How Not to Reform Universities

there are way too many posts on islam here

urstruly#131

Dear urstruly

AOA

Well written!!

wassalaam

Adnan

temporal

Well here the idea, the majority of the Scholars in the last 1400 years have taken the verse to mean as such. I would refer you to Tafheem ul Quran by Maudoodi

You see the is a whole branch of study called Usool e Tafseer which is dedicated to Interpretations of the Holy Book

Secondly where will you draw the limits if you interpret it as meaning take the easy way?

Regards

Adnan

Mr Ahmed

temper temper, why you sound like a firebrand mullah! next thing i know is you`ll be knowcking down my door.

It seems that you have never engaged in serious debate with anyone, why do you start cursing as soon as your point of view is rejected, two sane rational people can have entirely different points of view ok.

You write

``International Islamic Terrorism: (I doubt if I ever used such a geenral....``

See your post #79 ok, do you write while sleeping?

``.. definition that seems to be eluding you): Any time a non-combatant is killed that is terrorism. Anytime terrorism is committed in the name of Islam, that is Islamic Terrorism. Anytime Islamic Terrorism is committed across international lines that is ... (I will leave you fill in the blanks).....``

well let me put it in terms even a person with your IQ can understand

Who are non-combatants (who defines them?), are the zionist settlers non combatants? Is the state machinery involved in the massacres in Kashmir non combatant? same with the Russian non military personal in Cecheneya, I could go on, what you just did is substitue one ambiguous term for another

Further Terrorism is a convinient term used to bracket people and then oppress them, as I mentioned Nelson Mendela was branded a terrorist at one time by the western establishment



that is the big deal ok Mr AHmed get it

``.....that is International Islamic Terrorism, and the b!stards who did it, the b!stards who sent them, and the b!stardswho condone such killing,....``

Although I do not answer to such moronic childish outbursts butfor the sake of your education heres my comment

Prove it in the court of law , you and your sort love to harp on law, legal etc. but to those YOU THINK are wrong you would not allow any legal protection

``... ``Civilised Society`` comprises a society where the rule of law prevails by and large. ...``

``Rule of Law`` - The tribals in Pakistan have their own laws, a glimpse of which we just saw in the handing over of 8 girls to the opposing tribe- by your definition as the rule of THEIR TRIBAL LAWS prevailed this is good rt?

``By and Large`` what does this mean?, you will end up with the sorites paradox if you use such terms

Mr Ahmed I will not give you on line tutorials on Coherent Writing, Logic and Rational Thought, but I`ll be quick to point out if you use and junk terms in any post again

``...And please dont tell me whether you agree or disagree, because I am not interested.``

This just shows you have never argued with rational people, it also speaks volumes for your intellectual capacity

```...... ``No compulsion in religion``, means in the view of the Prophet SAW and scholars that you cannot forcre people to convert to Islam NOT that people who claim to be muslims can act in whatever way they want to and still be part of an Islamic society.``

Rubbish. As I said, what part of ``no`` dont you understand.......``

``Rubbish``, hmmm hardaly a logical argument

``....Fine. Go and establish your Islamic Empire. Rest assured the rest of the world (including the vast majority of Pakistanis) will beat the stuffing out of you....``

I am shivering in my shoes

``....We have discussed this enough. I am satisfied that you are an idiot (I am not namecalling here - I am accurately describing you)...``

My My what logic and rationality

``...Allah will open YOUR eyes to the punishment for your evil on the Judgement Day. Till then, live in your dream world....``

Threatening people with Hellfire, hmmmm..., are you really any better than the Mullahs you curse ?

Mr Ahmed before I end this little series of posts just 2 comments:

1. Two people with radically opposite views can talk without cursing and calling each other names, in the modern day this is called dialogue

(Please try to read Russell and Copleston Debate on GOD, in say ``Bertrand Russell on Religion``

to see this, or the duscussion b/w Maudoodi and Tuloo e Isalm people on Hadith etc., etc.)

2. Never let your temper get the better of you, specially when debating something, it never reinforces your point of view, it just make you look stupid

May Allah open your eyes to the truth

Adnan

THERE IS NO COMPULSION………

I think it is a verse that is quoted out of context the most. Usually, the people who quote it, take it as a license to do whatever they think is right. Ostensibly, it looks true; but we must not only look into the context of the verse but the background of the verse as well. Two Ullema of very different schools of thought have interpreted the verse in the same fashion. The Tafseer-ul-Qura’n written by Moulana Mohammad Naeem-ud-din Muradabadi with a translation of Qura’n by Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi (RAH) in Kanz-ul-Iman and Moulana Moudoodi (RAH) in Tafheem-ul-Qura’n say that the verse 2:256 which stipulates that “there is no compulsion in religion” must be read in conjunction with its predecessor 2:255. In 2:255 Allah (SWT) puts forth a list or set of believes, first, and then in 2;256 He tells us that He has shown the right way thus. Therefore, it is up to the man to choose between the right and wrong (‘right’ being the set of beliefs and ‘wrong’ being the anything but those beliefs) and further that Prophet (or Muslims) must not compel non-beleivers to adopt those beliefs but the only duty that Muslims/Prophet has is to convey it to the people.

So in short, there is no compulsion in accepting those beliefs, and this edict encapsulates only that. It is therefore not a free license to do whatever one feels like, once one has the belief in those beliefs he must oblige all the duties that Allah has stipulated specifically. In other words a Muslim cannot choose what conforms to his life style and leave all other saying that there is no compulsion in religion. Therefore, I agree with adnan-726, that he has interpreted the verse correctly, and it is consistent with the opinion of Ulema of different schools of thought. I am posting the translation of 2:255 and 2:256 below, I don’t think one has to be a Mullah to get at what I just said:

002.255

YUSUFALI: ``Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).``

002.256

PICKTHAL: ``There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.``

adnan: Since you seem unaware of what terrorism means, I need to be more precise than I was in my post below in defining it: It should be ``Any time a non-combatant is intentionally killed or wounded or otherwise intentionally targetted that is terrorism.`` So: Do you agree that the recent killing of bus passengers in India was an act of terrorism, of cold-blooded murder? If not, why not?

shammi #125 Agreed. Wish reality was so simple. The reality is that the Pakistan policy on relations with India is what the military says it is nowadays, and has been for a long time.

adnan #126 Here is my response to your points

``1. You still have not defined the ``mumbo jumbo`` terminology, can you or can you not define the terms ``International Islamic Terrorism`` and ``Civilised Society``, stop running away and answer this simple question.``

International Islamic Terrorism: (I doubt if I ever used such a geenral, but am not going to waste my time to prove you wrong, and will provide you with the definition that seems to be eluding you): Any time a non-combatant is killed that is terrorism. Anytime terrorism is committed in the name of Islam, that is Islamic Terrorism. Anytime Islamic Terrorism is committed across international lines that is ... (I will leave you fill in the blanks). So, what is the big deal here? And yes, when innocent bus passengers are killed in Kashmir, that is International Islamic Terrorism, and the b!stards who did it, the b!stards who sent them, and the b!stardswho condone such killing, deserve to be caught and punished like cold blooded murderers and/or accomplices to cold blooded murderer. ``Civilised Society`` comprises a society where the rule of law prevails by and large. Hope this does not sound like mumbo jumbo to you. And please dont tell me whether you agree or disagree, because I am not interested.

Your next point ``

2. It was not I but rather yourself who started the name calling business, I simply dished out the same to you and as I can see you canot take what you like to dish out.``

I have been called far worse names than you have come up with. A namecaller only demeans himself, and says nothing about the other person. So it does not bother me.

Next ``3. ``No compulsion in religion``, means in the view of the Prophet SAW and scholars that you cannot forcre people to convert to Islam NOT that people who claim to be muslims can act in whatever way they want to and still be part of an Islamic society.``

Rubbish. As I said, what part of ``no`` dont you understand. And this is not the only place the Quran says this. But since you brazenly flout the teachings of the Quran, I am not going to try and reason with you. Nor frankly do I care what you think, since by now I have a pretty good idea where you stand in terms of intellectual integrity.

you write ``4. The prophet SAW and Sahabaa RA established and expanded the ISlamic empire, bcause the establishent of justice in the world is part of the mission of Islam and this can only be acheived by setting up an Islamic Empire (I suggest you read a little bit of Islamic History maybe your views would become more educated)``

Fine. Go and establish your Islamic Empire. Rest assured the rest of the world (including the vast majority of Pakistanis) will beat the stuffing out of you.

you write ``As I see it people such as you simply want religion to be what you desire, unfortunately religion is what the Allah sent us through his Prophet SAW, the thing you simply fail to realize is that the Prophet SAW was a LAW GIVER as well.``

We have discussed this enough. I am satisfied that you are an idiot (I am not namecalling here - I am accurately describing you).

you write ``May Allah open your eyes to the truth``

Allah will open YOUR eyes to the punishment for your evil on the Judgement Day. Till then, live in your dream world.

adnan_672 # 126:

[...3. ``No compulsion in religion``, means in the view of the Prophet SAW and scholars that you cannot forcre people to convert to Islam NOT that people who claim to be muslims can act in whatever way they want to and still be part of an Islamic society...]

---sir, first off, let me confess i have not been following your and ahmed interactions on this board or in the past and apologise if you feel am intruding in any way...

...have serious reservations on this quote of yours...and feel your `interpretation` perhaps as way off the mark...

...shall draw your attention to an excellent work by an conservative yet very enlightened aalim, once director of idara-e-saqafat-e-islamia out of lahore...maulana jaafer shah...and the most relevant work of his published in 1955...`Islam:deen-e-aasaaN (in Arabic transalation think it was later published as `Islam Ad-din al asar`

...as i recall from memory, in page after page, he quoted examples from the holy book and the prophet`s life, and hammering the point that in EVERY single instance, when there was an option, the prophet saw ALWAYS chose the easier option...hence the deen--e-aasaan...

....keeping in mind this was published in 1955...this was clearly aimed at the hardening `compulsion` sermonized by the hard liner ulemas and reinforced by the second line of jaahil maulvis from within...

rgds,

t

tahmed #119

Mr Ahmed

1. You still have not defined the ``mumbo jumbo`` terminology, can you or can you not define the terms ``International Islamic Terrorism`` and ``Civilised Society``, stop running away and answer this simple question.

2. It was not I but rather yourself who started the name calling business, I simply dished out the same to you and as I can see you canot take what you like to dish out.

3. ``No compulsion in religion``, means in the view of the Prophet SAW and scholars that you cannot forcre people to convert to Islam NOT that people who claim to be muslims can act in whatever way they want to and still be part of an Islamic society.

4. The prophet SAW and Sahabaa RA established and expanded the ISlamic empire, bcause the establishent of justice in the world is part of the mission of Islam and this can only be acheived by setting up an Islamic Empire (I suggest you read a little bit of Islamic History maybe your views would become more educated)

As I see it people such as you simply want religion to be what you desire, unfortunately religion is what the Allah sent us through his Prophet SAW, the thing you simply fail to realize is that the Prophet SAW was a LAW GIVER as well.

Why is studying work by other people important?

Simply because there is a chain of understanding Islam extending from the Prophet to the present day Ulema ok.

May Allah open your eyes to the truth

wassalaam

Adnan

PS: I take the time to write these long posts because I think you are indeed sincere in your desire to understand religion but are to hardened in your views to listen to anyone else. I hope in time your attitude will change. In any case I`ll be watching out for any meaningless terms you use and point them out.

Re: Tahmed321

``...And we dont seem to have any choice left in Pakistan but to make sure that we are not over-run by Advani and his friends...``

There is a choice -- to curtail the acts that give wind to Advani`s political sails (although, there are other winds that Advani`s boat sails on).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

fawad79 #121,

``true but then again i dont want to turn this into a ylh -type thing where im hurling insults after every post u know?``

arrite then, but if you get bored, don`t go fighting with me. cuz this means we have to get along. :)

shammi #120 ``How does this square with Vajpayee`s visit to Lahore and the Minar-e-Pakistan? Or with Kargil that followed a few months later to sabotage the process?``

Good point. The Lahore process was a statesmanlike gesture on the part of Vajpayee, and Nawaz Sharif (despite condemnation of his other actions aimed at destroying the very democratic institutions that made him prime minister) too deserves credit. And no question that Musharaff`s actions at the time (by refusing to receive Vajpayee and later Kargil) derailed this very important effort. And no doubt history will judge the individuals mentioned above along these lines.

But that was then, and this is now. We have the BJP extremists in power (as I see it, with Advani the power behind the throne it seems). As a result of the failure (through no fault of his) of the Lahore initiative, Vajpayee and the peace party in India have been gravely weakened. And we dont seem to have any choice left in Pakistan but to make sure that we are not over-run by Advani and his friends. Since I have no doubt that Advani would like to see Pakistan humiliated no less than Jay and a handful of other posters on Chowk try to do every day.

Adnan #113 you write ``If I correctly recall the surahs you quoted were indeed out of context.``

I see that you dont care to share what you recall about those surahs, and simply provide your word that they were out of context. That is not good enough. E.g., as I mentioned elsewhere on chowk recently, what part of the word ``No`` dont you understand when the Quran says that there is no compulsion in religion? Or when it tells the Prophet that implementation of religon is not part of his mandate?? Of course if one accepts this, it strikes at the foundation of everything the religious political parties in Pakistan stand for. The power of the mullah is gone. And that is why you are having such difficulty understanding the word ``No`` in the Quran.

you write ``When I asked you to go back and have a look and also cited some works you had the audacity to simply refuse.``

You provided me with a list of writers whom you suggested I read, rather than focus on what the Quran says. May God forgive you for trying to detract attention from the Quran by pointing to your self-proclaimed spokesmen for God. I trust the Quran and I trust my mind, as the Quran clearly tells me to. Not the men you worship.

you write ``Perhaps you are indeed the greatest Islamic Scholar in the 14 centuries that have elapsed but simply refusing to read what has been written in these 14 centuries is in my view my view a very unwise idea.``

The Quran is meant for every muslim to read. It does not require a scholar to interpret the Quran. The Quran itself says that it is a book to make things simple. A lot of evil has been done in the name of Islam, a lot of stories cooked, a lot of lies told. The beauty of the Quran shines through 14 centures, and is there for the honest man to discover for himself.

you write ``But I guess it is a bit too much to expect from drawing room warriors and pseudo intellectuals to be honest and pleasant about anything, specially when you are caught writing mumbo jumbo.``

Namecalling is no substitute for reasoned discussion.

you write ``I hope Allah opens your eyes to the truth and your heart to the Quran.``

These are empty words when you clearly dont follow them yourself.

you write ``If I sounded too harsh I apologize``

You dont sound harsh. Only pathetic in your fear of using your own mind, in refusing to believe what your eyes can see repeatedly and clearly in the Quran.

scout,

true but then again i dont want to turn this into a ylh -type thing where im hurling insults after every post u know?

ps whats up ur sn scout were a girl scout or did u read to kill a mocking bird?