: In that post, you also refer to another Surah Fatiha where it refers to Allah bestowing favors on muslims. You say: ``We Ahmadis believe that this verse gives the believers glad tidings that if we follow Allah and His Messenger, Allah will continue to bless us with Prophets, among other virtuous people.`` I think even you are not convinced by the Ahmadi reasoning since how can anyone rationally point to a reference to ``favors`` and claim to know what those favors are. In other words, you are not trusting your own senses when you study the Quran, and allowing prevailing views of those around you to prevail.

While this thread is about to disappear, I would be grateful if you could tell me where I am going wrong in my discussion above. If not, maybe you need to give the matter some further thought: the Quran tells us that we should change our views (given the emphasis on individual responsibility to Allah rather than of the ummah that muslims love to hide within) even if it means going against what our elders believed, and while at the same time continuing to pay full respect and love to our elders.

Best regards.