Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

re. Krashid: 678

Thanks Rashid sahib: I find your your definition very appealing, although apparently it is not uncontestedly affirmed by the ijma and learned scholars :(

Thank you for also answering the question about Ibrahim, though I am not quite sure why the cupposed corruption of the messge should make any difference if the followers still professed monotheism.

Your fellow Muslim/Christ-ian/Human traveller,

Patrick Masih

Krashid

Agreed. That post belongs on another board.

re: Hobbes # 671

``Perhaps then Pakistan will belong to those who will persevere, will laugh and cry with her, beguile her in return; who refuse to be victims of despondency, those who not see the cup as half empty but as half full. If Pakistan is a ``she``, which ``she`` wants to be told of her scars, of her failures, of disappointment?``

Moving words....quite becoming...and quite true.

Please wish similar sentiments to other countries, and we will no more be among the wretched of the earth.

Best.

re: PM # 670

Hey, I thought that should be an easy one, given that all of us are supposed to be born Muslims :):)

Joining you in your wait.

PM# 670

Although your question is directed at Naqshbandi and Urstruly, Let me put my thoughts also.

Ibrahim (AS) is mentioned as a Muslim, without any doubt, because he believed in one God and did not made partners to HIM. At some places, other prophets and their followers are mentioned as Muslims with the same specification.

But since their message got corrupted, their followers are no longer considered Muslims.

Now for me the definition of Muslim is same. The concept of monotheism.

It is a different matter that some Muslims have started to make partners with God and thus deny the basic quality of Muslim as described above.

Asif Naqshbandi sahib:

Am eagerly waiting...

hamzad afaqui:

re. ``Although I must admit I drowse-browse through this discussion...``

Anyone who comes to `Previos 10` board to `drowse-browse` needs to get out some, don`t u think?

Hobbes #671

This is very much out of context of what we are discussing.

PM

I will wait for Asif`s reply to your question. I am pretty sure that Asif will answer your questions not any differently than me.

Hamzad Afaqui

Afaqui sahhab, Poetry and the thoughts of poets and learned men - As DRUMZ say, I merely regurgitate and am not conscious of any original thought. I am a small business person, not averse to getting my leg pulled. But to be the company of reasonable and civil men and women; Chowk needs more of them.

Krashid

I wish to share with my conviction as well that the hetrogenous and homogenous trends are tending to proceed simultaneously. What does cause me concern is the extremes in either and the fate of that beguiling lover, that free spirited tormentor who refuses to surrender, our shining and resplendid, Pakistan.

Perhaps then Pakistan will belong to those who will persevere, will laugh and cry with her, beguile her in return; who refuse to be victims of despondency, those who not see the cup as half empty but as half full. If Pakistan is a ``she``, which ``she`` wants to be told of her scars, of her failures, of disappointment? After All, the prize is the well being of, in my opinion, the most progressive among all Islamia, that is the Pakistani and Pakistan; who created a vision and a mission much maligned on these boards, BUT WE WILL PERSIST AND WE WILL ACHIEVE. I agree, it is do or die and those who imagine we would die, they do not recognize us. Our enemies are a blessing upon us, their size, power and numbers serve not to intimidate but to motivate and steel our spine, their cacophony has served only to sharpen our vision and make us resolute in fullfillment of our mission.

Question for Urstruly and Asif N:

Who/what is a Muslim? Were the prophets who came before Muhammed (pbuh) Muslims? How about their followers?

Would appreciate answers. Thanks

Hobbes #663

That is a bad thing about human mind, but scientifically it works this way. It tries to organize information and put it in place.

Moreover, scientific Laws are not certain and true. It only depicts our understanding of Universe and how it behaves NOW.

One thing is people have a tendency to find some organization behind working of things including history. The attempt by Ibn-e-Khuldoon, or Marx or Hegel is just that attempt.

Quran also is full of historical material and divides it into good deeds and bad deeds or correct belief and wrong belief`s (The destruction of nations is related to actions and not belief`s). Also it is a human nature to at least guess, if not predict.

When I quoted that Ayah that truth is like pure metal and falsehood will evaporate, I meant that. What is the achievement so far of human struggle. For me it is the scientific methods. The development of human thoughts . So I presume that whatever way you see societies, it ultimately moves towards the same direction. If it is left behind, it becomes non competitive and therefore more competitive societies or thought overcome it, or incite it into struggle.

I have only given the direction, there is no end to it. With expansion of knowledge, science and technology, societies are not going to become totally homogenous or totally heterogenous.

For example there will be some commonality, but also much diversity.

Also I think there will be so much diversity, that some supreme order like powerful Government will be needed to prevent complete anarchy.

With the increase of population, and expansion of knowledge, all the diverse people will be competing for resources and power. So there needs to be some rules of game, which will be commonality.

Although you are correct that history has so far progressed in a zig-zag fashion. But the societies were partly or completely isolated. Even America was not discovered. With the current pace of development, and transfer of knowledge. And struggle for existence and survival of fittest. ``You either do or die``. Because if you don`t do it, progress of humanity will not stop, it has to drag you in the same direction.

The third world countries for now are providing man power to the world. (See the immigration trend). The second world is providing the necessities and luxuries. And first world is providing the futuristic scientific direction.

Will it remain so? No. It is necessary that the fruits of development will reach to masses. It is the requirement of sustaining the progress.

The future will bring its own problems and its solution.

PM ...

From what I recall reading ... the dear Prophet (pbuh) reportedly stated that if there is a conflict between the word of Quran ... and ahadith ... preference should be given to Quran.

If this hadith is considered authentic ... it gives the answer to your inquiry.

However ... if this ahadith is not considered authentic ... that in itself gives the answer ... that not all ahadith are authentic ... and that ahadith should be understood with caution.

Comments from anyone will be appreciated.

Asif N:

Jsut a few (preliminary questions (really haven`t got the time for another protracted debate, and will understand fully if you hterfore choose not to reply)..

1. You mention your adherence to `tradtional Islam`. What was ther before traditional Islam?

2. You mention a hadith in which the Prophet (pbuh) warns against those who will claim that the Qur`an alone must be followed. What is the aloowance of a possiblity that this hadith is not authentic? If is is indeed authentic, to what extent must it be followed, given that the Prophet was a man (even if a great one, and most loved and blesssed by Allah) and the Qur`an is the actual word of God?

3. You make it appear as though the `science of religon` of orhtodox Sunni`ism is something approaching the level of consensus-level of Modern Science. This implies that the methods lead to unanimity and/or justifiability of propositions (unless they are mere theories). Is there not a fair amount of disagreement on many matters between various sunni schools?

4. Assuming you subscribe to any one school which you hold to be authentic, what were the basis on which you chose to follow that school over others?



Please forgive me if some of my questions are `wrong` ones. I would appreciate if you would correct them if so.

Thank you.

Naqshbandi Sahib

You have kept quiet on the lie you told regarding Mirza Sahib’s demise. Please Sir … have the decency and courage to admit you bungled up badly.

So let me ask again … why are your “pious” mullahs spreading rumors against Mirza Sahib? Why are they involved in false propaganda against Ahmadi-Muslims? Is this what your Islam has devolved into?

Urstruly Sahib

Your case on finality of prophethood is as weak as your position on blasphemy laws and abrogation of Quranic verses! You have not offered much insight on any topic … besides sound bites, rhetoric, and empty claims. Once again … I’ll insist … let the Quran, the unabrogated one, be our foremost guide here.

VERDICT OF QURAN

Nowhere does the Quran call the Prophet the “last” prophet. Such an important issue … and Allah forgot to mention it in His Book?

Moreover, Quran clearly hints at continuation of prophethood (7:35) … unless you abrogate this verse as well!

ON AHADITH

In the past you clearly misinterpreted ahadith. You once quoted a hadith where the Prophet called himself the “last” prophet … and called his mosque the “last” mosque. I pointed out that other mosques have been built after the Prophet’s mosque … so you must be misinterpreting “last” here. You could not come up with a satisfactory answer.

CONTEXT OF AHADITH

Similarly … other often quoted ahadith that I have checked … do not support end of prophethood … when understood in their proper context. This includes the famous “there is no prophet after me” hadith.

Clue: It is not “… AFTER me”. Rather … it is “there is no prophet BEHIND me” … as spoken by the dear Prophet as he prepared to leave town on a journey.

AHADITH NOW IGNORED BY MULLAHS

Furthermore, I pointed out ahadith where the Prophet hinted at coming of future prophets. There are numerous ahadith … that hint at coming of Mahdi (the Guided reformer) … in the “Hind” region … in the town of “Qada” (i.e. Qadian) … in the 14th century of Islamic calendar … but these ahadith are not discussed by ullema anymore.

The Muslim world is still waiting for reformer of the 14th century. 14th century is now over … but the wait continues.

MOREOVER …

Let’s not forget … ahadith are words of men … narrated by men … written by men … compiled by men … over centuries. If they are against the verdict of Quran … they are worthless.

RETURN OF ISSA? YES AND NO

Numerous ahadith have been recorded on return of Issa-ibne-Marriam. You seem to have rejected these ahadith (shows how much faith you have in ahadith) … since you could not properly understand them. This bears striking resemblance to your abrogation of Quranic verses on similar grounds.

Since we know that Issa-ibne-Marriam has died … and passed away ( I hope we can agree on this!) … these ahadith have posed a dilemma for Muslim scholars for a long time. The answer now has become clear. Read on … and you’ll find out.

These ahadith mean that … a prophet will come in Muslims … who will bear spiritual resemblance to Issa-ibne-Marraim. Issa did not bring a new law … he only brought people back to the law of Torah … he was sent to Jews who had become very corrupt … who were waiting for prophet Elijah to descend down from the skies. Jesus came approx. 13 centuries after Moses.

Similarly … a prophet will be sent to Muslims … who will not bring a new law … but will only bring Muslims back to the Law of Quran … he will be raised when Muslims would have become very corrupt … and will be waiting for a prophet (Issa, in this case) to descend from the skies. This Prophet will also come approx. 13 centuries after Mohammad (pbuh).

Ahadith regarding coming of Issa have been misunderstood by the ullema. In reality … these ahadith clearly foretell the coming of a future prophet.

VERDICT OF OTHER SCHOLARS

Several renowned Muslim scholars (Shah Walliulah included) have argued that even though Law of Quran is complete and cannot be changed … non-law bearing prophets may continue to be raised by the Almighty.

BACK TO VERDICT OF QURAN

I believe in each and every word of Quran … and I have been declared a non-Muslim. On the other hand … mullahs are abrogating verses of Quran … in the name of Islam … and call themselves the righteous ones! Go figure.

In Quran Allah gives the name of “Islam” for the faith of believers. I believe in ALL OF Quran … not only certain verses of it. Therefore, I consider myself a Muslim … follower of Islam.

PS: Have you completely given up on defense of blasphemy laws? You researched this for almost a year … what happened?

Hobbes:

``Method has no problem with diverse premises - however; differeing methods are really differing ways to organize and experience reality - that`s why those who articulate from a singularly religious point of view and those of articulate from a ``scientific`` point of view, MAY well be saying essentially the same thing, but they create very different experiences.``

Oh, I fully agree. The experiences and `findings` of the sages of the far east (read Capra`s ``Tao Of Physics`` for example) clearly make this point.

However, I think a lot rides on the word i`ve capitalized in your quote. In that space may lie the difference between what we may regard as genuine and phoney (or incongruous) methods.

Then there is the matter of apply (or using) a wrong method to examine or explore a given area too.

In my admittedly limited reading of CHristian philosophy and even Western history of Philosphy (mostly via Russell), it is clear that the latter (wrong application of a method) has been replete in humankind`s history.

Krashid

``The Ayah which appeals me most in this regard is ``The example of truth and falsehood is like unrefined metal, when it is put in furnace a lot of bubbling and scum is there which is taken away by air and what ultimately remains is pure metals. God gives examples like these``

Sir, this is the cruz of critical rationalism and the theory of mechanism of social change, and of the meaning and method of Democracy, articulated by Dr. Karl Popper. His contribution is that criticism, constructive, and rational not only allows for refinement, but enables those leaps of imagination that bring about ``paradigm changes: (though he does not use the construct of paradigm). Popper`s model of mechanism of social change is that all life is problem solving, that solving any given problem holds within it, the seed for the creation of a new problem, and that the solution of any problem is largely dependent on the most precise and detailed articulation of the problem. This same applies to Democracy, with the core idea being the mechanism to to be replace persons and policies in a peaceful and institutional manner. This, Popper argues, is why the notion of accountablity, is key to any democracy.

On India and foreign subjugation - allow me to make a presentation, that may contribute to enlarging the issue:

Indian (and Pakistani) was once a proud amalgamation of multiple influences, but no more. Nationalism, has created the need for sharply defined and contrasted, national personalities for nation states. That which does not fit in to the homogenous whole can look forward to marginalization. Concepts such as ``development stages of societies`` and ``progress`` have not only organized and conceptualized our views, they have shaped them in accordance to their method and I would suggest, these warrant closer examination.

``Development stages of societies`` suggests that there actually are such a thing as stages, that history has within it certain laws, like physical laws of nature, and an implication of this, is that we therefore can know the future.

In actuality, there exist no ``laws`` like the laws of nature, to the trajectory of history - that is to say history cannot be linear - rather it is a zig zag (consider the model of mechanism of social change in para above) And further, that the future is unknowable, (if we knew it, would it be the future or the present) - The position here is that any analysis of history that is built upon an idea that history follows a path according to known laws, like the laws of nature is deeply flawed, there are so such scientific laws that can enable us to say that history follows a known, knowable path defined by scientific principles. There is another danger here, one that suggests that all societies are basically the same - notice the effort to homogenize, a most dangerous idea, in my opinion.

Similarly the notion of ``progress`` - Again this idea has within it, is based on, the idea that one knows the future - that history is following a scientific law - this idea is wholly unsupportable, that is to say, it`s very foundation does not meet the criteria of scientific proposition. The future is unknowable.

``Progress`` is more of a value laden term, one which we may use to denote our approval - but I do not see how it represents anything other than OUR values, (as in not scientific) and a belief that we know the future.

What are your thoughts on this?

On Competition: Seems to me that competition is inherent in all society, it is that engine of structured social inequality - and I very much agree that extreme inequality (structured or not), like utopian notions of equality, is a danger to liberty. We agree that ``man gets what he strives for``, but we recognize that this game must have rules that are open to all to compete and that the rules are percieved as fair and open to review, evolution and refinement; always keeping in mind that the purpose of the rules is to ensure the liberty of the individual to define for themselves, what is the content of their ``happiness`` (I think this word is sufficiently deep and subjective). By the way, you may find interesting a work by Dr. Mancur Olson, that if I remember correctly was recommended by Fuzair ``Power and Prosperity: Out growing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships`` - includes an excellent discussion of how Stalin managed to increase production, while keeping wages to ``official`` production stagnant and meager, but creating conditions where having two and three jobs was a norm - basically using the 8-10 hours of ``official`` production as a state tax

Urstruly

No question that the analysis is speculative and it is also very narrow and extremely shallow. We have not even stratched the surface and the only tool we have used is analysis using economics and power as the dynamic. I agree that moral and ``divine`` sanction was employed to give this construct legs in the society. This is such a fascinating subject, such a lovely and intriguing mystery, I wish we had learned Indians to help us (the marxist analysis we can apply ourselves, thank you - but to what? this is what we need help with - persons to help us understand the context of these, to paint for us the picture of those times, to transport us)