What Constitutes Blasphemy?

ImranSyed #661

I would point out that in your eloquent style and jewish Muslim proximity you have not only missed many points, but it looks like an attempt to twist the history with the aim of jewish Muslim amity.

First let me clearly state that Jews cannot be a friend of Muslim. A friend of Muslim is only a Muslim. There can be only a Pact or Understanding between jews and Muslims. Which by your own reckoning was very favorable to jewish in Muslim rule. The problem between Muslims and jews in current century is related to Israel. Where the jews after their holocaust in Europe landed and forced local population of Palestine to become refugee.

I will point out the surreptitious way in which you tried to present your point without invoking blasphemy for yourself.

1- On conquest of Meccah you mentioned.``A Black list (for persons to be killed) was certainly made, but anyone who asked forgiveness was spared.`` Can you back up your assertion. Because even before the conquest of Meccah, there was talk between Quraish and Prophet PBUH. Also in Meccah the announcement was that ``Anybody who leaves his arms,anybody who stays in home, anybody who takes refuge in Abu-Sufyan house will be pardoned. In fact after conquest (or walkover) when Quraish came, prophet asked them, ``Do you know what I will do to you today`` And then said ``I say to you what Joseph said to his brothers``. So contrary to your assertion everybody was spared except who decided to fight. I think total casualty was 13-17.

2- In your mention of relation between jews and Muslims you stated the law of abrogation of Ayah in Koran. And example you gave is the second covenant of Medina was composed after battle of trench. We can discuss abrogation later. But are you implying that second covenant of Medina (if such thing exist) is from Koran which abrogated all Ayah regarding jews upto the battle of trench? This is utter non sense uttered by you. To correct you historically. Famous Battle of Khyber against jews was fought even after Hudabiyah which was about a later than Battle of Trench.

3- I would not comment much on your dealing of sexual life of Propet PBUH etc,except that you surreptitiously not only accorded it sactitity but also substatiated it by quotes from Armstrong etc.

4- And on your dealing of massacre of Bani Quraizah, you are stating truth with many skippings . I have mentioned the event also in post 61. The important point which you are missing are:

1-Bani Quraiza told the Muslims during battle of trench that pact or covenant between Muslims and jews is abrogated.

2- Bani Quraizah was shown carrot by Bani Ghutfan etc of elimination of Muslims and REWARD or loot due to which they sided with Anti-Muslims.

3- When Quraish etc ended their siege and returned, Banu Quraizah closed the door of their Fort because they knew the ethics of War and their fate.

4- Before this incidence, prophet PBUH had pardoned Banu Qainuqah who were allies of Khizirg another Muslim tribe of Medina.

5- Saad Bin Mua`aaz was the chief of Aws and ally of Bani Quraizah and for this reason JEWS AND MUSLIMS both accepted him as arbiter. In fact he asked before giving his verdict that his verdict will be abiding on all parties. And all paties meaning MUSLIMS AND JEWS agreed to it.

I think you will try to elaborate on unintentional and or intentional slip of pen.

Re: Umairr

I guess that you have gone into hiding, or retreat, and are unable to give a satisfactory rejoinder for the points that I raised in my post #606. Oh well, too bad. I would have liked to have debated with you on the merits of your ideas, but you have refused to take up the challenge.

Re #873

It is cricket actually we had a draw in the one dayers and seem to be winning all the Test matches ;)

Re Adnan (#647):

After reading your post, these are my thoughts:

After reading my explanation of the “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” verse (post #616), you state: “Here we have a discussion abt the Prophets (SAW) marriage and suddenly we shift to another topic, tch tch wont work”

As indicated in my post, these topics are related, and are not two completely separate topics. I explained this relevance by reasoning, and in the light of the other Quranic verses. In summary, I think the issue of the Prophet (pbuh) not having any surviving male children is important in two aspects:

1. Prophet’s (pbuh) marriage to Zainab, who was the divorced wife of the Prophet’s adopted son.

If this is the only aspect, then interpreting “Khattam” as “Last” does not have meaning or logic. For details of my objection, please refer to my earlier post.

2. The issue of the Prophet being called “abtar” (i.e. issueless, one without male children) by the enemy, and the Divine Promise made in Quran that surely, it is the enemy who is “abtar”.

In the light of point #2, “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” verse affirms the status of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) as a true Messenger of Allah, and more, to the “Chief” of all Prophets. It assures the believers that whether the Prophet (pbuh) is granted sons or not, does not make any difference. He (i.e. the Prophet, pbuh) has the divine support and the highest status among all prophets. This interpretation places the phrase “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” in a logical flow of issues being discussed, addresses the issues raised in Surah-e-Kausar, fully explains the status of the Prophet in the context of these issues as the “Ultimate” Prophet, and poses no doubts or contradictions.

Your only argument against this was a “… tch tch wont work” sentence. You did not provide any rational arguments based upon human reasoning or Quranic knowledge. If anything, your response is evidence of “lack of arguments”.

You seem to be rejecting the multiple issues being addressed in this verse, and insist on interpreting it in a very narrow way, even at the cost of raising contradictions. This I have explained in more details in my earlier post (#616). I have based my arguments primarily in the light of Quranic verses, and then supported them with commonly agreed upon historical evidence.

Do you still insist that Ahmadi-Muslim interpretation of “Khattam-un-Nabiyeen” verse is non-Islamic? Who gave you the authority to reject the deeper and broader meaning of Quran and insist on interpreting in “your” way only? This can be done only by Allah Almighty.

Adnan Sahib, I’ll attempt to plead to your better senses. I am not trying to convert you to Ahmadiyyat. At this point, I am only arguing that Ahmadi-Muslim interpretation of the verse in question is purely Islamic, and is indeed based upon Quranic verses. You may argue that you have a different interpretation, but you cannot rightfully accuse Ahmadi-Muslims of not believing in these verses of Quran !!

As far as the “Mirza Sahib” issue is concerned, I’ll state once again, that for reasons mentioned in my post #616, I would currently not want to get into this discussion.

BTW, your apologies are much appreciated. On the other hand if I were harsh in any of my statements, I too would like to offer my heart-felt apologies.

Good luck and Best regards.

Asad Sattar

Re: Sigalph235 #661

Actually no. I said that the REINFORCEMENTS were sent in without their armor, artillery and heavy weapons. I never said that the Pakistani troops were COMPLETELY without such equipment. My post was in reply to your statement about ``well-equipped`` Pakistani troops: if you double your infantry strength without the necessary armour, artillery, vehicles and heavy equipment, no one with any knowledge of military affairs would call this ``well equipped.`` This is simply asking for trouble if you have to fight a conventionally equipped foe. By end October, the insurgency was finished and the real Mukti Bahini was finished.

Pakistan normally had an overstrength division plus of troops in E. Pakistan, along with the integral armour and artillery units that would go with it. In E. Pakistan Pakistan had one armour regiment and two independent armour squadrons, if memory serves me correctly. This would be about roughly 60 or so tanks. The divisional artillery would have had probably 3 perhaps 4 artillery regiments. The reinforcements (arillery) used stored WWII era obsolete/worn-out equipment. I believe I also said that earlier.

If it helps the Bengali egos to think that the Mukti Bahini beat the evil West Pakistanis, fine, go ahead. It does not change the facts. I suggest you read the later Indian accounts of the war to find out what really happened. The original Indian plan was to have the Mukti Bahini ``liberate`` some small part of E. Pakistan, declare Bangladesh and have Indian and some other countries `recognize` it and then get the Pakistanis out. It was the inability of the Mukti Bahini to score any significant military successes, after the initial few in April/May, that caused the Indians to radically revise their plans and put the militarily useless `real` Mukti Bahini in refugee camps and use more and more of their own BSF troops as `Mukti Bahini.` But you don`t have to take my word for it, read the Indian and the Bangladeshi accounts.

Let me ask you this. If the Mukti Bahini had destroyed the PakArmy, why were Indian troops fighting brigade-strength actions in November 1971? Why did India feel compelled to invade in December 1971 if the PakArmy was already destroyed? Gen. Niazi`s deployments were idiotic when it came to fighting the Indians because they were aimed at denying the Mukti Bahini any territory that they could control and proclaim as Bangladesh. Certainly the majority of the Army did not fight as well as it could have in December 1971 but this was because of appalling higher leadership rather than it having been beaten by the Mukti Bahini. For example, Niazi had no contingency plan developed and put in place to withdraw onto Dhaka or other large towns and defend them (as opposed to his idiotic remark about the `five fingers` strategy). I suggest you read FM Manekshaw`s accounts to get an idea of how well the Mukti Bahini had destroyed the PakArmy. There was a reason why he refused to invade before the Indians had built up an overwhelming superiority.

Regards.

In response to nachiketa (Reply # 666)
Dear nachiketa:

Your statement: “Tell me, what the result of a plebiscite on self-determination in Baluchistan would have been in 1948, 1975 and 2000.”

My reply: At the time of the partition of India, there was an absence of popular sentiment over the creation of Pakistan in Baluchistan. Pakistani state devised two main strategies to deal with Baluchi aspirations after 1947. First, it sought to enhance the representation of the Baluchis within the central administration, within the army, and within the economy as a whole. And, second, the State of Pakistan resisted the emergence of a separatist Baluchi identity through the use of force, either individually or in cooperation with Iran (as Baluchistan extends well into Iran).

In 2001, the issue of separatism is almost dead in view of the ground realities of Baluchistan. Currently, there are different emergent types of Baluch ethnic constructions and most of them have clearly shown a willingness to participate with the framework of Pakistan. What most Baluchi (elite) are asking today is self-government not self-determination. This movement (particularly PONAM) is not just regional/subnational, it is national.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Within the next 2-3 years, the Pakistani political system is likely to go through a few significant changes, which include the devolution of power to the district level and provincial autonomy (for self-governance) within the framework of a Federation of Pakistan.

re pakistan`s friends and foes

It is humbling to remember today that in 1956, when asked to join an impending anti-Israel alliance by the `Arab bretheren`, Pakistan`s Prime Minister H S Suhrawardy had refused by saying `Israel has come to stay`. Nobody listened to him then. Since then Pakistan lost a third of its territory and Israel incresed her own by the same amount(after deducting Sinai).

re krashid

That is a very noble sentiment. It was not my intention to sound triumphalist because there is little to be triumphant about for something so tragic.

Ref Assad_K #: 676

[Shankar, And what brought THAT on?]

He forgot his Prozac and his anti-psychotic drugs. He will be all right once he gets Prozac into his bloodstream.

The other possibility always exists that I am one of his multiple personalities.

Ugh, strike that thought. I wouldn`t want to be a shrink.

May I request someone to provide me a little clarification on the concept of Blasphemy in Islam? My question is this; suppose an otherwise good muslim disagrees with or doubts the appropriateness of the Prophet`s actions in any particular instance:

1. Is this thought in itself blasphemy?

2. Does asking for a clarification or an understanding of the Prophet`s conduct from the Ummah constitute blasphemy?

3. What happens if even after researching the issue, and after careful introspection and reasoning, he is still not able to reconcile the position of the Prophet on any singular occasion with his understanding of the attributes of Allah as propounded in the holy Quran, and can find no proof for it within the holy book. Is it blasphemy for him to doubt? Or is it blasphemy only if he makes his doubts known to others?

Imran Syed #665 That was an excellent post. It`s length and wisdom would call for it to be an article by itself. Here are a few comments to the post:

``We forget that prior to this there is a history of 1200 years of good relations between Jews and Muslims. It is sad that today Muslims tend to turn to passages in the Quran which refer to the rebellious Jewish tribes of Medina and tend to ignore the far more numerous verses which speak positively of the Jews and their great prophets.``

Agreed. In her book ``A Distant Mirror`` which provides a detailed study of European society in the 15th century, Barbara Tuchman (I think I got the name right) notes how the Yellow Star (which Nazis forced Jews to wear) was used even then in Europe - for both Jews and Muslims (before the latter was totally driven out until modern times).

It is interesting also how the Quran speaks with great affection (not just tolerance) of the (Christian) Romans (in Sura Al Rum). While the crusades created a gulf between Muslims and Christians that has lasted for centuries, we must remember that those were wars between kings fighting first and foremost for their own benefit. With kingships gone, and once the current fears of mullahism dissipate (the mullahs are their own worst enemies, as the Taliban have shown in Afghanistan with their cruelty and continued fighting for power which has caused millions of Afghans to vote with their feet and get away from their evil clutches), the universal and peaceful spirit of the Islam that Allah conveyed to us via the Holy Prophet is bound to prevail.

``The content (of the letter in FP) was just as nonsensical as some of the material that is regularly churned out by the religious parties in Pakistan.`` Agreed. Both are an assault on decency and common sense

``The minorities in Pakistan live under constant oppression and threat from the mainstream religious parties. The Blasphemy law far from serving any useful purpose (and I believe it is unIslamic in principle) is used as a tool to blackmail and bully them.``

Agreed. Those laws must be revoked, and hopefully we will have a leader with the strength of character and fear of Allah to do that despite opposition by the mullahs. How dare the mullahs seek to set themselves up as spokesmen for Islam when neither the Quran (where people who try to act as spokesmen for Allah are termed the most wicked of men) nor the people of Pakistan (who have rejected them in elections over and over again) have given them such rights. I would not want to be in their shoes on Judgement Day (which I think they do not really believe in, otherwise they would not so brazenly violate the Quran).

``Scholars like Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Ibn Ras`d (Averroes) would be branded heretics today for their Neoplatonic views.``

They were branded back then too. Avicenna (I am told) once had to run for his life with a gang of mullahs armed with spears in hot persuit.

Re: krashid, #660

No point in elaborating, krashid. Confusing indeed!

Shankar,

And what brought THAT on?

Sigalph re:661

The Pakistan Army undoubtedly already had armour and artillery elements in East Pakistan from beforehand.. in keeping with the strategy of paying little attention to the East, they probably weren’t quite as good as the equipment in the West. After all, there WAS one squadron of Sabres in East Pakistan as well. It was the additional forces flown in to execute the Army Action that were lacking heavy equipment.

And I think Fuzair did point out that the other POWs were administrative/logistical staff, west Pakistani police etc. Regular Army troops were probably upto 45000 of the 90.

While I was in Dhaka I read an article in a newspaper that summarized the Bangladeshi War of Independence. Interestingly, India and the Indian Army were not mentioned even once, giving all the credit for victory to the Mukti Bahini.

Again, I’m not trying to detract from the nature of atrocities carried out against Bengali civilians by the Army.

Imran Syed re: 665

The punishment meted out to the Qurayzah was in fact the punishment decreed for treachery according to Jewish law. Under the terms of the treaty between the Muslims and the Jews, each was to be judged by their own laws. Perhaps Qurayzah was emboldened by the leniency shown towards the earlier tribes.

Shammi re: 667

The hawkish Ayub Khan also proposed (before 1962) a defence pact between Pakistan and India, to which Nehru replied ‘Against who?’ (China was a good buddy, after all). He also refrained from invading Kashmir while China was cleaning India’s clocks. Perhaps he felt that would be reciprocated by some progress in negotiations – which didn’t happen.

imransyed:#665

Whereas the detailed explanation you have given is certainly very commendable but as you know this information is not new.

The letter writer is NOT at fault,although the forum he chose to air his grievances/hurts was not the right one.His purpose was not to wait for a reply either.Jerusalem Post/New york times would have been a better choice.

The frontier post made a terrible boo boo and have since then sincerely sought clemency from the public.

The issue is NOT that of religious scholarship or hsitorical records.

How would you see a letter published eulogising the heroics of Adolf Hitler(there are many and to a lot of people he is still a very great man).How about writing that because Hitler was not allowed in the academy of arts & given due recognition as a great painter(which he was),and the refusal of the jews to support his war and not enlist,and asking the Jerusalem post to publish it.

You will be surprised that lesser controversial matters have not been published.In fact there is NO media in the western world which publishes any material which genuinely runs against the basic ``value`` system.

The charade of doing their dirty laundery in public notwithstanding.It is all very very well fine-tuned & orchestrated.

Our miserable english-knowing sops feel important to have become a fellow-travellers in this ``freedom-express``

P.S:I still commend you for summarising the events for a lot of folk on CHOWK.

__________________________________________________

wassalaam.

Ref: Imranssyed #665

While I agree with what you say, shouldn`t we judge the Prophet by higher standards than normal humans, since to the muslims he is more revered and his memory granted more protection than that of normal men? His word is the word of Allah. Are we wrong to therefore expect his actions to be divine too?

You write,``On hearing this, Muhammad is said to have cried, ``You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies``. But then you also want us to agree with you that ``it is not correct to judge the incident by 20th century standards.``

If the judgement was Allah`s, he who is all forgiving, then I find it strange that 20th century humans are much more forgiving than him, to spare at least the civilians, and the women and children in a conflict!

But if you do want us to judge the incident in light of the state of Arab (and especially muslim society) at that time, then who`s judgement are you pronouncing it was? It could not be Allah`s, who is all knowing.

And by thus casting doubts on whose judgement it was, and therefore the veracity of the Prophet`s statement, are you yourself not committing blasphemy?!!

Re: Umairr

``Not too many countries, the size of Pakistan, have been able to take on adversaries so much larger than themselves. A feather in Pakistan`s cap.``

90,000 POWs are a feather in your cap? A 3-0 record is a feather in your cap? Wars are not cricket.

imransyed#665

Dear Imran,

It is not clear from your post whether it is your own rebuttal or it is from someone at the FP. Anyway it is good. If it is yours,please keep writing.

Regards