My Perspective on Islam
Rasheed Talib August 7, 2003
#56 Posted by mtindia on January 4, 2005 9:31:02 am
I agree with your approach and perspective. You are close to the Nagpur scholar who just wanted to remind the community that Quran is arranged origianlly by divine will, according to the date of revelation -- call it chronologically arranged, or use the traditional sense of ordering in the style it was revealed. He said the present order is what is suggested by the Messenger, Peace and Blessings on him. In short, the Nagpur scholar`s news report in a Urdu daily, some ten years ago, received lot of criticism. Although, the point is true and CANNOT be over-ruled, the revelatory order is still a valid way of ordering. I fail to trace a citation, which mentioned that Caliph Ali, peace and blessings on him, did have such a sequence in his collection. Today we don’t find this sequence anywhere, and hence the critics spending their energies in a destructive manner.
In your situation, you can do one thing to circumvent such time-pass critics, i.e., casual and carefree critics, as well those who have are not creative, nor heave any serious purpose to accomplish on the earth as a representative of the Creator.
You can submit your manuscript to a university, for a D.Litt thesis. You don’t have to write a book, nor search for a Neutral publisher. Many academic dissertations and thesis never see the publisher`s desk, but through university microfilm international (www.umi.com), get out to public and reach Anyone, Anywhere and Anyhow. This is the most Direct and simple approach to write, publish, and still see the impact of your ideas.
Write to me or send me your email address for more insight into what you call, or rather nearly call, local dimensions of Islam (in your phraseology: ``practical Islam.``)
I think all the debate, and/or extended-interpretation of `practical Islam` is by way of adding a sixth pillar (accepted and / or added by some schools of thought), i.e., immamat, khilafat, jihad, etc. By way of this sixth dimension, what is Local becomes global, internal becomes external, and limited becomes global.
My thesis is Islam is basically (theologically, socially, economically, and by almost all benchmarks, stated in scriptural or interpreted) LOCAL in its color, taste, and smell. When does it get non-local? Global is its spirituality, universal is its scope, and international is its application. To illustrate this point, one single instance would suffice. You can ONLY pray by local time, and behind a local imam. Furthermore, zakath, charity and care is primarily for the immediate near (speaking in a physical, spiritual, material) and dear. So also, accountability in the hereafter is all-ado-about self, one`s own family, and those who are (associated in any manner) with you. Accountability is NOT about those who are away FROM you in whatever whichever and wherever sense.
Then, looking Islam as a local way of life, is the rule, and not just a casual happening. Islam in Indonesia as practiced for ages, is with its own local touch, culture, theological interpretation, social context, etc. In this specificity, Indonesia or India, are no exceptions. It is true in every space, time, and perspective. Accepting this local as real, and global as surreal is the crux. Most don’t and none publishes a book on this perspective.
I don`t wish to get into terminological warfare, which says Islam is true vs. folk islam, ideal vs. practical islam, fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist, orthodox vs. un-conventional, moderate vs. traditionalist, simple vs. complicated, rigid vs. flexible, etcetra.
Best wishes, Dr. MT. mt2222@yahoo.com
In your situation, you can do one thing to circumvent such time-pass critics, i.e., casual and carefree critics, as well those who have are not creative, nor heave any serious purpose to accomplish on the earth as a representative of the Creator.
You can submit your manuscript to a university, for a D.Litt thesis. You don’t have to write a book, nor search for a Neutral publisher. Many academic dissertations and thesis never see the publisher`s desk, but through university microfilm international (www.umi.com), get out to public and reach Anyone, Anywhere and Anyhow. This is the most Direct and simple approach to write, publish, and still see the impact of your ideas.
Write to me or send me your email address for more insight into what you call, or rather nearly call, local dimensions of Islam (in your phraseology: ``practical Islam.``)
I think all the debate, and/or extended-interpretation of `practical Islam` is by way of adding a sixth pillar (accepted and / or added by some schools of thought), i.e., immamat, khilafat, jihad, etc. By way of this sixth dimension, what is Local becomes global, internal becomes external, and limited becomes global.
My thesis is Islam is basically (theologically, socially, economically, and by almost all benchmarks, stated in scriptural or interpreted) LOCAL in its color, taste, and smell. When does it get non-local? Global is its spirituality, universal is its scope, and international is its application. To illustrate this point, one single instance would suffice. You can ONLY pray by local time, and behind a local imam. Furthermore, zakath, charity and care is primarily for the immediate near (speaking in a physical, spiritual, material) and dear. So also, accountability in the hereafter is all-ado-about self, one`s own family, and those who are (associated in any manner) with you. Accountability is NOT about those who are away FROM you in whatever whichever and wherever sense.
Then, looking Islam as a local way of life, is the rule, and not just a casual happening. Islam in Indonesia as practiced for ages, is with its own local touch, culture, theological interpretation, social context, etc. In this specificity, Indonesia or India, are no exceptions. It is true in every space, time, and perspective. Accepting this local as real, and global as surreal is the crux. Most don’t and none publishes a book on this perspective.
I don`t wish to get into terminological warfare, which says Islam is true vs. folk islam, ideal vs. practical islam, fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist, orthodox vs. un-conventional, moderate vs. traditionalist, simple vs. complicated, rigid vs. flexible, etcetra.
Best wishes, Dr. MT. mt2222@yahoo.com
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#55 Posted by rasheedtalib on August 17, 2003 8:08:57 am
Thank you, AlephNull, for your comment #10 of August 8 to my Chowk piece. I`m sorry for this late reply. In reply to the very valid point made by you, all I can do is to reproduce a couple of paras I had written in one of my prefatory pieces for my proposed book. Here it is:
[I ignore for the purpose of this presentation the view of a recent group of Western scholars -Patircia Crone, Michael Cook, John Wansbrough et al - who have put forward an interesting revisionist theory about the birth of the Quran. Based on their research, they maintain that the Quranic verses were put together from oral stories retold a century or two after the Prophet’s death when Arab civilization was at its imperial peak and the Arabs wished to give themselves an identity distinct from that of the culturally superior peoples they ruled over in neighbouring Byzantium and Iran.
[I also overlook in this presentation the ongoing exchanges between Christian and Islamic evangelical groups on such Internet websites as “answering-Islam” and “answering-Chritianity” on the weight to be attached to various claims regarding the Quran on the basis of traditional Muslim sources.
[Although my book does take a passing look at some of these issues, it is based for the most part on the way the Muslims themselves view their history, founded as this necessarily is on traditional sources. My principal concern is with Muslim beliefs and practices and not “what actually happened in history” which, here as elsewhere, is itself a moot issue. For me, the problem of Islam is how its followers perceive their faith not Islam per se]. Rasheed Talib.
[I ignore for the purpose of this presentation the view of a recent group of Western scholars -Patircia Crone, Michael Cook, John Wansbrough et al - who have put forward an interesting revisionist theory about the birth of the Quran. Based on their research, they maintain that the Quranic verses were put together from oral stories retold a century or two after the Prophet’s death when Arab civilization was at its imperial peak and the Arabs wished to give themselves an identity distinct from that of the culturally superior peoples they ruled over in neighbouring Byzantium and Iran.
[I also overlook in this presentation the ongoing exchanges between Christian and Islamic evangelical groups on such Internet websites as “answering-Islam” and “answering-Chritianity” on the weight to be attached to various claims regarding the Quran on the basis of traditional Muslim sources.
[Although my book does take a passing look at some of these issues, it is based for the most part on the way the Muslims themselves view their history, founded as this necessarily is on traditional sources. My principal concern is with Muslim beliefs and practices and not “what actually happened in history” which, here as elsewhere, is itself a moot issue. For me, the problem of Islam is how its followers perceive their faith not Islam per se]. Rasheed Talib.
#54 Posted by PM on August 16, 2003 6:48:52 am
this excellent, thought provoking post is taken from a board that discussed these issue here four years ago .. definetly worth a reprint here:
(from http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000471&channel=civic%20center&start=70&end=79&page=8&chapter=1#replies)
#31 by Wasiq on January 18, 1999 12:06pm PT
Anita has brought up a very interesting point, which I did not want to bring up because it inevitably collides head on with deep-rooted religious convictions of the majority of Muslims. But here it goes, nevertheless.
Let us suppose for a minute that no-one had ever discovered any ``non-standard`` copies of the Quran. Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect. Consider the following:
1) By the time the Quran was compiled, the Prophet had already been dead for about 30 years. Most of his closest companions had also passed on. The compilation of the Quran, its chronology and the definition of the context of different injunctions and verses were left to the interpretation of the committee of people chosen to be the compilers, none of whom I might add can be called great Quranic scholars. According to tradtions, people brought Quranic verses in for compilation in various formats, written on tree barks or hides, or memorized etc. The possibility for (a) omission (b) addition (c) loss of proper ordering of verses (d) definition of the context of different verses is therefore quite present.
2) In a move that continues to astound history, Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman systematically and consistently secluded the family of the Prophet from this process. The family members of the Prophet were his closest companions who had seen the rise of Islam from its very inception. They were the ideal keepers of the Quran and the Hadith. After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Ali asked that he be left alone so that he could compile the Quran. That wish was vehemently denied. (It resulted in a bunch of people storming the house of Ali). People who are aware of the compilation of the Hadith will also recall that although the Prophet considered his household (Ahl-ul-Bait) to be sacred and closest to him, the number of Hadith associated to Hadrat Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are minute compared to the ones attributed to people of much lesser stature in Islamic history.
3) The question arises why should this have been done? The compilation of the Quran served an immensely important political purpose. Although people on pulpits from across the Muslim world never cease to paint a picture of the companions of the Prophet being sinless and untainted beings, nothing could be further from fact. They were people who had grown up in a highly politically active atmosphere, and frankly the vast majority of them were out for themselves. Doesn`t sound too different from what we are today!
The compilation of the Quran fell into the same fate. Immediately after the death of the Prophet a slogan was invented (whose inventor remains anonymous but loyally followed to this day): ``Prophethood and Caliphate can never go to the same family``. This slogan encapsulated the traditional tribal jealousies that the Prophet had tried to eradicate but was unsuccessful. It also betrayed the fact that people never understood the meaning of Prophethood and Caliphate, and kept on equating Caliphate with Temporal Kingship (with all its benefits).
A historical parallel to this example is found again in the Banu Umayya, who were the cousins by lineage of the Banu Hashim family, and had been deported from their ancestral lands by a multi-tribal judgement. After the fall of Makkah, Abu-Sufyan who was from the Banu Umayya family became a ``Muslim`` because it was politically expedient for him to do so. His son Muawiya was installed by Caliph Omar in Syria, where he enjoyed a virtually autonomous rule as a governer for about twenty years. Why Muawiya should have been given such a politically important post by Caliph Omar given that his father was an arch-enemy of Islam is not so surprising if one considers the enormous political benefits the Caliph stood to reap from the presence of Muawiya, if there was a strong pro-Hashim movement in the Hejaz. This is exactly what happened during the Caliphate of Ali when Muawiya wrongly, unlawfully and unjustifiably revolted against the Caliph of Islam and brought in the dark ages of Imperialism into Islamic history, whose legacy hounds us to this day. (When Maudoodi came to the same conclusion, his book ``Khilafat-o-Malukiat`` was immediately silenced by his own companions.) The case of Imam Hussein and Yazid was the next logical link of this scenario. Being the good son of Muawiya, Yazid did what his father taught him well.
This discussion adds a new political dimension to Islam and the Quran. One distinctly comes off with the feeling that the Family of the Prophet was decidedly ill-treated by essentially everyone after the Prophet`s death. (Muawiya for example started a tradition where Caliph Ali was verbally abused in every khutba delivered by every mosque imam. This tradition went on for almost forty years before it was abrogated by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz. Almost all of the Shi`a Imams, for example, died unnatural deaths. In Kerbala, for example, one saw the ludicrous and ironic situation that the soldiers of Yazid`s army would praise the Prophet and his family in their prayers, and then rise up to kill the same family of the Prophet.) The traditional point of view on all of this is to present a harmonious picture that makes everyone pure and pristine. Such a point of view can only be supported in a fairy tale, and not in the real world. In the past (and sadly even in the present) to say something like this was suicidal -all opposition was brutally crushed. The reason, again that religion was deeply interconnected with the politics. The State derived its legitimacy and power from religion, and therefore, religious dogma served the exact purpose that propoganda served in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (Think about Saudi Arabia for a second in the modern days.)
I think we are lucky that we are born in an era where ideas can be accepted or rejected based upon their scientific merit. That the traditional histories of Islam will be re-written is inevitable, and perhaps the increasing rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world is partly also due to the anticipation of this change.
(from http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000471&channel=civic%20center&start=70&end=79&page=8&chapter=1#replies)
#31 by Wasiq on January 18, 1999 12:06pm PT
Anita has brought up a very interesting point, which I did not want to bring up because it inevitably collides head on with deep-rooted religious convictions of the majority of Muslims. But here it goes, nevertheless.
Let us suppose for a minute that no-one had ever discovered any ``non-standard`` copies of the Quran. Just by reading about the procedure that was followed in the time of Caliph Uthman to standardize the Quran would have convinced any reasonably intelligent person that the process could not be perfect. Consider the following:
1) By the time the Quran was compiled, the Prophet had already been dead for about 30 years. Most of his closest companions had also passed on. The compilation of the Quran, its chronology and the definition of the context of different injunctions and verses were left to the interpretation of the committee of people chosen to be the compilers, none of whom I might add can be called great Quranic scholars. According to tradtions, people brought Quranic verses in for compilation in various formats, written on tree barks or hides, or memorized etc. The possibility for (a) omission (b) addition (c) loss of proper ordering of verses (d) definition of the context of different verses is therefore quite present.
2) In a move that continues to astound history, Caliphs Abu-Bakr, Omar and Uthman systematically and consistently secluded the family of the Prophet from this process. The family members of the Prophet were his closest companions who had seen the rise of Islam from its very inception. They were the ideal keepers of the Quran and the Hadith. After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Ali asked that he be left alone so that he could compile the Quran. That wish was vehemently denied. (It resulted in a bunch of people storming the house of Ali). People who are aware of the compilation of the Hadith will also recall that although the Prophet considered his household (Ahl-ul-Bait) to be sacred and closest to him, the number of Hadith associated to Hadrat Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussein are minute compared to the ones attributed to people of much lesser stature in Islamic history.
3) The question arises why should this have been done? The compilation of the Quran served an immensely important political purpose. Although people on pulpits from across the Muslim world never cease to paint a picture of the companions of the Prophet being sinless and untainted beings, nothing could be further from fact. They were people who had grown up in a highly politically active atmosphere, and frankly the vast majority of them were out for themselves. Doesn`t sound too different from what we are today!
The compilation of the Quran fell into the same fate. Immediately after the death of the Prophet a slogan was invented (whose inventor remains anonymous but loyally followed to this day): ``Prophethood and Caliphate can never go to the same family``. This slogan encapsulated the traditional tribal jealousies that the Prophet had tried to eradicate but was unsuccessful. It also betrayed the fact that people never understood the meaning of Prophethood and Caliphate, and kept on equating Caliphate with Temporal Kingship (with all its benefits).
A historical parallel to this example is found again in the Banu Umayya, who were the cousins by lineage of the Banu Hashim family, and had been deported from their ancestral lands by a multi-tribal judgement. After the fall of Makkah, Abu-Sufyan who was from the Banu Umayya family became a ``Muslim`` because it was politically expedient for him to do so. His son Muawiya was installed by Caliph Omar in Syria, where he enjoyed a virtually autonomous rule as a governer for about twenty years. Why Muawiya should have been given such a politically important post by Caliph Omar given that his father was an arch-enemy of Islam is not so surprising if one considers the enormous political benefits the Caliph stood to reap from the presence of Muawiya, if there was a strong pro-Hashim movement in the Hejaz. This is exactly what happened during the Caliphate of Ali when Muawiya wrongly, unlawfully and unjustifiably revolted against the Caliph of Islam and brought in the dark ages of Imperialism into Islamic history, whose legacy hounds us to this day. (When Maudoodi came to the same conclusion, his book ``Khilafat-o-Malukiat`` was immediately silenced by his own companions.) The case of Imam Hussein and Yazid was the next logical link of this scenario. Being the good son of Muawiya, Yazid did what his father taught him well.
This discussion adds a new political dimension to Islam and the Quran. One distinctly comes off with the feeling that the Family of the Prophet was decidedly ill-treated by essentially everyone after the Prophet`s death. (Muawiya for example started a tradition where Caliph Ali was verbally abused in every khutba delivered by every mosque imam. This tradition went on for almost forty years before it was abrogated by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz. Almost all of the Shi`a Imams, for example, died unnatural deaths. In Kerbala, for example, one saw the ludicrous and ironic situation that the soldiers of Yazid`s army would praise the Prophet and his family in their prayers, and then rise up to kill the same family of the Prophet.) The traditional point of view on all of this is to present a harmonious picture that makes everyone pure and pristine. Such a point of view can only be supported in a fairy tale, and not in the real world. In the past (and sadly even in the present) to say something like this was suicidal -all opposition was brutally crushed. The reason, again that religion was deeply interconnected with the politics. The State derived its legitimacy and power from religion, and therefore, religious dogma served the exact purpose that propoganda served in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (Think about Saudi Arabia for a second in the modern days.)
I think we are lucky that we are born in an era where ideas can be accepted or rejected based upon their scientific merit. That the traditional histories of Islam will be re-written is inevitable, and perhaps the increasing rise of fundamentalism in the Islamic world is partly also due to the anticipation of this change.
#52 Posted by Urstruly on August 14, 2003 10:49:48 am
Inquirer
This is the best ``jug`t`` I have heard/read in probably a decade :)
This is the best ``jug`t`` I have heard/read in probably a decade :)
#51 Posted by Inquirer on August 13, 2003 2:15:48 pm
Nashbandi!
That`s what you get for talking to women!!!!
She asked the questions and you replied.
Oh! when will you ever learn???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That`s what you get for talking to women!!!!
She asked the questions and you replied.
Oh! when will you ever learn???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#50 Posted by ZahraJ on August 12, 2003 8:43:17 pm
Naqshbandi:
Waa Alaikum Assalam.
My true intent for asking the questions was not to educate myself. It was to point out certain things to you. I do not think you got my point therefore I saw the need to come back and highlight it. Please do not ever mention Hamza Yousaf to me me again, I simply dislike that man. OK! Thank you for sharing your list. I will reserve my comments on that. Nothing more on the said topic.
Thanks.
Waa Alaikum Assalam.
My true intent for asking the questions was not to educate myself. It was to point out certain things to you. I do not think you got my point therefore I saw the need to come back and highlight it. Please do not ever mention Hamza Yousaf to me me again, I simply dislike that man. OK! Thank you for sharing your list. I will reserve my comments on that. Nothing more on the said topic.
Thanks.
#49 Posted by nasah on August 12, 2003 2:04:53 pm
``astleast i m not as bad as u beleive.thanks``(Saminshah)
dear Saminshah -- your are definitely NOT -- I agree with you 100% on Islam -- disagree with you 100% on Iraq......
I was -- BORN NOT FREE -- under the Anglo Raj -- and hated every moment of it -- till we got rid of the bastards in 1947
I absolutely detest -- the idea of new Iraqi children being -- BORN NOT FREE -- under the SAME Anglo Raj -- once AGAIN in 2003!!!
I know history repeats itself -- but this is one history I and YOU surely don`t want to be repeated --
this is trying to turn back the Crummy Colonial Clock 180 degrees -- going back to the 30`s Laws of the Jungle..
it will have CONSEQUENCES for Both Bastards -- the Blabbering Blair and the Buffoon Bush...who have Committed THE CRIME of the New Century ..
it will not go unpunished in November 2004...
dear Saminshah -- your are definitely NOT -- I agree with you 100% on Islam -- disagree with you 100% on Iraq......
I was -- BORN NOT FREE -- under the Anglo Raj -- and hated every moment of it -- till we got rid of the bastards in 1947
I absolutely detest -- the idea of new Iraqi children being -- BORN NOT FREE -- under the SAME Anglo Raj -- once AGAIN in 2003!!!
I know history repeats itself -- but this is one history I and YOU surely don`t want to be repeated --
this is trying to turn back the Crummy Colonial Clock 180 degrees -- going back to the 30`s Laws of the Jungle..
it will have CONSEQUENCES for Both Bastards -- the Blabbering Blair and the Buffoon Bush...who have Committed THE CRIME of the New Century ..
it will not go unpunished in November 2004...
#48 Posted by nasah on August 12, 2003 10:45:59 am
``God has set a seal on their hearts and on their ears; and there is a covering on their eyes; and for them shall be a big punishment.(7) ````(Naqshbandi quote from Quran)
``
exactly Naqshbandi -- God Of ALL Reasons -- the Most Reasonable -- is talking about the Unreasonable Mullahs: ``God has set a seal on their hearts and on their ears; and there is a covering on their eyes; and for them shall be a big punishment.(7) `` --
they cannot feel, hear or see the REASON....
God`s ``big Punishment`` for the Political Mullahs -- is in progress all over the world...
#47 Posted by Inquirer on August 12, 2003 10:45:59 am
#38, hamidm2:
Let us not paint entire Islam in a monotone!! We value your services inspite of..... . But we need to distinguish between Khusro (the legitimate heir to Shahjahan) and Aurangzeb!!!!!!! Only then can we identify who is maligning all religions!!!!!!!!!
Let us not paint entire Islam in a monotone!! We value your services inspite of..... . But we need to distinguish between Khusro (the legitimate heir to Shahjahan) and Aurangzeb!!!!!!! Only then can we identify who is maligning all religions!!!!!!!!!
#46 Posted by PM on August 12, 2003 9:15:51 am
dost-mittar:
re. the quote you reproduce in #39
Actaully, from all available evidence, its seems quite plauisble that God has done exactly all those unrighteous things to certain folks who profess to be his staunchest followers. ironic, isn`t it? ;-)
re. the quote you reproduce in #39
Actaully, from all available evidence, its seems quite plauisble that God has done exactly all those unrighteous things to certain folks who profess to be his staunchest followers. ironic, isn`t it? ;-)
#45 Posted by Inquirer on August 11, 2003 2:35:23 pm
I am happy to see that there is dis-satisfaction, no even anger, among the thinking muslims against the tyrannical behavior of the masjid rulers!!
#44 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 11, 2003 6:18:21 am
ZahraJ
786/92
assalamu alaykum. Peace be upon you from my heart to your heart. To proceed:
- Has any Pir or their Mureed ever addressed the issues with extremism in Mureedi?
Please define what you mean by ```extremism`` in mureedi`? Generally though--if I have understood your q properly (and apologies I have haven`t)--a person must check the authenticity of the pir in the light of Shariah to ensure he is not a fraud but a genuine wali who can lead the mureed to Allah. Once he is sure his pir is authentic then he should do bayah. Once he has done bayah though all of the great Sufis are agreed on this that he/she should then be like a dead corpse in the hands of his Pir ie he should no longer have any desires of his own but do anything and everything his pir tells him. If the pir tells him to jump in the fire he jumps without hesitation. Doubting the Pir will prevent the murid obtaining faiz...
- Has anyone of them ever spoken about mum`noo adjectives?
Whatever is mumnoo in Shariah is mumnoo for all Muslims whether they are murids or not. A real Pir must of necessity be an alim too but not every alim is a Pir! So yes every real Pir will have mentioned this issue of guarding one`s tongue (and thus I guess by extension guarding one`s written words too).
- Has any one of them ever shared their discourses on communication with women? Use and/or abuse of smiles!
Discourse on communication with women can be asked of any alim or Pir as it comes under a general aspect of fiqh. As for the use of smiles do you mean smilies which are used now in text?
- Has any one of them advised the Muslim Men to behave in a civilized manner and also articulated clearly the rules and regulations on civilization?
Of course. The whole of Islam and the Sufi path which is Islam`s highest expression is about attaining Adab and perfecting one`s character where good adab of course is defined by doing that which the Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam did or encouraged us to do (his sunnah) and leaving that which he forbade us from. A true wali is one who practises the Sunnah in toto as much as possible humanly.
If there is one who addressed the above pointers, I would be very keen to glance through his writings.
Many great walis/pirs have written on such matters. Probably those whose writings are most widely available in English translations are:
1. Imam Ghazzali.
2. Shaykh Abd al Qadir al Jilani (al Ghawth al Azam)
I do not know where you are in the world but here is a list of some real authentic living pirs whom you could ask directly too:-
In Pakistan:
Sayyid Afzal Hussain Shah Jama`ati sahib (Alipur Sharif, Narowal, Sialkot)
Sayyid Shah Abdul Haqq Sahib (Golra Sharif, Islamabad)
Sayyid Nasiruddin Nasir (Golra Sharif, Islamabad)
Hazrat Muhammad Ilyas Qadri Attaari (Karachi)
Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashadi (Multan?)
Sahibzada Abu`l Hasanat Shah s/o Pir Karam Shah (Bhera Sharif)
Mawlana Ahmad Shah Noorani (Karachi)
In India:
Sayyid Muhammad Madani Mian (Kachchocha Sharif, Faizabad, UP)
Sayyid Muhammad Hashmi MIan (ditto)
Mufti Akhtar Riza Khan sahib al Azhari (Bareilly Sharif, UP)
In the UK:
Sayyid Munawwar Hussain Shah Jama`ati (Birmingham)
Sayyid Abdul Qadir Shah Jilani (London)
Pirzada Muhammad Imdad Hussain (Nottingham)
Shaykh Abu Bakr as Sudani (London)
Pir Maruf Hussain Shah sahib (Bradford)
In the USA:
Shaykh Hisham Kabbani Naqshbandi Haqqani
Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller (but now lives in Kuwait)
Other scholars of great repute (but not pirs you can also rely on)
Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad (Cambridge, UK)
The following pir/walis are great men and often visit the UK/USA for lectures., Meeting them is a must and will solve all your problems:
Sayyid Habib Ali al Jifri (from Yemen)
Sayyid Habib Umar (from Yemen)
Sayyid Muhammad al Yaqoubi (from Syria)
These 3 above often visit the Zaytuna institute of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf in Santa Clara, California.
Also from Syria:
Shaykh Ahmad al Kuftaro Naqshbandi (Grand MUfti of Syria)
From Turkey/Cyprus:
Shaykh Nazim al Haqqani
Saudi Arabia:
Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al Maliki
Kuwait:
Sayyid Yusuf al Rifai
*************
There are many other awliya in the world but the above are enough I think. Surely one of them will be in a place near you or where you can see them at some time!
I hope I have been of help. Please forgive any lack of adab on my part in any of my posts.
wasalam
ps If you can read Urdu you are urged to read the works of Imam Ahmad Riza Khan too.
www.sunnirazvi.org will give you a good introduction to this great reviver of the 14th century hijri. Also visit www.alahazrat.net and Ala Hazrat Yahoo Group
(the site is in English)
Asif
Please advise.
Thank You.
786/92
assalamu alaykum. Peace be upon you from my heart to your heart. To proceed:
- Has any Pir or their Mureed ever addressed the issues with extremism in Mureedi?
Please define what you mean by ```extremism`` in mureedi`? Generally though--if I have understood your q properly (and apologies I have haven`t)--a person must check the authenticity of the pir in the light of Shariah to ensure he is not a fraud but a genuine wali who can lead the mureed to Allah. Once he is sure his pir is authentic then he should do bayah. Once he has done bayah though all of the great Sufis are agreed on this that he/she should then be like a dead corpse in the hands of his Pir ie he should no longer have any desires of his own but do anything and everything his pir tells him. If the pir tells him to jump in the fire he jumps without hesitation. Doubting the Pir will prevent the murid obtaining faiz...
- Has anyone of them ever spoken about mum`noo adjectives?
Whatever is mumnoo in Shariah is mumnoo for all Muslims whether they are murids or not. A real Pir must of necessity be an alim too but not every alim is a Pir! So yes every real Pir will have mentioned this issue of guarding one`s tongue (and thus I guess by extension guarding one`s written words too).
- Has any one of them ever shared their discourses on communication with women? Use and/or abuse of smiles!
Discourse on communication with women can be asked of any alim or Pir as it comes under a general aspect of fiqh. As for the use of smiles do you mean smilies which are used now in text?
- Has any one of them advised the Muslim Men to behave in a civilized manner and also articulated clearly the rules and regulations on civilization?
Of course. The whole of Islam and the Sufi path which is Islam`s highest expression is about attaining Adab and perfecting one`s character where good adab of course is defined by doing that which the Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam did or encouraged us to do (his sunnah) and leaving that which he forbade us from. A true wali is one who practises the Sunnah in toto as much as possible humanly.
If there is one who addressed the above pointers, I would be very keen to glance through his writings.
Many great walis/pirs have written on such matters. Probably those whose writings are most widely available in English translations are:
1. Imam Ghazzali.
2. Shaykh Abd al Qadir al Jilani (al Ghawth al Azam)
I do not know where you are in the world but here is a list of some real authentic living pirs whom you could ask directly too:-
In Pakistan:
Sayyid Afzal Hussain Shah Jama`ati sahib (Alipur Sharif, Narowal, Sialkot)
Sayyid Shah Abdul Haqq Sahib (Golra Sharif, Islamabad)
Sayyid Nasiruddin Nasir (Golra Sharif, Islamabad)
Hazrat Muhammad Ilyas Qadri Attaari (Karachi)
Sayyid Irfan Shah Mashadi (Multan?)
Sahibzada Abu`l Hasanat Shah s/o Pir Karam Shah (Bhera Sharif)
Mawlana Ahmad Shah Noorani (Karachi)
In India:
Sayyid Muhammad Madani Mian (Kachchocha Sharif, Faizabad, UP)
Sayyid Muhammad Hashmi MIan (ditto)
Mufti Akhtar Riza Khan sahib al Azhari (Bareilly Sharif, UP)
In the UK:
Sayyid Munawwar Hussain Shah Jama`ati (Birmingham)
Sayyid Abdul Qadir Shah Jilani (London)
Pirzada Muhammad Imdad Hussain (Nottingham)
Shaykh Abu Bakr as Sudani (London)
Pir Maruf Hussain Shah sahib (Bradford)
In the USA:
Shaykh Hisham Kabbani Naqshbandi Haqqani
Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller (but now lives in Kuwait)
Other scholars of great repute (but not pirs you can also rely on)
Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad (Cambridge, UK)
The following pir/walis are great men and often visit the UK/USA for lectures., Meeting them is a must and will solve all your problems:
Sayyid Habib Ali al Jifri (from Yemen)
Sayyid Habib Umar (from Yemen)
Sayyid Muhammad al Yaqoubi (from Syria)
These 3 above often visit the Zaytuna institute of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf in Santa Clara, California.
Also from Syria:
Shaykh Ahmad al Kuftaro Naqshbandi (Grand MUfti of Syria)
From Turkey/Cyprus:
Shaykh Nazim al Haqqani
Saudi Arabia:
Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al Maliki
Kuwait:
Sayyid Yusuf al Rifai
*************
There are many other awliya in the world but the above are enough I think. Surely one of them will be in a place near you or where you can see them at some time!
I hope I have been of help. Please forgive any lack of adab on my part in any of my posts.
wasalam
ps If you can read Urdu you are urged to read the works of Imam Ahmad Riza Khan too.
www.sunnirazvi.org will give you a good introduction to this great reviver of the 14th century hijri. Also visit www.alahazrat.net and Ala Hazrat Yahoo Group
(the site is in English)
Asif
Please advise.
Thank You.
#43 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 11, 2003 6:18:21 am
BTW if anyone wants to know the traditional islamic view on any matter (for research for example) the following websites are highly recommended:
http://www.nooremadinah.net/RazaEMustafa/QA/QA.html
www.dawateislami.net (Ask the Imam)
www.sunnipath.com (for written replies to queries ie online fatwas)
these two sites are the best for written material by far:
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/
www.sunnah.org/topics/
and the best site for hearing thousands of the great ulama speaking in real audio
www.yanabi.com
(voice of islam section)
www.nooremadinah.net
www.alhabibali.org
http://www.nooremadinah.net/RazaEMustafa/QA/QA.html
www.dawateislami.net (Ask the Imam)
www.sunnipath.com (for written replies to queries ie online fatwas)
these two sites are the best for written material by far:
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/
www.sunnah.org/topics/
and the best site for hearing thousands of the great ulama speaking in real audio
www.yanabi.com
(voice of islam section)
www.nooremadinah.net
www.alhabibali.org
#42 Posted by saminshah on August 11, 2003 12:25:46 am
#37 nasah
``and let me tell you samin shah -- it`s a great personal relief to know that your are NOT Saminasha:-) ``
astleast i m not as bad as u beleive.thanks
Islamic economics
There are many practices and teachings of Islam that inhibit economic development. The nature of Islamic education, the prohibition on interest and the efficiency of capital markets limit motivation and investment. Conflicts between secular and sharia law, lack of freedom of speech, democracy, political transparency and vulnerability to financial mal-practice limit to some degree the effectiveness of institutions in Islamic society. In addition, the time devoted to daily religious observances and annual festivals such as Ramadan detract from time available for economically productive activities to a greater extent than other religions. For all these reasons it is relevant to consider in greater detail the nature of Islamic thought and its impact on society and the economy.
Islamic economics
For Muslims, Islam is not merely a religion but a way of life in which it is necessary to know and apply the Quran. As Muslims regard the Quran is the infallible word of God, it is a determining factor in Islamic behavior and society. Its verses are not considered to be mere teachings but directives to believers. Of these, perhaps one of the most defining appears on the first line, which is ``This book is not to be doubted`` (1:1). References to the power of God in the Quran reinforce the need to obey His commands. Many of these commands apply to religious customs, social behavior, and other areas including those of relevance to commerce and economics.
Economics is a social science devoted to studying the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. It is the study of the nature of factors which determine production and consumption of goods and services and the relevance of this to human welfare. In what may seem surprising to economists elsewhere, Islamic scholars have developed a whole literature of economic discussion with reference to Islam. In this school of thought known as ``Islamic economics``, economic issues are evaluated in relation to Quranic principles, and mainstream economics is referred to as ``materialist economics``. The motivation for this formulation is the belief that capitalism has failed humanity because it is inequitable.
In the Islamic economic school of thought, the distribution of wealth, rather than the production of wealth, is considered to be the primary concern. To determine this distribution, is necessary to consider divine guidance. It is said that while Islam approves of economic progress, this is only a secondary consideration. The production of wealth is considered to arise necessarily from the production of the necessities of life. Whereas materialist economics is concerned with welfare, Islamic economics is concerned with proper conduct in preparation for the afterlife. Each of the following tenets used in Islamic economics are derived from quotations from the Quran. All wealth is created by God. It is therefore his property. Property and wealth can only be used for God’s purpose. The poor and the needy are entitled to wealth by right. Wealth should be shared not concentrated. Islam prohibits the lending of money for interest. Risk should not be born by the borrower but by the lender. The borrower may enter an agreement of partnership or co-operation with the lender. The lender can share the profits. However if there is no interest the borrower may bear the risk of loss. This will have a beneficial effect on the distribution of wealth. Employers must treat employees well and employees must perform their duties.
In addition to these economic directives, there are rules of taxation and inheritance that are defined in some detail. In many cases some reason or explanation is provided in the Quran for these injunctions. It the case of the prohibition on interest, this is stated but without any clarifying explanation. The lack of any explanation is held as further evidence of God’s wisdom. The rules as decreed in the Quran are not moral codes but legal injunctions, enforced by fear of God and anxiety about the afterlife. Depending on the country, these rules may also be enshrined in legislation.
Muslims are motivated by the ``call of Islam``, where they believe it is their duty to bring Islam to the entire world. They see the rest of the world as sick, immoral, tired of materialism and in need of salvation. They recognize that Islam has fallen behind in education, administration, commerce, scientific knowledge, industry and social services. However they see the application of religious life, not as the cause of this problem but as the solution. This leads to the desire to adopt Islam more thoroughly. By bringing a message that Islam stands for social justice and human values, they hope to convince the world of the righteousness of this path.
While Islamist to some extent reject the objectives of economic development, they also commonly see their relative poverty as being caused by Western failure or malevolence. They see international financiers as effectively defrauding developing countries. They see the failure of development efforts and widening gaps between rich and poor as evidence of this. They also see development as an attempt to transplant Western values and to undermine Islamic values, and as a form of cultural imperialism, which is divisive and inappropriate. They seek an alternative development strategy. To the islamist it must seem incongruous that as God is the source and owner of all wealth, that he should apparently bestow more of it upon non-Muslims. thats start confilts and diehard proverty
``and let me tell you samin shah -- it`s a great personal relief to know that your are NOT Saminasha:-) ``
astleast i m not as bad as u beleive.thanks
Islamic economics
There are many practices and teachings of Islam that inhibit economic development. The nature of Islamic education, the prohibition on interest and the efficiency of capital markets limit motivation and investment. Conflicts between secular and sharia law, lack of freedom of speech, democracy, political transparency and vulnerability to financial mal-practice limit to some degree the effectiveness of institutions in Islamic society. In addition, the time devoted to daily religious observances and annual festivals such as Ramadan detract from time available for economically productive activities to a greater extent than other religions. For all these reasons it is relevant to consider in greater detail the nature of Islamic thought and its impact on society and the economy.
Islamic economics
For Muslims, Islam is not merely a religion but a way of life in which it is necessary to know and apply the Quran. As Muslims regard the Quran is the infallible word of God, it is a determining factor in Islamic behavior and society. Its verses are not considered to be mere teachings but directives to believers. Of these, perhaps one of the most defining appears on the first line, which is ``This book is not to be doubted`` (1:1). References to the power of God in the Quran reinforce the need to obey His commands. Many of these commands apply to religious customs, social behavior, and other areas including those of relevance to commerce and economics.
Economics is a social science devoted to studying the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. It is the study of the nature of factors which determine production and consumption of goods and services and the relevance of this to human welfare. In what may seem surprising to economists elsewhere, Islamic scholars have developed a whole literature of economic discussion with reference to Islam. In this school of thought known as ``Islamic economics``, economic issues are evaluated in relation to Quranic principles, and mainstream economics is referred to as ``materialist economics``. The motivation for this formulation is the belief that capitalism has failed humanity because it is inequitable.
In the Islamic economic school of thought, the distribution of wealth, rather than the production of wealth, is considered to be the primary concern. To determine this distribution, is necessary to consider divine guidance. It is said that while Islam approves of economic progress, this is only a secondary consideration. The production of wealth is considered to arise necessarily from the production of the necessities of life. Whereas materialist economics is concerned with welfare, Islamic economics is concerned with proper conduct in preparation for the afterlife. Each of the following tenets used in Islamic economics are derived from quotations from the Quran. All wealth is created by God. It is therefore his property. Property and wealth can only be used for God’s purpose. The poor and the needy are entitled to wealth by right. Wealth should be shared not concentrated. Islam prohibits the lending of money for interest. Risk should not be born by the borrower but by the lender. The borrower may enter an agreement of partnership or co-operation with the lender. The lender can share the profits. However if there is no interest the borrower may bear the risk of loss. This will have a beneficial effect on the distribution of wealth. Employers must treat employees well and employees must perform their duties.
In addition to these economic directives, there are rules of taxation and inheritance that are defined in some detail. In many cases some reason or explanation is provided in the Quran for these injunctions. It the case of the prohibition on interest, this is stated but without any clarifying explanation. The lack of any explanation is held as further evidence of God’s wisdom. The rules as decreed in the Quran are not moral codes but legal injunctions, enforced by fear of God and anxiety about the afterlife. Depending on the country, these rules may also be enshrined in legislation.
Muslims are motivated by the ``call of Islam``, where they believe it is their duty to bring Islam to the entire world. They see the rest of the world as sick, immoral, tired of materialism and in need of salvation. They recognize that Islam has fallen behind in education, administration, commerce, scientific knowledge, industry and social services. However they see the application of religious life, not as the cause of this problem but as the solution. This leads to the desire to adopt Islam more thoroughly. By bringing a message that Islam stands for social justice and human values, they hope to convince the world of the righteousness of this path.
While Islamist to some extent reject the objectives of economic development, they also commonly see their relative poverty as being caused by Western failure or malevolence. They see international financiers as effectively defrauding developing countries. They see the failure of development efforts and widening gaps between rich and poor as evidence of this. They also see development as an attempt to transplant Western values and to undermine Islamic values, and as a form of cultural imperialism, which is divisive and inappropriate. They seek an alternative development strategy. To the islamist it must seem incongruous that as God is the source and owner of all wealth, that he should apparently bestow more of it upon non-Muslims. thats start confilts and diehard proverty
#41 Posted by ZahraJ on August 10, 2003 9:48:51 pm
Brother Naqshbandi:
- Has any Pir or their Mureed ever addressed the issues with extremism in Mureedi?
- Has anyone of them ever spoken about mum`noo adjectives?
- Has any one of them ever shared their discourses on communication with women? Use and/or abuse of smiles!
- Has any one of them advised the Muslim Men to behave in a civilized manner and also articulated clearly the rules and regulations on civilization?
If there is one who addressed the above pointers, I would be very keen to glance through his writings.
Please advise.
Thank You.
- Has any Pir or their Mureed ever addressed the issues with extremism in Mureedi?
- Has anyone of them ever spoken about mum`noo adjectives?
- Has any one of them ever shared their discourses on communication with women? Use and/or abuse of smiles!
- Has any one of them advised the Muslim Men to behave in a civilized manner and also articulated clearly the rules and regulations on civilization?
If there is one who addressed the above pointers, I would be very keen to glance through his writings.
Please advise.
Thank You.
#40 Posted by dost_mittar on August 10, 2003 8:52:54 pm
saminshah:
I agreed with you that the concept of dar-ul-harb shuld be revisited, especially by those who have rejected dar-ul-islam to come to this same dar-ul-harb.
I agreed with you that the concept of dar-ul-harb shuld be revisited, especially by those who have rejected dar-ul-islam to come to this same dar-ul-harb.
#39 Posted by dost_mittar on August 10, 2003 8:46:02 pm
Naqshbandi:
``God has set a seal on their hearts and on their ears; and there is a covering on their eyes; and for them shall be a big punishment.(7) ``
What kind of God is it who has first discriminated against me by setting a seal on my heart and my ears and then gives me a big punishment for the consequences of His own act of discrimination in the first place?
And you still call him The All Merciful? Does your Aqueeda mean that you should not use any common sense logic provided by Allah or anyone else?
``God has set a seal on their hearts and on their ears; and there is a covering on their eyes; and for them shall be a big punishment.(7) ``
What kind of God is it who has first discriminated against me by setting a seal on my heart and my ears and then gives me a big punishment for the consequences of His own act of discrimination in the first place?
And you still call him The All Merciful? Does your Aqueeda mean that you should not use any common sense logic provided by Allah or anyone else?
#38 Posted by hamidm2 on August 10, 2003 8:16:30 pm
sameerjb
``Muslims need to create a critical balancing mass of atheists, agnostics, liberals, nominal Muslims, westernized, alcohol drinker, pork eater, coke-pepsi-burger folks and even fornicators.``........ some of us have been performing these public services for years without any acknowledgment from a thankless ummah !.......... but we have done our duty and, i must add, had some fun along the way!........
............ but you do make a very valid point ........ the problem with islam is that it demands mindless conformity within very confined limits that are defined by misogynist mullahs and the imaginary god that they serve .......... most muslim societies are stifling, oppressive, medieval and doenright scary ............ so i was pleasently surprised by what i saw in dubai a few weeks ago - i actually saw muslims co-existing peacefully with other people without trying to impose their silly religious views and customs on them ............it was refreshing..........
``Muslims need to create a critical balancing mass of atheists, agnostics, liberals, nominal Muslims, westernized, alcohol drinker, pork eater, coke-pepsi-burger folks and even fornicators.``........ some of us have been performing these public services for years without any acknowledgment from a thankless ummah !.......... but we have done our duty and, i must add, had some fun along the way!........
............ but you do make a very valid point ........ the problem with islam is that it demands mindless conformity within very confined limits that are defined by misogynist mullahs and the imaginary god that they serve .......... most muslim societies are stifling, oppressive, medieval and doenright scary ............ so i was pleasently surprised by what i saw in dubai a few weeks ago - i actually saw muslims co-existing peacefully with other people without trying to impose their silly religious views and customs on them ............it was refreshing..........
#37 Posted by SameerJB on August 10, 2003 6:27:58 pm
I have been following these discussions about ijtehad, reformation and reinterpretation of scripture, liturgy and dogma in social gatherings, media and now on internet for more than ten years. I have been very disillusioned by the passion for change restricted to theological arena. In my opinion, this happens to be the most difficult goal-oriented route route.
What saminshah has said is essentially, Islamailies sect`s point of view and it has taken centuries for them to reach at this level. I recall an interview with Taliban`s information minister on TV in which he used a term, ``Allah knows better`` very often. In Islam, god is absolute in all respects and if he said something without specifically making it time dependent, it is meant to be for all time to come. Minister was asked about the common sense and intelligence with regard to role of women in society. His reply was that even his common sense or collective consciousness of society or collective determination of the intellectuals of Afghan society reach a conslusion that is religious injunction by god and delivered by prophet means everybody is wrong because god can not be wrong. Challenging god is impossible in monotheistic religions; even pope can not do it. The things need to be done are easy said than done. That is inherent in theology because it can not deny the supreme power to invisible hand who communicated through prophets.
Muslim societies are weakest, failing and falling back in the comfort of religion in dealing the problems of the modern world. It has to do with ego also. A society is not going to collectively agree that they are a failure in the modern world. Instead, they will stick to their arrows and camels because they can not be taken away from them. They take more and more comfort in pleasing Allah with more and more failures.
The problem is and the solution is not theology. Scinetifically all theologies are bogus. But it is difficult to convince billions of people that they are fooling themselves with rituals and wasting time and energies. Therefore, like theological solution of reinterpretation etc, scientific solution is also not feasible. The problem of Muslim societies are in fact sociological. Their performance is poorest in comparison to their neighbors. All over Africa and in subcontinent, Muslims performed poorly in moving along the modern world. The social indicators clearly point to poor education, larger family size, lower status of women, time, money and energy spent on performing rituals etc. That is why, I am convinced that the answer lies in sociology and not in science, theology, history or anthropology.
As I said before, Muslims need to create a critical balancing mass of atheists, agnostics, liberals, nominal Muslims, westernized, alcohol drinker, pork eater, coke-pepsi-burger folks and even fornicators. Some of these habits might be deemed injurious to the health of individuals but their influence on Muslims society is bound to be positive. The society need a pull in the opposite direction to offest or drag orthodox, conservative, extremists, fanatics and islamists towards center and compete with wild-eyed educated alcohol drinkers in education, in healthcare, in contribution to society, in arts and so on. The challenge must be from within the society for everybody to see the benefits of modernization in the form of better food, better housing and better living standards. I understand fw people will die of cyrrhosis, some with drug over doze, some will pierce their eyebrows and tongues and increase in prostitution and crimes but this is small price to be paid by few thousands for the sake of millions or hundred of millions.
So instead of reinterpretation and reformation, open society with religion kicked out of politics (strongest point from Islamic point of view) serves Muslims better. Let there be alcohol, music, dance, dating, flirting, schools, hospitals, movies etc because this is the best strategy to wake up Muslims from dreaming about heaven and nightmares of hell excessively. All they need is to decrease influence of Islam in daily life. The answer to sociological problems lies in sociology and not in twisting theology.
What saminshah has said is essentially, Islamailies sect`s point of view and it has taken centuries for them to reach at this level. I recall an interview with Taliban`s information minister on TV in which he used a term, ``Allah knows better`` very often. In Islam, god is absolute in all respects and if he said something without specifically making it time dependent, it is meant to be for all time to come. Minister was asked about the common sense and intelligence with regard to role of women in society. His reply was that even his common sense or collective consciousness of society or collective determination of the intellectuals of Afghan society reach a conslusion that is religious injunction by god and delivered by prophet means everybody is wrong because god can not be wrong. Challenging god is impossible in monotheistic religions; even pope can not do it. The things need to be done are easy said than done. That is inherent in theology because it can not deny the supreme power to invisible hand who communicated through prophets.
Muslim societies are weakest, failing and falling back in the comfort of religion in dealing the problems of the modern world. It has to do with ego also. A society is not going to collectively agree that they are a failure in the modern world. Instead, they will stick to their arrows and camels because they can not be taken away from them. They take more and more comfort in pleasing Allah with more and more failures.
The problem is and the solution is not theology. Scinetifically all theologies are bogus. But it is difficult to convince billions of people that they are fooling themselves with rituals and wasting time and energies. Therefore, like theological solution of reinterpretation etc, scientific solution is also not feasible. The problem of Muslim societies are in fact sociological. Their performance is poorest in comparison to their neighbors. All over Africa and in subcontinent, Muslims performed poorly in moving along the modern world. The social indicators clearly point to poor education, larger family size, lower status of women, time, money and energy spent on performing rituals etc. That is why, I am convinced that the answer lies in sociology and not in science, theology, history or anthropology.
As I said before, Muslims need to create a critical balancing mass of atheists, agnostics, liberals, nominal Muslims, westernized, alcohol drinker, pork eater, coke-pepsi-burger folks and even fornicators. Some of these habits might be deemed injurious to the health of individuals but their influence on Muslims society is bound to be positive. The society need a pull in the opposite direction to offest or drag orthodox, conservative, extremists, fanatics and islamists towards center and compete with wild-eyed educated alcohol drinkers in education, in healthcare, in contribution to society, in arts and so on. The challenge must be from within the society for everybody to see the benefits of modernization in the form of better food, better housing and better living standards. I understand fw people will die of cyrrhosis, some with drug over doze, some will pierce their eyebrows and tongues and increase in prostitution and crimes but this is small price to be paid by few thousands for the sake of millions or hundred of millions.
So instead of reinterpretation and reformation, open society with religion kicked out of politics (strongest point from Islamic point of view) serves Muslims better. Let there be alcohol, music, dance, dating, flirting, schools, hospitals, movies etc because this is the best strategy to wake up Muslims from dreaming about heaven and nightmares of hell excessively. All they need is to decrease influence of Islam in daily life. The answer to sociological problems lies in sociology and not in twisting theology.
#36 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 10, 2003 5:40:44 pm
ALBAQARAH (2)
``The Cow``
(Revealed at Medina, Verses 286)
In the name of Allah, The Merciful, The All-merciful
Alif Lam Mim (A.L.M.); (1)
this is the Book, **no doubt in it**, a guidance to the godfearing, (2)
who believe without seeing, establish the Prayer and expend of that We have provided them; (3)
who believe in what has been sent down to thee and what has been sent down before thee, and they are sure about the Hereafter. (4)
Those are upon guidance from their Lord, and those are the ones who shall prosper.(5)
Those who disbelieve, it is equal for them whether thou warn them or warn them not, they will not believe. (6)
God has set a seal on their hearts and on their ears; and there is a covering on their eyes; and for them shall be a big punishment.(7)
#35 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 10, 2003 5:26:45 pm
echoboom wrote:
``A mad mulla-cum-sane scientist is evil. A mad scientist-cum-sane mulla equally evil. But a Rasputin-cum-Dr.Strangelove?``
how on earth did you get from my request to a interactor not to slander a Sahabi (Hazrat Khalid ibn Walid) to the above?!
Whether you consider me a good muslim or not is of concern to me but i am neither a mad scientist nor a mad mullah nor rasputin nor dr. strangelove!
``A mad mulla-cum-sane scientist is evil. A mad scientist-cum-sane mulla equally evil. But a Rasputin-cum-Dr.Strangelove?``
how on earth did you get from my request to a interactor not to slander a Sahabi (Hazrat Khalid ibn Walid) to the above?!
Whether you consider me a good muslim or not is of concern to me but i am neither a mad scientist nor a mad mullah nor rasputin nor dr. strangelove!
#34 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 10, 2003 5:26:45 pm
This is nothing new. Orientalists have always tried their hardest to discredit the Quran Sharif. Hazrat Pir Karam Shah Sahib al Azhari has answered these and other allegations in his masterly tafsir Zia ul Quran (Zia ul Quran Publications, Lahore).
**
Many hadiths report that Allah`s Messenger and many of the Sahaba were already Hafiz of the Quran during the worldy lifetime of Allah`s Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam). Therefore if the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam had not already told them the exact order of the Qur`anic verses how were they memorising it all and becoming hafiz and reciting it during tarawih and othe prayers?!
Allah has promised to protect His Word in the Quran itself therefore no amount of revisionist thinking or orientalist meddling can ever bring even the slightest doubt into the hearts of the believers regarding the authenticity and miraculous nature of the Quran Sharif.
**
Many hadiths report that Allah`s Messenger and many of the Sahaba were already Hafiz of the Quran during the worldy lifetime of Allah`s Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam). Therefore if the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam had not already told them the exact order of the Qur`anic verses how were they memorising it all and becoming hafiz and reciting it during tarawih and othe prayers?!
Allah has promised to protect His Word in the Quran itself therefore no amount of revisionist thinking or orientalist meddling can ever bring even the slightest doubt into the hearts of the believers regarding the authenticity and miraculous nature of the Quran Sharif.
#33 Posted by nasah on August 10, 2003 3:56:45 pm
Mr/Ms Samin Shah:
you did not understand why dost-mitter applauded you because you are NO Saminashah --
I see -- you love building your own premises and then fly high with your sweeping generelizations like the following gems:
``Some people do protest any war,``
`` especially left-leaning folks living in the western world and leftists/communists in the Third world countries also do protest almost any war.``
I agree with you -- everybody should love war --
ah those hateful leftists they are such habitual war potester offenders -- they should be hanged by the nearest pole for promoting HATRED against War Mongering -- and for exhibiting shamelessly Fascist-Despising BIGOTRY.
``But it was puzzling to me why Most Muslims staunchly supported Iraqi Dictator`` --
I thought most Europeans, most Asians, most Africans Muslims or NonMulsims supported Iraq -- NOT Saddam -- unless in your mind theya are the same..
``It is concept which work in diehard Islamist mindset. nothing wrong in saddam who kills Muslims at rate of tons until he is Muslim. but when some infidel country invaded even to save Kurd or shiya or Bangladeshi there was lot of hue and cry``
I guess ONLY a diehard Islamist mindset would not agree with your perfectly reasonable argument: Because Saddam kills Iraqis WHY NOT Bush should kill Iraqis .......
and let me tell you samin shah -- it`s a great personal relief to know that your are NOT Saminasha:-)
you did not understand why dost-mitter applauded you because you are NO Saminashah --
I see -- you love building your own premises and then fly high with your sweeping generelizations like the following gems:
``Some people do protest any war,``
`` especially left-leaning folks living in the western world and leftists/communists in the Third world countries also do protest almost any war.``
I agree with you -- everybody should love war --
ah those hateful leftists they are such habitual war potester offenders -- they should be hanged by the nearest pole for promoting HATRED against War Mongering -- and for exhibiting shamelessly Fascist-Despising BIGOTRY.
``But it was puzzling to me why Most Muslims staunchly supported Iraqi Dictator`` --
I thought most Europeans, most Asians, most Africans Muslims or NonMulsims supported Iraq -- NOT Saddam -- unless in your mind theya are the same..
``It is concept which work in diehard Islamist mindset. nothing wrong in saddam who kills Muslims at rate of tons until he is Muslim. but when some infidel country invaded even to save Kurd or shiya or Bangladeshi there was lot of hue and cry``
I guess ONLY a diehard Islamist mindset would not agree with your perfectly reasonable argument: Because Saddam kills Iraqis WHY NOT Bush should kill Iraqis .......
and let me tell you samin shah -- it`s a great personal relief to know that your are NOT Saminasha:-)
#32 Posted by saminshah on August 10, 2003 1:32:51 pm
Concept of Islamic brotherhood (ummah):
Understanding and analyzing diehard Islamic mindsets is not an easy job! Islam is the only religion which teaches Islamic brotherhood, that is, only a Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and a non-Muslim can not be a brother of any Muslim. Needless to mention that it was the same theory (Islamic virus) worked behind the mindsets of entire Arab nations who could not see any fairness for Bangalees freedom in 1971. They all supported marauding Pakistani military who were raping and killing millions of Bangalees (not so good muslims) only to save Islam. I will try to analyze some pertinent symptoms of Islamic brotherhood which was instrumental/pretext to the phenomenal Jihadi protests against Iraq war by all Muslims around the world.
In general many people of many countries including USA and Britain (real perpetrators) protested against Iraq war. Some people do protest any war, especially left-leaning folks living in the western world and leftists/communists in the Third world countries also do protest almost any war. Leftists are staunch enemy of America, because they consider America destroyed their dream of communism, that’s why. Now all Islamists do hate America because Islamists consider America as the biggest obstacle to their ardent dream of establishing real Islam on Allah’s earth. Islamists also can not tolerate America and the west because they blame west for their own failure.
We have seen this kind of protests during Vietnam War. Of course, Islamic folks did not bother/mind Uncle Sam’s utterly unjust war in Vietnam, because in those days of whipping communists by America, Islamists were having honeymoon with the Uncle Sam. Same was the case when NATO was whipping and beating hard on the back of Milosalav’s Sarbia, because at that time—it was Christian brothers whipping another Christian bad guy. Nothing was wrong in it! But it was puzzling to me why Most Muslims staunchly supported Iraqi Dictator. I demanded and still claim that this was just because Saddam is a Tyrant but Muslim Dictator. If he was not a Muslim dictator, or America attacked North Korea, no Muslim would ever bother about this war at all. Why I believe so? . It is concept which work in diehard Islamist mindset. nothing wrong in saddam who kills Muslims at rate of tons until he is Muslim. but when some infidel country invaded even to save Kurd or shiya or Bangladeshi there was lot of hue and cry.
Understanding and analyzing diehard Islamic mindsets is not an easy job! Islam is the only religion which teaches Islamic brotherhood, that is, only a Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and a non-Muslim can not be a brother of any Muslim. Needless to mention that it was the same theory (Islamic virus) worked behind the mindsets of entire Arab nations who could not see any fairness for Bangalees freedom in 1971. They all supported marauding Pakistani military who were raping and killing millions of Bangalees (not so good muslims) only to save Islam. I will try to analyze some pertinent symptoms of Islamic brotherhood which was instrumental/pretext to the phenomenal Jihadi protests against Iraq war by all Muslims around the world.
In general many people of many countries including USA and Britain (real perpetrators) protested against Iraq war. Some people do protest any war, especially left-leaning folks living in the western world and leftists/communists in the Third world countries also do protest almost any war. Leftists are staunch enemy of America, because they consider America destroyed their dream of communism, that’s why. Now all Islamists do hate America because Islamists consider America as the biggest obstacle to their ardent dream of establishing real Islam on Allah’s earth. Islamists also can not tolerate America and the west because they blame west for their own failure.
We have seen this kind of protests during Vietnam War. Of course, Islamic folks did not bother/mind Uncle Sam’s utterly unjust war in Vietnam, because in those days of whipping communists by America, Islamists were having honeymoon with the Uncle Sam. Same was the case when NATO was whipping and beating hard on the back of Milosalav’s Sarbia, because at that time—it was Christian brothers whipping another Christian bad guy. Nothing was wrong in it! But it was puzzling to me why Most Muslims staunchly supported Iraqi Dictator. I demanded and still claim that this was just because Saddam is a Tyrant but Muslim Dictator. If he was not a Muslim dictator, or America attacked North Korea, no Muslim would ever bother about this war at all. Why I believe so? . It is concept which work in diehard Islamist mindset. nothing wrong in saddam who kills Muslims at rate of tons until he is Muslim. but when some infidel country invaded even to save Kurd or shiya or Bangladeshi there was lot of hue and cry.
#31 Posted by saminshah on August 10, 2003 1:32:50 pm
#28 by dost-mittar on August 10, 2003 10:52am PT
Saminashah#27
Hear, hear!!
sorry i cant understand wht u wanna say
Saminashah#27
Hear, hear!!
sorry i cant understand wht u wanna say
#30 Posted by saminshah on August 10, 2003 1:32:50 pm
#23 by Saminasha on August 9, 2003 4:47pm PT
#20
To my doppleganger ``Saminshah``
sorry i m samin shah
#20
To my doppleganger ``Saminshah``
sorry i m samin shah
#29 Posted by Tehsinabbasi on August 10, 2003 11:01:18 am
Saminshah:
Precisely the point you make disheartens me to the point where I feel that no reform of the Muslim is possible. ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you`` does not apply to Muslims. A Muslim cannot be obliged at a personal level, and you can never expect to be treated with the same amount of kindness that you may have granted him. The value system just does not work this way.
You see everything emanates from God so if you satisfy their dire need, they are thankful to God for making you the source of this satisfaction. The maximum you can expect is their prayer that may God reward you for your kindness. In other words there is no personal gratitude nor an obligation to return the favor as an individual or to the society in general. This lack of personal accountability to your fellow man is perhaps the greatest impediment to the creation of a moral and just society in Islamic countries.
Precisely the point you make disheartens me to the point where I feel that no reform of the Muslim is possible. ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you`` does not apply to Muslims. A Muslim cannot be obliged at a personal level, and you can never expect to be treated with the same amount of kindness that you may have granted him. The value system just does not work this way.
You see everything emanates from God so if you satisfy their dire need, they are thankful to God for making you the source of this satisfaction. The maximum you can expect is their prayer that may God reward you for your kindness. In other words there is no personal gratitude nor an obligation to return the favor as an individual or to the society in general. This lack of personal accountability to your fellow man is perhaps the greatest impediment to the creation of a moral and just society in Islamic countries.
#27 Posted by saminshah on August 10, 2003 7:24:18 am
To start reform in Islam first we must reject some concepts.
There is concept of darul harb Territory of War .this concept must be rejected
As soon as possible by ummah.when this concept is rejected I think almost all
Problems are gone which today Muslims suffers.
second is jihad a akhtar.it also very dangerous consept must me rejected also.
Third is veil. Which is living jail for woman.
In that concepts darul harb is most dangerous one.
Thanks to liberal and non-discriminatory immigration policy of the infidels, millions of Muslims, living in many Islamic countries under abject poverty, misery and helplessness were able to migrate to these Kufur states (like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand….etc) to improve their lot; and many of them were able to do so.
Naturally, their host county would expect them to be thankful eternally for offering them this rare opportunity. Most Muslims have no problem in expressing such gratitude and loyalty to their adopted country. Nonetheless, such is not the case with the diehard Islamists. Let us ask the question of loyalty to an diehard Islamist who has migrated to a western country like the USA or Canada or Australia. What answer shall we expect?
If ask a few Islamists in Australia such a question. Their answer stunned me completely. We was appalled by their audacity and their show of ungratefulness. The blithe answer they gave was: It is not the Australian Government or its immigration policy that has brought them here (Australia). It was Allah who brought them in Australia. they told this place is darul harb. It is our duty to convert them is darul Islam. This type of concept
Bring skepticism of other races
#26 Posted by saminshah on August 10, 2003 1:04:34 am
How that work in mentalities. politicalize religion with state affairs.
It always ending with some stress. Laws of democracy is built by man
Not good as law of god. sound reasonable and music in ear. But at implementation
We can get difference between law by man and low by heaven. Even
Law created today will have to reform after 10 or 20 years because of
Changing ground realities how can law mad in 7th century can implement
as it is. why muslim get problem with every localities. today you can
see them fight everywhere because they cant mix up with other faith
Because of tie with religion in every step of life.
It always ending with some stress. Laws of democracy is built by man
Not good as law of god. sound reasonable and music in ear. But at implementation
We can get difference between law by man and low by heaven. Even
Law created today will have to reform after 10 or 20 years because of
Changing ground realities how can law mad in 7th century can implement
as it is. why muslim get problem with every localities. today you can
see them fight everywhere because they cant mix up with other faith
Because of tie with religion in every step of life.
#25 Posted by ZahraJ on August 9, 2003 9:16:20 pm
A correction: I meant ``perspective`` than ``personal`` in my last few lines.
#24 Posted by ZahraJ on August 9, 2003 6:24:36 pm
Dear Writer:
I had completely different expectations from this article. The personal preface is very well put together. The Background is somehow interesting initially and then it completely loses its momentum. Kuch Baat Naheen Bani! What`s the unusual element in this personal perspective ? Yes, it is very well written; but there is no thought provoking element here :(
As a reader, I won`t suggest going in the direction of writing a book on this topic. I would suggest keeping this to an article and sending it to the NY Times and other well known newspapers. Thomas Friedman and others have been taking immense pain to state their innovative results by listening and talking to muslims or visiting muslim countries.
Also, when you say,``your personal perspective`` it should have had some emotions. I do not like very emotional pieces in general; but I also find it strange when one is completely devoid of them. Had you not mentioned ``personal`` this won`t have stood out. Just my two cents.
Regards.
I had completely different expectations from this article. The personal preface is very well put together. The Background is somehow interesting initially and then it completely loses its momentum. Kuch Baat Naheen Bani! What`s the unusual element in this personal perspective ? Yes, it is very well written; but there is no thought provoking element here :(
As a reader, I won`t suggest going in the direction of writing a book on this topic. I would suggest keeping this to an article and sending it to the NY Times and other well known newspapers. Thomas Friedman and others have been taking immense pain to state their innovative results by listening and talking to muslims or visiting muslim countries.
Also, when you say,``your personal perspective`` it should have had some emotions. I do not like very emotional pieces in general; but I also find it strange when one is completely devoid of them. Had you not mentioned ``personal`` this won`t have stood out. Just my two cents.
Regards.
#23 Posted by Saminasha on August 9, 2003 4:47:01 pm
#20
To my doppleganger ``Saminshah``
Not bad as a practice rhetorical exercise-however, I`d work a bit on the conclusion. Usually the goal of writing rhetoric is to mobilize the reader to some kind of social action. Advocating reform is easy-outlining concise and relevant strategies that the layperson can execute is much more effective.
Also, brush up on that vocab and throw some poetic allusions. If you add a petulant yet piquant sense of humor and the inability to let an argument go, my work will be done here...
To my doppleganger ``Saminshah``
Not bad as a practice rhetorical exercise-however, I`d work a bit on the conclusion. Usually the goal of writing rhetoric is to mobilize the reader to some kind of social action. Advocating reform is easy-outlining concise and relevant strategies that the layperson can execute is much more effective.
Also, brush up on that vocab and throw some poetic allusions. If you add a petulant yet piquant sense of humor and the inability to let an argument go, my work will be done here...
#22 Posted by SameerJB on August 9, 2003 1:08:39 pm
Rasheed Talib:
I wish you good luck with regard to bringing the ``facts`` about Islam out in the form of a book, as you see them out of intellectual curiosity about Koran, necessity to offset challenges of radicalism-extremism-fanaticism in Islam and reinterpretation of scripture either fit for the modern world or the actual interpretation founders of Islam had in mind (both of them, it seems same in your opinion). Prometheus Books already have one book titled, ``Who Wrote Quran`` by Ibn Warraq (same person who also wrote, Why I am not a Muslim``). Prmoetheus is more of a pro-atheism publishing house than polishing existing religions to original shine, as your intention seems to be.
In the humble opinion of this former Muslim and a non-believer in god, the alternate strategy to curtail the vicious, vindictive, violent, vitriolic and venomous but visibly vibrant variant of Islam, is to help as many Muslims as possible to move away from it. Muslims lack critical mass of agnostics, religious liberals, nominal Muslims and atheists as intra-religious force to pull extremism towards center. The genetic engineering type of interpreting engineering treatment of it is much arduous task to stem the tide of extreme fanaticism that is threatening all ships and Muslim rudimentary boats in the sea. The boats are in much greater danger of sinking than western monstrous ships.
The inherent weaknesses of Islam in religious terms have always compensated by the strength in political terms throughout Islamic history. The waves of political successes have been the main reason for the success of Islam in subcontinent and many other parts of the world. It started as ethno-centric politics and used the muscle strength gained from politics, to formulate religion for the sake of hegemonic and justifications of the political modus operandi. It is unfortunate but true. The creation of Pakistan is a living proof of it. Although it was meant for protecting the interests of Muslims but politics made it possible. Once an idea that is believed to be divinely in origin, creates a blueprints for living accordingly with major strength coming from politics, political expediency through its literal exegesis can not be avoided. This is the only avenue available to curtail the challenges to weak doctrine. Islam is just another religion with plenty of weaknesses, myths, inconsistencies and traditions of seventh century Arabia without political Islam.
The strong political Islam strengthens, otherwise, weak Islamic religion through becoming ultra-dogmatic and doctrinal Islam weakens the 21st century Muslims by weakening the nationalism, ethnicity, rationalism, pragmatism, nation, economy, modernism etc with the help of political Islam.
P.S. It always helps to read before hitting post even if it is revealed or cognitive material.
I wish you good luck with regard to bringing the ``facts`` about Islam out in the form of a book, as you see them out of intellectual curiosity about Koran, necessity to offset challenges of radicalism-extremism-fanaticism in Islam and reinterpretation of scripture either fit for the modern world or the actual interpretation founders of Islam had in mind (both of them, it seems same in your opinion). Prometheus Books already have one book titled, ``Who Wrote Quran`` by Ibn Warraq (same person who also wrote, Why I am not a Muslim``). Prmoetheus is more of a pro-atheism publishing house than polishing existing religions to original shine, as your intention seems to be.
In the humble opinion of this former Muslim and a non-believer in god, the alternate strategy to curtail the vicious, vindictive, violent, vitriolic and venomous but visibly vibrant variant of Islam, is to help as many Muslims as possible to move away from it. Muslims lack critical mass of agnostics, religious liberals, nominal Muslims and atheists as intra-religious force to pull extremism towards center. The genetic engineering type of interpreting engineering treatment of it is much arduous task to stem the tide of extreme fanaticism that is threatening all ships and Muslim rudimentary boats in the sea. The boats are in much greater danger of sinking than western monstrous ships.
The inherent weaknesses of Islam in religious terms have always compensated by the strength in political terms throughout Islamic history. The waves of political successes have been the main reason for the success of Islam in subcontinent and many other parts of the world. It started as ethno-centric politics and used the muscle strength gained from politics, to formulate religion for the sake of hegemonic and justifications of the political modus operandi. It is unfortunate but true. The creation of Pakistan is a living proof of it. Although it was meant for protecting the interests of Muslims but politics made it possible. Once an idea that is believed to be divinely in origin, creates a blueprints for living accordingly with major strength coming from politics, political expediency through its literal exegesis can not be avoided. This is the only avenue available to curtail the challenges to weak doctrine. Islam is just another religion with plenty of weaknesses, myths, inconsistencies and traditions of seventh century Arabia without political Islam.
The strong political Islam strengthens, otherwise, weak Islamic religion through becoming ultra-dogmatic and doctrinal Islam weakens the 21st century Muslims by weakening the nationalism, ethnicity, rationalism, pragmatism, nation, economy, modernism etc with the help of political Islam.
P.S. It always helps to read before hitting post even if it is revealed or cognitive material.
#21 Posted by dost_mittar on August 9, 2003 12:08:53 pm
Talib Saheb:
Thanks for providing that very useful contextual material for the quran. I dont think there is anything there that even the orthodox ulema will take objection to.
I must say that my reaction while reading quran was the same as that of others, namely, one of incoherence and contradiction. While God is told to be merciful and forgiving, the overall impression one gets is one of a God who is quite strict, punishing and unforgiving, especially to those who do not accept the messages sent through the prophets.
Thanks for providing that very useful contextual material for the quran. I dont think there is anything there that even the orthodox ulema will take objection to.
I must say that my reaction while reading quran was the same as that of others, namely, one of incoherence and contradiction. While God is told to be merciful and forgiving, the overall impression one gets is one of a God who is quite strict, punishing and unforgiving, especially to those who do not accept the messages sent through the prophets.
#20 Posted by ECHOOOOBOOOM on August 9, 2003 11:17:11 am
Naqshbandi:
I consider Dost-mittar a better muslim than I consider you.
A mad mulla-cum-sane scientist is evil. A mad scientist-cum-sane mulla equally evil. But a Rasputin-cum-Dr.Strangelove?
Naoozobillah, astagfar-Ditto, Lahaulov-ditto.
`` One can live under a kaffir but just government but not under a muslim tyrant``
So simple. So true!
Can you (or anyone) tell/guess which sahabi said that? Each & every source of fiqhue is unanimous on this quote.
I consider Dost-mittar a better muslim than I consider you.
A mad mulla-cum-sane scientist is evil. A mad scientist-cum-sane mulla equally evil. But a Rasputin-cum-Dr.Strangelove?
Naoozobillah, astagfar-Ditto, Lahaulov-ditto.
`` One can live under a kaffir but just government but not under a muslim tyrant``
So simple. So true!
Can you (or anyone) tell/guess which sahabi said that? Each & every source of fiqhue is unanimous on this quote.
#19 Posted by SameerJB on August 9, 2003 11:17:11 am
Rasheed Talib:
I wish you good luck with regard to bringing the ``facts`` about Islam out in the form of a book, as you see them out of intellectual curiosity about koran, necessity to offset challenges of radicalism-extremeism-fanatisicsm in Islam and and reinterpretation of scripture either fit for the modern world or the actual interpretation founders of Islam had in mind (both of them, it seems same in your opinion). Prometheus Books already have one book titled, ``Who Wrote Quran`` by Ibn Warraq (same person who also wrote, Why I am not a Muslim``). Prmoetheus is more of a pro-atheism publishing house than polishing existing religions to original shine as your intention seems to be.
In the humble opinion of this former Muslim and a non-believer in god, the strategy to curtail the vicious, violent, vitriolic and venomous but visibly vibrant variant of Islam is help as many Muslims as possible to move away from it. Muslims lack critical mass of agnostics, religious liberals, nominal Muslims and athiests as intra-religous force to pull extremeism towards center. The genetic engineering type of interpreting engineering treatment of it is much ardous task to stem the tide of extreme fanaticism that is threatening all ships and Muslim rudimentary boats in the sea. The boats are in much greater danger of sinking than western monsterous ships.
The inherent weakness of Islam in religious terms have always compensated by the strength in political terms throughout Islamic history. The waves of political successes have been the main reason for the success of Islam in subcontinent and many other parts of the world. It started as ethno-centric politics and used the muscles strength gained from politics, to formulate religion in order to hegemonize and justify the politics. It is unfortunate but true. The creation of Pakistan is a living proof of it. Although it was meant for protecting the interests of Muslims but politics made it possible. Once an idea that is believed to be divinely in origin, creates a blueprints for living accordingly with major strength coming from politics, political expediency through its literal exegesis can not be avoided. This is the only avenue available to curtail the challenges to weak doctrine. Without political Islam, it is just another religion with plenty of weaknesses, myths, inconsistencies and traditions of seventh century Arabia.
I wish you good luck with regard to bringing the ``facts`` about Islam out in the form of a book, as you see them out of intellectual curiosity about koran, necessity to offset challenges of radicalism-extremeism-fanatisicsm in Islam and and reinterpretation of scripture either fit for the modern world or the actual interpretation founders of Islam had in mind (both of them, it seems same in your opinion). Prometheus Books already have one book titled, ``Who Wrote Quran`` by Ibn Warraq (same person who also wrote, Why I am not a Muslim``). Prmoetheus is more of a pro-atheism publishing house than polishing existing religions to original shine as your intention seems to be.
In the humble opinion of this former Muslim and a non-believer in god, the strategy to curtail the vicious, violent, vitriolic and venomous but visibly vibrant variant of Islam is help as many Muslims as possible to move away from it. Muslims lack critical mass of agnostics, religious liberals, nominal Muslims and athiests as intra-religous force to pull extremeism towards center. The genetic engineering type of interpreting engineering treatment of it is much ardous task to stem the tide of extreme fanaticism that is threatening all ships and Muslim rudimentary boats in the sea. The boats are in much greater danger of sinking than western monsterous ships.
The inherent weakness of Islam in religious terms have always compensated by the strength in political terms throughout Islamic history. The waves of political successes have been the main reason for the success of Islam in subcontinent and many other parts of the world. It started as ethno-centric politics and used the muscles strength gained from politics, to formulate religion in order to hegemonize and justify the politics. It is unfortunate but true. The creation of Pakistan is a living proof of it. Although it was meant for protecting the interests of Muslims but politics made it possible. Once an idea that is believed to be divinely in origin, creates a blueprints for living accordingly with major strength coming from politics, political expediency through its literal exegesis can not be avoided. This is the only avenue available to curtail the challenges to weak doctrine. Without political Islam, it is just another religion with plenty of weaknesses, myths, inconsistencies and traditions of seventh century Arabia.
#18 Posted by saminshah on August 9, 2003 11:17:11 am
why in todays world islam links with terror.simple reason for this is every relegion of world at some times required reform.christianity reformed in 19th century.hinduism in prosses of reform.bu no muslim try to think abt reform of islam.some interesting fect of there mentality is below
Insist that violent passages in the Quran only apply to long-ago historical incidents (like the battle of Badr), but then also insist that the Quran is a book of guidance ``for all times and all people
Insist that ``truth stands from error`` and that Islam can stand on its own merits as the ``one true religion``, while laboring endlessly to squash all criticism and discussion of Islam
Insist that women achieve TRUE liberation through Islam! Never mind those ideas about real equality with men in all areas of life, men and women are so different, and shari`ah ``realistically`` acknowledges these differences, unlike those evil man-made law systems that suggest otherwise!
Insist how ``liberating`` it is for women to wear a piece of cloth on their heads.
Insist that Muslims should enjoy all human rights and make infinite number of mosques in western countries but ban Kafirs from Mecca and Medina. Preaching of any other religion is not allowed in any Islamic country
Insist that Islam liberated women when no Islamic society treats them nicely
Insist that terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not perpetrated by Muslims, but the countries who are the victims of the terrorist attacks deserve it because of their foreign policy towards Islamic countries.
muslims have to come out of this mentality and start reform of islam.
Insist that violent passages in the Quran only apply to long-ago historical incidents (like the battle of Badr), but then also insist that the Quran is a book of guidance ``for all times and all people
Insist that ``truth stands from error`` and that Islam can stand on its own merits as the ``one true religion``, while laboring endlessly to squash all criticism and discussion of Islam
Insist that women achieve TRUE liberation through Islam! Never mind those ideas about real equality with men in all areas of life, men and women are so different, and shari`ah ``realistically`` acknowledges these differences, unlike those evil man-made law systems that suggest otherwise!
Insist how ``liberating`` it is for women to wear a piece of cloth on their heads.
Insist that Muslims should enjoy all human rights and make infinite number of mosques in western countries but ban Kafirs from Mecca and Medina. Preaching of any other religion is not allowed in any Islamic country
Insist that Islam liberated women when no Islamic society treats them nicely
Insist that terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not perpetrated by Muslims, but the countries who are the victims of the terrorist attacks deserve it because of their foreign policy towards Islamic countries.
muslims have to come out of this mentality and start reform of islam.
#17 Posted by macgupta on August 9, 2003 8:48:21 am
A collection of essays, edited by Ibn Warraq
What the Koran Really Says
Language, Text & Commentary
Prometheus Books
ISBN 1-57392-945-X
From one of the essays :
``A distinctive feature of all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani and on into the Marwanid one is the complete absence of any reference to Muhammad. Neither the Prophet himself nor any Muhammadan formulae appear in any inscription dated before the year 71/691.
``This is true whether the religious content of the inscriptions is its main purpose, as in supplications ( `adi`iya, s.g du`a`), or wheter it is part of a commemorative inscription with a religious emphasis (Mu`awiya`s dam inscription near Ta`if). When an inscription is religious, the absence of any Muhammadan locution is an argumentum e silencio of considerable weight. It is a fact that the name of the Prophet Muhammad and the use of set phrases or formulae which can be shown to be connected with his name occur in the Arab inscriptions only after ca. 70/690.
``We can, in fact, be more precise: The first occurrence of ``Muhammad`` and the Triple Confession of Faith, viz. 1. tawhid (with or without `adam al-sirk but always with the world wahdahu [``alone``], and not, for example, the words illa huwa [``but He``]); 2. Muhammad rasul Allah; 3. the human nature of Jesus (Isa) as merely rasul Allah wa-abdhuu is in `Abd al-Malik`s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated in the inscription itself A.H. 72/691-92.
``And the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad Rasul Allah is from just one year before that, from an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. `Abdallah from the year 71/691 which was struck in Damascus!....And after 72/691-92 and all through the Marwanid dynasty, Muhammad`s name occurs as a rule whenever religious formulae are employed: on coins, milestones and papyrus ``protocols``.
``If no religious text dating from before 72/691-92 had been discovered, we might have concluded that it took time for any religious notions to penetrate the Arabic inscriptions. But the first Arabic papyrus, an entaqion (receipt for taxes paid) from Egypt dated 22/642, is headed by the basmala in both Greek and Arabic (in that order). Whle the basmala is a monotheistic preamble-formula, it betrays no specific creed : it is unquestionably not Christian, but neither is it Muslim per se.
``The religious content is more pronounced in the rock inscriptions, which start in about the 40s of the first century A.H., and on the Arab-Sassanian coins prior to 71/691-92. These bear religious texts, but with no mention of the Prophet or of Muhammadan formulae. This means that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formulae in its repertoire of set phrases at this time. I will refer to this religious stage as ``pre-Muhammadan``.
The pre-Muhammadan texts exhibit what I call ``indeterminate monotheism`` : a monotheistic form of belief, but one which contains no features specific to a known monotheistic religion. The Muhammadan texts differ greatly from them. The introduction of Muhammadan variables indicates the imposition of new confessional notions on a pre-existing stratum of belief. Muhammadanism is a previously unattested Marwanid introduction. And the result became - overnight! - the state`s ONLY form of official religious declaration, to be used in certain kinds of formal documents and inscriptions, as, for example, the papyrus ``protocols``. In short, the state decided, as a political act, to adopt Muhammadanism as its official creed.
Future discoveries can negate this hypothesis. But there remains something to be explained.
What the Koran Really Says
Language, Text & Commentary
Prometheus Books
ISBN 1-57392-945-X
From one of the essays :
``A distinctive feature of all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani and on into the Marwanid one is the complete absence of any reference to Muhammad. Neither the Prophet himself nor any Muhammadan formulae appear in any inscription dated before the year 71/691.
``This is true whether the religious content of the inscriptions is its main purpose, as in supplications ( `adi`iya, s.g du`a`), or wheter it is part of a commemorative inscription with a religious emphasis (Mu`awiya`s dam inscription near Ta`if). When an inscription is religious, the absence of any Muhammadan locution is an argumentum e silencio of considerable weight. It is a fact that the name of the Prophet Muhammad and the use of set phrases or formulae which can be shown to be connected with his name occur in the Arab inscriptions only after ca. 70/690.
``We can, in fact, be more precise: The first occurrence of ``Muhammad`` and the Triple Confession of Faith, viz. 1. tawhid (with or without `adam al-sirk but always with the world wahdahu [``alone``], and not, for example, the words illa huwa [``but He``]); 2. Muhammad rasul Allah; 3. the human nature of Jesus (Isa) as merely rasul Allah wa-abdhuu is in `Abd al-Malik`s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated in the inscription itself A.H. 72/691-92.
``And the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad Rasul Allah is from just one year before that, from an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. `Abdallah from the year 71/691 which was struck in Damascus!....And after 72/691-92 and all through the Marwanid dynasty, Muhammad`s name occurs as a rule whenever religious formulae are employed: on coins, milestones and papyrus ``protocols``.
``If no religious text dating from before 72/691-92 had been discovered, we might have concluded that it took time for any religious notions to penetrate the Arabic inscriptions. But the first Arabic papyrus, an entaqion (receipt for taxes paid) from Egypt dated 22/642, is headed by the basmala in both Greek and Arabic (in that order). Whle the basmala is a monotheistic preamble-formula, it betrays no specific creed : it is unquestionably not Christian, but neither is it Muslim per se.
``The religious content is more pronounced in the rock inscriptions, which start in about the 40s of the first century A.H., and on the Arab-Sassanian coins prior to 71/691-92. These bear religious texts, but with no mention of the Prophet or of Muhammadan formulae. This means that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formulae in its repertoire of set phrases at this time. I will refer to this religious stage as ``pre-Muhammadan``.
The pre-Muhammadan texts exhibit what I call ``indeterminate monotheism`` : a monotheistic form of belief, but one which contains no features specific to a known monotheistic religion. The Muhammadan texts differ greatly from them. The introduction of Muhammadan variables indicates the imposition of new confessional notions on a pre-existing stratum of belief. Muhammadanism is a previously unattested Marwanid introduction. And the result became - overnight! - the state`s ONLY form of official religious declaration, to be used in certain kinds of formal documents and inscriptions, as, for example, the papyrus ``protocols``. In short, the state decided, as a political act, to adopt Muhammadanism as its official creed.
Future discoveries can negate this hypothesis. But there remains something to be explained.
#16 Posted by dost_mittar on August 9, 2003 7:34:08 am
Tehsinabbasi:
``I will most certainly send against you a people who love death just as you love life.``
You have identified the core issue that the Non-Muslim world has with Islam. As long as Muslims continue to take pride in those who love death more than life, it will be hard for non-Muslims to accept Islam as a `relgion of peace` no matter how many times some spin doctors keep chanting that mantra.
``I will most certainly send against you a people who love death just as you love life.``
You have identified the core issue that the Non-Muslim world has with Islam. As long as Muslims continue to take pride in those who love death more than life, it will be hard for non-Muslims to accept Islam as a `relgion of peace` no matter how many times some spin doctors keep chanting that mantra.
#15 Posted by ECHOOOOBOOOM on August 9, 2003 7:34:06 am
9:Rashid Talib
All ulemas are thoroughly exposed to such arguments or `facts` as you put them. Allama
Iqbal has also covered this subject.
You are saying nothing new under the sun. Such discourse is THE most cherished and celebrated part of our heritage. Books about such discourses by mutazzalites ashha`aries and many other `schools` (not fiqhues or sects--mind you) are still available in their entirety, uncensored and un-expurgated. In fact they are a required reading for ulemas.
Yours is an innocent enquiry. You want to learn . You are interested in removing your own doubts and confusuions. You can do no harm to anyone. Your desire is sincere viz-a-viz the satanic-curses. Please do not demean yourself by associating yourself to those two riff-raffs.
Happy writing and publishing!
All ulemas are thoroughly exposed to such arguments or `facts` as you put them. Allama
Iqbal has also covered this subject.
You are saying nothing new under the sun. Such discourse is THE most cherished and celebrated part of our heritage. Books about such discourses by mutazzalites ashha`aries and many other `schools` (not fiqhues or sects--mind you) are still available in their entirety, uncensored and un-expurgated. In fact they are a required reading for ulemas.
Yours is an innocent enquiry. You want to learn . You are interested in removing your own doubts and confusuions. You can do no harm to anyone. Your desire is sincere viz-a-viz the satanic-curses. Please do not demean yourself by associating yourself to those two riff-raffs.
Happy writing and publishing!
#14 Posted by nasah on August 9, 2003 7:34:06 am
``Mainstream sects of Islam all subscribe to the belief that the Prophet received the revelations at various stages of his prohethood, as and when he needed God’s guidance.``
(RASHEED TALIB)
......AND therein lies the CRUX of the problem facing the ``Mainstream sects of Islam `` -- if your book is based is on this premise -- then you are no reformer, Rasheed Talib
let me tell you something that you ought to know about the mainstream Christians of the Western World -- it took ``Main stream Christian`` scholars -- one hundred years -- to shed this very same notion that -- Bible is God words verbatim revealed to Prophethoods as and when they needed God` Guidance....
and look where they are.......and where we are......
UNLESS any Muslim Reformer/Scholar worth the salt -- has the courage to take up this gauntlet and call a spade a spade -- there is no salvation for the Muslims in the near future -
talking of courage -- you see even I don`t have the courage to say -- that the Quran is not the God`s word revealed to the prophet -- it is a man made geohistorical book of the region...the LAST in the series of the three books......over an expanse of 5 thousand years
but of course I am no Scholar either......
(RASHEED TALIB)
......AND therein lies the CRUX of the problem facing the ``Mainstream sects of Islam `` -- if your book is based is on this premise -- then you are no reformer, Rasheed Talib
let me tell you something that you ought to know about the mainstream Christians of the Western World -- it took ``Main stream Christian`` scholars -- one hundred years -- to shed this very same notion that -- Bible is God words verbatim revealed to Prophethoods as and when they needed God` Guidance....
and look where they are.......and where we are......
UNLESS any Muslim Reformer/Scholar worth the salt -- has the courage to take up this gauntlet and call a spade a spade -- there is no salvation for the Muslims in the near future -
talking of courage -- you see even I don`t have the courage to say -- that the Quran is not the God`s word revealed to the prophet -- it is a man made geohistorical book of the region...the LAST in the series of the three books......over an expanse of 5 thousand years
but of course I am no Scholar either......
#13 Posted by hamidm2 on August 9, 2003 7:34:06 am
mr abbasi,
......... you are a trouble maker - next thing we know you will be suggesting that the prophet committed violence against the people of mecca .... anouzobillah!........people like you are constantly providing fodder to enemies of the ummah like jay..........it is not advisable to air dirty family laundry in public...................stop digging up dirt on great muslims like khalid bin walid, tariq in ziad, muhammad bin qasim and tiger bin niazi or else we will have to talk about your trecherous ancestors who did more harm to baghdad than uday bin saddam .................
......... i think it was dost-mittar who asked if it is possible to separate religion and politics in islam ........ personally i don`t think it is possible, unless gabriel drops by with a revision and you are home to receive it........but what do you think ?............. however, i must say that i saw some hope for the ummah in the fact that the bar tender at dubai airport continued to pour me a drink even as the muezzin wailed ..............
......... you are a trouble maker - next thing we know you will be suggesting that the prophet committed violence against the people of mecca .... anouzobillah!........people like you are constantly providing fodder to enemies of the ummah like jay..........it is not advisable to air dirty family laundry in public...................stop digging up dirt on great muslims like khalid bin walid, tariq in ziad, muhammad bin qasim and tiger bin niazi or else we will have to talk about your trecherous ancestors who did more harm to baghdad than uday bin saddam .................
......... i think it was dost-mittar who asked if it is possible to separate religion and politics in islam ........ personally i don`t think it is possible, unless gabriel drops by with a revision and you are home to receive it........but what do you think ?............. however, i must say that i saw some hope for the ummah in the fact that the bar tender at dubai airport continued to pour me a drink even as the muezzin wailed ..............
#12 Posted by jay on August 8, 2003 11:34:34 pm
Rasheed,
In your islamic manifesto, what is needed is not yet another interpretation of the but the courrage to change the present course of islam. Are you bold enough to say, `` jihad is not killing of kafirs``. Well I can assure you that no interpretation can come to the above conclusion, and there in lies the pathos of yet another interpretation.
When the world links islam to terrorism, it is only this central concept of islam that people are focussing on. At some level you have to accept that an religion assures heaven for its stauchest follower, and in islam the only guarenteed heaven is for a shaheed, the one who went and killed a few kafirs. Not only the chowk, the whole world is waiting for an interpretation that will put jihad at a lower pedestal in islamic theology.
In your islamic manifesto, what is needed is not yet another interpretation of the but the courrage to change the present course of islam. Are you bold enough to say, `` jihad is not killing of kafirs``. Well I can assure you that no interpretation can come to the above conclusion, and there in lies the pathos of yet another interpretation.
When the world links islam to terrorism, it is only this central concept of islam that people are focussing on. At some level you have to accept that an religion assures heaven for its stauchest follower, and in islam the only guarenteed heaven is for a shaheed, the one who went and killed a few kafirs. Not only the chowk, the whole world is waiting for an interpretation that will put jihad at a lower pedestal in islamic theology.
#11 Posted by SaimaShah on August 8, 2003 11:17:59 pm
Re: AlephNull#10
Chowk had done a special on that piece at that time: you can view the debate on that article at Chowk
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000471&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1
Chowk had done a special on that piece at that time: you can view the debate on that article at Chowk
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000471&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1
#10 Posted by AlephNull on August 8, 2003 11:15:40 pm
Rasheed Talib saheb:
You write:
{{First and foremost, the Quran is a unique scripture: the Prophet’s revelations have been preserved with their textual integrity intact over the centuries.}}
Here is a link to an interesting article from the Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, that among other things refers to evidence that appears to contradict the standard assumption of perfect integrity of textual transmission, at least in the early years of the Muslim era, and points, instead, to an evolving text.
``What is the Koran?``
You write:
{{First and foremost, the Quran is a unique scripture: the Prophet’s revelations have been preserved with their textual integrity intact over the centuries.}}
Here is a link to an interesting article from the Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, that among other things refers to evidence that appears to contradict the standard assumption of perfect integrity of textual transmission, at least in the early years of the Muslim era, and points, instead, to an evolving text.
``What is the Koran?``
#9 Posted by rasheedtalib on August 8, 2003 10:37:55 pm
Facts about the Quran not often emphasized
#5: Reply to Dost Mitter: You are right, the masses will more readily dig into the Ulema version of the Quran than mine. But there’s no harm in bringing out facts not often emphasized by the religious doctors of the faith (one day, hopefully, they - the masses as well as the ulema - may be willing to face the facts). Another Section of my book is headed ``Facts about the Quran seldom emphasized``. If this is not too long as an interact to your comments, perhaps the editors will let me run it here. They may of course edit it down by omitting some of the quotes I have used. Here goes:
Few Muslim scholars ask a question that needs to be asked about the Quran as we know it today. When exactly, according to Islam’s own Traditionists, did the Quran come into existence as the Holy Book in the form we hold in our hands today? Mainstream sects of Islam all subscribe to the belief that the Prophet received the revelations at various stages of his prohethood, as and when he needed God’s guidance.
Traditionists of the Sunni sect agree that the verses constituting the Quran - a collection of orally conveyed revelations - was first collated as a volume some time between two years and two decades after the Prophet’s death (632 CE). Followers of the minority Shia sect disagree with this version. According to their Traditionists, the Quran in its entirety, as a whole, was handed over to Muhammad a little before his death by his cousin and son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. The Shiites, however, constitute a small minority while the Sunnis make up something like 85-90 percent of world Islam.
That the Quran is a post-Prophet development is now a well established fact, supported by a great deal of non-partisan evidence. It is supported, for one thing, by simple reasoning. The Prophet received his revelations between 610 and 632, with the last of them being delivered to him, it is believed, a week or so before he died. The revelations could therefore hardly have been assembled, compiled and collated into a volume while he was living.
As though, this is not enough, clinching evidence of their ‘gradual evolution’ is provided by the Quran itself. Verse 32 chapter 25, in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, reads:
Those who reject Faith say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? It was revealed thus that We may strengthen thy heart thereby. And We have revealed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.
Many are the Traditions that may be cited to show how exactly the revelations came to be compiled. I reproduce the most significant of these in paraphrase since most do not lend themselves easily for verbatim quotation.
One such Tradition goes as follows. During his lifetime – narrates an early commentator, Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. ) - the Arabic term, Quran, used to denote any string of verses recited as part of the Islamic prayer. The name, Quran - which means a recitation or discourse – to describe the compiled form of the verses appears to have acquired currency after Muhammad’s death.
Another authentic Tradition reinforces this view. It narrates how the collected verses first came to be named. The first caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, called upon the Prophet’s close companions after his death to suggest a suitable title for the volume. Some suggested the name, Sifu; others, Mushaf. The group eventually agreed upon the name, al-Quran.
A detailed account about how the revelations were collected and issued as a volume affirms that the Prophet’s two immediate successors - the caliphs Abu Bakr (ruled 632-634) and Umar bin Khattab (r. 634-644) - commissioned his close companions and scribes to collect the revelations from diverse sources: they were found lying in a heap with one of his wives, Hafsa, or were tucked away in the memory of his companions who, gifted with the facility of total recall, are said to have learnt them by heart as they fell from the Prophet’s lips.
But the two caliphs were only partially successful. The burden of completing the work and circulating it in an authoritative edition fell upon the third caliph, Uthman bin Affan (r. 644-656). He accomplished the task and dispatched copies of what is now known as the Uthmanic rescension (Mushaf Uthman) to the far-flung regions of the then Islamic world, ordering all other dialectal variants to be burnt.
In light of all noted above, the contrary version subscribed to by the Shiites lacks credibility. Their belief that Ali handed over the Quran in its entirety to Muhammad would seem to be motivated by their well-known political animosity towards anything to do with the first three caliphs. According to the Shiites, all three of them were usurpers: by rights Ali, the fourth caliph, should have succeeded the Prophet as his only surving blood kinsman.
It is also useful to recall here that the revelations did not come down ‘from on high’ in a vacuum: they were revealed to Muhammad on every occasion that his circumstance demanded.
A close study of the Quran’s voluminous text shows that each verse or cluster of verses, besides having an immediate scriptural context, has also a historical context. Since the time that Quranic studies grew into a serious discipline, scholars - Muslim and Western - have tried to trace and document what is traditionally termed ‘the occasions of revelations’ or, as we would say today, their contextual setting. But there is as yet little scholarly consensus on the results of these exercises.
The Quran is unique but peculiar scripture
It is appropriate next to examine some rather unusual features of the Quran – unusual because they are not found in other monotheistic scriptures - most of which got attached to it in its progress through history.
First and foremost, the Quran is a unique scripture: the Prophet’s revelations have been preserved with their textual integrity intact over the centuries. This is more than can be claimed of any similar scripture. As harsh a critic of Islam as the Prophet’s biographer, Sir William Muir, writing in the 18th century under the strong influence of Christian evangelism, observed that “there is probably in the world no other which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text”.
But this uniqueness is at least partly responsible for some of the peculiarities that now characterize it. The scribes, entrusted with the task of collecting the revelations - doubtless moved by the belief that they were reproducing God’s own words – took them down in an ‘as-is’ and unedited manner which has meant that the Quran lacks an overall structure and conceptual design.
This is the first of the Quran’s ‘peculiar’ features. Two other such features came to be associated with it in the course of its belated and hurried compilation. They are set out below under a) and b) below:
a) The arrangement of verses is without reference to context or chronology:
Under caliph Uthman’s hastily improvized orders, the Prophet’s scribes stitched the verses together with neither chronology nor context in mind but rather by arbitrarily putting the longer chapters at the beginning and the shorter ones at the end. This again has contributed to the difficulty we experience in interpreting it. One possible explanation for this arrangement may well be that the Quran was originally conceived as a book of prayers and devotions whose shorter chapters at the end of the volume could then more easily be memorized for recitation purposes.
The Canadian scholar, Andrew Rippin, sums up this feature in his little book, The Muslims, thus:
How did the Quran come to look the way it does, with the subject matter within individual chapters jumping from one topic to the next, with duplications and apparent inconsistencies in grammar, law and theology abounding? To the source critic, the work displays all the tendencies of rushed editing with only the most superficial concern for the content, the editors/compilers apparently engaged in establishing a fixed text of scripture.
Westerners, generally speaking, find the unstructured nature of the text to be in turn fascinating and exasperating. The British journalist, Malise Ruthven, author of a sympathetic introductory book, Islam in the World, belongs to the former category. The Quran for him consists of stories of the earlier prophets and punishment stories about those who failed to heed them mixed with ‘psalm-like lyrical passages’ celebrating the manifestation of God’s glory and ‘Leviticus-like legal prescriptions’. He illustrates the point by reproducing a passage from the Sura of Light which he declares to be “among the most celebrated passages in all mystical literature”:
God is the Light of the Heavens and Earth, a Light that sits in a niche containing a lamp, the lamp enclosed in glass, the glass like a radiant star; a lamp lit from a blessed tree, an olive tree neither of the east or west, the oil whereof so bright that it shines forth even though no fire has touched it. Light upon Light. (Quran 24: ).
But, given its ill-ordered arrangement, some of the most eloquent verses are found juxtaposed with its most prosaic. For instance, the above passage, undoubtedly one of great mystic beauty, is preceded by verses that prescribe punishment for the offence of adultery (100 lashes) and, a verse or two later, for that of slander (80 lashes). Some verses in the same chapter urge upon women not to ‘swing their legs while walking so as not to draw attention to their hidden charms’.
Never short of empathy for his subject, Ruthven is able to find a plausible justification for this “curious amalgam”:
This deliberate mixing of the sublime and the mundane, which Westeners might see as evidence of a ‘consistent lack of logical structure’, has in the didactic and liturgical context a powerful function. For, despite the proliferation of manuscripts of the Quran, and its extensive use in the highly developed art-form of calligraphic embellishment, it is primarily a series of texts designed for oral transmission.
Not all Westerners are as sympathetic. Available to them mostly in translation, the Quran was declared by most to be a “repetitious” and “incoherent” read.
Thomas Carlyle, the 18th century essayist, was particularly harsh in his judgement. He found it “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook ... nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran”, adding with as much incoherence as he found in his subject: [It is] “a wearisome confused jumble [marked by] crude, incondite, endless iterations [and] longwindedness entanglement ... insupportable stupidity, in short!”
The 19th century German classicist, Goethe, on the other hand, came to this mixed conclusion:
However often we turn to it [the Quran], at first disgusting each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence ... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim, is stern, grand terrible - ever and anon sublime ... Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence.
Once again, it is Ruthven who puts in an empathetic plea for the Quran. Its “mixed character” and “seemingly arbitrary sense of organization”, he observes, are well suited to the purpose at hand. Westerners, he suggests, should see the Quran for what it was, a series of “one-way dialogues” between God and the Prophet and between Muhammad and his auditors.
The effect is not unlike listening to a person speaking on the telephone: one only hears half the conversation. The inaudible part of the discourse, Muhammad’s unspoken questions, the arguments of his critics, and so forth have to be constructed out of the exegetical literature, which draws on the vast body of hadith-tradition. (Ruthven, 1985: ).
b) A variety of different materials make up the text: A simple content analysis shows that the various themes covered by the Quran belong to at least four distinct categories, reinforcing its image of a “mixed scripture” in Western eyes. Four such ctegories can be easily identified:
i) spiritual and cosmic truths received during Muhammad’s first decade as prophet spent in Mecca where he met with stiff tribal resistance to his new religious and social teachings;
ii) religious history based on stories of earlier prophets and the fate that befell them for disobeying God’s commandments;
iii) penal legislation to deal with common problems of state arising during Muhammad’s second decade as prophet which he spent in exile in Medina to unwittingly become virtual head of the world’s first Islamic community; and,
iv) advice and instruction to the Prophet on how to cope with political and other mundane challenges arising in the course of his troubled political career in Medina.
It is not surprising if one finds an extremely mundane kind of verse in the body of the Quran. In it, the divine advice rendered to the Prophet is about the practical steps he should take as a precaution to ensure his personal safety against dangers that ever loomed over his life. Thus:
Verse 102 of chapter 4, in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, reads:
When you, O apostle, are at prayer with those who wish ill of you, let one group among them stand in line with you ensuring that their arms are with them. When they finish their prostrations, let them move to the rear, and let the other party that has not prayed join you but ensure that they bear their arms and you have taken all precautions. For, the Unbelievers would want you to be negligent so that they might rush at you and assault you. But there is no blame on you if you put away your arms because it is inconvenient to carry them for reasons of rain or your illness; so long as you take all precautions.
Due to this bewildering variety of elements - some spiritual, others mundane and quotidian – some scholars have raised the question, whether it is proper to regard all of the Quran as of equal weight and sanctity. Or, can some of its this-worldly verses be treated as ‘severable’ from its more spiritual ones? Some reformist exegetes have come up with innovative suggestions, notably the 19th cnetury author of the Spirit of Islam, Syed Ameer Ali, and more recently, professor of philosophy a Columbia University, Aqueel Bilgrami. Their suggestions about the ‘severability’ of the verses of the Quran will be fully dealt with in a later Section.
To sum up, then, the three historical peculiarites outlined above are far too important for a objective student of Islam to ignore. Even at the risk of repeating them, these are: a) while the Quran is a faithful record of the Prophet’s revelations, these were reproduced unedited by his scribes after his death; b) when the Quran’s verses were collated into a volume, it was done without regard to context or chronology; and c) the Quran’s contents are made up of a large variety of different elements: legislation, narratives of prophets of old, and advices to the Prophet.
x x x
The cumulative result of these various factors, I belive, renders the Quran a very difficult scripture to interpret. (In a subsequent Section of my book, I hope to offer some proposals that may help to overcome this difficulty).
#5: Reply to Dost Mitter: You are right, the masses will more readily dig into the Ulema version of the Quran than mine. But there’s no harm in bringing out facts not often emphasized by the religious doctors of the faith (one day, hopefully, they - the masses as well as the ulema - may be willing to face the facts). Another Section of my book is headed ``Facts about the Quran seldom emphasized``. If this is not too long as an interact to your comments, perhaps the editors will let me run it here. They may of course edit it down by omitting some of the quotes I have used. Here goes:
Few Muslim scholars ask a question that needs to be asked about the Quran as we know it today. When exactly, according to Islam’s own Traditionists, did the Quran come into existence as the Holy Book in the form we hold in our hands today? Mainstream sects of Islam all subscribe to the belief that the Prophet received the revelations at various stages of his prohethood, as and when he needed God’s guidance.
Traditionists of the Sunni sect agree that the verses constituting the Quran - a collection of orally conveyed revelations - was first collated as a volume some time between two years and two decades after the Prophet’s death (632 CE). Followers of the minority Shia sect disagree with this version. According to their Traditionists, the Quran in its entirety, as a whole, was handed over to Muhammad a little before his death by his cousin and son-in-law, Ali bin Abu Talib. The Shiites, however, constitute a small minority while the Sunnis make up something like 85-90 percent of world Islam.
That the Quran is a post-Prophet development is now a well established fact, supported by a great deal of non-partisan evidence. It is supported, for one thing, by simple reasoning. The Prophet received his revelations between 610 and 632, with the last of them being delivered to him, it is believed, a week or so before he died. The revelations could therefore hardly have been assembled, compiled and collated into a volume while he was living.
As though, this is not enough, clinching evidence of their ‘gradual evolution’ is provided by the Quran itself. Verse 32 chapter 25, in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, reads:
Those who reject Faith say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? It was revealed thus that We may strengthen thy heart thereby. And We have revealed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.
Many are the Traditions that may be cited to show how exactly the revelations came to be compiled. I reproduce the most significant of these in paraphrase since most do not lend themselves easily for verbatim quotation.
One such Tradition goes as follows. During his lifetime – narrates an early commentator, Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. ) - the Arabic term, Quran, used to denote any string of verses recited as part of the Islamic prayer. The name, Quran - which means a recitation or discourse – to describe the compiled form of the verses appears to have acquired currency after Muhammad’s death.
Another authentic Tradition reinforces this view. It narrates how the collected verses first came to be named. The first caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, called upon the Prophet’s close companions after his death to suggest a suitable title for the volume. Some suggested the name, Sifu; others, Mushaf. The group eventually agreed upon the name, al-Quran.
A detailed account about how the revelations were collected and issued as a volume affirms that the Prophet’s two immediate successors - the caliphs Abu Bakr (ruled 632-634) and Umar bin Khattab (r. 634-644) - commissioned his close companions and scribes to collect the revelations from diverse sources: they were found lying in a heap with one of his wives, Hafsa, or were tucked away in the memory of his companions who, gifted with the facility of total recall, are said to have learnt them by heart as they fell from the Prophet’s lips.
But the two caliphs were only partially successful. The burden of completing the work and circulating it in an authoritative edition fell upon the third caliph, Uthman bin Affan (r. 644-656). He accomplished the task and dispatched copies of what is now known as the Uthmanic rescension (Mushaf Uthman) to the far-flung regions of the then Islamic world, ordering all other dialectal variants to be burnt.
In light of all noted above, the contrary version subscribed to by the Shiites lacks credibility. Their belief that Ali handed over the Quran in its entirety to Muhammad would seem to be motivated by their well-known political animosity towards anything to do with the first three caliphs. According to the Shiites, all three of them were usurpers: by rights Ali, the fourth caliph, should have succeeded the Prophet as his only surving blood kinsman.
It is also useful to recall here that the revelations did not come down ‘from on high’ in a vacuum: they were revealed to Muhammad on every occasion that his circumstance demanded.
A close study of the Quran’s voluminous text shows that each verse or cluster of verses, besides having an immediate scriptural context, has also a historical context. Since the time that Quranic studies grew into a serious discipline, scholars - Muslim and Western - have tried to trace and document what is traditionally termed ‘the occasions of revelations’ or, as we would say today, their contextual setting. But there is as yet little scholarly consensus on the results of these exercises.
The Quran is unique but peculiar scripture
It is appropriate next to examine some rather unusual features of the Quran – unusual because they are not found in other monotheistic scriptures - most of which got attached to it in its progress through history.
First and foremost, the Quran is a unique scripture: the Prophet’s revelations have been preserved with their textual integrity intact over the centuries. This is more than can be claimed of any similar scripture. As harsh a critic of Islam as the Prophet’s biographer, Sir William Muir, writing in the 18th century under the strong influence of Christian evangelism, observed that “there is probably in the world no other which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text”.
But this uniqueness is at least partly responsible for some of the peculiarities that now characterize it. The scribes, entrusted with the task of collecting the revelations - doubtless moved by the belief that they were reproducing God’s own words – took them down in an ‘as-is’ and unedited manner which has meant that the Quran lacks an overall structure and conceptual design.
This is the first of the Quran’s ‘peculiar’ features. Two other such features came to be associated with it in the course of its belated and hurried compilation. They are set out below under a) and b) below:
a) The arrangement of verses is without reference to context or chronology:
Under caliph Uthman’s hastily improvized orders, the Prophet’s scribes stitched the verses together with neither chronology nor context in mind but rather by arbitrarily putting the longer chapters at the beginning and the shorter ones at the end. This again has contributed to the difficulty we experience in interpreting it. One possible explanation for this arrangement may well be that the Quran was originally conceived as a book of prayers and devotions whose shorter chapters at the end of the volume could then more easily be memorized for recitation purposes.
The Canadian scholar, Andrew Rippin, sums up this feature in his little book, The Muslims, thus:
How did the Quran come to look the way it does, with the subject matter within individual chapters jumping from one topic to the next, with duplications and apparent inconsistencies in grammar, law and theology abounding? To the source critic, the work displays all the tendencies of rushed editing with only the most superficial concern for the content, the editors/compilers apparently engaged in establishing a fixed text of scripture.
Westerners, generally speaking, find the unstructured nature of the text to be in turn fascinating and exasperating. The British journalist, Malise Ruthven, author of a sympathetic introductory book, Islam in the World, belongs to the former category. The Quran for him consists of stories of the earlier prophets and punishment stories about those who failed to heed them mixed with ‘psalm-like lyrical passages’ celebrating the manifestation of God’s glory and ‘Leviticus-like legal prescriptions’. He illustrates the point by reproducing a passage from the Sura of Light which he declares to be “among the most celebrated passages in all mystical literature”:
God is the Light of the Heavens and Earth, a Light that sits in a niche containing a lamp, the lamp enclosed in glass, the glass like a radiant star; a lamp lit from a blessed tree, an olive tree neither of the east or west, the oil whereof so bright that it shines forth even though no fire has touched it. Light upon Light. (Quran 24: ).
But, given its ill-ordered arrangement, some of the most eloquent verses are found juxtaposed with its most prosaic. For instance, the above passage, undoubtedly one of great mystic beauty, is preceded by verses that prescribe punishment for the offence of adultery (100 lashes) and, a verse or two later, for that of slander (80 lashes). Some verses in the same chapter urge upon women not to ‘swing their legs while walking so as not to draw attention to their hidden charms’.
Never short of empathy for his subject, Ruthven is able to find a plausible justification for this “curious amalgam”:
This deliberate mixing of the sublime and the mundane, which Westeners might see as evidence of a ‘consistent lack of logical structure’, has in the didactic and liturgical context a powerful function. For, despite the proliferation of manuscripts of the Quran, and its extensive use in the highly developed art-form of calligraphic embellishment, it is primarily a series of texts designed for oral transmission.
Not all Westerners are as sympathetic. Available to them mostly in translation, the Quran was declared by most to be a “repetitious” and “incoherent” read.
Thomas Carlyle, the 18th century essayist, was particularly harsh in his judgement. He found it “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook ... nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran”, adding with as much incoherence as he found in his subject: [It is] “a wearisome confused jumble [marked by] crude, incondite, endless iterations [and] longwindedness entanglement ... insupportable stupidity, in short!”
The 19th century German classicist, Goethe, on the other hand, came to this mixed conclusion:
However often we turn to it [the Quran], at first disgusting each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence ... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim, is stern, grand terrible - ever and anon sublime ... Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence.
Once again, it is Ruthven who puts in an empathetic plea for the Quran. Its “mixed character” and “seemingly arbitrary sense of organization”, he observes, are well suited to the purpose at hand. Westerners, he suggests, should see the Quran for what it was, a series of “one-way dialogues” between God and the Prophet and between Muhammad and his auditors.
The effect is not unlike listening to a person speaking on the telephone: one only hears half the conversation. The inaudible part of the discourse, Muhammad’s unspoken questions, the arguments of his critics, and so forth have to be constructed out of the exegetical literature, which draws on the vast body of hadith-tradition. (Ruthven, 1985: ).
b) A variety of different materials make up the text: A simple content analysis shows that the various themes covered by the Quran belong to at least four distinct categories, reinforcing its image of a “mixed scripture” in Western eyes. Four such ctegories can be easily identified:
i) spiritual and cosmic truths received during Muhammad’s first decade as prophet spent in Mecca where he met with stiff tribal resistance to his new religious and social teachings;
ii) religious history based on stories of earlier prophets and the fate that befell them for disobeying God’s commandments;
iii) penal legislation to deal with common problems of state arising during Muhammad’s second decade as prophet which he spent in exile in Medina to unwittingly become virtual head of the world’s first Islamic community; and,
iv) advice and instruction to the Prophet on how to cope with political and other mundane challenges arising in the course of his troubled political career in Medina.
It is not surprising if one finds an extremely mundane kind of verse in the body of the Quran. In it, the divine advice rendered to the Prophet is about the practical steps he should take as a precaution to ensure his personal safety against dangers that ever loomed over his life. Thus:
Verse 102 of chapter 4, in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, reads:
When you, O apostle, are at prayer with those who wish ill of you, let one group among them stand in line with you ensuring that their arms are with them. When they finish their prostrations, let them move to the rear, and let the other party that has not prayed join you but ensure that they bear their arms and you have taken all precautions. For, the Unbelievers would want you to be negligent so that they might rush at you and assault you. But there is no blame on you if you put away your arms because it is inconvenient to carry them for reasons of rain or your illness; so long as you take all precautions.
Due to this bewildering variety of elements - some spiritual, others mundane and quotidian – some scholars have raised the question, whether it is proper to regard all of the Quran as of equal weight and sanctity. Or, can some of its this-worldly verses be treated as ‘severable’ from its more spiritual ones? Some reformist exegetes have come up with innovative suggestions, notably the 19th cnetury author of the Spirit of Islam, Syed Ameer Ali, and more recently, professor of philosophy a Columbia University, Aqueel Bilgrami. Their suggestions about the ‘severability’ of the verses of the Quran will be fully dealt with in a later Section.
To sum up, then, the three historical peculiarites outlined above are far too important for a objective student of Islam to ignore. Even at the risk of repeating them, these are: a) while the Quran is a faithful record of the Prophet’s revelations, these were reproduced unedited by his scribes after his death; b) when the Quran’s verses were collated into a volume, it was done without regard to context or chronology; and c) the Quran’s contents are made up of a large variety of different elements: legislation, narratives of prophets of old, and advices to the Prophet.
x x x
The cumulative result of these various factors, I belive, renders the Quran a very difficult scripture to interpret. (In a subsequent Section of my book, I hope to offer some proposals that may help to overcome this difficulty).
#8 Posted by Naqshbandi on August 8, 2003 9:00:42 pm
Hazrat Sayyidina Khalid ibn Walid (radhi Allahu anhu--may Allah be pleased with him) is one of the greatest of Sahabis (Companions of the Prophet alayhisalatuwasalam) and was given the title of ``Sayf Allah`` (The Sword of Allah) by The Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam himself.
It does not behoove Believers to make allegations against any Sahabi.
It does not behoove Believers to make allegations against any Sahabi.
#7 Posted by ECHOOOOBOOOM on August 8, 2003 8:39:35 pm
TehsinAbbasi:
The `character` of Khalid bin Walid is an open book. His adulterous episodes and also the punishments he received are recorded for all to see. Tabari, is a well-respected and quoted source by majority muslims.
The exploits of yahyaa khan and Mushharraf are, to secularists, a sign of their conquests and bravery as well. Last time I checked they too were calling themselves muslims.
Muslim conquests whether ummayyads, abbasid or mughal just cannot be quoted as examples of the creed. UN charter and US `allegiance` to it does not need any `interpretation`. A visitor to Kabul & Baghdad would tell you that, for sure.
The `character` of Khalid bin Walid is an open book. His adulterous episodes and also the punishments he received are recorded for all to see. Tabari, is a well-respected and quoted source by majority muslims.
The exploits of yahyaa khan and Mushharraf are, to secularists, a sign of their conquests and bravery as well. Last time I checked they too were calling themselves muslims.
Muslim conquests whether ummayyads, abbasid or mughal just cannot be quoted as examples of the creed. UN charter and US `allegiance` to it does not need any `interpretation`. A visitor to Kabul & Baghdad would tell you that, for sure.
#6 Posted by Tehsinabbasi on August 8, 2003 8:21:03 pm
In our current context the term Islamic Fundamentalism is used not only to indicate a belief in literal scripture, but also denotes a willingness to commit violence in the name of religion. While it’s important to examine scripture and even come up with an enlightened reading and a new interpretation, but I hope that you would examine the expansion of Islam in history. The following letter may illustrate the point.
In 633 A.D 12 A.H
“From Khalid b. al Walid to the ruler of the Persians:
Peace be upon whosoever follows right guidance. Praise be to God. Who has scattered your servants, wrested your sovereignty away, and rendered your plotting weak. Whoever worships the way we worship, faces the direction we face in prayer, and eats meat slaughtered in our fashion, that person is a Muslim who obtains the benefits we enjoy and takes up the responsibilities we bear. Now then, when you receive this letter, send me hostages and place yourselves under my protection. Otherwise, by Him other than Whom there is no god, I will most certainly send against you a people who love death just as you love life.
History of Al Tabri – Volume 11
From India in the east to Spain in the west expansion of Islam took place with similar ultimatums. It cannot be dismissed as an initial phase. The Ottoman Empire during its hay day plundered, took slaves and demanded tribute. Fact of the matter is such behavior was considered barbaric till the barbarian accepted Islam and then it was okay so long as he committed those acts against non muslims.
Is the current docility of Muslims because of the peaceful message of their faith or is it because of their present weakness? Minorities in Muslim lands remain insecure and fearful. I hope you would address these issues in your book.
In 633 A.D 12 A.H
“From Khalid b. al Walid to the ruler of the Persians:
Peace be upon whosoever follows right guidance. Praise be to God. Who has scattered your servants, wrested your sovereignty away, and rendered your plotting weak. Whoever worships the way we worship, faces the direction we face in prayer, and eats meat slaughtered in our fashion, that person is a Muslim who obtains the benefits we enjoy and takes up the responsibilities we bear. Now then, when you receive this letter, send me hostages and place yourselves under my protection. Otherwise, by Him other than Whom there is no god, I will most certainly send against you a people who love death just as you love life.
History of Al Tabri – Volume 11
From India in the east to Spain in the west expansion of Islam took place with similar ultimatums. It cannot be dismissed as an initial phase. The Ottoman Empire during its hay day plundered, took slaves and demanded tribute. Fact of the matter is such behavior was considered barbaric till the barbarian accepted Islam and then it was okay so long as he committed those acts against non muslims.
Is the current docility of Muslims because of the peaceful message of their faith or is it because of their present weakness? Minorities in Muslim lands remain insecure and fearful. I hope you would address these issues in your book.
#5 Posted by dost_mittar on August 8, 2003 3:52:32 pm
Talib saheb:
Having read your earlier articles, this does not come as a surprise. However, for those of us outside the ummah, it is hard to see where Muslims are headed. It seems that when it comes to the matter of their faith, most Muslims will accept the interpretations (tafseers) of the Maulanas who have spent most of their lives studying Quran, hadith and sharia than of laymen from other fields whose interest in religion is secondary, if not peripheral. You may be able to convince a highly educated elite but not the vast majority who have been weaned by the teaching that not a single sentence in the Book is to be questioned. To do that, you will first have to destroy Qoms, Deobands, Azhars, and whichever is the fountainhead of Wahabis.
Regardless of whether Mutzalites were right or wrong, is it possible to separate the relgious from the political in Islam? Is it possible to say that religion is a matter of personal belief only and should have no place in determing what kind of society there should be? In othe words, to somehow prove that the clause ``to you, your religion and to me, mine`` overrides every other message in the Quran. If it is possible to separate religion and politics in Islam, then the matter of what those beliefs are assumes lesser signficance.
Having read your earlier articles, this does not come as a surprise. However, for those of us outside the ummah, it is hard to see where Muslims are headed. It seems that when it comes to the matter of their faith, most Muslims will accept the interpretations (tafseers) of the Maulanas who have spent most of their lives studying Quran, hadith and sharia than of laymen from other fields whose interest in religion is secondary, if not peripheral. You may be able to convince a highly educated elite but not the vast majority who have been weaned by the teaching that not a single sentence in the Book is to be questioned. To do that, you will first have to destroy Qoms, Deobands, Azhars, and whichever is the fountainhead of Wahabis.
Regardless of whether Mutzalites were right or wrong, is it possible to separate the relgious from the political in Islam? Is it possible to say that religion is a matter of personal belief only and should have no place in determing what kind of society there should be? In othe words, to somehow prove that the clause ``to you, your religion and to me, mine`` overrides every other message in the Quran. If it is possible to separate religion and politics in Islam, then the matter of what those beliefs are assumes lesser signficance.
#4 Posted by jay on August 8, 2003 7:10:42 am
islamic manifesto, that should be the name of your book. I liked the section, situating quran, whcih is a classic marxian term, situating koran in the historical context.
I have to agree with you, islam is progressively becoming the religion of the oppressed, spreading through the black ghettos of newyork and the prisons through out the west. In that sense the vision of ummah is no different from the uniting of the proletariate. As the marxist would say, the golden age of islam can come only when the whole world is taken over by islamist, the global marxian revolution.
I have only one request to you, Karl Marx was one of the greatest thinkers ever lived, will you let him have some peace in his grave. Leave the opiate of the masses as it is, dont turn it into a revolutionary elixir.
I have to agree with you, islam is progressively becoming the religion of the oppressed, spreading through the black ghettos of newyork and the prisons through out the west. In that sense the vision of ummah is no different from the uniting of the proletariate. As the marxist would say, the golden age of islam can come only when the whole world is taken over by islamist, the global marxian revolution.
I have only one request to you, Karl Marx was one of the greatest thinkers ever lived, will you let him have some peace in his grave. Leave the opiate of the masses as it is, dont turn it into a revolutionary elixir.
#3 Posted by ECHOOOOBOOOM on August 8, 2003 7:10:42 am
Rasheed Talib:
No need to worry. There is no `controversey` anymore.
The shock-tactics just won`t work now that the inter-net is full of all kind of `controversies`.
Save your time and money. You and your book will be ignored. A striptease has some value for its novelty & shamelessness in a clean society. Now the striptease is being performed by every tom dick & harry--and they are even getting hitched to each other. The senses , in this age of sattelite & inyernet, have been numbed by exposure & `controversy`. In a 500-channel digital universe viewers have their own `ummah`. Reading such books is passe`. Academics are no longer considered to be learned. The younger generation is on a roll....and they are muslims and they are flaunting it. No amount of `controversial` dust can obscure this fact. The humanist & liberal , commie & athiest of yesteryears, is now on the defensive--and that is a very pleasant view. Muslims are tremendously happy that at least now they are considered as an adversary, a threat, an enemy--far, far better than not being noticed & denied the existence of an ummah.
Let Ibne-Warraq and Ibne-Sina carry out this `noble` task. At least they have declared themselves atheists and should have no fear from any quarter.
The blanket just does`nt let go. Why?
No need to worry. There is no `controversey` anymore.
The shock-tactics just won`t work now that the inter-net is full of all kind of `controversies`.
Save your time and money. You and your book will be ignored. A striptease has some value for its novelty & shamelessness in a clean society. Now the striptease is being performed by every tom dick & harry--and they are even getting hitched to each other. The senses , in this age of sattelite & inyernet, have been numbed by exposure & `controversy`. In a 500-channel digital universe viewers have their own `ummah`. Reading such books is passe`. Academics are no longer considered to be learned. The younger generation is on a roll....and they are muslims and they are flaunting it. No amount of `controversial` dust can obscure this fact. The humanist & liberal , commie & athiest of yesteryears, is now on the defensive--and that is a very pleasant view. Muslims are tremendously happy that at least now they are considered as an adversary, a threat, an enemy--far, far better than not being noticed & denied the existence of an ummah.
Let Ibne-Warraq and Ibne-Sina carry out this `noble` task. At least they have declared themselves atheists and should have no fear from any quarter.
The blanket just does`nt let go. Why?
#2 Posted by Saminasha on August 8, 2003 4:59:58 am
Another very interesting article by the writer!
While I understand that three fourths of the world (parts of america included) have ``grievances`` with US policy, it would be edifying to discuss various aspects of fundamentalist ``grievances``-esp. from people like bin Laden.
While I understand that three fourths of the world (parts of america included) have ``grievances`` with US policy, it would be edifying to discuss various aspects of fundamentalist ``grievances``-esp. from people like bin Laden.
#1 Posted by MantoLives on August 8, 2003 3:37:43 am
Bravo!
Thankyou for this piece. I don`t think one can disagree much with your conclusions.
People by the way just to point out the eminent Pakistani Islamic scholar Fazlurrahman, that the author mentions, is the Muslim Modernists who was based in the US and not Maulana Fazlu... lest Indians get any wrong ideas especially after fazlu`s kissin` and makin` out session in India.
I think a brilliant article no doubt.
`I am referring here, as some of you would know from my previous writings, to the debates between the radical Mutazitlite and the conservative Asharite schools of theology, both of which were regarded as mainstream and ``within the tradition``.`
Brilliant ... !!!
I am buyin the book dude...
-Manto
Thankyou for this piece. I don`t think one can disagree much with your conclusions.
People by the way just to point out the eminent Pakistani Islamic scholar Fazlurrahman, that the author mentions, is the Muslim Modernists who was based in the US and not Maulana Fazlu... lest Indians get any wrong ideas especially after fazlu`s kissin` and makin` out session in India.
I think a brilliant article no doubt.
`I am referring here, as some of you would know from my previous writings, to the debates between the radical Mutazitlite and the conservative Asharite schools of theology, both of which were regarded as mainstream and ``within the tradition``.`
Brilliant ... !!!
I am buyin the book dude...
-Manto
