Standing Alone in Mecca by Asra Q. Nomani

SR/DM/Salim: technically vuzoo is broken of others around the ``farter`` who end up inhaling it.

Romair

So basically you are saying that the mission that Holy Prophet was charged with was a complete failure(God forbidds). He could not make even simplest arrangements for his message to get across to later generations uncorrupted and he also utterly failed in training one sigle individual lest creating a group of people who were honest and loyal; instead all the people who gathered around him were either crooks, charlatans, or dishonest opportunists. As a matter of fact every person on this planet is dishonest and every human being is utterly incapable of doing anything honest. In addition every account of Holy prophet`s life is a fabricated lie or worst it is the figment of people`s imagination. There never was law in Muslim lands. Different schools of Islamic juresprudence are just fabrication by Mullahs to please the Kings of their days and misguide Muslims from the righteous path and towards a path where they could only establish their own fiefdoms.........and list just goes on and on.

If this is your point of view then people like Daniel Pipes and Ibn-e-Warq appear to be paragons of virtue of honesty, if one compares their opinion of Islam to yours. What can I say other than that I pitty you for your extremeist point of view towards fellow human beings. This is even worst than Daniel Pipes and Salman Rushdie. Other than that I can only pray for you that may God show you the righteous path - I will try what is humanly possible and that is what God has charged us with.

Wazzoo 101 for dummies

Today, we will cover wazzoo in public restrooms.

1. Make sure that bathroom has just been spotlessly cloeaned
2. Lock the door, if you can, so others can`t get in
3. Open the hot and cold faucets all the way
4. Remove your shoes and socks
5. Roll up your sleeves
6. Flatulate forcefully to exhaust residual feeling
7. Urinate with determination to last a long time
8. Don`t forget the stone
9. Wash your hands, first the right and then the left
10. Let the water trickle down your arms and onto the counter
11. Cup your hands and splash generous amount of water on face and as much of the floor as possible
12. Do not clean your armpits
13. Wash your neck without getting your belly button wet
14. Put your right foot in the sink
15. Wash your foot without falling down
16. Put your left foot in the sink
17. Wash your foot while balancing on your wet right foot
18. Blow water out of each nostril, first the right and then the left
19. Make sure you get the wall or the person next to you with the buggers from each nostril
20. Put water in your mouth and gargle thoroughly
21. Make strange noises while gargling and don`t open door for people trying to save your life
22. Make sure the mirror, if available, has enough moisture on it so that you cannot recognize yourself
23. The counter should be moist enough for a medium sized boat to sail in it
24. Use up all the paper towels to dry every part of your wet body
25. Make sure that you don`t place the used towels in the bin - minus two points for every towel that goes in
26. Unlock the door to the restroom
27. Avoid eye contact with the disgusted person who was waiting for 20 minutes while you prepared yourself for an audience with the Almighty.
28. Avoid eating beans, drinking beer, or nihari so that you can make it to the next prayer without repeating wazzoo.

Maulana Salim ``al-Wazzoo`` Chauhan

… as if having a hereditary king was not bad enough … we now have a this king defining Islam … which fanatics like urstruly want to force on all of us.

… it used to be much simpler when ullema wrote books on women’s yoni. Can we now go back to discussing the works of naqshbandi’s sheikh??? I kinda liked what he was alluding to …

Urstruly #112: ``Hence Fatawa-e-Alamgir is invalid.``

It`s good to see that you are finally starting to see the light. Fatawa-e-Alamgiri is not only invalid because the guy was an heridatory king, passing fatwas about a religion, which itself does not recognize his kingship. It is also invalid because no one has a right to pass fatwas.

Actually anyone can pass one, but those can be rejected or accepted as people want.........

Islamic jurisprudence, itself, is an oxymoron, also. There were no schools of jurisprudence in Islam, till hundreds of years after the death of Muhammad. Hence it is a man-made idea. Quran does not mention Hanafi, Wahabi etc. In fact, the Quran lays down very few laws. It is mostly a book of stories, as well as a book that states do good, otherwise you will go to hell. And then it goes on to describe hell. Or do good and you will be in heaven. And it goes on to describe heaven..........etc.

Considering the fact that the syllabus for a single freshman law class is many times larger than the Quran, one can well imagine, that the Quran`s intention was never to be a book of jurisprudence. Thus institutionalized, ``Islamic`` jurisprudence was invented. It was not in the Quran.....

The detailed Islamic jurisprudence came into existence due to things like Fatwa-e-Alamgiri. Which were based on other previous fatwas. Which were based on previous rulings by previous imams. Which were based on books written on the Prophet and his words by people, who lived hundreds of years, after him..........

Thus nearly all Islamic jurisprudence, today, including how to wash up after one farts, is totally based on heresay, regarding what Muhammad did. It would not be permissible in any court of law in any country of the world, today.........i.e. it is nearly all man-made based on nothing that is in the Quran (since the Quran barely has anything in it; it is so small).........

Muslims thus have a few choices now:

1. They can continue running their lives according to 300-1000 year old fatwas and books written by kings and imams. Which do not allow you to wear shorts nor jeans, by the way
2. They can become athiests and just disregard the Quran, as and when they wish, and consider it man-made, like non-Muslims do
3. They can become secularists and assume that while God got the rules correct on personal life, somehow He messed up when it came to govt.
4. They can consider the Quran as the only true guide to Islam. And try to interpret it, based on the time they are in, and disregard any man-made books about hadith, fatwas etc. to be rejectable

F-e-Alamgari falls under 1. And thus is not binding. It can be followed by whomever wants to and rejected by anyone who wants to.........

Romair

I guess you are right. Alamgir should have sent the manuscript of his bill first to the paliamentary committee on legal affairs before the later would have sumbitted it to the lower house of the parliament for voting; and the bill definitely was not submitted to Senate`s Standing committe on legal affairs before it submitted it to the Senate for a vote. Alamgir bypassed all the procedure and went directly to his National Security Council and made changes in the penal and civil code. Hence Fatawa-e-Alamgir is invalid.

#110, {``LOL! A practice we had in the Punjab of old was to rinse our mouth after defecating. I could never understand the rationale for that. I am wondering if that too has any Islamic roots?``}

DM Sahib,

No sir, that is uniquely a sardarji enhancement. There may be minute anatomical variations among the followers of different religions. I think it may have to do with how the internal plumbing is structured. :)

SR:

``What I fail to understand is WHY does one have to wash hands, feet, head and face after letting out gas while there is no requirement to wash the offending part of the anatomy which is the exhaust outlet...??? Please explain...``

LOL! A practice we had in the Punjab of old was to rinse our mouth after defecating. I could never understand the rationale for that. I am wondering if that too has any Islamic roots?

recap

#88 by temporal on September 15, 2005 10:20pm PT
#87:

Islam has prescribed two sets of duties upon a man, one set is called Haquq-ullah (i.e. rights of God) which covers all the praying rituals and then there are Haquq-ul Ibad (i.e. Rights of man)....

also you forgot to mention an important fact.... the latter has precedence over the former

Allah may forgive any oversight by a man or women relating to rights due to Him...but He won`t forgive any abuse of Haqooq ul ebaad

*******


# 93:

a careful read of this post says you are saying the same thing i said in # 88:

first you quote me and then say Absolutely wrong! and a few sentences later you repeat what I said..…As for Huququl-‘ibaad, He will not Forgive until the victim has forgiven, and then He may also forgive the victimizer because He has extended this right to everyone.


however by saying the following you are naoozobilah placing the restrictions on what Allah can or cannot do…not to mention an attempt to get into His mind!...naozobillah!

my understanding is this: If there is a violation of Haqooq ul eebaad, an all powerful and Omnipotent Allah says He will take a back seat…He will not forgive the violations of Haqooq ul eebad until the victim has forgiven the transgressor first... this establishes the precedence in no uncertain way


In #95 it appears rather in a convoluted and not straightforward, upfront way urstruly agrees with the precedence of Haqooq ul eebaad over Haqood Allah… “only person who has the right to grant mercy is that man`s victim of back biting…”

rgds

t

Re: # 108

temporal,

The `Absolutely Wrong!` excalmation was addressing your comment on Precedence of Huququl`ibaad over Huquq-Allah.

The second part is a brief explanation of His Justice in terms of the two Huquq. By the virtue of your explanation, on forgiveness against violations of Huququl`ibaad, you and I agree.

It is not my intention nor am I trying to place restriction on Allah (m`az Allah) in any manner. It is my understanding that since He has granted us all some rights, He will not rescind those without our consent out of His Supreme Justice. And this belief is not based on my own thought. It is pretty consistent throughout the Quran, if you delve into the exegeses and Sahih Ahadith.

Surely He intercedes when needed, but His Methods are not as simple as ours. Sometimes His mysterious Ways are very clear immediately, and other times they become apparent over a period of time to those who maintain faith in Him. Nevertheless, His Justice is always there.

Like I said, one has to `balance` both Huquq, and Allah has made it very easy for us to do so if we follow the Entire Quran sincerely, not just selected portions of our choice.

In #95 Ursturly basically provided and explanation of my view on this topic. Perhaps he can correct me if I`m mistaken. Please note my view on the Allah`s intercession through His myterious ways in the errors where ``our hearts are in the right place``. He ensures that the offender correct his/her method and the victim recognizes that his/her offender had meant well. Otherwise, `direct` intercession may not be understood by the victim and he/she may not be satisfied. So proactively eliminates that chance of our dissatisfaction in His Court.

Deliberate offenses, however, are a different story and I think all of us agree on that. Which brings us to `Gheebah` and how Allah will deal with us on this one.

The simple reason as I see it, is because the victim has no idea that his/her rights have been violated. Therefore, Justice demands that in order to prosecute the offender, the victim has to notified first, then it`ll be left to the him/her to do as he/she pleases - forgive or demand retribution.

Urstruly`s reference to Zakat further illustrates my understanding that one has to balance the two Huquq, and not compromise one for another.

On the other hand, it also helps my argument that Huququl`ibaad is a part or subset of Hquq-Allah.

But if you must insist on ``precedence`` of one over the other, then please tell me

1. what are the three things asked of a person when he/she dies, and in what order?

2. what will be the first of our deeds that He will ask us about on the Day of Judgement?

I eagerly wait for your response to the two questions above.

:-)~~

Urstruly #87: ``which implies that Ijtehad was done and consensus achieved on various issues of both branches of law.``

How exactly can consensus be reached by anyone under a king? And that too a heridatory king? If I become the king of Pakistan, then, can I bring in ten people I like and approve of, and tell them to do some ijtehad, and create law? Will they ever create an Islamic against me - the king? If today Musharraf gathered fifty people and created an Islamic law, would you consider it valid?

Considering the fact that Islam outlaws heridatory kings, shouldn`t the first ijtehad carried out by these guys have stated that Aurangzeb is an illegitimate and an unIslamic ruler and should be deposed? After which any group he creates, including these ijtehadis, would become null and void auotmatically - along with any laws they created....

``The process continues to date. It is a debt upon us by our generation to continue the tradition that was given to us by Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself.``

Where exactly have we gathered this information on Holy Prophet from? If we look at the Quran, the name most mentioned is actually Moses, and not Muhammad. What about Muslims like me, who believe in the Quran, and do not follow man-made books like those created by individuals who came later, including Bukhari etc.

As I mentioned to you, I believe in following the Quran. You tend to follow other human beings and their writings, and not just the Quran. This is actually a form of Shirk - the ultimate sin in Islam..........

Re: # 107

Romair: ``As I mentioned to you, I believe in following the Quran. You tend to follow other human beings and their writings, and not just the Quran. This is actually a form of Shirk - the ultimate sin in Islam..........``

I have a couple of simple questions.

I know I`m stressing on this more than anything else, but after reading crystal clear instructions from Allah to obey and emulate the Prophet (pbuh) more than 50 times throughout the Quran:

1. How is one to follow that Command in those verses, without reading Authentic Ahadith compiled by `men`, if by your definition reading such material leads to `shirk`?

2. As an ardent believer in the Quran, are you suggesting that Allah Himself is goading us towards shirk?

Think my dear friend. I know your heart is in the right place, but you need to listen to what you`re saying before you share it with others.

sincerely,
:-)~~

Urstruly (#104):

… I am ok with Quran. It is all this other stuff you guys make up that is comedic. And while you are at it, what about Issa? Is he coming back or not? Ummah is getting tired of being humiliated by the white man, and now the chinese. Well ... we can still look down upon the black man and comfort ourselves … ”hey, at least we`re not living in the bushes …”

Coming back to it … I hear Issa is about to make an appearance … 5 to 10 years max, I am told. I personally think he is afraid to show up as he’ll have to apply for a home loan in this inflated market. And accepting money from a jew would only add insult to his injury. Maybe he is waiting for the bubble to burst …

… what do you think?

sattar

I am glad that at least you support that part of Hadud Laws which calls for flogging for fornicators and consider it a word of God.

I am extremely busy today and won`t be able to answer your contention but to give you a hint why flogging is reserved for single fornicators only and that Qura`n does not ascribe any punishment for adulterers you must understand 4:25. Try to read an urdu translation by a Muslim.

temporal (#88),

Haquq-ullah (rights of god) and Huquq-ul Ibad (rights of man) is lost on these fanatics. They are also hell bent on killing people for apostasy … go figure.

Urstruly,

Quran specifies lashes for fornication, as well as adultery. I explained in post #66 the verse you misquoted. I also pointed out your over-interpretation of unreliable traditions to support your ill-conceived view. Comments?

Your cousin ntsyed thinks that if an apostate does not create mischief, he should be allowed to live. Is that right???

And if according to traditions (here we go again) the Prophet allowed muttah, why spoil a good thing? This is the only redeemable feature of your Islam that may compel me to come back to it … even if it means I’ll have to start believing in a two-thousand year old prophet residing above the clouds (kinda spooky, isn’t it?) ...

SR #84, {``Just out of ignorance, I`d like to ask if this great Fatawa says anything about the morality of murdering one`s own brothers (Dara, Murad and Shuja) and imprisoning one`s own father?``}

SR friend,
Obviously you are referring to that great Rajput Emperor Maharaja Tajuddin Mohammed ``Aurangjeb`` Alamgir. When Indian rulers do nothing about foreign intervention, colonialist designs, and threats to Hindustan`s independence, everyone questions their competence and suggests that they were asleep on the job catering to their epicurean lifestyles. Maharaja Aurangjeb was ascetic, frugal, brave, principled, and determined. He recognized that the Portuguese had become too powerful in his father`s court. Maharaja Shah Jahan, his son Prince Dara, and daughter Jahan Ara were all under their ideological and religious influence. Thus, imprisoning his own father was a supreme act of morality - personal sacrifice for the good of the state and its people. Similarly, his ``murders`` of Dara, Murad, and Shuja were meant to preserve the unity of Hindustan. As a great Ottoman ruler once said ``better to lose a prince than to lose a province.``

Maharaja Aurangjeb also defeated the British in Gujarat and was about to totally expel them from Hindustan - he unfortunately succumbed to their pleas for mercy. Please don`t malign a man in all areas just because of a few unfortunate mistakes.
Thanks,