Share and discuss latest Pakistani Political News and Views here. Feel free to include links to interesting videos, columns, and articles from mass media channels, newspapers or blogs. Always pretext a link with some explanation about the content of a link.
Free video has been archived. Sign up as a Contributor to watch this video.
Fast developing situation in Pakistan with respect to Obama’s AF-PAK policy
a nice overview on how our civil military leaders are working to implement AF-Pak policy, please watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsHRJ-zsBh0
Leave all type of =SUQRATIAT & BUQRATIAT= mean to say long comments & just think as our Fauji Generals’ beloved Friends are thinking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/world/2009/07/090715_clinton_alqaeda_pakistan.shtml
by Adnan Khan:
Top ten reasons why India will never be a Super power.
Hello all, welcome to my second top 10 list.
Top ten reasons why India will never be a super power.
10. Beggars don’t count as army manpower.
9. Call centre phone cords don’t qualify as a deadly new high tech weapon.
8. You can’t build an advanced economy by selling skin bleach.
7. Bollywood SUCKS!
6. The phrase is “if looks could kill”, Not “if bad looks could kill”.
5. Having a trillion dollar economy is only good if you don’t have a trillion people.
4.Sonia Gandhi couldn’t stand another country passing her beautiful Italia!
3. Making products only works when they are good.
2. Kissing up to America will only get you so far.
And the number 1 reason India can never be a superpower- 1 word: PAKISTAN
Dostum, Shebergan and Swat
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Ikram Sehgal
آج کے نام
اور
آج کے غم کے نام
پڑھنے والوں کے نام
وہ جو اصحاب طبل و علم
کے دروں پر کتاب اور قلم
کا تقاضا لیے ہاتھ پھیلائے
پہنچے، مگر لوٹ کر گھر نہ آئے
وہ معصوم جو بھولپن میں
وہاں اپنے ننھے چراغوں میں لو کی لگن
لے کے پہنچے جہاں
بٹ رہے تھے، گھٹا ٹوپ، بے انت راتوں کے سائے
آنے والے دنوں کے سفیروں کے نام
وہ جو خوشبوئے گل کی طرح
اپنے پیغام پر خود فدا ہو گئے ہیں
To the students, who
with their hands outstretched
with the want of book and pen in them
went to the halls and chambers
of Warlords and Chieftains
went, but never returned
To those innocents, who
in their innocence
took with them the warmth and life
of their small hearts, their humble lives,
to places where they got instead
shadows of dark and eternal nights
To the heralds of tomorrow
who like the scent of roses
have scattered themselves in crimson mists
U.S. Inaction Seen After Taliban P.O.W.’s Died
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?scp=2&sq=dostum&st=cse
Yes True JJ Khan – there is an another Adnan whose full name is Adnan Arshad Mansoori kindly add his prediction in the same if you may believe so:
At Maximum Extent Indian Think Tank has been Trying & using Delay Tactics.
In other words:
Today on the name of CBMs just forget or at-least keep at side the IOK.
Just talk on Trade its by mean CLEAR PASSAGE from Amiritsar/Lahore to Afghanistan.
Talk about only Indian Films & Music their Dance – as named it Cultural Activities specially in Pakistani Youth, thereafter Cricket Hockey & other games if Indian winning margin is at higher side then Ok otherwise make an excuse for not playing.
Mind it, Indians can only win a series or any specific tournament but overall Pakistan is ahead statistically. And thats why her think tanks are stressing on the theory of =AKHAND BHARAT=
By the way in to-date Thanks to Almighty(Jj) this is a only a dream of India proofed as yet .As a last result with the passage of time Accept the Indian Supremacy in South Asia Region.
In other words we Pakistani must embossed on our Foreheads all time great CHUGTAM PURSHAD of the Muslim Ummah like Husni Mubarak & Co/Egyptian Nation against Israel.
CHUGTAM PURSHAD = The highest degree of Stupid.
JJ Khan said:…………. And the number 1 reason India can never be a superpower- 1 word: PAKISTAN.
Bro.Janujerman India -EVEN- can never be a Regional Power.
Tum Bhi Yaheen Main Bhi Yaheen -
Hum Koi Husni Mubarak Tou Nahi –
India Ko Moonh Torr Jawab Na Diya Tou Muslim Nahi.
USSR Kay Tukray Tukray KarKay Aadha Hoa Hay Intiqam
Jis Din – India Kay Tukray – Ussy Din Pehchanay Ga Apna Maqam.
Google lying about zardari? ??
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/zardari%20google.jpg
file:///C:/zardari_google.jpg
how do i post image here?
Adnan Arshad Mansoori
agreed, india will not be of much resistance. if we get kashmir only we could control india easily -a hint (water)
just matter of time… just matter of time… inshallah.
Joint Statement issued at Sharmul Sh. Egypt.
Another Hallmark achievement of PPP Jiyala & Co.
No Importance on IOK. — On Priority basis only Terrorism is on Top.
Should we all Pakistanis show our entire 32 teeth with an Artificial Smiling like our leadership?
after clinton’s 5 day visit to india and india’s switch from russian camp to american camp the policy has been to make pakistan subservient of india.
this is continuation of the same policy that nawaz sharif was following and then busharraf followed and now incumbent govt
so the credit doesn’t go to ppp for this rather they don’t have any other choice but to do this
If India doesnt become a superpower , how would it help Pakistan?
come on guys this sounds like a losers statement, we should be worrying about developing our country rather than be happy that India is not going to be a superpower. Also I couldn’t understand the ‘ most important reason i.e. Pakistan’
How Pakistan is going to stop them? They are on the right track and we are not.
Comment deleted.
Chertey Suraj ke Poojari.
@janujerman khan
@Adnan Arshad Mansoori
agreed, india will not be of much resistance. if we get kashmir only we could control india easily -a hint (water)
just matter of time… just matter of time… inshallah.
Where were you two in 1971, if we had fighters like you Pakistan would be in one piece right now. India is next and than pretty soon there will be Pakistani flag flying all over the world. It’ is fun to live in a fool’s paradise. It is amazing you two are always planning some way where people have to die. It is very hard for you both to live in peace. While day dreaming you two are experts on how much resistance India will offer on Kashmir, how you are going to capture all the water for Pakistan and how you are going to stop India from being a super power. When we have thess mar khan’s like you who even needs an army. Bataien kar kaie saab kuch fata kar lo. Who aie jinho naie Dakha maie bomub garaie.
lota of toilet filled with filth
you see mirza ghulam ahmad qadiani also claimed to be clever like you and gave fatwas left & right to please there masters -british raj-
we at least express and show what we see & believe in, now why don’t you get out of disguise and tell us about your pervaizee & ahamadi views??
i know and have record that like to make fun of ahadith, is it also the case with Qur’an, because per my info ahmadi (qadiani) do believe in Qur’an but twist it around according to their own ta’weels.
…
@JanuJerman Khan
you see mirza ghulam ahmad qadiani also claimed to be clever like you and gave fatwas left & right to please there masters -british raj-
Did you ever hear about a guy name Sir Syed Ahmad Khan? What were his views? Do you agree with them? I am not Qadiani or a Muslim so don’t waste your energy on spreading hate. I believe all religion is manmade and if religion was actually made by god it would be much better. All the religions in the world be it Hinduism, Buddhist, Islam, Judaism or Christianity were made in the bronze or iron age and they show it. So where I stand its all the same Hindu, Muslim, christen or armada. Religion is superstition and I am ok with you or anyone else having one as long as it doesn’t affect what I do.
lota
finally good to hear you express out yourself.
Thanks, you are welcome, but don’t hurt Muslims by ridiculing Islam.
lota
now regarding your questions
-I know a little about sir syed ahmad khan, he was an employee of east india company. he left his ancestral royal position in mughal dynasty and instead started career with East India Company and that we was loyal with his company etc… Khan’s views on what? ? 1857 war? ? or Muslim reforms ? or what ? be precise and to the point with me don’t spray things around or i wont answer
-I knew you are not a muslim and don’t believe in any religion, I just used tactics to get you out of disguise, i hope you don’t mind
-What about creator, do you believe there is a creator or it is all about matter & the evolution?
thanks
@janujerman khan
i was never in disguise all you had to do was ask?
Do you know about ali Garh university and what it did for muslims?
What about creator, do you believe there is a creator or it is all about matter & the evolution?
I don’t believe in a creator because if you believe in one than you are left with the question who created the creator. I dont have all the answers and i am ok with it. I try reason and whatever i can reason i am ok with it. When you stop beleving superstitions than you can focus your mind on the real question and answers.
Thanks, you are welcome, but don’t hurt Muslims by ridiculing Islam.
Ihave never ridiculed Islam or any other religion for that matter. I never ridicule any kind of superstation, magic or astrology either. Whatever floats your boat but if you are advertising perfection you should have something to back it up. On faith you can sell anything and usually con men use the faith game selling something that is not what it is and when you question something they are saying to make the sale they get angry and tell you to buy it on faith.
bhola
you are really bhola, here is my try to answer your good questions:
If India doesnt become a superpower, how would it help Pakistan?
We are two competitors on common resources such as water, maritime routes, new developing markets etc. It is either they bulldoze over us and take control of these resources or us resisting & defending and eventually post march. So either of two logical conclusions.
come on guys this sounds like a losers statement, we should be worrying about developing our country rather than be happy that India is not going to be a superpower.
How can you develop your country when water is not released during critical time? When you are bogged down with internal security issues? When your economy is forced to shut down by imposing taxes on water, gas & oil leading everything to be expensive. Just compare electrify unit price, if you manufacture a fan with 20 rupees per unit and indian firm manufactures with 5 rupees per unit who will win?
Also I couldn’t understand the ‘ most important reason i.e. Pakistan’
If it wasn’t for british conspiracy to hand over major head waters & barrages, India wouldn’t have upper hand on water. This water is key factor in many ways, can’t give lecture, go and do R&D
How Pakistan is going to stop them?
This is very good question, just look at our geographical location, the access to central asia is blocked, and other side is in control of china & mountains
They are on the right track and we are not.
No difference in track, they switched from russian camp to american camp and we were already in american camp. So what track are you talking about?
bhola sahib you are sitting on a trillion dollar resources without knowing it, they whole world is gathering around to get hold of it but alas our people don’t even know
lota
why not you tell us what did ali garh uni did for muslims?
science says matter can not be created nor destroyed, so if matter can not be created than there must be some super being that created matter.
creator can not create itself because if creator creates itself it would contradicting by being creator & creation on same time. so matter was created by another being which is not creation.
agree this far?
@janujerman khan
science says matter can not be created nor destroyed
Read a little on the concept of the number zero in math. It is called the natural number since it is not negative or positive. It is nothing but also something. If everything in the universe starts at zero and ends at zero than where do we stand? Would you need at creator? If god doesn’t need a creator than why do we need a creator? If god has always existed than could the universe has always existed? The myth of creator concept needs faith for it to be successful and faith means believing without proof.
Agree this far pumpkin?
lota
let us keep it simple to start off and not mix human theories with this.
for now let us just start off from matter that we can sense.
tell me how matter came in to existence? it would be foolish to say oh it just existed for a very long time and it is there etc
if matter can not create it self of destroy it slef then how it came in to existence? besides saying it is there for long long long long time you got anything else?
@lota
You are right cocept of Creator is purely matter of faith.Through science,reason and logic we can’t prove or disprove a Creator.
Matter constitutes less than 5% of the universe rest is dark matter and dark energy.
If one has to believe in a Creator we should study astronomy and cosmology to have a better understanding otherwise we end up believing in a petty god who is jealous and revengeful.Human mind is incapable of comprehending the universe let alone the Creator.
Just my two cents.
Nawaz acquitted in plane hijacking case
Updated at: 1020 PST, Friday, July 17, 2009
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court of Pakistan five-member bench unanimously acquitting Muslim League-N Quaid, Nawaz Sharif in about ten months old plane hijacking case has declared Sindh High Court (SHC)’s earlier decisions invalid.
Headed by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, the five-member SC bench consists of Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, Justice Mohammad Moosa K Leghari and Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali.
Earlier on June 18, the same bench had reserved the verdict after the counsels for both sides had concluded their arguments.
Nawaz was sentenced to life imprisonment twice by the Karachi Anti-Terrorism Court (APC) in April 2000, after the APC found him guilty of refusing to allow a commercial aircraft – carrying Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf, the army chief at that time, along with 200 other passengers – to land at the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi on October 12, 1999.
zia m
of course you approved & disapproved and got to a conclusion.
per your own words you concluded without logic, science and reason!!!
Through reason and logic we can disprove miracles,jinns,black magic and other superstitions,that is enough for me.
People who don’t believe in evolution are illogical no need to debate with them.
but you just said “through science,reason and logic we can’t prove or disprove a creator.” so aren’t you contradicting yourself? ??
We don’t know every thing.Science is always looking for answers who knows they may find a god particle one of these days till then it is only through faith that one can believe in a God.
WHAT IS RELATIONSHIP AMONG THESE THREE NEWS?
1. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called President Asif Ali Zardari on phone here late on Thursday, Geo news reported.
2. Supreme Court of Pakistan in a short order announced here acqitted Mian Nawaz Sharif in the plane hijacking case.
3. Meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari and PML-N Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif, at latter’s Raiwind estate today, is being seen as an attempt at removing the prevalent mistrust between the two parties.
@lota
Perhaps a good introspective question to ask oneself is that whether or not the question asking the proof of existence of God is well formed. In other words can a purely reasoning mind as the question “Give me a proof of existence of God?”. Is this question rational in first place?
zia m
you said that …we end up believing in a petty god who is jealous and revengeful.
you remind me of a Hazrat Ali RA’s famous quote to an atheist. meaning of his saying is that let us suppose if in case there is no god and it is all a myth in that case we muslims don’t lose anything as there won’t be anything after death. But if there is Allah swt and we don’t believe in Him then after death you would be the real loser. dig it -loser
i’ll not discuss with you from here on.
@zia m
But what about Hank? I invite you to…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
Read a stupid column of a stupid columnist:
http://jang.com.pk/jang/jul2009-daily/17-07-2009/col1.htm
Same can be said of any God,Hindu gods,sumarenian gods or Zeus.So why not start believing in all of them to cover all bases.
@mbokhari,
lol…You made my day.
Please don’t try to start a new one,we already have too many.
@janujerman khan,
Have you ever read any of the Old Testament books or 10 Commandments?
I had YAWEH in mind.
Oh Mera Dost Lota Bhee Agia:
……………….Where were you two in 1971, if we had fighters like you Pakistan would be in one piece right now………………………………….
Lotay: You’re right at certain extent even right now like two of us there are in numerous quantity among Pakistanis & Muslim Ummah who are Ready to Assemble under the flag of Allah(Jj) & his Beloved Rasool(Ss) but as & when they would be PRACTICALLY gathered. Believe Me.
West-o-Israel ko Sirf Issi Baat ka KHAUF Agar Umat e Muslima Eik Nazar Ayee Gee
Tub Hee Buni Hoi Baat Unkay Liyay Bigray Gee –
Aur Sazashi Anasir Ka Dimagh Bund hoga aur Pehchay say Hawa Niklay Gee –
Yani Sari Tadbereen Dhari Raih Jaien Gee –
Unki Maan aur Behan ki Eik Hojai Gee.
forget about India. save ur coun try first
zia m
You said People who don’t believe in evolution are illogical no need to debate with them.
So i discontinued the discussion, let me know if you have changed your mind and i’ll rebut you
mnk760
of course we are trying to save Pakistan first from the enemies…
mnk760: Whatever we’re doing in form dispatching what do you think are we audience/spectators of Medona’s Concert whose Stage has been fallen down day before yesterday?
I am not posting this to prove or disprove evolution. Some of ‘ I know everything guys’ on this forum have insisted that there is ‘ NO DEBATE’ going on about creation and evolution in scientific circles. This is just to prove that there is a debate going on. As I say its an ongoing debate and this single post is not to convince anyone about Creation but just to let them know that Wikipedia copy pasting doesnt always make yu smart. And if you have a tiny bit of shame you will at least admit that you were wrong and there IS a debate. Or you can claim that Nobel Prize winning Cytologist is a Mullah.
De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes:
“{In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins.”{Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430} Information never happens apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.
The most recent research says that genes of chimpanzi and human are 99% similar.Both are also carrying a common virus.Remember all of us have a tale bone,If you dont believe,touch the bottom of spinal cord and see .Furthermore the fossils discovered recently show tha t thousads years back the human was between a present day man and a Gorrilla..However I believe that evolution cannot occur without creation of something basic which may have evolved but the seeds of development were programmed by someone,which we may call as a God.However the story of Adam and Hava is not scientifically proven:it is a matter of faith.Where the universe ends ,what are its boundaries,nobody knows.Someone objected that when God told Iblis to bend before Adam,why did’nt he say ,O God it was you who told us not to bend before anyone except me,and today you are contradicting your own orders.So,it is a matter of faith and belief and arguments based on logic are fruitless.
@janujerman khan
The Universe is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term Universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world or Nature.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and scientists are still trying to find the origin of space-time itself.
We also don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Evolution is usually defined simply as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. However, “evolution” is often used to include the following additional claims: Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).
lota
but you forgot to thank wikipedia aka plagiarism.
no need to copy/paste over here just post the link with your own comment would be enough
@lota
>>>We also don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance
So now we are copy pasting and posting the comments from Google without a reference so that it sounds very scientific and intelligence , but alas these are not your own words. And do you admit now that there IS a debate about evolution and creation, Not to admit which theory is true, but you insisted there is no debate. So do you think that a Nobel proze winning cytologist’s views dont count as a debate? and he is not the only one.
@janujerman khan
That would be 7 different links. If you don’t know basic science I have to copy and paste for you. I would prefer you educate yourself and save me the copy and paste on basic things like, universe, time, space time and evolution. The question you asked were you expecting a personal answer from me? I know you are not that dumb.
@bhola
@janujerman khan
What you need to understand that nobody knows how to the universe evolved. No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and scientists are still trying to find the origin of space-time, space and time itself.
@talal khan
Evolution is a lie! Some gorillas never evolved. They even got dumber. Just look at @Adnan Arshad Mansoori
@lota
thats not the question, my question was
Do you admit tat you were wrong to rant on and on that there was no debate about creation and evolution? I am not trying to prove either of the theories, I am just saying that there is in fact a debate. And those who are debating are not wikipedia scholars , but they are experts in their relevant fields. And also the fact that you have a tunnel vision and most of your arguments stem from your stubbornness and desire to be right all the time, ignoring the facts and arguments put fwd by others
@bhola
when you are looking for signs of god or gods, you can find it in anything you want. That is only a matter of faith sinc there is no proof. Read a little of the evolution of eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
@ lota
same old same old
is there a debate or not?
@bhola
evolution is a fact like gravity and
Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of interpretations of beliefs that a supernatural force such as a deity intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the natural world. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.[2] In the West such creationism is usually based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 [3] but other religions have other deity led creation myths which may be quite different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
@janujermankhan
You can come up with a theory that Zardari is the creator of the universe and when we discuss your theory it would be called a debate. What does debating it prove?
lota
as i have mentioned before, let us start off with matter first, what i mean by matter is everything that can be sensed.
so there is matter and we don’t know where it came from and how it reached present state, right?
The term matter traditionally refers to the substance that objects are made of.[1] One common way to identify this “substance” is through its properties: for example, matter is anything that has both mass and volume.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
@lota
I thought you had above average intelligence. Let me try again and split it into little questions so that you can concentrate
A. I am not debating the evolution or creation.
B. My question is simple
C and the question is
D. is there a debate about evolution and creation?
E. regardless of who is right and who is wrong
D Try again
@mbokhari
very nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
bhola
@mbukhari
In various species,some developed and some did not , and some became extinct.The Jaguar (Lion Family) did not exist thousands years back.But when north american continent combined with central and south America the mating between spicies of lion and chita family gave birth to jaguars ,similar to birth of muels from horses and donkeys.The evolutionof man is scientifically proven.However, things were not accidental and the role of creator makes sense.But the religious beliefs are susceptible to doubt,due to evolution/development.How the off-springs of Adam became so animal like savages?I agree with Zia M that the God who is revengful,emotional and who is only interested in Arabic tribal rituals,is imaginary and has been created by human mind to reward the” good” people and punish the bad ones.Its need arose as ther was no institutionalized system of punishments such as police,jails courts parliament etc.Only an imaginary god could regulate those societies.
@mbokhari
AAM has definitely evolved into a ‘ corporate advocacy ‘ and he had developed his own language.
@bhola
Creationism is like Pseudosience.
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] The term comes from the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and “science” (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”). An early recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie,[7] who is considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.
The term is derogatory, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[8] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a “pseudoscience” normally dispute this characterization.[9] There is disagreement among philosophers of science and among commentators in the scientific community about whether there is a reliable objective way to distinguish “pseudoscience” from non-mainstream “science”.[10]
Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[11] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is “being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition”.[12] As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific, or whose proponents state that it is scientific, but which nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[3][13][14][15][16][17]
Pseudoscience has been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
On the authority of Abdullah bin Masud, who said: the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and he is the truthful, the believed narrated to us:
“Verily the creation of each one of you is brought together in his mother’s belly for forty days in the form of seed, then he is a clot of blood for a like period, then a morsel of flesh for a like period, then there is sent to him the angel who blows the breath of life into him and who is commanded about four matters: to write down his means of livelihood, his life span, his actions, and whether happy or unhappy. By Allah, other than Whom there is no god, verily one of you behaves like the people of Paradise until there is but an arm’s length between him and it, and that which has been written over takes him and so he behaves like the people of Hell-fire and thus he enters it; and one of you behaves like the people of Hell-fire until there is but an arm’s length between him and it, and that which has been written over takes him and so he behaves like the people of Paradise and thus he enters it.”
Allah-o-Akbar !!!
@lota
So there is a debate? and one can argue about those who are debating and its a separate discussion.
But there is a debate and it involves scientists who even won Nobel prize?
Evolution Ka Amal Samja Raha Hai Woh Jis ko Hai Flying Arrow Lainay Kee Beemaree
Dr.William Cambell Evolution pur tha Authority Jis Ki Sabit Hoyee Bilawajih kee Biyan Bazee
Ar-Ray O mbokhari:
Khuwa Mukhawa Jump-in ho kar Kur Baiz a Zat hona – Hogi Dour Ahista Ahista Yeh Zehni Bemaree.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=77A8B911803C4EEF&search_query=the+process+of+Evolution+Dr.+Zakir+Naik
@zia m
People who create god create him in their own self image.
off to work keep up with wikipedia
@bhola
Creationism is a religious belief and mainstream science has rejected it. We all can debate President Zardari is the creator of the universe. Debate it all you want but it does not become sceince.
my atheist friends, so what is science?
@janujerman khan
I prefer the term rational so feel free to call me a rational as opposed to some who is irrational.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science—the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are often interconnected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
perhaps another wiki link will be pasted… lol…
lol
Janujermankhan
Here is one more wiki link that you will ask for next. All this information is available in the metric science text book in Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Really pressed for time but thought I should respond briefly:
@janujerman khan
The ideas you and lota speak of are above the payscales of all of us. Philosophy is like a never ending conversation with people coming in and going out of the room. If you want to know anything about the conversation, you have to find out what others before you said and what is being said now.
You are debating (or attempting to debate) themes which touch upon the eternal questions of evolution, creation, physical matter, energy, the universe, free will and the very nature of time. A part of me wants to say the only answer is 42. But, on the vain hope that either of you is serious in educating themselves and finding out more, I proceed further.
Aristotle assumes an eternally created universe without end or beginning. Among Islamic philosophers, Ghazali and Ashari stand on opposite ends on this issue as Ghazali contends the universe and matter as being explicitly created as a manifestation of God’s will. In a way, Ghazali would be @JanuJerman and @lota would be Ashari/Averroes arguing for and against a created or eternal universe. (Let’s not even think about the issue of Quran as a created or eternal thing
)
Both of you are confusing (I hope) ‘essence’ with ‘existence’ in the question of creation. Aristotle delineates creation into essence and existence and asserts that existence precedes essence.
If, contradicting Aristotle and affirming Plato, essence precedes existence, then this essence of matter is the will/idea of God who transformed his will and idea into the physical universe which then is the creation of God alone. Plato subscribes to this view in his theory of ‘universals’ (For example, there is the idea of an ideal, universal monkey called @Adnan Arshad Mansoori, and all other subsequent monkeys are created in his image) In this ‘essence before existence’ universe, it’s all God’s plan and who are we to have free will etc, essentially, a predetermination/qaza wa qadr position. This is the position of most religions and the curse of Islamic philosophy, al-Ghazali subscribed to this view. (You can read the classical Islamic philosophers discuss the nature of universe here)
On the other hand, ‘existence before essence’ argues that for something to have properties, it must exist or must have existed in the past. That means an eternal, pre-existing universe with essence defined only by its existence. No God and no watchmaker had the master plan in his head which he then used to create matter. In other words, matter exists and has always existed, and man, who has free will, first exists and is born, and only then determines his own essence and gives meaning to his life. This is the existentialist position of Aristotle, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and others. A consequence is negation of religion, absolute morality and the idea of an absolute human nature (through pre-existing essence). The inevitable conclusion is relative morality, affirmation of human dignity and human beings as free agents of destiny who can determine the course of their lives independently. Among Islamic Philosophers, Ibn Rushd, Mulla Sadra and (I think) Ashari anticipated this modern Existentialist philosophy. Personally, I am more sympathetic to this worldview. This is also the Muta’zilite (means ‘dissenters’) position.
But matter is energy, you say, and Einstein was right about e=mc^2. And what then is energy? if not noor-ala-noor, light upon light. Is God energy and light, and this universe a manifestation of God’s essence (energy) into matter through e=mc^2? And what of Burraaq (burq=electricity=light?), the Prophet’s winged stead, who took him through the heavens and back in a frame of time so brief that his door latch was still aflutter when he got back? Could burraq (burq=electricity) be travelling with the speed of light and did the Prophet travel through time? And is the Sidra tul Muntaha the frozen moment in time when the Big Bang banged? But doesn’t Einstein say the weight increases exponentially until it is infinite as we reach the speed of light? So, how did Burraaq fly? Was it the warp drive?
These are all heady matters, and beyond the best of us. Don’t listen to me. What do I know?
Its all a Gorakh Dhanda. And perhaps all this Gorakh Dhanda exists to veil the Supreme Creator from our eyes and we as human beings lack the ability to comprehend His existence.
I say we drop it all and let’s all listen to the monkey instead:
Egg-zactly!!!
…vola…
i can predict now (at least in case of lota)
mbokhari
you got it all wrong
@mbokhari
Thank you for the enlighten post.
Monkey attacked to whom?
mbokhari: for your eyes only by the way in this fight Lota is a Referee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn3wVE_-3p4
Bro. Janujerman: Would you kindly suggest me Is this above mine response is fallen in the category of brief & con-size?
Two Classes of Prophets
By Ali Shariati
As I have mentioned in my previous lectures, throughout the whole history of humanity, religious movements, whether related to the contents of the religions, and conduct of the prophets and founders of the religion or to the social class connections of the leaders of the religion and to what they were calling the people to, are divided into two classes. According to this classification, all of the historical prophets, whether true or false, as well as anyone who has begun a religious movement, are divided into two different classes:
The first group belongs to the religious chain founded by Abraham. This chain of prophets, from the historical point of view, are nearer to us and therefore we know them better. They consist of prophets whose view of society arose from the most deprived social and economic class of a society. As Mohammad (‘s) said, all of these prophets were either shepherds, as history shows us, they grazed sheep, or a few were simple hungry artisans or workers.
These prophets stand in contrast with the messengers of the other group or founders of intellectual and moral schools of thoughts such as those in China, India, Iran and the founders of the scientific and ethical schools of Athens. This latter group, without a single exception, were aristocrats. They arose from the noble, powerful, comfortable classes of their society.
Throughout history, the powerful rulers of society have been one of three groups: the powerful, the wealthy and the clergy. They exercised political and economic power with each other and control over the faith of the people. They co-operated with each other in ruling the people. Their collaboration, whether or not they shared the same views, was in order to rule the people and for the sake of the people.
All of the non Abrahamic messengers from Indo China to Athens were either connected on their mother’s side or their father’s side or even both sides to emperors, clergymen and aristocrats. This holds true for Confucius, Laotzu, Buddha, Zoroaster, Mani, Mazdak, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Whereas the Quran emphasizes, “We appointed among the ordinary people, a Prophet from themselves.” (3:163). They were ordinary people from the masses and among the community. Thus the Abrahamic prophets arose from the mass of the people.
This does not mean that they did not have an angelic dimension or that they did not hold absolute powers and were only human beings. It means they were appointed from among the ordinary mass of people rather than relating to a special, noble, and selective class of society.
Some people believe that because the Prophet of Islam arose from among the Arabs, he should speak Arabic, or Moses, who was appointed to the Jewish people, should speak Hebrew. It is obvious that a Prophet appointed from amongst the Arabs cannot speak a language other than Arabic.
The important thing is to speak in the language of ordinary people which means to speak the tongue and use the idioms which the mass of that community understands. In order to speak about their needs or troubles in a language which is understandable to them, and not as philosophers, poets, intellectuals, scholars and educated people, they must use a language and idioms which people are familiar with. But, neither do they understand the thoughts and emotions of the ordinary people nor do they understand their language. This still can be noted everywhere. When we discuss the Abrahamic prophets, we are talking about the people, for the mission of these prophets differs from that of the other.
The mission of the non-Abrahamic messengers is always related to the existing power structure so that power supports these messengers’ ideas. The Abrahamic prophets, on the other hand, were always supported by the ordinary people against the powerful rulers of their time.
Look at Abraham. As soon as God appointed him, he wielded his mace to destroy the idols. Moses took up his shepherd’s staff and stormed Pharaoh’s palace. He brought down the wealthy and powerful Croesus, buried him in the earth and drowned Pharaoh in the sea. And the Prophet of Islam first went through a stage of individual development, then began his spiritual struggle. Within a period of 10 years, he fought 65 battles, that is, every 50 days, a battle, a military encounter. The miracles of the Abrahamic prophets are also in accordance with their mission. The turning of the staff into a serpent was used to destroy wizardry and to attack the Pharaoh’s throne.
The Quran clearly announces the principle that Islam is not a new religion because, in fact, throughout history, there has only been one religion. Every prophet was appointed to establish this religion in accordance with the circumstances of the time and in compliance with the needs of that era.
There is only one religion and its name is Sub-mission “islam”. Through this announcement, the Prophet universalizes it and gives the idea of Submission a universal, historical viewpoint. He relates the Islamic movement to other movements which have, throughout history been fought to free people. They have stood up, risen against the powerful, the wealthy and the deceivers. In this way, they have shown their unity of vision: one spiritual struggle, one religion, one spirit and one slogan throughout the whole of humanity’s history in all domains, all times and all generations.
Let us take a look at this verse of the Quran and consider its historical context and choice of words and see how the historical perspective is expressed in the Quran and see how it places these movements one after the other.
“Those who disbelieve in the signs of God and slay the Prophets without right and slay such men as bid to justice. . .” (3:21)
We see that in this verse three points are connected to each other. First, the signs of God, second, Prophets and third, men who call for equality in opposing the disbelievers. The Prophets and men of justice are put on one level. We see how a type of social encounter and philosophy of human history and description of previous movements is expressed in the Quran.
The Prophet of Islam is the last messenger of this religion of Submission, which throughout history, as the Quran has repeatedly shown, the Prophets came to bring. Their message consisted of wisdom, the Book and justice for the world. The Prophet of Islam is the last messenger of this world and human movement who, in the name of Submission (islam) called the people to serve God and the One so that they would be freed from obeying and serving any other than Him.
The Prophet of Islam came to confirm the universal view of Unity (tawhid) and even to bring that unity into human history, to all races, nations, groups, families and social classes and to eliminate the discord brought by polytheistic religions. The slogan of Islamic unity was a slogan which gave freedom. Before intellectuals, scholars, the educated and philosophers became aware of it, slaves, the tortured, hungry and the belittled were sensitive to and aware of it. It is because of this that the group which gathered around Mohammad in Mecca were among the most deprived, who had been belittled and were among the most debased elements of society. The Prophet of Islam was scorned by his enemies because only the dregs of humanity surrounded him. This Is the greatest praise today for this movement while we see that the leaders of the Buddhist religion are all of the nobles and aristocrats of China and India. Today, values have changed!
This is why the Prophet of Islam marked the turning point for slaves who, throughout history, were certain that their fate was slavery. Slaves and the debased were convinced by the tongue of religion, science, philosophy or with the tongue of the day or with poetry or art that their fate was to serve their masters and they believed that they existed solely to experience suffering, to carry heavy loads and to go hungry, so that others might receive pleasure. They were born and created for this.
This deprived class who were convinced that the gods or God were their enemy, believed that in order for the world to function and for the performance of the jobs of the people, they were created as porters in order to carry the loads. Or as the Prophet Mani had said when speaking of light and darkness, “The wretched and defeated are of the essence of darkness and the conquerors are of the essence of light.” Aristotle and Plato, intellectual geniuses that they were, had said “God or nature has created some as slaves of creation and others as free so that the slaves perform the ordinary jobs and the free ones can then be free to attend to the higher affairs such as morals, poetry, music and civilization.”
The Prophet of Islam had been appointed in order to complete the movement which had existed throughout history against deception, falsehood, polytheism, creation of discord, hypocrisy, aristocracy and class differences which were all made an object of the spiritual struggle and by announcing that all of humanity is of one race, one source, one nature and one God, to declare equality for all, with philosophical explanation and by fighting an economically powerful regime to maintain social equity.
Take the model society of Medina as an example where Balal, a debased slave was recognized as more noble and of greater value and was treated with more respect than the aristocrats of Arab society. Everyone accepted his position. Suddenly the inhabitants of Medina, the Arabs, Jews, the Qoraish find themselves greeting the young slave of Hozaifah as an equal, he who had once gone about in the narrow streets as a debased and deprived slave, now, in the Ghoba Mosque standing for prayer in front of the noble Emigrants of the Qoraish, is one of the dearest, most radiant figures. The most distinguished personages of the pre-Islamic era and even of the present ones are praying behind him.
All values were shattered when the Prophet himself began his efforts to destroy all of the values of ignorance and aristocratic thinking. He instructed them to shorten the long, flowing robes they wore and to trim their long beards which were signs of aristocracy. He ordered people not to strut with pride in the streets. He instructed people to ride two at a time on horseback. One would ride in front and another behind. Sometimes, in order to break down the values of the aristocracy in the eyes of the people, he would ride a donkey bare back.
One day an old woman, who had for many years heard of the greatness and magnificence of the Prophet, came before him. She stood tongue tied in awe of his presence. The Prophet, softly, kindly and simply took her by the shoulder and said, “Why are you afraid? I am the son of that Qoraish woman who milked sheep. Who are you afraid of?”
When this shepherd, who was the last appointed Prophet, the last messenger for those who suddenly arose out of silent deserts and assaulted the lords of power, wealth and deceit in the cities, died, suddenly everything was different. Discrepancies appeared immediately upon his death. The path of historical events did not deviate from the true way more than a centimeter at first. The angle which appeared between the School of Islam and the History of Islam, between the truth and reality was narrow at the beginning. But after the Prophet died, the gap between them grew wider and wider. It was like the angle between two lines which are at first close together (no more than a thousandth of a centimeter apart) but gradually the distance expands as history moves forward. The two lines widen so that in an eternity there are kilometers of space between them. If other factors and causes become operative as they do, we may see that the two lines which extend from an angle move apart as the line of history from the line of the truth of Islam has done in this case
@Adnan Arshad Mansoori
Dear brother, I must apologize profusely. I just want to say that I’m sorry. I lost my temper and I probably shouldn’t have. I took it out on you and, look, if I have caused you any problems as a result of my behavior, well then, I’m sorry. I apologize.
Even though, @Adnan Arshad Mansoori, between me and you, we both know that you started it . I mean, who’s kidding who? But they tell me that you’re very upset, and god forbid I should disturb the very important monkey , I’m just hoping we can put this behind us, let’s just move on with our lives, ok?
So no hard feelings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzle1FnqOI
Adnan Arshad Mansoori
you got it bro !!!
so far I have only come across copy paste artists besides talal khan who does produce contents of his own, rest of these are waste of time-
Adnan Arshad Mansoori
bro don’t mind these atheists, they pose themselves as if they became atheist through rational & logic but i can bet and Allah knows the best non of them became kafir through intellectual reasoning.
they just got in to drinking and then in to fornication and then shaytan just gave them this “intellectual” cover. Now you see they run here and there copying/pasting from internet.
non of them could produce a single genuine thought by himself.
i knew, but i just used these as tactics to expose them as this little tiny minority in our society is rejected
Usually Only Stupid People believes on others cooked Stories as you typed.“But they tell me that you’re very upset.” Rather I’ve been enjoying e.g.Oh mbokhari what did I just watch? This is so epically awesome though.Was your mouth BLEEEEEDING right after this friction occurred!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GObzq-S5oiI
JanuJerman Khan in courts/chambers you’re bound to face atheist plus criminal with both qualities at the highest degree mbokhari is perfect gentleman before them.
Anyway – If mbokhari would have step back and mentioned clearly, to the Jiyalas & to the Army Gens., I won’t pay attention on this pork as our economy is suffering because of IDPs & Droned Attacks!” he would be respect some from me.
Bro. in this beloved country I often meet in Police Station/Agencies/Office/Parties with such atheist who are in favor of Droned Attacks & American Presence in South Asia Region.
So Stamina kee Azmaish Shurt Hai.
@lota
what a load of nonsense , you denied ‘any debate’ about evolution, then I give you just one example of disagreement by a Cytologits who is respected allover the world.
This Guy is a scientist gives his opinion about evolution , and what Lota sees in it? he sees ‘his desire to belive in God Lota doesnt see his standing, his cradintials,the fact that he is giving his opinion in the light of his scientific knowladge, is trying to prove it sceintifically , but he sees his ‘ desire to belive in God’.Waht next can you see the thoughts, peoples desires ? And it hurts you so much to admit that you made a mistake and you are prepared to challange and twist the views of a cytologist just to prove that you can never be wrong.What I see in your opinion is not ‘his desire to belive’ its your desire not to believe’. Though the knowledge of certain @lota about biology is equivalent to that of a Flamingo compared to a Cytologist , he is still JAHIL enough to call his opinion non-scientific.
One if the tactics of tunnel visioned self proclaimed,egoistic reformers is, that when they are presented with a reasonable arguemnt and they dont have an answer, they jump on the debate not the argument but try to make the source look suspicious, Now this poor cytologist spent his life studying and researching cell, and his opinion was brushed away by a certain Lota.And I didnt present his opinion to prove or disprove evolution or creation I just presented it as an example of disagreement between scientist . And even this much is not acceptable to Lota mainly because he ranted about ‘no debate’ and it hurts him admit his mistake.
As I said before you read not to get the truth or to form an opinion , you have a preformed opinion and you read to find evidence to suport you tunnel vision and selectively ignore the stuff which wont support your opinion.
And then thsi crape about Zardari example. In pashtu they say to make a Parrdug ( shalwar) i.e when you are caught without an argument you come up with lame excuses to save your face and thast waht you are trying to do, trying to put on a shawlar and your foot is stuck in it and its not covering you
@Brother Mansori
Mansori bhai as you know I am not a Taliban fan but I am not fond of ‘droned attacks’ either. However, can you kindly explain that how these attacks are ruining our economy and also why and how you come across Atheists in courts and chambers? Why do you prosecute them?
UN inquiry commission investigating BB’s murder must scrutinize this as well:
http://www.express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20090717/Sub_Images/1100671474-1.gif
http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1100671474&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20090717
@bhola,
I think we are confusing the issue here.We were discussing biological evolution and not the origin of life.I believe Christian Duve’s research was pertaining to chemical evolution or origin of life before even the organism is formed.
We are just talking about the basic stuff.
Humans,Chimps,Bonobos and Gorillas have a common ancestor in African apes.We started evolving about 6 million years from the African apes.Chimps and Gorillas are our distant cousins (we did not evolve from chimps).
Similarly whales and hippos evolved from Cetaceans that started around 50 million years ago.Oldest ancestor of whales is Pakicetus (the fossil was discovered in Pakistan.
There is no debate on biological evolution among the scientist.However there is sort of friction between religious scientists and non believers they always have debates but both agree on science.
Some do believe in intelligent design and they wanted to introduce it in schools in US but they were defeated in the court by the scientists.You can google Dover Trial to find out more about the case.
Evolution has given us a beutiful gift of brain power, we can use it to better humanity or kill each other choice is ours.
Bholay Bhaiya: Even if you are from Taliban You are the most Welcome, don’t you agree from Top Ranking Fauji Generals, Wadeera, Ch. Malik, Khan, Sardar Politician Bureaucrats if not ready to follow prevailing laws i.e. under Constitution ’73 then be ready to face the horrible music of Taliban/Alqaida or any unseen force in near future.
By the way good to hear you’re against American Droned Attacks.
Only just Right After One/Single American D/A at Bajure Madarssa few years ago approximately half a million people migrated from this particular territory, thereafter; in recent past to settle down the complicated matters of 3.7 Million IDPs Urgent Basis GoP is required 10.00 Bln. US$. By the way this would be just one portion of the entire required amount.
There is a stage of committed sins/crime when he/she commits with full of joy as well as felt/shown enthusiasm instead of any sort of encumbrance i.e. called Atheists Cum Criminal who is usually visit to the court/chamber in form of a client.
If you are agreed as aforementioned then join the following Hunting & inform to mbokhari simultaneously that some one is behind him as per following methodology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixt0isx8lzY&feature=PlayList&p=8939AD6DA67F6C6C&index=10
bhola said:@lota what a load of nonsense………..
Lota Aqal Ka Mota – Bilawajay tou Naam Nahi Rakha?
Abb Naya Naam Coming Soon on your Monitor Screen.
mbokhari = zehni bemaree.
Please understand that there is no “starting point” for humanity. There are no “original man and woman” that acted as the genitors of all humanity. The process of evolution is a continuum. We cannot point to a couple in any moment of the Earth’s history and say these two are the first humans.Some Muslims who claim that Islam is compatible with evolution is just silly. You either believe in the childish story of creation as was believed by very ancient people in Babylonia, Hittite, Canaan, etc. and rehashed in the Bible and the Quran or you believe in the evolution.
@zia m
Let me stress it again that I didnt present Duve’s comments as a proof of Creation or otherwise, he may even be wrong , who knows but I presented it only as a proof of disagreement between the scientists , as some people read Lota insisted there wasnt even a debate.
Now if this is origin of life relevant to discussion about evolution and creation. Yes. This is evident even in the names of two groups i.e Evolutionists and CREATIONISTS i.e those who believe in Evolution dont believe in a Creator or His contribution in the origin of life. This is the main, rather basic difference so you cant separate the two. The role of a Creator is at the heart of this difference and you will struggle to find a die hard Evolutionist scientist, prepared to accept the idea that there was in fact Creation, because the whole theory of Evolution is based on spontaneous , by chance origin of life so Duve’s views are relevant to the debate.
@bhola
Francis Collins, physical chemist, medical geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project has written a book entitled “The Language of God”. In it he attempts to show that there is a consistent and overwhelmingly agreement between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. Most readers of The Language of God seem quite overawed by its author’s scientific credentials. This is understandable. As director of the Human Genome Project, Collins participated in one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history. His book, however, reveals that a stellar career in science offers no guarantee of a scientific frame of mind. Collins describes the moment that he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ:
On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains the majesty and beauty of God’s creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
The waterfall was frozen in three streams, which put the good doctor in mind of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons but one being. Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. If the beauty of nature can mean that Jesus really is the son of God, then anything can mean anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome_project
@bhola
@bhola
We can debate day and night if President Zardari created the universe. Having that debate does not make it science. Beware of pesudo- science.
@bhola
Francis Collins is a devout Christian and most eminent genetecist.He was head of the genome project.He keeps his religion separate from his science.
You can’t call religious scientist as creationists.All scientists believe in biological evolution.
There is no seriously educated person who doubts evolution the creationists are not scientists.Evolution is based on natural selection.Origin of life or origin of the universe is not a settled issue.You can call Duve’s institute and ask about evolution before you misquote him.
The debate with creationists is not about science it is about their faith in religion.
Christianity is starting to compromise with science but Islam has a long way to go that is one of the reasons for Muslim’s backwardness.
@bhola
if you have 2 minutes and 56 seconds to spare, watch this eye evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4
evolutions isn’t science it is just a theory until they find those missing links
bhola
also if you have 2 hours and 56 minutes go through
http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/concepts/belief/2274-exposing-the-flaws-in-the-theory-of-evolution
Aqal Kay Motay aur Zehnibemaree ki Ankhooun kee Thandak Kay Liyay –
Yeh =BhanGar Khanay= Kay Loog Ahista Ahista Issi Taraf Arahay Hein-
Apni Evolution kee Theories Kee =Batti= Bana Kur Chara Dou Apnay West Kay Aqaoun Kay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsN9GtL8XB0
@JanuGerman Khan
Sorry for reverting back late due to unavoidable circumstances.
You may recall that I stated dout on authentication of Ahadis simply because these were brought into written form after a lapse of long time. I feel that it is humanly not possible that a deed or saying of someone if vebally communicated onwards from person to person for a long time, the wording and meanings of the saying / deed can remain in tact. These will definately change. (that is one of the reasons that there are different types of Ahadis existing today and some Ahadis which are called Zaeef Ahadis which too are disputed)
In this regard I would also like that you see the comments of Lotta177, reproduced below for ready reference.
lota6177 said:
Other notable companions of the prophet, including Ali and Aisha, accused Abu Huraira of fabricating false Hadith.[13][14] One example held up about the “untrustworthiness” of some Hadith, is that Ibn Umar accused Abu Huraira of adding a clause exempting those with “cultivated land” from needing to kill all dogs, for his own personal benefit, to a saying of Muhammad.[10] Ibn Qutaiba claimed that many fabricated Hadith were borne of Jewish and Christian mythology.[10]
When Muhammad al-Bukhari began collecting Hadith in the 9th century, he said that he had collected more than 600,000 different “sayings of the prophet”, of which only 1.2% could be reasonably verified
To counter the claims of inaccuracy, many Muslims rely on a Hadith which suggests that the Sahaba had “super-human” abilities to memorise narrations word-for-word.[15] Nevertheless, thousands of Hadith have been removed from circulating collections after being deemed suspect by scholars.
Some Muslims have suggested that the original prohibition against Hadith led to the Golden Age of Islam, as the Quran was able to stand up to critical thinking and questioning; and Muslims were thus schooled to be inquisitive and seek answers to every quandry. They posit that the increased reliance on Hadith, which were allegedly illogical and required the suspension of disbelief, led to the eventual downfall of scholastic pursuits in the religion.[15]
To demonstrate the willingness of the “ordinary, ignorant Muslim”, the 9th-century poet Kulthum al-Attabi gathered a crowd in a mosque and told them that the Prophet had decreed that any person who could “touch the end of his nose with the top of his tongue can be certain that he will never feel the flames of hell”, and watched as the majority of the crowd immediately began sticking out their own tongues in attempts to touch their noses.[10]
I am of the view that the comments of bhola (reproduced below for ready reference) are irrelevant. The question is not that all other treatment are banned or not. The questions are that if Kalonji is perfect treatment for all the ailments then why to go for other very expensive medicines and cures and the other big question, which go unanswered is that if Death is an ailment or possible cause of ailment? (the Hadis terms death as an ailment). (Similarly, ambiguities exist about many other Ahadis.)
bhola said:
@Janu German Khan
The Prophet (PBUH) did not stop anyone using other treatments available at that time. He ( PBUH) didn’t ban all other treatments and insist on use of Kalunji or honey alone which is a proof that you have to see Ahaadis in the light of Sunnah and actions of Sahaba (RA). There are Ahadees which were specific for the time and situation , there are other Ahadees especially the ones about Aqeedah and Iman which are for all times.
This is yet another proof that some Non Muslims read a little and then come around with an intention of Fitna and fasad. Also if someone ignores the fact that there has to be a space for faith, Iman and Yaqeen in Allah and his Prophet ( PBUH) , and tries to prove and disprove everything with their ‘ enormous’ knowledge and logic, they will end up like the ones you see on this forum.
bebus
thanks for reverting back but i wouldn’t waste my time with copy/paste artists, i rather discuss with you based on your thoughts & ideas not links, videos, and copies of others.
I am a muslim and for this rational debate i am not quoting from Qur’an & hadith so i also expect other side to not quote, rather tell me their rational thought process, else it would be fruitless.
Your argument on hadith does carry weight, but before i express myself on that would you first tell me if we agree on Qur’an that it is revealed to Muhammad pbuh from Allah swt?
@Janugerman Khan
Yes I do.
bebus,
so we are cool then because my understanding is that rejecting a hadith because of doubt on authenticity doesn’t take a muslim out of circle of Islam meaning he still is a muslim
cheers
@Janugerman Khan
Dear friend.
I did not seek a certification of being muslim or not.
@bebus
And who gave you one? I just shared my understanding of an issue -dig it
@JJ Khan
You wrote
“you remind me of a Hazrat Ali RA’s famous quote to an atheist. meaning of his saying is that let us suppose if in case there is no god and it is all a myth in that case we muslims don’t lose anything as there won’t be anything after death. But if there is Allah swt and we don’t believe in Him then after death you would be the real loser. dig it -loser ”
Can you plz cite a referrence. It sounds like you are talking about Pascal Wager here.
Ali didn’t have time to debate with any atheist,he was busy burning them.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, “Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, “Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).” I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.
peterpan773
Thanks for correcting me, I think i have made a mistake as I can’t find reference. So I take back the name of Ali RA.
آرمی کے بقول سوات میں طالبان کی دوسرے درجے کی قیادت ماری جا چکی ہے- عزیزی حارث خان بھی لا پتہ ہیں – بندہ فکرمند ہے- منصوری بھی ابھی بھی موجود ہیں اسس کا مطلب ہے پہلے درجے کی قیادت نہ صرف محفوظ ہے بلکہ انٹرنیٹ بھی استعمال کر رہی ہے- کیا غاروں میں لوڈ شیڈنگ نہیں ہوتی ؟
Dr. Shahid discussing NRO right now in mere Mutabiq
@bhola
Oh ! ! ! What a comment. Nothing could be better.
bhola: Aray Bholay wah Baree Shaitanian Soojh Rahee Hein!
Thero/Wait — Thori Deir Mein Kuch Tempo Banay Gaa – Phir Jawab Diya Jai Gaa.
peterpan,
So, we have been unduly critisizing Taliban.They are truly following the spirit of the quoted hadith by Imam Bukhari.
Mulla Omar is right afterall!
@janujermankhan
Thanks for correcting me, I think i have made a mistake as I can’t find reference. So I take back the name of Ali RA.
This was the method used to make most of the hadiaths. Thank you for the demonstration of hadiath making.
@lota6177
this is exactly the method of hadeeth compilation and that is why when the muhadiseen and the compilers of hadith made any mistake in the chain of their narration they used to quickly correct themselves in order that only the most authentic hadeeth were passed on to people.
@lota6177
Man you rock!!!
@abdullaharqam
“this is exactly the method of hadeeth compilation and that is why when the muhadiseen and the compilers of hadith made any mistake in the chain of their narration they used to quickly correct themselves in order that only the most authentic hadeeth were passed on to people”.
This Hadith is from Sahi Bukhari who spent his life compiling most authentic hadiths.
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated \’Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
here is the link
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.188
@peterpan773
more details
[Kitabil Manaqib Vol 2 Pg 445 # 1030]. Umro bin Maimoon reported,
“During the Age of Ignorance, I saw a monkey surrounded by a swarm of other
monkeys. He had committed adultery with a female monkey. So, all monkeys
stoned him to death. I cast stones, too.” Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani decides to explain
this Hadith further in his ‘Sharh Saheeh Bukhari’ Vol 7 Pg 121: Umro bin Maimoon
said, “I was standing on high grounds in Yemen. A monkey brought a female monkey
with him, kept her hand under his head and went to sleep. Then came a younger
male and gestured with his eye. The female slowly pulled her hand away from under the head of the (older) monkey and tiptoed away from him. Then she
committed adultery with the young monkey, and I saw it with my own eyes. After
finishing the act, she returned and gently tried to place her hand under his
head. The older monkey got alarmed and thought ‘there is something black at the
bottom’. He smelled the female and things became crystal clear to him. H
e started yelling and many monkeys arrived at the scene. He kept yelling
pointing his hand to the female. The monkeys ran in different directions and
soon arrested the criminal monkey back to the scene of the crime. I recognized
him as well. They dug a hole in the ground and stoned both of them to death.”
@lota,
You missed the deeper meaning.
lol…..Must be the Jews,who were transformed into apes and pigs by the ALMIGHTY.Your ignorance is pathetic.
yea… copy/paste artist
no need to respond
peterpan773
abdullaharqam
Adnan Arshad Mansoori
bhola
I love you all for the sake of Allah.
What is this?
http://www.khabrain.com/aaj-akhbar.aspx?pg=18
@JanuJerman Khan
What is outcome of debate. I did not hear any winning argument from your side. What happened mate.
Najam Syed,
Thanks for following my discussion, but there were multiple threads with more than one person, which one are you referring to?
I don’t know you but I see you are excited to show yourself as an atheist.
I see a growing number of youth losing faith in religion despite the claims that Islam is fastest growing religion in the world.
good luck to atheists
FIA nabs person spreading blasphemous thoughts through Internet
ISLAMABAD: The Cyber Crime Circle of the Federal Investigation (FIA) and police have jointly achieved a unique breakthrough by successfully tracing and arresting a person found involved in using the Internet to disseminate his highly obnoxious and blasphemous thoughts about the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
On the complaint of Ansar Abbasi, Editor Investigations, The News, and following initial investigations held by the IT Wing of the Jang Group, the FIA traced the accused through the obnoxious e-mail and got him arrested for allegedly committing blasphemy. This is the first case of its nature in Pakistan where an accused has been arrested for committing blasphemy through the Internet.
The FIR, under Section 295-C of the CrPC, has been registered in police station Gizri of Defence, Karachi. The FIR No is 350 and the accused arrested by the FIA is Murad, who is a middle-aged man and father of four. He lives in Karachi but has his restaurant business in the UK.
The accused is alleged to have sent an e-mail to Ansar Abbasi, at his official e-mail address, in response to the column of the senior journalist that appeared in the daily Jang on June 29. The accused used Dr Omar Zia as his name and used khayyam_o@yahoo.com as the e-mail containing highly blasphemous material.
On June 30, another e-mail from the same address was sent to Ansar Abbasi, who initially took up the matter with the top Jang Group management, which immediately directed its IT wing to collect all the necessary details about the sender of these blasphemous e-mails.
After the basic details collected by the Jang Group’s IT men, the case was formally referred to the Cyber Wing of the FIA, which probed the matter and concluded that the sender of these blasphemous e-mails was in Karachi.
After certain other counter checks in an extremely secret manner, the FIA completed it probe and then raided the house of the accused Murad, got him arrested besides confiscating his laptop that was used to send the obnoxious e-mails to the Editor Investigations daily The News.
these cowards use fake IDs to impress but after arrest came out to be a restaurant owner
Winning argument?
This is not about winning argument anyway and Allah didnt make even his Prophet ( PBUH) responsible for ‘ Winning’.
He ( PBUH) was made responsible only to give the message.
Also this argument between Kuffar and Muslims is not new, it’s centuries old , though some of Kuffar may even deny that there is a debate in the first place, like they denied the debate of evolution and then found running for a Shalwar.
The only difference is that unlike the ancient Kuffars , the modern ones still dont want to let go the label of Muslim. They deny everything about Islam still dont want themselves called Kuffar I mean whats he problem if you dont believe in a religion and have problem with everything, why not just leave it and live happily ever after?. Why to spend hours and hours searching the literature ( read wikipedia) and then come up with selective material to show how bad this religion is, and if someone presents with another opinion, just reject it because it presents ‘ sunni point of view, so cant be right.
I ask, do you guys spend sometimes on Hindu chat forums and tell them whats wrong with their religion? guess not, because its not the religion you dont like, its the Islam you are after. Why not read and research Christianity , Hinduism, Buddhism in depth and see if you find it right or wrong?
And simply why not enjoy life in New York city and Australia and London or Meyan Chanu , following what you think is the correct path for you and let the ‘ religious sheep’ graze and wait for the day they believe in and you dont.
@JJK
Yar dont pass judgements. As muslims, our job is to convey the message and that is it. You did your job very well but on the basis of arguments lota positively scored more points. You need to appreciate that and may be feel the need to study more about religion and find more facts.
Najam Syed
Thanks for appreciating my work but your referee role is unsolicited.
@najam syed
who made you the refree in this debate that has been going on on this forum for a while now.
I GUESS ITS ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE YOU ALREADY HAVE ABOUT ISLAM AND THATS WHY YOU FIND LOTAS STUPID COMMENTS VERY INTELLECTUAL.
@JanuJerman Khan
I LOVE YOU TOO FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH (INSHALLAH)
@bhola
You said “Also this argument between Kuffar and Muslims is not new, it’s centuries old …….
But this has now turned into an argument between men having faith in primitive religions and modern intelligent human beings.Religion is based on faith and faith needs no proof.
Therefore we have people believing in any absurd thing like cows being gods and Prophet of Islam splitting the moon, etc. because faith needs no proof. That is plain and simple ignorance. That is why faith is for primitive people and doubt is for modern intelligent humans. Its up to you to decide whether you want to think like primitive people or like intelligent people.
@peterpan
Not an argument , very hallow idea, tell you why.
Intelligence is not a quality unique to your so called ‘ modern human beings’ there were intelligent people at all times in human history and equally countless idiots live on the face of earth in modern times. The leaps in technology and science is not the achievement of modern human beings alone. This is a cumulative result of human intelligence over the centuries. So its baseless to say that modern human are intelligent the the ‘ primitive’ humans were all idiots.
Lets for the sake of argument agree, that in fact the modern humans are intelligent, that doesnt prove your point either. Look around , even in this ‘ modern intelligent era’ there are not millions but billions of modern intelligent people who follow some kind of faith, dont they? So whats the point in saying that its a debate between modern intelligent humans and primitive beings?
Finally people in each and every walk of life with outstanding achievements do follow religion and there are Atheists who are idiots, so again its not a debate between the intelligent and the fools.
Self critisim and freedom of expression is a healthy sign in a society.I don’t know why we cosider it a taboo.
No doubt Islam is a more purified form of revealed religion,it rejected many imperfections in Judaism and Christianity.It was after all Muslim scholars who translated and preserved the philosophy and science of Greece and Persia and later transmitted them to Europeans.
I always struggle with the question why the enlightenment introduced by Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina failed and traditionalist views of Ghazali prevailed amongst Muslims while Europeans in the 17th and 18th century were able to take full advantage of their enlightenmen movement.
Is it due to difference in societies?
Currently we are facing a crisis in the form of Taliban.I truly believe every crisis presents an opportunity and this one will result in rise of moderate Islam and rationality will overcome fundamentalism.I am not a fan of neo-imperialism being imposed by the west and U.S. We need to come up with some new ideas.Theocracy is definitely not the solution.
We desperately need to separate mosque from the state.
Any thoughts?
@bhola & zia m
Good arguments.
The reason why the Muslims failed to start the so-called enlightment is very simple-
For whatever reasons- the policy makers- both political and religious( doctrinaire) decided in their infinite wisdom( or lack of it) NOT to follow Socrates dictum that everything must be examined critically and objectively.
It is not only the Muslims who failed but the Great Chinese also failed because they did not have a SOCRATES and his teachings.
Now why did the Muslims do that ? Well- two specific reasons
1. Intellectual dis honesty- the sort you see a lot of here and in our leadership.
2. No desire to improve the society and Corruption which was rampant.
You can see both reasons prevalent to-day everywhere in Pakistan.
Seperating the Mosque from the state will not solve anything if both the state and mosque are corrupt and dishonest- and they are.
The future is BLEAK. Get used to it.
@zia m
You have touched on a theme close to my heart. The question of Muslim decline is a profound one and faced with a dearth of quality research on this issue by scholars from the Muslim world, the committed student of history must find his own answer through reason and self-education.
Your question regarding Ghazali vs. Ibn Rushd and why the latter failed, is also my question. Short answer: Because in crisis, we Muslims look inward and try to paper over inconvenient truths. Logic and rationality in Islam only prevailed when Muslims were ascendant (learning Greek, philosophy, mathematics, experimenting with ilm-ul-kalam, taking risks etc during the Abbasid era). When faced with defeat and annihilation from without (Mongols), philosophers like Ghazali and company raised the drawbridge and destroyed the tradition of pure philosophy and free inquiry.
You really ought to read Toynbee’s Study of history. He describes a “creative minority” within a civilization that creates new solutions to emerging problems and results in the growth of the civilization:
When the creative minority gains power, it invariably attempts to perpetuate its dynastic, monarchic and class monopolies through incestuous corporatist alliances between different power brokers (think the Establishment of Pakistan asserting control over the intelligentsia through the Writers’ Guild, throttling of the Progressive Writers Movement, controlling the press and rewarding lifafa journalists.)
As the creative minority, which has now consolidated its power, faces external threat, it begins to see the original creative spirit as a dangerous and divisive factor that must be reined in. The creative minority now stops taking risks and becomes the dominant minority, the “elite”, the Establishment. Its only purpose, now, to hold on to power.
Coming back to your paradigm of Ghazali contra Ibn Rushd, the original creative minority became a dominant minority. The Arab intelligentsia of court poets, philosophers and scientists gave way to stern theologians of the type of Ibn Taimiyya who with cries of “Islam is in danger”, tried to remove dissent from Islam. Dissent which was creative, intelligent and original, eventually lost to a conformity which was regressive, oppressive and stymied creativity.
Toynbee again:
The interesting thing is this: Under British tutelage, a new and fresh creative minority did emerge: Sir Syed, Iqbal, Shibli, Jinnah etc. Aligarh University (referred to by someone above) was the bridal chamber where this embryonic renaissance was conceived.
I think our tragedy as Pakistani Muslims is that this creative minority almost immediately became a dominant minority, reactionary, repetitive in its celebration of defeat, unoriginal and stifling, when it faced the external threat of India and communism. We exchanged Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ghulam Abbas, Manto and Dr. Abdus Salam for the likes of Naseem Hijazi and Maududi who promised a national security state with an Islamic banner.
And as a result, we have the Taliban vampires to deal with. But who knows, perhaps the coming Taliban revolution (if not in the next 5, then perhaps 20 years) will create a new establishment, a new elite, with its own creative minority.
I can almost see new emerging strands of Taliban literary criticism in praise of romantic realism in the beheading videos. Perhaps the cyberTaliban here will be writing odes to throat cutting and paeans to Taliban creationism (Allah willed it!) in stark opposition to Darwin and his accursed minions
So, let’s just hope the Taliban are gentle to us heretics when they take over. Or at least use new sterilized blades every time they decapitate someone. Reusing old rusty swords is just unhygienic and could spread disease 
haha…
But joking aside, the only way for Pakistan out of this religion-infested morass, is to give birth to a new creative minority. A creative minority that is willing to engage with the wider world, to lean from it, to challenge the old ways of doing things (suicide bombing mosques? slitting throats?) and is willing to spread the light of reason and rationalism in the suffocating darkness of perverse faith (bombing girls schools or polio vaccination teams) and farcical religion (only black pagris). Is the New Media going to be the new creative minority? Will we defeat the Taliban militarily only to lose to their Sisters (wink wink) in the universities? It could go either way but a big change is certainly coming. Like Iqbal says:
برتر از اندیشہ سود و زیاں ہے زندگی
ہے کبھی جاں اور کبھی تسلیم جاں ہے زندگی
تو اسے پیمانہ امروز و فدرا سے نہ ناپ
جاوداں، پہم دواں، ہر دم جواں ہے زندگی
@Shimatoree,
Thanks for your comments.I agree the corruption in our society is rampant but makes me wonder,we share the same DNA with Indians and we claim to have the best religion, are even lagging the Indians.
@mbokhari,
Thanks for your very eloquent and thought provoking comments with a touch of sarcasm.
I will definitely try to read Toynbee’s History.
I think Mutazillite may be partially responsible for their own dismise,During the last days of Caliph Al-Mamun,he tried to enforce Mihna in order to control the religious clerics it back fired giving rise to more fundamentalism.I need to find out more about Mihna and its influence.
Similarly i think Kamal Ataturk went too far in imposing restrictions on religion,a simple separation of religion and the state with full religious freedom like in U.S should have been enough.
You should write articles for the print media,we need some analytical journalism.
@zia m:
Can you define “religion” for me? In the next step, define “state”, please. Thanks.
Gilani’s rebellion?
Says enough is enough; wants powerful parliament, active and effective cabinet; vows to take decisions on merit, not according to somebody’s wishes; says CoD to be implemented with PML-N’s help; rejects ban on SMS, e-mails
By Hamid Mir
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23354
fmk
not to waste time, these fellows will run to google and then get back to you with bunch on internet links
طلبہء علي گڑھ کالج کے نام
اوروں کا ہے پيام اور ، ميرا پيام اور ہے
عشق کے درد مند کا طرز کلام اور ہے
طائر زير دام کے نالے تو سن چکے ہو تم
يہ بھي سنو کہ نالہء طائر بام اور ہے
آتي تھي کوہ سے صدا راز حيات ہے سکوں
کہتا تھا مور ناتواں لطف خرام اور ہے
جذب حرم سے ہے فروغ انجمن حجاز کا
اس کا مقام اور ہے ، اس کا نظام اور ہے
موت ہے عيش جاوداں ، ذوق طلب اگر نہ ہو
گردش آدمي ہے اور ، گردش جام اور ہے
شمع سحر يہ کہہ گئي سوز ہے زندگي کا ساز
غم کدہء نمود ميں شرط دوام اور ہے
بادہ ہے نيم رس ابھي ، شوق ہے نارسا ابھي
رہنے دو خم کے سر پہ تم خشت کليسيا ابھي
ADDRESSED TO THE STUDENTS OF ALIGARH COLLEGE
Translation
The message of others is different, my message is different
The style of address of the one afflicted with Love is different
You have heard the laments of the bird under the net
Also listen to the laments of the bird on the roof tops which are different
Call was coming from the mount, “Life’s secret is peace”
The frail ant was saying “The pleasure of struggle is different”
The glory of Hijaz’ assemblage is based on £aram’s Love
The station of this is different, the system of that is different!
Eternal luxury is death if there is no Longing for Search
Man’s revolving is different, wine-cup’s revolving is different
The dawn’s candle left the message that burning is life’s secret
In the life’s sorrowful abode the condition for eternity is different
The wine is still half-mature, Love is unsuccessful still
Leave the church’s brick on the pitcher’s mouth still
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aligarh_University
آنکھ جو کچھ دیکھتی ہے لب پہ آ سکتا نہیں
محو حیرت ہوں کہ دنیا کیا سے کیا ہو جائے گی
شب گریزاں ہوگی آخر جلوہ خورشید سے
یہ چمن معمور ہو گا نغمہ توحید سے
(Iqbal, Baang-i-Daraa)
And as to choosing the “master”, or who to worship, here is what Iqbal thought then… though it applies today as good as then.
یہ بندگی خدائی ، وہ بندگی گدائی
یا بندہ خدا بن یا بندہ زمانہ
غافل نہ ہو خودی سے ، کر اپنی پاسبانی
شاید کسی حرم کا تو بھی ہے آستانہ
اے لا الہ کے وارث باقی نہیں ہے تجھ میں
گفتار دلبرانہ ، کردار قاہرانہ
تیری نگاہ سے دل سینوں میں کانپتے تھے
کھویا گیا ہے تیرا جذب قلندرانہ
(Iqbal, Baal-i-Jibreel)
And he was from the so-called creative minority, if that sounds better and you’d like to relate to your thoughts.
@fmk
Short answer that will save me the copy and paste
Iqbal was profoundly influenced by Western philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson and Goethe. If you do a search on them and read their philoshpies you will see a mirror reflection in Iqbals work. You will also see how he was the part of the creative minority.
See if you recognize any ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche
here is number two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson
here is number three
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe
Gilani and President Mardood on different paths
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23354
- Gilani says ‘enough is enough’ to President Mardood
- The nomination of a DMG officer, Jahanzeb Khan, as ambassador to France by the President House was a challenge to the authority of the prime minister. The prime minister rejected his nomination despite the fact that he had all the blessings of the President House.
- The prime minister has also finalised some surprising changes in the federal cabinet. He is determined to remove at least three close buddies of Zardari from some very important ministries
- 90 MNAs from the PPP had already assured their support to Gilani in any case. About 91 PML-N members, 54 PML-Q MNAs, 16 independents and 13 members of the ANP in the National Assembly would also go with Gilani, the sources said. Only 24 MNAs from the MQM, six from Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s, JUI-F and about 35 others, including some PPP ministers, are on the presidentís side.
- Despite all his presidential powers Zardari even cannot dare dissolve the National Assembly. According to Article 58(3), within 15 days of the dissolution, the president has to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, which would decide the issue in one month.
Seems like as the ‘great’ BB used to say ‘dhama dam mast qalandar’!!!…..for Zardaro
malek
but the report is from hamid mir who has shadowy back ground…
@lota:
What a way to describe… would we rely on historian’s account, wikipedia’s verdicts or should try to read the person ourselves? and as far the influenced by Nietzsche, or other westerner, Iqbal has it:
اگر ہوتا وہ مجذوب فرنگی اس زمانے میں
تو اقبال اس کو سمجھاتا مقام کبریا کیا ہے
and as for influence from other philosophers, and the beginning of life (creation vs evolution) let me quote him again from the same poem:
خرد مندوں سے کیا پوچھوں کہ میری ابتدا کیا ہے
کہ میں اس فکر میں رہتا ہوں میری انتہاء کیا ہے
Iqbal was influenced by Molana Rumi as well.. and the pieces of writing he had in Zarb-i-Kaleem, Israr-i-Khudi, and Ramoozi-i-bekhudi clash with the western ideology in every line of it. There are many examples in Baal-i-Jibreel though it is much more diverse in terms of topics he addresses. You may want to read “Iblees ki Majlis-i-Shoora” for starters.
All Evolution theories Presenter specially those who did not quote holy Quran & Ahadees i.e. Jali Suqrat Buqrat:
Kindly Watch ——- Harkat Mein Barkat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/07/090720_peshawar_attack.shtml
@lota
what was this as an argument about Iqbal? did not expect such a lame response.
@fmk
so Iqbal was a great philosopher of Islamic world. but what do we have common with him??? how did he touch our lives? We muslims are waiting for a saviour and thats all our generations to come are going to do. Wait and do nothing. or may be we can fight with each other and self destruct.
@Shimatoree
@fmk
Well said about dishonesty. Talkabout intellectual dishonesty and there are examples of it right here right in this thread. Not only dihonesty but also intellectual selectivity.If Mr Lota quotes Iqbal and his message to the Aligarrh students. H e also demonstrates his lingusitic skills by translating it into English for the benifits of those on the forum, who can not understand Urdu but can understand English, wonder who that might be.
But when someone else points to Iqbal’s message about Tauheed, suddenly this selective intellectual remembers who Iqbal was under the influence of. Instead of addressing the thought put Fwd by @fmk and Iqbals’not very hidden mesage about religion ( dont read Mulla) his use of religion and faith as source of motivation and his ideas about Frangi Tahzeeb Mr Lota convenientrly dodges the idea and now suddenly posts three links,linking Iqbal to thinkers from the West.Whihc in simple words mean, nothing good about religion , nothing good baout people who think good of Islam, even if he is Iqbal and if if Iqbalis quoted by the great selective intellectual himself. I pointed out this before, when the selective intellectuals dont have an argument they jump to start discussing the source and the personalities behind and idea in an attempt to muddy the waters, to make the idea look insignificant or wrong. I read Iblis KI Majlise Shura first time when I was 12, obviously couldnt understand it, reading it again felt as if it was written with certain individuals on this forum in mind. especially the last bit , creating confusion about religion , Allah, Ilheyat , and hiding the true message of Islam, all in the name of being modern , intellectual, being the ones who are not ‘ sheep’.
ہے یہی بہتر کے الہیات میں الجھا رہے
یہ کتاب للہ کی تاویلات میں الجھا رہے
توڑ ڈالیں جس کی تکبیریں طلسم شش جہات
ہو نہ روشن اس خدا اندیش کی تاریک رات
Very unfortunate but it’s an open secret now
Kasab has admitted his Crime
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/india/2009/07/090720_kasab_confess_np.shtml
@ Najam Syed, Music,Art,Poetry and Philosophy are all good,they enrich our souls.We should encourage them.Fundamentalists would like to destry them all .Ban the music, kill the artists,slay the poets and philospers are incoherent declared Al-Ghazali.Take an honest look at our own history.
Science and Technology helps improve human life,finds cures for diseases,builds hospitals.
Makes our life comfortable by building trains,automobiles and air planes.Helps us communicate with each other, invents internet.Lets us continue our rant
Free thought has given us all we have of value.It has been the great constructive force.It is the only discoverer….science is its child.
Faith gives us myths it blunts reason.
Looks like Nov 3rd steps is going to be declared Illegal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/07/090720_cj_nov3_remarks_rr.shtml
@bhola
Right. This “selective reading or observation” is a problem that generally comes from temptations, prejudices or fears which are deep-seated in our hearts. For example, when it comes to the theory of evolution, people are willing to believe in it even if (i) there are many unexplained happenings, unsolved puzzles about it; and (ii) even that the argument/evidence are not fool-proof — for example, the technology of finding out the age of something such as a tooth/bones etc, or the images or the fabrications by the researcher about the locations of some materials collected around. The counter-examples are ignored under the spell of the “readiness to believe”. On the other hand, when it comes to the existence of God, those who do not want to believe do not feel satisfied even if there is not a single counter-argument. (And even if a complete plausible set of arguments can be given which do not lead to a proof, but the arguments can not be refuted either.) So for the first example, when they want to believe, the other side of the story does not matter to them, and in the case of existence of God, the reasoning direction is reversed. “Oh it cannot be proved, either way so I am choosing…whatever my heart feels like”. Aahaa.. but wait a minute, did not we say we are going “to reason” not to follow the heart.
2) The divide between religion and state which some guys are arguing here, please define religion and state for yourself (on two separate sheets of paper) and then see if you can avoid overlap between the two! Or you’ll hit a clash right away.
3) The problem with most of the educated people like us (including myself) is that we do not want to change. We do a debate or discussion which leads to a greater satisfaction of the ego but no change. Are we ready to change our views, mindsets, and come out of our shells and see some light that the other person might be showing?
4) Most of us only read the information, do not acquire knowledge — google, wiki, tv and newspaper reports, fiction writers, books or at most research papers. It takes a while to digest it, question it and translate to something of our own. Here is a quick proof for some people at this forum: We claim that we are rational, follow reason. OK, now any rational being who ponders upon the world, nature or his/her own physical, emotional self should be humbled down, at the very least. Humility should have been the first outcome of rationality. But look at the arrogance here. People are arrogant at as petty things as about the few definitions they know, such as time, space etc., and remark at the other person’s ignorance, even if that is not the case. So much for the rationality claims being made here!
5) A rational person would be the most humble one. He will not let his “desires” come in the way. And he would know that not believing in any religion is also a religion: after all, you have some beliefs, some code, some rules to play the game. He would subtract his desire and arrogance and would be rather a seeker of the truth. As a first step, he would pray to be able to find the truth. (We also call it hidayah, and Allah says He gives it to those who ask for it.)
and as far Iqbal’s view about the western philosophy, here goes another one.
خیرہ نہ کر سکا مجھے جلوہ دانش فرنگ
سرمہ ہے میری آنکھ کا خاک مدینہ و نجف !
So, either he does not fit well in some people’s set of creative minority… or he does, and people need to pay more attention because Iqbal’s belief system is at odds with what these people seem to appreciate.
Evolution pur Buqratiat yeh Tumhari
Kiya Dhari Raih Gaee Saree kee Saree
Punga Lia Tou Aab Moonh Kiyoun Bund mbokhari
Evaluation Kee Yeh Devaluation Aab Yeh Hasiat Tumhari
Zehni o Jismani Asoodgi kay Wastay – West Kee Yeh Ayari
West Nay Hum Jins Purasti Ko Apna kiya Kharidi Beemari
Maghribi Media saay Issqadar Yaari — Lagtaay Hoo ANARI.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/world/2009/07/090720_african_gay_hiv_rr.shtml
Admin: The Typographic Mistake/Missing:
West Nay Hum Jins Purasti Ko Apna =Kur= kiya Kharidi Beemari
West Kee Adat Apnay Ko Muatbir Bana Kur Doosray Kaay Gunhahoun ko Hai Ginwata –
Laikin Yaad Rakhna Kisy Muslim/Pakistani ka Dassa Hoa Panni Nahee Mangtaa –
Jou Dhoond kur Links Sirf America Aur Europe Kaay Statistics Nikal kur Tumhari Ankhoun Kee Thandak Kay Wastay hai Laata aur Lukht LANAT hai Barsata.
http://www.google.com.pk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=In+America+%26+Europe+HIV+Statistics&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
I am glad this board with its limited knowldge and philosophical skills talking about existance of God.
When touching such a deep subject one should not focus on tedious tiny details like false ahadith etc etc to find a fault in a religion strongly advocating existance of God just to prove theres no God or at least Islamic God(Allah)…BTW when theres no Islami God then theres no God at all.
Our own existance would be non existant if there were no ABSOLUTE REALITY(ALLAH).
I am sure our non bhola lota would be wise and intelligent enough to know that he is living a real life in real world…its not a dream or nightmare…if theres no God then no lota and no bhola and off course no real A$$ biting mbokhari.
If this reality is limited to this life we are living now then be assured this is borrowed reality from absolute source…still its hard to deny absolute source.
Once absolute reality is understood……. its hard to deny Islamic God(Allah).
@fmk
If you ask a ‘modern intelligent’ teenager the reasons for our decline he may be able to give you quite a few reasonable answers, with recommendations for improvement. The only problem is, it’s hard to implement the recommendations because it involves sacrifices, struggle and commitment on personal and community levels, something we are not ready to do. So why not go for the easy option, let’s blame, blames him, blame her, and the easiest one is, especially if you are living in West, blame Islam. Call our decline the decline of Muslim society, lets call for the separation of Mosque and the State even if you don’t have any idea how it would improve the society, even though religion hardly plays any role in our day-to-day life as a society.
Decline of a society is due to dishonesty, ignorance, lack of education, selfishness, greed, lack of collective aims and objectives, blah, blah, blah, all the bad things we were taught, surprisingly none of these is a religious attribute. Still blame the religion. And if have to name the elements that make a great developing or developed society we know it all again and for God sake, I never understand which of these great qualities is banned by Islam or by any other religion, but lets still blame the religion and conservative Mullahs, though in our personal lives we don’t give a rat’s a$$ to what Mullahs says. We all know it all to well when it comes to personal gains, professions, education but we are not ready to extend it to the wider society, we don’t see it as a responsibility. We are simply not ready to jump out of the blogs, and offices and hospitals and banks to do the right thing for the society, but lets nit forget to blame something or someone.
If we were a bunch of practicing Muslims, lagging behind the whole world of course we could have got rid of the religion and we would be landing on the moon ahead of Americans. But we are not. Even the practicing Muslims are practicing the Ibadaat and not the Muamalat , religion is missing from lives but ironically we are blaming something for our decline which simply doesn’t play a role in our dealings , in our lives.
To those who are insisting on separation of religion and the State, tell me how will that put everything right? If we do do it, how will the society become an honest, hard working, knowledge seeking developed society. Are we saying that the source of all evils or most evils is that religion is interfering in matters of state? But it is not. Where is religion in running of our state and personal matters? . Isn’t it wrong to blame something, which isn’t there in the first place?
Iqbal was profoundly influenced by Western philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson and Goethe. He used their ideas and gave their opinion an Islamic remix according to the needs of the Muslims of the time. This is a fact established if you care to take the time to investigate this statement. Every idea that iqbal has given to the Muslims about morality, appeals for greater individualism and personality development, master morality, slave morality, the rejection of materialism in the west, concept of khudi, ego, the super human being, etc came from the ideas of western philosophy of his time and he transformed western ideas to suit the needs of Muslims of his times as he saw fit. His style that he would take an important historical event or person and then make his point talking to them was borrowed. Shikwa and Jiwab Shikwa were not original works but inspired translation of German poems. As for iqbal being inspired from rumi Goethe was also inspired by rumi. . Nietzsche was influential that the people who took inspiration from his teaching were Americans presidents, British prime misters, German right, German Nazis, German army soldiers and the Zionists who created Israel, iqbal who gave the idea of Pakistan and than his ideas influenced by Nietzsche also laid the foundation of Islamic theocracy in Iran. Maybe all this information is new to you and hence the shock. I suggest you get out of your shock and read the ideas of these three philosophers and see if everything in the work of iqbal is not deeply influenced by them. When Iqbal was studying philosophy in Germany what did you think he studied there? Iqbals rejection of the west and western ideas was also a borrowed theme. Also if you think that the concept of tauheed as we know today is also an Islamic concept which is not borrowed from the west than you need to do a little more reading.
@lota:
What you are doing to Iqbal is not an uncommon behavior. None of the statements you made are coming as a shock for me. Why would they, I have listened to these things for many years now. And for that matter, I am not even shocked at someone making an opinion only based on other people’s opinions. And not even having read the complete works by Iqbal. I am sure you would not make such an error if you had read any of his persian work in complete. Can you care to ponder over the following and tell me where Iqbal was borrowing all the thoughts?
Gar dilam aaina-i-be-johar as’t,
warba harfam gher-i-Qura’n muzmar as’t,
parda-i-namoos-i-fikram chaak kun,
een khyabaaN ra z’khaaram paak kun,
roz-i-mehshar khwar-o-ruswa kun mara,
be-naseeb az bosa-i-paa kun mara!!
Translation:
[If my heart's mirror is devoid of any inspiration/pearl/jewl (or my heart has gone barren);
and if my words/thoughts have anything else other than Qura'n;
Tear apart/disintegrate the very sanctity/honor of my thought;
And get rid of this thorn (of me) from this garden (of the world);
Humiliate me badly on the day of judgment;
And deprive me of the kiss of (the prophet's) foot ---- or keep me away from the prophet, let me have no association to him or pay any respects.]
And as for the idea of Khudi, there is an ayah in Quran (Surah Hashr, 6th from the last) that urges the concept too. Iqbal is quoted to have pointed to this aayah to some of his friends who questioned about it.
On the whole, what you wrote about him of being influenced by other philosophers and westerners needs to be qualified: there is no room for sweeping statements. Of course, he lived in a real world, interacted with people all over the places and also evolved himself. (He used to be a nationalist in the beginning, with his nationalism limited to Hind, but then he changed and became anti-nationalist; Rather went too far to describe the idea of nation based on ideology of Islam.) He was impressed by many names you quoted, but that did not mean to conclude what your sources are ending up with. (I could draw on further to his lectures on Reconstruction of religious thought but that will make it unnecessarily lengthy here. But please read a few pages from the chapter “concept of God”, and then “the human ego” and you will find his criticism on Greek philosophers, Kant and other those of the modern day… while he appreciates the role of the sufi thinkers.)
I intend no more to write on Iqbal. He was just a human being and I do not intend to defend him or project him. He was what he was, but your attempts to paint him all blue are not just. Others who tried to make him sit in the camp of wild idle thinking are also a bit depressed, I guess, as the message of Quran, Tawheed, Jihaad, Imaan, and Islam is well deep-rooted in Iqbal’s work. I totally agree with you that Iqbal took a look at the problems of the muslims and narrated to them his solution ideas. And to some extent, the ideas are fairly the same when it comes to any nation who is enslaved, is getting a good beating from all over and has lost all of its confidence, and even the connection to its roots. So you can see commonality, influences but that is not all the story. What’s important to keep in mind is the differences too, not only the similarities. I surely have given you at least a handful of examples above, can send more, but let me finish by a quick couple of my mind.
1.
الله کو ہے پا مرد ئی مومن پہ بھروسہ
ابلیس کو یورپ کی مشینون کا سہارا
2.
تو غنی از ہر دو عالم من فقیر
روز محشر عزر ہاےمن پذیر
گر حسابہم را وہ بینی نا گزیر
از نگاہ مصطفیٰ پنہاں بگیر
@Najam Syed:
Iqbal gives hope, urges for action and character building by connecting the Muslim to his roots, to its sources of knowledge. That is how he touches our lives. You are right that we are not doing any thing, the muslims are in an abysmal condition. But there is no short cut, the diagnosis is the same, which in Iqbal’s words is the distance from action, poor character, no connection and understanding of the book/message this nation was blessed with.
(Iqbal wrote “iblees ke majlis-i-shoora”, and in the end Iblees sends out his final word to his workers/advisors as a recipe to keep the muslim failing and says:)
تم اسے بیگانہ رکھو عالم کردار سے
تا بساط زندگی میں اس کے سب مہرے ہوں مات
خیر اسی میں ہے قیامت تک رہے مومن غلام
چھوڑ کر اوروں کی خاطر یہ جہاں شش جہات
The problems are the same which “bhola” wrote above also. We simply do not work (are lazy), do not speak the truth, are not honest, do not value justice, do not care about our honor, and are willing to be enslaved by anyone, bow to the mighty and do not gain our strength.
iqbal and goethe
http://ourbeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/admin2/2007/08/iqbal-and-goethe-by-abhatti.pdf
@lota6177
Iqbal’s Asrar-e-Khudi (1915) was translated from Persian into English (“The Secrets of the Self”), in 1920, by R. A. Nicholson, an Englishmen that resulted in criticism of Iqbal concept and his ideas being the revamped, islamicized ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. He , then wrote to A.R.Nicholson a detailed letter defending his work. I dont know if you have read ‘Thoughts and Reflections of Iqbal’ (edited by Syed Abdul Vahid), his entire letter in is it.
Iqbal wrote about the doctrine of Insan -e- Kamil ( perfect man) in and about 1899-1900 and it was long before he had ever read any thing that Friedrich Nietzsche had published. Infact he was not even familiar with the German language.
As put by Dr. Zafar M. Iqbal
” He wrote his PhD dissertation on “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia” (University of Munich, 1908). During the course of his doctoral studies, he became much familiar with Persian/Eastern mysticism. His ideas on khudi and insaan-e-kamil were further developed in the following seven years,before he wrote Asrar-e-Khudi (1915) in Persian .Criticism on Iqbal was perhaps made without understanding the depth of Iqbal’s extensive background in Persian metaphysics, the source of his concept of ‘khudi’ and insaan-e-kamil.”
This was endorsed by Iqbal when he wrote to R.A Nicholson
”
“I wrote on the Sufi doctrine of the Perfect Man (Insaan-e-Kamil) more than twenty years ago, long before I had read or heard anything of Nietzsche. This was then published in the Indian Antiquary of Bombay, and later in 1908 formed part of my Persian Metaphysics [topic of his PhD thesis from University of Munich, 1908].
”
Here i would again like to quote Dr Zafar M Iqbal as his understanding no doubt is better then mine
”
ii) Iqbal “deliberately’ tried to present his views in Asrar, in light of Western thinkers-philosophers. That, he said, was to “facilitate” the Western understanding, without imposing the old Sufis and their philosophy — something which, he could have easily done, scholarly steeped as he already was in that culture. He could have referred particularly to Al-Jili’s idea of ‘Perfect Man’ and the Pantheism of Ibn Arabi and Iraqi, and other Sufi bases for his thoughts. This, he said he had done “in my Hindustani introduction to the first edition of the Asrar.”
Iqbal mentioned that little history could have put Western criticism in better perspective. Iqbal had read Al-Jili, an Islamic mystic (born 1365 – died 1403) – 5 centuries before Nietzsche. Al-Jili was famous for his doctrine “Al-Insān al-kāmil fi maʿrifat al-awākhir wa al-awā ʿil” aboutthe Perfect Man, a doctrine influenced by the pantheist Spanish mystic, Ibn al-Arabi (died 1240), about a century-and-a-half before Al-Jili himself.
Al-Jili believed that the perfect man can unite with the Divine Being. This unity can be achieved through the prophets, from Adam to Moḥammad, and by others who reach the highest level of Being ( wujūd) or the elite among elites, a level at which all conflicts and contradictions among men are resolved. This Perfect Man doctrine later devolved into a belief that all mystics and holy-men can achieve Divine contact. Even centuries later, such concepts were still novel to Western culture.
In his letter, Iqbal emphasized this to Nicholson: “I claim that the philosophy of the Asrar is a direct development out of the experience and speculation of old Muslim Sufis and thinkers. Even [Henri-Louis] Bergson’s idea of time is not quite foreign to our Sufis.” [Bergson (1859-1941), an anti-rationalist French philosopher and the 1927 Nobel Laureate in Literature, had some influence on Iqbal, but Iqbal did also criticize him later. Bergson believed that the intuition is deeper than the intellect.] Iqbal also saw similarities in Ubermensch and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Over-Soul,” an essay Emerson had written in 1841, before Nietzsche’s birth (1844), an essay that also had influenced Nietzsche.
(iii) To a critic in Athenaeum and a reviewer named ‘ Dickinson’, Iqbal offered factual corrections and detailed defense of his philosophical position in Asrar, including references to other philosophers. For instance, Samuel Alexander, a British contemporary whose view, “If we could know what Deity is, how it feels to be Divine, we should have to become as Gods” was “much bolder than [Iqbal's]“). In Prof. J. S. Mackenzie’s Introduction to “Social Philosophy” he says, “There can be no ideal society without ideal men….We need prophets as well as teachers, men like Carlyle or Ruskin or Tolstoy …Perhaps we want a new Christ….” Iqbal added that “It is in the light of the above thoughts that I [Iqbal] want the British public to read my description of the ideal man.”
(iv) On Nietzsche, Iqbal elaborated that “reality is a collection of individualities tending to become a harmonious whole through conflict which must inevitably lead to mutual adjustment. This conflict is a necessity in the interests of the evolution of higher forms of life, and of personal immortality. Nietzsche did not believe in personal immortality….. My [Iqbal's] interest in conflict is mainly ethical …whereas Nietzsche’s was probably only political.” He then sharpened the difference: “Nietzsche does not at all believe in the spiritual fact which I have described as ‘Khudi’, and that “[a]ccording to Nietzsche, the “I” is a fiction.
(v) The three-phase metamorphosis that leads to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch: Camel (a symbol of load-bearing strength); then Lion (strength to kill without pity; pity being a vice to Nietzsche) and finally Child (being a law unto himself, having gone through good and evil). In this, Nietzsche’s materialism is diametrically opposed to Iqbal’s Asrar-e-khudi. Comparing the two, Iqbal said: To Nietzsche, Life is repetition, and to Asrar, creation; “To Nietzsche, there is no such thing as the eternal now”; Ubermensch is “a biological product”; Insaan-e-Kamil, on the other hand, “is the product of moral and spiritual forces.”
”
Hopefully this would help/
@fmk
Iqbal did come under the influence of Sir Thomas Arnold in Govt College Lahore who exposed him to western philosophy and recommended to him to go abroad to complete his studies in philosophy. Iqbal got his doctorate in Philosophy in Munich University in 1908. I am sure you don’t believe all he studied in Munich University to earn his doctorate in was the Quran, rumi and mirza ghalib which made him come up with his concepts of khudi, ego, jihad and imman. The philosophers I have listed also criticize the same Greek philosophers that iqbal does and were against the western materialism. When you read Nietzsche it is like reading iqbal and the similarities are un deniable. For a man who earned his knighthood by writing a poem on the death of Queen Victoria in 1922 to label him as he had no western influence is ignoring a big part of who he was.
@geelemitti
I am sure you are aware of the implications if it was admitted in Iran and Pakistan that Iqbal was influenced by Nietzsche. There has been an attempt on governmental levels by Pakistan and Iran to reward any academic that shows a divide between Iqbal and Nietzsche. German scholar Annemarie Schimmel was honored by government of Pakistan with one of its highest civil awards of known as Hilal-e-Imtiaz or ‘Crescent of Excellence’ in gratitude of the same services. I have not read the book by Dr zafar m iqbal but I will gladly read it to try to understand the point you are making. I agree that iqbal and Nietzsche are not the same on few issues but there are still very big similarities which I find it very hard to be a coincidence. Nietzsche who was an influential German philosopher who at the time when iqbal was in Germany only influenced citizens of Germany, Nazis, German soldiers in trenches during world war 2, Hitler, American president Roosevelt and Carter, Zionist who created Israel etc but Iqbal who was in Germany for his doctorate never heard of him and was never influenced by him. I find this claim to be totally believable.
@lota
Problem with you is that you have no moral courage to acknowledge when you are not right, or when the other person is right. That is a state of denial or arrogance (that I cannot be wrong, that I do not need to pay attention to other person’s argument, that no matter what I have to defend what I said). What “geelimitti” wrote about the differences between Iqbal and others (specifically Nietzsche), explanations, communication, you just ignored it all. They came from different sources and different writers, but you did not care to take each piece on its merit and rather brought your one-stroke negativity that “there has been an attempt at the government levels by Pakistan and Iran to reward…” and cover every thing geelimitte wrote and every one of the sources under this cloak. You did not try to acknowledge even a single verse that I quoted from Iqbal, neither did you explain how one can ignore it completely when Iqbal claims his thought to have been derived from Quran. So you want to respect him but still consider he was lying when he wrote this?!
The stance in your writing hovered between two points: a) Iqbal copied other philosophers, was not original and in fact is guilty of plagiarism, (b) it is not possible that Iqbal never heard of Nietzsche or was never influenced by him. These are almost two extremes and you just keep pushing around between. Who said that there is no impression from one’s peers, teachers, or contemporaries? I wrote to the same effect, gave other examples, and geelimitti wrote a lot many other sources of inspiration. But the point as that Iqbal was a keen reader of the Quran and condensed a lot out of its verses, and his message to the muslims is far far more than influence of Nietzsche, if at all. He clearly disagreed with Nietzsche at certain points. And what he had done by the time of his death is a lot more.
Take it easy, if you had written Iqbal in your camp’s side, you can consider excluding him. Because he was a believer:
خودی کا سر نہاں لا الہٰ الا الله
خودی ہے تیغ فساں لا الہٰ الا الله
کی محمّد سے وفا تو نے تو ہم تیرے ہیں
یہ جہاں چیز ہے کیا لوح و قلم تیرے ہیں
@fmk
For all of you who deny that Iqbal wasnt influenced by western philosphy please read these quotes from iqbals mouth and check the link i posted above iqbal and Goethe.
I confess I owe a great deal to Hegel, Goethe, Mirza Ghalib, Mirza Abdul Qadir Be-dil and Wordsworth. The first two led me into the “inside” of things; the third and fourth taught me how to remain oriental in spirit and expression after having assimi-lated foreign ideals of poetry, and the last saved me from atheism in my student days.”(SR 61)
“Our soul discovers itself when we come into contact with a great mind. It is not until I had realized the infinitude of Goethe’s imagination that I discovered the narrow breadth of my own.” (SR 25)
Further, it is from Goethe “alone” that we get a “real insight into human na-ture”. (SR 120) In contrast to Shakespeare who as a “realist Englishman re-thinks the individual”, Goethe as “the idealist German “rethinks the universal”. Indeed “Faust is a seeming individual only. In reality, he is humanity individualized.” (SR 122)
“No nation was so fortunate as the Germans. They gave birth to Heine at the time when Goethe was in full-throated ease. Two uninterrupted Springs!”(SR 126)
Iqbal’s strategic use of Goethe in his texts is often surprising because the text could very easily proceed without the authority of a quotation. Consider for instance Iqbal’s lecture on “The Revelations of Religious Experience.” Iqbal speaks of the Creative Self to whom change cannot mean imperfection. Perfection “consists in the vaster basis of His creative activity and the infinite scope of His creative vision. God’s life is self-revelation, not the pursuit of an ideal to be reached. The ‘not yet’ of God means unfailing realization of the infinite creative possibilities of His being which retains its wholeness throughout the entire process.”
And then he quotes Goethe:
“In the endless self-repeating
For evermore flows the Same.
Myriad arches springing, meeting,
Hold at rest the mighty frame.
Streams from all things love of living,
Grandes star and humblest cold,
9 All the straining, all the striving
Is eternal peace in God.” 10
In his foreword to Payam-i-Mashriq Iqbal simply states that his work “owes its inspiration” to Goethe’s West-östlicher Divan. Goethe is the German “Philosopher of Life” who in the words of Heine, the “Israelite” poet of Germany says:
“This is a bouquet presented by the West to the East as a token of high regard. The Diwan bears testimony to the fact that the West, being dissatisfied with its own spiri-tual life, is turning to the bosom of the East in spiritual warmth.”18
But, we must hasten to add, the constellation Iqbal-Goethe does not imply a permanent symmetry of expression and attitude. In many ways Iqbal’s positions on various matters differ greatly from Goethe. For instance many of Iqbal’s Indian middle class puritan views, for instance on arts and amusements or women, would hardly be compatible with Goethe’s writings and portrayal of women figures. Important though the remarks and quotations, which link the two writers, may be, it is in Iqbal’s poetry that the significance of Goethe becomes evident. Consider Iqbal’s early lyrical poem “Ek Shaam” (An Evening) which is one of the creative products of his stay in Germany. Here the echo of Goethe’s Wanderers Nachtlied is clear. Annemarie Schimmel’s German translation emphasizes this aesthetic similarity in the disposition of the two poems in the evocation of stillness, rest and peace.
@fmk
care to elaborate on why Iqbal’s philosphy and his conduct in pesonal life did not match what he preached? Can you explain the “khulla Tizad” of Iqbal since you are making him Huzrat Iqbal rihmutullah?
like i said not to waste time with dr google and copy paste artist
he just copies without giving credit to source which is considered cheating
i also had many arguments with lota, bebus, zia etc but these people are not serious in any matter rather they just jump from here and there
@janujermankhan
he just copies without giving credit to source which is considered cheating.
source was 6 posts up and posted again one more time since you dont have the ability to follow directions and limited intellegence.
P.S if you have anomore fake hadiats, i am all ears.
http://ourbeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/admin2/2007/08/iqbal-and-goethe-by-abhatti.pdf
@janujermankhan
source is 6 posts up.
@lota
Basically you are still not reading anything written above, not focusing on what the point of discussion was, and just repeating “those who deny western influence”. Going over the previous posts would suffice to see what the basic point of discussion was. There is nothing new to add.
And regarding the second point you raise:
(a) now you are setting off from the discussion point where you initially were insisting that Iqbal borrowed it all or your other versions of it, and now saying that he preached something but did not practice it. At least you find something that he preached, that probably the westerners did not do, and
(b) now your creative minority gets a label of “khulla tazad” or hypocrisy! Wasn’t that too fast a jump?
I don’t know how you assumed I could carry on and on (even after my previous comments) to new topics, and give explanations to you for every idea in the world. And also, is not it amazing that, suddenly, the “champions” of freedom, personal life, separation between religion and state start judging people from centuries ago! As if the humans are like static pieces of stone which do not change with time. As if humans are just perfect about everything they say and act. Who is infallible in this life?
But then again, you are proving others right yet again by searching for a few negative points in someone’s life while ignoring the tons of good in them.
@janu jerman khan
Right, your point is proven here again.
@fmk
this discussion is about being a member of creative minority. I don’t think you have any understanding of the term or what it is about. I suggest you go up and read the post about creative minority and clear your confusion.
@lota
You are right in saying Iqbal was influenced by western philosophy but Rumi influenced him more than anybody.Iqbal’s Perfect Man is much different than Nietzche’s Super Man.Iqbal’s religious beliefs were closer to Sufism,which is hated by JI,Taliban and Deobandis.
It does not matter which camp we put him in.He was a great poet,philosopher and a thinker.
I wish we had more Iqbals in our society.
He made a very wise decision in persuading Jinnah to lead the Muslims of subcontinent.Talking about Khilafat movement Jinnah told him to forget this frenzy.
@lota6177
I have never mentioned that Iqbal never heard of Nietzsche, Iqbal must have heard of him. What i said was that Nietzsche influence on his philisophical thought process is negligible. Nietzsche did not influence him to the extant that you could attribute the developlment of Iqbal’s Asrar-e-khudi as a pliagrism by Iqbal of his ideas.
I would not resort to “argumentum ad hominem ” but i would say that it feels like that you are only taking in to consideration the possibility of western influence while completely ignoring the eastern counterpart. You did not account for the fact that Iqbal was far more knowledgeable eastern philosophical thought then the western, so much so that he choose as his PhD thesis the ““The Development of Metaphysics in Persia”. I dont want to repeat myself as my previous post clearly states that his ideologies were far more influenced by the eastern thought then the western.
As i mentioned in my previous post, the similarities between Iqbal’s ” Insan -e- Kamil ” and Nietzsche’s “Übermensch ” are only superficial, in essence they are different al-togather (Übermensch a biological product and Insan -e- Kamil a spirutal) which points more towards the possibility that his thought was influenced by Islamic ( Arabic/Persian) philosophy then the western one.
I must also mention that such influences in philosopy like what Persion philosophical thought had on Iqbal are nothing new .Nietzsche himself was influenced by Ralph Waldo Emerson’.Influence on Nietzsche’s Ubermensch particularly by Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Over-Soul,” for instance, has been well known in literary circles. In Nietzsche himself, footprints of other older philosophers like Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic, Schopenhauer and Wagner are easy to see. In a 1992 book on the “Elective Affinity” between Emerson and Nietzsche, George Stack argues that the “ideas and theories regarded by many as Nietzsche’s original contribution to Western philosophy can actually be traced back to the ideas and theories of Emerson,” which “influenced the development of Nietzsche’s central ideas.”
i am afraid geelemitti can not be responded with google/wiki links… some genuine work is needed to refute geelemitti’s solid understanding of not only Iqbal but also western philosophers.
@ziam
@geelemitti
The question asked was if iqbal is a part of a creative minority
The defination of a creative minority as per post by mbokhari was
He describes a “creative minority” within a civilization that creates new solutions to emerging problems and results in the growth of the civilization:
…civilizations owe their growth to the withdrawal and return of a minority—the Creative Minority which withdraws in order to find a response to some challenge that is confronting the whole society, and then returns in order to persuade an uncreative majority to follow it along the path which it has opened up
In that sense iqbal, sir syed and jinnah were the creative majority.
creative minority typo
that is called changing the subject but also with a copy/paste
@lota
No, again messing up with the point of arguments going on over the whole day. It started from your post of “20 July 2009 at 7:28 am” where you assert the western/Nietzsche influence on Iqbal (that you thought was a short reply to my post containing verses from Iqbal, concatenating right after you wrote his poem) . The rest has been all about this.
(And for your term creative minority, I am aware of that; but it is still a term, and I have been using it both ways in the posts above to hit the divide you are caught in.)
@lota
You are right Iqbal sure was among the creative minority during struggle for a separate state for Pakistan.Most of the mullahs were against the idea.
zia m
you missed the subject of the discussion, perhaps you just wanted to pat on the back of your atheist friend
@janujermankhan
Shame on you! Can you point out where i claimed to be an atheist?
@zia m
No zia, according to lota, Iqbal basically plagiarized/copied/borrowed from the western philosophers —- see so many links above in his posts; and that we do not see or get to read because Pakistan and Iran have arranged it the highest level of governments to reward anyone who writes to nullify this impression (example authors in the above posts); and that Iqbal basically was a hypocrite, his personal life did not match what he preached!
So how can such a character be anywhere close to the camp of creative minority? see these are basic ethics which any morally upright person need to maintain. Lota thinks Iqbal failed in them, so either Iqbal must not qualify for this camp or lota is wrong. Please choose only one.
@zia m
According to stupid taliban, all those who do not support the ideolgy of killer taliban, are atheist. Shame on blood thirsty beasts i.e. dirty taliban, because they are the most hated group of people in whole of the universe. Their final destination is Jahannam.
zia m
Can you point out where I claimed you to be one? I referred to lota who himself has declared…
@fmk
I have the utmost respect for Iqbal,without his wisdom Pakistan could never have come into being.If for a greater cause he was able to follow Jinnah.I’m sure we all can get along.
bhola said: …………………………………………To those who are insisting on separation of religion and the State, tell me how will that put everything right? If we do do it, how will the society become an honest, hard working, knowledge seeking developed society………………………………..
=====xxxxxxxxxx========
Ooooiiieeeee Maa —– Itni Bari Bari – Achi o Maqoliat pur Mabni Batien Koun Sikhla Raha Hai – Bholay?
again “sheeda is my best friend”… lol
@janujermankhan
just wondering, you have any new hadiats from hazrat ali?
lota
and i am wondering if you have any new links from wiki
A person who can’t even put a sentence correct, how can he articulate a paragraph or an essay?
Any line that comes out of yourself requires another line of correction. Hint -look for a mistake in your above post-
@janujerman khan
When you are debating about religion everything comes from some book that should be referenced otherwise you end up giving out information that is fake or invented. I am sure you have a little idea what I am talking about my creative pumpkin.
lota
grammatic mistakes tell me that his sentence was written by you
so it must be tough living in toilet, keep up the good work
instead of wasting your time here and there try answering fmk’s last post or else admit your contradictions
@janujerman khan
My life was much easier when you and your loved ones were using rocks in the field while handling your business. I miss the good old days.
lota
indeed your “good work” in toilet is appreciated by millions of people daily!
looking forward to your response on fmk’s post
@fmk
Are you denying the western influence on the thoughts of iqbal? Iqbal in his owns words answered your questions. What is the divide I am caught in? I wasn’t aware of being caught in any divides. Enlighten me.
Dear lota I think fmk has got your number
and this time really.
I wish you were not speaking more than you are capable of.
wah ji wah
what a charming discussion. Typical ‘Lotaistic’, selective intellectual behavior at its best, dodging and perhaps not even reading ideas put fwd by others, and then throwing a few more thick words to deviate and confuse others. The crisis is so serious that it has involved a couple of countries and their governments , not one or two but all the governments of Pakistan and Iran. The conspiracy theory to protect Iqbal from West seems greater than the conspiracy theory of moon landing. What a wonderful example of how NOT to answer the questions put fwd, how not to address the idea but address the issues of AASAY PAASAY, and then discuss the people behind the ideas and if thats not working maybe drag their neighbors in and a few more thick words yet again.
ڈاکٹر ظفر اقبال کیا چیز ہیں، خود ڈاکٹر علامہ اقبال بھی ہوتے تو ان کو بھی لگ پتا جانا تھا خود اپنے افکار کی وضاحت کرتے کرتے لیکن ہم تو پھر بھی نا مانتے کیوں کہ ہمارے مرغے ایک ہی ٹانگ کے ساتھ پیدا ہوتے ہیں
Reading does not always bring knowledge , wisdom and the courage to admit that even the most well read people could be wrong, instead to some it brings stubbornness, GHAROOR and well, HATT DHARMI ( sorry)
Lota is punching against the thin air not because its only one topic of discussion but it is rocking the foundations of his ideology , if Iqbal or anybody else is preaching Western thoughts, not based on Islam, than its worth following and quoting him, but is same person is bringing fwd the same thoughst BUT based on Islam or religion, dont listen.
Lotaism zindabad.
IQBAL ON NIETZSCHE:
The life and thought of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) intrigued Iqbal, who, in many places in his prose and poetry, cites and discusses the German philosopher`s views. Iqbal`s interest in Nietzsche has been the subject of several studies.
We are grateful to Professor Bernd Manuel Weischer for the permission to reprint the following article, which originally appeared as a contribution in H. R. Roemer and A. North, eds., Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Vorderen Oriens. Festschrift B. Spuler (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981). Iqbal`s well-known observation about Nietzsche, namely, that his heart believes but his mind disbelieves (quoted in the beginning of this article), occurs in “Nietzche, “a poem in Payām-i Mashriq (in Kulliyyat-i Iqbal-Fārsī, 329), the original Persian being: qalb-i ū mu`min dimāghash kāfar ast. Here, following, is a translation of Iqbal`s Urdu note to the observation (see the Ghulam `Alī and Sons edition of Kulliyyāt-i Iqbal-Fārs-i, Lahore, 1970, p. 371).
Nietzsche subjects Christian ethical philosophy to severe criticism. His mind is a disbeliever in God since he denies God, though his ideas are, in respect of some of their implications, very close to the religion of Islam. “His mind is a disbeliever, but his heart is a believer“-the Noble Prophet [Muḥammad]. made a similar remark about Umayyah b. Abī ṣ-Ṣalṭ (an Arab poet).- A mana lisānuhū wa-kafara qalbuhū (“His tongue believes, but his heart disbelieves“).
The word Allama, “Great Scholar,“ which occurs before Iqbal`s name more than once in the following piece, is often used as an appellation for Iqbal.
In this reprint, the footnotes of the original article have been converted to endnotes, and one or two minor typographical errors have been corrected; otherwise, the format of the original has been retained.]
When I discussed some time ago with a leading German philosopher some aspects of Nietzsche`s philosophy and quoted to him Allama Mohammed Iqbal`s statement on Nietzsche, expressed in one of the poems in the `Payām-i mashriq`: the `Message of the East`: “His brain is unbelieving, but his heart believing“1, he said to me: “Never did I hear a more concise and appropriate judgment on the life and work of Nietzsche! “-That the tragic figure of Nietzsche occupied Iqbal`s mind more than any other Western philosopher is widely known.
And as we know Iqbal planned to write a book in the style of `Thus spoke Zarathustra` under the title of `The Book of a Forgotten Prophet`, but unfortunately this plan was never carried out. A contemporary of Allama Iqbal and a religious poet like him was the Libanese Jibran Khalil Jibran who among other poems and novels wrote a book with the title `The Prophet`. He admired Nietzsche deeply, but the influence of Nietzsche`s work on him originated more from its style than from its content. Jibran Khalil Jibran, not being a philosopher, rejected the main ideas of Nietzsche and was shocked by his atheism.2 Allama Iqbal on the other hand, while also not agreeing with Nietzsche`s atheism and many of his ideas, yet, as a philosopher, poet and mystic had a much deeper insight into the personal experience as well as the philosophical system of Nietzsche, its suppositions and consequences. Thus he discovered common ideas and attitudes of mind.
If we now speak about the `Nietzsche-conception` of Allama Iqbal, it must be made clear that we cannot expect from him a dry philosophical treatise about the development of metaphysics in Europe and the decisive role Nietzsche played in it. But his often aphoristic remarks on Nietzsche in the context of very different writings are so striking, fundamental, and comprehensive-because Iqbal as an Oriental thinker did not separate the tragic life from the intellectual achievements of the German philosopher as many Western philosophers do-that we can rightly call it a `Nietzscheconception`. Iqbal was already strongly influenced by the vitalistic current of Western philosophy, by R. Eucken and especially H. Bergson, although he criticizes them sometimes. The dynamic concept of this philosophy, involving the gradual development of the self in the reality of this world,-a kind of prophetic outlook-was very close to Iqbal`s intentions in his philosophy of personality and the rediscovery of the dynamic concept of Islam. L. Massignon made the remarkable statement on the relationship of M. Iqbal with H. Bergson: “Une affinite spirituelle semitique!“3
But Allama Iqbal drew much more support for his dynamic philosophy from Nietzsche, who in one sense can be seen as the culmination of the vitalist movement. Some thoughts, allusions, and symbols (e.g. diamond and coal) in the `Asrār-i Knudī` may be traced to Nietzsche`s `Thus spoke Zarathustra`, and the whole set of Iqbal`s book and his main idea of the `Perfect Man, which of course stems from Islamic mysticism, can be compared in a certain way with Nietzsche`s Superman. The idea of the `Superman` perhaps acted as a catalyst in the formulation of Iqbal`s ideas. The great difference between the `Perfect Man` and the `Superman` is the following: In Nietzsche`s system the exaggerated affirmation of this world and the intellectual self-realisation of the human being to the highest and most independent degree-to a quasi-divine existence-is conditioned by the negation of God, of the transcendental world, and immortality. The will to power Per Wille zur Macht) explains being as a continuous becoming or development to a higher state, the eternal recurrence Pie ewige Wiederkehr) being the existential basis of the liberty and independence of the individual in a world which becomes quasi-eternal, a kind of secularisation of eternity. Allama Iqbal, as a religious genius, immediately and intuitively realized the `punctum saliens` for the failure of Nietzsche, namely his Luciferian basis: I will not serve! This is where the great difference lies between Nietzsche and Iqbal, who had a certain sympathy with this brilliant Western thinker in his quest for the absolute. So he contrasts the Superman (Ubermensch) independent from God with the idea of the `Perfect Man` in Islamic Mysticism whom he describes in his Bāl-i Jibrīl as follows: “The perfect man`s arm is really God`s arm, dominant, creative, resourceful, efficient, human, but angel-like in disposition, a servant with the Master`s attributes“. And in his Jāvīdnāme Iqbal describes how Nietzsche is flying between the heaven of Saturn and Paradise in eternal circles-a symbol of the eternal recurrence, which Iqbal strictly rejected-and he says about him:
“In his inebriation he broke every glass,
separated himself from God and at the same time from the Self“
and some lines further on he says about Nietzsche in an Islamic way of expression:
“He did not come from `1ā ilāh` to `i11ā ilāh` (i.e. from the negation to the affirmation of God)
and he did not know the meaning of the word `abduhu` (his servant)“4
This brilliant statement touches again on the point of difference described above.
Another time Iqbal wrote in a letter: “Poor Nietzsche thought that his vision of the ultimate Ego could be realized in the world of space and time“.5 In the `Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam` he describes and rejects Nietzsche`s idea of the eternal recurrence in a very enlightened way, first in the lecture `The Human Ego, his freedom and immortality` and then in the lecture `Is Religion Possible?`. Rightly he points to Schopenshauer`s influence on Nietzsche in this respect, through his main work `The World as Will and Imagination`. He says 6 : “In modern Europe Nietzsche, whose life and activity form, at least to us Easterns, an exceedingly interesting problem in religious psychology, was endowed with some sort of a constitutional equipment for such an undertaking. His mental history is not without a parallel in the history of Eastern Sufism. That a really `Imperative` Vision of the Divine in man did come to him cannot be denied. I call his vision `Imperative` because it appears to have given him a kind of prophetic mentality which, by some kind of technique, aims at turning its visions into permanent life-forces. Yet Nietzsche was a failure; and his failure was mainly due to his intellectual progenitors such as Schopenhauer, Darwin, and Lange, whose influence completely blinded him to the real significance of his vision. Instead of looking for a spiritual rule which would develop the Divine even in a plebeian and thus open up before him an infinite future, Nietzsche was driven to seek the realisation of his vision in such schemes as aristocratic radicalism. As I have said of him elsewhere:.
The `I am` which he seeketh,
lieth beyond philosophy, beyond knowledge,
The plant that groweth only from the invisible soil of the heart of man,
Groweth not from a mere heap of clay!
Thus failed a genius whose vision was solely determined by his internal forces, and remained unproductive for want of external guidance in his spiritual life“: I do not want to discuss the second text of Iqbal on Nietzsche because it would lead us to the complicated question of time problems found also in the work of H. Bergson.7
But let us come back to some aspects of Nietzsche`s philosophy which are near to Iqbal`s concept. I mean the fight of Nietzsche against Platonism and its wrong interpretation, especially in the Christian theology of the last centuries: i.e. the concept of God as a pure `causa prima` supported by philosophical terms and concepts, a concept of God which is quite the opposite of the notion of God in the prophetic religions and in the Semitic way of thinking. In this context Iqbal said in his Jāvīdnāme about Nietzsche8 :
“Had he ever lived in the times of Ahmad,
he would have entered into the eternal joy“.
That is to say: Had Nietzsche known the prophetic notion of God, as found in the Islamic tradition, he would not have failed. Thus Nietzsche in his first period was not just an atheist and nihilist who preached the complete revolution and conversion of all values, and his sentence `God is dead` is not to be understood in this simple way: it rather means that occidental metaphysics with its Greek and Platonic heritage in Nietzsche`s philosophy came to an end. He once said: “The greatest recent event-that God has died, that the belief in the Christian God has become untrustworthy, begins to throw its first shadows over Europe“.
The leading philosopher of this century, M. Heidegger, in his profound studies on Nietzsche, his phrase `God is dead` and its role in the movement of European nihilism, has something in common with Iqbal`s intuitive remarks on Nietzsche. He says that Nietzsche remained Platonist in spite of his sarcastic fight against Platonism, because he remained on the same basis, the belief in an intellectual truth. Nietzsche himself was of course not conscious of it. The conversion of all values or the negation of known values is for Nietzsche only the starting point for the affirmation, of the `will to power`, according to him the most intrinsic essence of all beings. After giving up the belief in the divine essence as the inmost essence of all beings, Nietzsche had intellectually to fill up this emptiness.
If we now once again look at Iqbal`s statement “His brain is unbelieving, but his heart believing“, we see how rightly it describes the case of the German philosopher. That Allama`s philosophy of personality differs basically from the system of Nietzsche is evident. In Iqbal`s concept the ultimate Ego is God himself, and the highest development of man consists in his gradual growth in self-possession and self-realisation, in the uniqueness and intensity of his activity as an ego. But the emphasis on will and activity in the higher and real ego of man and mankind in general-this dynamic concept of life and development-is very near to Nietzsche`s Superman and is a prototype of developed and perfect humanity. The difference is that Allama Iqbal develops his philosophy clearly on the ground of the Islamic faith, on the basis of the principle of the submission to the Divine, the ultimate Ego of the whole cosmos.
Notes
1 Kulliyyāt p. 371.
2 St. Wild, Friedrich Nietzsche and Gibran Kahlil Gibran, in: Abhath XXII, no. 3 & 4 (Beirut 1969) 47-57.
3 Gabriel`s Wing p. 323.
4 Kulliyyāt p. 741.
5 Gabriel`s Wing p. 324.
6 The Reconstruction p. 174f.
7 Cf. A. Bauani`s article.
8 Kulliyyāt p. 741.
Sources
J. Iqbāl (ed.), Kulliyyāt-i Iqbāl (fārsī) (Lahore-Hyderabed-Karachi 2 1975).
Muhammad Iqbal, Payām-i mashriq (translated by A. Schimmel, Botschaft des Ostens, Wiesbaden 1963).
Muhammad Iqbal, Jāvīdnāme (translated by A. Schimmel, Das Buch der Ewigkeit, Munchen 1957).
Muhammad Iqbal, Asrār-i Khudī (translated by R. A. Nicholson, The Secrets of the Self, Lahore 1969).
Muhammad Iqbal, Rumūz-i Bī-Khudī (translated by A. J. Arberry, The Mystery of Selflessness, London 1953).
Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (edited by J. Iqbal, Lahore 1968).
A. Bausani, “The concept of time in the religious philosophy of Muhammad Iqbal“, in: Die Welt des Islams, N.S. 3 (1954) 158-86.
A. Schimmel, Gabriel`s Wing, A study into the religious ideas of Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Leiden 1963).
B. M. Weischer, “Muhammad Iqbal and Western Culture“, in: Fikrun wa Fann Nr. 32, 16 (1979) 4-18-in Arabic.
Bernd Manuel Weischer
Rabat University, Morocco
an empty lota back to copy/paste from wiki
iqbal on KANT
Ghazālī’s mission was almost apostolic like that of Kant in Germany of the eighteenth century.
2ND ARTICLE ON ‘Nietzche-Conception’
IQbal and Nietzche
http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/iqbalnamah/2-3.htm
@fmk, lota, zia m:
(just read your arguments back and forth. very interesting. apologies in advance for the long and verbose response
)
Come, what’s the point of arguing whether Iqbal borrowed ideas from Nietzsche or Emerson or Tennyson? If he did, it does not take anything away from his message. In my opinion, what Iqbal attempted was a rapprochement between the philosophies of Islam and the West. His technical training was in Western philosophy and he applied the Nietzschean paradigm of a nature-conquering übermensch to the problem of Muslim qeheturr-Rijaal and proposed a Mard-e-Momin with the power of Khudi. To say that Iqbal’s idea was an Insan-e-Kamil from Ibn Arabi is to labor the point unnecessarily. His attempt at philosophical syncretization in proposing a Mard-e-momin owed more to contemporary German philosophical thought (from Schopenhauer and culminating in Nietzsche) than it did to any medieval Andalusian Sufi. It was pure Germanic in its essence and was in keeping with the German sprit of the age, its zeitgeist. Iqbal’s main innovation was to reject the Nietzchean relativization of morality (God is dead, christianity is a slave morality, good vs. evil or good vs. bad etc) in favor of absolute Islamic morality because Islam is inherently life-affirming and does not propose a slave morality (Nietzsche thought highly of Islam by the way.). Iqbal’s divergence from Nietzsche was not surprising when we consider that Islam does not suffer from the intellectual baggage of Original Sin and guilt which needs philosophers like Nietzsche to cleanse it of life-denying energies. But in any event, Iqbal’s ideas were not relevant to the Western philosophical discourse because he argued from religion, and for all intents and purposes, he contributed nothing to Western philosophy. His only impact was literary and poetical and that too in the Urdu-literate classes of the subcontinent.
But I like the fact that those defending Iqbal’s originality confine themselves to somewhat reasonable assertions, or at least not stooping to invoking Hazrat Iqbal rehmatllayhe’s status as a Molana.
I think a more important question is, whether Iqbal, as part of the sub-continental Muslim creative minority succeeded in his philosophical quest? The answer is a resounding No. Iqbal, as a poet-philosopher, was more of a poet than a systematic philosopher (just like Nietzsche). Iqbal, the poet, succeeded in stoking Muslim passion and sense of outrage, and in that sense he was following Hali and his Musaddas. Iqbal, the philosopher, failed because his brief spark of brilliance did not catch on fire and did not result in a sustainable flame.
My argument regarding Pakistani creative minority at the dawn of partition and its swift morphing into a regressive dominant minority, stands vindicated when we look at Iqbal (since we are discussing him) and how philosophy departments in Pakistani universities treated the subject of Iqbaliat. Iqbal’s personal life was sanitized and we put (r.a.) after his name and forgot about him. Religious donkeys in universities and the print media ignored his more licentious verses, his writings on Ijtihad and focused on his militaristic, anti-democratic and totalitarian impulses. They didn’t debate his ideas, they put him on a pedestal and far beyond discussion. There haven’t been any original philosophers from Pakistan who could carry on Iqbal’s light.
The question is: What is inhibiting the new creative minorities? Who are the new creative minority who could peer into the mist of future and tell us where the abyss lies?
What I said previously about Ghazali and Ibn Taimiyya and of their impact on creativity is true tenfold when we look at the impact of religion on Pakistani thought and creativity. The more Mullahs we have, the more madrassas we have and the more we try to conform and Islamize our society, the more dire the intellectual drought will become. The simple reason is that these faux doctors of faith, by very definition, are the dominant minority, in that they make a fetish of celebrating a mythical past instead of facing the present or the future. The ritualization of defeat (Amreeki/Saleebi saazish), fetishizing of Umma (Ummanitis), and the call for an impractical, unargued utopian solution (Khilafah, Shariah etc), means that the impact of religion on our body politic has been horrendously negative. The original sources of indigenous culture and creative impulses (Sufi poetry, peasant music, romance epics, high brow Urdu poetry and literature) are being slowly subordinated to religion.
The original Ulema (Farabi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Kindi etc) were the creative minority because they dealt in ideas, not in Land Rovers and private armies like the Ulema of today. They wrote treatises instead of anti-X (switsch: shia, barelvi, etc) polemics and they were sophisticated men of letters instead of gun-toting, murderous, bearded apes, the likes of Masood Azhar or Azam Tariq. Even the more benign ones like the late Dr. Naimi and even Tahirul Qadri are intellectually dead. And of course, it doesn’t help that we are an illiterate nation to begin with, who have no culture of reading books, appreciating originality or discussing ideas.
The discussion was triggered with @zia m’s argument that the Taliban crisis represents an opportunity. Does it really? The original deadening of philosophy at the hands of Ghazali and friends happened at a time of external threat. What respones have we come up with when faced with the Taliban dracula? So far, the signs are encouraging. Barring the initial bedwetting of Islami zehen donkeys (like IK and others) in the media, the pervasive gloom has been replaced by cautious optimism. The establishment hasn’t responded by another military coup d’etat (yet) and the media remains seemingly free. These are the seeds of future rebirth and I am optimistic that if fraudulant molvis, silver tongued media morons (Shahid Masood, Klasra, Naji, Ansar Abbasi) and kleptomaniac politicans continue to be exposed in the media and weeded out, the greater wisdom of the Pakistani people will manifest itself in cleaner politics, a better crop of leaders and, perhaps, a creative minority after all. The only glimmer of hope is the urban middle-class which is exposed to Western ideas like rule of law, equality and justice for all. This urban middle-class was the backbone of the lawyers’ movement (our creative minority du jour?) and has the potential to provide intellectual leadership in the future.
It is request to All those who are like-minded — Kindly check it out zehni-bemaree’s comments this time on IQBAL direct U Turn from Evolution — As I caught him earlier red handed on his Stupid Remarks. As “They Say…..” along with others.
It is believed: Itnay Lambay Comments Mein Yeh Choti* Khata Kholay Baghair Apni Lambi Baat Mushkil Hai Mukamil Karay!!!
Hi guys if anyone interested in cricket. You can watch live streaming http://pakcric.tv/ most of the links are working for Pak vs Srilanka test.
@mbokhari
for me to accept your argument is to accept the falsehood by Iqbal. When he clearly denies Influence of western philosophers on the development of “Insan-e-kamil” and attribute it to sufiyana thought in his letter written to the translator and Iqbal’s words carry a lot more weight form me then yours espacially when quoting the western commentry about Iqbal but this is my opinion and understanding and i would not try to compel anyone to accept it.
Dear monkey
Here’s a banana/link for you
You wouldn’t recognize an ‘idea’ if it put on a green pagri and danced around you naked in the mosque pulling its beard and shouting: “I am an idea, I am an idea”.
Your ill deserved confidence in continuing to comment here is really regrettable considering the last cogent thought in your head put on a suicide jacket and pushed the button last year on being so lonely and depressed
hehe..what’s funny is, you won’t understand this comment either
@mbokhari
Thank you for the enlighten post again. It is always a pleasure to read what you write.
@geelemitti
Hey, this is not the inquisition
believe what you want to about Iqbal. But at least try to read his writing (not only poetry, but prose) without imagining yourself on a magnificent Arab stallion and riding into the setting sun, ready to do battle bay-teegh , protected only by the gigawatt power of faith 
I especially recommend his “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MI_RRTI/Default.htm
The book came up in discussion last month as well here:
http://pkpolitics.com/2009/06/24/visitors-views-news-week-4-june-2009/#comment-226945
on the issue of Iqbal’s opinion on Ijtihad and whether Islamic law can be reformed or is absolutely unchangeable (hint: Iqbal thinks it is open to interpretation).
@lota
Well, I try to make it as little enlightened as possible
in the hopes of triggering a healthy exchange of ideas. Or at least it gives me a chance to brush up on old reading.
mbokhari
you do have good writing & information, i accept that and i wish from bottom of my heart if it would have been pro islam -i hope you don’t mind-
Fake colleges in Briton run by Pakistani’s …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8159227.stm
That guys Saif ullah made millions of Pounds by playing lives of many students ,,, and fled to Pakistan … why not our government catch those we are defacing our nation like that …
@JanuJerman Khan
That’s fine, as long as you don’t wish it from the heart of your bottom
I am not anti- or pro-Islam. I do have a personal faith/spirituality (I lean towards the Wahhabi flavor) but I am severely anti-donkey and pro-rationalism.
Now, my turn:
you do have free time and energy, i accept that and i wish very sincerely if it would have been used to learn to argue with logic and reason instead of appeals to emotion and baser motives -i hope you don’t mind
mbokhari
i am surprised to read that you have faith/spirituality, I thought you were atheist because of that hank video
@JanuJerman:
Well surprise surprise!
A little nuance and complexity goes a long way in answering the greatest questions of life.
To me, life is a complex equation that needs the God variable to balance it out. The Hank video and atheist philosophy attempts to null or reduce that variable. Interesting to note that God’s domain has been shrinking ever since Archimedes ran naked through the streets. Like Ghazali (I hate him) says: everything happens because God wills it, ergo, no need for science or philosophy or learning or questioning. Atheism, or agnosticism, on the other hand, is like a thought experiment where one assumes the God variable to be zero and try to balance the equation. Result? Doubt, questioning, science, logic and reason.
Once, it was God who made Ghazali’s cotton burn because God had endowed fire with the essence of burning. So, no need to find out the laws of chemical combustion. Once, it was God that made the sun revolve around the earth. Once, it was God who created Adam and Eve and the talking snake.
But when science assumes God doesn’t exist, it looks for laws that govern nature and the result is scientific discovery. God has been retreating thanks to Erasmus and Copernicus and Newton. Today, the self-appointed defenders of God have to invent Intelligent Design and cry for Maududi to give the Almighty a breather
Now try to apply that model to the world of finance, or even traffic congestion, and you will see true gymnastic acrobatics by the faithful as they try to fly in the face of facts and twist religion to fit reality. What if they had the courage to let reason be supreme over faith? What if they had the himmat-e-kufr of Faiz? You see, faith is always trying to catch up to reality and reason. Faith never provides answers and it never leads the way, it only tries to reconcile. (debates about evolution, about artificial insemination, about legality of interest, Islamic banking etc)
What am I trying to say? Only that faith ought to be personal and should deal only with moral and ethical dilemmas (what is right, what is just etc). In life, the thinking man ought to act as if God didn’t exist, and still try to be moral.
The greatest question asked by Nietzsche too was this: What if Zarathustra told the villagers that God had died? Would the villagers continue to be moral? The bearded apes in JUIF and JI have inverted Nietzsche and his Zarathustra. They say they are men of the ever-living God, yet act as if God had died. The truly moral men of our age are those that say, existence of God is unknowable and unprovable (agnosticism) but I shall nevertheless continue to live my life morally, guided by the light of reason.
Agnosticism, Atheism: Convenient for scientific rationalism, scientific progress, clarity of thinking and moral self-questioning that leads to true morality.
Religion: Personal, ethical and moral. Excess of religion leads to suicidal irrationality and unethical hypocrisy. True for both men and countries.
آئیے ہاتھ اٹھائیں ہم بھی
ہم جنہیں رسم ِ دعا یاد نہیں
ہم جنہیں سوز محبت کے سوا
کوئ بت کوئ خدا یاد نہیں
جن کا دین پری ِو کزب و ریا ہے ان کو
ہمت کفر ملے، جرت تحقیق ملے
جن کے سر منتظر ِتحقیق ِجفا ہیں ان کو
دست ِقاتل کو جھٹک دینے کی توفیق ملے
فیض احمد فیض
mbokhari
to cut it short basically what you want is secularism that no interference or guidance of deen in the life?
so should we reject the part of deen that deals with how to organize affairs of life?
@JanuJerman Khan
If we are to continue this line of questioning, I believe my lawyer should be present.
Short answer: God, yes!
Come on, don’t be shy, let the people know what you think about the eternal questions of life regarding faith vs. reason (apart from trolling and making one-liner bathroom jokes with @lota
)
just for your information i don’t know what is imam ghazali’s position on “qadha wal-qadar” and if it is what you stated above then I don’t have same understanding as imam ghazali
i rather not go on that course or else i’ll end up writing long essays
and stop being prejudice, I don’t fall in those labels you or other people have used.
mbokhari
now we got two threads going, one is qadha walqadar and other role of Allah in the affairs of muslims
which one shall we continue with
zehnibemaree
How Can you Say in a Positive Tone?
May be in my surroundings majority of people whom I meet Not with Green, Black or White Turban rather I visit & face mostly such people who are by nature =Zehni-Beemar= who have been sitting in a Synagogue & wearing Red, White & Blue Colored HAT as they are too Impressed with Christian made Ideologies & even wear always such hat whose color is similar to American National Colors.
@JanuJerman Khan
I have a suspicion that you do not know of what you speak of, and under the cloud of that suspicion, I try to elaborate:
qadha wal qadar = Fate. Predetermination of the universe. Leads to questions of free will. If God has a divine plan, why would he change it because I prayed? And if he changes it, what happened to the Loh-e-Mahfooz? Which parts of Loh-e-Mehfooz are changeable and which are permanent? Is it edited on the lailatul qadr? If everything is in the divine plan, do I have free will? (the discussion about which is forbidden as all believing momins know
)
Role of Allah in the affairs of muslims = Active vs. Inactive God.
Active God takes part in every single movement of atom in the universe (wing of a fly etc) and is not bound by his own laws (being omnipotent). In other words, could make a stone heavy enough that He couldn’t lift it. And he created the “evil” too, even though he is absolute Good in his nature (another instance of omnipotence)
The Inactive God is bound by his own laws, moral and physical. Cannot make a stone heavy enough that he himself couldn’t lift it. Gave man free will and “evil” in the universe is nothing but the errors in the ways of man. Leaves men to their devices and judges them on the Day of Judgment.
I know you are perhaps not familiar or comfortable with any of these concepts/questions. Its just that I am bored, killing time here and giving my mind a session of aerobics
Let’s stick with faith vs. reason, shall we?. Which is supreme? Aqal bari ke bhains?
zehnibemaree Its seem you have recovered friction gash.
http://pkpolitics.com/2009/07/16/visitors-views-news-week-3-july-2009/#comment-235782
mbokhari
no, i summed your essay up correctly to the concept of qada wal qadr by using the correct term, didn’t you notice.
i don’t mind sharing my understanding of qadha wal qadar and philosophical questions such as could god create a wall high enough that he couldn’t climb or a stone heavy enough that he couldn’t lift etc etc
first the logic part
The people who raise logical arguments in no way prove that Allah does not exist. Rather they raise circular arguments which go nowhere. Whether Allah can lift a stone, fly, climb etc in no way proves he doesn’t exist. These questions in themselves are wrong as there is no correct answer to them whichever way you answer them. They are the same as asking, is Germany the largest continent in the world? Obviously it is not. However this means Germany is a continent just not the largest. The problem here is the question asked was wrong as it contradicted the definition of Germany which is that it’s a country in Europe. Similar to this would be to ask, can the cat speak Chinese? Answering yes is irrational and answering no would mean the cat cannot speak Chinese but it can speak. Again the question was wrong as it assumes cats can speak.
Hence logical arguments are in fact illogical as they contradict the definition of what a creator is. So lifting, climbing, throwing etc are attributes of humans. How can humans use their attributes to describe Allah? This would be the same as one of us creating a drink, giving it a colour and taste and then the drink imposing restriction and rules for us. The created does not affect the creator.
The question of Qala’a and Qadar has constituted much vital discussion amongst the Islamic schools of thought. In sum, those schools held the following views:
Ahle al-Sunnah: Man has Kasb Ikhtiari in carrying out his actions. The Kasb Ikhtiari means man shifts his power and will towards performing the action by his choice. However, Allah (swt) subsequently brings the action into existence. Thus, man is reckoned on the outcome of this choice.
Al-Mu’tazila were of the opinion that it is man himself who creates his deed and therefore since he initiates the action, he is judged based upon them.
Al-Jabriya held the opinion that Allah (swt), the Supreme, creates man and his work and thus man is not free but compelled to carry out his actions like the feather which floats in the air according to the direction of the wind.
However, when studying this question thoroughly one needs to know the basis upon which the argument is built. This basis should not be whether the actions of man are created by himself or by Allah (swt); It shouldn’t be the knowledge of Allah (swt), i.e., that He (swt) knows that man will perform an action and that His (swt) knowledge covers man’s actions; It’s also not over the will of Allah (swt) related to man’s actions, i.e., that these deeds must happen because of this will; It shouldn’t be whether or not man’s actions are recorded in the Al Lauh Al Mafouh (Protected Decree or Register), and thus having to carry out his actions in accordance with what is recorded.
Indeed, the basis of this question should not be any of these things, since they have no relationship to the subject of Reward and Punishment. It is merely related to the question of creation, the knowledge covering everything and the will of the Creator relative to all possible matters, and the Al Lauh Al Mafouh including everything. This relationship is different from the subject of Reward and Punishment for the action. In other words, is man obliged to perform an action, good or bad, or does he have a choice? And does man have the choice to perform an action or give it up, or doesn’t he have the choice?
Any individual who observes the actions of man can conclude that He lives within two spheres:
A. The sphere which man dominates. This sphere is in his performance domain and includes actions performed by man by his choice.
B. The sphere which dominates him and in which he is involved. Actions which occur within this sphere occur without his choice, whether they originate from him or fall upon him.
In regards to the actions that materialise within the sphere that dominates man, man has no choice in them or in their existence. They can be divided into two kinds:
A. The part mandatory by the law of the universe.
B. The second being actions which occur beyond man’s control (but are not part of the universal law).
As far as the actions which are part of the law of the universe are concerned, man is in complete and involuntary submission to them. He is obliged to act in accordance with a specific and unchangeable system. Subsequently, man’s actions in this sphere occurs without his will and he is obliged and has no choice. Consequently, man came to this life without his will and he will leave it without his will. He cannot fly in the air with his body, walk in his natural being on water, nor choose the colour of his eyes. Man did not produce the shape of his head nor the size of his body. Indeed, it was Allah (swt) who created all of this without any input from man. Allah (swt) created the laws of the Universe, regulated the Universe by this law, and had the Universe run according to these laws without the possibility of change.
Actions which are beyond man’s control and yet are not part of the universal law, but cannot be avoided are deterministic. Either he is the subject or the object (unintentionally) of these actions. Examples of such actions are if someone on a wall accidentally falls on a person and thus kills that person, or if someone shoots at a bird and without any intent hits a person and kills him, or if a car goes off the way, train derails, or plane should crash, without any ability on the part of the pilot or the driver to avoid the accident, the passengers die.
All of these examples which emanated from man or involved him materialised without his will and were beyond his ability to control them. Those actions are within the sphere which dominates man, yet they are not part of universal law. They occur from him or affect him without his will and beyond his control sphere. All of the actions which occur within the sphere that dominates man are termed Qada, since Allah (swt) has predetermined them.
Therefore, man is not reckoned about these actions, whether they are classified as beneficial, harmful, liked or disliked – although Allah (swt) alone knows the good and bad consequences of these actions – because man has no influence on them. Man does not have enough information about them nor the manner in which they are brought into existence. Additionally, man is unable to initiate or to avoid them at all. Man must believe in this Qada and that this Qada is from Allah (swt).
@JanuJerman Khan
What the hell was that my villager friend? Apparently, you do not understand. God being unable to create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift = is a way of saying there are immutable laws of nature that God himself has created and follows.
We are not debating God or his existence thereof or even whether God has the power to break his own rules. We are debating (or at least I was) the disastrous consequences on civilizational progress of believing in a God that is not bound by his own laws.
In other words, the result of denying necessary causation in nature leads to an understanding of a world which is supernatural and miraculous. This resulted in the ending of philosophical speculation, cessation of free inquiry and a moribund fatalism. Creative minority stopped being creative and became a dominant minority (Toynbee’s term). Hence, no science, no technology, no progress. Colonialism and Muslim decline.
And your response is this?
How is that related to faith vs. reason? And how does that relate to Muslim decline or Ghazali?
I say it in all humbleness, my rural friend, please educate yourself before you attempt to debate something.
Ghazali’s Incoherence of Philosophy:
http://www.ghazali.org/works/taf-eng.pdf
A discussion on Ghazali’s rejection of causality:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ed001/causation.htm
mbokhari
go one step back and read carefully, don’t close your mind and start abusing… i was elaborating on the qada walqadr part of aqiedah… go first educate yourself on aqieda concepts then come back with your stolen arguments…
Breaking News: Tuesday, 21 july, 2009, 07:48 GMT 12:48 PST
What is the Intensity of Worry See the statement of Secy. Gen. of NATO — Entire West has been Trapped into their own Net.—
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/world/2009/07/090721_nato_warning.shtml
@mbokhari
It is interesting to see that you want God in your equation (out of necessity, basically, because of the overwhelming complexity of the problem, as you said) but then want to claim hands at “jurrat i kufar” too; and diminish the toy God to a level that is the lowest. You do not want to call yourself an atheist but still this is like a really weak entity, who is losing big time — as you see a battle between your God and your scientists or the men who reason (even if they did not claim so; not all of them surely). What can anyone do for the sake of reasoning here? Your God, your battle, your jurrat i kufr — your toys, your play! If it such a loser God, why keep believing in it? Oh, but then your equation is not balanced!
The second point is about what you wrote:
>> What am I trying to say? Only that faith ought to be personal and should >> deal only with moral and ethical dilemmas (what is right, what is just etc). In >> life, the thinking man ought to act as if God didn’t exist, and still try to be >> moral.
How awesome, mutually exclusive sets you give! Can you separate out “personal… moral and ethical dilemmas(what is right and what is just etc.)” from “life” and from trying to be moral? Do you think there is no intersection so that you claim the former set should be left for faith to deal with but the other set should stay out of bounds for it? Can you please mark the boundaries again?
Society is a collection of individuals, and individuals have personalities which can be resting on elements of faith, or whatever they believe in, have been trained for or whatever habits they have formed. If religion or faith sets the person to behave as a truthful being, or the one who always fulfills his promise, or never cheats, this will reflect in “life”… and the society where such individuals are higher will also reflect the same traits. Or at least that person will have influence within his circle of family, friends etc.
Lastly, any reasoning should lead to humility, that is evident from the complexity of the system of nature, life and all. You recognize the complexity part, but rather than being humbled down — it is okay sometimes to say, I do not know, and still continuing to reason —- and knowing the limitations. That does not necessarily mean you gave up to faith. (Or may be! Because the realm of reason is not empty of faith either, at least at the low-level details, when we set expectations to see certain result out of a million other possible events.) But your remarks contain scorn, claim that the other person does not know what he is talking and suggest reading, have high suspicions about him.
What is the use of any education if it cannot even teach us how to control our impulses, anger — a manifestation of which is swearing at others, and looking down upon them/being caught in complexes.
Over life, the educated class does not have any monopoly or kingdom rights which is not available to the illiterate. Fortunately, oxygen does not check the level of education before entering the lungs. So whatever the message about living life is, it must be decoded for every one alike.
@mbokhari
@JJK
1.>>> Interesting to note that God’s domain has been shrinking ever since Archimedes ran naked through the streets. Like Ghazali (I hate him) says: everything happens because God wills it, ergo, no need for science or philosophy or learning or questioning
Why do we have to assume that if there is God and people believe in Him, there wont be any science and medicine and mathematics and research. Why to assume that belief in religion means that there is no need to explore the laws of physics and God created the universe without any rules and laws and there is no science behind it. Why not there could be people who believe in religion and still look into all that science and explore. Archimedes will not be allowed to run naked but that would be for another reason not because he discovered something. And if Ghazali and similar people did stop the development of Muslim minds and society by creating hurdles and banning thinking process, is it fair to blame the religion for that. I mean should we blame those who interpret religion in this way or to blame the religion itself?. Aren’t there people who do believe in one religion or the other and still feel free to ask questions and explore. Are all the scientists and philosophers Atheists ?.
2>>What am I trying to say? Only that faith ought to be personal and should deal only with moral and ethical dilemmas (what is right, what is just etc). In life, the thinking man ought to act as if God didn’t exist, and still try to be moral
Who will decide the rules of morality. Fazlu thinks he can go out with his neighbor’s wife ( sorry son) but the neighbor thinks its not very moral. Fazlu’s friend Zardari sides with him and there is a dispute. One person’s morality is different from another’s. So who decides?. Some people think there is no need for any morality in first place, similar to those who think there is no need for a religion. So what would happen to them?. Others think that there is a need for morality but we will decide ourselves without any help or interference from the religion. So what happens?. If we do decide that humans are perfectly capable of deciding their own morality then arent we saying that we are happy to have morality but only if WE get to decide on it, meaning if religion teaches us morality its wrong but if we decide its right. Moral self questioning is an assumption again, an assumption that it will give an ideal rules of morality. Since the wild imaginations could really be wild , what if the moral self questioning which has led to the acceptance of homosexuality , reaches to the conclusion that ones Mom and sister is just another woman so why not a relation with them be acceptable. Add a flavor of ‘ nature ‘ in it and you have a pudding, as other animals do it in nature , so why not humans. Who will draw the line and where , and what if that line is not acceptable to some of the moral self questioning humans.
3>>>
o cut it short basically what you want is secularism that no interference or guidance of deen in the life?
so should we reject the part of deen that deals with how to organize affairs of life?
Short answer: God, yes!
How would it be possible to follow Deen in some parts of life and then totally ignore it when it comes to another part of ones life. Is it a fantasy or it could practically be done. How will a man who follows religion in his personal life but when goes to his office as a Judge , as a doctor, as member of parliament, as a lawyer as a teacher, can separate his belief when he makes decisions. To me its possible to apply to robots not to humans. Has it been truly achieved even in places where state is separate from the Church. And why just religion people who are responsible for running of stat affairs have personal beliefs other than religion that do actually interfere with their decision making, and mind you some of the beliefs are rather weird. So can you ban that, if not why just the religious believes be banned?.
@lota
About the western influence on Iqbal argument, I have written my complete point of view above, please see that. If I restart it, I will again ask to qualify this statement, and do not paint the whole with a part. I have given examples from his poetry where Iqbal was a critic and/or wrote stuff that was not borrowed from the west.
About the divide you were caught in, I wrote that too in my comments to zia m. Thanks.
@Adhanan Ashraf Manzoori
What a foolish comment with reference to the news item.
AAEEN, BAEEEN, SHAEEEEN se baaz naheen aaoge.