Blasphemy Law: An Academic Investigation

Dear Readers,

As this article was published at Chowk, the Chowk went through a transition and upgrade of its site. Originally, the Chowk staff did a wonderful job by establishing links in the Reference and Footnote section of this article. During this transition those links were lost. I am re-printing this section at the bottom for those who are still taking an ineterst in this article and those who want to verify the info or want to explore the subject further.

Thank you for your continued interest and my special thanks to those who have shared their valubale insight in this article through their posts. I would also like to thank those who have opined to me directly through their e-mails.

4.0 REFERENCES & FOOTNOTES:

[Ref: 1] Blasphemy Law: Facts and Figures By Muhammad Abdul Haye, Bradford, UK

http://www.markazdawa.org/englishweb/islami-articles/200204/blasphemy.htm

[Ref: 2] Khutbaat-e-Bahawalpur by Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah; Idara-e-Tehqeeqaat-e-Islami, Islamabad, Pakistan.

[Ref: 3] Islamic Law: Myths and Realities by Denis J. Wiechman, Jerry D. Kendall, and Mohammad K. Azarian:

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

[Ref: 4] King James Reference Bible –

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/index.htm

Acts 6:11 ``Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.``

Acts 7:58-59 ``And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man`s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.``

Mark 14:62: ``Jesus was accused of blasphemy. The high priest asked Jesus Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?. Jesus replied I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Matthew 26:64 and Luke 22:70 contradict Mark`s account; they record Jesus as sidestepping the question. However, Christ was still found guilty of blasphemy.``

Matt 19:7 `` The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.``

[Ref: 5] Quoting from the King James Version of the Bible:

http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/index.htm

Jehovah required the state to execute a person:
For following another religion: Exodus 22:20 states: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. See also and Numbers 25:1-15.

For proselytizing (conversion): Deuteronomy 13:1-10 states that a person who tries to convince an Israelite to convert to another religion must be killed.

[Ref: 6] The Noble Qura`n – translation by Yousafali, Pickethall, and Shakir with introduction to the chapters by Syed Abul Ala Mawdudi

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/#M

[Ref: 7] Kanz-al-Imaan, Tafseer (explanation) by Syed Mohammad Naeem-ud-din Muradabadi, written as footnote with the translation of Qura`n by Aala Hazrat Ahmad Raza Khan Quadri Brelvi (RAH)

[Ref: 8] Bukhari writes in his book 9 chapter 19 and also in his ``Kita’b al-Jiha’d wal-Siyar``, ``Kita’b istitabah al-murtaddi’n`` and ``Kita’b al-ai`tisa’m bil-Kita’b wal-Sunnah``

[Ref: 9] Abu Dawood have quoted several Ahadith mentioning punishment for apostasy and blasphemy in his book Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) Book 38, Ahadith # 4345; 4346; 4348; 4349; 4356 and 4357. The hadith # 4357, that follows 4356 is worth noting. These Ahadith can be viewed at:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html

[Ref: 10] Human Rights in Islam by Dr. Parveen Shaukat; Adam Publishers, Delhi India; also A.S. Tritton in his book “The Caliphs and their non-Muslim Subjects” says that the offences of fornication with a Muslim woman or an attempt to marry one, an attempt to pervert a Muslim from his religion, acting as a spy or a guide to the unbelievers and killing of a Muslim man or woman made a Non-Muslim citizen an outlaw. P-16

[Ref: 11] Al-Nissa (The Women) 4:140 “And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah`s communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell (tr: Shakir)

Al-Anaam (Cattle) 6:68 “And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.” (tr: Shakir)

[Ref: 12] ``There is no compulsion in religion``, the theme is reiterated in these verses 16:82; 6:107; 4:79,80; 11:28; 17:53 to 54; 21:107 to 109; 22:67; 88:21,22; 24:54; 48:28; 36:16, 17; 39: 41
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/#M

[Ref: 13] Abu Dawood in his book Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud) Book 38, Number 4339: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu`minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah`s Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html

[Ref: 14] Mis/Representations of Islam:A Study of Salman Rushdie`s The Satanic Verses, and `The Rushdie affair` Written by Ismail Isa Patel (London, England: May 1998)

http://www.trueislaam.free-online.co.uk/literature/rushdie.htm#text

[Ref: 15] United Nation`s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[Ref: 16] The Last Sermon of Holy Prophet (pbuh)

http://www.pakistanlawyer.com/smlaw/lastsermon.htm

[Ref: 17] Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam (nd), pg. 591-99; S.M. Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam (1924); Burhan al-Din Ali, The Hedaya, etc., Hamilton, (1791), II, 227. (F.M. Denny).``

[Ref: 18] The Muslim Conduct of State by Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah

[Ref: 19] Mere Mash’hoor Muqaddamay by S.M. Zafar; Chapter: Adalat nay ek mauqa kho diya; Bright Books, Lahore, Pakistan.

Urstruly,

I glanced over the link you provided … did not see anything new there. I think by now you know my position on these issues.

Furthermore, calling Ahmadi-Muslims … “Fitnah-e-Quadianiat” … proves nothing. Lack of arguments on your part speaks louder than your rhetoric. Think things over with a clear head … without any grudges. Having struggled against me on Islamic beliefs over all these years … you owe it to yourself. Being stubborn will only deprive you.

Sattar

How do you comment:

http://www.jang-group.com/jang/spedition/khatm-e-nabut7sep2002/index.html

http://www.jang-group.com/jang/spedition/khatm-e-nabut7sep2002/index.html

Partick,

Some thoughts on a formal definition (definition B) of a “Muslim” …

As I understand it … the formal definition of a Muslim is … one who subscribes to the “Islamic” articles of faith, i.e. … Oneness of God, divine prophets, divinely revealed Books, angels, day of judgment, and decree of Allah.

Now, before one wants to know if a person is a Muslim or not … it is important to find out the context and nature of this inquiry.

For example … the government may want to find out how many people subscribe to which faith … in order to better plan allocation of resources. A voluntary survey in this case would be adequate … where a person who declares himself a Muslim …or a Hindu … is considered a Muslim … or a Hindu, etc. This is consistent with the example from the life of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) … who once asked that a survey of this nature be taken in Medina. I am sketchy on details … but from I recall reading … the criterion set by the dear Prophet (pbuh) was that … if a person claims to be a Muslim … count him as a Muslim.

In case if a person dies … and does not leave a will …it may become important for the state to determine his faith for the purpose of inheritance. In such a case some simple guidelines regarding one’s faith and pertinent inheritance laws may be employed. In most cases this is fairly straightforward … unless the deceased practiced a blurry combination of beliefs … without clear emphasis on any particular religion. This of course is one’s prerogative … and it is the state’s job to earnestly decide regarding the belonging of the deceased.

Now, at a personal level … one may further refine one’s definition of a Muslim, according to his own understanding of Islam … or according to the definition of a learned person that one holds as an authority. For example, a person may consider me a non-Muslim due to my belief in continuation of prophethood. Such a pronouncement is a matter between God and this person only … and does not concern me.

Similarly … as I pointed out in post #689 … belief in Quran may also be interpreted in various ways. As a result … a person who believes in only parts of Quran … may be declared a non-Muslim by some (I am not hinting anything regarding Naqshbandi/Urstruly here … just stating some random thoughts).

As I understand, such pronouncements at personal levels … are the right of an individual … may or may not please God Almighty (which is an entirely different matter) … and are not a concern of the state.

Comments from anyone will be appreciated.

Chowk Staff:

What have you done to atleast 20 of my latest replies. Reply # 675 on this page is not mine and does not belong to this thread. I have seen it somewhere else.

Patrick …

Here are some thoughts on the issue of ``Muslim``. Since I am not a scholar in religious affairs … some skepticism on your part may serve you well.

In my opinion, “Muslim” may have two meanings …

A - Generally understood, it would imply a person who submits to the will of God

B - The term “Muslim” was eventually formalized in Islam … as one who believes in the message of Quran and prophethood of Mohammad (pbuh).

As I understand it … and is stated in Quran … God Almighty sent prophets to all nations throughout the history of mankind. Upon close examination, it become reasonable to assume that … Buddha was one such prophet … sent for reformation of his nation. So were Ram and Krishna … and Conficius and Zaratushtra … and Christ and Moses and Mohammad … and so on … to name only a few. All these prophets conveyed the message of Unity of God … and emphasized love and compassion towards all of God’s creations. It is only later that the messages of the prophets got changed at the hands of people, over time, and some prophets were even elevated to the status of gods.

These men conveyed the message of God Almighty … and were accepted as divine messengers from God Almighty by their people. In that sense … according to Definition A … followers of these prophets would be considered “Muslims” … as people who submitted to the will of God, accepted His messengers, and tried to live their lives according to the divinely revealed principles.

Now, according to my understanding … all these prophets mentioned the coming of a universal prophet … who will eventually unite the mankind under the banner of Unity of God … and God’s universal commandments. This universal prophet … as I understand it … is Prophet Mohammed … a messenger not for a particular nation … but for the entire mankind. He conveyed Quran … which is directed not to any particular nation … but to all believers … regardless of their national origin, race, or color.

I’ll pause here for now … and will try to post on the definition B of a Muslim.

Hobbes #683

Since this thread is moving into oblivion, would you care to elaborate, on this or another thread.

I think you have used a very practical definition, submission to the will of God (And nothing or no one but God)

Its many implications from hitory. What is the meaning of submission, who determines it, role of individual, role of state etc.

I would appreciate, if you continue.

PM

I fully agree with Asif`s definition of Muslim and Islam.

Asif:

I think Iman-e-Mujamil and Iman-e-Muffasil detail all the beliefs that a MUslim have to belive in to be a Muslim (PM: These two Arabic phrases are the titles of the compendium of the set of beleives that Asif wrote down for you). But now as long as Fitnah-e-Quadianiat (the tumult of Quadianiat) is around we must teach our children by reiteration, the belief of finality of Prophet Mohammad`s prophethood. For centuries, the iteration of this belief was not considered necessary because it was a given as evident as the belief of presence of Allah. I just wanted to add that.

All this happy and polite discussion involves some dose of reality. But that at some other time.

Best.

re. Asif N:

Asif, Sorry. I don`t klnow how i could have missed that penultimate paragraph in your reply re. definition of Muslim.

Thank you.

PM #681

That is an interesting question?

I may have to think on it further.

The thing which comes to my mind right away is the message itself, meaning Quran. Which abrogated or superseded the previous commandments.

It is further specified by Ayah (which are in two places in Koran) that whoever believed in God and do good, whether a believer (meaning Muslim) or Christian or jew or Sabian will have his reward from God. (here the meaning of God is related to monotheism).

If you see those Ayahs of Quran specifying other prophets and their folowers as Muslim, it is very clear that to be called a Muslim one need only to believe in One God without any partner. This clearly means that belief in prophet Mohammed is not necessary to be called a Muslim. Otherwise Ibrahim and other prophets would not be called Muslim.

Thus only thing which comes to mind is that the uncorrupted message which is Quran according to itself is a ``Furqan`` meaning differentiating between right and wrong. And to do that you have ultimately to belief in prophethood of Mohammed PBUH.

As far as majority of Muslims donot believe in that. I can only say that it is the God who is judge in afterlife and no amount or number or eloquence of people will change anything on that day. But unfortunately lot of people have taken this job into their own hand. That means deciding for other people even after the CLEAR message has come.

Muslim means one who submits to the will of God - The three branches of monotheism, continually ask for the realization that God`s will is supreme and that happiness is founded on this realization.

Islam means only submission to the will of God.

Were muslim and Islam not be ``brand`` names and regarded as what the words also mean, I think, a deeper, more substantial and most definitely more redemptive religiosity would be allowed space for growth.

re. Asif N:

Asif, Sorry. I don`t klnow how i could have missed that penultimate paragraph in your reply re. definition of Muslim.

Thank you.

PM #681

That is an interesting question?

I may have to think on it further.

The thing which comes to my mind right away is the message itself, meaning Quran. Which abrogated or superseded the previous commandments.

It is further specified by Ayah (which are in two places in Koran) that whoever believed in God and do good, whether a believer (meaning Muslim) or Christian or jew or Sabian will have his reward from God. (here the meaning of God is related to monotheism).

If you see those Ayahs of Quran specifying other prophets and their folowers as Muslim, it is very clear that to be called a Muslim one need only to believe in One God without any partner. This clearly means that belief in prophet Mohammed is not necessary to be called a Muslim. Otherwise Ibrahim and other prophets would not be called Muslim.

Thus only thing which comes to mind is that the uncorrupted message which is Quran according to itself is a ``Furqan`` meaning differentiating between right and wrong. And to do that you have ultimately to belief in prophethood of Mohammed PBUH.

As far as majority of Muslims donot believe in that. I can only say that it is the God who is judge in afterlife and no amount or number or eloquence of people will change anything on that day. But unfortunately lot of people have taken this job into their own hand. That means deciding for other people even after the CLEAR message has come.

Muslim means one who submits to the will of God - The three branches of monotheism, continually ask for the realization that God`s will is supreme and that happiness is founded on this realization.

Islam means only submission to the will of God.

Were muslim and Islam not be ``brand`` names and regarded as what the words also mean, I think, a deeper, more substantial and most definitely more redemptive religiosity would be allowed space for growth.

re. Asif Naqshbandi:

Thanks for the considered reply. Will reply in more detail later, but would, at the moment, ask if u could please tackle the other part of the question, re. whether Hazrat Ibrahim, or Musa or Adam were also Muslims.

Thanks.

PM

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)

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.

PM: Ur welcome over anytime. Everything is Temporary, even disagreements. We leave the past in the past.

Prem: I see what ur saying. It seems the common denominator between talking about the historical problem and talking about the current problem is that only talking is being done. Wise is she who conquers herself. If the caste system is rooted in suppression, then the wise should make it an obligation to find and eliminate the oppresion they commit over others in their own lives. An elimination of larger systems will naturally follow.

PM

Your post requires a considered response. (the quality of the consideration, you be the judge of)

re. hobbes, who wrote:

``Hobbes, I`m curious. Why does the luxury of interpretation through the lens of history belong only to religious propositions? ``

PM, you are critical reader, recall the discussion was of interpretation of religious propositions - but not just religious propositions, history itself is interpreted, it cannot but be interpreted - recall, facts are facts only IF we choose to recall them. - witness your next statement and consider interpretation of history:

``Many would believe that, whether or not a religion claims divine revelation as its

ultimate source, in actuality, amongst other things, a reflection of the power dynamics and -struggles over the ages. Many would claim that this `revelation`, though often enough inspired by the highest human ideals of love and compassion, was tempered, or sometimes overrun, by altogether temporal exigencies and what we can universally agree are the `lower` motives of (wo)man.``

An interpretation of history as the dynamic of power - followed by an interpretation of history by the analysis of feminism

`` And no, an interpretation of history does NOT preclude the postulation of universals-- unless you believe that man innate nature has changed since the beginning of history.``

Whenever you get a chance to read ``Ethics of the gods`` - you will note a most interesting discusssionof the same. I wish you would read this and help me understand this paper and I will do the same for you. I do not suggest that absolutes do not exist for those who would adhere to them - and I (hobbes, is a clue) most certainly do not believe that if there is such a thing as ``human nature`` - that it can change. In fact, I think we can see ``human nature`` reflected in history (again Hobbes, is a clue) Have there been more sinners or more saints? Then on the other hand there is civilization.

``I suppose you regard the perpetuation of some peoples belief that they are divinely of a higher breed of mankind, and the corollary requirement of other men to act in an inferior manner``

You are in error, to think that since I say caste solves a problem, that caste is `solution``, that it must by definition mean, it is a ``good`` - Why are all you people so fired up about trying to prove that you are more self righteous than the obscuritanist? The characterization of ``solution`` as ``good`` is not one that I have used - it one that you use - why am I responsibile for the characterization of ``solution`` as ``good``???

``...but even this grant does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the PERPETUATION of those beliefs necessarily solve any problems,``s...``

Ok - we agree that caste is kaka - we agree that it`s perpetuation is undesirable - how do we get rid of it? We have tried to outlaw it - still, like a weed in ``Gulistan``, it persists. Prem has concluded that it must be met with righteous indignation, in the same manner as urstruly has decided that the insult heaped upon person of the beloved messenger of God. CERTITUDE, this self assurance of the righteousness of our selves - do we need it to confront caste? Not at all, in my opinion. If one argues that caste is primarily a question of values - well where do people get their values from? On the other hand, is it really just a question of values, can we really imagine that having separated the problem into different components, that then we can deal with one aspect (values) and that this will solve all the other components as well?

``Again, I am surprised at your failure to dig deeper into the motivations men (and I am almost being gender-specific here) have in acceptance of `divine` revelation to solve their problems.``

Patrick, ``Faith`` in God is specific to the three desert faiths - Hinduism does not have any concept such as faith - be carefully, you are perilously close to the chasm of ``all paths the same``. On the other hand, I would agree that religion is related in a fundamental, integral way, to the understanding of man`s mortality, to the ``human condition``, to the understanding that man seeks a continuum between the living and the dead in which to place himself in.

`` If anything, the discourse on this board has proved (most lately by Asif N`s `abrogation doctrine`-- thank you Sattarbhai) that invocation REVEALED truth is so much of a power plays employed (and when convenient, un-employed) by a self-serving group. There is little or no reason to believe that the REVEALED was accepted as such for reasons not self-serving or for political advantage.``

Rubbish! - what it does show is what Mr. Naqshbandi understands. Verses of the Quran cannot be aboragted, only their understanding can change.

`` In this view, the `revealed` faiths should enjoy no benefit of interpretation over the non-revealed.``

Certainly, that is a interpretation of history and a skewed understanding of egalitarianism - All paths are not the same - if they were, would you be a Christian? If so, why?

``I am afraid you have an optimism in the `original` motives of the revealers/revealed to, which not all of us share.``

I, on the other hand am delighted to not share a misunderstanding. I do not think it proper to imagine that sharing a understanding, makes that understanding right/wrong, correct/incorrect, valid/invalid.

``But if we understand that, whatever the context in which it existed-- whatever that wor