From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:43:24 GMT
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <ljhe2rINNg3s@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan
Hyder) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.215006@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed
Khan) writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >Iqbal again ?!! :)
> >
> 
> Of course :) :)
> 
> After all, that's how some one who have never read
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Iqbal should be treated.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 




Do I detect signs of someone trying to squirm out of the debate, huh ?





> >
> >A leap into darkness is foolish too. 
> >	Being led like sheep is stupid too, right?
> >
> 
> Precisely. That's why I am encouraging to take our own insight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  and make it a new reality. If others could have done it. Why
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   cant we?



Thats not the point of the current debate. What I'm trying to discuss
is the role of Iqbal & Co. in the Partition of India. What you are saying
has no relevance to the debate at hand.




> >
> >Then he was a poor judge of people; a great poet but a poor leader.
> 
> NO. He was not. I will tell you some time else that there
> are people who have indeed become the inheritors of his trust.
> And they will indeed not only fulfill, but exceed his expectations!
> >
> >Doesn't answer the question. Why is a *political state* required to
establish
> >an "islamic" society ?
> 
> Answer is very simple. Islam is a DEEN, not a religion.
> It has "laws" and "regulations" that need the political instrument
> of the "state" for their enforcement. As Islam is not simply
> some obscure set of rituals that can be practiced in isolation
> it needs some political expression. Remember need for the Medinite
> State?




This can only be the interpretation/conclusion of one set of people.




> >> 
> >> My pleasure: [This reminds me of the Jews of Madinah who thought
> >                     ^^^^^^^
> >> 		that by resorting to their own law they will be
> >> 		saved by the punishment of the Prophet (pbuh).]
> >
> >Well you aren't averse to playing the comparison game yourself, are you ? :)
> 
> The similarity of resorting to the decision by the book was too great 
> to pass over. For interest, let me tell you the whole episode.
> 
> In one of the wars with the Meccans, one of the Jewish tribes of
> Medinah was found to have broken the treaty with Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).
> When the prophet (pbuh) asked them what should be their punishment,
> the Jews thought that may be if we ask for the judgement from our
> own book and our own Rabbis the decision would be more lenient and
> and more in our favor. On this premise they asked Prophet (Pbuh) to
> be treated by their own book and by their own Rabbi. The Rabbi Judge
> after going through the book of the Jews made the decision that:
> all the males of the tribe be killed and 
> all females and children be made slave!
> 



I wouldn't draw such comprehensive lessons from the story; at least not
necessarily in the form you are drawing. 




> >
> >So what does this tell us? Kill and drive out people who are not called
muslims
> >from their lands ? 
> 
> Well, for that you need to read the whole of  Quran. The Quranic
> verses were simply given by me, because the post explicitly mentioned
> not to go by Hadiths. As you know, Hadiths of the prophet explain
> where and when to apply such verses.
> 
> My reason for citing such verses was to impress that Hadith have necessarily
> to be used in conjunction with Quran, because Quran explicitly asks
> us to do so in atleast 9 places. 




Thats subjective again.




> >
> >If that is what is being preached in the Quran, 
> >then it surely isn't a book of God.
> 
> First you asked to be 
> given proof from the book of your own choice. Indeed you screamed
> for it. Then, you turn away. 



Don't jump to conclusions. I said nothing of the sort. 
See the qualification present in the statement I made.




> 
> It seems that Jews of Medinah must have felt the same way after
> the verdict was announced from their own book, on their own
> choice, from their own Rabbi!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Moral of this exchange:
> 
> Don't ever try to go by things of which you know not.
> 


A very subtle name-calling. 

Perhaps you should say very clearly that you dont want to discuss the issue any
further and I'll stop. 

--Javed.