Chowk Special Re: Goga (91,92)

Thanks for looking for the references. I was hoping someone would go and cross-check the references I have been spewing.

In fact the Hadees of Paper (Qartas) is mentioned SEVEN times in Sahih Bukhari. Here are the explicit references. I went to the web-site that you mentioned, and stopped looking after I found it FOUR times.

References for The Hadees of Paper in Sahih Bukhari:

1) The Book of knowledge
2) The Book of Jihad
3) The Book of Khumus
4) The Chapter on the Illness of the Prophet and his death
5) Same as (4)
6) The Book of Illnesses
7) The Book of Holding on to the Quran

I found the Hadees in these 4 places in this web-site:
Vol. 9, Book 92, Number 468
Vol. 1, Book 3, Number 114
Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 288
Vol. 4, Book 53, Number 393

For other explicit mentions of Hadrat Umar see:

1) Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Wassiya. (This reference is very interesting because it mentions the first use of the slogan ``Hasbuna Kitab Ullah`` and also the words ``Haza Rajlun La-Yahjur`` -- which translates into ``This person is spewing nonsense``)
2) Musnad Imam Hanbal, Al-juz Ul-Awwal.
3) Tabaqat-e Ibne Saad

The fact that Hadrat Umar uttered these words has been accepted by, Imam Hanbal, Ibne Saad, Ibn Ul-Atheer, etc. It will be quite hard to get a better set of Islamic scholars.

I will await your response until you have gone through these sources, otherwise we will be going in circles.

Your point about the Shia-Sunni comparison of who ``respects`` the Prophet more is faulty. The Shias believe that the Prophet completed his mission supremely, what happened later was the fault of his power hungry companions. Even the most anti-Shia Sunni scholars do not come to the conclusion that you came to. However, I believe that bickering over this point is useless, after all you have access to the sources and have your own intelligence. The question relevant for us today is what really happened, and whether we can get a clear idea from the sources available to us?

All of the other things (about the faulty ``the Quran could have been re-instated`` argument) are in discussion in other threads on within these responses (Matha, Wasiq, ANita), so I do not wish to repeat myself or others.

However, while we are at the issue of the ``sincerity`` of certain people, you will be hard pressed to explain why these gentlemen abandoned the dead body of the Prophet and instead ran away to Saqeefa so that they could get power? Could they not wait for a day? On the other hand the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of the devoted companions remained with the Prophet and buried him. These gentlemen who ran away were NOT present in the bathing, funeral prayers or the burial of the Prophet.

References for the circus of Saqeefa are very illuminating:

1) For an introduction to the incident of Saqeefa see Vol 5, Book 57, Number 19 in Sahih Bukhari.
2) The History of Ibne-Khaldun, Part 2.
3) Abu Muhammed Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qaitba (died 270 A.H) in Al-siyasat wa Imamat.
4) History of Ibne Asakir (Tareekh ul Kabeer)
5) Abu Jaffer bin Jarir At-Tabari in Tareekh-ul-Umam wal Malook, Part 3.

AGain, maybe we should talk about this after you look at these references.

best regards,
Wasiq

Chowk Special Re: Kafir (77)

I think we will disagree on this issue, simply because (as I see it), we do not have enough understanding.

Maybe I should clarify that by making the distinction between objective and subjective knowledges, I am referring to their epistemology. That is, the bases of these knowledges and the methods employed for their enunciation. I am not stating that the boundaries between these knowledges are static, and therefore making no statements about the eventual reach of the scientific process. We have to after all, in all honesty, regard the possibility that the future generations will improve upon our current methods of acquisition and classification of knowledge.

I gave the example of a person crying, because I feel that we do NOT have an underlying model of the human mind. Although we hypothesize that the mind is a by-product of the immense complexity of all the neurons and their inter-connections, an emergent complex state from simple local rules, the fact of the matter is that it is merely a hypothesis which has neither verifiable nor falsifiable implications. Within the mind itself, it is not known what exactly are the agents that give rise to this complex phenomenon, much less trying to define this complex phenomenon. Honestly then, this explanation does not classify as a theory.

I wanted to point out to another thing. You said: ``Also, objective knowledge is coherent across time and cultures.`` Let me give you a counter example from our times. If we consider Quantum theory and the General theory of relativity to be representative of ``objective`` knowledge, then you have to explain the fact why these two theories are inherently and completely discordant with each another. One finds that something has to be replaced at a very fundamental level before these two theories can be reconciled. Ironically, these two theories form the foundation stones of modern physics, and that points to the level of ``subjectivity`` even in an ``objective`` discipline.

Finally you said, ``Could you entertain the idea that this belief in the Underlying Unknown is itself the result of your biological and cultural heritage, and not a transcendent, independent truth?``

And my answer is yes. I am fully aware that my mind may be deceiving me by silently reverting back to what I learnt at my mother`s knee.

I also observe the following:

Nature has consistently outwitted us. Our senses and thoughts are attuned to the familiar, which are the conditions that we see in every day life. There is absolutely no reason to assume that nature at the sub-atomic level, or in the presence of strong gravitational/electro-magnetic field, or during the first few instants of the universe, or in some strange combination of different circumstances should correspond to the environments that I am used to. Therefore, I do not expect my usual assumptions to be valid everywhere, and I expect to find stuff that is outrightly weird to be a closer explanation of nature. My notion of the Underlying Unknown encapsulates this realization of mine, for it frees my mind from the box of my current concepts.

regards

Chowk Special Re: Noor (79)

Oh boy!

I am sorry if you have a problem with how I see this. That is why I warned at the very beginning that all of this should be taken with caution, since it is all subjective.

I am kindof tired, so maybe I will post a reply tomorrow.

best regards.

Re: Kafir (77)

I am sure we will disagree on some things. ACtually I believe that we have been through this discussion before, Venki and myself in response to an article by Dawkins.

Maybe tomorrow friend.

Re: Matha (78)

Dear friend, calm down ... remember the context of this discussion.

``Did Ali fail after a similar effort? I`m not sure.``

Would it satisfy you if he had revolted earlier and been killed in the process? Would you be happy if the whole of Banu Hashim was enslaved or exiled and Banu Umayya had taken over immediately after the Prophet`s death? Instead of the house of the Prophet being butchered in Karbala, it would have happened much sooner and much closer to Makkah. You propose your solution, what would you have done ... :)

However to say that he failed outright is wrong again. After all if he failed, how come I am sitting here typing all of this to you? Hmmm ....

:)

W

Chowk Special Re: Matha (64)

Well, from what one can gather from his own sayings and from the records that are with us today (in whatever form) that I have been exposed to, it appears that the situation was the following.

I think in all of this, many people commit the cardinal mistake of expecting something superhuman from these people. But Muhammed and Ali were flesh and blood, not comic story mythical characters, who felt no pain, suffering etc.

He always claimed to be the rightful successor and started the job of compiling the Quran after the Prophet`s death but was marginalized. The powers above him refused to entertain the protests of a group of ``leftists`` including Ali. Immediately after the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr snatched away the only piece of property that provided the sustenance of Fatima, the Garden of Fidak. She died due to complications of child birth sometime later.

Ali, after all was human. He saw major tragedies in quick succession, the death of the Prophet, the abandoning of the dead body of the Prophet by his companions so that they could get power, the loss of their family`s sustenance (he had two young sons to raise remember?), intense political pressure and harassment, and on top of it a growing realization that Islam, as he understood it, was being distorted and lost. Focussing on the time of Uthman only from the point of view of the compilation of the Quran is naive, after all the deed had already been done the day a certain coterie of companions had usurped power. Uthman came about twenty years later, when Islam was no longer a provincial religion, but the ideology of a huge empire filled with nouveau rich. The dedicated companions of the prophet were literally paupers, the only following they had were of like minded idealists who were inconsequential to the state.

In this situation, he never relented his claim but at the same time correctly saw that if he were to lead a pro-Hashim counter offensive then not only would he lose, but Islam itself would be eliminated. It was after all unnecessary, and would have been completely eliminated once it had been branded as a pro-Hashim religion started by Muhammed. Remember, old Makkans, never accepted Muhammed, they always considered him to be the misguided ``orphan of Abdullah``.

I think by sacrificing his claim and his own self, Ali ensured that Islam itself would not be destroyed. At least today people know of the Quran, Muhammed and his teachings. Can you completely with a clear conscience say that such a sacrifice is not possible? He repeatedly confirmed his position vis-a-vis this (Nahjul Balagha contains his sentiments on this issue) and clarified that he had opted to take the back seat so that Islam itself may not become a victim of the deep seated tribal jealousies and Makkan politics.

The issues that you bring up are interesting but they in my opinion are a result of taking an unnatural look at history. If an intelligent person, sits down calmly and reads just the recorded history from the time of the Prophet to the time of Karbala, keeps the customs and traditional rivalries of the people in view, and thinks about how things could evolve, it all makes sense.

If it helps at all, put yourself in his shoes, read through what is recorded and imagine what was going on. Then decide what course of action you would have chosen and what he chose.

cheers

Chowk Special Re: Kafir (61)

I would warn you not to take my thoughts on this matter too seriously, since thankfully, they are in a process of constant evolution. Also, by definition, they are subjective.

I think the issue of religion versus science is an issue of knowledge. That is, we as human beings, for some reason, desire to understand. In the process, we have discovered that there is knowledge that is subjective (regardless of what is its source) and knowledge that is objective. Our methods for attaining subjective knowledge fall under the rubric of religions whereas our methods for attaining objective knowledge fall under the rubric of sciences.

As a simple example, I can describe, scientifically, the chaotic trajectory of a mass in the gravitational field of multiple massive bodies yet I cannot explain why someone cries. However, from within the subjective side of knowledge, I can not only define the process of crying, but also present a reason why it happens.

Clearly, the scientific knowledge and its associated intellectual weaponry is not complete. One can subsequently ask whether all knowledge is in principle assailable by the current scientific method? I do not know the answer to that, but clearly any knowledge that is not (a) definable (b) verifiable and (c) falsifiable would not be tackled by the current scientific method.

I believe that there is more than what begets the eye, that there are unknown knowledges, both objective and subjective, which I call the Underlying Unknown. This knowledge is not passive, because it forms the warp and woof of our existence, but rather it is active because it, through its incremental revelation, changes us irrevocably. This reminds me of the saying of the Prophet that there are multiple levels of interpretation of the Quran -hence the esoteric tradition in Sufism.

I also believe that both in the arena of objective and subjective knowledge, people have varying capabilities. Objective knowledge sees giants like Dirac, Gauss, Einstein etc. and other lesser people. Similarly, subjective knowledge sees giants like Buddha, Muhammed, Rumi etc. and other lesser people.

In this quest, what is more important is the Underlying Unknown itself, not the particular individuals who have also strived for it. This Underlying Unknown in my opinion is also called Allah, or God, or Brahman, and is the common denominator of all systems of knowledge, subjective or objective. To quote the beautiful parable from the Quran: ``There is nothing at all like him``. Being in the field that requires continual paradigm shifts, I am convinced that this is an apt description of the Underlying Unknown.

I am very happy for you that you have let your heart lead your mind. To me, just that instinctive distinction within us between the heart and the mind, shows that we still have a long way to go before we say we understand.

regards

Chowk Special Re: Saima (62)

Well, there are a lot of issues about the philosophy of caliphate that I am neither capable of discussing, nor have the time to go into. HOwever, I have presented how I compare caliphate to a monarchy in another reply (66), which also refutes your contention about aristocracy. The caliph does not construct a material base that empowers him to maintain a permanent economic disparity with the rest of the citizens and therefore lay the foundation of an aristocracy.

In fact, this extreme aristocracy, or Imperialism, was exactly what Ali was fighting against, as I have already referred to in reply 53 (starting from ``During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism ...`` third last para).

I do not think that ``religious morality`` is anything separate from ``justice``. Religions strive to fulfill this desire for justice, and try to set up societal level institutions that realize the concept of justice as understood within the context of the religion. Islamic view of ``justice`` is not separate from its view of ``morality``, the latter derives from the former.

Even when you talk about ``justice`` and ``morality`` you are talking within some context, with some prototypical (or typical) model in your head, perhaps a Western or secular or Islamic or Platonic or whatever model of what constitutes justice. (After all none of us are born with an owner`s manual!) The natural question is whether there exists something like objective justice or inherent justice or absolute justice that is not dependent within the human mind on some model, and therefore is the ``true`` ideal to strive for? I do not think that exists, but you may have a different opinion.

By definition, Islam would take the divine justice as that absolute justice and consider itself based upon that, as does every religion.

The question about caliphate is best posed by looking at the importance and relevance of inspired leadership for a community. We are capable of understanding that, and some of us live in a society that has chosen democracy as the method to fulfill the need for leadership. Plato`s philosophy also arises to answer the same need, and my analogy to Plato was entirely within that context, shouldn`t one choose the brightest, ablest, wisest and the most learned to lead the society? After all a society is nothing more than what it holds sacred.

There is a clear reason why caliphate is not analogous to papacy in my mind. That is because papacy derives its legitimacy from its role as an intercessor. Institutionalized intercession is not present in Islam. In addition, a caliph fulfills all the demands of any other citizen, unlike monasticism that is required in papacy.

best

Chowk Special Re: Matha(60)

``Anyway, you blamed the ``haalaat`` afterall ...``

Let me see, by saying this you are implying the following:

We see a person A intending to do something, yet does not do so. If I were to say that his circumstances prevented him from doing so, then I am not to be taken seriously since if the person A REALLY wanted to do it, he/she would have done it regardless of the circumstances.

This reasoning in my view is naive and spurious, befitting of a fantastic children`s fable, but not a history book.

I personally have wanted to do many things, but have not done them because: (a) Given my circumstances it was not possible (b) My doing them would cause some other factors in my life to go out of balance.

Now let me turn to our immediate history, all of these following gentlemen REALLY wanted to do something but could not do so entirely because of their circumstances: Hitler (bring in the Third Reich, prevented by the war of his own construction), Gandhi (change the rule in united India and some aspects of the caste system, prevented/influenced by the prevalent Hindu-Muslim sentiments, the sentiments of the Hindu right and his own assasination), Jinnah (presumably the definition of Pakistan as a modern nation state, prevented/influenced by the political atmosphere in the Hindu-Muslim-British triad and his own rapidly declining health) ... the list is long but you get the point.

Let me answer your comments, they have already been discussed in this forum. I will post a list of references later, since I do not recall the exact page numbers etc. off the top of my head.

Yes people were fully aware of the fact that the Quran that was compiled by Uthman was neither complete nor was the Quran that was present in the time of the Prophet. People were aware of the omissions. I am quoting some of these for your reference (excuse me for not going into more detail):

1) Allama Jalal-ud-din Suyuti quotes Ibn Umar in Kitab ul Manshur: ``A large part of the Quran has been lost``. Amongst the losses, a large part of Surah Ahzab and Ayat-e Rajam. Ayat Rajam is not present in the Quran today. See next reference.

2) Hazrat Aisha: ``In the time of the Prophet, people used to recite 200 ayats of Surah Ahzab. When Uthman compiled the Quran, we could only find what there are presently``. (Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Chapter Rajam, Musnad Imam Hunbal Vol. 1, Mota-e Imam Malik)

3) Surah Tobah in the Quran today, is only one-third or one-fourth of the one during the time of the Prophet. (Related by renowned scholars like Tibrani, Abu Shaiba, Abul-Sheikh, Ibn-AlMunzir, Jalal-ud-din Suyuti, Fakhr-ud din Razi)

4) Hazrat Aisha on the loss of Ayat-e Rajam and Ayat-e Raza` (Allama Fakhr-ud din Uthman in Al-tabian ul-Haqaiq Sharah Kinz-ul Daqaiq)

5) The nephew of Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Masoor bin Muhzima asked Abdur-Rahman bin Auf ``Do you find the ayat ... in the Quran, we do not find it.`` The answer of Auf ``This ayat was also dropped with that part of the Quran that was lost.`` (Tafseer Ut-Taqan, Kinz-ul Amal)

6) Hazrat Aisha was of the opinion that Uthman unlawfully modified the Quran (Tafseer Ut-Taqan).

All this just to show you that YES within the Muslim tradition, people did believe that the compiled Quran was not complete. (Also refer to earlier postings about the method of the collection of the Quran). Taken from this point, one should say, that the version introduced in the time of Uthman was not the complete version. (Your choice of the word ``correct`` is loaded and serves to detract from the main issue under discussion here). SOme of the missing ayahs have survived and have been commented on, but of course only within the SHi`a tradition (and not all of them deal with the family of the prophet etc. if you are wondering). However due to the order of Uthman that all differing copies be destroyed on discovery has probably made the recovery of the original revelation very difficult, if not impossible.

On the question of whether the final Shia Imam has the correct copy or not, I think that is irrelevant to this discussion, because that is a matter of faith whereas here we are talking about what we can reconstruct could have happened given our historical sources.

Now coming to your other comments:

``The criterion defined put Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab in the maal-e-ghaneemat-hungry category, from what I can tell, but I don`t think there is enough proof to in the ``haalaat`` to justify this claim...``

The question is not merely that of wealth hungry, but of being power hungry foremost. I have not, neither do I know of anyone, who has pointed to Abu Bakr in particular for being wealth hungry. The primary blame on these two esteemed gentlemen is that they were power hungry, and in their effort to assume leadership of the fledgling Muslim community, set into motion a set of events whose only logical outcome was that the pre-Islamic Makkan wealth should become the de facto rulers of the Islamic world in the form of Banu Umayya. This is their biggest mistake. These two gentlemen, and not merely Uthman, were directly responsible for the alienation of the Ansar, for the oppression of the Ahl-e Bait, for the rise to power of post-Makkan-conquest converts in particular the family of Abu Sufyan and lastly and most damagingly the string of military campaigns that has permanently damaged Islam.

These two gentlemen turned the focus of an immature and unsteady Muslim community into military warfare. Instead of concentrating on solidifying our moral, spiritual and philosophical roots, we started sending armies of hormone-controlled youths in their twenties to pillage and plunder all the countries around Arabia. Do you think under these circumstances these people could have come up with a MORAL or a CONCEPTUAL revolution that Islam was intended to be? The answer is no.

What happened to Islam was a tragedy as a consequence. The spiritual meaning of the religion, which should have been carefully nurtured and matured was instead immediately lost, and in turn we adopted a religion that was an ambiguous mish-mash of the ideologies of the areas that the Arab marauders conquered.

Think about it, what is the spiritual basis of the religion that people call Islam? Is it in the string of victories that every lunatic Maulvi spews from pulpits across the world? Or is it in the loads of wealth that was produced in the process of pillaging everything around Arabia? Why is it that we are turned off by these things and are instead attracted to depth and force of concepts? Because that is where the spiritual basis of a religion resides. These gentlemen destroyed that basis, and in doing so destroyed Islam. No wonder everything else happened, because the real force that rules over the hearts of people was lost.

``Are you also implying that the prophet`s family was NOT in the upper echelons of Meccan society?``

Yes, I am not only implying it, but stating it. He was an orphan, who was raised by his grandfather and then his uncle Abu Talib. His wife Khadija died the year he was boycotted and exiled. His cousin Ali, son of Abu Talib, left with him to Medina. All that was left in Makkah was lost. You know all of this, you tell me what is the answer?

``...about the position that expansionism would not have happened...``

The issue is first to separate the contexts of military expeditions. The first category being battles that were either directly defensive or pre-emptively defensive or were necessary for the survival of the community. The second category being the one in question, i.e. acts of clear aggression whose only purpose was to force people to accept Islam. Muhammed categorically never used or believed in using military means for the expansion of Islam. During his lifetime his method was to send emissaries to neighbouring kingdoms so that Islam could be introduced. He believed in the tradition of exchange of argument ... ``La Iqraha fid-din``. A case in point there being the Christian group of scholars that came to argue with him, no one was forced.

Looking at the first category now, even during military campaigns within Arabia, the condition that people convert to Islam for sanctuary was never employed.

The tradition ``Islam, Jizya or war`` was an unfortunate invention during the time of military expansionism after the death of the Prophet.

``How would khilafat which remains in the family of the Prophet be different, technically, from a monarchy?``

First you have to undergo a paradigm shift. Stop thinking of khilafat as a monarchy, otherwise you would not ask this question. Second, we have to treat the term monarchy itself with care. The concept of monarchy has changed over time, but we should keep in mind that the central issue at hand, that the concept of monarchy tries to address, is the issue of the leadership and focal point of a community.

Now within the Islamic context the answer is the following as I understand it. The leadership of a community is very critical, as we will both agree. Although a leader is not the absolute and de facto master of the people, he should be the best and the most able.

The criteria used to judge this are the (a) complete command of and dedication to the spiritual core of the religion so that every decision is a direct reflection of and in accordance with the divine will and (b) the intelligence and physical ability required to deal with the ever changing demands of the state.

The caliph does not and cannot control the means of livelihood, riches and properties of the people, as instruments to further his individual self. He is not an individual source of law, polity or ideology. He, or his family, thus does not gain property or wealth, nor is he, or his family, legally treated distinctly from any other citizen of the state. His mandate derives wholly from his ability to lead a community that derives its morality and sanctity from a common spiritual source. He is a temporal representative of the communally accepted laws, morality, cosmology and ambitions of the community, that derive from a divine source. He takes advice from everyone, but being the most able, is also aware of the potential pitfalls of public opinion regarding issues and therefore is assigned to serve as a leader of the community on such issues. Finally he serves as the role model for the people.

A monarchy is defined as follows: The undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term is applied to states in which the supreme authority is vested in a single person, the monarch, who is the permanent head of the state. Frequently the monarch became an absolute ruler, the only source of law, the only mainspring of administration.

In the case of a caliph, the supreme authority is neither vested in nor derived from him. It is vested in and derives from divinity. The caliph is not the supreme source of law in the state, neither is he a de facto master of the lives of the citizens. In all cases, therefore, a caliph is not a monarch.

best regards

Chowk Special Re: Goga (48)

Actually there is a very important difference between the two cases.

The image of the Prophet, presented in Sahih Bukhari and elsewhere, is that of a bumbling fool, who happened to chance upon prophethood. Let me give so some examples:

1) A tradition related to Omar bin Al-Khattab says that Muhammed, Abu Bakr and I were like race horses, he was ahead of us by a little amount and got the Prophethood.

2) Another version of this sentiment is expressed as a tradition falsely attributed to the Prophet. If there was a Prophet after me, it would be Abu Bakr, and after him Omar.

3) Sahih Bukhari has multiple examples where the Prophet spontaneously loses his mind. Like for instance he starts praying facing the wrong way, or forgets the basics of salaat. At all times, the heroic saviours Abu Bakr and Omar intercede and set him right (notice no one else does).

That is to be compared to the shrewdness he consistently showed throughout his life in dealing with enemies much more powerful than him.

Also within the context of Islam, according to the Quran, the Prophet does not say a single word unless it is revealed to him. So everything that he does is completely in accordance with divine intelligence. Clearly there is a big paradox here regarding how the Quran esteems the Prophet and how his companions do.

4) The infamous Hadith of Paper is related by Sahih Bukhari also.

On his death-bed, caliphate hopefuls were hanging around him like vultures. They denied his requests to speak out loud and instruct them on the future of the community. Finally he asked them to get him a piece of paper and a pen so that he could dictate his last wishes. Omar violently rejected that request and exclaimed that ``This man is delusioned and is spewing nonsense!``. After that the vultures started arguing loudly amongst themselves and the Prophet ordered everyone out from his room.

These are but a few examples. Now notice the consistent pattern.

a) The Prophet has been openly and publicly ridiculed.

b) He has been presented as a clown and a buffoon.

c) There is a clear difference between what one would expect the Prophet to be and what some of his companions insist on making him.

Now let us come back to the incident that you mention. First of all, the incident that you mention, is the most authenticated Hadith known. The number of trusted sources for that Hadith exceed that of any other, including that of Sura Fatiha. Despite that, the Hadith did not make into Sahih Bukhari because it was politically damaging. On the other hand, hundreds of Hadith were accepted, from SINGLE individuals, without cross check including all of Aisha`s sexual fantasies that fill Sahih Bukhari, narrations from Abu Hurraira and even from people who converted to Islam after the fall of Makkah. As I have mentioned before the number of hadith attributed to the family and some of the oldest ansars are a handful.

In this incident, the context of the Hadith is as follows. The Prophet consistently proved that he was a good manager. He understood the importance of the chain of command. During his lifetime, it was his habit that for every expedition, he would not only nominate the leader, but also two or three back-ups in successive order, in case the leader was killed. When he would leave for an extended expedition, he would appoint a person to be in charge behind him.

The question then arises why did he not clearly and openly do so for the time after his death? He did not die suddenly, he certainly had plenty of time. The traditional response to this has been that he only made vague comments and gestures about who would be the successor during the time of his illness, but never before that. That explanation is clearly nonsense if one follows his habits regarding the chain of command.

The only viable explanation that stands then is that he did nominate his successor, except that he knew that in doing so he would be infuriating many people who were already in silent revolt against him. That is the reason the tradition of the appointment of Ali is not accepted despite being the most authentic hadith in existence.

Now consider what you brought up. You interpret it to be undermining the courage and faithfulness of the Prophet, I do not agree with that. The Prophet was going to do his duty regardless. The purpose of the verse is to elucidate to the people present the importance of this duty. The purpose of the verse is to inform you and me that this final act was of supreme importance in preserving the fabric of the community. Therefore, after leaving from the last Hajj, the Prophet ordered everyone to stop and asked that a dais be made by piling the blankets and canopies one puts on camels. Then he ascended this stage, along with Ali so that everyone could see them clearly. Then he asked them, ``Am I your lord and master?`` The answer was ``yes``. Then he said, ``Mun kuntu maula, fa-haza Ali`un maula`` (As I am your lord and master, Ali is your lord and master). Once this was done, a verse was revealed that told him that he had finished his duty well, by appointing a successor which would carry on the practices of the Prophet.

There is no demeaning of the Prophet here, he is doing what was revealed. But by alluding to the anger of the people, the Quran is recording the treachery of those people. It is not pointing to the Prophet. There is an interesting analogy here, again Quranic. Moses wanted to make Aaron in charge while he was away, but was afraid of the reaction of the people since Aaron was a mild guy. The situation is exactly analogous, it does not implicate Moses but is a commentary on the treachery of the people who Moses had saved but had reverted back to idolatory.

Therefore the analogy that you draw is wrong. Nowehere in the Shia scholarship will you find anything even remotely approaching the level of ridicule and deconstruction that is seen in the Sunni sources. Pick up and read any twenty pages of Sahih Bukhari for instance, you will find mutually conflicting traditions from the Prophet. You will not find anything analogous in the Shia traditions.

Let me give you a little bit more on this horror show, you can readily confirm it through your own scholarship. After the death of the Prophet, EVERYONE except the family of the Prophet (ALi, Fatima,etc.) and some of his devoted ansar, abandoned his dead body and made their way to Saqeefa banu Saida, a village outside of Medina. Everyone, of course except the family of the Prophet and devoted ansar, went and haggled over who would be the successor. So eager were these people that they could not wait for a single day to bury the Prophet and then to pursue their political greed. The wrestling match that ensued there between these gentlemen and resulted in the complete alienation of the ansar is yet another story, but needless to say the AbuBakr-Omar coalition was already strong.

One day after the burial, these gentlemen returned to find that the Prophet had been buried. They insisted that the Prophet be dug up again so that these fools could offer their prayers, at which point Ali sat astride the Prophet`s grave with his unsheathed sword and warned everyone to stay away. Thankfully the Prophet was saved from this final disgrace at the hands of these people.

Notice these very people later on exclaimed that ``The Prophet wanted to make Ali his successor but God wanted something else!`` (related to Omar) which implies an astounding break between God and his Prophet. One of these very gentlemen was also the architect of the slogan that ``Caliphate and Prophethood cannot go into the same family``, because they understood Caliphate only as a kingship.

The Shia scholars on the other hand have insisted that Caliphate is the institution of the successive chain of knowledge. A caliph is the protector and supreme scholar of the moral core of Islam -the closest analogy being the concept of the rule of philosophers that was enunciated by Plato. That is why the Shiite imams place primary importance on knowledge and recognize that the sole inheritance of any prophet is his store of divine knowledge. This is the basis of the esoteric tradtion in Islam, which was later adopted by Sufism that considers Muhammed and Ali to be their prime sources.

Chowk Special Re: Matha (47)

Well this one is not a problem ...

First question about correct sources ...

Let me assume the contrary, are you saying that there are NO Islamic sources of history and there is NO brain inside our heads?

Actually we should use the little time machine that we carry inside our heads more often.

Second question about why the ``correct`` version of the HQ was not introduced.

There are three main reasons.

First, it is not easy to do so. It requires the presence of a de facto power to abrogate something as important as the HQ and introduce another one. For example, which U.S president could have introduced a revised version of the Declaration of Independence? Replacing one standard with another, especially very soon after the first is not very easy.

Second, he chose not to, because it would have led to a complete rift in the Islamic community and there would have been an outright civil war whose only beneficiary would have been our conniving little friend in Syria, Muawiya. The essentials in the HQ were there to define the community.

Now coming to the third reason, which is extremely important. COnsider his term of Caliphate (35 A.H to 40 A.H), which lasted five years. At the start of his Caliphate, as was his right, he appointed his governors to Egypt, Iraq, Arabia and Syria. Muawiya not only refused to leave his governorship but also threatened a direct assault on Medina. At this point, he could have defeated Muawiya directly however, curiously, Aisha unlawfully instigated the first civil war of Islam which resulted in the death of thousands of Muslims, only because SHE wanted her cousin Talha to be the next Caliph instead of Ali despite the fact that Medina had begged and pleaded Ali to become the Caliph. The alleged charge was that ALi had gotten Uthman killed, which was wrong. This unfortunate incident resulted in the fact that he could turn to Muawiya until 36 A.H after the defeat of Aisha`s army. That defeat in itself caused a rift between people. After he got done with the war, he turned his attention to Muawiya who had unlawfully revolted and denied the order of the Caliph to hand over the governorship of Syria to the newly appointed governor. The confrontation which started in 37 A.H. led to an almost victory for Ali. This was followed by a period of resolution which was sabotaged by the arbiter appointed from the side of Muawiya. Finally Ali returned to Iraq and started to prepare for another assault on Syria, all the while aware that Imperialism was coming into Islam in the name of Muawiya. Egypt and Northern Africa were lost to Muawiya and finally Ali himself was martyred in 40 A.H.

Now you are so smart dear Matha, you tell me when did he have the time to sit down calmly much less pursue a goal to complete the Quran??

It would really help to read the relevant history of that time period. Pick up Maudoodi`s book for instance. If nothing else, for the references. I am amazed that he accomplished so much else given the fact that he was desperately fighting the spectre of Imperialism and the death of Islam as people knew it.

During his lifetime, Ali warned of the threat of Imperialism: FOr example in one of his khutbas (38 A.H), ``By God, if these people become your rulers they will rule like Caesar on you``. In another khutba (39 A.H), ``Come fight with these people, who are fighting you so that they become cruel kings and enslave the people of God``.

Of course, the very people who scoffed at his dire predictions during his lifetime, regretted their decisions not to heed him after his death. Abdullah bin Umar: ``My biggest mistake in life was not to have sided with Ali`` and Abdullah bin Umar bin Al-Aas ``My biggest mistake in life was to have taken part in battle with Muawiya against Ali``.

This was the point when this whole Imperialistic mess in Islam started, which has hounded our history to this day.

cheers

Chowk Special Re: Godot

I realize that you are a very realistic person who has genuine concern about the Islamic world and the Muslims. I am sorry if you thought I implied that you were not, and your anger clearly derives how much you feel for the Muslims across the world.

About Hussein, I can only say, what I have gathered from my own interpretations and from my education. You will of course make your own judgements.

I think that Hussein was the real saviour of Islam after Muhammed. Islam, the religion for the poor fell hostage to the very same Makkan elite who had hounded Muhammed from his earliest days. There was first an episode of hidden imperialism and then finally of outright imperialism (Uthman). If Islam is anything, it is its moral core. That very core defines the Islamic universe where people are ranked relative to each other in a moral universe. It defines the scope of actions in this world such that one does not lose on the Hereafter. This very core of Islam was in danger of immediate and complete destruction, forever, with the rise of imperialism. Had Muawiya or Yazid succeded, I doubt if we would even know of the name Muhammed today. Think about it, people under the fist of the Banu Umayya would have either reverted back to their original religion, or some mish-mash combination of the pagan religions along with fragments of Islam. There is a long succession of kings in the past who enforced their own religions or dogmas, and that is what we would have received today, a religion whose prophet was Muawiya or Yazid, whose moral core would be absent.

Think about it for a second: What level of decay must the Islamic world would have been for them to contemplate the family of the Prophet barely fifty years after his death? Imagine yourself to be in that situation, you offer prayers and send salutations to Muhammed and his family, and yet you are willing to kill his family? After the family, it would have been Muhammed himself. Who would have stopped it, all the temporal power rested completely and absolutely in the hands of the state.

In these circumstances, Hussein`s adamant stand NOT to give in to state pressure clearly defined the separation of the religion from the state. It clearly said that the moral core of a religion CANNOT be defined by fiat by the state. Obviously he and his believers believed thoroughly and deeply in this, they sacrificed their lives for this. But in doing so, due to the sheer tragedy of their sacrifice, due to their stature in Islamic tradition to that point and due to the subsequent realization of the importance of Karbala, he saved Islam from the whims of the State.

Let me give a little bit of what happened after the tragedy of Karbala. The news of the tragedy (whose details I will not go into) slowly spread in Iraq. During his life Hussein had written to people in Basra, Medina etc. to join him in combating Yazid who was openly flouting Islam. All those people had decided not to join him because they feared the power of the State. After his death, when they realized their mistake, since the death of Hussein had left a spiritual and moral void in their times, they rose up against the Banu Umayya. This led to one of the most astonishing events in all of Islamic history. In Basra, where hundreds of potential Hussein sympathizers had been pre-emptively imprisoned by the Governor of Iraq and Iran before Kerbala, there was a mutiny, where these prisoners escaped and vowed to avenge the death of Hussein. This bunch of rag-tag escapees from underground dungeons over a period of several years, at great loss to themselves, but at a terrible loss to Banu Umayya, avenged the death of Hussein by destroying the Iraq-Iran garrison and killing the governor. This move dealt a long lasting blow to the power and legitimacy of the Banu Umayya.

Moreover, due to Hussein, the family of Muawiya did not stay in power. The son of Yazid, Muawiya bin Yazid was so disgusted by the acts of his father that he effectively distanced himself from the throne. The power moved into the hands of the family of Marwan, where it stayed for another fifty or so years.

The Abbasid revolution derived its popular support from the tragedy of Kerbala and the fact that the family of the Prophet had been poorly treated. Ironically, the Abbasids reneged on their claims and were statistically even bigger oppressors than the Umayyids.

If there was no Hussein, I think you would not be a Muslim today, and Islam as we know it would probably not exist.

One of the people of this century who has very poignantly pointed out the importance of Hussein in Islam is none other than Iqbal himself. In Israr-o-Ramuz (in Dar ma-niyay hurriyat-e Islamia wa sirr-e hadsa-e Kerbala) he does not mince any words (I can send you the Farsi also, but it will take me long to type all of that up, so I am just including some of my rough translation of some of the verses):

Moses and Pharoah, Hussein and Yazid, these are two opposite forces in life from the beginning.

Truth is alive today because of the strength of Hussein while evil has been defeated.

Until the end of the world he stopped imperialism. His blood flourished a new garden.

The ocean of truth mingled with sand and blood to make the foundation of La-Illaha.

The secret of the Quran is taught by Hussein. He engenders a fire within me.

And so on ...

best

Chowk Special Re: Noor (49)

I would agree completely with Godot that the actual life and times of the era of the Prophet were no different when seen up close, from the daily lives of today, in terms of the personal politicking etc. My reply only served to present the point of view that all that we consider to be ethically sublime or base has grown from this very matrix. The very presence of a conflict does not imply the absence of an ethical dimension. Everyone whom I respect as a great teacher of humanity has had to deal with the rest of the world, and by definition successfully enough to have been noticed by history. And if there is anything at all that humans can be proud of ethically it has come out of this conflict between the ideals and the reality.

Even if one does not consider the Prophet to have any divine guidance, one can safely say that he had certain convictions and ethics that he professed and lived by. Those personal rules defined the ``good`` and ``evil`` of his moral universe, and hence by extension of Islam. If the pagan tribes had won, they would have forgotten about a ``rebellious orphan`` called Muhammed. We would probably have been followers of some Indian or Persian religion. But that did not happen, and therefore, within an Islamic context, we should not shy away from accommodating BOTH the realpolitik and the ethics/spirituality.

As far as I understand it, Islam does not condone monasticism or becoming dissociated from the society. People are supposed to be both spiritual and practical. So we need to understand the definition of spirituality of Islam and its relation to the mundane and often disconcerting affairs of life.

There is a very interesting analogy to this from outside of Islam. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna teaches Arjun the importance of his duty (which implied waging war against his mentors and relatives) for the greater good that derived from ethics. There also one sees a clear overlap between the mundane life and the spiritual life (represented by the presence of Krishna and his elaboration of right vs wrong). Clearly faith has to provide a venue for spiritualism within the context of a practical world, and to provide workable models for accommodating both. That is what I think a Muslim can see in the real life struggle of the Prophet and those who stuck with him, which as such forms a beautiful and inspirational story of struggle, prevalence, defeat and faith -the ingredients of real life, and a fitting foundation to a faith.

Chowk Special Re: Altaf (43)

Even if one were to say that the present Quran is not what it should have been, there is still no denial to the fact that it contains a moral and spiritual message. To what extent one bases one`s present day society on it is a different question.

If Quranic scholars could undergo a paradigm shift that would allow them to understand this book as a product of an imperfect compilation process, and associate a history to it, then probably they could define some measure of disparity or incompleteness in its verses. That would be interesting, because that could give us clues about the source and the content.

In the case of the Bible, one can from tradition, compare the gospels coming from different sources and then do a comparative study on their styles and content. In the case of HQ one would have to be more subtle I would think, but still given honest scholarship, it should be possible.

Evolution 101 Dear Mr. Owais,

I almost forgot about this little exchange, so I decided to come back to see what additional gems of wisdom had come from your way. Masha-Allah, what a talent, what a gift!

Since this is WAY more fun than the original subject of the Myth of Creationism versus the Fact of Evolution (wink, wink), I cannot help myself.

``You wrote that it relaxes you to write.``

Actually this particular exchange more than relaxes me. It invigorates me, humors me, and is fun! Thank you. ``The possibilities are endless, Max!``

``Does it also give you ecstasy talking loud to yourself in the facade of a shimmering mirror as well? Based on your arguments so far, I have not even a shred of doubt in my mind that it does.``

This is probably the only correct conclusion that you will reach this year. (OOps does that mean that the quota is up?) Actually, yes, I do, very much. FYI I also enjoy singing in the shower, skipping on the side-walks ... should I send you my little blurb from the classified section? ``SDM, 28, enjoys skinning furry little animals ... iso ...``

``I will take you under my wings (as earlier pleaded by you) and bring the best out of you.``

I am not one who leads others on. At the risk of breaking your heart and bringing your romantic dreams crashing down, my dear sir, when will you see that I was making fun of you? It is called sarcasm, or ridicule (but it does take a wee little bit of you-know-what to recognize).

``I firmly deem that an individual like yourself who is headstrong, bigot, naive and closed minded- probably left your neurons in a refrigerator ...``

Thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you. As they say, zarra nawazi. On the other hand:

Sumandar say milay piyasay ko shabnam
Bakheeli heh yay, fayyazi nahin hai!

Given your ability to froth and spew, I hoped to get much much more. You see I am writing a small interactive program called ``Satan`` (sort of a doppelganger Eliza), and I really wanted to tap into your amazing ability to spew for pages without actually divulging any information. It is really quite amazing. You must be losing your touch Mr. Owais, I am sure you can do better!

``Mr. Wasiq, you are a legend in only your own head.``

Gee thank you for using my name and the word ``legend`` in the same sentence. I have never claimed to be a legend so maybe you will be the one who would have started this insanity! (Imagine a historian hundred years from now ... does that titillate you?) On the other hand I am actually quite happy that you do not think highly of me. I only wonder what hirsute goats illuminate your path. God forbid if I were to de-evolve enough to be your hero ... that is a very frightening prospect indeed.

``Actually working on individuals with an impotent mind gives me significant relaxation and contentment.``

I am sure it does. Takes one to know one as they say. The point is not whether it gives you relaxation but whether you (or that poor unfortunate soul) get anywhere in the process! Wish I could chip in to bring some meaning to your life. But sorry, I am already committed you see.

``... if you willingly give up bigotry and vow to become better ...``

So tell me one thing Mr. Owais, if I give up bigotry, will you guide me to your pristine paradise? Will there be streams of milk and honey? Do you feel turned on by the prospect?

As always, thank you for making my day!
until later, yours.

Sunrise at Sydney Very well written. Though I am not a big cricket fan (I am sorry) and therefore do not retain the relevant statistics in my RAM (or even my organic HDD), I read through your article with complete and undivided attention, thoroughly enjoying your descriptions and style. It was a pleasure. I imagine you taking off a little time from your main line of work to polish off a superb history of Pakistani cricket. I would be one of the first to buy it.

best wishes

Ramadan: Then and Now Happy Eid to all Chowkwallas!

Chowk Special Re: Goga (40)

Interestingly enough Sahih Bukhari does not mention that Ali had volunteered to collect the Quran immediately after the Prophet`s death, but was forcibly disallowed to do so. The family of the Prophet always claimed to have the Quran, but they were neither consulted in the process (on the contrary were forcibly kept away from it) nor were they allowed to proceed with the compilation. Again the reason was the political clout that such an undertaking would have endowed on the person responsible.

It is ironic that Marwan was chosen by Uthman to head the compilation of the Quran. Marwan ``converted`` after the fall of Makkah, and his hypocricy and enmity to Islam was very well known. He fell into the same group of people like Hinda and Abu Sufyan. He along with his other family members were forgiven by the Prophet. Uthman superceded all scholars of the Quran and the loyal followers of the Prophet to appoint one of the biggest enemies of Islam to co-ordinate the compilation of the Quran!! Of course our neighbourhood Mullah would not let us think about this!

Another point, unfortunately Sahih Bukhari repeatedly makes the Prophet look like a complete idiot. A man of his intellectual caliber, who kept his other records (of deeds and agreements) somehow forgets to keep track of the Quran?! He who often stressed the importance of not giving in to rumors and to getting reliable information, somehow contends that the memory of people will be sufficient? This guy who was a merchant and knew the importance of accounting leaves the most important thing in his life to the memory of desert beduins?? Extremely unlikely given his achievements in his lifetime. The Prophet was ``deconstructed`` later on by the Hadith writers and inventors so that others may look larger in comparison. Who was there to defend him, his family (who had been killed off) or his trusted companions (who had been marginalized)??

Re: Godot (41)

You write:

``All this talk of Mohammad`s family and the Caliphs, and who did what to whom, sounds more like an episode of Jerry Springer Show than beginning of a great religion. I, for one, don`t give a crap. Knowing the pea-brain Arabs of today, why the Arabs of yesteryears be any different.``

Hold on Godot, that is a very simplistic, naive and arrogant statement on your part!

Is it that you are so used to an idealized and fairy-tale version of any religion that you cannot digest what happens in real life? Does the presence of ambiguity or conflict means that there is no substance whatsoever? Aren`t one`s principles illuminated precisely in an environment of conflict?

Life is not a fairy-tale, it is the ugly day to day life that we live today. It was the same thing fourteen hundred years ago. Ethics, divinity, ``good`` and ``evil`` all arise from this mundane muck. Welcome to reality!

The Arabs are not pea-brains today, neither were they yesterday. Arabia has produced intellects of the highest caliber. Do you really think that the Prophet`s enemies, the wealthy Meccans, were stupid people? Or that the Muslims who prevailed over them and over all the other nations in their vicinity were stupid? Think about it.

Re: SR (39)

As usual, thanks for your original and illuminating point of view. You correctly mention the difference between the ``rich`` and the ``poor`` Muslims. AFter the death of the Prophet, the ``poor`` Muslims, primarily the Ansar, who had sacrificed everything for Islam, were dispossessed by the more wealthy and well-connected people (who went on to produce the first three Caliphs). So really there was no change after all.

The very same rich Meccans who were the powerful people before the rise of Islam became the people who inherited the Caliphate (with the exception of Ali). If there had not been a popular discontent against the greed of Uthman that resulted in his assasination, he would have made sure that Ali would not have become the Caliph. The family and the supporters of the Prophet had almost resigned themselves to this, and were more interested in preserving the ideological aspects of the religion which they considered to be far more important.

It is interesting to note that right after the death of the Prophet, ``Islam`` became outrightly extroverted. The first three Caliphs, particularly Omar and Uthman started a string of military expeditions that resulted in the amassing of incredible amounts of wealth in a very short time. Islam, more than a set of deep and long term ethical principles, became more of a brain-washing doctrine that was employed by these gentlemen to send large numbers of young men to battle. This policy, apart from diverting the attention of a large population of young impressionable people (who could consequently not question the nature of popular Islam) also produced an immense amount of wealth and power for the already rich and influential. Thus the ``idealists`` were forced to either accept complete marginalization or to join in the band-wagon and make a buck for themselves.

For the record, it is interesting to note that the family of the Prophet (including Ali) and some of his most devoted companions were completely and utterly against the policy of military expansionism that was eagerly adopted and promoted by the Caliphs. They considered it to be a gross distortion of the message of Islam that the Prophet had tried to spread.

I thought that I should mention something interesting. Hegel`s dialectical process of history talks of alternating episodes of history whereby after a revolution, the very anti-thesis of the revolution can come into power. In the case of Islam this may be true. We find that the Prophet tried to break the old wealth, power and influence barriers through his revolution, but within a few years after his death his poor but devoted followers had been successfully marginalized, eliminated or absorbed while the more powerful ones ended up being still in power. And if we go even further then even the sorry excuse of a caliphate had been gotten rid of and imperialism (styled very much on the Roman, and to a lesser degree on the Persian model) was in place.

About your comments about the parallels between Christianity and Islam, I think you are right. I did not wish to state that there was an exact parallel between the two religions, but only to show that the presence of following of a tradition within a religion does not necessarily imply its authenticity. Any claim on my part that goes beyond that is not warranted since the amount of knowledge about Christianity in my RAM is small.

ABout your parallel between Temujin and the Prophet, I would agree that both of them were supremely successful people given their humble and disadvantaged beginnings. I personally would end the comparison there, because I think that the similarity between their military careers ends there. Islam spread meteorically (in terms of its political sphere of influence) after the death of the Prophet. The family of the Prophet, who claimed to be the heirs of the essence of Islam opposed this pointing to the fact that the Prophet himself during his lifetime had chosen peaceful missions as the method of spreading the religion (the groups that he sent to EThiopia, Iran and Rome). On the other hand, Temujin, employed war and terror as an instrument for his rise during his lifetime. The Prophet brought with him an ethical code that transcended mere military discipline and tribal unity. Temujin`s code did not have any ethical depth, it served as a source of military discipline while maintaining the old tribal traditions.

But then again, one can debate such juicy historical parallels for a long time!