Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State At.#121.
Although the vexing issue of marriage of Ayisha to Muhammad given in so called ‘traditions’ should be a non- issue to the learned on this forum in the context of Quran, it may be of help to conceder the TREND (historically given) set by him in all his marriages to the widows and disadvantaged women in some way or other in the society.
Therefore Dr Shabir Ahmad’s (http://ourbeacon.com)findings and statements that this person Ayisha was NOT Abu Bakar’s daughter but his widowed sister Ayisha!
Was ‘Muhammad the man’ practicing socially accepted practice of the time, in order to give societal protection and "dignity" to the women he is supposed to have married?
Then it is logical to accept baby Ayisha to be a ‘blip’ on the trend chart and a fabricated drama at that...…well so that?:
Khey gulshan kaa karobaar chaley!
Some thing to think about depends upon one take on Hadis!
Rashid

Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State Islamic State?
“……… I have not found a single period that I could in all honesty say I would trade for my 21st-century existence as a Muslim living in a secular democratic society”.
For that matter, why should any body else?
There never was a so called ‘Islamic State’ in history. The five or so officially named Islamic States today are an euphemism for “Religious State” and Islam was never a religion but a code for this complex life.
If at all it is necessary to 'identify' these countries in any way, it would be appropriate to name them Muslim Majority States, for example Muslim Republic of Pakistan or Muslim Republic of Sudan, for that is what they are, peopled by certain 'type' of dogmatic majority.
In terms of universal human values such as equality, dignity, freedom of speech, just to name a few, I would not touch todays Islamic States with a barge pole, now that I have a choice.
But like every thing else, mankind has a habit of ‘transgressing’ the given freedoms--eg exhibiting 11 year old girl’s nude pictures as ART, as in in Australia! Yet there is the freedom to protest against it if squares like me whish to protest.
Therefore, there is some thing to be said about ‘Guided Democracy’! But I hasten to say that this “guidance” however is not to be from any ‘Religion’ professed by the State to dispatch any body to hell by stoning to death.
Rashid

Fatima Bhutto Fighting for Justice It says some thing about the Pakistani voters.
In spite of all that squandering and what not done by the political Mian, Bibi (and her husband), as is reported ad nouseam in the media, they still recycled them twice over and expect them to be "borne again" patriotic, democratic and squeaky clean politicians!
At least the first one was pictured washing the Kabaa when taken by the Saudis. Does that say some thing?
Rashid

Persecution of Religious Minorities In Islamic Countries Re: # 449 Sattar2
Like you I too could not help grinning for the quote-
“Consider the ummah carrying out suicide bombings. Is that peace, happiness, and success? Hmmm … one can only wonder about your faith …”
My favourite cartoon is the one where a row of suicide bombers floating on clouds and bellowing in smoke approach Osama–type person standing with his arms raised high and says--“stop, stop, we have run out of hoors”
There is a message some where I think.-Rashid

The Power of Faith At # 3 posted by Tahir—“Show us that proud Muslim face that only prostrates before Allah …..,”.
As a retired person, I have time on my hand but do not spend my time in mosques, the embodiment of the institution of ‘mother church’ and the abode of its operatives the ‘clergy’. But I enjoy the company of young inquiring minds who can ask the above quoted question and invite to tease out some more questions.
This word ‘Allah’ is Arabic because the person (Muhammad) who was inspired to compile the Quran, was born in Arabia and was himself an Arab, hence Arabic "Allah"
If we are talking of ‘prostrating’, that is obeying the ONE Universal Creator’s natural and societal laws for all, should not Allah’s name be that which is understood by all English speaking people? Should that not be GOD? By insisting on using Allah, does not that make HIM a specific ‘desert deity’ and of the Arabs only?
Does not the Quran say that there were many Messengers in all nations before Muhammad, some named therein and some not? Did they all speak Arabic? Does not this insistence on Arabic word go against the grain of the teaching of the universal ‘brotherhood” of humanity, which is the bedrock of Towheed- oneness?
With reference to the article itself, here are a few issues. But first I append here what I witnessed in animal nature some time ago:
There was a pile of garden clippings, couple of weeks old, which we set on fire. Just as the pile was torched we noticed a lizard dash out, run a few steps and turn back into the fiery pile. This it did number of times, not to come out finally as the pile was well and truly lit, before it could be put out to investigate the cause of this behavior. It came to pass that there were a few baby lizards and the mother-lizard along with them was now perished!And so?
“And when logic, reason and vision fail us, we blame it all on fate”, says a quote from the article.
That was the fate (Qadar) of the animal Lizard in nature’s laws, its instinct. However Human being is endowed with thinking capacity and is therefore expected to assess the situation for every “action” it takes, logically and thoughtfully. Spirituality in short, does not depend only on the belief in what kismat (luck) dishes out but also the rationality of ‘righteous deeds’, actions that produce good reactions.
One more issue,“….Do they know what it means by “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is His messenger…..” a further quote. Generally speaking one would say ‘NO’.
Nadeem Mian ( I mean it endearingly)—No where in Quran the two parts of the kalima (declaration of oneness of God) appear all together in one sentence. That is to say, the uniqueness of God and that Muhammad is His Messenger on the one line. It is easy to see why. The FIRST PART is the ‘article of faith’ of all major faiths. Its manifestations might vary from church to church! This belief therefore puts Humanity on par.
But the second part of kalima belongs to just one community(Ummah) of people who call themselves Muslims, with various factions thrown therein for good business. Quran dubs factions as akin to committing shirk.
The second part, stands alone where ever it appears in the Book (see 3-144,33-40,48-29). If it was essential for the declaration of universal faith, then all previous messengers would have declared and ordained it so to their followers. But that is not so. Yet Quran says to its addressee Messenger that they were ‘not told any different to what you are told’, and that God does ‘not differentiate between prophets’. Therefore by us combining the two parts in the article of faith , contrary to Quran, the very essence of the oneness of God, exaltedness of all messengers, and brotherhood of mankind, is NEGATED, even if a Messenger is raised to a higher level close to God. It dilutes HIS pristine ness and introduces a PERSONALITY CULT in the faith. That then becomes a ‘religion’ and Islam is not one – it is not Mohammedanism. Muslims have created this ‘world view” by their own actions, similar to say, Christianity with Christ the man as the focus. The meaning of towheed is obvious—no person is above another and all mankind is equal and worthy of dignity. The first part frees mankind from all kinds of gulaami-that is slavery.
In the words of a poet Azhar:
Mai Khudaa toe nah thaa aey kalima-go ---jo oos sey tuney milaa diyaa mujh ko.
(I was not god Oh proclaimer of Kalima—--that you put me on par with HIM).
Belief in Muhammad as a messenger being a human being and the seal of messenger is necessary if we are to believe that God in HIS wisdom has completed the Code and that mankind as a whole has matured enough now and is on its way to attain the status of ‘humanity’ (Alas not there yet in practice, thanks to religious dogmas!) and should stand on its own intellectual feet from here on, and no props are available from the ONE Universal Creator, call HIM Allah, Khudaa, Rab, God, Parabhu, Got, Mungu and what ever other names one chooses to give HIM. But that does not mean that those who whish to excercise their freedom not to believe in the second part, yet commit no shirk and act ‘righteously’ for the benefit of mankind will be left out in the cold (eg see 2-62, 5-69 etc).
This thought process by no means diminishes the exalted position of Messenger Mohammad. On the contrary it enhances his achievements in that he achieved them despite being a mere human being (Bashar). Had he fulfilled his mission with irrational ‘miraculous’ help with winged angles at his side, it would not have been a big deal! (Did the apple really fall on Newton’s head? If yes, then what fell on Einstein’s head?).
“Each one of us today has developed our own version of Islam” you say. I would add also ‘and our own version of religions (30-32)’. This is what has happened with all RELIGIONS. Religions are based on personality cult and are the largest employer of ‘the blind following blind’s’ dogma. What is more, its operatives the clergy depend on the “business of divisiveness”!
“Deen-e-Mullah fee sabillillah fasad”. Remember, the poor Mullah embraces all Clergy.Sorry folks I took my time!
Rashid

Akbar and Alexander --“Do you really believe that they were Sunnis?”
The above quote intrigued me.
There is no comment here on Akbar’s attempt at establishing his Deen-e-Elahi, one presums, to unite his subjects under one religious canopy.
If he was a Sunni--jo soon soonkar Musulman baney—-I think he would have tried to impose an acceptable ‘religion’to all.
What ever else he was, I am sure he was not a Sunni or even Shia but in his own way perhaps a pluralist of the enlightened kind.
But he missed the target by using the Arabic words in his dogma, thus alienating both the good Muslims and the non-Muslims.
Being a Persian speaker had he named his idea, some thing like Raah-e-Khudai, he might have done better, I think.
Rashid

A Great Day, A New Hope for Pakistan “much needs to be done for democracy to move ahead in Pakistan.”
Pakistanis recycled the "Dynasties" to lead them to Parliamentary Democracy?
It is said:
Khaetey thhey hum hee hain Democracy kay muhaafiz?
Wasiyat mey likh gaye par betay ko muhaafiz!

Siyaasi maslihat ney kar diyaa unko qareeb
Kaltak jo thhey corruption mey ek-doojay kay raqeeb.

Loottay thhey mulk siyaasi ikhtiyaar may doe haat say
"Khoob guzreygee" abb toe iss mulk par doe doe haat say

Yehee haalat rahee siyaasat may Pakistan kee
rahey Allah hee haafiz haalat pe Pakistan kee

I think I get the message
Rashid

Pakistan, a Different Country! Urstruly
Aah! but Pakistan never had a corrupt, English/US 'edumacated', very rich, FEMALE Saint from feudal Bhutto/Zardary family Dynasty who came back to prove her "premonition of death", to be killed along with scores of innocent people and take "the long road to democracy".
The honour is in being the first of the kind in so many things.
Rashid

In Remembrance of Martyrdom The reality of Karbalaa, is a Wakeup Call even today in politics. The demand for dynastic ‘Right’ (often by recycled leaders) coupled with the self deception that one is the only spiritual and worldly ‘Shepherd’ of the flock, clouds ones judgments. But on human level, laced with temptations for power, glory and personal wealth, if vehemently pursued, inevitably results in disaster for the very same people and nation they claim to want to lead. I hasten to say that Hussein was free from these later temptations, so I take the history with a pinch of salt, for it is heavily laced with religios dogma, vested interests and emotions. May be he was misguided by his own belief (Tony Blair sincerely ‘believed’ that he was right to go to war in Iraq, against all advice!)
One has to be blessed with divine wisdom and vision to see the big picture. Hassan, the elder brother of Hussein demonstrated this by abdicating his claim for Caliphate.
If history is to be believed, he was nominated by his father Ali ibn Ibi Talib, against the Quranic instructions and established previous practice, so why deny the same right to Muawiyah to nominate his son Yazid twenty years later, when Hussein staked his claim to caliphate and gave us the tragedy of Karbala? In politics power wins and Yazid had the largest army then. Besides it was the two families of the Quresh tribe who were feuding for power amongst themselves. Islam was not an issue I believe.
Hassan therefore gave the Muslims (not Islam as it was completed long ago during the prophets time, 5-4) twenty years of peace and progress. Therefore let us celebrate that wisdom and vision of his, alas so profoundly lacking in our leaders today, particularly in Pakistan!

In Remembrance of Martyrdom This reminds be of an anecdote.
An African Muslim, many years back, happen to visit Bombay (Mumbai) and witnessed the Matam procession of the Muharram. He asked his friends as to what it was all about. He was explained the significance of the occasion and the actions of the participants, upon which he expressed in amazement “did they receive the 1400 years old news now?!”
Rashid

Feminism Under Veil @199,
Oh greate!
Is this one of the State provided Constitutional perk for the public servants to wash their past sins with holy water so that they can start afresh 'as innocent as a new born baby' in the service of their public, or is it only for the "temprary leaders"?
Some time back I came across a poem by Nadeem Nadvi titled Shareef Chor and I remeber couplets which said:
"Khalee ameer choron ko yun nah bhagaaiye
jo hain ghareeb unko bhi Umrah karaiye
daaku jo they luterey they kharbon kay dosto
mehmaan hogaye hain woh Arbon kay, doso".
Rashid

Feminism Under Veil Nikhat
“Does the rule of ‘Hijab’ (a scarf covering the head) suppress or liberate women’s individuality?”
Your definition , quoted above, of Hijab under present usage of the word is correct. But the following quote of yours is terms of the above definition is totally wrong if you mean that God has ordered women (in Quran) to wear the head scarf.
“So Muslim ladies follow the words of Allah and practice Hijab as simple as that”.God does NOT say that in the Book.
It is a requirement of Muslim “Church” and enforced by its “Priests”, along with cultural and traditional practices of many countries and other churches too.
You are confusing the two!
Rashid

Islam and Hijab-Murder in Canada “If religion does not subscribe to hijab then its time to tell mullah to stop sermonizing virtues of that tiny piece of head-cover; if culture imposes it onto only one gender of society, it is sexism and gender discrimination – Stop it”.Agreed, but:
If it was so easy to tell the Religious Brigade to Stop it, and correct their heinous mindset, it would have not lasted a millennia for the falsehood to persist. Neither it is the case of the ‘Muslim apologetics’ being incorrect to claim that covering of the hair on the head, let alone the entire face and body with Burqa and Neqaab, is NOT the requirement of Quran.
This is an obvious case of complete IGNORANCE and misrepresentation of the teaching of THE BOOK on the part of those who believe that it is Islamic. Keep Islam out of it for Islam is not a religion! ignorance even in Islam is not an excuse.
Here are a few examples where Hijab is referred to in Quran, which the Brigade and those women who ACCEPT it as being a mode of advertising their religious VIRTUE( 107-6) should open the Book to find out for themselves:
1. The seven places the word hijab(7-46,17-45,19-17,33-53,38-52,41-5,42-51) occurs in Quran, it alludes to the aura of separation, the protocol, decorum, barrier etc. For example, God spoke to Rusul from behind a Hijab, there was a hijab between the people in hell and the people in heaven etc. The political metaphors of ‘Iron’ and ‘Bamboo’ curtains of the old are examples, without the physical curtain.
2. Within the Code of Islam, the responsibility of not only dressing modestly but, behaving correctly, falls EQUALY on Muslim male and female4-124 gender. In fact the Male24-31,32 is addressed first in the verses. In most man made ‘religions’ it is the female who carries all the responsibility of the male’s morality and his sins!(Remember Amina Lawal and Sofia of Nigeria?- and many cases in NWF )
3. Showiness and overt display24-31 of one’s piety 107-6 is frowned upon in the Book. It is this last aspect, when examined critically by us, irks Religious Brigade for their “religion” and their “piety” is being questioned.
4. Islam prescribes CODE of dress and not a MODE of dress. Every decent dress, creating that aura of modesty and decorum-- that curtain without a curtain; both for men and women is an Islamic dress irrespective of cultural differences and styles.Hijab is a style not a Statement.
5. Dress should be such as not to draw attention to your self so as be not be molested 33-59. ( On the Subcontinent, males brazenly molest ladies in streets, what ever the dress! This is confirmed in the book ‘the Holy Cow’ by an Australian author.)
So it is a case of EDUCATION of the ignorants and DESTROYING the strangle hold of the lucrative business of an industry called the Churches of Muslims.
But a Murder is a Murder and heinous act in any society and should be condemned roundly by all Muslims of the world.
Rashid

The Sudanese Teddy Bear Saga @85- I could not help myself wondering at the definition of sunnah of the Prophet(essentials of all Religions and Church/Priests dogma).
-All sorts of people before and after Muhammad kept beard in those days and even now.
-Abu Jahel and Abu Lahab and others, ardent enemies of Muhammad kept beards.
-Shaving with rusty knives, broken piece of glass etc must have been pain full and traumatic to say the least. (Even with Mach Five razors it is a chore today. For this reason people even kept long hairs on their heads)

Nah kuch sikhaa nah jaana nah phechaana
Faqat dhaari barha kar bangaye maulaana!
Rashid

The Sudanese Teddy Bear Saga The charge against Mrs Gibbons is that she “allowed” the children to name a cuddly loveable toy to be named Muhammad by her class of innocent people. That was the children’s choice and their right. Muhammad respected the rights of children and loved them, so he would have been thrilled to be so reciprocated with love by the class.
To Mrs Gibbons, Westerner or not, a teddy bear is a symbol of innocence, love and comfort. She was not guilty of any thing wrong.
The fanatics, who elevate a ‘bashar’ like Muhammad to almost a ‘deity’ should take cognisance of the teachings of Quran. Muhammad was subjected to worst things by his enemies than being honoured by naming an innocent toy after him.
Islam can not be insulted by honouring or otherwise and by naming a person what ever.
This warped thinking is the result of “religion” – a church based on dogma, and its operatives the priests as its enforcers. And Islam is NOT a religion and tolerates NO priesthood.
There are millions named Muhammad in the world and a few I would touch them with a barge pole!
Dr Johnson’s saying fit the modern times to the hilt “Soldiers and Priests are the corrupter of the earth”.
Rashid

The Sudanese Teddy Bear Saga The charge against Mrs Gibbons is that she “allowed” the children to name a cuddly loveable toy to be named Muhammad by her class of innocent people. That was the children’s choice and their right. Muhammad respected the rights of children and loved them, so he would have been thrilled to be so reciprocated with love by the class.
To Mrs Gibbons, Westerner or not, a teddy bear is a symbol of innocence, love and comfort. She was not guilty of any thing wrong.
The fanatics, who elevate a ‘bashar’ like Muhammad to almost a ‘deity’ should take cognisance of the teachings of Quran. Muhammad was subjected to worst things by his enemies than being honoured by naming an innocent toy after him.
Islam can not be insulted by honouring or otherwise and by naming a person what ever.
This warped thinking is the result of “religion” – a church based on dogma, and its operatives the priests as its enforcers. And Islam is NOT a religion and tolerates NO priesthood.
There are millions named Muhammad in the world and a few I would touch them with a barge pole!
Dr Johnson’s saying fit the modern times to the hilt “Soldiers and Priests are the corrupter of the earth”.
Rashid