The Case for De jure Legalization
Omar Mirza December 1, 1999
#154 Posted by KKJ on March 12, 2000 10:30:51 am
The Voice of the Liberal, the Loudspeaker of the Mullah.
Your short piece is one I found refreshingly original to read- you made a credible and rational case for the decriminalisation of alchohol. Since the imposition of the ban on the people of Pakistan in the late 1970`s the case for challenging the legitimacy of this prohibition has been a muted one. In other words, since the `dragging in` of Islam into the realm of politics and every other sphere of our society, the moves to counter this encroachment have been non-existent. Religion has since become the `sacred cow` of the status quo, with the so-called ``secularist-liberals`` confining themselves to a permanent back-seat on the issue, lacking the strength and the initiative to be vocal about something certain to be controversial.
The voice of the liberal has failed to match the loudspeaker of the Mullah.
The dangers of letting society be swamped by the obscurantist right-wing, whether internally in Pakistan or externally in neighbouring Afghanistan are today glaringly mainfest. Without nipping their pervasive influence, we, as a nation will continue our slide towards cultural barbarity. Pandering to them was perhaps Pakistan`s biggest mistake.
Pakistan today faces a multitude of challenges and at the same time is pregnant with possibilities. It is time for us to perhaps reframe a radically liberal and progressive ideology and use that as the basis for all change so that it becomes the country that Mr. Jinnah would have created.
Your short piece is one I found refreshingly original to read- you made a credible and rational case for the decriminalisation of alchohol. Since the imposition of the ban on the people of Pakistan in the late 1970`s the case for challenging the legitimacy of this prohibition has been a muted one. In other words, since the `dragging in` of Islam into the realm of politics and every other sphere of our society, the moves to counter this encroachment have been non-existent. Religion has since become the `sacred cow` of the status quo, with the so-called ``secularist-liberals`` confining themselves to a permanent back-seat on the issue, lacking the strength and the initiative to be vocal about something certain to be controversial.
The voice of the liberal has failed to match the loudspeaker of the Mullah.
The dangers of letting society be swamped by the obscurantist right-wing, whether internally in Pakistan or externally in neighbouring Afghanistan are today glaringly mainfest. Without nipping their pervasive influence, we, as a nation will continue our slide towards cultural barbarity. Pandering to them was perhaps Pakistan`s biggest mistake.
Pakistan today faces a multitude of challenges and at the same time is pregnant with possibilities. It is time for us to perhaps reframe a radically liberal and progressive ideology and use that as the basis for all change so that it becomes the country that Mr. Jinnah would have created.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#153 Posted by temporal on January 5, 2000 7:01:54 pm
Fuzair:
If interested, please read up on Iqbal`s Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, particularly the sixth lecture.
Zeemax has mentioned in passing that it is banned in Pakistan now, but when I questioned his source he ignored it.
Too bad this thread will disappear from page 1.
rgds
t
P.S. Would appreciate your feedback too, rajanjua.
If interested, please read up on Iqbal`s Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, particularly the sixth lecture.
Zeemax has mentioned in passing that it is banned in Pakistan now, but when I questioned his source he ignored it.
Too bad this thread will disappear from page 1.
rgds
t
P.S. Would appreciate your feedback too, rajanjua.
#152 Posted by rajanjua on January 4, 2000 2:03:04 am
Re: #143 Fuzair
The Surah in question is an early revelation at Mecca, An-Najm (The Star)
1. By the Star when it setteth,
2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is decieved;
3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,
6. One vigorous; and he grew clear to view
7. When he was on the uppermost horizon.
8. Then he drew nigh and came down
9. Till he was (distant) two bows` length or even nearer,
10. And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed.
11. And heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw.
12. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth?
13. And verily he saw him yet another time
14. By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary,
15. Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode.
16. When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree,
17. The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold.
18. Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord.
19. Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzza
20. And Manat, the third, the other?
21. Are yours the males and His the females?
22. That indeed were an unfair division!
23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.
24. Or shall man have what he coveteth?
25. But unto Allah belongeth the after(life), and the former.
The Surah has a total of 62 verses, I have written the first 25. The translation is by Pickthal. First Pickthal`s footnotes:
Verse 6: This and the five following verses are generally accepted as referring to the Prophet`s vision on Mt. Hira.
Verse 13: This is generally accepted as a reference to the Prophet`s vision in which he asceneded through the seven heavens.
Verse 19-20: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Al-Manat are the idols of pagan Arabs.
Verse 21: The pagan Arabs pretended that their idols were daughters of Allah.
The controversy is on Verses 19 and 20.
The tradition holds that during a public gathering in Mecca, this Surah was revealed to the Prophet. He stood up in a trance and started reciting it. When he finished the people present, pagans and muslims, overwhelmed by the message went in sajda.
The traditional Muslim literature asserts that later the pagans embarassed by the fact that they had bowed before Allah, started saying that the reason why they had bowed was because Muhammed had named their dieties and they thought that Muhammed was now unifying their pagan beliefs with his message. Later they (pagans) also changed the verses to emphasise that. The pagan view ofcourse holds that they actually heard Muhammed say it. Pagan version of the verses can be found in Moudoodi`s Tahfem-ul-Quran.
Considering the fact that this is the early period of Nuboowat and that the pagans had gone out of their way to persecute and villify the Prophet, it is not hard for me to believe that the pagans would also do something like this. This incident is hardly of any significance.
You can leave it to the two maha-idiots for making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Rushdie Sahib to use this as an inspiration for his highly artsy-fartsy masterpiece, and Khomeini Sahib to make this into a controversy and turn Rushdie`s book into a bestseller.
The Surah in question is an early revelation at Mecca, An-Najm (The Star)
1. By the Star when it setteth,
2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is decieved;
3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,
6. One vigorous; and he grew clear to view
7. When he was on the uppermost horizon.
8. Then he drew nigh and came down
9. Till he was (distant) two bows` length or even nearer,
10. And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed.
11. And heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw.
12. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth?
13. And verily he saw him yet another time
14. By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary,
15. Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode.
16. When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree,
17. The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold.
18. Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord.
19. Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzza
20. And Manat, the third, the other?
21. Are yours the males and His the females?
22. That indeed were an unfair division!
23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.
24. Or shall man have what he coveteth?
25. But unto Allah belongeth the after(life), and the former.
The Surah has a total of 62 verses, I have written the first 25. The translation is by Pickthal. First Pickthal`s footnotes:
Verse 6: This and the five following verses are generally accepted as referring to the Prophet`s vision on Mt. Hira.
Verse 13: This is generally accepted as a reference to the Prophet`s vision in which he asceneded through the seven heavens.
Verse 19-20: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Al-Manat are the idols of pagan Arabs.
Verse 21: The pagan Arabs pretended that their idols were daughters of Allah.
The controversy is on Verses 19 and 20.
The tradition holds that during a public gathering in Mecca, this Surah was revealed to the Prophet. He stood up in a trance and started reciting it. When he finished the people present, pagans and muslims, overwhelmed by the message went in sajda.
The traditional Muslim literature asserts that later the pagans embarassed by the fact that they had bowed before Allah, started saying that the reason why they had bowed was because Muhammed had named their dieties and they thought that Muhammed was now unifying their pagan beliefs with his message. Later they (pagans) also changed the verses to emphasise that. The pagan view ofcourse holds that they actually heard Muhammed say it. Pagan version of the verses can be found in Moudoodi`s Tahfem-ul-Quran.
Considering the fact that this is the early period of Nuboowat and that the pagans had gone out of their way to persecute and villify the Prophet, it is not hard for me to believe that the pagans would also do something like this. This incident is hardly of any significance.
You can leave it to the two maha-idiots for making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Rushdie Sahib to use this as an inspiration for his highly artsy-fartsy masterpiece, and Khomeini Sahib to make this into a controversy and turn Rushdie`s book into a bestseller.
#151 Posted by rajanjua on January 4, 2000 2:03:04 am
Re: #143 Fuzair
The Surah in question is an early revelation at Mecca, An-Najm (The Star)
1. By the Star when it setteth,
2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is decieved;
3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,
6. One vigorous; and he grew clear to view
7. When he was on the uppermost horizon.
8. Then he drew nigh and came down
9. Till he was (distant) two bows` length or even nearer,
10. And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed.
11. And heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw.
12. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth?
13. And verily he saw him yet another time
14. By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary,
15. Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode.
16. When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree,
17. The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold.
18. Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord.
19. Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzza
20. And Manat, the third, the other?
21. Are yours the males and His the females?
22. That indeed were an unfair division!
23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.
24. Or shall man have what he coveteth?
25. But unto Allah belongeth the after(life), and the former.
The Surah has a total of 62 verses, I have written the first 25. The translation is by Pickthal. First Pickthal`s footnotes:
Verse 6: This and the five following verses are generally accepted as referring to the Prophet`s vision on Mt. Hira.
Verse 13: This is generally accepted as a reference to the Prophet`s vision in which he asceneded through the seven heavens.
Verse 19-20: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Al-Manat are the idols of pagan Arabs.
Verse 21: The pagan Arabs pretended that their idols were daughters of Allah.
The controversy is on Verses 19 and 20.
The tradition holds that during a public gathering in Mecca, this Surah was revealed to the Prophet. He stood up in a trance and started reciting it. When he finished the people present, pagans and muslims, overwhelmed by the message went in sajda.
The traditional Muslim literature asserts that later the pagans embarassed by the fact that they had bowed before Allah, started saying that the reason why they had bowed was because Muhammed had named their dieties and they thought that Muhammed was now unifying their pagan beliefs with his message. Later they (pagans) also changed the verses to emphasise that. The pagan view ofcourse holds that they actually heard Muhammed say it. Pagan version of the verses can be found in Moudoodi`s Tahfem-ul-Quran.
Considering the fact that this is the early period of Nuboowat and that the pagans had gone out of their way to persecute and villify the Prophet, it is not hard for me to believe that the pagans would also do something like this. This incident is hardly of any significance.
You can leave it to the two maha-idiots for making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Rushdie Sahib to use this as an inspiration for his highly artsy-fartsy masterpiece, and Khomeini Sahib to make this into a controversy and turn Rushdie`s book into a bestseller.
The Surah in question is an early revelation at Mecca, An-Najm (The Star)
1. By the Star when it setteth,
2. Your comrade erreth not, nor is decieved;
3. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired,
5. Which one of mighty powers hath taught him,
6. One vigorous; and he grew clear to view
7. When he was on the uppermost horizon.
8. Then he drew nigh and came down
9. Till he was (distant) two bows` length or even nearer,
10. And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed.
11. And heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw.
12. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth?
13. And verily he saw him yet another time
14. By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary,
15. Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode.
16. When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree,
17. The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold.
18. Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord.
19. Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzza
20. And Manat, the third, the other?
21. Are yours the males and His the females?
22. That indeed were an unfair division!
23. They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them.
24. Or shall man have what he coveteth?
25. But unto Allah belongeth the after(life), and the former.
The Surah has a total of 62 verses, I have written the first 25. The translation is by Pickthal. First Pickthal`s footnotes:
Verse 6: This and the five following verses are generally accepted as referring to the Prophet`s vision on Mt. Hira.
Verse 13: This is generally accepted as a reference to the Prophet`s vision in which he asceneded through the seven heavens.
Verse 19-20: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Al-Manat are the idols of pagan Arabs.
Verse 21: The pagan Arabs pretended that their idols were daughters of Allah.
The controversy is on Verses 19 and 20.
The tradition holds that during a public gathering in Mecca, this Surah was revealed to the Prophet. He stood up in a trance and started reciting it. When he finished the people present, pagans and muslims, overwhelmed by the message went in sajda.
The traditional Muslim literature asserts that later the pagans embarassed by the fact that they had bowed before Allah, started saying that the reason why they had bowed was because Muhammed had named their dieties and they thought that Muhammed was now unifying their pagan beliefs with his message. Later they (pagans) also changed the verses to emphasise that. The pagan view ofcourse holds that they actually heard Muhammed say it. Pagan version of the verses can be found in Moudoodi`s Tahfem-ul-Quran.
Considering the fact that this is the early period of Nuboowat and that the pagans had gone out of their way to persecute and villify the Prophet, it is not hard for me to believe that the pagans would also do something like this. This incident is hardly of any significance.
You can leave it to the two maha-idiots for making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Rushdie Sahib to use this as an inspiration for his highly artsy-fartsy masterpiece, and Khomeini Sahib to make this into a controversy and turn Rushdie`s book into a bestseller.
#150 Posted by bahmad on January 4, 2000 1:31:02 am
In response to Fuzair (Reply # 183)
Dear Fuzair:
Your question: ``I have a question about the notion that the Koran is the literal word of God. How do the the Satanic Verses come into the picture here then? I am not referring to Rushdie`s book but the actual historical incident that sets the background for it. If the Koran is the word of God, how could Satan send ``wrong`` verses to the Prophet?``
Comment: You have asked a critical question to a group of people, including myself, who generally are not equipped to provide a good/acceptable answers. Yet I am interested to know: (1) an acceptable answer of this question; (2) Is an acceptable answer of this question possible? ; (3) why have you raised this question?; and (4) what do you expect to gain?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Fuzair:
Your question: ``I have a question about the notion that the Koran is the literal word of God. How do the the Satanic Verses come into the picture here then? I am not referring to Rushdie`s book but the actual historical incident that sets the background for it. If the Koran is the word of God, how could Satan send ``wrong`` verses to the Prophet?``
Comment: You have asked a critical question to a group of people, including myself, who generally are not equipped to provide a good/acceptable answers. Yet I am interested to know: (1) an acceptable answer of this question; (2) Is an acceptable answer of this question possible? ; (3) why have you raised this question?; and (4) what do you expect to gain?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#149 Posted by hia4 on January 4, 2000 1:28:17 am
It facinates me to see how Mr. Mirza seems to know a lot about sensitive/authorized information like the holding cost of the Siachin operation, yet fails to know the correct first name of the Pakistani Chief Executive. For your information, it is Pervaiz Musharraf and not Kemal Musharraf. Try reading a Pakistani newspaper every now and then.
#148 Posted by PM on January 3, 2000 11:34:26 am
Fuzair,
I think the reply you can expect in defense of the apparent contradiction is will take the shape of selective historicity: The tradition that told of the satanic verses will be lumped with those regarded as dubious, or as in this `obvious` case, altogether false.
regards,
I think the reply you can expect in defense of the apparent contradiction is will take the shape of selective historicity: The tradition that told of the satanic verses will be lumped with those regarded as dubious, or as in this `obvious` case, altogether false.
regards,
#147 Posted by fuzair on January 3, 2000 1:49:17 am
Happy New Year to all. I see that in my absence there has been much debating going on. Excellent.
I have a question about the notion that the Koran is the literal word of God. How do the the Satanic Verses come into the picture here then? I am not referring to Rushdie`s book but the actual historical incident that sets the background for it. If the Koran is the word of God, how could Satan send ``wrong`` verses to the Prophet?
Regards.
I have a question about the notion that the Koran is the literal word of God. How do the the Satanic Verses come into the picture here then? I am not referring to Rushdie`s book but the actual historical incident that sets the background for it. If the Koran is the word of God, how could Satan send ``wrong`` verses to the Prophet?
Regards.
#146 Posted by jay on December 30, 1999 5:44:01 pm
PM, 140,
I have to admit there, some times bad habits do get to me, especially during the festive season.
But again, I do not remeber to be all that you are telling, when the post is addressed to some one. I criticise and provoke the collective, individual views and opinions I respect.
The problem is, many cannot understand the distinction, and the link between the two.
Regards and best wishes.
Jay
I have to admit there, some times bad habits do get to me, especially during the festive season.
But again, I do not remeber to be all that you are telling, when the post is addressed to some one. I criticise and provoke the collective, individual views and opinions I respect.
The problem is, many cannot understand the distinction, and the link between the two.
Regards and best wishes.
Jay
#145 Posted by rajanjua on December 27, 1999 12:29:07 am
Waris Shah akhiya a:
jinhan sidq yakeen tahkeek keeta rah Rab day sees wakhandray neen.
#144 Posted by PM on December 27, 1999 12:29:07 am
jay, (#137)
What is this?? No sarcasm? No underhand jabs? No acerbic irony??
Boy, is the spirit of the season getting to you, or what?
:)
SameerJB,
Interesting stuff. Reading Chopra`s Carbon atom theory gave a whole new meaning to St. Paul`s ``Christ lives in me and I live in him.``
Hey, I didn`t think the ampthemine-release theory was so far-out-- just that that may be ONE aspect of it, or as my friend Omar would say, the trees but not the forest.
Cheers!
by teh way, I`ve been thinking about gin-power: Gather the subcontinental foreign-policy makers, get them each to put down a bottle of gin,and then work matters out ... Who knows what the outcome might be! Can`t get much worse, uh?
regards,
(a slightly U.I)
Patrick
What is this?? No sarcasm? No underhand jabs? No acerbic irony??
Boy, is the spirit of the season getting to you, or what?
:)
SameerJB,
Interesting stuff. Reading Chopra`s Carbon atom theory gave a whole new meaning to St. Paul`s ``Christ lives in me and I live in him.``
Hey, I didn`t think the ampthemine-release theory was so far-out-- just that that may be ONE aspect of it, or as my friend Omar would say, the trees but not the forest.
Cheers!
by teh way, I`ve been thinking about gin-power: Gather the subcontinental foreign-policy makers, get them each to put down a bottle of gin,and then work matters out ... Who knows what the outcome might be! Can`t get much worse, uh?
regards,
(a slightly U.I)
Patrick
#143 Posted by SameerJB on December 25, 1999 2:31:18 pm
PM # 138
Dear Patrick:
You post was very funny. You made me laugh. Thanks!
(Don`t you know that `reasoning` and `rationality` are only human traits? There is greater power that human, and needed for more than those pagan concepts of connectivity to fourfathers.)
Here is some more absurd and stupid stuff from Deepak Chopra, for you to laugh at:
``You, I and everybody else has the probability of having 12000 cabon atoms in their body which were once belonged to Jesus body (BTW, Osama Bin Laden might have little more because of his birth near the source). So brother, there is plenty of higher power (the Holy carbon atoms) inside of everybody``. Thus it is fitting to say on December 25th; meri Christmas, teri Christmas and sub ki Christmas.
It is the higher power inside which is responsible for reasoning and rationality and has spawned high-tech revolution recently; the higher power outside and above will harness the jinn energy and trying tirelessly to save the souls of Koreans, Chineese and poor Harijans.
Here is another very absurd/ funny definition of spirtuality: It is the controlled release of feel-good chemicals, called amphetamines, by brain upon deep concentration, mediatation, sex or eating chocklates.
Do not take it serious, it is just for fun. I am a firm believer, though practice having a drink once in a while, strictly based on reasoning.
Cheers,
Sameer
Dear Patrick:
You post was very funny. You made me laugh. Thanks!
(Don`t you know that `reasoning` and `rationality` are only human traits? There is greater power that human, and needed for more than those pagan concepts of connectivity to fourfathers.)
Here is some more absurd and stupid stuff from Deepak Chopra, for you to laugh at:
``You, I and everybody else has the probability of having 12000 cabon atoms in their body which were once belonged to Jesus body (BTW, Osama Bin Laden might have little more because of his birth near the source). So brother, there is plenty of higher power (the Holy carbon atoms) inside of everybody``. Thus it is fitting to say on December 25th; meri Christmas, teri Christmas and sub ki Christmas.
It is the higher power inside which is responsible for reasoning and rationality and has spawned high-tech revolution recently; the higher power outside and above will harness the jinn energy and trying tirelessly to save the souls of Koreans, Chineese and poor Harijans.
Here is another very absurd/ funny definition of spirtuality: It is the controlled release of feel-good chemicals, called amphetamines, by brain upon deep concentration, mediatation, sex or eating chocklates.
Do not take it serious, it is just for fun. I am a firm believer, though practice having a drink once in a while, strictly based on reasoning.
Cheers,
Sameer
#142 Posted by PM on December 24, 1999 3:11:40 pm
re. SameerJB (#135)
[The matters of morality, charity, schools, hospitals, medicines, guns, guitars and grenades are the responsibility of the society rather than the religion. One can believe in religion for spirituality and connectivity but practices should be based on reasoning and rationality.]
Oye, what you be saying, brather? Islam is not complete religion???
Taubah!! you get little education in Vest and then you try and tell us that vee must become sekula people. Don`t you know that `reasoning` and `rationality` are only human traits? There is greater power that human, and needed for more than those pagan concepts of connectivity to fourfathers.
oye! see the crookedness of your ways and repent before it is too late.
[The matters of morality, charity, schools, hospitals, medicines, guns, guitars and grenades are the responsibility of the society rather than the religion. One can believe in religion for spirituality and connectivity but practices should be based on reasoning and rationality.]
Oye, what you be saying, brather? Islam is not complete religion???
Taubah!! you get little education in Vest and then you try and tell us that vee must become sekula people. Don`t you know that `reasoning` and `rationality` are only human traits? There is greater power that human, and needed for more than those pagan concepts of connectivity to fourfathers.
oye! see the crookedness of your ways and repent before it is too late.
#141 Posted by jay on December 24, 1999 3:11:40 pm
JR,
Your post to some extend summarised the essence, may be the lasting quality of hinduism. One of the concepts use by the `scholarly` hindus to introduce modern interpretations to hinduism is the notion of `temporal` and the `eternal`. The central premise of this view is that every `book` contains certain elements which are merely of the locality and the time at which they were `written/told`. Once up on a time I had a chat with some liberal islamic scholars of my state and in fact at that time they were interpreting some of the koran verses in that context by which the godly nature is not denyed, but still gives some space to manuever. Ofcourse they never became very popular, but still exist as `islam and modern age society` in kerala and were very controversial in the late seventies.
Your post to some extend summarised the essence, may be the lasting quality of hinduism. One of the concepts use by the `scholarly` hindus to introduce modern interpretations to hinduism is the notion of `temporal` and the `eternal`. The central premise of this view is that every `book` contains certain elements which are merely of the locality and the time at which they were `written/told`. Once up on a time I had a chat with some liberal islamic scholars of my state and in fact at that time they were interpreting some of the koran verses in that context by which the godly nature is not denyed, but still gives some space to manuever. Ofcourse they never became very popular, but still exist as `islam and modern age society` in kerala and were very controversial in the late seventies.
#140 Posted by rajanjua on December 24, 1999 3:11:40 pm
Alam Sahib, This post has become a bit lengthy, please bear with me.
Ibn Sina (980-1037)
Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Sina, somewhat like Norbert Wiener in modern times, was a precocious genius whose work spanned vast areas of knowledge. By the age of 10 he had memorized the Quran to perfection, and by 17 he was an established physician. In another year or so he had mastered the metaphysics of Aristotle. His magnum opus, The Canon of Medicine (Al-Qanun) remained the standard text in the field until the birth of modern medicine. But hakims in those days were not merely practitioners of medicine and Ibn Sina is the example par excellence of a classic man of wisdom. A prodigious worker, his work spans the domains of philosophy and logic, as well as medicine.
Ibn Sina`s dedication to Islam was steady but unconventional. The somewhat unusual nature of his commitment is borne out by the following example: during the course of his scholarly labours, he would often be beset with difficulties in which case,
``If a problem was too great for me, I repaired to the mosque and prayed, invoking the Creator of all things until the gate that had been closed to me was opened and what had been complex became simple. Always, as night fell, I returned to my house, set the lamp before me and buried myself with reading and writing. If sleep overcame me or I felt the flesh growing weak, I had recourse to a beaker of wine, so that my energies were restored ..``
Like his predecessor, Al Kindi, Ibn Sina was a fiercely independent minded philosopher who insisted on the primacy of reason, although he had disputed the Mu`tazilites on various technical matters.
Ibn Sina fled persecution and wrath of rulers several times. With his books banned, and powerful enemies plotting against him, his friends counselled moderation. To this he replied:
``I prefer a short life with width to a narrow one with length.``
and continued his work undaunted. Ibn Sina`s attempted synthesis of religious beliefs with science and logic repeatedly earned for him the wrath of ulemas. Sensetive to allegations of heresy, he defended himself in a famous poem.
``It is not so easy and trifling to call me a heretic
No belief in religion is firmer than mine own
I am the unique person in the whole world if I am a heretic
Then there is not a single Musulman anywhere in the world``
But protestations notwithstanding, Ibn Sina acquired a reputation for heresy among the orthodox both in his time and in later centuries. The most influential of the conservative theologians, al-Ghazali, declared him to be an unbeliever:
``We must therefore reckon as unbelievers both these philosophers theselves and their followers among the Islamic philosophers, such as Ibn Sina, Al Farabi and others: in transmitting the philosophy of Aristotle...``
Fundamentalists of the present times are no less harsh in their judgement of the great Muslim scholars and scientists. A Saudi-financed magazine based in London published an intemperate outburst:
``The story of famous Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn-alHaythan and Ibn Sina shows that, aside for being Muslims, there seems to have been nothing Islamic about them or their achievements. On the contrary, their lives are distictly unIslamic. Their achievements in medicine, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and philosophy were a natural and logical extention of Greek thought.``
An Indian Muslim also has unkind things to say:
``Many of the philosophers were either Mu`tazilites or agnostics. Many of them practiced music, astrology and magic, which are either prohibited or not encouraged by Islam... Al Razi did not believed in revelations, Al Farabi depended on pure reason (not Shariyah) for discriminating between good and bad. Al Kindi denied divine attributes. Ibn Sina did not believe in Maad Jismani (resurrection of the body)...There was a gradual loss of Islamic values form our society.``
Chapter 10: Five Great ``Heretics``
Muslims and Science: Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality.
Pervez Hoodbhoy
Comments:
It is amusing that these illiterate fanatics consider philosophy, physics and mathematics to be magic yet harnessing the power of Jinn for energy makes complete sense and is rational since somehow they have convinced themselves that the answer of every goddam thing lies in the Quran. Someone had mentioned in an earlier post about this incident.It is also ridiculed by Hoodbhoy in his book. Our distinguished scholar, Dr. Safdar Jang Rajput is a senior scientist of DESTO and he come with the following principles of Jinnology:
a) It is highly probable that the origin of Jinns is methane gas, together with other saturated hydro-carbons, because these yield a smokeless flame upon burning. This conclusion is predicated on the known fact that God made jinns out of fire, together with the another known fact that no jinn emitting smoke has ever been seen.
b) the virginity and beauty of the houris of heaven is a known truth. Add to this the fact that they were created for being used. Because the users can be either men or jinns, it follows that both men and Jinns are similar and isogenotypes.QED.
c) After protracted debate, the final conclusion on the nature of Jinns is the following:``I cannot help but say that the Jinns are the white races``.
This ``scholarly`` work was published in the quarterly from Islamabad-``Science and Technology In The Islamic World``. This publication is/was funded by the Government of the ``Islamic`` Republic of Pakistan. I ofcourse am left wondering that how did this fellow managed to get a PhD in the first place.
In 1987 a conference on the ``Scientific Miracles Of Quran and Sunnah`` was inaugurated by the Ameer-ul-Momineen himself. Here`s a sampling of articles presented:
1. Chemical composition of Milk In Relation to Verse 66 Of Surat An-Nahl Of The Holy Quran.
2. Description Of Man At High Altitude In Quran.
3. Cumulonimbus Clouds Description in Quran.
4. Have You Observed The Fire?
5. Revelation Of Some Modern Oceanographic Phenomenon In Holy Quran.
I know that we all get a good laugh seeing something so absurd but I am also deeply saddened at the same time by this jehalat.
The purpose of writing all this is to illustrate to you Alam Sahib that, everything is not contained in Quran and one should not try to find every answer in it and that it should not be taken literaly. One must approach it with reason and not blind faith. Usualy when you ask a mullah on what is Islamic or unIslamic-he himself doesnot always refer to Quran or Hadith-it is more often to Shariyat (The Islamic Law written by ulema according to what they thought was in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah-They may not have been right!! I have qouted from Hoodbhoy`s book small biographical sketches of four great Muslim scholars who thought otherwise. What makes you so sure that al-Ghazali is right and Ibn Rushd wrong). I think that for most problems common sense goes a long way and one need not ask for Divine help or the neverending wisdom of our mullahs to find answers.
The question whether alcohol should be made legal or not, maybe trivial (I don`t care either way) but it does have very important implications. Its prohibition is deemed essential for the conservatives. For most this is what Islam has been reduced to-Don`t drink, don`t eat pork, pray five times a day, do the roza routine and you have a one way ticket to all those virgins.
We have been in this stranglehold of mullahs and their myopic view on everything which they called the ``shariyat`` for too long. I will raise my voice in favor of consumption simply as revolt against the orthodoxy which is slowly destroying my homeland.
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. I think the Rationalists would have advised you to have a couple of drinks first, before making up your mind on the subject :-)
Ibn Sina (980-1037)
Abu Ali al-Hussain Ibn Sina, somewhat like Norbert Wiener in modern times, was a precocious genius whose work spanned vast areas of knowledge. By the age of 10 he had memorized the Quran to perfection, and by 17 he was an established physician. In another year or so he had mastered the metaphysics of Aristotle. His magnum opus, The Canon of Medicine (Al-Qanun) remained the standard text in the field until the birth of modern medicine. But hakims in those days were not merely practitioners of medicine and Ibn Sina is the example par excellence of a classic man of wisdom. A prodigious worker, his work spans the domains of philosophy and logic, as well as medicine.
Ibn Sina`s dedication to Islam was steady but unconventional. The somewhat unusual nature of his commitment is borne out by the following example: during the course of his scholarly labours, he would often be beset with difficulties in which case,
``If a problem was too great for me, I repaired to the mosque and prayed, invoking the Creator of all things until the gate that had been closed to me was opened and what had been complex became simple. Always, as night fell, I returned to my house, set the lamp before me and buried myself with reading and writing. If sleep overcame me or I felt the flesh growing weak, I had recourse to a beaker of wine, so that my energies were restored ..``
Like his predecessor, Al Kindi, Ibn Sina was a fiercely independent minded philosopher who insisted on the primacy of reason, although he had disputed the Mu`tazilites on various technical matters.
Ibn Sina fled persecution and wrath of rulers several times. With his books banned, and powerful enemies plotting against him, his friends counselled moderation. To this he replied:
``I prefer a short life with width to a narrow one with length.``
and continued his work undaunted. Ibn Sina`s attempted synthesis of religious beliefs with science and logic repeatedly earned for him the wrath of ulemas. Sensetive to allegations of heresy, he defended himself in a famous poem.
``It is not so easy and trifling to call me a heretic
No belief in religion is firmer than mine own
I am the unique person in the whole world if I am a heretic
Then there is not a single Musulman anywhere in the world``
But protestations notwithstanding, Ibn Sina acquired a reputation for heresy among the orthodox both in his time and in later centuries. The most influential of the conservative theologians, al-Ghazali, declared him to be an unbeliever:
``We must therefore reckon as unbelievers both these philosophers theselves and their followers among the Islamic philosophers, such as Ibn Sina, Al Farabi and others: in transmitting the philosophy of Aristotle...``
Fundamentalists of the present times are no less harsh in their judgement of the great Muslim scholars and scientists. A Saudi-financed magazine based in London published an intemperate outburst:
``The story of famous Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn-alHaythan and Ibn Sina shows that, aside for being Muslims, there seems to have been nothing Islamic about them or their achievements. On the contrary, their lives are distictly unIslamic. Their achievements in medicine, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and philosophy were a natural and logical extention of Greek thought.``
An Indian Muslim also has unkind things to say:
``Many of the philosophers were either Mu`tazilites or agnostics. Many of them practiced music, astrology and magic, which are either prohibited or not encouraged by Islam... Al Razi did not believed in revelations, Al Farabi depended on pure reason (not Shariyah) for discriminating between good and bad. Al Kindi denied divine attributes. Ibn Sina did not believe in Maad Jismani (resurrection of the body)...There was a gradual loss of Islamic values form our society.``
Chapter 10: Five Great ``Heretics``
Muslims and Science: Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality.
Pervez Hoodbhoy
Comments:
It is amusing that these illiterate fanatics consider philosophy, physics and mathematics to be magic yet harnessing the power of Jinn for energy makes complete sense and is rational since somehow they have convinced themselves that the answer of every goddam thing lies in the Quran. Someone had mentioned in an earlier post about this incident.It is also ridiculed by Hoodbhoy in his book. Our distinguished scholar, Dr. Safdar Jang Rajput is a senior scientist of DESTO and he come with the following principles of Jinnology:
a) It is highly probable that the origin of Jinns is methane gas, together with other saturated hydro-carbons, because these yield a smokeless flame upon burning. This conclusion is predicated on the known fact that God made jinns out of fire, together with the another known fact that no jinn emitting smoke has ever been seen.
b) the virginity and beauty of the houris of heaven is a known truth. Add to this the fact that they were created for being used. Because the users can be either men or jinns, it follows that both men and Jinns are similar and isogenotypes.QED.
c) After protracted debate, the final conclusion on the nature of Jinns is the following:``I cannot help but say that the Jinns are the white races``.
This ``scholarly`` work was published in the quarterly from Islamabad-``Science and Technology In The Islamic World``. This publication is/was funded by the Government of the ``Islamic`` Republic of Pakistan. I ofcourse am left wondering that how did this fellow managed to get a PhD in the first place.
In 1987 a conference on the ``Scientific Miracles Of Quran and Sunnah`` was inaugurated by the Ameer-ul-Momineen himself. Here`s a sampling of articles presented:
1. Chemical composition of Milk In Relation to Verse 66 Of Surat An-Nahl Of The Holy Quran.
2. Description Of Man At High Altitude In Quran.
3. Cumulonimbus Clouds Description in Quran.
4. Have You Observed The Fire?
5. Revelation Of Some Modern Oceanographic Phenomenon In Holy Quran.
I know that we all get a good laugh seeing something so absurd but I am also deeply saddened at the same time by this jehalat.
The purpose of writing all this is to illustrate to you Alam Sahib that, everything is not contained in Quran and one should not try to find every answer in it and that it should not be taken literaly. One must approach it with reason and not blind faith. Usualy when you ask a mullah on what is Islamic or unIslamic-he himself doesnot always refer to Quran or Hadith-it is more often to Shariyat (The Islamic Law written by ulema according to what they thought was in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah-They may not have been right!! I have qouted from Hoodbhoy`s book small biographical sketches of four great Muslim scholars who thought otherwise. What makes you so sure that al-Ghazali is right and Ibn Rushd wrong). I think that for most problems common sense goes a long way and one need not ask for Divine help or the neverending wisdom of our mullahs to find answers.
The question whether alcohol should be made legal or not, maybe trivial (I don`t care either way) but it does have very important implications. Its prohibition is deemed essential for the conservatives. For most this is what Islam has been reduced to-Don`t drink, don`t eat pork, pray five times a day, do the roza routine and you have a one way ticket to all those virgins.
We have been in this stranglehold of mullahs and their myopic view on everything which they called the ``shariyat`` for too long. I will raise my voice in favor of consumption simply as revolt against the orthodoxy which is slowly destroying my homeland.
Regards,
Amir Janjua
p.s. I think the Rationalists would have advised you to have a couple of drinks first, before making up your mind on the subject :-)
#139 Posted by SameerJB on December 24, 1999 1:57:53 am
JR # 118
(I am going to receive a lot of flak for this one. It may not even get posted. But, this information has been collected from various sources.)
Well, so far you did not get any flak for this one. Your post is interesting but very subjective. It depends what sources and books one chooses to read in addition to personal convictions. For example if you read C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, Hans Kung or Malachi Martin and believe them, you will have one set of opinions about Christianity. However, if you choose to read Bertrand Russel, J. M. R. Robertson, G. A. Wells and Michael Martin and believe their thesis, you will have a very different opinion. Same is true about most of the other things you mentioned about Islam, Hinuism and St. Thomas coming to India.
One of the definition, according to Joseph Campbell (Power of Myth--PBS series) is that the religion provides spirituality and a connectivity to one`s forefathers by performing the same rituals they once performed. The matters of morality, charity, schools, hospitals, medicines, guns, guitars and grenades are the responsibility of the society rather than the religion. One can believe in religion for spirituality and connectivity but practices should be based on reasoning and rationality.
(I am going to receive a lot of flak for this one. It may not even get posted. But, this information has been collected from various sources.)
Well, so far you did not get any flak for this one. Your post is interesting but very subjective. It depends what sources and books one chooses to read in addition to personal convictions. For example if you read C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham, Hans Kung or Malachi Martin and believe them, you will have one set of opinions about Christianity. However, if you choose to read Bertrand Russel, J. M. R. Robertson, G. A. Wells and Michael Martin and believe their thesis, you will have a very different opinion. Same is true about most of the other things you mentioned about Islam, Hinuism and St. Thomas coming to India.
One of the definition, according to Joseph Campbell (Power of Myth--PBS series) is that the religion provides spirituality and a connectivity to one`s forefathers by performing the same rituals they once performed. The matters of morality, charity, schools, hospitals, medicines, guns, guitars and grenades are the responsibility of the society rather than the religion. One can believe in religion for spirituality and connectivity but practices should be based on reasoning and rationality.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- dharma: The police should lose... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: If everytime mob goes... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 202 "Yes Modi... Pleas For Sanity as
- KHYBER: RE # 101...THANKS FOR... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #199 om prakash: GT... Pleas For Sanity as
- jang: the way rico works... Pleas For Sanity as
- akcheema: Re: # 6; Tolkinin No... Nothing Queer About It
- om_prakash: Jang Rico would work... Pleas For Sanity as
