Censorship on BAZM regarding non-divisionist views.
-
Peace all,
This is a post I made to BAZM in July that was deleted within half an hour. When I objected to their censorship, the moderator had several cases of severe hypocrisy when they modifed posts to suit themselves and make themselves appear right.
They were finally exposed as the ultimate hypocrites when Dr Shabir himself asked publicly to the moderator that I be allowed to post without censorship. Half an hour later even that post was deleted. God is my witness.
The point of my post was to criticise Dr Shabir's labelling of various groups in Islam with his own system of taxonomy. He calls these "Islam number 1, 2 and 3". I present the post for your consideration
Peace Dr Shabir,
Recently I have been concentrating my efforts on various projects and had withdrawn somewhat from forums on the internet. I found your website and had bookmarked it several weeks ago. Reading through some posts in the forum I was struck by this post and the way it commits a common mistake of human desire.
People are still obsessed with classification and categorisation of humans into various groups; with emphasis being placed on nomenclature and taxonomy. Classification is a natural process within human nature and at its most basic has utility and facilitates our adaptation to our environment. There is a dark side to classification however; and that is when it is used to justify oneself, one's own position and one's elitist ego.
The division of people into named groups is totally against the principle of the oneness of humanity and our SHARED struggle to achieve the ultimate reward. There is not a single human who does not share the burdens of humanity. There is not a single human who is not called to by the quran either. It is inclusive and not divisive. We are in essence all the same.
Therefore I am disturbed to see this negative principle of classification in the translations/interpretations people provide of the Quran and in this regard I draw your attention to 262 which you quote in your post.
I have thought deeply on this verse and feel that it does not refer to "Jews, Christians, and Sabians" which is a human classification of various 'ideological' groups of people. All of creation belongs to God and only He knows what is in their hearts. Rather than this verse splitting people into a taxonomy of humans I translate it as follows
"Those who believe, those who are guided , those who help others , and those who purify themselves ? whoever believes in God, the Last Day and leads a righteous life will have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear and they shall not grieve."
Notes
?Hadoo? is usually translated as ?Jew? but the literal meaning is ?those who are guided?.?Nasara? is usually translated as ?Christian? but the literal meaning is ?those who help?.
?Sabieena? comes from the root ?to change one?s religion?, ?to wash?, which has associated the term at times with Johannite Baptists. The washing is a spiritual purification rather than a physical bathing so the term ?those who purify themselves? has been selected for the translation.
You will readily see that the translation as presented is inclusive of all humans who are on the right path and who have nothing to fear.
I am free of this notion of classifying people into groups for one's own gratification and pride, and urge all submitters to the deen of God to do the same. In this regard I see the classification into N1-N2-N3 types of islam while being convenient (and amusing), as being at the same time extremely negative and egotistical. Remember that Satan was exclusive and elitist; he divided himself through classification based on his creation (fire/clay). What was important was not Satan's difference in creation but the IDEA of separateness he upheld.
The justification for the translation I presented, through tasreef or "qxp" would point to 6159 - you shall have NOTHING to do with those who break/divide/classify. The message of God is inclusive, and we must therefore apply that in ourselves.
Sincerely,
Dr Oben. -
Peace Truth,
I am no advocate of censorship, but this complaint of yours is embarrassing. I've been visiting BAZM Forum for well over 2 years now. Not once did they ever present a classification of Muslims. What's referred to as "Number 2 Islam" is a phrase coined to describe the mess made of Islam by it's clergy.
You'll find many of the same types of posts right here on Free-Minds. It is not a tool of seperation, it is a tool of awareness. Fallacy should be pointed out, wherever it may roam.
But more importantly, one should keep in mind that the BAZM forum is not a public debate forum. It is, essentially, an extension of QXP and other works of Dr. Shabbir Ahmed. It is a private forum that reserves the right to limit the scope of dialogue.
What you have done in your post was attack the forum members based on misinformation. If it was my forum, I would have censored you too.
You don't have to like the guy, but attacking him and his forum while he is not here to defend himself is sad. This, about a man who is spending his life attempting to raise the awareness of people on a global scale. He gives his books away to anyone who can't afford them. He keeps everything online for downloads. He answers all questions and emails, posts his phone number for personal conversations, and is still humbled every time a person expresses appreciation. He is fighting the very same fight we're fighting. He's an ally, a resource, and you're trying to marginalize him because your feelings were hurt.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Tay,
Thank you for your response. I only have the following to say about your reply
Peace Truth,
I am no advocate of censorship, but this complaint of yours is embarrassing. I've been visiting BAZM Forum for well over 2 years now. Not once did they ever present a classification of Muslims. What's referred to as "Number 2 Islam" is a phrase coined to describe the mess made of Islam by it's clergy.
Then I might suggest you find out what "Number 1 Islam" is. I might also suggest that you ask Dr Shabir about "Number 3 Islam". The terms they use are actually cuter - N1, N2 and N3. Only one is correct in their view. Now in my post I point out that classification is indeed useful. But the way the terms are used on that forum are not for utility - but for ridicule and elitism. It's an ego trip on the part of the classifiers.
You'll find many of the same types of posts right here on Free-Minds. It is not a tool of seperation, it is a tool of awareness. Fallacy should be pointed out, wherever it may roam.
I am free of these divisions. I do not pledge allegiance to any group.
But more importantly, one should keep in mind that the BAZM forum is not a public debate forum. It is, essentially, an extension of QXP and other works of Dr. Shabbir Ahmed. It is a private forum that reserves the right to limit the scope of dialogue.
Right. By my own brief experience there I witnessed that what they are interested in is not examination of the truth. Instead they value conformity. If one cannot present a dissenting view then how are they any better than the N2 Islam which they criticise?
Indeed falsehood must be exposed.
What you have done in your post was attack the forum members based on misinformation. If it was my forum, I would have censored you too.
At least your hypocritical statement regarding not supporting censorship is exposed here.
You don't have to like the guy, but attacking him and his forum while he is not here to defend himself is sad. This, about a man who is spending his life attempting to raise the awareness of people on a global scale. He gives his books away to anyone who can't afford them. He keeps everything online for downloads. He answers all questions and emails, posts his phone number for personal conversations, and is still humbled every time a person expresses appreciation. He is fighting the very same fight we're fighting. He's an ally, a resource, and you're trying to marginalize him because your feelings were hurt.
Peace,
TayUnlike his 'private' forum (a misnomer as anyone can post and view without registration or could in July at any rate), he is free to confront this on this public forum.
I pointed out the way that my posts were edited to make my posts look ridiculous. Now is that what you call justice? To his credit Dr Shabir himself relented and made a public post in a somewhat sarcastic manner asking the moderator to NOT censor the debate - however this was obviously rescinded after a brief discussion and the entire body of posts deleted.
People only fear the truth.
Finally I suggest to you that if you want to know who your masters are then ask whom you cannot criticise.
Peace.
-
Peace Truth,
"Those who believe, those who are guided , those who help others , and those who purify themselves ? whoever believes in God, the Last Day and leads a righteous life will have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear and they shall not grieve."
Notes
?Hadoo? is usually translated as ?Jew? but the literal meaning is ?those who are guided?.?Nasara? is usually translated as ?Christian? but the literal meaning is ?those who help?.
?Sabieena? comes from the root ?to change one?s religion?, ?to wash?, which has associated the term at times with Johannite Baptists. The washing is a spiritual purification rather than a physical bathing so the term ?those who purify themselves? has been selected for the translation.
I agree with your criticism of the practice of classifications because you have bought as your proof an explanation from the Qur'aan. Your rendition of 262 is closer to the uniting concepts expounded throughout the Book. The habit of arbitrarily making verbs nouns has led to many wrong ideas. I try to approach the Qur'aan as though I?ve never heard of these groups and keeping in mind the universality claimed in the message and the admonitions about outside sources, the traditional translations are obviously shaded. There are two parties in the Book, the party for God and the party for satan and two outcomes for the choices we make, janna or nar.
In 262 the only word that stumped me was the un-translated ?sabians?. Thank you for providing me, a non-arab, with validation and food for thought. God says He has made this Book easy to remember/understand.
NaSara=support, help (not Nazarene or Nazareth)
Huda=guide
-
Peace Truth,
You stated,
The terms they use are actually cuter - N1, N2 and N3. Only one is correct in their view.
Please provide a link to Dr. Shabbir claiming this classification. I think you've mistaken the babblings of a visitor for the thoughts of the whole forum.
But the way the terms are used on that forum are not for utility - but for ridicule and elitism. It's an ego trip on the part of the classifiers.
Again, please provide some facts and let the evidence speak for itself rather than assume the motivation.
I am free of these divisions. I do not pledge allegiance to any group.
Good for you. Nor do I, nor do any "free-minders", that I can recall, and nor do the members of BAZM forum. I suggest you read the book, "Criminals of Islam" under 'highlights" to understand what Number 2 Islam is. It is not a group. It is the effect clergy has had upon Islam, ie, rituals, tradtions, uniforms, belief in the supernatural, etc.
If one cannot present a dissenting view then how are they any better than the N2 Islam which they criticise?
Every time I visit the forum I find dissenting views posted- every single time.
At least your hypocritical statement regarding not supporting censorship is exposed here.
My apologies. I read your post 3 times and agree that it did not warrant being censored. But I remain against your public slandering.
Unlike his 'private' forum (a misnomer as anyone can post and view without registration or could in July at any rate), he is free to confront this on this public forum.
Then invite him here and have a go at it after the 2 of you have agreed. Or call him up on the phone. Is that not fair? Why slander a person who is not here to defend himself?
Finally I suggest to you that if you want to know who your masters are then ask whom you cannot criticise.
I understand what you're implying, and appreciate the advice, but I answer only to my Creator.
The reason I am against you posting things like, "Ultimate Hypocrites, Elitist, Egotistical" about the BAZM forum is because you are creating the very barriers that you allegedly seek to transcend. If you have a problem with someone, you contact that person, you don't call "The New York Times" and slander him publicly, claiming to have "finally exposed the hypocrisy".
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
Tay, to answer some of the questions you have asked required me to visit the forum in question. My criticisms were directed at the way in which my post was deleted for no reason than it did not conform to their view. If you read the QXP you will see that Dr Shabbir calls 262 one of the KEY verses as far as explaining the Quran through tasreef goes.
My post was an entirely reasonable examination of 262 which is highly important as far as the inclusiveness of the message goes.
They could not debate the translation I had presented so instead they deleted it - and then subsequently changed my follow up posts to make themselves appear 'clever'. What they did confirmed to me that they were only after conformity and moreover were gagging reasonable debate as well as changing posts to make themselves appear right. This charge stands. Dr Shabbir then made an invitation to me to post without censorship - before I could even type a post that message had vanished.
I'll touch upon some of your questions and I hope that you will see that in the light of my answers the type of censorship/gagging they did to me was not only unreasonable - but farcical given the posts I will present. Note that I only searched for the terms N1I, N2I and N3I to find these posts. I will present the links here but I cannot guarantee that they will remain intact. The BAZM forum has proved itself to me conclusively to be a very volatile and unstable place as far as post integrity goes.
Peace Truth,
Please provide a link to Dr. Shabbir claiming this classification. I think you've mistaken the babblings of a visitor for the thoughts of the whole forum.Let me clarify - I have indeed said "they" referring to the forums practices as a whole.
I want to point out one other thing. My post was apparently so overwhelmingly offensive to them that on the next post the anonymous "Webmaster" announced that anonymous posts would no longer be accepted - and that is the reason why my posting was deleted. However I had signed the post with not only my name but my correct title so even this so called reason for deletion was actually a FALSE EXCUSE. Not only was it an excuse, but it was an example of a rule made up on the fly and then immediately applied retrospectively!
When I explained that an anonymous "Webmaster" had no leg to stand upon when making a post about anonymity; the issue was brushed off and that entire thread was deleted when the absurdity of the "Webmaster"s argument became unworkable. That my friend is hypocrisy. The argument having been lost - even with my posts having been edited! - the entire thread exposing the hypocrisy was deleted from the view of all who visit the site.
But the way the terms are used on that forum are not for utility - but for ridicule and elitism. It's an ego trip on the part of the classifiers.
Again, please provide some facts and let the evidence speak for itself rather than assume the motivation.
Coming back to the classification issue. The following is one of Shabbir's definitions of this issue
Respected friends, AA
There is only one Islam, DEENILLAH.
Anything else is not Islam. Anything else is the Number two Islam.When we say "Number Two Islam", we mean any MAZHAB or religion that is given the name ISLAM although it is infested with non-Qur'anic themes and dogmas. Fabricated Ahadith and Sufism are the two greatest sources of this sinister attack on, and the contamination of DEENILLAH.
...
It concludes therefore, that there is no room for such things as Number Three, Four, or even Number One Islam.
Gratefully,
A life-long student,
- Shabbir
Now I don't want to labour the point of why the term N2I itself is derogatory and serves the purposes of the 'elite' group. The number 2 does not stand in isolation. It implies a count. Therefore to ALLOW the existence of Number 2 and then deny the existence of Number 1,3, or 4 is absurd.
Do you not see the hypocrisy yet? There is NO ROOM for Number 3, 4 or even Number 1 Islam - but there seems to be plenty of room for NUMBER TWO ISLAM.
In this definition Shabbir is careful to merely label the ideas as being Number 2. However now that he has this weapon of his own making he uses it in ways that are loaded - I didn't have to look very hard to find examples
"What a lethal blow to the Hadithi Mullahs and N2Is from the SUBMITTERS PERSPECTIVE of Oct 2003!"
The "N2Is" is no longer representing a classification of ideology but is labelling a group.
Again if you examine
http//64.227.163.32/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=19843
where a visitor uses the term Number 1 Islam, Shabbir who is one of the respondents seems to not take exception to the term being used here. It is implicitly understood by the forum to refer to themselves - the ones in the right.
My role is not to expose this thoroughly. I am only responding to your denial that such a system of elitist classification exists and that it is used for ego building. Even if it is officially denied as in the post above, its usage is different from its definition.
I am free of these divisions. I do not pledge allegiance to any group.
Good for you. Nor do I, nor do any "free-minders", that I can recall, and nor do the members of BAZM forum. I suggest you read the book, "Criminals of Islam" under 'highlights" to understand what Number 2 Islam is. It is not a group. It is the effect clergy has had upon Islam, ie, rituals, tradtions, uniforms, belief in the supernatural, etc.
I've read the books. The classification system may seem innocent when read in isolation - and this is what exposes the hypocrisy - the term is used to actually label and refer to groups as I have demonstrated.
If one cannot present a dissenting view then how are they any better than the N2 Islam which they criticise?
Every time I visit the forum I find dissenting views posted- every single time.
I speak from experience and am relating my experience.
Have a look at this thread for example
http//64.227.163.32/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=15863
It is entitled "The N2Is are indeed monkeys"
Note the usage of the term here to denote a group once again. Because I do not have faith in the forums integrity I will paste the post in response to this by Dr Shabbir here for posterity in case it is sanitised subsequently
Posted By DR. SHABBIR
Date Monday, 6 October 2003, at 1031 p.m.In Response To The N2Is are indeed Monkeys! (Abdul H. Fauq)
Dear Captain, AA
ROFL
I love this one. The Hadith also states that the unfortunate or "criminal" she-monkey was the wife of an aged "husband". She was enticed by a young monkey into this crime. The aged monkey woke up, saw the scene and screamed like all N2I Mullahs do, upon which numerous monkeys came rushing and stoned to death the young adulterer couple!
Mullah Kaukab Siddique, seeing this Hadith in my book, THE CRIMINALS OF ISLAM, tried to defend this non-sense by saying, "Well, Sahabi Umro bin Maimoon had observed this debacle and took part in stoning. But ... but ... it was during the times of JAHILIYA."
Conclusion Monkeys used to commit "adultery" only before the advent of Islam. So, now they all are true Muslims of the N2I (NUMBER TWO ISLAMI)
variety!LOL
What more can I write?
At least your hypocritical statement regarding not supporting censorship is exposed here.
My apologies. I read your post 3 times and agree that it did not warrant being censored. But I remain against your public slandering.
The censorship and subsequent bizarre maneuvering to gag me was shameful on the part of the BAZM forum. The subsequent invitation to post without censorship and then its unexplained retraction within another half hour exposed to me the unworthiness of the administrators to be insulated from exposure of their actions.
Unlike his 'private' forum (a misnomer as anyone can post and view without registration or could in July at any rate), he is free to confront this on this public forum.
Then invite him here and have a go at it after the 2 of you have agreed. Or call him up on the phone. Is that not fair? Why slander a person who is not here to defend himself?
A slander is a FALSE charge. I am relating to you truthfully the events that befell me when I attempted to start a debate on the legitimacy of the N2I labelling system and stated the desired objective of inclusiveness in the message. Moreover I feel that I have showed you that my charges of elitism and divisiveness created by the "N2I" terminology they have adopted is counter to the principles of the Book.
There has been a period between these events and now. So this is not a sudden act on my part. It occurred to me that what I had experienced was a form of oppression. The QXP and BAZM forum are attempting a rewrite of Islam according to their own terms. If they are not open to debate then they are just as bad as the people they label.
I realised that my reasonable questioning of the legitimacy of the labelling system they had invented attacked their sense of self made superiority. The translation I presented of 262 questioned some of the very deep essence of QXP in which that verse is described as the most important verse requiring the use of 'tasreef' techniques.
Finally I suggest to you that if you want to know who your masters are then ask whom you cannot criticise.
I understand what you're implying, and appreciate the advice, but I answer only to my Creator.
The reason I am against you posting things like, "Ultimate Hypocrites, Elitist, Egotistical" about the BAZM forum is because you are creating the very barriers that you allegedly seek to transcend. If you have a problem with someone, you contact that person, you don't call "The New York Times" and slander him publicly, claiming to have "finally exposed the hypocrisy".
Peace,
TayThey had the opportunity to debate with me on their own turf but chose to violate the principles of fairness and justice with their own actions. I went to them and was treated to the BAZM rules of "conform or get out".
Now it is not up to you to defend the system in place there so please again consider who your master is and act accordingly.
Peace.
-
Peace Truth,
Upon reading your articulation it has become clear that you have a legitimate beef. I trust that what you say is true for no other reasons than the apparent sincerity in your words and plain old benefit of the doubt.
That being said, I wonder, what exactly is your motivation for this thread? Do you feel, from the bottom of your very soul, that the BAZM forum is truly out to change Islam to befit their own terms? And with this intention, you're warning all to stay away from their forum?
There are no hidden meanings in my questions. I think it vitally important to ascertain the root of your complaint.
I, for one, have benefitted greatly from the knowledge being shared at the BAZM forum. I've always understood the whole "Number 2 Islam" title to simply represent the set of beliefs/ideas. Adding number 1, 3, or 4 is irrelevant. It wouldn't even be an issue if they chose "Dubious Islam" instead of "Number 2 Islam". It's just an easier way to say "the religion that calls itself Islam yet is filled with non-Qur'anic traditions, rituals, and dogma."
Again, I understand your complaint about censorship and at this point, I agree. But I think you're reading a bit too much into the "Number 2 Islam" label.
Finally, I expressed to you that I answer to no one except Allah, nor do I defend anyone with disregard to what I am defending. Yet, still, you end your reply with asking me to consider who my master is. This is, to me, the very worst kind of judgement, and now you've done it twice, which tacks on disrespect. A third time will be met with silence.
Peace,
Tay