The Book is also Just a Book

dullahbhatti #266: Yes I had a good vacation....

``that is logical fallacy. No Mohammad no Quran. but I understand if you are beleiver in it, it is hard to realize that. Once you realize that you are not believer anymore.``

This is not correct from the Islamic point of view. This only becomes correct from the non-Islamic point of view........Or from an athiestic point of view.......

Muhammad, according to Islam, is a person who brought the message of God. It is the message of God that constitutes the basis of Islam. If we look at the this from an athiestic point of view, then we assume that their is no God. Hence, ``No Muhammad, No Quran and thus no Islam`` becomes correct. Since, as an athiest, one would assume that Quran is Muhammad`s own word.

However, from an Islamic point of view, which is what I believe you were discusssing, the Quran is the message, and the law and the way of life. Muhammad is just a person who happened to have been assigned to deliver it. Based on that point of view, had their been no Muhammad, the message would have come through someone else.

Islam, in its essence, in fact in its entirity, is the Quran............Nothing more, nothing less...........

Re: #266 by dullabhatti

[that is logical fallacy. No Mohammad no Quran. but I understand if you are beleiver in it, it is hard to realize that. Once you realize that you are not believer anymore]



Exactly!

This IS the CENTRAL point.



I wonder why all these intelligent people don`t get this.

The Quran exists because Mohammad said that his Allah revealed it to him.

So it depends on his credibility, whether you are going to even open the Quran.

Arguments on the CONTENTS of the Quran come AFTERWARDS.

So the question is, can you believe this man.

Well, judge him by his life and see if you want to believe him.

I think everyone should be able to make that judgement.

Judge him like you would judge any other man.

For example, if any guy walked up to you and said god had revealed such and such to him, you are first going to decide on his credibility before you listen to what he has to say. You are not going to believe just anybody.



And don`t start with ``Oh, that was a different age`` kind of logic. A prophet should SET exemplary norms, not be an example of existing norms.

#264 Romair: Hope you had a great vacation.

>>>Actually this is not true. If you take away the Quran, there is no Islam left. Not if you take away the word and life examples of Mohammad. <<<

that is logical fallacy. No Mohammad no Quran. but I understand if you are beleiver in it, it is hard to realize that. Once you realize that you are not believer anymore.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dullabhatti #246: ``take away his word and life examples, and there is no Islam left. You follow Mohammad exactly as he lived and you become a great Muslim even without knowing it.``

Actually this is not true. If you take away the Quran, there is no Islam left. Not if you take away the word and life examples of Mohammad. In fact, there really isn`t too much in the Quran regarding the word and life examples of Mohammad. I believe the name mentioned most in the Quran is Moses, and not Mohammad (although Muhammad is mentioned in other names and terms probably more than any other prophet).

I don`t know if you have read the Quran. If you haven`t, I suggest you should if you want to get an insight into Islam. There is no other way to understand it. Over time, like all relgions, Islam has become a political tool, and you will get many different versions of it, if you simply listen to others` point of view (including mine). The good thing is that Islam is very simple to understand, since it is based on one book, and nothing more.

The details of the, ``word and life examples`` of Mohammad originated around two hundred and fifty years after his death, when the first book of Hadith was written. For 250 years, there was no documented, ``life`` of Muhammad available. Yet Islam was still a religion that was practiced and was spreading all over the world, during that time.

There is instruction in the Quran to follow the example of Muhammad, but the documentation in it, as on nearly all subjects, is at a very abstract level. This is why you will see so many Muslims who are committed to Islam, yet practice it in very different ways. And why you will rarely see anyone switching their religion, from Islam, i.e. everyone can find something in it, for themselves, from a gay Canadian like Irshad Manji to Qazi Hussain Ahmad............

There is no mention of any kind of books on Hadith in the Quran. No mention or instruction on anyone writing them. Hence, within the context of Islam, other than the Quran, there is no book, set of instructions etc, which are to carry any religious value. All other items, including the books on Hadith, within the Islamic context, are considered man-made. And can be discarded, since they are not a pre-requisite for the religion, itself.

Over time, these post-Quran books have, however, attained a status equivalent to the Quran, specifically in the relgious community. There have been furthur books written on top of these books, and over centuries, they have achieved a life of their own. Due to which you will now find many, if not most, religious figures debate their arguments on the basis of a series of literature written by previous figures who traced it back to the book on Hadith, which itself was written by human being...........

So, in a nutshell, a Muslim`s aim, by definition of the religion, is to follow the Quran. Not to follow anything after that............

Re: # 257
I am sure you would find that out if you would research.
Mr Yoginder Sikand is a very well respected scholar of South Asian religions. I can give you his email, and you are welcome to ask him personally.

As Farzana said the Shias and Sunnis should unite to take on the evil West (Christian)..
If you kill each other by sending suicide bombers to their mosques, it`s not going to happen anytime soon.. You should conserve the suicide bombers for infidels like evil Hindus/Christians/other human-beings etc..

Folks like Farzana should take the lead in unifying the ummah.. :-))

A logical question raised by someone in the talk-radio..

---

Usually how big is the Quran?. Assuming it`s atlesat 100 pages, the thickness factor will inhibit the flushing unless you have the world`s most powerful flushing toilet..

The caller said he tried flushing the ``Newsweek`` and it ended up clogging the toilet..

Afghanistan and Iraq are probably just the beginning of the prelude.

There`s a lot more to come as seen here and here and here.


I think what it boils down to is that the War Drums have been upped a notch louder.

The gray-line walkers [they know who they are ;-)~~] are scared do-do-less as they`re about to get hit from both sides. Kinda like a brown in the KKK and BP`s USA - for one the brownie is dark enough to deserve a bullet; for the other he/she is too fair.......

:-)~~

Re: # 256



Deen e Mullah

fassad e fee sabil illah....

Pakis out protesting the koran thing...

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Thousands of Muslims marched Friday in Islamic countries from Asia to the Middle East, burning symbols of the United States to protest the alleged desecration of the Quran by military personnel at a American prison in Guantanamo, Bay, Cuba.

``Shaivite and Vaishnavite Hindus once regularly waged fierce battles with each other but today these conflicts are buried in the pages of history books.``

---

Yoginder Sikand # 256


Does any Hindu know about these fierce battles Shaivites and Vaishnavites regularly waged against each other?

Sectarian Strife in the ‘House of Islam’



Yoginder Sikand



Yesterday’s blast in a saint’s shrine in Pakistan, suspected to be the handiwork of Sunni extremists, exacted a toll of over twenty-five innocent victims. This incident is the latest in a series of sectarian attacks in Pakistan that have caused the deaths of thousands of people in recent years. The continuing conflicts between Shias and Sunnis and among different groups within the broader Sunni fold, not just in Pakistan but elsewhere too, itself is ample evidence of the fact that the notion of the pan-Islamic ummah, so central to the discourse of both Islamist ideologues and their Islamophobic opponents is just that—a fictional notion that has little or no bearing in the face of deep-rooted sectarian rivalries.



The ‘House of Islam’, or dar ul-islam, as it exists today, is a house divided against itself. Although the Qur’an lays particular stress on the unity and brotherhood of all Muslims, in actual fact Muslims are fiercely divided among themselves on sectarian lines. Sectarian divisions had their origins in the early Islamic period itself and, instead of mellowing down, only seem to have further solidified with time. This is in striking contrast to the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist case. While Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other in their thousands some centuries ago, today, barring in Ireland, such conflicts are unheard of. Shaivite and Vaishnavite Hindus once regularly waged fierce battles with each other but today these conflicts are buried in the pages of history books. Sectarian strife never took bloody forms among the tolerant, non-violent Buddhists, who devised more gentle methods of coming to terms with their differences. It is only among the Muslims that sectarian conflicts continue to be a contemporary reality. Such conflicts do not always take violent forms, most often being limited simply to promoting a sense of sectarian identity that is predicated on a fierce hostility towards rival sects. On occasion, however, these conflicts express themselves in the form of violent attacks, in which, inevitably, most of the victims are perfectly innocent people.



In many cases, intra-Muslim sectarian conflicts have little to do with religion as such, and are more related to social, economic and political factors. Yet, even in these cases, the fact that religion is able to be so easily marshalled to fuel conflicts calls for an explanation. The reason probably lies in the way in which most traditionalist ‘ulama and Islamist ideologues understand their religion. As they see it, Islam alone is God’s ‘chosen’ religion and the only way to salvation. All other paths, they insist, are ‘deviant’ or even ‘Satanic’. Consequently, their own sectarian understanding of Islam is upheld and championed as the single way to win God’s pleasure. Other religions and alternate interpretations of Islam are, consequently, seen as ‘aberrant’, to be combated, preferably through peaceful persuasion, but if that fails, through violent compulsion or even terror, if the occasion demands. Further strengthening this proclivity to use violence to promote sectarian agendas is the absence of a single Church in Islam, unlike the Catholic case, that can lay down doctrinal orthodoxy. This allows the ‘ulama of rival sects to assert their own claims to representing ‘true’ Islam as against their rivals. Shoring up sectarian identities in this battle over normative Islam necessarily entails branding rival Muslim sects as not really Muslim at all, as hidden ‘enemies’ of the faith.

Large sections of the ‘ulama, in particular, have a vested interest in promoting sectarian rivalry. By fiercely condemning other Muslim groups as ‘deviant’ they are able to present themselves as the spokesmen of ‘authentic’ Islam, earning them the power, authority and worldly privileges that are associated with such a position. Sectarianism is deeply ingrained in the theological training that the ‘ulama receive in their madrasas. Almost every madrasa is associated with one of the many different maslaks or Muslim sects, there being hardly any that are without such a sectarian affiliation. Several madrasas carefully train their students to combat rival sects, going so far as to brand them as ‘anti-Islamic’. Numerous ‘ulama, touted in their sectarian circles as ‘Defenders of Islam’, have issued fatwas declaring other Muslim groups as outside the fold of Islam. Islamic bookshops, generally run on sectarian lines, stock voluminous tomes by ‘ulama spewing venom against Muslims of rival faiths.





In order to substantiate my argument about the primacy of the ‘ulama in sustaining sectarian rivalries let me discuss a booklet that I recently laid my hands on. Titled ‘Relation with Heretics’, it is an English translation of an Urdu book titled ‘Badmazhabon Se Rishta’. Penned by a certain Mufti Jalaluddin Ahmad Azmi, it has been published by the Delhi-based Kutub Khana Amjadia, an Islamic publishing house associated with the Barelvi sect.



The book describes the author in glowing terms, bestowing on him the pompous title of ‘Faqih-i Millat’ or the ‘Jurisprudent of the [Muslim] Community’. His, the book says, ‘is a name to be proud of’. Born in 1933 in a village in Uttar Pradesh, Mufti Jalaluddin received his theological training at a leading Barelvi school, the Madrasa Islamia Shams ul-‘Ulum, Nagpur. He was one of the closest disciples of the leading Indian Barelvi scholar, the late Arshad ul Qadri, among whose various ‘achievements’ was his penning of numerous fierce diatribes against rival Muslim sects such as the Deobandis, the Wahhabis and the Shias. He also studied under Mustafa Raza Khan Barelvi (whom the book anoints with the title of ‘Mufti-e Hind’ or the ‘Mufti of India’), son of the pioneer of the Barelvi sect, Ahmad Khan Barelvi. He later taught at several Barelvi madrasas in India and founded one himself—the Dar ul-‘Ulum Amjadia Arshad ul-‘Ulum, at Ojha Ganj in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Here he also established a centre for training muftis to deliver fatwas. He is said to have continued delivering fatwas for a period of over thirty years till his death in 2001.



The Mufti was, the book says, a staunch defender of the Barelvi sect. The Barelvis claim that they alone represent the authentic Sunni tradition, and that all other Muslim groups, Sunnis as well as Shias, are actually not Muslims at all. The leading scholar of the Barelvi sect, Ahmad Raza Khan, issued numerous fatwas branding various other Muslim sects as infidels, and, as a devoted disciple, the Mufti followed closely in his footsteps, as the contents of this booklet amply illustrate.



The central argument of the booklet is that Barelvis (whom the Mufti addresses simply as ‘Sunnis’, dismissing the other Sunni groups’ claims to the Sunni tradition as false) should have no social relations with other Muslims on account of the ‘deviant’ religious beliefs of the latter. These Muslim groups, he insists, are not Muslim at all. He reserves the choicest abuses for them: ‘adversaries’, ‘heretics’, ‘apostates’ and even ‘enemies of the exalted prophets’. To have social relations with such people, he says, would inevitably lead to a weakening of the faith of the ‘true’ Muslims so much so that they would ‘become in behaviour rude and impudent to Allah, to the Prophet and to venerable religious persons’.



The Mufti sees the world in stark Manichaean terms. Humanity, he tells us is divided into two groups: ‘Muslims’ and ‘Infidels’. The former consists of ‘true’ Sunnis, that is those who follow the creed associated with the Barelvi tradition. The latter comprises all others, including those who claim to be Muslims but are, in the Mufti’s considered opinion, are non-Muslims for all practical purposes. These ‘Muslims’, he says, are actually ‘pretender apostates’, who recite the Islamic creed of confession and offer prayer in the Islamic manner. Because they ‘pretend’ to be Muslims, he says, they are ‘the most mischievous and dangerous’, preaching ‘blasphemy in the guise of Islam’ and ‘abus[ing]’ God and the Prophet Muhammad. ‘They are dogs of people belonging to inderno [sic.]’, he declaims. Resembling ‘true’ Muslims outwardly, they are able to ‘deceive’ the pious and cause them to weaken their faith in Islam and even to rebel against God’s Will, which the Mufti identifies with his own Barelvi interpretation of Islam.



‘Pious’ Muslims, the Mufti insists, must have nothing but hatred in their hearts for such ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’. He backs up his case with selective quotations from the corpus of Hadith, statements attributed to the Prophet Muhammad. For the interest of the reader I am quoting these statements as they appear in the booklet:



“When you come across a heretic, treat him peevishly because Allah Ta‘ala holds every heretic hostile”.
“ The heretic gets out of the fold of Islam just as the hair is pulled out of kneaded flour”.
“ The heretics are the dogs of those whose abode is hell”.
“Whoso [sic.] respected heretic [sic.], he actually helped in demolishing Islam”.




‘Heretics’ who claim to be Muslims must be treated with scorn and disdain, the Mufti announces. To respect a heretic, he argues, is to ‘disrespect and belittle’ the sunnah, the prophetic tradition, because the Prophet himself has laid down that heretics deserve no respect. They do not deserve even civic courtesy, the Mufti insists. ‘It is not correct to treat them politely’, he writes, ‘because Allah Ta‘ala hold [sic.] them hostile and does not accord acceptance to any prayer offered by them’. ‘Belittling the sunnah’ by acting contrary to the Prophet’s advice and befriending ‘heretics’, he insists, ‘leads to overthrowing the foundations of Islam’. Hence, no mercy should be shown to the ‘heretics’ at all. In support of his argument the Mufti quotes a hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad is said to have ordered: ‘If they [the heretics] fall ill, don’t visit them to enquire about their health. If they die, don’t attend their funeral…Don’t salute them. Don’t sit with them. Don’t drink water with them. Don’t take meals with them. Don’t marry with them…Don’t offer prayers along with them’.



In his hate-filled invective against his sectarian rivals the Mufti goes so far as to advise the Barelvi faithful to institute what he calls an ‘all-out Islamic boycott’ against all ‘Muslims’ other than the Barelvis, because they are not really Muslims at all, or so he claims. They must be treated ‘harshly’, he says, adding that this is an ‘excellently [sic.] justified method of treatment’ because God and the Prophet have commanded ‘true’ Muslims to deal with ‘infidels’ in this way. ‘This order was given to the holy Prophet, peace be upon him, who is the embodiment of excellent manners’, the Mufti announces. ‘From this’, he adds, ‘it is evident that treating infidels harshly comes under excellent manners’. Being ‘enemies of Allah’, they should, the Mufti pronounces, ‘be kept away like dogs’. Inter-marriage and inter-dining with them is resolutely forbidden, as is praying along with them in the same mosques. So, too, are even the most basic courtesies. To befriend them or even to have affection for them, the Mufti declares, leads to ‘enmity’ towards God and the Prophet Muhammad and inevitably to ‘infidelity’, so contagious and enticing is their spiritual pollution. If ‘true’ Muslims were to adopt any other course they would, he warns, be consigned to Hell and would be ‘the butt of the course of Allah Ta‘ala, the angels and all other people’.



To bolster his appeal to his fellow Barelvis to consciously cultivate hatred in their hearts for ‘heretics’ if they wish to save themselves from Hell-fire, the Mufti quotes the medieval Sunni scholar Jalaluddin Suyuti, who is said to have written about a certain man, presumably a Sunni, who used to frequent the company of Shias. Because of this ‘crime’ he was unable to recite the creed of confession (kalmia tayyiba) on his death-bed, which would have assured him of entry into heaven. The message, therefore, is that if they want to enter paradise, the Barelvi faithful should have not even the most basic social relations with non-Barelvi ‘hereical’ groups. This is because non-Barelvis, by definition, are said to be ‘enemies’ of Islam, and of Allah and His Prophet The Mufti provides a list of such ‘heretical’ sects that, while claiming to be Muslim, are what he calls ‘infidels’ and ‘apostates’. These comprise a large section of the Muslim community, and include the following: the Ahl-i Quran(who believe only in the Qur’an and not in the Hadith), the Ahmadis (who believe in Mirza Ghulam Muhammad as a prophet succeeding the Prophet Muhammad), the Shias (who criticise certain companions of the Prophet whom the Sunnis revere), the Deobandis (who are accused by the Mufti of denying the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad, and his knowledge of the Unseen), the Wahhabis or Ahl-i Hadith (who deny Sufism and the need to follow one of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence), and the Jama‘at-i Islami (whose founder, Abul ‘Ala Maududi, is alleged by the Mufti of having insulting the prophets, their companions and revered Sunni leaders). Collectively, these groups are condemned for allegedly ‘insulting’ the Prophet Muhammad, and hence are branded by the Mufti as ‘the biggest mischief-mongers’.



Accusing these groups of ‘apostasy’, the Mufti pronounces his sentence on them. Ideally, he says, an ‘Islamic ruler’ must sentence them all to death, and must refuse to ‘accede to their repentance [sic.] and intention to return to the fold of Islam, because of the severity of their crime: their alleged insult to the Prophet Muhammad. That, however, Mufti laments is not possible in India today. Hence, he exhorts the Barelvi faithful, they should turn to the best alternative: to institute a complete ‘religious boycott’ of such people.



The Mufti’s is not a lone voice in the wilderness, and nor are the Barelvi mullahs the only ones that preach such hate-filled poison. Similar diatribes against rival sects have been and continue to be penned and preached by mullahs belonging to other sects as well. The central role of the mullah in fomenting sectarian strife is, therefore, undeniable. Yet, when confronted with the undeniable reality of sectarian rivalries within the ‘House of Islam’, self-righteous Muslim apologists generally place the blame on non-Muslim ‘enemies’—variously described as Christian Crusaders, Jewish Zionists and crafty Brahmins. Islam, they claim, has, from early times onwards, been the victim of hidden ‘conspiracies’ by its enemies to destroy it. These ‘enemies’ of Islam, being non-Muslims, are, by definition, seen as ‘enemies’ of God as well. Accused of being virulently opposed to God, their major mission in life is, it is alleged, to conspire against God’s ‘chosen’ religion. This explains, so Muslim apologists claim, the emergence of numerous sects and the continuing sectarian rivalries among Muslims. It is as if non-Muslims would like nothing more than have Muslims killing themselves and thereby blotting out Islam from off the face of the earth.



In this explanation of Muslim sectarian strife the central role of the ‘ulama is conveniently ignored. While cannot deny the fact that certain non-Muslim powers have indeed played on Muslim differences to pursue their own goals, to claim that intra-Muslim strife is entirely their handiwork is, obviously, ridiculous. By providing a misleading prognosis of the disease, Muslim apologists only prolong the sectarian cancer. It is only when the primary role of significant sections of the ‘ulama in promoting sectarian strife is recognised and when more inclusive and accommodative ways of dealing with difference are devised that the sectarian menace bedevilling the ‘House of Islam’ can be effectively countered.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Did anyone read the news?.At last count 18 dead and 60 injured.Muslims killing muslims in Pakistan again?.This is worse than an act of desecration of a holy book.The Bari Imam incident is murder and a disgrace.Shame on you Pakistan.Jai Bharat.

mullah echoboom: The TR tag terrorist....