The Origins of the Christian Religion and Scripture

In July 2015 I wrote a blog about the Old Testament of the Bible (OT), which you can read here: The Horrors of the Old Testament

This blog is about the development of the Christian religion and the emergence of the second holy book of Christianity, the New Testament (NT). Both the religion and the scriptures took shape after the death of Jesus, who was born into a Jewish family. As a Jew he is said to have accepted the Jewish scriptures, believed in the Jewish Prophets of the OT and followed the Jewish religious law. At the time of Jesus’ death Christianity was little more than a sect within Judaism. Within a hundred years, however, Christianity had transformed itself into an anti-Jewish religion of gentiles.

The NT came into being decades after Jesus’ death. If a Muslim, with a good understanding of the Qur’an, is introduced to the NT he/she will be struck by its many contradictions and inconsistencies, and by the preponderance of statements which are insulting to human intelligence. This is quite bewildering for one who has been instructed in the Qur’an to use one’s powers of thought when reading the Qur’an and to think deeply when the same subject is illuminated from different angles in different parts of the Quran. Those who do not, are likened to cattle or to one who is simultaneously deaf, blind and mute. Needless to say, for a Muslim the NT is not an easy book to read, especially as wisdom and guidance are scattered through its pages, side by side with the convoluted theology and the confused thinking.

What is one to make of this amazing mix? I needed to understand the origins of Christianity, which I eventually did, thanks to this excellent book : “Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart D. Ehrman. The author started out as a staunch Christian who considered the Bible to be the immutable Word of God. His years of studying the Bible, and the origins of Christian religion, eventually led him to become an agnostic.

I learnt from Ehrman that there are numerous books which were, at one time or another, considered canonical but were later excluded from the Scripture. These books were not written by the followers of Jesus, who were all lower-class Aramaic speakers from Galilee. They would have been unfamiliar with the refined Greek in which the books were actually written. Most of these books were written by anonymous writers decades after Jesus’ death, who relied on oral traditions as their sources. To validate the anonymously written books, and to give them authority, it was decided to link them to established names. Hence the attributions such as “the Gospel according to Matthew”, etc. This explains why the books of the NT are so different from one another, full of contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies: the anonymous accounts were written by men who did not know each other and probably lived in different countries in the Roman empire, and they modified the stories in accordance with their own cultural traditions. None of the original copies of those books have survived. What we do have are copies made centuries later, all of which have been altered as the Christian religion took shape after the death of Jesus.

In summary, the NT consists of 27 books, which were written by 16 or 17 authors over a period of some 70 years (compare this with the OT, consisting of 39 books, written by dozens of authors over a period exceeding 600 years). Four of these books are Gospels (Jesus’ sayings, plus a description of events in his life) while the remaining books consist of writings by, or attributed to, Jesus’ disciples or apostles, or their companions. The 4 Gospels are those linked to the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Of the remaining books, one is a book of Acts, which describes what happened after Jesus’ death (his “ascension to heaven”). A large part of Acts is concerned with an early convert, Saul of Tarsus, who came to be known as apostle Paul, and who established much of the Christian dogma which later came to be accepted as official canon.  No less than 13 books simply comprise Paul’s letters to the churches he founded. These letters, which establish Christian religion in Paul’s image, are somehow considered as ”inspired”. Biblical scholars think that Paul wrote, perhaps, six of these letters, the remaining letters were written by others but attributed to Paul.

The first certain reference to the four Gospels included in the authorised NT occurred around 180 CE by a church father called Irenaeus. At that time lots of other Gospels were floating around, some claimed to have been written by Jesus’ disciples Peter, Thomas and Philip. These contained too many "heresies" unacceptable to church fathers in the Roman empire, and were excluded from Scripture.

John and Matthew were two of the 12 disciples of Jesus while Mark was said to be a companion of disciple Peter and Luke was a companion of Paul. In fact, the Gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written to be part of the Scripture. These Gospels were written anonymously from oral traditions: none of the writers claimed to be an eyewitness. They simply state what they think Mark, Matthew, Luke and John might have related after the death of Jesus. Hence the attribution: “The Gospel according to ….”. With the passage of time their accounts acquired a mystique and an aura of holiness, eventually becoming a part of the Scripture.

Here is a quotation taken from pages 267,268 and 279 of Ehrman’s book:

“Christianity, as has long been recognised by critical historians, is the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus. The beliefs and perspectives that emerged among Jesus’ later followers were different from the religion of Jesus himself.

There were numerous Christians involved in these transformations, who reinterpreted the traditions of Jesus for their own time. Christianity emerged over a long period of time, through a period of struggles, debates, and conflicts over competing views, doctrines, perspectives, canons, and rules. The ultimate emergence of the Christian religion represents a human invention, arguably the greatest invention in the history of western civilisation.

It would be impossible to argue that the Bible is a unified whole, inspired by God in every way. The Bible is not a unity, it is a massive plurality. God did not write the Bible, people did. “

In the first century CE the Christian beliefs differed widely. These diverse Christian communities bickered among themselves concerning their rival theologies and they competed bitterly to win converts. They all claimed to be the true exponents of Jesus’ religion and they had books to back up their claims. The group that eventually won was the influential one based in Rome, the centre of the empire. It declared this Roman Christianity to be the catholic religion - universal religion – followed by the disciples and apostles of Jesus. Thus was born Roman Catholic Christianity, which re-wrote history to present itself as always having been the largest and truest Christian sect.

With the exception of Paul’s letters, the NT is essentially a collection of forged documents, written anonymously but attributed to Jesus’ disciples or apostles or their companions. Ehrman, again:

“A large number of books in the early church were written by authors who falsely claimed to be apostles in order to deceive their readers into accepting their books and the views they represented”.

This blog has dealt with the background to the established Christian religion and the authorised Scripture (NT). In the next blog I intend to comment on the contents of the NT and the fundamental Christian beliefs.

قرآن مجید میں "عالم" کی تعریف

آجکل پاکستان میں خصوصاً اور دنیاۓ اسلام میں عموما، مسلمانوں کے نام نہاد مذہبی پیشوا خود ساختہ اعزازی ناموں سے پہچانے جاتے ہیں: مولانا، ملا، مولوی، امام، شیخ وغیرہ- بحیثیت مجموعی یہ حضرات - کہ خواتین ان میں نہیں ہوتیں - اپنے  تئیں "علما" کہلوانا پسند کرتے ہیں اور اپنے نظریات سے اختلاف رکھنے والوں پہ کفر کا فتویٰ صادر کرنے کے لئے ہمہ وقت کمر کسے بیٹھے ہوتے ہیں

اگرچہ ان حضرات نے اپنے لئے قرآن سے "عالم " کی اصطلاح اخذ کر لی ہے لیکن قرآن خود "علما " کی تعریف کن الفاظ میں کرتا ہے؟ سوره فاطر (35)، آیات  27/28 ، ترجمہ: ڈاکٹر شبیر احمد 

کیا تم نے غور نہیں کیا الله بلند فضا سے ایک ہی جیسا پانی برساتا ہے اور پھر اس سے کتنے مختلف رنگوں اور خواص کے پھل پیدا کرتا ہے؟ اور پہاڑ جو ایک ہی مادے سے بنتے ہیں ان میں مختلف  رنگوں کے قطعات ہوتے ہیں، کوئی سفید، کوئی سرخ اورکوئی کالا 

  اور پھر انسانوں، ہر طرح کے چھوٹے بڑے جانداروں اور چوپایوں کی بھی مختلف خصوصیات اور رنگ ہوتے ہیں- کائنات کی اس رنگا رنگی پر غور کر کے وہی لوگ الله کی عظمت کا اعتقاد رکھتے ہیں جو اس کے بندوں میں صاحب علم ہیں- وہ جانتے ہیں کہ الله کتنی بڑی قوتوں کا مالک 

ہے جوکائنات کے اس کارخانے کو تخریب سے محفوظ رکھتا ہے 

   

شبیر صاحب کا تبصرہ: ان دو آیات پہ غور کیجئے، کتنے بہت سے سائنسی علوم کی طرف اشارہ کر کے لفظ "علما " آیا ہے- ان آیات میں علم موسمیات، حیوانیات، حشرات الارض، مویشیوں اورعلم خوراک وغیرہ کا ذکر ہے- اگر علما  سے مراد مذہبی پیشوایّت لی جائے تو وہ تو محض کچھ رسمی عبادات آپ کو سکھا سکتے ہیں 

DAVIS FLIES OUT

So,’ Raymond Davis’ – or, whatever his name was – flew to safety on 16 March 2010! [for the full background, see the last blog post, The Fall of the American Empire]

This CIA spy – claimed by the twin liars, Obama and Clinton, to be a USA diplomat in Pakistan - had broken several Pakistani laws: carrying firearms illegally, engaging in activities harmful to Pakistan and killing two Pakistanis. On 16 March he was indicted in court just for the crime of murder.  Events then proceeded with the speed of lightning.

The lawyer who had previously represented the families of the murdered men was nowhere to be seen. A new face spoke on behalf of the families and he claimed that, under Pakistani law, the families had accepted “blood money” from  Davis. Documents showing how much was paid to each relative, duly signed by the relative concerned, were presented in court. All relatives showed up in court and acknowledged that the monies were safely in their bank accounts. In total, the amount paid out came to some $2.3 million, a huge amount by Pakistani standards. Davis was not charged for any other offences and was declared a free man, having paid the blood-money and served his sentence of “imprisonment” lasting all of 48 days. He was driven to an airport, where the Americans had conveniently flown in an aircraft the day before, and  was flown to the USA base in Bagram, Afghanistan. 

The Brown Sahibs of Pakistan

Thus ended the saga of “Raymond Davis”, which had gripped the Pakistani nation for the previous one-and-a-half months! This shameful ending shows what is truly wrong with Pakistan: its corrupt and spineless “westernised” Establishment - comprising the federal government, the provincial government, the army, the judiciary and the bureaucracy – is so used to aping the Americans in all sorts of ways that it has lost the moral courage to stand up for justice and for the honour of Pakistan. For the Brown Sahibs and Memsahibs of Pakistan this state of unending servitude to the Americans co-exists with the perpetuation of the colonial system left behind by the departing British in 1947.

The Brown Sahibs speak English Pakistani-style, secure in the knowledge that the "Berlin Wall" of English they have erected around themselves cannot easily be breached. Standing high up on that wall, they look down on the “natives”, who speak the national language Urdu or one of the regional languages. Notwithstanding Urdu’s status as the national language, the official language remains English, which is at best poorly understood by some 97% of the population of Pakistan.

The suffocating hold of English on national life is a primary reason for the widespread illiteracy of our nation. We simply do not have the resources to teach the whole population a foreign language which the corrupt and grasping  Brown Sahibs use as a status symbol and as a tool to keep the natives subdued. The consequences have been terrible: the illiterate or badly educated Pakistanis have taken a liberating religion like Islam and turned it into a monstrosity which is unrecognisable from the Qur’an that I read. The Brown Sahibs, on the other hand, are too busy aping the ways of their American masters to have the time to read and understand the Qur’an. Since they get their education through English-speaking foreigners, they are mostly ignorant of Islamic history and they do not know, for example, that the greatest centres of learning in medieval times, and the most tolerant societies on earth, were to be found in the Islamic world.

Thus it is that we, as a nation, are unable to have a sense of pride in our history (the Sindh civilisation stretches back thousands of years, though our Muslim identity was acquired much later), our Deen, our languages and our culture. We have sacrificed too much at the altar of gaudy westernisation. If only we could learn from the West instead of copying its worst aspects thoughtlessly!

I have written at length about Pakistan’s language problem, which you can read here. You might also be interested to read Mushfiq Ahmad's article published in The News recently: The bill to 'kill' Urdu

Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted

Following the shameful capitulation of Pakistan’s Establishment to the Americans, the usual chest beating and protests and demonstrations have begun. If nothing else, these actions will allow the dispossessed Pakistanis to vent their anger at the Brown Sahibs’ betrayal, who had focused on the personal aspect of this case and ignored the issues of national importance. The British newspapers, and several Pakistani newspapers, have revealed the sort of activities that Davis was engaged in.

Right now a petition has been presented in a Pakistani court which says that the judgment relating to Davis must be considered null and void because it was based on partial justice at best, and did not take into account the issues of vital importance to the Pakistani nation, for example, Davis’s espionage activities and his links with established terrorist organisations. Ironically, the largest terrorist organisation, the CIA, is never referred to as one! 

There is also a debate going on about the dirty tricks used by Pakistan’s Brown Sahibs to get the relatives of murdered men to co-operate and accept the blood-money. In a comment on my last blog post I had given a link to a report about the forcible poisoning of a relative of Fahim, one of the men murdered by Davis, to serve as a warning to all the other relatives to toe the line and not to press charges against Davis – which you can read here. Subsequently, relentless pressure was applied and astronomical sums of money were offered to win the relatives’ co-operation. The icing on the cake was the offer of USA visas! All the relatives have disappeared from view and may have been flown out to their new abodes in Obamaland. The judge who had hurriedly allowed Davis to go free has disappeared, too, perhaps fearing a violent backlash from the public. Wonder if he, too, has a one-way ticket to Obamaland?

The desperate lengths to which the Americans have gone simply highlights the immense importance that the Americans attach to the knowledge possessed by Davis, who appears to have been one of their key men in Pakistan. In these circumstances, the Brown Sahibs’ collusion in Davis’s escape amounts to treachery - but it will go unpunished because they are the ones who control Pakistan. I am reminded of the dying words of Fahim's young widow Shumaila, who committed suicide. As she lay dying, she said wistfully that she wanted a life for a life and wished to see Davis hanged. But she also knew that in today's  Pakistan it was impossible to have a fair trial against an American, who would be protected by the Pakistani rulers. Subsequent events have proved her right.

Lastly, there is a good deal of uncertainty about the treatment meted out to the relatives of the young man who had been crushed to death when a vehicle from the USA’s Lahore consulate drove the wrong way up a one-way street in a failed attempt to rescue Davis after he had committed the murders. I expect details will emerge in the coming days.

Tailpiece

The following day the Americans celebrated winning their man's freedom by launching a drone attack on a meeting of tribal elders in North Waziristan. Over 40 innocent Pakistanis died in the tragedy. The Brown Sahibs have issued the usual condemnations. However, as we know from WikiLeaks revelations, what goes on behind the scenes is something else altogether. Is the latest condemnation simply a ruse to deceive the Pakistanis into giving up their protests and demonstrations? The weasel words these people utter never go as far as saying the Pakistan Air Force will be ordered to shoot down the drone if the Americans attack again.  


20 March 2011 : I am glad that Pakistan's press, especially the Urdu press, is echoing similar views to those I have expressed in relation to the role played by Pakistan's elite in the Raymond Davis drama. Those who feel at home with Urdu will particularly like reading the following articles:    
غیرت  کی ڈولی    "Ghairat ki doli" by Ali Mas'ood Sayed:
 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/mar2011-daily/20-03-2011/col10.htm

آج دل بہت اداس ہے   "Aaj dil bohat udaas hai" by Hina Khwaja Bayat:
 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/mar2011-daily/20-03-2011/col9.htm

الله اس ملک کی حفاظت کرے   "Allah Ta'aala is mulk ki hifaazat karay" by Javed Chaudhry: http://express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101196304&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20110320

Some sections of the English press, on the other hand, are making fun of such deeply held convictions by the Pakistani nation. The small minority of Brown Sahibs and Memsahibs laughingly refer to the rest of the nation as "ghairat brigade"! Are these dishonourable people totally bereft of any notions of honour as Pakistanis?

Feminists join mullahs in making Islam irrelevant

Imamahs leading mixed congregations of the faithful.

On 10th June a report appeared in a British newspaper, The Independent, under the heading “First woman to lead Friday prayers in the UK”. The opening line of the report began, “A Canadian author will become the first Muslim-born woman to lead a mixed-gender British congregation through Friday prayers tomorrow”. Very helpfully, the newspaper published a picture of a mixed congregation with the imamah, Raheel Raza, sitting at the front.


Slightly tongue-in-cheek, I sent off a comment which was published at the newspaper’s website:


“Given that people who lead prayers in mosques are often self-regarding, unpleasant individuals, we should be talking about reforming the way prayers are conducted. Talking about appointment of imamahs is really a non-issue, at best a ridiculous imitation of the practices recently introduced in some religions.


The basic point that we need to grasp is that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Deen, a Way of Life, a System, that we have to observe in our daily lives. When we remember Allah, our attention needs to be directed to Him alone, cutting out all distractions. Islamic prayers are not like Christian prayers where women sit demurely by the side of men. In Islamic prayers you rise and bow and prostrate, and you may become so absorbed in the remembrance of Allah that you become forgetful of proper decorum. If we have a mixed congregation it would become impossible to let go of our inhibitions and lose ourselves in the Zikr. It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


Four days later The Guardian, another British newspaper, carried an article by Shaista Gohir (Gohar?) titled, “Women must be leaders in faith”. The full article is given below.

Women must be leaders in faith

A woman led Muslim prayers in Oxford last week. Her actions and those of others like her, across faiths, deserve our support

Shaista Gohir                                           


guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 June 2010 13.30


So far, it seems only Muslim women from abroad dare lead men in Friday prayers in the UK. A Canadian, Raheel Raza, became the second Muslim woman to do so at the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford last week. An African-American convert, Amina Wadud, was the first Muslim woman to lead mixed prayers at the same centre in 2008. It's not surprising that British Muslim women are not brave enough to follow their footsteps – both have been demonised after leading men in prayers in their own countries.


Why is the idea of female imams so controversial amongst many Muslims? When Amina Wadud shocked the world in 2005 by leading mixed-gender Friday prayers in New York, I must admit even I felt uncomfortable. I had been brought up to believe only men could be imams, something I never questioned until recently.


An honest study of Islamic texts reveals that women are not forbidden to lead men in prayer – the Qur'an does not even address this issue. In fact the conditions required are Islamic knowledge, skill and piety – none of which are gender related. However, (mostly male) scholars maintain there is consensus on the impermissibility of women leading men in prayer despite lack of evidence to back up their position. In many quarters, this issue is not even open to debate, despite the fact that centuries ago it was discussed without controversy and a diversity of opinions was respected. According to female scholar Halima Krausen, a number of male scholars, such as Abu Thawr al-Kalbi, Abu Isma'il al-Muzani, al-Isfahani, at-Tabari and Ibn Taymiyya, had nothing against women leading mixed prayers. One woman, Umm Waraqa, is known to have led men in prayers in her household during the time of Prophet Muhammad.


Male clergy often cite questionable hadiths or take them out of context to criticise women such as Wadud. One argument often marshalled is that women's bodily movements arousing desires in men. Are men really so weak that they can't keep their eyes off a fully covered woman's posterior during prayer? I believe men have invented arguments about their sexual excitement – it is only their ego that prevents them from praying behind a woman.


Despite these powerful arguments supporting the permissibility of women leading mixed congregation prayers, I doubt the practice will become widespread in the near future as religious institutions are controlled by men. And most Muslim women are more concerned about fighting for equality on basic grounds such as education and economic empowerment. I don't think leading prayers is a battle that many are yet ready to fight, even if they believe in it. But Wadud and Raza are paving the way for more female imams to come forward to lead other women in prayer. Last year Hawaria Fattah became the first female imam in Europe after being recruited to a mosque in Belgium. This is a pioneering appointment even though she only works with Muslim women.


Restricting women's role in religious structures and practices is not exclusive to Islam. Historically all the world's major religions have done this. The first female rabbi was Regina Jonas, who was only ordained privately in 1935 in Berlin. The next ordination came in the US, in 1972, when Sally Priesand was made a rabbi in the Reform tradition. Since then, all branches of Judaism, except Orthodoxy, have found a way to ordain women.


Female priests may have been ordained in various branches of Christianity. However, its largest denomination, Roman Catholicism, has consistently refused to allow women into the priesthood. Those ordained unofficially are often excommunicated. This status quo continues to be challenged – last week a group marched to St Peter's Square demanding a debate on this issue. Opening the doors to the priesthood would mean women could ascend to the papacy – and perhaps the possibility of a future female pope is too much for the Catholic church.


Women are suffering the consequences of oppressive misinterpretations of religious texts in all faiths. It's time more of us questioned their legitimacy. No topic should be out of bounds for discussion, including the question of female religious leaders. The act of attempting to break down the last barriers to female participation sends an unequivocal message about equality.

============================
On reading this article I responded with the same comments as those I had made earlier in connection with the article in The Independent. I also gave a link to my blog. The author’s response, published at the website on 15 June, was:

“You have nicely illustrated my point about men making excuses about how easily they are supposedly aroused and distracted. If you are that deep in prayer, nothing should distract you. And if you have sinful thoughts, then why should women pay the price for being excluded? Shouldn't men be the ones excluded into another room who have such thoughts.


You conveniently forget to mention verse 24:30 in the Quran which commands men to lower their gaze. The Qur'an does not even remotely suggest that men are sexually more excitable than women. In fact I have discovered the following hadith which is conveniently ignored: “God has created the sexual desire in ten parts and he gave nine parts to women and one to men.” The same narration goes on to say, of shyness, women have been given nine parts of that too. So if women can control all nine parts of their desire when men are bending in front of them, sometimes wearing the tightest of jeans, it’s about time men took responsibility for their own urges too, and not hold women responsible.


So if you are having bad thoughts, please take responsibility.


I know there are many criticisms on here about all religions being patriachal 
which is true..........but they would be less so if more women were involved, especially in leadership roles. So even if you are against any form of religion, surely women's increased involvement is a good thing.”

Clearly we were not on the same wavelength. Ms Gohir, I could see, had read widely and she could take on most mullahs in a discussion on Islam as religion. Only, to me, Islam was not a religion and the feminists were making the same mistake that mullahs had made earlier. I carefully composed a reply:


Dear Ms Shaista Gohir,


Words are an imperfect means of conveying deeply held convictions. The way we use words, and interpret them, tend to reflect our own experience and it is easy to misunderstand another person’s point of view.


You talk about “sinful thoughts” – I am not sure what you mean. Do you have any control over the random thoughts that might occur to you? There are times when we think consciously and there are other times when thoughts just descend out of nowhere. Is a person responsible for the latter kind of thoughts?


The points I was trying to get across were:


1. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam that Muhammad Mustafa gave to mankind 1500 years ago. Having a priesthood is a distortion of Islam – a practice picked up from the Jews and the Christians.


2. In the early years of Islam mosques were not just places of worship – they were also what we might today call ‘community centres’, where the problems of the community would be addressed. The Caliph himself, or other leaders of the community, would be present to offer prayers to Allah and then to seek His Guidance in solving the problems of the community.


3. The kind of “worship” that is offered in the mosques today is, in my opinion, of very little value. I doubt if you have attended many prayer sessions or listened to the sermons that the Muslim priests deliver. Most are impractical and have been devalued through repetition. You will rarely hear anyone addressing the ills of so-called Muslim societies, which are anything but Islamic: widespread corruption, lies and deceit; and exploitation/ oppression of the general population by the privileged classes on a massive scale.


4. Remembrance of Allah is unlike anything else we might do. To receive and feel His Power within our ‘selves’ we need to reduce all kinds of distractions as much as possible and that means minimising the activity of our thinking mind. Thus, for example, the music that is played in many places of worship is considered inappropriate when it comes to remembering Allah. A direct link between the Creater and a created being is not dependent on such props [“He is closer to us than our jugular veins”]. It is in this sense that I consider men and women praying alongside each other to be a negation of true worship – simply because they will be too aware of each other’s presence and their minds will remain active - this has nothing to do with "sinful thoughts". I am sorry for the rather flippant comment I made in my previous post. However, I wasn’t just referring to men – my comments applied equally to women:


“It will be very difficult indeed to forget the presence of a member of the opposite sex near you as she/he rises from a prostate position and your eyes - inadvertently, of course - come to rest on the undulating form as it straightens up”.


I think you would appreciate my point of view better if you were to read the very first and the very last posts in the blog to which I provided a link. Would it be OK to use your article, and some of the comments thereon, in a future blog post? I don't suppose there will be any objections from the Guardian, which will be duly acknowledged?

Ms Shaista Gohir responded as follows:


"Thank you for such a detailed response. I will check out the links you have provided. And yes you should use my article to create debate whatever your take is on this. I think this issue should not be out of bounds and debated without it becoming too polarised which it did become back in 2005, when Amina Wadud first hit the headlines.


If men disagree and don't want to pray behind a woman for whatever reason then they shouldnt have to. However, they should not imply it is because of divine will and just be honest that it is simply male opinion on this issue. Likewise a woman should not have to accept the status quo and be able to challenge practices that she feels are man made without being demonised.


In terms of priesthood, I agree, in Islam we are not supposed to have intermediaterie between us and God and we give too much blind obedience to scholars / imams without checking out religious texts for ourselves."


I felt Shaista Gohir hadn’t quite appreciated the reason why I felt it served no purpose for men and women to offer prayers standing next to each other. It seems to me that the feminists have entered into a race with the mullahs to convert Islam into a meaningless religion similar to what Christianity has become. The feminists are trying to widen the mass of rituals we have today instead of cleaning up the mess and sending the mullahs packing from the mosques. I would be very happy if Shaista Gohir would deliver a Friday khutba about the plight of women in “Muslim” countries or about something else she feels strongly about. However, she should not then try to herd men and women into a room and get an imamah up front to “lead” them in prayer.

ISLAM: the Reality beyond time and space

La ikraaha fid-Deen [Al-Qur’an, 2:256].

There is no compulsion in matters of Religion

In my article on Islam and, especially, the discussion that followed - Islam: back to basics - I touched on the differences in the interpretation of Quraanic aayaat which can arise among scholars of great repute and intellectual attainments. I think this aspect of the world of Islam requires a bit of amplification.

First, consider this excerpt from my aforementioned article:

“Unlike Allah’s Messenger Muhammad, who was a practical man of the world just as much as he was a Knower of the Reality which transcends the material world, these so-called ulema know neither this world nor the wider Reality.”

Muhammad Rasul-Allah, Rehmatul-lil-aalameen, was not an intellectual, he did not go to any university, nor did he write a book. Yet he had all the wisdom in the world and he was able to act as a ruler, a judge, a military commander and a spiritual leader. He had understanding of this material world, and also of the world of non-matter, because of the Knowledge and Guidance he received directly from The One, The Everlasting, The First and The Last. That knowledge did not depend on the cleverness of the mind nor was it affected by the limitation of human powers.

When we move beyond the Messengers to lesser mortals the difficulty we face is that most of them rely mostly on the power of their intellect, the cleverness of the mind – which cannot directly grasp the truths that exist in the world of non-matter. Thus, where there is no guidance from a Higher Source one’s interpretation of the Qur’an cannot be faultless. That, I think, is why differences of opinion occur between equally sincere seekers after the truth.  

The mind is a material thing and it will die with the death of the body. What will survive death is the real “I” - in Quraanic terminology, “the Nafs” - which transcends matter. Thus, unless a person has been touched at that deeper level from a Higher Source his knowledge cannot be said to be complete. Each person is unique, people differ widely with regard to their physical, intellectual and spiritual capacities. A spiritual giant will have a different understanding of the Mutashaabihaat aayaat of the Qur’an compared to someone whose spiritual potential is limited. That is why so many religious scholars possessing great intelligence fail to offer convincing explanations of various Quraanic passages. It may be that Allah is speaking to each person according to his/her capacity and showing a way leading to Him which is right for that person. That may be  why the Quraan declares: La ikraaha fid-deen – there is no compulsion in matters of Deen.

Let me illustrate the point by reference to Iqbal, the poet-sage par excellence, to whom verses descended like “the patter of rain on a tin roof”. Someone who could compose sublime poetry as in Baal-e-Jibreel - people rate Iqbal’s Persian poetry higher, a language I do not know – cannot be an ordinary mortal. There are numerous accounts of Iqbal’s out-of-this-world experiences, which occurred spontaneously and were not self-induced as so many mystical experiences are. In his book “Shahab Nama” Qudratullah Shahab, too, has written about his own spontaneous experiences and he goes on at some length about the inherent risks of Sufi practices, a lot of which depend on props of one kind or another.

In his biography of his father,“Zindah Rood”, Javid Iqbal says that it was Iqbal’s intention to write a book on Islamic Sharia, as he understood it. Sadly, because of the demands on his time, Iqbal was unable to commence this project before it was time for him to move on to the world of non-matter. Had Iqbal been able to write that book, there might have been fewer differences among Muslims subsequently. I say this because a large proportion of educated Muslims of Pakistan acknowledge Iqbal’s position as straddling both worlds, those of matter and of non-matter. Perhaps I am wrong. Many mullahs had indeed declared Iqbal to be kaafir and it is conceivable that in the event of him writing the book that he planned, those attacks might have increased manifold. For me, at any rate, such a book would have been invaluable.

I cannot, of course, judge the spiritual status of Iqbal and Shahab, or of those who are higher still. All I can assert is that, based on my experience, there are people who are endowed with great spiritual gifts. Those who are truly close to the Power of Allah find it easy to live a normal life, outwardly little different from that of an ordinary person. The supreme example of a man conscious of Allah's Power within him, and in everything that exists, was Muhammad Rasul-Allah (R-u-l-A). His appearance conformed to the prevailing fashion, he wore clothes which were normal for the Arab society of his day, and he did not feel a need to cultivate a distinctive look. 

My own approach to understanding the Qur’an is to remain as humble as possible. Possessing neither intellectual nor spiritual gifts, as I read various translations and interpretations of the Qur’an I try also to listen to my inner voice. If that voice tells me that a particular explanation rings hollow then I reserve judgment on that explanation. I try to avoid getting into arguments. I do think that the “inner voice” exists within each human being, only it remains inaudible for most because our wrong actions in this world have the effect of smothering it.

Ahmadi Muslims

Following the massacre on Black Friday, 28 May, I have talked to our Ahmadi brothers and sisters and I have also consulted their literature. Previously, I had known little of the depth of their conviction for their beliefs. I can see now that it is linked to the undoubted mystical experiences of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. I do not possess the spiritual stature to comment on whether Mirza Sahib correctly interpreted those experiences.

In so far as the Lahori section of the Ahmadiyya movement is concerned they do not see Mirza Sahib as a Messenger in the sense that Rasul-Allah (R-u-l-A) was. The other bone of contention, accepting Mirza Sahib as the Mahdi, is a peripheral issue: Sunnis and Shias have been quarrelling about that for centuries. The only requirement for a person to embrace Islam is: La ilaaha il-lallah, Muhammadur Rasul-ul-lah. If the Quraanic words “La ikraaha fid-Deen” mean anything, we need to restore the legal position of the Ahmadi community to what it was before Z A Bhutto sacrificed it at the altar of political expediency in the nineteen seventies.