Saddam Hussein Lives!

Zafar,

Actually, in the narrative of the Goat Who Ate the Quran, a astrologist interpretation might build upon theories of the Bloomian Anxiety of Influence, which is that in order to reign supreme over the exploitaton of man (and here I mean, patriarchical MEN), the goat had to eat the text to disappear it-goat practitioners honor this herstoric moment by eating non grass matter. Our collective societies have sublimated this moment by attributing this goat-centric social action by attributing it to the Dog-as in, ``the dog ate my homework and therefore I didnt do it`` which is shorthand for, I was too lazy to do whats good for me. Therefore the moment/significance of the goat act, while not being entirely lost, lie at just beneath our collective discourse.

The Bloomian Psychozodiacal interpretation similarly maintain that goats are known zodiacally to be the most stingy and ambitious and this was an obvious power play on the part of the goat-which is why men have had to kill and eat them to remove the threat of any other goat displacing male hegemony among the animal and human kingdom.

SR #86 Applying labels to people whose viewpoints conflict with your current line of thinking is a clear marker of an immature mind. So congratulations on applying the label of ``reformists``.

Coming to what you write ``It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel) ``
Who asserts this? I certainly dont, since common sense says that (a) the Quran was written by individuals based on what they heard from the prophet; and (b) the prophet relayed what he heard from the angel (per our muslim belief). Since the prophet never claimed to be anything more than an ordinary human, and since the scribes were the same, it stands to reason that the assertion you present above is irrational.

Logic would say what you said: the prophet received the message from an angel. This is our muslim belief, and you can reject this belief if you wish and assume it was due to a trance of some kind. And the prophet faithfully relayed the message the best he could, since that is what he was tasked to do (he was NOT tasked to oversee implementation, incidentally, as the Quran says and this exposes the hollowness of Maudoodism and of the Islamists). And the scribes by and large (I AM assuming this, and I think this is a reasonably safe assumption given the checks and balances at work) did their job.

Thus: I conclude that the overall spirit of the Quran, which i s indeed one of great humanity and profound appreciation of the universe around us, is indeed God given. And this exposes the hollowness not just of the Islamists but also of people like you and other Islam haters who claim the Quran preaches evil by pulling out odd-verses as convenient, while ignoring the overall spirit.

I think I will have to agree with faziiet # 71 where he says `` Hijabi women don`t become CEOs? Yeah. Sure. Cuz MEN don`t let them.

And that is what the empirical evidence suggests. A brief look into history will tell us that as US was struggling to get out of ``Dogs and Blacks Not Allowed`` mindset, a woman in Paksitan was running for Presidency. Interestingly, enough the religious political entities were supporting her, while a General with the support of people of secular and modern outlook was making sure that she didn`t win. She used to wear, modestly. This is not just one case. Benazir, a woman, has become Prime Minister, not once but twice after forming alliance with religious parties. She wears modestly. No religious party, even the extremist nuts never challenged the leadership of these two ladies,just because they were women. Another lady held another most powerful position in Paksitan for decades. Kaneez Fatima, she has been a Collective Bargaining Agent for some of the most powerful labor unions in Paksitan such as Railways, Shipyard, and steel Mills. She wore modestly. The Surgeon General of Paksitan was a lady, who also rose to the rank of Paksitan`s first Major General (or was it Lt. General?). Women in Paksitan have wore modestly and have become legislators, human rights activists, lawyers, and what not. No woman has ever been denied a position just because she wore modestly or she didn`t.

So are women discriminated in Paksitan? yeah sure, like everywhere else. Are women raped in Paksitan? yeah sure, like everywhere else and in West who proclaims to be the champion of women`s rights they are raped by the second. Do they wear modestly. No. Is there a connection. You tell me?

#81 SR
Beautifully said!
That an insignificant aspect of the universe would believe that its every single action is mandated and monitored by a/the creator is the height of conceit and a cry for attention...

SR#86 writes ``The `reformists` have to make up their minds because they cannot have it both ways. ``

No Sir, I think it is you who have to make up your mind. See if they argue with you, you call them apologists and if they dont argue with you, you call them rigid fundamentalists. So no matter what they do, they are doomed. You cannot have it both ways. Why don`t you take their arguments on their own merits. Are you afraid of something?

I want you all to know that I am COMPLETELY COMPLETELY taken with this goat story, and I would count it as a great personal favour if any of you were able to tell me more about said goat and baqi kahani.

(Goat is which star sign? Which Chinese year animal? Also goat? Favourite colour? Favourite fillum star? Philosophical leanings? etc.)

I remain ladies and gents, absolutely gagging for more, and of course your obedient servant.

(Samina, this goat must be inducted into the Pinkyfeld saga. Pleeeeeease.)

Taking single issues from the Quran for analysis ... not fair ... because ``over all spirit`` is kinder and gentler

The moderate and reform minded Muslims have long asked for this treatment without being willing to make the necessary concession. Let me explain.

If one was to claim that Quran is just a collection of the sayings of the Prophet when he was in a `altered state of trance` then this apporach would be perfectly reasonable. But the trouble is that the claim made is absolutely fantastic: It is asserted that each and every single word of the Quran is the unadultrated direct dictation of God (via Gabriel)

This sets the standard as very high and that is the reason why every word can be justifiably put under the microscope. If only this absurd and outrageous claim is dropped and Quran is humanized, then all the criticism (the sort `reforms` object against becomes) becomes unreasonable, because the Prophet, after all, was a human and such things (i.e., inconsistencies, anachronisms, contradictions and irrelevencies) are to be expected and no reasonable person would redicule them any more then they would redicule such material in the Iliad, Puranas, Vedas, Torah or Bible etc.

The `reformists` have to make up their minds because they cannot have it both ways. I have far greater respect for the beliefs of people who are die-hard faithfuls than I do for the confused ideas of some of the so-called `modern islamists`. At least fundamentalist makes no appoligies for his faith, regardless of argument agsinst it. At least he is willing to go down with the sinking ship resisting to the end.

...SR

dost-mittar:
Ii is not a piece of cloth covering head per se. Many women all around the world make statement of their womanhood in variety of ways. Many older ladies even in the west wear scarfs or fashionable hats just as women in south asia have been wearing dopatta without any problem. However, hijab is different on at least three points: First, it is a symbol of women`s protection imposed by men - men controling their destinies. Men to this day are not ready to treat women equal as the nrgligible number of women in powerful positions suggest. How can then hijab be an honest effort to bring respect to women? Moreover, top 10-20 men in such decision-making positions had at least 5-10 times as many women in their harems. They would be - and many event suggest that they were jealously guarding their own loot of women - more interested to protect their own harem from the rest and hijab helped to do just that.

Second, hijab is not a voluntary thing though many women do wear it voluntarily. It is part of a big parcel, a big rotten deal, always on the look out for ways to encroach in all affairs of life. Pashtun women have been wearing a white chaddar for a longtime without any problem but Zia, fundamentalists and current NWFP assembly is imposing it as state policy. In Kashmir, some women were murdered recently for not wearing hijab. It is like that bedoin, camel and tent story. Once bedoin gave an inch to camel, camel took it as green light to take over the tent. Similarly for women, wearing hijab has been hisotrically and still is a green light for Islamist and fundamentalist men to continue expansion or encroachment in other areas in addition to relegating women to the lower status chosen for them by men in the name of god.
Third, hijab is a symbol as much as a real thing. It is to be worn on sleeve (call it head). A wman wearing hijab or person wearing brown shirt or red tie in itself means nothing to worry about but red tie worn as Mao`s red cap, a brown shirt for sympathy with Hitler and nazism and hijab a symbol of Muslim women (another identification to prove that Ummah does exist across national and cultural barriers) backed by religious heirarchy, history and dogma are wrong.

Actually underwear-free world of Muslim men is stronger backer of hijab for women than women themselves. I do not care or it does not matter if such practices are truly Islamic, quranic, biblical, talmudic, vedic or not, whatever is practiced in the name of religion is the religion in practice. Those who feel part of it or all of it problematic and requires introspection have many possible choices to deal with it. Most oftenly given here is to fall back to original or follow the true spirit of Islam or quran. Some suggest reinterpretation, ijtehad, ijma etc. It took several centuries for Europe to follow this path to break free, despite the consitutional equality, detesting it by well-intentioed Hindus for centuries, caste-system is still persistent to large extent. The correction from within is a slow process stretching over centuries and thus inefficient. Throwing the baby with bath water and bath tub as well, is the efficient way to deal with the rotten deals.
Here Muslims can not even agree if goat ate holy leaves or not, let alone the whole mythical detailed accounts of early Islamic history. That is mostly mythical - fictitious. The characters are created and word are put in their mouths as much as two centuries later. All of this stuff is cooked up much later by vested interests to help maintain two meccans families to rule for the next 500 years.

sattar2 #79 I will let you have the last word. Not because I think it makes sense, but because I am getting tired of your looking for loopholes like a lawyer in everything I say, in taking every inch and making it a mile. Regards.

dost mittar #78 My problem with women wearing the hijab in the west is that it is so fake and teh opposite of the concept of modest dress. It is fake because in Pakistan women dont traditionally wear the hijab. So they are certainly not merely continuing a form of dress they are accustomed do. They come to the west, and some (about 10 percent I think) start wearing it. And it is immodest since it has the opposite affect of what modesty in dress is supposed to be about: i.e. dress that does not make you conspicuous.

dost mittar #78 Agreed. The overall spirit of the Quran is what should be taught, and that is definitely very humane. You can take bits and pieces out of any religious book (not just in Islam) and claim the opposite of what the message is all about. The Bible and the Torah are not free from such passages as are routinely mentioned about the Quran. Yet because their overall spirit is what is emphasized, these passages are not an issue.

Every Muslim child should be introduced to a little astronomy before they swallow za-li-kal-kitabou-la-reh-ba-fe bait, hook, line and sinker.

If the Almighty Creator of the universe would, in fact, condescend to communicate with this very recently evolved semi-intelligent species of the Third Planet orbiting a mediocre star that was situated in the outer periphery of the spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, then surely such a Super Being could find ways to get the message across without ambiguity. After all, there is no controversy over whether the sun is shining at a particular time and place, is there? In like manner, the All Knowing, All Powerful, could make it “loud and clear” even for the dumbest of the dumb and the skeptic of all ages. If the Super Being was really serious about getting a message through, we would not be having these arguments. Now THAT would have been a real miracle, for all to see and instinctively know.

Bishop Birkley once asked Bertrand Russell to set aside his skepticism and assume for a moment that God actually existed and that he (Russell) was standing before Him on the Day of Judgement.

“What,” Bishop Birkley asked, “will your answer be to the Lord for being a disbeleiver?”

“I shall say to Him,” Russell responded without hesitation, “Sir, you did not give me enough evidence.”

…SR

Tahmed Sahib …

As a few parting comments … I would like to point out some of your unreasonable assertions:

If seal “could be” interpreted as of highest status (no need of “could only be” here)… it means that Mohammad being the last prophet is a conjecture, which, without supporting arguments, remains merely a conjecture.

You earlier attempted to support this conjecture by the “individual responsibility” argument. As I pointed out, your argument is negated by Quran (I think you agree, although you did not comment).

Your interpretation of “sealed, signed, and delivered” … is not convincing either … and only muddies the water. Sealed, signed, and delivered does not imply end of prophethood … just as seal of poets (khatam-ul-shu’ra) does not mean a poet “sealed, signed, and delivered”. You are relying on your opinion here … and are unable to support it with reasoning. Do not forget that a seal, an official imprint of authority and authenticity, also denotes high status in Arabic language.

Moving on …

You trivialize the matter by saying that … if sattar feels that he needs help in religious guidance, that’s fine with tahmed. Your position once again is counter to the spirit of Quran.

Prophets are raised not because a person feels need for guidance … but because Allah Almighty sees it fit. An Israelite in the times of Jesus would have been wrong in rejecting prophethood of Jesus and maintaining that he (the Israelite) does not need religious guidance. I am not discussing Mirza Sahib here … but only prophethood in general. My point is that … just as accepting Jesus as a prophet was incumbent upon an Israelite then, accepting a new prophet, if Allah were to raise one today, would be incumbent upon the people nowadays. I think you’d agree that this is a fair statement.

However, owing to individual responsibility, you are also free to reject anyone you choose to (including Moses, Mohammad, Jesus, and Mirza Sahib [wink]). The matter rests between you and Allah only … and He alone is the Judge of one’s intentions and actions.

On a lighter note … you have really let Urstruly down on this one. The only reason why he has refrained from declaring you a heretic and an ignominious scoundrel (i.e., a closet Ahmadi) was your unequivocal stance that prophethood has ended. Now that you accept the counterpoint as a potentially valid one, you risk being branded as an apostate. Be careful … such declarations are known to cause serious health problems … esp. in the “land of the pure”.

Tahmed:
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``

Tahmed:
``no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat``
...this is news to me. In the UP urdu, the word hazrat is/was commonly used in ordinary conversation, often with mock respect, like in ``arre zara un hazrat kau bulaana!``

Hijab:
I think hijab should be well within the limits of a permissible, multicultural society. A woman wearing hijab poses no threat to anyone. It is simply a matter of personal preference dictated by one`s religion and culture.
As a non-muslim, I would rather that muslims start thinking of themselves as the citizens of their respective countries -Pakistanis, Indians, Canadians, Americans, French, British- first and members of an umma second.
My second wish would be that the madrassas stop teaching certain ayahs of quraan which, to use an understatement, do not encourage friendly attitude towards non-muslims, instead of trying to spin-doctor them to mean something other than they very obviously do. The quraan repeatedly states that it was revealed in Arabic so that its meaning was clear to the people. So, why the spin-doctoring?

sattar2 #76 No need to do the victory dance. I said ``could be`` interpreted the way you do, not ``could only be`` interpreted the way you do. I in fact think that a more logical interpretation is ``seal`` as in ``sealed, signed and delivered``. Either way, I dont think this one phrase matters all that much. But if this ``could be`` pleases you, dont let me come in the way of your pleasure.

Since you also accept the concept of individual responsibility, then I think you and I have no more quarrel. If you feel the need to get help for religious guidance from someone you regard as a prophet that is fine. As long as you respect my right to reject anyone who thinks I need his help in understanding what God really meant to say.

This ``anyone`` incidentally includes not just Mr. Mirza (no disrespect meant, I dont think any individual not even the Omar, deserves to be lifted above other men with the title Hazrat). This also includes all the maulvis, aalims, faazils, mard-e-momins (like zia), mard-e-momin wnannabes (like nawaz sharif), jamaatias, the mufti of the islamabad (un)islamic university, the grand mufti of egypt, or the black robed ayatollahs of qum, syeds, qureshis, pirs, malangs, or any other of the zillions of spokesmen for God who float around in muslim countries. And this includes all the mess they have made with their voodoo economics and their voodoo laws and other voodoo stuff they claim the bakri ate and therefore cannot be found in the Quran.

Anyway, you are a good man and I wish you all the best.