Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

ASif Naqshbandi

The Last Sermon of Holy Prophet (pbuh) should be the last seal on fitnah-e-Quadianiat but just to add to the subject and for the information of other people, there are over 450 ahadith, of all schools of thought where Prophet (pbuh) himself has explained the finalty of his Prophethood with not only examples but also in his direct words. Not to mention the Arabic lexicography, usage and grammer which does not qualify their claim on the Quran`ic verse. How could someone be so blind is just beyond me.

If Mirza Sahib told them so, then he must have started a new religion - Quadianis must consider themselve the followers of a different religion.

hobbes # 653

I think your post is too speculative - all you had to do was to pick up, Geeta, Purana, and Vedas along with the text of Manu Samiriti. All answers regarding caste, untoucability and Zaat/Jaat are there. And keep in mind that a moral as well as a devine sanctity to the order of things have been given through the above mentioned sources. At an anthropoligical level the explanation through the looking glass of demand and supply of slave labor makes sense. And I think it is useless chicken-or-egg discussion to explore whether the demand-supply of slave labor theory triggered the formation of caste orders or the divine order came first. Because the maintenance of such order for an extended period of time was not possible without a ``divine mandate``.

Hobbes #653

I agree with your method.

And I also agree with your analysis.

When I wrote in my previous post, that if we compare it to other societies at the same stage of development and what was its impact on future, the thing in my mind was that even if it was solving some problem, was it progressive, meaning competitive to other solutions or regressive.

The reason is. India has been subjugated by foreigners for such a long time.

Another example of destruction of Muslim empire at the hands of Halaku and the continuous downward spiral of Muslims.

Particularly seeing these events in light of Ayah that if WE did not remove one people from another then the world be full of tyranny.

I have formed few opinions of mine regarding these issues.

1- Progress of society mentally, morally, materially is probably the aim of divine or the direction we are moving, if we speak secularly.

2- Ultimately distribution of that progress to all humanity.

For this reason, although I recognise, as you said, structured inequality as part of even most advanced society, but I take stand for the human development as basis. (It does not necessarily mean spoon feeding, but leaving door open for struggle)

The competitive advantage of Islamic civilization at one time, or Western civilization now, in my opinion is related to the same factor of human development and struggle.

Man does not get except what he strives for.

I will give more thoughts to your propositions.

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.

In this regard of competitiveness, we can see that different societies progressed in different directions. With your analysis we can find out why they did so. But still it does not prove that they were competitive. For example Western society was much advanced than local Red Indians. It not only overcame it, but changed the face of America.

Thus we have not only to find, that why those societies developed the way they did. But what was the difference with other societies at the same stage of development which were more competitive.

Asif ``sattar -- i do not discuss issues of islam with qadiyanis as they are kafir murtads.``

Where do u get off using the word ``I?`` When have u ever posted anything which shows that U think? ALL ur stuff is regurgitated from others.

If u actually thought for urself, u wouldnt end up making such dumbass comments (when did muhd ever say `dont discuss islam with kaffirs?`).

PM

The dichotomy (Revealed Vs Scientific) is one of extremes and generally speaking, it is irrelevant. Both the Methods employed are in practice pretty much the same. Nobody in his right mind actually operates on either of these two methods. Critical Rationalism is the method the vast majority of the world are moving towards - it is critcal rationalism, that allow s us to declare how similar science is to the world of religion, that both are built on the foundation that underneath this reality is an undiscovered deeper more fundamental reality - it is this that allows as to claim that Realism is aim of science. 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.

I think I see our problem, we do not know if we are all on the same method - as a matter of fact we do not really understand the significance of method as yet.

Naqshbandi Sahib (#654):

On Finality of prophethoood …

Contradictory to your claims, Quran never declares the dear Propohet the final prophet. Quran calls the dear Prophet “Seal of Prophets”. I have posted on other boards … that in view of the context of the verse in question (33:40) and other Quranic verses that hint at coming of future prophets … and ahadith on this issue … “Seal of Prophets” implies the “Ultimate prophet” … the prophet who is most exalted in rank and has the highest status among all prophets … ever.

On death of Mirza Sahib …

You are telling blatant lies about Mirza Sahib’s death. He did not die like you claimed in your post. This shameful lie is fabricated by mullahs to revile and abuse Ahmadi-Muslims … and amounts to false propaganda. Even Urstruly admits that this is a lie. He claims to have researched this issue to his satisfaction and concluded differently from what you are stating.

Now tell me … 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?

Moving on …

In the light of your false comments against Mirza Sahib … your position on abrogation of Quran … your insistence on violence against blasphemers (which is clearly opposed in Quran) … and more … the true status of mullahsim has become clear.

Mullahs have become corrupt … and are devoid of the spirit of Islam. They have twisted Quran and ahadith .. and use them for their own selfish agendas. They are no longer afraid of Allah … but are more interested in gaining and maintaining political power … and easily resort to hateful propaganda and violence against others.

On abrogation of Quranic verses …

Urstruly Sahib … you claim that on inheritance … Quran 2:180 should not be followed, since it is abrogated by other verses (4:11, 12 etc.) … and instead Quran 4:11,12 etc. should be followed. You seem to have taken the position that 2:180 and 4:11,12 etc. contradict each other … and both cannot be simultaneously followed. This is your opinion … and not the verdict of Quran.

Contradiction between Quranic verses is against the Quranic claim of being the “Perfect Book”. For Quran to be perfect … there cannot be any contradiction within its content. This should be easy to understand for a Muslim.

Quran being eternal …

I understand that Quran was revealed over 23 years. As verses were revealed, they addressed specific prevailing needs of the dear Prophet and his companions. However, the language and content of the verses were designed, so as to retain their wider meaning and application. In other words, while addressing the specifics, no generalities were compromised.

Moreover, when deciding on an issue (say one involving legality, inheritance, or marriage etc.) … all relevant verses of Quran should be read in conjunction with each other. Quran discusses each issue within contrasting contexts … to highlight its various aspects. Quranic verses do not abrogate each other … rather they draw strength from each other … and present a balanced, carefully crafted solution for each issue. Abrogation of any Quranic verse … whether on basis of other verses, or sunnah, or ahadith … has no basis.

Dangers of Abrogation …

Abrogating Quranic verses … is not only “illegal” from a Muslim point of view … but also a dangerous game. It would imply that all Quranic commandments … those regarding attributes of Allah … emphasizing peace in the world and love and compassion for all … formulating laws on marriage, inheritance, justice system … outlining one’s obligation towards Allah and others … all become questionable … and “abrogatable”. Abrogation of Quranic verses strikes at the very heart of Islam … by raising doubts about the very Book of Allah. It renders to Quran a second-class status … open to guessing and speculation from humans.

One can, for example, argue that Allah being Merciful abrogates the concept of hell. Verses that conflict with such hypothesis … may be abrogated using other verses …dubious ahadith … and references to earlier scriptures … and mere speculation. Which verse abrogates which verse … would be anybody’s guess. The permutations would be endless.

Havoc of abrogation …

Your own article is a good illustration of this havoc. Without even mentioning “abrogation” … you are trying to bypass clear Quranic commandments on blasphemy. You have failed to give one valid reason for downgrading Quran … while stubbornly and silently maintaining your position. Add to this mess …outright abrogation of Quranic verses … and hell would break loose.

Finally …

A Muslim must rise to the challenge of Quran … try to understand it … and faithfully implement its message of peace and love … patience and perseverance … and equity and justice. This message moved mountains in the past … and laid foundations for one of the greatest nations known to the mankind. Mullahs, on the other hand … are bent upon “lowering the bar” by allowing the verses they find distasteful … to be abrogated or bypassed. Nothing more can be expected from the ignorant mullahs … who also stubbornly insist that according to Quran … Issa-ibne-Marriam was lifted physically to the heavens (I know this has become a sore issue for you … but it appropriately highlights the ineptness of the mullahs nowadays).

Krashid

A most interesting post. Recall that the whole we now refer to as Hindu, is not really a creation of Hindus themselves, it was Muslims, who referred to the population of Hind as Hindu - the locals themselves did not see themselves as a whole - for instance Brahmins or shudras did not view themselves as a constituent part of a whole (some Indian person, please make correction or add).

We can of course approach it from a economics and power dynamics as engine change - but if I understand the issue, It is the notion of Jaat or Zaat, that is central to caste - that is to say, a biological determinism of sorts - in other words, some persons are born to serve others.

My thinking is also along the lines you have pursued, in as much as the existence of some unrefined notion of caste, or biological determinism may well have existed and was operational in society - If you will allow me, I think there is alos an issue, which is even today, very much a CURSE, upon the peoples of all countries of the subcontinent - that is the question of Varna or a color or skin complexion consciousness, that is, in my opinion, very closely related, if not the twin of Jaat/Zaat. I am of course revealing what many Indians today consider a bias, that is a understanding of Hindu/Indian history heavily influenced by the English view of it. But these psychological objections aside, I`m sure you agree that structured inequality is a hallmark of complexity in organized society. And it seems to me that caste, Jaat/Zaat/Varna are representations of that understanding in a particular time and cultural/social/economic/political context.So I very much agree with the point you made about slavery - Also if you are interested in exploring a intriguing idea, one based on the economics approach to analysis, about the abolition of slavery: Jack Rutherford in his ``Indian Givers`` makes a most compelling case citing economic data, that the foremost reason that slavery became unsupportable was the economic cost it imposed. You will enjoy this work, I think.

To get back to the proposition that caste solved some problem - it is based on the assumption that hundreds of millions of persons are not caste conscious if it does not in reality solve some problem - it has to solve a problem - All proposed solutions that have lasted for any period of time have done so, because they meet a need, solve a problem. With slavery the problem was the unavailablity of cheap labor, answer, slavery - justification: they were born to do it, look how strong they are, look how they can work at a furious pace with much less energy input. Now I am not suggesting that Shudras are stronger or anything of the sort - what I am suggesting is that we pay attention to the approach which sees what we today call ``problems`` and their ``solutions`` - After all, in the past and the present, have not the social ills that afflict us, been the result of us trying to find solutions for what we thought/think are ``problems`` - Overpopulation, think about it, when was this ever a ``problem``??? Only when one can dehumanize the human, reduce the human to cost/benefit analysis, input/output criteria, could one even begin to think of a notion such as over population?

Here is where METHOD comes into play - METHOD are those basic ideas, the foundations, the eddifce on which we build our civilization. Consider, could science be possible, were it not for the development of a system of observation, hypothesis and testing? Would science have been possible with out the replacement of deduction with induction? The force of method is such that even when we talk, write or analyize, it is method we use - I tell you X is hot, you cannot even begin to consider the idea if I do not give you some compelling and rational explanation and back that explantion up with evidence - is this not so?

So, in the case of caste, we have to investigate, understand, what were the ideas, method, problem/solution effective at that time(s) - If we simply look at it as what we today understand as Jaat/Zaat (see the morality we infuse the notion with, do you think those who developed caste infused the same morality that we do in these concepts) - we will only arrive at what we already understand, that is, we will only confirm it is odious, we ill not have solved any problem -to solve the problem, we must understand it in the context it was proposed as a solution and it`s evolution as a ``problem``. Whenever Caste was proposed as a solution to some problem - what was that problem?? Why did it become acceptable?? We cannot know this unless we investigate it, that is to go into it`s history and the history of the ideas that formed it. Today, the ``solution`` caste, is regard as ``problem`` - why? changed values? well then why not examine what the values were when caste became a solutiuon? how did those values change? why? - understanding these in my opinion, will allow us to effect a ?solution`` to the ``problem`` of caste, today. We have tried to outlaw it, we have appealed to the conscience of men (but after all, they are only flesh and blood not angels of God) why have these not worked to stamp out caste consciousness?? because caste is still solving some problem.

If with your permission, we can return to the question of structured inequality - should values be reordered such that the psychological and economic content that appeals in structured inequality, can be said to be prevalent, in other words, if economic opportunity was such that Shudras were well represented (and I don`t mean ridiculous examples like Premji is the richest man in India) - the connection between Jaat/Zaat could not said be functional - that is it would lose it`s justification. here I am born to serve, yet look at my life, materially, i am very well off, my children go to good schools, my business is excellent, my job pays well, i`m very well educated, etc., - it then becomes very difficult to argue that Jaat/Zaat/varna make any sense, because they do not. On the other hand if a ``Chamar`` is still a ``chamar`` - to the same of all Muslims and Pakistanis - then one can see justification pf Jaat/Zaat/varna - after all, do you see Shudras/chamars who look well nourished, with strong bones? and are they not very dark, darker then me? And are they not uneducated? And doesn`t it seem that they just don`t have the same values of hard work and family, like we do? If you will note, economic opportunity killed slavery, it shaped structured inequality in such a way as to appeal to conscience (once, caste too, appealed to conscience). And economic opportunity can kill caste but only if one can shape structured inequality such that economic competition, the competition to educate, the competition to escape the chains of jaat/Zaat/varna are justified and are seen to be possible. With this is come the inevitable analysis: Where are we, how did we get here - in other words, solving or trying to understand the ``problem/solution`` - well, it`s what I think.

Hobbes:

At the risk of spoiling what should be a devoted reunion ;), let me reply...

``When Mr. Nasqshbandi suggests that it is good and proper and sanctioned by religious authority to do another person harm for their act of conscience, if we respond in kind - what will we have solved? All we will have done is to say, ``come get some`` - and I don`t think anybody is helped by that.``

Respond in kind? Well, if it`s survival we are talking about, then yes. Granted there are rare circumstances where I might be called upon to go kill someone who has called for my death, extra-judicially, but I figure that if this manner of preemptice murder is carried out, it would discourage a great deal of innocent bloodspilling, in making bigots and self-interested idots think twice about using religion or culture or whatever else to enforce their fiat over people`s right to life and liberty. By the way, I`m not against capital punishment.

``You are right that innocents suffer, as we debate but consider, if we feel strongly that death penalty should be abolished because the state has no right to deny another human being of life - should we go about saying to the supporters of the death penalty that we would be willing to do them harm, even deprive them of life - to show how strongly we feel? Would you say that is reasonable?``

In matters of self defence, yeah, sure. But that`s another can of worms now.

``The question of egregious interpretation: Shall we further our conscience by force of argument or by coercion? I mean what choice do we realistically have, other than to argue, to persuade, to allow reason to prevail? I really do not see what other choice we have. BUT there is a hope - that hope rests in METHOD, Agreement in METHOD will attenuate the extremes of interpretation we see.``

ok Hobbes, i do admire your ...faith, i guess. Faith in the the ability to employ method to solve fundamental differences. two questions (and hen my problem with your apporach). What happends when METHOD is fundamentally different (say, the scientific vs the revealed (in the traditional sense)? Or, when METHOD is same but premises are different (eq. Asif vs. Urstruly)?

`` If we can create agreement in method, we can attenuate the extremes.``

True, buthow do we beging to create this??? I am beginning to think that we need to paraphrase McLuhan here: The ``Method is the Message``. Right, DRUMZY?

`` To say that it is OK to do others who act out of conscience, is pretty much insupportable - It goes without saying - on the other hand to say that we ought to do physical harm to those who would do harm to those who act out of conscience is RISKY business - where is the risk? The risk is that we can no longer distinguish between the arguments of the two - Both ultimately come down to a resort to violence - It is not equivalence in a moral sense, I will grant you - the equivalence is the resort to violence.``

Hobbes, I`m no Quaker/Christ-ian. Violence is not a fundamental evil for me. Certainly not violence that prevents more or unjust violence. Consider once again the question of whether the Allies were right in decimating Berlin.

``Certainly, to argue that it is good and proper to do persons who act out of conscience, injury harm or extinguish their lives, conform with no understanding of Islam that I may wish to associate myself with. Indeed it is a grievous injury to Islam itself. Having said that, we must continue to have faith in that well of redemption from which ALL may draw.``

Hobbes, the attack was not on Islam. Not this time. and there is no reason why you should not continue ot have faith in that well. Or I, for that matter.

``Let me clear another misunderstanding - I did not understand you to argue for the abrogation of particular laws - I understood you to argue that we ought do violence to those who consider doing us violence; two very different propositions.``

The abrogation of laws is an immediate necessity.. but I envisage any such move to be met with great resistance, and extra-judicial killings of blasphemy accused. It is in those circumstances that I fully uphold one`s rights to protect oneself in whatever way possible. Hobbes, i think that very often the death-call is sounded by those psychologically weak creatures in need of a power-rush (though I don`t put Asif in this category). It has little or nothing to do with love or acting out of conscience. If they can be deprived their pound of flesh, or indeed have a pound of their own taken, I think we`d soon hear their impassioned calls for blood die down.

Of course, with Asif, it`s a difference in Method altogether (you can reason, and he can reason till kingdon come, but in the end, his reason is subordinated to the saying of Sheikh-so-and-so, who of course knows better. So i dare say you will not be able to see eye-to-eye with him on this matter. Kya bolte hai Naqshbandi sahab?

Hobbes #641

Without looking at the origin of caste system, one cannot reach any conclusion? And I have not much information on that.

When you say that caste system must be performing some purpose or solving some problem, we have to define purpose.

If economic structure is the basis of formation of society, then caste system basically means there were rulers, priests, tradesman fighters and manual laborer.

Probably the similar structure were present in other societies.

Now this division of labor definitely has the purpose of creating a society. Does it mean caste system was necessary to perform this purpose?

For this probably we have to look at other societies, how they solved the division of labor.

For example the similar role of manual labor was performed by slaves in other societies. And even plato do not consider them equal to others.

So basically we can equate caste system and role of Shudr with role of slave, if I may.

So in essense logically I have to agree with you.

In slave owning societies there have been reaction to slave ownership. There have been revolts etc. And there probably was no religious sanctity.

For example Islam although recognizing the slavery as acceptable tried to mitigate the friction and freedom of slave was considered expiation for sins etc.

But the philosophy of Karma. Meaning one is Shudr or slave because of his past deeds, and also other philosophical arguments basically gave this caste system religious sanctity. That means revolting against slavery is ``Paap`` or sin of highest degree etc.

I tend to think that the defeated people who formed Shudr or slaves were of higher mental caliber, for such elaborate philosophy to keep them in submission.

So basically in essense we are discussing the religious and philosophical superstructure to justify economic reality.

Now we have to compare different societies in the same development stage and their philosophical superstructure to see the impact on future development. And whether caste system was comparable to other slave societies or better or worse.

Neither I have time nor resources to delve into this matter.

But thanks for giving some material for thought.

Let me know what are your thoughts.

I know my limitations in philosophy and history. Your input will be highly appreciated.

``My ? Method? It`s clear you do not have an understanding of method``

Method=After, A WAY. A way or system of going after things. EVERYONE uses (many) methods. How can I not have a clear understanding of method?

``Without a doubt what you is rings true with me - I one has a method that acknowledges that there is much it does not real with, it does not mean that the portion it does deal with is irrelevant.``

Boy, I have NO IDEA whatinnahell this means. Please retype in ENGLISH.

``If you don`t find merit in the statement that historical context and interpretation of propositions and history is key - fine.``

I already answered this Q.

``how does one know that the branch ought to be removed? for instance, why not go around?``

Because if I said `go around it,` u woulda said `why not move it?` Its simply missing the forest for the treez. The point is that it is sometimes wiser to ACT then to ASK why the branch fell. Knowing WHY will NOT AFFECT the placement of the branch.

``it is a greater challenege when one is not aware of the ``why``? - but that`s for curious people, people who want to understand, how?``

How do u figure that u have a better understanding of WHY compared to someone who lives in the present and reflects constantly on what happens IN the present?

Would u ever ask Edhi to figure out what caused a train accident? Im sure he would think it more important to save the people.

PM

When Mr. Nasqshbandi suggests that it is good and proper and sanctioned by religious authority to do another person harm for their act of conscience, if we respond in kind - what will we have solved? All we will have done is to say, ``come get some`` - and I don`t think anybody is helped by that.

You are right that innocents suffer, as we debate but consider, if we feel strongly that death penalty should be abolished because the state has no right to deny another human being of life - should we go about saying to the supporters of the death penalty that we would be willing to do them harm, even deprive them of life - to show how strongly we feel? Would you say that is reasonable?

The question of egregious interpretation: Shall we further our conscience by force of argument or by coercion? I mean what choice do we realistically have, other than to argue, to persuade, to allow reason to prevail? I really do not see what other choice we have. BUT there is a hope - that hope rests in METHOD, Agreement in METHOD will attenuate the extremes of interpretation we see. Carter builds houses, Falwell builds Crusaders - why? yes, interpretation, but lets dig deeper - Difference in METHOD, is that fundamental that allows for the extreme. Consider if deduction was our method and contrast it with induction and contrast that with the ``problem of induction`` - If we can create agreement in method, we can attenuate the extremes.

The Question of ``Will`` - Is will preceded by a sensibility or a morality? I think in most all cases, we would agree that, of course, will is built upon the foundation of our understanding of right and wrong and our convictions of ethics and morality. When you have as fundamental a disagreement as Mr. Naqshbandi and yourself reflect, clearly two very different sets of convictions - To say that it is OK to do others who act out of conscience, is pretty much insupportable - It goes without saying - on the other hand to say that we ought to do physical harm to those who would do harm to those who act out of conscience is RISKY business - where is the risk? The risk is that we can no longer distinguish between the arguments of the two - Both ultimately come down to a resort to violence - It is not equivalence in a moral sense, I will grant you - the equivalence is the resort to violence.

``DO OR DO NOT ASIF AND COMPANY (OR HECK, THE UPHOILDERS OF SHARIAH LAW IN PAKISTAN PRESENT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT CHOOSE TO EXPRESS THEIR CHOICE OF RELIGION BY, FOR INSTANCE, LEAVING THE FOLD OF ISLAM?``

Certainly, to argue that it is good and proper to do persons who act out of conscience, injury harm or extinguish their lives, conform with no understanding of Islam that I may wish to associate myself with. Indeed it is a grievous injury to Islam itself. Having said that, we must continue to have faith in that well of redemption from which ALL may draw.

Let me clear another misunderstanding - I did not understand you to argue for the abrogation of particular laws - I understood you to argue that we ought do violence to those who consider doing us violence; two very different propositions.

``I do not think it proper to imagine that sharing a understanding, makes that understanding right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid.``

So it`s all a little intellectual exercise then, isn`t it? Nothing more and nothing less?

``I got it - ``Opposed`` - like Good/Bad, Day/night? How is your position different from Asif`s? Asif too is acting out of his own basic set of principles and does see PM and co. as clear and present dangers - Has Mr. Nasqshbandi`s understanding of issues not evolved? Does he now lose the abilty to be reasoned with? You are much too harsh``

Yes, oppose like Good/Bad Day/Night. If you haven`t noticed, take a peek at conceptual landscape of women`s fundamental rights in Pakistan`s cities vs. villages. And again... you seem to curiosuly draw equivalence with my intolerance and Asif`s. What is the difference you ask? Please look up the meaning of Clear and Present Danger and see to what it implies. Does it apply to one`s life and limb, or to one`s precious beliefs? My basic philososphy is one that allows for individual freedom to the point that one`s freedom does not interfere with my my freedom to hold and state my own opinions without fear of losing my most fundamental right -- to life itself. Apparently Asif, and the bench of the august Shariah Court do not seem to share this very fundamental idea of rights with me.

So yes, you may use this adherence to a basic belief (or, if you will, `faith`) to label me an obscurant a la Asif. That`s a joke! Not because I think i`m so different from Asif (I do, and I am!) but becasue you`re suggesting that all of us here have some basic agreement on FUNDAMENTALS on which we may build an edifice of reasonable agreement (say, on the matter of apostasy, or blasphemy). Or perhaps my very stating of subscription to a/any fundamental beliefs makes me morally the same as the next guy holding his or her beliefs. Very interesting! Hobbes, maybe it`s time you read some Hume? Or maybe you are suggesting that it`s possible to have fundamental differences and yet get along even tho one party calls for the suppression of other`s right to frreely express their beliefs in a manner that poses no real threat tot he existence of the former. So yes, I`m afraid that if Asif and Co had the power of the State behind them (oh wait.. they do.. it`s called Pakistan), it would be senseless or at best the least productive path (in terms of sheer innocent lives lost or ruined) to try and reason with them on certain matters. I should habe thought that the discourse here between the `liberal` urstruly and Asif o nthis very board should have been enough to oen your eyes to the exitence of fundamental difference to which reason is hardly amenable.

This is the last time I will respond to this plainly puerile contention of equivalence, hobbes.

``But of course, we understand that the argument Mr. Nasqshbadi has forwarded resonates among those who out of their devotion and love for the beloved messenger of God - sometimes do fail to temper their love, their devotion, with reason. The eddifice on which Mr. Nasqshbandi has structured his argument relies primarily on hadith - we do not grant that hadith have any standing before the majesty of Quran.``

Yes yes... But given the plurality of interpretation of certain quranic verses, and their clear ability to lend themselves to egregrious interpretation, wouldn`t you say taht that is a perilious path to tread down. And before you come back with the `the true path is always perillous` line, please tell me how you explain to the victims of Asif`s and company`s `labour of love` how you jsutify their deaths/maiming on the grounds taht well, we haven`t yet come to a reasonable understanding with those who apply a somewhat intolerant, obscanturisitc interpretation of verses, but hey... we`re working on it! Urstruly has written this fantastic treatise o nthe issue of blasphemy nd apostasy, and hey, naybe given a fwe years of debate, we might actaully get Asif around to admit that apsotates should NOT be summarily stoned to death. But in the meanwhile, we`re deeply sorry for the slight inconveniences posed by this interpretation and expressed on the streets and in the courts.

It`s intersting to note that you ascribe Asif`s position on these matters as a natural outgrowth of his love for the Prophet (pbuh). Are we to suppose that those Muslims who do not call for the same treatment of blasphemers and apostates as he have any less love for the Prophet and the sahaba. Puhleeez! I would have thought you to be slightly more pyschologically savvy.

``Quran, in every Surah, begin with Merciful and Compassionate - the beloved messenger of God, by example, leads us to consider the power of forgiveness. It is indeed sad, that we must await the understanding of Islam as a faith of Redemption. Allah is Merciful and Compassionate, Allah forgives, who and what is man to not forgive? I find it interesting that hadith are employed over the Quran - the Word of God is not consulted, but the a hadith (So and So was heard to have said, as recorded by, told to and such rubbish) - Quran is the Word of God, hadith is the word of men recorded many times in third, forth Nth person - I disregard it in general, that is I find little use for it, as guidance.``

Very good. I am impressed. Really (as in I`m not being facetious). BUt hobbes, the very fact that this DOES happen -- people do easily let the hadith take precedence over the quran (to say nothing of hooking onto particular self-serving verses of the Qur`an itself) -- does this speak of a problem of `understaning` or a problem of `will`??

Please read that question again. For this is what this entire debate comes down to. After you account for circumstance and programming, do we, as humans have something caleld a will, to help choose between options of different values (choice is meaningless without value)? You seem to ascribe all problems as that of a difference in understanding. I tend to think that understanding is, to an extent, a function of choices we make from among the personal persuations we find ourselves carried by, or whispering to us.

``Once again, I will explain more clearly (mo`bettah): Hitler and his clique viewed Jews as a problem, genocide was their solution - The fact that a problem had been identified (jews) was not news in the German/EUROPEAN CONTEXT - indeed nor was the solution - it was the method of the solution that was ``novel`` - Now just because a problem had been identified (the ariculation of the problem, itself held the key to the proposed solution - consider Vermin/extermination) and a solution proposed does not make the solution a ``good`` ``

I know Hobbes. I was not suggesting that you claimed it to be good. Pease don`t read too much into what I write.. Don`t presume. But what i am accusing you of doing is suggesting that an examination of history thorough intereptation of its context prevents us from saying it was BAD, if it doesn`t compel us to say it wasn`t `good`.. I really fail to see what the object of the exercise of your interpretation is. DRUMZ has addressed thsi concern eloquently enough.

``.. notice the problem was not articulated as a ethical problem, that we may look to it with the tools of ethics and morality - it was articulated as a ``infestation of vermin``, the targeted group was dehumanized ``

So? I mean, do u think tha we don`t know that the Nazi managed to convince themselves that Jews were vermin (but, please not the use of `convinced tehmselves-- unlike yourself, some of us do ascribe responsibility of awareness/lack of awareness to educated adults)

``When next you choose to respond with emotion, to friend or foe - recall your characterization of those who disagree with you as representing ``clear and present danger`` and fear, indeed recoil from that kind of anger (vermin, too were a clear and present danger)``

Stop! Please, hobbes.. cut to the chase-- DO OR DO NOT ASIF AND COMPANY (OR HECK, THE UPHOILDERS OF SHARIAH LAW IN PAKISTAN PRESENT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT CHOOSE TO EXPRESS THEIR CHOICE OF RELIGION BY, FOR INSTANCE, LEAVING THE FOLD OF ISALM?

Once again, in case you missed the question:

``DO OR DO NOT ASIF AND COMPANY (OR HECK, THE UPHOILDERS OF SHARIAH LAW IN PAKISTAN PRESENT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT CHOOSE TO EXPRESS THEIR CHOICE OF RELIGION BY, FOR INSTANCE, LEAVING THE FOLD OF ISALM?``

Also, do you honestly believe that all positions inimical to each otehr are equal? Eqaully good, bad or neutral? That is EXACTLY WHAT you seem to imply here, despite my earleir clarification of the difference in our `intolerances`.

``The essence of civilization is the awareness of and the employement of self restraint, as a ``good``.``

Yeah, tell that to Churchill. Thank you. For my part I end to think that when someone comes to me with a sword, it`s smart to either run or fight back.

``You may have seen and experienced a great deal of injury to your own and the dignity of others, do not imagine that being such a witness affords you to act in kind.``

There you go again! Firstly, Hobbes, I`m really not speaking here as a Pakistani Christian. Heck if anything, as an urbanite English speaking Christian i have sometimes enjoyed priveleged status. So please don`t assume I am operating here out of anger or loss of dignity.

In any ase, Hobbes, calling for the abrogation of laws that oppress and the restraint of those who would protest this in any way hardly amounts to acting in kind. Please be a little more discerning before drawing equivalence. This is getting to be a little annoying NOW.

rgds,

...and hoping you will have a lot less opportunity to write after today ;)

PM

DRUMZ

``You suggest that ur method is ``all encompassing.``

My ? Method? It`s clear you do not have an understanding of method - but then again you don`t have to have one - unless of course yoiu wish to contribute constructively.

``I think everything has its place, for some instances, ur method is irrelevent``

Without a doubt what you is rings true with me - I one has a method that acknowledges that there is much it does not real with, it does not mean that the portion it does deal with is irrelevant.

Listen, please explain to me what you think or understand method, to be.

If you don`t find merit in the statement that historical context and interpretation of propositions and history is key - fine.

But I like the analogy of branch falling, etc., - how does one know that the branch ought to be removed? for instance, why not go around? I agree that ``being`` present is a challenge - it is a greater challenege when one is not aware of the ``why``? - but that`s for curious people, people who want to understand, how?

Hobbes: ``Intellectuals may well be a bunch of idiots spending their timeon Earth concerned at about examing silly propositions - but common folk, who use common sense in their everyday lives, continue to keep the caste system in business, so to speak - why?``

Why have u just made up two castes?

``we all agree that caste is odious to us, today - if we want to be rid of it we must examine why it is not odious to others (for instance, when will Brahmins, not be brahmins)``

Whats there to examine? Its because they benefit from it. If u see a kid hitting an old man with a club, do u sit back and wonder why or do u stop the kid?

``simply saying that these ``others`` are not as ``good`` as us, will not lead us to a solution``

What will lead to a solution? how will ur historical analysis solve the problem exactly?

Hobbes: ``- each is valid within it`s own frame -this is what allows us to ``temper`` our venom...``

U said that earlier. Had u made an attempt to understand prem, u would have seen how his opinion is ``valid within its own frame.``

``Agreed that there are no ``perfect`` methods - actually no human construct can by definition be perfect - right?``

The name which can be named is not the eternal name. Perfection cannot be spoken of, yet exists. For example, I think a far better method then urs would belong to a wise person who has learned to cultivate her intuition. Such knowledge comes from a more pure source. You suggest that ur method is ``all encompassing.`` I think everything has its place, for some instances, ur method is irrelevent.

``Now, can we understand the present if we do not understand the past?``

The past is the present.



``I`m in a world of doodoo - what do I do about it?``

Once u realize this, what u can do is to not contribute to it. Simple.

People have a tendancy to overcomplicate SIMPLE things by introducing irrelevent variables. I live in the present and have always lived in the present (this does not mean i havent learned from my experiences in life`s moments). If I am walking along a path and a branch falls, I will move it, not ask why it fell. Whether i know the answer to my question or not will not effect the reality of there being a branch on my path.

Hobbes, theres a lotta things reflective people understand which cannot be defended in an academic forum. Most realizations are rather simple and short. For example, the world is as it is. We do not concern ourselves with why it is this way. We simply act with compassion and peace. We do not concern ourselves with what everyone else does. We realize that a lot of people are unhappy because there is a descrepency between what they HOPE the world should be like and how it really iz. We scratch that by just dealing with the way things are, by personifying our hopes for the world. We know that somethings are right and wrong for US not because of academic statistics nor by their historic applications. We know because we reflect. Simple.

``every problem hold in itself or in it `s articulation, that is to say, it`s understanding, the seed of the solution.``

The solution is within us. SOME people may require the aid of knowing something in its historical entirety, while others may be able to analyze it based on knowing its CONCEPTUAL roots (oppression/power/status etc).

Just as u believe the answer is external, I believe it is equally internal. We can all know the causes to life`s problems because there is not one among us who hasnt helped contribute to the worlds hate, envy, greed and so on. Everything is temporary. If we find a solution to the caste system by looking at it historically or internally, in time our solution will be irrelvent.