Liberal=Fundamentalist

[muse]

The real fundamentalist: a true liberal
Mohammad Ahmad



In a society strangled by fear, the reasonable are mostly afraid. The situation in Pakistan is no different. People who have knowledge and who should essentially be not just unbiased but vocal in protecting the rights of the vulnerable remain mostly silent. If ever they speak they do so in meek voices and never themselves bring up a subject not liked by the crowd for fear of being labelled a liberal. With the radical succeeding in branding liberal a stigma, the mind that is liberated of bias and prejudice and is receptive to any positive change remains intimidated by fear and cannot contribute positively. It is, therefore, not very surprising that the position of a fundamentalist who has to be a liberal by essence has been wrongly assumed by the clerics led by their militant stalwarts whose actions are far removed from the fundamentals of the religion they profess.

A liberal is someone who while holding a view allows freedom of expression to others; is open to new ideas, champions the rights of women, labour and parallel faiths and is not bound by the dictates of society in matters that he considers to be wrongly dealt. Now compare the guidelines given hereafter that any fundamentalist will find in the Holy Book. The Quran says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion. (2:256)

To you be your way to me mine. (106: 9)

Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject. (18:29)

And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers? (10:99)

Therefore, [O Prophet] give admonition, for you are one to admonish. You are not one to manage affairs. (88:21–22)

Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the way. (4:137)

And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:228)

O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them — except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary, live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large, a determinate share. (4:7)

Enter into Paradise, you and your wives, with delight. (43:70)

Similarly the sayings of the Apostle of Allah (PBUH) are also pearls of wisdom for the fundamentalist who is mindful of the message contained therein. This not being a treatise on religion just a few are quoted here:

“The word of wisdom is the lost property of the believer, so wherever he finds it he has a better right to it.”

“Seek knowledge even if you have to go to China.”

“Fear Allah regarding women. Verily you have married them with the trust of Allah, and made their bodies lawful with the word of Allah. You have got (rights) over them, and they have got (rights) over you in respect of their food and clothing according to your means.”

The Prophet (PBUH) was asked, “What are the rights that a wife has over her husband?” The Prophet (PBUH) replied, “Feed her when you take your food, give her clothes to wear when you wear clothes, refrain from giving her a slap on the face or abusing her, and do not separate from your wife, except within the house.”

Generally, therefore, the real fundamentalist would know that there is neither any compulsion in religion nor does the religion bar anyone from accepting, rejecting or leaving it. Allah does not allow people to be forced to believe. He commands the Prophet (PBUH) to tell the disbeliever that that while their way is theirs the Prophet’s (PBUH) his own. The Prophet (PBUH) is to admonish and not to manage affairs (What is not allowed to the Prophet [PBUH] how can his believer assume?). There is thus complete freedom of expression.

While the radical might say that an apostate is to be punished with death, just ponder over verse (4:137) again. Had this been the punishment of apostasy, then how can a person who disbelieved Islam come back into the fold of Islam for the second time? In this verse it is mentioned more than once. Sill there is no worldly punishment for him. The only punishment being that Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the way. The real fundamentalist will seek knowledge from all sources even foreign as he would be mindful of the fact the Hadith mentions China, which at that time was obviously not known for imparting any Islamic knowledge. For the real fundamentalist a woman is to have an independent status with all rewards open to her. She is to command the highest levels of life after death and even in this life she can take part in different fields and is to have the same consideration paid to her claims as that accorded to man. A real fundamentalist would know that as for parallel faiths, freedom of profession is granted. The churches, synagogues, monasteries are neither to be burnt nor destroyed. The Quran says that in monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques the name of Allah is much mentioned. The covenant of Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) is a wonderful document allowing complete freedom to Christians. The Treaty of Medina also granted freedom to the faiths being professed there. Allowing the Christians to pray inside his mosque by the Apostle of Allah clearly shows that commonalities are to be looked at in interfaith relations.

Is this not a Liberal’s dream agenda? Does not the liberal want all this but the mullah opposes? The fundamentalist, therefore, ought to be the true liberal and take pride in bring called one. It is his duty to also take away the position of the fundamentalist from the mullah as generally the latter’s views are radical, actions repressive and orientation backward and yet they are wrongly labelled as fundamentalists. While there can be a Taliban in a Givenchy suit there is a liberal in a true fundamentalist.

For fear of a radical backlash the people running the affairs of the state are reluctant to wage an all out war against local and foreign elements within its territory that burn schools, kill both the dissenting and the neutral, put fire to churches and deny the minorities their right to pray. The recent Badami Bagh incident involving Christian property is a result of this soft attitude towards radicals who are most certainly not fundamentalists. Those who have ruled the state over the last decades have for the sheer lack of wisdom been unable to make the common man realise that is the war in line with their faith? The guilt lies with successive timid governments including the one that has just completed its tenure. Will the future one hold any promise for Pakistan? That only the future will reveal.

The writer can be reached at thelogicalguy@yahoo.com

 

[LeGenD]

I really dislike the practice of "selective quoting" from the Holy Quran. This is how people use the holy book to further their own agenda.

Allah Almighty have given instructions to both men and women on how to live their lives. Yes, Allah Almighty will judge people but this doesn't means that a society which claims to uphold Islamic values should remain UNCHECKED from within. People need to TEACH others about Islamic values from time to time; be this in the form of parenting or lecturing in a Mosque or through other mediums.

Problem with liberalism is that, if it remains unchecked, it gets out of control. In this manner, liberalism turns in to extremism itself. Case in point is USA.

Stigmatization goes both ways; a liberal may be stigmatized in a fundamentalist environment and a fundamentalist may be stigmatized in a liberal environment.

Man-made CULTURE have always been FLAWED.

 

[SQ8]

While I dont agree with quite a bit of the OP's interpretation, I agree with some sections of the idea put forward
HOWEVER.
A couple of issues in translation of those ayat's.
If you are to quote them, then one must quote in context.

The translation posted of Surah Kafirun for eg. 106:9 is not you unto your religion and me into mine.


Here the Surah's theme and context from the past Ayah and the next one.
Surah Kafirun starts with

"Say(O Prophet->ipso facto believers of Islam), O Kafirs(The word Kufr refers to hiding from reality or miss-stating it); I do not worship that you worship" 1,2

"And neither will you worship whom I worship"(the word Aabidun has a secondary usage as a verb, which is continuous in nature.. that there is no hope of you seeing the light. So How may I agree with you on the matters of religion) 3

"and I am not willing to worship(the way you worship)" 4

"And nor are you willing to worship my way" 5

Hence, a standpoint has been reached that I cannot agree with your falsehood and you have established that you do not agree with mine.

Din has two meanings
1) following of religion /religion
2)Judgement, Rewards/Punishment or result of actions. (As in "Malik-e-Youm-ud-Din").

If the 1st is taken then Ayat's revealed after this one gave permission to wage war against the Kafirs, hence this Ayat then is redundant and obsolete. So there is no more "you unto your religion and mine unto mine" and it cannot be taken as a valid commandment anymore.
While there are commentators who consider ayat's in the Quran obsolete due to the revelation of others, I (have learnt) believe there are none since overlooks in interpretations by earlier respected scholars may have happened(due to various cultural or historical reasons,this does not take away from their overall superiority in interpretation).

Therefore, the only logical meaning that remains is the second. i.e.
"To you your judgement(for your kufr ) , and to me mine(for my belief and actions)".

The idea is not about "may you prosper in your belief" as I do. It is about a resignation from further discourse.
That you may continue your disbelief and will receive its judgement and I will continue my path; We have nothing further to discuss or interact with regards to each other's lives- GOOD-DAY!.


The point of bringing this up is the general lack of foundation many of these articles that promote a liberal view of Islam and end up posting hollow translations or interpretations that do not relate or even support the argument(Although in this case, it may still do so but now there is basis to back it up in case the concept is questioned) they are making as they are quoted out of context.(the same goes for the extremists and ideologies they derive from).

So to make argument as the OP wishes to make, then needs to carry the weight of proof . Otherwise, commentators will tear his idea apart and regardless of his ideals of promoting a change in thinking.. He will achieve naught as he does carry the basis to back his claims up. The extremist interpretations and ideologies on the other hand, will have tons upon tons of incorrect materials which they will be willing to repeat 24//7 in bellicose and hostile tones that will suppress any chance of intelligent thought other than fear of offending God since that Mullah's logorrhea clearly outweighs that of the OP.
And in this case the majority are not learned or understanding in the ways of religion that they will be able to sort out sense from the Mullah's message or that from the OP.

In Summation: If you want to bring a change, then do not go out there without sufficient preparation.

 

[muse]

While I dont agree with quite a bit of the OP's interpretation, I agree with some sections of the idea put forward
HOWEVER.
A couple of issues in translation of those ayat's.
If you are to quote them, then one must quote in context.

The translation posted of Surah Kafirun for eg. 106:9 is not you unto your religion and me into mine.


Here the Surah's theme and context from the past Ayah and the next one.
Surah Kafirun starts with

"Say(O Prophet->ipso facto believers of Islam), O Kafirs(The word Kufr refers to hiding from reality or miss-stating it); I do not worship that you worship" 1,2

"And neither will you worship whom I worship"(the word Aabidun has a secondary usage as a verb, which is continuous in nature.. that there is no hope of you seeing the light. So How may I agree with you on the matters of religion) 3

"and I am not willing to worship(the way you worship)" 4

"And nor are you willing to worship my way" 5

Hence, a standpoint has been reached that I cannot agree with your falsehood and you have established that you do not agree with mine.

Din has two meanings
1) following of religion /religion
2)Judgement, Rewards/Punishment or result of actions. (As in "Malik-e-Youm-ud-Din").

If the 1st is taken then Ayat's revealed after this one gave permission to wage war against the Kafirs, hence this Ayat then is redundant and obsolete. So there is no more "you unto your religion and mine unto mine" and it cannot be taken as a valid commandment anymore.
While there are commentators who consider ayat's in the Quran obsolete due to the revelation of others, I (have learnt) believe there are none since overlooks in interpretations by earlier respected scholars may have happened(due to various cultural or historical reasons,this does not take away from their overall superiority in interpretation).

Therefore, the only logical meaning that remains is the second. i.e.
"To you your judgement(for your kufr ) , and to me mine(for my belief and actions)".

The idea is not about "may you prosper in your belief" as I do. It is about a resignation from further discourse.
That you may continue your disbelief and will receive its judgement and I will continue my path; We have nothing further to discuss or interact with regards to each other's lives- GOOD-DAY!.


The point of bringing this up is the general lack of foundation many of these articles that promote a liberal view of Islam and end up posting hollow translations or interpretations that do not relate or even support the argument(Although in this case, it may still do so but now there is basis to back it up in case the concept is questioned) they are making as they are quoted out of context.(the same goes for the extremists and ideologies they derive from).

So to make argument as the OP wishes to make, then needs to carry the weight of proof . Otherwise, commentators will tear his idea apart and regardless of his ideals of promoting a change in thinking.. He will achieve naught as he does carry the basis to back his claims up. The extremist interpretations and ideologies on the other hand, will have tons upon tons of incorrect materials which they will be willing to repeat 24//7 in bellicose and hostile tones that will suppress any chance of intelligent thought other than fear of offending God since that Mullah's logorrhea clearly outweighs that of the OP.
And in this case the majority are not learned or understanding in the ways of religion that they will be able to sort out sense from the Mullah's message or that from the OP.

In Summation: If you want to bring a change, then do not go out there without sufficient preparation.

It would be great if you could contact the author and invite him to join and comment on this thread -- it would be a great great service to all forum members

 

[Vassnti]

A liberal is someone who while holding a view allows freedom of expression to others; is open to new ideas, champions the rights of women, labour and parallel faiths and is not bound by the dictates of society in matters that he considers to be wrongly dealt.

Reminds me of a certain dangerous young liberal that was such a threat to the establishment they found the only way to shut him up was have him killed.

Jesus' egalitarian view of women, for example, went against the traditional patriarchal idea that women were the property of men. Jewish men could look into their holy scriptures and find male role models. In those texts, they didn't see examples of the great patriarchs treating women as equals. It is likely that the more orthodox Jewish males resisted changing their beliefs about the status of women in Jewish society. Jesus knew that many Jews of his time believed in their Hebrew scripture's admonition “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), but he taught his followers to “turn the other cheek and do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:28–31).

Jesus ignored purity rules. As he walked to the house of Jairus to raise the man's daughter from the dead, a woman who had had a bleeding condition for twelve years touched the hem of his garment. Jesus healed the woman, but then was considered ritually unclean (according to Jewish purity rules). Even so, he continued on, sought out the dead child of Jairus, and restored her life. Now, because of contact with the dead, he was considered doubly unclean.

Jesus' act of healing on the Sabbath evoked the anger of the Pharisees, a sect of Jews for whom zealous adherence to God's laws and commandments was extremely important. The Pharisees enforced the laws written in the Torah. They felt that all Jews had to obey the purity laws to ensure purity inside and outside of the Temple. Josephus, the Jewish historian writing near the end of the first century, noted that the Pharisees were expert expositors of Jewish law.

Radical Primitive Christianity - Gnostic Gospels

 

[Myth_buster_1]

I really dislike the practice of "selective quoting" from the Holy Quran. This is how people use the holy book to further their own agenda.

Allah Almighty have given instructions to both men and women on how to live their lives. Yes, Allah Almighty will judge people but this doesn't means that a society which claims to uphold Islamic values should remain UNCHECKED from within. People need to TEACH others about Islamic values from time to time; be this in the form of parenting or lecturing in a Mosque or through other mediums.

Problem with liberalism is that, if it remains unchecked, it becomes out of control. In this manner, liberalism turns in to extremism itself. Case in point is USA.

Stigmatization goes both ways; a liberal may be stigmatized in a fundamentalist environment and a fundamentalist may be stigmatized in a liberal environment.

Man-made CULTURE have always been FLAWED.

wow what a smack to the original poster! Well answer. I also want to raise a point that first few verses in muse post refer to NON MUSLIMS only! Meaning after message of Islam has been conveyed to them and they do not accept it then YOU LEAVE THEM ALONE! If Islam was personal then Islam would not have spread beyond Prophet , his family and his companions.
So yah, liberal myth busted.

It would be great if you could contact the author and invite him to join and comment on this thread -- it would be a great great service to all forum members

You have great copy paste skills.