Justice for Half a Man

ruswa

Thank you for your input. Your reply deserves a detailed response which I will do sometime tomorrow because I just got extremely busy. This refers to the three point objections that you have raised about my article:

You ask And exactly what is this ``essence of being a woman``?


Reply: It was expleined in the article in the next few lines where I wrote ``Unfortunately, for what she perceives as her ultimate freedom and equality with
man, demands her to strip off the very essence of being a woman. She perceives
marriage as an obstacle in her personal freedom because she cannot make a
distinction between her personal and financial freedom - to her, the spouse is a
potential financial liability. The economic compulsions have put men and women
in adversarial and competitive positions and now no one wants to be a loser in
this competition. So she wants to abolish the institution of marriage. She sees
economic value in her body and she wants to cash it too by recognizing
prostitution as her basic human right. She perceives children as an obstacle to
her freedom and she sees feticide as a way out of this responsibility. She wants
feticide and prostitution to be accepted as social norms because she wants to be
as guilt free as that of the Individualist man. And individualist man is
indifferent because he considers these things as an obstacle to his freedom too.
Perhaps, the reason for his apathy is that he thinks of himself as a survivor of
someone else`s choice, while he never had one. If freedom means killing your own
flesh and blood, then we should really question the worth of that freedom``.


You might not like my answer but I think prostitution and feticide is below being human what to talk of being woman. Homosexuality is also an anti-human behavior. I hope this also answers your point number 2.

Then you ask Again errrr... where exactly did you read that women want to recognize ``prostitution as her basic human right``? There is a big difference b/w asking to decriminalize prostitution (which has it`s own dynamics) vs. asking prostitution to be recognized as a ``basic human right``.

Reply: Zamana chal gaya Qyamat ki chaal bhai mere (behn meri). These ``basic human rights`` are being added in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. Read this and weep.

http://www.dartabligh.org/web/articles/beijing.html

More later sometime tomorrow.

Urstruly,

… check this out … whenever you push your jamaati agenda … which usually revolves around killing someone … for apostasy or blasphemy or for being a plain ol’ hindu … our dicsussion sort of goes like this …

- I counter your position from Quran

- You cite earlier scriptures to support your position
- I argue that Quranic commandments override earlier scriptures …

- You cite ahadith to support your position
- I show contradictions in your ahadith and quote other ahadith to support my views

- You insist that your mullah is a great scholar … and cannot be wrong
- I question your mullah’s beliefs in flying prophets, one-eyed monster riding a giant fire-breathing donkey, old prophets descending from the skies … and question their scholarship

- You state that Ahmadis are non-Muslims … and will remain so
- I say … huh?

…apparently you bartered your brains for a few puffs of bhang … which ain’t bad … since you weren’t using your brain anyway. The only issue now is … how do you expect to go through life without a brain? Perhaps cousin Naqshbandi can teach you … apparently he’s been doing this for quite sometime now …

Naqshbandi (#91):

Allah Almighty granted me the right to consider myself a Muslim. What you and your ullema think therefore carries no weight. Sorry to hurt your feelings here. Incidentally, I do subscribe to “La ilaha ilallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah” … but without your mullahs’ political agendas and barbaric inclinations.

Last time we spoke … you made a disgusting comment about Mirza Sahib. I pointed out that your comment is a lie … cooked up and propagated by your mullahs … and even Urstruly has come to the same conclusion after some research.

If you had any integrity … you would have admitted your mistake, and taken back your comment. But you became silent … and refused to address the issue. When you mullahs cannot take Ahmadi-Muslims on intellectual basis … you resort to hurling insults and propaganda. When you get caught … you try to slip away.

It is such behavior … that makes me consider you and your mullahs … worse than gutter cockroaches … worse than anal fungus on a pig’s posterior. The said creatures perform important functions in the food chain … whereas you mullahs only corrupt human minds and continue to cause misery for the mankind. Here … deal with this … you jackass.

Oh, btw … cousin Urstruly himself has mixed feelings about the “miracles of Aaqa” … and avoids addressing the issue. You mullahs should first sort out what you believe in, before worrying about the Ahmadi-Muslim interpretation of Quran.

A very enlightening piece on what ``true`` enforcement of Shariah will entail. The basis on which Shahriah is offered as a model is the theoritical good that will flow from it`s enforcement i.e. society will be reformed and there will be minimum of crime, theft, adultery etc. However even in the era of the four ``rightly`` guided caliphs, the ``sins`` of society could not be purged. The first succession was highly politicised and atleast two caliphs were murdered. I guess some people were just not happy with utopia.

Now for for some serious statements...

Amina Wudud (Quran and Woman, 1999, pg. 85) makes an interesting case for man - woman parity in bearing witness for financial transactions.

``if two men be (not at hand) then a man and two women, of such as you approve as witnesses, so that if one errs (tudilla) the other can remind her...``

Wudud says: ``In the wording of this verse, both women are not called as witnesses. One woman is designtated to `remind` the other: she acts as a corroborator. Although the women are two, they each function differently``.

Fazlur Rehman (Major Themes in the Quran, 1982, p. 49) also takes exception to the literal translation of this verse, and says (also quoted by Wudud):

``... since the testimony of a woman being considered of less value then that of a man was dependent upon her weaker power of memory concerning financial matters, when women become conversant with such matters-with which there is not only nothing wrong but which is for the betterment of society-their evidence can equal that of men.``

The author cites PMS as one of the reasons why women are of weaker ``faith``. This is also supported by a hadith. However by his own admission, only ``3-9% of women have symptons so severe that it interferes with work, school, usual activities or relationships``. Again during pregnancy and menopause the author cites various `moods` that women go through. Regardless of these phases, does he seriously expect us to swallow the fact that a majority of meopausal women cannot witness a financial transaction? Based on the studies I don`t think so. The quoted studies simply detail the changes that women go through as a result of menstruation, pregnancy etc. No where do they advocate doubling the number of women witnesses for financial deals or even come close to suggesting that women are incapable of complex tasks because of these hormonal changes / cycles.

The author also quote this hadith:

``Once Allah`s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha
or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, ``O women! Give alms, as
I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)...``

Either there is a translation problem, or Sahih Bukhari did not do due diligence is this case. How can the Prophet, who loved Ayesha the most, be so misogynistic as to consign women to hell-fire?

Now this article clearly furthers the orthodox agenda of sidelining women and rationalising their ``half-man`` status on the basis of hadiths, selected readings from medical journals and interpreting the Quran in the usual patriarchical fashion. However the responses on this board simply state refutations, instead of solutions. For example tahmed is justifiably incensed and writes:

``The article is useful in describing the workings of the mullah mind. If the author was the only individual afflicted with this mullah disease, one would laugh off this article. The terrible reality is that this is the religion of the mullah (I call it Maudoodism - it can not and should not be called Islam). And mullahs, with the help of the military, are now within a whisper of being in complete control of Pakistan. God protect Pakistan and Pakistanis from this evil.``

This is a valid rant. But the fact remains that Maudidi`s ideas have a vast following. Can they be countered through mere rhetortic as above. I don`t think so. So the question I have is how can barbarities (as thought of in this age) such as cutting of hands and blood money be done away with? Do we need a secular law to legislate away such punishments or can this be done through Ijtehad (I ask this question only in the context of Pakistan)? Keep in mind though that Ijtehad can only be exercised in the absence of a clear injunction from the Quran or Hadith. So one can`t have an Ijtehad on allowing the sale of alchohol in an Islamic state. An excellent (and successful) example (in my mind) of Ijtehad is the ban on polygamy in Tunisia.

Section 3.2.2 takes some swipes at the West in general and feminists in particular. Some of the more noteworthy comments are:

1. ``Unfortunately, for what she perceives as her ultimate freedom and equality with
man, demands her to strip off the very essence of being a woman``.

And exactly what is this ``essence of being a woman``?

2. ``So she wants to abolish the institution of marriage``

errr a vast majority of women still do get married regardless of what capitalism may ``force`` them to do. Except for some ``extreme`` feminists, I hardly think there is a feminist movement whose stated aim is to abolish the institution of marriage.

3. ``She sees economic value in her body and she wants to cash it too by recognizing
prostitution as her basic human right``

Again errrr... where exactly did you read that women want to recognize ``prostitution as her basic human right``? There is a big difference b/w asking to decriminalize prostitution (which has it`s own dynamics) vs. asking prostitution to be recognized as a ``basic human right``.

In the end I have a suggestions for the author. It might be that people who doubt the ideas in this article, or doubt that Shariah in it`s present can deliver the promised salavation are weak in faith, or it might be that they want to see inorder to believe. Perhaps you could convince a rich Moslem to fund a little community project (in Pakistan), where a self-sustaining community could be built based on the principles of Shariah. A project similiar to the Orangi Pilot Project, except that this one would also have sound spiritual basis. You could call it the Shariah Pilot Project. Apply all the principles of Quran and Hadith and Shariah. Give it about 25 years, and see if it works. In this way you`d be able to practice what you preach, and provide a working, viable model for communities, towns, cities and the wider ummah to follow.

Ciao

sattar --you are not even a MUslim but a kafir qadiani and though you have the right to believe what you want you do not have the right to discuss islam as a Muslim which what you pretend to do.


**
My Islam and Urstruly`s Islam is the same Islam that has been practiced for 1424 years now
from Huzoor Paak`s time (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam). It is the Islam of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, the Sahaba, the Ahlul Bayt, the Salaf, the Khalaf and ll of the awliya and ulama right up to today. Only apostates like the Qadianis do not accept this Islam. You mock the teachings of Islam as it has been handed down to us by our elders, you deny Allah`s Qur`an by making the most outrageous tawil [interpretation], you reject the miracles of Aaqa alayhi salatu wa salam...etc. You believe in the delusions of Mirza Qadiani and his Teechee Teechee...then you claim to be speaking for Muslims!

Our Islam is Islam--you religion is called Qadianism. Please accept that. It has no connection to islam whatsoever.

We as Muslims you see believe in the Unseen...

ZahraJ :-)

Urstruly is my Muslim brother...we are bonded together spiritually by the secret bond of La ilaha ilallah Muhammadur Rasul Allah (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) like all Muslims are. We are all parts of one Ummah. Despite our differences we all share something beautiful: we are all deewanay of Huzoor Paak (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam!). (I know what you said about adding honorifics before and after names and I accept that criticism but for the Prophet of Islam I cannot NOT write the traditional formula. Ishq aur imaan ki baat hai.)



(Note I said Muslims above which automatically excludes Qadianis who deny some of the fundamentals of Islam and are kafirs by the ijma [consensus] of this Ummah).

Urstruly (#81):

Your comments are becoming increasingly irrelevant and defensive. Your frustration with your Islam is becoming obvious in your posts.

When prodded, you could not explain your mullah’s fantasies of flying prophets and fire-breathing donkeys. At the same time you want others to believe the works of these very mullahs. Nope … thanks, but no thanks. This is where you differ from Naqshbandi. He is too embarrassed to discuss Islam with me … and knows when to keep his mouth shut. You, on the other hand, keep going …

Your problem is not Ahmadi-Muslims … but your own barbaric and baseless understanding of Islam. Your Islam is driven more (solely?) by the desire for political power … and not by serving the cause of humanity. Such a thought process has led the Muslims to their downfall … and you are only making matters worse for everyone.

+++++++++++

Zahra (#82):

Naqshbandi, Urstruly, and I … we go way back on Chowk … and share quite a bit of history. These two clowns differ from each other … but are much united when it comes to practicing barbarism in the name of Islam. The way I see it … Naqshbandi is a poetic fool … whereas Urstruly is simply a fool.

++++++++++++

Ali87(#84):

These mullahs are a product of centuries of degradation Islam has suffered. Each religion has suffered at the hands of its own people … mainly the clergy … who twist and exploit the message of the Almighty for their benefits and power. You are quite right … that this is not “their” or “someone else’s” problem … rather it is the problem of humanity … your problem … and my problem.

As Ahmadi-Muslims … my community has experienced the impact of this corruption more closely than most people. We are challenging this corruption all along … in a non-violent, peaceful manner … presenting our viewpoint from Quran and the message given to us by the dear Pophet. Unable to deal with the situation … and in efforts to discredit us … the mullahs have declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims altogether.

However, our efforts to propagate Islam continue … with hospitals, schools, mosques being built in almost every country … and Islamic literature published in most major languages. I myself have been involved in such activities … which Islamic message to unite the mankind under one banner of humanity … in northern California/SF Bay Area. We periodically have information setup at various local events … host interfaith conferences in our mosque … and more. Every now and then we run into heckling mullahs … who tell us that we are really not Muslims … but what can we do? We really cannot win’em all now … can we?

So life goes on … and we keep trying …

Ajeet# 83

I am sorry for the delayed response; I thought that your question in #62 was addressed to a general audience.

First of all keep in mind that I am not an authority on Islam or anything but just a student in search of my destiny. You have asked a question that falls under the realm of dogma but you want to see an answer that should qualify the laws of nature (that we have discovered thru science). If we use the science to see what was the physical mechanism through which Eve was created the closest we can say is that first Adam was created from scratch, in Qura`nic words, from clay, which doesn`t seem very far fetched because at elemental and molecular level human body is composed of all those elements and molecules that are found in earth. Meaning human molecular structure is not unique to itself. However, how all those elements that are found in earth, mix in right combination, to form right molecules, and how those molecules then combine and form organic molecules is the hottest topic of research now a days. As the human genome project and stem cell research and cloning will progress we will ultimately explore that mechanism.

As for as creation of Eve is concerned we can say that the reproduction of first individual organism, lets call him Adam, was asexual. As far as my knowledge is concerned the asexual multiplication does not occur in multi-cellular organisms but then again I am not an authority on biological science either. The multiplication of unicellular organisms is usually triggered by an internal mechanism – at maturity the genes send a signal to mitochondria in cell nucleus and triggers a chain reaction in the nucleus that divides the nucleus in two and cell wall caves in like number 8 and cell is divided. The mutations at cellular level happen all the time both due to internal and external mechanisms. External mechanisms can be due to some chemicals found in nature that come in contact with the organism or it can be gamma rays that are bombarded on us regularly from cosmos and most of them are shielded by ozone. The chances that a gamma ray will hit a particular gene are extremely rare but they happen. One such example is the albino people and animals who loose color pigment in their skins because of a mutation caused by cosmic gamma rays.

Up to this point I am only describing the biological mechanisms that we have explored so far. Keep in mind that the biological sciences or even the knowledge of our very own bodies is in embryonic stages. We don’t know much about anything. Therefore, now I will start the speculation part. I could speculate that the first prototype of the organism called Adam could be an androgynous entity like that of angels. Then a ``ray of light`` struck him and triggered not only an asexual reproduction but also triggered a mutation also so that when the two resulting organisms finally developed they came out not only with the shared features but also distinct features that later defined the sexes. This mutation also then ceased the reproduction by asexual methods and only a sexual method or reproduction remained.

I am pretty sure that as the science will progress we will ultimately know what really happened. Coming back to dogma again. The creation of man or women, in regards to who was created first, in Islam has absolutely no significance as compared to other two religions. As compared to other religions Islam does not put the blame of eating the forbidden fruit on eve alone. Both are blamed equally. Both are accountable to God equally. And they are told to live equitably because they are same but not identical.

Creation of man will always be a matter of curiosity for human beings. Despite the ``scientific`` claims that we are just an accident in the universe our search for our beginning and our ultimate destiny continues. There is an urdu couplet in this regard that goes like this:

Manzil se dilnawaz hay manzil ki justuju
Khudda karay manzil kabhi na millay.

Tr: The search for my destiny is so enticing that I think the destiny wont be so.
So I beg you God never let me reach my destiny.

Romair #54

{{I would not be a Muslim, if I could not find any logic in the Quran, as the word of God.}}

I have no issues with the basis for someone’s personal religious faith or any privately held beliefs for that matter. Religious faith appears to be a source of serenity, peace of mind, to a great many people (though certainly not all), and to that degree it should be regarded as benign. The psychological mechanisms by which people become convinced of their beliefs are inaccessible, and perhaps essentially incommunicable, to others, particularly incurable skeptics.

I do however have the obligation to skeptically examine – as any lawyer or judge would - the stated claims to authority of anything that is to be made the basis of law, government or the exercise of power in the real world.

{{At the same time, I disagree with your comments about, ``outright disbelief.`` I think they are based more on your hatred of Islam than on anything else. Such individuals also need to be countered, also.}}

You are most welcome to counter me or anyone else. Whether my comments are motivated by hatred of Islam doesn’t seem really relevant to their validity. They ought to stand or fall on their own merits if any, not on who made them and why. My putative hatred isn’t going to make them more or less sound.

My line of argument was an immediate and obvious extension of yours – so obvious, in fact, that I wonder why you made yours in the first place. A believer usually does not venture in directions which make his faith precarious, less secure, least of all in public. From one point of view Urstruly’s position is certainly more consistent, more nearly a seamless garment.

I can also imagine various other positions which I think would be more defensible today. But they would probably all scandalize traditional believers.

{{I have studied the Quran from a scientific point of view. There are far too many scientific statements in it, that were only proven centuries later. I don`t see how any human could have come up with those.}}

I do not know what specifics you have in mind. However, I’ve read a book by Maurice Bucaille that listed various supposed scientific facts stated in the Quran that were not common knowledge at the time – everything from cosmogony to embryology. To be frank I was not impressed. Incidentally, similar claims are made for some other religions – the succession avatars of Vishnu are supposed to symbolize evolution, for instance.

In any case – to you your belief, to me mine. Peace.

#71 by harimau on July 21, 2003 6:19am PT

Since your it takes very little to keep you occupied and amused I have a little task for you.

just search my posts and try to find my comments on the
1) historic injustices to muslims
2)Loss of Mughal Empire

other thing is that
there were millons of muslims who crossed over the border too ..
There are ample number of Muslims on this board taking various and often diametircally opposite position on Muslim history, Islamic Jurispendence and other issues often they are more critical and with more facts than you have every displayed in any of your posts.

Your role as you justify on basis of this suppression of wrongs of various aspects of Muslim life including history is redudant which points to the question is that exactly your role?? Since there are ample number of muslims themselves fullfiling that role and examining your tirades which dont fall into your self described role it is a obvious conclusion that your acutal role is that of venting out the hate that is within you for muslims and Islam with or without justification.

If you feel that by askign you to abandon your pretentions because most people recognise you for what you are it means that Im asking you to be a ``a$$-kissing Hindu`` let me set the record straight.
even though you are scared that if you accept the truth about muslims you may be then asked to ``a$$-kiss`` me or any muslims as proof of your acceptance there is nothing to fear at all.
I promise you that if you take accept the turth about muslims and Islam and admit that truth then Neither me nor any muslim will ask you to be a ``a$$-kissing Hindu``.
The reason for that is purely Islamic.. It is not allowed for any muslim to allow anyone including hindus to kiss their a$$ owing to the Hijab issue as well as other issues in Islam.

There you go with this assurance now I hope you will abaonden your silly activites with out any fear of ........

Really I feel that you had nothing to fear in the first place had you found out more about Islam with proper devotion and effort.

I wonder if the other people with similar thoughts are going through this wertched fear of being asked to......

I never knew how this problem of you guys.... It is amazing how people can physce themselves....

Really nothing to fear at all.....

#76 by sattar2 on July 21, 2003 10:55am PT
The ulema is not a creature born out of thin air.. If those are the faults of the Ulema then obviously it points to the solution of having better Ulema.

I dont know about you but many of the so called modernist Muslims keep ranting about the Mullahs and never even think that what is the use of ranting. Did they make any effort to see that there is a better class of Ulema in the future??

I have mentioned this many times to like of tahmed32 et al but they neatly sidestep the issue. If this effects them so much then question to be asked is what did they do about it? did they make any effort to encourage their children towards this career? did they encourage any other children known to them towards this? did they make any effort to encourage moderate and reasonable Ulema? did they contribute any effort in suppourting enlightned ulema? did they make any effort to contirbute towards/setup madarsas which would bring out a new crop of sophisticated ulema and jurist?

No nothing they just sidestep the isusue never bother to answer. It is very easy to blame other people and very difficult to make any change. That we choose to play the blame game and do nothing about is indicates where we are going as a socitey. After having done this the only alternative is to indicate faith in the innate goodness of bush(going as far as to say that another round of british rule is needed to bring our countries at par with the western countries!!)which they do with remarkable regularity.

My advice is quit complaning and get working.

#71 by harimau on July 21, 2003 6:19am PT

so you are disproving your own thesis...

Muslims can and have been tyrants...

and can and have been imppecable rulers...

even after Gujrat where the whole sate machinenry and great numbers of hindus participated in savagery against innocent muslims and killed thousands and rendered millons homeles you claim that hindus are peacful or better than muslims or pakistanis or arabs. The silly preening rests on your reasoning that most hindus recongise Gujrat as an abberation and are working to correct(similar on your glossing over of present caste issues).
Your reasoning fails in the test of commonsense. The common sense being the interpration of facts of Modi comming back to power, Modi being backed by BJP and thus the majority of Indian Hindus. BJP being backed By NDA representing an even more majority of hindus your claim about remorse, etc is just a futile attempt.
On what ever your claim about India being better than any other country pakistan, arab or other muslim country because of the so called Modernity of the hindus or the rationality of Hindus in adopting what you call Modernity will just be that a ``claim``
Of course what you have are very nice press statements. before you think that you have any reason to preen let us wait if any one is presecuted for Gujrat.

Going by the Judgement given by the court in the Bakery case in Gujrat where the learned judge has made refrences to the British blaming them for the divide policy and referring to the Parsis as a model minority we can judge where you stand in terms of your claims.

If such is the how your claims stand against the facts then you have no chance of making any impact on anyone here on this fourm with your tirades against muslims, or muslim countries or Islam.

When you are in a better position to argue then we can consider your arugments My guess is that it will be a very long wait till that time comes. In the mean time you can continue to make your silly tirades and we will watch them in amusement. The other alternative is that you leave this fourm and spend your time elsewhere in better activities or drop your tirades and talk some sense and about some other topics other than Islam, Muslims and their failures.

Sattar:

Kindly refrain from designating Urstruly as Naqshbandi`s cousin. He is far more witty, articulate, vibrant, opinionated and innocent than the said qibla. The said qibla has his own attributes and weaknesses like all of us, but that does not make him Urstruly`s cousin.

Sorry for the digression.

Regards.

Will Urstruly or some other Islamic authority answer my question.

`The first one is about the origin of the human species. Islam, judaism as well as Christianity subscribe to the the theory of God creating Adam first and then Eve from the rib of Adam. However if you look at human bodies, logic say it could not have been that way. Men have nipples and there is no logical reason for having them. The only reason for nipples being on the body is for nurturing the child. That fact dictates that the first human if there was one, was a female and then the man was made using the same template. Since the bible was written by men, they had to say that God created man first.`

Sattar

Well I would say that more power to Quadianis and may their gods` blessing on them as long as they don`t call themselves Muslims; as long as they don`t call themselves Muslims I have no problem with their beleif system whether they worship a fire breathing donkey or bow to a prophet riding a cloud. What do i care.

Urstruly (#78):

Your calm demeanor is giving way to hysterical diatribes. You are losing it dude. You have made following mistakes in our discussion so far:

1. You have dealt a blow to your own argument on ahadith. Here’s how …

You mentioned the mistake made by the Prophet, when he ordered that supply of grain to Mecca be cut off. Apparently the Prophet later realized that his conduct was not in line with Quranic pronouncements of Rehmat-ul-alameen (Mercy for the worlds) … since he forced people … women, elderly, infants, expecting mothers and more … to starvation over disagreements (your views, not mine). So he reversed his decision … and that he was a human like “you and me”.

Why would you override the verdict of Quran by the verdict of a person like “you and me” … who committed colossal blunders? Clearly “you and me” are not above Quran. Or are we?

2. While referring to superior intellect and expertise of your mullahs … you have failed to explain their fairy-tale beliefs (flying prophets performing magic, raising the dead etc.). Your position that everyone has his own reasons to believe … is admission that your mullahs are not making sense to you either.

You are disappointing your cousin Naqshbandi here … you know …

3. You earlier slammed your own ullema for their unanimous “stupid, dishonest, unIslamic” conclusions (your words, not mine; although I agree). But on adultery issue, you insist your ullema walk on water. This you cannot explain.

4. Traditions quoted to support death for adultery contradict each other … which suggests they cannot be trusted … and were probably fabricated. Apparently, Dr. Hamidullah was not paying attention during his scholarly undertakings. Neither was Maudoodi.

Compilers of hadith very well may have attempted to retain correctness in their reports. It is up to us to decide to what degree they succeeded. Easiest way is to judge traditions against Quran. Your traditions fail this litmus test. Sorry.

If a man fatally stabbed a female-slave by a knife as she delivered a child … the Prophet must have at least shown his displeasure over such cruelty. The tradition fails to show any remorse on part of the Prophet … and indicates that the Prophet absolved the man of his barbaric behavior! Your reasoning about lack of Prophet’s political base is speculative … and can be used to twist any hadith for any conclusion one may desire.

Let’s agree that the “authentic” ahadith … are really not “that authentic”. Your only other option is to accept the verdict of Jerry Falwell … that Mohammad was a violent maniac. Take you pick.

5. Above all … Quran clearly sets the maximum punishment for adultery at lashes. Referring to older scriptures … while ignoring Quran … is incorrect. Don’t treat Quran like leprosy. Try to sincerely understand and accept its message.

6. The issue is not whether Ahmadis are Muslims or kaffirs. Your out-of-line comments indicate frustration with your inability to make your case.

You take shots at Ahamdis on basis of jamaati political power displayed by the anti-Ahmadi legislation passed by the government of Pakistan. Since you raised the issue … here’s the full picture … that you remain in denial of:

The accelerated decline of Muslim nations over the past century coincides with their rejection of the Promised Messiah and the Mahdi of our times … and the 14th Islamic century. As for political power … let’s not forget the fate of three kings … Faisal, Bhutto, and Zia … who took persecution of Ahmadis to new heights … and were slaughtered like animals by Allah Almighty. Despite severe opposition, Ahmadi-Muslims have gone on to become a global jamaat … with the aim of presenting the true Islamic teachings of One Allah and peace and compassion for the mankind … while getting rid of corruption Islam has suffered at the hands of your ullema. Muslim world can only dream of having a Caliph … or that Issa-ibne-Marriam will descend from the sky and deliver them from humiliation and misery. Ahmadi-Muslims have accepted the Issa of their times … are blessed with Caliphate … and have been blessed with success by Allah against all odds. With blessings of Allah … the God of Mohammed … were are doing quite alright.

So Urstruly Sahib … instead of arguing who is and who is not a Muslim … you should try to address the problem of fundamentalism … as displayed by your harsh and barbaric views …which has no Islamic basis.