Violent movie reaction uncalled for, un-islamic

Published in Oshkosh Northwestern on September 19, 2012

Last week a despicable movie was released on youtube as a cheap publicity stunt. Following that we saw an array of wonderful trailers of the movie from around the world. We saw trailers of the movie in Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, India, Australia, and Libya. In Libya the promoters of the movie really outdid themselves where they killed the US Ambassador to show the world how true the movie really was.

Movie itself is a disgrace to the idea of free speech – but the response by these thousands of protesters is a disgrace to the human race. Even an elementary study of Islam shows clearly that it does not prescribe any punishment for blasphemy and that Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) faced such ridicule in his own life but never avenged it. Regardless of how bad the movie was, all Muslims must focus their energies on the inhumane response. It is sad that most official condemnations of these protests somehow indicate that real reason was the movie. This is the general apologetic attitude of the Muslims that is at the core of this mess.

Whereas Islam does not prescribe any punishment for such speech, many Muslims wrongly consider it their duty to avenge it. In recent years it has reached new lows where Pakistan’s penal code prescribes death penalty for blasphemy. Several other Muslim countries are moving in this direction as well and unless the civilized world checks this trend we would see more of this – not less. An eleven year old mentally disabled Christian girl in Pakistan was recently put in Jail simply because she was accused of blasphemy. Another Christian woman Asia Bibi is also languishing in a Pakistani jail for this accusation.

If Muslim countries create such laws then why is the world surprised at the reaction of these mobs? Such laws, approved by democratic parliaments, represent the deeply held principles of the people. If their core principle is that a blasphemer deserves to die then shouldn’t we expect that if a blasphemer is not killed that mobs would demand it? If a serial killer is set free, wouldn’t there be outrage anywhere in the world?

Unless we see the issue in its proper context that the core values held by many Muslims with regards to blasphemy is contradictory to Islam and civilized people everywhere – we will not be able to understand it. In a situation like this, Muslims – especially those enjoying the freedoms of the western world, must step forward and not only condemn the symptoms but also the disease. They must call for moderation in the attitudes of the Muslim countries and demand that such arcane laws be removed from their books and they must strive to create open and inclusive societies.

Good Bye Mr. Zuckerberg. I am done with facebook

Hello Mr. Zuckerberg

I hope this letter finds you surrounded with the millions of your virtual friends and may you earn several more points on farmville.

I want to thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to be part of the well thought-out social network that you created for us (from your dorm room while sobbing over your girlfriend's rejection).  At the time of this post (7/5/2011) I have hundreds of friends on your social network - I don't know what would happen to those deep rooted friendships when they are left in ether with no worthless "updates" to foster them.

I am not complaining and I am not going to write a long blog about "why facebook did not delete my account but only deactivated it".  I understand that nothing is free and I was privileged to be in this precious space provided by you to enjoy the company of so many "friends".

When I leave facebook, I doubt that it will leave any mark on this giant empire because as I leave it several thousand more will join it.  As "Playboy" magazine loses its subscribers to death many new ones are born and in the same vain, I am sure no permanent mark will be left.

But I would nevertheless let you know about some of the less than perfect features that you have taken great pains in incorporating:

• Privacy - what privacy?  You have so eloquently said yourself that even the limited privacy (if any) that facebook offers was a mistake and if done again even that would not be incorporated.  I really respect your opinion ("People vs Larry Flynt" granted you that absolute right) but I would beg to differ.  Privacy is what humanity is all about.  Those who spill their guts in public are closer to dumb animals rather than enlightened human beings.  Those who spread rumors are guilty of a moral crime - not merely exercising their Zuckerberg given right.
• Selling my information so cheaply!  You could atleast charge a bit more;  atleast we would then not feel so bad.  Using my information to show me something is one thing but to sell my information to some no-name third party!  Or did you never imagine that something like that could ever happen
• Whats the deal with those embarrassing posts from some of my friends?  You know those "Dad walks in ... crap".  Was that some feature that every facebook user accepted as well?  And if they accepted why am I subjected to that?  Oh because there is no fundamental right to privacy - I forgot.
• And what about that "well thought out" photo tagging feature.  You really did not foresee any abuse?  Or did I also sign up for other people's Zuckerberg given right to tag anything as my picture and I am supposed to "Find those people and un-friend them".
• Do you really not have any close friends?  and what about family?  What about siblings, close relatives, and those who you know from work?  Are these privacy boundaries totally unknown to you?  Let me educate you on this God given sphere that the rest of us enjoy.  What you tell your wife or sibling may not be appropriate for those other hundreds of friends!  I know you will say "well that is in our policy" or that "you don't have to post on your wall" - I know, as I said I am not complaining and I will not file any lawsuit - just telling you about the small things in life in the real world.
• What the hell were you thinking with Social Ad pairing?  Sometimes I wonder if your IQ is 20 or 200?  You really think if I like some company - I automatically want all of my friends to know about it?  Really?  And you were so confidant about it that by default everyone got this enabled.  So if someone "likes" a certain drug's ad, you in your immense wisdom thought it will be completely appropriate that all of their friends would like to see their picture next to that ad whenever that ad was displayed.

So please do not mind that I am returning this great gift back to you - I can only pray to God that you do not abuse the information that you have on me in your vaults.  

Whats next for me?  I can't say that I am done with social networking web sites - not that this is an essential part of our internet experience, just that I am only human.  Every social networking site is not the same but none of them are essential.  There is a certain difference between Playboy magazine, People magazine, and National Geographic magazine.  To each their own!

So long

Saad Ahmad

Does Quran allow/promote beating of one's wife?

This is a recurring question that is raised in the context of domestic violence among Muslims.  The assertion is that verse 4:35 of the Holy Quran allows or promotes this.

The short answer to this accusation is simply that it does not allow beating of the spouse or causing her any bodily harm.  Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) has said generally to the men "do not beat them"; and more specifically that "husbands who beat their wives are not the best among men".

This question has been answered wonderfully by Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (Khalifatul Maseeh IV)

http://www2.alislam.org/askislam/mp3/MEI_19840716_06.mp3

The problem at hand has several dimensions.  There are those who have simply translated "wazriboohunna" really badly as "beat them" thus causing confusion.  But more central is a general effort to discredit Islam in general and present it as a religion of violence.  In this article I will try to explain this matter in a coherent fashion keeping in mind the overall philosophy.  We often get so involved in answering accusations that we lose the big picture.

Islam's view on society at large
First we need to understand how Islam views the society at large.  According to 42:12 Allah is the Creator and Source for everything and the basic unit of the society is us - in pairs.  So family is the basic unit of the society.  Then, according to 42:39, to make decisions these units create a system where they discuss their affairs to come up with decisions for the challenges they face.

A deeper understanding of the various attributes of Allah tells us that while Allah is the absolute source of all these attributes and these attributes rest in Him in complete perfection, we must try to live these attributes to the best of our abilities and within the limitation and rules that He has created for us.

One of these attributes is Unity of Allah.  Allah is the only one who is absolutely Unique.  Allah attributes the harmony in the universe to His unity.

As the society is formed, this is a generally accepted principle that executive authority in the society should be ultimately kept in a single person or a single constitutional body.  There are checks and balances in our societies but we need to have a person about whom we can say "buck stops here".  In our country we have president, across the pond we have prime ministers.  There is not a single example of a developed civilization that was led by two, three, or many leaders at the same time.  Such an effort would create confusion and chaos - in fact such efforts are termed "rebellion" or "civil wars".

So as we go down to the basic unit, same principle must be kept, i.e. a family must have a unique person about whom we can say "buck stops here".  A family needs a structure just like a society needs a structure and chaos will always follow when this unity is taken away.  This is all the verse 4:35 is saying, that men are the guardians of the family.

So what gives the moral authority to a president to govern our affairs?  The simple and generally accepted answer, supported by the commerce clause of the US constitution as well, is that the president is the head of the system that controls the overall finances of our society.  That is the second point that 4:35 is making that men have that authority because they provide for the family.  This verse can also be translated as "they have authority as long as they provide for the family" - implying that men who do not provide also lose the status of the head of the household - exactly like a government that fails to meet the needs of the people loses the moral authority.  British lost the moral authority to rule the US because they stopped acting like a provider.


What is guardianship of a family?
The issue of guardianship becomes an issue of contention without any regard to what it entails.  The responsibility on men is enormous.  Hadrat Umar (2nd successor of Prophet Muhammad(sa)) is reported to have said that "women have the upper hand in the society".  Man of the house is responsible for the family to the society at large - exactly how the government of a country is answerable to God about the welfare of its citizens.  According to Islam, the whole family has rights over every cent that the man has or makes - but wife, who has complete right to property and inheritance, does not have to contribute anything.  It will be "ihsaan" or extreme favor on her part if she does.


Along with this, the man is also responsible for welfare and protection of the family; exactly how modern societies view the role of the government.  A man cannot shy away from this responsibility without abdicating his status as the head of the household.  When the government of Pakistan shows its inability to curb extremism within its borders, does the world at large give the government a free pass? No - we expect the government to live up to its responsibilities and that is exactly what the role of the man is in a family.

If family is in danger from within or without - man is responsible to the government and to God for the ultimate welfare.

Is government about welfare and protection or about punishment?
All governments have an ultimate right to exact punishment on its citizens - but is that the central focus of a government?  When our founding fathers were creating the USA, did they just want to create a system through which they can put people in jail?  Reducing this verse to a verse that allows wife beating is like reducing the US constitution to a system that was created to take over people's homes.

If one member of the society commits harm to another member, or to the authority of the government itself, does the government not have the obligation to resolve such conflicts?  Today, isn't the whole world pressuring the government of Pakistan to bring its house in order to save the rest of the countries of the world?

But this is not why countries gain independence.  Governments are made to serve the citizens.  Idea that government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people" is not a cliche.

Man's status of Qawwam is also about protection of the family - not about punishment
The same analogy applies to the man of the house.  I have not done a detailed study - but it will be interesting to find out how many Muslim men who beat their wives also keep peace in their family?  and provide for their family?  Actually many such men steal from their wives and demand large dowries at the time of their weddings.

This verse is also saying the same thing.  The word "wazriboohunna" implies that they can use their bodies to stop actions that hurt their families.  It does not imply that they should exact injury - if that were the intention, Quran should have said "wazriboohunna zarban".  To understand this we must also understand that when we are dealing with such delicate matters, a good Muslim is very prudent.  For example Muslims were treated very badly during the early years but they did not raise arms in their defence because Allah had not allowed it at that time - they refused to even defend themselves until Allah allowed it.

So, if we take a very narrow view and say that a man is not allowed to use his body to stop an act which could hurt the well being of other members of the family or of other families - how should a man deal with the following examples:

• Woman severely beats the children
• Woman is guilty of stealing
• Woman is guilty of creating unrest in the family - from ordinary matters to extraordinary that could threaten the society at large

Islam says that man is still responsible.  He cannot say that "I tried to tell her that beating the children is not a good idea but she did not listen" - no he must use necessary means to protect the children.

So the reader will be quick to say "but man can also beat the children or steal, etc - what about that".  The answer is simple; would it be fair to put the same responsibility on the woman?  If man beats the children - would it be fair to ask the woman to stop him using her body?

But still - why allow physical punishment at all?

That is a fair question - but we have to first understand what is the nature of this so called physical punishment.  We have already established "beat" is not correct as the intention must not be to inflict harm.  And this is not a brand new question that someone just discovered - same question was posed to the Prophet (sa) himself and he replied:

• There must not be any mark due to this (Tirmazi: ch. on Rida)
• He generally said that those who beat their wives are not the best among men (Kathir iii)
• To use something like a miswaak (toothbrush)

And we know that Holy Prophet (sa) himself never ever committed such an act (There are some blogs and comments on the web - but they all stem from lack of knowledge of Hadith and basic knowledge of Arabic.  There is absolutely no reliable evince of even a single incident that attributes such an act to the Holy Prophet(sa)).

So then another fair question will be, what is the point of mentioning it if all it implies is that 

• Don't do it because if you do it you will not be the best among men
• Or use toothbrush - which really is quite comical if used as a tool for this. 

The answer is evident in the verse itself and by the verse that follows it.  This is a mark in the escalation.  Wife may be showing rebellious attitudes but may think that nothing will come off it because of any variety of reasons.  This symbolic gesture implies that now the limit has been reached and the next step is divorce.  The very next verse is talking about those eventualities. 

So when a husband shows his displeasure by other means mentioned in the verse, there is always the next escalation point; but once this point is reached - it is to just tell the wife that the couple is reaching a point of no return.  When we consider the limitations prescribed, it provides a complete picture.  Such a gesture certainly is better than a yelling match that could ensue otherwise.  

Understanding it in the modern context

As societies evolve they create other institutions to improve the harmony.  At a global level we went from completely sovereign nations to creation of a United Nations.  We are trying to see if an idea of international court of law can work.  Similarly 42:39 suggests that members of a society can create laws. In presence of such laws certain permissions become void according to 4:60.  So while the verse in question is not abrogated, if society creates laws that limit certain permissions - those limitations have to be followed by Muslims according to Quran.  This idea is not an innovation - during the reign of the second rightly guided successor of Prophet Muhammad (sa), Umar (ra) temporarily modified the law governing divorce to save the abuse that was hurting women.  The details of that are beyond the scope of this article but the basic assertion is that when society creates laws, it becomes mandatory for Muslims to abide by them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would invite you to read a great article by my friend Haris Zafar titled "Islam and the Quran require us to honor, Not Abuse, women".  Everything that Quran says has a larger social and world view behind it.  We may agree or disagree with that view but we should at least honestly try to understand it.

Domestic abuse is a serious matter - but that is not because of any religion.  According to some statistics 1 in 3 women in our country is abused - there is no Islam here.  Those who commit such coward acts do not go and first study the holy scriptures and then come up with "oh, God wants me to beat my wife".   This verse does not provide relief to the Muslims who beat their wives, instead it convicts them.

Appendix - Use of zarab in Holy Quran

Ref	Arabic		Meaning	Usage
2:27		yazriba	illustration	Allah disdains not to give an illustration as small as a gnat or even smaller...
2:61		izrib	Strike	And remember the time when Moses prayed for water for his people, and We said: ‘Strike the rock with thy rod,’
2:62		zurebat	smitten	And they were smitten with abasement and destitution
2:73		izrebuhu	compare	Compare this incident with some other similar ones
2:274		zarban	move	These alms are for the poor who are detained in the cause of Allah and are unable to move about in the land
3:113				Same as 2:62
3:157				Same as 2:274
4:95				Same as 2:274
4:102				Same as 2:274
5:107				Same as 2:274
7:161				Same as 2:61
8:13		Izrebu	Smite	When thy Lord revealed to the angels, saying, ‘I am with you; so give firmness to those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Smite, then, the upper parts of their necks, and smite off all finger-tips.’ The context here is an armed conflict.  Refer to the detailed commentary
8:51				Same as 8:13
13:18				Same as 2:27
14:25				Same as 2:27
14:26				Same as 2:27
14:46				Same as 2:27

You can see all of the references by clicking here.

If ICNA represents Muslims, King hearings are justified

I recently came across ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America http://www.icna.com) periodical titled "The Message (March - April 2011)".  I was impressed by its focus on youth especially considering the recent tragic events when Muslim youths have been involved in crimes against the United States.  One article titled "Letter to would be Mujahid" - by Imam Zaid Shakir on page 33 caught my attention.  I was pleased to see that finally ICNA has taken a positive approach and would teach the Muslim youth living in US - how Islam demands that they be loyal and faithful to this country.  But I was saddened (but not surprised) to note that it was totally opposite.  And if Muslims in America choose to belong to such organizations, King hearings are totally justified.  Muslims should cleanup our own house first ...

The summary of the article basically is that you, Muslim youth, should not take part in these Jihads against America because:

• If you do it, American, Indian, and Israeli military will kill more Muslims
• American middle class, which is insecure, will get galvanized and support these wars against Muslims
• Mujahideen cannot win a war against America because they could send nuclear bombs and your AK-47 will not be able to defend against it.
• The networks in Afghanistan are probably CIA created networks anyways
• In your hunt for jihad, you may get trapped in an FBI sting operation like Antonio Martinez or Mahomed Osman - the Somali kid in Oregon.

I was saddened to see that this was the best a Muslim Imam could do to teach Muslim youth that they should stay away from creating unrest in the society that they live in and have pledged allegiance to.  He never mentioned that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that love of country is part of the faith or that Quran demands that we must follow those who have authority over us, or that creating unrest in the land is never allowed and several verses in Quran demand that.  All this imam said was "Don't try it because you may get caught".  Really! that is the best an Imam can teach? 

Does he teach that "Don't steal because police may catch you?" or "Don't tell a lie because you may have to face the consequences?"  Is that their Islam? - that has absolutely no moral basis.  What if FBI says that henceforth there shall be no sting operations and CIA is abolished.  Would it suddenly become acceptable in the eyes of this imam to join these networks?  

Muslims today have forgotten everything that Islam has taught them and they get excited about the wrong stuff.  What these FBI sting operations should have told them was that something is missing in their mosques and young folks are getting mixed signals and they should have countered with a focused teaching that tells them the positive message - that regardless of if you are successful or not; waging war against America is simply wrong and against the basic teachings of Islam.  You should not do it because Islam demands that you keep your pledge of allegiance to this great nation - and not that you may get caught or that American middle class is naive and stupid and your actions can galvanize them against Islam.

A Muslim is one who leads and does not care about the surroundings.  If whole environment is saying a wrong thing - Muslim should still do the right thing - but sadly these headless organizations do not have the decency, courage, knowledge, and wisdom to teach the real message of Islam.

I am a Muslim and I do not trust that organizations like ICNA are sincere in their condemnation of terrorism - what about one who is a non Muslim.  If ICNA and such organizations are sincere - I have a simple litmus test for them.  Just answer following questions:

1. According to your religion (not local laws); what should be the punishment if someone gives up Islam as their religion.
2. According to your religion (not local laws); what should be the punishment if someone commits blasphemy against our beloved prophet Muhammad (may peace of Allah be on him)
3. According to your religion, what does the pledge of allegiance (a pledge that every naturalized Muslim immigrant has taken) mean according to Islamic principles.

I have posed this simple question to many Muslims who belong to such organizations and they always hide behind "well in America there is freedom of religion so ...." - that is not my question!  If you really believe in such crap like death for an apostate or for a blasphemer; I would be stupid to believe in your answer to #3 as yes.  A person who does not share American values for first two questions would never take the pledge of allegiance to the US seriously and that is the real problem for Muslim youth - not the FBI sting operations.

Then we come to these infamous hearings.  Again the focus should have been to find what is lacking in our mosques.  Are we really teaching the young kids how important is it to be loyal, decent, and good citizen?  How it is immoral to create any type of unrest in the society? No they all get enraged about someone who is holding the hearings on it.  I am not happy about these hearings either but organizations like ICNA and their supporters are the reason for it.

If ICNA represents Muslims in America and Muslims in America choose to participate in its activities and do not try to disband such an organization, then it is the duty of FBI to use any available tool at its disposal to protect the American citizens.  

To know about a real, forward looking, sincere voice about Islam, visit http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/

Addition - 3/20/2011
I found this original article at muslimmatters.org (http://muslimmatters.org/2010/12/16/letter-to-would-be-mujahid-imam-zaid-shakir/).  I put a note on that about this response - next day I was banned from the site!

Addition - 3/20/2011
I found another reference to the article by the author himself at http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles_comments/answers_to_would-be_mujahids/.  I posted a comment that the site did not publish:

With all due respect, the logic is seriously flawed.  Waging war against America by Americans is wrong because love of country is part of faith, and creating unrest is unislamic, and we need to keep our pledge of allegiance. We cannot hide behind "women and children deaths are wrong" - even killing US military persons is wrong or destroying infrastructure is wrong too.
Muslims need to take a positive stance for loyalty and not hide behind such explanations.
Following is my response to Imam's letter
http://saadahmad.blogspot.com/2011/03/if-icna-represents-muslims-king.htm

Addition - 3/20/2011

To be fair to the author, I also found another writing by him http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/responding_to_the_fort_hood_tragedy/ in response to the fort-hood tragedy where he has taken a little better stance that the pledge of allegiance is to be taken seriously but overall it is still below par.  Muslim mosques and imams need to ingrain this value in the children. He still leaves ambiguity by constantly comparing it to American wars elsewhere and also keeps talking of a strategic dimension to his plea for giving up Jihad.  Waging war against America by Muslims is a moral issue - not a strategic one and there must be no ambiguity when conveying such a delicate message to children and young adults.  No amount of injustice done by American forces elsewhere justifies even the tiniest act of creating any type of unrest in America by an American Muslim.  This needs to be the simple unambiguous message.  

Muslim scholars - judged by the blasphemy laws

Most Muslims - especially those in Pakistan think that the laws against blasphemy are justified.  Those who are deemed "progressive" only want procedural changes.  So in this post I will take some quotes from the scholars of Islam and indicate the clauses of the blasphemy law of Pakistan that they have violated.  Keep visiting this blog as I would build on it.

Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi
He is the founder of the "Jamat Islami".  One of his basic philosophies was that in order to reform the society control over the government is essential.  Lets see some of his quotes:

(Hadrat Ayesha (ra)) had become too bold against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and had started to raise her voice against the Holy Prophet (pbuh).  [Weekly Asia Lahore 1957.  Volume 15 - Page 17].  Blasphemy Law 298-A applies

Hadrat Abu Bakr acted against the spirit of Islam [Tarjaman ul Quran Volume 12].  Blasphemy Law 298-A applies

Hadrat Usman was guilty of giving special treatment to his friends and relatives and gave them special considerations.  [Khilafat o Malookiat pp 105].   Blasphemy Law 298-A applies 

Brailvies vs Deobandies
Brailvies are a subsect of Hanafi sect which is one of the subsects of the Sunnis.  In Pakistan JUI (Noorani) is one of the prominent religious political party that belongs to this school.  The founder of Awami Tehreek Dr. Tahir ul Qadri also belongs to this sect.
Deobandies are another subsect of the Hanafi sect.  The "Tableeghi" jamat in Pakistan, Majlis Ihraar and Majlis Tahafuz Khatm-e-Nabuwwat are all offshoots of this sect.

Here are some of the beliefs of Brailvies:

• Holy Prophet (pbuh) did not have a shadow.
• Holy Prophet (pbuh) knew ghaib (or that which is unknown or known only to God

And in contrast the Deobandies consider the Holy Prophet (pbuh) as a human being and subject to the limitations and deny the two beliefs about the Holy Prophet (pbuh)

Blasphemy Law 295-C applies - it just depends on who files the complaint!

Founder of Deobandi Sect - Maulana Muhammad Qasim

"Hypothetically speaking if a new prophet comes after the Holy Prophet (pbuh), even then the Khatam-e-Nabuwwat of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) will remain intact" [Tehzeer-ul-Nas pp 28]

It is interesting that the founder of the Deobandi sect says this but this is where the Majlis Tahaffuz-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwwat started.  People need to understand that this stuff is politically motivated!

Anyways, since all Ahmadies are subjected to 295-C why should he be spared!

Hadrat Shah Waliullah
He does not need any introduction.  He says:

"(Khatam-e-Nabuwwat means that) after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) a prophet with a new law cannot come" (Tafheemat-e-Ilahiya pp 55)

Same belief as Ahmadies so  295-C applies.

Why stop here, lets apply these to the companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)

• When Hadrat Ayesha (ra) was accused, during that time several companions would come under the jurisdiction of 298-A.  Since this law does now allow the accused to provide an explanation, the fact that later on all of these companions changed their point of view is irrelevant.
• Recall the war between the two groups of the companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) where Hadrat Ayesha was on one side and Hadrat Ali was on the other - 298-A  applies on both sides.
• After compiling the Holy Quran, Hadrat Usman burnt the copies of the Holy Quran that were not according to the final prepared manuscript.  295-B  applies.

Conclusion
The so called moderates need to realize that they cannot hide behind words in this case.  The problem is the law itself and not procedural matters.  The law itself invites abuse.  This law did not exist in Pakistan from 1947 to 1985 - did we see blasphemy rampant in Pakistan during that time?  And since 1985 we have thousands of case - what is the reason?

The law also creates heroes because the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes in any society.  All societies give some latitude to a person who would take law in their own hands when the crime in question warrants the death penalty.  Such people are often defended under "temporary insanity".  The mere existence of this law puts someone who speaks their mind on a religious matter in the same category as a murderer and that should not be acceptable to any decent human being.

While conversing with Pakistanis, they often think that such laws cannot be touched or that they are too volatile.  Well mark my words unless these laws and other laws like these are repealed totally and completely, extremism will increase.  Ofcourse most Pakistanis will be quick to blame the west for every ill in Pakistan but do some basic study and see extremism in Pakistan before and after 1985.

You can refer to http://saadahmad.blogspot.com/2011/01/mess-called-blasphemy-laws-of-pakistan.html to see the text of these clauses.

The mess called "Blasphemy Laws of Pakistan"

During the first week of January 2011, Governor of the largest province of Pakistan, Punjab was assassinated by his own security guard because he had called for modifications in Pakistan blasphemy laws.  Note that his stance was quite guarded as he did not call for its repeal but just modification.  I would consider his stance below par but in Pakistan even getting that much was no less than a miracle.

After that his assassin became a hero.  Even people living in US, Canada, and Europe were hesitant in calling this what it was.  Pakistan President and chief minister of Punjab did not attend the funeral of the governor.  Leaders of several parties openly said that the governor was to be blamed for his own death.

Quite sadly, majority of the people of Pakistan support these "blasphemy laws" and they have no idea about what is in it.  So here it goes (These are taken from http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html):

Section 295-B
Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.


Section 295-C
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.




Section 298
Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.


Section 298-A
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.


Now many Pakistanis will read this and say "so what is wrong with that?"  So lets see some scenarios:

1. Defiles or "damages" Quran or an "extract".  You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see how ridiculous such a language is.  The word "kafir" (disbeliever) is in Quran so is the word for Satan.  Similarly many authors start their writings with "Bismillah" (in the name of Allah) and several newspapers carry some extracts of Quran and then later on these same newspapers are found on the street corner.  
2. Directly or "indirectly"  "defiles" the sacred "name" of the Holy Prophet (sa).  Again the language is very ambiguous and about a few weeks ago a person was charged for throwing a business card with name "Muhammad" written on it.  Really it is not a joke.  And what about "indirectly" - it makes it completely subjective.  For example I find it offensive to say as some Muslims suggest that Holy Prophet (sa) did not have shadow because it questions his humanity; should I then press charges against everyone that holds that belief?  Some Muslims suggest that at certain times the Holy Prophet (sa) lied as a strategy - I find it offensive and so on.  Personality that is accepted as the most influential in the history of humanity will generate controversy - even among Muslims.  I find those who suggest that the Holy Prophet (sa) used sword to spread the message of Islam (as suggested by Maulana Maudoodi) to be the most offensive accusation against Islam!
3. Defiling the sacred name of the wives of the Prophet - can anyone guess who is this targeted for?  The conflict that arose between Hadrat Ayesha and Hadrat Ali is a historical fact and different Muslims have different perspective on it.  Similarly conflict between Hadrat Ali and Hadrat Ameer Muavia etc.  According to this, probably the "scholar" called Zakir Naik is guilty as well for saying "razi allah" after Yazid's name.  Some Muslim sects suggest that Hadrat Imam Hussain was also at fault in the tragedy of Karbala.  Can Muslims not even discuss their own history openly?

Real Story
In fact these laws were originally made just to target Ahmadi Muslims and are brainchild of General Zia ul Haq.  But lets not blame him for everything the "elected" legislators have ratified all of these laws.  The problem is that when you make bad laws, they will end up shaking the foundation of a society even if the target was someone else - because such laws provide an opportunity.


That is what happened here as well.  Ahmadies are still the largest victim of these laws but people have now started using these laws to settle old scores and to push their point.  


In lieu of this, the stance of the late governor was quite timid.  Anything short of total repeal should be unacceptable to any decent human being - yet he was targeted and most people blame him for his own murder.  But then we are talking about decent humans and there are probably none left in Pakistan.

Jamaat Islami Amir called for bombing of the Nato Trucks

Keeping its tradition of calling for disorder in the land, Jamaat Islami Amir Mr. Munawwar Hasan in his Friday sermon of June 6, 2010 called for the bombing NATO caravans.  As ususal the tragedy of Pakistan is that there are plenty of idiots who say "labbaik" on such calls.  The exact words of Mr. Munawwar were:

"... Those who only talk about following what Allah and His prophet (peace be on him) has said need to realize that this task (referncing the NATO operations in Afghanistan) will beome more difficult over time.  We have so far tolerated the drone attacks while our folks were not even getting food to eat.  Very rarely, if ever, do we hear a news that a NATO caravan has been attacked.  Everything goes there after traveling through our country.  If NATO is fighting Muslims, they are doing so with the help of Muslims which include you and I.  Do you think Allah will not ask us on the day of judgement that (NATO) tankers were moving towards Afghanistan right in front of your eyes and you did not do anything?  They were huge trucks that carried food and supplies for the NATO troops.  This was happening when you yourself were living a life of extreme poverty.  You had opened up all of your roads for them to travel.  A lot of roads have been constructed in Baluchistan province to allow the NATO caravans to travel.  These roads have been built for the benefit of these caravans and not for your benefit. ..." (minutes 33:00 till 34:22).  After that he went on to glorify the current Jihadi movements.

Then on June 9, 2010 militants attacked dozens of trucks carrying NATO supplies in Pakistan near Islamabad.  The assault killed seven people.  All victims are believed to be Pakistani.  According to the news:

Militants and ordinary criminals have often attacked NATO and U.S. supply convoys over the past two years, but Wednesday's strike was the first so close to the well-protected capital, something likely to cause particular unease 

The full news can be read at http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/09/523041/militants-attack-nato-convoy-in.html

The Friday sermon can be heared in its entirety from http://www.smunawar.com/ (unless they remove it)

So, is this excusable?  Are these Pakistanies doing Jihad by blowing up NATO tankers within Pakistan and killing Pakistanis?  What is Jamaat Islami preaching? and should Pakistanis standy by and accept such calls for rebellion within the borders of Pakistan?  Why do Pakistanis act surprised when attacks happen in Pakistan.  The Mullahs are not hiding their agenda - they say in clear terms that "war is on" - it is the "silent majority" that needs to say something.  It should be a simple principled stance that no one is allowed to create disorder in the land (which is exactly according to Quran) regardless of their beliefs or policy differences.

Jamat Islami hijacking "qaum's" sentiments

http://jamaat.org/beta/site/general_detail/news/1007

The Jamaat Islami's English website did not have a translation, so I have translated it below for English Speaking audience:

Nation will not tolerate a soft corner for Qadianies.  Mian Nawaz Sharif's statement has hurt the feelings of the nation.

 Spokes Person, Jamaat Islami

Lahore 5 June 2010.  Dr. Fareed Ahmad Paracha, spokesman Jamaat Islami Pakistan, has expressed deep regret over the statement of the president of Pakistan Muslim League (N) Mr. Nawaz Sharif where Mr. Sharif called Qadianies his brethren and an asset for Pakistan.  In his statement released from Mansoora, Mr. Paracha said that the whole Muslim world and Pakistan agree over the issue of declaring the Qadianies  non-Muslim.  And the nation will not tolerate a soft corner for the Qadianies.  He said that the damage caused by Qadianies to Islam and Muslim Umma is unforgivable.  He also said that Qadianies have dared to blaspheme against the Holy Prophet and in this regard they are continuing in their efforts.  Mr. Paracha said that Mian Nawaz Sharif's statement at this time, when the whole Muslim world is in a state of deep shock due to the cartoon controversy, has deeply hurt the feelings of the nation.   Any expression of solidarity with the Qadianies, who blaspheme against the Holy Prophet, must be condemned.  He said that Qadianies once again have launched a campaign to regain their status as a Muslim, to end the Anti-Qadiani ordinance, and to end the blasphemy laws.  And in this regard they are doing press conferences.  Mr. Paracha sad that Mr. Sharif's statement must be seen in this backdrop.  Mr. Paracha said that Mr. Nawaz Sharif must clarify his position regarding the status of the Qadianies, blasphemy laws, and anti-Qadiani ordinance. 

And to put things in context, here is what Mr. Nawaz Sharif said:

He also termed terrorists attack at the worship places of Ahmadis in model town and Ghari Shahu condemnable adding that Ahmadis are our brethren and asset for the country. He also informed that the elements involved in firing at Ahmadis worship places have been arrested and law enforcement agencies have been carrying out investigations with them.

 http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/nawaz-sharif-shows-spine-terms-ahmadis-brethren-and-asset-for-pakistan/

So what is "qaum's" reaction to such a statement?  With respect to the allegations against the Ahmadi Muslims an honest reader is welcome to decide for themselves based on our literature.  Our website http://www.alislam.org has a lot of books on the subject.  Here is a sample:

• Life of Muhammad (may peace be on him) 
• Muhammad in the Bible
• The seal of prophets - His personality and character
• Finality of Prophethood

And specifically addressing the cartoon controversy, our present leader Ameer-ul-Momineen Hadrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad's writings and lectures:

• The blessed model of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the caricatures
• Exemplary compassion of the Holy Prophet (sa)

Here is a list of several books on the subject http://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/index.html

In addition to this Ahmadi Muslims all over the world were busy in using their pen in defense of our beloved prophet (sa) and doing seminars to celebrate his life in addition to educating the western public about the sensitivity of the issue while other groups were rioting in Muslim world over the issue.


An organization that calls itself "Jamaat Islami" (Organization for Islam) has made lies its core value and instigation along with rebellion its mode of operation.  Inna lillah e Wa inna Illaihi rajeoon

And there are several other books on the subject that you can see at http://www.alislam.org/books/

Hypocrisy of the Pakistani Muslims

Ever wonder why the suide bombers are always so young?  Do the "virgins" in heaven have a prejudice against middle age and older men?  Shouldn't a terrorist in his fifties or sixties be more inclined to rush to "heaven"?

The reason is that the ideology that is taught in Pakistan's "Islamic Studies" demands a degree of hypocricy from the students that younger age is unable to provide.  Following concepts are openly taught in public schools by such teachers.  The message is even more direct and extreme in the Madrasas and during the Friday sermons:

1. Apostacy (giving up Islam as one's religion) is a crime that is punnishable by death
2. Blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) is a crime that is punnishable by death.  Note that this is supported by the laws in Pakistan as well and laws do not define blasphemy thus leaving the laws open for abuse. 
3. Ahmadies are not Muslims.  This is also supported by the laws of Pakistan.  2nd ammendment to the Pakistan constitution declares Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslim.  Since Ahmadies call themselves Muslim, this automatically turns them into apostates in the eyes of common folk.
4. Pakistan is an "Islamic" country and it is bound by her constitution to implement Islamic laws.

Capital punnishment in any society is reserved for the worst crimes.  What is a sixteen year old supposed to make out of these instructions that are taught in public schools?  Isn't that sixteen year old justified in thinking that it is his duty to stop these crimes?  How can Pakistan as a whole claim innocence when such crimes are committed?  Some "mullahs" say "but we don't teach them to kill, we just teach them the rules but tell them that it is the duty of the state not of the individuals".  That is the worst type of hypocricy and they have the nerve to say this in public on public televisions as an excuse that absolves them.  The media anchor on the other end just agrees with them.  What a sad story!

Rebellions have happened in many societies throughout the history and in that Taliban are not a new phenomenon.  What is interesting is that Taliban hit at the heart of those they want to revolutionize and those who are getting hit still sympathize with them.  The society as a whole has created an "assembly line" where if drones kill 10 taliban, Madrisas graduate 100.  The so called "moderates" in Pakistan then make it their duty to find excuses for the Taliban or blame someone else; India and US are common scapegoats.

Pakistan is suffering from a cancer but sadly the people think it is just a common cold which will go away if only if US stops drone attacks.  First Pakistanis need to realize that it is a cancer and that they themselves are feeding the cancer - not someone from outside.  They need to confront their hypocricy and turn their "religious principles" to:

1. Pakistan guarentees absolute religions freedom where everyone can follow whatever religion they follow.
2. Freedom of thought and speech is absolute and no one is going to be punnished for "blasphemy"
3. State has no business in defining people's religions.  If someone wants to consider Ahmadies as non-Muslims, they are free to do so but "for the purpose of constitution", Muslim is anyone who claims to be so.

Unless Pakistanis change their thought process on these lines, they need to realize that there is still a lot of room for Pakistan to drop.  Looks like "Asfala Safileen" applies to Pakistan quite aptly.

Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's revelations about Lahore

Following are some of the revelations of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) Promissed Messiah and Mehdi about Lahore.  I am including the words as they exist in Tadhkira (http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Tadhkirah.pdf) without any editorial comments.  Only Allah understands the complete meaning and implications of such prophecies.  May Allah have mecy on us.

1. Tadhkira Page 514
December 13, 1900 There are our pure members in Lahore. They should be informed. They are made of fine clay. Doubt will be removed but the clay will remain. In the context of the acceptance of revelation the weakest was the maulavi. All maulavis will be exposed. [Arabic] [I am Allah the Bountiful. I shall certainly stand with My Messenger.] [al-Hakam, vol. 4, no. 45, December 17, 1900, p. 2]
2. Tadhkira Page 514
December 13, 1900
We have pure friends in Lahore. Doubt has arisen but the clay is fine; doubt will be removed but the clay will remain. [al-Hakam, vol. 4, no. 29, August 17, 1902, p. 12]
3. Tadhkira Page 919
February 20, 1907 (1) [Arabic] I shall stand with My Messenger and shall rebuke the one who rebukes him. (2) [Urdu] A scattered host. (3) [Urdu] A sorrowful news has been received. The Promised Messiah[as] said: It passed through my mind, after I woke up, that this last revelation might relate to some of our friends in Lahore. The revelation might possibly have the same import.
4. Tadhkira Page 955
[Urdu] A sad piece of news has been received from Lahore. Because of the revelation, I sent a man to Lahore to find out about our friends there, but one did not know that the revelation would be fulfilled a few days later. [Badr, vol. 6, no. 27, July 4, 1907, p. 7]
5. Tadhkira Page 1060
[Urdu] There used to be a city called Lahore as well.     Note by Hadrat Maulana Jalal-ud-Din Shamsra: The prophecy about the destruction of Lahore that was published during the life of the Promised Messiahas is the following:  
It is said that the soil of Lahore contains elements which exterminate the plague germs. But plague has also taken hold there. People still do not know, but after several years they will see what will happen. A number of people and villages will be completely wiped out. The world will forget about them and there will remain no trace of them. But such would never be the case with Qadian. 
  [al-Hakam, vol. 8, no, 23 and 24, July 17, 24, 1904, p. 12]  

Talibanization of Europe Part 2

(Published in Oshkosh Northwestern Feb-14-2010)

I had earlier commented on the Swiss intolerance when they banned religious buildings of a certain type (http://saadahmad.blogspot.com/2009/12/talibanization-of-swiss.html). An interesting twist to that story was that even though most of the world, including European Union, condemned that – there was one certain bigot from France that said that he understood it; who was he? French president Sarkozy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/08/sarkozy-sympathises-minaret-ban-switzerland)


Just like a TV drama, this European bigotry now enters it next episode and now Sarkozy’s France takes the lead. Target – Muslim women who choose to dress a certain way (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/veil-burka-france-muslim-women). What a way to liberate women – by taking away their freedom to dress the way they want. Our president Obama puts it correctly when he said: “It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism…”.

And just like the Swiss vote, this is not a marginal section of French population that is suggesting it. Over 57% of the French in a survey favored such a ban – what a liberal society. A woman becomes naked in public to please the male audience – she is liberated; another woman covers herself so that she is judged for who she is – French cannot tolerate her on the street.

These episodes are not isolated. This is a European phenomena and the next episode is already in the works. This time the equation of bigotry from among the Taliban style Muslims and Hitler’s Europe goes head to head in Netherlands (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5814DH20090902). Here a heartless Arab group published some cartoons about the holocaust – they are being charged for being “discriminatory” but the same nation took pride in republishing the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad under the guise of freedom of speech.

Our country needs to look at these episodes with grave concern. Europe has a history of such attitudes towards its own citizens. For hundreds of years they have taken pride in such actions. As always they would make a mess and then we will be called in to fix it for them. The people who want to cover themselves a certain way in France or want to build their places of worship a certain way in Switzerland are born and bred in those countries. How is the behavior of these “enlightened” countries any different from the Taliban in Afghanistan who wanted to impose their “sharia” on their citizens. It is these attitudes which when left unchecked lead to the wide spread hostilities later on and may even lead to another holocaust and then people would wonder how they missed the signs!

A comprehensive solution for our economic woes

Should we give more money to GM? Is Citibank the missing link in our path to recovery? Will we fix everything by solving the mortgage crises? If we gave every American ten more dollars every month, would that fix the economy?

We see questions like these every few decades and in various locales. Responses range from Nazism to communism; from socialism to unbridled capitalism; from the “new deal” to the “tax cuts”. Are these enduring philosophies?

Islam provides the only comprehensive and permanent solution to today’s financial woes that addresses our psychological deficiencies, our moral decadence, and certain aspects of our policies.
Greenspan stated in a recent interview that “the innate human responses result in swings between euphoria and fear that repeat themselves generation after generation with little evidence of a learning curve”. Interestingly Islam tells us that unbridled capitalism will lead to our destruction (102:2-3). Our political leaders should ponder over this and understand that we need effective regulations to ensure that such forces do not run amuck.

Islam leaves room for free enterprise but rejects the flawed view that “money begets money.” Many of the billionaires listed in Forbes attribute their wealth to “investments.” While we need institutions to facilitate the circulation of wealth, we cannot let this be an end in itself. Making this the goal divorces the investors from the art of making a profit through entrepreneurial activities and instead results in financial catastrophes, such as the current mortgage meltdown.

Usury is forbidden in Islam. Economists suggest that such vehicles are an essential component of the overall system but Islam cautions us that it will lead to our destruction. It is interesting to see how we lower interest rates to rejuvenate the economy without acknowledging, as Islam does, the need to abolish it completely (2:276,277,280). Such interest encourages the hoarding of wealth and other reckless activity.

Islam rejects the practice of gambling (2:220). In modern times, unfortunately, this has taken center-stage in our economic system; from individuals who borrowed “betting” that their home will go up in price to banks who “gambled” on individuals paying, to the idea of selling that “risk” to other banks; is but a game of dice.

Islam emphasizes the circulation of wealth and suggests that uncirculated wealth should be taxed. Islam understands the need for such cash reserves, but for the greater good of the society, suggests that such money be appropriately taxed. The main beneficiary of such a tax should be the poor – those who did not enjoy the luxury of having such cash reserves.

Islam lays great importance to “straight talk” or saying the “right word” (33:71). In business one may be legally truthful while still being deceptive. Several banks violated this principle when they offered loans to those who could not afford it. Then they carried on their deception when they sold those bad loans to other institutions.

Finally, Islam presents our life as a struggle between God and the world and establishes God as the purpose of our lives (51:57). Rejecting God puts us at the mercy of our vain pursuits including that of accruing wealth (57:21). Islam teaches us to control our desires and to reign in our jealousy regarding material wealth (20:132). These verses caution those who borrow beyond their means.

Islam offers a unique approach for addressing today’s crisis. It focuses on the disease rather than the symptoms. This disease can deteriorate into Nazism, Communism, Radicalism, and chaos – so we need to address this positively and without preconceived notions.
A comprehensive translation of the Quran may be referenced at http://www.alislam.org.

Talibanization of the Swiss

by

Saad Ahmad

saad.ahmad@gmail.com

(Published in Oshkosh Northwestern On 7-Dec-2009 )

Can Talibanization be narrowly defined as a specific dogma or set of rituals; or does it personify a more subtle and deep-rooted trouble with diversity? I think it is the latter and as such Taliban of Afghanistan have more in common with Hitler’s Nazis than with any other sect or religion. Such intolerance may manifest itself more brutally in poorer societies and may take the form of a “vote” in more “civilized” societies but at the end it is based on the same core set of values – or lack of them.

Just when we think that we have moved far enough from the horrors of holocaust, Europe reminds us that they are still quite capable of repeating it. Whether it is the French ban on certain forms of Muslim dress, German “contracts” for integration, and now to top it – the Swiss “vote” against buildings of a certain architectural characteristic: (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/29/switzerland.minaret.referendum/index.html) – they all stem from the same underlying hostility that Europeans have often shown to their own brethren. Centuries ago it took the form of black death, then it looked like holocaust and in a few decades it will probably result in an effort to expel Muslims.

Sure, Swiss will try to disguise their utter intolerance as “democratic process” but let us not forget that even Nazis came to power in a sort of democratic exercise. This word does not cover the underlying hatred that people may feel about another group. Some will quickly start comparing this to how churches are treated in Muslim countries – thus proving the point that these European countries are striving to become Saudi Arabia and not a free and open society like US.

One has to wonder what the real difference is between banning a certain form of architecture, as the Swiss did; or destroying it after the fact; as done by Taliban with the various Budha’s statues? Both stem from the same underlying hostility and show how Swiss have much in common with the Taliban. Not too far from Switzerland France showed the same hostility earlier by banning certain forms of dress for Muslim women. So the only difference between them and Taliban is with respect to fashion preference. Overall the world needs to be very concerned about what is going on over there because it is entirely possible that in a few decades, US will be called on once again to clean up their mess. US needs to tell Europe in clear terms to clean up their mess and reign in these forces which are turning the clock back for Europe.

A minaret itself is of no significance in Islam. A mosque is a place of worship and is quite complete without such architectural enhancements. What should be troubling is the trend of intolerance that is growing rapidly in Europe. The people who want to cover themselves a certain way in France or want to build their places of worship a certain way in Switzerland are born and bred in those countries. How is the behavior of these “enlightened” countries any different from the Taliban in Afghanistan who wanted to impose their “sharia” on their citizens. It is these attitudes which when left unchecked lead to the wide spread hostilities later on and may even lead to another holocaust and then people would wonder how they missed the signs!

Muslims Remove from US Airways Flight 300

Published in Oshkosh NorthWestern - Dec-6-2006

The news about the behavior of some of our small minded countrymen on US Airways flight 300 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15824096/) prompted me to write this letter. If educated people like Airline Captains can act like narrow minded bigots and the Airline Executives lack the decency and assertiveness to apologize for the obvious disregard for civil rights – then we have a long way to go as a nation. This also suggests that we as Muslims need to do more in terms of educating our fellow citizens.

Muslims are required to pray five times a day. We are strongly encouraged to say our prayers in congregation. In that setting one person leads the prayer and others stand behind him. During these prayers, the leader recites some Arabic verses from the Quran so that the followers may be able to listen. An often stereo typed phrase of "Allah Akbar" is said several times during the prayer and it means that the God is great. When this is said we are referring to the God of Abraham.

So next time when you see some people who gather, face north-east, and offer prayers – just know that they are praising the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. When they say "Allah Akbar" do not panic; they just affirmed the belief of the Biblical prophets. Take that as an opportunity to learn about the faith that is practiced by more than one fifth of the planet. Prayer is meant for God and to bring His people together – not to create such a bitter divide. I would also encourage the local Muslims to arrange seminars to improve the understanding of Islam. May God improve our mutual understanding - Amen.

More information about Islam may be found at http://www.alislam.org or contact me at saad.ahmad@gmail.com

Short version of Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Lecture that he delivered on Tuesday September 12 2006

Published in Oshkosh NorthWestern Sep-24-2006
Pope Benedict XVI in his recent lecture reflected upon the importance of reason in understanding the faith. His point being that domain of rationality and reason extends beyond the limits of empirical evidence. He also mentioned Islam as being fundamentally opposed to rational thought and that its spread was through force. In this short essay I would provide an Islamic perspective.

Islam and Rationality
The Quran fully acknowledges the role of rationality in attainment of the truth. There are around 750 verses in the Holy Quran that exhort the believers to study nature, to reflect and make best use of reason and to make scientific enterprise an integral part of a community’s life.[i]

Islam’s invitation to the mankind is primarily on rational grounds and not through force. Verse 2:257 quoted by the pope actually relies on Islam’s rationality for its appeal and not on force; and to his point of “later verses somehow changing the message” Quran emphatically rejects such notions and declares that no verse of Quran abrogates another verse and there are no inconsistencies (4:83).

It is the duty of every Muslim to invite others to Islam – but through the best of manners (16:126). Quran invites other religions and philosophies to a dialog and to bring forth their proof: (e.g. 2:112, 4:175, 21:25, 27:65, 28:76).

Those who do not study Islam are astonished by its rapid progress. People were drawn towards it because of its rationality and reasonable basis – not because of any fear. This is a real miracle that has been recorded by history unlike the phantom miracles that other religions put forth.

Islamic Concept of God
In order to give credence to his faulty premise, the pope attributed this to Islamic concept of God. Islam’s view of God is much different than Christianity. It is more evolved and not bound by trivial ideas like “one is three and three is one”. Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion where there is only one God who is unique.

Islam does not put forth an idea that only way to know the God is by believing in some mortal as a part of the godhead; or that that god was dead for three days; or that god is so powerless that he had to kill his only begotten son to forgive the sins of mankind. Islam totally rejects a god that would kill an innocent in order to absolve others of their crimes and sins.

God of Islam is not limited by human imagination but the ability to recognize Him has been imprinted on the human psyche. He can be recognized through His attributes but at that same time His attributes do not have a limit. Some of His attributes can be metaphorically compared to human attributes and some of His attributes can be seen in His creation in a limited capacity. So the being of God is hidden to those who are not willing to find Him but those who strive would find God everywhere.

Conclusion
It is Christianity and especially the Church that has traditionally opposed rationality and reason. The various episodes of Galilio and Newton are well known. The “rational” tradition of “witch hunts” is an integral part of the Catholic history. Trinity, original sin, resurrection, and rapture all have been challenged by the secular scholars on rational grounds. Today’s catholic beliefs are more like the pagan beliefs of that era and far removed from the true and pure teachings of Jesus Christ.

Islam on the other hand is well founded in human psyche. It is a strictly monotheistic religion with evolved concepts of God, revelation, afterlife, and prophet hood. Islam’s strength is its reasonableness and it does not need force for its progress.

I hope that the pope takes time to understand Islam and actually read the Holy Quran before quoting it. Today Islamic and Christian civilizations are facing each other in the most unfriendly confrontation ever witnessed in the history. Inter faith dialogues evolve through mutual understanding and not by maligning the other religion – even if it is done in the guise of “I quote I quote”.



[i] LAI, C.H. KIDWAI, A (1989) Ideals and Realities, Selected Essays of Abdus Salam. 3rd ed. World Scientific Publishing Co, London pp. 343-344.

Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Lecture that he delivered on Tuesday September 12 2006

By
Saad Ahmad
Saad.ahmad@gmail.com

Pope Benedict XVI in his recent lecture reflected upon the importance of reason in understanding the faith. His point being that domain of rationality and reason extends beyond the limits of empirical evidence. He further pointed out that Christianity’s original encounter with Greek philosophy enhanced the Christian thought. In making this point he also mentioned Islam as being fundamentally opposed to rational thought. He said that Islam’s spread was primarily through force and had little to do with rationality and reason. In this short essay I would provide an Islamic perspective.

Islam and Rationality
The pope has shown his ignorance of Islamic thought by mentioning some quotes from another Christian – giving no importance to the original Islamic text, i.e. Quran; which unlike the Christian Bibles is still available in its original form. There are two types of people; those who do not know and those who do not know that they do not know – pope has shown that he belongs to the latter group.

Islam’s message is universal and as opposed to other religions whose claim to universality was an afterthought of its followers Islam’s claim was made over 1500 years ago in the Quran.

And we have not sent thee but as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner, for all the mankind, but most know not. (34:29)

So by claiming to be a universal religion for all times, all races, and all religions Islam has challenged other philosophies on purely rational grounds because no religion with an element of irrationality can be acceptable to the universal consciousness of man.[i]

The Quran fully acknowledges the role of rationality in attainment of the truth – whether religions or secular.

Truth is the religion of Islam, Islam is the religion of Truth[ii]

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)’s constant prayer was:

God! Grant me knowledge of the ultimate nature of things[iii]

Impressed by this emphasis on knowledge, Professor Dr. Abdus Salam, the renowned Nobel Laureate said:

According to Dr. Mohammad Aijazul Khatib of Damascus University nothing could emphasize the importance of sciences more than the remark that “in contrast to 250 verses which are legislative, some 750 verses of the Holy Quran – almost one eighth of it – exhort the believers to study nature – to reflect, to make the best use of reason and to make the scientific enterprise an integral part of the community’s life”. The Holy Prophet of Islam – peace be upon him – said that it was the “bounden duty of every Muslim – man and woman to acquire knowledge.[iv]

Islam’s invitation to the mankind is primarily on rational grounds and not through force. The pope hinted that

… The emperor must have known that surah 2,256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Muhammad was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instruction, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war.

This idea stems from his obvious prejudice against Islam and his lack of knowledge about the religion. If he only took the time to read the rest of the verse:

There is no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (2:257)

So Islam relies on the strong rational basis of the religion to keep the followers within its fold and not on force. It relies on the “right being distinct from the wrong in the eyes of the believers” and not on coercion. And to his point of “later verses somehow changing the message” Quran emphatically rejects such notions:

Will they not, then, meditate upon the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much disagreement (4:83)

No verse of Quran abrogates another verse and all of them paint a consistent picture of tolerance and rational argument. It is the duty of every Muslim to invite others to the message of Islam through reason and wisdom – and not through force. Allah says in the Holy Quran:

Invite to the path of thy Lord with wisdom and comely admonishment and dispute with them in the best of manners (16:126)

As quoted earlier number of verses that exhort Muslims to use reason and rationality add up to 750. Against this not a single verse can be found that advocates irrational dogmatic invasion of the world.

Following are some of those verses:

Do you enjoin others to do what is good and forget your own selves, while you read the Book? Will you not then understand?(2:45)

And they say, ‘None shall ever enter Heaven unless he be a Jew or Christian’. These are their vain desires. Say, ‘Produce your proof, if you are truthful’. (2:112)

O ye people, a manifest proof has indeed come to you from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light (4:175)

And worldly life is nothing but a sport and pastime. And surely the abode of the Hereafter is better for those who are righteous. Will you not then understand? (6:33)

Have they taken gods beside Him? Say, ‘Bring forth your proof. Here is the Book of those with me, and the Book of those before me’. Nay, most of them know not the truth, and so they turn away. (21:25)

… Is there a God besides Allah? Say, ‘Bring forward your proof if you are truthful’ (27:65)

And We shall draw from every people a witness and We shall say, ‘Bring your proof.’ Then they will know that the truth belongs to Allah. And that which they used to forge will be lost unto them. (28:76)

The verses mentioned above are only a few of the many verses that invite the people to reason and rational thinking in order to arrive at the truth. Those who do not study Islam are often astonished by the rapid progress and spread of the religion. They do not realize that the real reason behind the spread of Islam is the power of reason and rationality. People were drawn towards the message because of its beauty and wonder – not because of any fear. This is a real miracle that has been recorded by history unlike the phantom miracles that other religions put forth – and that becomes a point of sore jealousy for the likes of the pope.

Islamic Concept of God
The pope has put forth a faulty argument about rational thinking in Islam and then he rationalizes the faulty premise by putting forth:

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

The pope is right about one thing – Islam’s view of God is much different than Christianity. It is certainly much more evolved and not bound by trivial ideas like “one is three and three is one”. Islam is a strictly monotheistic religion where there is only one God who is unique. Allah says in the Holy Quran:

Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;’
Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him . (112:2-5)

Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – the promised Messiah[v] (peace of Allah be upon him) describes the concept Allah as follows:

In the language of the Noble Quran, Allah is the Perfect Being Who is rightfully adored, combining in Himself all perfect attributes, and free from every defect, the One without associate and the Source of all beneficence[vi]

Islam does not put forth an idea that only way to know the God is by believing in some mortal as a part of the godhead. It does not put forth an idea where that same god prays “O God why have you forsaken me” when put on the cross. It certainly does not put forth an idea that god was dead for three days. It does not put forth a god that is so powerless that he had to kill his only begotten son to somehow forgive the sins of the mankind. It certainly does not put forth a “rational god” that assumes that killing an innocent is the way to absolve others of their crimes and sins.

Islam’s view of God is certainly different from that. Islam certainly accepts that the God is not limited by human imagination – but it also tells us that human beings can know God and that ability has been imprinted on the human psyche.

The promised Messiah Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him) writes:

… the Exalted and Lord of blessings says: O My servants, know Me through My attributes and recognize Me through My excellences. I certainly do not suffer from any defect or shortcoming. Nay, My Praiseworthiness far exceeds the highest limits of praise rendered by those who praise Me. You will not find in the heavens or in the earth any praiseworthy feature that is not to be found in My countenance. If you tried to count My excellences you would not be able to number them, even if you exerted yourselves hard and took pains like the dedicated. Search well then if you can light upon a praiseworthy merit that you do not find in Me or can discover an excellence that is beyond Me and My Presence. If you feel that way then you have no knowledge of Me and are bereft of vision.[vii]

Our God is our paradise. Our highest delight is in our God for we have seen Him and have found every beauty in Him. This wealth is worth procuring though one might have to lay down one's life to procure it. This ruby is worth purchasing though one may have to lose oneself to acquire it. Oh ye, who are bereft, run to this fountain and it will satisfy you. It is the fountain of life that will save you. What shall I do, and how shall I impress the hearts with this good news, and by beating what drum shall I make the announcement that this is our God, so that people might hear? What remedy shall I apply to the ears of the people so that they should listen?[viii]

About rationally understanding the God, he (peace of Allah be upon him) says:

The God of Islam is the same God who is visible in the mirror of the law of nature and is discernible in the book of nature. Islam has not presented a new God but has presented the same God Who is presented by the light of man's heart, by the conscience of man, and by heaven and earth[ix].

Our soul and every particle of our being are prostrate before the Mighty, True and Perfect God from Whose hand j every soul and every particle of creation together with all its faculties came into being, and through Whose support every being is sustained. Nothing is outside His knowledge, or outside His control, or outside His creation. We call thousands of blessings and peace and mercy on the Holy Prophet Muhammad, the chosen one, through whom we have found the living God who gives us proof of His existence through His Word. He demonstrates to us through extraordinary signs His shining countenance which possesses eternal and perfect power. We found the Messenger who manifested God to us and we found the God who created everything through His perfect power. How majestic is His power that nothing came into being without it and nothing can continue to exist without its support. That true God of ours possesses numberless blessings, numberless powers, numberless beauties and beneficences. There is no other God beside Him.[x]

And about understanding the God he (peace of Allah be upon him) says:

God Almighty, in order to bestow perfect understanding upon His humble creatures has set out His attributes in the Holy Quran in two aspects. First, He has described His attributes metaphorically as resembling some human qualities, as for instance, He is Noble, Merciful, Beneficent and becomes angry and has love and He has hands and has eyes and possesses shanks and has ears and that through eternity He has created, though nothing has personal co- existence, but only co-existence as species and even that is not essential or the operation of His attribute of creation, for though creation is one of His attributes the manifestation of His Unity and Singleness is also part of His attributes. None of His attributes falls into permanent disuse, but a temporary cessation of its operation is permissible. Thus God manifested His attributes of resemblance to man. For instance, God is Creator, but to some degree man also creates or fashions; and man can be called noble for, up to a point, he possesses the quality of nobility; and man can be called merciful for, up to a point, he possesses the quality of mercy and the quality of anger; and he has eyes and ears etc. This could create a suspicion in one's mind that man resembles God in respect of these attributes, and God resembles man. To repel this God has mentioned in the Holy Quran as a contrast His attributes of transcendence also, i.e. such attributes of which man does not partake at all in his being or in his qualities. God's creation is not like man's creation, nor is God's mercy like man's mercy, nor is His wrath like man's anger, nor is His love like man's love, nor is He in need of space like man.[xi]

He (peace of Allah be upon him) explains the limits of rationality as follows:

The Being of God is hidden upon hidden and beyond of beyond and is most secret and cannot be discovered by the power of human reasoning alone, and no argument can prove it conclusively; inasmuch as reason can travel only so far that contemplating the universe it feels the need of a Creator. But the feeling of a need is one thing and it is quite another to arrive at the certainty that the God Whose need has been felt does in fact exist. As the operation of reason is defective, incomplete and doubtful, a philosopher cannot recognize God purely through reason. Most people who try to determine the existence of God Almighty purely through the exercise of reason, in the end become atheists. Reflecting over the creation of the heavens and the earth does not avail them much and they begin to deride and laugh at the men of God. One of their arguments is that there are thousands of things in the world which have no use and the fashioning of which does not indicate the existence of a fashioner. They exist merely as vain and useless things. These people do not seem to realize that lack of knowledge of something does not necessarily negative its existence. There are millions of people in the world who regard themselves as very wise philosophers and who utterly deny the existence of God. It is obvious that if they had discovered a strong reason for the existence of God, they would not have denied it. If they had discovered a conclusive argument in support of the existence God, they would not have rejected it shamelessly and in derision. It is obvious, therefore, that no one boarding the ark the philosophers can find deliverance from the storm of doubts, but is bound to be drowned, and such a one would ever have access to the drinking of pure Unity. It is a false and stinking notion that belief in the Unity of God can be achieved otherwise than through the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, nor can man achieve salvation without it. How can there be a faith in the Unity of God unless there is perfect certainty with regard to His existence? Be sure, therefore, that belief in the Unity of God can be achieved only through a Prophet, as our Holy Prophet, peace be on him, convinced the atheists and pagans of Arabia of the existence of God Almighty by showing them thousands of heavenly signs. Up till today the true and perfect followers of the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, present those signs to the atheists. The truth is that till a person observes the living powers of the living God, Satan does not depart from his heart, nor does true Unity enter into it, nor can he believe with certainty in the existence of God. This holy and perfect Unity is appreciated only through the Holy Prophet, peace be on him[xii]

Conclusion
It is Christianity and especially the Catholic Church that has traditionally opposed rationality and reason. The various episodes of Galilio and Newton are well known. The “rational” tradition of “witch hunts” is an integral part of the Catholic history. Throughout the Christian history rationality has been pitted against the religion. Christian ideas of trinity, original sin, resurrection, and rapture have been challenged by the secular scholars purely on rational grounds. It is strange that for the Church the person of Jesus is less important than the encounter with the Greek civilization. According to the pope:

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria – the Septuagint – is more than a simple (and in that sense less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.

So for this pope Jesus’s (peace of Allah be upon him) words are of a far less value than this encounter. Today’s catholic beliefs are more like the pagan beliefs of that era and far removed from the true and pure teachings of Jesus Christ (peace of Allah be upon him).

Islam on the other hand is well founded in human psyche. It is a strictly monotheistic religion with evolved concepts of God, revelation, afterlife, and prophet hood. Islam’s strength is its reasonableness and it does not need any sword for its progress. Where the Catholic Church needs the Lateran Councils[xiii] to develop the Christian beliefs; with Islam we can actually refer to the Quran that has been preserved exactly as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

I sincerely hope that the pope takes time to understand Islam and actually read the Holy Quran before quoting it. Today Islamic and Christian civilizations are facing each other in the most unfriendly confrontation ever witnessed in the history. Inter faith dialogues evolve through mutual understanding and not by maligning the other religion – even if it is done in the guise of “I quote I quote”.



[i] Hadrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth p255
[ii] Ibid – p256
[iii] Allah Muhammad Iqbal, The reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam p11
[iv] LAI, C.H. KIDWAI, A (1989) Ideals and Realities, Selected Essays of Abdus Salam. 3rd ed. World Scientific Publishing Co, London pp. 343-344.
[v] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (1835-1908) (may peace be upon him) founded Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. He claimed to be the Promised Messiah and the Reformer for the latter days as prophesized by Holy Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). More information may be found at http://www.alislam.org
[vi] Commentary on the Holy Quran Volume 1. Compiled from the writings and pronouncements of The Promised Messiah and Mahdi Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. pp 71
[vii] Ibid pp74
[viii] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him), Kishti Nooh p 19-20
[ix] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him), Tableegh-e-Risalat, Vol VI p15
[x] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him), Naseem-e-Dawat, (Qadian, Ziaul Islam Press, 1903); Now printed in Ruhani Khazain, Vol.19, p. 3
[xi] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him), Chashma Marifat, (Qadian, Anwar Ahmadiyyah Press, 1908); Now published in Ruhani Khazain (London, 1984), Vol. 23., pp. 260
[xii] Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace of Allah be upon him), Haqiqatul Wahi, (Qadian, Magazine Press 1907); Now published in Ruhani Khazain (London, 1984), Vol. 22, pp. 117-118
[xiii] A series of five important councils held at Rome from the twelfth to the sixteen century. From the reign of Constantine the Great until the removal of the papal Court to Avignon, the Lateran palace and basilica served the bishops of Rome as residence and cathedral. During this long period the popes had occasion to convoke a number of general councils, and for this purpose they made choice of cities so situated as to reduce as much as possible the inconveniences which the bishops called to such assemblies must necessarily experience by reason of long and costly absence from their sees. Five of these councils were held in the Lateran palace, and are known as the First (1123), Second (1139), Third (1179), Fourth (1215), and Fifth Lateran Councils. Other, non-ecumenical councils were held at the Lateran, among the best known being those in 649 against the Monothelite heresy, in 823, 864, 900, 1102, 1105, 1110, 1111, 1112, and 1116. In 1725, Benedict XIII called to the Lateran the bishops directly dependent on Rome as their metropolitan see, i.e. archbishops without suffragans, bishops immediately subject to the Holy See, and abbots exercising quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Seven sessions were held between 15 April and 29 May, and various regulations were promulgated concerning the duties of bishops and other pastors, concerning residence, ordinations, and the periods for the holding of synods. The chief objects were the suppression of Jansenism and the solemn confirmation of the Bull "Unigenitus," which was declared a rule of faith demanding the fullest obedience. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09016a.htm)