The Barbarians Within The Gates!

Ferozak (#241)

Ditto on “definition” of Muslim.

Ummah needs to get out of this silly business of defining “Muslim” and flaunting it like stupid peacocks. Allah uses this term in Quran … and no one has the authority to declare someone otherwise. Deluded Muslims feel compelled to provide definitions, as Allah surely forgot to do so. I guess He was too busy preparing tax returns as April 15 drew closer … even as Muhammad begged for a definition.

SR,

I think Urstruly has given his response. He is bending over backwards (or is it forward?) to keep uncle sam happy … (Urstruly, are you really going to claim a deduction for donating to the jihad-against-usa fund???)

Romair #225

`` I think Pakistanis tend to be far too cynical and pessimistic. I used to have debates with people, when they said that Pakistan was goiing to be Talibinized and the Afghan Taliban would take over. I always said that would not happen. And it didn`t......``

Why support the Taliban if you do not believe in it.

`` My logic was simple: Every country has a pulse. A mean and median towards which most of its population gravitates. It is very very difficult to change that pulse. Pakistan is quite a bit different from the Taliban. External events and political parties tried to take Pakistan towards that direction. The last nail in that coffin would have been Nawaz Sharif`s Shariah Bill. ``

I do not think Nawaz Sharif`s Shariat bill called for destruction of television sets, cameras etc.

`` However, before that the system corrected itself. A coup occured, the Shariah Bill was dumped. Then support for Taliban was dumped. And then the society was de-militarized from the relgious side. During all this time, no one in Pakistan protested. Barring a tiny minority of MMA supporters. ``

No one in Pakistan protested when the Shariat bill was being introduced and the Taliban was being supported.

`` Similarly, the Wahabi strain is not nearly as strong in Pakistan, as everyone makes it out to be. It is very loud but not very strong. Infact, according to a Harvard/WB study, only around 1% of Pakistani students go to madrassahs. There are only a few things that will make Wahabism strong: ``


`` - A perpetual bombing of Muslim countries by the USA, which is traditionaly opposed heavily by Pakistanis...... ``

Pakistan has no problems kissing up to USA until 1990. Pakistani illegals love to immigrate to the land of the hated. You love to beg for F-16s. You sell half of your textile exports to USA. I do not buy your argument that Pakistanis are anti-American. The Pakistani establishment might not like America. But it is their own business.

`` - A forced secularization of the society, which will receive a counter-reaction in a religiously-oriented country like Pakistan ``

What is forced secularization of society ? Secularization means govt does not favor one religion over the other. If Pakistanis want the government to favor one religion over the other they have no business whining about how other countries run their affairs ?

`` - Poor governance by the non-MMA groups ``

What about poor governance by MMA ? They have been running the NWFP and Baluchistan for at least 2 years ? Have all the problems gone away ?

tahmed,

Sort through your own posts to find out (on a minor note … why not continue to insist that these posts weren’t addressed to sattar … ?)

Moving on … you seem to have a habit of taunting others for following humans. Apply this criterion to yourself before going berserk with self-righteousness. You too follow a human … who gave you Quran and called it the word of god. Apparently your god chose not to talk to you … then became silent forever … and all you have is the word of man telling you what He actually said! Go figure.

When I raised this point earlier you started rambling incoherently. Give it a rest, Sahib. You need to try to get over your silly hang-ups.

SR # 201

Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now doing my taxes for this year; remind me of your question in about couple of weeks.

KaalChakra, what would you suggest for one to read in order to properly understand the variations in Hindu society and religion? Just name a couple of book bro.

I have noticed that in Pakistan, there is a great deal of misconception regarding Hinduism. To most youths, regardless of social standing (a caste?), language, and political orientation, they all have a dirty view of Hinduism the religion.

It`s a `religion where they have over 8 million gods, they fancy worshipping rats and other sorts of animals, and they have a passion for burning their wives when the husband dies. They also believe in a caste system, which is a slap in the face of Islam`s notion of `equality of all Muslims regardless of race, caste, color, or language`. Do note, I am not airing these views as my own, just giving a short summary of most views I have come across amongst youths.

KaalChakra, I feel I may not dignify your question with an answer due to the reason that my knowledge is rather limited on the these dimensions you are talking of.

Be a good gentlemen, give your personal definition of what is a Hindu.

Mr. Feroz, I never asked for a legal definition of who is or who is not a Muslim. I asked for your personal definition, and I never said that our definitions have to be imposed on other people. I do not know why every one is making such silly assumptions, I am simply trying to understand some things so I know in which mind set you think.

I think that the author of this article has genuine concerns regarding the current Mullahocracy of Pakistan. Who the hell are those Mullahs anyways to be the agents of Islam and tell us what to do or what not to do?

Islam is a religion between the slave and the Lord, and that is how Muslims should intend to keep it.

However, holding Islam accountable for the actions of retrogressive Mullahs is an absolutely incorrect way of proceeding. It`s not progressive at all and it further creates divisions in an already disunited society.

And, I would like to get a sip of this realism you seem to have Mr. Feroz. Do you REALISTICALLY believe that Islam can be removed from the veins of the people? One can remove every vein from our bodies but Islam and belief in the Supremacy of Islam will always be supreme to the Muslim, whether he/she is in a material form or immaterial form.

Cya.

Finally, to show how stupid this idol/ non idol worshipping binary distinction among people is: there are Hindus, in fact almost all Hindus, sometimes use idols, sometimes worship totally abstractly - with no images present; what`s worse, sometimes they would go around using different images depending upon their convenience.

Does it make sense to build a whole RELIGION on this flimsy binary distinction of idol/non idol?

If we get over this prison of idol/non idol binary thinking, some very interesting things come to light.

For example, we may find that the number of Hindus who `worship` one particular form or shape of an `idol` may be smaller than the number of people who don`t use `idols`at all!

Would that make the modal category of Hindus to be the of those who don`t use idols to worship God?

---

Frankly, that will be silly, because it is very unwise to place too much value on any one form of worshipping That What Is UNKNOWAEABLE.

Does Pakistan`s constitution have fundamental rights (like, right to life, etc)?

re: haroonellahi #235

``Is there a sect of Hinduism, which does not believe in idol-worship?``

Let`s answer that at two levels. One, in the framework of semitic religions, and then, thinking freely, as human beings, not merely Muslim, Christians, and Hindus.

Muslim/Christian answer: Yes. Arya Samajis and Brahmo Samajis at the national levels but also many more regional groupings. Again, there is no requirement that they call themselves Hindus, and some of them don`t.

Even if one stays confined to the level of a Muslim or a Christian, it should be easy to grasp that Hinduism sees ``not idol woshipping,`` ``idol worshipping,`` ``which particular idol worhipping,`` ``how many idols worhipping,`` ``in what way idol worshipping`` - all these as just different ways of trying to reach God.

And we have a moral obligation and duty to offer to other people the very same freedom regarding choosing the form and manner of their worship as we want for ourselves, so long as they are not hurting or harming us, or hurting yet other people.

Does that make sense within the Islamic/Christian framework?

---

Actually, before a broader answer can be given, a basic understanding of the Hindu way of thinking would be very helpful.

That`s why, we need to compare and contrast the BASIC INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL ESSENCE of Hinduism and Islam. In that respect, would my understanding of Islam as follows, expressed in # 172, be correct, close to the truth, or totally false?

---

#172 by kaalchakra
Haroon

It may be useful to know whether you agree that external forms and dancings aside, there has never been any change in the fundamentals of Islam, no matter where it went and when. Also that in an intellectual and moral sense, Islam has not moved any distance beyond where it stood when ijtehad began.

Please share your views. Thanks.

Romair wrote:

``However, before that the system corrected itself. A coup occured, ``

That line sums up the `logic` of romair :D

re: Haroon Ellahi

I had already answered this question, in response to Echoboom, but I am assuming you did not read that post.

Thus, to answer your question, a definition of who is a Muslim is legalistically vague, because if some one claims to be a Muslim, we as Muslims have to accept their word on its face value. We are not supposed to judge, who is a Muslim; who is a good Muslim or who is a bad Muslim. On the other hand, even if they are lying and claiming to be a Muslim on falsehoods, even then it is not for us to pass judgement on them, because Allah will judge them for their lies and it is not incumbent upon us to judge them.

Consequently, as Muslims we are not supposed to ``define`` who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim. Muslims are not supposed to engage in this sort of sectarian hair spliting to decide the issue of who is a Muslim and who is not. The final judgement on this question is reserved for Allah to decide and not us mortals.

For the record, my argument was one about asking for a sense of accountibility from our politicans, who escape accountibility by employing religion to mask their illegal upsurpations of power. The main contention of the article was that as long as religion is used for political reasons, then all demands for political accountibility becomes a moot issue, since politics assumes a dogmatic nature of religion and considers itself above questioning. This creates a highly non-representative sense of goverance in Pakistan and to a very significant degree, has been historically responsible for derailing democracy in Pakistan and in preventing the emergence of political institutions in Pakistan. All politics is hostage to religion in Pakistan.

This is what the article was suggesting that as long as religion and politics are infused in Pakistan, politicans who grab power illegally, will use religion to give them political legitmacy. This is what was meant as the ``creeping evil of religion``; the denial of democratic rights.

The article seems to have irritated a raw nerve in some people and they have reacted to it, with the usual knee jerk response, which seems to based on the perception of the article and what the article was suggesting. The term ``barbarian`` seems have to have further created a sense of turmoil in the mind of some of readers and it seems they were, in a Freudian sense, able to contact the terms ``religion``, ``barbarian`` and reflected their own fears and insecurities by projecting a false understanding of the issues. It is quite probable that most of the people did not even read the article and simply responded out a sense of pre-conditioned phobias and prejudices.

Another interesting fact, was the linkage between the ``mullah`` and ``Islam`` and ``religion`` in the responses. Even more interesting was the fact that the mullah was identified with Islam and the criticism of the mullah was understood as a criticism of Islam itself. The article was, indeed, a criticism of the mullahs in politics, because the religious politics practiced by the mullahs in Pakistan is purely secular politics and it is about the attainment of power and it uses religion as a fulcrum to leverage an advantage for itself in Pakistani politics. As to ``mullahocracy`` itself, the reference was made in lieu that if the mullahs are willing to use religion for political ends, then they must also be held politically responsible for their actions and they cannot use religion to escape accountibility.

Haroon, the crux of the matter is that if the mullahs use Islam for their own ends, then Islam itself is dragged into the debate and must be held accountable for actions, which are committed in its name, by people claiming to represent it, i.e. the mullahs. The bad name, which Islam gets comes from a large measure by the actions of the mullahs, which are politically egocentric and the mullahs use Islam simply to ``get away with murder`` and thus, escape accountibility.

Mullahs do not wish to submit to political accountibility, but they wish to use religion to get political power. Hence, the real issues of secularism and theocracy in Pakistan have nothing to do with Islam, but are linked to the political power of the mullahs themselves. Ironically, Islam gets a bad press, because of this and even more ironically, if the image of Islam has to be cleared, then there is a very pressing need to separate religion from politics due to the fact of how religion is exploited by the clergy to gain political advantages in Pakistan. Islam in Pakistan gets a bad image from the actions of the mullahs themselves, because their actions are not in conformity, with what they claim to preach and practice.

Religion being a central issue in Pakistan is not an issue, because the real issue is the manner in which religion is used in Pakistan for political ends.

Ciao

haroonellahi #235,
Why do you care if hindus idol worship or not?

Re: # 235

Brahmo Samajist... and I believe even the Arya Samajists...

haroon: on your fascination with the definition of a muslim - since the broader point and far more practical and significant point I made was lost on you (and you simply saw it as rant/rave), i provided you with the definition you were seeking in #191 anyway. seems like you missed reading it.

(you did not need to come to chowk for this btw, any abdul on the street in pakistan and any schoolchild would have told you that if you believe in the kalima you are considered a muslim: islam is not a complicated religion, despite efforts of the maulvis to make it one).

the broader point, the one i was ranting about, remains the relevant one - all individuals (regardless of whether they are muslim or not) are equal in the eyes of God according to the Quran, and all will be judged by the same profoundly simple criteria (did you distinguish between right and wrong during your life on earth? did you do the right things?). This sounds like rant/rave to you because, despite your professions to hating the maulvis, you sound just like them when you seek to draw the primary distinction between muslims vs. nonmuslims rather than between people who do the right thing and those who do not.

Ref haroonellahi #235

[Is there a sect of Hinduism, which does not believe in idol-worship?]

Members of the Brahmo Samaj. Except that they also make the claim they are not Hindus!