Dr. Qazi (#93) and Rashid Mughal (#94) have effectively answered the questions raised by Mustayeen khan in his 17-paragraph essay (#92). However, I would like to add one or two comments:

In his opening salvo Mustayeen Khan heaps quite a lot of contempt on Ahsan Khan's point of view by saying "your views depict, as usual, your anti-Islamic propensity" and "your opinions are not well argued, they lack logic and wider outlook", and "your writing appears to be a collection of populist ideas", and "you are playing to the gallery", and so on. Mustayeen Khan sounds more like an angry mullah denouncing his opponents over the loudspeaker rather than the intellectual who has, to the amazement of most of us, traced the origins of democracy to Bihar, India in the 6th century BC.

I am sure he will soon hear from Ahsan Khan.

My second comment is on paragraph #8 where Mustayeen Khan says, "A constantly changing standard is irrational, unjust and an outrage to common sense. This is the great advantage of Divine Laws that they are immutable. People's laws, on the other hand, change and you have no fixed reference in a society".

I think we should be thankful, rather than critical, that man-made laws change according to the needs of the time. Remember, when the motor car was first invented there were no laws governing speed limits. Nor were there laws requiring the drivers to wear seat belts. Nor were there any environmental laws or industrial safety laws a few decades ago. There are now. There are so many other examples. DNA testing is one that has drastically affected the criminal law in the recent past. Aren't we glad for all these man-made laws?

Regarding the "divine laws" the question is whose divine laws and whose interpretation of any given set of "divine laws" are we talking about? Mr. Khan has mentioned bestiality. Yes, there is a "divine law" against bestiality probably in Leviticus or Exodus. If I remember correctly, it says: "Kill the man  ---and the animal!" Divine justice, perhaps?

In paragraph #12 Mr. Khan extols the "democratic election" of the first four caliphs of Islam and comments that "Islam has nothing to do with this deviation of political power becoming a 'Family Affair'".

Well, first of all, the "election" of the earlier caliphs of Islam did not have to be democratic --- either in the classical Greek tradition or the Bihar model of 6th century BC that Mr. Khan talks about. There was no democratic tradition in the Arabian Peninsula. The "election" of the caliphs was conducted in the prevailing tribal traditions of the time. Pre-Islamic tribal chiefs were also elected in more or less the same fashion.  However, regarding Mr. Khan's assertion that Islam had nothing to do with politics becoming a "Family Affair" let us not forget that the first caliph was the father-in-law of the Prophet, and so was the second caliph; the third caliph was his son-in-law twice over, and the fourth caliph was his first cousin and also son-in-law.  Did we say "Family Affair"?

Aziz Ahmad
New York, May 17, 2006