Promises of A Brave New World

Islamic world’s dilemma is that … over centuries collective Muslim understanding of Quran, role and interpretation of ahadith, and religion’s place in the political domain … have drifted and suffered at the hands of internal corrupt elements. These corrupt elements have exploited Islam for ulterior motives and selfish gains … while distorting its pure and simple teachings.

This corruption has injected in Islam steady doses of fanaticism, irrationality, political ambitions, and narrow interpretation of scripture. Superstition and irrational beliefs, over time, have overshadowed the message of Quran. Beliefs in prophets parting the ocean … raising the dead … being lifted to the sky with promises of returning to earth after thousands of years … turning sticks into snakes … being flown at night to meet God … have driven a wedge between rationality and religion.

Furthermore, clergy’s harsh position … when dealing with issues of human rights and liberties … has further alienated thinking, civilized, intelligent men. Islam has been manipulated … and Muslims are told … not to socialize with Jews and Christians … that jihad should be waged against polytheists … that it is ok to destroy statues of Buddha … that an Ahmadi reciting kalima should be sent to prison … that adulterers, apostates, and blasphemers should be killed … that wtc attacks were really a form of jihad against evil … that it is ok to beat women into wearing hijab …

As a result of this corruption … most intelligent men I know have become skeptical of religion, and justifiably so, see it as a ploy by the cunning clergy to secure positions of power and influence in the society. Consequently, the religious domain is dominated by men of questionable intelligence and/or dubious motives. These men write books … interpret Quran and ahadith … issue edicts of kuffr and death sentences over minor issues … while quietly merging their religious influence with political ambitions.

Such internal elements within Islam are the main cause of its downfall.

Dear Mr. Bavikatte:
Thank you, and you are most welcome. With regard to the issue of ``non-objectivity`` of Western science. Popper explains that such a value ``objectivity/nonobjectivity``, so far as Western Method, ie, method Western science is concerned - it has never existed, indeed cannot exist in the way many today percieve it - One does not just observe, a decision is made as to what to observe - this then is the point of view, the training, the non-objectivity, the observer brings with him/her to the process of, and observation itself. The issue of the ``non-objectivity`` is an essential part of the theory of contraction and expansion of Shariah. This theory is essential to a revival - one, that is based on reason. (Such an understanding, in my opinion, repositions the work the benevolent Imam Ghazzali - to the periphery, at least as far as the question of reason as a tool of construction and comprehension)
If you are interested, I will be more than happy to arrange an introduction for you with Dr. Mahmud and Ahmed Sadri, the translators, editors and critics/admirers of Soroush. Dr. Sadri will soon have his second volume of the works of Soroush available at book shops. By the way, in a conversation, Dr. Sadri had asked me if it was possible to arrange an invitation to Soroush from an institution in Pakistan, so that he may lecture and prepare works from Pakistan, was a glorious opportunity for Pakistan and Pakistanis to have such a scholar, once again, amongst them - unfortunately, I could provide no gaurantee for the safety of Soroush in Pakistan - itself a indictment of the quality of intellectual and spiritual endeavor, that mercifully is changing in Pakistan.
``is there nothing then that is transhistorical and divine??``.... See Soroush`s ``ethics of the gods`` - not a definite answer, and from my point, that`s what merciful about it - but a refutation of the position of logical postivists - and in this, we can see more clearly the hold of Popper on Soroush`s thinking.

Please, please explore with Chowkies the ideas on which the theory of hermenutic contraction and Expansion of Sharaiah is based on. It is central and important for us to understand.

.
kabir:

if you google you can access various sites on Sir Shaikh Muhammed Iqbal.

... try search under ‘iqbal poet philosopher’ here is one for the six lectures he delivered at the khuda baksh library in patna:

reconstruction of religious thought in islam:

http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/index.htm


for your chosen canvas this space is too short…also i suspect chowk is the wrong medium for a serious and meaningful discussion without petty distractions…this you would have found by now:)

if you can bring yourself to ignore the nuances and tone it would have been interesting to learn of your take on sameerJB’s post #8...i would appreciate it very much if you can respond to the serious aspect of the criticism he levelled...

(sameer if you read this go to unplugged under academic later)

regards,

temporal

rgds,

t

Anaryan: Of course, there is nuffin more amusing. Unfortunately, no one has yet replied.

Does any Muslim know why our reward for not sleeping with 72 virgins is the chance to sleep with them forever?

Mr. Aryan has found a glitch in the Matrix methinks.

godot....American Express is 12 ++ head. And while he uses the name Aamir...he must in no way be confuzed with the aamir of Ansari, who is much more articulate and intelligent and does know what he`s talking `bout most of the time. Just so you know :)

AE, #40
It`s so funny you mention Ansari in your post!!! Aren`t two of you, among many others, the same?!!!!

Besides, what makes you think that you are ``mature`` to handle the site you mentioned, but not Drumz and Umer. From from I read, they are far better thinking persons than you...dude!!!! Now, don`t feel so guilty. You are destined for hell, any way! So, I say what the hell! Live it up!!!! Get that guilt out of your little 12-heads (which, by the way, don`t even equal to one normal head)!!!!!

Hobbes, thank you for enaging with the article despite its obvious length...I shall definitely check up on Mohammed Iqbal Lahori and Mohsen Kadivar....though I may have a hard time finding their writings where I reside currently....you are right about Popper`s influence on Soroush and Popper was sophisticated enough not to have missed out the philosophical and sociological value moorings of western science....Iam sure that Soroush was well aware of the non objectivity of natural science though from my reading of his writings he doesn`t dwell too much on it....hence the criticisms....nevertheless I could have misread him or missed some of his writings....finally, I agree with you about ``why the rush to define limits``, but as you can see, Soroush`s greatness lies in his ability to not merely engage the intelligentia but also the common people....he is models himself as an organic intellectual and hence takes upon himself the responsibility of addressing the fears of the ordinary muslim which is essentially that ``is there nothing then that is transhistorical and divine??``.....to do this effectively he may have to at least provide a set of hermenutic keys like Esack.....but again, this is merely my view of it.....once again, thank you for your efforts at enaging with the piece...Kabir

Prem#35

``Actually, the theorem that NO ideal society can ever exist was part of a dissertation I wrote some years ago. Begining with a few very basic assumptions, one can deductively prove this impossibility theorem``

Can you list the basic premise or the set of axioms from which the ``impossibility theorem`` follows. This is just an academic enquiry. I also have a line of thought basically inspired by Dawkins/Ridley that leads to a similar conclusion. BTW are you a social scientist?

#38 by DRUMZ on September 18, 2002 9:37pm PT
``though its not that hard to sh1t on theology.``

Yup. But doesn`t it make your day to hear an interesting explantion!

AmericanExpress: ``I think this article will fit in very nicely in there.``

I think ur corpse will fit nicely in a coffin.

Say my name again.

anaryan: LOL, though its not that hard to sh1t on theology.

A very warm welcome - readers are indebted to you, both for the lovely choice of topic and the excellent introduction you have offered to THE theme, that I am confindent will leads in direction most thoughtful and responsible Muslims will find themselves taking.

Speaking for myself, I thin k you have done a great service to readers, please do not be put off with silly remarks about the length of the piece, Chowk has an abundance of Literary criicis (self styled) - what`s important are multiplicity of doors, of avenues, for us to explore.

Liberation theology? Yes, well, that is certainly one way to interpret, to infuse this dialogue with a particular streak of thought; other ways of looking at this phenonmenon would not necessaruly arrive at ``liberation`` theology asa characterization - but then, that precisely the point - we cast open all doors, and through each, flooding streams of light representing different schools of thought - however; the essence of each is reason; and this is the single most important aspect to realize.

The list of Reformers that does not include Allahmah Mohammed Iqbal lahori and his ``Reconstruction of Religious thought in Islam`` is a disservice and Mohsen kadivar deserves attention in this work and his absence is a criticism of this work. To the detractors of Soroush, one must ask, what is the rush? why the urgency to define limits, why shall we not take our time to explore and study, does the the subject not warrant considered, scholarly debate and study? As for his ``naivete`` in with regard to the value ladenness of Western Science`` - a characterization of science Soroush would have a difficult time time - The influence of Popper and Quine on Soroush and his writing is such that to offer as a criticism the suggestion the Sorush is ``naive`` when it comes to the value ladenness of science of Science , is to deny the influence of both Popper and Quine; it is an uninformed criticism.

So delicious are the themes in your work and so important to us, to discover, to debate, to explore - if anything, you have been too brief.
Chowk readers are yet to understand fully, what ``secularization`` is and who it is different from ``secularism`` - or even what the intellectual foundation of this inquiry with Islam is or even the intellectual and ethical founcdations of Democracy. Perhaps readers will find these worthy of exploration.

Asif,

Thanks for your reply. One rarely comes across people with such strong conviction.

Reg. the HereAfter:

The Quran asks of good muslims to exercise self-control in this world so that they may freak-out in the next doing the EXACT same things (sex, etc). What exactly is the point?

Is there a HereAfter-HereAfter? Since man seeks pleasure in this world and **ALSO** the next, the basic framework of both worlds seems to be the same - seeking more intense pleasure.

So what happens if we manage to control ourselves in the HereAfter also?

Can we have a still greater time in the HereAfter-HereAfter?

thx,

re: Shankar # 26

With you permission, Shankar, I will rephrase your statement in a more general context:

THE IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM:

NO ideal society can exist....it never has and never will.

Corollary 1: Those who are fanatically obsessed with creating an ``ideal`` society invariably end up replicating veritable hell on earth.

Corollary 2: Systems that can create a tolerably human value system only when they are ``perfectly`` implemented will always lag behind systems that can do so even as they are imperfectly implemented.

Corollary 3: Everytime you meet someone who claims that all the troubles X, Y, Or Z are facing are because system A, B, C, has not been ``perfectly`` or totally implemented, you can be sure you are confronting either a fool or a fascist.

Cheers.

P.S. Actually, the theorem that NO ideal society can ever exist was part of a dissertation I wrote some years ago. Begining with a few very basic assumptions, one can deductively prove this impossibility theorem. But this is neither the place nor the time to do so.

Let me explain. ``Poverty is my pride``--the scholars say that the poverty in this hadith (``faqr``) does not mean material poverty but the total lack of covetnous for the things of this world so that whether you have or do not have you are happy in your state; the actualisation of the belief that nothing really belongs to man--everything in reality belongs to Him (azza wa jalla-Glorious is He!) .so that one gives thanks to Him at all times and in all states. It is desiring nothing but Allah whether you have material wealth or not. As Urstruly pointed out Islam also instructs Muslims to take care of the basic needs of all Muslims. Hazrat Umar`s famous remark that I will consider myself responsible before Allah if even a dog under my jurisdiction is hungry! The Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam despite being the Beloved of Allah preferred to live a simple life--not out of necessity but out of choice! If he (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) had wished Allah could have given him all the treasures of the Universe--but he preferred to go hungry one time and eat one time; thus he ate only once a day when he did eat and he often spent long periods of time in voluntary fasting! subhan Allah! As he said alayhisalatuwasalam that I do sabr when I don`t eat and I give thanks to Allah when I do. At the same time many of the Companions had great material wealth--Islam is not communism!-- but they did not COVET this wealth. If they lost it all suddenly there spiritual state would not change. Hazrat Abu Bakr was the caliph of a vast caliphate--yet he only owned a pair of suits which he wore all the time which had many patxhes sewn on to them. The same for the other righteous caliphs and also Umar ibn Abd al Aziz (radhi Allah anhum). So having material wealth isn`t a crime in Islam. This `poverty` is a spiritual state of total contentment with whatever Allah has ordained for one. The word faqir actually derives from it: faqr. Many of the greatest Sufi saints were from very rich and even aristocratic backgrounds yet this wealth and this world had no value in their eyes. There is a saying--I am not sure if it is a hadith or a famous saying of the Sufis--that the world runs away from those who chase after it and it runs after those who do not want it! Thus the object always--as Imam Hamza has also said--for Muslims must be to always seek the pleasure of Allah and when we do that--as a side-effect of that Allah will bestow on us worldy glory too but THIS WORLDLY GLORY IS NOT THE GOAL!

When Muslims sought Allah and the Afterworld, Allah blessed us with glory and respect in this world too; when we forgot Him and began to chase after this duniya--the Duniya disgraced us!

We must remember the hadith: For the Believers this world is a prison and for the Unbelievers it is a paradise!

**
A poor Jewish beggar once saw this Muslim lord riding on his horse dressed in pomp and glory and looking the picture of wealth. So the jew stopped him and said that the hadith must be wrong (meaning the above hadith) because look at you you have all this wealth etc and are a Muslim but I am an Unbeliever and yet I am so poor! How can this be my paradise and your prison? The Muslim replied: Compared to what you will have in the Afterlife this state of yours now will seem like a paradise and compared to the blessings I will have (as a Muslim) in the Next life this wealth etc will seem like a prison!

***

I doubt if anyone actually read this longass article. Sameerjb too seems to have splattered his vomit without reading it :-))

Naqashbandi, I agree with your views on Hamza Yusuf.

#24 Nasah and/or Hasan

You are mixing two issues here.

In my last post I was trying to explain that Quran creates a Just Social Order in the society while you are talking about striving to create a better world through research and hard work.

Both the conditions can co-exist at the same time. The acquired knowledge through research will open the mysteries of the universe and make this world a better place to live and at the same time Quran creates a Just Social Order in the society. A society where nobody is above the law and morality prevails. Remember morality comes from religion only.

Quran never tries to stop one from doing research and open the mysteries of this universe. In fact it tells its followers to “ponder” on the mysteries of this universe. Refer to Surah Rahman.on this issue.

So in a nut shell I agree with you on all what you said in your post however my point is that all this should be done within the boundaries set by Quran.

I will give you two examples. First is the countries where people are simply performing Huqooq-Allah (Prayers, Fasting, Hajj etc). Huqooq-ul-Ibad is none of their concern. Cheating, lying, dishonesty, bribes etc are common in their lives. Are they succeeding? No, just look at Pakland for example.

The other example is USA. Huqooq-Allah are kept aside. Huqooq-ul-Ibad however are observed to the extent that even if a dog is dying on the roadside they will try to help it and try to save its life. And then there are courts that are impartial up the point that they have the power to summon the President (Clinton-Monika Case). Are they succeeding? Materially yes. Do they have peace in their lives? Highly questionable. Just look at the crime statistics. For example: I work in Sacramento California. Standard office policy and practice is to call the police escort when it gets dark outside so that you can be escorted to you car safely. Mind you that my office is right next to the Capitol Building (Governor’s Office) where security is at its maximum lately.

So research and hard work is necessary but under a system that is just in its nature and where morality prevails.

End Note: We Muslims strives in this world to seek God’s Pleasure. We follow Him as ordered in His revelations to mankind (Quran). And yes the reward will be “choice real estate etc” as you mentioned but that will come only after the God is pleased with us. So we follow Him simply to please Him.

Asfand Siddiqui
Sacramento California

Dear chowkstaff,

The vexed problem of having to scroll through the article to get to the interacts is epitomized by this lengthy piece. My browser has on occasion, timed out poor thing.

Will you kindly take pity on your sincere subscribers and keep article and interacts separate like earlier. (And you will then have different hit numbers for article and interacts, which may yield some interesting information in itself). Thanks

I don`t think it can be implied from Asif`s post in any manner that he is proposing poverty as a virtue. I disagree with him on one account that the poverty or affluence is no measure of one being virtuous - I agree with him to this extent but if he is saying that poverty and or affluence has no bearing on one`s being virtuous or not then I disagree. There is a hairline division between the two concepts, which is elaborated in one saying of Prophet (pbuh) where he is reported to have said ``avoid poverty because poverty is one of the factors that drives one away from one`s faith``.

Islam does not set forth a belief in `equal distribution of wealth` it put forth the concept of `just distribution of wealth`. (This is one of the Moududi`s most famous quotes). There is hell a lot of difference between the two ideas- and that is where Islam and Muslims separated themselves from the idea of communism and socialism. Islam thus promotes a free enterprise which is bound by the ethics and principles that promote just distribution and not by limiting the ownership (as compared to commie system).


The Islamic system of economics has been a reality, is a reality and will be the way in the future. Today, in Muslim world there are over 60+ financial institutions, which deal in interest free banking internationally. And why it is a viable and just system, just read this and see what is happening right next door, but in order to see clearly one has to take off his hindutva or other spectacles of prejudice:

http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001344&channel=university%20ave&start=590&end=599&page=60&chapter=6#66

Check Reply # 66 through the link provided in my last post. Chowk staff has screwed up that part as well.

There are two principle flaws in this dissertation that makes this analysis extremely biased and prejudicial.

Flaw # 1:

The argument in this dissertation is based in the paradigm of pre-renaissance-Christian-Europe experience of Europeans which caused the emergence of the concept of Secularism. The thesis assumes that Muslims must have gone through same experiences with religion based ethics and principles as Europeans did and therefore they must seek answers in the idea of Secularism also. The historical facts contradict that. The downfall of Muslim empire that has resulted about 80 years ago was not because of failure of religion but because of external colonial powers, which made their physical presence in almost all Muslim lands from Africa to Far East. The two people (Europeans and Muslims have very different experience, thus one paradigm is not valid for other.

Flaw # 2

This is also an extension of the Flaw # 1. For example author writes in the section ``Modernization, Secularism, and Reformation``:

He writes:

`` First: Religion, in the modern world, has clearly lost its monopoly on public perception, morality, and conscience. Modernization and secularization have made religious exclusion or absorption of competing ways of life and belief nearly impossible.``

My comments:

This contention was valid in Western world but our assumptions were proved wrong a couple of months ago when a court in California, for example, declared the words ``under God`` in the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional on the basis that it contradicts the notion of separation of Church and state. The reaction to that decision was extremely vocal. In my opinion the if there were no 9/11 the reaction would have been almost non-existent. But 9/11 has changed everything. In the new clash of civilizations now a `system of economics` (capitalism) is standing face to face with a system of values and ethics (of which the system of economics is but a small part). This makes God and religion extremely relevant. So now even in Western world the writers contentions are not valid any more.

He writes:

`` Second: Secularization signifies the institutional separation of church and state. Social and political functions of the church are thus relegated to other institutions is understood as objective secularization.``

My comments:

Not any more. You must keep an eye on what is happening around in US for example. The current administration is developing programs (tax breaks is one) to promote the institutionalization of marriage, abstinence, etc.. Thus state is already interfering in religion and vice versa. At this level this change is very subtle. But one must understand that such changes are always subtle and extend over time. This nullifies authors contention even within Western paradigm.

He writes:

`` Third: the new definitions of religion take seriously the desire of human beings for order, purpose, justice, and salvation.``

Comments:

I don’t know about other religions but in Islam these issues have always been on top of its agenda. I don’t think it has changed over time. It is extremely ignorant and arrogant of one to claim that Secularism has a monopoly on these issues, or worst yet if it is claimed that these virtues exist because of secularism. The `third` contention also in direct contradiction of the `First` one, therefore, author has to chose one – you cannot have cake and eat it too.

naqsbandhi,

{{Outward material wealth has never been of much value in the eyes of God--and Muslims must never take it as a measure of Truth or not! This is our great tragedy that we now judge the truth or not of a group or ideology by the material well-being of its adherents whereas Our Aaqa alayhisalatuwasalam said, Poverty is my pride! (The scholars and Sufis have understood this `poverty` to mean the lack of desire of worldy things beyond ones basic needs).}}

Sure , material wealth is not the road to happiness, greater spirituality etc etc. However, neither is poverty. In fact, it is the greatest social evil. For a religion like Islam, which is proud of its concept of classless & casteless egalitarianism, poverty is & should be ananthema. There is a class hierarchy in every muslim country I know of, as it exists today. There was no gap between rich and poor during the Caliphate?!

America is the richest country in the world today. The rich are fabulously rich. The poor in America are much much better off than the poor in S.Asia. American poor have their basic needs met. So, in a sense, I guess the American society is more ``Islamic`` than most Islamic societies.

Your ``ideal`` Islamic society DOESNT exist...it never has & never will.

``lack of desire of worldly things beyond ones basic needs``...hmmm..interesting concept..thats EXACTLY what socialists & communists believe. They view the materialistic wealth of the West as ``decadence``. I guess the sufis & communists have a lot of similiarities....the difference is the former believes Allah is Almighty, whereas the latter believes the ``State`` is Almighty.

“The above Ayat explains why Muslims are lagging behind and disgraced all over the world”(asfand).

My dear children -- naqshbandi and asfand:

That ayat doesn’t explain -- “why Muslims are lagging behind and disgraced all over the world”

Let me tell you WHY?

– let me give you a glimpse of the long kept divine secret -- as to why God is soooo UNHAPPY with HIS Muslims – and so HAPPY with HIS Christians.

NOBODY LIKES BEGGARS – not even God -- especially when HE has to deal with a swarming one billion of them.

instead of being the Movers and Shakers of the world that they used to be a thousand years ago – the ‘Good Muslims’ of today -- have turned into an ayah chanting community of -- Beggars and Freeloaders –- as far God and the administration of HIS Dominion is concerned.

every day with their hands outstretched towards Heaven and their foreheads rubbing on the ground -- the Muslims beseech and beg God -- not one time -- but 5 times a day – give me this -- give me that – do this for me -- do that for me – just give, give, and give.

now can you imagine how annoying it must be for God to see these 1 billion of his wretched lazy good-for-nothin children – just praying for handouts -- day and night.

WHO would like such nakara children -- who DON’T WANT TO -- do ANY WORK to beautify his MOST prized creation -- the EARTH

to prevent pollution of HIS rivers, -- to preserve HIS rain forest -– to save HIS rarest beloved creatures from extinction – to keep HIS beautiful Nile blue sky clear of acid rain

– to save HIS starving millions from hunger and famine -- to rid HIS sick from disease and pestilence -- to work for peace and harmony among HIS different groups of children

–- WHO would like such lazy children who refuse -- to be innovative -- to be creative – to question -- to challenge -- to understand and to solve HIS mysteries -- HIS puzzles of HIS Creations -- HIS Universe -- HIS stars – HIS galaxies – HIS quasars – HIS pulsars -

HIS secrets of life and growth – HIS puzzles of deaths and births

for us the True Believers every spark of life has died – no curiosity – no puzzlement – no questioning – no investigations – no thinking --

just beliefs beliefs and more beliefs – in a static world – frozen in time and space -- only seen through the blinders of an unquestioning faith with an eternally eternal Book – going round and round in a thousand years deepening rut …..

This is how -- the so called Praying Mantas of an ‘Ummah’ has turned into a Praying Machine -– of bending, kneeling, prostrating robots – for eternally long days and nights --

BUT for what?

FOR -- 72 houris – 27 Gilmans and a plot of choice Real Estate -- in the wifeless houriland?

that is the ultimate PURPOSE and AIM of a Muslim selfish existentialism – in this ‘transient’ world – BEGGING -- for an ayyaash decadent life of -- HEREAFTER?

Now does that make the Muslim God Happy – of course not --

remember -- God doesn’t like BEGGARS – “God helps only those who help THEMSELVES” – hence all the disgrace for the Muslims all over the world.

That’s why God is SO VERY HAPPY with His Christian folks –- because they DON`T BOTHER HIM -- 5 times a day -- 7days a week – asking HIM for the give-me goodies and handouts all the time.

-- they just visit HIM once a week – that `s all -- mostly to thank HIM for all HIS bounties that HE showers upon HIS favorite SELF-RELIANT children -- the rest of the week they DEMYSTIFY His secrets -- and believe me God loves them for that audacity --

And that`s the TRUTH -- for GOD of small and big things -- of ALL man-woman-animal-plant-kind.

shubbkhair my dear children.


hasan

re: anarayan # 23

I consider Asif Naqshbandi to be a complete nitwit and a disgrace to mankind, but I have to come to his defence here. He stated only that the truth or untruth of an ideology can not be judged by the material well-being of its adherents. Taken in a certain religious sense, that statement is true. Neither the fact that the followers of Islam once quickly conquered vast empires nor their being poorer today than, say Christians, has anything to do with the truth of untruth of Islam as a religion.

Technically, the guy is right here.

Substantively, I have a strong suspicion that you have caught the man flagrante delicto. If you did a search, I can bet you will come across statements by asif and his ilk that the rapid spread of Islam at one time was because of its ``virtues.`` So, it`s heads I win, tails you lose style of argument.

Religious nitwits of all hues suffer from the same twin problems of delusion and denial: delusions of grandeur about a virtuous past that simply did not exist, and denial of a depressing reality that will not go away. Caught in the uncomfortable pincers of delusion and denial, they find only one recourse: empty rhetorical words - tons and tons of words - that, taken together, mean absolutely nothing.

islam`s only salvation lies in discarding the shariah in its entirety. there`s no time for any reformation/revision/ijtehad.

p.s. i don`t know why i can`t use my old account, i don`t remember changing the password.

chowk staff:
nice work guys. the new look is pretty sleek.

Asif,

I`m confused by your post #16.

First you say:
``This is our great tragedy that we now judge the truth or not of a group or ideology by the material well-being of its adherents whereas Our Aaqa alayhisalatuwasalam said, Poverty is my pride! (The scholars and Sufis have understood this `poverty` to mean the lack of desire of worldy things beyond ones basic needs).``

And then:
``So just cos the Muslims are poor now doesn`t make our Religion any less True and correct than it was when we were rulers of a vast caliphate from Timbuktu to Delhi!``

-------------------------------------------

You sound so proud of the `vast caliphate`!

So, is it `Poverty is my pride` or `vast caliphate` you advocate to your fellow muslims???? As you can see, they are mutually exclusive.

If I`m not very much mistaken, you say: - we muslims will re-acquire the `vast caliphate` through our `pride in poverty`. Do I understand you correctly ?

thx,

Devoted to my Faith and Country
9/13/2002 - Political Social - Article Ref: IC0209-1735
By: Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar
IslamiCity* -

EXACTLY 10 days after my 24th birthday, I would awake to a day that would mark the true beginning of my existence as a human. On a day when my country was attacked and in the subsequent year in which my religion was berated, I have been plagued by sleepless nights, blessed with sympathetic smiles and unnerved by threats where others vowed to ``take care of people like me.``

Although I was no less of an American on Sept. 10, only one day later was I commanded to ``prove`` my loyalty to America and to apologize for my religion.

I will never do either and this is why.

I am a Muslim. I believe in the monotheistic deity of Abraham and revere prophets such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) as true messengers of God. Much of the only solace I ever acquire is when I prostrate my head in the direction of Mecca every day. As part of religious mandate, I donate money to the poor and abstain from food and drink during the daylight hours of the blessed month of Ramadan. Mosques serve as peaceful sanctuaries for Muslims, just as churches, synagogues and temples serve our sisters and brothers of other faiths.

I am an American. I was growing up in Chicago while the Huxtable children were growing up, at the same time, on my television. I have seen my beloved Boston Celtics play their final game in the original Boston Garden and have dreamed of playing wide receiver for the Buffalo Bills. I have interned for two U.S. senators, one of whom now serves as this country`s attorney general. As I finish my final year of law school at one of this country`s finest institutions, I wonder how any rational human being could think that I was anything but American.

As American Muslims, we pledge religious allegiance to Islam and national allegiance to America. We are contributing members of this society and thus are entitled to every inalienable right and freedom that all Americans cherish. Like all Americans, we have the freedom to speak our minds, the right to be tried by a jury of our peers, the entitlement to practice our religion freely and the privilege to dissent against the government when we deem necessary.

For millions of us, this country is the only home we have ever known. Like all Americans, we grumble whenever there is a new tax hike. We worry about leaky faucets, mortgage payments and exorbitant college tuitions. Muslims are your doctors, accountants, engineers, teachers, store owners and activists.

As part of the next generation of Muslims in America, I vow to continue to be an asset to my faith and my country. I will graduate from law school and, like all Muslims, will continue the constant struggle to better humanity. So as I continue my true existence as a human being, regardless of whether or not I am welcome in your home, you are welcome in mine. My home is America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arsalan Tariq Iftikhar attends Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He serves as Midwest communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation`s largest Muslim advocacy group.

It is good to see a debate taking place. Let the best ideas win.

Quran Surah 02 Ayat 85, Last part

“………….Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the reward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.”

The above Ayat explains why Muslims are lagging behind and disgraced all over the world. As with any other system Islamic system has to be implemented completely in order to see its effectiveness. Applying it half-heartedly will simply create chaos and disgrace. The above Ayat and the present state of Muslims speak for it.

This does not mean that Islam is bad or it is an old code of conduct that is impractical for this time. It simply means that Muslims of this time are not applying it completely.

Quran is a book of revolution to bring about a change in personal lives as well as collective lives. Quran is all about creating a Just Social Order.

What is needed today is Ijtehad. A team of religious scholars and scholars various fields to solve the current problems faced by Muslims in the light of Quran and the Life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). What we see today is interpretations of Quran from various scholars. This work being done on personal basis simply becomes a personal opinion. It is difficult for a team of experts to go wrong compared to work done by a single person. So Islamic interpretations done under Ijtehad will definitely carry more weight.

I am not undermining the work done by great Muslim scholars. They have done excellent work in interpreting the Quran however they were not experts in all the fields that are needed to implement a system. I am familiar with writings of Maulana Modoudi and Dr Israr Ahmad. Both of these scholars have admitted at various places in their texts that scholars from other fields are needed to solve various problems faced by Muslims all over the world.

For example there is a big confusion about interest among Muslims these days. Quran forbids Riba. Riba is Haram-e-Mutalq i.e. prohibited under all forms in Islam. But what is Riba? Is it the same as the concept of interest or it is equated with usury? What is the definition of Riba. I have found many interpretations of this word ranging from:

1) Riba is interest and Haram-e-Mutlaq
2) 2) Riba is usury and the interest as what we see today is OK

But remember these are all personal interpretations of Quran. So merely they constitute personal opinions.

The doors of Ijtehad should be opened and let a team of Islamic experts and experts from other fields (depending on the situation) answer the questions faced by Muslims.


Asfand Siddiqui
Sacramento CA

`endnote` at the end...soooo redundant.

sanjay...
welcome to chowk...this is your first article so just know (if you didn`t already) that you will get responses ranging from the positive to the positively degenerative, hopefully the latter will not be the case.

Lots of chowkwallahs have been complaining about the length, including moi to some extent...this could be remedied in a few ways, but I just wanted, with your permission, to point out one: i wonder if it is really all that necessary to write mini-biographies of the `intellectuals` whose competing visions you are describing. The main focus afterall is on the visions, no? Perhaps a phrase or two about them inserted at some point of the positions you are describing, OR an endnote/footnote at the end referring us to information about them would be more helpful?

Seems like an interesting article--but WAY too long --I will read all of it perhaps later if I have the time and energy.

I am not sure about all of these ``reformers``--but Esack`s misguidance has been answered by Shaykh Abd al Hakim Murad (TJ Winter). I will try to dig up the relevant-quite short article- if I can and post it on here.

All I will say is that what these modernists and reformers etc have to understand is that Islam does not *need* REFORMERS but what it DOES need are REVIVERS (mujaddids) as Islam is complete and not in need of reform but revival and that is why Allah has promised to send at least one reviver (mujaddid) in every Islamic century to revive the religion and its practise amongst the Muslims. Who is the reviver (mujaddid) of the current Islamic century? Allahu `alam. As for the 14th century hijri opinions vary but two are Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Barelvi and Shaykh Sayyid Yusuf al-Nabahani rahmatullah alayhuma.

The difference between revivers and reformers is that revivers are always from within the Traditional Islamic world whereas reformers--infuenced by some world situation eg Western cultural domination in the 19th/20th century over the Muslims--try to change the religion to fit into whatever the latest perceived wisdom is! Revivers--almost always awliya as well as great ulama--change the condition of the Muslims and make them return to practising Islam. Sir Ahmad Khan Aligari was a reformer who was so impressed and overwhelmed by British culture that he tried to change Islam so that it was in line with what Western science at that time understood to be factual! Thus he and his Necharis were resisted tooth and nail by the Traditional Muslims of India eg Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and Hazrat Haji Imdad Ullah Muhajjir Makki. The reformers always depart from recognised understandings within Islamic theology etc. for example for the Necharis hell and heaven were not actual physical places but names for conditions of the human state (!) and jinns were electromagnetic forces!!

In the opinion of Traditionalists Islam has no greater danger than these reformers!

As for the revivers--they are mentioned in the hadith. Perhaps the most famous of all revivers has been Mujaddid Alf al Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi Naqshbandi who revived Islam when it was in danger from the heretical policies of Akbar. (Mujaddid Alf al Thani = The REviver of the Second (Islamic) Millenium).

**
As for Allama Iqbal--although I disagree with many of his ideas--I am also a great admirer of him as he was a great lover of Islam and the Muslims and especially of Allah`s Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam. His heart burned with a passionate love. His poetry is testamony to that.

Ki Muhammad se wafa tu ne to Hum tere hain
Yeh jahan cheez hai kya, loH o Qalam tere hain!
**

Also Iqbal although initially enamoured of many things Western changed his position later in life as his thought matured. eg the subtitle of his work Zarb e Kaleem is Yaani Maghrib kay khilaaf ilaan e jang!
**
His Israr e Khudi, Javid Namah, Remuz e Baykhudi, Zabur e Ajam and Urdu works especially Bal e Jibreel are masterpieces of world literature and permeated throughout with Sufism--though in his unique form.

**
Dar dil e Muslim maqam e Mustafa ast

Aabru e ma zi nam e Mustafa ast.``

(sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam)

Muslims don`t need reformers we need Revivers! Allah knows best but I wouldn`t be surprised if one of the Revivers of this current century (Hijri) turned out to be Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

nasah #13:

it almost seems from your post that your thinking and that of many other Muslims I have come across seems to go something like this:
Muslims as a whole are a lot poorer and technologically backward than the Judaeo-Christian world therefore they must be on Truth!
Naudhubillah! Since when has material wealth and well-being been a sign of being on Truth?! Nimrod ruled the world--yet a single person was sent to confront him: Hazrat Ibrahim alayhisalam --who was not wealthy and lived a most simple and austere life! Yet he was on Haqq; Pharaoh had masses of wealth and armies--Musa alayhisalam had a simple tent in which he and his followers stayed! Yet Musa alayhisalam were on Haqq!
The pagan Quraysh of Makkah had much wealth and pomp--Huzoor Paak alayhisalatuwasalam and Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq were alone and had nothing to eat except what Hazrat Aasiyah bint Abu Bakr could bring them as they hid in the cave--yet they were on Haqq! Yazid Paleed had vast wealth and a large army whilst Imam Husayn alayhisalam and his followers didn`t even have water to drink--yet they were on Haqq! Etc etc.

Outward material wealth has never been of much value in the eyes of God--and Muslims must never take it as a measure of Truth or not! This is our great tragedy that we now judge the truth or not of a group or ideology by the material well-being of its adherents whereas Our Aaqa alayhisalatuwasalam said, Poverty is my pride! (The scholars and Sufis have understood this `poverty` to mean the lack of desire of worldy things beyond ones basic needs).

So just cos the Muslims are poor now doesn`t make our Religion any less True and correct than it was when we were rulers of a vast caliphate from Timbuktu to Delhi!

When Muslims re-learn THAT again will be the day we rise again...
Iqbal stated it beautifully in his Jawab e Shikwa...

````Around three or four so-called Muslim scholars have taken every generation of Muslims for a downhill ride. The four people mentioned in this article are meant for the current generation`s ride. The previous generation was taken for a ride by Maudoodi, Khomeini, Syed Qit`b, Hassan Al-Banna. The one begore that was taken for a ride by Iqbal, Afghani, Mehdi Sudani and Ali Sharia`ati. And the one before that by the likes of Ali brothers. When are Muslim going to learn from the past mistakes for allowing such figures to cntrol their destinies?``(sameerjb)

True indeed. Couldn`t be said any better.

these are exactly the gentlmen who had -- bahre Zulmat meiN dauRaa diye ghorey hum ney -- and drowned the whole `Ummah` riding those ghoreys -- in that ``bahre Zulmat``-- never to surface again in the modern world.

seeing the length and the breadth of this article -- one is reminded/cautioned by ghalib -- iss mazmooN ko purhne keliye ek oomr chahiye -- kaun jeeta hai teri zullf ke sur hone tuk.

All this scholarship to revive a half dead horse?

if we will only learn from the largest and the most innovatively successful community of the world -- how they have quarantined God and his gentle Son to an air-conditioned comfortable Church -- visit Him once a week -- and spend the rest of the week in carpentering a PARADISE on this earth with their Science and Technology -- for EVERYBODY -- including the God`s `favorites` -- the Muslim folks.

And the way the Christian folks are faring in 2002 -- their God MUST be VERY happy with them for that special treatment.

hasan

Sameer # 8

Have to agree with you.
At a basic level, Science is about experiments , setting up of hypotheses and proving and disproving them , an ideal scientist is a seeker for the sake of knowledge one who cannot assume or cannot go by perosnal likes / dislikes.

Any model that assumes the result will not hold good , it may have its moments of glory but only because by chance it assumptions are matched by the results.

I hate to say this , even the so-called renaissance of Arab civilisation was not so much the outcome of Arabs as much as it was the contribution of Jews, Persians , Indians and Chinese of that time.

Re: Sanjay Kabir Bavikatte

First of all ``welcome`` to Chowk, with hopes that you will continue to contribute to the debate at Chowk.

I used to think that my artices were long, but this is one for the record books.

Ciao

There is an inverse relationship between speaking a lot and knowing what ur talking about. Too many people speak on topics they can`t master (to master is to understand from different positions: NEVER just ur own).

One should speak on that which he has control over. This is almost always ONLY related to an issue involving that person. Otherwise she has to invoke silly articles and the opinions of others.

When the issue of religion has to do with something other then the following of one`s conscious, u can bet that the speaker has little understanding over what shes saying.

Its a lil funny that Everyone wants to find the pulse of this and try to pinpoint why millions believe in that. Who cares about why u think Islam is bullsh1t or great. The only thing that is worth talking about is U.

Around three or four so-called Muslim scholars have taken every generation of Muslims for a downhill ride. The four people mentioned in this article are meant for the current generation`s ride. The previous generation was taken for a ride by Maudoodi, Khomeini, Syed Qit`b, Hassan Al-Banna. The one begore that was taken for a ride by Iqbal, Afghani, Mehdi Sudani and Ali Sharia`ati. And the one before that by the likes of Ali brothers. When are Muslim going to learn from the past mistakes for allowing such figures to cntrol their destinies?

Do we have similar three four Christians taking Christians or four Hindus taking Hindus for a downhill ride every generation.

Fact is that Islam never needed thinkers and philosophers; it needed invaders. It is a model that requires continuous expansion and forced submissions otherwise it is very static, frozen in time model. Therefore it can not be compared with other subjects and disciplines that are dynamic, evolving and changing. Any discussion of one static and frozen model with many liquid and dynamic models is useless. The only thing Islam can be compared with is the outcome in the form of its followers - the Muslims. Compare Islam and Muslims and not Islam and science or technology. Most successful Muslims are more distanced from Islam, at least that is my observation in sciences. Similarly most famous Christian scientists are more distanced from Christianity. I wonder why?

Sanjay,
Guyana sounds like an interesting place to be.
Regards.

Sanjay:

First a warm welcome to chowk…and hope you are well loricated!…this is a very timely and much needed article…and hopefully the debate that will follow here will not degenerate into entrenched and useless name calling.

Quickly read this…but this deserves a detailed and lesiurely read…ocmments will have to wait…but this for CHOWK EDITORS…in this new format…the ‘shelf’ life of a new article has been diminished to five to seven days on page one … this is an unfair time frame for an article of this nature…here are two suggestions to alleviate this problem…

1: insert a flasher between ‘article” and >> saying click >> to get full list which will take the browser to the list of current twenty articles

or

2: Leave this on page one for a longer time frame

rgds,

t

DRUMZy...#1
:)
Something tells me that Allah has already read this!!! Allah, the Omnipotent, the Merciful, the Compassionate one. And if Allah hasn`t read this, some less intelligent so-called humans are bound to...you know who they are!

....this article is far too long...more like a mini-dissertation, and in order for those of us on the run who print out articles to read, and comment on later...this printed on twenty-three pages...the poor tree :) Will comment more on it later...now that I have used up my print quota for the daaaay!

p.s. it just occurs to me that had I used the print feature on chowk rather than the one i used, it would have been less pages...just thought I`d correct my own folly, before someone else dares to do so!!!! cheerio!

Even Allah doesnt have enuff time to read that.

Is this tailormade by hobbes or for hobbes?
Why not choose the better path than reforming Islam by not reforming it. accepting it the way it is and then taking a shower and letting it go down the drain with other dirt. Decreasing its importance in life than reforming it is a better alternate for a lay Muslim.