Filming the Prophet Raw_Dust,

Neither...let us assume indeed. Big whoop. She hersself became a seriously influential (not to mention powerful) figure who in the end had nothing but praise for her lover and Prophet.

So, unh...if anybody has anything to revisit, it`s all those who question the relationship...hypothetically or not.

Suffice it to say, marriage at such a young age was never mandated, nor perscribed...merely practiced.

Filming the Prophet kamath,

Spin? Heh...there`s actually a logical argument (using Hadith) no less that calculates Hazrat Ayesha`s age to be closer in the teens. Whatever.

Needless to say, the spin is fastest in the opposing camp, which through filtering Islamic sources (the only source of Islamic history, I might add) twist the history to suit their agenda against Islam. So, Muhammad (pbuh) becomes the instegator to the war with the pagans for monetary gain (the standard line in oreintalist lore). This, whereas Islamic tradition is quite clear that a few days after his arrival to Medina the Meccans threatened the leader of Medina with a rather brutal death (along with his clansmen) if Muhammad and his followers were not killed on the spot.

Simply exposes many who claim to be humble critiques of Islam as secretly desiring their extermination (as the pagans in Mecca did). Yet when Muslims try to set the record straight...it`s allll spin...heh...

Temporary Marriage in Islam Also, I had a discussion with Irani Shiah`s on the matter.

According to them, Mutah is for prostitutes. Culturally, it is not acceptable and is considered worse than fornication, even though it is religiously sanctioned.

I was baffled by the response, and I assumed it was the typical Irani-expat recoiling at anything Islamic. It turns out these gents were quite `spiritual`, and had a strong Muslim identity, so that wasn`t the case. Not only that, this sentiment (according to them) was widespread across all segments of Irani society.

Maybe it`s because women propositioning men was considered harmful or shameful (hence the attitude that this arrangement is for prostitutes), or that this tradition is at odds with the value macho cultures place on virginity.

Temporary Marriage in Islam Gill sahib, Darbi is an idiot. :-)

No where does the requisite marriage to some one else before remarriage imply one night stands or forced rape.

If people do such, it`s an abuse clear and simple.

The actions of those Irani men were not mandated by Islamic law. Such was not what was not acceptable 1400 years ago, as you flippantly state, nor is it today.

---

Mutah was not necessarily male driven. There were cases during the Prophet`s (pbuh) time where women would proposition men...go figure.

An Ode to Euthanasia Inquirer,

``Thanks for identifying your self as a ``fundamentalist.``

How did I do such? Never mind...it`s not as if it`s a bad word...

`` The easiest thing for me would be to just refer to #60 teshah, who miraculously answered for me on the most critical issue. But you have implied other issues that he has not covered. Hence, the sequel. ``

4 lines a miracle? Small miracles indeed.

It`s an interesting thought, I`d give it that...the comment about Islam condemning state apparatus and sympathizing with prisoners needs elaboration.

Needless to say, a pre-requesite for taking over the aparatus of the state, as he put it, is for the parties involved to a large degree overcome their sectarian differences. Having any one narrow sectarian group take power is nigh impossible, so is a boogey threat.

``****If the ``fundamentalists`` don`t accept the status quo, then why don`t they act to change the situation?****``

I think this very comment discredits you as an informed observer of the Muslim world...or even Pakistan alone...

``****Talk to teshah.****``

Why?

****Ignore? May be you mean focus on. Those ``skirmishes`` have left indelible marks on the the psyche of Islam.``

Eh?

The reference to genocide was from the attempted genocide of the early Muslims by the pagans of Mecca. The skirmishes/raids/battles are understood in that context.

I have no idea what you`re babbling about, this Psychoanalysis business and all...

An Ode to Euthanasia Inquirer,

``How can this revival occur? As I see there are only two ways. Either the entire ruling edifice of the Muslim World has to collapse - as is threatened by the US right now...``

...and as agreed upon by the Islamist themselves. You seem to almost imply that the status quo is acceptable to Muslims, and in particular fundamentalist Muslims...such is not the case.


``or the moderate, intellectual and essentially religious among the Islamic adherents have to fight a Mahabharat with their own Masjid and vanquish them. This shall require a Kamal Ata Turk in each of the Muslim Countries. ``

...why? It seems like the Masjid is hardly a center of power with the exception of two Muslim countries. No doubt such a result will be most palatable to you, but insofar as real benefits to Muslims...what will the result be?

To ignore the fact that the so-called ``intolerance`` of Islam stems from 37 wars (skirmishes is perhaps a better choice of words for the most part) of survival and resistance to an attempted genocide makes one wonder what it will take to appease non-Muslims.

If even fighting for existence is considered intolerant, then why on earth should we fight for anything else...let alone a new form of governence?

I wonder if there is a saying in the Gita that expresses the need for this duplicity....

An Ode to Euthanasia Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

An Ode to Euthanasia Naqshbandi,

It should be pointed out that, politically, the Calipha system failed, in spite of the nobility of the first four. I understand you used the word ``model``, but would you agree to use the term ``prototype``, or even ``rough framework``, or something to that effect?

It should also be noted that the Calipha system revolves around a single person, and their role with respect to society at large, and what`s more this role is described in very informal terms.

It should be easy enough to graft this one role onto a whole class of political systems that follow certain constraints. In effect, though, the role would probably be ceremonial.

As for the Caliph belonging to Quraysh...is there really a way to determine who is a descendent of this tribe? Half of Pakistan qualifies, them being Syeds and all...

An Ode to Euthanasia Dost,

The same message will neccessarily have different interpretations in terms of applicability to differing circumstance. Universalism cannotes universally binding, not universally applicable, or universally actualized. Thus, the clarity of the message is not what is at issue here...or at least, should not be.

Using words such as `true` Islam, and implying that OBL is closer to it than anyone else is a validation of the latter`s theology. The point is, any interpretation only need be self-consistent and well argued. Your chiming in is neither. It`s for this reason why I think Muslims should be self-concerned, and really not solicit or take advice from outsiders (nothing personal, I assure you).

As for Mr. Bush, the point was why is his actions a personal failure for him and not of an entire political system? A bit of a double standard, it seems.

An Ode to Euthanasia Dost-mittar,

``As a non-practising non-muslim...``

You will excuse me if I say that this is exactly why your opinion will be, and should be, ignored. But I`m baited, so I`ll continue.

``Now I am not so sure. I still believe that most muslims are peaceful, tolerant and show respect towards others but I dont believe the same is true of Islam as a doctrine.``

Careful now. By validating a particular theology, you are then beholden to it (even if you yourself do not practice it). By stating such a thing, the onus is on you to validate your position; why is OBL`s theology more valid than, say, Asghar Ali Engineer`s? Do you really want to play that game, or is proclamation based on gut feeling enough?

The idea that it is the universalistic interpretations of the Quran that are motivating the masses to give legitimacy to OBL and his likes is too simplistic and one-sided. Why do we Muslims need moderates, yet portions of the secular West who have mobilized their war machines not? Spare us, dost.

The fact is, when OBL invokes the Quran, he invokes Islamic history as well. He attempts to draw equivalences between the genocidal anti-Muslim pagans of the 6th century, and modern western civilization. How about stop helping him make these links? Jejune analysis of the Quran, and moreover dismissing any attempts at contextualizing it inspite of the importance of the context, intellectually dishonest at best. Musing about the psycological ``infleucnce`` of the Quranic passages that deal with the war`s the Prophet (pbuh) fought are, from my point of view, daft.

The problems in the Muslim world are by far and wide modern problems rooted in modern conflicts. All this talk of reform and what not from critics of Islam and Muslims, when in fact the Muslims are doing nothing worse than those who criticize them, can`t be taken seriously.

---

We do need reform, but not exactly the kind being advocated here.

I think. I can`t tell, Feroz is being rather vague in his use of the term secuarlism and exactly what it implies for Muslim/Islamic socities.

An Ode to Euthanasia Interesting tactic.

Speak highly of religion, and claim that in order to keep it prestine...we need to protect it from the evils of politics.

That`s a one-trick poney my friend.

On the contrary, what the religious need to do is drop their know-all attitudes, and admit that from time to time, the answer isn`t evident to a problem...and that perchance we may have to take a chance once and a while. And to admit, that *gasp*...failure might be a possibility.

Imperfect people can`t implement perfect systems. Once that realization hits us, the ummah will flourish, and Islamic politics will be viable.

Secularism is an excuse to eliminate religion from the public sphere.

Islam, Marathons and Choice Brother Zamanov,

Choice is always curtailed in public. Society always dictates a public morality. The question is, is the morality of a few being applied above and beyond the actual norms?

Note, this works either way.

Ready for a Modern Pakistan? Yasser,

I think you`re being completely unfair to Bryan Adams.

He didn`t come to Pakistan because it was way-mod, uber cool. He came because he felt for the people in the earth quake zone, and feared that they weren`t getting enough attention. Kudos to you Mr. Adams.

Please don`t use his good gesture to score brownie points for your own political ideals/agenda.

Why is it that whenever Jolie, Adams, or whatever celeb. visits Pakistan, Pakistani`s focus on the pop culture aspects of it? Yeah, that`s Islamic...

The Fundo Chic? Zeena,

Quite frankly, it`s a small fraction of people who actually pull an Ehdi and help out the sick and the poor. Although nice in intent, how many people actually do it, and why fault her? Kind of a cheap shot.



Love2Love...it`s called a TV.

An Alternative Spelling of Eed Farzana,

Your response almost seems automated. That is to say, it`s entirely predictable.

The timing is what is at issue here, and is (rightly) seen as a deliberate stab at Muslims.

There is little academic merit to this article, and it`s tone and arguably it`s purpose is no doubt to do exactly what many of us perceive - jab, jab, jab...yuck yuck. Eid f*cking Mubarak, you stupid Muslims. Yeah, haven`t heard that one before...

Since when has juvenile provocation served as a merit for publication? I take that back...since when has such provocation served as a standard for a QUALITY publication? There is unplugged, no?

The concern is that if chowk degenerates into a stance where it essentially passes off troll-bait as article-material, then the consequences for the site as a whole (if we take this as a trend and not an oversight) in terms of who it attracts as readers/interactors or even publishers seem dire.

The article itself is banal enough to dismiss...it`s no DaVinci code. But the whole ``it`s eid, let`s stick it to the Muslims`` thing gets a bit tired...

Having f-u articles inspire nothing but f-u interacts...is this what Chowk is about? Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! I got other places to get that kind of attitude...

An Alternative Spelling of Eed To the author: Chill....relax.

To Chowk: LOL...f*ck you too...